Points of Order
Thursday 13th July 2017
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that in a moment the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill will be presented. It has already been online on the parliamentary website for the last hour and a half. This is a complete breach of the Standing Orders of the House: the convention is that it is presented to the House before it is presented to anybody else. Also, we cannot get a copy of it in the Vote Office, but we can get a copy of it online. I hope that there will be an investigation into this matter.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to the attention of the Chair, and I understand that indeed the text of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill has been located on the Parliament website this morning, in advance of its presentation. This should not have happened, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that an investigation is currently under way into this most regrettable matter.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Has there been any indication from the Government Front Bench whether a Minister will come to the House to apologise for that transgression?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I have said that the matter is being investigated, and I am sure that the Treasury Bench has heard the points that have been made. Interruption.] Order.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Do Ministers have any responsibility for the website of the House? [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. [Interruption.] Order. The House is lively this morning. Let us have a little order. I have already said that those who are responsible are carrying out an investigation, and in due course I am quite certain we will be able to report to the Chamber just what went wrong and make sure it does not happen again.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Mr Gapes, is it really further to that point of order, because I have answered the point of order?
Mike Gapes
During the investigation, will Government Ministers be questioned about how the House of Commons website obtained the document?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I have already answered that point. We have important business to get on to.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that, immediately after the presentation of the Bill and its First Reading, the Second Reading will deal with the principle of the Bill, according to “Erskine May” and all the rules of the House? Will you also confirm, with respect to this particular Bill, that although some do not seem to have seen it yet, it is about leaving the European Union and repealing the European Communities Act 1972 and that anyone who votes against its Second Reading will be in breach of that principle?
Madam Deputy Speaker
As the hon. Gentleman and the House know, the Bill in question is about to be presented. When the Minister presents the Bill, it will then be there for all to see. Each Member can make their own consideration of what the Bill is about and how they would like to interpret it. If they wish to try to amend it, that is what Parliament is for. I am quite sure that we will have plenty of discussion about that in the forthcoming weeks and months.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice on an issue that was debated in Westminster Hall on Wednesday 5 July —namely, the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign. The debate was very well attended, and the resolution to accept the motion was rejected. Given that we have no Opposition day debates and no opportunity for Back-Bench business debates before the recess, would it be possible to have a deferred Division on this question so that Members can have a recorded vote on it?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. It is also refreshing to have a point of order that is a point of order. My understanding is that, following the debate in Westminster Hall last week, the motion—that this House has considered the state pension age for women—was, most unusually, negatived. This might reflect the strength of feeling on the matter, but it does not have any procedural effect. The fact is that the question was put to the Members present in Westminster Hall and they came to a decision, which was to negative the motion. That has no procedural effect, but I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman and any of his colleagues wish to have the matter further considered, they will use their ingenious knowledge of parliamentary procedure to ensure that that happens.
Bill Presented
European Union (Withdrawal)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary David Davis, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Damian Green, Mr Secretary Johnson and Mr Secretary Lidington, presented a Bill to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and make other provision in connection with the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 5) with explanatory notes (Bill 5-EN).
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 11th September 2017
(7 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
23:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 296 / Noes: 318 - Question accordingly negatived.
12:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 326 / Noes: 290 - Question accordingly agreed to.
12:30 - The House divided: - Ayes: 318 / Noes: 301 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
Before I call the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who will open the debate and be subject to a six-minute limit, may I please make a plea? I ask colleagues not to come to the Chair, or cause someone to come to the Chair on their behalf, with any of the following inquiries. “Am I on your list?”—if you applied, you are. “Am I going to be called?”—you might be, or you might not. “If so, when will it be?”, “May I repair to the Tea Room for a cup of tea and a biscuit?”, or “Is it in order for me to go to the loo?”—for which I read, “Am I about to be called?”. Please, colleagues, I will do my best, but there are approximately 90 people wanting to speak. Some might be disappointed; I am afraid that is parliamentary life. I will make my best endeavours. Please exercise the patience, stoicism and fortitude for which you all are, or hope to become, universally renowned throughout your constituencies.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
This is a necessary Bill; 52% of the population voted to leave the EU, and each of us who have been voted here by our communities to represent them in this debate need to respect democracy, which is why we need to get on with the job of ensuring a smooth exit from the EU. This Bill is a necessary part of that overall process. For the Labour party to vote against the Bill at this early stage—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. This is very unfair on the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller). This is an extremely important debate, and she has been called to speak, but there is a considerable hubbub of private conversations, which is unfair and, dare I say it, a tad discourteous. Let us give her a fair hearing, which should then be extended to every other contributor to the debate.
Mrs Miller
The Labour party voting against this Bill at such an early stage could easily be seen as a blatant attempt to frustrate the Brexit process. I urge its right hon. and hon. Members to consider their position on that. I listened carefully to the hours of debate on Thursday, and I have yet to hear a single Opposition Member say that this measure is unnecessary; if it is not unnecessary, they should vote for it. There are strong arguments to say that this Bill needs amending, but none that says that it is unnecessary. I shall vote for the Bill on Second Reading, but it is clear that a number of issues need to be addressed during Committee.
The Secretary of State made very compelling arguments in his opening address on Thursday, and from what he said, his intention is crystal clear: he wants this Bill to deliver maximum certainty. He was also clear about his openness to hearing of improvements and making changes to achieve them. I can understand his clear frustration that the Opposition’s concerns have not been coupled with specific solutions. I hope that he and the Minister on the Front Bench today can, in their summing up, respond to the specific recommendations that the Women and Equalities Committee made seven months ago to the Government on how to handle the charter of fundamental rights. My Committee is still awaiting a response from Ministers to that report.
The Select Committee did a detailed analysis of how to make sure that, when it comes to equality laws, the same rules apply after exit as do today; that is exactly what the Secretary of State has said that he wants to do. When it comes to equality laws, we need certainty. We need not only to transpose the laws, but to acknowledge the effect and the impact of EU institutions and the framework currently provided by the charter of fundamental rights. People voted last June to take back control of our laws and how they are interpreted, and for the UK Parliament and the UK courts to be the final arbiter, but they did not vote for a diminution of their rights.
It may not be possible or even desirable to preserve the charter of fundamental rights, and that we should retain the charter is certainly not the case that I am making, as it is so clearly dependent on EU law and institutions. I am saying that we need to ensure that its effect is captured; otherwise the backstop on equality rights would be removed, and that would not be the status quo that the Secretary of State is demanding.
There are many examples that I could use to demonstrate the importance of protecting this absolute right, and if I had more time, I would talk about its importance to pregnant workers. If we do not have a clear statement in the Bill on what basis exactly the courts and the law will be on, we need to ensure that we know on what basis the Supreme Court will be able to stop future Acts of Parliament from reducing individuals’ equality rights that are protected under the Equality Act 2010.
In effect, the current structures act as a free-standing right that cannot be overridden by domestic legislation. I am arguing not for the retention of the EU Court of Justice’s role, but for an acknowledgement that the removal of its jurisdiction needs to be addressed. The Women and Equalities Committee has put forward three recommendations, which could be easily accommodated in the Bill: first, that a clause be added to the Bill that explicitly commits us to maintaining current levels of equality protection when EU law is transposed into UK law; secondly, that the Government commit to an amendment to the Equality Act, mirroring provisions in the Human Rights Act, to make it clear that public authorities must act in a way that does not contravene the Equality Act; and last but by no means least, that when presenting a new Bill to Parliament, Ministers must make a declaration of compatibility with the Equality Act in exactly the way that they do for the Human Rights Act; that would give the courts a clear direction about the importance of safeguarding equality rights.
In summary, it is imperative that the Bill be given a Second Reading tonight to allow those important changes to progress. It is regrettable that some of the matters being debated, particularly those raised in Select Committee reports, have not been addressed before now. I am simply holding the Government to their own intent of ensuring that
“the same rules…apply after exit”
as do today. I am absolutely sure that this Government, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, have only the intention of safeguarding and strengthening equality rights, and particularly workers’ rights. As a nation, we have a proud track record on equality—it is part of our DNA—but to keep the status quo, as the Secretary of State says he wishes to, we need to indelibly embed equality in our approach to law, and in the interpretation of that law by the courts.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The Bill represents not just a step along the way towards departure from the European Union, but an unacceptable attempt by the Government to strengthen their hand when it comes to exercising legislative power—and this at a time when the general belief is that we should be going in the opposite direction, in effect giving a bigger role to Parliament.
Only three years ago, the Hansard Society published its robust critique of the system in its report, “The Devil is in the Detail”, yet this Bill confers a breathtaking range of delegated powers on Ministers. For example, the Bill, if given Royal Assent unamended, will give Ministers the power to start implementing the withdrawal agreement before this House has even had a chance to debate and vote on it. The Bill will also allow for its own amendment under delegated powers. There are instances, of course, of that happening in the past, but this is different, because the power is drawn so broadly that it could be used to amend all parts of the Act. The Bill also allows for the amendment, under delegated powers, of primary legislation already on the statute book.
Surely, if the Government were genuinely committed to a smooth Brexit that restored total sovereignty to Westminster, they would not have taken such a cavalier approach to this critically important piece of legislation. One can only conclude that the incorporation of significant delegated powers in the Bill, combined with the scope for extensive use of statutory instruments under the negative procedure, demonstrates that the Government are running scared of parliamentary democracy; or rather, that they are so arrogant that they believe that they can impose their will regardless of the opinion of the House.
I would go further and argue that the Government’s approach to the Bill threatens a chaotic Brexit, because they refuse to recognise that their use of delegated powers in the Bill pushes our democracy beyond breaking point. That attitude threatens nothing but discord if the Bill goes on the statute book unamended, and in that context, it will do little to deliver a smooth Brexit. Let me be clear: I accept that an efficient and businesslike approach is needed if we are to prepare ourselves successfully for exit from the European Union, but the Government seem incapable of accepting that this approach can be secured while according Parliament its proper and democratic role in scrutinising the powers in the Bill, and the statutory instruments that will emerge over time if it gains Royal Assent.
The Hansard Society has shown us the way, providing us with a framework for scrutiny that removes unnecessary and time-consuming procedures for uncontested SIs, while giving the Commons a more meaningful voice in the process leading to the enactment of the more complex and challenging instruments. I hope that the Government will change their mind; there is a way forward on the table. I hope that those on the Government Front Bench will indicate today that they are prepared to amend the Bill in Committee to allow for meaningful reform of the way in which Parliament scrutinises delegated powers and their use by Ministers, but so far we have had only a weak indication from the Government that they will bend on this all-important principle, and that is just not good enough. That is why I will vote against Second Reading tonight unless things change during the debate.
If I do vote against Second Reading tonight, it is not because I am voting against Brexit. That would be a huge misrepresentation of the nature of this debate and the nature of the decisions involved if we agree to Second Reading. Rather, I will be voting against a Brexit badly handled, which threatens to weaken further our long-established and hard-won democratic traditions.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
This Bill is, fundamentally, not a decision-making Bill; it is an enabling Bill—it is an administrative measure. I spent many years on the Opposition Benches—on the Front Bench and on the Back Benches—practising the professional outrage we saw practised very effectively in the Chamber last Thursday and, if I may so, just now by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith). Of course, there are scintillas of truth in the points being made, but we should remember that the big decisions have been made—on 23 June last year and in the article 50 Act. We are leaving the European Union, and a vote against the Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) pointed out, is just a vote for chaos and a chaotic Brexit, rather than a smooth transition.
Much of the debate is actually not about sovereignty, but about scrutiny and the proper role of Parliament, as the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge just said. There is huge complexity to deal with, and a quantity of legislative changes need to be made, but we need to keep this in proportion. If the official Opposition are really serious about having a sensible discussion about how to improve the scrutiny of secondary legislation, and particularly of the so-called Henry VIII provisions, let us have that conversation, and I would be delighted to talk about how we do those things. However, the Hansard Society proposals are far more about the procedures we adopt in this House and in the other place than about making fundamental changes to the Bill, albeit that some changes may be necessary.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
My hon. Friend and I rarely agree totally on European matters, but I actually agree with him that we need a practical Bill, not a policy Bill, that enables us to have a smooth transition. Would he therefore not agree that the whole issue under debate could be solved if the Government agreed to amend the Bill so that they gave themselves only the powers the Secretary of State explained to us yesterday that he requires, and so that it achieves only the ambitions that his letter to all MPs set out? Surely no one would miss the rather sweeping powers in clauses 7, 9 and so on if they were removed, because the Government express no intention of using them in the way everybody fears.
Mr Jenkin
My right hon. and learned Friend sets out the common ground we should all be on. However, the debate was not assisted by Tony Blair, who was on the television yesterday speaking about how to deal with this issue. He said:
“Paradoxically, we have to respect the referendum vote to change it.”
There is an understandable suspicion among Conservative Members that some people have not really accepted that we are leaving the European Union. The fact that the official Opposition have chosen to vote against the whole Bill underlines that they are rather reluctant to accept the decision the British people have made.
Before I move on, I should re-emphasise that the Hansard Society proposals have a lot to them, and we should be able to discuss them. I hope that, behind the scenes, colleagues will talk across parties on these matters, as one or two of us have already suggested we should.
However, let me put this in the much wider context, because we are getting rather lost in the detail of the Bill. We are forgetting what the Bill is for and the context it is being discussed in: we are leaving on 28 March—or whichever date it actually is—next year. It might be helpful to have the exit date on the face of the Bill at the outset, to provide additional clarity that negotiations are in progress, or should be.
I think everyone is getting a bit disappointed that there has not been more substantive discussion about the issues that really matter. The European Union’s position is beginning to look more and more unreasonable as it refuses to discuss the end state of the relationship that we all want to see, insisting on an up-front payment, or promise of payment, before it will discuss those matters. I have absolutely no doubt that the EU is playing for time for some reason, possibly because of the German elections, and is likely to crumble on that, and to start to talk seriously about the issues that we need to discuss.
We can talk too much and too glibly about cliff edges; I notice that even the Government have put the term “cliff edge” into their documents. Let us face it—the United Kingdom does not want a cliff edge. We are offering the rest of the European Union seamless trade, as far as possible, no tariff barriers and mutual recognition for products and services.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
My hon. Friend sets out the very essence of the Bill. This is not about a sudden change, but about transposing EU law into British law and evolving as we move forward as a sovereign nation.
Mr Jenkin
Absolutely right. The point is that we want that smooth transition; the only reason there is a possibility that there will not be one is the intransigence so far of the European Union. The paradox is that there are people who were very much in favour of Britain’s membership of the European Union who clearly think that the European Union will inflict the most ghastly cliff edge on our country. I think better of the EU. There are sensible people in the European Union who will not want tariffs, or tariff barriers, or new and unnecessary restrictions on trade between our two countries. They will not want to de-recognise so many of the mutual recognitions we already have. They will want to secure the jobs of their people and their countries just as much as we want to secure ours.
Even if we leave without an agreement, I think the biggest challenge is being ready in time. My biggest concern is that there are still parts of Government that do not seem to be preparing quickly enough. On the question of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the customs arrangements, are those at HMRC spending money on what we need in place in case there is no deal? I keep hearing that they are waiting for instructions, as though there will be something much clearer for them to work against, but we have to face the fact that we might well leave without a comprehensive settlement of some kind, and that our customs arrangements and all the other arrangements will have to be ready in time. This Bill enables us to do that.
I will end my speech a little early by emphasising that a vote against this Bill would be a terrible disappointment, and I would not take such a vote at face value, as I do not think that the vast majority of hon. Members in this House want to create a chaotic Brexit. They will be voting for a tactical defeat, because they know that they cannot succeed in this debate.
We should concentrate on the fact that we have far more in common with our European partners than divides us. That will be the same after we have left the European Union as it is now. I look across the Chamber at the hon. Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin); we stood together in one of the glorious Suffolk churches of East Anglia last night and sang Beethoven’s ninth symphony and the words of Schiller’s great poem, the “Ode to Joy”. Incidentally, it was composed more than 100 years before the European Union was invented and has absolutely nothing to do with political and monetary union under the European Union. We are leaving the European Union; we are not leaving Europe.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I can be mercifully brief. I wish to make two points. First, I will vote tonight for the only option that implements the referendum result. That was the wish of my constituents and that was the wish of the country. I do not wish any different view to be put forward about whose side I am on—I am on the side of the majority of people who voted to come out.
Secondly, I want to address those on the Government Benches. When we started this process, many people bravely went against their lifetime views to implement the views of their constituents, but given the frailty of human nature we have had one or two recidivists who are now thinking, having read Thursday’s debate, that there may be reasons for not doing this or not doing the other. When we come back in Committee, I will table a four-clause Bill, because the Government, by having this mega-Bill, are storing up no end of trouble from Members who are wolves in sheep’s clothing and who will try to undo the measure.
We need four crucial things from that Bill. First, we need a leave date. Secondly, we need to incorporate all European Union law and regulations. The third clause will give us the means by which the House of Commons and then their lordships review which laws we want to keep, which we want to improve, and which we want to do away with. We are voting from midnight tonight, and there is talk that it will be 3 o’clock on Wednesday morning before we vote on tomorrow’s business. With regard to the idea that this place is equipped to review all that legislation, there is shedloads upon shedloads upon shedloads, and it would fill up the House of Commons on several occasions. We therefore need a means whereby we review which legislation we will keep and which we will not. Fourthly, in case there are problems with people with their little hands on our windpipes who think, “If we can hold them to the two years, we will get what we want”, we need a safe haven.
That is what we need from this exit Bill: first, the date; secondly, the incorporation of everything; thirdly, a method of review; and fourthly, for a limited period, a safe haven. I hope that when we go into Committee, the Government will adopt those four proposals as clause 1 so that we can very quickly implement this Bill. We can then bring forward small Bills to implement other parts of the mega-Bill they are putting before us, should we need them. I hope that when the whole House of Commons is in Committee, we will carry that amendment.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
I agree with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) that this Bill is merely an enabling piece of legislation—a process whereby we can achieve what the country asked us to do. As I understand it, the Government are willing to consider changes in Committee. I hope that they will look at his amendments, and also perhaps mine.
I am sure that all my colleagues here, like me, have been on the receiving end of various emails about this Bill urging us to vote for it, against it or against the programme motion, or complaining about the arrangements for devolution. Voting against it certainly does not make any sense, particularly after the House passed the article 50 legislation. The Bill is the vehicle for the Government and this House to deal with a unique and extraordinary situation and ensure a functioning statute book as we leave the EU. Unless they are trying to rerun the referendum or create chaos in the process, voting against it should not be an option for any Member tonight.
Ministers have indicated that they will be flexible wherever possible. On the programme motion, however, I think, having lived through the Maastricht debates, that there is little to be gained and much to be lost by prolonging any debate unnecessarily, and eight days seems a reasonable length of time. Our businesses and organisations will not thrive with ongoing uncertainty, and this Bill increases the progress being made to provide the stability and certainty they require for a smooth transition and continuity of business post Brexit.
On devolved matters, our membership of the EU predates devolution to Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. It was the UK Government who gave away these powers to the EU, and it is UK Government who will reclaim them. As far as I am aware, the Government have not resiled in any way from devolution; instead, they have recently increased the powers transferred to Wales and Scotland. The Secretary of State has reconfirmed that the current powers will remain exactly the same throughout the process, and the devolved Administrations will, in fact, prepare the devolved statute books for a smooth exit in Cardiff and Edinburgh, with appropriate arrangements for Northern Ireland. Further, he has indicated that in the interim period, if any adjustments need to be made in the areas that are being repatriated, the relevant Administrations will be consulted.
On delegated powers, I see the Bill not as a power grab, which is how it has been painted, but as a pragmatic approach to ensuring that no unnecessary complex disadvantages further burden business in the devolved countries. I hope that an accommodation will be reached on other differences in that area, and I know that the Front-Bench team is listening carefully.
I want to raise one subject on which I would like clarification. The repeal Bill, as it stands, does not prevent the continued application by UK courts after Brexit of EU law to cases in which the facts occurred at a time when EU law, including the law relating to remedies, was in force. So although, if I understand it correctly, there is provision for a Francovich case to be heard if it is lodged before exit day, and there is provision for the consideration of EU legal principles, the repeal Bill does not provide for a transitional reference—one that is made before the exit date but does not come back until after the exit date, or one that is made after the exit date. I hope that Ministers will consider a new clause that allows references on cases that are under way, and that they will look into the matter to ensure that the Government do not abuse their position or evade their responsibilities as a by-product of Brexit.
The Ministers on the Front Bench will be particularly aware of my battles against HS2, which are well documented, and it is worth noting that even former very senior civil servants now virtually acknowledge that the Government went ahead with that monstrous project against advice. What the project has done is throw into sharp relief the need for environmental protections to be effective and maintained, so that we do not take any backward steps. Where the EU has done some good work, it has been on environmental safeguards. I think it is right to remind Ministers on Second Reading that any changes to these areas must be thought through so as not to dilute the protections and the promotion of environmental law, and I seek assurances on those matters.
In conclusion, we have all heard the rather simplistic attempts to give this process a prejudicial descriptor—hard or soft Brexit—which are a product of polarised viewpoints. I prefer a practical approach and, with perhaps a few modifications, the Bill will do what it says on the tin. It provides a method of facilitating a very complex legal and constitutional extrication, the need for which has resulted from a democratic vote to leave the European Union. I will therefore support the Government in the Lobby tonight, and I hope that many of my Opposition colleagues, as well as my friends on the Government Benches, will do the same.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Although I campaigned and argued for this country to remain a part of the European Union, I fully accept that that is not the majority view of the country. But I would argue that this is the wrong way to leave the European Union. This is not a general enabling Bill; it is a poorly thought-out, complex and undemocratic piece of legislation. One of the most fundamental problems with the Bill is that it amounts to—yes—a power grab by this Government. That power grab takes several forms, but I want to focus on just two aspects.
First, there is the widespread use of Henry VIII powers, allowing the Government effectively to bypass Parliament and change primary legislation through secondary legislation. That has, of course, happened in the past, but not on such a huge scale as is planned now. As a result of this Bill, we will see extensive use of those undemocratic powers, because some 12,000 EU regulations will be brought into UK law. Some of them will make changes for technical reasons, but, as the most recent paper from the House of Commons Library states, it is anticipated that others will enable “substantive policy changes” to be made by the Government. So changes are likely to be introduced through Committees, which is why the Government are doing their best to pack those Committees with their own MPs, against the established procedure of the House.
We are also seeing an unprecedented power grab with regard to devolution. As a Welsh Member of Parliament and a former Wales Office Minister, I have followed devolution very closely. Many of us expected, as did the devolved institutions themselves, that this Bill would make real the promises the Government set out in their White Paper.
Wayne David
There are many speakers, as we have heard, and I am sorry, but I would rather press on.
In the White Paper of March 2017, it was stated that there would be a significant increase in the decision-making powers of the devolved institutions. That was there in black and white. It also intimated that former EU frameworks would be subject to decisions involving the devolved Governments, but such is not the case. The Bill before us does not return powers from the EU to the devolved institutions, as promised. Instead, in devolved areas, such as agriculture and the environment, power is going from Brussels to London, bypassing and therefore undermining devolution. Moreover, this Bill in effect imposes a freeze on the legislative competences of the devolved institutions. As a report by the Welsh Assembly research department points out, the devolved institutions will not be able to modify so-called retained EU law for Wales and Scotland, but a Conservative British Government will be able to do so for England, and may even be able to do so for the devolved nations.
Mr Jenkin
In the last Parliament, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee took evidence on this matter from the same academic who advised the Scottish Parliament, and he was very clear that the powers being reserved under these proposals were only ever notionally devolved, because they were of course reserved by virtue of our membership of the European Union. This is not a power grab; the Government’s objective is to make sure that the devolved Administrations finish up with more powers than they had before.
Wayne David
We are not talking about notional, theoretical powers; we are talking about actual powers on the statute book, and about whether one institution or another is able to enact laws according to that legislation.
There is a big difference between what was in the White Paper and what is in the legislation before us. What is more, undemocratic changes have been introduced without even a modicum of prior discussion, let alone negotiation, with the devolved institutions. This power grab by the Conservative Government is an affront to the devolved institutions, but it is also a slap in the face of the people of Scotland and of Wales. As Carwyn Jones, the First Minister, said in the Welsh Assembly in July, there is a popular mandate for what the Welsh Government are arguing. To quote him exactly:
“The 2011 referendum…saw a large majority vote in favour of giving this National Assembly primary legislative powers”,
but the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is
“an attempt to take back control over devolved policies…not just from Brussels, but from Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast.”
In his letter to Members of Parliament, dated 7 September, the First Secretary of State said that the arrangement I have described was a “transitional arrangement”. My question is: how long is this transitional arrangement for? How long is the period to which we are referring? How long is the rapid period mentioned in the explanatory memorandum? Is it one month, one year, 10 years, 20 years—how long? This Bill is an undemocratic blank cheque that, if passed, will give unprecedented powers to this Government.
Unfortunately, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Bill has as its prime objective not so much withdrawing Britain from the European Union as concentrating as much power as possible in the hands of a feeble minority Government, headed by a caretaker Prime Minister. Under the cloak of leaving the European Union, the Government seek to emasculate this House and centralise power in their own hands. If the Government were solely concerned about leaving the European Union, there are other ways that it could have been done—other measures could have been put forward—but, no, they chose this particular route. Rather than looking forward to a new and positive relationship with the European Union, this Bill takes us back to the days when the UK was totally London-orientated and inward-looking. That is why I will vote against it, and why I believe that is the right thing to do.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Our greatest parliamentary exponent of parliamentary democracy coined the phrase, “In Victory: Magnanimity.” Although, as one or two of my friends know, I am a leaver and my constituency voted 60% to leave, I think that that should be the Government’s approach, both to Parliament in the Chamber and to our European partners and allies. I do not think that it is enough just to allow time on a rainy Thursday on a one-line Whip. The Government should be as generous as possible with time, to allow the House to consider these matters. Personally, I do not see why we could not have three or four days on the Bill, as many people have put in a request to speak. After all, we spend a lot of our time discussing not very much. I would be open-hearted and generous with Parliament.
Before I refer specifically to the Bill, may I say by way of introduction that it would be useful to improve the atmosphere around the process? The truth is that this is a democratic process. Those of us who asked to leave the European Union made our arguments on the basis that we wanted to improve parliamentary democracy and put our people back in charge. That should be our whole approach, and it should be the Government’s approach.
To put that in context, I would be open-hearted and generous in the negotiations between Monsieur Barnier and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. The important thing is that we are leaving, but I do not see why we should not be generous with the financial settlement. We should be as generous as the law dictates, but there is also the spirit of the law. As we have been in an organisation for 42 years, and as we have decided to leave—it has its own spending plans—I do not see why we should not assist it with some of its spending plans until 2021. After all, if we pay less, others will have to pay more. Some of my closest friends do not agree with that. We have the law on our side, but precisely because of that we can be generous.
On the rights of citizens, I have just spent time with Italian Senators who are visiting the building, and with the Italian ambassador. We need to be open-hearted and generous towards European citizens who live here, and proclaim now that we are absolutely committed to preserving their rights and those of every EU citizen, on benefits—[Interruption.] I know that we have done it, but we should keep repeating that we are determined to protect those rights. We should be open-hearted and generous in dealing with the House of Commons, in dealing with money, and in dealing with the rights of EU citizens. If we approach life and these negotiations in that spirit, doors might begin to open.
I listened to the shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union—a brilliant lawyer. We are both lawyers. I am just a jobbing barrister doing criminal law in London. That is what I did when I was a young man. I cannot possibly match his debating skills. He does have a point, and we Conservatives should recognise that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) has a point; the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) has a point; my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) has a point. I will, of course, vote for the Bill, because that is what the people want me to do, and it is what my constituents want me to do. There is no alternative, but amendments will be tabled when we are sitting in a Committee of the whole House. I serve on the Panel of Chairs, and I know the Government’s position is always to reject all amendments. This time, they should be positive if something improves parliamentary scrutiny. We are going to get our way; the Government have a majority, supported by the Democratic Unionist party. We should be generous with our Scottish friends. If they have a genuine desire to ensure that powers from the EU do not come to the Westminster Parliament but go to the Scottish Parliament, we should be generous towards them.
There is a lot of false anger. I have sat through many debates in which shadow Secretaries of State puffed themselves up. We have heard a lot about Henry VIII. When I was a rebel I used to care about these things. Now I am a loyalist I let the Government get away with it in many ways. Henry VIII is a bastard, but he is my kind of bastard.
I have made my point. Listen to the House, accept some amendments and ensure that this process is time limited. The key thing for our constituents is this: that we leave the EU at the end of March 2019; that any implementation period lasts only two years; and that we then become an open, free-trading nation with the whole world, with a free trade agreement with the EU. Stick to the essentials, be confident, be generous with the House and we will win this battle.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and his constructive and positive contribution.
There is no doubt that Brexit poses a great number of challenges to the Government and to MPs of all parties, not least the challenge of replacing European Union laws and jurisdiction with equivalent UK laws and regulations under UK jurisdiction. That is the purpose of the Bill. It is not really a repeal Bill; rather it is the “great adoption” Bill, as it incorporates a huge swathe of EU laws that the UK signed up to into UK law. That is needed so that there will be a legal basis for a whole range of economic, environmental and social activity on the day after we leave the EU in March 2019. For that reason, I do not regard the Bill as hugely controversial—it would be different if it were to abolish workers’ rights, abandon paid holidays and end pollution controls, but it does not. However, it is undoubtedly the case that the Bill needs amending for many of the reasons outlined by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer).
First, on the Henry VIII clauses, transferring all EU laws and regulations into UK law is an unenviable task. It would also be impossible to put every change or updated regulation before Parliament as primary legislation. This House, as we know, passes many statutory instruments, but in this case the Government need to back a mechanism for providing a filter to separate the routine, or the modest, from the more important changes that Governments may wish to make in the coming years. If a mechanism—a scrutiny Committee, for example—could provide a path for Members by ensuring that important measures would be brought before the House for debate and a vote, the Government could remove any suspicion that they seek a ministerial power grab.
Secondly, the Government should be open to suggestions about how they can guarantee redress for individuals who feel that their transferred rights are not met by companies or government. Clarification about the provision of redress would, again, remove suspicion during the process.
The truth is that whomever was in government would have to pass a Bill of this kind to prepare for leaving the EU in March 2019. There can be little disagreement about that, unless the ambition is to thwart the result of the EU referendum and to prevent or delay the UK leaving the EU. I believe that Labour’s job is to improve the Bill by amending it, not to kill the Bill at the beginning of its passage through Parliament. Labour’s reasoned amendment
“declines to give a Second Reading to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill”.
If that amendment is successful, it will kill the Bill. According to the Public Bill Office, if this Bill is defeated today, a new Bill would have to be introduced in a new Session, or the measure would need to reintroduced in a sufficiently different form as to not fall foul of the same-question rule. Either way we look at it, defeat for the Bill implies a substantial delay in transferring EU law into UK law, thereby increasing the uncertainties while the Brexit clock ticks towards midnight.
I voted and campaigned for the UK to remain—not in a metropolitan city or university town, but in a seat where I knew a leave vote was the likely outcome. I invite colleagues who were not campaigning in such seats to visit mine. Since the result, I have argued that leave and remain supporters should bury our differences and get on with it. Complex issues such as trade will require more time, hence the need for a transitional period of minimum change while future arrangements are put in place. Some leavers say, “We don’t need any transitional plans,” while some remainers say, “Any deal must be worse than staying in.” To them I say this: life post-Brexit is not a choice between nirvana and a living hell. Some changes will be better and some will be worse, and much will pass unnoticed. We either work to make the best of it, or simply damn it for not being perfect. This calls for honest endeavour and compromise on all sides.
Whatever side of the debate Members fall on, if they honestly accept the will of the British people, they are honour bound to see this through and make the best of it. Some suggest that the general election on 8 June changed everything. Like it or not, it led to the second coalition of sorts in seven years—a confidence and supply agreement between two parties that both promised to deliver Brexit. In that general election, I told Don Valley voters:
“When Britain leaves the European Union—I will work for a deal that works for Doncaster. That means easy trade, protecting workers’ rights and tough immigration controls with strong borders”.
I said:
“I don’t support a second referendum. We need to bring people together, whether they voted Leave or Remain and make a success of Brexit.”
I repeat those words today because I have no intention of breaking my word to the voters who have returned me to this House on six occasions.
I hope that Ministers will listen to concerns about the Bill. Their lack of openness, collaboration and foresight to produce a better Bill has not helped. To the Government I say: treat Parliament with respect and be open to constructive suggestions to improve the Bill. I will work with others to improve the Bill, but tonight I cannot vote to block it; I shall be abstaining to allow it to be further discussed and amended. We have a job to do to ensure a smooth, orderly Brexit—for the British people, for British businesses, and for our continuing friendship and partnership with the EU.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
It is an honour and a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who gave an extraordinarily compelling and principled speech.
This is a critical Bill. We cannot logically leave the EU if we continue to subject ourselves to EU law, courts and regulators. It is for exactly that reason, however, that some Members will use the Bill as an opportunity to scupper the process and prevent us from leaving the EU. And that worries me. In perhaps the most important—certainly the biggest—democratic exercise the country has ever seen, people voted to leave. I believe that 80% of electors in the general election voted for parties that pledged to honour the result of the referendum. If that promise was broken, the resulting anger would give rise to extreme political movements right across the UK that would change our politics forever. We can improve the Bill in Committee and on Report, but to stop it on principle is to play with fire.
I want to comment briefly on one area impacted by our leaving the EU: the natural environment. The opportunity to do great things here is almost incalculable. We have a chance not only to right some wrongs, but to make historic progress. Under the common agricultural policy, for example, vast amounts of public money are handed to wealthy landowners simply because they own land. The policy supports perverse incentives to harm the environment and shuts off the UK market to developing countries through higher tariffs. For years, environmentalists, farmers’ organisations and a whole succession of farming Ministers have dreamt of changing and profoundly reforming the CAP. Well, we now can—and we must. We will be able to ensure that the subsidies regime that replaces the CAP supports food production and improves and protects the natural environment, with a system whereby public money is genuinely a return for public good. We have an opportunity to raise standards and boost our rural economy at the same time, and that opportunity extends beyond the CAP. As a country, we have led the way on animal welfare, but we have been limited in what we can do due to our membership of the EU.
Henry Smith
One animal welfare benefit is that on leaving the EU, we could ban the live export of animals from our ports, which causes such great suffering.
Zac Goldsmith
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, which is one that I was just about to make. CAP funds have even been used to subsidise bullfighting in Spain.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Zac Goldsmith
No, I will not take any more interventions.
Most critically, even though we apply high animal welfare standards to production in this country, we cannot apply those standards to the food we import, which means that instead of preventing cruelty, which is what we are trying to do, we are simply exporting that cruelty to other countries while disadvantaging our own farmers. We could address that as well.
Clearly, in other areas, the EU has been a good thing for the environment—I would not pretend otherwise. The EU has undoubtedly been instrumental in forcing us to clean up our act. For instance, our rivers and beaches are cleaner today because of the EU than they would have been.
Zac Goldsmith
I will not.
That is why a core responsibility of this Parliament and this Government is to ensure that those key EU regulations—the habitats directive, the birds directive and the sewage sludge directive—have absolute, meaningful, proper, full protection in British law. We have had that commitment, but I should like to hear it a few more times from Ministers during this debate.
There are legitimate concerns about this process that need to be addressed in the Minister’s wind-up.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Zac Goldsmith
I will not, because I am running out of time.
First, when a state fails to implement EU law today, there are penalties, but that will no longer be the case—for obvious and appropriate reasons. However, an alternative system does need to be introduced. If the present or a future Government fail, for example, to stay within air pollution limits, it must be possible for sanctions to be applied and for that Government to be held to account—that is a core ingredient in any healthy democracy.
Secondly, it is not clear that important principles, such as the “polluter pays” principle or the precautionary principle, will be fully and meaningfully absorbed into UK law. If the individual regulations are to have meaning, those principles must be embedded in UK law. Finally, the Bill enables the Government to transfer regulatory functions from the EU to domestic bodies, but it does not make that obligatory, which seems to me to be an obvious weakness. I hope that the Minister will respond to my concerns, as well as the other issues that are raised today, and provide reassurances that they will be addressed either during the Bill’s later stages, or in subsequent environmental legislation.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
Today marks the 20th anniversary of the referendum on re-establishing the Scottish Parliament—not just “notionally” re-establishing it, I should point out to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). I voted in that referendum having just returned from the Erasmus programme. The re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament was backed by most of Scotland’s parties—certainly by its progressive parties. Today we are about to see the biggest devolution power grab since that re-establishment, and it that will have an impact on the devolution process the likes of which we have never seen before. As someone who returned from Erasmus to vote in the referendum 20 years ago, I have been reflecting on the impact that this process will have on opportunities for young people, among others.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) rightly highlighted the benefits of European Union membership. It has benefited our rights; it has enabled us to build a broad consensus on the need to tackle environmental problems such as climate change; it has benefited universities; and it has torn down trade barriers. Tonight we will vote on a Bill that will take powers away from Holyrood and undermine the devolution process, and that is something that we cannot thole.
Stephen Gethins
I shall come to both hon. Members shortly—they will have ample opportunity.
The Government’s approach was rejected in June, and we should all be mindful of the fact that what has been delivered in its place is a Parliament of minorities. That is commonplace at Holyrood. It is something that we had to get used to, and it is something that we shall all have to get used to. A Parliament of minorities is clearly a challenge for the Government, but it is a challenge for the Opposition as well, because we must all show that we are willing to work in a constructive way if the Government are willing to listen. That is not easy for us. The SNP remains committed to Scotland’s membership of the European Union. I want to see Scotland as an EU member state, and I am proud that Scotland voted overwhelmingly to support that. However, given the devastating impact of the Government's lack of strategy, it is up to this Parliament, and all parliamentarians, to step up to the mark.
The mess that we are in is not entirely the Government’s fault. I think that Vote Leave bequeathed that mess by presenting a blank piece of paper, which means that it is up to us to try to fill in those many, many blanks. Having said that, the Government have had five months since they triggered article 50 and 15 months since the EU referendum. Ministers bear culpability for the present situation, but Ministers who were part of Vote Leave bear particular culpability. For instance, there is the Secretary of State’s own yardstick:
“I would expect the new Prime Minister on September 9th to immediately trigger a…round of trade deals”.
Where are they? In the face of such chaos, all Members have a responsibility—each and every one of us. We need to put our differences to one side.
There is scope to do that, as we have put together a compromise. On this anniversary of devolution, I want to pay tribute to the Labour party and Plaid Cymru, which were able to put aside their differences and to try to come up with a common position. I know it was not easy for Members of both parties to do it, but they did, and full credit to them both for doing so. The Scottish Government put together a committee of experts to come up with a compromise, and I note that in the aftermath of the referendum—here is the cue for Conservative Members—Scottish Labour and the Scottish Conservatives called for retaining membership of the single market. In fact, the Scottish Conservative leader—who knows, maybe the future Westminster Conservative leader—said:
“Retaining our place in the single market should be the overriding priority.”
I would certainly hope that Ruth Davidson’s Conservatives will do the right thing and stand by their leader. I wonder if they are Ruth Davidson’s Conservatives or Theresa May’s Conservatives when it comes to this—they are staying seated, saying nothing whatsoever.
The Bill also represents one of the biggest power grabs that we have seen. I note that one MP said—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is in a state of uncontrolled excitement, but he is auditioning to be a statesman; he must calm himself.
Stephen Kerr
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned several times now that this Bill represents a power grab; that is the new in-fashion statement from the Scottish National party. Can the hon. Gentleman name one power that the UK Government will grab back from Holyrood?
Stephen Gethins
I will give the hon. Gentleman his due: at least he had the courage of his convictions and stood up; the rest of them took their time over that. On fishing, on agriculture and on energy, we were told that these powers would come back to the Scottish Parliament without touching the sides, so where are the full powers over fishing, agriculture, energy and education? They are being retained by this Parliament on the 20th anniversary of the devolution process.
To return to my point, the MP I mentioned earlier said this:
“The balance of advantage between Parliament and Government is so weighted in favour of the Government that it is inimical to the proper working of our parliamentary democracy.”—[Official Report, 22 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 930.]
That warning about powers such as Henry VIII powers was made in 1999 by the Secretary of State himself when he tried to introduce a Bill to deal with them.
This is a hung Parliament. The Scottish Parliament was designed for a new kind of politics, and one thing I will say to Conservative Members—I hope they are listening—is that even when the SNP was elected with 47 seats out of 129, we had ground-breaking, world-leading action on climate change, free education was reintroduced, and the number of police officers was increased. Action can be taken in a Parliament of minorities, but for that to happen, Members must be willing to listen to those on the other side of the House.
Excellent points have been made from the Conservative and Labour Benches, as well as by other colleagues. The challenge is whether this Government are prepared to listen. What we have seen so far is a Tory Government who want to turn their back on the EU and happily talk about a no-deal situation that would be devastating for jobs and the economy. This approach of ourselves alone against the world is not one that I can possibly endorse, and nor can my colleagues. We must reject this Bill. A new approach is needed, and that is why we will be voting against the Bill tonight.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I shall support the Bill on its Second Reading for the simple reason that it is necessary. I do not do so with relish, because I would rather that we were not leaving the European Union, but, as a democrat, I accept the outcome of the referendum. And if we are to leave, we must do so in an orderly fashion, and it is therefore particularly important that we have legal certainty and continuity. The objective behind the Bill, of incorporating EU laws under the acquis into our law, is perfectly sensible, and that is why I shall support it, but we must also have a Bill that is fit for purpose and actually achieves that effectively. Although I shall support the Bill on Second Reading, as will become apparent, I do so on the basis that it needs improvement in a number of areas in Committee.
I had the chance to read in detail the impressive speeches of my right hon. and learned Friends the Members for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who I am glad to see are both in the Chamber. I agree with their analysis, and I will not seek to repeat it all. I adopt what they said about the areas where improvement is needed. It has already been pointed out that there are difficulties with the Henry VIII powers. It seems to me that clauses 7 and 9 go beyond what is acceptable or necessary, and I hope that the Government will approach that matter in a sensible and constructive spirit. Equally, delaying the Bill would do no favours to the good governance of the country, to citizens or to businesses and business confidence, so I certainly have no truck with the Opposition’s approach of seeking to undermine the Bill.
We need to make clear the areas of the Bill that need improvement. There is of course a use for so-called Henry VIII powers for making secondary legislation in appropriate cases, but in some areas we are dealing with matters of the most profound significance for individuals and businesses. I hope that the Ministers, who are reasonable people, will listen to constructive amendments that would provide reassurance and safeguards against inappropriate use of those powers and would improve the Bill by bringing greater clarity to the way they can be applied.
I shall touch briefly on a couple of other matters. I hope that we can look at the opportunity to assist the judiciary with how they interpret the EU acquis, which will be incorporated in our domestic law once we have left. The recently retired President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, made this point powerfully, and he did not do so lightly. It is frankly not fair to leave judges to fish in the dark when they come to interpret some of the legislation.
A particularly important issue in this respect is that once we leave the direct jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, the opportunity to seek preliminary rulings on issues will no longer exist and we have to find alternative means for dealing with that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) referred to the Francovich situation. She is right about that issue, which should be addressed. Similarly, we have to bear in mind that we will incorporate EU law, which in some cases is based on the treaties. Will the UK courts be able to take the treaties into account in assessing how incorporated law should be applied post our leaving? Those are important areas where greater clarity is needed. What is to be done about situations where incorporated law grants a right to a UK citizen or business but our leaving will, at the moment, leave a gap as to whether that UK citizen or business has a remedy?
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
One of the issues is that with environmental law, for example, there is currently a remedy of going to the European Court of Justice, but there is no replacement in the Bill as it stands.
Robert Neill
That is entirely right, and it cannot be rational or coherent to give UK citizens a right under UK law by incorporating European law but give them no ability to exercise that right. That applies whether a case is against another individual, against a business, or indeed against the Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) pointed out that that also raises the issue of infraction proceedings: what is the remedy if the Government breach incorporated law?
Those important issues need to be dealt with in Committee, so I turn briefly to the programme motion. We must have time to deal with these matters properly. I want the Bill to be successful. I want it to end up as a good Bill, and that will require changes to the Bill. With good will, that can be achieved—and it can be achieved timeously, to ensure that what we need is in place at the time when we leave the European Union. I have no truck with those who seek to filibuster and needlessly delay the Bill. If I am to be able to support the Government on the programme motion, I hope that they will assure us that we can have some flexibility if more time is required for genuine, serious consideration of important amendments, but I hope that it is not needed—there is a distinction between proper consideration of serious points of amendments and the sort of filibustering that I am sure we will see. On that basis, I am prepared to give the Government a fair wind, but it is important that we get that assurance so that our important scrutiny work can be done properly.
Finally, I have just returned from Gibraltar, where I was with several other colleagues for its national day celebrations. Gibraltar will be affected by our departure from the European Union, but I am glad to say that Her Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar and the business and civil communities there are satisfied with their level of engagement in the negotiations so far. However, can I have an assurance that when we come to deal with secondary legislation that may affect Gibraltar, its Government will be fully involved in the drafting of any secondary legislation that may have an impact on them?
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The Bill attempts to incorporate into domestic legislation the body of European Union law that has built up in the 44 years since we joined the EU. The stated purpose is to provide the country with continuity and certainty on what our statute book will contain on the day when we leave. Yet the purpose of leaving the EU is to depart from the laws incorporated by the Bill, otherwise there would be no point. So the legal certainty that the Bill aims for can last no longer than day one itself.
Leading leave campaigners have attempted to assuage such fears by pretending that they want to change nothing—not labour laws, not environmental protections, and not consumer protections. Those who have been the most vociferous opponents of any regulation that has stemmed from the EU, including members of the Cabinet who have attacked its laws and protections, such as those for people at work, now profess to agree to all the regulation that they previously detested. As we have come to expect in the pattern since the referendum, any attempt to ask questions about the Bill has been met with the usual accusations of betraying the public and denying the referendum result. Our democracy deserves better than that. If the proposals cannot stand scrutiny and questioning, the proposals are at fault, not those doing the questioning and trying to apply scrutiny.
Let us look at the content of the Bill. Most attention has been focused on the delegated powers provisions set out in clauses 7, 8, 9 and 17, and on the scrutiny provisions set out in schedule 7. In simple terms, those are the powers to amend the law without the usual legislative process of full debate. For example, clause 7 states that a Minister
“may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate”,
and clause 9 states:
“Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament (including modifying this Act).”
Up until last week, the cornerstone of the Government’s defence of those proposed powers was the claim they were supported by the House of Lords Constitution Committee. Indeed, last Wednesday, the day before this debate began, the Prime Minister told the House that the Government’s approach
“has been endorsed by the House of Lords Constitution Committee.”—[Official Report, 6 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 148.]
Let us look at what the Committee actually said in last week’s report. It stated:
“The executive powers conferred by the Bill are unprecedented and extraordinary and raise fundamental constitutional questions about the separation of powers between Parliament and Government.”
It continued by saying that
“the Bill weaves a tapestry of delegated powers that are breath-taking in terms of both their scope and potency”
and that the
“number, range and overlapping nature of the broad delegated powers would create what is, in effect, an unprecedented and extraordinary portmanteau of effectively unlimited powers upon which the Government could draw. They would fundamentally challenge the constitutional balance of powers between Parliament and Government and would represent a significant—and unacceptable—transfer of legal competence.”
If that is the Government’s case for the defence, I would not like to see the case for the prosecution.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there have been a lot of arguments in the past about Henry VIII powers and about the Executive taking power away from Parliament, and that it has all steadily gone in one direction? The danger now is not only the consequences of this Bill and of the details of Brexit, but that if the House does not challenge this Bill and change it, it will be quoted as a precedent for years to come. I have no doubt that if the Labour party ever gets back into power, a future Labour Government will start lecturing a Conservative Opposition that there are clear precedents for taking powers of this kind.
Mr McFadden
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is, of course, correct that we have had some of these debates before.
The criticism does not stop with the House of Lords Committee. The Hansard Society says that
“the Bill will strengthen the…executive, not Parliament”.
Its report on the Bill says:
“the broad scope of its…powers, the inadequate constraints…on them, and shortcomings in the proposed parliamentary control…will be…a toxic mix”.
We have had regulatory Bills before, and many years ago, when I was first elected, I was involved in taking the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 through the House. There was huge controversy about the powers contained in that legislation, and many Conservative Members who most vociferously defend the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill attacked that Act as a huge power grab.
The response to the 2006 Act led to the setting up of a special scrutiny process for deregulatory measures, and the Hansard Society says:
“Previous legislation, such as the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, provides examples of ways in which”
the Government
“could introduce safeguards into the EU (Withdrawal) Bill to tighten the scope and application of the powers.”
But there are no special scrutiny measures proposed in the Bill, even though its scope is far, far broader than the 2006 Act.
Mr McFadden
With consideration for other speakers, I will press on.
In fact, most of the orders made under the proposed powers, far from being elevated into some kind of special sifting and debate procedure, will go through on the negative resolution procedure, with little or no debate.
On one level, I sympathise with Ministers. The outcome of the Brexit negotiations is so uncertain—in fact, getting an agreement at all is not certain—that they want to confer on themselves the maximum possible leeway in legislating, but Parliament cannot take that view. It has been argued that the best way to raise the issue of executive authority is in Committee and not now, but we already know that the Government propose to give themselves a majority on all Committees even though they did not win a majority at the general election. There is no indication—in fact, the very opposite—that the Government are more likely to listen in Committee than they are now. Parliament’s maximum moment of leverage to call on the Government to think again is not in Committee but now.
We have been told that a vote against the Bill is a vote for a chaotic Brexit, which is a bit rich. There only has to be more than two Cabinet Ministers in a room to produce versions of a chaotic Brexit. When Ministers are pushing against one another, and when letters supported by junior Ministers are being circulated attacking the policy of the Government in which they serve, the Tory party is well capable of producing chaos on its own. We have a legitimate job to do in scrutinising the Government. To further that end, I will vote against the Bill tonight.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
In last year’s referendum I and many others warned of the risk of uncertainty. That risk has not gone away, but we can work together to reduce it, which is why the Bill is needed. Businesses need legal certainty to trade, create jobs and generate taxes, and the laws that govern our businesses are important. For the past 40 years or so, many of those laws have been agreed at European level. In my time in the European Parliament, I saw how those laws often cover important areas: consumer rights, copyright, product safety, even counterfeit medicines and data protection.
In my constituency of Chelmsford there are about 2,000 jobs in the insurance sector. The UK is home to the world’s largest insurance market, and we provide insurance for airline crashes, cyber-attacks and even to clear up after the horrific hurricane that is raging across the Atlantic today. Our insurance companies can offset such risks by re-insuring with others in the industry, and the industry is governed by the European regulations. Our companies do not want to scrap their rulebook, and the Bill will enable those rules to be moved into UK law; it will help avoid a legal vacuum, which is important. Many laws cannot be directly copied across; technical changes are needed, and Ministers need the powers to make those technical decisions.
The Bill is not perfect; there are many areas where decisions are not technical and policy decisions will need to be made. In the insurance sector we see that the devil is in the detail. Article 16 of the insurance distribution directive says that European insurers can only redistribute their risk to others that are regulated in the EU. We cannot just cut and paste that into our rulebook, as it would cut us out of our own market. Dealing with such examples is not straightforward; policy decisions are needed, and they could affect real jobs. The companies concerned want to be consulted, as will regulators in other countries, and such decisions deserve proper scrutiny.
Other sectors also have concerns. The Bill exempts the charter of fundamental rights, but the tech sector points out that article 8 of the charter is crucial because it underpins data protection laws, which enable the free flow of data. TheCityUK asks what is happening to the level 2 decisions, which are important in implementing much of our financial services law and many of which will arrive only after the date of exit. The consumer organisation Which? points out that EU directives provide not only consumer protection, but product standards and the networks for sharing information on things such as dangerous toys and dodgy electrical goods. What is to happen to those after Brexit?
It is important that stakeholders can raise their concerns, and significant decisions deserve to be properly debated. The statutory instrument mechanism does not give confidence to stakeholders or future trading partners that issues will be properly scrutinised. Some 3,500 statutory instruments are laid before this House every year, yet only eight have been annulled since world war two. The rest of the world is watching us. As a British Conservative, I have spent years working with Ministers, championing the cause of better regulation; we have told legislators all across the EU that before they change laws they should consult those who will be affected, address the impact and make sure that decisions are not just taken behind closed doors. Now is not the time to drop the ball on that at home, because if we are to get deep trading partnerships with Europe and other parts of the world, we need to retain their trust. Where decisions have an impact on other countries, our future trading partners need to know that we are open to listening to their suggestions.
Sir Edward Davey
The hon. Lady is making a powerful point. When I was a Business Minister in the coalition Government, I negotiated with the EU Council on competitiveness to ensure that the EU undertook proper regulatory impact assessments of its regulations. That was a considered approach to make sure that stakeholders were consulted. Under the regulations proposed in the Bill no such consultation will take place, which is far worse and far more damaging than the situation under the EU.
Vicky Ford
I wish the EU had followed that mechanism all the time, then we might not be where we are now. The right hon. Gentleman’s point shows precisely why we need amendments, which I was coming to. Last Thursday, the Secretary of State suggested that he would be prepared to agree to a sifting or triage process, so that technical decisions could be made swiftly but more important policy decisions can have proper scrutiny. The Opposition have not offered any alternative drafting, but that is the sort of amendment we need to see. I will be supporting the Bill tonight, because it is necessary and it needs to move to Committee. We need to make sure we put in place many amendments so that we provide for scrutiny, but this is not a time to just throw out the Bill, because history will not thank those who treat this as another game of political football.
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
On Thursday, the Secretary of State said in this House that this debate and the Bill are not about whether the United Kingdom leaves the European Union; I wish he could convince some of his colleagues of that, as they continue to make that argument even when it is totally inaccurate. The people made that decision in the referendum a year ago and this House endorsed it by triggering the article 50 process this year.
Today, we are not discussing whether but how we leave the EU and, in particular, how this House makes its decisions—not least, as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said a few moments ago, with respect to the precedent we will set for the future. In recent days, I have heard a number of people, including the Foreign Secretary, claim that a vote against the Bill would be a vote to obstruct the will of the people. That is arrant nonsense, as I think most of those who make that claim are well aware. To me, it is in fact this Bill that negates the declared purpose of the referendum, which was, as I understood it, to take back to UK legislatures the powers that in recent years we have shared with others through our membership of the EU.
The second thing the Secretary of State said the other day that I found particularly relevant was that no one said this was going to be easy. If only that were so. Actually, as he knows, many Government Members have been claiming that it would all be easy since before the referendum, and indeed ever since. I shall go rather further than he did. Apologies to those present and elsewhere who were not born in 1983, but in that year’s general election, my party made the case that after 10 years’ experience of being in the common market, we ought to leave. We said, explicitly, that unless we left then, our economies and societies would be so enmeshed that in future it would be impossible to leave without inflicting enormous, unsustainable damage on ourselves. That contention was supported by someone I would not normally cite, the late Enoch Powell, who urged people to vote Labour in that election for precisely that reason. Yet it is that task to which the Bill turns us, and which we are now trying to accomplish through the Bill.
In the dialogue during and following this debate, just as in the negotiations themselves, it is vital to establish, if at all possible, a degree of trust and mutual understanding. Yet it seems to me that the Government’s behaviour is almost calculated to undermine any such trust. The short amount of time that has been allowed for the debate does not remotely bear comparison with anything one could call a comparable debate, Bill or set of negotiations. I shall not repeat all the things everybody else has already said and no doubt will say right up until midnight about how the detail of the Bill is in itself so sweeping and so damaging, but there is no doubt that that is the nature of the Bill.
As was said a few moments ago by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), in Thursday’s debate the Secretary of State sounded sympathetic to some of the points that were made about the restricted nature of the Bill’s proposals on the scrutiny of the statutory instruments that would be introduced under it. He asked, as did the hon. Lady, that those expressing concern should make suggestions as to the remedy for the problems that the Bill creates, so I shall make three observations to the Minister and, through him, to the Secretary of State.
First, as was mentioned on Thursday, the idea of making use of amendable statutory instruments has been discussed in this House forever. It has never been accepted, for obvious reasons—there are many flaws in such a procedure—but none the less it might be better than the proposals in the Bill. Whether by that means or by others, there are and will be ways to expand the scope of whatever procedures we follow, even if such special procedures were attached to a specific time, or were time-limited. That would be possible particularly if those procedures were linked to any similar limits on the powers that the Government are seeking to take and their duration. It seems by no means to be beyond the wit of man to find much better systems of scrutiny than the Government are putting forward today.
My second observation is that, in searching for such potential procedure, the Government should cast their net wide. As Leader of the House, I proposed, for the first time, the introduction of the programme motion. In giving effect to a previous recommendation of the then Procedure Committee to facilitate the examination of the whole of a Bill, we also addressed the serious drafting problems that existed. We worked with the Clerks, who were, as ever, brilliant in their expertise and helpful in their advice and also with others. The drafts for the procedures, which we were ultimately able to adopt and which the House uses to this day, came through the involvement not just of our Clerks, but of Parliamentary Counsel. Therefore, there are others, across Government, across Whitehall and across the organs of the state, who could contribute to such discussions as to what procedures might work better than what the Government now propose.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The right hon. Lady is making a very thoughtful speech, but does she think that programme motions have been of benefit to the House?
Margaret Beckett
I have a slight advantage over the hon. Gentleman in that I was in the House before programme motions existed. All I can say is that I part company with him if he thinks that it is better for people to spend hours, indeed days—I mean literally days—discussing whether a Committee should sit on a Tuesday or a Thursday, or whether we should sit until half-past 5 on a Wednesday night, than to spend that time discussing the substance of legislation.
My third point to the Secretary of State is perhaps the most important—I say this also to the hon. Member for Chelmsford. It is not merely the prerogative of the Government to make proposals to this House to remedy the defects in the legislation, but the duty of the Government —particularly in this case—to do so because it is their legislation. My right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State advised the Government to withdraw this Bill and produce a more satisfactory set of proposals. I never imagined that I would find myself giving such advice to any Government, but I think that he is probably right.
That brings me to my final point. In essence, this Bill was drafted for a Parliament in which the Prime Minister had a massive mandate. I am talking about a Parliament in which she had been given the free hand for which she had asked the British people—a free hand to make and implement decisions without any serious let or hindrance. Everybody in this House, and those beyond it, know that she did not get that mandate. She did not get that free hand. This Bill is drafted for a reality that no longer exists, and yet the Government are continuing as if—to coin a phrase—nothing has changed. Well, as we saw during the general election, the Prime Minister may feel that nothing has changed, but hardly anyone else shares that view. This is a Bill of enormous consequence. It sets the most dangerous precedents of any Bill I can imagine for this House or any other. My party is right to vote against it. It is those who vote for it who are at risk of rejecting the view that the British people expressed in the general election.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is a great honour to follow the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett). She made a very thoughtful speech. One point on which I entirely agree is that, as this Bill passes through the House, we can look at better ways to scrutinise secondary legislation in particular. It seems that the Government are right that they will have to use secondary legislation, but it does not mean that all Delegated Legislation Committees must look the same. We do not have to have a one-and-a-half-hour DL on a technical matter of no importance whatsoever. However, if there is a Committee of some importance, why not extend the hours? Any Member can speak in a DL Committee, so there are ways we can improve scrutiny. That is what the Committee of the whole House should do when it considers the Bill.
I would be very surprised if the Bill finishes up in exactly the same format at the end as at the start. The Government would be well advised to accept reasonable amendments that improve the situation, but the principle of this Bill is quite simple.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On delegated legislation, the hon. Gentleman seems to think that it is okay if something is debated in Committee, but the truth of the matter is that the only motion that can be considered in a delegated legislation Committee is whether the Committee has or has not considered the matter in hand. In other words, if every member of the Committee voted against, the legislation would none the less come into law. That is the danger of relying on secondary legislation.
Mr Bone
I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that if the affirmative mechanism were used, the whole House would vote on the matter, so I do not accept his argument.
This Bill is about a principle: I think it is called the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, and I think I introduced—
Mr Bone
Not for a moment, because on this particular point I think I am right: it is called the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. I remember introducing a number of such Bills, or certainly speaking in favour of a lot of them. At that time, they were rather dismissed by the Government and we did not make much progress, so if I have an opportunity to support a Government Bill called the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, as I do tonight, then I am going to take it, and I hope other Members do too. What the Bill primarily does is end European Union legislation and control over this House when we leave, while the second bit incorporates all EU laws into our laws—“retained EU law”, it is called. It is quite right that in future we should look at all those laws and decide whether to improve, reject or keep them, but there has to be a mechanism when we come out to have all those laws in place or chaos will occur.
Sir Edward Leigh
The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) raised a very important point in his intervention that has to be dealt with clearly on the Floor of the House. Personally, I am in favour of any compromise—any triage process, as suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) and others—but on this point my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) must be wrong. The House has a right and the powers, and historically it has been able to reject delegated legislation—otherwise what sort of Parliament are we in?—so he is making a wrong point.
Mr Bone
I thought that was the point I made: that this House could ultimately reject a DL. That is clearly what happened: we vote on it. I remember, and we vote on them all the time—my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) mentioned at least eight times that they had been annulled.
Chris Bryant
Under the negative procedure, which is referred to regularly in the Bill, it is entirely up to the Government whether to allow a debate and a vote at all, and in the last 12 instances where the House has demanded a debate and a vote, including on very important issues, they have granted them on only four occasions.
Mr Bone
No!
Basically, this Bill is about the principle of ending EU control over this House and incorporating those laws. That is fine, and that is why every Member of the House should vote for it tonight. What they should then do is look in Committee, clause by clause, at how we are proposing to scrutinise, change and incorporate laws. I wholly accept that the negative SI procedure is probably not the best way of proceeding.
Another thing that has been mentioned—the right hon. Member for Derby South brought it up, and it is probably what I wanted to talk about most—is programme motions. As a principle, I am against programme motions. I accept entirely the answer she gave me, which is that it was a lot worse before. However, she did not go on to say that it is great now, and I do not think it has been. There have been a lot of problems with the Government deciding programming and the timing of scrutiny.
Now, this particular programme motion is one of the better ones, because the debate is eight days long, with eight hours’ protected time each day. I am fed up of sitting here waiting for a debate, only to find that there is statement after statement, which reduces the time we have for that debate. Thankfully, we are not doing that this time, and if there is a need for extra time, the Leader of the House would be well advised to grant it.
I was here at business questions on Thursday, and the shadow Leader of the House did not complain about the timetabling. [Interruption.] Well, I must have been deaf, because I was listening out for it. She moaned about a lot of things, but she did not complain about the length of time.
Mr Bone
Well, I will stand corrected if that is the case.
Anyway, the point I wanted to make is that it should not be up to the Government to timetable business in this House. By fortune, I have a ten-minute rule Bill tomorrow that introduces a business of the House commission. If that Bill was law, we would not be worrying about all of this now, because timetabling would be decided by the House, with a commission putting its recommendations to the House once a week to vote on. So we are having a row about something when we do not need to.
If only we had listened to David Cameron, the former Prime Minister, when he said in his “Fixing Broken Politics” speech—one of his best speeches ever—that we should have this House commission. It was, of course, also in the coalition Bible, and we guaranteed that we would have that House commission within three years of the coalition’s coming into power. I do not know why that did not happen; I assume it just got overlooked. It would be quite wrong of me to say that the two Whips Offices were absolutely opposed to losing their power—it could not possibly have been that.
All that I am doing tomorrow is, hopefully, reintroducing something that was the policy of the former Prime Minister, the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats and the Wright reforms. If we had had that commission, all the arguments and worries on the Opposition side would have disappeared.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak this afternoon. Let me start by saying that it is possible for parties to work together to find consensus and bipartisan moments. I see the Secretary of State for Justice in his seat; we have been working together on the review his predecessors asked me to do on the over-representation of black and ethnic minority people in the criminal justice system, and I am grateful for his support and that of his civil servants over the last 18 months.
I wish that I could be speaking in a spirit of co-operation on this subject, but when I think about the Prime Minister taking the position she did and talking about bringing the country back together, I think how far we are from that. Those who wanted to leave talked about giving the British people control—taking back control. Why, then, are we producing a Bill that will, effectively, give that control to the Government of the day, to make decisions behind closed doors, and not to this Parliament, which represents the democratic will of the people? If the Government are genuine about bringing the country back together, surely they allow serious time for reflection, debate and serious amendments to a Bill of this magnitude. Surely they should also come to this House with a degree of humility, having recognised that their proposition at the general election failed spectacularly, and that the context today is very different from the context three or four months ago. None of that has happened.
Then we look at the beginning of the negotiations. We hear a lot about the bill the EU is asking us to pay, but I have to say to those who campaigned to leave, and who are adamant that we should leave, that we are taking 12% of the EU budget out by exiting. We are asking others to pick up that bill. Of course there is a serious bill to pay, and of course it will take months to negotiate it.
We have heard so much from the Secretaries of State for Brexit and for International Trade about how easy this will be. When they go to negotiate with Donald Trump, who is one of the most protectionist Presidents the United States has seen, he will surely want access to our pharmaceuticals and will demand access to our agriculture. It will not be easy; it will take months and years to reach that trade deal. As for those who spend so much time on free movement of people and immigration, when we go to negotiate with the Indians, will they not demand visas for people to come to this country?
I worry, as I am sure hon. Members will understand, about what we have unleashed in this country, about the increase in race hate, and about the nastiness that surrounds this debate. No party is the font of all ideas, but I worry hugely about how the Conservative party has moved to the right to pick up ground ceded by the UK Independence party—[Interruption.] I do. We are in times in which the Anglo-American world is looking inward, in which we are moving back from human rights and in which we are waving goodbye to battles that we fought in decades gone by. This is not the time for this House to spend months and years wrangling about exiting a European Union that has given us so much.
For all those reasons, with very little to be gained—and when the articulation of what is to be gained has been so poor in the past four months—how could we possibly be about to set off on this path? In a constituency such as mine, where people are struggling to make ends meet and the economy is very fragile, as sure as night follows day, as we exit a customs union that the British Retail Consortium—
Anna Soubry
I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns. I share his views, and would have campaigned with him to remain, but the simple truth is that the majority of those who voted—52%—voted to leave the European Union. On that basis, we must begin the process of doing so and must see it through, even if he and I do not agree with it.
Anna Soubry
Would the right hon. Gentleman like to take that back? Things such as getting a White Paper, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said she would not give—that is what people like me achieve. The real opposition to much of this comes from those on the Government Benches, not on his.
Mr Lammy
I am not sure that the right hon. Lady really wants me to respond.
The point is whether we can get beyond the partisan. I represent a constituency where many people are struggling. Our economy is likely to take a real hit as a result of this move. Trade deals are an aberration and are some years in the future. If we exit under World Trade Organisation rules, we are in for huge rises in tariffs, consumer prices and, potentially, inflation. For that reason alone, in the best interests of my constituents and many people across the country who do not have the privileges of most people in this House, I shall absolutely vote against the Bill.
When we talk about the will of the people, let us remember the 48% who voted against this. Let us think about what they deserve: a Bill that does not grab powers from them; a Bill through which we have ample time to discuss all these issues; and a Department that actually understands the position of the 27 European countries, and faces up to the fact that we are going to have to pay. They do not want to be told that this is going to be easy—that the whole of the European Union cannot wait to do a deal with us. That is not what they recognise. For that reason, it is important that this House does not let this Bill go forward.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
I shall raise just one issue in the short time available: the living marine resource that under international law is bestowed on the United Kingdom.
The great repeal Bill has changed its name to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, the second half of which, which brings virtually all the EU’s acquis into domestic legislation, causes me a few concerns. The reason for most of that is completely understandable. It is entirely necessary, because when the termination date of article 50 of the treaty on European Union is reached and EU treaties cease to apply in this country, along with the EU regulations that take their authority from the EU treaties, vast swathes of domestic legislation will simply disappear. Bringing the acquis across will fill that void, which can be sorted out at a later date.
The method by which that will be sorted out has caused a great deal of debate in this House. In my opinion, the method that has been proposed is entirely necessary and desirable. I support it completely for legislation that is applicable only to the United Kingdom, but when dealing with legislation that involves relationships outside the United Kingdom, such as the common fisheries policy, I have a few concerns, because the body of legislation—the acquis—that is the CFP is made up almost entirely of regulations. The only way we can achieve compatibility is through a legally binding withdrawal agreement, and that in itself brings some problems. First, at this stage, we do not know what that agreement will contain. Indeed, we do not even know if we will be getting an agreement at all, such has been the appalling behaviour, sadly, of our EU partners.
Secondly, taking the common fisheries policy as an example, article 50 takes us out cleanly, so there is no possibility of future legal challenges that we would have to try to avoid. Regulation 1380/2013, which will be brought across by the Bill, will re-establish the common fisheries policy in all but name, possibly paving the way for a legal challenge, perhaps via the Vienna convention on international treaties, through the withdrawal agreement. The evidence of that is the acquis that we have accepted and transposed into UK law, thereby creating a continuation of rights thereon.
I would like to see the proposed fisheries Bill, which is due before us at some stage, and which could solve the problem. We have no idea what that Bill will contain. Will it continue to give away the nation’s wealth that is its fish? Will it continue the disastrous CFP policy of quota allocation, which puts the resource in the hands of a few, and is the cause of the completely immoral discarding of prime fish that we have seen all these years? We simply do not know. Why are we going down this tortuous route when the easiest route would be to exempt the entire fisheries acquis from the withdrawal Bill, and produce a fisheries Bill, coming into force on 30 March 2019, that confirmed what international law bestows on this nation? That is not unusual, because the withdrawal Bill already exempts parts of the charter of fundamental rights.
Fishing is the area in which the British people demand a clean Brexit, and I think they will accept nothing less. Fishing must not be used as part of a trade-off, and availability must not form part of a deal elsewhere. Control of our exclusive economic zone extending to 200 nautical miles or the median line will regenerate our coastal communities, but if we follow current fisheries policy, we will certainly fail to do that. It is quite odd that we commit vast amounts of cash to communities such as mine in Ramsgate, Broadstairs and parts of Margate through the coastal communities fund—I am thankful that we do—but we seem to have no clear commitment to the one thing that could provide great rejuvenation for our coastal communities, which are recognised as having lower rates of employment, and which are in need of restructuring and infrastructure.
On this subject, the electorate are very wary of shenanigans. We cannot afford to create failure, and it is our responsibility to make this a success. I am happy to trust the Government by supporting Second Reading tonight, but I would very much like to hear more about their proposals for restoring one of this nation’s finest treasures—our very positive fishing grounds, which have the potential to benefit our communities and should never have been taken away.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to have rejected the proposition of the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) that we should carry on fighting on arguments that were decided in this House some time ago, and is right to want to get on with making arrangements for the future. Does he agree, however, that elements in clauses 7, 8 and 9 need looking at in more detail, particularly when it comes to the use of statutory instruments?
Craig Mackinlay
I agree with my hon. Friend entirely, but today is not the day for those arguments. Arguments about technical matters—how things will be changed in the House, and whether that will be done using statutory instruments and the exercise of ministerial powers—are for Committee and subsequent stages of the Bill. The broad thrust of my argument on Second Reading is that this Bill is the only means by which we can deliver the result of last year’s historic referendum, which was delivered by 52% of people. I know that some in this House would rather we ignored the voice of those people, but we do so at our peril.
The whole issue of our fishing policy encompasses a lot of what was wrong with our membership of the European Union, which would not listen to us. The Bill represents a great opportunity for our coastal communities. I intend to deliver a good fishing policy for our under-10 metre fleet, which is particularly prevalent in Ramsgate, so I will support this Bill tonight.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
The Bill has been described as “not fit for purpose”, and as a “monstrosity of a Bill”. I agree with both those descriptions, and that is one of the reasons why I will not support it on Second Reading. I believe that it undermines this sovereign Parliament—and, indeed, other Parliaments and devolved Assemblies in the United Kingdom.
I respect the result of the EU referendum. My constituency voted narrowly to leave—very narrowly, by some 700 votes—so I understand both sides of the argument. My constituency mirrored the UK and Wales in voting to leave. In the EU referendum campaign, I said that I would vote for article 50, and I did so, because I accepted and respected the referendum. In the general election campaign of 2017, I said I would support a “sensible Brexit”, and I will, but not by bypassing Parliament.
I told the electorate that I would respect the devolution settlement in our country, and I will. The Bill will be enacted to replace the European Communities Act 1972. A lot has happened since 1972, not least the setting up of devolved Administrations by referendums and by Acts of this sovereign Parliament. When we talk about the legislators taking back control, we mean just that—legislators, in the plural. The competence of those Assemblies and of Parliament needs to be protected, and the Bill does not do that. It talks about consultation and discussion, but it does not talk about respecting the devolved Administrations.
Although I am unhappy with the replies I have received from the Government about the Irish border issue and the Irish dimension, and how that will have an impact on Welsh ports, as well as about Euratom—I led a debate on it, and we will need an associate or alternative membership with our colleagues on it—it is not for those reasons that I will vote against the Bill tonight, but because the Bill undermines parliamentary democracy. I will take no lectures from the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union or the Government on delays, a cliff edge or creating chaos, because as colleagues have said, they have already done that. They spent months—months—denying the referendum result, and trying through the courts to prevent this House from enacting article 50, which was a costly process. They spent months this year having a general election, which cost millions of pounds and delayed this process by many months. This PM went to the country and said she wanted to increase her majority to increase her mandate. She did not achieve that: she lost her mandate, and she lost the moral authority to carry on as normal.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend not agree that the Prime Minister, having been denied the mandate for the hard Brexit that she wanted, is using the Bill as another method of achieving that objective?
Albert Owen
Yes, I agree. As I have said, the Prime Minister just thinks it is business as usual, but she is now leading a minority in the House. In her words, she wanted to increase her majority to increase her mandate, but she does not have the moral authority or, indeed, the numbers in the House of Commons. It shows the Government’s arrogance that she now wants to rip up the result of the general election and ignore the will of the people who have taken away the Tory majority.
The other item I want to raise is the timetable—the programme motion—because I do not think that eight days are enough to debate the issues properly; when we have very complicated hybrid Bills in the House, we are given far longer to scrutinise them, so it is wrong. I think, tomorrow, the Government want actually to rig the Committees. Transferring powers from the European Union to the hands of those involved in delegated legislation is a very dangerous step for us to take: the Government are grabbing powers and putting them into the hands of Ministers. As I have said, they are not respecting the devolved Administrations, which were set up following referendums and have been given powers by the House of Commons.
The Opposition’s reasoned amendment is sensible. It amounts to what I would describe as a sensible Brexit. For instance, it respects the charter of fundamental rights, which we would put into UK law, and we would propose sensible transition arrangements. Again, the Government are now talking about a cliff edge and a timetable, but if we had sensible transition arrangements—this is mentioned in the reasoned amendment—that would be avoided. For those reasons, I will support the amendment tonight.
The will of the people in the 2017 election must be respected, and the will of the devolved Administrations must also be respected. It is time for this Government to go back to the drawing board. For those reasons, I will vote against the Second Reading. I do not think that the Bill can be amended to the satisfaction of many Government Members in Committee, and they know it. It is time for this House of Commons and this sovereign Parliament to stand up and be counted on behalf of the people who sent us here.
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)
We are here today debating this Bill as a direct consequence of the free vote of the British people in the referendum last year, when they gave us their explicit instruction that we were to withdraw the United Kingdom from the European Union. There was an extraordinary article in The Mail on Sunday yesterday by a Member of the other place, who said the Government were rushing this decision because they were afraid that the people would get their hands on the decision, but it is because the people did get their hands on the decision and decided to leave that we are here today.
Many of us who campaigned in the referendum to leave did not do so out of any sense of flippancy. I came to the conclusion over a long period. I came to it disappointed, after decades of listening to successive Governments and Prime Ministers talking about how we were going to reform the European Union from the inside, with subsidiarity and all the rest of it. That body gradually acquired all the attributes of statehood and citizenship: a flag, an anthem, a currency, a Parliament and a supreme court. For me, it became the antithesis of what an independent nation state was all about. Those of us who campaigned to leave were clear in our objectives: we wanted to make our own laws in this country; we wanted to sign our own trade deals; and we wanted to end the massive payments to the European Union and decide our own immigration policy.
That is what the Bill sets us on the road to do. Clause 1 makes it clear that the European Communities Act will cease to apply on the day we leave the European Union, and it provides that, the day after exit, the House and our courts will be supreme in making the decisions that affect us in this country. It is the mechanism to transpose the body of law under which we live, much of which emanated from the European Union over a period of almost 45 years, into United Kingdom law. It rightly makes little mention of some of the fundamental things that affect us as a country. Correctly and properly, the Government have committed to introduce legislation on the Floor of the House on some of the big matters. Bills that will be put before Parliament include a customs Bill, a trade Bill, an immigration Bill, a fisheries Bill, an agriculture Bill, a nuclear safeguards Bill, and an international sanctions Bill, all of which were announced in the Gracious Speech after the general election this year.
The Bill also puts specific limits on the powers that are laid down. The Government cannot make regulations to impose or increase taxation; to make retrospective provisions; to create relevant criminal offences; or to make regulations to implement the withdrawal agreement. Crucially, there is a sunset clause, so that two years after we leave the European Union the measure will cease to apply. I will be 45 in two weeks’ time. Her Majesty gave Royal Assent to the European Union Communities Act 1972 just a month after I was born. Although I gained political awareness reasonably early, I have not been politically aware throughout that entire period of nearly 45 years. I do not recall, in the period in which I was politically aware, great complaints emanating from every part of the House about the constant stream of legislation from the European Union that was implemented unscrutinised and which we had to obey.
The Government are putting that sunset clause in place. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) said that there was confusion among Government Members, and a difference of opinion about our policy on leaving the European Union. He could easily, and perhaps more effectively, direct that at his own Front-Bench team. The shadow Home Secretary supports free movement. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union say that it must end. The deputy leader of the Labour party says that we would stay in the single market forever. The shadow Chancellor says that we should leave the single market to respect the referendum. The shadow Secretary of State for International Trade has said that staying in the customs union would be a disaster; the shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union supports the UK staying in a customs union; while the deputy leader of the Labour party says that we could stay in the customs union indefinitely. One could be forgiven for thinking that Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople are getting their inspiration from Heinz, with 57 varieties of Brexit on offer. While the Government have introduced a sunset clause in the Bill to make sure that its provisions cannot last for more two years, Labour policy on Brexit can barely last two days. If it lasts two weeks it appears to be a long-term policy indeed.
Before the general election, the House voted overwhelmingly in favour of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill. Tonight, it should do the same on Second Reading of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. In the words of one of my more succinct correspondents, who wrote to me yesterday and urged me to tell the House:
“For goodness’ sake just get on with it”.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
This Bill is utterly pernicious. It is dangerous, it is fundamentally un-British and it has at its heart a lie. It pretends to bring back power to this country, but it actually represents the biggest peacetime power grab by the Executive over the legislature, by the Government over Parliament, in 100 years. It allows the Government to drive through changes to any law by the simple fiat of a Minister. That includes the powers of the House of Lords, the date of the next general election, the composition of the House of Commons and the number of Ministers. In the most extreme instance of all, it allows Ministers to alter the very Bill itself. That is a dangerous spiral of autocracy. Some Members seem to think it is a compliment to refer to them as Henry VIII powers. I know that Henry VIII, in 1536, legislated to allow two MPs to come here from Calais, but on the whole the Tudor exercise was not a proud demonstration of democracy. These are clauses of which Erdoğan, Maduro and Putin would be proud.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I am sorry to interrupt his flow of eloquence. Is he conscious of schedule 7, in particular part 2, and especially paragraph 6, sub-paragraph 2, sub-sub-section (g), in which it is made perfectly clear that it is only by affirmative resolution, and not the fiat of Ministers, that amendments to Acts can be made?
Chris Bryant
I am perfectly aware of all the measures in schedule 7, but I merely point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, since the Bill itself can be changed by the Government, that is one of the elements the Government can change. What happens, even under the affirmative process—this is the problem with secondary legislation—is that, because there is no opportunity to amend, the Government will say, “Take it or leave it”. They will then suddenly say, “There is a real emergency and you’ve got to take it, because otherwise there will be chaos.” That is the sword of Damocles that Governments always hold over Parliament when a clause hands matters over to secondary legislation.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am doubly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he withdraw his remark that it is by ministerial fiat, and resort instead to the argument that the drafting would enable the Government to exert some pressure on Parliament, which presumably he and his colleagues would resist?
Chris Bryant
No, I am not withdrawing it. The Bill, at several points, makes it quite clear that the Government will hold powers to bring in regulations under secondary legislation through the negative process. The whole point about the negative process is that the statutory instrument comes into law unless it has been annulled, and the only process by which it can be annulled is if the Government themselves allow time for us to debate the matter and to have a vote. I would be happy to trust the Government if in recent years—I do not know why the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) is looking up at that point; he never used to trust the Government until he became a Minister—they had been happy, since 2010 or 2015, to honour the traditional doctrine of the House, which is that if the Leader of the Opposition demands a vote and a debate in this Chamber there will be one. They have, however, consistently refused to do that. Enormous changes to our law, affecting student nurses and every student in the land, and affecting benefits for all our constituents, have been driven through via secondary legislation. It should never have been used for such measures, without us ever being able to insist on having a debate or a vote. The worst of it, to which I have already referred, is that when we do have a debate, the Government get to decide whether it should be in Committee or on the Floor of the House. If it is in Committee, all we get is a motion stating whether or not we have debated the matter in hand.
Chris Bryant
I am not giving way to the right hon. Gentleman again. I am sure he will manage to catch your eye, Mr Speaker.
It is not as if the Government do not accept that they will have to introduce hundreds and hundreds of statutory instruments. What they should have done, before introducing the Bill, was suggest an alternative way of dealing with this process over the next two years, so that there can be proper triaging of genuinely technical and minor consequential amendments to legislation that need to happen, and significant measures where the whole House would want to take a view.
Since 1950, Parliament has rejected only 11 statutory instruments, so we know that this is an autocratic process, but let me get to a much bigger worry for me: clause 9. I am sure that hon. Members have read it. It states very clearly:
“Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament (including modifying this Act).”
When I said last week in the House that this was truly exceptional, all sorts of Government Members, including Ministers, came up to me and said, “Oh no, there are hundreds of examples. I’ll give you examples by the weekend.” The first example I was given was the Scotland Act 1998, but it does not apply. Section 113(6)—I am sure the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) will know this subsection—states:
“But a power to modify enactments does not…extend to making modifications of this Act or subordinate legislation under it.”
In other words, the Minister who told me that had missed out the word “not”, rather conveniently.
Then the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) came up to me and said, “No, you’re completely and utterly wrong. The greatest constitutional expert in this country”—I think he might have meant himself—“tells me that section 75 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 gives the Government the right to change the Act itself by statutory instrument”. Unfortunately, he was wrong as well. It actually states:
“If…it appears to the Secretary of State…that…the enactment is capable of preventing the disclosure of information”—
in other words, gives the Government too much power to prevent disclosure—
“he may by order repeal or amend the enactment for the purpose of removing or relaxing the prohibition.”
It is a measure that gives the Government not more but less power. Even the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which applies to circumstances when by universal accord—probably—the Government would need emergency powers, and which builds on previous Acts of Parliament, states categorically, in section 23(5):
“Emergency regulations may not amend…this Part of this Act”—
in other words, all the major elements of the Act.
If hon. Members who are trying to cover their tracks by saying, “We think all this secondary legislation business is terribly worrying, and obviously we’ll change that in Committee”, really care about those matters, they should consider the Government’s track record. What have they done recently? They engaged in what I would call jiggery-pokery with the DUP to ensure a majority—and let us hope we have a vote on Estimates Day on the £1 billion for the DUP; they delayed setting up Select Committees until now to make it impossible for us to scrutinise many of the measures going through during the summer months; and tomorrow, they are trying to make sure that, for the first time in our history, a Government without a majority in the House have a majority on every single Committee. If that does not make one question the bona fides of this Government, nothing will, and that is why I say to hon. Members: do not sell your birthright for a mess of pottage; vote against this Bill!
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Twenty years ago, almost to the day, I was involved in another bitterly fought referendum campaign in which both sides accused the other of exaggerations and even outright lies. The result was extremely finely balanced, our nation was divided and many were of the opinion that the Government of the day had absolutely no right to proceed with such a profound constitutional change on the basis of a tiny majority. I refer not to the EU but to the Welsh devolution referendum.
There the similarities end. The day after the Welsh Assembly referendum, I did not see BBC reporters trawling the streets of Cardiff or Swansea for anecdotes about people who had allegedly voted one way and then changed their minds—I can well remember in fact that BBC reporters from Wales could hardly contain their delight—and we did not see business representative groups and trade unions whipping up fears about the future of the economy; instead, they embraced the opportunities. Those of us who had been actively involved in the campaign against the Welsh Assembly realised that, whatever we thought of the result, the people had spoken. Even though it was a narrow margin—much narrower than in the EU referendum—and on a much smaller turnout, we did not try to stop the process. We did not try to take the Government to court. In fact, we got involved in the shaping of Welsh Assembly standing orders through a body called the National Assembly Advisory Group.
The First Minister of Wales and some of his colleagues in Parliament would do well to remember that. He and others have been complaining about a power grab and making accusations about undermining the Assembly—
David T. C. Davies
I will give way in a moment. I am coming to something the SNP said earlier.
The only powers being grabbed are those being grabbed from Brussels and taken back to London. There is absolutely no grabbing of powers from Cardiff. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) asked the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) whether he could name a single power being taken from Edinburgh, and he could not name any.
David T. C. Davies
I am happy to give way to his colleague to see if he can come up with a few.
Peter Grant
The hon. Gentleman is keen to draw parallels between the EU referendum and that which established the Welsh Assembly. The result of the EU referendum casts great doubt over the continuing human rights of 3 million people living in these islands. Can he name a single person whose human rights were threatened as a result of the Welsh referendum 20 years ago today?
David T. C. Davies
It was about the same number of EU nationals whose human rights are being threatened by the latest referendum. One of those 3 million is my wife. Not a single Government Member has ever suggested stripping EU nationals of their rights. We are totally opposed to that idea. I am happy once again to say on behalf of all my colleagues that none of us wants to do anything to take away the human rights of the hard-working, law-abiding EU citizens in this country. We welcome them as much today as we always have.
We are not taking powers away from Cardiff, Edinburgh or anywhere else. In fact, over the last few years, Conservative MPs have voted several times to give significant extra powers to the Welsh Assembly—and, I believe, to the Scottish Parliament. To be honest, if I am going to criticise my own colleagues, I would criticise the number of extra powers we have given to the Welsh Assembly and will do again. I probably will not be quite as enthusiastic about that, but there we are. The Bill will actually strengthen devolution. It will mean more powers for the Welsh Assembly in the not-too-distant future, and it will be much easier to transfer powers from the Westminster Parliament back down the M4 than it would be if those powers stayed in Brussels. Let us be frank about that. If those powers were to stay in Brussels, they would not come to the Welsh Assembly at all.
It is time for Opposition Members to do what those of us who opposed the Welsh Assembly did 20 years and recognise that it is the will of the people, including in Wales, which voted for devolution and to leave the EU. It voted mainly for Conservative and Labour MPs in the last election who stood on a manifesto commitment to respect the referendum decision and bring Britain out of the EU. The people having made their voices heard over and over again, it would be an outrage if we did what Commissioners in Brussels have done many times in the past few years and went against the stated will of the people. The Bill represents a great day for democracy in Britain, including in Wales, and I look forward to joining my colleagues in the Lobby to support it tonight.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
In view of the limited time, I will focus on just three aspects of this deeply dangerous and undemocratic Bill. First, I wish to add my voice to the many on both sides of the House expressing enormous concern about how the Bill allows the Government an unprecedented power grab. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on his masterclass about how this undermines our sovereignty and represents a wholesale shift of power from elected representatives in Parliament to Ministers and civil servants acting without the encumbrance of accountability or democratic scrutiny.
Regardless of one’s views about Brexit, the Bill is a constitutional outrage. The rank hypocrisy that these proposals to undermine parliamentary sovereignty are being led by precisely those Members who sold the leave argument last year on the supposedly noble ideal of restoring exactly that sovereignty is breathtaking, even by the standards of Government Members. That is why measures to circumscribe those powers are so vital, including measures based on proposals, such as those of the Hansard Society, to establish a sift and scrutiny system for delegated legislation in general. The current processes are already manifestly failing.
Secondly, I want to highlight concerns about the Bill’s impact on environmental protection, and, in particular, about the governance gap—the Bill’s failure to provide for the proper enforcement of environmental laws and standards post-Brexit. So far, there has been no evidence that Ministers recognise the scale of the challenge. Research conducted by the House of Commons has identified more than 1,100 pieces of EU environmental legislation that are the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, yet the issue did not appear in the Prime Minister’s Lancaster House speech, has not appeared in the Secretary of State’s statements so far, and certainly does not appear in the Bill.
Cutting and pasting laws from the EU’s statute book into the UK’s is simply not enough, because laws are only as effective as the mechanisms that implement and enforce them in practice. In the absence of mechanisms to replace the monitoring and enforcement roles of the European Commission and the European Court of Justice, we will effectively be left with zombie legislation—it may be on the statute book, but it will not be enforceable. There needs to be positive action to create a new Government system including proper implementation, compliance and enforcement. When the Government argue that judicial review can adequately provide the sole mechanism for civil society to challenge the application of environmental law, it shows how little they understand the limitations of JR. It is far too limited in scope and remit, and in terms of access, remedies and sanctions.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Caroline Lucas
I will keep on for a little bit longer.
We need to transfer explicitly into UK law the key general environmental principles that are enshrined in the EU treaties: the precautionary principle, for example, and the “polluter pays” principle. A further regrettable omission from the Bill relates to animal welfare. The protocol on animal sentience which is so vital to our animal legislation was incorporated into article 13 of the Lisbon treaty, but the text of that treaty is not itself covered by the Bill, so the wording of that article is not replicated. I intend to table amendments on that issue.
Thirdly, and more substantively, I am deeply concerned that schedule 8 effectively ends the UK’s membership of the single market and the customs union. That is yet another masochistic red line from Ministers who are intent on leaving the EU whatever the cost to the UK’s economy, and regardless of the damage to the country’s long-term prosperity. Analysis indicates that leaving the customs union would result in a £25 billion-a-year hit to the UK economy and a Brexit bureaucracy bombshell for UK firms. So much for Brexit’s leading to a bonfire of red tape.
Ministers seem to think that they can just conjure up, in a few months, a customs union that is not “the” customs union, but which will deliver exactly the same benefits as those that we have now, and all that without paying for membership of the EU. I look forward to seeing how they plan to achieve that amazing feat, as I am sure that quite a few of my constituents would like to enjoy the benefits of institutions in Brighton without having to bother to pay the membership fee.
Far from transferring all EU law into UK law, the Bill fails to preserve the right to freedom of movement. Let me be very clear: my party’s policy on freedom of movement is unequivocal—we believe that it not only benefits our economy but, crucially, benefits our communities as well. Being able to work, study, live and love in 27 other member states is a precious gift. It is one that we should be extending to an increasing number of our own young people, not shrinking—not closing down their horizons; not denying. I also believe that we should say loudly and proudly that we celebrate the contribution of EU nationals who come to make a life here: they enrich our society.
I believe that, as people become increasingly aware of the human and financial costs of Brexit over the coming months—those costs were never made clear during the referendum campaign—they should have the right and the opportunity to change their minds, if they choose. When people take out phone contracts, for heaven’s sake, they have a chance to look again and to revisit their decisions. Why would we deny them that possibility when it comes to the biggest decision that this country has made in generations? That is why my party is committed to the proposal of a ratification referendum: a chance for people to judge the final deal that comes back from Brussels in the light of all that we are learning now about the costs of leaving, which were never apparent during the referendum campaign.
People who voted leave did not vote for falling wages, lower living standards and rising inflation. I do not believe that they voted to trash environmental protection, to create massive staff shortages in our hospitals and care homes, or to see food rotting in the fields because of the lack of workers to cultivate it. I do not believe that they voted to slam the door shut on our centuries-old tradition of proudly welcoming people from overseas. The very real consequences of Brexit were never spelt out in what was surely the most mendacious, toxic and cynical referendum campaign that we have ever seen, and that is why I shall vote against the Bill’s Second Reading.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
The House voted six to one, with its eyes wide open, for a referendum. Implicit in that result was the determination that the British people would decide what their destiny was to be, and they did so, clearly, in June last year. The House accepted that decision when we triggered article 50. What we are discussing today is giving the Government the means to deal with what I believe to be the most complex legislation with which any Government have had to deal for generations.
The Government are very sensibly trying to put all EU law into British law so that the day after we leave there will not be chaos, there will not be lawyers running around suing various people, and we will have legal certainty. If this were a really vicious, horrible, right-wing Government, they would be going through the lot deciding what they were going to get rid of, but they are not doing that. They are putting legislation on workers’ rights, welfare, the environment and a range of other issues into UK law so that future Governments—probably not this Government—can decide at their leisure what they will keep, what they will improve, and what they will change in the traditional British way: by producing a Green Paper and a White Paper, and presenting legislation to the House. Future Governments will have more scope for policy change and adjustments than any since the 1970s. We are gifting to future Parliaments, whoever will control them, the ability to control the destiny of our nation.
This is all that we are trying to do in the third part of the Bill. We know that, inevitably, there will be holes in the legislation. We will try to dam them up so that the legislation works and the legal system has certainty. There is nothing wicked about that; it is actually very sensible. Anyone who talks to most business people, local authorities and individuals will find that what they want is for change—if there is to be change—to be gradual and managed change, not chaos.
I have been in the House long enough to know that when legal cases arise and events occur, Governments sometimes come up with rushed legislation to fill a gap. They do so in a day, sometimes with manuscript amendments. We know that when we leave the EU at the end of March 2019, there will be holes in legislation that will need to be plugged, either before we leave or just afterwards. That is extraordinary, and I think it is a one-off, but I also think it is necessary. There may well be nuances in what we can do with the legislation. Statutory instruments themselves are not ideal. One of the reasons why many cannot be amended is that they often deal with European directives that cannot themselves be amended.
Perhaps, in the course of the eight-day Committee stage on the Floor of the House, there will be means of improving parliamentary scrutiny. When I look at the Secretary of State and other Ministers, I get the feeling that they are in listening mode. If someone comes up with a perfectly sensible suggestion for dealing with what will be a terrible problem, they will adopt it. If that means our not having an Easter holiday next year or the year after next, and spending more hours dealing with legislation, that will have to be the way. My suspicion is that more of the legislation will end up on the Floor of the House than people expect. Much will be small and much will be technical, but I am entirely sure that when there are principles and when there are concerns, the Government will want to air them, because that is how our Parliament works, and I think that it does so with the best of intentions.
If there is a rush, it is because the article 50 process involves a timetable, and that timetable was determined by Tony Blair when he negotiated the Lisbon treaty. Incidentally, according to the 2005 Labour party manifesto, the treaty was to be put to the people in a referendum, which was reneged on by the then Government. At the moment we are trying to deal with legislation that was pushed through by Tony Blair, in order to carry out the will of the British people.
We have heard today about an unprecedented “biggest power grab in 100 years”. Well, I am old enough to have been in the House when the Blair Government introduced programming. I agree that it has pluses and minuses, but what it did was to transfer power from the Opposition to the Government, and that has been a very substantial change over the past 20 years. The reality is that the Government are doing their best to secure a sensible, measured movement out of the EU, and to allow future Governments, at their leisure, to legislate for change, if that is what they wish to do. There is going to be great opportunity for this House, although probably not in this Parliament. In the future, it will be able to deal with a much wider range of policy.
I do not hold that there is anything evil or pernicious about what the Government are trying to do. They have been given a problem by the British people, and they have to try and solve it. Members might well improve the procedure for achieving that over the eight days in Committee, but the Government’s objectives are to carry out the will of the people and ensure that we have a steady, careful transition so that, the day after we leave the EU, people do not notice any difference, and Members of Parliament will be the people who make a difference.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
The majority of my constituents who voted in the referendum voted to leave the European Union. Out of respect for them, I also voted to trigger article 50 earlier this year, but neither the people of Birmingham, Northfield, nor those anywhere else in this country, were ever asked about, or voted for, the kind of ministerial power grab that the contents of the Bill represent.
On Thursday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), together with the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and many others, forensically and cogently outlined why the powers Ministers are seeking to take, particularly in clauses 7, 9 and 17, are so widely drawn that they have left what the right hon. and learned Gentleman memorably described as “an astonishing monstrosity” of a Bill. Like them, I do not believe it is acceptable for Ministers to have the power to sweep away protections for employees and the environment or laws to guarantee equality by statutory instrument, or, indeed, for them to vary the enforcement mechanisms for those laws by statutory instrument, simply by asserting that they are doing so to rectify what they perceive to be deficiencies not only in EU laws that are transposed into UK law, but even in UK laws themselves that they say are somehow linked to the EU. This Bill goes so far as to give Ministers the power to amend primary legislation by statutory instrument, and even the power to extend the provisions of the very measure—this Bill—that gives them that power in the first place. Professor Mark Elliott, professor of public law at the University of Cambridge, has rightly described this as delegated legislation on stilts, so I will be supporting the reasoned amendment that declines to give this Bill a Second Reading.
Of course, we need legislation to ensure that EU rights and protections are incorporated into UK law so that we avoid gaps being opened up in the spectrum of rules and regulations at the point of Brexit. There is consensus in the House about that, so why have Ministers brought forward a Bill that undermines rather than builds on that? It is not as if they have not had time to do this properly. When they published their White Paper back in March, we warned them then against using the Bill that would follow to unreasonably increase the powers of Ministers so that they could sidestep full scrutiny of their proposals by elected MPs. We warned them again at the election—our manifesto commitment to replace what at that time was being called the great repeal Bill with an EU rights and protections Bill was precisely that warning. In the past months, many bodies, ranging from the Hansard Society to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission and the Local Government Association, have warned the Government about the dangers of the Bill in its current form. The Women and Equalities Committee and many others have warned about problems with the Bill.
On Thursday, in answer to an intervention from the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), the Brexit Secretary hinted that he was prepared to talk about ideas for a triage system to give MPs and peers some kind of say over the limits of where and how delegated legislation should be used, perhaps taking up some of the ideas of the House of Lords Constitution Committee. I welcome that, but I have to say that Ministers’ track record since March underlines that what we need from them is more than generalised offers to talk. We need some demonstration that they are prepared to act on what they are being told, but so far there is no indication at all that that is going to happen. Rather, the thrust of the Brexit Secretary’s argument on Thursday was that there is really nothing to worry about in this Bill and that Ministers should be trusted to use the powers they are given only sparingly, and not for matters for which they are not appropriate. I am afraid that that just is not good enough. If the Government want to reassure us that the powers conferred by the Bill will not be used to do something that those powers expressly permit, it is legitimate for us to ask: why grant those powers in first place unless we can also have a say in practice over the circumstances in which they can be used? This Bill does not give Parliament that say. Until it does, I cannot support it.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
In an excellent speech on Thursday, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) referred to the fact that we are sent here on the wings of ballot papers sent in by our constituents. That is a precious right, and I agree with her that it is one that we should observe and uphold. I was sent here with a very clear message from my constituents, who on 23 June 2016 voted decisively to leave the European Union. They did so, contrary to what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) says, in full knowledge of what that entailed: self-government over federalism, democracy over bureaucracy, and economic liberalism over protectionism. It is important to note, of course, that the third of my voters who voted to remain have accepted the result, and now simply wish for our departure from the EU to be as smooth and orderly as possible. That is why we need this Bill. Indeed, it is not an exaggeration to say that we cannot have that without this Bill.
So let us be clear about the Bill’s function. This is not a Bill about whether we stay in or leave the EU; that decision was taken by our bosses, the British people, last year. Likewise, it is not a Bill about the substance of the withdrawal agreement; that is a matter for ongoing negotiation between Ministers and Brussels. The primary purpose of the Bill is simply to provide the legal continuity and certainty on exit day that I think all of us want.
To be clear, we have to do this. The House of Commons Library states that once the European Communities Act is repealed on exit day, without the legislative measures proposed in this Bill,
“huge holes would open up within the statute book”.
The Opposition talk a good game about Henry VIII and power grabs, but the Secretary of State was crystal clear on Thursday that the Bill will not be used to make material changes, and he made welcome commitments that he will consider sensible suggestions at Committee stage, and that is the point—this will happen in Committee.
If we vote down this Bill this evening, as Opposition Members want to do, we will be torpedoing the whole principle of the Bill, not the substance of the individual suggestions in it. We will be preventing the very chance of making the amendments that people want to see. It is hard to avoid the feeling that for some Members this is less about parliamentary scrutiny and more about parliamentary sophistry—that is to say, frustrating our best chance of making a success of Brexit. That is something I passionately believe in, although I accept some do not. The point is that we are all in this together, so we need to make this work. I put it to Members who represent seats that voted heavily to leave that they should reflect, as I have, on what message we would send out if we set about obfuscating their clearly expressed will in any way.
The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) made a powerful speech earlier, joining those given by the hon. Members for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) and for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field). They understand the nature of the mandate we have been given. This is an extraordinary, once-in-a-generation moment, and I think it crosses party lines. People on Teesside, every single constituency of which voted to leave the EU, will be astonished that I am the only Member from that region who is going to be voting tonight for what they asked for.
I want to conclude by re-emphasising the calamitous consequences of our exiting the EU without the necessary legal provisions in place. Without this Bill, we will wake on the morning of exit day to find that thousands of our laws have changed or been rendered inoperative. The fallout from that scenario will make “cliff edge” sound euphemistic. With that in mind, voting against the Bill tonight will be interpreted by many as a vote to punish the British people for having had the audacity to vote for Brexit, for that is exactly what it will do.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for the chance to contribute to this debate. I look forward to re-joining the Exiting the European Union Committee, whose important work will finally recommence this week.
I will vote tonight for Labour’s reasoned amendment and against the Second Reading of the Bill, not to frustrate Brexit, but because I believe that Parliament and the country must not be side-lined in how we move forward. The Bill has clearly been written without thought to its implications. As it stands, it sets a precedent that our democracy, or any other, should not allow. Ministers would be able to amend primary legislation—the Bill and other Acts—without needing a debate or vote in this House. Ministers could remove rights and protections through secondary legislation without any meaningful or guaranteed parliamentary scrutiny.
Many excellent points on the scope, scrutiny, transparency and accountability of the powers in the Bill have already been made, especially by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett). I want to focus the detail of my remarks on one specific issue of concern, on which I would be grateful for the Minister’s response.
Once upon a time, before the general election, there was a lot of stirring rhetoric from the Prime Minister about how no deal would be better than a bad deal. These days, we hear less public talk of no deal, but the Bill nurses one hangover from when the Prime Minister could still pretend she had a mandate for her vision of what Brexit means. We do not have to look very far to find it. It is in clause 1, which states:
“The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day.”
“Exit day” is defined as
“such day as a Minister of the Crown may by regulations appoint”.
Now stand back. What clause 1 proposes is that any Minister can decide when our membership of the EU ends.
On any day, if the Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary decided, the Executive could withdraw from talks and decide to make hard Brexit a reality by repealing the European Communities Act, without a proper debate and without a full vote of this House. Clause 1 appears to put perhaps the most important power in the Bill—the power to repeal the European Communities Act—entirely into the hands of any Minister at a time of their choosing and whether or not there is continuity of our laws at that time.
Exit day is not even defined as being, at the earliest, 29 March 2019. There appears to be no parliamentary supervision over that power. It would appear that Parliament does not need to approve the regulations. Parliament does not even get to see them in advance. Hon. Members will have their own views about the wisdom of Ministers having that power. For my own part, I find it hard to see how giving an unfettered power to any Minister—especially a Conservative Minister—is what Parliament taking back control looks like.
There is no need for Parliament to be cut out of that decision. If our talks with the EU produce a deal, it will need to be approved by the other member states and the European Parliament before the cut-off date of March 2019. So there will be ample time for Parliament to choose to accept it, and consequently for the UK to see the repeal of the 1972 Act on what most assume will be exit day—29 March 2019. But if our talks with the EU break down, it must be for Parliament and not Ministers to determine our response. Parliament may decide to repeal the 1972 Act anyway, or it may say that no deal will have calamitous consequences—crashing over the cliff is a long way from the sunlit uplands promised to the electorate.
Either way, what is important is that it is Parliament, not a Minister, who chooses how to respond. That is why Labour’s manifesto promised voters a meaningful choice. The question of what action we should take if talks break down is for Parliament to answer. The power for Ministers to exit with no deal should not be in the Bill. I will vote against a Bill containing this unfettered clause 1, and I hope for some words of reassurance from the Government on that today.
The vote tonight is not about whether we leave the European Union, it is about how we do so. For want of a better phrase, the Bill is little short of a dog’s Brexit. Parliament and the country deserve better.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Without the Bill we cannot respect the will of the British people, as expressed in the referendum, and repeal the European Communities Act 1972. Without the Bill, as many Members have pointed out, we will see legal chaos. Given the sheer volume and complexity of the EU law that will have to be converted into UK law, I accept that the Government will need relatively wide delegated powers to amend legislation, but there is a distinction between necessary amendments as a consequence of our leaving the EU, many of which will be technical and minor, and those that implement entirely new policies.
The delegated powers in the Bill will touch every aspect of our lives, as many colleagues have said—their use could be unprecedented in scale, scope and constitutional significance—so I am glad to hear that Ministers are in listening mode. I will support the Bill tonight in the expectation that it will be amended in Committee and that there will be support for reforming the way delegated legislation is handled, so that Parliament, rather than the Government, can decide the appropriate level of scrutiny. Without that, we simply will not be able to bring control back to Parliament.
It may be useful to those who are following the debate from outside this place if I explain how delegated legislation works and why it is important that we amend it. I was first introduced to Delegated Legislation Committees when I was appointed to one dealing with draft double taxation relief and international tax enforcement orders. I thought there must have been a horrible mistake, so I sent a note to the Whip to ask about my duties. I received the following three instructions: “Turn up on time, say nothing and vote with the Government.”
People might argue that no one died as a result of my ignorance of international law on double taxation relief in Oman and Singapore, but what makes the system so absurd is that the very next Committee due to sit was a Delegated Legislation Committee examining the draft Medical Profession (Responsible Officers) Regulations 2010. It might be argued that, as someone who had just come to the House having been teaching junior doctors and medical students and having been an examiner for the Royal College of General Practitioners with an interest in doctors who were failing, I was better placed to be on the second Committee. It seems to me that there is an expectation that Members should not have any expertise at all. I think the general public would find that absolutely extraordinary; they expect Members to be able genuinely to scrutinise legislation.
There are many other reasons why the procedures should change. It is a great concern to people outside this place that many statutory instruments are subject to the negative procedure rather than the affirmative procedure and do not get any scrutiny at all—not even the current defective scrutiny. The power to change that does not necessarily need to come from legislation; we could use the Standing Orders. I commend the Hansard Society for the excellent work it did in advance of the Bill to set out how the procedures could be amended. Even though it is in our power as a House to put in place Standing Orders, for example to set up a Delegated Legislation Committee with the powers of sift and scrutiny that we have discussed today, it would help if Ministers indicated that they are in listening mode about that, too, and that they would support it happening over time.
I genuinely feel that the Government do not want to obstruct sensible debate. All Members from across the House should work with Ministers to put in place something that genuinely works. We know that delegated legislation needs reform even without this Bill, so let use this as an opportunity. As we have heard, up to a thousand statutory instruments will be coming before the House, and we need the House to decide whether the procedure will be negative or affirmative. We need reform so that we can genuinely develop expertise along the lines suggested by the Hansard Society and so that MPs with a genuine interest scrutinise the proposals.
The point is that a delegated legislation Select Committee could have the power to send a statutory instrument to a Committee of the whole House—not just a small Delegated Legislation Committee in a Committee Room, but with all of us here, similar to what we are doing today. It could also have the power to suggest sensible amendments that the Government would have to take away and consider. I have said that I will support the Government tonight, but I do so only in the expectation that they will support sensible amendments.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
“Democracy” and “the will of the people” are terms often used and—dare I say it—abused in connection with leaving the European Union. I have been listening to this debate for many hours now, and I am puzzled by the arguments of those who support the Bill’s progress. As has already been said this afternoon, we are here to debate not whether we leave the EU but how we do it. Over the past two days of debate, it has been eloquently proven by Members from both sides of the House that what is in front of us is deeply flawed, because it threatens to write into law a substantial loss of our parliamentary democracy and set an alarming precedent. It is therefore frustrating to be accused of undermining the will of the people if I do not support the Bill’s progress. I will not support the Bill, because it threatens a fundamental principle of British democracy—the supremacy of Parliament and the division of powers—and gives sweeping powers to Minsters and bureaucrats. The right to make laws in this country was given to Parliament after many hard-fought battles.
Wera Hobhouse
Will the hon. Gentleman hear me out?
The supremacy of Parliament is a proud tradition that all of us should defend. I find it perplexing that, for example, the hon. Members for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) and for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), both of whom I know to be thinking people, are so eager to see us leave the EU that they forget everything else in its path. Democracy matters, and whoever tries to suspend democracy to enact the will of the people should think again.
The will of the people is of course a pretty mixed bag and is not fixed forever. On 23 June last year, almost 70% of my constituents voted to remain in the EU. In June this year, I was elected on the basis of my opposition to the Government’s Brexit line. That was the will of the people in my constituency at that point. True to form, Bath had one of the highest voter turnouts, and active engagement in Bath is not limited to election time; it is evident every day. Protest groups, demonstrations and lively debates are testament to how much people in Bath care about how our country is run. Another principle of democracy that they want to see practised is that I can speak on their behalf about their concerns about when and how we leave the EU without being labelled as a remoaner, a reverser, unpatriotic or undemocratic. Democracy is about the right to debate freely and voice an opinion without being labelled or bullied. If we truly want to achieve the best for our country, we need to be able to discuss all outcomes freely, including that people—leavers or remainers—can change their mind.
The Bill adds another level of madness to the Brexit process, betraying not only those who voted remain, but those who chose to leave. One of the leave campaign’s strongest arguments was about taking back control here in Westminster, but instead of giving control back to this Parliament, which the leave campaign championed, the Bill is a power grab by Ministers. One of my constituents said to me:
“When people voted to leave the European Union, they didn’t vote to swap backroom deals in Brussels for more of the same in Whitehall. They voted for Parliament and the British people to have more of a say.”
As the MP for Bath, I will fight this attack on our democracy. I will not sit idly by as this Government try to erode our rights and change our laws behind closed doors. How can anybody support this Bill? My only conclusion is that those who support it want their version of Brexit at any cost, including democracy. Come on, let us stand up for democracy and stop this flawed Bill in its tracks. I dare say that the will of the people will be right behind us.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I have been in the House since 2001 and have, I dare say, manufactured a fair amount of indignation about the legislation of previous Governments, but things are different today. I respect the Opposition’s arguments—they are absolutely right to raise them, and their concerns are valid and should be considered—but we are in the middle of a negotiation and my constituents constantly ask me, “What is going to happen?” We, as a country, are being pitted against our former partners in a negotiation and if it goes wrong, that will cost us billions of pounds and deny us access to markets. This is not the time for us to be dancing on the head of a pin about the details of delegated legislation. How many delegated legislation Committees have hon. Members sat through? Members will know about the countless rubber-stamping of EU directives. I have seen it myself, and the worst one was the directive about alternative investments. The impact assessment stated that it had a bill of £8 billion, but neither Front-Bench team seemed to think it at all important. Delegated legislation has been going wrong for decades. I will accept that the Bill may not be perfect, but it is right that we pull together at a moment like this—mid-negotiation—because there will be chances to put this Bill right in Committee.
I rather agreed with the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) when she said that our constituents do not want to swap faceless bureaucrats in Europe for faceless bureaucrats in Whitehall, but they are not doing that; our bureaucrats have faces. We know who they are, and they are accountable to us.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
As a former editor, may I suggest that the Brexit Secretary sits down over the recess in a dark or light room with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and the right hon. and learned Members for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) to produce something that will go through the House more quickly and with more unity than this Bill?
Bill Wiggin
I rather hope that the Brexit Secretary will concentrate on negotiating our departure rather than on sitting in darkened rooms, or perhaps that is what he is doing—who knows?
Returning to the main thrust of what is going on, we need a unified, sensible piece of legislation, and we must support the Government, get the legislation through and then sort out our differences. Support for the sake of it is wrong, but it is absolutely the right thing at this particular time and at this particular stage in the legislation. It is what our constituents want and expect.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman makes light of the rights of each of us, of our constituents and, indeed, of EU nationals when he says that we are dancing on the head of a pin if we do not allow the legislation to go through tonight.
Bill Wiggin
No, I do not think so. Delegated legislation is always difficult. There are so many statutory instruments to get through, but that has been true ever since I have been here. We have had countless pieces of rubber-stamping. However, I have taken great comfort from the Front-Bench team saying that there is a sunset clause and that the spirit of the law will not be changed. I appeal to the Labour voters in North Herefordshire. They were very few in the past, but their number has grown recently. They did not manage to mention the Leader of the Opposition at any stage during the election, but they are decent, patriotic people and they want to see our country winning, not bickering among ourselves. Please support this critical piece of legislation, but if hon. Members cannot support it, please abstain.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I will be voting against the Bill tonight because it is a thoroughly bad piece of legislation. It is unprecedented in the powers it gives to Ministers, it fails to guarantee all the rights and protections currently enjoyed by individuals and businesses in the UK, and it paves the way for a Minister to sit behind a desk in Whitehall and take us out of the single market with the stroke of a pen.
On the most important issue facing this country—our continued membership of the single market—the Bill could mean no direct vote in Parliament, no say for MPs and no voice for our constituents. When we talk about a power grab, it does not get much bigger than that.
I say this to Ministers: should the Bill pass its Second Reading tonight, I will table amendments to ensure that it is Parliament, not Ministers, that determines whether we come out of the European economic area. As currently drafted, the Bill repeals the European Economic Area Act 1993, the law that incorporates the EEA agreement into British law.
The European economic area, as all hon. Members will know, contains the countries of the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. The EEA is a way to stay in the single market while being outside the EU; it is a way to maintain ease of trade while being outside the jurisdiction of the ECJ. I may prefer to stay in the single market by remaining in the EU, but that horse has bolted. I am a realist, and I recognise the result of the referendum, but I will not hand over all the cards to Ministers to determine how we leave.
The repeal of the EEA Act in part 2 of schedule 8 and the provisions set out in clause 8 are likely to be used by Ministers to claim they have parliamentary authority to notify other contracting parties to the EEA agreement of the UK’s intention to leave the single market. Ministers could claim the Bill authorises them to make a written withdrawal notification, in line with article 127 of the EEA agreement, despite that not being in the Bill. That is not good enough. Just as we had an Act of Parliament to trigger article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, we should have an Act of Parliament to trigger article 127 of the EEA agreement.
The EU and the EEA are two different things governed by two different agreements. Surely the withdrawal of the UK from an international agreement, not least one that could hold the key to our continued membership of the single market, should be a decision for every Member of this House. Irrespective of whether we believe the country should be out of the single market, in it for a transitional period or in it indefinitely, how can that not be a decision for this Parliament? It was not decided in the referendum last year. The words “single market” were not on the ballot paper. Anyone who claims that they were is simply interpreting the referendum’s outcome.
Let us not forget that when the Prime Minister put her extreme Brexit plan to the electorate this year, she could not win a majority. The idea that we allow this Bill to fudge it, and that we leave it to Ministers to decide our fate without recourse to Parliament, would be a democratic disgrace of the highest order.
Our continued membership of the single market, along with our ability to stay in the European customs union, is the most important issue for our country. It is about jobs and trade, but it is also about tackling austerity and investing in our schools and hospitals. If we crash the economy on the altar of concerns about immigration and sovereignty, our public finances will be hit and the cuts of the last seven years will pale into insignificance.
I understand Ministers’ desire to create a functioning statute book, but I want a functioning economy and a functioning democracy as well. I am not prepared to cede major decisions on our country’s future to the Prime Minister, her three musketeers and whoever comes after them. I am not prepared to let a hard-line Tory obsession with immigration determine our future prosperity. And I am definitely not prepared to legislate to exclude myself and, for that matter, every other Member of the House from having our say on behalf of our constituents.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I welcome the Second Reading of this Bill, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander).
My constituency voted decisively to leave the European Union, and I am determined that the process of leaving the EU gives the people of west Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly the certainty, continuity and control that this Bill accomplishes. When they voted to leave the EU, the good people of west Cornwall did not expect this House to implement their decision chaotically. Instead, they voted for a smooth exit from the EU, with the ultimate goal being that Parliament would take back control of UK laws. The Bill is an important and necessary step towards that goal and will ensure that the statute book does not contain huge gaps after Brexit.
Perhaps reflecting the momentousness of the Bill, I have had a great deal of correspondence from concerned constituents who are anxious that it might side-line democracy. I understand why people are concerned. People voted to take back control, which, to be faithful to democracy, means bringing back control to a sovereign Parliament, not to Government in Whitehall.
However, there is a need to strike the right balance. People’s concerns about the use of so-called Henry VIII powers are well articulated and sincere but, given the breadth and volume of European legislation that will have to be transferred into British law, I do not see any other practical solution. It is vital that businesses in my constituency, most of which are small, local enterprises, have certainty on the Brexit process and beyond. I hope the Bill will give them that certainty and foster a smooth transition back to UK control. It is important that we prevent a cliff-edge Brexit by providing continuity in our laws after exit day.
I agree that the Bill must not simply hand Ministers and their civil servants the freedom to do as they please with future legislation and reform of existing legislation. I recognise that the intent of the Bill is to make a success of Brexit, but there is a need for proper scrutiny. In their defence, Ministers have made it clear that powers taken by Government through the Bill are time-limited. I therefore look forward to the opportunity in Committee for Members on both sides of the House, including me, to hold Ministers to account.
I welcome that the Bill will, in time, restore to Parliament full responsibility for UK legislation for the first time in several decades, which is something that my constituents and the nation were in favour of when they voted to leave the EU. In the furore surrounding the unusual powers being taken by Ministers through this Bill, however, scant attention has been paid to one of its key positive objectives: greater devolution. I hope that can be swiftly rectified, as it is likely to be one of the most valuable aspects of our leaving the EU to my constituents and the people of Cornwall.
If the devolution benefits of Brexit are to be felt in my constituency, devolution needs to reach beyond just the borders of the devolved nations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We must seize the opportunity to devolve power ever closer to the people of the UK. Greater devolution would help to build on the success of existing devolution arrangements, such as the 2015 Cornwall devolution deal. It will enable us, as a nation, to tackle issues better locally. Cornwall should no longer have to accept its low-wage economy. Our low wages harm people’s ability to access the housing they need; encourage an exodus of young people, as they seek well-paid jobs elsewhere; reduce the money that people have to spend in our town centres; and hamper efforts to provide well-resourced community facilities and services.
Leading on from that, does the Minister welcome that local authorities are rising to the challenge following the referendum result? Local authorities want to address these problems. Cornwall Council, for example, set up the Cornwall futures group after the referendum to look at the opportunities and benefits our exit will bring to Cornwall and Scilly specifically. That work includes considering areas of legislation that the council would like to see passported down to Cornwall and tailored to meet local demographic and geographic demands, such as the ability to strengthen water quality on our beaches, fishing policy for our unique mixed fishery in the south-west and other environmental legislation. Getting back this control is perhaps why so many Cornish people voted to leave the EU last year.
In summary, this Bill is the only game in town if we want to achieve a smooth Brexit in March 2019 and ensure that the electorate and businesses have confidence in Great Britain’s future. However, I would like to hear how and when Ministers intend to ensure we have a full parliamentary process when deciding future UK laws, and what aspirations Ministers have on devolving further powers to regions and counties such as Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. I know my constituents would like to know what kind of legislation will be decided closer to home.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
I, too, will vote against the Bill this evening, and I bring to bear two aspects of my experience in this House on my assessment of the Bill as being profoundly undemocratic and something that this House should reject. In recent years, I have served on a number of Bill Committees, and every Bill has contained centralising measures that take powers away from Parliament, or from a range of agencies, and give them to the Secretary of State. This Government, like the one before, are profoundly centralising, and Parliament should be very worried about the measures in the Bill. I also had the great misfortune to serve on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for five years, so I know how outrageous it is that the Government are using statutory instruments in the way they are in the Bill. The negative procedure, used a great deal in this legislation, is particularly inappropriate in terms of giving Parliament the oversight it needs over how we Brexit.
Not only does the Bill give far-reaching powers to Ministers without meaningful parliamentary scrutiny, but it allows for rights and protections to be reduced or removed through secondary legislation without any meaningful scrutiny; it fails to provide certainty that rights and protections will be enforced as effectively in the future; it provides no mechanism for ensuring that the UK does not lag behind the EU in workplace protections; and, crucially, it prevents the UK from implementing strong transitional arrangements on the same basic terms that we currently enjoy—arrangements that include remaining in the customs union and in the single market. I will say more about that in a moment or two.
From equality laws protecting women, minorities and disabled people from discrimination to workers’ rights and key health and safety provisions, the rights secured through British EU membership have greatly benefited everyone in our country. We should also not forget the proactive role of the European Court of Justice in improving workers’ rights in Europe, on matters ranging from decisions on equal pay for equal work to the pension rights of part-time workers. Equally, the EU’s environmental protections, based on the principles of prevention and precaution, such as the incredibly successful bathing water directive and the common water framework, have had an important positive influence on our environment. They need to be protected by this House and this Parliament, and not left to the whims of Ministers.
It is also important that this House is able to have a say on whether we adopt transitional arrangements and on what they are. That is particularly important in terms of the customs union and the single market, which are vital to my constituency in the north-east. Some 60% of our exports are sold to the EU, and the north-east is the only region in England to export more goods and services than it imports. Trade with the EU has delivered more than 100,000 jobs in the region—that is approximately 8.4% of the workforce. Research by the TUC has found that there are 2,500 workers from EU countries in health and adult social care in the north-east alone, so we have great concerns about what is going to happen to that workforce post-Brexit.
It is also crucial for us to maintain continuity on services sector trade, as half of north-east services exports are traded with the EU. It is therefore not surprising that two thirds of north-east businesses wish to see a transitional period lasting for three years or more, but this is not addressed in any way in the Bill. Sarah Glendinning, the CBI’s regional director in the north-east, has said:
“Europe remains the UK’s biggest export market by some distance, so it’s little wonder that businesses here in the North East see maintaining access to the market of our nearest neighbours as a priority.”
Perhaps Ministers would like to say something this evening about how they will address those concerns.
The north-east also receives more EU funding per capita than most other regions; we receive more than double the national average, through the EU structural and investment funds, the European social fund and the JEREMIE—Joint European Resources for Micro to Medium Enterprises—programme, to give just a few examples. I also want to hear from Ministers what they will do, through this Bill, to ensure that the money that the north-east gets from the EU will be maintained or increased. We are debating a really important matter for the north-east; Ministers must address the concerns they are hearing from Opposition Members and bring in proper measures that are truly democratic.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
This is the second day on which I have sat listening to many good speeches on this topic, but I cannot help but feel that during some of them, irony sits heavily in the air; we have heard about “scrutiny”, “democracy”, “democracy of the people” and “functioning democracy”, but where has democracy been for the past 44 years? Where has it gone over those 44 years? It has gone into the powers of a bunch of unelected Commissioners who tell us what to do.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that none of those who are criticising the points he is making have brought forward, in the years I have been in this House, a reform of the process they now so wish to cling to?
Richard Drax
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will come to that very point.
Richard Drax
I will not give way again, because many other Members wish to speak. However, I shall address that point later, because I served on the European Scrutiny Committee in the last Parliament.
From listening to the speeches, one would think that this country, Great Britain, was incapable of passing laws. What on earth is wrong with this great place, which we are selected to represent—our country? We are talking about one of the biggest honours: becoming an MP and representing our constituents. We used to make all the rules and regulations that our constituents lived under. Hon. Members may recall that we joined the EU for free trade, which everyone said was a jolly good idea—and it was. Unfortunately, the bureaucrats have taken over the running of that good idea, and if we can go back to that idea by leaving the EU, as I hope we can, I believe our constituents will be forever grateful.
This Bill is not a power grab, as the Opposition claim. The way they are going to vote is a smokescreen; it is a politically cynical move to destabilise this Government—that is all it is. It is an opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition, God forbid, to become Prime Minister of this country. What we are doing here is repatriating thousands of regulations into our jurisdiction, thousands of which have been imposed on us over the past 40 years. We can review them; that is our job—we review legislation. If we do not like it, we will get rid of it. If we have a majority, we will vote it out. If we like it, we will keep it. If we are not sure, we will amend it. What might be right for a European country—for the French or the Germans—might not be right for us.
Because of the sheer number of regulations, some will have to be delegated. Everyone is making a noise about delegated legislation, but both main parties have used delegated legislation for years—it is part of how this place works. Some Government Members have suggested some sort of triage process to assess what should be dealt with through delegated legislation and what should be taken on the Floor of the House. If I recall correctly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State listened to them and said that he would think about that. I am sure that those who want there to be a decision-making process for what should and should not be delegated will have a say in Committee.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) made a point about the silence that has reigned for so many years. I served on the European Scrutiny Committee under the excellent chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who is sitting just in front of me. For years—for many more years than me and probably most people in this House—he has scrutinised EU legislation. In the short time for which I served on the Committee, we tried to get important issues—not least the future of our ports—debated on the Floor of the House, so that we could all listen to the sense, or lack thereof, of EU legislation and decide whether what was appropriate for Europe was appropriate for us. Those debates never happened.
Richard Drax
As my hon. Friend says, even if those debates had happened, the legislation could not have been changed. Where were all these loud voices? Where were you all over the past 40 years? Why did you not question what was being imposed on our country and our constituents? Where were you?
Richard Drax
No, I will not give way—absolutely not! I do not have time and I am enjoying myself. I am representing my constituents and my country. I am speaking up, at last, for Great Britain, and not for a bureaucracy that is going horribly wrong. The great thing is that when the Bill returns to the House, we can scrutinise it—we can do our job. That is what we are here for.
The Scottish National party wants independence and to rejoin the EU. The EU would nail Scotland to the floor if ever it got the so-called independence that the SNP desires. SNP Members would rue the day, as they headed to economic ruin, trapped in the euro—if indeed the EU let Scotland have it.
The Bill is good for our country. Ministers have not got it all right; I would be the first to concede that, and I am sure they would concede it, too. It can be debated and changed in Committee—of that I am certain—but a vote against the Bill tonight is a cynical ploy that our constituents, who sent us to the House, will not accept. I shall vote with the Government.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The Bill provides dangerous and sweeping powers to Ministers, rides roughshod through the devolution settlements, removes important legal protections and creates legal uncertainty, so, like most Opposition Members, I will definitely vote against Second Reading tonight.
Lots has already been said about the extraordinary proposed powers for Ministers in various Henry VIII clauses, to which the response has generally been, “Such clauses are already common”. It is true that they are far, far too common, but that does not mean that we should throw caution to the wind and hand them out like confetti. We should be fighting back against Henry VIII clauses, not handing out some of the most wide-ranging and dangerous-in-scope examples, as proposed in the Bill.
On the face of it, the proposed powers are so broad that Ministers could use Henry VIII powers to remove the very limits that are supposed to constrain their exercise, including the sunset clauses, and they are so wide that it is anticipated in the Bill that the Henry VIII powers will be used to create—guess what?—yet more Henry VIII powers!
Sir Oliver Letwin
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me on the point that was discussed with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—namely, that the amendments of which he speaks could occur only after an affirmative resolution of the House?
Stuart C. McDonald
I do not necessarily agree with the right hon. Gentleman, nor do I have faith that even the affirmative procedure is necessarily a proper safeguard against wide-ranging powers such as those in the Bill. Such power does not belong in a Henry VIII clause at all.
Limits could be placed on the powers in the Bill at later stages. We could perhaps restrict which matters could be dealt with by delegated legislation, list further protected enactments, and define key terms such as “deficiencies”, or introduce a test of necessity, rather than rely on subjective ministerial judgment, and thereby improve the Bill. If it is to proceed, that must happen. But none of that would resolve the fundamental challenge of how we parliamentarians are supposed to play a substantial role in the whole process, beyond the usual inadequate procedures for scrutinising secondary legislation. Other Members have gallantly suggested alternative mechanisms—for example, some sort of filter—but to my mind they have been far too modest. At the very least, we need a procedure that allows us to table amendments to regulations, rather than meekly accepting take-it-or-leave-it, all-or-nothing proposals from the Government.
We are more than 13 months on from the referendum. Transposing EU law into UK law was always going to be a monumental task. The Government’s assuming that we could just use the same old procedures we always use was either negligence, complacency, arrogance, or a mixture of all three. Such procedures are not fit for the normal business of this House, never mind for the vital task that lies ahead.
With respect to the devolved competencies, the Bill rides roughshod over the devolution settlements. Can you imagine, Mr Speaker, the federal Governments of Germany or the USA—or of lots of other federal places—attempting such a unilateral power grab? It would be greeted with outrage, and rightly so.
Stephen Kerr
I shall try again with the question I asked earlier. The hon. Gentleman talks about power grabs and the trashing of the devolution settlement, but can he tell me one power that the UK Government intend to grab back from Holyrood?
Stuart C. McDonald
Had the hon. Gentleman listened to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) earlier, he would have heard him mention agriculture, the environment and fishing. If he bears with me, I shall come to that point in just a moment.
The Länder and the individual states of the United States are lucky that they are protected by a proper constitution; it seems that all our devolved nations are protected by is the Government’s mood and political pressure. It is a salient reminder that power devolved is power retained and of just how fragile the devolution settlement is.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), can we imagine the response if the Bill sought to do to this Parliament what it would do to the devolved legislatures? If the Bill’s purpose was to take back control, but then to prevent Parliament from changing retained EU law, it would have been laughed at and considered utterly unacceptable, but that is exactly what it will do to the devolved legislatures. It is completely unacceptable for the exact same reasons. We have heard some patronising arguments from Government Members, one of whom essentially argued that the UK Government need to take control of the powers for now to protect citizens in the devolved countries from their democratically elected Governments. We are more than capable of handling powers; we have done so since devolution, and we will continue to do so after Brexit.
If anything good has come of the Bill, it is its highlighting of the significant failings in the House’s procedures for the scrutiny of the ever-increasing number of Executive powers to which successive Governments have helped themselves. It also highlights the utterly centralised nature of the British constitution, which is as far away from a mature federal model as it could ever be. There are almost no proper constraints to rein in Executive power, or proper legal safeguards for important rights. The idea that the Bill is part of a restoration of Parliamentary sovereignty is nonsense; it will simply mean that parliamentary sovereignty and, more significantly, Executive power are more unfettered than ever.
Perhaps membership of the EU, and the protections that that has provided through the charter of fundamental rights and other provisions, has led to complacency about the dangers of untrammelled parliamentary sovereignty, and the problems of the elective dictatorship once identified by Lord Hailsham. Now that the EU’s safety nets are being removed, all of us who believe in constitutionalism need to look again at where the UK goes from here. This Bill is certainly not the answer, which is why I will vote against Second Reading tonight.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Today and last Thursday, a number of speakers on both sides of the House stated that this Bill is not about whether we leave the EU, but about how. That should be something on which we can all agree, although today we have heard speeches from those who clearly take a different position. For example, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) made it absolutely clear that he was fighting against leaving the EU at all. The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) made an equally passionate speech, saying that she was voting to stay in the European economic area, and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) started his speech by stating that he would not vote for the Bill this evening, and then looked for reasons as to why he would not do so, which is broadly the position of almost all his colleagues.
If we look at the Bill objectively, surely everybody can agree that we are where we are, and that we must have arrangements in place that suit every organisation in this country, including the prospect of knowing what the law of the land is at the end of March 2019.
Richard Graham
I am tempted to give way, but I will not because are so many other people wish to speak. Will the hon. Lady forgive me?
Richard Graham
It is all about what the process will be. Interestingly, some of us have had the chance to look at a House of Lords report, which recommended some elements that this Bill should include. The report made it absolutely clear that delegated powers will be necessary in some cases, because the sheer volume of legislation needed—some 12,000 pieces of legislation—means that unless we use those powers effectively, the job will simply not be done in time.
The House of Lords Constitution Committee, which is not known to be a warm friend of this Government, made two specific recommendations. It recommended that
“a general provision be placed on the face of the Bill to the effect that the delegated powers granted by the Bill should be used only: so far as necessary to adapt the body of EU law to fit the UK’s domestic legal framework; and so far as necessary to implement the result of the UK’s negotiations with the EU.”
When the Secretary of State introduced the Bill on Thursday, he made it absolutely clear that that was broadly what the Government hoped to achieve. He went further and specified what the legislation would not be about. He made it clear that the powers in clause 9 would be for only two years and that they would make “technical and legal corrections” to deficiencies in the law. He also made it clear that Ministers will not have the power to make major policy changes and that changes will still be subject to parliamentary scrutiny and oversight.
Several Members, mostly on the Opposition Benches, have questioned the definition of significant, what restraint there will be on the Government when deciding what is and what is not important, and what constitute technical and legal corrections. Therefore, there has been a debate, with Members on both sides of the House offering suggestions as to how things can be improved. The Secretary of State has said that he is in listening mode and that he is happy to talk about mechanisms for making sure that the process is fully democratic and open. All that is encouraging and in tune with what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) referred to on Thursday during his important contribution to the debate. In particular, he said that it is important
“to have an established parliamentary system of scrutiny to ensure that the different types of statutory instruments that will be needed are correctly farmed out. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend”—
the Secretary of State—
“is right that the vast majority of them will be technical and of very little account, but some will be extremely important and will need to be taken on the Floor of the House. We need to have a system in place to do that.”—[Official Report, 7 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 407.]
My right hon. and learned Friend did not recommend a specific system, but it seems relevant to suggest here that we already have what is, effectively, a body for precisely this task: the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. We also have a different model, or possibly an additional one. I am talking about what the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is obliged to go through as a statutory requirement: the Social Security Advisory Committee. Some of us believe that we could use a combination of both those bodies. We could use an advisory committee to provide the technical analysis of proposed changes, and the Joint Committee to go through them and approve or disapprove the recommendations.
Richard Graham
I am so sorry, but I will not give way.
That body would provide the necessary oversight that Members on both sides of the House, but particularly Opposition Members, are looking for to try to ensure that the right checks and balances are in place—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) mentioned—and we have the right use of statutory instruments—
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I will vote against the Bill tonight, for the slightly quaint reason that that is what I told my constituents I would do back in June —that is partly why I have been sent here—and for other reasons, some of which we have heard from Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) mentioned the House of Lords Constitution Committee. Coming from Cambridge, I had the privilege on Friday of spending an hour talking to the highly respected Professor Mark Elliott, who advises that Committee. He said:
“The fact that the central aim of the Bill—that is preserving EU law post exit—is a necessary one does not place the Bill beyond criticism.”
He went on:
“The Bill in its present form is profoundly problematic in legal and constitutional terms. It is an affront to parliamentary sovereignty. It eviscerates the separation of powers principle and it risks destabilising the UK’s increasingly fragile territorial constitution.”
He says an “affront to parliamentary sovereignty”, but what does he know? He is just the leading expert on the issue.
I will also vote against the Bill for another reason, which has not been stated loudly enough in this debate, except by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). It is increasingly said in parts of the country that we should not withdraw from the European Union at all, because it is not in our national interest to do so. I fully understand that opprobrium will probably be heaped on me for saying that, but, actually, I am only stating the obvious. As the farcical non-negotiations continue to fail to proceed, it is clearer and clearer that the most likely outcome is a last-minute fudge that will satisfy no one. It is also clear that, at the end, the choices open to us must include the possibility that all the alternatives on offer are worse than staying in, and that is putting it at its most negative. We should negotiate on the key issue that we all know is at the heart of this, which is migration, and securing the changes that would satisfy the concerns of many who voted leave, without doing the undoubted economic damage that we risk by continuing on this path.
To those who say that the decision was made more than a year ago, I say that the world has changed. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) so powerfully said, we have all been through a general election. The Prime Minister went to the country, demanding a mandate, and we know what happened—she did not get it.
The wider world has changed as well. A year ago, it could have been plausibly argued that we could negotiate reliable, mutually beneficial trade deals with the United States in a way that now seems wholly unlikely when that country is governed by such an unpredictable and difficult President. In the rest of the world, we see China becoming more authoritarian, Russia hardly more helpful and North Korea a real threat. In a world that seems so increasingly volatile, whom should we look to in times of need? Our wisest option would be our European neighbours, who increasingly look like the most sensible major players. What a foolish path to be embarking on in such dangerous times.
I will not support the Bill, but I would like to make one comment about one of the more detailed provisions that profoundly concerns me. On Thursday, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) explained very eloquently the danger of leaving the charter of fundamental rights. In particular, he mentioned the consequences of not including the clause relating to the protection of personal data. As he rightly said, there is a danger that we will struggle to achieve a data adequacy agreement, which in turn would have severe consequences for UK businesses and data users. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), speaking from the Government Benches, made a similar point this afternoon. But it goes further than that, because securing an adequacy agreement depends not just on the ability to use article 8, but on the perception on the part of our neighbours that the UK is not prepared to diminish data privacy, because in the end this will be a political decision, and it will give others the opportunity to say that we are weakening our position, making it easier for them to deny us that vital adequacy agreement.
That is one of the many detailed points that could be made. I fear that we are in danger of sleepwalking into a calamity. Our task as Members of this Parliament is to look into our consciences and reflect on the best way forward for our country. I suspect that there are many in this Chamber who will vote for the Bill tonight who know in their heart of hearts that we are on the wrong path. Let us try and find a way back.
Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)
Let us cut through the political smoke and mirrors that we have heard in this debate and be clear about what the Bill actually sets out to do. On the day the UK leaves the EU, we need to be ready and prepared to take back control of all the laws and regulations that for the last 40 years have been entirely controlled by Brussels. This Bill enables us to carry out the express will of the people, following through on their instruction to end our membership of the EU. To oppose the Bill now is to oppose that fundamental principle and constitutes an act of betrayal against the referendum result and the will of the people, who we trusted to make the decision on our EU membership.
I am in no way surprised that SNP Members want to use the Bill to thwart Brexit. True to their nationalist politics, the SNP hailed the votes of 1.6 million Scots as meaning that Scotland voted remain—they were Scotland’s voice. Meanwhile, the votes of over 1 million Scots were simply airbrushed out of the picture altogether. Members of this House might not be aware that 400,000 of those leave voters in Scotland were SNP supporters. Following the recent logic of Scotland’s own Brexit Minister, Mike Russell, in evidence to committee, the 400,000 SNP leave voters, not to mention SNP leave MSPs, are somehow hostile to devolution. On the day that we mark the 20th anniversary of the referendum to create the Scottish Parliament, Mr Russell’s remarks are yet another incredible attack, although this arrogant dismissal of the 1 million Scottish leave voters follows an SNP pattern of trying to portray them as simply not existing.
Leaving the EU will make Scotland’s Parliament inherently more powerful, with new powers over areas that the EU currently legislates in. Not only does the SNP position on new powers show how truly brass its neck is; it shows the shameless depths of scaremongering that the SNP will delve into to play constitutional tricks, fuelled by their politics of division. By voting against the Bill, the SNP will vote against more powers for Holyrood and against Nicola Sturgeon and her Government’s making more decisions in Scotland. Though, to be fair, I cannot blame Nicola’s Westminster colleagues for not wanting more powers for Scotland, given the Scottish Government’s dreadful performance on education, health and the economy, after nearly a decade in power. Given that track record, I can see why those on the SNP Benches are feart to give Nicola Sturgeon more power. Naturally, they want to hold on to their seats here.
I listened to the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) on Monday railing about how the people of Scotland are sovereign and that that needs to be protected against some imaginary Westminster power grab. Where was the SNP’s belief in sovereignty over the last 40 years, when laws were imposed on the people of Scotland by the EU without debate in this place or, in the last 20 years, in Holyrood? No option for debate, no option to amend, no option even to reject—where was the SNP’s concern for sovereignty then? Given that the SNP still wants the EU to retain those powers, its current argument is simply absurd. This Bill delivers our exit from the EU and it will make Scotland’s Parliament stronger. The decision that the SNP faces is: will it be stronger for Scotland or will it maintain its stance of being only stronger for Brussels?
Finally, for all those seeking to block the Bill, let us be absolutely clear. In frustrating the process, they are dismissing the voice of the public by not carrying out their instruction, and in doing so, they serve only to feed the voter disaffection with the democratic process and their distrust in politicians. There is more debate and argument to come in this place, and rightly so. However, at this stage Parliament should be uniting on the principle of this Bill. I urge Members to support it.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
Let me start by giving some context to this EU withdrawal Bill. Just a few months ago, the Prime Minister went to the country. What was the purpose of going to the country? It was because she wanted a bigger mandate, given the ups and downs to come over Brexit. Let us remind the Government what happened in that election. Did they win? Did they increase their majority? No, they did not. They lost seats and their majority went. With this Bill—and, indeed, tomorrow’s proposed Committee changes—we have a Government believing they have a mandate to act as though they had won the election and their views had been endorsed by the British people.
A Government who were offering true leadership to the country would now be saying, “We recognise the closeness of the referendum and we will respect the result, but our country, which we seek to govern, is divided. Our people are divided”—we heard some of that just before I spoke. A Government showing true leadership would seek to bring the country together and say to people, “We have to find a way through.” But what has the Government’s starting point been for this? Their starting point has been, “How do we get this EU withdrawal Bill through Parliament, given that we don’t have a majority?” We now see this Bill constituted in the way that is, with respect to SIs and the grabbing of power.
Let me be clear: my constituency voted to leave—I respect that—but what my constituents did not vote for was leaving at any cost to jobs, business, workers’ rights, the environment, welfare or the unity of our country. I have absolutely no problem going back and arguing to my constituents that, yes, I respect what people said and how they voted, but also saying, “I cannot, as your representative, stand up in this Parliament and say that what is on offer from the Government in this EU withdrawal Bill will be of benefit to you and your family.” This is not about trying to ignore the will of the people; it is about trying to give expression to it in a way that works—not to block Brexit, but to get the best for it.
We have only limited time today, and some of these further debates will obviously happen in Committee, but let me just say one thing to the Government. We have heard calls for amendments but, in many respects, the whole Bill needs to be rewritten. Clauses 7, 8, 9 and 17 give the Government huge powers. Indeed—this is absolutely astonishing, and I have never seen it, although a constitutional expert would no doubt tell me that it has happened before—the Government are giving themselves secondary legislative powers not only to deal with many of the things that may arise, but to modify the primary legislation itself. This legislation could be modified by a Government-stacked Committee on the basis that it was not working. It is unheard of; it is an affront to our democracy and to the way this Parliament works. It is not what people who voted leave voted for, and nor is it something I believe the people of this country would want to see.
Ministers should not take my word for it. In its interim report, the House of Lords Constitution Committee absolutely lambasted the Government for using its original report to say that the Committee supported the Government’s use of statutory instruments. Let me read the summary conclusion of the interim report, which was published on 7 September, just a week ago:
“Overall, we conclude that the Bill is highly complex and convoluted in its drafting and structure. This is not to deny that it must inevitably grapple with a set of difficult legal issues. But it is a source of considerable regret that the Bill is drafted in a way that renders scrutiny very difficult, and that multiple and fundamental constitutional questions are left unanswered. We will consider all of these issues in greater detail in our forthcoming inquiry on the Bill.”
What an absolute lambasting and castigation of the Government’s position by a cross-Bench, cross-party House of Lords Select Committee. Ministers will have to respond to that report by actually taking account of it.
I will finish where I started: a Government showing true leadership would seek to bring the people together, would seek to bring this Parliament together and would seek to bring the country together. Instead, we have a Government who are dividing everyone.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
Well, there is a coming together, because earlier today I heard the speech made by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who has a completely different political philosophy from me, and I agreed very much with what she said. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who has a completely different view from me on Europe, spoke very powerfully about the need for magnanimity.
The reality is that this piece of legislation is necessary to give the Government the tools to avoid the disastrous consequence of crashing out of the EU without the appropriate rules and regulations in place. It is quite ironic that those who spent 40 years fighting the EU are now leading the charge for the single largest codification of EU law in our country’s history. However, that is not a reason to vote against the Bill; in fact, it may well be a reason to vote for it, because it will put into UK law some of the rights and privileges we have enjoyed because of our membership of the European Union, and I want as many of those rights and privileges as possible to come into UK law.
I campaigned for remain, but I voted to trigger article 50 earlier this year, as I felt it was right to do in the interests of our democracy. The crux of the leave vote was about taking back control, but I agree with many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House that it was about taking back control into this House and this Parliament, not transferring extensive powers to Ministers. The Bill in its current form, particularly clause 7, is an unacceptable attempt by the Government to demean the role of Parliament. If Members of this House are to vote in favour of a Bill that delegates powers to Ministers, those powers must be much more tightly defined, with parliamentary scrutiny allowed for. While I recognise the importance of ensuring that the process is as smooth as possible on exit day and in the ensuing weeks, Parliament must retain oversight of the process.
Previously the Government did not intend to give Parliament a say on the final deal or, indeed, on article 50—the House certainly overwhelmingly endorsed article 50—and we now face a similar prospect of authority being pulled back from this House. How would that affect legislation around the nuclear industry, for example, which is inextricably linked with EU states and institutions? There is great anxiety about our ability to replicate the Euratom agreement and to make such arrangements in time. I recognise the inclusion of a nuclear safeguards Bill in the Queen’s Speech, but if a future Government saw requirements on the nuclear industry as restrictive, this Parliament would have no ability to hold that Executive and the replacement measures they introduced to account under the terms of this Bill.
I, too, took particular interest in the report by the House of Lords Constitution Committee, which said:
“We would expect that a statutory instrument which amends EU law in a manner that determines matters of significant policy interest or principle should undergo a strengthened scrutiny procedure.”
I would support that, and I was encouraged by the Secretary of State’s indication on Thursday that he would take account of sensible amendments tabled in this House.
I also have reservations about repealing the European Communities Act 1972 before we know what the transitional arrangements will look like. I am glad that the Government see the need for a smooth and orderly exit, but I see that as maintaining membership of the customs union, at the very least, until a comprehensive free trade deal is agreed. I am sceptical of voting to repeal the 1972 Act until we know the dynamics and practical workings of the transitional phase. Achieving such an agreement must be an urgent priority before we create legal risks and uncertainties in the manner that the Bill as currently drafted is in danger of doing.
One point that has been lacking in the debate is how all this is perceived in the EU. The future prosperity of our country heavily relies on what we are able to achieve throughout this negotiation process. The Government must be seen to be engaging with Parliament on a cross-party basis. That would give the aims and ambitions of the Secretary of State and his team far more credibility and clout as he negotiates with the other 27 EU nations.
I have some reservations about the time allocated to debate the Bill. I very much hope we will get the assurances asked for by many Members on both sides of the House about the possibility of having more time, if it is needed. I urge the Government to consider sensible amendments, but I ask others to please support the principle of the Bill and to allow this House to amend it.
Mr Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
I accept the result of the referendum even though, as a committed European, I fought vehemently on the remain side. Even though I believe that the leave campaign told a pack of lies, I still think that I am obliged to support the outcome of the referendum, which the leave side won by 52% to 48%—very close to the 53% to 47% result in my constituency. I did not like the result, but I respect it, so afterwards I voted for article 50. I have no regrets because, although I deplore the result, I accept it.
We need all these laws transposed into UK law en masse. I have no problem with that. The 12,000 regulations amassed over 44 years need to be in place so that the UK can continue to function normally. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) mentioned unelected officials making these decisions, and many other Members have talked about faceless bureaucrats, but as a former MEP who used to spend hours sitting on—in many cases extremely boring—committees, often late and into the morning, I can say that there has been a great deal of democratically elected input into many of those directives. When I was a member of the European Scrutiny Committee, I fully understood the toils of many elected politicians and what they would have been through when the directives finally arrived in this House for scrutiny. It seems a shame that a former member of the European Scrutiny Committee did not appreciate how those directives and regulations were made.
The sweeping and draconian powers introduced by the Bill are an affront to this Parliament and to democracy, with the Henry VIII powers and the Government’s taking control of powers that should be devolved to the devolved regions and Scotland. Many leavers talked about taking back control; this does not bring back control to the democratic Parliament, but gives it to a cobbled-together minority Government who thought that they would have a huge majority but have not. That minority Government seek overwhelming power when they are struggling in Brexit negotiations and want to make big changes to European laws that they have been complaining about for decades.
The scenario looks likely to be as follows. In 2019, the Government will either get no trade deal, a very bad one involving tariffs, or something akin to a WTO trade deal. The deal will be put to Parliament and the people, and people the length and breadth of the country will see that that deal is bad. I believe that the mood in this country will change from being 52% in favour of leaving to quite the reverse. A deal with the US, China and/or India will be embryonic, if not very distant, on the day before Brexit. EU law will then become UK law. The day after that, the Government will start doing what they have been threatening to do for generations—they will set about health and safety regulations, employment regulations, consumer law that protects citizens, and environmental regulations.
The scene is set for the UK to go backwards, with a hard Brexit meaning a huge problem with trade and prosperity. We will see a diminution of the rules, regulations and protections that the EU has brought to workers and consumers in this country. At the same time, business and trade will be hard hit. This is a recipe for disaster and an attack on workers, consumers and businesses up and down the country that deserve better.
This Government will go down in history as one who failed to deliver a successful Brexit, failed to compensate for what was lost through the trade and business they promised with other parts of the world, failed to protect our workers and consumers, and failed to protect the businesses that depend on them. I do not think that the public will forgive the Government; history certainly will not. I shall oppose the Bill.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this historic debate. It is getting late and a good many of the issues that need raising have been raised, but I would just like to return to a few of them.
I rise to support the Bill for one very good reason: it is the sort of Bill most of my constituents would like to see. They voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU and, like me, they want us to leave in as orderly a fashion as possible. The Bill ensures that we do not create legal black holes and therefore grand uncertainty for employers, employees and investors. It allows future Parliaments to amend all laws as they see fit and, in that sense, allows Parliament to become sovereign again. It is adaptable to the inevitable uncertainties of the Brexit process. The Bill achieves all that, and it is to the credit of the Government and of officials that they have managed to do it under tight time constraints.
There are some reasoned and principled objections to the Bill and to how it has been presented. It is clear that parts of the House will require guarantees over the so-called Henry VIII powers. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) mooted earlier, that might be possible if the Government set a legal limit on their ambitions. That said, we must not in our admirable quest for parliamentary scrutiny forget that this is a fiendishly complex transfer of legal powers the like of which this House has never seen. For that reason, we must afford the Government a degree of plasticity. We do not yet know how the final deal will turn out or when it will be available to the House. The Bill must be adaptable to permit that process to proceed as best it can and to allow for a multitude of outcomes.
Getting that give and take on particular clauses and powers will take time. If the House finds that it does not have enough time in Committee, it must have more. Call me boring, Mr Speaker, but I was a bit disappointed when the House did not sit past five on Thursday—it was very sad to see such big beasts manacled by a five-minute time constraint. I heard the Father of the House rightly pooh-pooh the Blairite family-friendly hours under which we labour. Family friendly? Is someone yanking my chain? Which of us in the Chamber today gets to put our children to bed of a night as it is? We should carry on sitting until our work is done; if we have to sit late, if we have to sit some Fridays, if we have to think about the length of recess, we must. The importance of getting the Bill right goes beyond those concerns. This is a job that requires sacrifice.
It is my firm belief that this Bill can be got right. I know that Members opposite feel the same, because in all the hours of debate that we have had none of them has been able to raise a serious reason why it should be voted down on Second Reading.
Mike Amesbury
This debate is about not if but how we leave the EU. I was elected to this House very recently to speak up for my constituents, not as a spectator. I want Parliament to take control, stand up for democracy and protect parliamentary sovereignty.
Alex Burghart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.
I know that Opposition Members feel the same as me, because they have not raised a single meaningful reason why the Bill should be voted down. As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) said on Thursday with a logician’s concision, to say that we will oppose the whole Bill because we disagree with a few clauses is a non-sequitur. If we go hunting for the sequitur, however, I believe that we can find it in the admirably principled intervention made by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) earlier. The truth is that if the Bill were to fail tonight it would be very difficult to bring it back. The Government would have to introduce a new Bill in a new Session, or this one would have to be reintroduced in a suitably different form so as not to fall foul of the same-question rules. In short, voting this Bill down runs the risk of having no Bill. It runs the risk of legal black holes, of terrible uncertainty, and of investor panic and economic shock. That is what the Opposition will be voting for tonight.
I will go further than that. The Opposition Front Benchers know full well that if they defeated the Government they would not stop there; they would try to bring the Government down. The Opposition wish to vote this Bill down tonight because they know that defeat on such a central piece of legislation might cause the Government to fall. That is their motivation—nothing more, nothing less. The shadow Secretary of State does not want the Government to go back to the drawing board, he wants the drawing board for himself. He says that he wants the article 50 process to succeed. I believe him, but I do not believe that he wants this Government to succeed in doing it. I believe that he will put the interests of his party above the interests of the country in that regard. If he succeeded in his aims, he would do so only after a period of terrible turbulence for the country and after a terrible loss of time—and time, right now, is a terribly precious commodity. He says that he sees this not as a great repeal Bill but as a great power-grab Bill. Well, that is certainly the purpose for which he intends to use it. He is accusing Government Members of that of which he is guilty. I ask him to do the honourable thing and to put his political ambitions on ice for the purposes of the vote tonight so that this House can move more quickly to a detailed discussion of the essential clauses within this Bill.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I will vote against this Bill tonight because I have listened to my constituents in Cardiff South and Penarth and because I am continuing to listen to them.
First, I want to praise the absolutely forensic examination of the Bill by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), and by the former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). I also praise some of the speeches that we have heard from Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) exposed the complexity of the Bill. Fair-minded comments have been made both by leavers and remainers on the Government Back Benches, including the hon. Members for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh).
I am afraid that this Bill is the latest chapter in a sorry few months for this tin-eared minority Government. We have seen—let us be frank about this—an utter shambles in the negotiations. That is the view of the public, 61% of whom think that the Government are mishandling the negotiations, and of business leaders, with FTSE leaders refusing to sign the letter that No. 10 was trying to hawk around them last week. [Interruption.] Indeed, where is that letter? They would not sign it.
We have seen a complete failure to make progress. Where are those trade deals we were promised a year ago? Where is the coming together that the Prime Minister promised us? Instead of her trying to find a consensus on this absolutely generationally significant decision, we are now seeing the ideological pursuit of a hard Brexit driven by the one group on her Benches who are keeping her hostage. We are offered the illusion of being told that we are taking back control when instead we are seeing a Government taking back control from the devolved Administrations of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, from this House, and indeed from the people.
This must be seen within a wider context—the vote on the Committees tomorrow, the delays in setting up the Select Committees, the programme motion to limit the time spent on this debate, the wider restrictions on judicial review, the charities Act muzzling organisations up and down this country, and the Trade Union Act 2016. This is all part of a similar agenda by the previous and present Governments to shut down democratic debate.
There are many wild claims about what the public want in these negotiations. Well, are we even asking them as we go along? The Government do not want to listen to Parliament or to the devolved Administrations. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and I, as co-operators in believing in co-operative structures where we listen to Members, have suggested setting up citizens’ juries on the negotiation process that would ask the public about the complexities of the negotiations as we go along, not just based on one decision made on a day in June last year. What are the Government so afraid of?
We have covered at great length in this debate the many problems with the Bill. I, too, am deeply unhappy with the Henry VIII powers. I would never trust giving those powers to a Government in any Bill, let alone a Bill of this seriousness that gives them the ability to amend it by statutory instrument, to control the exit day, or even to set up multiple exit days to string out the process to their advantage. I do not believe in giving them those sweeping powers.
Then there is the devolution power grab—the “naked power grab”, as First Minister Carwyn Jones put it. I am happy to work with those from the SNP and Plaid Cymru and others who will seek to defend the devolution settlement that we have all fought for over the past 20 years. The Government say, “Trust us on the devolution settlement”, but look at what they did with the Agricultural Wages Board in Wales. Look at what they are now saying they will do to undermine the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017, which the Welsh Government have just passed under their own powers. The Government want to undermine that, and they would seek to undermine the devolution settlement going forward.
We can see the loss of rights at the heart of the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) pointed to the example of the case involving LGBT pension rights. The former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, said that given how the Bill is currently drafted, those rights could evaporate because they would not be justiciable. The Trades Union Congress has today pointed out how the Bill will put workers’ rights at risk.
I have said much about the single market and the customs union. I do not think the Bill gets it right on the transition. We have to get that right—that is an absolute no-brainer for our businesses—but I want us to stay inside the single market and the customs union. I welcome the general secretary of the Trades Union Congress setting out the trade unions’ concerns about these issues today, just as businesses are repeatedly setting their deep fears out to me both in public and in private. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), I do not want to sacrifice jobs and businesses on the altar of ideology.
Where is the guarantee in the Bill about a final parliamentary vote on the deal before these powers are exercised? Again, the Government say, “Trust us”, but where is the guarantee in the Bill?
I have a much bigger problem with the Bill and the process around it. Democracy is a process, not an event. It is a great irony that those who have often claimed that they support and defend democracy and liberty, and have said that is the very reason why they are pursuing this Bill, at the same time want to restrict our democracy and liberties, and the liberties of this House, by setting deeply dangerous precedents that will echo down the decades to come. We should not simply preserve the binary decision of the referendum day in aspic, freeze it in ice and pray it in aid of every variety of hard Brexit that certain Conservative Members want to push ahead with. Where have those democrats gone—where have the original hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) and right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) gone? They smile wryly, but they know in their heart of hearts that this is not right. A majority may have voted to leave the EU in June last year, but I do not believe they voted to give up their democratic rights and their right to be heard on so many issues.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
As always, it is an honour to speak after the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty).
We are debating the Second Reading of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, and I will be supporting it, but of course it is only half the story. The Government quite rightly want a smooth exit in terms of the laws that we will have on day one after leaving the EU, but the other side is that we need a smooth transition into the state that we will be in after EU withdrawal. We are nowhere near that at the moment, and the Government need to do some rethinking.
As many people have said, this Bill needs improving. It is certainly not perfect. I will not go into the details, but clearly clauses 7 and 9 are going to need much more circumscription around their powers. In particular, with regard to clause 9, we need a reference to approval of the final deal by Parliament.
I agree with all the colleagues on both sides of the House who have talked about the need to have some kind of efficient mechanism for dealing with the vast volume of legislation that is going to come forward, whether it is called triage or some other such name. This House is going to have to get used to debating an awful lot of legislation in future. We rightly say that we are repatriating the discussion, debating and approval of legislation from Europe in future, but after we leave we will still have to take note of, and in some cases bring into our own law, European legislation. Otherwise, we will simply not be able to trade in certain extremely important areas such as financial services, to name but one.
Therefore, we might as well get used to such detailed scrutiny of legislation as we go through this Bill. That is why I believe that eight days may not be enough. I am prepared to vote for the programme motion, but I echo very many colleagues in saying that we may need to revise that if the Government see that there is not enough time to scrutinise the Bill within those eight days of eight hours each.
I cannot understand why the Government have decided to make an exception for the charter of fundamental rights in clause 5. If we are going to take over legislation in full and have a smooth exit, let us take it all over. If we want to revise it or get rid of it later, we have said that we will do that. There are many ways in which we can make the charter of fundamental rights fit for purpose. Indeed, I remember working closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to frustrate a previous Government’s attempts to pull out of a different Bill of Rights, the European convention on human rights, so I hope that he will have great sympathy with what I have to say.
Finally, let me return to the question of withdrawal. We are trying to leave in as smooth a way as possible, and we have to try to accede to the post-EU situation in as smooth a way as possible. I thought about this long and hard as a member of the Exiting the European Union Committee in the last Parliament; I am honoured to be on that Committee in this Parliament as well. I can see very little alternative to—in fact, I would welcome—accession to the European Free Trade Association. I think that that would be an extremely good and smooth way to transition out of the EU and into what we will have afterwards. The Government are rightly concerned about having a smooth exit with all the law in place when we leave, so they have an equal responsibility to ensure that our entry into the post EU membership situation is as smooth as possible. I urge them to make that their No. 1 priority, and to say that joining the EFTA, which has numerous forms of membership, is the best way.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate, and it is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). He gave a thoughtful and considered speech, the tone and content of which were extremely consensual and helpful. If I may say so, it would be nice if more Conservative Members gave similar speeches.
I accept the referendum result, and I am happy to vote for the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition tonight because it accepts the result as well. A majority of my constituents voted for Brexit, but more people have contacted me to raise concerns about the Bill—in particular, about the timetable and the potential impact on environmental legislation—than to tell me that they are happy with it.
At the beginning of the year, the Procedure Committee embarked on an inquiry into what was then known as the great repeal Bill. The inquiry was halted by the general election, but in April we published evidence and interim findings, and I want to share some of them with colleagues tonight. The potential in the Bill for the excessive use of delegated legislation is alarming. The Bill is not what people were promised during the referendum campaign, which was greater parliamentary sovereignty. It is a power grab by Tory Ministers, who cannot be trusted, as they have repeatedly shown.
Relying on delegated legislation will not give Parliament proper opportunities for debate, scrutiny or control. Let me remind hon. Members of some of the processes. A statutory instrument introduced under the negative resolution process can become law without debate or a vote. It can even become law before it has been published and laid before the House. The Secretary of State for Justice is frowning, but that is the case. Paragraph 1(3) of schedule 7 sets out that most of the statutory instruments will be subject to negative resolution procedure unless—Ministers are nodding now—they are about transferring powers from European agencies. Last year, a fifth of statutory instruments were in force three weeks after publication. If Ministers were given such a power, there would be nothing to stop them signing laws one day and seeing those laws on the statute book the same day.
Scrutiny by the affirmative and super-affirmative processes is not much better. Such statutory instruments must be approved explicitly, but most go to Committees upstairs, and now the Government are trying to overturn the result of the general election by packing those Committees. Even when such statutory instruments are debated by the whole House, time is limited to 90 minutes, and they cannot be amended.
The drafting of clause 7 is wholly objectionable. It is too wide. Ministers may make regulations as they consider appropriate—not necessary, but appropriate—and regulations may repeal and replace primary legislation. That indicates that it is not the Government’s intention to limit such regulations to technical and non-controversial matters.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech, but is the challenge of the Bill not this: we used to talk in this country about an elected dictatorship, but what is now being proposed is a barely elected dictatorship? Has she ever seen a bigger gap between a Government’s mandate and the power that they seek?
Helen Goodman
No, never. The fact that all the replacement of the functions of the 40 EU agencies is to be done by regulation means that vast swathes of legislation, covering matters from aviation security to medicine safety, will be implemented using these processes.
The Procedure Committee received evidence from academics, four other Select Committees and a large number of civil society organisations, from the TUC to the Archaeology Forum and a lot of environmental groups, who are rightly concerned because 80% of environmental legislation is derived from the EU. All our witnesses raised important issues. The risk is that delegated legislation will be used not just to transfer EU law, which is the Government’s stated intention, but to change its legal effect.
In clause 9 the Government seem to be seeking the flexibility to change the law to comply with the withdrawal agreement. How can the House be expected to agree to that, given that the Government have steadfastly refused to agree or even share their negotiating objectives with the House? The Government are still refusing to provide in primary legislation for a vote on the final deal, but we are supposed to pre-agree now any changes that flow from the withdrawal agreement. I know what my constituents want from Brexit. They want to control immigration, maintain the social chapter and continue with the EU arrest warrant. But I do not know what the Government want. We cannot pre-approve the final deal.
The Government claim that they want certainty, but their secrecy is preventing anyone from predicting where we will end up. It would be normal to share statutory instruments in draft, but the Government have not even told us in which areas of legislation they will use these procedures. Another major issue is who decides which procedures are used, and how Parliament, rather than the Executive, can do that. This cannot be dealt with solely through the Bill. Changes may be needed to Standing Orders. We may need to establish new Select Committees in the Commons and jointly with the Lords. The Leader of the House, who is not even in her place, has utterly failed to bring forward any plans to show what she will do in terms of resources, time or procedure. The Government have deliberately delayed establishing the Select Committees and have been secretive, nervous and unco-operative. Even today, Tory Members have had a letter from the Secretary of State, but the rest of us have not seen it. We cannot trust these Ministers, and so we cannot give them such vast powers.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I will endeavour to follow the plea of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and deliver what I hope will be a thoughtful speech. She may not agree with every point, but I promise her that I have been thinking about it a great deal as I have sat through the debate not just today, but on Thursday. That has given me quite a lot of time to do so.
I have approached this debate as I would have done if I had been instructed in a case in my previous career. We have the end point, whereby the United Kingdom is leaving Europe. Can we achieve that end in a smooth way that provides as much certainty around the norm as possible? Indeed, I believe that the Government must achieve that in the smoothest way possible for all our constituents and all the businesses upon which our economy relies. Ensuring a smooth exit is the right thing to do legally, morally and economically. There has been talk in the Chamber today about the impact on business, and we know that having successful businesses and a growing economy are the things that create jobs and help to pay for the services we care about, such as the national health service. It is in the interests of each and every one of us for the Government to achieve the smoothest possible transition out of the EU.
How do we achieve that? The Bill starts from the premise that EU law will be transferred into British law. At this stage, there are no changes; there is purely a replication across from EU law into the British legal system. Let us not forget that that is quite a lot of law—40 years’ worth of law making—and it is an enormous task. What measures can the Government realistically take to achieve it? I have listened with great care to Members on both sides of the House, but particularly Opposition Members, who plan to vote against the Bill tonight. I have listened to what they have said about the process, and there are indeed some points on which areas of agreement can be found across the House, but I have not yet heard anyone come up with a different way of doing this in the very short timeframe we have. It seems to me that we have to work on the basis that the wholesale adoption of EU law is the way to go, and I foresee in the years to come that this Parliament will play a very active role in deciding which laws it likes and which it does not.
I want to inject just a touch of realpolitik. After two days of debating the power grab, as it is called by some, by the Executive, I suspect that any Minister seeking to exercise the powers under clauses 7, 9 and 17 will be very careful in so exercising them, because they know that many eagle-eyed people on both sides of the House will ensure that they behave properly and within the spirit of the law.
Mr Hendrick
Many of us have a beef not with the way in which the laws will be transferred from Europe to the UK, but with the way in which the laws will be treated afterwards. The sweeping powers that the Bill provides will make it possible for Ministers to abuse powers that they have not been given by the electorate. This House should have control of that, not Ministers by their gerrymandering in this Bill.
Victoria Atkins
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because it gives me the opportunity to mention the sunset clauses in relation to both clauses 7 and 9. I will not make Ministers’ lives easy, because I note that there is no corresponding sunset clause in relation to clause 17, but it may well be possible to discuss that in Committee. We have the comfort of knowing, however, that clause 9 will stop once exit day has happened and that clause 7 will operate for two years thereafter.
As I have said, I have had the pleasure of listening to two days of debate on this Bill, and the quality of debate has been excellent. There have been some very thoughtful suggestions about how the Bill can be perfected, and I have been emailed, as have many colleagues, by constituents with their thoughts on the Bill. In particular, I note the concerns about triaging SIs. I also note the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) about infractions, and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) about the Francovich rulings. I am sure that Ministers have listened to those points and will bear them in mind on this—let us face it—unprecedented legal course that we are taking. It is a very exciting time: it is not what I voted for, but we are in it and we have to make the best of it now. We must ensure the smoothest possible exit from the EU to our new place in the world.
I will end with this point: in 2015, I stood on a manifesto commitment that I would support the Conservative Government in holding a referendum and then in honouring its result. Tonight, I will vote to repeal the 1972 Act and to start the smooth process of transition. It is a promise made and a promise kept. We in this House are often accused of not keeping our promises, but this is a promise that I feel morally and democratically obliged to keep, and keep it I will.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
I will be joining my colleagues in the Lobby tonight to vote against this Bill, because of the unprecedented Henry VIII powers that will transfer power away from Parliament and give it to Ministers. In some ways, these powers will turn the Prime Minister into a female version of Louis XIV, the sun king, who, as he lay on his deathbed in the palace of Versailles, said, “L’état, c’est moi.” That is what she is doing with the Bill, but as representatives of the British people, sent here with a democratic mandate, we say, “L’état, c’est nous.” We are the legislative force in this country; no sun king or sun queen will be created on our watch, and we will not give up our parliamentary democracy without a fight.
It is perfectly possible to recognise and respect the result of the referendum without sacrificing hard-won economic, social and environmental rights and freedoms. As we have heard, at the general election the people declined to give the Prime Minister the majority she sought. Through the general election, the people have already rejected a hard Brexit, so the question before us tonight is: who governs Britain—this Parliament, or a Prime Minister reliant on some hard-liners in her party and on the Democratic Unionist party, which she is paying whatever it demands to get her laws through?
Clause 9 would allow Ministers to introduce regulations to make any provision that can be made by an Act of Parliament, including modifying this legislation, a huge power that will last right up to exit day. It is therefore the great power grab Bill, which will create an infinite legislative loop: the powers can be extended infinitely to amend laws, through delegated legislation, with no scrutiny. The fact that the power to amend this Act lies within it means that the Bill can eat itself; it is like a constantly regenerating loop in some science fiction nightmare, providing new powers ad infinitum at the whim of whichever Government are in place at any given moment.
We have seen this before, because the Government have form. They did not want to give this place a vote on article 50, or on the final deal. They fought at every turn to frustrate this House in overseeing what they are doing, and frustrate us in our duties and responsibilities to our electors. The powers in clause 9 will end on exit day, but the Bill allows exit day to be set by Ministers, so those powers could continue for many years—indeed, there could be several exit days. That is not how we make laws in this country. We also have money and Ways and Means motions before us tonight that mean that Ministers can spend any sum or raise any tax as a result of this Bill. As well as being a legislative blank cheque, the Bill is therefore a literal blank cheque for the Government. That is not how we make laws in this country.
All these new laws made by delegated legislation can be amended by delegated legislation. The Government say that there will be opportunities for scrutiny, but they want a majority of one on all Delegated Legislation Committees, so that they can rubber-stamp the delegated legislation, despite failing to win a majority at the general election. That is not how we make laws in this country. The Bill can create new criminal offences under the negative resolution procedure of things such as food adulteration or trading illegal chemicals. New criminal offences will be made with no parliamentary scrutiny. That is not how we make laws in this country.
This Bill should protect our hard-won social, environmental, political and economic rights. In fact, it guarantees nothing of the sort. Even if those rights are somehow replicated in the future, the Bill is silent about remedies, and it is the remedies, not the rights, that are the spur to action. The threat of EU fines led to us taxing waste that goes to landfill, which kick-started the recycling industry in this country. The threat of massive fines for filthy air pollution has led to the Government publishing not one, not two, but three clean air plans. The threat of fines under the water framework directive has led to UK water companies cleaning up our filthy beaches and rivers. Those environmental improvements and industries were created because the threat of financial penalties focused the minds of Ministers and civil servants. If there is no remedy for the citizen, the right that the law confers is toothless.
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said on Second Reading that the Government would introduce proposals. Why are they not in the Bill? How many rights that we currently enjoy are threatened by the Bill? Francovich will not apply to the individual, so future rights will be removed from citizens. The acquis communautaire, which we have adopted, refers to the environment, but a third of it cannot be neatly cut and pasted into UK law.
Helen Goodman
Is my hon. Friend concerned that the replacement of the European Environment Agency by national bodies with massive powers would also be handled in that way?
Mary Creagh
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We will not simply be able to cut and paste chemicals measures. REACH is the big regulation on registering, evaluating and authorising chemicals. It protects the public and the environment from hazardous substances and it is vital to British jobs, growth and investment. Our chemical industry is the second largest exporter to the EU after cars, selling £15 billion of chemical exports to the EU every year. Leaving REACH could cause market freeze and supply chain disruption to the industry. The Environmental Audit Committee heard from techUK and the defence industries how incredibly concerned they were about that. One in five UK chemicals companies represented by the Chemical Business Association are not waiting for regulatory certainty from the Government, and are already investigating opportunities to set up shop in other EU countries, harming jobs, investment and growth in this country.
The Bill does not protect the citizen and it does not incorporate either the principle of EU law that the polluter pays or the precautionary principle. For those reasons, for the vast destruction of our environmental and social rights, I shall vote against the Bill.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
It is good to follow the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), but I want to turn from sun kings and queens to what the Bill is about: giving the House the mechanism to begin the process of withdrawal from the European Union.
Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) is about to leave the Chamber. I agree with some of the amendments she has suggested, but I would like to ask her why they have not been tabled. I will stand by the Bill.
Helen Goodman
The process is that amendments can be tabled after Second Reading tonight. We cannot table amendments until and unless the Bill completes Second Reading.
Luke Graham
To clarify, there is an amendment on the Order Paper, and I would suggest that some of those provisions should have been included in it.
As many hon. Members across the House have said, we would be open to some of the suggested amendments. The Government have committed to listening to the amendments and reacting to them as the parliamentary process progresses. There have not been many constructive measures from the Opposition, so, with other hon. Members, may I suggest that if they respect democracy, the Bill and the vote of the British people they should vote for the Bill? I say that as someone who voted remain, along with many of my constituents. However, as a democrat, I will support the Bill to make sure that we go through the process.
Clauses 7, 8 and 9 delegate considerable powers to Ministers. On Thursday, many Opposition Members said that the delegation of powers was unprecedented, but I draw their attention to section 32(4) of the Immigration Act 2016, which allows Ministers to
“make such provision amending, repealing or revoking any provision…as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in consequence of the regulations.”
Although provisions in the Bill are wider in scope, they are not entirely unprecedented; I wanted to draw that to the attention of the House. I understand even as a new Member that there is a lot of politics at play in our discussion of the Bill, but it is complicated enough. Our constituents do not want us to blur lines; they want us to clarify them. I would urge Ministers and other hon. Members to decouple myths from facts. There have been people in Henry VIII costume on the lawns outside the House trying to grab airtime, and “Westminster power grabs” creates headlines, but what our constituents really want is for us to honour the vote and get on with delivering the best possible Brexit.
May I suggest to Ministers an example of where that would be particularly helpful? The Human Rights Act 1998 appears to be protected under clause 7(6). Some Opposition Members are thinking about opposing the Bill because it does not transpose the EU charter of fundamental rights, but I am assured that all rights contained in the charter are in the Human Rights Act or other pieces of legislation. To help clarify that point, I urge Ministers to list the protections in current British law, so that we can compare and contrast them with those in the charter of fundamental rights and give assurances to Opposition Members that those rights are protected. We can then take those assurances back to our constituents, who care a lot about this.
The Bill represents the democratic vote of the United Kingdom. As I have said, I support it, but I hope that the Government act on their commitment to listen to learned colleagues in all parts of the House to ensure that substantive measures in the Bill receive the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny as the Bill proceeds through the House. If the Government establish a clear framework of strong parliamentary oversight, I hope that we can engage with the detail of the Bill, and finally introduce the substantive Bills that hon. Members and our constituents care about, including Bills on immigration and trade.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Will the hon. Gentleman clarify why his colleagues think it reasonable for the Government to argue that there should not be a border in Northern Ireland—Northern Irish citizens will continue to be able to claim Irish citizenship, which will allow them to become EU citizens—with special arrangements there, but not one of them is arguing for special arrangements for Scotland?
Luke Graham
That is not in the Bill. There is protection for the Belfast agreement under clause 7(6). We can go through that, but Scotland is a completely different situation, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. [Interruption.] Again, if we can complete Second Reading tonight, the Bill will go through subsequent stages, and we can get to substantive debates on immigration, trade, customs, agriculture and the issues that remain and leave voters in my constituency want us to tackle.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham), who knows that people who voted for Brexit did so for a number of reasons. Some of them wanted, and expected, more money, which they were promised—£350 million a week—but now they face a debt of something like £50 billion. Some of them voted leave because they thought that they would still have a job, as we would have access to the single market, but now we know that we will not have unfettered access. Some of them voted for Brexit fundamentally because they thought that we would take back control with enhanced parliamentary democracy and with enhancement and supremacy of our courts.
The Bill does the opposite of what people expected for parliamentary democracy and the enhancement of our courts. What have been referred to as Henry VIII powers—new powers given to Ministers to change legislation as they deem appropriate, without consultation or reference to Parliament—mean that there will be fundamental changes without MPs having a look-in. Moreover, the legislation is drafted so broadly that it does not allow the courts effectively to use the right of judicial appeal to limit and constrain Government. There are no mechanisms to enforce the rights and protections we currently enjoy from Europe.
In practice, this may influence workers’ rights. The workers’ agency directive, which was pooh-poohed by the Government and the Beecroft report, is likely to be ruled out. On the environment, where 80% of the law is decided at EU level, the Government are currently in court under EU legislation in relation to the air quality directive and face fines if they do not fulfil their obligations. Under clause 17 of the Bill, a Minister can simply say, “Well, those EU regulations are inappropriate so we’ll get rid of them.” As for human rights, the fundamental charter is not assured. Any of our rights can be just crossed out by Ministers. On consumer rights, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) mentioned REACH. The directive requires all chemical companies to prove that a chemical is safe before they market it. A Minister could cross that out and introduce the American system, which instead requires an agency to prove a chemical is hazardous. That is why asbestos is still legal in the United States and it might become so here. Far from enhancing Parliament, we are open to having our rights and protections stripped away.
The Bill’s aim was supposed to be to cut and paste, or transfer, rights, protections and laws. Nobody is arguing that that should not happen. The question is: can it occur without a massive power grab and so-called Henry VIII powers? I suggest that it can, but it needs four changes. I hope the Minister is listening. Several changes are need to be able to achieve the transfer without the use of those draconian powers. The changes are: first, to ensure that the Bill enshrines the continuation of rights and protections in EU law; secondly, to have enforcement mechanisms in place for those rights which will be taken away when the EU institutions are taken away; and thirdly, to state in the Bill that the measure is not intended to impact on human rights and to ensure that, in any case where our rights and protections are challenged, they are referred to a Select Committee process. Most measures will be technical, but when there is a challenge to basic rights and protections we need something akin to a turbo-charged European Scrutiny Committee. I hope the Secretary of State is listening. That Committee can currently refer for debate any new EU legislation. That right should be enhanced, so that measures can be referred, amended and voted on here.
Fundamentally, we are talking about British values. The Prime Minister talks about British values and there are no more fundamental British values than parliamentary democracy and the rule of law. They are both unnecessarily under threat. If the Bill goes through as currently drafted, it will be a Trojan horse for well-armed Brexiters to get rid of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law as we know it. That is why they need to be disarmed.
There is no justification for the way the Bill is currently drafted. It should be taken back in its entirety. It can be brought back in October to cut and paste the particular safeguards. My own view, as hon. Members will know, is that as people voted for Brexit in good faith for a number of reasons that have not now materialised, they should have the right to have the final say on the exit package, to judge whether it stacks up against their reasonable expectations. That is what democracy is about. The Bill is about the destruction of democracy and I will vote against it wholeheartedly tonight.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies).
I believe that this is the first speech I have made on Britain leaving the European Union. The reason for my remaining unusually silent in this place is that back when the referendum was announced, I took a decision to not go to my constituents and tell them which way they should vote, but to try to remain impartial and provide them with information on both sides of the argument. I did so as a point of principle. I took the view that, having asked people to vote for me in 2015 so they could have a referendum, I wanted it to be their decision as to how their vote should be determined. I wanted to bring them information. I did so by holding 10 debates across the constituency and by going to 25 schools in the final week. I was, of course, very willing to give my own view as to which way I was going to vote, so at 9.59 pm on referendum day I announced that I had voted to remain. I then found out that 60% of my constituents disagreed with me, because they had voted to leave.
Having tried to provide information on what article 50 would mean in the event that we left and what the Prime Minister’s reformed EU would look like if we remained, I took the view that I was duty bound to follow the mandate given to me by the people. That is why I voted, along with 498 Members, to trigger article 50. Having said that I would follow that instruction, I am now duty bound to become greatly and passionately interested in the shape of our EU departure. I very much intend to do that.
I am still drawn to the Norwegian argument that those on the remain side used as a reason why we should stay. We do not want to be a member of the single market, but be unable to influence its shape and have to pay into its obligations. I still find that an attractive argument and that is why I now advocate leaving the single market and the customs union. I firmly believe that the way we can shape the new future is not by trying to look back at the past, but by forging a brand new future.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman not then agree with the Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, who said on 7 September in The Spectator that the UK should stay in the single market?
Huw Merriman
The hon. Gentleman will have heard me when I said that I believe we should leave the single market. I can pinpoint the particular reason. If we are going to follow the instructions our constituents gave us, at least let us be bold, ambitious and look outside the club of 27 member states who, frankly, have not allowed some of the poorest countries to trade with that block. We should now set our sights on helping those countries and forging links with them in a way that has not been possible thus far. There is, therefore, an ethical reason for leaving the single market and the customs union, and for forging a new way forward.
As one of the 498 MPs who triggered article 50, I look at the approximately 150 MPs who were not willing to do so. I can perhaps understand why they are not willing to support Second Reading. The Bill will preserve all EU law when we leave the EU. The 150 MPs do not wish us to leave the EU, so I can see, logically, why they are not willing to vote for Second Reading. I would, however, just make the point that it was the same ballot box that returned them to this place that they choose to disregard when it comes to the referendum. That leaves us with the remaining 498 MPs. We hear that many of them will not support Second Reading this evening. I can understand those who always wished the UK to leave the EU not wanting to retain EU laws but to get on with repeal straightaway, but I have not heard any voices on either side of the House advocating that position. I am working on the basis, therefore, having heard of no other mechanism for retaining EU law on day one, that there is no alternative to the Bill.
Why, then, will hon. Members not vote for the principle of the Bill on Second Reading? I am saying not that the Bill cannot be improved but that the Government will listen to ideas on how it can be improved—I can testify to that having had a conversation with the ministerial team today and fixed a meeting to walk through some of those improvements. On clause 6, for example, on the interpretation of EU law following departure, I have concerns that the lower courts will be required to follow retained EU case law and retained EU general principles. It appears that they will not be able to depart from EU case law but that the Supreme Court will. If a decision is taken by the lower courts on EU general principles, however, will the Supreme Court be able to depart on that basis?
There are issues to iron out, therefore, but notwithstanding all the intelligent arguments we have heard from lawyers in this place, the prime driver for me is the need to make suggestions and make this work. It behoves us to make it work. In a previous job, I took many cases through the court process, including the Supreme Court, and the more assistance we can give the Supreme Court with interpretation and the smooth administration of law, the greater the benefits we will all reap in the future.
But that is for another day. Tonight is all about whether we are willing to see all preserved EU rights and laws retained on day one, so as to deliver a smooth departure, retain the rights that many hon. Members want retained and ensure that we make a success of our leaving. I was willing to listen to other arguments, but I have heard none advanced, apart—I am afraid to say—from pure politics. I do not believe that our constituents, regardless of which way they voted, want politics on this subject; they want us to get on with the job and deliver a successful Brexit, not just for them but for the country and world at large.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Mr Deputy Speaker:
“the Scottish Parliament, which adjourned on 25 March 1707, is hereby reconvened.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 12 May 1999.]
Those were the words of Winifred Margaret Ewing, elected to the House of Commons 50 years ago this year, and more fondly known as Winnie and, to her EU friends, Madame Ecosse. To this day, Winnie is the only parliamentarian of these islands to have been a Member of the Scottish, British and European Parliaments, and she will be the only person who will hold that accolade.
It is almost 20 years today since Scotland said yes to a Scottish Parliament with devolved powers under a settlement that stated that everything was automatically devolved unless it was explicitly reserved. Despite what was said earlier, those powers were not notional. As the First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon, rightly said in her speech this morning, this Bill
“threatens the very principle on which our Parliament is founded”.
In its current form, the Bill is a reversal of devolution.
Although I am a pretty positive person, I am struggling to find light among the Brexit process. After a summer of meetings with businesses and trade bodies in my constituency and across Scotland and the UK, aimed at understanding their hopes and fears about Brexit, I find it hard to see good in any of it. The retail sector in my constituency employs a lot of EU nationals. Let me take the insurance and aviation sectors as an example.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
As my hon. Friend knows, I have an airport and an important aerospace cluster in my constituency. Is she not concerned about the loss of open skies and the European Aviation Safety Agency? We might not be able to pass the engines, but perhaps that does not matter, because we will not be allowed to fly anyway.
Hannah Bardell
I share my hon. Friend’s concerns, and I am sure she shares those of the insurance sector, which cites aviation as a relevant example because national airlines based in any EU country require a range of specialist insurance cover. Most of that is a mandatory requirement for operation. The UK insurance market is the only location with the specialist aviation insurance knowledge and financial capacity to provide the full coverage for all the risks faced.
Hannah Bardell
I will not at the moment. I am going to make some progress.
To put it simply, planes will not be able to take off, as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) identified.
There is concern that the UK Government might use clause 8 to trigger article 127 of the European economic area agreement, immediately ripping away the UK’s access to the free movement of goods, people, services and capital. As the days pass, the fear and concern heighten. Frances O’Grady, the general secretary of the TUC, said this morning—she was adding to the list of Brexit superlatives—that the Conservative Government were headed towards a “kamikaze Brexit”.
In a single act of complete recklessness, the Government are pressing ahead with this deficient Bill without carrying out a proper economic analysis of any economy across the UK. The people in businesses I have spoken to do not want to fall off a cliff before new trade deals can be agreed. They cannot afford to crash out of the EU or to fall back on WTO rules, which the CBI president said would open a “Pandora’s box”.
The gap between any transitional period and the start of any trade deal is also a real threat. Agriculture, fisheries and the environment are just some of the areas devolved to Scotland that will be affected by the Bill. The Fraser of Allander Institute has shown that a hard Brexit could cost Scotland’s economy and its GDP up to £10 billion and 80,000 jobs. That is almost the entire number of people in my constituency. The Scottish Government did try to work for a compromise, presenting their proposals in “Scotland’s Place in Europe”, but they did not even receive a decent response.
Hannah Bardell
Not at the moment; I am going to make some progress.
The former Prime Minister David Cameron did not allow his civil servants or advisers even to write anything down before Brexit, and the Brexit Secretary admitted to the Select Committee that there had been no proper assessment of the economic consequences if there was no deal. What a reckless and incompetent way to run a Government or a country! I know that some of the magnitude of this is hard to comprehend, but to go to the people of this country with no proper impact assessment and no proper detail is absolutely scandalous. The Conservative Government pledged to produce a repeal Bill to
“allow a smooth and orderly transition as the UK leaves the EU”,
but this Bill seeks to undermine the devolved settlements and offers no guarantees to the devolved nations on the protections of their powers.
Michel Barnier told a press conference recently that there had been no “decisive” progress in talks with the UK at the conclusion of the third round of negotiations. While the Government are faffing about, time is not on the side of people, businesses and our industries. Perhaps even more damaging than the tardy approach to the negotiation of a transition is the admission that the Government have turned down countries wishing to strike trade deals after Brexit because they—the Government—do not have the capacity to negotiate them. Furthermore, since the Government’s approach to immigration was leaked, there is now a real risk that the transition period could be under threat.
Those in the legal profession have also raised concerns. Lord Judge, the former Lord Chief Justice, has warned that Parliament faces a legislative tsunami without the time to scrutinise legislation properly.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
My hon. Friend prays in aid Lord Judge, but it is fair to say that he is not the only senior magistrate to have problems with the Bill. Referring to clause 6, Lord Neuberger, the outgoing president of the Supreme Court, has said that if the Government
“doesn’t express clearly what the judges should do about decisions of the ECJ after Brexit, or indeed any other topic after Brexit, then the judges will simply have to do their best. But to blame the judges for…making the law when parliament has failed to do so would be unfair.”
He is right, is he not?
Hannah Bardell
Yes, he is.
The Government had to be dragged through the courts even to give Parliament a say on the triggering of article 50. What hope have we that we will be able to scrutinise properly the 19,000 laws and regulations that will be coming back from the EU? Last week the Scottish Government announced an ambitious and inclusive programme for government that put carbon capture back on the table after the failure of the UK Government in that regard, and committed to establishing a Scottish investment bank.
Hannah Bardell
The UK Government should be delighted, but what have they been doing? They have been doing Brexit—just Brexit, and nothing else—and they cannot make progress with that. That is what doing the day job really looks like, and as we get on with the day job in Scotland, Westminster will be bogged down in nothing but Brexit.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Mr. Graham, you have already spoken. If the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) wishes to give way, she will indicate that to you, but I certainly do not need you to be hanging on and on your two feet for the rest of her speech.
Hannah Bardell
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
This Bill threatens the very foundations and transparency of our democracy. There are voices of agreement and consensus around the Chamber, and it is incumbent on us to work together when we can find agreement, but the Bill, and the Tory Government’s antagonistic approach, give little space and opportunity for any collaboration. With no clear answers to the issues of EU nationals’ rights, with the charter of fundamental rights and single market membership under threat, and with no detailed economic analysis of the effect of the UK’s leaving the single market, the Bill is a wrecking ball for British democracy and the cross-party working and consensus that created the Scottish Parliament.
The Government cannot hide behind this “what the people voted for” line, because the reality is that no one really knows what they voted for. There was no White Paper, there was no positive proposition, and there was no detail—nothing was written down. Many who voted for Brexit are now full of regret and frustration because they were sold a pup. We will not stand by and support this Bill. We will not give it a Second Reading, because two decades after Scotland voted for a Scottish Parliament, and giants of Scottish politics such as Donald Dewar and Winnie Ewing ushered in a new era of positivity that has benefited everyone in Scotland, the Bill is the biggest power grab since devolution. We in the SNP will not stand by and allow Scottish democracy and our Parliament’s powers to be eroded.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell), who gave an interesting speech.
Without the iconic and much-loved bongs of Big Ben, the Palace of Westminster might appear to be diminished, but the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill will ensure that this Palace is more sovereign and more accountable, with or without its hourly chimes. The Bill will restore this nation’s sovereignty, the supremacy of this Parliament and the self-determination of the British people. The final word on law will be ours, and I am happy to trust the judgment of our Supreme Court rather than that of the European Court of Justice. The British people will ultimately be entirely in control of the direction of our country. If they do not like what they see here in Parliament and do not feel represented by their MPs, they can vote us out. That is not the case for unelected, unaccountable Eurocrats.
This Bill is the logical next step in leaving the EU—what the public have trusted us to do. The key point of this Bill is to provide certainty as to how the law will apply after we leave the EU. This is an unprecedented period in our history, which is why so much has been, and will continue to be, debated, but to vote against this Bill is purely political game playing and ignoring the will of the British public. The public have a right to ask objecting Members who argue against converting EU regulations and law into domestic law on exit day where their objections were when the laws were enacted in Brussels and enforced on us in the first place.
The Bill maximises stability and certainty, which is what our economy needs and what our businesses require and deserve. The Bill ensures that consumers have clarity about their protection, that employees have clarity about their rights, that businesses have certainty, and, fundamentally, that rights and protections are enforceable through the UK courts, which are renowned the world over.
Many Wealden businesses and farms from Hailsham, Uckfield and Crowborough have raised their concerns over EU red tape. Many Wealden businesses are small. Like the national average, only 5% export to the EU, but 100% are caught by red tape, which makes setting up, recruiting and exporting more difficult. Brexit and this Bill start an opportunity to create business and farming environments that work for all businesses, whether they are global or just local.
I impress on the Government the need to consult business representatives fully. In Wealden we have dozens of vineyards, many farms and cutting-edge science and tech businesses. They should be consulted and their concerns should be addressed. Consultation is key in these exciting times ahead for the UK outside the EU.
Brexit presents us with not only an opportunity to become a sovereign nation once again, but countless opportunities beyond our own waters. Negotiating as one country, we can strike free trade deals unhindered by the need to get the signature of 27 other countries. We will be able to agree our own terms with not just our friends in Europe, but the ambitious entrepreneurialism of the rest of the world. I cannot be the only Member who believes that the patronising, out-of-touch and out-of-date European elites need to get over their obsession that the future lies solely in western Europe. In reality, it is Asia, Africa and South America that are brimming with the skills, ability and talent that will shape this century. We have an exciting opportunity to trade in goods and expertise, and to help to share prosperity in not only this country, but these new emerging markets.
I seem to have an extra moment to speak, so I shall also touch on Michel Barnier, as the hon. Member for Livingston referred to him. Michel Barnier’s recent comments about our moral and legal obligations to support development in third-world countries has not gone down well in my constituency. As one of only five EU member states to meet the UN’s 0.7% foreign aid spending goal, and just one of four to meet NATO’s 2% spending target on defence, we will take no lectures from Brussels about supporting those less fortunate than us. My constituents want to know who are Brussels to talk to us about supporting developing nations when the common agricultural policy has for so long immorally and unfairly held African farmers back. Brexit allows us to treat Africa as equals and enables people there to decide their own destiny without financial discrimination from European elites.
Opportunities abound with Brexit. Although the media narrative and some Opposition Members suggest that it will be doom and gloom, I do not see things that way. I admit that some of what we hope for will be difficult, but I will never accept judgment for being ambitious for my country.
Ms Ghani
I am so sorry; I have been told that I need to crack on because of the time. I do apologise.
The Bill allows for an orderly exit from the EU. A vote against it is a vote for a chaotic Brexit, and such a vote would be irresponsible and undemocratic. That is not what the country voted for. Our job as parliamentarians is to deliver a smooth exit from the EU. I will be supporting democracy and respecting the will of the British people by supporting the Bill tonight.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I congratulate the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), on the common-sense position that Labour has adopted on EU withdrawal and on this democratic travesty of a Bill. We certainly look forward to seeing him in my constituency, where his appearance next month is eagerly awaited.
Following the referendum, it is sadly clear that we will end our formal membership of the European Union. The question is how and what the future holds. As far as our country’s future relationship with our neighbours is concerned, Brexit should never become synonymous with “break it”, which, thankfully, only a minority of people want. There has to be a transitional agreement with the EU, as it will be impossible to reach a comprehensive deal at all levels by the end of March 2019. Common sense says that such an agreement should include our remaining in the single market and the customs union. The Prime Minister’s policy stance means that the Bill is inimical to that common-sense course. That is the effect of clause 9, and that is a good, substantial reason to oppose the Bill.
The Government have not yet allowed a meaningful vote in Parliament on the terms of our withdrawal before the Bill implements those terms. That is another good, substantial reason to oppose the Bill. I voted consistently against triggering article 50 in the absence of assurances about that, about the rights of EU nationals who are already here and of our citizens on the continent, and about much more besides.
Like the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), I did not vote for the referendum legislation in the first place, because I thought it was a thoroughly bad idea, as it is certainly proving. I certainly will not vote to give this dreadful Bill a Second Reading tonight, but I will respect the referendum result by voting for the reasoned amendment. This flawed piece of legislation, with its flawed approach, needs to go back to the drawing board and return in better shape in October.
I will not dwell on clause 7 or any other clauses for too long—they have been well and truly dissected by many good speeches already—but I will show my constituents, to whom I will have to explain my votes, that I have indeed read the Bill by saying that when I got down to clause 7(2)(f)(ii), my jaw, which I had already prised off the ground, bounced off terra firma again. I will explain to my constituents why. To take one example, that clause proposes—in a modern parliamentary democracy, not a feudal, despotic monarchy—that a Minister of the Crown will have the power to issue regulations, which could not be changed, to correct parts of law that he or she does not consider
“it is appropriate to retain”.
And so the Bill goes on. That is not just profoundly undemocratic; as hon. Members have already pointed out, that approach to vesting such sweeping powers and discretion in this particular Executive flies in the face of the message sent by the British people in June.
The Prime Minister called that opportunistic, unnecessary election, confident that it would deliver her an increased majority, a highly personalised vote of confidence and a mandate to do what she pleased. But she was rumbled and found wanting—it did not. The country said, “No way” to “My way or the highway.” Our country would certainly not want us to vest in a minority Government the powers in the Bill, which might affect so many lives with minimal parliamentary oversight. If we do grant them, people will ask us—they are already—what is the purpose of electing MPs in the first place.
Let us take a look at some of the Ministers of the Crown whose sparkling judgment and impeccable intentions we are asked to trust. We are told that they would include in a blizzard of regulations only technical amendments and would not try to slip through anything more fundamental or controversial. As examples, let us take the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and his one-time friend then victim, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). At the very top of the tree, our people gave their verdict in the general election on the Prime Minister’s powers of judgment. Every fortnight, there is a very funny column in Private Eye from the headmistress of “St Theresa’s Independent State Grammar School for Girls (and Boys)” now incorporating the “William III Orange Academy”. Just where are the two right hon. Gentlemen I mentioned who gave such a tour de force of alternative facts with bravado during the referendum? Well, they are back at the heart of the staffroom. What successful school rewards bad behaviour? It would be in special measures. What governing body would put the sort of trust that the Bill asks for in such a headmistress and her senior—I use the term loosely—“leadership team”?
Ian Paisley
The hon. Gentleman always makes good arguments, but is he actually telling us that we should just continue to accept European directives over which we have absolutely no say whatsoever? At least we can elect and change the Government here.
Paul Farrelly
The Bill asks us to transfer to the Executive what the hon. Gentleman considers a flaw without this Parliament having much of a say in what may happen. There are good reasons to oppose the Bill on the basis of clause 9 and the lack of a meaningful vote in Parliament—the Bill would allow the Government to get around that.
To continue the school metaphor, the Bill is not only unsatisfactory and in need of improvement, but wholly inadequate. The Government need to go back to the drawing board and rethink their approach. There is no mandate for a hard, cliff-edge Brexit or for shredding long-won relationships with the other 27 countries of the European Union, nor is there a mandate for a hard transition. There is certainly no mandate to hand the powers in the Bill to a minority Government and a caretaker Prime Minister. I hope that my colleagues and concerned Members on both sides of the House will vote against the Bill. Not to do so would give the Government a strong signal that they can get away with anything they like.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I supported the remain side of the argument in the referendum, but my constituents listened politely to my advice and then two thirds of them voted to leave. A majority in this country voted to leave, so we have been handed instructions by the British people to leave the European Union and we need to respect the referendum result. This Bill is a key part of getting that ship under way. It is a process Bill that simply writes European law into our domestic legislation.
There are those who now say that we do not have enough scrutiny. However, it is strange that the European Communities Act has allowed all European law straight into our system since 1972 without any scrutiny in this House whatsoever. They did not complain about that, but they are suddenly worried about scrutiny. If we scrutinised and debated each and every one of the thousand statutory instruments and called them all in under the prayer motion procedure, we would do nothing between now and Brexit day but discuss the intricacies of writing bits of European legislation into our domestic legislation. I cannot speak for anyone else, but none of my constituents has asked me to do that. My constituents have not raised their determination for us discuss the minutiae and process of putting European legislation into our legislation. Has anyone else had a constituent say, “Between now and Brexit day I want you to discuss getting European law into our legal system”? I very much doubt it.
My constituents have asked me, “How can we ensure that we do not have to pay too much money? Does the EU have a legal case to demand money from us for the Brexit divorce bill? Does it have a case to demand £50 billion or whatever it is from us?” So I spent some time doing some research. I looked at the matter carefully with the eminent Martin Howe, QC, and we concluded that the EU has no claim at all as a matter of law. In fact, a compelling argument suggests that we are owed €10 billion by the EU for the return of our stake in the European Investment Bank, but we do not hear about that from the Opposition. We do not hear them making the case for scrutiny of the divorce bill to try to get some taxpayer value—not a bit of it.
Then, my constituents raised with me their concern about whether there might be queues on the roads to Dover and problems with trade when we leave the European Union, to which I say it is important that we are ready on day one, and that we are prepared for Brexit day, deal or no deal. That is a prime concern of my constituents, because gridlock at Dover means gridlock for the UK economy as a whole.
It is very much in the national interest that we focus on being ready on day one, but we do not hear about that from the Labour party, either. We do not hear any constructive ideas whatever about how we can be ready on day one, how we can make a success of Brexit or how we can ensure that we do not have to shell out too much taxpayers’ money. No, what the Labour party wants to do is scrutinise process, because it does not have a clue.
The people of Britain clearly said we should leave the European Union, and they gave a clear instruction that they want to end uncontrolled EU immigration. That means that, yes, we have to leave the European Union’s internal market. They gave a very clear instruction that they want our trade policy to be made in Britain, not in Brussels. Yes, that means we have to leave the customs union, but it does not mean we cannot discuss a free trade agreement with the European Union, and that is what we should be focusing our time on here. Rather than discussing process or the scrutinising of laws that already exist just so they can be written into our legal system, we should be discussing how we will have relations with the European Union in the years after we leave, because that is what matters to our constituents.
The prosperity of our people, the success of our businesses and the lifeblood of our economy is about making sure we foster international trade not just with the European Union but with the wider world. That matters because 80% to 90% of all global growth in the years to come will not come from Europe. Those are not my figures, and it is not my argument—they come from the European Commission in reply to questions raised in the European Parliament.
Daniel Kawczynski
Clearly we want to ensure a reasonable win-win trade deal with the European Union, but is my hon. Friend aware of reports that, if we fail to get that deal and we go to WTO terms, our Exchequer will benefit by £13 billion a year from the taxes charged on imports from the European Union?
Charlie Elphicke
My hon. Friend makes a powerful argument. There are those who say that we have to beg Europe for a deal. Last time I looked, the European Union had a £100 billion surplus on trade in goods with the United Kingdom. If there were tariffs, European exports to Britain would be hit by £13 billion, whereas our exports to Europe would be hit by only £6 billion. That shows why it is in Europe’s interest to do a free trade deal, and why it would be an economically illiterate act of self-harm by the European Union not to want to do a trade deal. If anything, a trade deal is more in the EU’s economic interest than it is in ours.
Those are the hard numbers, and that is where the House should be focusing. If we want scrutiny, we should scrutinise how we can reduce the divorce bill, ideally to nothing. We should scrutinise how we can make sure we have a positive relationship with the European Union in the years to come, how we can have free trade, how we can have trade across the rest of the world, and how Britain can be positioned to grow so that our sons and daughters can have the kind of future that they expect us to build for them. That is why we need to approach this positively and thoughtfully, and it is why we need to apply scrutiny to the things our constituents care about, rather than process.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I apologise for missing the first few minutes of this debate.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who is occasionally my hon. Friend. I remind him that gridlock in Dover is the same as gridlock in Holyhead, Ynys Môn and across north Wales, which causes gridlock for the English economy because so much traffic passes that way. That subject has been even less discussed than gridlock in Dover.
I have only one substantial point to make, which is that the Bill threatens the constitutional settlement between Wales and England, and it seemingly does so almost as an afterthought: Brexit is the issue but, by the way, we are unravelling the last 20 years of careful and moderate devolution, irrespective of the views of the majority of people in Wales, as expressed in two referendums.
I am referring not to the rushed duplicity of the June 2016 referendum, but to the two substantial referendums in Wales specifically on the devolution issue, after decades of the most detailed debates and campaigning. This was not change as an afterthought, when the consequences of the decision on Brexit are beginning to become slightly clearer; these were referendums on devolution itself. Perhaps I need to remind Government Front Benchers of the results of those referendums on the sort of government we want in Wales and with what sort of powers. The first was carried narrowly in 1997 and the second, on a modest extension of powers, was carried overwhelmingly in 2011, with the support of all parties and with the no campaign having degenerated into an obsessional, deluded and irrelevant rabble—I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) is not in his place to leap up to correct me.
That is the status quo that this Conservative Government either seek to overthrow or might overthrow by mistake, as carelessly as they might toss a cigarette into a pail of petrol. They will argue, correctly of course, that the Brexit referendum is the superior authority to the devolution referendums, but I take that argument, as will many people in Wales, as exposing the true nature of the relationship between our two countries. It is one not of respect, but of heedless and thoughtless power of one over the other. The “Encyclopaedia Britannica” was wholly right in the index of its first edition when it said “For Wales, see England”.
The current devolution settlement is framed in the context of the UK’s pre-existing membership of the EU. By facilitating leaving in this way, the Bill, as drafted, redefines the UK constitution by default; it creates a new body of law and gives Ministers power to change law as they see “appropriate”, as we see in clause 7(1). The Bill intercepts and retains the returning EU power and funds, and maintains what are the responsibilities of the Welsh Assembly, such as agriculture and convergence policy—as London matters. The Bill amends the devolution settlement so that the devolved Governments will have to accept whatever the Minister here decides, including in respect of the provisions of the Wales Act 2017, which has not even come into force. Many hon. Members who spent a great deal of time on that Act may ponder why on earth we bothered.
I wish to go off on a slight tangent now about the offer or suggestion of having a triage system. I took part in a system that was similar but not exactly the same—hon. Members can look this up if they please—when we looked at the powers being transferred to the Welsh Assembly before legislation gave it those powers. Under this legislative competence order system, members of the Welsh Affairs Committee sat to ponder various bits of legislation and the various powers that would be transferred to Cardiff. This led to some powers of great importance, such as those relating to mental health, being passed with scarcely a murmur, while other far more contentious matters, such as those relating to the Welsh language, were discussed endlessly. They were eventually agreed to, as we had expected, but it was delayed and delayed for political purposes.
We have been told that the Bill is a “technicality” and a “temporary necessity” and we are asked to extend our trust, but I would say that we are being asked to extend our credulity much too far. Both the Welsh and Scottish Governments have said that they cannot grant legislative consent to the Bill in its current form. I have written to the Welsh Secretary asking him what will happen if consent is withheld by the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) asked him about this issue again at Welsh questions last week, but we are yet to get a clear reply. So this is how a constitutional question lurches towards a constitutional crisis. We should avoid it, and it is avoidable if the Government would be more open. Their manifesto in the 2017 election promised not to “devolve and forget”. Through the incompetence and arrogance, I fear that they are forgetting devolution, and we on the Plaid Cymru Bench will oppose their folly.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Stoke-on-Trent voted overwhelmingly to leave the European Union: the proportion was higher than in any other city, with 70% of people voting to leave. That is why I will vote to support the Bill tonight.
The people of Stoke-on-Trent South voted for me and the Conservatives for the first time in 82 years because we demonstrated our trust in the public’s judgment in voting to leave and are the only ones with a strong, credible plan to deliver Brexit successfully. In electing me to this place, my constituents were clear in their rejection of the previous Labour MP and his attempts to disrupt and delay the Brexit process. My constituents who voted to leave in the referendum did so for a number of reasons, including economic, social and political ones, but the clear shared message from the general election was that constituents in Stoke-on-Trent South do not want to be worse off as a result of our leaving the EU. There is a feeling in Stoke-on-Trent of being left behind, with the EU remote and distant. People struggle to see the economic benefits. I am determined to be a strong representative of what my constituents voted for.
In leaving the EU, we must maximise new opportunities in Stoke-on-Trent and support our businesses to improve skills and jobs and boost prosperity. Critical to that is ensuring that we make a success of leaving. We must create some certainty and get on with putting forward the necessary legislation. What I hear from businesses in Stoke-on-Trent South is a need for certainty. The Bill will create an orderly processes to move the existing EU legislation that makes up part of the UK legal system so that it is under Parliament’s authority. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said on Thursday, it will ensure that on the day we leave, businesses will know where they stand, workers’ rights will be upheld and consumers will remain protected.
To delay or disrupt the process unnecessarily would be hugely damaging for our economy, businesses and jobs in all communities throughout the country. To those in the House who wish to disrupt the Bill today, or even to stop altogether the process of our leaving the EU, I repeat what several of my right hon. and hon. Friends have said: there will be further opportunities to improve the Bill in Committee. Suggestions about the need for amendments should not stop the Bill at this stage. I ask them to think of the impact on their constituents and on our country, because if the Bill is not allowed to progress to Third Reading, we will put at risk jobs and our future economic prosperity.
Businesses and my constituents want the Government to get on with the job and to ensure that we have certainty and can deliver a successful Brexit deal. Whether someone supported leave or remain is insignificant: the British public voted overwhelmingly to leave, especially in constituencies such as mine, Stoke-on-Trent South. We must respect the democratic result and work in the national interest. What matters now is that we in this House are seen to be doing everything possible to make a success of Brexit, and that we reduce the chance of disruption to our economy and seize on the opportunities that come from our leaving the EU. We must ensure that we give Ministers the ability to do that in the most efficient and effective way possible.
It is right that we scrutinise the legislation effectively, but we must also recognise the need for secondary powers to adjust EU legislation to fit into the UK legal system and to make sure it remains relevant from the moment we leave. There has already been much debate about the use of such powers, but they are necessary to make the process workable. As colleagues have said, they are well-established practices and will remain within Parliament’s oversight, and there will be appropriate safeguards to limit their use.
I am optimistic about our future after we leave the EU, which the Bill will help to facilitate. As with any change, there is always some initial uncertainty, but through the Bill we can help to provide confidence about our economic future. From that point, the Government can get on and deliver the more global-trading Britain that we want to see. Businesses in my constituency share those thoughts, although some may have initial trepidation. By and large, firms in Stoke-on-Trent—especially those across our manufacturing sector—see the significant opportunities that can be realised both in striking the right path outside the EU, regaining control of our own destiny and growing our trading opportunities around the world. Only by voting in favour of the Bill tonight can we ensure that the Brexit process will move forward successfully, without delay, and guarantee a stable future outside the EU.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton).
Last June, the British people voted to leave the European Union. It was an outcome that I campaigned against, but it is a decision that I fully accept and respect as a democrat. That is why I voted to trigger article 50, and I have spent the past 15 months considering how to make Brexit work. It is precisely in that vein, driven by a desire to defend and advance our national interest and to enact the will of the British people, that I have risen today to urge hon. Members to decline to give this Bill a Second Reading.
This Bill frustrates the will of the British people and it fails on its own terms. Brexit was supposed to be about Britain and her sovereign Parliament taking back control. Whatever a vote for Brexit meant, it was surely not a vote for the degradation of our fundamental constitutional values. The first principle of our constitution is parliamentary sovereignty under a constitutional monarch. That means that it is Parliament, not the Executive, that determines the rules and laws that govern this country. The Bill seeks to turn that fundamental principle on its head. Without substantial amendment, this Bill will usurp the sovereign power of this House, giving Ministers the absolute powers of feudal lords, and the Prime Minister the power of a 16th century monarch. It would emasculate this House, giving the Government, who were denied a majority in this House at the ballot box just three months ago, unaccountable power. As Lord Acton famously remarked,
“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
The relationship between the legislature and the Executive works only if it is one of equals. This Bill, if passed in its current form, would fundamentally undermine Parliament’s ability to hold the Executive to account and to apply the checks and balances that are the lifeblood of our democratic processes and institutions.
If this Bill does pass tonight, we must work together across the Floor of this House to fix it. First, we need a substantive impact clause, which would codify and formalise the promise that this Bill will make only technical changes and would mean that substantive rights and protections originating in EU law could not be removed without a vote in Parliament. Secondly, we need a limitation on the use and scope of the discretionary powers in the Bill—this will likely take the form of the “necessary and proportionate” requirement—and a protection for substantive rights. Giving Ministers the power to determine what is “appropriate” is an inadequate safeguard, as it hands Ministers absolute and unaccountable power that they need justify to no one.
Thirdly, we need an enhanced scrutiny requirement. This could take the form of the “sift and scrutiny” Committee that has been proposed by the Hansard Society. Failing that, the task could be delegated to the European Scrutiny Committee, with the aid of a beefed-up explanatory memorandum. That type of amendment is required so that this House has the power to determine what will be done by statutory instrument, what by the affirmative principle, and what by the whole House.
Fourthly, there must be an institutional parity clause. Without UK institutions to take on the job of EU bodies, we will see fundamental rights removed by the back door, having been rendered unenforceable. Fifthly, we need proper explanatory statements from Ministers. That would be a further layer of protection; it would mean Ministers having to sign an explanatory statement whenever an instrument was made under the Bill, stating that it was not intended to impact on substantive rights and protections.
Lastly, but by no means least, we need a clause to enforce the principle of presumed competency for devolved institutions. There is presumed competence for devolved institutions when it comes to enforcing EU policy at present, so competency for these matters should be transferred not to Whitehall, but closer to the people through our devolved institutions.
Amendments to cover those six areas would produce a Bill that protects the sovereignty of this House and gives back control to the people of this country, and not simply to those around the Cabinet table, but the Government have shown absolutely no willingness even to consider any such amendments. Rather, they seem determined to impose a tight time limit on Committee stage, in an attempt to ram the Bill through before anyone can appreciate its full implications.
As Lady Macbeth muses,
“What need we fear…when none can call our power to account?”.
Lady Macbeth knew that as long as her husband was on the throne, they would escape punishment for their crimes, because there was no check on their power. This Bill seeks to strip Parliament of its sovereign power, create a Cabinet of kings and transform the Floor of this House from the beating heart of our democracy into a spectators’ gallery, turning us from legislators to bystanders, wholly dependent on the benevolence of Ministers. Let us make no mistake: this Bill is not about delivering the will of the people; rather, it is about gagging our democracy and this House by way of a false discourse. It is a silent coup d’état, masquerading as a technical necessity. It is for that reason that I urge us all to decline giving the Bill a Second Reading, and the Government to return with a dramatically altered Bill that respects this House, our constitution and the will of the British people.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak this evening. The Government must carry out the will of the British people, but we must remember that the people are not united. As the MP for East Renfrewshire—a constituency with one of the highest remain votes in the country—I will always put my constituents’ views first. Their concerns—indeed, my concerns—about what leaving the EU means for their businesses, families and futures will be heard and respected. Although I am not yet convinced that my remain vote was the wrong choice, I, like the vast majority of my constituents, do not seek to overturn or obstruct Brexit. We want it to work. It needs to work. We want to see practical, pragmatic, reasonable solutions to complex issues.
That is why I am pleased to see this Bill before the House today—a Bill that, when boiled down to its most fundamental principle, seeks to ensure that the positions at one second to midnight before we leave the EU and at one second past midnight after we have left are, so far as possible, the same. Whatever anyone’s view on Brexit, that surely can be seen as good and necessary. We cannot wake up the morning after we have left the EU with gaping holes in our statute book, and with no one knowing what the law is, what regulations apply or what protections exist. The Government can count on my support tonight as a result.
The aims and objectives of the Bill are clear, and they are right. However, as we move forwards, Ministers must not be deaf to the issues raised in this debate from across the House, particularly those concerning the delegated powers framework, which other Members have explained in far more detail and with far more eloquence than I could. The Bill is good in intent and purpose, but it is not perfect. The right thing is to work to amend it, not collude to wreck it.
I was 13 when the Scottish Parliament opened. Devolution is all I have known. Our departure from the EU gives us a golden opportunity to deepen and enhance the existing devolved settlements. That is what was promised, and it must be delivered. Just as the EU that we are leaving is not the same beast as the European Economic Community that we joined, so the United Kingdom of 2017 is not the same as that of 1972. However, the First Minister was right when she said this morning that devolution is under threat, although that threat does not come just from a small if vocal band who think that leaving the EU means returning to the constitution of the UK as it stood 40-odd years ago. The greatest threat to devolution is from Scottish nationalists, who want to see it fail, thereby allowing them to claim falsely that separation is the only way.
The Bill, the mechanism for the repatriation of powers, and the future relationship of our Governments must be placed firmly in the present. Solutions must reflect the Union as it is and strengthen the Union of tomorrow. Our exit must reflect the reality of devolution, which is now a fundamental and permanent part of the UK. Twenty years ago today, Scotland voted yes to a new Parliament. I am committed to devolution and to the Union. They are not mutually exclusive. I will not allow either to be undermined in this process. In leaving the EU, we can deliver hammer blows to nationalism—yes, of the yellow and black variety, but also of a deeper purple variety. Proposals that give succour to nationalists of either hue should not expect to receive my support. I urge Ministers to recognise the chance before them to deliver for the moderate majority in Scotland, who want to see devolution succeed and the Union protected, with better, stronger, more sustained co-operation between our two Governments, working together, not pulling apart.
The reservation of the power to amend retained EU law will be necessary in the period immediately post Brexit. Common UK-wide frameworks will be required for the long term in a number of areas. Protecting the integrity of the UK single market is absolutely key.
More powers will be coming to Holyrood; of that there is no doubt. The idea put forward by the SNP that the UK Government, who have just completed the transfer of £12 billion of income tax powers, and who are in the process of devolving huge swathes of social security powers, want to grab and micromanage hill farming in Scotland is not remotely credible.
The process of leaving the EU is transitional, but devolution is permanent. The question is whether the Scottish Government are willing and able to use the new powers they will get in the best interests of Scotland. Given that after a decade of the SNP in power, less than half of Scots believe that devolution has improved the quality of the health service or education provision, or the strength of the economy north of the border, I will not hold my breath. So I will answer the First Minister’s call today to stand up and defend devolution, but I will be defending it from her Government—from the wasted opportunities and wasted futures her Government have presided over. For the first 10 years of devolution, Scotland walked in the wrong direction. For the past 10 years, it has had no direction at all.
I have some difficulty listening to the First Minister and the nationalists opposite preaching to others about consensus while flat-out refusing to accept the result of not one but two referendums, and still, today, refusing to take the threat of a second independence referendum off the table. While SNP Members will no doubt make their views known with the melodrama and histrionics we have come to expect, never missing a chance to shoehorn in some grievance, I look forward to what I am sure will be the altogether more measured views of the Finance and Constitution Committee of the Scottish Parliament on this Bill. I hope that that Committee is given due respect and consideration by Ministers. We can make this work, if we work together.
Although SNP Members claim to be the voice of Scotland, they speak for no one but themselves. We must not let their hubris distract or deter us, the Conservative and Unionist party, from delivering Brexit and, in doing so, delivering for Scotland.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
When a Government come to a Parliament and say, “Give us more powers, or there will be chaos,” democrats should be worried. Over the years, when a Government have said, “Give us more powers, or there will be chaos,” they have acted like dictators. I am not saying that the Government are a dictator, but they are doing what Lord Hailsham said: they are acting like an elective dictatorship. That is why they are, through this Bill, undermining the very weak concept of parliamentary democracy that we have retained in this country.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is even worse for the Government to behave as an elected dictatorship, given that they have lost their majority?
Sir Edward Davey
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and I will come to that.
I would argue that the Bill undermines parliamentary sovereignty more than any EU directive ever did, and I will explain to the Minister why that is. I do not think, for example, that the Bill does what leave voters wanted in the referendum. Many leave voters I talk to say they voted leave because they wanted to restore parliamentary sovereignty—they wanted Parliament to take back control. But this Bill does not give control back to Parliament; it gives control back to Ministers, who do not want to be held to account properly in this House.
Leave voters talked about getting more democracy, but as the hon. Gentleman said in his intervention, democracy is being taken not by this place but by a Government who do not even have a majority in this House. That is not what leave voters voted for. During the hours we have debated this Bill, I have heard that when people answered the referendum question, they were saying we should do what we are doing now. Well, I am afraid that that is not what happened. The question before the House tonight was not on the ballot paper in the referendum; it is a completely different question.
People might say that the Bill gives effect to the referendum vote, but the point is that there are many ways of doing that, and this Bill is not doing that in the spirit of the referendum and the spirit of increasing parliamentary sovereignty. In fact, we have heard from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House alternative ways of giving effect to that referendum vote. Early in the debate, we heard some ideas from the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett). We have heard from the hon. Members for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). They have put forward ideas that go way beyond what is in the Bill in terms of holding the Government to account as they transcribe EU law into British law. I could think of a whole series of enhanced procedures for doing that, including special Committees and Select Committee hearings. Perhaps the Select Committee on Procedure should be asking that question and reporting back to the House—except the Government do not want that. They do not really want this House to be involved, and that is why they are excluding the Committees and going for this fast-track, fundamentally undemocratic approach.
Ministers will say, “What about time? All these alternative options will take time.” We put Bills through this House quickly when there is a war or a national emergency. There is no war or national emergency now; we have time to consider this as true democrats to ensure that we get it right. The fact that the Government are not doing that is outrageous.
The Bill’s approach is dangerous because parliamentary sovereignty in this country is such a weak reed, as it has been for many years. Executives of all hues—even, dare I say, coalitions—have, through the Whip system, managed to ensure that this House has not really taken part in some of the key decisions of the day. This is most seen in how the House debates Government expenditure decisions. Right hon. and hon. Members might be interested to know that the last time this House voted against a spending request from the Executive of the day was in 1919, when it voted against spending for the bathroom of the then Lord Chancellor. Since then, hundreds of billions of pounds have gone through this House without a proper vote against, because the Executive do not really believe in parliamentary sovereignty.
Parliamentary sovereignty is a weak doctrine in this country, and the danger of the Bill is that even more of what is left of it will be taken away. That is shocking. I believe that when leave voters talked about parliamentary sovereignty, they wanted to increase the power of this place. If we see the last vestiges of that power walking out of the door tonight, and if we vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, that will be a backward step and will go against the spirit of the referendum vote. Allowing the Government these additional powers is tantamount to the temporary abolition of this House. That is not what people voted for, and this House should defend itself and defend democracy.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
On 23 June 2016, the people of Mansfield voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU. They were so passionate about the issue that a record number turned out to vote on that day and 72% voted to leave. This decision was born out of not ignorance or fear but a feeling of indignation at the UK’s treatment by the EU and a desire to regain control of our borders, our laws and, most importantly, our sovereignty. With that decision has come a lot of uncertainty about Britain’s future—uncertainty that could have a massive effect on many aspects of our lives. I have spoken to a number of fantastic businesses in my constituency that will be affected in several different ways, some positive, some less so, but they all agree on the need for continuity and as much certainty as we can find. Nobody wants a situation in which our legislation disappears overnight, and it is that cliff edge that this Bill tries to avoid. A vote against it could plunge my constituents and the UK into chaos. At best, it would clearly lead to confusion and delay.
I welcome the words of the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who laid out very clearly the implications of voting against the Bill. I hope that her colleagues on the Opposition Benches will listen to her. Let us be clear that, despite the misleading media attention, the Bill does not give the Government carte blanche to legislate as they please. First, the limitations imposed by the affirmative procedure will prevent major decisions from being made without the scrutiny they rightly deserve, and even the negative procedure means that the instrument appears on the Order Paper and can be called out. Secondly, as we saw last June, the electorate simply will not stand being dictated to by an over-powerful Executive. The electorate ultimately have the power in their hands.
It is pretty hypocritical of Opposition Members to use the delegated legislation as an excuse when, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) pointed out last week, the previous Labour Government relied so heavily on that kind of legislation to carry them through. I would be pleased to see further discussion of the safeguards that must be in place as we go forward to reassure Members who have legitimate concerns about how we sift out the bits of EU law we want to look at or about how we use the delegated legislation procedures, but that is exactly what the Committee stage is for. I therefore say to colleagues that any concerns in that regard should not prevent them from agreeing in principle to the Bill, as we are being asked to do today. One change that I would like to see proposed at that stage is including the leaving date in the Bill to give my constituents confidence that we are working towards a date and that there will be no lengthy delay in our leaving. I am sure that we can look at that closely going forward.
The powers that this Bill would bestow on Government are necessary to amend 12,000 EU regulations that require adaptation and incorporation into our newly independent legal system. It should be pretty clear to all of us that we cannot hope to take each and every one of those possible changes as votes in this House and sit here for hours and hours having thousands of votes—that is just not doable.
If passed, the Bill will stand us in good stead in the negotiations, showing that we respect the EU and the legislation that is currently in place, and that we can make trade and other legal arrangements with the EU on its own terms, but also that we have a contingency arrangement in place should no deal arise. A vital part of any negotiation is the ability to walk away. Opposition Members still do not quite seem to understand that concept. Regardless of whether we voted to leave or remain in the referendum, the political reality is that we need to prepare for life outside the EU. By voting for this Bill, we are not only enacting the will of the British people but giving the Government the very best chance of getting a good deal from the EU in the negotiations ahead, and ensuring that there is a secure and sturdy legal framework in the event of no deal. Frustrating or stalling the passage of this Bill, as Opposition Members are trying so hard to do, presents a significant threat to our bargaining position and our security in the long term. Clearly, what the UK needs now is continuity. The time to push for more safeguards and other amendments will come when we look at this more closely in Committee.
I conclude by thanking the Leader of the Opposition, in his absence, for his visit to my constituency on Saturday; it was a fantastic event, actually. With Mansfield hosting the Tour of Britain last Wednesday, I said at the time that any event that brings people in from outside the area to spend their money in Mansfield is worthy of my support, so it was brilliant to see so many of his supporters arrive in buses from Islington to wave their banners in the park and to boost our economy by buying their lunch and all the rest of it. I take this opportunity to thank him for moving his party so far away from the traditional values of thousands of lifelong Labour voters in Mansfield that they decided to vote Conservative for the first time ever in June. On the doorstep, their reasons were very consistent—“Brexit and Jeremy Corbyn”. The two are very closely connected. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that residents in Mansfield will not thank him if he attempts to frustrate and delay Brexit when we vote on this Bill. They do not want political games—they want a commitment to Brexit. Speeches by Opposition Members like that of the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and others just go to prove that the only way to get that is from this Conservative Government.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
When a Conservative former Attorney General looks at a Bill and describes it as an “astonishing monstrosity”, it is clear that somewhere something has gone wrong. When a Conservative former Chancellor of the Exchequer says that we are facing the prospect of frittering away parliamentary democracy, something is not as it seems. When hundreds of thousands of people, whether it is June Barnes in Kilburn or Peter Singer in Hampstead, feel compelled to email their MP saying that they are in shock at the Government’s tactics, it is clear that the ministerial power grab at the heart of this Bill is unacceptable and brazen.
I am told that the Prime Minister campaigned to remain in the EU, and that has made her transformation into Brexiteer-in-chief even more difficult to stomach. The hard Brexiteers back-slapped and sneered their way through the referendum campaign saying that they would “take back control”, but the irony is that what the Government are asking for in this Bill actually takes control away. It proposes taking away control of the law from Parliament, taking away control of governance from all our regions, and taking away hard-won rights from those who live and work here. Not only will this Bill be dangerous to our country’s integrity; it also poses a serious challenge to hard-fought-for rights of my constituents and many across the country.
Let me be clear that my opposition to the Government’s intended mass deployment of secondary legislation is due not to a prosaic attachment to the purest form of primary legislation but to the very real consequences it could have for my constituents’ lives. The decision to withdraw from the EU charter of fundamental rights is, at best, problematic and, at worst, actively contemptuous of the rights that protect all aspects of citizens’ lives. The EU charter of fundamental rights covers a broad set of protections that guarantee individual freedoms and rights, from the prohibition of torture and the right to life to holiday entitlement and working conditions. Without it, for example, workers in London, whose air quality is already at an illegal level, would lose layers of protection.
I would like to know which rights in particular the Government object to; perhaps the Minister can tell me. Is it the right to life, or the prohibition of torture and degrading treatment and punishment? Perhaps the Government take issue with the charter’s codification of equality rights, or perhaps the Secretary of State has a new-found disregard for privacy laws. Paying lip service to human rights is no guarantee of human rights, and introducing legislation that cannot be properly scrutinised is no way to govern people’s lives. The explicit disregarding of the charter risks the rights of working people.
The Government may ask why the British people should not simply trust them to replicate any protections and rights in forthcoming legislation. Well, when certain Conservative Members believe that rape victims should not have access to abortion, I do not blame the public for being sceptical of the Government and their ability to rule.
The Bill not only poses challenges to parliamentary scrutiny and people’s rights, but sends a stark message about the trajectory of devolution in this country, if one examines clause 11. The Government could have used the Bill as a real opportunity to address the governance of our regions. If there was ever a time to empower the newly elected representatives, it is now. As with the rights of the EU charter, it seems as though the Government are asking devolved nations to take their promises in good faith, and asking individual nations and regions to accept Whitehall control again. Curbing the scope of devolution and the ability of devolved bodies to act, particularly at this time, sends out a troubling message.
I am a London MP, and there is no doubt that Brexit will have a disproportionate impact on London, with 1 million EU nationals living in the city and making up 15% of the employment force.
Catherine West
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way on the point about the London economy and EU nationals. Does she agree that an increasing number of EU nationals are very concerned, not just about the cost of their citizenship but about the constant changing of the goalposts by the increasingly incompetent Home Office?
Tulip Siddiq
I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. There are 17,000 EU nationals who live in my constituency, and they constantly come to my surgery because they are worried about the half-baked practice papers that are being put in front of them. In terms of the London economy, which my hon. Friend also mentioned, by 2020 a quarter of the GDP of the entire country will come from London alone. We have 800,000 private sector businesses. The Bill gives Ministers the power to modify retained EU law, and clause 11 stipulates that such powers should not be handed to the devolved authorities.
With the EU charter a thing of the past, London’s EU nationals will, as my hon. Friend suggests, have the right to question what their future holds and what rights will be guaranteed. An honest conversation is urgently needed on post-Brexit immigration arrangements and migrant protections for the huge population of non-EU citizens in London, and the Bill does not provide that. A lukewarm commitment to seek consent from devolved bodies will not do. Serious steps must be taken to mitigate the disproportionate impact that Brexit will have on the city where my constituency is based.
I will proudly vote against the Bill today with my Labour colleagues. The display put on by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) last Thursday revealed this Bill to be everything that campaigners warned it would be. It is a shoddy power grab that disrespects the democratic traditions of our country and throws hard-fought rights into total jeopardy, and the Government should be ashamed of themselves for introducing it.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
Despite some of the benefits that the UK has derived from its membership of the EU, overall, and overwhelmingly, our membership has had a corrosive effect on democracy. For decades, the political class in the UK has lacked the ability and the confidence to be bold for Britain. It has been emasculated by EU primacy. Clause 1, which repeals the European Communities Act, and clause 5, which brings to an end the primacy of EU law, constitute a welcome first step towards restoring parliamentary democracy to the United Kingdom.
Since the ECJ case of Costa v. ENEL in 1964 and the Factortame cases in the 1990s, our politicians and our courts have been robbed of their sovereignty, and of the freedom and independence to challenge, amend or override EU law and judgments, leading to an inherent insecurity in British politics. This has been partly fuelled by a sacrosanct belief in experts, a disproportionate desire for media headlines and an emphasis—an unjustified emphasis—on political correctness and polls. Moreover, it has been driven by the ultimate power grab, which is the one by the unaccountable and illegitimate EU. Whether in trade, immigration, tax policy, or agriculture and fisheries, the power to determine the direction of this country has been stolen from our Parliament by the EU.
That sums up the EU: its inherent lack of legitimacy and accountability has diminished the potency of UK politics, leaving us with an exaggerated sense of powerlessness, and a dulling of politics through a spiral of technocratic and administrative decisions. Whether we talk about trade, immigration or our courts, the EU has killed off innovation in politics. Through this Brexit Bill, we have a chance to reignite the ability to inspire and enthral through politics, law and justice, and that is why I am delighted to speak in its support.
The Bill is an essential piece of legislation and an integral part of the machinery that will make Brexit a reality and ensure that this Parliament rightly and faithfully honours the democratic instruction sent us by the British people in last year’s referendum. The reason why it is a prerequisite of Brexit and fundamental for this historic chapter in our country’s history is that it will achieve the central objective of those who voted leave in the EU referendum and of those who, although they did not support it, have come to accept the vote for taking back control of our laws. The Bill’s objective is to transcribe EU law in UK law, so that this Parliament—a beacon of democracy emulated around the world—will regain its power over whether and how such laws should apply.
Stephen Gethins
Will the hon. Lady tell us in what way the House of Lords is more accountable to the democratic populace than the European institutions?
Suella Fernandes
Through the Bill, our UK Parliament will regain authority over whether and how EU law will apply, and that is what honouring the result of the EU referendum is all about.
This Bill is necessary to ensure an orderly Brexit. The alternative does not bear thinking about. It is chaos, uncertainty and the abrupt evaporation of laws overnight, leaving us with nothing but a legal vacuum on the day after we have left the EU. That is what those who oppose the Bill are asking for, which is why I urge Labour Members to reconsider their position in opposition to the Bill and to vote for the pragmatism and necessity that it encapsulates.
A vote against the Bill is a vote in breach of voters’ trust and a vote for chaos for two reasons. First, the fact that the Bill has the effect of placing all current EU law into UK law is eminently sensible. Many of the laws will work in UK law without amendment, but some will need to be amended. There has been much criticism of the Henry VIII powers, but it is exaggerated and unjustified. The Hansard Society has calculated that of the 23 Government Bills in the 2015-16 parliamentary Session, 16 contained a total of 96 Henry VIII powers to amend or repeal primary legislation. Of those powers, 65 were included in Bills when they were introduced, and a further 31 were added to Bills during their progress through Parliament. There is therefore nothing alien or sinister about such powers, and to suggest otherwise is unjustified and disproportionate.
The Opposition have proposed no alternative. If there were individual votes to amend the EU laws, that would mean an individual vote on all 20,000 EU laws. If we conducted the process in that way, it would take over 200 days of parliamentary time, sitting 24 hours a day, seven days a week. An alternative would be to have a debate on every page of the law, but that would mean debates on over 600,000 pages of law. That leaves us with the only option of abandoning all EU law, which, as I have said, would mean legal chaos.
Secondly, the Bill is important because it repeals the European Communities Act 1972, which gives force to judgments from the European Court of Justice and regulations without any further need for scrutiny by Parliament. That is the biggest power grab to which this country has been subject. Politics should be less about mechanistic procedure and more about the big vision; less about systematic management and more about creating on a grand scale with radical thinking, setting a blueprint for society. Brexit is a birth and a chance for a new beginning, not a death. Now there is a chance for those who campaigned to leave the EU and those who see the opportunity ahead, even if they did not campaign for it, to unite in painting that bold and bright vision of the future of our country and of the world. For those who cannot or will not see that, the politics of yesterday may be good enough for them, but not for me.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
I shall be brief and to the point, as we are about to reach a critical stage in proceedings.
Like many hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members, I voted to remain in the European Union. Like many others, I was active in my constituency and throughout the west midlands in arguing that case, particularly to the manufacturers and traders for which the region is well known. I was disappointed, like many people, that the referendum turned out the other way. A result of 48:52 is pretty close, but in Coventry it was 40:60—60% of people voted to leave and 40% to remain.
When it came to the triggering of article 50 in the House, I had little doubt in my mind—indeed, I would never think of going against a clearly democratic vote—that we would have to do so, and we duly did. However, I also set out a couple of points that I thought would be essential if we were to avoid the worst aspects of what Brexit could mean: we needed a transitional period to the new arrangements, and those arrangements should be as soft as possible. I believe that both those points are as valid today as they were then. I agreed to sit back and watch how far the Government could get on achieving them. Unfortunately, they have not made much progress that anyone in this country or in Europe has noticed.
On the transitional arrangements, which would imply a period during which we would be in the single market and in the customs union, we have seen a remarkable performance. On the single market, half of the Cabinet is in and the other half is out; and another day the other half is in and the other half is out. The same goes for the customs union. What sort of negotiating activity that is I do not know. I cannot imagine what other kind of activity it is, but it is not skilful negotiation. We have not made any progress at all—if anything we have gone backwards on both those important considerations on which I was particularly looking for progress so that I could continue to give my unqualified support by recognising the vote in my Coventry constituency and happily supporting my constituents.
The simple fact is that the Government, having made a dog’s breakfast of the negotiations, have asked us to trust them to go ahead and change the laws of this land with a Bill that has been roundly criticised—I will not try to rise to the heights of hyperbole reached by colleagues on both sides of the House—as a travesty of good government and good legislation. The Bill is clearly full of faults, defects and inadequacies that have to be put right. The Government say, “Trust us, we will put them right.” They say that at the end of the process we will have a Bill that meets the needs and has the guaranteed support of the House. I say no to that; it will not do. Given their record in the negotiations, they are neither competent nor honest enough to deliver what is possible, and there is insufficient determination in the Executive or civil service to do so.
Mr Speaker
Does the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) wish to conclude his oration, or has he already concluded it?
Mr Robinson
I would, very briefly, like to conclude. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The pause, if anything, has given me new breath and I shall seek to expend it.
I was saying that the Government have introduced the Bill with the words, “Trust us, we’ll put it right.” Nowhere has the Bill been more eruditely or expertly criticised than on their own Benches by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who unfortunately is not here for these latter stages. He has exposed it as being a shoddy Bill that should never have been brought forward.
We say very clearly to the Government tonight that, as far as the negotiation goes, a transitional arrangement is vital. Soft terms are equally important for our manufacturers, traders and financial companies—everybody on whose livelihood the wellbeing of this country depends. If we go for the mess the Government are currently promising us, I regret to say that we will have a very hard Brexit and the citizens of the whole country will take a very hard economic knock to their wellbeing. I want to avoid that, so I say take the Bill away. Bring back a corrected Bill that is decently presented and does not try to wrench power away from Parliament for ends that we cannot yet even specify. Bring it back in a shape fit enough that we could be justified in voting for it.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
I rise with enthusiasm to support the main principles of the Bill and its Second Reading. We have heard many excellent contributions and I would like to express my appreciation for the quality of this debate. To me, the debate comes down to something rather straightforward. When this House passed the Bill to hold an in/out referendum on the United Kingdom’s continued membership of the European Union, it entered a compact with the British people to act on their direct instruction. This Second Reading debate is about main principles. The first principle of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 on the day we leave the European Union. A vote against that principle will be an attempt to set aside the result of the referendum and a base disrespect to the British people—it is as uncomplicated as that.
The second principle of the Bill is to convert EU law, taken as a whole, into UK law so that we can have a stable and functioning statute book on the day we leave the European Union. A vote against that principle would create the potential for instability and uncertainty, because we would have a broken statute book on the day we leave the European Union. It is no more complicated than that. This is a grand moment for British pragmatism.
Sincerely held concerns have been and are being raised about the Bill’s so-called Henry VIII powers. A number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have made positive suggestions that deserve the careful consideration of those on the Government Front Bench—[Interruption.] Thanks for the prompt. There is clearly a willingness on the part of the Government both to listen and to accommodate, and I fully expect them to be as good as their word. That said, I find it strange that some of those who object so strenuously to the so-called Henry VIII powers and the Bill seem not to have had many concerns over the past 44 years when Governments have been expected to enact a steady stream of EU laws and regulations that neither the Government nor Parliament have had the power to change or the capacity to scrutinise properly.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that as a nation we need to learn to respect the outcomes of referendums? We have had two major referendums in the UK, but we seem repeatedly to fail to respect the will of the British people.
Stephen Kerr
My hon. Friend’s excellent point brings me neatly to the nationalists, who have called the Bill a power grab and a threat to the devolution settlement. It is no such thing. They cannot name one power that the UK Government intend to grab back from Holyrood.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Law Society of Scotland, a non-partisan body, that the Bill would remove legislative competence from the Scottish Parliament, including in areas of law not reserved to the UK, such as agriculture and fisheries? Has he read the Bill?
Stephen Kerr
The answer to the first question is no. I remind the hon. and learned lady, however, that it was a Conservative Government who passed new powers to the Scottish Government, and there is no evidence, other than in the feverish imagination of SNP Members, that the UK Government intend to grab back any devolved powers.
To the contrary: I have lost count of the number of times Ministers have said in this House and elsewhere that they anticipate that the Scottish Parliament will have new enhanced powers because of Brexit. The irony is that the SNP, if it ever got its way, would hand those very powers back to Brussels. The SNP Government have spent the past 10 years power grabbing for themselves from local government and local communities, and their incessant centralising of power has undermined the very fabric of local democracy in Scotland. Just a few days ago, Scottish Ministers, against all advice, including from their own reporter, ran roughshod over local democracy in Stirling by foisting a huge commercial development on scenic greenbelt at Park of Keir. Many of my constituents—
Mr Speaker
Order. I hope it is genuinely a point of order, rather than one of frustration from the hon. Gentleman.
Brendan O'Hara
I merely ask for guidance on the relevance of the hon. Gentleman’s speech on greenbelt and the Scottish Government to the topic of debate.
Mr Speaker
If the speech had been disorderly, I would have ruled as such, but it wasn’t, so I didn’t.
Stephen Kerr
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Many of my constituents in Dunblane and Bridge of Allan are rightly angry at this power grab by the SNP. That is one of many such examples.
I have no hesitation in telling the Government, whom I am proud to support, that I want them to get on with Brexit. It will bring opportunities, and we must make the best of them. I want to get on with those free-trade deals across the world. We already know that customers globally have an insatiable appetite for Scottish food and drink, including Scottish salmon, and since Stirling is now the UK’s centre of excellence and innovation in salmon, and finfish aquaculture in general, I declare a vested interest. Those in the House who gleefully seize on every statement by EU negotiators, at the supposed expense of Her Majesty’s Ministers, should consider how their antics appear to the voting public. We must work together across parties to get the best deal for the British people, and I have the utmost faith and confidence in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and his ministerial team to do just that. We must be, among ourselves, united.
The Bill represents the best kind of pragmatism, for which this country is rightly renowned around the world. It will efficiently allow us to leave the European Union, it will allow our devolved Administrations to make more decisions about the lives and livelihoods of the people whom they serve, and it will allow us to have a statute book that functions on the day we leave the European Union. I celebrate its British pragmatism.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr).
Let me make it clear at the outset that since the referendum of 23 June last year, I have always respected the outcome of the vote, both in my constituency and throughout the United Kingdom. That is why I have spent the last 15 months arguing for the best possible Brexit deal, which will secure jobs and prosperity in my constituency. This Bill, however, is not about the principle of withdrawal from the EU. It is about constitutional arrangements, and, as a Welsh Member of Parliament, I note in particular that the Welsh Government does not have the power to amend retained EU law—in other words, the law that is brought back via the Bill. This is about the kind of democracy that we are, and it is about the rights of our citizens. As I said in an earlier intervention, citizens currently have the right to take the Government to the European Court when they are found wanting in respect of certain matters, including environmental matters. Where is that remedy, or its replacement, in the Bill? It is not there.
Above all, there is the argument—I have heard it on a number of occasions, and I respect it—about bringing powers back to the House of Commons. The Bill does not achieve that. It is not so much a Bill to take back control to Parliament as a Bill to take control away from the legislature and give it to the Executive. I am deeply concerned about the Henry VIII powers in clauses 7, 8, 9 and 17; to put it simply, I do not trust Tory Ministers with those powers.
At the weekend, I was very interested to read a leaked letter signed by, apparently, up to 40 Tory MPs. It set out various red lines in respect of the transition deal that they want to see. What did it say about Henry VIII powers? It said:
“There can be no Henry VIII laws which automatically add EU/EEA laws onto our statute books”.
How are we, as Opposition Members, supposed to trust Ministers with Henry VIII powers when their own MPs will not?
I looked back at the past to see whether there is any precedent for handing over such powers to the Government. I had to go back as far as the Rating and Valuation Act 1925, would you believe, to find an Act that allowed Ministers to change the provisions of that Act. It states that
“any such order may modify the provisions of this Act so far as may appear to the Minister necessary or expedient for carrying the order into effect”.
That led the Lord Chief Justice of the day, Lord Hewart, to write a book called “The New Despotism” in 1929—I recommend it to Ministers—about what he called “the departmental despot”, who would be in a position to carry out law making away from proper accountability, away from scrutiny, and away from the reach of ordinary law.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I agree with my hon. Friend that clauses 7, 8 and 9 are Henry VIII clauses, enabling Ministers to repeal and replace elements of the statute book at will and implying that our Parliament will not be able to take back control. It is clear that, rightly respecting the British public’s decision, we will be leaving the EU because article 50 has been triggered, but does my hon. Friend agree that, as it stands, the Bill is fatally flawed because it amounts to a power grab by Ministers?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is fatally flawed, and that is why I will vote against it with hon. Friends in the Lobby tonight.
I will simply never be able to trust Tory Ministers with things like workers’ rights, environmental protections and consumer rights. Let us take workers’ rights as an example. The Prime Minister has promised to retain all our workers’ rights as long as she holds office. In light of recent events, I hardly think that is particularly comforting, but in case we have any other doubts, let us just see what the then Tory Employment Minister, currently the International Development Secretary, said during the referendum campaign. She gave a speech at the Institute of Directors on 17 May 2016, about a month before the referendum. What does she want to do? To quote her, she wants to
“halve the burdens of the EU social and employment legislation”.
That is what the Tory Employment Minister said at the time of the referendum. It is no surprise that the Tories cannot be trusted now.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Did my hon. Friend see last Tuesday’s Order Paper, which listed a whole bunch of private Members’ Bills tabled by Brexiteer Conservative Members, including a Bill to take away the working time directive?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that, and it simply reinforces the case we are making: that Tory Ministers simply cannot be trusted with powers of this nature.
We have also frequently heard the argument about the need for legal certainty, but the Bill as drafted does not provide that legal certainty. What guidance does it give to judges post-Brexit as to how they are supposed to interpret the law that originated from the European Union? Absolutely none. The idea of a preliminary reference to the European Court is of course no more, because of the red line on the ECJ. That is completely gone. The remedy that citizens once had to go to the European Court is also gone. So the idea that, post Brexit, the Bill will assist our constitutional arrangements and provide clarity is simply wrong.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
No, people will not be able to go to the ECJ—the hon. Gentleman is right about that—but they will be able to go to the British Supreme Court, just down the road from here, where decisions that affect them and their countrymen will be taken by British judges according to British law. What is wrong with that?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I have nothing against British judges taking decisions. What I am talking about is the failure of this Bill to provide clarity about how the law now will be transposed into the law then. Let us talk about a judge down the road who is faced, for example, with a citizen demanding a remedy of holding the Government to account for failure to deal with pollution. They would previously have had a right to go to the European Court. What will be their right under the Bill? The Government have absolutely no idea. Let us have a Bill that gives that clarity post Brexit, which this Bill manifestly fails to do.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
No, I am not giving way again; I have given way three times, and many Members want to speak in this debate.
Let me summarise by saying this: the Bill is shoddy, and undermines the parliamentary democracy that it was meant to enhance. It is not worthy of support, and I urge colleagues not to support it tonight.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. A five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches must now apply if I am to accommodate colleagues.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
It is an honour to contribute to this historic debate, and to follow the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), who made an impassioned contribution.
I would like to start with a sober analysis of what the Bill is really about. It is about an overall approach. It is essential for a smooth and orderly exit from the European Union and provides the continuity that is needed for businesses and individuals alike. It is badly named, too—in the early stages of its progress it was called a repeal Bill, and the press call it that, but is much better seen as a continuity Bill. It is more notable for what it does not do than for what it does.
I suggest that it is incumbent on those who propose to vote against the Bill—rather than those who feel that it needs amending—to say what they would do instead to transfer EU law into British law. We have heard nothing from Labour Members about how they would achieve that. There are, of course, options. We could in theory simply ignore EU law, but that would lead to chaos, and I am sure no hon. Member would want that. Or we could vote on every measure that we need to transpose from EU to British law. But as we have heard, if we spoke 24/7 on such matters from this day onward, we would need 200 days of parliamentary time. That is not a practical option. That is why we need the Bill.
This is a necessary Bill that will perform the sensible task of providing continuity by moving the acquis of EU law into British law on the date of leaving. Essentially, it will turn off the tap on further EU regulations, but will not pull the plug and drain away any of the existing regulations.
We need some sober analysis of the Bill’s purpose, because it is not intended to give the Government sweeping new powers. It will not give the Government powers to pick and choose which regulations to keep or dispose of. That will be a matter for this sovereign Parliament in the years that follow. The Bill simply seeks to change, on a technical basis, references to EU bodies that will no longer be relevant into references to the relevant British bodies. As the Secretary of State said, it is not for Ministers to change laws because they do not like them. The Bill is also—this is a crucial point—strictly limited by the sunset clause to two years after the exit date.
We have heard about scrutiny, and parliamentary scrutiny is essential. The Government have said that all substantive policy changes will be strictly the preserve of the Bills to follow on trade, agriculture and immigration. As we all know, statutory instruments have been used for many years to deal with less contentious regulations. They are a parliamentary procedure. Members will be able to pray against them, and it is not true to say that that will bypass Parliament. Every regulation will be subject to parliamentary procedure, particularly in cases where the affirmative procedure is used.
The Secretary of State has made it clear, and I welcome this approach, that when constructive suggestions are made on drafting and scrutiny, the Government will listen, but the appropriate time for such observations is in Committee. None of those points, many of which have been very constructive, are any reason to vote against the Bill tonight. That would lead to chaos and induce exactly the hard Brexit that so many Opposition Members have mentioned.
This is an important Bill and I urge the House to support it. We will look at constructive suggestions in Committee, but now is not the time.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The last seven hours have demonstrated what this place does best. My right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) have made excellent contributions to the debate. They have demonstrated that this Chamber of this House of Commons is able to debate matters in a way that no other place can, and that is what makes the content of the Bill so offensive.
Listening to Government Members today, I have heard several variations of something that they will all know is called the politician’s fallacy: “Something must be done. This Bill is something. Therefore we must do it.” I heard no substance or content, simply an argument that this is what we have and therefore we must do it. Nobody on the Opposition Benches is arguing that the wholesale adoption of European law should not take place; the argument is that the way in which the Bill is written is an affront to the democratic values that we hold dear.
We have heard from the right hon. Members for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and the hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), for Poole (Mr Syms) and for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) that the Bill is flawed. They have all said in their own words that the Bill is flawed, but they have hope, anticipation, expectation and trust in the Government. They have been assured that amendments will come forward to assuage their concerns. Rather than consider what might come, I ask them to look at how this Government have treated this House. The article 50 vote was delayed while the Prime Minister pursued a legal case to prevent her own Members from having a vote on it. There is a motion before the House tomorrow that will rig the Committee system to allow a minority Government to have a majority on Bill Committees, which is simply unacceptable.
Gareth Snell
I will not.
Words such as “the Minister may make regulations” are littered throughout the Bill, and clauses 7, 8, 9 and 17 produce unprecedented levels of power for the Ministers on the Treasury Bench. We are to understand that they have been in listening mode today, but when asked either by Government Members or by Opposition Members to address some concern not once have they intervened to do so. They have sat quietly, passing notes—I can only presume to the Government Members who delivered their whipped speeches so wonderfully—instead of making a contribution to the argument.
Gareth Snell
No, I will not give way.
We also have a programme motion that seeks to allow 64 hours of debate on what Government Members have described as one of the greatest constitutional changes in their lifetime. The money resolution seeks to allow any amount of money to be spent by Ministers if they deem it necessary.
Gareth Snell
No, I am not going to take it.
The ways and means resolution allows for “any taxation”. I thought the Conservative party was opposed to general taxation, but its Members are voting this evening for taxation for the sake of paying for a Bill that they will not allow to be scrutinised in this House. We are elected by our constituents as equals to have a say on the future of our country once we leave the European Union. No seat delivered a greater leave vote than mine. My constituents made their voice clear and I respect that, but they sent me here to get the best deal for them. I will be denied that right if I vote for this Bill’s Second Reading this evening.
The leave campaign talked about taking back control, but this Bill takes control away from Parliament. We will be relegated to observers in something that we have been told is the greatest constitutional event of our lifetimes. I will be joining my colleagues in voting against the Bill’s Second Reading, because it is not what my constituents want, it is not what I came here to do, and I refuse, like my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East, to vote myself out of a role in the Brexit negotiations.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the energetic speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). This is of course a Second Reading debate and we should properly be considering the general objectives and principles of the legislation. I think there is in fact some measure of consensus around the fact that such a Bill, or one similar to it, is required to give practical effect to our leaving the European Union. Even the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) admitted in his speech on Thursday that something like this was required, and even the House of Lords Constitution Committee accepts that something like this is necessary. It is clearly reasonable, when we have to pass 1,000 statutory instruments to effect leaving the European Union, that we do something like this Bill. I remind Opposition Members that all those 1,000 statutory instruments are votable, should they wish. The idea there is no democratic scrutiny is not accurate.
On Thursday and today, we have heard Opposition Members claim that the Bill gives unfettered power to the Executive, but it is very clear in both clauses 7 and 9 that the powers are circumscribed. Clause 7(1) states that the powers can be used only to correct a
“failure of retained EU law…or any…deficiency”.
Clause 9(1) clearly states that the powers can be used only to implement the exit agreement, an agreement on which this House will have a vote. The idea that the powers can be used across the board does not bear scrutiny.
Clauses 7(6) and 9(3) make it completely clear that a whole range of things, such as introducing new criminal laws, cannot be done under this Bill. The powers are fairly clearly circumscribed. To top that, there are sunset clauses that mean the powers are strictly time-limited, which gives further reassurance.
Clauses 7(4) and 9(2) mean that the Bill itself can be amended by regulation. If there is one little tweak we might consider, it is exempting the sunset clauses from that provision, but that is the kind of fine tuning that can quite properly happen in Committee, rather than on Second Reading.
I have heard quite a lot of extraordinary hyperbole and crocodile tears from some Opposition Members in this debate. The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, who is not in his place, said on Thursday that he feels the Bill disenfranchises Parliament, but for the last 40 years he has been perfectly content for regulations and laws passed in Brussels by qualified majority voting, with no veto or definitive say by the UK Government, to be implemented in UK law by Orders in Council without so much as a sniff of a vote in this House. Where was his righteous indignation for the whole of the last 40 years?
The hon. Member for Holborn and Kilburn, who is in her place—[Interruption.] Sorry, Hampstead and Kilburn. I should know, having stood in that constituency in 2010. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) said the Bill is a wholesale threat to rights under EU law, but the Bill copies and pastes wholesale those rights into UK law. Any material amendment to those rights would have to be passed by a vote of this House. She specifically referenced human rights law. She obviously has not read clauses 7(6)(e) and 9(3)(d).
Chris Philp
The hon. Lady should know, then, that the Bill expressly prohibits these powers being used in any way to interfere with human rights law. She will have seen that the Bill expressly precludes her concerns.
The Scottish National party is going into paroxysms of apoplexy at the merest hint that London might exercise even a smidgen of the powers currently exercised in Brussels. I have not heard a single word of protest in the two years I have been a Member about those self-same powers being exercised in Brussels. Where were the SNP’s shouts of indignation then?
Everyone seems to agree that the Bill is necessary. No doubt there are points of detail that can and will be improved on, but anyone who is serious about implementing the British public’s decision should vote for Second Reading this evening.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I begin by trying to find a bit of consensus and agreement across the House. We are all basically agreed that we need to improve the Bill in Committee. Everyone seems to suggest that lots of amendments are required to improve this legislation.
I may have inadvertently misled the House last Thursday when I broke the crushing news that only eight days will be available in Committee, because actually only seven days will be available. That is because we are going to lose four hours out of the eight in days five and eight. So we will have seven days to rewrite the whole of the law system of the United Kingdom, whereas 41 days were given to the Maastricht treaty, 29 were given to the Lisbon treaty and 21 were given to entering the Common Market. We will have only seven days for this great repeal Bill—what an absolute embarrassment for this Government. They had better come back with a proper programme motion to give this House sufficient time—
Pete Wishart
I have not got time for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, so he should sit down. On this side of the House, we have been trying to outdo each other in describing this Bill. I would describe it as a “Hammer House of Horror” Bill: it gifts unprecedented power to this Executive, drives a coach and horses through the devolution settlement and presents a profound threat to our human rights. It is hard, if not impossible, to conceive of a Bill that more undermines this “taking back control” mantra of all those who parroted it ad nauseam when they were talking about leaving the European Union.
I would not vote for this Bill in a month of Sundays. The UK is engaged in an almost unprecedented exercise of national self-harm with this whole Brexit project. We are indulging in a grotesque episode of economic, political and cultural self-flagellation and, by God, we are determined to give ourselves a damn good thrashing! We are opting for the hardest of hard Brexits, reaching for the most painful implement in the box, and the scars and pain will be there for decades to come.
Turning to the negotiations, I will put my cards on the table when it comes to these tricky conversations. I will try to lay them down as delicately and sensitively as I can. Never before has an enterprise of such political significance been prosecuted with such delusional cluelessness, which is approaching a national embarrassment. It is hard to think of any major international negotiations being handled so ineptly and chaotically; it is almost as if we have put the clowns in charge of the Brexit circus and their huge clown footprints are all over all of this. We are becoming a national embarrassment with our negotiations, and this Government have to start to get real and drop their delusions. This repeal Bill is only throwing salt on the wounds.
What interests me more than anything else about this is what the Bill tells us about how Scotland is now perceived in this union of nations. Today, we celebrate 20 years of the vote that delivered the Scottish Parliament: 20 years of really taking back control—Members may wish to see it like that. This Bill presents the biggest challenge that our Parliament has ever had to confront, as it undermines the very foundation and ethos of the development of our national Parliament: if something is not listed in the reserved powers, it is devolved. That approach was designed elegantly by Donald Dewar as a means to determine and shape our national Parliament, and it has served us so well since then. This Bill drives a coach and horses through that. Indeed, it is worse than that, as the Law Society of Scotland tells us:
“The effect of the Bill would be to remove the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament in relation to any matter in retained EU law. This would be the case even if it related to areas of law not reserved to the UK under the Scotland Act, such as agriculture or fisheries.”
Then we must consider the Henry VIII power, an innovation so spectacular in its political audaciousness that one of Henry’s executioners would baulk at the whole experience. We have our own powers, which I refer to as the Robert the Bruce powers. We are actually compelled to exercise them as part of this Bill, even though we might have fundamental concerns in respect of democratic oversight. We are sailing towards the big Brexit iceberg, but Scotland has an opportunity. We can get down below decks, get on that lifeboat labelled “Scotland”, get out on to the ocean and row as quickly as we can to the shores of sanity.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. After the next speaker, the time limit on Back-Bench speeches will need to be reduced to four minutes. I call Liz Twist.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
First, let me make it clear that people in my constituency voted leave in the referendum, but they did not vote to risk the regulations and protections that they have to safeguard them. I want to talk about not clauses and regulations, but practicalities. My constituency has suffered serious problems arising from two landfill sites. Last year, we had three months of—not to put too fine a point on it—stench from one of the sites. The year before, we had a serious litter escape that blighted the local rural landscape.
The House will not be surprised to hear that many of us want greater environmental controls, not only on landfill sites, but to protect our rivers, air and natural environment. My constituents are worried about and want to retain all the employment and health and safety rights that they have under European regulations. It is crucial that Members of this House have the opportunity to examine the process of bringing those regulations into domestic legislation and how they are to be carried forward. In its reliance on secondary legislation, the Bill takes away the House’s ability—the ability of all us Members—to ensure that existing protections remain. I want to make sure that not only environmental but other protections from European legislation remain; if they will not, I want to be able to raise those issues with the Government and in the Chamber.
Government statements have said that they are going to transfer all regulations—everything is going to be okay, and it is all going to be incorporated into UK law—but as more than one Member has said today, the devil is in the detail. It is that detail that we need the opportunity to deal with. To use another well-known phrase, fine words butter no parsnips. The Government have come forward with fine words, but we need them to come forward with practical mechanisms to allow the proper scrutiny of regulations in this House, and they must do so.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Some Government Members seem perturbed at the description of clause 7 as a power grab, but given the breadth of its powers and the absolute and unqualified way in which they are presented, the legislation represents a transfer of political authority from the elected House of this Parliament to the political Executive of Government on a scale not seen in modern times. Any democrat should be concerned about that, but what concerns me even more is Ministers’ justification for why such powers are necessary. They are effectively saying that this is now the only way that they can achieve Brexit and get the job done. That speaks volumes about the woeful inadequacy of the Government’s preparations for leaving the European Union.
It is no surprise: we all know and, indeed, have always known that the repatriation of European law and its integration into UK law would be complicated. It will throw up inconsistencies and anomalies and it will require further legislation. That is no secret. It is perturbing that 15 months after the referendum, having built a brand new, shiny Government Department, committed hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ money to the process and instructed thousands of civil servants on the job, the best the Government can come up with is, “Trust us; it will be all right on the night.” Where is the schedule of the principal EU laws that are to be repatriated, indicating the effect on domestic legislation and bringing forward legislative amendments for the House’s approval in order to make it work? Where is the schedule—the plan? There is none. It is a shocking abrogation of the Government’s responsibility.
If clause 7 is a power grab by the Executive, clause 11 is a power grab by the British state over the United Kingdom’s devolved national Parliaments. Let me explain it this way to my friends in the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party. Twenty years ago to the day, we voted to establish a national Parliament in Scotland. Our predecessors in this place went on to decide what its powers should be. If this country had control over fishing and agriculture back then, there would have been no dispute whatsoever: those powers would have been given to Holyrood. They would not have been included in schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, which sets out the reserved powers. It would have been seen as an automatic, simple thing to do, yet that is not what is happening under the Bill, and we have to ask ourselves why.
We are being invited to trust Ministers, but I want to withhold my trust, because there are alternatives that they could have considered. They could simply have repealed the relevant bits in the 1998 Act and changed schedule 5. They could have repealed the measure and put in a new qualification on the Scottish Government to comply with whatever international agreements the UK forms in the future, or—here is the kicker—they could have said in the Bill, “This is our intention to devolve these powers,” and they could have put a time limit on that, after which it would automatically happen. The absence of that leads me not to trust the Government.
Drew Hendry
Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be incredible if the Scots Tories voted for this Bill to take powers away from Scotland, when even their leader, Ruth Davidson, says that this could do great economic harm to the UK?
Tommy Sheppard
I absolutely concur with my hon. Friend. I say to colleagues opposite: do not let yourselves be played for fools. It is quite clear that there is no intention to devolve. The reason why we warn about this Bill being a danger to devolution is that it is against not just the letter, but the spirit of the Scotland Act 1988, which achieved devolution.
Bill Grant
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will you tell the House what powers will be taken away from Scotland with this Bill? Will you detail the powers that we are taking away—
Mr Speaker
Order. I can do no such thing, but the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) might be able to do so.
Tommy Sheppard
I find it incredible—Members on the Government Benches have had the answer to this question on three occasions. The point is that there is an opportunity in this place, in this month, in this debate to transfer powers from Brussels to Holyrood, and it is not being taken. Government Members invite us to trust them, but I fear that we cannot do so; if we could, they would have made clear their intention in the Bill. That is one reason why I will vote to decline giving this Bill a Second Reading tonight.
Tommy Sheppard
I ask the hon. Gentleman to please sit down, as time is very short.
Finally, many Members have stood up and said how their constituents voted over Brexit. Let me put this on the record: the people who sent me to this place to speak on their behalf voted by 74% to retain their European citizenship and against the process in which we are now engaged. The people of my country voted by 62% to retain their European membership. We were told in 2014 that the independence referendum was not a matter of Scotland dissolving itself and its citizens becoming part of another country. It was about a political union between Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Within that Union, according to David Cameron, the views of Scotland would be respected. I call now for that respect to be shown to Scotland and to the Scottish Government. I know that the UK will leave the European Union—that much is certain—but what happens next must be different in different parts of the United Kingdom; it must be different in Scotland, so that Scottish interests can be protected. I say to the Conservative and Unionist party in Scotland: you may have a majority in this vote, but you are alone tonight in Scotland in letting this process go through.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
During June’s election, I made two promises about Brexit to my electorate, now my constituents: first, that I would respect the outcome of the referendum; and secondly, that I would work to get the best deal for our fine city. Those are promises that I endeavour to keep every day—I am visibly proclaiming that—and I will do so today by voting for Labour’s reasoned amendment and against this Bill getting its Second Reading.
It is of course critical that we recognise the outcome of the referendum. The majority of my constituents, and of our country, voted to leave the EU, and they rightly expect their Parliament to get on with the process; I accept that. However, we are talking about not whether we should leave—although regrettably we have spoken a lot about that today—but how we do it. We were not voted in to give Ministers unfettered, unqualified and unchallenged access to doing as they wish. This Bill is fatally flawed, because it utterly bypasses the very Parliament that our constituents elected us to form. That is not a leave or remain issue, or a left or right issue, and it is certainly not an issue of patriotism; it is about believing in our British democracy. If we did accept the Bill tonight, what would we not accept? If Parliament could be demeaned and reduced to a footnote at the stroke of a Minister’s pen, and if decades of hard-won rights could be dissolved on the 16:50 train back to a Minister’s constituency, what would be the point of having this parliamentary democracy?
To accept this Bill is to accept that Parliament is the Executive’s creature. That is not taking back control. Parliament is sovereign and should have the due opportunity to act as such. We have been asked to take on trust Ministers’ assurances—“Don’t worry, the Bill will be improved over this process, and certainly don’t worry if it comes into law, because all these lovely powers you’re giving us, we’ll give straight back.” I say to the Chamber: be very wary of the politician who says there is no alternative but to give them absolute power over something. Similarly, be very wary of the politician who says that they will give that power back.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government did not want us to debate Brexit originally? It took a court case for article 50 to be brought to this place, so we should not trust this Government, because they have been dragged kicking and screaming every step of the way.
Alex Norris
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know that in lofty debates such as this, which people will study for decades, we ought to quote high-minded sources to respond to such questions. I am going to draw on a favourite quote of mine, from a guy called Jim Palmer. He is an American. He is not a founding father; he was a Baltimore Orioles pitcher and is a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame. He said something really illustrative:
“how you do one thing is how you do everything.”
As my hon. Friend says, the one thing that the Government did over article 50 tells us exactly how they will behave in the rest of this process, and exactly why we should not take the encouragement of Conservative Back Benchers to trust their Ministers. History has shown that not to be a good idea.
Those same Government Members have also said to us, “Hang on a minute, you’re just dragging your feet. You’ve not offered a constructive alternative.” I have sat here for pretty much every minute of the last seven hours and 20 minutes, and I have heard the constructive alternative offered from Opposition Members many times. We all agree that we will need to put European legislation into British law—in fact, I am quite surprised by how readily Government Members agree and cheerlead for that—but that while it is clear that the vast majority of it will be uncontroversial and technical legislation that we need to get on with, there needs to be a triage process that brings before Parliament the things that do not fit into that category. Otherwise, what is the point of us?
This could be a watershed moment for our democracy. We know the cynicism about the work that we do here and our motivations for doing it. People who have watched us today will have seen us at our best, and they should see us do this every day on such important matters. This should be a watershed moment in the Brexit process, too, because we know how much of a struggle that is proving. We are wandering around the continent, drifting from place to place, never quite sure who is with us and who is not. Those are the characteristics of a bad stag do, not a negotiation strategy.
Today could be watershed moment. Across the House, we have had common cause about wanting to work as equal partners with our European friends. Let us do that. Let us take their invitations to speak at the European Parliament. Let us say today that we are going to protect the rights of their citizens who live in our country. Let us change our debate, because I find in life that, even with the most hardened enemy, once we stretch a hand out, it is incredible how often a hand is stretched back.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris).
As I said in the general election campaign and since to my constituents, I respect the result of the referendum, but this Bill is not about whether Britain leaves the European Union. It is about how we leave it, what role Parliament has in the process and how we safeguard all our vital rights and protections as we leave. I believe that Brexit must not lead to any drop in those rights and protections and that the power to decide them should be brought back to Parliament. In fact, bringing powers back to Parliament was one of the major arguments of Brexit’s proponents. In March 2016, the Foreign Secretary announced his decision on how he would campaign in the referendum, saying:
“Sometimes the public can see all too plainly the impotence of their own elected politicians… That enrages them… Democracy matters… At a time when Brussels should be devolving power, it is hauling more and more towards the centre, and there is no way that Britain can be unaffected.”
Well, we have not been unaffected. In fact, the Government are now looking to our decision to leave the EU as an excuse for far greater centralisation of power than we have had for almost 500 years. The Bill would put huge and unaccountable power into the hands of Ministers, sideline Parliament on major decisions and thereby put our crucial rights and protections at risk. Members should not just take my word for it.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Does my hon. Friend agree that the recent case of the Government acting illegally over employment tribunal fees is an example of how they cannot be trusted to act legally and justly for this country, and why Parliament needs to scrutinise them?
Ruth George
I absolutely agree.
The House of Commons Library, in its impartial comment, says:
“Clauses 7, 8 and 9 of the Bill grant the Government new and unprecedented powers.”
Parliament is being asked to grant wide powers when there is little idea yet of how they might be exercised.
I have seen for myself how the process of secondary legislation can be abused, when working on behalf of low-paid shop workers, many of whom are subject to attacks and injury. Five years ago, I was appalled at the secondary legislation Committee that debated some of the most abhorrent cuts proposed by the last Government —cuts to compensation for over 90% of innocent victims of crime. To their credit, every single Conservative Member on the First Delegated Legislation Committee called on the Government to withdraw or amend their proposals, including the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), who is not renowned for his opposition to spending cuts.
However, instead of listening to their own Members and to the whole Committee, and instead of reconsidering the legislation, the Government just changed the Committee. Six weeks later, the same proposed cuts came back to a second Committee with three Parliamentary Private Secretaries, the vice-chair of the Conservative party and the Conservative party chair’s parliamentary adviser. As the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) told us, the Conservatives on the new Committee said not one word during the two-hour debate on the proposals; instead, they simply voted them through.
It is wrong for the Government to use this Bill, which is fundamentally important to the process of Brexit, to seek such methods to undermine our powers in Parliament. This power grab is so significant that it undermines the primary purpose of the Bill—to transpose EU regulations into UK law.
We are expected to believe that the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is listening to the comments made on both sides of the House about the flaws in this Bill, but he has not been seen in the Chamber for the last seven and a half hours of this debate, so I am not quite sure how much he is listening.
Such sweeping powers as the Government are seeking would cause lasting damage to the role and power of Parliament and do nothing to help deliver the Brexit deal we need—one that puts jobs and the economy first and maintains our rights and protections.
As the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) put it just a month ago:
“It is about control. Do we make our laws according to our own democratic principles on the day we have left or not?”
The Bill says that we do not. For that hon. Member and for all other hon. Members, this Bill is about upholding our democratic principles. By voting against it, I will uphold those principles.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
DUP Members’ starting point on the Bill is, “Does it help us deliver the will of the people of the United Kingdom to leave the EU?” We believe that it does. We believe that it is, in fact, an essential building block.
I have listened to the arguments that have been made today. Some Opposition Members—the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)—have made it quite clear that their reason for opposing the Bill is that they do not want to leave the EU. If they had stopped there, I could have understood their argument, but it is rather ironic that they go on to say how undemocratic the Bill is when they are quite happy to stay in the EU with directives and other laws going through without any reference to this House. In fact, 20,000 have gone through, yet those Members want to continue that.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to interrupt his rhetoric. There is one critical point that I would like him to address, and that is that the Bill is not going anywhere without the legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. We have no Assembly in Northern Ireland, so how will the Government get legislative consent?
Sammy Wilson
The fact that we do not have an Assembly in Northern Ireland might make it easier for the Government, but we will leave that aside.
The other argument that has been made is that the Bill is flawed and people want changes, yet the only way of getting them is to allow it to go to the next stage where the Minister has already made it clear he will consider amendments, provided that they are not designed as wrecking amendments.
May I make something clear from our point of view? We do not want to give the Government carte blanche to do whatever they wish. First, that is why we wanted to leave the EU. Secondly, we have had some experience of that in Northern Ireland. During the period of direct rule, decisions about the laws in Northern Ireland were made by Orders in Council in this place, which could not be amended. Of course, that sometimes led to bad law.
Arguments have been made against the Bill, claiming that it is a power grab. It is quite clear from what Ministers have said, from what the legislation says and from the restrictions placed on Ministers that that is not the case. First, it enables EU law to be brought into the sphere of this Parliament where eventually, if it is not appropriate, it can be amended through due process. Secondly, Ministers have made it quite clear that the powers in this legislation will be limited. Thirdly, they have made it clear that they will be only for technical amendments and that there cannot be changes, for example, that create criminal offences, change human rights, introduce new tax powers and so on. There are limits on what Ministers can do.
Ruth George
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the House of Commons Library that in spite of what he has said it is difficult to ascertain how the content of the Bill can be regarded as any limit on the scope of the powers given to the Government under clause 17?
Sammy Wilson
Of course there are limits, and the ultimate limit is that we have heard speeches from Government Members today, and a considerable number of people, not just on the Opposition Benches, have made it quite clear that they perceive dangers in this Bill and would not give the Government a free hand. If Ministers tried to overstep the promises made on the Floor of the House and the limits on the face of the Bill, we can be sure of one thing: it will probably not be Opposition Members who stop Ministers doing that but Government Members. That is the ultimate brake on Ministers who try to abuse the powers that are being given to them.
Mr Francois
Reference was made earlier to the Lisbon treaty and, like me, as he was in the House at the time, the hon. Gentleman will remember debating it night after night. There is a fundamental difference between that and the Bill, in that the Bill can be amended in Committee or on Report, whereas we could not change a single dot or comma of the Lisbon treaty.
Sammy Wilson
Of course. That is the flaw in the argument of Opposition Members who have said that this Bill is flawed and therefore ought to be rejected tonight. If the Bill is flawed, the place to change it is here when it comes back for debate and amendment in Committee. That is the real test of whether people want an effective Bill, or no Bill because they do not want us to leave the EU in the first place.
Let us consider the impact of not having the powers in this Bill. First, we would now be gummed up for the next number of years in trying to get the legislation through. Secondly, there would be no certainty for businesses. I have heard people say here so many times, “We need certainty.” Well, the one way of having certainty is to transfer EU law into UK law so that there is a framework. Lastly, the Bill will enable Ministers, when they go out to negotiate our free trade deal with the rest of the EU, to ensure that we start from a basis of compliance and equivalence.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). It was interesting to hear him say that he does not wish to give the Government carte blanche; I think he omitted the phrase, “Unless they give us £1 billion.”
My constituents voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union, and I have been clear in my commitment to continue to speak up for their views. In Dulwich and West Norwood, we are deeply concerned about the impact of Brexit on the economy, on our public services, on our rights and protections at work, on our justice system, on our environment, and on our local communities. We are concerned about the practical impact of Brexit on the number of nurses in our NHS, on the number of construction workers building the homes we so desperately need, and on rising inflation as a consequence of the fall in the value of the pound. We are also concerned about the impact of Brexit on our British values of tolerance, diversity and internationalism.
Over the past year, this Government have done nothing at all to reach out to the 48% of voters who voted to remain—nothing to reassure us that our legitimate concerns are being listened to and will be addressed. The Prime Minister sought to strengthen her mandate to implement Brexit on her terms at the general election, but her mandate was weakened. If one thing is absolutely clear from the general election result, it is that the Government absolutely do not have a mandate to implement Brexit on any terms. They do not have a mandate to implement a harmful Brexit. They do not have a mandate to be dishonest with the British people about the impact that Brexit will have, or to skirt over the detail of important constitutional change, yet the Government persist in running scared of parliamentary scrutiny, and have responded to criticism and the clear feedback of the UK electorate not by engaging, reaching out and reassuring, but by closing down debate. The Bill as drafted would put huge and unaccountable power into the hands of Government Ministers and put crucial rights and protections at risk. It is nothing less than a power grab for Tory Ministers, and it fundamentally undermines parliamentary democracy.
The single biggest commitment made by the leave campaign was to spend an additional £350 million a week on our NHS. There is no sign whatsoever that the Government are even close to being able to fulfil this commitment. The longer the negotiations progress, the less confidence many people will have that the Government are capable of negotiating a Brexit deal that will protect our national interests. Yet in the EU withdrawal Bill, this minority Conservative Government are seeking permission to implement Brexit on any terms, at any cost, and that is simply not acceptable.
The article 50 process has already eroded Parliament’s role in relation to the Brexit negotiations, denying a meaningful vote on the Government’s proposed final deal, and we are now being asked to surrender control over the future direction of legislation that derives from the EU. This EU withdrawal Bill is designed to set a baseline of legislation for erosion and dismantling, with no mechanism for keeping pace with future developments in EU law, rather than a foundation for further development and a strengthening of rights and protections. The Government cannot expect the British people to have confidence that they will still be able to rely on the protections and regulations we currently receive from the EU when the EU withdrawal Bill, as currently drafted, would give the Government the power to vary regulations at will.
The promises made by the leave campaign and the Government in relation to Brexit are fast proving to be the emperor’s new clothes, and I, for one, am not afraid to say that I cannot see them. My constituents did not vote for Brexit, and they certainly do not accept it on any terms. The Brexit negotiations must take place in an open and transparent way, and they must be accountable to Parliament. If, as I suspect, these promises cannot be delivered by Brexit, we must have the opportunity to reject the Government’s deal and go back to the drawing board. I urge Members across the House, whether they are in favour of Brexit or not, to reject this Bill because it places too much power in the hands of too few Ministers, it compromises the sovereignty of Parliament, and, in doing so, it works—
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Speaker,
“We will scrap the Conservatives’…White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on…the Single Market”
and putting “the economy first”. That was the manifesto on which Labour Members stood only a few months ago. We said that we would scrap this Bill and send it back. I beg Labour colleagues who are thinking about voting with the Government to consider that they stood, only a few months ago, on scrapping the White Paper, and I urge them to stand by the manifesto they stood for.
Some Conservative Members would, like ostriches, like to shove their heads into the sand—they want Brexit on any terms—but they are a minority. I believe that the majority of Conservative Members genuinely want a decent Bill that will aid the transition between our being in the European Union and being out of it.
I am a remainer. Just like most of my constituents, I would love to remain in the European Union—we will make that case—but I am also a democrat. However, being a democrat is not about just handing all powers to the Executive; it is about holding them to account each step of the way.
I have listened to lots of the arguments from Members on both sides of the House about how the Bill could be improved. There is a strategy—a legitimate strategy—of saying, “Let us pass it tonight and amend it in Committee.” However, I think that that is incorrect, because the flaws in the Bill are so huge and fundamental that if we followed that strategy, we would be fiddling with the deckchairs on a sinking ship. Unfortunately, what we must do is to send this Bill back.
I will outline a few areas in which the Bill fundamentally fails to live up to decent democratic principles and restricts the rights of our people. It removes the charter of fundamental rights from UK law. Let us be very clear that that charter provides digital rights, asylum rights, pension rights for LGBT people and safeguards for maternity rights. At the moment, for example, it ensures that a gay couple who marry here in the UK have their marriage recognised elsewhere in Europe.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman talks about the charter of fundamental rights. What is wrong with our Supreme Court, which is one of the most respected judicial systems in the world, providing those very same rights?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
There is nothing wrong with our Supreme Court, but what better than to have an additional protection? I think that the hon. Gentleman makes a ridiculous argument.
My next point is about safeguards for the current statutory instruments. Much of EU law has been brought into UK law as statutory instruments. Those statutory instruments are underpinned by EU law, which includes an ability to fine Governments for overstepping that law. If EU oversight is removed but the statutory instruments continue to exist, they will be weak to amendment through the negative procedure. That puts people’s rights to things such as TUPE and the working time directive at risk. Clearly, therefore, those statutory instruments should have additional statutory underpinning such that they cannot be removed using the negative procedure.
Ruth George
Does my hon. Friend agree that we should not trust the party that refused to implement the social chapter at all, with all its rights at work that come from Europe?
Mr Speaker
Order. Before I call Mr Russell-Moyle, I would point out that every intervention is mucking up the chances of the remaining speakers who want to make a contribution. I call Mr Russell-Moyle.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I agree. The Bill also—[Laughter.] I wanted to move on quickly.
The Bill also fails completely to mention or touch on how some of the soft-law mechanisms will be brought into the UK framework, such as the open method of co-ordination. It does not even mention that area of EU co-ordination. We will clearly want to adopt significant parts of it, but the Bill is completely quiet about it.
Of course there is a need to give Ministers certain powers, but even the emergency powers provided during the second world war were not powers for Ministers to spend unfettered amounts. This Bill gives Ministers the power to spend such amounts and gives them unheard-of powers. It is not a democratic Bill, and it cannot be classed as bringing power back to this country or to this Parliament. Clearly what we need to do tonight is to vote against this Bill. We need to send it back and get the Government to give us a decent Bill that will preserve our democratic rights for our people and for our Parliament.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Last week, we heard excellent forensic legal analysis, on both sides of the House, from the shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and from the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). I endorse much of what they both said but, for my part, I, like my SNP colleagues, will vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. There is no question that the Scottish National party could support the Bill until there is considerable movement towards respecting the wishes of Scottish voters who, as well as having endorsed the devolution settlement 20 years ago tonight, also voted to remain in the European Union.
Conservative and Unionist Members for Scottish constituencies seem to be a little hard of hearing and appear not to have read their briefings about the Bill—or indeed the Bill itself—so let me spell out for them why this is a power grab on the devolved institutions. I will use not my own words, but those of the non-partisan and neutral Law Society of Scotland:
“The effect of the bill would be to remove the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament in relation to any matter in retained EU law. This would be the case even if it related to areas of law not reserved to the UK under the Scotland Act, such as agriculture or fisheries.”
There are some of the devolved powers that are being grabbed back.
If Conservative Members cared to examine the Bill with the attention it deserves, particularly in relation to Scotland, they would see that it creates a complex division of decision-making responsibility that does not reflect the reality of devolution. In particular, it empowers UK Ministers to make changes in devolved policy areas without any involvement of either the Scottish Government or the Scottish Parliament. This includes policy areas such as the Scottish justice system, where the Scottish Parliament has primary responsibility. That is why we say that this Bill is a power grab.
Twenty years ago tonight, I hosted a party in my flat in Edinburgh for friends from all political parties that had voted for devolution in Scotland. The devolved scheme that followed was the brainchild of the late, great Donald Dewar.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
On the position of Scottish Conservatives on devolution, I thought that Scottish Tory MPs would be interested in some breaking news. The Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, has said on the BBC in the past hour that she is
“not flying the flag for Brexit”,
and would in fact vote again for remaining in the EU. I would like to hear what my hon. and learned Friend has to say about that.
Joanna Cherry
My hon. Friend makes my point for me.
The point I was about to make is that 20 years ago in Scotland, people from all political walks of life voted for the devolved settlement. It is the settled will of the Scottish people. The question for the 12 new Scottish Tory MPs is: will they make their presence felt in this Parliament, and will they protect the democratic will of the Scottish people, including their own constituents, who voted for devolution 20 years ago by 75% and voted to remain in the European Union by 62%? Tonight is a test of their mettle. Will they represent their constituents’ views? Will they defend the devolved settlement in Scotland? Will they follow what their leader in Scotland, Ruth Davidson, has said, or will they troop through the Lobby like lobby fodder to undermine the settled will of the Scottish people and their constituents?
Several hon. Members rose—
James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
I join the House only 48 hours after the birth of my son, Bobby James. Dads on this side of the House proudly change nappies before coming to Parliament; we do not get out of changing nappies because we are in Parliament.
Having considered how we exit the baby, I am now considering how we exit the European Union. As many Members have said, this is not about whether we leave but how. For me, opposing the Bill is scrutiny, not mutiny, on Brexit. I maintain a commitment that I made to the people of Bury North in my election victory to fight for a practical Brexit. I do not trust the Government to show Britain the best exit, let alone set it out with vision and aplomb. Bombastic swagger, yes; vision, zero. It was going to be easy, we were told, but I ask for more grace in negotiation. Perhaps Ministers could remember the 48% as well as the 52% when handling Brexit. The referendum result was clear, fair and decisive, but in exiting we need a deal that works for the 48 and the 52, not the 1922.
I stood at the election with a clear view on Brexit that, as a remainer, I would fight for a Brexit that worked for everyone in Bury North. Whether people were leavers or remainers, it was time for unity—a practical Brexit that kept uppermost in people’s minds jobs, skills and opportunities for all. The result of the election did not change the Government’s instincts overnight. They have not changed their position on workers’ rights, on access to justice, on working time, or on security and safety at work. Those measures were bombarded on their way into law, and they will be picked apart by Government Members in the transition. The repeal Bill should be a copy and paste exercise, but instead the Government seek measures that would allow them not to copy and paste but to copy and cut. Decades of social progress, enshrined in law, are at the mercy of the pick-and-choose brigade who run the Tories. If foxhunting and grammar schools are back on the agenda, what of workers’ rights? I urge Members to vote against the motion. They should accept Brexit, but how we leave matters: they should not support the Government on the Bill.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union urged us to vote for the Bill, and said:
“Providing certainty and stability in the lead up to our withdrawal is a key priority. Businesses and individuals need reassurance that there will be no unexpected changes to our laws after exit day and that is exactly what the repeal Bill provides.”
If the Government really wished to provide certainty they would guarantee in the Bill that there would not be any reductions in workers’ rights post Brexit. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have gone to great lengths to reassure us that people will not see any reductions in their rights at work under this Government, but the White Paper covers only two of the three main ways in which rights could be reduced after Brexit. The third is by leaving those rights in secondary legislation, coupled with the powers that the Government have sought to grant themselves in the Bill, which would allow any Government in future to water down basic privileges that people enjoy at work today. The only assurance we are being offered that that will not happen is the words of the Secretary of State asking us to trust him and his Government. I am afraid that it just is not good enough to ask us to place our faith blindly in the Government. The point has already been made in this debate that even if we were inclined to trust him based on his record, those around him continue to fail to convince us that they would carry through their lightly given assurances.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), in his excellent speech on Thursday, quoted the Foreign Secretary, the International Trade Secretary and the International Development Secretary, who have all made their true intentions known on this issue. He could have added to that list the Transport Secretary, who said in 2014 that he wants to “slay health and safety culture”, or even the Prime Minister, who said that the Labour Government’s adoption of the social chapter showed their weakness in standing up to trade unions. According to the Prime Minister, the only reason a Government would ensure that part-time workers are treated the same as full-time workers, ensure that no one is made to work more than a maximum of 48 hours a week, or secure leave for pregnant women, is if a trade union made them do it.
I cannot in good conscience support the Government’s Bill, which I fundamentally believe fails to protect the scrutiny role of Parliament, and therefore puts the rights and interests of working people at even greater risk. I genuinely hope that Ministers will consider carefully and take on board the well thought out objections to the Bill from those on the Government Benches. However, I cannot share those Members’ optimism that the Government are listening all that closely.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I have cut down my speech, because it is almost the witching hour and the Brexit Minister needs to weave his magic.
I represent the town of Hartlepool and the outlying villages. I have about 96,000 constituents, and in the EU referendum, of those who voted, more than 70% voted to leave—the highest percentage in the north-east. Clearly, the vast majority of people in my constituency want Brexit. It is my duty, as their MP, to reflect that opinion, but I believe it would be a dereliction of that duty if I voted to give Ministers executive powers to implement changes to complex and important regulations without recourse to scrutiny by Parliament.
Despite all the rhetoric and spin, I do not see voting against this power-grab Bill as blocking Brexit—far from it. As a former union official, I know that if you allow the other side to have it all their way in negotiations you may as well not be in the room. That would not be acting in members’ best interests. I believe I am acting in my constituents’ best interests by voting to protect the right to hold the Government to account during the Brexit process. To do otherwise would be unacceptable and disrespectful to my constituents.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to wind up this Second Reading debate. I pay tribute at the outset to all those who have contributed to it. Sadly, it is not possible to recognise all the impressive contributions that have been made over the course of this two-day debate, but I would like to single out and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Frith) on the birth of his son, and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) on her excellent maiden speech. She brought home to the House not only her love for her constituency, but how much it benefits from economic and cultural exchange with our partners in Europe.
A large number of contributors have stressed the historic nature of this debate, and they were right to do so. The Bill before us is one of the most constitutionally significant pieces of legislation in our country’s history and, in practical terms, will facilitate one of the largest legislative projects ever undertaken by Parliament. The maturity and seriousness of much of the debate that has taken place has rightly reflected the significance of the issues at stake.
The Opposition accept that the Brexit process requires legislation to disentangle the UK from the European Union’s legal structures and to ensure that we have a functioning statute book on the day we leave. Indeed, we acknowledge that this is an essential step if we are to avoid the most chaotic of departures, and as such the Secretary of State is absolutely right to argue that every hon. Member has a shared interest in getting the legislation right.
As many hon. Members have rightly argued, the Bill is not about whether Brexit will take place. As the Secretary of State made clear in his opening remarks last week, the Bill in itself will not determine whether we leave the European Union. That decision was taken on 23 June 2016 in the referendum and was given effect by the triggering of article 50, an act of notification that was itself only possible because this House, including Labour Members, overwhelming backed the Government’s European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill. What is at issue is how we leave, the role of Parliament in that process and the precedents we set. As the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) argued in a characteristically incisive speech on the first day, the question is not whether a Bill such as this is necessary but whether this particular form of the Bill is remotely acceptable. Quite simply, we do not believe it is.
Of the significant number of speakers in this debate, only the most cavalier have failed to remark upon the flawed nature of the Bill. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) so forensically exposed last week, those flaws are not just serious; they are fundamental. The deficiencies in our delegated legislation system have been remarked upon by many Members, not least in the powerful contributions by my hon. Friends the Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) and for High Peak (Ruth George), but the delegated powers conferred on Ministers in clauses 7, 8 and 9 are extraordinary in their constitutional potency and scope. As several hon. Members have mentioned, clause 9 could theoretically be used to amend the Act itself, with only the most basic restrictions acting as safeguards against an overweening Executive. Given that clause 9 allows for the use of sweeping powers over the implementation of the withdrawal agreement, the Bill would allow all aspects of such an agreement, including the divorce bill, to be agreed by Ministers with the least possible scrutiny in this place.
Clause 17 is a power so extensive in its potential application that it could extend to every facet of our national life, and as a consequence opens up the possibility of changes to vast areas of law without full parliamentary process. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) put it in her passionate contribution, these are powers that would make a Tudor monarch proud.
To those who believe that we can merely correct those powers—that we can put through enhanced scrutiny in Committee and the Bill will be fixed—I say that the sweeping powers in the Bill are not its only weakness. Provisions in the Bill rule out a sensible transitional arrangement. Far from delivering clarity on the status and nature of EU-derived law, the Bill is riddled with ambiguities that will create deep uncertainty about how this body of law will apply after incorporation. In ruling out the charter of fundamental rights for purely ideological reasons, the Bill could mean that individuals and businesses cannot assert the rights that it elsewhere seeks to maintain. And in its treatment of the devolved institutions, the Bill risks further destabilising the Union between the four nations of the UK. In short, it is a fundamentally flawed Bill, and the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) was right to refer to it in his contribution as an “astonishing monstrosity”. As he put it in an article in the Evening Standard on Thursday, it
“seeks to confer powers on the Government to carry out Brexit in breach of our constitutional principles, in a manner that no sovereign Parliament should allow.”
The central questions before each Member are whether they truly believe the Government accept just how deficient the Bill is, whether they trust Ministers to co-operate in rectifying its many deficiencies and whether, as a consequence, they are confident that it can be made watertight in the eight days that the programme motion allocates for the Committee stage. In short, the question is whether hon. Members believe that it is feasible and probable that the breathtaking tapestry of sweeping delegated powers woven into the Bill can be unpicked and the Bill made good, or whether it is so deeply flawed that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) put it in a brilliant speech, the Government should go away and do their homework again.
We do not need to legislate in this fashion to achieve the necessary aims that lie behind the Bill, and if we are all honest, we will agree that the Government should not have put hon. Members on both sides of the House in this position. Ministers have known for a considerable time of the real and genuinely held concerns about the approach that the Bill takes. The Opposition raised concerns following the publication of the White Paper; we reiterated those concerns when the Bill was first published; and, in a letter to the Secretary of State at the start of the month, we called again for constructive engagement. While many Conservative Members will no doubt all too readily dismiss the concerns that we have raised, those concerns have been echoed for some time by voices from the Government Benches, as well as by parliamentary Committees and numerous non-parliamentary organisations.
In short, the Government have had ample time to make it clear that they are willing to correct the flaws in the Bill and to table amendments which show that they mean it, but only now are we being told that Ministers are in listening mode and are open to ideas for constructive improvements to the Bill. As many Members have noted, we are being asked, in a sense, to take it on trust that conversations will be held, and that we will have assurances down the line about how Ministers will use the powers in the Bill. Yet the Secretary of State, in his opening remarks, defended the wording of the Bill as it stands, and offered no concrete concessions that might reassure Members on both sides of the House. Given the Government’s track record, which a number of my hon. Friends have highlighted, we need proof of real movement. We need more than vague offers to talk during Committee stage.
Many of us remain utterly bewildered about why the Bill has been drafted in this form, and why Ministers felt it that it was wise to ignore the Exiting the European Union Committee’s call for the Bill to be published in draft so that its flaws could be addressed before we reached this point. The unique challenge of disentangling the UK from the EU’s legal structures and ensuring that we have a functioning statute book on the day we leave required a Bill that created consensus across this House, not one that undermines it. It required a Bill that restored power to the House of Commons, not one that concentrates unparalleled power in the hands of the Executive.
All of us—all Members, throughout the House—agree that a Bill of this kind is necessary, but that does not mean that Parliament should accept this fundamentally flawed Bill. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, that the Opposition will vote against it tonight.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lidington)
By my count, no fewer than 107 Members have spoken during the two days of this Second Reading debate. I hope that the House will forgive me when I say that, in the time left to me, I shall not be able to respond fully and in detail to each one of those contributions. However, I do want to express my appreciation to all Members who have taken part; and, like the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), I want to single out the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), who made a fine maiden speech. Those of us who were in the Chamber to listen, or who read her speech in Hansard, will recall the obvious passion and affection with which she spoke about the different communities that make up her constituency. Let me add that I—and my parliamentary friends—also appreciated the generous tribute that she paid to her predecessor, Sir Julian Brazier, and I thank her for it.
I want to spend the time that I have in trying to address what seem to me to have been the three chief criticisms of the Bill expressed in various quarters of the House during the two days of debate on Second Reading: the question of the underlying principles of EU law; the matter of devolution and the powers of the devolved Administrations; and the issue of the delegated powers that are granted by the Bill. Then, again, I will try to say something about how the Government see the way forward. Let me start, however, by reminding the House why the Bill is needed.
Both the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), neither of whom could be characterised as ardent champions of the leave cause—indeed, I count myself rather in their camp on the issue—said that the Bill does not determine whether or not we leave the European Union. That was a decision that the electorate took democratically last year, and both the fact of our departure and the process and timetable that govern that have to proceed now according to the process and timeframe laid out in article 50 of the treaty on European Union. What the Bill does is enable us to have a coherent, functioning statute book and regulatory system on the day that we leave and thereafter, because at that date—to take the words of article 50—the treaties cease to apply to the United Kingdom, so the rights and responsibilities that have effect legally in the United Kingdom because of European law will fall away unless they are imported into United Kingdom law by this Bill.
There were many eloquent contributions from Members about the concerns they or their constituents had about the future of various rights—employment rights, environmental rights and so on—that they currently enjoy; the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), in recent hours of the debate was one such. My response is that those very employment, environmental and other rights, conferred as a result of EU regulations or judgments of the European Court, are continued by this Bill on a United Kingdom legal basis as part of what my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) described as the wholesale adoption of European law. I have to say to the official Opposition that to vote against the Bill, as they propose to do, is therefore to vote against continuing those rights on a United Kingdom legal basis. It is to put those rights at risk, and open up the risk of a chaotic departure from the European Union, which is not going to be in the interests of either individuals or businesses in this country.
Mr Lidington
I give way to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke).
Mr Clarke
Throughout the discussion on this Bill, it has been entirely uncontroversial for everybody to agree that a Bill is required to ensure continuity and certainty for existing EU legal arrangements, putting them into British law straight away for the future. Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that when we move to the Committee stage in a few weeks, or probably about a month, the Government will produce substantial amendments to address what this whole debate has been about: the huge extension to the Government of discretionary powers that go far beyond the limited ambition my right hon. Friend is describing? I would prefer him and the Government to come back, address those issues and turn this Bill into one that resembles the reassuring descriptions of it that keep being given by the Secretary of State for Brexit and by him—two members of the Government whose word I would actually accept implicitly, but in the political world I have known Governments to go back on reassuring words quite frequently.
Mr Lidington
I want to come on to that point later, but I first give way to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms).
Stephen Timms
I invite the Secretary of State to respond to the criticism of his party colleague, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who is surely absolutely right to describe this as an “appalling monstrosity” of a Bill, which the House, frankly, should throw out.
Mr Lidington
That is a not a verdict with which I agree. Some of the criticisms of the Bill have been exaggerated up to and beyond the point of hyperbole, and I will seek to explain why.
In concluding my comments about why the Bill is needed, I want to stress that the time available to us under the terms of article 50 is limited. We must assume that in March 2019 this country will leave the European Union. That will be the deadline, and therefore by that date we need not only to have primary legislation enacted, but to have established the new regulatory bodies. We will need to have given effect to the secondary legislation that is proposed under the defined powers laid out in the Bill.
Several right hon. and hon. Members have said, “Yes, certain rights may be being preserved, but what about the general underlying principles of EU law?” As I said earlier, when we leave, the treaties will cease to apply to this country, but under the Bill, the general principles of European law, as recognised by the Court of Justice before exit day, or as embodied in extant European legislation, will be retained in United Kingdom law for the purposes of interpreting retained EU law. Existing sources of rights and domestic rights of action will continue to operate in United Kingdom law undisturbed by the Bill. That includes rights such as the right to equal treatment and non-discrimination. Similarly, notwithstanding our exit from the EU, individuals will continue to be able to challenge secondary legislation and administrative action under our domestic law by way of well-established grounds of judicial review.
To take two important issues that have been raised, all the rights and remedies available under the working time directive or the Equality Act 2010 will remain in force, but they will be enforced through the United Kingdom courts—ultimately, our Supreme Court—rather than through the European courts.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I wonder whether what my right hon. Friend says can actually be correct. The feature of the Bill is that it removes the right of challenge for breach of the general principles of EU law. As a consequence, rights that currently exist and are exercised—indeed, were exercised by our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union—will in future not be available. That is an important point that the Government will have to consider during the passage of the Bill.
Mr Lidington
For the most part, those rights are used when they are given effect through specific items of European Union legislation, rather than in the abstract. My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point, and it is true that after exit it will not be possible for an individual to bring a free-standing claim, or for the courts to quash an administrative action or disapply legislation on the grounds that it breaks one or more of the general principles of European law, except as those principles have been preserved by the Bill—which will be the case if those principles have been given effect through a specific piece of legislation. That position flows logically from the decision by the electorate to leave the European Union, because that does involve separating the United Kingdom’s legal order from the European Union’s legal order.
The issue of devolution has been the subject of much debate among Scottish Members of Parliament—
Lady Hermon
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing me to intervene and help him with the general principles of EU law, which are respect for human rights and the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination. Those are principles that we in this country should be enormously proud of and embrace, instead of setting them aside. The Bill, in schedule 1, excludes anyone from relying on those general principles before a court, tribunal or public authority.
Mr Lidington
Those principles of human rights and non-discrimination are embodied in United Kingdom legislation and given effect by our courts. That was the situation 40 years ago, before we entered the European Union, it has remained the situation throughout our membership, and it will continue to be the position, unaffected by this Bill.
As for devolution, every single decision taken by the devolved Administrations will continue to be taken by them. The only question is how we best allocate to the UK Government and to the devolved Administrations the competencies and powers that will return to this country, because the devolution Acts were drafted in the context of this country’s membership of the European Union and the lists of devolved and reserved powers were drawn up against that background. For example, the common fisheries policy includes matters relating to the detailed management and regulation of fisheries, but it also covers EU agreements with third countries, such as the EU-Morocco fisheries agreement, and includes such matters as the UN convention relating to migratory fish stocks—international agreements that one might think should fall naturally to the United Kingdom Government. That will be a matter for continuing discussion between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations.
We shall need to come forward with some common frameworks to ensure, for example, that a Scottish farmer can sell some of his produce to customers in England or Northern Ireland without having to worry about two different sets of hygiene and food safety regulations, or that a Welsh paint manufacturer can sell freely anywhere in the United Kingdom without having to be concerned about different rules on the regulation of the chemicals in that paint. I am confident that the outcome of negotiations and continuing discussions with the devolved Administrations will be a significant increase in the powers being exercised by those devolved Administrations. That remains the Government’s intention. I can also say to my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) that, yes, Ministers in the Department for Exiting the European Union and across Government will continue to talk to and listen carefully both to the views of Ministers in the devolved Administrations and to parliamentarians in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and soon, I hope, in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Above all, the debate has centred on delegated powers, and I emphasise that the Bill already contains significant safeguards, which the debate has sometimes tended to overlook. Each of the four clauses that authorise secondary legislation has a defined purpose, and a statutory instrument made under such a clause cannot be made to do something else. It has to deliver something that is within the purpose defined in that clause. If we look at clause 7, for example, the power to make a statutory instrument is limited to something that will put right a failure or deficiency in retained EU law
“arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU.”
That power cannot be exercised for any other purpose. A Minister cannot make regulations because he dislikes the underlying policy or indeed because he dislikes the underlying EU law, but only when there is a problem with the operability of a piece of EU law that has been brought about by this country’s departure from the EU.
A similar condition applies to clause 8, which deals with our international obligations. There has been a lot of debate about clause 9, but its powers can be used only for the purpose of implementing the withdrawal agreement. The powers in clause 17 are limited to consequential amendments, and “consequential” has a long-established, tightly defined meaning in parliamentary practice and in law. The idea that there is some sweeping power in the Bill to rewrite the law of the United Kingdom is simply wrong. The statutory instruments may be used only for the purposes set out in the Bill.
In addition, the Government have included sunset clauses. The powers in clauses 7 and 8 lapse two years after exit day, and those in clause 9 lapse on exit day itself. The Bill also includes further safeguards in a list of exclusions from the scope of any delegated legislation, so none of the powers that grant secondary legislation can be used to make retrospective provision, to increase taxation, to create criminal offences or to affect the scope and application of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Despite the assurances incorporated in the wording of the Bill, very genuine, sincere concerns have been expressed on both sides of the House about whether there is sufficient parliamentary control over and scrutiny of how the powers will be used. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. If the Secretary of State would be good enough to face the House, we would all benefit from his mellifluous tones.
Mr Lidington
It strikes me that there have been constructive comments and suggestions from a range of Members, including my right hon. and learned Friends the Members for Rushcliffe and for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) and the hon. Members for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer). Between Second Reading and Committee, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and his team intend to discuss those suggestions further with colleagues on both sides of the House.
We accept that we need to get the balance right—for example, between negative and affirmative procedure and between debates in Committee and debates on the Floor of the House—and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has already pledged, we wish to discuss further the issue first raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) about linking the timing of SIs under clause 9 to the date of debates on the withdrawal agreement, although we will have to bear in mind the possibility that that agreement might be concluded only very shortly before the date of exit.
Mr Grieve
My right hon. Friend is discussing matters that will have to be considered in detail in Committee. A sensible programme motion has been tabled, but can the Government assure the House that, if more time is needed because, in truth, we have difficulty getting through the programme within the period specified, they will properly consider making more time available to the House?
Mr Lidington
We think that the 64 hours that have been guaranteed are reasonable, and they compare with the 39 hours and 17 minutes that the Blair Government granted on the Bill to ratify the Lisbon treaty. We have shown today that, where there is good reason to extend debate further, we are willing to consider it very seriously and carefully indeed. I hope my right hon. and learned Friend will take that assurance in the spirit in which it is intended.
I hope that the House will recognise that it is in the national interest that we put this Bill on the statute book and that we deliver the democratic verdict of the British people in a way that allows businesses and individuals to plan for their future, confident in what the law will be on and after exit day. I hope that the House will therefore give a clear vote for the Bill on Second Reading.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Proceedings | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
|---|---|
First day | |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to Clause 1, Clause 1 | Four hours from the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the first day. |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to Clause 6, Clause 6 | Eight hours from the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the first day |
Second day | |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to Clause 2, Clause 2, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Clause 3, Clause 3, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Clause 4, Clause 4 | Eight hours from the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second day |
Third day | |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to Clause 5 or Schedule 1, Clause 5, Schedule 1 | Eight hours from the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the third day. |
Fourth day | |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to Clause 11 or Schedule 3, Clause 11, Schedule 3 | Eight hours from the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the fourth day. |
Fifth day | |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to Clause 10 or Schedule 2, Clause 10, Schedule 2 | Four hours from the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the fifth day. |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to Clause 12 or Schedule 4, Clause 12, Schedule 4 | Eight hours from the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the fifth day |
Sixth day | |
New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Clause 7, Clause 7 | Eight hours from the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the sixth day. |
Seventh day | |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to Clause 9, Clause 9, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Clause 16 or Schedule 7, Clause 16, Schedule 7, Clause 17 | Six hours from the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the seventh day |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to Clause 8, Clause 8 | Eight hours from the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the seventh day. |
Eighth day | |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to Clause 13 or Schedule 5, Clause 13, Schedule 5 | Four hours from the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the eighth day. |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to Clause 14 or Schedule 6, Clause 14, Schedule 6, remaining new Clauses, remaining new Schedules, Clause 15, Schedules 8 and 9, Clauses 18 and 19, remaining proceedings on the Bill | Eight hours from the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the eighth day. |
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Tuesday 14th November 2017
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 14 November 2017 - (14 Nov 2017)
18:51 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 52 / Noes: 318 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:06 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 318 / Noes: 68 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:48 - divided: - Ayes: 296 / Noes: 316 - Question accordingly negatived.
23:03 - divided: - Ayes: 296 / Noes: 316 - Question accordingly negatived.
23:18 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 295 / Noes: 316 - Question accordingly negatived.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 79, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
“(2) Regulations under section 19(2) bringing into force subsection (1) may not be made until the Prime Minister is satisfied that resolutions have been passed by the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly signifying consent to the commencement of subsection (1).”
This amendment would make the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 on exit day conditional on the Prime Minister gaining consent from the devolved legislatures.
Clause 1 stand part.
Government amendments 383 and 381.
Amendment 386, in clause 14, page 10, line 25, leave out from “means” to “(and” in line 26 and insert
“the time specified by an Act of Parliament approving the final terms of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU”.
This amendment would require ‘exit day’ to be specified, for all purposes, in a separate bill seeking approval for the final terms of the withdrawal of the UK from the EU. It would therefore have the effect of requiring a statute on the withdrawal terms - whatever they might be - to be passed by Parliament before ‘exit day’.
Amendment 43, page 10, line 25, leave out
“a Minister of the Crown may by regulations”
and insert
“Parliament may by a majority approval in both Houses”.
This amendment together with Amendments 44 and 45 would empower Parliament to control the length and basic terms of transitional arrangements, and would allow Parliament to start the clock on the sunset clauses within the Bill.
Amendment 6, page 10, line 26, at end insert
“but exit day must be the same day for the purposes of every provision of this Act.”
To prevent the creation of different exit days for different parts of the Act by SI.
Government amendment 382.
Amendment 387, page 11, line 24, leave out from “Act” to end of line 32 and insert
“references to before, after or on exit day, or to beginning with exit day, are to be read as references to before, after or at the time specified by an Act of Parliament approving the final terms of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 386 and ensures that references to exit day in the Bill and other legislation operate correctly in relation to the time as well as the date of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 44, page 11, line 25, leave out
“a Minister of the Crown”
and insert “Parliament”.
This amendment together with Amendments 43 and 45 would empower Parliament to control the length and basic terms of transitional arrangements, and would allow Parliament to start the clock on the sunset clauses within the Bill.
Amendment 45, page 11, line 30, leave out
“a Minister of the Crown”
and insert “Parliament”.
This amendment together with Amendments 43 and 44 would empower Parliament to control the length and basic terms of transitional arrangements, and would allow Parliament to start the clock on the sunset clauses within the Bill.
Amendment 81, in clause 19, page 14, line 32, at end insert—
“(a) section 1(2);”.
This amendment is a consequential amendment resulting from Amendments 78, 79 and 80 to Clause 1 requiring the Prime Minister to reach an agreement on EEA and Customs Union membership, to gain the consent of the devolved legislatures and to report on the effect leaving the EU will have on the block grant before implementing section 1 of this Act.
The Chairman
May I first draw the attention of the Committee to a mistake on page 1 of the amendment paper? The name of the hon. Member for Keighley (John Grogan) should not have appeared as a supporter of new clause 49.
Frank Field
I rise to speak to the new clause in my name and all the other names that still remain on the amendment paper. Although I am limited to speaking to new clause 49, it is linked to new clauses 50, 51 and 52, for reasons that I will develop.
I wish to begin by declaring my sentiments in tabling this new clause and supporting the new clauses that are umbilically attached to it. I am a reluctant Brexiteer. I am too old to feel that I was born to bring us out of Europe, and I have not had one of those evangelical revivals in thinking that somehow life began again once we entered the Common Market and that my aim, purpose, being, and everything I breathed was towards getting us out of that organisation. That is not so.
In my own constituency and in the small amount of work I did nationally, I stressed that things were on a balance: we had to make a decision about Europe. We did not need more facts about Europe, but had to draw on our very natures—all that we had been taught in our culture and where, in our very being, we felt we stood in this country—to make the decision about whether we wished to leave or not.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. In this new clause we are debating an exit date of 30 March 2019, yet grouped with it there are Government amendments to be voted on at a later date that put the exit date at 11 pm on 29 March 2019. There is a difference of an hour, and as far as I am aware the clocks only go forward on Sunday 31 March. Could you give some guidance to the movers of these amendments so that the arch-Brexiteers on both sides get their clocks and house in order?
The Chairman
Let us not worry too much about time because we are eating away at it at the moment. It is a matter to be decided in the debate, not for me to decide. When we get there, we will know better. Let us not take up more time now.
Frank Field
That was a good intervention. My new clause decides on British time when to leave, whereas the Government’s amendments are at the beckoning of Europeans. We have a very clear choice. I will willingly take interventions that are trying to trip me up in making this short contribution.
I fought the referendum campaign, as much as I could, as a reluctant Brexiteer. On balance, I thought that our country’s future would increasingly thrive outside rather than inside the European Union. I have always wanted to make a deal, although it is immensely sensible, in any negotiations, to make sure that the other side knows that one may be banking on and planning for no deal.
The next factor—I will touch on this again when we think of what the House of Lords might do to a Bill of this size—is that it has been very difficult for most of us to come to terms with what our role has been as MPs in a representative democracy, and with how we digest the fact that a referendum has taken place and the British people have spoken. How do we react in those circumstances, which I believe are unique and in no way comparable with any other parliamentary procedure that we deal with in this House?
As I said at the beginning, before I was helpfully interrupted, this new clause stands with three other new clauses. Together they present the Government with a clean, small, slimline Brexit Bill. By the time we get to the end of this process, they will thank the Lord that this life raft is in the Bill and they are able to get on it. In the new clause, we decide on the date—by British time, not European time—when we actually leave. That is our choice. It is about the beginnings of the freedom that we hope will flow—with difficulties, of course—from setting us on the course of leaving the European Union.
The second new clause simply ensures that all the laws and regulations come on to our statute book at that point in time—British time, not European time.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Frank Field
Can I just finish this point, and then I will willingly give way?
The third new clause is on how Parliament reviews those laws—those we wish to keep fully, those we wish to amend, those we wish to add to, and those we wish to kick out. It says that this House will decide how that process is done. I am sure that before we have finished our debate on this Bill in Committee, the Government will be agreeing with me on that. The Henry VIII stuff is an absurd way of going about this business, although as we get down to the mega-task of reviewing this, we may beg the Government for a touch of Henry VIII to get through a task of the size that will be before us.
Finally, given that we have real difficulties in completing a negotiation—
Frank Field
I said that I would give way as soon as I had finished explaining the new clause and the three new clauses attached to it. Finally, we need a safe haven. Speaking of which, I give way to my hon. Friend.
Angela Smith
Will my right hon. Friend not concede that an arbitrary date for Brexit could risk damaging the British economy if clear evidence emerges, as it already is, that hurrying Brexit may badly damage our manufacturing sector, our agricultural sector and our financial services sector?
Frank Field
I am supported by people whose constituents largely agree with my views, not theirs. How they deal with that is not my problem. I agree that it is a difficult problem, but that does not mean to say that one should have any particular solution to it. Generally speaking, the larger the majority, the more clearly Labour voters spoke about Brexit. [Interruption.] No, that is absolutely true. I will deal with my hon. Friend’s point in a moment, but it comes down to who we think we are dealing with. Are we playing a game of cricket, or have we got people who are trying—
Frank Field
I am just saying that—I am saying that we will be fighting for our lives, as I will set out if I ever get on to explaining the new clause fully.
Several hon. Members rose—
Frank Field
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) wants to intervene.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I am confused by my right hon. Friend’s suggestion that all Labour voters supported his position, because the majority of them did not. The majority of Labour Members do not support his position either. That is an important point, so will he correct the record?
Frank Field
I happily add to the record. It makes some people’s circumstances more difficult, but I said that generally speaking, the larger the Labour majority in the general election and the bigger the turnout in the last general election, the one before that and the one before that, the more likely constituents were to vote leave.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chairman
Order. We do not need everybody standing up at the same time. I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman is going to give way, as he has already done, he will say so. Please, do not all keep standing up at the same time.
The Chairman
That includes Mr Farrelly, who has already had a good start to the day. Let us not continue in the same way.
Frank Field
I would also say, to qualify that general statement, that areas that I would love to represent—not my own constituency, but others—voted to remain, against the trend of Labour support, in the referendum.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making a case that I do not agree with, but he is doing so with his usual reasonable approach. I think he is probably right that at the moment, most people have not changed their minds. The reasons why they voted to leave are still, as far as they are concerned, unresolved, and they think that those things will be resolved by leaving. Suppose, however, that it emerges in the next 12 months that all the reasons why they voted as they did will not be realised, and that, on top of that, the economic consequences will be disastrous—what then?
Frank Field
I have only four small sheets of paper, and it has taken me all this time to get this far. I have an answer for my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] Indeed, it seems to me that the Labour side needs educating about where Labour voters are. If my right hon. Friend can contain himself, I will take account of that. I emphasise his wisdom in saying that we do not know where these negotiations will end up. They are fraught, particularly because we are negotiating with a group of people who do not want us to succeed because they fear what will happen in their own countries if we do.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
Did the right hon. Gentleman receive a pamphlet—paid for by the taxpayer—from the Government during the referendum, on the back of which they stated that they would carry out the wishes of the people via the vote in the referendum? Does he believe that by having a fixed date, which everybody knows, we will deliver what the people voted for?
Frank Field
I have to confess to receiving the pamphlet and throwing it in the bin immediately. I never believed that the sort of campaign we fought, with false truths on both sides, enhanced our standing as a political class. Neither did it address the very serious issues of what people thought about their own identity, their community’s identity, their country’s identity and their country’s position in the world, on which we all know that people take different views. The idea that a Government pamphlet was going to help us—dear God!
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
I note that my right hon. Friend qualified his earlier statement, but does he accept that at the last general election, more than 85% of Liverpool, Riverside constituents voted for the Labour candidate, and that 73% of them voted to remain? Does he accept that the people of Liverpool, Riverside have great wisdom, and that that ought to be followed?
Frank Field
If I did, it would mean that the voters of Birkenhead did not have wisdom, which is the very opposite of my hon. Friend’s point. I am not going to put my head in that noose.
Frank Field
No, I have given way once. This is a serious debate and, if I can make progress, I will willingly bring people in as we go along.
I wish to express disappointment with the Government’s strategy and their handling of the situation. I do not think it has the sense of importance, drive or coherence that the issue merits. I have argued, publicly and privately, that anyone who seriously compares this historic event to our fight for survival in world war two would follow the move that Churchill made on taking over from Chamberlain, when he established a war Cabinet in place of the existing ramshackle institutions. As I will explain in a moment, the new clause represents the beginning of a new negotiating hand, and I think we need a Brexit Cabinet. It should be small, and the Opposition should be offered places in it. The Opposition were offered places in the war Cabinet, and Mr Attlee and Mr Greenwood accepted those places. We should try to act in the national interest—[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh—
Several hon. Members rose—
Frank Field
Clearly, my suggestion is proving shocking to my right hon. and hon. Friends, but it will be a test of whether we are intent on the best possible terms, whether we have a clear position and whether we are putting our country first.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. Does he agree that the reason why we ought to have such cross-party co-operation is that this issue is not funny or a joke; it is about the future of our country? That is why we should listen to everyone in this place, and not just act in the narrow interests of the Tory party.
Frank Field
I think my hon. Friend ended her sentence rather early. I think she meant to say that we should try, difficult as it is, to put aside partial affections and concentrate on the national issue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Frank Field
I can hardly finish a sentence. To those to whom I have given way, I will not give way again until much later in my speech.
Frank Field
Well, try another point of order and see if it works.
I have a sense of disappointment. We have ceased the aerial bombardment of this Bill, and we are now engaged in hand-to-hand fighting over the nature of our leaving. The sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), my constituency neighbour, about our trying to steer this debate in the national interest are crucial.
Several hon. Members rose—
Frank Field
No, I will not give way. I want other people to be able to contribute to the debate.
The second reason why I feel disappointment at the Government’s stance is that they are misreading the other side with whom we are negotiating. A British assumption is always to allow give and take, but we now have the Barnier rule of all take and no give. I will in a moment comment on how we should respond to that. Anybody who is serious, as all of us in the Committee have been, about wishing to award equal status and citizenship to EU citizens in this country know that those negotiations could have been over in half an hour. It was never ever the intention but for the other side to tick that off and say it was very good. Millions of people could have been put at their ease about their lives—both Britons living in the European Union and European citizens, as they will become, living in Britain—and we should consider that very carefully in our negotiations from now on.
The third disappointment is that the Government have produced such a Bill. When we were campaigning to leave, I thought we would have a Bill with two, three or four clauses to get us out. I know that the Government have been beguiled by its first title—the great repeal Bill—with some group of clever people thinking it can be great only if it is large, rather than aiming to be effective. I do not believe that a Bill of this size, timetabled as it will be to deliver it for the Government, actually stands much chance of getting through the House of Lords. Hence, my emphasis on the rescue launch waiting in the form of my four new clauses, including this new clause, which I have had such pleasure in moving.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the House of Lords, which is of course unelected and which itself decided to pass the European Union Referendum Act 2015, really has no justification whatsoever for attempting to obstruct, delay or undermine this Bill?
Frank Field
A very important lesson needs to be learned by some of those in the House of Lords who think they can wreck the Bill and wear us down so that Brexit never takes place. There is a very important convention—the Salisbury convention—and there is a very important difference between a referendum and a party’s manifesto. The Salisbury convention allows us to give and take on the important parts of a manifesto—the parts to which Governments rightly feel committed, and which they wish to pursue in Parliament so that when they stand for re-election they can say they have done the job they promised to do.
This is a different ball game. As I tried to say at the beginning, it is difficult for us all to come to terms with the role we have as MPs and the role we have in a post-referendum debate. I think their lordships should know that if they try to wreck the Bill, many of us will push the nuclear button. Labour wants to see the House of Lords go—I am surprised there was not a cheer at that point—but their lordships will sound their own death knell. Not one of them is elected, and none of them has any standing whatsoever in preventing the Government from inviting the House of Commons to implement the referendum decision, as we are doing today.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I am following the right hon. Gentleman’s argument with close attention. Part of the leave argument was to take back control—not just to the House of Commons, but to the country and Parliament as a whole. Is he now trying to undermine the bicameral system?
Frank Field
No, not at all. We will be going late on days such as this, so if the hon. Gentleman would like to read my website, he will see I have outlined my views on House of Lords reform. They are different from those of most others. They are about its being elective, but through electing the great powers in this country—influences such as trade unions and so on—and certainly not through decisions by the party Whips. However, I dare not go down that path because it would take me away from the my new clause.
Frank Field
No, my hon. Friend has had one intervention via a point of order, and I think that is it for him.
Frank Field
So do I.
I think new clause 49 should be the start of a new negotiating position. Mr Barnier has told us that we have to put our money on the table and get serious within two weeks, and I think we should jump at this opportunity. In two weeks’ time, the Government should lay the outline of our agreement. I believe they should say over which decades they are prepared to meet our commitments, and at the end of the two weeks, we should say that at that point we will cease to pay any contributions to the European Union. I want the balance of power to move swiftly from their boot to our boot. From that date, two weeks hence, at the invitation of Mr Barnier, we should say, “Fine. Here’s the outline of the agreement. Here’s the beginning of the money settlement”—paid over a period of time, because there are pensions contributions and so on—“but from this day, until you start seriously negotiating with us”, which they have not, “there will in fact be no more money.”
It is wrong to think that all the £17 billion a year will be coming back to us. The £5 billion that Mrs Thatcher negotiated from the unfair formula is already coming back to us. That was watered down—by whom I will not say, but there is only so much one can say from the Labour Benches—but, nevertheless, £5 billion is coming back. There is also £4 billion coming back to promote anti-poverty programmes in this country. I wish to tell the Committee that I applied for money from those funds to feed people who are hungry and may be starving, but what did Mr Barnier and his group do? Nothing. We supposedly have huge sums of money coming back—spent at their direction—but that does not actually feed people who are hungry.
I want to end by saying that I shall push the new clause to a Division for a number of reasons. One is that it always seems to me better to gain an advantage when one can, rather than later: a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. The Government are introducing their own timetable, as set by the European bureaucrats— whoever they are—instructing us when we might take leave of them, but I think we should decide today to leave on our terms and at a time of our choosing.
As I have said, the new clause should not be read in isolation, because it and the other three new clauses provide us with an alternative way of exiting without all the claptrap the Government have put in the Bill. I believe that, before the end of the negotiations, something like such a four-clause Bill will be adopted.
On the first and civilised intervention—the point of order—about timing, it is perhaps a fallacy to think of terms for oneself applying to terms for the nation, but I have never bought a house without having in the contract the date when it will be mine and on which I can actually move in. When I was elected to the House of Commons I knew that I would have a contract of up to five years, and I have never had a job without being given a starting date.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend’s analogy about buying a house falls down at the first hurdle, because nobody commits to a date to buy a house before they know what it is they are buying. My substantive point, however, is about the fatal weakness of his proposal, even though, as always, I respect the way in which he argues his case. When the Secretary of State appeared before the Select Committee, he told us that it is possible that the negotiations may go to the 59th minute of the 11th hour. That is undoubtedly possible. In those circumstances, does it really make sense to bind the hands of the country and those who are negotiating on its behalf to get the best possible deal, which is also the weakness of the Government’s own amendment 381?
Frank Field
As my right hon. Friend was kind to me about the house analogy, I say that I have always bought my houses, never inherited them. [Interruption.]
Frank Field
I have been corrected and I withdraw my comment, but the idea that the biggest decisions of our lives, such as that to buy a house, are the ones that we take the most time over is not borne out by any research whatsoever. I do seriously apologise to my right hon. Friend.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman has been a political ally of mine in previous cross-party arrangements, but not on this occasion. He has dodged answering the perfectly serious point that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) just put to him. As things stand, article 50 will take effect in March 2019 and we will leave. Anything in the Bill is superfluous to that. A problem could arise only if—and this is possible—28 member states all agree that they are near to a conclusion but that they require a few more days or weeks to settle it. Once we are going they will not want us to stay in much longer, because they will not want us around for the European Parliament elections. However, it would be utterly foolish if 28 Governments all agreed to extend the process and the British representative had to say, “But we’ve put into British law a timing that says, to the second, when we are actually leaving.” That seems to me a rather serious flaw in the proposed new clause.
Frank Field
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is such a good lawyer, but I wish he had read my new clause, because it notes the day rather than the minute that we will leave. Despite all the encouragement from Members behind me, I was so anxious to withdraw what I said about my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) that I forgot to address his substantive point, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman has reminded me to do so. If we look over our whole history in Europe, we will see that the idea that we finish any negotiations other than at the very last minute is almost unheard of. By including the time, we will be saying, “You will have to begin your shenanigans the month before rather than the month after.”
In conclusion, I am grateful for being allowed to move the second reading of this new clause, to remind people that it is part of a short exit Bill.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I know he is concluding. I want to make a simple point. The whole argument about having flexibility falls when we look at article 50 itself. It was very specific for a very simple reason, which is that the timescale determines that those who are negotiating must reach, or agree not to reach, an agreement. Simply changing the timescale will not allow them to reach an agreement; they have the time to do it. That is the whole point about compression—to get an agreement. That is why the date was prompted by article 50.
Frank Field
I have one last point to make. I thought that my proposed new clause merely implemented article 50, which we all voted for, to tell our constituents that we had—[Interruption.] Well, apart from one Member who voted against triggering article 50. [Interruption.] Apart from two or three—[Interruption.] Were there any more than four? Perhaps there were five, six, seven or eight.
I thought that what I had to say was so uncontentious that my speech would last only five minutes. I apologise to the Committee for the time I have taken. All the proposed new clause does is put on the statute book the actual timing of article 50, which we voted for in overwhelming numbers almost a year ago. I move the new clause in my name and the names of those on the amendment paper.
The Chairman
Before I call the Minister, I inform the Committee that he is not feeling well today and, for the sake of clarification, another Minister will come along later.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
I am extremely grateful to you, Mr Hoyle. I very much hope that my voice makes it through these remarks.
I rise to support clause 1 stand part and to speak to Government amendments 381, 382 and 383. It may help the House and members of the public if I say that the decisions on those amendments will be taken on days seven and eight.
Clause 1 reads:
“The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day.”
It is a simple clause, but it could scarcely be more significant. In repealing the European Communities Act 1972, the clause will be a historic step in delivering our exit from the European Union, in accordance with last year’s referendum. I hope that all people on all sides of this issue can agree that the repeal of the Act is a necessary step as we leave the European Union.
Sir William Cash
Does my hon. Friend recall that the official Opposition voted against the Bill on Second Reading and therefore the repeal of the 1972 Act? They still claim that this Bill is not fit for purpose and that it usurps parliamentary sovereignty, when in fact it does exactly the opposite.
Mr Baker
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and I look forward to seeing whether Opposition Members support clause 1 stand part.
If we were not to repeal the European Communities Act, we would still, from the perspective of EU law, exit the European Union at the end of the article 50 process, but there would be confusion and uncertainty about the law on our own statute book. For example, it would be unclear whether UK or EU law would take precedence if there was a conflict between them. The status of new EU law would also be unclear once the UK left the EU.
I intend first to set out briefly the effect of the European Communities Act on our legal system and the implications of its repeal. The UK is a “dualist” state, meaning that a treaty, even when ratified, does not alter our laws unless it is incorporated into domestic law by legislation. Parliament must pass legislation before the rights and obligations in a treaty have effect in our law. The European Communities Act gave EU law supremacy over UK law. Without it, EU law would not apply in the UK. The 1972 Act has two main provisions. Section 2(1) ensures rights and obligations in the EU treaties and regulations are directly applicable in the UK legal system. They apply directly without the need for Parliament to pass specific domestic implementing legislation. This bears repeating in the context of the clauses to follow.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that this simple crucial clause is the way in which our democracy is completely restored and that once it has gone through and been implemented any matter that worries the British people can properly be the subject of parliamentary debate and decisions, no laws and treaties withstanding?
Mr Baker
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. He has perhaps anticipated my speech by a few paragraphs.
UK Ministers and Ministers in the devolved Administrations have made nearly 6,000 domestic regulations under section 2(2) on topics as disparate as air fares, public contracts and preserved sardines. The House, of course, has not remained supine in absorbing all this legislation. We have benefited from the tireless work of the European Scrutiny Committee, chaired so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). It has scrutinised a vast number of EU documents, supporting this House in holding Ministers to account when representing our interests in the EU. Its work has been of paramount importance in holding Ministers to account and maximising the voice of this House on EU matters. On occasions, deliberations in this House have influenced the laws adopted by the EU, but ultimately this House was, on every occasion, obliged to implement our EU obligations. We could not refuse new EU law because of our obligations to the EU.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
Does my hon. Friend accept that most of this legislation is proposed by the Commission, considered by the Council of Ministers, including a British Minister, and, nowadays, approved by the European Parliament before it becomes law? Can he name a significant European law or regulation that was opposed by the British Government at the time, which the Government are now proposing to repeal? Most Brexiteers cannot think of one.
Mr Baker
I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I think the question at stake here is not whether there are legitimate processes in the EU; it is whether we approve of them. The one that I am always glad to bring to people’s attention is, of course, the ports regulation, which we will have to stick with all the while we are within the EU. It is perhaps unique in being opposed by the owners of ports, trade unions and, it seems, all parties involved with our strategic interests in ports. They are all opposed to that regulation. I very much look forward to the day that we can make our own decisions about how our flourishing private sector infrastructure works.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that those who accuse the Government of a power grab would be very happy for unelected EU officials to continue to exercise these powers, rather than an elected Government accountable to this elected Parliament?
Sir William Cash
In response, vicariously to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), may I point out that most decisions taken by the Council of Ministers are effectively made by consensus behind closed doors, with no record of who said what, how the decision was arrived at, or, unlike this House, with no record of any of the proceedings either?
Mr Baker
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I thoroughly recommend the report of his Committee relating to that subject.
I think what has been established in this sequence of interventions is that clause 1 could scarcely be of greater constitutional significance. It will repeal the 1972 Act on exit day, removing the mechanism that allows EU law to flow automatically into UK law, and remove one of the widest-ranging powers ever placed on the statute book of the United Kingdom. The repeal makes it clear and unarguable that sovereignty lies here in this Parliament.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
If the 1972 Act is repealed before the end of what Ministers call the implementation period but what I prefer to think of as the transition period, what will be the legal basis for our relations with the EU and our free trade agreements with the 57 third countries?
Mr Baker
Not just now. [Hon. Members: “Ooh!] I have given way quite a few times. I am now going to make some progress and get on to the amendments.
How we exercise this restored power in the future will be a choice for this place. The Government are clear that we want a smooth and orderly exit, achieved through continuity in the law at the point of exit, as we shall discuss at later stages. For now, I hope that all Members can agree that it is essential that clause 1 stand part of the Bill.
I now turn to today’s amendments. It is fitting that the first amendment debated in Committee is from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field). He has got to the heart of the matter of when we leave the EU.
Mr Baker
I will come to that point.
I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, and I have great sympathy for the case he makes. I will just pick up on two points. First, on using our time, he has not of course given a time of day in his new clause. One thing I learned during my service in the Royal Air Force is the ambiguity that arises when one implies or deliberately specifies midnight, which of course can be taken as the beginning or end of a day. For that reason, his amendment is technically deficient. I hope that in due course he will choose not to press it to a Division, but will instead accept the Government’s set of amendments, including the consequentials.
Frank Field
I would love the Government to move an amendment specifying 23 hours and 59 minutes on the day we leave, but it should be on our time, not on others’ time or terms. Will they move that amendment to my new clause at a later stage?
Wera Hobhouse
Does the Minister not agree that exactly this argument is creating division between us and our European neighbours, which will make it very difficult to create a deep and special partnership?
Mr Baker
I do not accept that at all. When the Prime Minister wrote to the President of the European Council in March, she set in train the defined two-year process of article 50, which, unless extended by unanimity, will conclude on 29 March 2019. That is why the Prime Minister said in her Florence speech that the UK would cease to be a member of the EU on that day. That is the Government’s policy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Baker
As I said, I would like to make some progress.
The Government have, however, listened carefully to the debate about the setting of exit day for the statutory purposes of the Bill. There has been some uncertainty about whether the exit day appointed in the Bill would correspond to the day the UK leaves the EU at the end of the article 50 process. The Government sympathise with this uncertainty. This is also an issue on which the Lords Constitution Committee opined in its report in September. It stated:
“We are concerned that the power to define ‘exit day’—a matter that is pivotal to the operation of the Bill—is unduly broad in its scope and flexibility, and that it is not subject to any parliamentary scrutiny procedure.”
Such concerns were further voiced by the hon. Members for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) on Second Reading, not least regarding the breadth of the power potentially to set numerous exit days. In fact, there has been a notable disconnect, as we perhaps saw earlier, between Labour Front and Back Benchers on this issue. While several of its Back Benchers have submitted amendments and raised concerns about exit day, its Front-Bench team seem to have refused to acknowledge the need to establish clarity.
We would like to put this issue to rest. We recognise the importance of being crystal clear on the setting of exit day and are keen to provide the certainty that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead and others are seeking. In the light of this, the Government have tabled amendment 381 to clause 14, along with the consequential amendments 382 and 383, which will set exit day at 11 pm on 29 March 2019. Of course, this is slightly different to his amendment, in that it sets a time as well as a date for exit.
Alison McGovern
I am sorry that the Minister is not feeling well, but does he understand how impossible it is for me to explain to my constituents that they can have certainty about nothing in relation to Brexit as the Government plan it, except, according to him, the date when it will happen?
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I wonder whether the Minister is going to admit to the Committee that setting a date for exit is mere political window-dressing. The Prime Minister has told the House that if there is to be a transitional deal, which she wants, her understanding is that it will be under article 50. That means that we will be staying in the single market, staying in the customs union and subject to EU law during the transitional period, so this exit day is simply a sop to Back Benchers. When is the Minister going to tell them the truth?
Mr Baker
I will come to the implementation period in a moment, but one of the crucial points is that we need to become a third country in order to conclude our future relationship agreement. The Prime Minister set out in her Florence speech the outline of that implementation period, which would allow practical continuity under new arrangements that would enable us to be a third country and conclude the future relationship agreement.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. Does he recognise that there are two different issues relating to exit day? Some of the amendments were tabled to express the fear that there might be multiple exit dates. That is very different from fixing a day. Obviously, under article 50 there is an expiry date, but, as my hon. Friend knows, article 50 itself contains provision for a possible extension of the period if that is what is needed to conclude an agreement. That is why I find the Government’s amendment so strange. It seems to me to fetter the Government, to add nothing to the strength of their negotiating position, and, in fact, potentially to create a very great problem that could be visited on us at a later stage.
Mr Baker
My right hon. and learned Friend has made his point with considerable clarity. Of course I accept that the article 50 process involves certain provisions, but I should say to him that a number of learned voices in private expressed concern about the existence of a degree of elasticity in the sunsetting of the powers in the Bill, and, for that reason, were anxious for us to fix the exit date. I should also say to him that, while he made his point with his usual clarity, other Members expressed the view that we should put beyond doubt the time and the date when we leave the European Union, and that is what our amendment does.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Minister is making a very good speech, but what is not clear—and there is some media speculation about this—is whether, if amendment 381 is passed with the exit date confirmed as it is, the Bill allows that date to be changed subsequently by means of regulation.
Mr Baker
The answer to that is no. The point has been raised specifically in respect of the powers in clause 17, which relate to the consequences of the Bill’s enactment. I look forward very much to a full debate on those powers when we reach clause 17, but the short answer to my hon. Friend’s question is no.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Baker
No. I did say to my right hon. and learned Friend, and the Committee, that I was going to get on with it. If I give way to him, I will not make the progress that I need to make.
We said on Second Reading that we would listen to the concerns of the House, and our amendment delivers on that promise. Ultimately, the Government want the Bill to provide as much certainty as possible, and we are happy to consider amendments that share that goal. I hope that in the light of this the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) will be willing to withdraw his new clause, and hon. and right hon. Members with related amendments will withdraw them, too.
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for being pretty frank with the Committee now, because if what he says is right, his Government’s set of amendments pave the way for no deal. If I am wrong about that, why did his predecessor, Lord Bridges of Headley, say that he did not believe it would be possible to sort out the divorce bill, the implementation period and the final deal on our withdrawal within the timeframe envisaged? What the Minister is planning for—he should be absolutely frank with the British people about this—is no deal, and he has no mandate from the British people to do that.
Mr Baker
I responded on this subject in a recent debate, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to everything I said on that occasion. He is wrong: we are planning to secure a deep and special partnership with the EU, and we intend to achieve that within the implementation period, which the Prime Minister described and set out in her Florence speech, and we look forward to passing the necessary legislation to do it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Is the Minister aware that the chief financial officer of Aston Martin has said that it would be a semi-catastrophe if the UK went for no deal? Also, why will the Minister not allow the option for article 50 to be extended, to ensure that there was a deal if we were very close to reaching one on the date he has set?
Mr Baker
As a responsible Government, we are going to go through the process of making sure that our country is ready to leave the EU without a deal if that proves necessary. We will take the steps to be prepared, as a responsible Government should.
However, this Bill cannot pre-empt the negotiations by putting things into statute before they have been agreed. The Government intend the UK to leave the EU on 29 March 2019, and that is why we intend to put that on the face of the Bill, but we have always been clear that we will bring forward whatever legislation is necessary to implement the agreement we strike with the EU, which is why yesterday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the Withdrawal Agreement and Implementation Bill, which we will introduce once Parliament has had a chance to vote on the final deal.
This Government take their responsibilities seriously and are committed to ensuring that the UK exits the EU with certainty, continuity and control. It makes no sense to legislate for one piece of legislation on the face of another, and I therefore ask the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford not to press her amendment to a vote. With that, I recommend that clause 1 stand part of the Bill.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I am pleased to speak to amendments 43, 44 and 45, which would give Parliament control over the length and basic terms of the transitional arrangements and allow Parliament to set the clock on the sunset clauses. These are the first of many amendments tabled by the Opposition that we will consider over the next few weeks, all of which have one purpose, which is to improve the Bill. Frankly, it is not helpful when Ministers—and, indeed, the Prime Minister over the weekend—seek to characterise scrutiny and accountability in this House as an attempt to thwart Brexit. It is not. We accept that the British people voted to leave the European Union. It might have been a close vote, but it was a clear vote. That is why we voted to trigger article 50. Whether we leave the European Union is not a matter for debate, but how we do so is crucial for the future of our country. The British people voted to pull out, but they did not vote to lose out. They look to Parliament to secure the best deal, and that includes not stumbling over a cliff edge in March 2019.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
Could the hon. Gentleman define the Labour party’s idea of leaving the European Union?
Paul Blomfield
I am surprised that such an ardent Brexiteer as the right hon. Gentleman does not understand what leaving the European Union involves. We do.
Until last Thursday, the debate on clause 1 looked fairly straightforward. The article 50 notification made our exit from the European Union in March 2019 a legal certainty, so, for the purposes of the Bill, exit day could be left in the hands of Parliament. But then the Government did something needless: they tabled amendments 381 and 382, putting a specified exit date—and, indeed, a specified exit time: 11 pm, or midnight Brussels time—into the Bill. Their consequential amendment 383 seems to contradict the other amendments in some regards, which underlines the chaotic way in which the Government have approached the Bill, but taken together, the intention of the three amendments is clear.
Sir William Cash
The rather mysterious explanation that the hon. Gentleman gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) needs some elucidation. Would he be good enough to explain whether leaving the European Union means repealing the European Communities Act 1972, and why Labour voted against the Bill on Second Reading?
Paul Blomfield
I would have thought that it would be as clear to the hon. Gentleman as it is to me that leaving the European Union does involve revoking the European Communities Act. I will go on to explain why we have concerns about the Government’s amendments and the different decisions within them.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
Did the hon. Gentleman understand, as I did, when the vote on article 50 took place, that the provisions outlined in article 50 would apply, including the ability of 28 nations to agree to extend the negotiating process?
Paul Blomfield
I did indeed, and I will come to that point later in my remarks.
I said that the intention of the three amendments is clear despite the confusion caused by amendment 383. It is clear, but it is needless because article 50, triggered on 29 March 2017, provides for a two-year exit timetable.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Paul Blomfield
No, I will make some progress.
There is therefore no question about whether the UK will leave the EU at the end of that period in accordance with the article 50 notification. So what is the purpose of the Government’s three amendments? Is it simply to appease extreme elements within the Conservative party, not thinking of the consequences for the country, or is it a deliberate decision to unpick the Florence speech, demonstrating that the freelancers in the Prime Minister’s Cabinet are actually in charge of policy?
Stephen Doughty
I suspect that it may be the latter. Given the chaos that the negotiations are in, the public will be wondering about the lack of progress. When the Government suddenly want to impose a guillotine, rather than use the article 50 process, the public may have good reason to be suspicious.
Paul Blomfield
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The public have reason to be suspicious and worried.
Paul Blomfield
No, I will not. I want to make some progress, but I am sure that I will give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to intervene later.
Whatever the reason for the Government’s decision, it is reckless and represents an extraordinary U-turn. The Minister said a few moments ago that it was important to give clarity on the issue of departure and that it was the Government’s fixed view, but that is not the view they held before last Thursday. In fact, for the past four months their position was represented by clause 14(1)—page 10, lines 25 and 26—which says that
“‘exit day’ means such day as a Minister of the Crown may by regulations appoint”
and by clause 19(1)—page 14, lines 41 to 42—which states that
“different days may be appointed for different purposes.”
Now, the Opposition thought that that was a sensible principle. We wanted Parliament, not Ministers, to agree the dates, which is why we have tabled amendments 43, 44 and 45. That principle makes sense, and I will outline why.
As I have said, our departure from the European Union is a settled matter. However, the Bill deals with three different issues: the date that the 1972 Act will cease to have effect; the cut-off point for the use of delegated powers; and the ending of the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union. On that last point, there is a fundamental impact on the transitional arrangements. Labour has been clear about the need for a transitional period in order to prevent a cliff edge and to ensure that businesses do not have to adapt to two new customs and regulatory arrangements in quick succession. We need a transitional period on the same basic terms that we currently have in the single market and in the customs union.
Businesses and trade unions support that transitional period, and we were pleased when the Government caught up with us on that in September. In her Florence speech, the Prime Minister finally recognised its importance and said that
“people and businesses—both in the UK and in the EU—would benefit from a period to adjust to the new arrangements in a smooth and orderly way.”
She went on to say:
“Clearly people, businesses and public services should only have to plan for one set of changes in the relationship between the UK and the EU. So during the implementation period access to one another’s markets should continue on current terms and Britain also should continue to take part in existing security measures. And I know businesses, in particular, would welcome the certainty this would provide.”
Her spokesperson reiterated just yesterday that she gave businesses reassurance on agreeing a time-limited transitional or, as she prefers to describe it, implementation period as soon as possible. However, amendment 383 blows the prospect of a transitional deal on current terms out of the water. Put simply, if there is no role for the Court of Justice of the European Union, we will not be operating on current terms and the Prime Minister will be unable to secure an agreement with the EU27 for the transitional arrangements that she set out in her Florence speech.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Is not the difference between an implementation and a transition the whole point? If it is an implementation, we are implementing the consequences of having left; if it is a transition, we are transitioning from being inside the European Union to being, at the end of the process, outside. Therefore in the transition we would be de facto members of the European Union, on the basis that the hon. Gentleman is setting out, defeating the whole purpose of this Bill.
Paul Blomfield
Clearly, the transitional period is a bridge between where we are now and where we will be once we have left the European Union. The hon. Gentleman’s point is not relevant to the point I am seeking to make.
Paul Farrelly
I wanted to make this intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), but he would not take it.
I commend the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), and I seek his opinion on new clause 49. The new clause is linked to other new clauses, but if it is agreed there is no guarantee that the other new clauses will be agreed. Passing new clause 49 would therefore do a grave disservice to this country. Will he make clear the Opposition Front Bench’s position on new clause 49?
Paul Blomfield
I am happy to clarify that we oppose new clause 49.
Whether in relation to new clause 49 or to the Government’s amendments, closing down the opportunity for effective transitional arrangements is deeply self-harming.
Mr Baker
I believe that the Labour party wants to have a smooth transition to a good quality future relationship, but I draw to the hon. Gentleman’s attention what the Prime Minister said in her Florence speech:
“Neither is the European Union legally able to conclude an agreement with the UK as an external partner while it is itself still part of the European Union.”
My point is that we need to become a third country before we can conclude the kind of future relationship that I think the hon. Gentleman would like us to have.
Paul Blomfield
I do not disagree with the Minister. It is precisely our point that, during the transitional period, we cannot disable the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union, otherwise we will not achieve the arrangement that we apparently both seek.
Joanna Cherry
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point, and I wonder whether I might help. I asked the Prime Minister what she thought the legal basis of any transitional deal will be, and she said that the EU takes the view that it will be article 50. When I was in Brussels with the Exiting the European Union Committee last week, I raised this issue at the highest level of the EU and was told that, yes, it is envisaged that during the transitional deal Britain will stay in the single market, in the customs union, within EU law, within the acquis and under the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Paul Blomfield
I agree with the hon. and learned Lady. In fact, the Brexit Secretary talked about the Court in those terms yesterday.
Mr Grieve
I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Is not part of the difficulty that there is a sense of people being disingenuous about the reality of the process of Brexit? Of course it is possible that, at the end of this, despite how we pass this legislation, the Government will come back with a withdrawal agreement Bill—the statute they have promised us—that does the very thing they will not admit at the moment: keep us within the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union during a transitional period. Would it not be better, and would it not help us in our debates on this Bill, if we had a bit of honesty and clarity from all sides about the implications of withdrawal, about how we have to go about it and about the options—sometimes the lack of options—that may be open to us?
Paul Blomfield
I very much agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Otherwise, we will face the nonsense of the Government introducing new legislation effectively repealing the repeal Bill, or a key part of it.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
Further to the point of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) on the difference between transition and implementation, we know for sure that it will be an implementation period because we will have to implement the withdrawal agreement. We do not yet know whether it will be a transitional period because we do not know, and will not know at the point of Brexit, whether we will have any final deal to implement.
Paul Blomfield
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I will now make some progress.
I was at the point of talking about why closing down the opportunity for effective transitional arrangements would be deeply self-harming. As the director general of the CBI, Carolyn Fairbairn, said just last week,
“The message from us, from business, is more certainty quickly particularly around transition, particularly in the next four weeks”.
The Government amendments undermine the prospect of a transitional deal and create more uncertainty. The CBI, the British Chambers of Commerce, the EEF, the Institute of Directors and the Federation of Small Businesses came together to call for a transitional deal, saying:
“We need agreement of transitional arrangements as soon as possible, as without urgent agreement many companies have serious decisions about investment and contingency plans to take at the start of 2018”.
They continued:
“Failure to agree a transition period of at least two years could have wide-reaching and damaging consequences for investment and trade”.
It will also mean lorries backing up at Dover, because the adjustments necessary to avoid that cannot be physically put in place within 15 months, as I am sure everyone would agree. For the same reason, it will mean a hard border in Northern Ireland, with all the problems that that would create.
The Government’s approach is simply not in the national interest, and it closes down the flexibility that we might need. If negotiations go to the wire, both we and the EU 27 might recognise the need for an extra week, an extra day, an extra hour, an extra minute or even an extra second, as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) pointed out, in order to secure a final deal. But that agreement would be thwarted by the Government’s having made it unlawful for themselves to do what they would want to do at that point.
The Prime Minister has consistently talked about parties working together in the national interest, and we are up for that—we have tried to be constructive; we have scrutinised and identified gaps; we have offered solutions; and on this crucial issue we seem to be in the same place as at least some members of the Government on the need for an effective transitional period. So let me make an offer to the Government. If they withdraw amendments 381, 382 and 383, and work with us on an alternative that affirms a departure date in line with the article 50 process but without destroying the chances of transitional arrangements, we are happy to look at that and work with them on it. If they do not—
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the real way in which the Prime Minister could reach out is by making it clear that she accepts the jurisdiction of the ECJ for the implementation period? That would resolve a lot of her problems.
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The reckless ideological red line on the ECJ has got us into many problems—not only on this, but on the membership of Euratom and in many other ways.
If the Government cannot withdraw their amendments and engage in that process with us we cannot support them, because of the impact on the economy, jobs and livelihoods, as we would plunge over the cliff edge. I should also say that we cannot support amendment 79. We believe the Bill should operate on the presumption of devolution. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) will set out our position in greater detail in subsequent days.
The Government have had months to repair this deeply flawed Bill. They could have come forward with amendments on workers’ rights, environmental protection, the charter of fundamental rights and limiting the scope of delegated powers, but instead they have chosen to come to this House with a gimmick on the departure date. This gimmick is about the Prime Minister negotiating with her own party, rather than trying to get a Brexit deal that prioritises jobs, the economy and the livelihoods of our people. The Government’s amendments are a product of the divisions at the heart of this Government on their approach to Brexit—divisions that are causing chaos, and this chaos is threatening our economy. We have a Prime Minister so weak that she is trying to tie her own hands behind her back to appease the extremists within her party.
Paul Blomfield
No, I will not.
Rather, I should say that the Prime Minister is letting the Foreign Secretary and the Environment Secretary tie her hands for her. She is putting internal party management before the national interest. This country deserves better, and we are offering it.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
I abstained on Second Reading and I voted against the timetable motion. I felt it was not possible to vote against Second Reading because a technical Bill of this kind is certainly required for when we leave the European Union, to avoid the legal hiatus and total uncertainty that would otherwise occur about what law actually applies in this country. I abstained rather than supported the Bill because I feel that, for many reasons that will become clear in the days of debate to come, the Bill goes far beyond its original purpose and is drafted in such a way as to try to deprive Parliament of a proper vote and say on perfectly important features. I hope that all that will be corrected by a Government who we have been assured—I accept this—are going to listen to the debate and see what is required and what is not.
I wish to touch briefly on two features of this debate, the first of which is the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. There are only two Members left in the House of Commons who were here when the European Communities Act was passed, and I am glad to say that we are both consistent. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) and I continue to vote against each other on all matters European, and we always have done. I always assure the Conservative Whips that they can look forward to the hon. Gentleman supporting them on most of the issues on which I vote against them, and I am sure that that will continue to be case.
On a serious note, the European Communities Act was passed on a bipartisan basis, which I helped to negotiate as a Government Whip—that is, Labour rebels supported the majority of the Conservative party to get us in. Before everyone deplores it, let me say that I do not think it has turned out to be a harmful piece of legislation at all. Apart from the predictable people—my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Back Benches—no one has ever sought to repeal it. The idea, which is very popularly put forward by the UK Independence party and others, that the Act has led faceless grey Eurocrats to produce vast quantities of awful legislation and red tape, is one of the biggest myths of our time. I pay tribute to Nigel Farage’s campaigning abilities. There is absolutely no doubt that he is the most successful politician of my generation, because he has persuaded a high proportion of the population that that is exactly how it runs. No doubt they are all looking forward to having bent bananas again once we have repealed all these pieces of legislation. I once fought an election in which quite a lot of my constituents had been persuaded that the Eurocrats were about to abolish double-decker buses. It took some considerable time to try to refute that rather worrying belief.
Mr Paterson
My right hon. and learned Friend’s stand on this issue has been completely consistent for decades, but can he stand up before the Committee and justify staying within the common fisheries policy on ecological, environmental, economic or social grounds?
Mr Clarke
I look forward to seeing what a British fisheries policy is going to comprise. This is outside the scope of the debate, so I shall be as brief as I can be, but the average fisherman I meet seems to believe that if we exclude foreign ships from our waters, we can give up all this scientific stuff about conserving stocks and there will no longer be any quotas. That is the usual argument put to me. Of course, most British fish is sold in the European Union—it is a very important market for us—and it is of course inconceivable that EU countries could be so vicious as to react to our throwing their ships out by not buying the fish that we catch. No doubt in due course a more rational British fisheries policy will emerge, and no doubt we will debate it in a more comfortable context.
Sir William Cash
Indeed. I wish to challenge my right hon. and learned Friend on his assertion that the manner in which the Council of Ministers has been operating has been adequately democratic and transparent. Can he please explain to us, from his own extensive experience, how it works and will he deny that, for the most part, it is done behind closed doors and that it is done by consensus, so nobody knows who decides what, how and when?
Mr Clarke
Under the Major Government, we introduced a process whereby parts of the European Council meetings were held in public. The Council of Ministers do hold public sessions, and an attempt was made to reach decisions in public sessions. It probably still goes on. [Interruption.] It does not amount to very much.
Mr Clarke
No, let me finish my answer. We did try to tackle this criticism. What happened was that each of the 28 Ministers gave little speeches entirely designed for their national newspapers and television, and negotiations and discussion did not make much practical progress. When the public sessions were over, the Ministers went into private session to negotiate and reach agreement. I used to find that the best business at the European Council was usually done over lunch. I have attended more European Council meetings than most people have had hot dinners. The dinners and the lunches tended to be where reasonable understandings were made. There were very few votes, but Governments made it clear when they opposed anything. When the council was over, everyone gave a press conference. It was a slightly distressing habit, because some of the accounts of Ministers for the assembled national press did not bear a close resemblance to what they had been saying inside the Council. I regret to say that some British Ministers fell into that trap. British Ministers and Ministers of other nationalities who had fiercely advocated regulating inside the Council would hold a press conference describing their valiant efforts to block what had now come in, which confirms some of my hon. Friend’s criticisms.
The fact is that most British Governments made it clear what they opposed and what they did not. If a regulation was passed in their presence, they had to come back here to explain why they had gone along with it. Now, that is enough on the European Communities Act.
Anna Soubry
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, notwithstanding what happened in the past, the reality is that we have had the referendum and 52% have voted to leave, so it is now imperative that we all come together as much as we can to get this right? We need to get the best deal and the best legislation to deliver that deal. Most importantly, we must return sovereignty to this Parliament, which should have its proper meaningful vote and say—deal or no deal.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr Clarke
I will in a second. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am trying to be brief.
I made this point once in an intervention, but it is an extremely serious matter. When the Government produced this technical Bill to stop the legal hiatus, they saw no reason to put any reference in it to our departure date from the Union. They had reason: there was no reason to put it in. Article 50, supported—despite my vote against—by a large majority of the House of Commons, sets the date of 29 March 2019, and the whole Bill proceeded on that basis. But in the past few days, partly in response to the new clause of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), the Government have suddenly produced the most precise amendments, tying down our departure to the second.
With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, his new clause could easily have been defeated: the Labour party would have voted against it; I would have voted against it, for what it is worth; and the Scot nats and the Liberals would have voted against it. Even the Government trying to apply their Whips to get it carried—if they had been foolish enough to do so—would have had a job getting a majority for his new clause. So I do not think that it was fear of the right hon. Gentleman, despite his formidable oratory, that caused the Government to table their amendments. What has happened is that they tried to make a concession to the pro-Europeans—the more moderate Government Back Benchers—by conceding the obvious common sense that, when we get there, we will have to have a meaningful, lawful vote on whatever deal is produced and that we will have to have legislation to move to the final period. It is not a great concession.
With great respect, the Government have not quite got it right yet, as we discovered the other day. All these great processes could take place after we have already left, particularly if the Government’s amendments are passed, which increase that risk. But they made what might have been seen by some as a dreadful concession to—of all people—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). Shock! Horror! What kind of press would that produce; what kind of reaction from the fourth row below the Gangway behind me? So somebody was urged to bring something that could be thrown as a sop to the Foreign Secretary and the Environment Secretary, and produced this ridiculous Government amendment. But it is not just ridiculous and unnecessary; it could be positively harmful to the national interest.
Kevin Brennan
Despite what the right hon. and learned Gentleman just said, is not it fortunate that the Government have time to rethink this? It has already been made clear that the Government and the Opposition will oppose the new clause of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field). The Government amendment on the matter will not be considered until the eighth day in Committee. Therefore, is not there ample time for the Government—without losing face—to listen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s good sense and withdraw their amendment before that time?
Mr Clarke
I will not try to emulate the hon. Gentleman’s eminently sensible advice. By the time the Government have to concede this point, which I trust they will, we will all have forgotten the slightly odd circumstances in which this amendment was produced. He sums up the situation.
It is quite unnecessary to close down our options as severely as we are with this amendment, when we do not know yet what will happen. It is perfectly possible, on all precedents, that there is a mutually beneficial European and British need to keep the negotiations going for a time longer to get them settled and not to fall into the problems this Bill was designed to address.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr Clarke
I am going to conclude now. I apologise to my hon. Friend.
Other things that have come up in this debate are extremely important and need to be returned to—and will be returned to—many times in the Bill’s Committee stage. The whole question of the obvious need for a transition stage, and the obvious need for a transition stage to continue with our relationship on its present terms, until the new terms have been clarified and so business can run smoothly, must be reflected in every word of this Bill, and we must not seek to put obstacles in the way.
The Florence speech was a most significant step forward—indeed, it was the only significant step forward that the British have so far taken in the whole negotiating process. I do not know—I suspect, but I do not know—whether there are amendments to the Bill whose main efforts are devoted to trying to step back again from the Florence speech, but just in case, I hope that the Government will welcome all efforts to put the spirit of the Florence speech, and indeed its content, into the Bill.
I hope that we will not have these necessary and detailed discussions, of which this debate is just our first, somehow interfered with or shot down when the criticisms get difficult by people saying, “Oh, you’re remoaners. You’re trying to reverse democracy. You have been instructed by the people to leave Euratom. You have been instructed by the people to reject the European Court of Justice.” The referendum—I have no time for referendums personally—certainly settled that the majority wanted to leave the European Union. It settled nothing else. As nobody expected leave to win—including the leave campaigners, who would have taken no notice of the referendum had they lost it—nobody paid any attention to what leaving actually meant in practical, legal, economic policy and business terms, which it is the duty of this House to debate. We had no instructions.
When anybody mentioned problems of trade, investment and jobs, which are only part of the problem, although a hugely important part, they were waved away by leave campaigners, including the leading leave campaigners. The present Foreign Secretary dismissed all that—it was the politics of fear. Trade would carry on just as before. Investment would flow just as before. That was what the public were assured and what most of them believed, whichever way they eventually voted.
Well, even the Foreign Secretary is going to have to read his brief and study the basis upon which international trade is conducted in the modern, globalised economy. We are going to have to avoid a House of Commons, which universally expresses a belief in free trade, quite needlessly putting protectionist barriers, by way of tariffs, customs procedures and regulatory conditions, between ourselves and our biggest and most important market in the world.
I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Stone as the debate continues. I have listened to him, and greatly enjoyed listening to him and debating with him, for many years on this subject. He now represents orthodoxy and party loyalty. He now argues there is too much parliamentary debate and that we should not have votes on this—it has all been settled by the voice of people. I am the rebel. I espoused the policies that the Conservative party has followed for the 50 years of my membership of it until we had a referendum 18 months ago, and I regret that I have not yet seen the light. He and I, like the hon. Member for Bolsover, remain consistent; we are probably each of us wrong. In the course of this, there are some very, very serious issues to be settled in this Bill. I ask the Government to reconsider silly amendments that were thrown out because they got a good article in The Daily Telegraph but might eventually actually do harm. [Applause.]
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
It is an absolute privilege to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). I welcome the applause from those on the Labour Benches. [Interruption.] Yes, some of them.
Over the weekend, we passed the halfway mark between the EU referendum and actually leaving the European Union. It is difficult to argue that over those 500-plus days we have spent that time well, that the Government have a clearer idea of where we are, or that the promises made by the Minister and his colleagues in Vote Leave have come to pass or are any closer to reality than they were when they made them. We are certainly no closer to the post-Brexit utopia that we have been promised.
Those looking back on these debates in years to come will, as well as admiring the speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe, do so with a sense of bewilderment. Not only is this Parliament set to approve a Bill, if it goes through, that most Members seem to think is a bad idea—most Members think that leaving the EU is a bad idea—but we are being asked to make significant changes with an extraordinary paucity of information. No other piece of legislation may have been forced through on the basis of such a small amount of information. It is astonishing that 500 days on the Government remain clueless about the impact of their plans. We have still not seen the impact assessments that this Parliament voted for and that we were promised. That would have been quite useful ahead of this debate, had this Government been listening to Parliament.
All this is coming from Conservative Members who wanted to bring back decision making, power and so-called sovereignty to the House of Commons. Clearly, after all this time, either the impact assessments are being hurriedly rushed together right now or the Government are too feart to share them—that means too scared to share them, for the benefit of those on the Front Bench. Last night’s botched efforts to try to win support illustrate the desperate situation in which the Government—and, frankly, this Parliament—find themselves. We have been given a choice between approving a really bad deal or a really, really bad deal. That is no choice at all and one that we should avoid at all costs.
The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe raised an important point about promises that were made. There is a point here about accountability. Good governance in any Parliament—any legislature—relies on being accountable. The whole idea of why those of us from Scotland travel down here while those from elsewhere have to make their way here every single week is to hold the Government to account. One of the principles laid out in the Parliamentary Control of the Executive Bill brought forward in 1999 by the Secretary of State for Leaving the EU, who is not in his place at the moment, was that Government could not sideline this place. I wonder whether this Government would be in their current pickle had the Secretary of State’s Bill been passed in 1999. Accountability is sadly lacking. Parliamentary control should go deeper than even beyond June 2016. All of us here should be accountable for the commitments that we make ahead of any election or any referendum. All of us should do our best to implement the manifesto on which we were elected. Regardless of how much we may disagree with each other, we have a responsibility to our electorates and we are accountable to them.
I am left in a quandary. I will happily take an intervention from a Government Member if they can tell me this: if this place is accountable—if only!—who is accountable for providing £350 million a week to the NHS? The Government deny that they are. Who is accountable for giving Scotland lots of new powers, including powers over immigration? And who is accountable for the full access to the single market that many in Vote Leave promised? If only the EU had been successful in getting rid of double-decker buses, it would not have been so easy to splash promises across the sides of them. I would happily take an intervention about accountability for those things.
Antoinette Sandbach
Would the hon. Gentleman like to add to his list the comments of those such as Dan Hannan, who argued for leave? He said, “Don’t worry, you can vote to leave because we will stay in the single market and the customs union.”
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Lady makes an excellent and principled intervention. To double down on that, I will quote the leader of the Scottish Conservatives. The problem is that I cannot quote her directly; I will have to paraphrase what she said, because if I read out the quote, I would be held to be out of order in this place. She called into question the veracity of claims on costs in terms of the EU, and the veracity of claims made by people who are in government about Turkey’s EU membership and an EU army. I am sorry that I cannot quote her directly, but I would find myself in a bit of bother if I did.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the work done by Economists for Free Trade, which states that the £350 million promised to the NHS is fundable? Is he aware of the agreement yesterday at the European Union on a European army? Both those things can easily be answered.
Stephen Gethins
If only the Government had seen the hon. Gentleman’s talents, he could have been in government implementing these changes. When it comes to increasing funding for the NHS, I look forward very much to the conversations that he and I will have as we pass through the same Lobby in an effort to get the health funding that was promised by people who are now in government.
Stephen Doughty
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as we have seen today, the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) has his supporters in the Cabinet? The Department for International Trade was gleefully retweeting—until it deleted the tweet—the speech that he made earlier, which called for a race-to-the-bottom, low-regulation Britain.
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, as he always does on these matters, even though he and I may not agree on much. Ruth Davidson and I do not often agree on much either, but she was right that we deserve the truth. This place deserves accountability over the promises that have been made. I wonder whether the Minister, who is in his place and who made those promises as part of Vote Leave, will address the question of what will happen about these promises. They were made to the people before they voted in a plebiscite, and he has some responsibility for that.
Stephen Gethins
I will give way to the hon. Lady, and then to the Minister.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people voted to leave the EU because they wanted a better future? They did not vote for Brexit at any cost, including the cost of democracy.
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Lady makes a good point. I will take an intervention from the Minister, since I mentioned him, and then I will make progress with my speech.
Mr Baker
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read the report published by the Treasury Committee during the referendum campaign. The report, which has my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) on it, calls into question the veracity of claims on both sides of the campaign.
Stephen Gethins
The Minister is trying to absolve himself of responsibility for spending on the health service. If only he had done that before the EU referendum. If only he had stopped people putting it on the side of a bus. It is extraordinary, because those Vote Leavers are Ministers now. They are in the posts that they wanted, and they need to take a bit of responsibility and deliver on their promises. If Labour get into government, Conservative Members will quite rightly expect them to deliver on their promises.
Stephen Gethins
I will not give way at the moment; I will make some progress, as I promised I would. This is the question: in any future referendum on any issue, are we all free to say whatever we like, because nobody will be held to account for what has been said?
Stephen Gethins
Not at the moment, because I made a promise. Surely Members from all parts of the House must recognise the damage that has been done to politics as a whole by the empty promises that were made by Vote Leave. Frankly, that is one of the many reasons why this Bill deserves to fall.
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) made a good point about compromise. In a Parliament of minorities, we need to have compromise. It is almost a year since the Scottish Government published their compromise, under which we would have remained part of the single market—the single market was mentioned by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach). Leaving the European Union is not something I want or wanted, and it is not something for which my constituents or my nation voted, but the nature of compromise is one of give and take.
Remaining part of the single market is a compromise suggested not just by the SNP but by experts—on these Benches, we still listen to experts—and by members of other political parties, and it was pushed for by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the leader of the Scottish Conservatives as well. I urge Members to look at that suggested deal. Under our amendment 69, instead of our crashing out of the European Union, we would retain membership of the EU until we can sort this out. We will also be backing amendment 79, from our Plaid Cymru colleagues, because it is important that democracy does not begin and end in this place, and the devolved Administrations should have a key role as we go through this process. We are now in the situation where no deal is becoming more and more of a reality, as I will mention in my concluding remarks.
Mr Evans
The hon. Gentleman will remember that the former Chancellor said during the referendum campaign that should we leave the European Union, we would be leaving the single market. That was made absolutely explicit. The hon. Gentleman has spoken about future referendums, and he wants a second referendum in Scotland. Should the Scottish people vote in such a referendum by 52% to 48% to leave the United Kingdom, will he, after much discussion, argue for a third referendum?
Stephen Gethins
This is extraordinary, isn’t it? Something the Scottish Government had the decency to do before the independence referendum was to produce a 670-page White Paper. There are Members in the Chamber—I am looking at the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine)—who did not agree with it. She campaigned for a no vote, and I respect her for doing so, but we had the courage of our convictions and laid out what we stood for. The mess we are in today is because the Conservatives did not have the courage of their convictions and did not lay out what voting to leave the European Union would mean.
A no deal would mean 80,000 jobs gone in Scotland. A city such as Aberdeen would lose £3.8 billion, and Edinburgh would lose £5.5 million, while there would also be an impact on rural areas. I welcome what the Prime Minister has said on security issues—that we should pull together—but with no deal we would lose access to EU security databases in combating cross-border crime, which would be grossly irresponsible.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
May I just say that from the perspective of Northern Ireland, no deal would be absolutely disastrous? It would inevitably mean a hard border. As one of those who grew up in Northern Ireland through 32 years of violence, killing and mayhem, I am not prepared to sit in this Chamber and allow the House to go down a no deal route, which would endanger people, UK border officials and Police Service of Northern Ireland officials along the border. It is imperative that we have a deal.
Stephen Gethins
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Hon. Members on both sides of the House would do well to listen carefully to her words. Northern Ireland has been vastly overlooked and it continues to be overlooked, and the hon. Lady makes an excellent point. One thing that concerns me and should concern Members on both sides of the House is that we have a no deal scenario, with Ministers playing Russian roulette with our futures—the futures of people in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom—as well as a slash-and-burn approach to politics that will profit absolutely nobody whatsoever.
I will conclude by saying that we may disagree on many issues, but we come to this place hoping—I respect Members as they do this—that we will leave our constituencies, our respective nations and the UK a little bit better off. By backing the Bill with such a lack of preparedness, we will be doing no such thing: we will not be leaving future generations better off. So weak are the arguments of those who back leaving the EU—I have heard this not so much from SNP Members, because Scotland voted to remain, but from Labour, Conservative and other colleagues—that they question why we are tabling amendments rather than challenge us on their substance. We will seek to amend this Bill as it goes through the House and to find common cause with colleagues from across the House. However, we know that what we are trying to achieve, even if we do get common ground, is to make this situation not better, but less bad. That is not a situation in which any Member should ever find themselves in this House.
I urge Members to reconsider and I urge the Government to press the reset button. There is far more at stake than the future of this Government or, indeed, that of any Member of this House.
Sir William Cash
I want to start by simply outlining that, contrary to what the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) has just suggested about there being weak arguments for why we should leave the EU and repeal the European Communities Act 1972, it is absolutely essential that we do so if we are going to have a self-respecting, self-governing democratic country. The Bill and this whole issue are about one main question, namely democracy, which is what everything else necessarily flows from. All the economic arguments and questions relating to trade and other matters are ultimately dependent on the question of whether we have the right to govern ourselves in this sacred House of Commons. That is the basis on which the people of this country make decisions, of their own free choice, in general elections—whether it is to vote for the Labour party, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP or the Conservative party—and then a decision is made in this House as to how they will be governed.
I repeat what I have said: we have just had Remembrance Day. I simply want people to reflect for one moment on the fact that those millions of people who died in both world wars died for a reason. It was to do with sustaining the freedom and democracy of this House.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Does not democracy presume that a Government would listen to the will of the House of Commons, whose Members are individually elected by their constituencies? Would it not be slightly odd, therefore, to proceed with the Bill without taking out the Henry VIII powers?
Sir William Cash
Put simply, on the European Union Referendum Act 2015, which was a sovereign Act of this House—the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made—the House of Commons agreed, by six to one, that it would deliberately transfer to the people the decision whether to leave or remain in the European Union. Unless that Act is repealed, I do not believe that that decision should be returned to by the House.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman has referred to the millions of people who died in two world wars. Those two world wars took place before the existence of the European Union and we in Europe, including this country, Germany and France, have lived in peace for decades. Is not it the case that France, Germany and other countries will now never, ever go to war because of the European Union?
Sir William Cash
The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that no two democracies have ever gone to war with one another. I declare a personal interest in this issue because my father was killed in Normandy, fighting for this country, and I am proud that he got the Military Cross for that reason. This is something that many people in this country really understand and believe. It is not easy to explain, but it is to do with the fact that people understand the real reasons that self-government is so important.
The proposal in the European Communities Act 1972, which we are now repealing, was the greatest power grab since Oliver Cromwell. It was done in 1972 with good intentions. I voted yes in 1975 and I did it for the reason the hon. Gentleman mentions: I believed it would create stability in Europe. The problem is that it has done exactly the opposite. Look, throughout the countries of the European Union, at the grassroots movements and the rise of the far right, which I deeply abhor and have opposed ever since I set about the Maastricht rebellion in 1990. I set out then why I was so opposed to the Maastricht treaty: it was creating European Government and making this country ever more subservient to the rulemaking of the European Union. As I said in response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), that has been conducted behind closed doors. We have been shackled by European laws. He asked at one point if we could give one example. The ports regulation is a very good example. We fought that in the European Scrutiny Committee and in the House of Commons, but we were not allowed to make any difference to it. It was opposed by the Government, it was opposed by the Opposition, it was opposed by all the port employers and it was opposed by the trade unions. What could we do about it? Absolutely nothing!
John Redwood
Does my hon. Friend agree that once Parliament has passed the repeal of the 1972 Act, Ministers will only be able to do things that this Parliament permits them to do? Today, Ministers have to do many things that the European Union insists on, which this Parliament cannot discuss or overturn.
Sir William Cash
There are at least 12,000 regulations, every one of which would have required a whole Act of Parliament, with amendments and stages in both Houses. A transcript would have been available. People would have known who voted which way and why, and known the outcome of what was a democratic process. Instead, as I said to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe—even he conceded that I was right on this—the process is conducted, over bibulous lunches and in the Council of Ministers, in a manner completely lacking in democratic legitimacy, yet, because of consensus arrangements behind closed doors, it becomes part of our law through section 2 of the 1972 Act. It is imposed on us by our voluntary consent. It is therefore up to us and the people of this country to decide, by their voluntary consent and their freedom of choice, to get out of this, just as it was brought in by an Act of Parliament, without a referendum, in 1972.
Wera Hobhouse
Has the hon. Gentleman not shown a deep misunderstanding of how the European Union works through consensus and participatory democracy? Rather than one country dictating to another, that is the whole spirit of the European Union. No one country is sovereign, but decisions are taken in the round.
Sir William Cash
I am sorry to disillusion the hon. Lady. I have been in this House for 33 years and I have been on the European Scrutiny Committee for 32 of them. I can absolutely assure her that what she says is simply not reflected by the practice of the European Union: the system is essentially undemocratic.
Antoinette Sandbach
Does my hon. Friend not feel that it is ironic that all 12,000 EU regulations will be imported into UK law under a process that will not have the detailed scrutiny of the House, because Henry VIII powers will be used to do it?
Sir William Cash
My hon. Friend might just reflect on the fact that there is no other way of transposing the legislation. I drafted the original repeal Bill, so I understand it very well. I did so before the referendum, in fact, because—I say this to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe—I believed we would win. In reality, once we have brought this into UK law, we will be able to have our own Bills—on agriculture, fisheries, customs, immigration, and various other parts of our constitutional arrangements—that can be properly discussed and amended.
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that every single one of the regulations coming into UK law is already abided by in this country and in this Parliament and are to its satisfaction at the moment?
Sir William Cash
Yes, the reality is that the Bill, if and when it goes through—and I believe it will—will incorporate into UK law EU legislation already consented to in the way that my hon. Friend mentions. We have agreed to them, but unfortunately they have not had the democratic legitimacy that will be conferred upon them when the Bill goes through.
I proceed now to the important question of the European Court of Justice. I made this point to the Prime Minister about 10 days ago and again to the Brexit Secretary last week. I wish to mention three pieces of case law that we inherited when the treaties that had accumulated after 1956 came upon us through section 2 of the 1972 Act. The first two are Van Gend en Loos in 1963 and Costa v. ENEL in 1964. In its judgment in the first case, the European Court asserted that
“the Community constitutes a new legal order in international law for whose benefit the states have limited their sovereign rights”.
In Costa v. ENEL, the Court ruled:
“The transfer by the States from their domestic legal system to the Community legal system of rights and obligations arising under the Treaty carries with it a permanent limitation of their sovereign rights”.
In 1970, in the Handelsgesellschaft case, the Court said that community law should take precedence even over the constitutional laws of member states, including basic entrenched laws relating to fundamental rights. It does not get more profound than that. Those decisions are mere assertions by the Court, yet under section 3 of the 1972 Act, we agree to abide by them.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
Will my hon. Friend agree that all treaties involve a pooling of sovereignty? We gave up immense sovereignty when we joined the United Nations and NATO, membership of which we would never dream of renouncing. The European Court exists to enforce treaty rights, including obligations on members. Does he recall probably the most important case there of modern times, when the British Government took the European Central Bank there to assert our treaty rights so that the City of London and our financial services industry could have a passport to financial services in the eurozone? It was worth thousands of jobs and showed the benefit of the Court in upholding treaty rights, including the most important treaty rights of the UK.
Sir William Cash
I also remember the case of Factortame, when Lord Bridge made it clear that by Parliament’s voluntary consent, given by virtue of the 1972 Act, an Act of Parliament—namely, the Merchant Shipping Act 1988—could be struck down. I am not trying to be disingenuous. The fact is that the 1972 Act empowers the European Court to strike down UK Acts of Parliament. That is what sovereignty is all about.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman talks about sovereignty and the pooling of sovereignty. Building on the point from the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), how does the hon. Gentleman think we will achieve new trade deals without ceding sovereignty, given that all trade deals—like EU membership, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman just pointed out—require the ceding of sovereignty?
Sir William Cash
I must say to the hon. Gentleman, and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, that there is a world of difference between that and having agreements by virtue of treaties in international law, which are actually matters on which it is possible to make decisions without being absorbed into and entangled in a legal order. That is the difference. It is the acquis communautaire and its principles that completely undermine the sovereignty of this House. I am prepared to concede that some people—
Sir William Cash
I am sure that my hon. Friend will be making this point, but I will try to anticipate it. There are circumstances in which the pooling of sovereignty by virtue of, for example, NATO is claimed to be a genuine pooling, but it is not, because it is possible to withdraw from it. The whole point about the European Communities Act is that it is not possible to withdraw from it except by repealing it in this manner. That is what we are doing now.
Robert Neill
My hon. Friend has strongly emphasised the importance of the sovereignty of the House, and I agree with him. Is it not all the more important that, as we leave, this sovereign House should have a meaningful vote on the terms on which we leave, rather than there being a “take it or leave it” vote at the end of the process? Is that not the ultimate expression of sovereignty, and will my hon. Friend therefore support it?
Sir William Cash
The answer is that I am supporting the outcome of the referendum, which, by virtue of our sovereign Acts of Parliament, we decided that we would pass over—
Mr Howarth
On a point of order, Dame Rosie. Delightful though it is to sit listening to the hon. Gentleman expatiate on all manner of things, I am struggling to discover what this can possibly have to do with new clause 49—or, for that matter, any of the amendments and new clauses linked to it.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. We are also debating clause 1, which is fairly wide-ranging, so the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is in order.
Sir William Cash
I had actually spotted that, Dame Rosie, and I am most grateful to you for confirming that I am in order.
Let me now touch on some of the issues that arise from this continuous emphasis on the virtues of the European Court of Justice. There is the constitutional principle, which I have already explained, and there is the case law, which I have also already explained. But it goes further than that. The very great Lord Justice Bingham, in chapter 12 of his book “The Rule of Law”, describes the relationship between the courts and Parliament. He comes down unequivocally in favour of Parliament. He makes it clear that when Parliament passes a Bill such as the one that we are to enact, it will override all the laws in the European system that have shackled us so far, and also all the Court judgments, save only that we have agreed, by virtue of the retained law, to transpose some aspects of the process to which we have become used, and which we can decide what to do with at a future date.
Sir William Cash
I certainly will; I should be only too delighted. I have been waiting to hear from my right hon. and learned Friend, whom I happen to know very well, and for whom I have great respect. I shall listen to him with interest.
Mr Grieve
I do not think my hon. Friend can have it both ways. A moment ago, he was talking about direct effect. There is no doubt that if we leave the European Union, direct effect will cease on the day we go; but, as I am sure he knows, we are signed up to about 800 treaties with arbitral mechanisms that can lead to judgments affecting the United Kingdom, which we then undertake to implement, sometimes by changing our own laws. I do not quite understand why my hon. Friend has such an obsession with the Court of Justice of the European Union if its direct effect will be removed, although we will have to be subject to it during the transitional period as we are leaving.
Sir William Cash
I do not think that matter has been entirely settled, by any means. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) earlier referred to a lunch she was at, where it appears that she was told we were going to be subject to the European Court of Justice, and my right hon. and learned Friend has made exactly the same point.
I have to say that there are serious questions about the nature of the European Court. The problem is that the European Court is essentially not an impartial court at all. It has never discharged the function impartially, and from the early 1960s it developed a range of principles, such as those of the uniform application and effectiveness of EU law, that it then expanded of its own volition into the general principles of the supremacy and direct effect of EU law over national law. These judge-made principles had no basis in the EU treaties until the Lisbon treaty, which my right hon. and learned Friend, who was then Attorney General, opposed. The fact is that until Lisbon—
Sir William Cash
I am afraid not, as I really must proceed.
None of these judge-made principles had any basis in the EU treaties, and the principle of the primacy of EU law is a judicial creation recently codified, and no more than that. However, because we have accepted judgments of the European Court under section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972, which we are going to repeal, we are saddled with this, and that is one of the things we are going to unshackle.
Interpretation is done in the European Court by what is known as the purposive approach. In fact, as has been well said, there are many different purposes that can be in conflict with one another, and the methods of interpretation applied are anything but satisfactory. I therefore say to those who want to advocate the European Court, whether in the transitional period or in general, “Beware of what you wish for,” because the European Court can create havoc in relation to our trading arrangements.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
If the hon. Gentleman is so opposed to the European Court of Justice, what is his dispute resolution mechanism going to be? Independent states need a dispute resolution mechanism where they cede sovereignty; they give some of their sovereignty and get some of somebody else’s sovereignty. What is that going to be?
The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. I been generous in allowing the hon. Gentleman to range over a number of subjects, but I gently remind him that there are a lot of speakers in this debate, so I am sure his list about the European Court of Justice is now a little shorter than it was before.
Sir William Cash
I shall conclude my remarks on this point. The European Court is seriously deficient in a whole range of matters. On the question put by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), the idea has been put forward by Martin Howe QC, and I have put it forward myself in the House, of a system of jurisdiction that would be more in the nature of an arbitration, where there might be, for example, retired European Court judges or whoever, who would adjudicate—but on a bilateral basis, not on the basis of a decision taken by the European Court. It is possible to come up with a solution, therefore, but I do recognise the problem.
We are now embarked upon a massive restoration of self-government in this country. This Bill is essential to achieve that, and should be passed without any of the obstacles and frustrating tactics being put in its way.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I rise to speak to amendment 386, which has cross-party support and which I tabled late last night. The Minister said that it was somehow introducing “chaos” into this process. With the greatest respect, after a fortnight in which we have seen the Foreign Secretary, the International Development Secretary, the former Defence Secretary, the current Defence Secretary and the Cabinet Secretary all subsumed in controversies, I think the Government are doing quite well on the chaos front without any help from me. Also, the idea that taking the exit date out and putting it into a different Bill would create chaos when, just five days ago, Ministers did not want it in any Bill at all, makes the Government’s argument look rather silly.
The amendment would require Parliament to vote on the terms of withdrawal through primary legislation before Brexit day. That would mean that exit day would be set in UK law not in this Bill but in a future Bill, either in the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill that the Government announced yesterday or, if there is no deal at all, through an alternative Bill setting out the terms of departure and presumably whatever implementation plan would be needed in those circumstances.
The purpose of the amendment is not to dispute the Government’s intentions about the timing of exit day; it is simply to ensure that there is a proper parliamentary and democratic process before we get to that date. The central focus is not the date itself but a requirement on the Government to do as they have promised and set out a meaningful vote for Parliament in advance of that date. The amendment would also ensure that Parliament could properly respond, whatever the outcome of the Government’s negotiations, rather than being inadvertently timed out if things were to go badly wrong.
Yesterday, we learned from the Government that there would be a second Bill to implement the withdrawal agreement, and that is welcome. That was the subject of other amendments that the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and I had tabled because we were concerned that Parliament should not give the Executive a blank cheque through this Bill on the implementation of a withdrawal Bill that had not yet happened. Rather less welcome was the Government’s admission that the legislation might not actually happen before Brexit day. Even less welcome was the Brexit Secretary’s admission that the vote on the withdrawal agreement would simply be a take-it-or-leave-it vote, and that therefore if the Government negotiate a bad deal, if they have no implementation plan in place or if other things go wrong along the way, Parliament would simply have to accept that or choose to have no deal at all.
Under the Government’s proposals, Brexit day would be embedded in primary legislation through this Bill, and it would therefore become legally and constitutionally possible for Ministers simply to let us drift towards exit day without Parliament being able to insist on any kind of implementation preparations or any kind of plan at all. Such a concentration of power in the hands of the Executive would be unacceptable. No legislature should ever accept that: certainly not this legislature right now when we were given a hung Parliament by the electorate less than six months ago; and certainly not our Parliament, whose sovereignty has been such a key issue throughout the debates on the referendum.
The amendment would strengthen the democratic process around Brexit and ensure that Parliament could vote on the terms of withdrawal, whether there was a deal or not, before exit day. It would implement the Government’s commitment to a meaningful parliamentary vote. If everything goes according to the Government’s plans and promises, if they get the timetable they want for the transition agreements being agreed in the early part of next year and the withdrawal plans agreed by the autumn, and if we get the kind of deal that the Government have promised, with all the benefits that it will bring, all that the amendment would do would hold the Government to that by implementing their intentions and their timetable. It would hold the Government to what the Brexit Secretary said yesterday was his primary plan for the timetable. It would hold Ministers to that plan on the face of the Bill. It would also prevent the Government from delaying the withdrawal agreement legislation beyond the withdrawal date. It links the timing of exit to the terms of exit in the parliamentary process. It would prevent Parliament from being timed out because it would give Parliament the final say. If the Government’s plans go wrong—I hope they will not—it also gives Parliament a say in how the country should respond. For example, if we end up with no deal at all, if we run out of time—I hope that will not happen—or if the whole thing goes belly up, it gives Parliament a role. It allows for a debate on whether the Government should go back to the negotiating table or just walk away. It allows for a debate about the timing of Brexit day. It allows Parliament to debate and decide, rather than just throwing up our hands and leaving it to Ministers—rather than just drifting along.
Stephen Doughty
My right hon. Friend is making an important point. This morning, she and I both heard the Mayor of London clearly set out the implications of not having a security treaty for the safety of London, let alone the rest of the country, so I wholeheartedly agree with her points.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. That was the evidence we heard. Parliament has a responsibility to have a contingency plan. Whatever it is that we hope might happen over the course of the next 12 months, we have a duty to ensure that we have plans in place for every eventuality and that Parliament itself can take some responsibility.
Right now, with the Government’s amendments made and without my amendment, it would theoretically be possible for us to just drift towards exit day without any substantive opportunity for Parliament to step in perhaps to amend the withdrawal terms in the Bill or maybe to require the Government to change their plan or to go back and negotiate some more. That would be up to us in Parliament to decide, but we will not get the chance to decide under the Government’s current plans.
Robert Neill
Has the right hon. Lady noted the sensible comments of the chairman of the Policy and Resources Committee of the City of London corporation? While an orderly Brexit might not be the desired outcome for the right hon. Lady and I, an orderly Brexit with a proper transition and with this House having a proper say is manageable for our financial services sector. However, a disorderly Brexit that was the result of our inability to extend negotiations for a short period if need be, for example, would be a disaster for this country and is regarded by some firms as being on the same level as the threat to cyber-security. On that basis, is it not foolish for the Government or the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) to try to put a leaving date on the face of the Bill?
Yvette Cooper
I share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns. As Select Committee Chairs, he and I have both heard evidence about security and wider issues, and I also share with him my personal views about the importance of having a transition period and a smooth process. To be honest, whatever people’s views on whether there should be a transition and on how we should respond to different negotiating outcomes, it should still be for Parliament to debate and to decide before exit day, not after. That is what Parliament should be for. Frankly, the Government would be irresponsible not to give Parliament the opportunity to debate and take a view on the terms and on the timing once they have been agreed.
There is a con in what the Minister said earlier, because the Government actually do recognise that there may be circumstances in which exit day has to be changed. The Minister said that clause 17 will not apply and that somehow it will not allow the Government to change the exit day through regulations after it has been agreed in the Bill, but that is not the advice I have had—it is not the advice the House of Commons Library gave me this afternoon, for example. In fact, the combination of clause 9 and amendment 383 will still allow Ministers to change exit day, if they so choose and if they think it appropriate. That is the impact of the Henry VIII powers throughout the Bill.
We understand why Ministers might want a provision to be able to come back and say that exit day needs to change because we have reached the 11th hour, because the negotiations need to be extended by an extra month or because the process needs to be changed. Ministers have kept that power in the Bill for themselves, but why should the power be reserved just for Ministers? Why cannot Parliament have that power, too? That is the flaw at the heart of the Bill. If in unforeseen or difficult circumstances Ministers need to change the timetable, they can, but Parliament will have no choice, no say and no ability to do so.
Antoinette Sandbach
Does the right hon. Lady agree that, if Parliament did have that opportunity, it would be taking back control and sovereignty would be returned not to the Executive but to this House?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Lady is right. We had all those debates about taking back control and parliamentary sovereignty, yet somehow the Minister seems to want to rip it all up. The Government are trying to concentrate huge amounts of power in the hands of Ministers, rather than giving the whole of Parliament a say.
Ministers have to stop infantilising Parliament and treating Parliament as if it is the enemy. The truth is that the sky did not fall in because Parliament had a vote on article 50. The Government told us that it would, and they told us that the whole process would be stopped, but it was not stopped because each and every one of us understands that we have obligations and responsibilities towards the referendum result, just as we have obligations and responsibilities towards the negotiation process that the Government have to conduct on our behalf, and that we cannot directly conduct for them. We know that we have those different responsibilities, and we know that we have to take mature and responsible decisions given the complexity of the situation that faces every single one of us. We just do not think that those decisions should be entirely in the hands of Ministers; we think that the whole of Parliament should have a say on something so important.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful speech and argument. Does she agree that having the vote and support of Parliament behind the Government and the action they take would strengthen the Government’s hand in the negotiations with the European Union?
Yvette Cooper
I agree with my hon. Friend, because this should be about the whole of Parliament, just as when we had the responsible debate on article 50. We know it is complex. It is our job and our responsibility in a democracy to deal with that complexity, and not just to abdicate our responsibility and hand it over to Ministers because, somehow, it is too difficult for us in Parliament to deal with. Of course it is not too difficult, and of course we are capable of dealing with the complex situation we face.
Anna Soubry
Does the right hon. Lady agree that we simply have not had the debates? That, of course, is not lost on the European Union, and it is also not lost on the people of this country. If we had those debates and if we had a real say on what Brexit will look like, we would begin to form a consensus and we would begin to bring people together across the United Kingdom in getting that good deal, reuniting so many divided communities, families and even friends.
Yvette Cooper
I agree with the right hon. Lady. The truth is that the plans for our Brexit future have to be sustainable and have to command consent. The plans will have implications for many decades to come. They have to give us the chance to heal the Brexit divide across the country from the referendum, and they have to give Parliament the chance to debate the details and to have a proper, honest debate about what it will mean across the country.
Catherine West
Does my right hon. Friend agree that had things gone differently in last week’s debate and had the information been laid before the House, emotions might not be running so high?
Yvette Cooper
Clearly, we need more transparency.
I want to draw my remarks to a close. My amendment gives Parliament the opportunity to indeed take back control. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) said he wants us to debate in this House how we are governed. Well, then he should vote for my amendment, rather than concentrate power in the hands of Ministers. At a time when we have seen democratic values and democratic institutions undermined and under threat right across the world, we have an even greater responsibility to ensure that there is a proper democratic process and that we follow our obligations that come with the parliamentary Oath we took. So much of the debate we had during the referendum was about parliamentary sovereignty. What my amendment does is make that real.
Mr Grieve
It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) in this debate, particularly as the matters on which I wish to touch very much concern her amendment and some of the others we have had.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I start by dealing briefly with the opening remarks of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field). I am sorry he is not in his place, but I hope that he will forgive me if I say that the words he articulated were ones that I could fully understand and appreciate—heaven knows I have heard them often enough from constituents and from right-thinking people who want the best for our country—but that contained simplicities. Those simplicities simply do not match the problems this House faces in disentangling us from our relationship with the European Union. This issue has bedevilled the entire debate on Brexit and remain, and it is one reason why we find ourselves where we are today.
I happen to believe that what we did last year was a great and historic error. I cannot help it, and nothing that has happened since is going to alter my view. I recognise my responsibility as a Member of Parliament to try to give effect to what the public asked for in their response to that referendum. But in doing so, I am certainly not willing to suspend my own judgment, particularly when I have to witness what I see as an extraordinarily painful process of national self-mutilation, which I am required to facilitate. I cannot escape that; that is what I feel, and I am not going to abandon it because I am ordered to do so by anybody else.
With that in mind, I have to say what the right hon. Gentleman is asking for is the desire perhaps of many people in this country, which is to go to bed at night and wake up to find that the whole thing is over and done with. Unfortunately, it is not going to be over and done with for a very long time. The problem we have in this Bill, and on which we have to focus, is how we try to take this risky, dangerous—for our economy, our national security and our national wellbeing—and difficult process to a reasonable outcome. That is the challenge we have got. In doing that, Parliament cannot simply abdicate its responsibility to the Executive. Of course the Executive have to get on with the business of the complex negotiations, but Parliament is entitled to take a check on this at every conceivable stage.
I have to say to my colleagues on the Treasury Bench that the problem is that as the difficulties have piled up—in my view, they were inevitable, predictable and predicted—the tendency has been for everybody to get more and more brittle, more and more unwilling to listen, and more and more persuaded that every suggestion that is being made is in some way a form of treason. I have to say, with the deepest regret, that this culminated last Friday with a mad amendment, which I shall come back to in a moment. It was tabled, I believe, without any collective decision making in government at all and it was accompanied by bloodcurdling threats that anybody who might stand in its way was in some way betraying the country’s destiny and mission. I am afraid that I am just not prepared to go along with that.
Paul Farrelly
I welcome the amendment tabled by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that would remove the Alice “Through the Looking-Glass” absurdity of there being different exit days for different purposes. I was an early signatory to all his amendments because they are eminently sensible. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) described entertainingly the reasons for the remarkable metamorphosis of the Bill, from one that allowed Ministers to name an exit day or different days by regulations into one that names a day and a specific time. It was a sop to the denizens of what he called the fourth row below the Gangway. Has the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield reflected on what such a fundamental change signals to our partners in the European Union about how serious we are and how carefully we have thought through this crucial process?
Mr Grieve
There is no doubt that some of the problems we have are not going to be helpful in our negotiation. Equally, it is right to say that the more we can have mature, considered and sensible debate in this House, the more we improve our ability to negotiate with our EU partners.
I have tabled a number of amendments. As with all amendments, some are multiple choice—we have to do this in this House, because it is how we go about looking at and examining legislation—and some are probing amendments. Some are, in my view, more important than others. I tabled the one that hon. Gentleman highlights because the Government did not really explain that they wanted multiple exit dates. I wanted to tease out why and to suggest that one exit date might be better because of the consequences for the use of Henry VIII powers thereafter, but there might actually be a justification for what the Government are doing. All that needs to be worked through in the legislation, and that is what I have sought to do.
I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that over past weeks we have had some really sensible, constructive discussions on some of the areas covered by the amendments that I have tabled. I hope very much indeed that we can achieve some degree of consensus, in which case some of the amendments, whether on triage or the way we treat retained EU law, might not be required. I do not wish to get diverted into all that; I shall come back to it in later debates. The trouble is—I repeat this—that it all gets marred by events such as those last Friday, when extraordinary amendments are suddenly magicked out of the blue that simply do not make any sense at all.
When I read the amendments and those consequential on them, which I must say I saw only this morning, I saw another problem: as has already been highlighted, one of the consequentials seemed to me to totally undermine the purpose of the main amendment, to the point where the conspiracy theorist in me made me think it was a sort of double deceit or double bluff—that it was intended in some way to give the impression to some of my right hon. and hon. Friends who really worry about this that they were being offered this tablet of stone on our departure, but it was in fact teasingly capable of being shifted. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General sent me a text earlier that said that I was mistaken and that that was not the intention—that it was the very reverse.
I am not a parliamentary draftsman, and I know that there are always different ways in which an amendment to a statute can be read. I remain of the view, though, that the wording is very peculiar indeed if the intention is to exclude the possibility of playing around with the exit date, which is being offered as a talisman. I must say to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General that I did naughtily begin to wonder whether in fact the parliamentary draftsman was so appalled at the folly of what the Government were doing that he had sneakily altered amendment 383 to try to offer them a lifeline in case they came to regret what they had done. I am sure that that is being very unfair to the parliamentary draftsman, whom I know always does what is requested of him or her.
Chris Bryant
The tendency of any Government, especially when they have such a major project on their hands, is always to try to manage the project and to manage Parliament. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman discovered over recent weeks that the sad truth of the matter is that there is a consensus in the House that embraces all those on the Opposition Benches and a significant number of Government Back Benchers? It actually embraces half the Government—I can see at least three, possibly four, Ministers sitting on the Front Bench who would sign up to his amendment. Would not it be far more rational for the Government simply to calm down about this process and try to establish a consensus that can carry the country forward?
Mr Grieve
I endorse what the hon. Gentleman says. That is precisely what I wanted to start suggesting to Ministers. There are a number of key areas in this debate this afternoon. The first is the recognition, belated but nevertheless I am grateful for it, that leaving the EU requires statutory authority from this House to make it part of the rule of the law of our land. It is a very important principle. Indeed, I detect that the Government also recognise that if, at some point in the future, we get beyond transition we will probably need another statute to alter the law of our land for any final agreement that we have with our EU partners. We will have to take it in a measured way, and the Government will have to accept that Parliament, being sovereign, must, at the end of the day, have the ability to support or reject this. There is no way around that.
Of course there are the hypothetical questions, such as “Well, there might be nothing to reject because we might be falling out of the European Union with no agreement.” Indeed, yes, but we will discover that when the time comes. In the meantime, the Government must get on with their negotiation, and we can carry on scrutinising them on that. At the end, we want a statute. That statute—I think that this has been acknowledged by the Secretary of State—has got to come before we leave.
That then brings us to a critical issue in this debate. The best point made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday was that, whereas moving into transition is a qualified majority decision, getting an extension to article 50 requires unanimity. Therefore, the Government may be living with legitimate anxiety that there could be circumstances in which, running up to the wire, there could be difficulty implementing the whole thing by statute. I personally think that that seems inherently improbable, because, on the face of it, if our partners agree a deal with us, why would they then decide to pull the rug from under our feet in such an extraordinary fashion—I know that they talk about “perfidious Albion”, and we probably think that they are all garlic eaters—to tell us that we cannot have an extension to article 50 for the necessary two or three months to take through our statutory processes while they have to take their processes through the EU Parliament?
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Was the right hon. and learned Gentleman alarmed, as I was yesterday, when, after mentioning to the Secretary of State that the Prime Minister had asked in September for a two-year extension—six months after she had triggered article 50 —he did not seem to have a clue when the EU 27 might possibly agree to it? Some of the media think that that extension will automatically happen, but, as we speak, there is absolutely no guarantee that we will get it. Is he alarmed that the UK might indeed find itself out because of its own actions in March?
Mr Grieve
There are massive uncertainties in all this, and I do not want to pile the gloom on the Treasury Bench. All I will say is that there are great risks. I do understand that the Government have an important point on this, but if that is the case, the proper dialogue that should be taking place between those on the Treasury Bench and the House is how we craft and alter this legislation both to emphasise the statutory process to be followed and to make sure that the only circumstances in which it is not followed—clause 9 has to be used as an example—is where it would be impossible to get an article 50 extension to enable the statutory process to take place before we go. If we do that, we will start talking sense in this House, rather than the polemical nonsense that we have been talking over the past few days.
John Redwood
When Czechoslovakia decided to form two countries with two Governments—a very complicated task—it took six months planning and was implemented over a weekend. Why does my right hon. and learned Friend think that the 16 months remaining is not enough time in which to reach an agreement or to reach the sad conclusion that an agreement is not possible in the mutual interests of both sides, and to do all that in an orderly way? Surely 16 months is more than enough time to sort this out.
Mr Grieve
I cannot help it that the reality is that we entered into a partnership that now includes 27 other member states. We cannot just magic that away; they all have their interests, and they will all have to be taken into consideration at the end. As we have seen with trade agreements that are reached with the EU and other states, they take time. Indeed, my right hon. Friend and some of my other hon. Friends are, frankly, delusional in their belief of the speed with which these wonderful new trade agreements with third countries will be concluded once we leave the EU. My main anxiety on that topic is that there are 759 external treaties that come through our membership of the EU and that we are in danger of losing with amendment 381, tabled by the Government, in respect of putting a writ-in-stone date on when we have to leave. That should worry us just as much as any other aspect of leaving the EU.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
Is not the real ludicrousness of amendment 381 that it is unenforceable and there is no punishment if that law is broken? As a former Attorney General, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us the point of having a law for which—if the date is extended and the law broken—there is absolutely no consequence? The Minister will not be sent to prison for breaking it. It is a worthless political gesture.
Mr Grieve
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I do not entirely agree with him. If the measure stays on the statute book, the consequence would be that at 11 pm on 29 March 2019—even if the agreements, transitional arrangements and everything else have not been worked out—we will drop out of the EU, potentially into the void that so much of this legislation is apparently designed to prevent. All the possible benefits of continuing in transition would not be available, so this actually matters very much indeed. That brings me—although I do not want to take up the Committee’s time—to the infamous amendment 381.
Amendment 381 was sprung on the House, sprung on the Conservative party and certainly sprung on me—after weeks of talking gently to my ministerial colleagues and trying to find a sensible way through, which I continue to want to do—and suddenly landed on us as a diktat. It is quite simply unacceptable because it fetters the Government’s ability to carry out this negotiation, which makes me seriously question their competence, and it disenfranchises the House from properly exercising its scrutiny role, with the potential that, in fact, is almost an invitation to running into the buffers. Although I do not happen to believe that this is what the Government want to do, it certainly appears to play into the hands of those who seem to be so eager that we should leave the EU with absolutely no agreement whatever.
I seriously worry that I go to audiences of the kind that seem to extol the virtues of some of my colleagues on this side of the House, and I am told that only a departure from the EU without any agreement at all can detoxify us of the taint of our participation. Those were the very words used to me at the Conservative party conference. All I can say is that the individuals who are saying these things are utterly misguided, do not understand how a parliamentary democracy works and do not understand how an international community operates. But, whatever their grievances may be, they are the people to whom we have to sensibly articulate an alternative approach.
I am really pleased that amendment 381 cannot be put to the vote this afternoon, because I have to say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that I will vote against it. There are absolutely no ifs, no buts and no maybes about this—no arm-twisting and nothing that can be done to me in the intervening period. It is unacceptable and I will not vote for it. I will not vote for it if I am the only person to go through the Lobby to vote against it. The sensible thing for Ministers to do is to go away, have several cups of tea, think again, continue talking to me about all the other sensible things we have been talking about and on which we are likely to reach agreement, and just focus for a moment on where there is unanimity in this House about how we should proceed.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Temporary Chair (Sir David Amess)
Order. I remind the House of what Dame Rosie said earlier: there is a long list of colleagues still waiting to speak, so unless we have brief contributions, many colleagues will be disappointed, because the first votes come at 6.51 pm.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I rise to speak to Plaid Cymru’s amendment 79, standing in my name and those of hon. Friends from several parties. This amendment to clause 1 would require the UK Government to gain the consent of the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies before they repealed the European Communities Act 1972. It would require proper consideration, consistent with the constitutional settlement within these islands, for the Prime Minister to have all four parts of the UK in agreement before the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill could come into force.
While in each of the devolution statutes the UK Parliament retains the power to legislate in relation to devolved matters, the Sewel convention requires that it should not normally do so without the consent of the relevant devolved legislature. The Supreme Court, in the Miller case on triggering article 50, found that the Sewel convention is no more than that—just a political convention without legal standing. However, to proceed without the available agreement of at least two parts of the UK—Scotland and Wales—and with the agreement of the other parts ascertained only in ways that are obscure to me, and even in ways that are not normal, as the Government appear to intend, would be foolhardy and, indeed, outrageous.
As far as I can see—I hope the Minister can correct me—the Government have launched into this process without properly considering how the views of the four parts of the UK could be ascertained; without proper consideration of the views of the Scottish and Welsh Governments; with the means of ascertaining the views of Northern Ireland unavailable; and with the elephant in the room, of course, being the need to explain precisely who speaks for England—something that is always unconsidered or unspoken in this place.
What we do know, however, following the publication of the EU withdrawal Bill, is that the Scottish SNP and Welsh Labour Governments issued a joint statement calling it “a naked power-grab”. They have since made it clear that the Bill as it stands would be rejected by the respective devolved Governments. Given the continued lack of an elected Assembly in Northern Ireland, given that the Government here in Westminster are being compelled unwillingly to take powers to themselves, and given that the dispute between the parties in Northern Ireland appears to be no closer to resolution, it is also unclear how opinion in Northern Ireland is to be gauged.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman’s amendment refers specifically to a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly. There is not a Northern Ireland Assembly in place to grant such a resolution. While we hope there will be one soon, we surely have to countenance the possibility that we could get through to March 2019 still without one, so how would his amendment enable the European Communities Act to be repealed if there is no Northern Ireland Assembly to pass a resolution?
Hywel Williams
As I said, it is unclear to me what the situation is in Northern Ireland. I have heard the rumours, one way or another, that they are extremely close to a resolution other than on the Irish language—[Interruption.] It is being motioned behind me that perhaps that is not the case. However, anything could happen.
The principle of our amendments is that the democratically elected Assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland and the Parliament in Scotland should have their say.
Lady Hermon
It is a constitutional convention of the utmost importance that legislative consent is given by all the devolved institutions, particularly on such a major constitutional change. The fact is that we have no Northern Ireland Assembly and no expectation of having one in the near future. However, even if I were to be surprised by the fact that the main parties—the DUP and Sinn Féin—could agree in an Assembly, the figures are such that the majority of the 90 MLAs are anti-Brexit and will not give legislative consent to this Bill. The Government’s Bill is going nowhere without the legislative consent of Northern Ireland, and that will not be forthcoming.
Hywel Williams
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. I am loth to stray into Northern Ireland politics for extremely clear reasons.
Hywel Williams
I take that advice. I say only that it has been suggested that some in Northern Ireland would surely see the Government’s taking this decision with no Assembly in place as being the diktat of a governor general, or at the very least unwise as a basis on which to proceed.
As I said, the elephant in the room is the question of who speaks for England. This is the last constitutional conundrum—the constitutional exceptionalism that successive Governments have failed to address in this place. Who speaks for England? Clearly on this matter, it appears that this Conservative Government do so. Are the Labour Opposition sanguine about that? I hope to press this amendment to a vote. I do not know how Labour will vote on it, but I remind them that their Labour colleagues in Cardiff are certainly not sanguine.
The Minister may point to the resurrected Joint Ministerial Committee as a cover for—
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Members will no doubt be aware that the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations has met only twice in the past year. Does my hon. Friend agree that that Committee fails to afford the devolved Administrations a real voice in these negotiations and that in its current form it is wholly inadequate for the purpose of facilitating discussion and agreement?
Hywel Williams
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I was obviously about to come on to that matter.
The Government might wish to use the Joint Ministerial Committee as a cover for proceeding with this matter, but so far that Committee has not proved itself to be a substitute for proper agreement obtained directly with the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. The JMC—as obscure to many Members in this place as it is to the press and the population at large—met in February and did not meet again until October, during which period the most important and momentous events were taking place and fundamental decisions being taken. Following the October meeting, the Government sought to gloss over the real concerns of the Scottish and Welsh Governments, but as I said earlier, these have now been made clear.
In the Brexit Committee on 25 October, I asked the Brexit Secretary what the formal relationship was between himself and the First Secretary of State, who is handling the JMC. I asked:
“What is the formal relationship between your Department and his on this specific issue?”
He replied,
“there is none at all. He is one of my oldest friends”,
to which I replied:
“He is a very fine man, I am sure.”
I have been in this place for long enough—though not in government—to know the ways of Whitehall working. There are two conditions: where there is a formal relationship between Departments and there is accountability, and where there is no formal relationship and there is no accountability. In the case of the JMC, there is no formal reporting back but perhaps a chat between old friends. I have a large number of old friends—fine people whom I respect—but I certainly would not base my decision about the future of my children and my grandchildren on an informal fireside chat.
Stephen Doughty
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the crucial issue is not the one he deals with in amendment 79, but whether the Government respond to the cross-party amendments about the Scotland and Wales Acts and other important matters, in line with what the Scottish and Welsh Governments have said? Responding to those amendments in a positive way would show true respect for the constitutional settlement, which the Government have yet to show.
Hywel Williams
I am arguing in favour of my own amendment, but I accept the force of the hon. Gentleman’s words. As he knows, we have supported several Labour amendments.
Plaid Cymru has warned of the problems for quite some time. We wrote to the Welsh Secretary over the summer outlining our opposition to the withdrawal Bill and asking for answers about what would happen if the Welsh Assembly withheld consent. The response that we received in September was an aspiration, and it was wholly inadequate. It merely replayed the mantra: “We want all parts of the UK to back the Bill.” It was no response at all.
We raised the matter during a general debate on Brexit and foreign affairs on 26 June, during Brexit ministerial drop-in sessions on 19 July, during the debate on the Queen’s Speech on 26 July, in Welsh questions on 6 September, on Second Reading of this Bill on 11 September and during oral evidence sessions in the Brexit Committee on 17 October. Not once has a Minister told us how the Government plan to proceed if the devolved legislatures do not support the Bill. The only conclusion that we can draw, therefore, is that the Government will press ahead regardless. It is, after all, their legal right to do so, for the time being.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
It would be absolutely fascinating if the Government pressed ahead regardless, against the backdrop of three out of the four Assemblies or Parliaments of the United Kingdom opposing such pressing ahead. That would really show that we were not in a union but in an absolute superstate, which is what many Members say they are trying to get away from.
Hywel Williams
Amendment 79 might elucidate that point, which the hon. Gentleman put well. The final step of trying to prise an answer out of the UK Government about how they will react if the devolved Parliaments reject this Bill is to gauge their reaction to the amendment, which calls for the Sewel convention to be legally binding in relation to the Bill. That is why, with permission, I will press the amendment to a vote. It already has the support of the SNP, the Liberal Democrats, the Green party and, I understand, at least one Labour MP. In my view, it would be unthinkable for Labour, which is the largest party in Wales, to oppose Wales having a say, contrary to the stance of their colleagues in Cardiff.
If the UK Government are deadly serious about having all four nations on board, and if they are determined to respect the Respect agenda, they will accept the amendment. If not, we must assume that the Prime Minister intends to ignore the clearly expressed will of the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament, breaking her promise of working closely with the devolved Administrations to deliver an approach that works for the whole UK. I urge everyone in this House to support amendment 79.
John Redwood
Clause 1 of this historic Bill is the most important constitutional matter to come before the House of Commons since the 1972 Act. I have read some of the debates that Parliament conducted at the time, and we could indeed say that the repeal is more significant than the House believed the original Act to be. When the original Act was passed, the Government reassured the House that it was no surrender of sovereignty to a supranational body and no major transfer of power. They told the House that it was, instead, a major development of a common market; that the areas in which the European Economic Community would have competence would be very narrow and limited; and that the UK would preserve a veto so that if the EEC proposed anything the UK did not like, the UK would be able to exercise its veto and show that Parliament was still sovereign.
That was a long time ago. Over the years, what appeared to be a modest measure to form a common market has transformed itself into a mighty set of treaties and become, through endless amendment and new treaty provision, a very large and complex legal machine that is the true sovereign of our country. It has exercised its sovereignty through the European Court of Justice, the one supreme body in our country during all the time we have remained in the EEC and, now, the EU. We have seen how that body can now strike down Acts of Parliament, prevent Ministers from taking the action they wish to take and prevent this Parliament from expressing a view and turning it into action.
John Redwood
No, I am not going to take any interventions. I am conscious that we have very little time, and I want other colleagues to be able to speak in this debate.
We have been unable all the time we have been in the EU to have our own migration policy or to decide who we wish to welcome into our country. We cannot have our own fishing policy and we cannot have our own farming policy. We have moved into massive deficits on both fishing and on farming, whereas we used to have a good trading surplus on fish before we joined the European Economic Community and we used to produce most of the temperate food we needed before the common agricultural policy started to bite.
The British people decided in their wisdom that we should take back control, and we will take back control by the passage of this very important piece of legislation. Above all, clause 1 will take back that control. The great news for colleagues on both sides of the House who had different views on whether we should leave or remain is that their genuine passion for democracy, which many on both sides of the argument have expressed today, can be satisfied by agreeing to clause 1, which repeals the original Act. Once that has happened and the repeal has taken place, this Parliament will once again listen to the wishes of the British people and be able to change VAT, our fishing policy, our agricultural policy, our borders policy and our welfare policies in the ways we wish.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
John Redwood
No. I have already explained that I am conscious that many colleagues wish to join in the debate.
I just hope that right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches will recognise that, far from this being a denial of democracy as some fear—they seem to think it is some kind of ministerial power grab—this legislation will be the complete opposite. Once it has gone through, no Minister of the Crown, however grand, will be able to use the excuse that they had to do something to satisfy the European Court of Justice or the European Union. They will have to answer to this House of Commons, and if they cannot command a majority for what they wish to do, it will be changed. That is the system that I and many Opposition Members believe in, and that is the system we are seeking to reintroduce into our country, after many years’ absence, by the passage of this legislation.
There are concerns about whether the date of exit should be included in the Bill. I think it is good parliamentary practice to put something of such importance on the face of the Bill, and to allow us extensive debate—as we are having today, and doubtless will have more of before the completion of the passage of the legislation through both Houses—so that the public can see that we have considered it fully and come to a view.
I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) and I have a lot of sympathy with what he was trying to do, but I will take the advice of Ministers and support their particular version of the amendment. I will do so for the reasons that were set out very well by the Minister: we need complete certainty, and that requires a precise time of transfer. People need to know which law they are obeying and to which court they are ultimately answerable, minute by minute, as they approach the transfer of power on the day in question, and that is a very important part of the process.
I hope those who have genuine fears that we will not have enough time to negotiate are wrong. I think 16 months is a very long time to allow us to see whether we can reach a really good agreement. Of course, we all hope that we can reach a good agreement. Some of us know that if there is no agreement, it will be fine. We can trade under World Trade Organisation terms and put in place, over the next 16 months, all the things we need to do, on a contingency basis, to make sure that if we just leave without an agreement, things will work.
I appeal to all Members to understand that, although most of them may not want that contingency, it is a possible outcome. We cannot make the EU offer a sensible agreement that is in our mutual interests, so surely this House has a duty to the public to plan intelligently and to scrutinise Ministers as they go about putting in place the necessary devices to ensure that it all works.
The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee should relax. She is talented and quite capable of leading her Committee, and I am sure that it can make a valuable contribution. Nobody is stopping her or her Committee scrutinising, asking questions, producing ideas or helping the Government make sure that there is a smooth transition. She and I both believe in parliamentary democracy. She has an important position in this House and I wish her every success in pursuing it, in the national interest, so that Ministers can be held to account.
The task before us should be one that brings Parliament together. We should not still be disputing whether or not we are leaving. We let the British people decide that and then this House voted overwhelmingly to send in our notice. I explained at the time that that would be the decision point—most Members took it relatively willingly, others very willingly—and we now need to make sure that it works in the best interests of the British people.
I urge the House to come together to work on all those details, to make sure that we can have a successful Brexit, even if a really good agreement is not on offer after a suitable time for negotiation; and I urge the European Union to understand that it is greatly in its interests to discuss as soon as possible a future relationship. If it does not do so soon, we will simply have to plan for no agreement, because it is our duty to make sure that everything works very smoothly at the end of March 2019.
Mr Howarth
It is, I think, a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), who invited the House to come together and sort these problems out. The problem with his invitation, however, was exposed by the rest of his speech, in which he argued that if we do come together, it has to be on his terms. There is no scope for those of us who believe that there is a different way of doing this; we can only do it in the way in which he and those who have agreed with him over many years think it can be done. That is an invitation that I am more than prepared to resist.
I rise to speak in favour of the helpful amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and that tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), to which I am also a signatory.
Before I move on to those amendments, I would like to say a word about the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field). He is a good friend of mine: I have known him for many years and have always respected him. He compared this process to that of buying a house. That is a seductive way of looking at it, but he neglected to mention that the process of buying a house includes something called sold subject to contract. Article 50 might represent “sold subject to contract”, but we have yet to see what the contract is. My right hon. Friend’s analogy is perhaps more apposite than he realised, because perhaps we are in such a process but at a completely different stage from that which he suggested.
I will return directly to the argument by the right hon. Member for Wokingham about why the House should come together. Many of us believe that while that might be possible at some point, we are not at that point yet. I have two yardsticks to apply before I decide—if I am given the opportunity, provided by the two amendments I referred to—whether it is the right thing to do.
Everybody has rightly said that the people voted to leave. That is true. They did so by a smallish margin, but they did. In my constituency, they voted in exactly the same way as the national result. There is an obligation on us to recognise, acknowledge and deal with the implications of the referendum vote. What the people did not vote for, however, was an agreement the dimensions of which we do not even understand. That is where we are at the moment.
The first yardstick I will use to judge the question is the points my constituents raised with me on the doorstep. First, they said they would vote to leave because they did not like the amount of immigration. I argued with them, but that was the point they put to me. Secondly, they argued for parliamentary sovereignty. I tried to explore that more fully, but it did not often end up in a productive conversation. Thirdly, they argued for greater economic freedom. Other arguments were made and will no doubt be debated, but they were the three main issues raised with me on the doorstep.
I come back directly to the question put by the right hon. Member for Wokingham. What are we as a House supposed to unite on? At this stage, I do not know whether any of the reasons for my constituents to vote the way they did will be addressed—they certainly will not be addressed by the Bill—by the Government’s final deal. I do not know, the Government do not know, my constituents do not know and the House does not know, yet we are somehow being asked to take it on trust that at some point all will be revealed and there will be nothing to worry about. Forgive me, but I have been in this House for a number of years, in opposition and in government, and I know there is always something to worry about, particularly when the Government do not even know what the end of the process is likely to bring.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Desmond Swayne
Is the right hon. Gentleman’s implication that unless he is satisfied with an agreement he will not allow us to leave the European Union?
Mr Howarth
I will answer precisely that point before I conclude, but if the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me I will do so in my own particular way.
The second test to apply is fairly straightforward: are we heading into economic disaster? At this stage, we are unable to say. We do not know what the trade terms will be and we do not know how they will affect businesses and workforces. All of that is to be negotiated. If, at the end of the process, all those questions have been answered to my satisfaction and that of my constituents, I could vote, provided I am given the opportunity, to leave the European Union. At this stage, however, there is such a lack of clarity about where we stand and where we will get to that I am not prepared to give that commitment. I cannot say to my constituents that everything they voted for will not happen, on top of which it will be economically disastrous for us.
I say to the Government: get on with the negotiations, but we want the opportunity to say this is not right for our constituents. I will vote for the amendments tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield and my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford to make sure that we have exactly that opportunity.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I have often taken part in such debates as these and felt rather in the minority in opposing a new European treaty, and I wonder whether I am still in a minority in the House today, as it probably has more remainers than leavers in it, which rather colours the judgment of those taking part in the debate.
Mr Jenkin
I just put that forward as a problem. I believe as passionately in my case as my right hon. Friend does in hers. I sympathise and understand, but we have to accept that the country voted to leave. The one thing we know about how people voted—whether it was for this deal or that deal, whether they believed or disbelieved this or that piece of propaganda—is that they voted to leave the EU. That is the one thing it said on the ballot paper. I cannot understand how anyone can come to the House and say, “Well, there might be circumstances in which I will not respect that decision”, as the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) just did. That is what it amounts to.
Peter Kyle
Sir Winston Churchill said that the role of an MP was to put country first, constituency second and party third. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if the Government come back with a bad deal, allowing it to go forward would put none of those three first?
Mr Jenkin
That brings me to my next point. This debate is rerunning many of the arguments during the referendum campaign. The remain case was premised on the idea that it is a horrible, cruel world out there, that we cannot survive outside the EU, that it will be completely disastrous and that unless the EU give us permission and lots of help and support and agree to a whole lot of stuff we would like, we will be on our own in the cold. You know what? It is not true. Most countries are not in the EU and they are fine. This debate sometimes loses sight of that.
I wish to speak in favour of clause 1 standing part of the Bill. I agree so much with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). This is the most important Bill since we joined—more important, in fact, because after 45 years of membership it is so much more significant than it was. The principle of democracy is that Parliament legislates and Ministers obey and implement the law. The problem with the EU is that it turned our Ministers into legislators. They go to Brussels, sit in council, legislate and then bring back fait accompli legislation that is then imposed on this House. The 1972 Act is the greatest Henry VIII clause that has ever existed, and there is something a bit inconsistent —I understand why they are saying it—in complaining about Parliament not being treated properly, given that the whole principle of our membership of the EU requires the removal of the House’s right to make the laws of this country.
Chris Bryant
I note that the hon. Gentleman just said that it was wholly inappropriate for Ministers to go to Brussels and bring back a fait accompli. In relation to the EU negotiations, would it not be wholly inappropriate, therefore, for Ministers to go to Brussels, bring back a fait accompli and not give Parliament a proper opportunity to say, “You know what? You’ve got this wrong. You’ve got to renegotiate.”?
Mr Jenkin
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The House should have the right to accept or reject the deal, and it will—it will have the right to reject or accept the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill; but that will not change the decision to leave the EU. That decision has been taken.
I turn to the date of our exit. The referendum said leave. We were all told that we had to use article 50. Article 50 says on the tin that it takes two years maximum. The date is already fixed. There is no choice about the date. The date has to be in the Bill, otherwise we will weaken our negotiating position.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Jenkin
I will make my point and then give way.
The point is that we cannot go into the negotiations saying, “We have signed up to article 50, but we do not accept that we might have to leave after two years. We might come to you begging for a bit more time.” That will not put us in a very strong negotiating position.
Mr Grieve
I should preface my question to my hon. Friend by saying that, in my view, there is no evidence at the moment that public opinion on this issue has shifted at all since the referendum. But let us just suppose, as a hypothesis, that by the end of next year it becomes clear from opinion polls that 90% of the population believe that a mistake was made in the triggering of article 50. Does my hon. Friend seriously believe that we as a House should entirely ignore that evidence, if it were presented to us repeatedly?
Mr Jenkin
My right hon. and learned Friend is a very able barrister, and he presents his case extremely well, but we really are into hypotheticals now. [Interruption.] It was my right hon. and learned Friend who used the word “hypothesis”.
The fact is that article 50 was passed by an Act of Parliament, the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, by 498 votes to 114 on Second Reading of the Bill that became that Act. All that these three amendments do is align this Bill with what the House voted for so overwhelmingly.
Anna Soubry
I am very interested in my hon. Friend’s point about the fact that the date should have been in the Bill. It was an important point, so will he tell us why he did not table an amendment to insert the date?
Mr Jenkin
Would I be telling tales out of school if I said that I had thought about it, and discussed it? In fact, there was plenty of friendly discussion about it, but in the end the Government decided the matter for themselves, and I support the Government. I think that, given that we are in a slight minority in this Parliament and we have to deliver a very difficult Brexit and take part in difficult negotiations, it is incumbent on all Conservative Members to support the Government whenever we can.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I completely agree with a vast amount of what my hon. Friend has said. Article 50 sets the date, but it also sets the process, and the last part of the process is a vote in the European Parliament. As I recall from my time in the European Parliament, it often asks for a little bit extra at the last minute. My concern about hard-wiring the date is that it makes it more difficult for our Government and the other 27 national Governments to give that little bit of extra time should it be needed. It loses our flexibility rather than giving us more. That is my only concern.
Mr Jenkin
Unfortunately, even the European Parliament cannot change the exit date. It would have to be agreed by all the other member states. To predicate our negotiating position on our ability to persuade the 27 member states—and the Commission and the negotiating team in Brussels—to extend the date would be completely wrong.
Any Members who intend to vote against this date must be really confident that they can change a date that has already been set by the European Union treaties. The whole point about the deal/no deal scenario is that—as I have already said to the right hon. Member for Knowsley—either we accept the deal, and the House votes on it, or there is no deal. That is the choice that is available to the House. The House cannot veto Brexit—[Interruption.] I wish to conclude my speech.
Any Members who voted for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill are obliged to support the amendment, because that is the date for which they implicitly voted when they voted for the Bill, and for a two-year period. Any Members who voted for article 50 but now do not wish to fix the date are open to the charge that they do not actually want us to leave the European Union—[Interruption.] Let me say this to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. He has suggested that if we do not have a deal we will be jumping into “a void”, and that fixing the date will constrain our negotiations and disenfranchise Parliament. I respect the sincerity of my right hon. and learned Friend’s passion, but he calls the cut-off date barmy when he voted for that date by voting for the article 50 Bill. This amendment rumbles those who have not really accepted that we are leaving the EU.
Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
My hon. Friend knows that I share his fundamental beliefs about the need for us to leave the European Union, but is there not merit in the suggestion of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) that we need not have a fixed date? After all, our own negotiators might wish to have an extension; this is curtailing the flexibility and room for manoeuvre of our own negotiators. My right hon. and learned Friend has proposed an ingenious and commendable solution: that we write into the Bill the date, but we create exceptions for circumstances in which the negotiators might need it. I urge my hon. Friend, and all my hon. Friends who share my view on the EU, to reflect carefully on the suggestion made by my right hon. and learned Friend; it is a commendable one and it requires careful reflection.
Mr Jenkin
I am still seized of the truth that if we beg the EU to extend the time because it has run us up against the timetable—after all, it is the EU that is refusing to negotiate on the substantive issues at the moment, not us—that is the position and responsibility it must face. We should be clear and strong that if the EU does not reach an agreement with us by a certain date, we are leaving without a deal. That would put us in a stronger negotiating position than ever.
Tom Brake
I am very pleased to start by saying that, irrespective of what might or might not be in this Bill, I would, of course, not want us to leave the EU. I must say that there have been some rational speeches from the Conservative Benches, in particular those of the right hon. and learned Members for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). I also saw a significant and rational nodding of heads on the Government Benches during their speeches; I hope that as this debate develops many more of those rational Conservatives will be willing to speak out. I think that, like me, they believed before the EU referendum that leaving the EU would cause us significant damage and that they continue to do so to this day. As they have seen the Brexit negotiations proceeding, I suspect their view has been reinforced. I hope we will hear many more outspoken speeches from Conservatives.
The debate has inevitably been peppered from the Government Benches—the fourth row, referred to frequently—with the usual clichés from the usual suspects about the impact of the European Union: comments about EU bureaucrats plundering our fish and the secrecy that applies. The hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is no longer in his place; I do not know whether he has ever participated in a Cabinet committee meeting, but if he is worried about secrecy, he could, perhaps, do so—he will then see how clear that decision-making process is.
There have also been many references to the importance of the sovereignty of this Parliament, which is of course important, and unfavourable comparisons have been drawn with the EU, along with a complete disregard of how that body conducts itself through the Council of Ministers and the role of Members of the European Parliament. The only thing that has been missing from the debate has been a reference to the EU stopping children from blowing up balloons. No doubt if the Foreign Secretary had been here, he would have been able to add to that list of clichés about the impact of the EU, and it is a shame that he is not here to reheat that particular canard.
I make no apologies for seeking to amend the Bill and supporting a large number of amendments tabled by Members on both sides of the House, although I do not have much confidence that the Bill can be knocked into shape.
Tom Brake
I will give way later, perhaps to people who have not had an opportunity to intervene. I want to make a bit more progress.
I do not know whether the new clause tabled by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) was politically inspired, but it is clear that the amendment tabled by the Secretary of State, which we have heard a lot about over the past 72 hours, was very much a political initiative.
Frank Field
As I think the right hon. Gentleman should, given what he was imputing. The new clause was politically inspired, of course, because I wanted to see a date in the Bill. If he is suggesting that someone else was directing the kind of new clause I should table, he might want to have a word with the Opposition Whips to find out how easy a job that is. [Laughter.]
Tom Brake
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I am perplexed: I was not suggesting that anyone had been pulling his strings. I was simply wondering whether it was his own political inspiration that had led him to table the new clause. However, both the new clause and the Government amendment are damaging and irresponsible. They are also pointless, in that the Government could, of their own volition, choose to change the end date. I have to wonder whether they would not in fact seek to do that if they were close to a deal just days or hours away from the deadline.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that we are coming out of the EU and that this is not a game of hokey-cokey, with one foot in and one foot out?
Tom Brake
We do not often play games of hokey-cokey in this Chamber, and I certainly would not want us to do so today.
We are debating what is without a doubt the most serious issue that the United Kingdom has faced in the past 50 years, but I am afraid that the Government are not conducting themselves terribly efficiently. The Prime Minister’s amendment secured one or two newspaper headlines, but I was pleased that it did not succeed in stemming the Tory resistance. I would like to encourage the use of the word “resistance”. I do not know whether many Members have read Matthew Parris’s article, in which he suggests that we should use the term “resistance” in relation to ourselves when some Conservative Members prefer to describe us as remoaners—or, indeed, traitors.
Mr Evans
I would not call the right hon. Gentleman a remoaner, but he is a Liberal Democrat; I am just wondering which bit of the democrat in him does not accept the result of the referendum, that 52% of the country voted to leave and that the Prime Minister made it absolutely clear that we would leave if that is what the people voted for. Let me remind him that 41% of his constituents voted for him, whereas 52% voted to leave the European Union. When is he going to ask for a rerun in his own seat?
Tom Brake
I am sure that what I am about to say to the hon. Gentleman will reassure him that I am a democrat. He will be aware of the Liberal Democrats’ view that the only way that the vote on 23 June last year can be undone is by means of a referendum of everyone in the country, some of whom might have changed their minds. Perhaps he would like to explain why the people have the right to express their will on this particular issue only once and never again. We, as democrats, are arguing that there should be another opportunity—
Wera Hobhouse
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding about democracy? Democracy is not fixed in stone; a decision that has been made once does not have to last for ever and a day. Indeed, our parliamentary democracy is based on people being able to vote every four or five years and perhaps vote for something else. The referendum should not be seen as forever fixed in stone.
Tom Brake
Indeed, although the hon. Member for Stone thinks that our democracy is very much set in stone on this issue. Interestingly, when the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) was asked what would happen if, 12 months from now, 90% of the population felt that a mistake had been made on 23 June 2016, he seemed to say that we would proceed regardless and completely overlook any change in public opinion.
The Liberal Democrats will clearly oppose new clause 49, but one thing I learned during the debate is that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead is apparently not an ardent Brexiteer. I was surprised to learn that, but I welcome the fact that things are evenly balanced for him. However, I was a bit worried to hear him say that we did not need more facts; it is actually quite important to have facts and not necessarily always to act on one’s gut feelings.
Mr Jenkin
The right hon. Gentleman completely misrepresents what I said, which was a hypothetical. Does he really believe that the British people are going to change their minds? It may be a pious hope but, if anything, leave would win by a far bigger majority if there was another referendum.
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman has answered a hypothetical question with another hypothetical, so I think I had better leave it there.
I will not be supporting new clause 49, as tabled by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead. The difficulty with his new clause and with the Government amendment is that our negotiating position would be made much worse by having a fixed deadline and not leaving scope to allow the article 50 process to be extended if the negotiations were close to a conclusion but not there. That would constrain us unnecessarily.
As for the Government’s position, their amendments have been comprehensively demolished by others during the debate. My concern is that the Government still seem to be arguing that there being no deal is something that they will happily pursue or are considering as an option notwithstanding the huge level of concern expressed by all sectors—certainly by all the businesses that I have met—about the impact of no deal.
If Members have not already been, I recommend that they go to the port of Dover to watch the process of trucks arriving at the port and getting on a ferry, the ferry leaving, another ferry arriving from the other direction, trucks getting off and then trucks leaving the port. It is a seamless process that does not stop. The lorries barely slow down as they approach Dover, get on to the ferry and then leave. Anything that gets in the way of that process, even if it means an extra minute’s processing time, will lock the port down. Members who think that no deal is a happy, easy option need to talk to people at the port to hear what the impact would be.
I am happy to support Plaid Cymru’s amendment 79 about ensuring that the devolved Assemblies have some say in the process, which has been significantly denied so far.
If we have a vote on clause 1 stand part, I will certainly be ensuring—
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Leslie
Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am sceptical about clause 1 standing part of the Bill, because it asks Parliament to agree to sweep away the whole body of the 1972 Act without knowing what on earth will replace it. It asks us to embark on that journey without knowing the destination. Conditions should be placed on the repeal of the 1972 Act. For example, we should have a treaty with the European Union before the repeal is allowed to take place.
Tom Brake
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I think we may have the opportunity to put that to the test shortly.
In conclusion, the debate has unfortunately again revealed the obsession that Europe holds in the hearts of some Government Members. When it comes to Europe and our membership of the European Union, I am afraid that they have left their rationality at the door of the Chamber. If we do leave the European Union, they will be leading the country down a path that will, in my view and in the views of many Cabinet members, many Conservative Members and many Opposition Members, do long-lasting damage to our country.
Mr Djanogly
My concern is related to the timing issues of the phase 1 exit period and, by implication, of the transition period and, by extension, to how those periods link in to the proposed timing of the phase 2 deal on the future relationship with the EU following Brexit. That is the subject of a number of interconnected amendments.
The key point on timing is that, rightly or wrongly—probably wrongly—we have dropped our initial insistence that the terms of withdrawal, or what is known as phase 1, should be negotiated at the same time as the terms of our future relationship, which is known as phase 2. As things stand, the EU is saying that we should sort out phase 1—Northern Ireland, citizens’ rights and the amount of money—before we start scoping discussions on phase 2. The Government have said that the scoping of phase 2 should start in December, but the EU has threatened delay if we do not move forward significantly on phase 1 within the next couple of weeks.
Clearly, from the EU Commission’s perspective, and I believe from the perspective of British and continental business, the timelines are moving from tight to critical in terms of the need for a transitional agreement and a phase 2 outline. I separate the two because, of course, the transitional period is legally derived from and relates to the phase 1 exit date set out in article 50, providing time, for instance, to change over regulators and to allow companies’ systems to be changed over, too. Incidentally, it will also be used as a standstill period during which the Government can conduct their negotiations on phase 2.
Having heard the debate so far today, both in Committee and elsewhere, I am still unsure as to why we should fix an exit date that will thereby fix the date of the transition agreement. I can see only downside, with the Government losing control of one of the levers they could use to control the negotiations. Briefings I have just received also indicate that removing the flexibility of having different exit dates for different issues could undermine the ability of the banking and insurance sectors to amend their systems in time, risking financial instability.
The proposal to fix a date also possibly pushes us into a corner and unnecessarily increases the EU team’s leverage. Indeed, as has been said, when the Ministers came to the Brexit Committee, the flexibility to set multiple exit dates was described to us as a tool for setting different commencement dates for different provisions and for providing for possible transitional arrangements. What has changed in the Government’s approach over the past few weeks? That is something Ministers have to address.
It is now seemingly the Government’s intention to follow the Bill with further primary legislation to provide for an implementation period and the terms of the withdrawal agreement, along the lines of amendment 7 tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), which he says he will now update. The amendment has received a lot of cross-party support, and we will debate it at a later date. The Government initiative is welcome, but it will not in itself protect us from the dead-end option of fixing the exit date, which seems to pander to those who would welcome a no-deal Brexit.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) tabled new clause 54, which provides for securing a transition period of at least two years. Although the amendment will be substantially debated later, I think it is conservatively worded. When the Brexit Committee went to Brussels recently, Monsieur Barnier talked of the adequacy of two years for negotiations, as has our Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. However, nearly everyone else, including the European Parliament representative and the representatives of MEDEF—the French CBI—thought that three years, and possibly up to five years, will be needed.
Two years from the exit date may be enough time to settle the provisions of phase 1, but most experts are saying that two years is widely over-optimistic for negotiating an FTA. We need to consider what will happen if the Government do not reach certain targets by certain dates. For the Brexiteers, it may simply be that we go into hard Brexit mode. I personally think that would be extremely damaging to British business, but it is of course the default position under article 50. For those of us who want to have a negotiated phase 2 settlement, more Government attention is needed in this area.
The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) tabled new clause 69, a thoughtful amendment that asks what should happen if the Government do not secure a withdrawal agreement by 31 October 2018 or if Parliament does not approve the withdrawal agreement by 28 February 2019. Rather than jump off the proverbial no deal, hard Brexit cliff, there is a suggestion of ending the two-year period or agreeing a new transitional period. For that approach to work, we would have to ensure that we do not have a fixed exit date. It would, in effect, involve taking up the offer previously made by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and the Government starting to talk to the Opposition. Given where we are, that is going to have to happen one way or another, and we should face up to it now.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
It has been a pleasure to listen to this wide-ranging debate, but I do not intend to summarise it, and nor do I have the time to do so. I did, however, want to do something that the voice of my fellow Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), would not allow him to do, which is to respond to the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), who is not his place, and which has been supported by a number of Opposition Members.
My hon. Friend rightly spoke about how the Bill was about continuity, certainty and control, and that matters to every part of the UK. The hon. Member for Arfon and those who signed his amendment know that we are committed to securing a deal that works for the entire UK—for Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and all parts of England. There is considerable common ground between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations on what we want to get out of this process, and we expect the outcome to be a significant increase in the decision-making power of each devolved Administration. But we are clear that no part of the UK has a veto over leaving the EU; we voted in a referendum as one United Kingdom and we will leave as one United Kingdom. This Government have already shown their commitment to the Sewel convention—
Lady Hermon
What the Minister has said is very important, and I am listening carefully. Has he sent a signal this evening that he is prepared, and the Government are prepared, to ignore the requirement of the legislative consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly in order to get their way with this Bill? Is that the signal he has sent?
Mr Walker
The hon. Lady pre-empts my next point. What I would say before making the point about Wales and Scotland is that of course we all want to see a Northern Ireland Assembly in place and functioning, with power sharing, so that it can give assent to this Bill. The Government have already shown their commitment to the Sewel convention, demonstrated through its inclusion in the Scotland Act 2016 and the Wales Act 2017, and we are seeking legislative consent for this Bill in the usual way.
Mr Walker
I am afraid I cannot give way again at this point. We want to make the positive case for legislative consent and work closely with the devolved Administrations and legislatures to achieve this.
Crucial to understanding this Bill is the ongoing work on common frameworks, which has been mentioned, determining areas where they will and will not be required, which will reduce the scope and effect of clause 11. We acknowledge that that work on common frameworks will be crucial to the consideration of legislative consent.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
So the position of the UK Government is that if three of the four legislatures of the UK oppose this, he will ride roughshod over them. This is not a Union; it is a superstate. We are not in a Union; we are in superstate. The only superstate in Europe is the United Kingdom.
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman does not serve the interests of his own argument. We acknowledge, as I was just about to say, the position that the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government have taken to date on legislative consent to this Bill, but there has not yet been a vote in the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly on this and we remain confident that we will reach a position that can attract support. I want to stress that this Bill takes no decision making away from devolved Administrations or legislatures. We will, of course, return to these issues in more detail on days four and five in Committee.
In the meantime, we are pressing on with our engagement with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has been in contact with the Scottish and Welsh Governments on several occasions, and the First Secretary of State has met the Deputy First Minister of Scotland and the First Minister of Wales to progress discussions between Joint Ministerial Committee meetings. In addition, at the recent JMC (EN) on 16 October, the principles that underpin where frameworks will be needed and where they will not be needed were agreed with the Welsh and Scottish Governments. We are now moving into the next phase of this work, with detailed analysis of the policy areas with those Governments. This is a clear sign of progress, but I reiterate the point I made to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon): we would like to see a Northern Ireland Executive in place, with power sharing back in place, so that they can engage further on the official engagement that has taken place. In tandem, officials met officials met yesterday for technical discussions on the amendments proposed by the Scottish and Welsh Governments. In the past week, I have spoken to no fewer than four committees of devolved legislatures with colleagues from across Government, so I welcome their detailed scrutiny.
We will continue this engagement, and we hope to make the case for the Bill in every part of the United Kingdom, but amendment 79 would provide scope for individual vetoes on our exit from the European Union. We have already held a referendum that gave us a clear answer on the question of leaving the EU, which was subsequently endorsed by Parliament through the passage of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. The amendment goes against the grain of both our constitutional settlement and the referendum result, so I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Hywel Williams
Would the Minister concede that one man’s veto is another man’s respectful disagreement?
The Temporary Chair (Sir David Amess)
Order. The Minister has resumed his seat.
Frank Field
In this debate, many Members expressed worries about democracy. Although the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) is totally opposed to the position I set out, his was a stunning speech. If people with such abilities can be returned to this House, I do not think we have to worry too much on that front.
The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) accused me of simplicity. I hold his abilities in higher esteem than he holds them himself. Sometimes, though, choices are clear. There is a clear choice about how we negotiate with the group we are facing in Europe. Amendments are necessary, but because the Government, without the fingerprints of anybody else, have tabled an amendment stronger than my new clause, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Four hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, 11 September).
The Chair put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83D).
Clause 1
Repeal of the European Communities Act 1972
Amendment proposed: 79, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
‘(2) Regulations under section 19(2) bringing into force subsection (1) may not be made until the Prime Minister is satisfied that resolutions have been passed by the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly signifying consent to the commencement of subsection (1).”—(Hywel Williams.)
This amendment would make the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 on exit day conditional on the Prime Minister gaining consent from the devolved legislatures.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 357, in clause 6, page 3, line 29, at end insert—
“(A1) Retained EU law is to be interpreted in accordance with subsections (A3) to (A7), unless otherwise provided for by regulations under this Act.
(A2) Subsections (A3) to (A7) do not affect the application of section 7 to retained EU law where, but for the operation of those subsections, the retained EU law would fall within that section.
(A3) Retained EU law does not allow, prevent, require or otherwise apply to acts or omissions outside the United Kingdom.
(A4) An EU reference is not to be treated, by reason of the UK having ceased to be a member State, as preventing or restricting the application of retained EU law within the United Kingdom or to persons or things associated with the United Kingdom.
(A5) Functions conferred on the EU or an EU entity are to be treated as functions of the Secretary of State.
(A6) Any provision which requires or would, apart from subsection (A5), require a UK body to—
(a) consult, notify, co-operate with, or perform any other act in relation to an EU body, or
(b) take account of an EU interest,
is to be treated as empowering the UK body to do so in such manner and to such extent as it considers appropriate.
(A7) In subsection (A6)—
‘a UK body’ means the United Kingdom or a public authority in the United Kingdom;
‘an EU body’ means the EU, an EU entity (other than the European Court), a member State or a public authority in a member State;
‘an EU interest’ means an interest of an EU body or any other interest principally arising in or connected with the EU (including that of consistency between the United Kingdom and the EU);
‘requires’ includes reference to a pre-condition to the exercise of any power, right or function.”
This amendment provides a scheme for interpretation of EU law and to provide a backstop where necessary transposition has not been effected by regulations made under Clause 7.
Amendment 279, page 3, line 32, after “exit day” insert—
“as appointed in accordance with subsection (6A)”.
This paving amendment is intended to allow for transitional arrangements within the existing structure of rules and regulations.
Amendment 303, page 3, line 32, after “Court” insert—
“except in relation to anything that happened before that day”.
This amendment would bind UK courts to European Court principles laid down or decisions made after exit day if they related to an act before exit day.
Amendment 202, page 3, line 33, after “matter” insert—
“(other than a pending matter)”.
Amendment 280, page 3, line 33, after “exit day” insert—
“as appointed in accordance with subsection (6A)”.
This paving amendment is intended to allow for transitional arrangements within the existing structure of rules and regulations.
Amendment 304, page 3, line 33, at end insert—
“except in relation to anything that happened before that day.”
This amendment would enable UK courts to refer matters to the European Court on or after exit day if those matters related to an act before exit day.
Amendment 137, page 3, line 34, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) When interpreting retained EU law after exit day a court or tribunal shall pay due regard to any relevant decision of the European Court.”
Amendment 281, page 3, line 34, after “exit day” insert—
“as appointed in accordance with subsection (6A)”.
Amendment 306, page 3, line 35, leave out from “but” to end of line 36 and insert “a court or tribunal has a duty to take account of anything done by the European Court in relation to—
(a) employment entitlement, rights and protections;
(b) equality entitlements, rights and protections;
(c) health and safety entitlement, rights and protections.”
This amendment would help to ensure that Britain continues to have harmonious social standards with the EU.
Amendment 358, page 3, line 36, at end insert—
“( ) In addressing any question as to the meaning or effect of retained EU law, a court or tribunal must have regard to—
(a) any material produced in the preparation of that law, or
(b) any action taken or material produced in relation to that law before exit day by an EU entity or the EU, to the same extent as it would have had regard to such material or action immediately before exit day.”
The amendment would make clear that non-binding aids to the interpretation of EU law, such as background materials and official guidance produced before exit day, should continue to be taken into account by the courts when interpreting retained EU law to the same extent as at present.
Amendment 278, page 4, line 19, at end insert—
“(6A) The exit day appointed (in accordance with section 14 and paragraph 13 of Schedule 7) for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) must not be before the end of any transitional period agreed under Article 50 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.”
This paving amendment is intended to allow for transitional arrangements within the existing structure of rules and regulations.
Amendment 203, page 4, line 20, leave out subsection (7).
Amendment 282, page 4, line 26, after “exit day” insert—
“as appointed in accordance with subsection (6A)”.
This consequential Amendment is intended to allow for transitional arrangements within the existing structure of rules and regulations.
Amendment 283, page 4, line 33, after “exit day” insert—
“as appointed in accordance with subsection (6A)”.
This consequential Amendment is intended to allow for transitional arrangements within the existing structure of rules and regulations.
Amendment 284, page 4, line 44, after “exit day” insert—
“as appointed in accordance with subsection (6A)”.
This consequential Amendment is intended to allow for transitional arrangements within the existing structure of rules and regulations.
Clause 6 stand part.
Amendment 384, in clause 14, page 10, line 36, at end insert—
“‘pending matter’ means any litigation which has been commenced in any court or tribunal in the United Kingdom and which is not finally determined at exit day”.
This amendment provides a definition of pending cases for the purposes of Clause 6.
Amendment 353, page 10, line 48, at end insert—
“‘retained case law’ means—
(a) retained domestic case law, and
(b) retained EU case law;”.
Amendment 354, page 11, line 2, at end insert—
“‘retained domestic case law’ means any principles laid down by, and any decisions of, a court or tribunal in the United Kingdom, as they have effect immediately before exit day and so far as they—
(a) relate to anything to which section 2, 3 or 4 applies, and
(b) are not excluded by section 5 or Schedule 1,
(as those principles and decisions are modified by or under this Act or by other domestic law from time to time);
‘retained EU case law’ means any principles laid down by, and any decisions of, the European Court, as they have effect in EU law immediately before exit day and so far as they—
(a) relate to anything to which section 2, 3 or 4 applies, and
(b) are not excluded by section 5 or Schedule 1,
(as those principles and decisions are modified by or under this Act or by other domestic law from time to time);
‘retained EU law’ means anything which, on or after exit day, continues to be, or forms part of, domestic law by virtue of section 2, 3 or 4 or subsection (3) or (6) above (as that body of law is added to or otherwise modified by or under this Act or by other domestic law from time to time);
‘retained general principles of EU law’ means the general principles of EU law, as they have effect in EU law immediately before exit day and so far as they—
(a) relate to anything to which section 2, 3 or 4 applies, and
(b) are not excluded by section 5 or Schedule 1,
(as those principles are modified by or under this Act or by other domestic law from time to time).”
Mr Leslie
If we do not have a transitional period after exit day and find ourselves moving to substantially different arrangements and a new set of alliances with member states of the European Union, we may have great turmoil in our economy, with a significant number of jobs moving to other jurisdictions. Most people in this debate—apart from the fabled hardliners on the fourth row back below the Gangway on the Conservative Benches—now accept that a transition is needed. The Prime Minister made that point in her Florence speech. However, if hon. Members look very closely at the Bill, they will see that there really is not much in it about the transitional arrangements. Exactly how it will take place has very much been left up in the air.
New clause 14 seeks clarification from the Government about how a transition will be put in place and operate. It simply calls for a report to be made by Ministers one month after the Bill has received Royal Assent to clarify a number of things. Principally, the report would clarify the question how retained EU law will be interpreted during the transitional period, and by extension, how the relationship with the European Court of Justice and many other aspects will operate during that period.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I very much support the new clause, but does the hon. Gentleman share my incredulity at the fact that the Government have not simply said, “Yes, of course we need to inform businesses and regulators about how retained EU law will be reinterpreted during the transition”? It is very odd that they have not recognised that this very basic and self-evident thing needs to be done.
Mr Leslie
I suspect that that is because the Government are struggling to get such a transition. They have admitted that one is necessary, which is a good step. In her Florence speech, the Prime Minister made that concession. In fact, it is probably the biggest single negotiating input that we have seen from the Government since the triggering of article 50.
I have been talking to businesses and I know many hon. Members have done so, and we are hearing that if they do not have some clarity by January or February, they will have no choice but to put in place contingency plans for a no deal and the fabled cliff edge that we would reach at the end of March 2019. This goes beyond the financial services issues, because it applies to a number of sectors of the economy. We need to make sure that we have some certainty. That is why so much is on the shoulders of the Prime Minister in the December European Council meeting, when we are told that we might get some movement from the European Union on this issue.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the transition. A whole series of amendments have been tabled on this issue, and I wholeheartedly support his new clause. Are the businesses he has spoken to not already having to make very difficult and costly hedging decisions because of the uncertainty caused by the Government and, indeed, the siren call from the small number who want us to go off the cliff into a catastrophic, no deal Brexit?
Mr Leslie
There is a sort of sadism or masochism— I do not know which it is—on the part of a small number of hon. Members who relish the idea of a no deal scenario, saying, “The WTO has a fantastic set of rules —let’s just dive straight in.” However, I think there is consensus in the House that a transition is necessary, and if that is the case, we must work together across the parties to make sure we put in place the right legislative framework to deliver and facilitate such a transition.
The Prime Minister pointed out after her Florence speech that the European Court of Justice will
“still govern the rules we are part of”
during a transition. The Prime Minister is right. The European Union has said in terms that the entirety of the acquis communautaire needs to apply during a transitional period and that it is the equivalent of the single market, the customs union and the four pillars—the freedoms—within them. That has to include the European Court of Justice, if we are going to sign up to that set of arrangements. That is also the Labour Front Benchers’ policy for the transitional period. Indeed, they will want to speak to their own amendments detailing how they envisage the transition needs to take place.
It is worth reminding ourselves why it is that, during a transition, we will still need a resolution mechanism through the European Court of Justice. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) mentioned in an earlier intervention that the UK took the European Central Bank to the European Court when there was a question whether the euro clearing arrangements might not be feasible in the City of London. From time to time, therefore, we have benefited from that dispute resolution arrangement.
What would happen if other circumstances arose during a transition? For instance, if UK citizens living abroad wanted to get their pension payments but there was an obstacle to them doing so, they would need to be able to seek redress, and that could be provided by the European Court. If a breach of competition rules adversely affected a UK firm, it might seek to get redress through the European Court of Justice. If the European Union started passing rules in conflict with the transition agreement, we would want the Court to resolve the situation in our favour. If UK firms were denied market access in the European Union, we would need resolution arrangements during a transition period. The application of the European Court of Justice is integral to such issues—the Prime Minister was right to accept that—but the Bill presents a problem.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has listed a series of issues, each of which is a legal issue. How does he suppose we could delegate to the Government a prerogative power to decide how the courts could decide those issues?
Mr Leslie
My proposed new clause seeks to elicit from the Government information on how they are going to deal with the issue. The Prime Minister has said that she accepts that the European Court of Justice would need to continue to have jurisdiction during a transition. However, there are problems in the Bill.
I invite hon. Members to turn to page 3 and read clause 5(1), which states:
“The principle of the supremacy of EU law does not apply to any enactment or rule of law passed or made on or after exit day.”
Therefore, under the Bill as framed, the ECJ arrangements will not apply beyond exit day. Further down on page 3, clause 6(1) and (2) similarly state that no regard will be made to the European Court after exit day.
Mr Grieve
My hon. Friend says that it is not meant to, but I cannot criticise the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) for raising the issue, because we are hearing more and more about transitional arrangements. Of course, that highlights—does it not?—the fact that this Bill can do only part of the task that we have to do altogether. I think that it is right that we seek in vain to amend this Bill, because we will not able to make it do something that deals with transitional arrangements that we currently know nothing about.
Mr Leslie
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely correct. The whole purpose of Committee scrutiny is to try to get some sense out of what is a very complicated set of arrangements. In some ways, the Bill was drafted in an era pre-dating the Florence speech, when we were moving from state A to state B—in other words, from pre-exit day to post-exit day. Of course, the Prime Minister has now accepted that there will be a transition, so a new interim period has been floated, but no legal architecture has been proposed for it at this stage.
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union yesterday floated the idea of an Act of Parliament that would also include details about implementation at some indeterminate point, potentially after exit day. New clause 14 seeks clarity from Ministers. They must set out in more detail precisely what would happen to the legal framework in that transitional period.
Helen Goodman
Does my hon. Friend share my astonishment at the answer to my question this afternoon about what the legal basis for the transition period would be? Does he agree that the Government have succeeded in minimising their room for negotiation by fixing the exit day and maximising legal uncertainty and that the one thing that business has been calling for is legal certainty before Christmas?
Mr Leslie
As my hon. Friend says, I am starting to wonder whether the Government will reverse ferret a little bit on the fixed date. We will wait and see—I think the vote will come up on day eight. It is obvious that it has not been as thought through as it should have been.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. Various businesses in my constituency and unions have pointed out the need for, and the benefits of, a transitional period. Does he, like me, feel that because of the Government’s actions we are sleepwalking towards a no-deal scenario that would have a catastrophic impact on our economy?
Mr Leslie
I fear that that scenario is beginning to loom on the horizon. We know the Prime Minister does not want that because she says she wants the transitional arrangement, but more flesh has to be put on the bones in terms of how the UK envisages the transition and at the European Council in December. If a transition deal is not signalled, with more flesh put on the bone in December, a lot of firms will say, not unreasonably, “We have to plan for a scenario in which we are not legally able to sell our services to the 500 million customers across the other 27 countries.” We hear that American corporations that currently have their base in London are looking at all sorts of convoluted branch-back arrangements, so that they can subsidiarise back into the UK. This is getting terribly complicated and very expensive. Ultimately, all these issues will hit consumers and workers in the UK. It will have a very practical effect on the lives of many of our constituents.
Mr Jenkin
I share the hon. Gentleman’s and the Prime Minister’s hope that there will be a sensible implementation period, although, as the Secretary of State has said, it is a diminishing asset if it is left later and later before we know are going to get it. I welcome the inquiring way in which the hon. Gentleman is proposing his new clause, but I think he has made his own point. If there are to be any enforceable legal obligations arising from a withdrawal agreement, or any agreement, after we have left, they should be done through the Act of Parliament that was announced yesterday and not incorporated into this Bill. That is why it is safe to put the exit date in the Bill, because the exit date ends the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.
Mr Leslie
Let us imagine the circumstances where exit day falls at that fateful 11 pm on 29 March 2019 and there is no legislative architecture in place for the transitional period from 11.1 pm and thereafter. At present, there is no guarantee from the Government—I will give way to them if they will guarantee it—that that legislation will be put in place, published and consulted on and that businesses will know what the transitional legal framework will be from 11.1 pm on 29 March 2019 onwards. The Government have said that we might not get the latest offer of an Act of Parliament until not only after a withdrawal treaty has been signed and sealed by Ministers, but after exit day. There is, therefore, a hiatus. What is the legal architecture that fills the gap in that transition? That is the question I am asking in new clause 14.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
Just to reinforce the hon. Gentleman’s question: the Bill seems to say that after exit day all European law and legal obligations drop and the jurisdiction of the ECJ goes. If we have the transition period proposed in the Florence speech, the subsequent Bill will presumably have to amend this Bill, change the Government’s position and produce new provisions that qualify it. Given that the Florence speech seems to be the only policy we can cling to—it is agreed to by both Front-Bench teams, in theory—would it not be logical just to put the substance of that speech into this Bill and adjust it so that it complies with it?
Mr Leslie
The right hon. and learned Gentleman and I have shared this inspiration in the form of an amendment that will also come up on day eight of Committee. Of course, the Labour Front-Bench team will shortly be talking to their own amendment 278, which seeks to deal with this problem by deferring exit day until after the transition has been completed. The idea essentially is to keep the existing legal framework in place, not just for the period up until exit day but for the transition period. That, of course, is one way to solve the problem.
The Bill, though, cannot adequately deal with the transition, and not just because of the contradictions in clauses 5 and 6. Even if one stands on one leg and squints a little bit at the order-making powers in clauses 7 or 9, none seems capable of dealing with the implementation of a transition period. It is clear, then, that we need answers from Ministers. They have said that they will bring forward a Bill, but they have to ensure certainty for business during the transition period. It could be a two-year-plus period. I do not think that two years is long enough, but if it is to be two years, that is still a long time for businesses to operate without a framework of legal certainty. New clause 14 simply says that Ministers must give details within one month of Royal Assent as to how the ECJ arrangement will apply during the transition.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Is it not clear, from what has been said in Europe and by business, that they want the transition deal to be the same as what we have now, with all the same obligations, so that they do not have to go through two sets of changes?
Mr Leslie
That is absolutely the preference of most sensible observers. We need a transition, of course, because the trade deal arrangements cannot possibly be made adequately by the time of exit day, unless the Secretary of State for International Trade pulls a rabbit out of the hat—perhaps he has been known to do that in the past, but I doubt it will happen this time. The transition period is therefore vital if the UK is to salvage and stitch together a trade arrangement.
We must not forget, moreover, that the 57 existing free trade arrangements with non-EU countries from which the UK benefits by virtue of our EU membership will have to be grandfathered—copied and pasted into UK arrangements. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) talked about the 759 different international treaties. We do not know quite how those will apply. We have to think about the legal framework not just after but during the transition. We have a massively complex set of legal steps to take, yet we have no clarity from Ministers, apart from this concession yesterday that there might be a Bill at some point, possibly after exit day, perhaps with a vacuum—
Peter Kyle
A transition implies moving from one place to another. If we write into statute the date on which we are to leave, industry and the economy will wake up the next day and find that we are out of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, out of the customs union and out of the single market. That is not a transition but an overnight crash. The Government say that we will then make a further transition and then pick up the pieces, like the Road Runner hitting the ground and having to pick himself up afterwards. This is not an orderly transition; it is, by any definition, a car crash. Does my hon. Friend not agree?
Mr Leslie
Yes. There are massive risks, and if we do not have an orderly transition, there will be big consequences. However, although we have identified 29 March 2019 as a key date, there is another critical date, which will fall in the first quarter of the next calendar year. Many businesses are saying that they must have certainty about what the shape of the transition will be by that time.
The clock is ticking much more swiftly than Ministers may have appreciated. We need to know that they are rolling up their sleeves ahead of the European Council, which begins on 14 December. We may just complete the Committee stage during that week, but it is vital for businesses to have certainty, and it is also vital for Ministers to explain how aspects of the transition will take place. In a way, it would be disloyal to the Prime Minister for them not to do so.
Mike Gapes
My hon. Friend has mentioned the concern felt by businesses. That concern is widespread, ranging from the Confederation of British Industry to the Federation of Small Businesses. It is also felt by the workers and their representatives, including the TUC and many individual trade unions. Why on earth are the Government being so stubborn?
Mr Leslie
We can only speculate. There was even a suggestion at one point that Ministers had not yet broached the topic of transition with their counterparts in the EU and Michel Barnier. Thankfully the Prime Minister raised it in her Florence speech, and I hope that her Ministers are now getting it under way, but we need more certainty and clarity. There is a serious period—two years plus—during which legal arrangements must be put in place. It is not unreasonable for the House to ask Ministers to clarify the position at the earliest opportunity, and certainly by the time the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
I want to talk about amendments 303 and 304, which stand in my name, and to return to a matter that I raised on Second Reading. I hasten to add that the amendments relate to a specific constituency case. However, I do not want to air the details; I want to stick to the principles, because the case in itself raises a problem that I would like the Government to have a look at.
As we know, the Bill transfers all EU law into UK law. That will become effective on the day of exit, ensuring that all the rights enjoyed by British citizens today will be available to them after Brexit. Owing to some practical difficulties, however, some rights cannot be transferred easily because they are entirely reliant on the European Court. The right of the individual to sue a member state for damages when the law has been incorrectly applied and has caused them harm is ultimately reliant on the rulings of the European Court, and on a legal precedent that I think many of the lawyers who surround me in the Chamber know as Francovich.
Although the UK courts will deal with such cases, they must refer questions about the interpretation or application of EU law or EU legal principles to the European Court, particularly when the interpretation is unclear and applies to every member state. Such a reference to the Court will occur, for example, when the interpretation of rules pertaining to the application of VAT across the EU is required. After Brexit the UK courts will determine all law, and there will be no references to the European Court.
I want to give the Government an opportunity to ensure that the principle underlying Francovich—the protection of individuals against malfeasance by the state—will develop within the British legal system. In the meantime, however, there is a transitional issue arising from changes in the law that impacts individuals who have already commenced such legal action prior to Brexit, or who might wish to commence such an action after Brexit in relation to an issue that occurred in the period prior to Brexit.
Mr Grieve
My right hon. Friend raises a very important issue, and it is not just a transitional issue; it is a rule of law issue, and is about legal certainty. My right hon. Friend is absolutely to raise it, and she may agree with me that the Government are going to have to deal with this, because ultimately it is a fundamental principle of law that people should be able to have that certainty when they commence actions.
Mrs Gillan
My right hon. and learned Friend, who is also my constituency neighbour in Buckinghamshire, knows that I have been preoccupied with this for some time. Of course, there is also that principle of UK law called legitimate expectation, which is based on the principles of natural justice and fairness, and seeks to prevent authorities from abusing power, and I think that that is most important.
Essentially, this principle ensures that the rules cannot be changed halfway through the game if an individual had a reasonable expectation that they would continue. Changes to UK law can only happen prospectively—in other words, they can only apply from a point in the future onwards—and cannot be applied to the past. This means that anyone lodging court proceedings can do so knowing that the rules that applied at the time they lodged those proceedings will apply to their case. If that was not so, the law could be retrospectively changed in favour of the state.
Robert Neill
My right hon. Friend is making a most powerful case, and I absolutely agree with her about the need to deal with the Francovich issues. She serves as a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, as I did in the past; does she agree that to leave people without a remedy in these cases, and to breach that important rule of law of legitimate expectation, would hardly be consistent with our people being given their full entitlement under our commitments as part of the Council of Europe?
Mrs Gillan
My hon. Friend served with great distinction on the Council of Europe and I am thrilled to have been put back on the Council of Europe today, along with several colleagues across the House. I happen to think that this is extremely important, as is our membership of the Council of Europe, and my hon. Friend is right that that situation would be looked at with some suspicion by the other 46 members of the Council of Europe. For that reason, it is important that if we change the law through this Bill, changes that result from the Bill only apply from a point in the future, so that individuals can rely on the law as it stood up to the point when the law changed.
Joanna Cherry
I am sympathetic to the arguments the right hon. Lady is putting forward. Following on from the intervention of the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), does the right hon. Lady agree that if people’s legitimate expectations and right to an effective remedy are withdrawn as a result of Government action, those individuals might have cause for action against the Government under the European convention on human rights?
Mrs Gillan
The hon. and learned Lady makes a valid point. I am trying to give the Government an opportunity to examine this, as I think it is very serious. I also think that no British Government would want the sort of unfairness thrown up by the anomaly that has arisen from the way the Bill is drafted.
In fact, the repeal Bill already states in paragraph 27(3) of schedule 8 that actions begun prior to Brexit, including Francovich, can continue and can rely on EU legal principles. However, I think there is an error in the Bill, in that it does not allow anyone who has commenced an action prior to the day of exit the right of a reference to the European Court, which they could have reasonably expected when lodging their claim in the court prior to Brexit.
Mr Grieve
That must be wrong as well. In the past, when we have had references to the Privy Council, for example, and a country has terminated those references, the references have continued after the date of termination until all the cases going through the system are completed. It must follow that references to the ECJ—or CJEU, perhaps, to give it its full title—must be able to continue after the date of exit.
Mrs Gillan
My right hon. and learned Friend makes the same point that I am trying to make. Likewise, the Bill does not allow anyone who has suffered harm because of an act of the state in the period prior to the day of exit the right to lodge a claim under the rules as they stood at the time they were harmed.
Antoinette Sandbach
This is incredibly important for my constituents who could face issues relating to HS2, because a right of claim could arise between now and exit day, whenever that is set to be, and it is vital that their rights should not be changed during that period.
Mrs Gillan
My hon. Friend is leading me down a path that I do not wish to go down. I was very much hoping that I could make my contribution today without mentioning HS2, but the trouble is that if I do not mention it, someone else will. In fact, I agree with her entirely. To deny people those rights would be an abuse.
A retrospective removal of rights breaches the principle of legitimate expectation, because individuals have a reasonable expectation that their grievances should be heard under the rules as they stood at the time they were affected. For this reason, I am proposing these minor amendments to the Bill. I do not believe that they would undermine the overall effect of the Bill; rather, they would give legal certainty to those who were caught in the transitionary period. Anyone who has a claim originating in the period prior to Brexit should be able to have their claim heard under the rules as they stood prior to Brexit, including a right to a reference to the European Court. That is only fair and just. The British people voted for Brexit to improve their rights and the rights of their fellow citizens. They did not vote to cause legal confusion or harm, or to frustrate the rights of those relying on the courts during the transitionary phase.
Mrs Gillan
I would like to finish now.
As the Bill already states that cases occurring during the transitionary period can continue, my amendments would do nothing other than ensure that that happens fairly. I really hope that the Government will respond positively to these amendments, and remember that justice delayed is justice denied.
Paul Blomfield
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), who has made some thoughtful and sensible points on her amendments, which we would support. I rise to speak to amendment 278, and to the consequential amendments 279 to 284, which would allow for transitional arrangements within the existing structure, rules and regulations. I will also speak to our amendment 306, but I will return to those separate issues later.
Amendment 278 follows on from our earlier debate on clause 1. It brings into even sharper focus the issue of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s jurisdiction during a transitional period. As I said in the previous debate, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) said earlier in this one, there can be no transitional period on current terms, as the Prime Minister wishes, without that jurisdiction. The Florence speech has been much quoted already, and I am sure that that will continue. Let me refer briefly to it one more time. The Prime Minister obviously made the speech after the Bill had been published, but perhaps its early drafting did not have the opportunity to accommodate the emphasis that she has placed on the
“two important steps, which have added a new impetus”
to the process.
She said of the second of those steps:
“I proposed a time-limited implementation period based on current terms, which is in the interest of both the UK and the EU.”
She was accepting the case made by business and trade unions for an effective transitional period and, crucially, again making the point that this should be on current terms.
As I said in the earlier debate, we were pleased that the Prime Minister had caught up with Labour on that position. However, seven weeks on from the Florence speech, the Government have failed to reflect the ambition that the Prime Minister had at that time in any of the amendments to the Bill. They came up with the bizarre amendments that we debated in relation to clause 1, but they failed to address that ambition, so we have helpfully stepped in to fill that gap with amendments 278 to 284. The amendments would mean that, in relation to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, exit day should come at the end of the transitional period. The reason is simple: without acceptance of the continuing role of the Court of Justice during the transition, the idea that the implementation period, based on current terms, could happen in the way that the Prime Minister described is frankly delusional.
Mr Jenkin
I get the feeling that the cart is coming before the horse here. No transitional implementation has yet been agreed. It has to be part of a deal, and it would be a mistake for the House to start putting things into the Bill in the expectation of certain things that may or may not happen. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union announced a separate Bill to implement any agreement, which is when such things will be dealt with. This Bill is much simpler than the Opposition would like it to be.
Paul Blomfield
There are some strands of fair comment in that intervention. We have tabled the amendments precisely because, in relation to our previous debate, we do not want the Government closing options down. If the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice is not clear during a transitional period, options would be closed down.
Paul Blomfield
No, I will not. I gave way many times during the previous debate, and I am conscious that many more amendments relate to this clause.
Mr Duncan Smith
Will the hon. Gentleman give way on his point about the Court of Justice?
Paul Blomfield
I have said no. I want to give others the opportunity to speak. I took every single intervention in the previous debate—except perhaps from one of my hon. Friends towards the end of my speech—so I want to make some progress.
The Government have a choice to make today—[Interruption.] I wish hon. Members would stop chuntering. The Government have a choice to make, and they have to make it in relation to our amendment 278.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
You’re scared to have to answer.
Paul Blomfield
Oh for goodness’ sake. The hon. Gentleman can do better than that, even from a sedentary position.
Paul Blomfield
No, having taken every single intervention in the previous debate, most of which came from Government Members, I have explained why, in the interests of other Members, I will not take interventions on this occasion. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can chunter on.
As I was saying, the Government have a choice to make today—a choice about amendment 278. Are they serious about pursuing a transitional period and ensuring that the economy does not fall off a cliff in March 2019 when we leave the EU, or does their ideological red line on the Court of Justice take greater priority than the jobs and livelihoods of people in this country?
Other issues relating to clause 6 also need addressing, and amendment 306 would provide for UK courts to take account of Court of Justice decisions on entitlements, rights and protections on employment, equality and health and safety. The intention of this amendment is to help to ensure that we maintain and keep up with social standards within the EU and do not simply hold workers’ rights and equality in stasis as the EU27 moves forward. Indeed, the EU has made it clear that it will want a level playing field in all those areas if we are to strike an effective trade deal. We are regularly told that the Government do not want to erode rights and protections, but we have a Prime Minister who has repeatedly criticised the social chapter and a Foreign Secretary who has decried the “back-breaking” weight of EU employment regulation, so we need to ensure that we secure clear guarantees in the Bill.
Amendment 306 also addresses the concerns of the former President of the UK Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger. On 8 August, he raised concerns about clause 6(2) and the position in which it will leave the judiciary on the interpretation of EU retained law. Clause 6(2) states:
“A court or tribunal need not have regard to anything done on or after exit day by the European Court, another EU entity or the EU but may do so if it considers it appropriate to do so.”
On which Lord Neuberger said that if the Government
“doesn’t express clearly what the judges should do about decisions of the ECJ after Brexit, or indeed any other topic after Brexit, then the judges will simply have to do their best. But to blame the judges for making the law when parliament has failed to do so would be unfair.”
Amendment 306 would address those concerns by removing the vague reference to
“if it considers it appropriate to do so”
and by requiring UK courts simply to take account of CJEU decisions in relation to employment, equality and health and safety rights. Lord Neuberger was right to flag that deficiency in the Bill, which we need to resolve.
Mr Grieve
Is not part of the problem that this is an area of law that has quite a political—with a small “p” —aspect? In reality, this law has been entrenched when it comes from the EU, and it represents a number of areas that have been treated by some as fundamental rights.
The difficulty for the judiciary is that they will be asked to continue interpreting this law—this is the nub of it—without real political guidance as to what emphasis they should attribute to it in future in light of the emphasis it has been given in the past. It is not just any old law but something rather more complex and, for that reason, it is more sensitive to the judiciary’s interpretation.
Paul Blomfield
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right, and that is what we seek to address with amendment 306.
I will briefly address some of the other amendments in the group. We support new clause 14, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), as it sensibly calls for a report to be laid before Parliament on the interpretation of EU law during a transitional period.
We also support amendment 137, in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and others, as it seeks to have UK courts pay due regard to any relevant decision of the ECJ when interpreting the new category of retained EU law.
Amendments 202 and 384, in the name of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), would allow matters pending on exit day to be referred to the ECJ, which is clearly common sense, and we are pleased to support the amendments. We also support amendments 203, 353 and 354, in the right hon. Gentleman’s name, on the definitions of EU retained law. Amendment 357, tabled by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), raises important issues, and I look forward to the Minister’s clarification. We support amendment 358, which would help with the interpretation of EU retained law.
I end on the same note on which I began by urging the Government to accept amendment 278 and its consequential amendments and, in doing so, to put aside their obsession with the ECJ so that we can secure the effective transitional deal with the EU that they, we, business and trade unions want to achieve.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Dominic Raab)
It is a great privilege and pleasure to speak on behalf of the Government on this essential Bill, and particularly on clause 6 and the various amendments proposed to it. The Bill is complex, but at root it boils down to achieving two basic but fundamental objectives, which it is worth bearing in mind as we consider the clause and amendments.
The first is that we are delivering on the referendum by taking back control over our laws, which is a major opportunity; that was the No. 1 reason why people voted to leave the EU in the referendum. The second thing that the Bill does is make sure there is legal certainty, with a smooth transition for citizens and businesses, mitigating one of the key risks of Brexit, which I believe is felt by people whether they voted leave or remain.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It is essential that the Supreme Court has certainty. The first part of clause 6(2) is admirably clear:
“A court or tribunal need not have regard to anything done on or after exit day by the European Court”.
Why then have the Government included the following phrase at the end of the provision:
“but may do so if it considers it appropriate to do so”?
I think Lord Neuberger has a point, and I give the Minister an opportunity to make the Government’s position clear.
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for that, and I shall come to that point a little later. The basic point that I respectfully make to the House at the outset is that the various clauses and amendments should be judged according to those basic strategic objectives: taking back control over our laws and making sure that there is a smooth legal transition, which I believe is my hon. Friend’s point.
Clause 6 serves both objectives. It sets out how, once we have taken back control over EU law, retained EU law should be interpreted on and after exit day. It makes it clear that once the UK leaves the EU, domestic courts will not be able to refer cases to the European Court—an affirmation of the supremacy of our own courts and our own legal order.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. The Select Committee that I chair has looked at the implications for equality law. At the moment, individuals can take cases to the Court of Justice of the European Union and gain decisions there that may have a great impact on their lives, but they will not be able to do that in the future. How should the Government look further at how domestic courts might be able to assess the compatibility of UK law with equality law, to make sure that in the future we do not have any problems in the way our law develops in this area?
Dominic Raab
First, let me thank my right hon. Friend, the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, for her intervention and for highlighting this important issue constructively. I have looked carefully at the report of her Committee and had discussions with the Equalities Ministers on the points she has made, so today I can give her the reassurance, and tell the House, that we have commissioned work to be done on an amendment that the Government will table before Report. It will require Ministers to make a statement before the House in the presentation of any Brexit-related primary or secondary legislation on whether and how it is consistent with the Equality Act 2010. I hope that gives her the reassurance she needs that the Government are serious about addressing the legitimate point she has raised.
The point I was making before my right hon. Friend’s intervention was that once the UK leaves the EU, the domestic courts will not be able to refer cases to the ECJ. Clause 6 also provides that domestic courts and tribunals will not be bound by or required to have regard to ECJ decisions made after Brexit.
Dominic Raab
May I just finish this point, because I am at risk of answering the question before my right hon. and learned Friend puts it? As I say, UK courts will instead be able to take those post-exit judgments into account when making their decisions, if they consider it appropriate to do so, as they can, of course, with judgments of courts from other jurisdictions—common law, around the Commonwealth and elsewhere.
Mr Grieve
A number of different points feature in all this, but there is one point about the legal certainty, which was raised earlier. It is one thing to be able to take a case to the Supreme Court, but under a previously set up regime people could take it as a reference to the ECJ. Have the Government considered the propriety issues on removing that right for a case that is current? There is an issue to address there. The Government may be able to provide precedent and justification for what they are doing, but the issue troubles me. This strikes me as an odd way of going about things simply for the sake of trying to get rid of the ECJ in one fell swoop, which I think will be rather difficult in any case for other reasons.
Dominic Raab
I hope that I can give my right hon. and learned Friend some reassurance as the Committee makes progress. Some of what he says relates to clause 5 as much as to clause 6, but let me have a go at addressing it today. We may well return to it next week.
Hilary Benn
The Prime Minister has accepted that in a transitional period, the European Court of Justice would govern the rules of which we are part. Will the Minister explain to the Committee how that is compatible will clauses 5 and 6, which say that the ECJ will have no further sway after exit day, which the Government propose to set as 29 March 2019? Do the Government intend to amend the Bill as it proceeds through Committee to reconcile those two things, or do they propose to do it in the new Bill that the Secretary of State announced yesterday?
Dominic Raab
I think the Chair of the Select Committee has answered his own question. The point is that we will produce separate primary legislation to deal with the withdrawal agreement and the terms of any transition. We should not be putting the cart before the horse. This Bill is about making sure that we have at our disposal all the means to implement in UK law any deal, and its terms, as and when it is struck.
Dominic Raab
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall make a little progress, because I suspect that—
Dominic Raab
I am going to make a little progress, because I think that some of these queries will be addressed in the discussions on the amendments that others have tabled.
I return to clause 6. For as long as retained EU law remains in force in the UK, it is essential that there is a common understanding of what that law means. That is critical for legal certainty and, in real terms, for the very predictability of law that businesses and individuals rely on every day as they go about their lives. We want to provide the greatest possible certainty—I suspect that, for all the thunder and lightning in this debate, that is a shared objective underpinning it all—and the question is how we achieve that. Clause 6 will ensure that UK courts must continue to interpret retained EU law using the Court of Justice of the European Union’s pre-exit case law and retained general principles of EU law. Any other starting point would be to change the law. That is certainly recognised by the Government.
Dominic Raab
I am going to make a little more progress, but I will give way to my right hon. Friend in due course.
The crucial point reflected in clause 6 is that the intention is not to fossilise past decisions of the ECJ for ever and a day. The clause provides that our Supreme Court—and, indeed, the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland—will be able to depart from pre-exit case law. In doing so, they will of course apply the same tests as they do when departing from their own case law in the ordinary way.
We have, in my view at least, the finest judiciary in the world. Our courts are fiercely independent of Government, as they have already proved during the Brexit process. The clause will provide them with clarity about how they should interpret retained EU law after exit. As we take back control over our laws, it must be right that the UK Supreme Court, not the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, has the last word on the laws of the land. It is therefore of paramount importance that the clause stands part of the Bill.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
The Minister is being very helpful on one aspect of the Bill, which is how the Government think European law should be interpreted once we have finally exited, but he is sidestepping the key point put to him by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). As it stands, clause 6 does not reflect current Government policy. It is not putting the cart before the horse to ask whether current Government policy, as represented in the Florence speech, should be reflected in the Bill. The fact is that the Government are seeking, expecting or contemplating the real possibility of a transition period during which we will stay in the single market and customs union and be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. Why is the Bill being presented and urged by the Government in terms that are totally—
Dominic Raab
I will come to that precise point in the context of new clause 14, which has been tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie). The proposed change refers to the transitional period after the UK exits the EU. I thought that the hon. Gentleman put his points in a perfectly reasonable way.
Dominic Raab
Let me finish my point.
Therefore there will be full transparency and accountability to this House on the issue that the hon. Gentleman feels so strongly about. I urge him to withdraw his new clause, but I will give him one further crack at it.
Mr Leslie
I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to probe him on this point. He has suggested that the legal architecture framework for the transitional period will be set out in the Bill that he brings forward for the implementation period. However, it is only possible to agree with that plan if he is guaranteeing that Royal Assent for the implementation Bill will come in ample time before exit day. Clearly, it would be nonsensical to have an implementation piece of legislation that leaves a vacuum between exit day and some later date, when the transition had already started. Can he guarantee that that Bill will be enacted and enshrined in law in good time, well before exit day?
Dominic Raab
I sense that the hon. Gentleman recognises that he is putting the legislative cart before the diplomatic horse. Of course the implementing legislation relates to the agreement, and we need to have one in place to comply with the terms of any obligations, whether they are under the withdrawal arrangement, the implementation period or the future partnership deal.
I now turn to amendment 357, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), Chair of the Justice Committee.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I agree with what my hon. Friend is saying about new clause 14. May I take him back to clause 6(4)(a)? It says that the Supreme Court “is not bound”. Will that enable it to look at the plain words of the treaties, and not at the previous expansive teleological jurisprudence of the ECJ?
Dominic Raab
I am not quite sure that I understand my right hon. Friend’s forensic point. It is a feature of the common law that UK courts already take into account and consider principles and precedents from other jurisdictions, but they do so with full autonomy as to how they might apply it, where they have discretion under the normal canons of interpretation. We are effectively seeking to apply the same basic principles, through this Bill, to retained EU law and the interpretation of it.
Dominic Raab
I am going to make some progress, as I have given way once. I want to turn to some other amendments; otherwise, I will not give them the attention that they rightly deserve. I turn to amendment 357 in the name of the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice.
Dominic Raab
My right hon. and learned Friend is very tempting, but not at this moment.
I understand the point of amendment 357, which is to provide a default mechanism for transposing EU law where regulations have not been made under clause 7. I can equally see that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is seeking to make default provision for any gaps that may exist in the law to avoid creating not just legal uncertainty, but any legal potholes that may strew the road that lies ahead. I hope that he does not mind me saying that he is, perhaps inadvertently, reinforcing the case for clause 7 because his concern appears to be with the risk that it might not being used comprehensively enough. I certainly share his concern to avoid legal cliff edges and legal potholes, for which I think he is trying to cater.
Sir William Cash
I mentioned to the Prime Minister during her statement a few days ago the bear trap that I can see coming up during the transitional period if we are not careful because of the manner in which the European Court operates by the purposive rule; I know my hon. Friend will understand. During the transitional period, when we are faced with a court operating under that rule and not by precedent, we could end up with the European Court dictating to us the basis upon which we would be operating during that period. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Dominic Raab
The Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee eloquently makes his powerful point. We need to avoid bear traps, cliff edges and potholes, and that is what this Bill does. That is a common goal that we all ought to be trying to pursue, on both sides of the House—whether we voted to leave or remain. I am not convinced that the amendment of the Chair of the Justice Committee would achieve that aim. Despite his best intentions and his rather ingenious drafting, I fear that the amendment would, in practice, create considerably more legal uncertainty, not less.
Robert Neill
I will not claim credit for all the ingenuity of the drafting, as I hope I shall make apparent in due course, but what if I told my hon. Friend that it is based on the work of the International Regulatory Strategy Group—one of the most distinguished groups of practitioners in this field? Would he think again about totally dismissing the thing, recognise it as a serious point that needs to be addressed here and engage with it?
Dominic Raab
I absolutely will not dismiss it. I am happy to think twice, thrice and as many times as my hon. Friend wants to talk to me about it. But let me make a couple of points to illustrate the risk of uncertainty that his amendment would cause. Subsection (A3) of amendment 357 begs the question of whether retained EU law restrains acts or omissions that start within the UK but that may have effects outside of it. Equally, subsection (A5) conflates functions conferred on public bodies with those of the Secretary of State. They are not the same thing. I sense that, underpinning this, he is trying to legislate in advance for unknown unknowns. I understand that temptation but if we go down that path, there is a countervailing but very real risk of increasing, rather than mitigating, the legal uncertainty. With respect, I hope that he can be persuaded to withdraw his amendment.
Robert Neill
In order that I might reflect on that as the debate goes forward, perhaps my hon. Friend would like to give me an example of the circumstances in which he thinks my amendment might increase the legal uncertainty, rather than assist it. I will obviously listen to that.
Dominic Raab
Well, I have just given two examples regarding subsections (A3) and (A5) of my hon. Friend’s amendment, but I would be happy to sit down with him and give some illustrative examples of how, in practical terms, I think that this is not actually the avenue or legal cul-de-sac that he wants to go down.
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will now turn to some of the other amendments in order that I give them due consideration in this important debate. In particular, I want to turn to amendment 278 and linked amendments 279 to 284 concerning exit day, which are from the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. Members.
The Prime Minister made it clear in her Florence speech that
“The United Kingdom will cease to be a member of the European Union on 29 March 2019.”
It is clear that the UK will leave the EU at the end of the article 50 process—some of the suggestions around the caveat are wildly unrealistic. The Government have tabled an amendment to make sure the drafting of the Bill is crystal clear on this point and to give the country—businesses and citizens alike—additional certainty and a measure of finality on it.
These amendments would replace that clarity and finality with uncertainty and confusion. They would alter the meaning of the term “exit day” in the Bill, but only for the purposes of the provisions of clause 6. For those purposes, but for those purposes alone, the UK would not leave the EU until the end of the transitional period. I am afraid that that would create damaging legal uncertainty, and the amendments are flawed. They would have the effect that, for the duration of any implementation period that might be agreed—and we hope one will be, sooner rather than later—all the important provisions on the interpretation of retained EU law set out in this clause could not apply; they could take effect, if I have understood correctly, only from the end of that period. Since we have not yet agreed an implementation period with our EU partners, the effect of the amendments would be to create an indefinite and indeterminate transitional period, which rather raises the question of whether the Labour party is really serious about facilitating the process of a smooth Brexit at all.
Paul Blomfield
Rather than seek to confuse the issue, it would be helpful if the Minister clarified whether it is the intention of the Government to accept the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union during the transitional period. Yes or no?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman is very kind. He had the chance in his speech to make his rapier-like points. I am dealing with his amendment and the very real risk that, with the greatest will in the world, what her Majesty’s Opposition are proposing will add to, rather than mitigate, the uncertainty. When we go away from the fireworks of this debate, it ought to be our common endeavour to minimise that uncertainty.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union made it clear yesterday that there will be separate primary legislation for the withdrawal agreement and any implementation phase, so these amendments are entirely unnecessary in any event. We have also been clear—I think this addresses the hon. Gentleman’s point—that, in leaving the EU, we will bring an end to the direct jurisdiction of the European Court in the UK.
Our priority must be getting the right arrangements for Britain’s relationship with the EU for the long term.
Dominic Raab
I have given way to hon. Gentleman before. I am going to make some progress.
That priority means getting a close economic partnership, but out of the single market, out of the customs union and without the direct jurisdiction of the European Court. We want to get to that endgame in a smooth and orderly way, with the minimum of disruption.
That is why we want early agreement on the implementation period—on that much, we are agreed. That may mean we start off with the European Court still governing some of the rules we are part of for that period, but the Government are also clear that if we can bring forward a new dispute resolution mechanism at an earlier stage, we shall do so. These amendments do not allow for that. They prejudge and pre-empt the outcome of negotiations, and they introduce legislative inflexibility by saying that we must keep rules in domestic law that would bind us to the jurisdiction of the European Court after we leave, for the full duration of any implementation period, without our knowing for a second how long that might be. The Government are making the case for legal certainty. The Labour party is proposing legal limbo. We cannot accept that.
Mr Grieve
I actually agree—I should make this clear to my hon. Friend—about the issue of transition. I find it difficult to see how we can approach transition in the course of this Bill. However, there is an important underlying issue here, because, ultimately, our future relations with the EU will have a very powerful bearing, whether it is in transition or even after transition, on what we want EU law to do and how we want it to be interpreted, depending on transition, or indeed when we have completely gone, and on the extent to which we wish to be in comity with EU law. This is the elephant in the room, and it will have to be debated at some point as the Bill goes through, because some of it does not have to do with transition but has really to do with an entire future relationship, and it marries with great difficulty with the constant reiteration that the ECJ is somehow going to disappear out of the window.
Dominic Raab
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I absolutely agree that the scope and parameters of the different options will need to be settled, but I think he has implicitly accepted and recognised that that is the subject of diplomacy. As has been said, we cannot put the legislative cart before the diplomatic horse, and I fear that that is what the amendment would do.
I now turn to amendment 202, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and also relates to amendment 384. In leaving the EU, we will bring about an end to the direct jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, and this Bill is essential to ensuring the sovereignty of our Parliament as we take back democratic control. We understand, of course, the desire to ensure a smooth and orderly exit and continuity for those who have commenced matters before the courts before exit. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) also made this point.
That is why we set out in our July position paper, “Ongoing Union judicial and administrative proceedings”, that we believe that UK cases before the ECJ on exit day should not be interrupted but should be able to continue to a binding judgment. We recognise that parties involved in such cases before the ECJ will have already gone through various stages of the process, potentially including making oral and/or written submissions. We do not think that they should have to repeat those stages before the UK courts, as this would not provide certainty but undermine it. The amendment would add further uncertainty rather than mitigate it. Pending matters before the UK courts will be able to reach a final judgment post exit without needing referral to the European Court. The Bill will convert directly applicable EU law into domestic law, so our domestic courts will then apply to those matters. In this way, we will have certainty about how the jurisdiction of the ECJ in the UK will be brought to an end.
Permitting the European Court to continue ruling on cases that were not before it procedurally on the day of withdrawal, as the amendment proposes, would give rise to considerable uncertainty. It would extend the period under which the European Court would continue to issue judgments in respect of the UK, and it is absolutely impossible to predict how long that may last. Furthermore, after exit day the UK will no longer be a member state of the EU. Under the EU treaties, the European Court itself can rule only on questions referred to it by member state courts, so it follows that without a new and separate international agreement, the references envisaged by the amendment would not, in any event, be possible.
Joanna Cherry
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the arrangements that were made in relation to the Privy Council when New Zealand chose to have its own supreme court. In fact, cases from New Zealand are still going to the Privy Council. All we are contemplating with these amendments, which I will address in more detail in a moment, is a similar arrangement.
Dominic Raab
I take the point that the hon. and learned Lady makes, but that is not the same mechanism. It is not analogous and it is not desirable.
Antoinette Sandbach
I seek clarification on this point. Is the Minister saying that if a right of action has arisen before Brexit day that would have attracted, at the time that it arose, the full protections and a right to referral to the ECJ, that right will not be taken forward and those rights will, in effect, have been retrospectively changed?
Dominic Raab
I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making, although I do not accept that characterisation. It is absolutely right that cases that are procedurally before the dock of the court, if I may put it like that—that have been lodged before exit day—will continue to conclusion. However, in relation to facts that may or may not give rise to a cause of action at an indeterminate point in the future, we would end up with a long tail of uncertainty if we went down the path that she suggests. I gently say to her that it will be possible to continue those cases before the UK courts because of the way in which we will retain EU law. There would be more, not less, uncertainty for citizens and businesses alike if we allowed the kind of indeterminate access to the court that she suggests.
Mrs Gillan
Surely, the Minister is ignoring the legitimate expectation that I have talked about. Frankly, if the Government do not look again at the matter, it will constitute an abuse of power, because it will remove from individuals rights that they legitimately expected to carry through to the end of a case.
Dominic Raab
My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point about legitimate expectations. I think there is an equally legitimate expectation, demand and need to have some finality to the legal and institutional arrangements that give rise to cases before the European Court.
Dominic Raab
Perhaps I can give way to my right hon. Friend when I come on to her amendments.
I turn to amendment 203, tabled by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, and to the related amendments 353 and 354. They would remove clause 6(7) and partially reinsert it into clause 14. Clause 6(7) provides key definitions of terms in the Bill that are crucial for the proper interpretation and full understanding of its content. Subsection (7) aims to alleviate any potential confusion and ensure that there is no vagueness or ambiguity about the different types of retained law mentioned in the Bill. That is vital for those who read, implement and interpret the Bill, because of the different effects of each type of retained law. The placement of the definitions in clause 6 is specifically designed to make the Bill easier to navigate and more user-friendly, by placing the definitions close to where they are used and deployed in the text.
Dominic Raab
I am going to make a bit of progress. Wider general definitions are set out in clause 14, and clause 15 provides an index of all the defined terms to make the Bill easier to use as a reference tool. To remove those definitions from clause 6 and only partially to reinsert them into clause 14, as the amendment would do, would undermine the certainty and clarity that we aim to provide.
Without statutory definitions of the different types of retained law, we would undermine the stability of our domestic legal regime after exit and exacerbate the burdens on the court system. Reinserting the definition of “retained domestic case law” into clause 14 would not alleviate that, because it would give rise to the question why that definition had been included, while others had not. Its placement in the body of clause 14, away from its original use in clause 4, would make the text far less easy to navigate—something that we are keen to avoid.
I turn to amendment 137, which is a joint SNP and Liberal Democrat amendment, in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). Clause 6(2) will allow our domestic courts and tribunals to take into account any decisions made by the European Court, an EU entity or the EU itself on or after exit day, if they consider it appropriate to do so. That will ensure that our courts are not bound by the decisions of the European Court, while enabling them to consider its subsequent case law if they believe it is appropriate to do so. It is widespread practice in our domestic courts to carry out a similar exercise with the judgments of courts in other jurisdictions—I am thinking particularly of Commonwealth and common law jurisdictions—so, in principle, there is nothing new or particularly different here.
The UK has always been an open and outward-looking country, and our legal traditions reflect that. We pay attention to developments in other jurisdictions, including common law jurisdictions, and we embrace the best that the world has to offer, but we do so on our terms and under our control. That is decided by our courts and, ultimately, it is subject to the legislative will and sovereignty of this House. Amendment 137 is therefore unnecessary, as the Bill already provides that post-exit decisions of the European Court can be considered by the domestic courts.
Amendment 137 would go further, however, in that it would require our courts and tribunals to pay due regard to any relevant decision of the European Court. What does “due regard” mean? It is not defined and, indeed, it is far from clear. It is evidently intended to go further than clause 6, and tacitly urges our courts to heed, follow or shadow the Luxembourg Court, but there is no clarity about what would count as due consideration. The amendment would alter the inherent discretion the UK courts already have to consider, without fetters, the case law in other jurisdictions, and it seeks to apply to the European Court a procedural requirement that is stronger but so vague that it is liable to create more, not less, confusion. I hope that I have tackled, or at least addressed the concerns that the hon. and learned Lady has expressed in her amendment, and I urge her not to press it.
I will now turn to amendment 303 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham. I thank her for tabling this amendment and for explaining it, as she did, in a very constructive spirit. I recognise that she is representing the interests of her constituents with her customary tenacity, but I will take a few moments to set out why we have taken our approach to the issues and my difficulties with her amendment.
Clause 6 supports the Bill’s core aim of maximising certainty. It is in no one’s interests for there to be a legal cliff edge. The Bill means that the laws and rules we have now will, as far as possible, continue to apply. It seeks to take a snapshot of EU law immediately before exit day. The Government have been clear that in leaving the EU, we will be bringing to an end the direct jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the UK. To maximise certainty, any question about the meaning of retained EU law will be determined in UK courts by reference to ECJ case law as it existed before our exit. Using any other starting point would be to change the law, which is not our objective. Our domestic courts and tribunals will no longer be bound by or required to have regard to any decisions of the European Court after that point, but they can do so if they consider it appropriate. These clear rules of interpretation are set out in clause 6.
Sir Oliver Letwin
May I try again to ask my hon. Friend the question on which both my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the former Attorney General, and I have been pressing him? My hon. Friend has just said that courts would be bound by judgments of the European Court about retained EU law. I asked him about clause 6(4)(a), which specifically says that
“the Supreme Court is not bound by any retained EU case law”.
It seems to us that he can have it one way or the other, so which is the governing clause—the one saying that the courts are bound to judge in accordance with the previous judgments of the ECJ, or the one saying that the Supreme Court is not bound by such a rule?
Dominic Raab
The point is that we take a snapshot of EU law, including case law, at the point of exit, but after that the normal rules of precedent will apply both to the Supreme Court and in Scotland. That will allow a departure from any precedents that apply, which again comes back to the question of how we achieve a smooth and orderly transition from retained EU law while making sure that, when push comes to shove as such case law evolves, the UK Supreme Court will have the last word. That is balance struck in the Bill.
Mr Grieve
I understand that issue, but there is another one. Let us assume for the moment that there is no transition or relationship with the EU at all. Is the Court supposed to apply EU law as currently applied—purposively—or is it supposed to ignore the underlying purpose by which it has constantly been applied heretofore, and in that case, which rules is it supposed to apply? The judiciary have expressed a real concern about what they are supposed to do, because it is quite unclear what Parliament intends. If we forget about a transition or a future relationship, what are they supposed to do? They have rules for interpreting this law at the moment. Are they supposed to stick to those rules when they no longer have an underlying purpose?
Dominic Raab
I have to be careful about not pre-judging or prejudicing what the courts decide to do, particularly given that the thrust of the Bill is to make sure that judges have autonomy and discretion. The reality is that the issue is dealt with in the Bill. It is possible for the UK courts, in relation to retained case law, to look at the underlying purpose or intention of any piece of legislation or any principles that have been articulated. Moving forward, they are free, of their own volition, to depart from any precedence in the usual way. That already applies in relation to wider common law jurisdictions. The question I would put back to my right hon. and learned Friend is: why on earth, when we are leaving the EU and given that we are an open and outward-looking country that does filter, take interest in and take account of different principles from different jurisdictions, would we put on an further elevated status the case law of the ECJ?
Antoinette Sandbach
I may be able to assist the Minister with the explanatory notes.
Dominic Raab
That is kind, but I will make some progress; otherwise I will lose the thread in relation to amendment 303.
The amendment is at odds with the clear and certain position set out in the Bill, because it would continue to bind UK courts to some post-exit ECJ decisions and case law where the matters giving rise to the case have occurred before our exit. Those judgments would continue to be binding even after an implementation period. Strictly interpreted, the amendment would go further still. It would apply to anything happening before exit day and so would also include ECJ judgments on cases referred from outside the UK. For example, a preliminary reference made by another EU member state in relation to the interpretation of EU law might also fall within the scope of the amendment, if the facts of the case arose before exit day. The consequences would be far-reaching and risk creating considerable uncertainty and practical difficulties for the administration of justice.
UK courts and tribunals would continue to be bound by some new ECJ judgments for an indeterminate period. Those binding judgments could continue to be issued long after we have left the EU as cases continue to progress to the European Court from across the EU. Yet those judgments would not have formed part of the snapshot of retained EU case law that, under clause 6(3), will be binding on our courts, so far as is relevant, and subject to the rule in clause 6(4). By contrast, such post-exit judgments would bind our courts in all circumstances, including where the retained version of an EU regulation had since been modified by this Parliament or a devolved Administration. That would create foreseeable and entirely avoidable uncertainty, and it would not be necessary, because individuals whose cause of action predates our exit would, of course, continue to be able to take their case to the domestic courts, even if after exit they cannot reach the European Court. That is the fundamental point in relation to the procedural framework.
I now turn to amendment 304, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, in relation to retaining ECJ referrals and jurisdiction for anything that happened before exit day. In leaving the EU, we will bring an end to the jurisdiction of the ECJ—we have made that clear. The proposed amendment would frustrate that objective, because our courts could continue to make references to the ECJ in relation to cases where relevant matters have occurred before our withdrawal from the EU. As a result, different rules and processes would apply for those cases, compared with those where the relevant circumstances arose after exit day. That would, I fear, give rise to more not less uncertainty, because it would be impossible to predict for how long UK courts would continue to be subject to binding judgments from Luxembourg.
When we exit the EU, we will know exactly how many pending UK cases are registered with the European Court, awaiting a preliminary reference and thus covered by any proposed agreement we have with the EU on the treatment of pending cases. That is important to deliver certainty about how and when the Court’s jurisdiction in the UK will be brought to an end. The amendment would remove that certainty. Like amendment 303, it is not necessary. Individuals will not lose their ability to vindicate their rights in court after exit. They will be able to take such cases to our domestic courts.
Forgive me, Sir David, but I thought it necessary to address my right hon. Friend’s amendments in detail. Equally, I want to say that I recognise the eloquence and the force with which she champions her constituents. Ministers will take away the underlying issue that she has brought and powerfully moved for consideration. I hope that on that basis she will not feel she needs to press the amendment.
Mrs Gillan
I am following the Minister’s arguments very carefully, with helpful interventions from some of my colleagues. I appreciate that this is a very tricky matter, but it does relate to my constituent. I am therefore grateful that the Minister has undertaken to take the proposal away and look at the principle in relation to this case, because I feel that it would be most unjust not to do so. I have no love for the European Court of Justice and I want the Bill to go through, but not at the cost of justice for my constituent. This case has thrown the matter into stark relief. I am grateful to the Minister for that undertaking and I look forward to talking to him further on the matter.
Dominic Raab
I thank my right hon. Friend for her constructive approach. We will take that consideration forward after these proceedings.
I will now rattle through the final amendments, so I have done them all justice and given them due consideration. I will turn next to amendment 306, tabled by the Opposition. Clause 6(2) states that our courts are no longer bound by decisions of the European Court after our departure or required to consider in future cases, although they may do so if they believe it to be appropriate. Clause 6 is a vote of confidence in our judiciary: its independence and its expertise. Using similar exercises currently undertaken with court judgments in other jurisdictions, our courts are best placed to decide to what extent, if any, they pay regard to EU law in any case before them.
The intention of amendment 306 is to remove that discretion from clause 6 and replace it with a duty that sets fetters on which aspects of EU case law our judges must consider, although only in certain areas. In practice, that would create a presumption that EU decisions should be followed in those areas. That is the clear intention, but it is inappropriate. It would undermine the purpose of clause 6 in both its fundamental objectives. It would frustrate the return of control to this House and the UK Supreme Court and expose the UK to substantial additional and unnecessary legal uncertainty.
Dominic Raab
I am going to make a little bit more progress. I have given way to my hon. Friend.
The singling out of these areas of law appears somewhat arbitrary, given other fields the amendment might equally apply to. It would lead to a splintered approach to interpretation of the law and a fragmented UK jurisprudence—more uncertainty, not less. In any case, it is totally unnecessary. The UK has a proud history of ensuring the rights and protections of individuals in this country. The UK has high standards of protection domestically in relation to workers’ rights and human rights. We are recognised as a world leader in delivering robust, rigorous health and safety protections. That record and that commitment is not dependent on our membership of the EU; it is dependent on hon. Members in this House and their eternal vigilance. It will continue to be dependent on that after we leave. I hope that the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and his colleagues in the Labour party will not press amendment 306.
Finally, I turn to amendment 358 tabled by the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), which sets out the ability of UK courts to have regard to material used in the preparation of retained EU law. I hope that this is the point at which I give some reassurance to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). Currently, when interpreting EU law domestically, our courts will look at the language used, as well as considering the legislation’s recitals, legal basis and other language versions to inform their interpretation. We do not want to change how this law is interpreted or to create any fresh uncertainty about its meaning, so the Bill provides for the courts to continue that approach. Clause 6 provides that questions on the validity, meaning or effect of retained EU law will be decided in accordance with retained case law and general principles of EU law. This requires taking a purposive approach to interpretation where the meaning of the provision is unclear, considering relevant documents such as the legislation’s treaty legal base, working papers that may have led to the adoption of the measure and the general principles of EU law. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee and that he will not press his amendment.
Mr Duncan Smith
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case on each of the amendments, but I am among those concerned about the confusion around the cut-off line. The general principles he just talked about will shift and change. Is there a point by which, when we reference the principles and those principles have changed post-exit, we do not consider them to be the principles we referenced rather than the principles that existed before and are now not modified? At what point do we have the cut-off point?
Dominic Raab
My right hon. Friend raises an excellent, if rather esoteric, point, but it is also fundamentally about clause 5 and schedule 1. If he can be patient, we will turn to that next week and, I hope, address all his concerns.
To sum up, I hope that I have at least sought to address all the underlying concerns in each of the amendments and, given the need to maximise legal certainty, minimise confusion and ensure a smooth transition, that all hon. Members will make sure that clause 6 stands part of the Bill unamended.
Joanna Cherry
I rise to speak to amendment 137, which stands in my name and, I am happy to say, the names of many other hon. Members on these Benches, and to amendments 202 and 203, which stand in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and other Members on the SNP Benches. I was particularly delighted to hear the Labour party spokesman say that Labour was supporting my amendment 137, which also has the support of the Trades Union Congress, Justice, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Fawcett Society.
I will endeavour to explain in detail why amendment 137 is necessary. In essence, we have tabled it because it is necessary to create legal certainty for individuals and businesses by giving a clear instruction to the courts about how to treat decisions of the European Court of Justice after exit day. I am afraid that the Bill does not give that degree of clarity. The purpose of the amendment is also to protect the judiciary from having to make decisions open to political criticism. We saw some pretty heinous political criticism of judges on the Supreme Court earlier this year, and we have heard judges on that Court express concern about the possibility of not being given proper direction in the Bill. My amendment seeks to address that issue. Finally, and perhaps most importantly for our constituents, the amendment will encourage UK rights protections to keep pace with EU rights after Brexit.
Amendment 202 is also about giving certainty to individuals and businesses with cases pending before the domestic courts on exit day. I listened carefully to what the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) said about her amendments, with which I have great sympathy. Amendments 202 and 203 have a similar purpose. I also listened with care to what the Minister said, but I regret that he has not given me any comfort that anything in the Bill will give the certainty required for people in the midst of litigation on exit day. That is why we seek to define a “pending matter” in amendment 384 as
“any litigation which has been commenced in any court or tribunal in the United Kingdom and which is not finally determined at exit day”.
We need clarity. It is not just me who says so, or those who support the amendment; these amendments were drafted with some care by the Law Society of Scotland, and I submit that they are necessary to protect litigants’ legitimate expectations, but I will return to that in a moment.
The underlying theme of all these amendments is the need to create the legal certainty that hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to today. It is, of course, an absolute requirement of the rule of law that there should be legal certainty. I regret to say, however, that clause 6 does not give that degree of legal certainty. In accordance with our mandate the Scottish National party opposes Brexit, but we understand the need for withdrawal legislation, and we want to reach agreement on it if possible. We also want to ensure that the legislation is properly framed. Clause 6 is not properly framed, because it does not give the certainty that is required.
Stephen Gethins
I am loth to interrupt my hon. and learned Friend, who is making a powerful case for legal certainty, but does she agree that a wide range of industries and other organisations will need legal certainty, certainly around freedom of movement, such as our education sector and food and drink sector? Does she also share my concerns about the reports that have come from the Financial Times this evening that the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union says that bankers and other professionals have been promised a special post-Brexit travel regime? If we are going to have freedom of movement and the benefits that brings, we should not just be protecting the bankers.
Joanna Cherry
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to the Floor of the House. I was made aware of it just before I got to my feet. If the Financial Times report is correct that the Government are going to give special deals for certain professions, that will come as a great shock to the other professions that will not get such a special deal, and a particular shock to cross-party colleagues in the Scottish Parliament who have asked for a separate deal on immigration in Scotland, as have Unison, the chambers of commerce in Scotland and the Institute of Directors. I look forward to the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union coming to the House to explain what is going on here.
To returning to the issue of legal certainty, the Institute for Government looked carefully at different tests that might be put on this Bill to direct the courts, and expressed the view that if Parliament passes the buck on this question to the judges, it will leave the judges open to fierce political criticism. We have already seen the sort of fierce political criticism that the judges got earlier this year, and regardless of the different views we might have about the British constitution, all of us can probably accept that the independence of the judiciary is a fundamental part of any constitution that recognises the rule of law. We perhaps do not have to look too far from home in the EU at present to see a judiciary that is not independent, but I digress.
We need an independent judiciary in this country, and we have one, but it has to be protected from criticism because judges cannot go into print to defend themselves when criticised. We must provide the courts with a specific legal test on the face of the Bill governing the treatment of Court of Justice case law after Brexit, and that is what my amendment 137 seeks to achieve.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
Does the hon. and learned Lady agree that one aspect of the legal certainty that the Government should consider is that, as our relationship with the EU evolves, we do not want our judges to have to make decisions that might affect our commercial policy, or indeed our diplomatic policy, towards the EU?
Joanna Cherry
My amendment 137 seeks to ensure that:
“When interpreting retained EU law after exit day a court or tribunal shall pay due regard to any relevant decision of the European Court.”
The Minister questioned the term “due regard”, but it is not unknown to international law. The Lugano Convention on the mutual recognition on enforcement of judgments, to which EU and non-EU states are signatories, talks about paying “due account”, but I have followed the recommendation of the organisation Justice that it is clearer and better English to talk about paying “due regard”. Under the Human Rights Act 1998, we have a duty to take account of decisions of the Court of Justice, so paying “due regard” to taking account of such decisions is not a phrase unknown.
This amendment is not a Trojan horse designed to continue references after Brexit, and I say that as someone who does not want Brexit to happen. It is designed to create certainty for individuals, businesses and litigants, and also for the judiciary. It would leave it open to British courts to disagree with the Court of Justice’s interpretation, even if its case law was relevant to the case. It would not—as the Government’s current draft does—give an unfettered, politically controversial discretion to consider or ignore Court of Justice decisions as our courts saw fit.
The test set out in my amendment has three advantages. First, it would create legal certainty for individuals and businesses. Secondly, it would provide political cover for the courts. Thirdly, it seems to fit with the preference of the judiciary, who want a clear instruction. In recent evidence to the House of Lords Constitution Committee, Lady Hale, the new President of the Supreme Court, said:
“It should be made plain in statute what authority or lack of authority, or weight or lack of weight, is to be given to the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union after we have left, in relation both to matters that arose before we left and, more importantly, to matters after we leave. That is not something we”—
she means “we, the judges”—
“would like to have to make up for ourselves, obviously, because it is very much a political question, and we would like statute to tell us the answer.”
In my submission, under my amendment, statute would tell the judges the answer.
That is not just my view. The Institute for Government looked at the various options and concluded that the wording that I now propose would license courts in the UK to refer to the Court of Justice’s reasoning in future judgments without making those Court of Justice judgments binding on the UK courts—
Joanna Cherry
I will just finish my point, then I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The Institute for Government took the view that that approach was compatible with the objectives set out in the Government’s White Paper on Brexit and in the repeal Bill.
Sir William Cash
I just wanted to refer to chapter 12 of the book by Lord Bingham, entitled “The Rule of Law”, which I am sure the hon. and learned Lady is aware of, in which he criticises Lady Hale for her view on the relationship between Parliament and the judges. Is she aware of that?
Joanna Cherry
I am familiar with that book, but I do not think that it has any relevance to what I am saying at the moment. I remind the hon. Gentleman the Lady Hale is the President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, and she has made the point that what she and her fellow judges require from the Government and the House is clarity in the directions as to how they are to treat the future jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union, because if the guidance is not clear, they will come under the sort of political attack that I am sure the hon. Gentleman, who is a great supporter of the British constitution, would abhor, as I do—although I might actually prefer a Scottish constitution.
As I said earlier, this amendment is not a Trojan horse. It is the result of careful consideration by the organisation Justice and by the Institute for Government. It also has the support of the TUC and, I am delighted to say, the Labour party, as well as the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Fawcett Society. One reason the Equality and Human Rights Commission is so keen on this amendment is because it is also important for rights protections. It is important to remember that EU law is largely about the rights of individuals. The Government’s position paper, published in the summer, seemed to imagine that EU law was all about disputes between the United Kingdom and the EU, but it is not. Most people who make references to the Court of Justice do so in the determination of their individual rights or their rights as a business.
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
I am listening with great care to the hon. and learned Lady. She will agree that references to the Court of Justice are made by the courts to interpret a particular provision of EU law, not by individuals. That is an important difference that I am sure she will appreciate.
Joanna Cherry
The Solicitor General is absolutely right to correct my rather loose use of language. My point is that the majority of references made to the Court of Justice are made as a result of litigation between individuals or businesses to determine their respective rights rather than, as the Government’s position paper suggested in the summer, between the United Kingdom and the EU. That is not my view; that was the evidence of Professor Sir David Edward, who gave evidence on this topic to the Scottish Parliament in September. He was keen to impress on people that EU law is about the determination of individuals’ rights.
Mr Duncan Smith
That interchange was quite correct, but does the hon. and learned Lady also accept that the process of making those judgments is where the Court of Justice has widened the interpretation of the treaties by using individual cases that were sent to the Court for clarification?
Joanna Cherry
That is what modern courts do. If the right hon. Gentleman cared to study the jurisprudence of the supreme courts of the United States, Australia or New Zealand, he would find that that is what courts in adversarial jurisdictions do. I sometimes wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman’s real objection, and those of his ilk on the Government Benches, is not to the European Union, but to the very idea of courts and the rule of law itself.
Anyway, as well as creating legal certainty and protecting the judiciary, amendment 137 is also important for protecting individuals’ rights. If the UK’s courts do not pay due regard to decisions of the Court of Justice, there will be no provision to ensure that rights in the United Kingdom keep pace with EU rights after Brexit or even to encourage that to happen. That could lead to rights upheld domestically lagging behind international standards, which I am sure we would want to avoid.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that we have already seen examples of the denigration of our rights, particularly in aspects of the Trade Union Act 2016? Without the safety net of the Court of Justice, there is a further risk of those rights being degraded.
Joanna Cherry
I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is probably why the TUC supports my amendment.
To keep rights up to similar international standards is particularly desirable in areas that require a degree of co-operation and reciprocity, such as consumer rights, equality protections and environmental standards. The Exiting the European Union Committee, of which I am a member, has heard much evidence recently about the importance of preserving rights protections after Brexit. EU case law has had an important impact on equality rights in the UK, and my amendment seeks to ensure that British courts will continue to pay due regard to that jurisprudence as our law develops. I urge all hon. Members to give amendment 137 their support in the interests of achieving legal certainty, protecting the rule of law, protecting the judiciary from political attacks and protecting our constituents’ rights.
I turn now to pending cases and amendments 202 and 203, which I am grateful to the Law Society of Scotland for drafting. There is currently nothing on the face of the Bill about what will happen to litigation pending at the time of exit day. There just is not anything. If there is, I am sure a Minister will point me to it later.
As the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham said, this is all about legitimate expectations. As I said when I intervened on her, if the Government do not move in the Bill to protect the legitimate expectations of litigants, they could find themselves being litigated against for failing to provide an effective remedy.
Of course, it would be objectionable on the ground of retrospectivity if a simple cut-off happens on exit day and if no consideration is given to pending cases, as other hon. Members have said. Such a situation is not without precedent. As I said in my intervention on the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), one precedent is the way in which the transition from the Privy Council to the New Zealand Supreme Court was dealt with, and I urge the Government to look at that. I urge all hon. Members carefully to consider the amendments designed to protect pending cases and pending litigation on exit day.
Mr Duncan Smith
I have not tabled any amendments, but I will briefly comment on one set of amendments before making a point about the drafting of clause 6. For me and many of my colleagues, that is the most important clause because the clear definition of being in or out of the European Union ultimately comes down to the Court of Justice’s ability to change the United Kingdom’s laws by direct reference as a result of a clash with European law.
Twenty-five years ago, I stood in almost the same place, during the House’s consideration of the Maastricht treaty, to make the point that the Court of Justice is more political than courts in the UK, even by its appointments and by the nature of its judgments. Judicial activism is a process that came directly from the Court of Justice, and it eventually percolated, to a much lesser extent, into the UK courts.
It is through those judgments that the Court of Justice has widened the concept of where the Commission is able to rule. A good example is that, through Court reference, whole areas of social security that were never in the original treaties were widened dramatically. Rulings have been made on the application of social security payments to individuals from countries that were never referenced in the original treaties, which is a good point about the Court’s power.
This is so critical because, after the referendum, the Centre for Social Justice, the Legatum Institute and others came together to do a lot of polling asking the public why they supported the vote to leave the European Union. The single most powerful reason—more than money and more than migration—was to take back control of our laws. I was slightly surprised because I thought it was an esoteric point for most members of the public, but they said it was their most powerful reason for voting. Some people said that, even if it meant they would be worse off for a period, it was still the overriding principle behind their vote to take back control and leave the European Union.
With that as the key, the Government are right to drive this policy. It is absolutely right for them to make it clear that, on the day we leave, the European Court of Justice will cease to have direct effect in the United Kingdom. I will return to the drafting on how long some of the other principles will continue.
The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) is not here at the moment but, in line with the earlier statement by the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), it would be wrong to support new clause 14 and amendment 278. There is a simple principle behind the Bill, and the Government have now accepted that there will be primary legislation on the agreement, or lack of agreement, as we leave the European Union with regard to our trade and other arrangements. The new clause and the amendment are wrong because they would seek to bind the hand of the Government as they sought to negotiate, and that is not the purpose of this.
Let me give an example. Not so long ago, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said clearly that his view was that during the implementation period—at the beginning, we hope—we would want to have those elements of the eventual agreement in place. One of those would be a process of arbitration between the UK and the EU. If that was agreed and was part of the process, and then became part of the implementation period, the new clause and the amendment would prevent our being able to make that arrangement—they would be bound into law and we would not be allowed to go into the implementation period with these arrangements. That would immediately knock out any opportunity we have to accelerate the process of where we would eventually be by getting into the implementation period and applying an arbitration process agreed between the EU and the UK for those areas of disagreement on areas of law and other interpretations. That is why these proposals are wrong and would damage the prospects of the negotiations that are likely to take place.
Wera Hobhouse
I asked a couple of days ago about this idea of an arbitration court. Now that the right hon. Gentleman is here, will he clarify how it would be different for ordinary people in the street in comparison with what the ECJ is currently doing?
Mr Duncan Smith
The whole process of arbitration is a natural one in all trade arrangements between two different groups: they agree to an arbitration process when there are clashes of interpretation about what they have agreed. That is standard practice; it has been in pretty much every free trade arrangement.
If we seek a free trade arrangement, the way to have that governed is through such an arbitration process, where differences—when things cannot be agreed between the two—are taken for a final process of examination and some kind of judgment about the matter. That would not be done by the Court of Justice sitting in the European Union, or by a UK court; it would be outwith both of those, but in the agreement.
The point I am making is that if such an arrangement was agreed in a free trade arrangement, we would want to start it as soon as possible, because if there is an implementation period, we would want to start implementing what we have agreed as soon as possible. The hon. Lady needs to look up most of the other trade arrangements to see what I am saying. We want to give the greatest flexibility to the Government. It is crucial that as we leave, we leave the Court of Justice in that sense.
I want now to deal with some of the arrangements in clause 6. I say to Ministers that there is a certain amount of confusion over where the courts are meant to reference the ECJ, including in respect of its previous judgments. As has been mentioned by some of my colleagues, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), there remains a confusion as to where the courts will reference judgments from the ECJ, both past and existing. I come back to the point of clause 6(2), where they are told not to have regard to anything. However, the Bill later goes on to modify that quite a lot. I am particularly concerned—this has been raised elsewhere—by the definition that
“’retained EU case law’ means any principles laid down by, and any decisions of, the European Court, as they have effect in EU law immediately before exit day and so far as they”.
The Bill goes on to reference exactly how that will work.
My point is that those principles will themselves be modified by the European Court of Justice as it goes forward. My question really is: as they are modified, at what point will UK courts consider those principles to be no longer relevant to their judgments as they refer to them? I do not expect an answer right now, but I hope to get one as we go forward. Lord Neuberger has made the point that it is unclear to the courts how strong their reference should be—whether they should reference the principles or not. The point about the principles is the more powerful point, because I have no idea when the cut-off comes or whether it ever comes—whether we will ever break free, as it were, from continuing judgments and changes to the European Court principles.
Mr Grieve
My right hon. Friend makes an important point, but I wish to emphasise that my own concern is not about retaining EU law in some way, but about getting some clarity, which is certainly not in the Bill. My right hon. Friend may agree that from listening to the Government it does not appear that they are particularly concerned about this matter—yet the judiciary plainly is, and the House cannot ignore that.
Mr Duncan Smith
I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. It is important that during this and future debates—we will have the opportunity to return to this issue in the debate on clause 5—my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government take due regard of this issue. The courts have already said that they are unclear and want clarity. It is not always usual for courts to come back and say that they want us to decide, but on this matter they really do. That is important, because there has to be a future point at which they understand that they do not have to have regard to any change in the European Court principles.
I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government to make that point very clear in the course of this process, and I look forward to their response. I think the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton, said that he would return to this issue in the discussions on clause 5, and I would certainly appreciate that.
I know that other Members wish to speak, so I shall conclude. I applaud and support the Government on this part of the Bill. For me, and I think for most of our colleagues, it is the most important element. We can debate money and all these other issues, but who ultimately decides on our laws is the most important element of the vote to leave. I made this point earlier, and I conclude by making it again: the single issue on which the British public voted most was to take back control of their laws. I want that to happen as we leave the European Union.
Helen Goodman
I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), because his remarks about a new arbitration system relate very much to the points I wish to address.
When I consider the Bill, my overriding concern is the impact on the economic wellbeing of my constituents. Members know that the north-east is a successful exporting region. Part of the reason why we have been so successful is that we have had a stable legal framework over the past 40 years. The Bill’s purpose is obviously to provide continuing legal certainty, but it seems to me that the combination of the Government’s proposal to set the exit date before the transition period is over, and their red line on the ECJ, will have the rather remarkable effect of minimising the flexibility for negotiation and maximising the legal uncertainty.
I very much support amendments 278 and 306, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) spoke, and new clause 14, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie).
Earlier, I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker): if the 1972 Act is repealed before the end of the transition or implementation period, what will be the legal basis of our relations with the EU in that period and of the 57 free trade agreements that the EU negotiated with third countries? He said, “Don’t worry, it will all be set out in the next Bill, which will come in perhaps a year or 18 months.” I am sorry to say that I do not find that very reassuring. I am conscious that businesses want an element of legal certainty about the transition period as soon as possible. Waiting for another 12 months, or another 18 months, does not give them that legal certainty, which means that they can continue to close plants and divest. We are already beginning to see that. Frequently, it is not being flagged up as being about Brexit, but it is happening rather too often.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend not find it extraordinary that so many Government Members, including those on the Treasury Bench and at the Dispatch Box, have deviated from the position set out so clearly by the Prime Minister in her Florence speech? She said that during the implementation period—transition in everyone else’s terms—the existing structure of EU rules and regulations would be in place to provide the certainty that she has described. That is not what we have been hearing this evening.
Helen Goodman
No, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. The problem is this dissonance between the content of the rules and the enforceability of the rules.
I just want to stress this point about the impact on exporters. In the Minister’s description of how the transition period and the future might pan out, there seemed to be no acknowledgement that, in addition to some of these disputes and rights that citizens will be claiming, whether they are under competition law or in the single market, there will also be citizens in this country making claims in the other European countries, or the other 57 third-party countries. In order to export, these countries need to have more certainty about their data protection—we will come on to that another day—about professional recognition, particularly the services, about licensing and about passporting. If those rights are not enforceable, they will be losing that certainty.
At the moment, we have a situation in which half the exports of this country go to the European Union, and 30% go to the other 57 countries in which the EU has negotiated the legal framework. We are talking about 80% of this country’s trade and this Government are not able to tell us what the legally enforceable base will be during the transition period.
The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) said that it would be very nice if we could have a new arbitration system. Well, I am sorry, but that does not seem to be on offer. At the moment, there are three possibilities. One possibility is continuing with the ECJ, but the Government have set their face against that. Another possibility is to join the European economic area, but the Government have set their face against that. The third possibility is to crash out. The option of the bespoke arbitration system with the European Union will be extremely difficult to negotiate in the 15 months that we have left before the transition period begins.
Seema Malhotra
With so many organisations and bodies, such as the judiciary, businesses and the Law Society, talking about the uncertainty that comes from clause 6, does my hon. Friend not agree that it is very challenging to believe the Government that this will be all right on the night when an alternative dispute mechanism would need to be created, designed, drafted, legislated for and in place before we leave the European Union?
Helen Goodman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not just one alternative system; it is 58. It is one with the EU and another 57 with everybody else. This is really not going to happen, and Ministers need to get their heads round the fact that they have some hard choices to make, and they need to be straight with their own Back Benchers and with the public about what those choices are.
The Government are being irresponsible in wanting to repeal the European Communities Act 1972, which is the basis of our membership, and in setting the date at the beginning of the transition period, before they can tell us how they are going to handle that period. It would be great if they could give us a proper explanation because we have not had one yet. Ministers say that the whole purpose of the Bill—the very thing that the Bill is driving at—is legal certainty, but they cannot tell us what the legal position will be in 18 months’ time. The Bill is flawed and I urge Ministers to look constructively at the amendments tabled by the Opposition Front Bench.
Robert Neill
I approach the Bill in exactly the same spirit as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) made clear earlier in the debate. However much I think we have harmed ourselves with the decision to leave the European Union, we have to ensure that we deliver it in an orderly fashion. That is critical in the legal area and in the business area.
The City of London is the financial hub of the whole of Europe, and we want it to stay that way, but it requires legal continuity and certainty to do so. Now, I accept that the Bill seeks to do this—I have no problem with the intentions behind the Bill—but it is worth stressing the importance of the sector and, therefore, the importance of the detail. Bear in mind that euro clearing involves transactions being processed every day through London to a value which exceeds our annual contribution to the European Union by a significant sum, and which significantly exceeds any likely divorce bill figure that has been bandied about.
The fact is that we are the basis for the euro bond market and we clear a great deal of euro business, and that generates and supports thousands of jobs. Some 36% of the population of my constituency are employed in financial and professional services. I am not going to do anything that puts their jobs at risk or reduces their standard of living. Those who voted to leave did not vote to make us poorer for the sake of a bit of ideology. We now have to find a practical means forward to ensure that we have, as the chair of the City of London’s policy and resources committee put it, an orderly Brexit as opposed to a disorderly one. Therefore, the test of the Bill’s contents is whether they achieve the Bill’s stated objective of trying to assist in that orderly Brexit and withdrawal. Well, it does up to a point, but my contention is that it only goes so far. There are number of areas where the Bill is lacking, which is why it needs improvement, and this set of amendments deals with precisely one of those areas.
The incorporation of the acquis into UK domestic law is accepted all round as being necessary, but the debate has highlighted a number of significant areas where there is still uncertainty and where the current wording may not achieve its objective. I want to see a deal on the basis of the Florence speech. I hope that all Government Members will stand behind the Florence speech and will not attempt to rewrite it, refine it, add to it or subtract from it. If we do that constructively, we can make good progress. I am sure that the Ministers on the Treasury Bench wish to achieve that too—well, almost all of them. But to do that we must ensure that we give the courts and contracting parties the certainty that they need.
My final example is that derivative contracts are generally written over a three to five-year period. Unless there is certainty as to the enforceability of those contracts, people will not contract with counterparties in the European Union. Crashing out without a deal would not give them that certainty any more than going on to WTO terms will give the financial services any certainty. It would not give the London legal services sector any certainty, doing nothing to address the establishment directive or the recognition of professional rights that currently enable British lawyers to gain and earn millions of pounds for this country annually in the work that they sell into the European Union.
All those things need to be done. I doubt whether we could get the detail done by the end of March 2019, and that is why a significant and proper transition, in which we can work out the details, is absolutely necessary. Let us make sure, then, that we enable the Bill to achieve that through some additions and changes to what is in it.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that a transition deal is required and that the Prime Minister’s Florence speech said that that would be on the basis of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, and the EU institutions have also said that it has to be on the basis of the ECJ. With that remarkable degree of alignment between the British Government and the EU, should we not now get the Government to confirm once and for all that the transition deal is on the basis of ECJ jurisdiction?
Robert Neill
I must confess that I do not see what some people’s difficulty is with the jurisdiction of the ECJ for a short period. At the end of the day, as everybody concedes, there has to be an arbitral mechanism. I rather agree that it will be difficult to invent one in time, and there may be alternatives, but, as the Justice Committee’s report in the last Parliament pointed out, the involvement of the ECJ in these areas is often extremely limited in terms of the overall amount of our jurisprudence in the courts. It would be foolish to rule out accepting it for a limited period to see us through transition.
Let me move on to the specific points here. We do need to pick up on certain areas. We have to have greater clarity on the interpretation of retained EU law. With every respect to Ministers, I do not think that the Bill will achieve that in its current form, although I think that it can, with further work.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Like my hon. Friend, I am keen to see that one of our major industries is preserved. Is not the overwhelming merit of his amendments 357 and 358 that they would preserve the Government’s ability to modify the regulations but give certainty on day one because they would deliver a functioning set of rules that could be on the statute book and would therefore take into account some of the cases he mentioned earlier? The key thing for the financial services industry is to have that certainty on day one.
Robert Neill
That is absolutely right, and it is critical. With respect to the Minister of State, that is why I do not think the financial services sector will take much comfort from his rather high-level dismissal of these proposals earlier.
Let me just say what these two amendments, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), seek to do. They seek to give a general interpretive tool to assist the transposition process. We all accept that that has to happen in that domestication into the statute book. They would interfere with the powers to make regulations conferred by clause 7, but they would reduce the need for regulations. I should have thought that it was preferable not to have to operate by regulation if we could avoid it. If we have a known and established interpretive code, that will save the need to make lots of regulations under clause 7. However, it would also, as the Minister rightly observed, provide a backstop, and that would deal with gaps that are identified but that are not picked up in the transposition process. That is what subsections (A1) and (A2) of amendment 357 would achieve.
These changes draw on rules of interpretation that, as I indicated in my intervention earlier, were proposed by the International Regulatory Strategy Group. That body is co-sponsored by the City of London corporation and TheCityUK, and I am indebted to the Remembrancer’s Office of the City of London corporation for the drafting of these amendments—it takes the credit for the ingenuity.
The Solicitor General
I absolutely take the spirit in which these amendments are made, and I am grateful to the Remembrancer’s Office, but does my hon. Friend not agree that we need to be cautious? He thinks that this general interpretive approach will, of itself, amend deficiencies, but does the fact not remain that we would still have to amend deficiencies in legislation, even with these otherwise helpful-looking provisions?
Robert Neill
I do not disagree with the Solicitor General about that, but I suggest that it is not an either/or scenario. I very much hope that he will indicate that he is prepared to continue working with me and the authors of the amendments to take this forward. I see that he nods his assent, and I am sure that we can find a constructive means of doing so.
Let me explain why this is important. The first of the rules, in subsection (A3), would confine the territorial scope of the retained EU law to the UK. That would put it on the same territorial footing as domestic law, therefore ensuring that as a general principle, retained EU law would no longer enable or require people or businesses in the UK to do, or to stop doing, something in an EU country. It is perfectly logical from that point of view.
The second rule would ensure that reference to a member state in an EU law that has been domesticated was taken, post Brexit, as a reference to the UK. That would ensure that domesticated EU law would in fact fully apply in the domestic sphere, removing any ambiguity on that point. That will be necessary in a large number of instances to avoid the situation in which the UK will, in effect, be treated as a third country for the purposes of its own laws where retained EU law is currently framed by reference to the whole EU. That would be an absurdity, and we are seeking to remove that risk.
The third rule, in subsection (A5), would transfer all the functions exercised by EU bodies to the Secretary of State. I take the Minister’s point that not all those will necessarily be exercised by the Secretary of State. It is not prescriptive in that way—it need not be, and we can talk about that—but it would deal with the many instances where such functions are transferred to an appropriate Secretary of State as well as providing, again, a legislative backstop to cater for circumstances where the alternative arrangements had not been put in place in time, so that there is no cliff edge in that regard.
The fourth rule deals with the many situations where domestic authorities are required, either outright or as a precondition, to exercise their own functions to deal with EU bodies or authorities in member states. What does that mean in practice? It covers, for instance, cases where the UK body has to notify, consult or get the approval of an EU body before taking a particular course of action.
Stephen Hammond
Is not the overwhelming advantage of this rule not that it would put any legal constraints on an authority but that it would allow flexibility to co-operate, making it more likely that we would achieve an equivalent regulatory solution more quickly?
Robert Neill
That is entirely right. That rule would preserve the flexibility to co-operate with European partners and to trade into the European markets—regulatory equivalence will be critical to achieving that—and it would do so without the risk of facing any inappropriate legal constraints on the UK’s own operations once we have left.
I am not suggesting that the answer to everything is in this amendment. It is tabled in the spirit of wanting to work with the Government as we move forward, but it does go a long way towards delivering, in a relatively simple manner, the objective of having a functioning statute book on exit day.
Amendment 358 deals with what those who worked on this perceive as a potential gap concerning the interpretation of domesticated EU law. Clause 6(3), as has already been observed, will preserve the effect of case law laid down before exit day. Clause (6)(2) will provide discretion, and we have talked a lot about taking that into account. I listened with interest to the speech by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) regarding her amendment on that point. Again, this amendment does not provide the whole answer, but it raises serious issues that need to be looked at, and I hope that Ministers will do so.
The Solicitor General
For the sake of clarity, I think that my hon. Friend will find that schedule 8(25) contains enough scope for other documents of the type that he mentions to be considered by the courts. I hope that I have given him enough reassurance on that point.
Robert Neill
I am grateful to the Solicitor General for that clarification. Perhaps he could confirm that he is happy to meet me and we can discuss that. [Interruption.] He says that he is of course happy to do so. I am grateful to him for that very constructive response, and characteristically so. That will enable us to deal with things like negotiating texts, which we sometimes know of as the travaux préparatoires within the EU context. [Interruption.] Again, the Solicitor General confirms that that is the sort of thing that we can discuss.
Why is that important to the International Regulatory Strategy Group, and why is the group central to this? Its membership includes virtually all the significant representative institutions of the London financial community: the stock exchange, the Association for Financial Markets in Europe, the Association of British Insurers, the British Bankers Association, the City of London corporation and major commercial organisations such as Credit Suisse, Aviva, Allen & Overy, Allianz, Fidelity, HSBC and Lloyds. The list includes all the key underpinners of the City’s operation.
We need to take those important matters into account, and I am grateful to the Solicitor General for his willingness to meet and discuss them. I commend to him and other Ministers the observation made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) about the Francovich cases. It clearly cannot be the Government’s intention to remove people’s opportunity to seek remedies for wrongs that were done prior to our departure. My right hon. Friend raises a critical issue, and it is important to get this right.
I hope that Ministers will observe that the guidance in clause 6(2) is clearly not sufficient to meet the concerns of our senior judiciary and that they have said as much. When Lord Neuberger, a distinguished President of the Supreme Court, says that, ironically, the discretion is so wide that it puts judges at a degree of risk of political attack, he has to be taken seriously. Several right hon. and hon. Members have praised the quality of our judiciary, and I totally agree with them. We ought to listen very carefully when our judiciary say that, as a matter of protection against malicious attack of the sort that they have suffered in the past, they look to Parliament to safeguard their ability to function independently in cases that are quite politicised.
The Solicitor General
I am listening with care to my hon. Friend. Will he accept from me that there is another danger, namely that by using too many prescriptive words in the Bill, we could fetter the discretion of the courts in a way that they would find equally unacceptable? There is a balance to be struck here.
Robert Neill
There is, and that is why it is all the more important—perhaps unusually so—for Government to talk quietly with the judiciary to find out what they are saying. They cannot compromise their independence, but those of us who are in touch with them want to make sure that the Government understand the root of their concerns. I am sure that there is a constructive way forward on that.
I know that the Solicitor General will be aware of the problem, because it was referred to in the Justice Committee’s report in the last Parliament. I also draw his attention to the concerns raised by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, the recently retired Lord Chief Justice, in the evidence that he gave only a couple of days before he retired from that post. He gave a pretty clear steer on the sort of thing that could be helpful and posited various types of language. I hope that the Solicitor General accepts that we need to look further at the matter, and I hope that we can do that constructively as we take the Bill forward.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
Many of my constituents and the businesses in my constituency have raised the importance of a transitional period. The UK transition will inevitably bring with it changes to the way in which goods and services are traded between the UK and the EU, and, although businesses on both sides are beginning to anticipate and plan for change, the scope and nature of the changes are as yet unclear. The consequences could range from moderate to significant disruption to current rights and freedoms. The issue goes far beyond banking and impacts on any business that sells goods or services between the UK and the EU.
The negotiation of a new future relationship is a process separate from the article 50 negotiations, and at present there is no indication that a new long-term agreement on trade and services will be in place at the point of exit. Businesses in the UK and the EU face three unknowns: what the future will look like, when the arrangement will be in place and what will happen in the period between the end of the current EU framework and the start of the future framework. That is why transitional arrangements are essential to avoid a damaging cliff-edge effect at the point of exit.
Businesses, customers and regulators will need time to adapt and settle into a new framework. A transition period would reduce the risk of businesses making potentially premature decisions about the structure of their operations. This is why negotiating and embedding transitional arrangements in a withdrawal agreement between the UK and the EU would give both sides a greater degree of visibility and certainty in planning for the future. Clause 6 of the Bill makes it clear that the UK courts will not need to keep even half an eye on the case law of the ECJ. In legislative terms, this is as clear a statement as we can get that the UK courts will not have to follow ECJ decisions, directly or indirectly, post-Brexit.
Mrs Miller
The debate on this string of amendments includes considering clause 6 stand part. I was extremely pleased that, after my intervention earlier, the Minister indicated that the Government intend to bring forward an amendment on Report to take up what I believe is an important recommendation made by the Women and Equalities Committee in the report we published in February. The recommendation is to have a mandatory ministerial statement of compatibility with the Equality Act for all Bills and secondary legislation related to exiting the EU.
This is important because the Government have set out very clearly that they do not want any backsliding on our equalities agenda or, indeed, our equalities law when we leave the EU. With the sort of amendment that my hon. Friend mentioned, we will have more of a guarantee that that will actually happen. The EU White Paper published in February says very clearly that the Government want to ensure that
“the same rules and laws will apply on the day after we leave the EU as they did before.”
This approach will preserve the rights and obligations that already exist in the UK under EU law and provide a secure basis for the future.
Certainty is needed in relation not only to the laws themselves, but to the frameworks within which those laws will operate. The Select Committee’s inquiry into exit from the EU found that things will change for individuals after we leave the EU because the UK courts will no longer be able to disapply law that is found to be incompatible with equality laws, as is currently the case with the CJEU. The UK will lose the particular function of the CJEU as an arbiter of incompatibility with the principles of equality. For the Government to achieve the important objective that they have set out of protecting equality rights as they are now, we will have to do more than simply transpose the legislation; we must also provide such additional functionality.
This really matters to our constituents. It really matters to women such as Carole Webb, who was fired by her employer for being pregnant. She had her case heard in the CJEU, and her rights were enforced. It really matters to mothers such as Sharon Coleman, who just wanted to be able to work more flexibly to care for her disabled son. She had her case heard by the CJEU, and her rights were enforced. We need to make sure that this continues in the future.
The very sensible and practical recommendation put forward by the Women and Equalities Committee proposed a simple solution for the Government. It is that a statement of compatibility should be published by Ministers when any statutory instrument or Bill related to EU withdrawal is published to explain why the proposals are or are not compliant with the Equality Act. That would mirror the provisions set out in sections 19 and 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998. This would make it clear to the courts that they must take account of the Equality Act, and that if legislation was incompatible, the courts could indeed make a declaration of incompatibility, which would have to be rectified by the Government, as is now the case.
This recommendation is important because, as I have said, it will enable the Government to adhere to what they have set out as their policy. It will fill a missing gap that currently is filled by the Court of Justice of the EU, and it will give the courts in the UK the potential power to make declarations of incompatibility. For those looking to the public sector equality duty to partially fill that gap, I would point out that we set out very clearly in our report that this duty does not apply to primary legislation, and that is why such a change is needed.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case, as always, for equality. Does she agree that co-operation on issues such as female genital mutilation, human trafficking and other gender-based crimes should also be included in the exit agreement?
Mrs Miller
My hon. Friend has a great deal of experience in those matters, and I am sure that Ministers sitting on the Front Bench are looking at them very closely. They will be as aware as us that, as we leave the EU, the complexities, particularly regarding equalities, need careful attention. When Government Equalities Office Ministers came before the Women and Equalities Committee recently, I was pleased that they were prepared to discuss Brexit issues. I hope that in future Brexit Ministers will also come before the Committee to discuss the issues set out by my hon. Friend.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for taking the issue very seriously indeed. I know that he has a lot on his plate, but he has taken the time to look at the issue in detail. He should be applauded for that. I look forward to seeing the fruits of his labour on Report.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I want to speak briefly in support of amendment 137, tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), who spoke so persuasively about the need to strengthen and clarify clause 6, particularly subsection (2).
If, utterly regrettably from my point of view, the UK is to leave the EU, it is important not only that there is a functioning statute book on exit day, but that it is as accessible and comprehensible as possible. The ordinary citizen must be able to understand their rights and obligations; businesses need to have clarity about the rules under which they will be trading and competing; and our courts require clear guidance about Parliament’s intentions. The rule of law and our economic interest require that. As it stands, however, there is still much work to do to achieve those aims, and that includes rectifying the lack of clarity in clause 6.
My starting point is clause 6(3), about which I do not think there is any dispute. Clearly, unmodified retained EU law should be interpreted in accordance with retained case law and principles of EU law. That is necessary to ensure that the statute book applies in the same way after exit as it did before. Immediately after that, however, we get into sticky territory, namely the status of post-exit European case law.
In the first months and years after exit, few cases in the CJEU will concern new EU rules that have nothing to do with the UK. Most will continue to relate to rules that existed before exit and that will in fact have been incorporated into the UK statute book by this Bill. In essence, such decisions by the CJEU are about how the law always was and should have been applied, including immediately prior to exit.
With apologies for moving away from highbrow discussions about the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament, I want to talk about the hypothetical EU widget regulations. If the EU widget regulations come into effect prior to exit, and a decision of the CJEU shortly after exit clarifies that the regulations do indeed apply to a new and cutting-edge form of six-sided widget, that decision would actually tell us and clarify what retained EU law was on Brexit day—the point at which it was incorporated into our laws. Yet the Bill appears to fudge or dodge the issue of whether such a ruling should be followed or even whether it should be given any consideration at all. Parliament is in danger of passing the buck to judges on what is actually a political decision.
Unlike his German counterpart, the UK manufacturer of a six-sided widget is unclear about where he stands and, importantly, so are our judges. Given that the widget directive is part of retained law, there is a strong argument that this Parliament should say that if the CJEU confirms in its judgement—despite it being handed down after exit—that when we incorporated the regulations they did apply to a six-sided widget, that should also be part of retained law in the United Kingdom, unless there is good reason to the contrary. That would seem sensible and desirable from a legal theory point of view and, much more importantly, from a practical point of view. If we are to make trade and competition with the EU as simple as possible, surely it makes sense for exactly the same rule, one still found in an EU regulation and one incorporated by the Bill into domestic law, to be interpreted in the same way unless there are very good reasons to the contrary. However, all clause 6(1) says is that a court or a tribunal is not bound by post-Brexit CJEU decisions, and clause 6(2) merely says it can “have regard to” such case law
“if it considers it appropriate to do so.”
Lord Neuberger says that that is not very helpful guidance for judges. Neither is it helpful for the six-sided widget manufacturer, who needs to know whether he must comply with the widget regulations and is not sure if domestic courts will follow the CJEU in deciding whether it does. Indeed, we might even find that courts in different parts of the United Kingdom could come to different decisions about whether to follow the CJEU’s decision on the widget regulations. Parliament has to do much better.
Amendment 137 provides alternative options. If there are reasons why domestic courts should not want to follow a CJEU ruling, the court could quite simply have regard to and then decline to follow the Court’s judgment. There could be very good reasons for that to happen, for example if Parliament had already decided to put in place its own separate statutory regime for six-sided widgets. Ultimately, if Parliament decides after a particular judgment by the CJEU that it wants to change retained law to take a different course, it can of course do that. However, there are many more rules where it would surely be sensible for this Parliament to leave them in place as they are and to seek to ensure consistency of application between the United Kingdom and the European Union so far as that is possible.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Perhaps one reason why the Government and the Brexiteers, who appear to be paying precious little attention to anything going on in the Chamber, are not really interested is because they want a bonfire of such regulations and a race to the bottom. That is the ultimate goal of the hard Brexiteers on the Conservative Benches.
Stuart C. McDonald
I suspect my hon. Friend is absolutely right. My point is that there are many more rules where it would surely be sensible for this Parliament to leave in place exactly as they are, and not only that but to seek to ensure consistency of application between the United Kingdom and the European Union so far as that is possible. Clause 6(6) allows for even modified retained law to be interpreted in accordance with retained case law and principles if that is what Parliament intends.
We need a clear expression of intention that by leaving the rules unmodified and retaining the same rules in place on exit day, we are seeking for them to be applied in the same way here as across the EU. That is a much more political decision than I think the Minister accepts, which is why it should not be left to judges; it should be expressed clearly by this Parliament that that is what we want, if that is indeed what we want to happen. That will help judges, it will be good for the six-sided widget manufacturers who will understand the rules under which they have to operate, and, most importantly, it will be good for all citizens who will benefit from clarity about their rights. It is therefore imperative that Parliament makes this happen, through amendment 137 or otherwise.
Sir Oliver Letwin
It pains me to say this, but I think that what several of us have been trying to say, put very briefly, is that clause 6 as it stands is a frightful mess. Of course I shall vote with the Government tonight, but I very much hope that after this debate—as did not happen after Second Reading—the Government will go away and think about clause 6. If they do not, what will happen is that it will, rightly, be massacred in the House of Lords, not least by former Law Lords. Once it has been, it will be very difficult for those of us who know it is a mess at the moment, in a way I am about to describe, to support an attempt to overrule the House of Lords. I beg those on the Front Bench to take seriously the problem we are trying to expose here. Let me try to describe it more clearly than perhaps I have managed so far, although I know that several of my hon. Friends have also tried.
It is clear, from clause 5(2), that the Government accept that, in relation to the retained law, the interpretative powers of the ECJ are extremely wide. It states:
“the principle of the supremacy of EU law continues to apply…so far as relevant to the interpretation, disapplication or quashing of any enactment”.
As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) rightly pointed out, the supreme power that can be given to a court in this land is being attributed in the Bill to the ECJ in respect of existing legislation—namely, the power to quash an Act of Parliament. It does not get higher than that.
The Solicitor General
I am listening with great care to my right hon. Friend. Is not the simple answer that the Supreme Court will apply the rules of precedent in accordance with its practice direction of 50 years ago, which allows it to depart from previous case authority where it appears right to do so? Principles have been set out in domestic law by the Supreme Court and its predecessor, the judicial committee of the House of Lords.
Sir Oliver Letwin
With great respect to the Solicitor General, I draw him back to clause 6(3)(a), which directs the lower court in such a case to continue to apply the retained case law on the basis of ECJ jurisprudence, not Supreme Court jurisprudence. If that is not what the Government intend, they need to redraft clause 6(3)(a). They can have it one way or the other, but we cannot in this country have a legal system that tells our courts to do two different things. That is why the former judges are causing a harouche here. They are not being told what we, as a Parliament, are expecting of them.
The Solicitor General
What we are seeking to do is, in effect, settle the status of retained EU case law so that it is equivalent to that of Supreme Court authority. That is the explanation of the hierarchy that my right hon. Friend has, very fairly, outlined.
Sir Oliver Letwin
If the Solicitor General is trying to argue that he is aiming for equality between the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice and the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, that poses an insoluble problem for the lower court. One has to trump the other, but if the Bill is trying to make out that one trumps the other, it does not do it. It is really quite important for a human being who speaks English and reads the Bill to be able to see which trumps which.
Mr Grieve
I understand exactly where my right hon. Friend is coming from. I have to say that my reading of this was that once the Supreme Court had departed from the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice in a particular case, thereafter the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence would be the one that the lower court would have to follow. However, that does not get us past the problem that the Supreme Court is provided with no guidance whatever about the purposive nature of EU law and how it should approach it.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Let me deal with my right hon. and learned Friend’s helpful intervention in two steps. If what he said in the first step about the supremacy of the Supreme Court’s rulings is to apply—which is not inequality, but puts the Supreme Court above the ECJ in the interpretation of these matters for retained law—that is a perfectly clear position, and one that I, as a matter of fact, would welcome; but then the Bill should bloody well say so. However, he is right, in that even if we presume that the Bill will be adjusted—as I am sure it will be, in the House of Lords—to make it clear that that is the case, we face the next problem, which is what it is that the poor old Supreme Court is meant to be doing.
Mr Jenkin
I understand the words
“in accordance with any retained case law”
in clause 6(3)(a), but I do not understand the words
“any retained general principles of EU law”.
That suggests that the court must adopt a methodology which has been retained. What we want our courts to do is revert to what they used to do, which was interpreting statute without reference to the jurisprudential and teleological techniques adopted by the European Court.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Notwithstanding the chuntering of my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry)—and she is a friend of mine, but she is quite wrong about these issues—I happen to agree with my hon. Friend. My point is, however, that it does not matter nearly so much which side of the argument we are on as that we should be clearly on one side or the other.
I feel sure that the reason clause 6(3)(a) says that the court should judge
“in accordance with…any retained general principles”
is exactly the reason that was cited by the former Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). As we see in clause 5(2), the purposive and teleological nature of the judgments, and the ability of those judgments to be used to quash even Acts of Parliament, should apply to the way in which our courts continue to interpret retained law. That, I think, is the intent of clause 6(3)(a).
This leaves us with the wide-open, yawning question of whether the Supreme Court should be making judgments when it is, we are told in clause 6(4)(a),
“not bound by any retained EU case law”,
but should nevertheless apply the general principles, and try to use the same purpose and teleological reasoning that the ECJ uses. We are not told, and the judges are not told. Far from creating legal certainty, clause 6 seems to me to create the largest possible degree of legal uncertainty. That is not a tolerable position. It is not one that the Government wish to achieve, and not one that the Opposition wish to achieve. I do not believe that anyone in the House of Commons wishes to achieve it. However, it is what the clause, as currently drafted, achieves.
Mr Leslie
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out issues that need to be clarified as soon as possible, which is why new clause 14 says, in a very polite way, that it would help everybody if the Government, within one month of Royal Assent to the Act, could publish a report explaining in proper detail how EU retained law applies in that transition period.
Sir Oliver Letwin
The hon. Gentleman did not allow me to intervene on him, but let me say now that, unfortunately, his point is wholly irrelevant to clause 6; it relates to the transition which will be covered in another Bill. My concern is about the continuing state of UK law following exit. This is not going to be resolved by the Government producing a White Paper. It has to be resolved by clause 6 being drafted in a way that creates the very legal certainty that the Government so admirably wish to create, and which they at present so abundantly fail to do.
Sir William Cash
My right hon. Friend is asking some very interesting questions, but that does not necessarily mean—he, or indeed any of us in this Chamber, not being a judge—that he is drawing the right conclusions. He is pointing to several questions that need to be raised, however, although he has not mentioned that clause 5(1) states:
“The principle of the supremacy of EU law does not apply to any enactment or rule of law passed or made on or after exit day,”
and that must include this Bill.
Furthermore, my right hon. Friend has not quite taken on board what the Solicitor General said with respect to our application of the stare decisis method of interpretation, which the Supreme Court will be obliged to apply after exit day. So he is asking some interesting questions, but I do not think we can necessarily draw conclusions from them.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, and I am very happy to leave it to the Government to draw the conclusions and answer the questions in due course. I do not think clause 5(1) helps at all, however, because my hon. Friend is right that it excludes the possibility of subsequent enactments being subject to the principle of supremacy, but in clause 5(2) it is equally clear that, so far as the retained law is concerned, the principle of supremacy remains, and therefore there may be judgments in the future that already existing law, where there is judged to be a conflict between an Act of Parliament and an ECJ ruling, should have the result that the ECJ ruling triumphs over the Act of Parliament. That is a perfectly possible and sensible position to adopt. It is not one my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and I would like to see, and I doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) would like to see it, but it is nevertheless a perfectly tolerable position—and it then needs to be carried over for the Supreme Court just as much.
My point remains, however, and it is a simple one: that if the Bill is trying to achieve a hierarchy here, it needs to state what the hierarchy is, and in stating that hierarchy, it needs to make it clear who governs whom. At the moment, the Bill does not do that.
Wes Streeting
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), who, in uncharacteristic fashion, had to knock several lumps out of his own Front Bench to get it to see sense around some obvious problems with clause 6. I have chosen to rise at this point in the evening to pick up on some of the inconsistencies and flaws, revealed during this debate, in the insufficient—in some cases, absent—replies from the Government Front Bench.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) asked the Minister very clearly whether the jurisdiction of the ECJ will apply during the transition period. I do not believe the Minister has addressed that, but I am happy to give way if he would like to do so now.
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman was not here for large parts of the debate; if he reads Hansard, he will see that that was addressed very squarely.
Wes Streeting
For the benefit of viewers who have just tuned in on BBC Parliament, I am happy to give way to the Minister a second time if he would like to state very clearly for the record whether, in his view, on that fundamental point, the jurisdiction of the ECJ will apply during the transition period. It is a very simple question and it only requires a yes or no answer, but he will not respond.
Mike Gapes
I suspect that the Minister has been taking lessons from the Foreign Secretary. He says that we should read Hansard, but perhaps we will find a giant lacuna there, and perhaps these issues will come back to haunt him.
Wes Streeting
I have to agree with my hon. Friend, but I am happy to be generous and give way to the Minister again. This is a very simple yes or no question.
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman is very kind, but neither he nor the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) has been in here for the entirety of the debate. This issue has been addressed squarely. We are not going to pre-empt or prejudice—[Interruption.]
Wes Streeting
I am not sure that the Minister had a chance to finish his point, and I would be happy to give way again so that he can answer this central question. It is a simple question. The reason why the issue is so problematic is that many of us have been listening carefully to the concerns being expressed in many sectors of our economy about the uncertainty surrounding Brexit. We have heard a simple message: that the biggest risk to this country’s economy at this time is uncertainty.
If the Government want to reassure those sectors of the economy—manufacturing businesses with supply chains in the European Union, for example, or financial and professional services worried about whether contracts will still be honoured and upheld or whether jobs and activity can be relocated—they could give those industries the central message that during the transitional period, the existing structure of EU rules and regulations will apply.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
Perhaps I may assist the hon. Gentleman. I was present during the debate when the Minister addressed this question and, so far as I can remember, he did not answer this perfectly straightforward question at all.
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am sure that if he did not hear a clear answer, most other Members did not hear one either. This is a golden opportunity for the Minister to answer the question. The Secretary of State has now arrived in the Chamber. Perhaps he will be able to help the Minister out. The simple question is whether, during the transition period, the European Court of Justice will still have jurisdiction in the way that it does at present. Can the Secretary of State give us clarity on this one point? This is a simple and fundamental question—[Interruption.] Come on!
Wes Streeting
Ah, the real power behind the throne! I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The answer ought to be perfectly clear. If we are still under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, we will not have left the European Union.
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for setting out in the House today the consistent view that he has held throughout the referendum campaign and during the debates that have followed.
The Government have a fundamental problem. This is not about whether it is the will of the House that the ECJ should have jurisdiction during the transitional period. I think that most Members, whether they voted leave or remain, understand the central importance of giving business certainty right at this moment about what will happen when we leave the European Union. The Prime Minister understood that when she made her speech in Florence, in which she said that, during the transition period,
“the existing structure of EU rules and regulations”
would apply. She also said that we could agree
“to bring forward aspects of that future framework such as new dispute resolution mechanisms more quickly if this can be done smoothly.”
The implications are clear. It was the Prime Minister’s view in Florence that, to provide business with the certainty that it needs now about jobs and economic activity, we would remain in the single market and the customs union and, necessarily, under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice for a time-limited transition period.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend as puzzled as I am that Ministers are unwilling to support the policy of the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister made her position very clear, when answering a question from the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), that the writ of the European Court of Justice would run during the transitional period, or at least at the start of it.
Wes Streeting
I am just as bewildered as my right hon. Friend. Many Members may not have seen it, but the front page of The Daily Telegraph tomorrow carries a splash entitled “The Brexit mutineers”. On that front page, Members will find people such as the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and other Conservative Members who have done nothing else during the course of this debate but try to get the Government to a position whereby we leave the European Union in a way that provides the most clarity, the most certainty and the most stability, which is in the interests of our economy.
Actually, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) mentioned, the real Brexit mutineers are not people such as the right hon. Member for Broxtowe because, ironically, the Members on that front page are upholding the principles of the Florence speech. The real Brexit mutineers are members of the Prime Minister’s Cabinet, and they are in the Department for Exiting the European Union and in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Those people are the real Brexit mutineers, and they should be explaining why they are not prepared to back the clear positon set out by their own Prime Minister.
Anna Soubry
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that what he describes is a blatant piece of bullying that goes to the very heart of democracy? None of the people who have been named—I take it as a badge of honour—want to delay or thwart Brexit; we just want a good Brexit that works for everybody in our country. That is not a lot to ask for in a democracy.
Wes Streeting
I wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Lady. I know that she is not someone to be pushed around. In fact, when I looked at the front page of The Daily Telegraph, I saw a whole range of principled Conservative politicians with whom I have a number of disagreements, but I look to them as distinguished parliamentarians who always act in what they believe to be the best interests of their constituents and their country.
That brings me to the central challenge at this point in the Brexit negotiations. Manufacturing firms with supply chains in the European Union are having to make decisions now, before Christmas, about jobs and activity and about whether to renew contracts or sign new ones. The clear message from financial services and professional services, the concerns of which the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has attempted to address through his amendments, and from other leading sectors of our economy is that unless there is a clear sense of direction and some reassurance about the rules of the transition period and how it will operate, they will be forced to activate contingency plans as early as now and before Christmas, but certainly into the first quarter of 2018. The clock is ticking, and time is running out. In muddying the waters during the course of today’s debate, Ministers have done nothing at all to reassure businesses that are hovering over activating their contingency plans.
Stephen Doughty
I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of certainty, and I support what he says about the transition. Does he agree that what is crucial for certainty is ruling out a no-deal, catastrophic Brexit, about which so many people are worried? Many businesses in my constituency are now hedging against it, because they are fearful of the consequences.
Wes Streeting
I wholeheartedly agree. We hear this fallacy that those of us who warn about a no-deal Brexit are somehow willing to sign up to any kind of bad deal—as if there is a bad deal that could possibly be worse than no deal.
I would like to hear an intervention from anyone on the Government or Opposition Benches who can explain how crashing out of the European Union over a cliff edge with no deal—meaning an immediate end to all existing contractual and legal obligations and to all the frameworks and protections, a hard border in Ireland, and the end of our trading agreements not only with the European Union, but through the European Union to countries across the world—could be worse than any kind of transitional deal. No deal would be the very worst deal, and it is astonishing that there are Government Members who not only entertain the possibility of no deal, but are enthusiastically encouraging it with the views that they put forward.
There have been many problems with the Prime Minister’s approach to Brexit, but in the Florence speech she tried to set out a practical and flexible framework through which we could now give certainty to business about the transition period and, crucially, through which there would be only one set of changes from our membership of the European Union to our future relationship with it once we leave.
This evening, the Government Front-Bench team have driven a coach and horses through the Florence speech. They cannot provide business with the clarity it needs on how the European Court of Justice will operate during transition. They ought to support our position, which is to remain in the single market and the customs union for the time-limited period of transition, because that would give business the certainty it desperately needs.
For Conservative Members to put their ideological vanity against the best interests of the British economy is selfish, reckless and irresponsible, and people should have no truck with it.
Mr Grieve
I will pick up two or three points that have been made in this important debate. There have some magnificent contributions, particularly from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). I will start with what he had to say because it is central to the debate.
I appreciate what the Government have been trying to do with clauses 5 and 6 on the way in which retained EU law should be interpreted. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the wording is opaque, although I think that I understand the Government’s intention on the role and supremacy of the Supreme Court in developing law, but that still does not get us away from the fundamental problem that EU law is different from our law. Its rules of interpretation are different and its purpose is different.
We will come back to that problem right through this Bill, whether on the charter of fundamental rights or the general principles of EU law. We cannot just take EU law and drop it into our law without leaving guidance on what the Government expect that law to be used for. I worry that the lack of explanation is most peculiar. It is not a question of wanting to keep EU law—I assume that it will all ultimately go away, anyway—but in the meantime there is a lack of clarity, and I can well understand why the judiciary, particularly the senior judiciary, are troubled by the lack of guidance. It is almost as though the Government have found it too embarrassing to want to grapple with it. They want to maintain continuity, but they do not want to maintain the implication of continuity because that is a difficult message to sell to some Conservative Members.
We will really have to look at this as we go through the Bill, and I am quite prepared to try to help the Government to find a way through. It is not that I want to keep its aura, and there are many Conservative Members who do not like it at all, but the simple fact is that we need to look at it.
The other issues that have been raised are absolutely right, but they are not relevant to this debate. We do not have the slightest clue what the transitional arrangements will be. We will have to have a completely separate piece of legislation to sort that out, and I suspect it will take a long time to go through this House. Ultimately, if we have a long-term agreement, there will be an interesting issue about whether we will be instructing our courts to mirror EU law so as to maintain comity with the Court of Justice of the European Union or risk constantly having to readjust our legal frameworks for the sake of that deep and special relationship.
I do not want to disappoint some of my right hon. and hon. Friends too much, but the harsh reality is that our geographical location and our desire to have a close trading relationship with the European Union will inevitably mean that decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union continue to have a major influence on our law here—I am afraid that was rather disregarded in last year’s referendum. I think that it is called globalisation, and we will have to return to that as we go along.
Dominic Raab
We have listened carefully to all hon. Members in the various contributions and concerns that have been raised, and taken account of the amendments in this group. There are issues we will take away for further consideration. I refer in particular to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) said about the Equality Act 2010, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) raised her issue powerfully and constructively. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) also raised a number of points, and I think that we can address those. I think that they are covered by clause 6, but I will take them away and we will work further to make sure we provide the clarity that is required.
Dominic Raab
I am not going to give way; the hon. Gentleman has had his opportunity. Time is running out and I want to give the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) the chance to wind up. We cannot accept amendments that create more rather than less legal certainty, so I urge all hon. Members to pass clause 6 unamended this evening.
Mr Leslie
I thank Members for a debate that has covered a wide range of issues relating to transition and the application of EU law, but that has also revealed a number of interesting facets of Government policy. It was particularly stark that the Minister, who would not give way just now to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), could not let the words, “The ECJ would apply during a transition” pass his lips. That was the very phrase the Prime Minister, for it was she, put into the Florence speech. I thought that speech was Government policy, but it turns out apparently not to be—not today.
Dominic Raab
I will repeat, in terms, exactly what I said earlier. We want an early agreement on an implementation period. As the Prime Minister said in the Florence speech, that may mean we start off with the European Court still governing some rules we are part of for that period, but the Government are also clear that if we can bring forward a new dispute resolution mechanism at an earlier stage, we will do so. The hon. Gentleman should have listened to what I said earlier.
Mr Leslie
Well, well, well. The number of caveats, little changes and weasel words within that particular obfuscatory explanation were not as clear as what the Prime Minister said at that time. That was fascinating and I suspect the Minister will get a phone call from No. 10 in the morning. New clause 14, which I would like to test the will of the House on, is still very relevant; we need to get clarity from the Government a month after Royal Assent on how exactly transition would apply. It is clear that although they say there will be an Act of Parliament, we do not know that that can be completed and enacted before exit day. We may find ourselves with a vacuum. We need much more clarity from Ministers. The Minister has proven the point and made the case amply, which is why I wish to press new clause 14 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 15th November 2017
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 15 November 2017 - (15 Nov 2017)
18:27 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 295 / Noes: 311 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:44 - divided: - Ayes: 299 / Noes: 311 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:59 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 295 / Noes: 313 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:15 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 297 / Noes: 313 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:30 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 48 / Noes: 313 - Question accordingly negatived.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
On a point of order, Dame Rosie. On the yesterday’s selection list—and, in part, today’s—there are some extremely helpful references to the page numbers of this enormous wodge of amendments. Would it be possible for the Clerks to be good enough to put the page numbers on the selection list for easy reference, because it is sometimes quite difficult to find the amendments at short notice?
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I will certainly bring that to the attention of the Public Bill Office and see what we can do to help.
New Clause 2
Retaining Enhanced Protection
“Regulations provided for by Acts of Parliament other than this Act may not be used by Ministers of the Crown to amend or modify retained EU law in the following areas—
(a) employment entitlement, rights and protections;
(b) equality entitlements, rights and protections;
(c) health and safety entitlement, rights and protections;
(d) fundamental rights as defined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.”—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This new clause would prevent delegated powers from other Acts being used to alter workplace protections, equality provisions, health and safety regulations or fundamental rights.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 15—Provisions relating to the EU or the EEA in respect of EU-derived domestic legislation—
“HM Government shall make arrangements to report to both Houses of Parliament whenever circumstances arising in section 2(2)(d) would otherwise have amended provisions or definitions in UK law had the UK remained a member of the EU or EEA beyond exit day.”
This new clause would ensure that Parliament is informed of changes in EU and EEA provisions that might have amended UK law if the UK had remained a member of those institutions beyond exit day.
New clause 25—Treatment of retained law—
“(1) Following the commencement of this Act, no modification may be made to retained EU law save by primary legislation, or by subordinate legislation made under this Act.
(2) By regulation, the Minister may establish a Schedule listing technical provisions of retained EU law that may be amended by subordinate legislation.
(3) Regulations made under subsection (2) will be subject to an enhanced scrutiny procedure including consultation with the public and relevant stakeholders.
(4) Regulations may only be made under subsection (2) to the extent that they will have no detrimental impact on the UK environment.
(5) Delegated powers may only be used to modify provisions of retained EU law listed in any Schedule made under subsection (2) to the extent that such modification will not limit the scope or weaken standards of environmental protection.”
This new clause provides a mechanism for Ministers to establish a list of technical provisions of retained EU law that may be amended by subordinate legislation outside of the time restrictions of the Bill.
New clause 50—Continuing validity in the United Kingdom of European Union law—
“(1) The European Communities Act 1972 shall continue to have effect in the United Kingdom after the date on which the United Kingdom leaves the European Union as if the United Kingdom continued to be bound by the Treaties.
(2) Accordingly all such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions created or arising by or under the Treaties, and all such remedies as provided for by or under the Treaties, as in accordance with the Treaties are without further enactment given legal effect or used in the United Kingdom shall continue to be recognised and available in law, and be enforced, allowed and followed accordingly.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to any primary legislation passed by Parliament coming into force after the date of exit from the European Union which includes a provision to the effect that that Act, or specified provisions of that Act, have effect notwithstanding the provisions of section (Continuing validity in the United Kingdom of European Union law)(1) and (2) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2017.”
New clause 51—Duty of review of European Union law—
“(1) The Prime Minister must lay before Parliament within six months of the date of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, and at least once a year thereafter, a review of all European Union legislation and decisions still applicable to the United Kingdom, with proposals for re-enactment, replacement or repeal by the United Kingdom Parliament of any provisions of European Union law, with or without modification, as United Kingdom legislation.
(2) The House of Commons may appoint or designate one or more select committees to consider any report under subsection (1).”
New clause 55—Treatment of retained law (No. 2)—
“(1) Following the day on which this Act is passed, no modification may be made to retained EU law except by primary legislation, or by subordinate legislation made under this Act.
(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a schedule listing technical provisions of retained EU law that may be amended by subordinate legislation.
(3) Subordinate legislation to which subsection (2) applies must be subject to an enhanced scrutiny procedure, to be established by regulations made by the Secretary of State after approval in draft by both Houses of Parliament, which must include consultation with the public and relevant stakeholders.
(4) Delegated powers may be used only to modify provisions of retained EU law listed in any Schedule made under subsection (2) to the extent that such modification will not limit the scope or weaken standards of equalities, environmental and employment protection, and consumer standards.”
This amendment would qualify the powers conferred to alter law by statutory instrument after exit day.
New clause 58—Retaining Enhanced Protection (No. 2)—
“Regulations provided for by Acts of Parliament other than this Act may not be used by Ministers of the Crown to amend, repeal or modify retained EU law in the following areas—
(a) employment entitlement, rights and protection;
(b) equality entitlements, rights and protection;
(c) health and safety entitlement, rights and protection;
(d) consumer standards; and
(e) environmental standards and protection.”
This new clause would ensure that after exit day, EU-derived employment rights, environmental protection, standards of equalities, health and safety standards and consumer standards can only be amended by primary legislation or subordinate legislation made under this Act.
Amendment 200, in clause 2, page 1, line 12, after “passed” insert “and commenced,”.
Amendment 87, page 1, line 19, at end insert
“or any enactment to which subsection (2A) applies.
‘(2A) This subsection applies to any enactment of the United Kingdom Parliament which—
(a) applies to Wales and does not relate to matters specified in Schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act 2006,
(b) applies to Scotland and does not relate to matters specified in Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998,
(c) applies to Northern Ireland and does not relate to matters specified in Schedules 2 or 3 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998.’”
This amendment would alter the definition of EU retained law so as only to include reserved areas of legislation. This will allow the National Assembly for Wales and the other devolved administrations to legislate on areas of EU derived law which fall under devolved competency for themselves.
Amendment 201, page 1, line 19, at end insert—
“(2A) For the purposes of this Act, any EU-derived domestic legislation has effect in domestic law immediately before exit day if—
(a) in the case of anything which shall apply or be operative from a particular date, applies or is operative before exit day, or
(b) in any other case, it has been commenced and is in force immediately before exit day.”
Clause 2 stand part.
Amendment 217, in clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 13 to 22.
This amendment, along with Amendment 64 to Schedule 8 would exclude the European Economic Area agreement from the Bill, allowing the UK to remain in the EEA.
Amendment 356, page 2, line 22, at end insert—
“(2A) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations provide for prospective EU legislation to form part of domestic law as it has effect in EU law, from the time at which it begins to apply or from some later time.
(2B) In subsection (2A) “prospective EU legislation” means—
(a) an EU regulation which is adopted, notified or in force immediately before exit day, or
(b) EU tertiary legislation made under retained EU law, so far as it is not operative immediately before exit day.
(2C) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (2A) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
The amendment would allow Ministers, with parliamentary approval, to apply EU legislation which has been passed before exit day but does not take full effect until after that day, along with subordinate measures made for the purposes of EU legislation which is retained under the Bill and taking effect after exit day.
Clause 3 stand part.
New clause 29—Parliamentary vote on withdrawal from European Economic Area—
“The requirement of this section is that each House of Parliament has passed a resolution in the following terms—
That this House supports the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Economic Area.”
This new clause describes the requirement for each House of Parliament to agree to withdrawal from the European Economic Area and is linked to Amendment 128 which makes the exercise of the power to make regulations implementing the withdrawal agreement contingent on such agreement.
Amendment 128, in clause 9, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under this section until the requirement of section (Parliamentary vote on withdrawal from European Economic Area) have been met.”
This amendment makes the exercise of the power to make regulations implementing the withdrawal agreement contingent on the requirement for separate agreement on withdrawal from the European Economic Area of NC29.
New clause 22—EEA Agreement—
“(1) No Minister may, under this Act, notify the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EEA Agreement, whether under Article 127 of that Agreement or otherwise.
(2) Regulations under this Act may not make any provision that would constitute a breach of the United Kingdom’s obligations under the EEA Agreement.
(3) Regulations under this Act may not amend or repeal subsection (1) or (2).”
New clause 9—European Economic Area—
“The United Kingdom shall, after exit day, remain a member of the European Economic Area as set out in the European Economic Area Act 1993, and the provisions in Part 2 of Schedule 8 relating to the United Kingdom‘s membership of the EEA shall not take effect until such time as Ministers have published a White Paper assessing the costs and benefits for the UK economy of remaining a member of the European Economic Area after exit day.”
This new Clause would ensure that the UK can remain a member of the European Economic Area until such time as Ministers publish a specific assessment in the form of a White Paper setting out the costs and benefits for the UK of remaining a member after exit day.
New clause 23—EFTA membership—
“The Secretary of State shall, no later than six months after this Act has gained Royal Assent, lay a report before Parliament setting out an assessment of whether it would be in the interests of the United Kingdom to join the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and, if so, whether it should remain a party to the EEA Agreement as a member of EFTA.”
New clause 45—European Economic Area (No. 2)—
“Nothing in this Act authorises the Prime Minister to give notice under Article 127 of the EEA Agreement of the United Kingdom’s intention to opt out of the EEA.”
Amendment 64, page 54, in schedule 8, leave out paragraphs 12 to 17.
This amendment would retain the provisions of the European Economic Area Act 1993 as part of domestic legislation beyond exit day.
Matthew Pennycook
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Rosie.
I will speak to new clause 58. Clauses 2 to 4 provide for the preservation of EU and EU-related law post-exit day in a new category of law, retained EU law, which itself comprises three principal sub-categories. Clause 2 provides that existing domestic legislation that implements EU law obligations remains on the domestic statute book after exit day. This will be known as EU-derived domestic legislation and includes, for example, secondary legislation enacted under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 for the purpose of implementing EU directives.
Clause 3 converts direct EU legislation into domestic legislation at the point of exit. This covers EU law, such as EU regulations and decisions that have direct effect in the UK because the UK is an EU member state, but which would fall once the UK is no longer bound by the treaties. Clause 4 provides that any remaining EU rights and obligations that do not fall within clauses 2 and 3 continue to be recognised and available in domestic law after exit. This includes, for example, directly effective rights contained within EU treaties that are sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional as to confer rights directly on individuals.
The purpose of new clause 58 is straightforward. It is to ensure that retained EU law, as preserved in clauses 2 to 4, in five key areas—employment, equality, health and safety, consumer and environment—is accorded a level of enhanced protection that it would otherwise not enjoy from delegated powers contained in Acts of Parliament other than the one before us today.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to make an early intervention. For clarification for those of us who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland, is it intended by the Labour party that these amendments would extend to Northern Ireland? If so, what consultation has the Labour party had with any of the political parties in Northern Ireland about the content of the amendments?
Matthew Pennycook
With all due respect, that issue will be more prominently dealt with during the days of debate on devolution. I understand that EU retained law will apply across the United Kingdom.
In the respect that I set out, new clause 58 is broadly similar in its intent to new clauses 25 and 55, both of which have as their primary purpose the prevention of modification of retained EU law save by primary legislation or by subordinate legislation made under this Act. If pushed to a vote we would be minded to support either of those new clauses.
The array of rights, entitlements, protections and standards that we currently enjoy as a member of the European Union are underpinned by EU provisions. They either have direct effect as a result of the treaties or are protected in delegated legislation under the ECA. Either way, they currently enjoy a form of enhanced protection as a result of this underpinning. After the UK has left the EU, that enhanced protection will fall away. The Opposition have repeatedly emphasised that Brexit must not lead to any watering down or weakening of EU-derived rights, particularly rights and standards in the areas of employment, equality, health and safety, consumer and environment. Working in conjunction with our amendments relating to clauses 7, 8, 9 and 17 that seek to limit and constrain the sweeping Executive powers contained in this legislation, new clause 58 seeks to guarantee that rights, entitlements, protections and standards in these areas are not just transposed and maintained, but are effectively protected thereafter.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making some very important points. I, too, support new clause 58 and the provisions in new clauses 55 and 25. New clause 58 makes a clear point about the protection of equality rights. In the light of the wonderful news that came overnight from Australia about marriage equality, does he agree that it is crucial that we send out a signal to the LGBT+ community in the United Kingdom that we respect their rights and will retain them?
Matthew Pennycook
I could not agree more. That is exactly what new clause 58 would do; it would provide enhanced protection for equality, rights and protections after we have left the EU.
Taken at face value, clauses 2 to 4 appear relatively straightforward. But, as many hon. Members who spoke in yesterday’s debate made clear, the Bill as drafted creates a considerable degree of ambiguity and uncertainty as to the status of retained EU law. Currently the status of rights, protections and standards underpinned by EU law is distinct.
Treaty provisions and regulations that take effect through section 2(1) of the ECA are neither primary nor secondary legislation. The principle of the supremacy of EU law and the ECA means that, in practice, they have a particular constitutional status that enables them to take priority over primary legislation enacted by Parliament. Similarly, secondary legislation made under section 2(2) of the ECA is distinct from other secondary legislation in that it could take priority over primary legislation because of the fact that it is giving effect to an EU law obligation. Primary legislation that gives effect to an EU law obligation could be amended by Parliament, but any removal of an underlying EU law could be challenged in the courts.
Post-exit, it is unclear what status—primary, secondary or something else entirely—retained EU law will have. From schedule 1, one might draw the inference that retained EU law has the characteristics of secondary, rather than primary, legislation. Yet paragraph 19 of schedule 8 provides that, for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998, direct EU legislation
“is to be treated as primary legislation”,
although this schedule does not cover those rights recognised and made available in domestic law after exit by means of clause 4.
Clauses 5 and 6 provide guidance as to how the courts should interpret retained EU law in the event of a conflict with an enactment passed after exit day, but it is not yet clear—as we debated at length yesterday—whether the courts will treat particular retained EU laws as constitutional legislation that is not susceptible to implied repeal.
The uncertainty that surrounds the status and interpretation of retained EU law is a real weakness of the legislation and it is crucial that it is clarified and addressed on the face of the Bill. But, irrespective of what status particular retained EU laws are eventually accorded, this new category of law—detached from the enhanced protection enjoyed as a result of being underwritten by our membership of the EU—will be vulnerable to amendment not just from the delegated powers contained in this Bill, but from subordinate legislation contained in other Acts of Parliament.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case. Does he agree that if we are to have the deep and special relationship that Ministers say they want with the rest of the EU, we have no choice but to continue to harmonise our standards on employment rights, equality, and health and safety? Even if they were not good things to do in their own right, which they are, it will be crucial to keep those standards at the same level as the EU or higher if we are to have that kind of trading relationship.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Lady makes a good point. Of course we will need to do that, and businesses will have to comply with those standards. That is why we need to ensure that the EU and EU-derived rights we have are underpinned by an enhanced status. We will then need to move on to the conversation—which we will have to have—about how to stay in some form of regulatory alignment, if we want the type of deep and comprehensive deal that I think both sides envisage.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s speech. Does he accept that so many of these rights existed before we joined the EU and will still be there after we leave the EU? They are not, and need not be, dependent on the European Union. It is this place that will and can safeguard those rights.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman may have missed my point. I completely accept the fact that these rights will be brought into UK law, that they will not be underpinned by EU provisions and that many of them were there first and have been added to over the decades of our membership. What we are talking about here is ensuring that retained EU law cannot be chipped away at by secondary legislation—that it has an enhanced status and must be amended only by primary legislation debated in full in this Chamber.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is right. It is the curiosity of this legislation that laws that the public, if we were to raise these issues with them, would regard for the most part as being of very considerable importance are being brought to the lowest possible status on their return here, and without there really being an opportunity, for obvious reasons, to revisit this issue domestically in a way that might lead us to enact fresh legislation.
Matthew Pennycook
I could not have put it better myself. That is precisely the problem, and that is precisely what new clause 58 seeks to address.
The uncertainty that surrounds the status and interpretation of retained EU law is a real weakness, but irrespective of what happens, retained EU law, as defined in the Bill, is vulnerable to secondary legislation contained in other Acts of Parliament, which will have been drafted in a very different context—in the context of a country whose long-term future appeared to reside unambiguously in the European Union.
Perhaps the most potent example is the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. Part 1 provides for Ministers to introduce statutory instruments to remove burdens resulting from legislation, including primary legislation. A burden, for the purpose of that part of the Act, includes a financial cost or
“an obstacle to efficiency, productivity or profitability”.
That Act is a potent piece of legislation as it is, but it will be far more so as a result of this Bill if it can be used to alter a raft of EU rights and protections that are currently underpinned by EU provisions.
This is not just about the powers in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act. Other examples come to mind, such as section 5 of the Localism Act 2011 and section 11 of the Public Bodies Act 2011. All contain wide powers to alter regulations, and all were passed in the constitutional context of our rights and protections being underpinned by our EU membership. All will become more powerful after exit today.
Retained EU law would also be vulnerable to recently proposed legislation and legislation currently making its way through this place. For example, the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, which is currently in Committee in this House, contains proposed new clause 76A(6) to the Energy Act 2013, which provides that the delegated power in section 113(7) of the Energy Act can be used to make changes to retained EU law. Similarly, clause 2(6) of the recently published Trade Bill provides for regulations that can be used to modify primary legislation, including retained EU law. The same, we can only assume, is likely to be the case for the immigration, agriculture and other Bills we expect in the coming months as part of the process of legislating for Brexit.
New clause 58 would ensure that regulations of the kind provided for by those Bills could not be used to amend or repeal retained EU law in the five areas I have set out, thereby according them a level of enhanced protection. That is important because any future Government could easily use secondary legislation contained in a variety of past and future Acts of Parliament to chip away at rights, entitlements, protections and standards that the public enjoy and wish to retain.
In the interests of brevity, let me illustrate the risks posed if we do not pass new clause 58 or a similar new clause, by focusing on employment entitlement, rights and protection. As hon. Members will know, a substantial part of UK employment rights is derived from EU law, and an even larger body is guaranteed by EU law. As such, key workers’ rights enjoy a form of enhanced protection. Those include protections against discrimination owing to sex, pregnancy, race, disability, religion and belief, age, and sexual orientation; equal pay between men and women for work of equal value; health and safety protection for pregnant women, and their rights to maternity leave; a degree of equal treatment, in broad terms, for the growing number of fixed-term, part-time and agency workers; rights to protected terms and conditions, and rights not to be dismissed on the transfer of an undertaking; and almost all the law on working time, including paid annual leave and limits on daily and weekly working time.
Whether it is the working time regulations guaranteeing rights to holiday pay and protections from excessive working hours, which will be preserved via clause 2 of this Bill, or the right to equal pay contained in article 157 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, which will presumably be preserved via clause 4, these rights will not enjoy enhanced protection after exit day and will be at risk of amendment from regulations set out in other Acts of Parliament if this new clause or a similar one is not passed.
Now, it is true the Government have promised to ensure that workers’ rights are fully protected and maintained after the UK’s departure from the EU, but in the absence of stronger legal safeguards, there are good reasons to be sceptical about that commitment.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the political events of this year, it has become ever more uncertain who the Government might be in the future? Therefore, all of us have the job of protecting the process and the institutions of our democracy, because we never know what might happen in the future.
Matthew Pennycook
I agree with that, and I agree—I think this was also my hon. Friend’s point—that the public will expect these rights to continue to have the protection they have enjoyed while being underpinned by EU law. These rights should not have a reduced level of protection in the future.
Matthew Pennycook
I will make a little more progress if that is all right.
Let me remind the House of the sentiments on the Government Benches when it comes to workers’ rights. Throughout the referendum, prominent leavers drew attention to what they claimed was the high cost of EU employment regulations, including those such as the working time directive and the temporary agency work directive. Prominent members of the Cabinet are on record as having called for workers’ rights to be removed. For example, the Foreign Secretary has written that we need
“to root out the nonsense of the social chapter—the working time directive and the atypical work directive and other job-destroying regulations.”
During the referendum, on 18 May 2016, the then Minister for Employment, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), went so far as to call for the UK to
“halve the burdens of EU social and employment legislation”
in the event of Brexit. The newest member of the Brexit ministerial team—Lord Callanan—has openly called for the scrapping of the working time directive, the temporary agency work directive, the pregnant workers directive and
“all the other barriers to actually employing people.”
Just this week, the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) made a speech in London calling for, among other things, deregulation. It was retweeted and then hastily deleted, as we heard yesterday, by the Department for International Trade.
Tom Brake
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is about to quote Mr Dyson. When leave supporters wanted to quote a business, it was usually Mr Dyson’s or JCB. Now that Mr Dyson welcomes the fact that leaving the EU means he will be able to hire and fire people more easily, I wonder whether they will quote him quite so often.
Matthew Pennycook
I was not going to quote Sir James Dyson, but the right hon. Gentleman has, happily, added to my remarks.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I am flattered that the hon. Gentleman pays such close attention to my speeches. I was talking about regulation in the City of London, not employment regulation. I think there is now consensus across the political firmament that employment regulations will remain in place, which is one of the reasons why his new clause is not necessary.
Matthew Pennycook
I am happy to be corrected on that point, but I would say to the hon. Gentleman that it is a bit rich to suggest that the many public pronouncements that have been made on employment rights over many years by so many Conservative Members have been forgotten entirely and that Conservative Members are suddenly the champions of enhanced workers’ rights. We do not believe that, which is why we need legal safeguards in the Bill.
Matthew Pennycook
I am going to make some progress.
It may be the case that pragmatism and electoral appeal trump ideology, but there is no guarantee, and that is the point. We should not take risks with rights, standards and protections that have been underpinned by EU law. Hard-won employment entitlements, along with entitlements relating to the environment, health and safety, equalities and consumer rights, should not be vulnerable to steady erosion by means of secondary legislation outside of the powers contained in this Bill. In future, Ministers should be able to change the workers’ rights and other rights that came from the EU only through primary legislation, with a full debate in Parliament. On that basis, I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to support new clause 58.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
On a point of order, Dame Rosie. Yesterday’s selection list meant that it was not possible to debate the amendments on the customs union or on the European agencies. I do not say this as a criticism of the Chair—obviously, a selection has to be made—but these are extremely important areas of European law, which, as the current schedule stands, we will not now have an opportunity to debate. However, the Government did say that they were prepared, if need be, for extra time to be given to the Committee stage in the House. How might we facilitate securing more time to debate these extremely important issues?
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means
Obviously I would not comment on the order of selection on the Floor of the House, but the Leader of the House is here and I am sure that she will have heard the hon. Lady’s comments.
Mr Grieve
It is a pleasure again to be able to participate in this debate.
The new clause in the name of the Leader of the Opposition raises a really important issue about the way in which the Government have approached the whole question of retained EU law. To be clear at the outset, and it is worth repeating, the Government’s aim—to bring EU law into our own law, retain it there to ensure continuity and then, over time, to take such steps as this Parliament wishes to take to replace it or change it—makes absolute sense. But as we discussed yesterday, the difficulty that arises is that the origins of EU law mean that it has come into the law of this country in ways that are totally different from our usual process of primary and secondary legislation. [Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) wish me to give way? I thought that he said something from a sedentary position.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I said, “That’s why we are leaving”, in response to my right hon. and learned Friend’s comments.
Mr Grieve
I understand that that is why my hon. Friend thinks we should go. As he knows, I personally think that in the globalised world in which we operate, as we mentioned yesterday, the notion that the only source of law is likely to be the domestic Parliament of one’s country is rather fanciful, given that we are currently subordinate or have signed up cheerfully to all sorts of areas of international law without any difficulty at all. I accept, without wishing to go over old ground, that the way in which EU law operates in this country through its direct effect does pose some issues that have particularly exercised my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. Nevertheless, the idea that all sources of law in this country come from this House is wrong, full stop.
The question is how we make sure that in bringing this law into our own law, we preserve its essence—because that is what the Government say they want to do—until such time as we as a domestic Parliament decide that we want to do something about it. The problem that has arisen is that, as currently drafted, the importation of EU law means that standards in areas such as equalities and the environment will no longer enjoy the legal protection that EU membership gives them—indeed, they will, for the most part, be repealable by statutory instrument.
On the whole in this House, we would not think it appropriate to do that with our own primary legislation, and this legislation is undoubtedly important enough to have primary status. That is because clauses 2 to 4 on retaining most EU-derived law are worded in such a way as to turn it principally into secondary legislation in United Kingdom law.
Mr Rees-Mogg
There seems to be an inconsistency in what my right hon. and learned Friend is saying. He has been happy for law to come into this country and become our senior law having been approved by a qualified majority vote in which the British Government may have voted against, but he would object to its being repealed through a statutory instrument subject to a parliamentary process in this House and the other place.
Mr Grieve
I fully appreciate that my hon. Friend has a great distaste for the way in which this law has been imported into our country during the course of our membership of the EU. However, two wrongs do not make a right. He could profitably look at the prolonged period of time it is going to take to replace all this law—five years, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years? I would be prepared to have a small wager with him that some of this is still going to be around in three or four decades to come.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend concedes that two wrongs do not make a right. May I point out to him that the introduction of qualified majority voting was an achievement of the Thatcher Government? We persuaded the European Union to adopt the single market because we did not want small countries to be subjected to little pressure groups holding up very important standards that we needed to achieve in the new market we were creating. Mrs Thatcher sent as her commissioner Arthur Cockfield, who presided over several thousand of those being introduced so that the single market could get under way.
Mr Grieve
My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely correct. If I may explain, I was simply attempting—although I sometimes find it quite difficult—to put myself into the position of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who had explained his distaste. Having done so, I was trying to explain why he should still be concerned. I could not agree more with my right hon. and learned Friend. I am not troubled by the way in which this law has come into our country. We have kept our sovereignty. We made a choice to do this, and we did so because of an awareness of how, as international relations develop, it was in our national interest. That may represent a philosophical difference, but as I pointed out, there is all sorts of international law out there that binds us that did not originate in this Chamber.
We should be concerned about the fact that these laws matter. I do not know whether they matter to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone or other hon. Members, but if we go out into the street and ask people whether equality law—
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
I accept that my right hon. and learned Friend has considerably greater knowledge of these matters than I do, so I wish to ask him about a more general point. I take on board his detailed points about how law is made in this place. However, does he accept that we have very good laws that were made outside the EU—for example, the health and safety legislation that was made domestically in our Parliament? With regard to Labour Members saying that we are not concerned with workers’ rights—
The Second Deputy Chairman
Order. Interventions should be short, not mini-speeches.
Rachel Maclean
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with me on that point?
Mr Grieve
I do. I entirely accept that it is within the wit and ability of this House in future to replicate, if we so desire, many areas of law that currently come from the EU, but at the moment we do not have time to do that. We are taking in law that really matters to people out in the street. I suspect that the vast majority will have no idea where this law originates from; they will just say, “Actually, my employment rights are rather important.”
Mr Grieve
No, I will carry on for the moment and then give way.
People will value that law, and yet we are bringing it in and giving it a status that I regard as very unsatisfactory. There are a number of ways in which that could be addressed, including new clause 2, which has been tabled by the Opposition. I have tabled new clause 55, which I will briefly explain. It looks at the nature of retained EU law, establishes a general presumption that retained EU law may be amended only by primary legislation or subordinate legislation made under the Bill that we are enacting, and provides a framework for the Government to stipulate specific provisions of retained EU law that are merely technical, and therefore appropriate to be amended by subordinate legislation. I do not have any objection to that happening, but the rest would have to be dealt with by primary legislation. The new clause would provide much greater legal certainty about powers for future amendment of retained EU laws, and it would give the Government flexibility to amend technical provisions quite freely.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Given the concerns in the House, will my right hon. and learned Friend tell us which party introduced such legislation in the 19th century?
Mr Grieve
Yes, indeed: the Conservative party did precisely that. There is a proud record in the Conservative party—as, indeed, there is in the Opposition—of contribution to that process. I make it quite clear that I do not put the smallest imputation that those on the Treasury Bench, or on any of my colleagues in government, want to reduce those protections one bit.
Sir William Cash
I want to put on the record that I have a lot of sympathy with the idea of an enhanced sifting scrutiny process, as my right hon. and learned Friend knows. I am glad to note that he puts an emphasis, which I am sure we all agree with, on primary legislation. The only question that I want to raise with him about his earlier remarks concerns his enthusiasm for the manner in which the legislation was made in the first place. I make the point yet again that it was done, to an extraordinary extent, behind closed doors and by a process of consensus that cannot possibly be justified.
Mr Grieve
I understand where my hon. Friend comes from, in view of his long-held concerns about these issues. But I ask him to consider the fact that one consequence of our EU membership—I have to accept this—is that in some areas in which law might have developed domestically, it has not done so in the 45 years of our membership, because we did it in common with our European partners. That is just an historical fact. Because it is an historical fact, we have to grapple with how we make sure that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman feel, as I do, that from the Back Benches on both sides of the Committee is emerging an agreement, to which we wish the Government to respond? New clauses 50 and 51, tabled in my name and those of hon. Friends, are designed to make us look, first of all, not at laws from all over the world—we are, after all, debating the EU (Withdrawal) Bill—but at law from the EU. The new clauses would ensure that we put all EU law and regulations on to our statute book and allowed the House of Commons—we are not talking about a Henry VIII clause—to decide how we should review it.
My only slight worry with the new clause that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has tabled is that it will tie the hands of a future Government, as he accused me of doing yesterday. It might be that, on reflection, there are better ways of reviewing EU law than involving the whole House in primary legislation.
Mr Grieve
I read the right hon. Gentleman’s new clauses, and I can understand where he is coming from. If one looks at the totality of the amendments and new clauses in today’s debate, one sees that they are all trying to do, roughly speaking, much the same thing. The question is not the exact route that is adopted, but how the Government respond to that challenge. I do not want to take up more of the House’s time, but—
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
In case my right hon. and learned Friend is coming to a conclusion, I want to ask him this question. I think we all hope that the Government will propose some mechanism for sifting, but does he intend to make a binary distinction between delegated legislation, which could mean exclusively negative resolution, and primary legislation? Alternatively, is he willing to accept, as I think I would be, the possibility of a sift that involves allocating some tasks to the affirmative resolution procedure, and only some others to primary legislation?
Mr Grieve
I understand my right hon. Friend’s point, but I wonder whether we are in danger of straying into another topic. There is an issue about the operation of the mechanism for implementing the changes and taking us out of the EU. I keep confidently hoping that the Government will be able to respond positively to that by having an adequate sifting mechanism for Parliament. Even when that has taken place, the changes envisaged for EU law are, as far as I can see, of a semi-permanent or permanent character. They are about the nature and quality of the law that we have decided to bring in, rather than the manner in which we have decided to do so. New clause 55 is very similar to new clause 25, tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), and they seek to look at the matter in slightly different ways. The question is how the Government will respond.
That raises, perhaps, a more fundamental issue about the process of debate in this House, on which I hope the Government will be able to provide some reassurance this afternoon. I do not know how other hon. Members found it, but I found yesterday hugely instructive, not because it led to some votes—it did so, but let us leave the votes out of it—but precisely because it gave us the opportunity to have a cogent and sensible debate about problems on which, as we proceeded, we began to perceive that there might indeed be a degree of consensus. The problem is that we always run up against the sense that if the Government come to the Dispatch Box and say, “This is very interesting, and we will think about it,” but we do not do something about it then and there, we may lose our opportunity ever to do something about it. We will, of course, have the opportunity of Report stage, should the Bill have one.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I want to pick up my right hon. and learned Friend’s point about consensus. As I understand it, new clause 55 is designed to send a clear message that the Government do not intend to lower standards for the environment, financial services or consumers without an open and transparent process. I have heard Ministers say from the Front Bench again and again that they do not intend to lower those important standards. Does he agree that that is an important message to give to our future trading partners in Europe?
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Geraint Davies
On that point, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman envisage a point in the future—it could be a very short time away—when tariffs are imposed and economic circumstances are such that businesses demand reductions in cost? Businesses will turn to the four weeks’ paid holiday, the 48 hours directive or anything else that will cut their costs, and the Government will be tempted to abolish those rights.
Mr Grieve
I do not think I am quite as apocalyptic as the hon. Gentleman, because I happen to think that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said in his speech yesterday, the idea that the UK suddenly wishes to translate itself into a country of no regulation and no protection at all is fanciful. I have never seen the smallest sign of that from any section of the public. Indeed, one of the things that brings us together as a nation is agreeing that quality of life matters while, at the same time, wishing to develop a cohesive society.
Frank Field
Is it not true that the clearer the message we send out from the debate on this Bill that we are adopting the whole corpus of laws and regulations, the easier it will be to do a trade deal because we will be competing on the same terms?
Mr Grieve
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important and interesting point, to which I have no doubt the Government will respond. As I have said, however, I do not wish to be prescriptive. I want an assurance from the Government that this matter is being looked at, and that it cannot really be divorced from some of the things we will look at next week, or whenever the Committee sits again.
My desire is that we should have such debates. I do not wish to force the Government’s hand, even though that may appear superficially attractive. I do not actually wish to put new clause 55 to the vote; it has problems of its own. However, I put the Government on notice that we are going to have to draw together the issues we are debating today, and I am convinced that we will debate similar issues next week.
All those issues derive from the same problem about the way in which the Government have approached and have at the moment drafted the legislation, and that problem must be remedied. It can be remedied, and I am happy to work with the Government to try to ensure that it is remedied. If necessary, we can come back to this on Report—on the assurance that we will have a real opportunity to do so on Report—and then pull the strands together and produce a package that will command some consensus across the House. I very much hope to hear that from the Government this afternoon, if I am not to be tempted to put my new clause to the vote.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I rise to speak to amendments 200 to 201 in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and to new clause 45, which will be decided on at a later date. I also want to support amendment 217, tabled by our colleagues in Plaid Cymru.
Last week, with several members of the Brexit Select Committee, some of whom have already spoken about this, I went on a very informative visit to Brussels and Paris. It was very informative partly because the people we spoke to were so well informed and so forthcoming. They appeared to be a lot better informed and more forthcoming about what Brexit is really going to mean than a great many Conservative Members and, indeed, than some Conservative Front Benchers.
In about 20 hours of meetings, the shortest and most perceptive comment we heard—this sums up where we now are with Brexit—came from a member of the European Affairs Committee of the French Senate. He quite simply said, “Quelle pagaille!”—“What a mess!” I replied that if he thought it looked like a mess from the French side of the channel, he should try looking at it from the United Kingdom’s point of view.
We have a Government who rushed into a referendum too soon, at a time when the UK population was the least well-informed in the whole of Europe of what Europe is actually about. Article 50 was triggered in indecent haste—far sooner than it needed to be—simply to pacify some of the more rabid Brexiteers on the Government Benches.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I was delighted to hear that we may have a consensual approach. May I gently chide the hon. Gentleman, because the public are rather fed up with being told that they are too stupid to know what they are doing, which is rather what he is saying?
Peter Grant
I can only refer the hon. Lady to surveys carried out immediately before the referendum. Citizens in every country in the European Union were asked a number of questions on what they thought the EU was about, and it is a matter of fact that UK citizens were less well-informed about the EU—not because they are stupid, but because this Parliament and the free press in this country have failed to keep them adequately informed. For example, Government MPs referred to the Syrian refugee crisis during debates on the European Union Referendum Bill, but the Syrian refugee crisis had nothing to do with our EU membership. In fact, it had everything to do with our membership of the human race—and as far as I am aware, there have not yet been any proposals for us to leave that.
Peter Grant
Yes, it did. A 600-page White Paper was also produced a year or so before the referendum, which allowed everyone taking part to be a lot better informed than even the same Scots voters were about the EU referendum.
It is also worth reminding ourselves that after what has been described as a disastrous and divisive referendum, the first thing that happened in Scotland was that campaigners from all sides got together in local churches, held services of reconciliation and committed ourselves to working together to make the result work, even if it was not the result that we wanted. In the immediate aftermath of the EU referendum, there was a massive increase in crimes of racial hatred against citizens in this country and elsewhere. That was not the fault of those who voted to leave, but a consequence of how the referendum had been set out and how, for too many people, the campaign was conducted.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s view that we leave voters did not know what we were doing. I found that people were very intelligently engaged and understood it. Why does he think the remain campaign and the EU institutions were unable to get people up to the level that he thought they ought to be?
Peter Grant
Possibly because some people believed what was written on the side of a bus about £350 million coming to the NHS. I have heard the claims that that did not make a difference, but if that is the case why did the leave campaign pay for it and why was it so keen to promote it?
The referendum has been held, and I have to accept that two parts of the United Kingdom have voted to leave the European Union. I do not have any right to stand in their way, but I say again that this Parliament will not be allowed to ignore the fact that two parts of the United Kingdom voted to stay. When 62% of the people in my country have said, “We want to remain in the European Union,” it is our constitutional and democratic responsibility to make sure that we honour that instruction in the best way possible. One way to do that, if it is impossible to avoid Scotland being torn out of the European Union against our will, is to retain as much as possible of the benefits that our people get from EU membership, and that is what I want to address by speaking to our new clause 45, which will be decided at a later date, and Plaid Cymru’s amendment 217.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
My hon. Friend was indeed correct to say that hate crime rose after the Brexit referendum, but for the sake of accuracy it is worth reminding ourselves that, while it rose in the UK on aggregate, it actually fell in Scotland.
Peter Grant
It is certainly correct to say that reported hate crime fell. I was made aware of a couple of cases in my own constituency of hate crimes not being reported to the police, for reasons that I did not understand but had to accept on the part of the victims. We have to be careful because, rather than there being a reduction in hate crime, perhaps it is being under-reported, but my hon. Friend makes a good point.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
This has already been raised in the Chamber, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that today’s story in the papers about whatever the Russians did that may have skewed the Brexit referendum result is a very worrying issue?
Peter Grant
It would certainly be worrying if any major power was able to use dirty tricks to influence the result of a democratic process in any country. It may be worth remembering that it is not that long ago that David Cameron pleaded with Vladimir Putin to interfere in another referendum to ensure that he got the result he wanted. It is important that, if we are going to criticise and call out foreign interference on behalf of our opponents, we should also be prepared to call out foreign interference in our favour.
It is important for the people I represent and the nation that has sent me to this Parliament to be one of its representatives that we seek to retain as much as possible of the benefit of European Union membership, even after we have been forced to temporarily leave it, so we should seek to reverse the Government’s unilateral decision on membership of the single market and the customs union. Plaid Cymru’s short amendment would help to do that by ensuring that, even after leaving the EU, the Government have no authority to leave the European economic area without a further vote of this Parliament.
The first benefit of that would be that the 4 million would be able to relax, if the UK Government say today, “We got it wrong. We’re staying in the European economic area and in the single market.” All the worries about settled status and all the paperwork that people have to go through just to guarantee the rights that they already have would stop, as would all the concerns about how we square the circle of borders or no borders at different stages between the UK, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland if Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom remain in the single market and the EEA.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Can the hon. Gentleman explain what on earth he is talking about has got to do with the two clauses under discussion?
Peter Grant
I am speaking to amendments on the amendment paper, if the right hon. Gentleman would care to look at them.
I have no great expectation that the Government will accept either Plaid Cymru’s amendment or the SNP’s proposed new clause, which will be decided at a later date, but I want to continue to remind them and their Back Benchers, as well as Opposition Back Benchers, that we do not have a final, irreversible decision on the single market. We might not even have an irreversible decision on the European Union, but we certainly do not yet have an irreversible decision on the single market and membership of the European economic area.
There is a way in which the Government can extricate themselves from the mess that they have created for us; end the torment of 4.5 million people who still do not have an absolute legal guarantee that their children will be allowed to finish at the school at which they have already started; ease the daily growing concerns of businesses the length and breadth of these islands that do not know whether they will be allowed to import raw materials or export finished goods; and ease the concerns of our public services that their essential workers, including care workers, nurses and doctors, may not be able to continue to move here to serve our people. It is all right for the bankers, of course, because there will be an exception for them. They will have free movement, but nurses, doctors and care assistants are apparently not important enough.
Even if, for political reasons, the Government cannot ask their Back Benchers to support amendments either today or during later Committee sittings, I ask them to think very carefully about what I am saying. There has not been a referendum to leave the single market, so the situation can be changed by the will of this Parliament and the support of the Government. They do not have to go back on their promise to respect the result of the referendum to leave the European Union, but they can reverse the headlong charge towards the cliff edge and make sure that the Bill actually delivers what it is supposed to deliver, and that means we have a soft landing instead of falling off the cliff edge in March 2019.
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
I rise to speak in support of clauses 2 and 3. It is a pleasure to participate at Committee stage, which is one of my favourite stages of debate because it is a time when we can all can come together in a mature way to look at the detail of the Bill and debate it as grown-ups. May I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Benches, and indeed to all hon. Members, that I certainly intend to take very seriously the points that have already been made, and those that will be made today, in future Committees days, and—I assure my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) of this—on Report?
Michael Tomlinson
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for giving way so early in his remarks. Will he also reflect on: the Health and Morals of Apprentices Act 1802; the Factory and Workshop Act 1878, which was brought in by Disraeli; the 1901 Act brought in by Salisbury; and, if we wind forward to the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, rights, such as maternity and paternity rights, that far exceeded the EU’s minimum guarantees?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend’s point is well made. We are talking about centuries of progress. To bring things right up to date, the Prime Minister made a pledge in her Lancaster House speech, which was underlined in our manifesto—I can underline this again today on behalf of the Government—that the Brexit process will in no way whatever be used to undermine or curtail the rights of workers that are enshrined both in domestic law and in law by virtue of the European Union.
Frank Field
When the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) allowed me to intervene, I asked whether a consensus was emerging. New clause 50 states that all European laws and regulations would be brought on to our statute book by European exit time, but is the Minister saying that that will actually occur and that such an amendment is unnecessary? If that is the case, some of us will not have to move our amendments.
The Solicitor General
In a nutshell, I would say that the right hon. Gentleman’s amendment and those associated with it are indeed unnecessary. I will set that out in more detail when I come on to address his point and those made by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), who spoke to the amendments very helpfully, if I may say so with respect.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that I respect him. If we take him and what he is saying at face value, I do not think he has a lot to fear from new clause 55, new clause 25 or the other measures being proposed as they would simply secure what he is saying. However, does he understand why many of us have suspicions when we hear speeches about a low-regulation economy from Members such as the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) that are then retweeted by the Department for International Trade? That is where these deep worries are coming from.
The Solicitor General
I absolutely understand the concerns of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. The Government’s policy is clear, and I shall address in further detail where the Government stand on those amendments.
The Solicitor General
May I make some progress at this stage? I will certainly invite the right hon. Gentleman to intervene later, but I want to develop my arguments on the clauses.
Clause 2 preserves the domestic law we have made to implement our EU obligations. More specifically, the clause will preserve any domestic regulations made under section 2(2) of, or paragraph 1A of schedule 2 to, the European Communities Act 1972. Without clause 2, such legislation would lapse at the same time as the repeal of the 1972 Act, meaning that there would be substantial holes in our statute book on the day we leave the EU. The clause is therefore essential to preserve our statute book and provide certainty over what our law is. I think that all Members would agree that at the heart of the rule of law is the need for certainty. That was why the Prime Minister put that at the top of her list when she outlined her criteria in the Lancaster House speech, and it was why I campaigned very strongly on that when standing for re-election.
Lady Hermon
I am listening to the Minister very patiently. He, like other Members who have looked closely at the Bill, will know that clauses 2 and 3 both conclude with a key phrase:
“This section is subject to section 5 and Schedule 1 (exceptions to savings and incorporation).”
We cannot possibly consider clauses 2 and 3 without looking at schedule 1, which removes overnight the general principles of EU law such as non-discrimination, proportionality and respect for fundamental rights.
Lady Hermon
The Minister may shake his head and he may not agree, but that is in the Bill he is advancing in this Chamber.
The Solicitor General
With respect to the hon. Lady, I do not agree with her analysis. We will carry out more detailed scrutiny of clause 5 and schedule 1 at a later stage, but I reassure her that clauses 2 and 3 will create certainty which, as I have said, is vital.
We drafted clause 2 in a deliberate way. We have drawn it more widely than to cover just domestic legislation created under the 1972 Act as it will also apply to any other domestic primary or secondary legislation that implements EU obligations. It will apply to any related domestic legislation, any domestic legislation relating to law that will be retained under clauses 3 and 4, and indeed any domestic legislation that is otherwise related to the EU or the European economic area. That ensures that all that legislation will form a part of what we define as retained EU law.
We have done that for two reasons. First, it means that this legislation, where relevant, will be interpreted in the light of pre-exit case law—the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union—and the general principles of EU law, which are provided for in clause 6. That is vital to ensure not only that we save the legislation, but that we provide for it to operate in precisely the same way as it did before, which will prevent legal uncertainty about how such provisions should be interpreted.
Secondly, our approach ensures that to the extent that deficiencies might arise in any legislation as a result of exit, they can be corrected under powers in the Bill. Saving the domestic legislation under this clause will therefore reduce the risk of uncertainty and increase continuity as to the law that applies in the UK. It will also mean that we avoid the famous cliff edge that many hon. Members are worried about when we leave the EU.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I do not want to pursue further the questions about clause 6—we will talk about them anon, and we talked about them yesterday—but while very many of us have no objection to anything my hon. and learned Friend says about the way in which existing law will be incorporated under clauses 2 and 3, does he accept that the issues raised by Members on both sides of the Committee are about the mechanisms by which the Bill seeks to achieve what he describes as correcting deficiencies, but could also be used to do much more than that? Does he therefore accept that the only thing we are currently debating is the mechanism to ensure that more than correcting deficiencies is not done by the technical means of statutory instruments under the negative procedure?
The Solicitor General
That is the nub of it. I hope that I can reassure right hon. and hon. Members that the Government’s policy is very clear and delineated, and that this is not some out-of-control power grab involving the use of the Bill—this is a framework and process Bill—as a basis to change policy. That is not the intention of the Bill.
Frank Field
The Minister has persuaded me that I do not need to speak to or move new clause 51, which relates to the point raised by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). Given the general wish in the country to take power back, new clause 51 would provide a place where power is supposed to come back to—the actual authorities—and set the means by which we review what we want to keep, extend, amend and kick out. Will the Government allow us to decide the mechanisms by which we undertake that review?
The Solicitor General
I take issue with the mechanism in new clause 51, which would be rather burdensome and could increase uncertainty, which would not be good for businesses or citizens, but I will take the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman tabled it very much to heart and mind when considering how to develop the ongoing dialogue about the means by which this place can sort the wheat from the chaff, if I may use that phrase.
Frank Field
I hope that this will be my last intervention. The purpose of the measure is to make sure that we all know that the task will be massive. I thought the idea preposterous that most of us would be prepared to give up all our other interests to participate in that mega review, which the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield said might go on for 20 years, and I thought we could hand back quite a bit of it to the Government, providing we could keep hold of the reins.
The Solicitor General
The right hon. Gentleman is right to call this task mega. I remind the House that, according to the EU’s legal database, more than 12,000 EU regulations are currently in force here. As for UK domestic legislation, the House of Commons Library indicates that there have been around 7,900 statutory instruments implementing EU legislation. This is indeed a mega task—to coin his phrase.
Geraint Davies
I accept that there is no intention that the Bill takes away the rights and protections enshrined in EU law and that the Bill does not imply that they will be taken away. The problem is that the Bill enables future Governments to do so, and there is therefore a need to protect those fundamental rights and protections by providing that they can be amended only through primary legislation. They need to be separated from the great mass of technical stuff that can be sifted by the European Scrutiny Committee or other such turbo-charged Select Committees, which could look at the minutiae.
The Solicitor General
The hon. Gentleman has been a committed pro-European throughout his career. I enjoyed his YouTube videos during the campaign—[Interruption.] I look forward to starring in one. We must not forget, however, that the important sunset provisions in clause 7 limit the use of such powers to two years after 29 March 2019. Clause 9 is now sunsetted to a very restrictive interpretation with regard to the duration of its powers. I hope that that, together with the important policy statements we have made, and are making again today, will give the hon. Gentleman the comfort he is looking for. [Interruption.] He is chuntering away. With respect, perhaps he could hear me out. I am trying to give him the comfort he rightly seeks for his constituents and to reassure him that his fears are unjustified.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
My hon. and learned Friend accepts that the problem is that the Bill includes powers that could be used to make drastic reductions in environmental standards and other things without any proper parliamentary process. There is a widespread consensus among remainers and leavers that we do not want the powers to be used in that way. He sounds as though he is about to reassure us that the policy of the present Government is that although they are taking the powers, they have no intention of using them for such purposes. I have the highest regard for him—he is a personal friend—and I quite accept that a Government led by this Prime Minister is not about to use draconian powers to lower standards, as her instincts are quite the other way. Given that the powers are therefore not needed—we do not need a Bill to give us powers that no one wants to use—why can we not amend the Bill to put it beyond doubt that no such attempt will be made? Heaven forfend that my party should swing to the right at any time in its long and distinguished history, but there are members of the present Government who are not excessively fond of lizards and bats, or workers’ rights. We would all be reassured if he undertook to put in the Bill a reduced level of powers.
The Solicitor General
My right hon. and learned Friend knows that I hold him in the utmost respect—reverence even—but, having discussed the mega task that faces us with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), I think he will agree that it is probably safer and wiser for the Government, with a belt-and-braces approach, to make sure that we do not have any slips between cup and lip, and that there are no lacunas or loopholes in the law that could actually endanger these protections and rights.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
I share the concerns of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). If the Government will not use the powers, why are they giving them to themselves? The Minister talks about dialogue and reassurance, but I have not heard anything practical from him about how he will change the Bill to address these concerns. What is he going to do?
The Solicitor General
I will come to that, but first I want to deal with the amendments tabled by the hon. Lady’s colleagues.
The Solicitor General
I need to press on, because other Members want to speak and I am mindful that you, Dame Rosie, want as many as possible to have the opportunity to do so.
The Solicitor General
I am sorry. I need to press on.
Clause 3 converts the text of direct EU legislation, as it operates at the moment immediately before we leave the EU, into our domestic law. Such existing EU law is currently given legal effect in our law via section 2(1) of the 1972 Act. Without clause 3, those laws would no longer have effect in domestic law when we leave and repeal the 1972 Act. Again, that would leave holes within our domestic law. More specifically, the clause converts EU regulations, as well as certain decisions and tertiary legislation, into domestic law. It also converts adaptations to instruments made for the EEA. The clause is necessary to ensure that we fully keep existing EU laws in force within the UK.
In general, these instruments, or parts of them, will be converted only if they are already in force before exit day, meaning that an EU regulation set to come into force six months after we leave will not be converted into UK law. However, some EU instruments will be in force but will apply only in a staggered way over time, with different parts applying at different times. In those circumstances, only those parts that are stated to apply before exit day will be converted.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I might be anticipating the Minister’s later remarks, but does that not leave us with a possible loophole when we have participated in the preparation of measures that have not yet come into force and we might regard as thoroughly desirable, but we cannot by any means bring them into force?
The Solicitor General
I will deal briefly with my hon. Friend’s amendment 356. As I was saying, we have some examples here, such as the EU’s fluorinated greenhouse gases regulations, which are stated as applying from 1 January 2015. They include prohibitions on placing certain substances on the market from specific dates, several of which fall after exit day. With respect, however, his amendment could create further confusion, because there needs to be one standard cut-off point at which the snapshot of law is taken, and that is why exit day should apply. When it comes to measures affected by the cut-off point, we will do whatever is necessary before exit day to provide certainty for business, including by bringing forward further legislation, if required, to cater for those particular situations. If I may return to develop—
The Solicitor General
I will certainly take more interventions, but I am mindful of the time.
May I deal with clause 3? The clause converts only the English language version of the instrument. Other language versions will remain available, as they do now, for interpretive purposes. Finally, as hon. Members would expect, the EU instruments that have never applied in the UK will not be converted under the clause. That includes instruments in respect of the euro and measures in the area of freedom, security and justice in which this country did not choose to participate. Those exempt instruments are described in schedule 6.
Margaret Greenwood
The Government have said that they will guarantee existing employment rights derived from the EU, but the EU is also looking at proposals to extend those rights by, for example, requiring employers to give workers on zero-hours contracts a written statement of their pay rates and expected hours of work. Will the Government champion employment protection and require employers to give workers on zero-hours contracts a written statement of their terms and conditions?
The Solicitor General
The Government, through the Taylor review, have been committed to looking at all aspects related to zero-hours contracts, and this, post-exit day, will be a matter for the House and this Parliament to determine. It may well be that this or a future Government make changes of the sort that the hon. Lady and others are looking for. The fact that we are leaving the EU in no measure whatever rules out the potential for those changes to be made.
May I deal with—
The Solicitor General
I am sorry, but I need to make progress. I want to deal with the proposals tabled by hon. Members, including the Opposition spokesman.
I will say a little about how we will deal with converted law, which was raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. Converted law will become domestic legislation. It will not automatically have the status of either primary or secondary legislation. Indeed, as has already been referenced, paragraph 19 of schedule 8 sets this out:
“For the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998, any retained direct EU legislation is to be treated as primary legislation”.
We all know—including the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the shadow Secretary of State—about the consequences in terms of incompatibility, the power of the courts and what the House can do to rectify legislation. I think that is an enhancement. It is a welcome initiative and I know the right hon. and learned Gentleman shares my view about that.
Where there are existing pre-exit powers to make subordinate legislation, which is capable of amending retained direct EU legislation such as converted regulations, the converted legislation is to be treated as secondary legislation for the purposes of scrutiny procedures under those pre-exit powers. In other words, we might bring something down to this place and transpose it. We used to use the term “gold plating”, but it has somewhat gone out of fashion now, and I think the Government improved their processes over the years. However, there have been powers to vary, and, in effect, that will be treated as secondary legislation—no change, really, because the House already had those powers with regard to scrutiny.
It follows, then, that where there are not pre-exit powers to make subordinate legislation, we will look case by case at the converted law and determine how it is to be treated. This is the point that has been made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and others: how are we to determine what is what? As I have said, I am keen to ensure that all concerns are properly listened to, and that when we come to further amendments on further days, the Government give full consideration to how to create that mechanism and in what form the House, and indeed the other place, would like it to be administered.
Sir Oliver Letwin
My hon. and learned Friend may be saying what I had hoped he was going to say. May I ask him to be a little more specific? Does he mean that, in due course and in their own time, the Government will come forward with—if I might put it this way—a triage amendment that settles a process for distinguishing between technical deficiency amendments and substantive amendments, and the way in which either is treated?
The Solicitor General
We are going to continue the dialogue, listening extremely carefully. Indeed, there might be a form of words that we can agree on that satisfies this place. Let us not forget that primary legislation is not the only way we can create this mechanism. There are Standing Order provisions of the House that the House jealously protects and preserves, and the Government are mindful of the need not to trespass on the exclusive cognisance of the House.
The Solicitor General
I think I must give way to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), who has been waiting for me to allow her to intervene.
Lady Hermon
I am extremely grateful to the Minister, because I took him at his word. In his opening remarks, he said how much he welcomed consideration in Committee of any Bill because it allowed us to debate in an adult fashion, so I am grateful to him for, at long last, giving way.
May I seek clarification, without the Minister referring to his very complicated notes? People need to understand what is happening, and I would like him to explain, before anyone withdraws or decides not to press their proposal, how directly effective provisions of EU law will be safeguarded. These are rights that arise through EU jurisprudence, not from a directive or a regulation. I want guarantees from him that directly effective provisions are protected beyond the Bill.
The Solicitor General
One reason the hon. Lady has not heard me outline that concern in detail is that clause 4 is the sweeper clause and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, will deal with that in the second part of the debate. I assure her that, by the end of today’s proceedings, her concerns will, I hope, have been addressed during the debate on clause 4.
I want to deal with the amendments, having, I hope, made—
The Solicitor General
May I make progress? I would be grateful, as I need to make progress on the amendments. I think I have been more than generous in giving way. I will move on to try to ensure that I deal with all the points that have been raised.
May I deal first with health and safety legislation? There has been a lot of proper debate about that. The way existing powers are used—the way the UK meets its obligations to implement EU law—is most typically through regulations that are made under the 1972 Act, but regulations are also made under a range of other Acts for these purposes, sometimes in conjunction with the 1972 Act powers and sometimes not. For example, some health and safety regulations are made using the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the 1972 Act where the 1974 Act alone cannot provide the vires, or powers, for those regulations.
One example is the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations 2015. They are made for the purposes of health and safety and of environmental protection, the latter being outside the vires of the 1974 Act. Those regulations prevent and mitigate the effects of major accidents involving dangerous substances, which can cause serious damage and harm to the public and to the environment. The parts of the regulations made under the 1974 Act can continue to be updated after exit under existing powers conferred by that legislation.
As I have set out, clause 2 rightly takes a maximalist approach to preserving direct legislation. It sets it out that any domestic legislation that implements EU obligations or is otherwise related to the EU or the EEA will continue to have effect after our exit. The effect is that those regulations will therefore become retained EU law within the meaning given in the Bill. So it is absolutely right that after we have left the European Union, domestic powers granted by Parliament in other Acts can operate on what will become retained EU law, and as such will be our domestic law. This is so that appropriate changes can be made in future, in line with any domestic policy, where they are within the scope of those powers and the will of this place.
In contrast, the amendments would fetter powers across the statute book that Parliament has already delegated. Relying only on powers set out in this Bill to amend retained EU law would be insufficient and would defeat the purpose of what Parliament has previously set up in the 1974 Act, for example, and other Acts. As I have set out, these powers are in many cases very important and help to deliver functioning regimes. Each of them also contains its own limitations. Those limitations were agreed by Parliament when it agreed to create the powers in question.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The Minister has talked quite a lot about the purpose of this exercise being to provide continuity and certainty, but is it not the case that that will be true only on day one? He cannot guarantee any continuity or certainty on day 100 or day 1,000, but is not that, for many of his colleagues, the whole point of leaving the European Union?
The Solicitor General
The right hon. Gentleman is old enough and wise enough to know that, while this exercise of freezing the law in time on exit day has to be done, the law is a constantly evolving creature. None of us can stand here and bind the hands of our successors. What we can do, as men and women of good will seeking to achieve as sensible and smooth a Brexit as possible, is provide legal certainty. That is why I am here. That is why I have undertaken to try to deal with this task. That is why this Government are doing everything they can, within the time they have, to get this right.
Mr Grieve
I have been listening carefully to what my hon. and learned Friend has been saying. Again, there seems to be an overlap. There are issues about how Parliament conducts scrutiny, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) has mentioned. That is also covered in proposed new subsection (3) of my new clause 55. There is also the question about modifications to some areas of retained EU law taking place in any way other than by primary legislation, in the longer term. Keeping those two points in mind, may I invite him to go away and see, as the discussion continues, what the Government can come up with by way of a package involving those two elements that might commend itself to the House, bearing in mind the undertaking that he has given to look at this afresh on Report and for the Government to respond positively on Report to what has been said?
The Solicitor General
Yes, I am happy to do that. That is very much in the spirit what I have already said.
The Solicitor General
No, I would like to press on, if I may. I am mindful of the time, and I want to make sure that we get these points on record.
I want to deal with the points, which I hope hon. Members want to hear, about the Government’s commitment not only to workers’ rights but to consumer protection rights and environmental obligations—all of which have been very much a part of the work that we have done with our European partners during our 43 years of membership of the European Union. That does not change. I want to move on to some of the other amendments—
Mr Kenneth Clarke
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for giving way. This is quite an important issue. A moment ago, I thought that he was on the brink of saying that he would try to come back to the House on Report with the Government’s own legislative proposals to give effect to the good intentions that he has assured us the Government entirely share, but at the last moment he hesitated. When he said yes, was he committing the Government to putting in the legislation the best solution in response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) in particular, so that we could all be assured that the Bill will leave this House in a way that we entirely unanimously accept?
The Solicitor General
I am committed to trying to achieve the best solution, whether it is in the Bill or in an amendment to Standing Orders. I will not presume to tie the hands of this place. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend can take that as a clear assurance that I will do whatever I can to get this right.
The first and most important point to be made about new clause 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie)—it has, I think, already been made by several other Members—is that we have strong rights and protections here, domestically, which are not contingent on our future membership of the EU. We have a proud record, and in many areas our standards far exceed the minimum standards required by EU law—for instance, entitlement to annual leave and maternity allowances. When we leave the EU, it will be for this Parliament and, indeed, the devolved legislatures to determine the law and the rights that apply here in the United Kingdom.
I must say to the hon. Member for Nottingham East, with respect, that in my view the new clause would impose an onerous and unnecessary duty on the Government. There will be nothing to stop future Governments of whatever hue, or future Parliaments when exercising their sovereignty, from considering any legislation that the EU or the European Economic Area may make. They need not be obliged to do that; it will be a matter that they can take into consideration. A requirement to report to Parliament each and every time the EU amended its rules would be excessively onerous, given the number of reports that might be made and considered.
Moreover, we do not want to give the inappropriate impression that the path followed by our European partners will always be the path that we as a UK Parliament should follow. While I am entirely supportive of many measures that ensure that we work, converge and keep pace with our European partners, there will of course be plenty of opportunities for us to forge our own path. That, after all, is what the vote was all about.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for giving way. He is being very generous with his time, and he is making a very useful and, I think, positive speech explaining how the Bill will deal with people’s concerns about the cliff edge and limitations. Does he agree that it also gives us a chance to support the working statute book, ensuring that we look after our own environment, consumer rights, workers’ rights and LBGTI rights?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend is a passionate campaigner on many of those issues. I can reassure her and her constituents that that is precisely what we seek to do.
I hope that I have dealt with the new clauses tabled by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead—
Frank Field
I accept what the Solicitor General said about new clause 50, and I think we should thank him for what he said and what he will try to achieve. New clause 51 is about setting up mechanisms whereby the House could determine how the corpus of legislation and regulation brought into UK law could be reviewed. Will the Solicitor General say a word about that before I go to the Chair and say that I am satisfied in this instance as well?
The Solicitor General
I hoped that I had responded to new clause 51 in an earlier intervention. It is well intentioned, but the mechanism is too burdensome. It would impose an annual obligation to produce reports which I think would pile Pelion on Ossa, given the amount of work that we have to do in the House anyway because of the unusual circumstances that we face.
Frank Field
I do not think that the House has the appetite to undertake the review, given the ginormous amount of legislation that is coming over to us. I tried to get the Library to describe what would happen. Would this whole place be full of pieces of paper—full of legislation and regulations? How the hell are we, as individuals or groups, going to deal with that?
There is another crucial point. Given what was said by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), might there be discussions before Report about the form in which the Government might bring back the sentiment involved in what the Solicitor General is saying, and what we are all saying, so that we might vote on that?
The Solicitor General
Yes, indeed.
I shall now move on to new clauses 9, 22, 23 and 29, which is linked to amendment 128, new clause 45 and amendment 217, which is linked to amendment 64. They all in various ways deal with the question of the EEA. As we have said on several occasions, this is not about the UK pursuing an off the shelf arrangement; it is the UK seeking a bespoke arrangement that works for us. In the Florence speech of 22 September—which happens to be my birthday, although I am sure there was no coincidence in that—the Prime Minister set out a vision for the new economic partnership: a new partnership that will empower us to work together in continuing to bring shared prosperity for the generations to come.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I accept of course that we should have on the table the option of creating a bespoke deal for our future relationship, but surely we would want to have a range of options and models on the table as we shape that deep and comprehensive partnership? Why would we want to take one of those potential models off the table now, as it could be the building block of something different coming further down the line?
The Solicitor General
I always listen to what the hon. Gentleman says with a great deal of interest, but I say in the context of the Bill—although mindful of the constraints of Committee debate—that the thrust of these amendments will not achieve what their movers seek, which is to keep this country in the EEA. That is because all the amendments are based on a mistaken understanding of the UK’s relationship with the EEA. The UK is a party to the EEA agreement in its capacity as an EU member state, so once we leave the EU, the EEA arrangement will no longer be relevant. It does not have a practical effect at international level, and domestic legislation cannot change that.
John Redwood
Will the Minister confirm that one of the few things remain and leave agreed about in the campaign is that we would be leaving the customs union and the single market, and we would not be doing a Norway? [Interruption.] Both sides said that, and the British public understood it.
The Solicitor General
My right hon. Friend and I were on opposite sides of that debate—indeed, we have been on opposite sides of the debate on Europe for the 20 years and more that I have known him—but I never said in the many arguments I made up and down the country that this was a have your cake and eat it withdrawal: if we voted to leave, it would mean we left the institutions of the EU, which included the customs union and the single market. That is why I campaigned against it, but I accept, as every democrat I know does, the result of the referendum.
I shall now move on, as swiftly as I can, to deal with the effects of these amendments.
The Solicitor General
I would love to give way to the hon. Lady, but I am mindful of the time, and Mr Hoyle is looking at me in a very stentorian way, so I had better follow that instruction.
There are some potentially detrimental effects of the amendments that I know hon. Members would want to avoid. Amendment 217 seeks to remove the annexes to the EEA agreement from the scope of clause 3. The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) is not in his place at present, but the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) is here to represent their party’s interests, and I say to him that that amendment would not allow us to remain in the EEA, for the reasons I have set out, and it would damage the clarity and certainty we aim to provide.
As many hon. Members already know, the EEA agreement effectively extends the single market to three non-EU countries: Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. Annexes to the agreement specify which single market rules apply to those countries, along with any necessary adaptations, in order to make the single market properly operate with respect to these countries. Clause 3(2)(b) and (c), which amendment 217 would remove, provide that EU instruments which apply to the EEA will also be converted into domestic law. Those provisions are necessary to ensure that we fully preserve the existing laws and rules that apply here before our exit. They are not, and are not in any way intended to be, a means by which the UK ceases to be a party to the EEA agreement. The retention or otherwise of such annexes within our domestic law will not change that basic fact. The effect of amendment 217 would only be to leave gaps in the law which, as I have set out, would clearly be undesirable.
Heidi Alexander
Will the Solicitor General confirm whether the powers outlined in part 2 of schedule 8 and in clause 8 would allow Ministers to issue an article 127 notification under the EEA agreement?
The Solicitor General
That is not necessary. The provisions in schedule 8 are all about the frameworks, not the policy, and this Bill is not a vehicle for policy. This is a framework Bill that allows the law to operate within it. That is the distinction that I seek to draw. While I understand and respect the reasons behind the amendments, they do not deliver the policy outcomes that the hon. Lady and others may want.
The Solicitor General
I will not give way any further.
It is our policy that we will not be a member of the EEA or the single market after we leave the EU, so introducing an obligation to produce a report on membership of the EEA, as new clauses 9 and 23 seek to do, is simply unnecessary.
I will now try to deal fairly with the Scottish National party amendments 200 and 201, which the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) spoke to. While we do not accept that the amendments are necessary, I welcome the chance to set out clearly the meaning of clause 2. Amendments 200 and 201 seek to provide clarity on precisely what is meant by “passed” in the context of the clause. Some have questioned the effect of clause 2 in relation to an Act that may have been passed by the Scottish Parliament, but which has not yet received Royal Assent when the clause is commenced.
We do not believe that there is an ambiguity. Clause 2(2) states that “EU-derived domestic legislation” is an enactment. As enactments can only mean something that has received Royal Assent, an Act of Scottish Parliament that has only been passed cannot fall within this definition, and it would therefore not be categorised as EU-derived domestic legislation for the purposes of the Bill. The reference to “passed” in clause 2 is therefore a reference to the purpose for which the enactment was passed, not the fact of whether it was passed. I hope I have been able to shed light on that area for the hon. Gentleman, and I invite him to withdraw the amendment.
Turning now to Plaid Cymru’s amendment 87, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Arfon, we do not accept the premise that lies behind the change. In trying to circumvent the provisions of clause 11, the amendment pays no heed to the common approaches that are established by EU law or to the crucial consideration that we—the UK Government and the devolved Administrations—must give to where they may or may not be needed in future. What is more, it undermines our aim to provide people with maximum certainty over the laws that will apply on exit day. The amendment would also be practically unable to achieve its underlying aim. The enactments that it takes out of retained EU law would also be taken outside the scope of the powers that this Bill confers on the devolved Administrations to allow them to prepare them for exit day. It would hamper their ability to address the deficiencies that will arise, and it would leave it likely that the laws would remain broken on the day of exit.
The process of making the statute book work for exit day is a joint endeavour between the different Governments and legislatures of the whole United Kingdom. This is an important project that entails a significant workload before exit day, which is why we are actively engaging with the devolved Administrations to build up a shared understanding of where corrections to the statute book would be needed. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
I hope I have dealt with the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the Chair of the Select Committee on Justice.
Robert Neill
When the Minister talks about bringing forward a package on Report, do I take it that the amendment in my name and in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) is intended to be in that package?
The Solicitor General
I am always happy to engage with my hon. Friend and with my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond). I know the spirit in which they tabled the amendment, and I look forward to the dialogue to come.
I commend clauses 2 and 3 to the House.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. We have a lot of speakers and, as Members are well aware, there is no knife today. I will not be setting a time limit, so in order to get to the second debate I suggest that Members use up to eight minutes, including interventions.
Heidi Alexander
I rise to speak to new clauses 22 and 23 in my name. I say at the outset that I will not take interventions because I know other Members wish to speak. I put on record my thanks to George Peretz QC for his help in drafting the new clauses.
New clause 22 would prevent Ministers from using provisions in this Bill as the basis for withdrawing the UK from the European economic area, whether under article 127 of the European economic area agreement or otherwise. It would also ensure that Ministers cannot use the regulation-making powers they seek to give themselves in other parts of the Bill to circumvent that carve-out. It would mean, in effect, that if Ministers wanted to take us out of the EEA, which is the grouping of EU and non-EU countries that together make up the single market, they would need to introduce a separate Bill to authorise that.
Why is this necessary? The UK is currently a member of both the EU and the EEA. Although the bodies overlap, they have different member countries, they are governed by different treaties and they have different guiding principles at their heart. There is one process for leaving the EU, as governed by article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, and another for leaving the EEA—article 127 of the EEA agreement requires a member to give 12 months’ written notice. Parliament should determine whether we trigger article 127 to notify our withdrawal from the EEA, and not the Prime Minister sat behind her desk in No. 10. MPs in this House, the public’s elected representatives, should decide, and there should be a specific, explicit vote that is binding on Ministers.
The Government’s contention that it is not necessary to trigger article 127, and that we do not need formally to leave the EEA as we are a member simply by virtue of our EU membership, does not stand up to scrutiny. All EU states are listed as contracting parties to the agreement, in addition to the EU itself and the three non-EU EEA states.
The Government have changed their argument on article 127 repeatedly over the past year. One minute they argue that our departure would be automatic, and the next that our membership would be unworkable. They assert legal opinion as irrefutable fact. They fail to acknowledge that a basic principle of international law is that a treaty relationship with another state cannot be changed simply by changing a different treaty to which that state is not party and assuming a knock-on effect. And the Government fail to acknowledge that, at a time when we would supposedly be wanting to sign international trade treaties with other countries in our own right, we might be in breach of the treaty that underpins the EEA. This all sounds very legalistic, but the issue has critical importance beyond the legal technicalities.
At its heart, new clause 22 is about democracy and our country’s future. In last year’s referendum there was only one question on the ballot paper:
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”
The words “European economic area” or “single market” did not feature. Had Parliament wanted people to take a view on the EEA, we could have legislated for that in 2015, but we did not. Some people say, “Everyone knew it meant we’d be leaving the single market,” but that is simply an interpretation of the result. Some people may have voted to leave it, but others did not. The Government are now rewriting history: they claim that coming out of the single market and customs union is an automatic consequence of the leave vote, not their political choice. If just one tenth of those who voted leave believed that we would stay in the single market, there never was a mandate for the sort of Brexit that the Government are now pursuing.
We spend hours in this place debating all the twists and turns of negotiations, parliamentary processes relating to withdrawal and so on, but we never seem to get to the crux of the issue. That is what new clause 22 would do: give us a parliamentary lever to shape Brexit. Parliament must determine whether we leave the single market. We must decide whether Ministers should notify other countries of our intention to leave the EEA. The process must not be reduced to some sort of back-door authorisation that can be cobbled together by adding up various bits of the Bill, but that is precisely what the Government are trying to do.
I believe that the repeal of the European Economic Area Act 1993 contained in part 2 of schedule 8 will be used by Ministers, alongside the powers they want to give themselves in clause 8, to claim parliamentary authorisation for setting the ball rolling on our departure from the EEA. They will claim that the by-product of Parliament’s voting, as part of the Bill, to remove domestic UK rights for the citizens and businesses of EEA countries such as Norway, is a parliamentary authorisation to notify other EU and EEA countries of our intention to leave.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I know that an overwhelming majority of the people who voted in the hon. Lady’s constituency voted to remain. Does she share my concern that many such people feel completely excluded from Brexit? Does she think that this sort of debate will absolutely help to bring people back together and, perhaps, to form a consensus on Brexit?
Heidi Alexander
I completely agree. My new clause may offer some form of compromise, which I shall set out in due course.
How many of our colleagues actually understand what the Bill will do? Why do the Government want to avoid open and transparent debate? Why is there not a specific clause in the Bill that makes it clear? The answer is obvious: the Government are doing everything they can to avoid an explicit vote on whether the UK should leave the EEA and the single market. They are worried that there might be a parliamentary majority for a so-called soft Brexit, in which we put jobs first and anxieties about immigration and so-called sovereignty second.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Heidi Alexander
I did say that I was not going to give way to anyone, so I am not going to do it again.
New clause 22 would not decide on the substantive question of EEA membership, but it would guarantee that at a future moment the House could have its say. If we do not change the Bill accordingly, we will have sold the pass.
Mr Hoyle, if you think the democratic arguments for the new clause are strong, I can tell you that the economic arguments are even stronger. The Government seem finally to have listened to business and have accepted the need for some form of interim arrangement to fill the hiatus that will exist between the conclusion of the article 50 negotiations and the signing of any new UK-EU trade deal. They claim that they want trade to continue on the same practical terms as today, for a time-limited period, even though they envisage that we will have legally come out of the European Union. That is basically an extension of EU membership, but without political representation: no British Members of the European Parliament in May 2019 and no representation at the Council of Ministers—no influence. The Government claim that that will not be the same as our remaining in the single market and customs union, although to all intents and purposes, it will be.
Banks, car manufacturers, IT firms, chemical producers and pharmaceutical companies all need clarity about their ability to sell into the European market and the continued viability of pan-European supply chains. The Government are right to want to give them certainty for a two-year period post the conclusion of the article 50 negotiations, but those companies need more.
If we are not going to lose jobs and investment, businesses need to know what tariffs will and will not apply on exports, what checks will be conducted on goods at the border, and what overall regulatory regime will apply to them in the future—not just in 2020, but in 2022, 2025 and beyond. A fudge might cut it for a few years, but it will not last forever. As a country, we will face a fundamental choice: do we align ourselves with European standards, or do we deregulate and go for weaker American or Chinese ones? There is not some fantasy mid-Atlantic option out there that the Government can conjure up, which is why continued membership of the European economic area could be so important.
Stephen Doughty
On an important point of clarification, my hon. Friend has made an incredibly strong speech. Citizens have only to go through the border and see EU and EEA as separate things on border signs to know the importance of the argument that she is making. Like me, would she like to see this measure put to the House at the appropriate time in the Bill, depending on the argument that we hear from the Government and others?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend has issued a very timely reminder to me. If it were possible, I would like that to happen.
Robert Neill
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hoyle.
This is another important debate on some key issues related to retained EU law. With no disrespect to my constituency next-door neighbour, the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), who made some powerful comments, I will concentrate specifically on those matters of retained law. As one might say in court sometimes, I adopt the arguments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). I was about to say that I had nothing further to add, but I will not go quite as far as that. None the less, I do entirely agree with his approach to this part of the Bill and to what we should seek to achieve in relation to retained law.
May I add a couple of other broader observations? I very much welcome the spirit of the remarks made by the Solicitor General and the other Ministers currently on the Treasury Bench. I am grateful for their constructive approach. It is a reminder that Conservative Members have far more in common than that which ever might cause us to disagree about matters on this Bill. It is also a timely reminder that our commitment to protecting social standards and protections is undiminished.
As has been rightly observed, the Conservative party has historically always been a party of social protection and social reform, from the great Christian philanthropists such as Shaftesbury through to Peel—arguably one of the greatest of all Conservative Prime Ministers—and Disraeli and up to the present day. I include a short plug for a previous Member of Parliament for a good part of the Bromley and Chislehurst constituency, the late Lord Stockton, who was, of course, the Member of Parliament for Bromley. Many of us are proud to be in that one nation progressive tradition and want to ensure that we take that forward into the future.
I now turn to amendment 356, which is in my name and is supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) for adding his name to it. The amendment concerns the UK’s ability to maintain regulatory alignment in the immediate period after the UK leaves the EU, where there is EU-derived legislation that is not fully in effect on exit day. The Solicitor General was kind enough to refer to that topic when I intervened on him. I accept his intentions, but I would like to develop my view on these issues a little further.
As we already know, clause 3 will impose a strict cut-off on the law that is to be retained in that it must not only be on the books—so to speak—but must also be fully applicable and effective immediately before exit day. So far, so good; it is obviously right that Parliament should not automatically apply EU laws introduced after Brexit. It should decide whether we want to apply them, as a matter of our own sovereign judgment. There will be cases, however, where legislation is sufficiently far down the line as we leave the EU that a more flexible approach is justified. It is that limited, but important, area of cases that I will deal with.
There may be legislation that we have no problem with as a matter of policy and that businesses or other affected parties would wish to have—perhaps we were involved in its preparation when we were still a member of the EU. The European Scrutiny Committee and other parts of the House may even have had the opportunity to peruse the documents, and business and other affected parties might already be making preparations to implement and comply with that legislation. How do we deal with that? At the moment, it looks as though we would need primary legislation in those cases. That would be cumbersome for all the reasons that the Solicitor General recognised in his exchanges with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field).
John Redwood
I do not see the problem with that. If the piece of legislation is as benign and generally agreed as my hon. Friend says, it will go through the House quickly. If it is not actually agreed and there are lots of issues to tease out, should not we put it through a proper democratic process?
Robert Neill
I rather think that what I am proposing in my amendment is the use of the affirmative procedure. I never heard my right hon. Friend say that that was not part of the proper democratic process when he was a Minister and used it many years ago; nor have I heard him say that on other occasions when it has been used. It is a question of what is proportionate. I entirely accept that there has to be scrutiny and a democratic process. But, for the very reasons accepted in the discussion between the Solicitor General and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead—the volume of matters that we would have to deal with, even with the sensible triage arrangements that we have to put in place—I am not sure that we need to go down the time-consuming route of full legislation going through both Houses. I am trying to propose a compromise that would get us through a limited number of quite technical cases.
I will use some examples predominantly from the financial sphere, but the amendment would also apply should we need to maintain regulatory equivalency in things such as data protection, which is important for criminal justice and legal justice co-operation. There may be no such cases when we leave, but they are always possible. That is what we need to deal with, and the principle holds generally.
We may also need to deal with the difficulties that might arise in the context of EU legislation that is only partly implemented on exit day, or legislation that is enforced on exit day but whose effective operation depends on secondary measures that will be passed after exit day, which is not unknown even in our own domestic arrangements. In that situation, it would seem sensible to have the option to domesticate that EU legislation as it comes into force in the EU, so that it is enforced with us at the same time. We could do that through a vote on an affirmative resolution statutory instrument, rather than by having to pass new primary legislation each time. That is a practicality matter, and I suggest it is important.
Jamie Stone
Will the hon. Gentleman elaborate on that in the Scottish context? Further to what he has just said, we can imagine the discussions that would take place between Holyrood and Westminster. How would those be timetabled in terms of what he has just said?
Robert Neill
It would be for the Government to choose whether to bring such things forward. At the moment, it would be quite onerous to have primary legislation. Not all these issues will, of course, affect the Holyrood situation. Holyrood may well wish to adopt a procedure for devolved matters, and we could look at that constructively. If there is to be a package of further discussions, we could also consider that further. Scotland is important as a centre of financial services, as is the City of London, and we could try to develop these things as we go forward.
Robert Neill
I need to make some progress, so I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me. I have not much more to say.
Let me explain how this procedure will work. The proposed use of the affirmative procedure takes account of the fact that this amendment addresses only EU legislation that is in train, but not wholly in effect. These pieces of legislation have been subject to policy input and scrutiny processes, so they are very limited in number.
Support for this approach comes from two practitioner-based groups in the City: the International Regulatory Strategy Group, which I referred to in debate yesterday, and the Financial Markets Law Committee. The strategy group includes most of the key players in the London financial world. The law committee is an independent body drawn from leading practitioners in City firms and institutions and from members of the judiciary—in fact, it is chaired by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who recently retired as Lord Chief Justice. Their imprimatur is likely to indicate that this modest proposal has a pretty strong parentage in terms of its expertise and application.
The two bodies identify potential sources of legal uncertainty affecting the wholesale financial markets. Let me give two examples. First, there is the situation regarding the second payment services directive. The directive will apply from next year and will be domesticated, but important regulatory technical standards that will underpin the operation of the directive are not expected to be finalised by the European Banking Authority until after Brexit. At the moment, the Bill will not allow us to adopt those standards into UK law. The amendment would give us a streamlined means to deal with that.
Some of the provisions of the prospectus regulation came into force over the summer, and some important elements are due to take effect in the months after Brexit. Do we have to go through full primary legislation to incorporate that, or do we deal with it through a streamlined procedure? The City institutions and practitioners think it would be much more sensible to have the procedure I propose, so that they have certainty that they will not have delays in the primary legislative process. They can then have the regulation in place, and they are already prepared for it.
That is the nub of the amendment. I am grateful, again, to the Remembrancer’s Office of the City of London for its assistance with the drafting. I am sure the Minister will want to find the means to achieve what is set out in the amendment. I hope that he will be able to respond and find a means of taking this forward.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I rise to speak to my new clause 25, which has cross-party support. The Minister has already praised me from the Dispatch Box for the clarity with which I have spoken to it, but I can reassure him that now this really is me doing so. I also support new clauses 55 and 58. All these new clauses relate to retaining enhanced protections after exit day. As will be evident from other measures I have tabled, including new clause 28, which is in today’s second group, my main concern is retaining the valuable environmental protections that flow from our EU membership. However, of course, employment rights, equalities, and health and safety standards, as set out in new clause 58, which was tabled by Labour Front Benchers, are also vital, and the same arguments apply to them.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, and particularly to clauses 2 and 3. Of course, my speech follows an intensive course over the past week on how to stage an exit, which was the focus of a degree of international attention. For anyone who is still tracking my movements, I can confirm that as I walked into the Chamber this afternoon, I passed statues and portraits commemorating some of our greatest statesmen, including Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill. Those statesmen stood up and defended democracy, freedom and the sovereignty of our great nation.
The Bill paves the way for a smooth withdrawal from the European Union. It complements many of our debates and discussions about article 50 and delivers on the will of the British people, as expressed in the referendum. I welcome the clarity provided by clauses 2 and 3. I pay tribute to my colleague the Solicitor General, who spoke with great clarity for almost an hour about providing guarantees and ensuring that a snapshot of EU law, as it currently applies, is maintained in this country.
The clauses are comprehensive and sensible. They outline pragmatically the steps that need to be taken to prevent a legislative vacuum. They provide important certainty to businesses and the public. They should help to ensure that the great Brexit trade deal that we hope to secure—and we will secure—for our country can be agreed with the EU on exit with regulatory equivalence in place in the right quarters. Of course, because we are taking back control, this Parliament, the Government and the devolved Administrations will be in a position to amend, adapt and change measures, as appropriate, in the years ahead.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the right hon. Lady agree that we risk sacrificing parliamentary scrutiny because we are in a big rush to get everything done? Exit day is looming and it is now widely agreed that we face a massive task, so we are rushing everything and sacrificing parliamentary scrutiny.
Priti Patel
I respectfully suggest that scrutiny is the purpose of these debates in Committee. We should have a great deal of pride in our role in that scrutiny. We must work with the Government and Ministers. Yes, part of that work is the tabling of amendments, because that is the nature of debate, but our job is to look pragmatically at the right way to deliver the referendum outcome. As we have heard from many Members, including in good contributions today, we will keep measures that are in our interest and that work for our country, and we will of course amend and revise those that do not.
Clauses 2 and 3 are about not only taking back control of those laws and putting power back into the hands of our lawmakers, but introducing accountability through scrutiny. During our consideration of our withdrawal from the EU, Members have tabled amendments—and rightly so—but we should not listen to those who do not have confidence in this House, our democracy and our country, and we should reject the suggestion that we are incapable of governing ourselves. That clearly applies to comments that we have heard not just today, but in previous debates, and predominantly from Opposition Members. They may want to be governed by the EU because they feel unable to govern themselves, but we fundamentally believe that our democratic institutions, and this House in particular, are held to account by the British people, and that we can make laws in all areas covered by the EU.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the implication that somehow Britain would be a horrible, ungovernable place were it not for the benign guiding hand of the European Parliament and European legislators is a massive insult not just to Members, but to every single person in the country?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend makes an important point.
One great former leader, Margaret Thatcher, once said:
“What is the point of trying to get elected to Parliament only to hand over…the powers of this House to Europe?”—[Official Report, 30 October 1990; Vol. 178, c. 873.]
We now have the chance to move in the right direction, and to deliver on the will of the British public through the mechanisms available to us and following the scrutiny we are carrying out in this House of Commons. Importantly, we can also look at how we can make better and more effective laws. We have very clearly heard from the Solicitor General how we will be proceeding with the right approach, and how we will develop high standards that are in our national interest.
Tom Brake
The right hon. Lady is clearly very keen that Members should scrutinise things effectively. Does she therefore agree with me that the Government should not allow new agencies to be set up, or the role and responsibilities of existing agencies to be changed, through secondary legislation, because such things should be done through primary legislation?
Priti Patel
The right hon. Gentleman knows that secondary legislation is scrutinised. We all have an effective role—I am sure he has experienced this many times while he has been a Member—in scrutinising secondary legislation.
We will have the opportunity to make and amend laws, and also to look at what will work in our national interest. Quite frankly, I take great pride in that as a Member of this House of Commons. I take great pride in taking part as a British citizen, in this British Parliament, in standing up for our national interests on the laws and decisions made for our country.
Of course, that means not that we will cut or axe regulations arbitrarily, but that we have the ability over time to look methodically at our laws and how to change them and, in particular, at how to make them reflect modern challenges in ways that are most effective for our economy, our country and our future prosperity, and that applies to every aspect of policy.
Jamie Stone
This partly repeats my previous point, but does the right hon. Lady recognise that, whichever way this law is approached, the crucial issue is keeping Scotland’s financial industries safe and letting Scotland prosper, because there is a grave danger of getting this wrong, whether through primary or secondary legislation?
Priti Patel
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like me and all Members, believes in Britain’s future prospects outside the European Union, and in how we will work together—across all political parties; across the devolved Administrations; across the country—not only to get the best deal for Britain, but to safeguard and secure key services and key sectors across the economy.
New clause 51, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), who is not in the Chamber at the moment, raises the prospect of reviewing EU legislation that is still applicable in the UK six months after our departure and at least once a year thereafter, together with proposals for the re-enactment, replacement or repeal of such provisions. I actually have some sympathy with the objectives of the new clause, but I would expect those very actions, and particularly such scrutiny, to be undertaken by the Government.
We should welcome the fact that Members will be able to come forward with their own ideas about how we embark on our future outside the EU. We will be able to modernise our laws more quickly and make them more relevant more efficiently, because we will have control over them. That is the fundamental point. In that way, we will have modern regulations that will maintain and protect rights, as the Prime Minister has guaranteed and as the Solicitor General mentioned.
We can look at repealing many of the laws that are simply not functional and that add costs, and we can also go further than the EU when it is in our national interest to do exactly that. This country has a strong record on some of the areas that have been mentioned, such as legislation on employment and social rights—my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) spoke about that—as well as environmental and other laws we passed before we joined the European Union. We will continue to lead the way and, indeed, pave the way when it comes to that strong record.
Importantly, clauses 2 and 3 will fulfil the wish of the British people to be free from the European Union and many of its controls. Over the past 45 years, the European Communities Act 1972 has been the mechanism by which the sovereignty of this Parliament has been eroded, with more areas of law being taken over by the EU. The Bill puts all those EU laws, regulations and other measures under our control.
The clauses are essential to deliver the commitment that most Members have made since the referendum, including at the election. We are a proud country with a rich democratic history, and this is one of the greatest Parliaments in the world. The Bill strikes at the heart of the issue of trust in Parliament and politics. Do we trust the British people, who voted to leave the EU and to move on, or do we want to go against their wishes? These clauses will go far enough to deliver the outcome of the referendum and, importantly, our own governance and leadership for the future, which is exactly the right way forward.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who has had a busy few weeks. Brexit must not mean isolationism for the United Kingdom. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) spoke of a global Britain and globalisation, and we have to recognise that we live in an interconnected world. The right hon. Lady did her duty and played her part at the Department for International Development, helping to save lives and foster that interconnected world. In some ways, she helped Britain and DFID play their part in pooling sovereignty with other countries, working together to make sure that we can deliver positive outcomes internationally.
It is partly in that spirit that I tabled new clause 15, which would make sure that, after Brexit, we stay informed about developments in the European Union and the European economic area. If they depart from our corpus of law and regulations, it is important that we know and are informed about it, and that we keep pace with and are aware of what they are doing. It would be to the advantage of the House of Commons and Parliament in general if we make sure that we know about any EU reforms and any ideas it develops, because ultimately there is a crucial question about our economy and its linkages with our nearest neighbours across the European Union. We cannot just pretend that we are isolated and cut off from them and that we have nothing to do with their economic progress. Our fate and theirs are integrally linked.
It is important that we should have the option of keeping pace with the EU and the EEA, for a number of reasons. We have an integrated economy and we share the EU’s warehouse inventory with regard to many of the goods that are produced and manufactured in this country. The relationship goes beyond hard economics; we have cultural ties and share other interests as well.
If there is a hard-headed economic case, it must lie in the notion of regulatory equivalence. Keeping pace with the way in which Europe develops is ultimately also in the UK’s own economic interests. If we are going to retain trading rights in full with our counterparts across the continent, I believe that the UK’s policy should be to ensure that there is regulatory alignment wherever possible.
It is often said that there are three broad regulatory paradigms in world trade today. The European paradigm effectively follows the precautionary principle when it comes to regulation. The American approach is a much more hard-headed cost-benefit analysis, which of course can often result in different regulations, and the growing regulatory approach of the Chinese is one that we might characterise as expansionist in its own particular way. I personally believe that we need to make a choice. As hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), have often said, this is not just a matter of negotiation; it is also about the UK having to make a choice of where we are in the world. My view is that our interests are best served by keeping pace and alignment with the precautionary principle approach to regulatory change that exists in Europe. New clause 15 would allow Parliament to stay informed about what is happening on mutual recognition agreements and the accreditation of professional services. This is a dynamic economic area and we have to recognise that we are not entirely on our own.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
As ever, my hon. Friend makes a rational case, but can he tell me what he would do with extremely damaging and bad EU regulations? I will give him two examples: the electromagnetic field directive stops the use of the scanners in our hospitals and the clinical trials directive is so burdensome that it stops drugs coming on to the market for up to 10 years. Surely he would not want us to be aligned to those regulations, but want us to have better regulations?
Mr Leslie
I would want us to shape those regulations, because we are going to be affected by them. If our near neighbours—500 million residents—operate under one regulatory regime, many of our products and services will have to comply with it. It is far better that we are able to take part in the discussion and shape those regulations. In accordance with the Bill, we may leave the EU—if that does come to pass—but if we were part of the European economic area, we may still have a say on some regulatory changes. I understand the point my hon. Friend is making, but my amendment would not tie the UK to every regulatory change that takes place within the European Union; it would simply make sure that Parliament is informed when the European Union branches off and goes in a different direction. We need to know that information so that we can make a choice as laws change. If the EU takes a different route, we may want to consider doing so ourselves. We may not, but we may. That is simply the point I make in new clause 15.
New clause 55, in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, and new clause 25, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), address the issue of retained EU laws. Over 20,000 laws and 12,000 regulations will need to be transposed in some way, shape or form. That is a massive process of change and it is still not clear whether we will convert European laws into primary legislation, secondary legislation or something else entirely. It is sensible to have a schedule that lists retained EU laws and I think the suggestions in the new clauses should be accepted.
It may be that not everything can be changed. If there are modifications via primary legislation, we might want the enhanced scrutiny procedure. When the Minister was pressed on this issue, however, he did not in any way give a proper concession to the points made by Members on both sides of the House. We could face circumstances where the EU laws to be modified affect equal pay, the treatment of workers with disabilities, or race and age discrimination. They were not part of primary or secondary UK legislation, but EU laws that we are going to co-opt. If there is to be a change to the set of rules under which we operate, we need much more clarity on whether it will involve this House of Commons doing it in an affirmative way through an enhanced procedure, or, preferably, through primary legislation.
The Minister needs to do more than just promise to look at this matter on Report, because we may not get a Report stage. We have a Committee of the whole House stage, so unless the Bill is amended there will not be a Report stage. The Minister needs to acknowledge that if we do not have a Report stage, any such assurances are not really worth that much.
The Solicitor General
Yes, there will be a Report stage. I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that.
Mr Leslie
I look forward to an amendment with an extra comma or full stop to facilitate a Report stage. It is very important that we see that.
My new clause 9 and amendment 64 relate to the EEA. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) said, the House should make a specific decision about whether to leave the EAA, given that that was not on the ballot paper. It is effectively the single market club, and as a member we have rights and responsibilities to one another, and not just around the freedom of movement of goods and services, people and capital. On non-tariff issues, too, the EEA ensures barrier-free relationships between the UK and the rest of the EU—on competition policy, state aid issues, consumer protection, environmental policies, research and technological development, education and training, tourism and culture and enterprise. All those issues are covered in the EEA agreement. For the Minister to say, “Oh well, it is implied that we are leaving the EEA, so it is not for the House to make a specific decision”, just will not do.
Mr Jim Cunningham
My hon. Friend has listed what we would like to see. Would he also include regional aid, which is very important to west midlands manufacturing industries?
Mr Leslie
Regional aid—and the financial side—probably has more to do with the EU, and the Government have to say how they would substitute that. All these policies are much affected by our membership of the EEA. The only things not in the EEA are many of the customs union and trade policy arrangements. If we want a smooth Brexit—a soft Brexit, we might call it—membership of the EEA is by far the better arrangement. Rather than climbing every mountain rebuilding a trade relationship with the EU, as well as reaching all the free trade agreements with the rest of the world, we could retain our membership of the EEA and with it those trading benefits with the rest of Europe, while still being free to make trade agreements with those other countries we could negotiate with. That would be a bite-size way to deal with this change and more effective than having to climb all those mountains simultaneously.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
How could the UK continue to enjoy the trading benefits of EEA membership without being a member of the European Free Trade Association?
Mr Leslie
I was a member of the International Trade Select Committee in the last Parliament and recommended that we be a member of EFTA. It is certainly something to consider. It is necessary that we be a part of those alliances if we are to retain some of the trading benefits and links we have. If we want to avoid a cliff edge and a mountain of work, starting from scratch again, we have to retain our membership of the EEA and, at the very least, have a proper assessment from the Government of the costs and benefits of leaving. To do otherwise would be deeply irresponsible.
Sir Oliver Letwin
There is a danger in Committee that we get sidetracked into rehashing the whole of the Second Reading debate, and I certainly want to avoid that at all costs. Moreover, I have no basic problems with the structural phrasing of clauses 3 and 4, unlike clause 6, which we debated yesterday and will be discussing further anon.
I want first to put on the record what I think my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, in a helpful series of exchanges with various Members, has already confirmed and then to point out one interaction with clause 6. I understood him to say that at an appropriate point, either on Report or in another place—on Report, I hope—the Government would come forward with some mixture, to be decided, of changes to Standing Orders and changes to the Bill to ensure some process for Parliament to sift, or to have sifted on its behalf and then reported to it, all the proposed amendments to existing EU legislation incorporated or saved under clauses 3 and 4, and indeed any others.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Sorry, clauses 2 and 3. I do apologise. My right hon. Friend accurately corrects me, and I hope that Hansard notes that correction.
If that is therefore what my hon. and learned Friend said, I have nothing further to add to it. However, I want to point up one connection with the useful discussion we had yesterday about clause 6. The more I have thought about this over the past few weeks, the clearer it has become to me that the ultimate resolution to the problem of the unrestrained abilities of the Supreme Court under clause 6(4)(a) is to make it clearer in the Bill that the method by which any change in the snapshot legislation that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, was talking about should be made not by the Supreme Court, but by Parliament. The point is that, so far as there is fundamental change, and in particular so far as there is fundamental change in the interpretation of the plain words of directives, regulations and treaties, it should be made by primary legislation.
That puts primary legislation in the right place, and hence puts the Supreme Court in the right place, because the Supreme Court is there to interpret the common law, which this is not, and to interpret statute, which this could and should be, and it can certainly also interpret European law using European principles except to the extent that, through statute, this Parliament has changed those things.
That would be a perfectly recognisable pattern. As I mentioned yesterday, it is not my ideal pattern, as I would like to unwind in the Bill a good deal of the expansive interpretations of the European Court of Justice that have gone before exit day, but I recognise that the Government might not want to do that. It does not worry me if they do not, because this Parliament, post-Brexit, will have the ability to do it, which is, from my point of view, even speaking as someone who on balance was a remainer, the big advantage of exit. We will be able to make those decisions as a Parliament through the proper process of primary legislation.
By coming forward with the package that I think my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General offered the Committee a little while ago in this debate, he will also point the way to at least a great part of the solution to the problems of clause 6. While we are at it, just as a bonus, we have not yet debated clause 5—assuming I have my numbers right—but we will do so anon. When we do, we will hit exactly the same set of issues in a slightly modified form. While we are at it, we will hit this again in clause 7, in another way. The same package that the Solicitor General has suggested will handle all the problems arising from clauses 5 and 7, and point the way to handling the problems with clause 6, once we have got rid of the clause 6(4)(a) error.
We have a pattern here that can make the Bill work in its own terms. It can provide the flexibility that the Government need in order to correct deficiencies, to transpose or adjust things when references are technical or incorrect, to bring to the House important matters that need adjustment but are not fundamental, and to give this Parliament the power it needs to change the law fundamentally and to make that something that Parliament does, rather than the Supreme Court. If we can get to that point, we will have a Bill that is perfectly good in its own terms and that will serve the purposes that the Government intend for it, and I shall rest happy in the knowledge that I have in a small way been able to contribute to a series of debates that will have provided legislation of which we can be proud.
Mr McFadden
I want to make a few points about new clause 22, which my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) spoke to a little while ago. Language can obscure things as well as shed light on them, and that is true of much of our Brexit debate. For example, we were told that this was all about taking back control but, as we have seen many times since the referendum, the Government have stoutly resisted giving control to Parliament, resisted publishing a White Paper, and resisted allowing us a meaningful vote. They have finally caved in on having legislation, but they are still resisting allowing us a meaningful say on a real choice, rather than a choice between whatever is negotiated and no deal and WTO rules. We were told that Brexit would save huge amounts of money, yet one of the critical issues in the talks is how to settle a multi-billion pound divorce bill that was mentioned by no one during the referendum campaign. So language can obscure as well as shed light.
Perhaps this is nowhere more true than in all this talk about “the negotiations”. Unsurprisingly, the public place great faith in anything called “negotiations”. If I were buying a house from someone—I hesitate to tread here after yesterday’s exchanges—who was asking a certain selling price and I offered a certain purchase price, the negotiation would involve us meeting somewhere in the middle. There might be parts of the Brexit talks that involve negotiation in that sense of the word.
I serve on the Brexit Select Committee, but I should add that I do not seek to speak on its behalf here today: this is my interpretation of the situation. Last week, the Committee spent a couple of days in Brussels and Paris talking to some of the people involved in the so-called negotiations. There may be negotiation about parts of this process, particularly in phase 1, but the point that I want to make—which refers to new clause 22 and the European Economic Area—is that our future relationship is less about negotiation than about a fundamental choice. What is the relationship that we want to have with the European Union? Where do we want to be in relation to its system, which is a market with rules? The people that we talked to about this round of talks made it pretty clear that this is a choice. It is a decision.
Basically, there are two ways of doing this. The first is the way outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East—that, having voted to leave the European Union, we remain part of its single market system and adhere to the rights and obligations that that gives us, and in so doing, we put the economic prosperity of our people first. That is one way, and I wholeheartedly back my hon. Friend’s assertion that the referendum did not decide this question. The referendum decided our membership of the institutions. The referendum did not decide on the manner of leaving the European Union. There are countries outside the European Union that take part in this system, and we know which they are. I do not think that this is a perfect solution by any means. There is, of course, the issue of having a say in the rules, and whatever our say is outside, it will not be like the say that we have now. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East covered that as well.
The other option involves a free trade agreement, something akin to what has been negotiated with other countries. This matters to our economy. We have talked a lot in these debates—and I have been guilty of it myself—about the importance of manufactured goods. We have talked a lot about cars, we have talked a lot about aerospace, and we have talked a lot about agricultural products. All those are all hugely important to our economy, but 80% of it consists of services. We are hugely successful at them, and we are hugely successful at exporting them. Tens and hundreds of thousands of jobs are sustained by financial services, insurance, legal services, business services and so on. I must say to those who advocate the FTA option that the blunt truth is that no existing FTA would give us anything like the access to the services market that we currently enjoy as members of the single market.
That, fundamentally, is the choice that we must make. The Solicitor General resisted the existing comparisons, as the Government have throughout: they have said, “We will have a bespoke arrangement that is somehow different from this.” Let me tell the Solicitor General candidly that not a single person on the other side of the table last week thought that that was possible.
This is a decision, a choice. What kind of Brexit will we have? Fundamentally, at some point, the Government will have to face up to the truth, be candid with their Back Benchers and the House as a whole, and be candid with the public. The choice, in the end, is not just a choice between systems, but a choice between economics and nationalism. It is a choice about whether we put the prosperity of our constituents first or the nationalist ideology that is driving this agenda, and I know which I prefer.
Mr David Jones
I wish to speak about amendments 87 and 217, tabled by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) and his Plaid Cymru colleagues.
Amendment 87 provides that the expression “EU-derived domestic legislation” in clause 2(2) should not include
“any enactment of the United Kingdom Parliament which…applies to Wales and does not relate to matters specified in Schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act 2006”,
and seeks to apply the same provision, mutatis mutandis, to Scotland and Northern Ireland. The matters specified in Schedule 7A are those matters that are reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament under the terms of the Welsh devolution settlement. According to the explanatory statement attached to the amendment, its purpose is to
“alter the definition of EU retained law so as only to include reserved areas of legislation. This”,
it explains,
“will allow the National Assembly for Wales and the other devolved administrations to legislate on areas of EU derived law which fall under devolved competency for themselves.”
However, the actual effect of the amendment would be far more wide-ranging.
The purpose of clause 2(1) is specifically to preserve EU-derived domestic legislation after exit day in order to ensure—as we have heard—that there is a coherent statute book. The expression “EU-derived domestic legislation” is defined in clause 2(2), and the category of legislation that is thereby preserved is very widely drawn. The effect of the amendment would be that any legislation applicable to Wales that might otherwise fall within the definition of EU-derived domestic legislation would fail to do so if it were also an enactment of the United Kingdom Parliament. There will be a wide range of such legislation in force that predates devolution and also postdates it, right up to—I venture to suggest—the enactment of the Government of Wales Act 2017.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we want to trade with other nations, we must have some form of agreement with them? We cannot just trade and have our own arrangements and regulatory systems without any agreement with other nations or states who want to trade with us and without a body acting as referee. We therefore must at some point be part of some sort of agreement or arrangement with other countries, otherwise we will just sit there somewhere in the North sea on our own.
Mr Jones
That may well be so, but I invite the hon. Lady to digest the terms of article 126 of the EEA agreement and then consider whether at the moment of our departure from the EU we will still be subject to the EEA agreement. I believe we will not.
For the reasons I have outlined, I invite the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr not to press amendment 217, too.
Jonathan Edwards
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones). In the normal course of events he would be responding to our amendments, but I must say that much of what he said today went completely over my head; I will have to read it tomorrow in Hansard and try to dissect it. Perhaps we can debate it on another occasion.
I rise to speak to amendments 217 and 87, tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends. They are probing amendments, so I do not aim to detain the House for a protracted time. Along with amendment 64, amendment 217 would exclude the EEA agreement from the Bill, allowing the UK to keep open the option of remaining in the EEA as the negotiations proceed. Currently, the Bill seeks to repeal the domestic effects of the EEA agreement, but the British Government have given no explicit notice to withdraw under article 127 of the EEA agreement. Our departure from the single market is therefore not inevitable, and there is still time to change to a path that puts the economy first, as many hon. Members have said.
Our continued membership of the single market and the customs union is absolutely crucial to the viability of the Welsh economy beyond Brexit. In wanting to leave the single market and the customs union, the Government are contradicting themselves. The European red tape that the Brexiteers belittle as a regulatory burden also safeguards the environment, keeps our food safe and our rights upheld. By taking the UK outside of the EEA and the customs union, the Government would be generating a gratuitous amount of red tape for our key exporters. Employers in my constituency would face unnecessary logistical and financial barriers to sell to their European markets, which are by far the most important for our exporters.
We have been told again and again that a hard Brexit will reinstate the UK as global power. Despite sounding appetising, that is wholly illogical. It is counter-intuitive to say that removing the UK from the most successful and richest economic bloc will in any way make the UK more global. In reality, the Tories are reverting to their 19th-century policy of splendid isolationism. To leave the single market and the customs union is to voluntarily exclude ourselves from having unencumbered access to the markets necessary for the post-Brexit longevity and viability of the economies of Wales and the UK.
The statistics do not lie. Wales exports some £16 billion-worth of goods every year—more than the Welsh Government’s entire budget. Despite reducing access to our main markets in Europe, the Government have no guarantee of any access to new markets after exit day. Some 200,000 jobs across Wales are sustained by the single market and the customs union. By wrenching us out of both frameworks, the British Government will be rolling the dice on the livelihoods of these 200,000 Welsh people.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The UK Government are not content with raising trade barriers with the 27 countries in the world with which we do half our trade. By fact of the 38 other agreements that the European Union has with other countries, that means another 67, so there will be 94 countries with which trade would involve higher barriers. When Ministers are asked about the number of countries, they have no idea how the dice will roll.
Jonathan Edwards
The Chairman of the International Trade Committee speaks with great expertise. That was one of the first questions that I asked the Secretary of State for International Trade when he was appointed, and it has been forgotten in this debate. The Government informed us at the time that the transition would be seamless, but it appears that that might not be the case.
These are not idle threats; this is the reality. Only yesterday, Aston Martin’s CEO came here and told Members directly that a no-deal Brexit would mean the cessation of production of their cars in the UK. That means their new flagship plant in the Welsh Secretary’s backyard in the Vale of Glamorgan could be pulled even before it begins production of the first car.
My concerns, and those of my Plaid Cymru colleagues, are entirely predicated on Wales’s national interests. That means ensuring full and unconstrained access to our important European markets, which are the destination for 67% of all Welsh exports and 90% of our food and drink exports. It means our NHS, universities and industries being able to recruit skilled workers from across Europe. It means putting Welsh jobs, wages and, fundamentally, my nation’s future first. It is not feasible that trade deals with Australia, New Zealand and other far-flung nations will replace the level of economic activity that the EU trade sustains in Wales.
Leaving the single market and the customs union does not mean going back to some comfortable status quo. We need a reliable and effective system in place to prevent potential catastrophe on exit day. We have the option of remaining in the single market and the customs union, as has been made clear by chief negotiator Michel Barnier during the discussions to date. Maintaining those vital economic frameworks would be the most prudent economic path to take, instead of endeavouring to create something new and untested that could not possibly replicate the benefits of EEA status.
Mr David Jones
Before the hon. Gentleman leaves his discussion of EEA membership, does he not accept that article 126 of the EEA agreement provides explicitly that it applies only to members of the European Union and to the relevant members of EFTA? Given that we will be neither, how can it possibly apply to us?
Jonathan Edwards
That point was also made by the First Minister of Wales when he was against this position, before he changed to agreeing with Plaid Cymru. Surely we should be endeavouring to achieve what was promised by Brexiteers such as Daniel Hannan prior to the referendum. He said that the Norway solution would be the most applicable and best solution for the UK.
Stephen Kinnock
I will try to assist the hon. Gentleman. The United Kingdom signed the EEA agreement in 1993 as a sovereign country. The United Kingdom is a single and separate contracting party. The body of legal opinion is very divided on this issue. Eminent experts such as Charles Marquand and George Yarrow have made it clear that they believe that to leave the EEA, the United Kingdom must trigger article 127 of the EEA agreement. Given that legal opinion is divided, this is surely a political issue that needs to be brought to this sovereign House so that we can take back control and have a proper debate and a vote.
Jonathan Edwards
I am always grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s assistance. He also speaks with great authority on these issues.
From where I approach these negotiations, it seems that the British Government’s decision to be outside the single market and customs union has created huge friction in the negotiations with the European Union. If we were to say that we wanted to stay inside the single market and customs union, I hazard a guess that the negotiations would proceed at a far greater pace and would reach a far more amicable destination.
Amendment 87 would alter the definition of EU retained law so as to include only reserved areas of legislation, which would allow the National Assembly for Wales and other devolved Administrations to legislate for themselves on areas of EU-derived law that fall under devolved competency.
After two referendums and hundreds of thousands of votes cast, the people of Wales chose to create a primary law-making Parliament in Cardiff that decides on the policies that matter most to the people of Wales in their day-to-day lives, such as education, health and the environment, to name but a few. The latest round of devolution saw the creation of the reserved powers model, stripping away the unnecessary jargon and constitutional complexity, which in effect means that the National Assembly for Wales has control over everything that is not explicitly listed as a matter kept by Westminster. It was meant to simplify matters and create clarity. In fact, the current Secretary of State for Wales went as far as saying that the change would settle the constitutional question in Wales for a generation. We can only assume that he was talking in terms of fruit flies, as before April 2018, when the newest devolution settlement comes into full force, we face nothing short of a constitutional crisis.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Is that not the crux for both Scotland and Wales? The basis of the Scotland Act 1998 was that everything not reserved was devolved. Bringing powers to Westminster instead of to where the competencies lie reverses that principle.
Jonathan Edwards
That is why the Scottish and Welsh Governments, in a joint declaration, said that this Bill is a naked power grab. That is what amendment 87 seeks to address.
The UK Government’s withdrawal Bill flies in the face of the reserved powers model. Rather than the new powers brought about by Brexit flowing straight to Wales, as would be the case under the reserved powers model, they will be kept under lock and key in Westminster in what the UK Government are calling a “holding pattern.” All we have is the UK Government’s boy scout promise that one day we might get back those powers, as well as the ones we have lost for that matter. If devolution is a process, why should we assume that centralisation is not?
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Ironically, the hon. Gentleman is describing the creation of the British superstate of the United Kingdom. The Government have taken to the centre all the powers that should be devolved. The supreme irony is that they were complaining that Europe is a superstate—it is not, it is a trade bloc. To get out of that trade bloc, the Government themselves are now creating a superstate.
Jonathan Edwards
That is the fear we face. Brexit is being used as a tool to reassert Westminster control over the British state, as opposed to the devolution settlement we have had since 1999. There is nothing to say that, come Brexit day, Westminster will not decide that all powers must make their way back to the corridors of SW1. It has come to the point where my party is proposing legislation in the National Assembly simply to defend the lacklustre devolution settlement we already have. My colleague, Steffan Lewis AM, has proposed a Welsh continuity Bill that would give the Welsh Parliament the legislative might it needs to take on Westminster and the power grab contained in this Bill.
Last night, the House blocked Wales’s voice on Brexit. My voice, and that of Plaid Cymru, cannot be silenced, and we will do everything we can to stop the constitutional and economic chaos that the Bill would impose on our nation.
John Redwood
The good news coming out of this debate is that everyone in the House agrees with clauses 2 and 3, on which the clause stand part decision will be made shortly. We are all in favour of them because they are pretty straightforward. Clause 2 says that all the European law that came to the United Kingdom by way of directive is now fully incorporated into statute law and statutory instruments in the United Kingdom, and that that will continue. All that law that comes to us directly as a regulation or a Court judgment will, up to the date of exit, be transferred and incorporated into good UK law by virtue of the legislation before us, and particularly by virtue of clause 3.
It is good news that we all agree with the main item on the Order Paper for this afternoon, so why are we having a long debate? My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General got to the heart of the debate during their interesting exchanges. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset and agree with a lot of what he said.
The issue revolves around what scrutiny and interest Parliament should take when the transfer of European law that currently directly affects UK law requires some changes. Most of us think there are going to be a lot of changes and that most of them are going to be entirely technical or minor. They will adjust the EU to having one fewer country in it, recognising that we are no longer a member, or adjust the appeal body to a natural appeal body that is already well established by statute in this House, which is a UK body, not a European body. It is the right of the House and of Parliament to decide how much scrutiny any one of those things needs and to give it the proper attention required to check that the Executive are doing a good job.
We all want to ensure continuity of the law. We recognise how many changes and proposals are involved, so we need a way of sifting so that Parliament can concentrate on the ones that could be genuinely contentious or are more material than the others, thereby ensuring that Parliament does not waste too much time. Parliament must decide how much it trusts Ministers to do the sift for it, and I look forward to hearing further thoughts from my colleagues on the Front Bench on exactly how that process is going to work. Personally, I trust the Ministers. From my point of view, the changes are all going to be technical and I do not believe that there is going to be any attempt to change the law. Were there any such attempt, Parliament would be well up to the challenge and there would be an almighty row pretty quickly.
Peter Grant
There is a need for Parliament to be able to trust the Government, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Government have indicated through their actions so far that they are not prepared to trust any Parliament in which they do not have an absolute majority? Were the Government prepared to trust Parliament to a greater degree, we would not be having to go through some of the constitutional hoops that are before us.
John Redwood
I think Parliament is doing a good job of explaining to Ministers exactly what Parliament wants, and I think it is going to carry on doing that. I have every confidence in Parliament. I look forward to hearing what more can be said from the Front Bench in due course. I think it is all going to be technical and so can be done expeditiously, but clearly Parliament needs to be satisfied. I am completely satisfied that in the areas for which the official Opposition would like there to be some kind of reserve or special status, there is absolutely no intent to amend, change or repeal on either side of the House.
I have heard strong assurances from all parties that there is absolutely no wish to water down employment protections or environmental protections, and I see absolutely no evidence that anyone would try to do that. I am quite sure that, were they to try, they would soon discover that there was an overwhelming majority in the Commons, on the Government and Opposition Benches, of very many people who would say, “You cannot do that,” and we would have every intention of voting it down.
Those laws already in place came via directives and are very much at the heart of what they are trying to protect. They are trying to protect something that Parliament has already put through as UK legislation. No manifestos or other party statements have threatened them, which implies that those things are at risk. It is also important to remember that when many EU directives were implemented—whether by Conservative, coalition or Labour Governments—that was often done in a way that went beyond the minimum standards that the directive required. Where it was possible to go beyond those standards, quite often successive Governments decided to do just that.
Margaret Greenwood
A recent TUC study found that many low-paid workers can be disciplined for taking time off for childcare. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the right under the parental leave directive to take time off work to take a sick child to the doctor or arrange care for an elderly relative is an important protection for British workers?
John Redwood
I am sure that it is an important protection for workers. I do not think that anybody is threatening the protections that are already incorporated into our law codes. We will have many productive debates in future about how we can raise those standards and where we should raise those standards, as we have done in the past.
The House should remember that much of this is already in British law and goes beyond the EU minimum standards; it would be very perverse to think that Parliament would then want to turn around and start taking away those standards when it had made this very conscious effort to go beyond the EU minimum standards. It also reminds us that this House has been quite capable of imposing good standards over and above the European ones and that we are not entirely dependent on the European Union to do that.
I would like to pursue the point of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset by pointing out that there are consequentials from taking the approach that the Solicitor General said that the Government are considering on clause 6(4)(a). Again, I echo what has been said, which is that it is very important that clarity is given to our Supreme Court. Like my right hon. Friend, I want the ultimate arbiter of these things to be Parliament. That is what taking back control is all about. If the Supreme Court feels that it needs more parliamentary guidance, then that is exactly what we must supply either through this or subsequent legislation.
We now come to the important set of issues that various Members have raised about what should be done by primary and secondary legislation. I suggest that, at the moment, we stick to our general rules for non-EU proposals. We know that important matters deserve primary legislation and that ancillary matters, usually arising out of primary legislation, can be done by statutory instruments, usually identified in the primary legislation itself. There needs to be primary legislation cover for the use of the SI principle. Again, Parliament has a way of deciding which ones are a bit more important and so need an affirmative resolution procedure and debate, and which ones are done by the negative resolution procedure. Where the Opposition want to call in one for negative resolution, they do get a debate and a vote, because that is part of the system that we should apply.
On the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), I say that we should not be asymmetric in our democracy. He suggested that major pieces of legislation coming from the EU that are in passage but will not be completed by the time we leave the EU should go through under some fast-track SI procedure. I think that those pieces of legislation should face exactly the same procedure that anything else faces in this House. If they are technical or relate to some major piece of legislation that has already gone through, then of course they can go through by statutory instrument if we wish to replicate the European law. If they are substantial and new, they will clearly need to go through the primary legislative process, because we have been arguing that we need more scrutiny and more debate about this important piece of legislation, which makes everything possible.
I see clauses 2 and 3, along with clause 1, as a platform. They are very much a piece of process legislation—the legislation that takes back control. In itself, it does not prevent this Parliament in future doing its job a lot better than it was able to do when quite a lot of our laws and regulations came from Court decisions over which we had no control, from regulations on which we might even have lost the vote, or in circumstances where we were not very happy about the compromise that we had to strike to avoid something worse.
This is a great time for Parliament. I hope that all Members will see that it enables them to follow their agendas and campaigns with more opportunity to get results if they are good at campaigning and at building support in Parliament. That is exactly what clauses 2 and 3 allow us to do. The legislation will allow us to go on to get rid of VAT on items or to have a fishing policy that we think works better for the United Kingdom, while, of course, protecting the many excellent protections in employment law and other fields that have been rightly identified by the Opposition. I recommend these two clauses, which I am sure will go through, and I look forward to hearing more comments from Ministers in due course about how Parliament can satisfy itself on any changes needed to make all those laws continue to work.
Chuka Umunna
I will speak about the new clauses tabled by Opposition Front Benchers, particularly those on employment law, and about the new clauses in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander).
First, I notice that the right hon. Members for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) and for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), the right hon. and learned Members for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), and others are here. They have been accused of not doing right by the people simply because they have been seeking to do their job in Committee. They have been accused in different quarters of being mutineers and trying to sabotage a process, when all they have sought is to do right by this country, this House and—most importantly of all—their constituents.
We do not live in a police state. This is a not a dictatorship where the freedom of speech of individuals, both outside and in Parliament, is curtailed. The House needs to send a strong message to those outside that this democracy will not tolerate Members of Parliament being threatened in the way that was outlined by the right hon. Member for Broxtowe in her point of order earlier, because that is not in keeping with British values and how we do things in this country. There are Members who whip this up, suggesting that we are somehow running against the people when we try to do our job on this Bill. Those Members are grossly irresponsible and should think about what they are doing more carefully in the future, because we have seen the results in the national newspapers today.
Alison McGovern
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is about time that we all remembered that we have more in common than that which divides us?
Chuka Umunna
Absolutely. I could not agree more with that statement.
I turn in particular to new clauses 2 and 58, which were tabled by Opposition Front Benchers. It is important that we have more than assurances—that we actually amend the Bill—to protect some of the vital rights that are currently protected in EU law. In particular, we should protect their enhanced status. It seems from the comments made by the Solicitor General and other Government Members that we are essentially being asked to give Ministers the benefit of the doubt regarding these rights, particularly the employment law rights. We are being asked to give Ministers our confidence that they will protect these rights.
Since I joined the House, I have seen the Government—first the coalition and then the current Conservative Government—ride roughshod, unfortunately, over some of the vital employment rights that people enjoy. There was the adoption of employment tribunal fees, which were thankfully struck down by the Supreme Court. The qualification period to claim for unfair dismissal has been increased since the Conservatives have been in office, and they have sought to change the statutory duties of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. In the light of that—never mind the disgraceful Beecroft report, which was commissioned by No. 10 in a previous Parliament—it is only reasonable that Opposition Front Benchers should secure amendments to the Bill to protect the enhanced status of those employment law rights.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Is it not important that we keep laws such as the equal treatment directive, which allowed many women, particularly in the public sector, to claim equal pay from their employer?
Chuka Umunna
Absolutely. I could not agree more. I referred to the Beecroft review, and one of its recommendations was to do away with equal pay audits, which only underlines the point I have been seeking to make.
Chuka Umunna
I am going to be quick, so I will not take any more interventions.
We have talked a lot about parliamentary sovereignty, which is why it is vital that we see changes made to the Bill, but the biggest threat to national sovereignty for many countries, particularly in the advanced world, is the power of multinational corporations in an era of globalisation. I am not opposed to those organisations per se, but they do need to be properly regulated and marshalled for the common good. However, they operate across borders, and, ultimately, if we want to regulate them properly and make them work particularly for lower and middle-income families in the advanced world—of course, people’s discontent with globalisation was primarily the thing that drove them to leave the European Union—we have to do that across borders.
Being in the EEA—being part of that framework—enables us to get the system to work better for people. If there is one thing we learned from the referendum we had in 2016, it is that they want us to change the system and better marshal it to their interests. Being in the EEA and EFTA helps to enable us to do that. That is why we should be focusing on it and why we need to pass the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East.
Anna Soubry
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna). We are co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on EU relations; our relationship with the EU will continue. He chairs it extremely ably. I am grateful to him for the kind comments that he made at the beginning. His analysis, as ever, was absolutely spot on. For far too long, we have had far too much rhetoric and far too many insults flowing around. We have to stop the silly things that have been said about people like me, and indeed him and other right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, and the constant attacks. We are told that if we have the views that we have then we are remoaners who are trying somehow to thwart the will of the people and so on. It does not help and it has not helped. History will not be kind to this place when what has happened since the referendum back in 2016 is written about.
What is really interesting as we enter day two of this debate is to see Conservative Members suddenly coming over and talking to each other. People who voted leave and were very vociferous during the campaign are coming over and talking to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) where there are clear concerns on constitutional matters and on the sovereignty of this place. Conversations are held between those of both main parties and of other parties. All these things are good. This is about healing the great divide that has occurred in our party. The fact that it is happening on this side of the Chamber as well is important.
The reason that people like me get so agitated is that one moment last night was really deeply unpleasant. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends, when they saw the electronic copy of that newspaper, were genuinely concerned and worried because they knew that they would get the sorts of emails, tweets and Facebook postings that we have had before, and we would get all that stirring up of the old antipathy of this long-running sore that has bedevilled my party in particular. It is not acceptable when people keep perpetuating these myths. As the hon. Member for Streatham says, it fuels the flames.
If nothing else, I think we can now make progress. Let us stop the rhetoric, stop accusing people like me of wanting to thwart the will of the people and accept that we are leaving. If my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) accepts that we are leaving the EU, how many times do we have to say it before all these insults stop and we make the progress that we need to make in now delivering a Brexit that benefits everybody in this country? I support new clause 22.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
I would not like the public who are listening or watching to take the right hon. Lady to mean that the abuse, nasty remarks and things that are going on are only against people who were remainers. Some of us on the other side of the argument have received a huge amount of abuse, but we sometimes think it is probably easier and better simply to ignore it.
Anna Soubry
I would love to ignore death threats, but I actually find them quite frightening. As a result, I have in the past reported at least two to the police. The courts took it very seriously, I say gently to the hon. Lady. They sent one person to prison and suspended the other person’s custodial sentence. I am glad that some people in this place take it seriously.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady and I have had our differences during my time in Parliament since 2015, particularly when she was a Business Minister. We had some vigorous debates and disagreements when I, as a member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, challenged her about the steel industry and the industrial strategy, but I felt that she was always very respectful of my view and the strength with which I held it. Why were we able to have such vigorous but respectful debate over such policy issues, but Brexit seems to bring out the very worst in public discourse in this place and beyond?
The Temporary Chair (David Hanson)
Order. I know that Members feel strongly about this subject, but we are straying slightly from new clause 2.
Anna Soubry
I am desperate to get on with supporting new clause 22 and endorsing the excellent speech made by the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander). Notwithstanding the referendum result, we all need to move on. When I stood for election in Broxtowe in June, I did so on the clear platform of accepting that we were leaving the European Union but continuing to make the case for the single market, the customs union and the positive benefits of immigration.
The reason why I say that with some conviction is that if we are all very honest about it, there is unfortunately every chance that we will not get anything like the sort of trade deal that we want. I have no doubt that we will get deals on security, aviation and so on, but the harsh and uncomfortable reality is that there is very little chance that we will actually get the sort of trade deal that we need to secure our country’s future. On that basis, the only alternative at the moment seems to be to crash out with no deal. I am not criticising the Government for making preparations for that eventuality, because it would be foolish of them not to do so, but I suggest that the idea that we will have either a deal or no deal is not the way to see it. We do not have just two options; there is a third option, which is for us to continue to be a member of the EEA and a member of EFTA.
I take this view, which I base on knocking on hundreds of doors during the election campaign and continuing to talk to my constituents when I go out leafleting and so on. I think that most people in the real world are absolutely fed up with all this. They have had enough of us all squabbling and moaning and groaning. It is unpleasant, and people are sick and tired of it. I think they take the view, “Look, you have all been elected to this place, and you have got a Government in place. For goodness’ sake, just get on and do it.” Now let us have a debate about what “it” is and how we do it for the very best in our country. Let us have that sort of debate. I think that we will be criticised for the fact that it has taken us so long to have that debate.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Lady agree that the debates that we are having could be helpful to the Government? The Government are much more likely to be able to “do it”, as she puts it, if they reflect the consensus view of opinion across the House.
Anna Soubry
I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I go on about what history will write about this place, and one of the observations of history will be the lack of debate until almost this point, which does us no credit. Another will be that at least two thirds, I reckon, of the people elected to this place are of the same view on the customs union and single market.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The right hon. Lady is making some very good arguments, which chime with the SNP’s position. The difficulty is that the Conservative party and the main Opposition Labour party have the same policy; they are both wedded to leaving the single market and leaving the customs union. Unfortunately, parliamentary arithmetic is against us in this matter, and that situation is taking the UK over the cliff edge.
Anna Soubry
I am not going to adopt the hon. Gentleman’s tribal language, because I am trying to build a consensus. I understand why Conservative Front Benchers find themselves in the position that they are in. Equally, I understand the difficulties that the Labour party has. The simple, harsh reality is that people from all parties voted both leave and remain.
One of our biggest problems when we try to resolve this issue is immigration. We need to have a proper debate about immigration and make the positive case for it. We need to explain that there is not a small army of people sitting at home, desperate to work in the fields of Lincolnshire and Kent or in the food processing factory in my constituency, for example. We need to explain that people come to our country to work and that we would be lost without them—not just in the fields or the factories, as I described, but in our great NHS.
I have been speaking to businesses, as many of us do, and the facts I am told are that many of our manufacturers have seen a 10% decline in the number of workers from the European Union and that they cannot find people in our country to replace them. This is serious stuff—I do now want to digress and get into the arguments about immigration—and it is our job as politicians to lead such arguments. We have previously discussed the proud history of those on both sides of the House in leading on social change, and we as politicians have an absolute duty to make such a case.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the right hon. Lady not agree that what we are really discussing is democracy and how we interpret it? As much as I agree that the language has sometimes gone overboard and been very unpleasant for some of us, we are grappling with this because democracy is a very difficult issue.
Anna Soubry
The hon. Lady may well be right. I am trying to find solutions. I am trying to find a way to get the best solution for everybody in our country, while putting the economy at the heart of this.
The joy of remaining in the EEA, and indeed in EFTA, is that it is a model sitting on the shelf that can be taken down, dusted off and perhaps tweaked here and there. The benefit for the great British people is that—hallelujah!—the job will pretty much be done, and it will enable our Government to get on with the great domestic issues that we must address. It certainly means there will be a “Hoorah!” right across businesses in this country, because it will give them the certainty and the continuity for which they are desperate, and it will deliver economic benefits. There is not much else to say, but if it is pressed to a Division, I will certainly vote for new clause 22.
Tom Brake
There are certainly several amendments in the group that I will support, if they are pressed to a Division. I very much welcome new clause 55, which was tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and relates to enhancing scrutiny. That is clearly something that we need, as it was much debated on Second Reading, and is now being discussed in Committee. If new clause 22, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), is subject to a vote, we will certainly support that.
I welcome the return of the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who is clearly making herself the standard bearer for Brexiteers on the Back Benches. I am sorry that she is no longer in the Chamber, but she said in her speech that Brexit was not about cutting regulations. However, that does not quite sit with what she has said previously about Brexit being an opportunity for widespread deregulation. I am afraid I must ask why we should believe what Government Front Benchers are now saying about their intentions when many members of the Cabinet, Ministers and Back Benchers are on record as stating very clearly that Brexit will provide opportunities for deregulation. Members will be pleased to hear that I will make only some brief remarks.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I seem to recall it was not so long ago that the right hon. Gentleman was in a coalition Government in which my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) insisted that we withdrew two regulations for every new one that we introduced. Does not that make the right hon. Gentleman a regulation cutter, like the rest of us?
Tom Brake
I remember that clearly. The right hon. Gentleman and I—and, I am sure, Labour Members—can confirm that there are regulations, such as those relating to the British Government’s role in running the railways in India, that it would be appropriate to get rid of, because frankly they are no longer relevant. I suspect that there are quite a lot of other examples.
I want to focus briefly on the EEA. At the start of the referendum campaign, those involved in the leave campaign advocated the Norway model. As it became clearer to them that that was not what they wanted, they moved on to the Switzerland model, with its 150 or so different agreements. Once they realised that that was quite complex, Peru emerged as the model they wanted to emulate, before they eventually settled on the idea of a bespoke deal. As we heard earlier, no one anywhere is willing to identify how such a bespoke deal would work or, indeed, whether it is even possible to put one together.
As other Members have said, it is clear that membership of the EEA does not in any way, shape or form match the benefits we get from being members of the European Union. It might provide an alternative—a step down from our current position, but without the consequences of our leaving completely—to the no-deal scenario. It is a poor substitute, but it is better than no deal. It would keep us in the single market but out of the customs union, and—this major sticking point was, I think, the reason why the leave campaign moved away from the Norway model—it would probably require a financial contribution. It would allow trade deals to be struck, so there are some advantages to it, which is why we will support new clause 22 if it is pressed to a vote.
I want to finish by focusing on the question of whether leaving the European Union automatically means that we also cut our links with the EEA. Articles 126 and 127 of the EEA agreement have already been mentioned. I have been involved in an interesting exchange of parliamentary written questions and answers about the EEA. When I asked what was required to formally withdraw from the EEA agreement, the parliamentary answer stated:
“As the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said when he addressed the House on 7th September, there is agreement that when we leave the EU, the European Economic Area Agreement will no longer operate in respect of the UK.”
I followed that up by seeking to identify who that agreement was with and why that would happen. The response stated:
“It is Government policy that we will not be a member”,
so it seems as though the Government have reached an agreement with themselves that we will automatically be out of the EEA. I would suggest that that is not a particularly high bar. Although article 126 makes it clear that we will leave the EEA, article 127 requires us to give notice in order to do so.
As an aside, if we are leaving the EEA, it would probably be courteous for the UK Government to at least talk to its other members, particularly EFTA members, just so that they are aware that that is what we are doing. As of last week, no contact had been made with at least one of the EFTA members. It might be appropriate for the Government to inform them as a matter of courtesy.
New clause 22 is very good, as it would provide us with an opportunity to keep some of the benefits of our EU membership without crashing out of the EU completely, and without seeking the mythical bespoke deal that I do not think anyone believes can be delivered in the timescales that the Government have to work towards. I look forward to the vote on that new clause.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I want to speak to new clause 58 and to cover the key issue of EU pension directives, specifically versions one and two of the institutions for occupational retirement provision directive.
Both versions set out the broad framework for pension fund operation in the EU, concentrating on structures and procedures such as the separation of the fund from the employer, giving strong protection for scheme members, and the establishment of a regulator in each member state. My concerns relate to the effect of IORP II on the running of pension schemes and the Government’s approach to the requirement for legal separation of a pensions institution from the sponsoring employer under article 8 of the directive, and to investment regulations under article 19 that require assets to be invested prudently in the best interest of scheme members, and for any potential conflict of interest to be resolved in the member’s favour.
Principally, I seek an assurance that the Government will introduce legislation for the transposition of IORP II and that they will not seek to opt out of any of the relevant articles but implement them in full. That is particularly important for members of the local government pension scheme, as there remains some confusion in the public domain over whether IORP I was ever applied to it in full.
When IORP I is succeeded by IORP II, the Government could disapply any requirement for separation, as well as any requirement for investment in accordance with a “prudent person” rule. What lies at stake here are the statutory rights of more than 5 million citizens who participate in the UK local government pension scheme. They should not be undermined by virtue of past decisions, or indeed as a result of our leaving the EU. This is made even more important by the proximity of the deadline for IORP II to the date of exit from the EU. I hope that Ministers will confirm that the Government will ensure the necessary measures—articles 8 and 19—are enshrined in UK law.
I now turn to the state pension. As a result of our EU membership, the UK is part of a system to co-ordinate the social security entitlements of people moving within the EU. That system enables periods of insurance to be aggregated, meaning that an individual who has worked in other member states can make one application to the relevant agency in the country of residence. In the UK, that is the International Pension Centre. That relevant agency then notifies details of the claim to all countries in which the person has been insured, and each member state calculates its pro-rata contribution and puts that amount into payment.
The UK state pension is payable overseas, but it is uprated only if the pensioner is in an EEA country, or one with which the UK has a reciprocal agreement for uprating. In September, the Government suggested that reciprocal arrangements would be protected following exit from the European Union, and that is also included in the joint paper on citizen’s rights. Will Ministers confirm that that will continue to be the case, and that the Government will not be seeking to enter individual reciprocal arrangements after our exit from the European Union, but will instead continue to work on the basis of current arrangements?
Stephen Kinnock
I would like to speak in favour of new clause 2 and new clause 58, which have been tabled by those on the Labour Front Bench.
There is an idea that we should be giving the Government the benefit of the doubt on these issues. There have, however, been so many statements and acts from those on the Government Benches to undermine employment rights, from the Trade Union Act 2016 to many other measures, that we need to ensure we anchor the rights of our workforce in the Bill.
The Exiting the European Union Committee met Mr Barnier in Brussels last week. One point he made very clearly is that as we move towards a future relationship, the so-called deep and comprehensive free trade agreement will need to be ratified by the Parliaments of the member states, plus a number of regional Parliaments. They will not accept anything that he described as “social dumping”—they will not accept undercutting and they will not accept unfair regulatory practice—so if the Government are serious about getting a deep and comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU they will have to recognise that regulatory equivalence will have to be a critical part of it. This is about not only securing rights in this country, but the economic interests of the country if we are serious about having that future relationship.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
I entirely endorse what the hon. Gentleman says about a free trade agreement with the European Union requiring regulatory equivalence. Actually, this is not a uniquely European thing or a malicious Brussels proposal. Modern trade agreements in a globalised economy all depend, more than anything else, on mutual recognition or regulatory convergence in the sectors where free trade is going to be allowed.
Stephen Kinnock
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is, as always, absolutely correct. We need to recognise the umbilical cord connecting the regulatory playing fields to the trade agreements because of the nature of unfair competition and unfair practice. None of the EU member states will accept such agreements without that. What was particularly interesting about what Mr Barnier said was that the comprehensive trade discussions will be on the basis of article 218 of the treaty, which requires ratification by 27 member state Parliaments and eight regional Parliaments. The level of scrutiny, therefore, will be even greater under the future relationship than under the transitional relationship, which we know will be a carbon copy of the status quo, including on ECJ jurisdiction. I think the Government have accepted that, although there seems to be an attempt to wriggle out of some aspects. The fact remains, however, that a transition deal will be a carbon copy of the status quo.
Sir William Cash
I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could explain how often, and in what circumstances, the arbitration court has departed from the decision making and precedence of the ECJ.
Stephen Kinnock
This is a clear case of a “before and after” conversation. The court would be substantially altered were the UK to have judges on it. It would be a category shift in the role of the court. It would require negotiation, of course, but I am offering an opportunity to square the circle in terms of the many contrasts, conflicts and competing agendas around the delivery of a Brexit that works for the whole country and delivers for the millions of people who voted in the referendum and who are not ideologues on one side or the other. They want this Parliament to get on with the job and to deliver a Brexit that works for the whole country, and indeed helps to reunite our country. In that spirit, new clause 22 is so important and offers so much.
There is much conversation about models. The Canada model does not include services, while the Ukraine model is new and untested. The EEA-EFTA model is well established and well understood. It would give our business community and our economy the certainty that they so desperately need.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Stephen Kinnock
I will not, as so many Members want to speak. I am afraid that I must make progress.
I want to close my remarks by saying that we are in a hiatus that is deeply damaging to the British economy. We are drifting and rudderless. We are floating in a mist of ambiguity and indecision on the part of the Government, because they refuse to set out the road map to our future relationship. We know that there is not time to do that bespoke deal and that we need a well established and well understood deal off the shelf. We also know that it is necessary to trigger article 127 of the EEA agreement to leave the EEA, because we signed up to that agreement as a single and sovereign contracting party.
Legal opinion is divided on the issue. Therefore, it becomes political. It is time for the House to show some leadership, have the debate about our future relationship with the single market and take back control in this sovereign Parliament. I therefore commend new clause 22 to the Committee.
Caroline Lucas
I rise to welcome and support a number of proposals in this group, in particular new clause 2, new clause 25, the amendments on the EEA and new clause 22.
I shall be brief because many others wish to speak. First, new clause 22 seems to me to be eminently reasonable and, in a sense, asks no more from Ministers than they have already pledged verbally. Call me suspicious, but I would like to see that locked down legally as well, but it goes no further than what they have already said.
Indeed, the new clause reflects repeated statements by Ministers, not least the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, that the UK’s withdrawal from the EU will not lead to a weakening or a dilution of workers’ rights in particular. In October 2016, the Prime Minister herself said that
“existing workers’ legal rights will continue to be guaranteed in law”.
The same month, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said this:
“To those who are trying to frighten British workers, saying ‘When we leave, employment rights will be eroded’, I say firmly and unequivocally ‘no they won’t’… this… government will not roll back those rights in the workplace.”
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has said that he wants not just to maintain environmental laws, but to enhance them. It is puzzling why there is still resistance to translating all that rhetoric into legal certainty. That is all we seek this afternoon.
Those and other more recent statements are welcome, because in June 2016 electors were not voting to jettison hard-won rights and legal protections. On the contrary, they were assured by the leave campaign that taking back control would mean improvements to their rights and legal protections, denied them, apparently, by the evil bureaucrats of the EU. However, the Bill risks retained EU law being vulnerable to chipping away through secondary legislation. That is a real concern and those are important protections. Furthermore, if we are to have that deep and special relationship with the EU27, in particular in trade, we will have to abide by those regulations in any case, so why not lock them down with certainty here and now in this debate?
New clause 25, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), again asks little of Ministers. I hope it will be accepted. It would simply ensure that the quite extraordinary delegated powers that the Bill grants be used only in pursuit of the Bill’s stated purpose—namely, to allow retained EU law to operate effectively after withdrawal.
As the Bill stands, it will allow Ministers to use those delegated powers to modify what are currently EU regulations. That simply does not provide a good enough guarantee that those delegated powers will not be used to water down EU-derived standards on key environmental safeguards—for example, on chemical and timber regulation—without proper parliamentary and public scrutiny. New clause 25 would address that weakness by establishing a new process for modifying retained EU law after Brexit—one that I believe strikes a better balance of powers—and it acknowledges that it is sometimes necessary to amend technical provisions using secondary legislation. It allows for that, but it would also ensure that more substantive modifications to retained EU law can only be made by an Act of Parliament.
I want to say a few words about the amendments on the EEA. I simply want to reinforce what other hon. Members have said—that while the EEA might not be the most ideal port for a ship seeking shelter from the worst of the Brexit storm, because by almost any standard EEA membership is clearly inferior to full membership of the EU, when the storm is bad sailors can nevertheless be glad to find shelter in any available port, and with the sand now running fast out of the article 50 hourglass, one would have thought that any strong and stable Government worthy of the name would want to keep their options open.
Membership of the EEA would at least allow the UK to retain access to the EU single market. That means that British citizens would still be able to live and work in EU member states. British businesses would have the certainty of being able to trade freely with countries in the EU single market and access that market’s more than 500 million consumers. It would mean as well that the NHS would not be facing the crisis that it is currently facing, with so many nurses and health workers now being put off from coming to work in our NHS because they are no longer welcome. It means that we would not have the crisis in agriculture, where we literally have crops rotting in the fields because we do not have workers here to actually do the work in those fields. Crucially, it would also mean that those EU citizens who have made their lives here in good faith, and who have paid their taxes and worked here alongside us as our family, our friends and so on, would not feel unwelcome in a country that has been their home, in some cases for decades and decades.
Caroline Lucas
I feel ashamed of this country and of this Government when I see so many good people feeling so unwelcome and feeling that their only recourse is to leave this country. That is not right.
I believe that membership of the EEA is a compromise that we might look at, going forward. I commend very strongly the speech and the amendment from the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander). She made the incredibly powerful point that we have had so much rhetoric about pulling together, about not dividing society, and yet EEA membership would offer a compromise that perhaps people could gather around. There was no mandate on the ballot paper on 23 June for the kind of extreme Brexit that this Government are pursuing, pushing us potentially to the very edge of that cliff and beyond. That was not on anyone’s ballot paper. There is no mandate for that. So if there is to be any seriousness about bringing people together, to try to heal the deep rifts that there now are in this country, proposals of the type set out in new clause 22 will be vital.
Alison McGovern
I represent a fairly finely balanced constituency. Many of my constituents voted leave and many voted remain. In view of that, I approached the election in June with some trepidation because I thought, “How do you bring people together in an area where many have opposing views?” But it turned out to be fairly straightforward. I told them what I thought we could do to get a deal done. The priority of those who voted leave was to get it done, so that we could move on. They want to leave the European Union but they do not want the process to be dragged out. Those who voted remain just want stability, and I think new clause 22 would provide that, as others have said.
Of course, the nub of new clause 22, which I will focus my remarks on, is not whether we ought to remain a member of the EEA or not; it is who has the right to choose whether we should stay in the single market or not. The Minister said earlier that this discussion was not about policy; it was about powers. Well, I know that, but the problem is, I am worried about what the policy will be unless we make sure that the powers reside in this House.
I want to make a couple of remarks about just how crucial that membership of the single market is. I do not really belong in this debate—I am not a lawyer; I am not from a legal background. I tend to focus my thinking on the economic fortunes of my constituents above all else. But the problem is that the legal discussion will govern the economic fortunes of my constituents above all else, and that is why we have to focus on the kind of Brexit we actually want. Do we want to remain in a European family of trading nations, or not? Do we want to keep our terms and our trade with our partners, or not? This is the choice before us. Do we think that some kind of free trade agreement will offer us enough to keep our constituents in their jobs, or do we need the surety of the single market? Let me make three brief points about why it is obvious that the EEA is the answer, and why we must have the power to decide.
Sir William Cash
The two “retained enhanced protection” new clauses tabled by the Leader of the Opposition are inconsistent. The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) did not refer in his speech to the fundamental rights as being part of new clause 2 itself. When I compared the two new clauses, I saw considerable inconsistencies. For example, new clause 58, entitled “Retaining Enhanced Protection (No. 2)”, includes the word “repeal”, and the words “environmental standards and protection” are included in new clause 58 but not in new clause 2. That presents a problem, because, as far as I understand the position, it is possible to debate and vote only on the new clauses in question. Which will Members vote on, if they do vote? I think it important to put that on the record, because there are serious inconsistencies between the two.
There has been a great deal of metaphysical discussion about the whole question of retained law. Let me say to those who have not had the benefit of doing so that it is quite useful to read pages 52 to 58 of the House of Commons briefing. It saves a lot of time, including debating time.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
The Government say, “Trust us, workers’ rights are safe.” As someone who has fought for workers’ rights for 40 years, rising from being a lay member to ultimately being elected deputy general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, I have seen often implacable hostility from Tory Governments towards workers and their trade unions in every decade since we joined the EU, ranging from when we were described in the 1980s as the “enemy within” to, more recently, the Trade Union Bill 2015.
In the referendum campaign, what the wide-eyed Brexiteers now driving the Government would like to see in our country could not have been clearer. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) pledged to “whittle away” the regulation “burden” with its
“intrusions into the daily life of citizens.”
Lord Lawson called for a “massive” regulatory cull. The ex-International Development Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), said:
“If we could just halve…the EU social and employment legislation we could deliver a £4.3 billion boost to the economy.”
Indeed, the previous Prime Minister talked about killing off the safety culture. Anyone who had stood outside Wembley stadium with 1,000 workers mourning the death of somebody who had just been crushed at work would not talk about killing off the safety culture. And the Foreign Secretary said during the Brexit campaign that the weight of employment legislation is now “back-breaking” and that his preferred model is to scrap the social charter.
I do not doubt for one moment that there are truly honourable Members on the Conservative Benches who mean it when they say that workers’ rights will be safe; the question is how we safeguard that in the next stages.
Let me tell just one story showing why this matters—why European Union law mattered to British workers, and, crucially, why it matters that we get it right to protect workers’ rights as we leave the EU. In 1977 the EU legislated for the acquired rights directive, and our Government had to introduce it into domestic law. Eventually it was introduced, with gritted teeth, in 1983, with William van Straubenzee saying in the House that he did so “with the utmost reluctance.” But the Tories then excluded the public sector; 10 million public servants were excluded for 10 years. The price that was paid, as we saw mass privatisation throughout the 1980s, was catastrophic for workers.
I remember the first example I dealt with, at the Fire Training College at Moreton-in-Marsh: 120 predominantly women housekeepers and catering workers had their pay cut by a third and the numbers employed cut by a half, holiday entitlement cut, and sickness entitlements cut. The only humorous side of an otherwise sad story was that the managing director of Grand Met Catering which won the contract was—I kid thee not—none other than a Mr Dick Turpin.
These situations went on for year after year. Let me give another example. My uncle Mick, God rest his soul, was a street-cleaner. He lived with me when I was a kid. He worked for Brent Council. I will never forget when Brent street-cleaners and refuse collectors were facing privatisation. During a meeting in their canteen one morning, the street-cleaners sat together, many of them disabled workers, in fear of what would happen because they knew that the bids coming in would result in a third of the workforce going, and they might be the most likely to go. I remember that my Uncle Mick’s good friend—a single man living alone—collapsed in tears afterwards at the thought of what loomed before him. There was 10 years of that throughout the 1980s.
I then took the case of the Eastbourne dustmen to the European Court of Justice and the European Commission, and we won. Thanks to EU law, our Government were forced to extend TUPE to cover 10 million public servants. It is vital in the next stages that there can never be any going back.
Time does not permit me to talk about other examples of implacable hostility: GCHQ, the refusal to sign the social charter, the national minimum wage, employment tribunal fees and the Trade Union Bill.
In conclusion, I stress again that I draw a distinction between the many Government Members who mean what they say and those who are in the driving seat, taking us ever closer to the cliff edge. When they say, “Trust us,” say no. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) was right to table new clauses that would safeguard workers’ rights as best we can. We cannot delegate to future Conservative Governments—if they still exist—the ability to change workers’ rights by way of Henry VIII powers, so that they can say, “Off with their heads.” On each and every occasion, as my hon. Friend argued, workers deserve the enhanced protection of any changes to their rights after we leave the European Union coming back to Parliament for debate, and changes being made only by an Act of Parliament. Is that ideal from my point of view? No, but it is at least a damn sight better than relying on Henry VIII powers in the hands of the Foreign Secretary—or who knows who?—at the next stage.
Matthew Pennycook
I know how many speakers have put in for the next debate, so I will be brief. It has been a good debate with many thoughtful contributions from both sides of the Committee, and I genuinely welcome the Solicitor General’s constructive tone. I also welcome the guarantee that, whether amendments are passed or not, we will have a Report stage. That suggests to me that, as we have long suspected, the Government draftsmen are busily at work.
However, on the central purpose of new clause 58—the need to secure enhanced protection for retained EU law from secondary legislation contained in other Acts of Parliament—the Minister offered no meaningful concessions. As such, I will test the will of the Committee on that matter when the time comes, but I will not press new clause 2 to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 25
Treatment of retained law
“(1) Following the commencement of this Act, no modification may be made to retained EU law save by primary legislation, or by subordinate legislation made under this Act.
(2) By regulation, the Minister may establish a Schedule listing technical provisions of retained EU law that may be amended by subordinate legislation.
(3) Regulations made under subsection (2) will be subject to an enhanced scrutiny procedure including consultation with the public and relevant stakeholders.
(4) Regulations may only be made under subsection (2) to the extent that they will have no detrimental impact on the UK environment.
(5) Delegated powers may only be used to modify provisions of retained EU law listed in any Schedule made under subsection (2) to the extent that such modification will not limit the scope or weaken standards of environmental protection.”—(Kerry McCarthy.)
This new clause provides a mechanism for Ministers to establish a list of technical provisions of retained EU law that may be amended by subordinate legislation outside of the time restrictions of the Bill.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Temporary Chair (David Hanson)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Non-discrimination on ground of nationality Article 18 Citizenship rights Article 20 (except article 20(2)(c)) Rights of movement and residence deriving from EU citizenship Article 21(1) Establishes customs union, prohibition of customs duties, common external tariff Article 28 Prohibition on customs duties Article 30 Prohibition on quantitative restrictions on imports Article 34 Prohibition on quantitative restrictions on exports Article 35 Exception to quantitative restrictions Article 36 Prohibition on discrimination regarding the conditions under which goods are procured Article 37(1) and (2) Free movement of workers Article 45(1), (2) and (3) Freedom of establishment Article 49 Freedom to provide services Article 56 Services Article 57 Free movement of capital Article 63 Competition Article 101(1) Abuse of a dominant position Article 102 Public undertakings Article 106(1) and (2) State aid Article 107(1) Commission consideration of plans re: state aid Article 108(3) Internal taxation Article 110 Non-discrimination in indirect taxes Articles 111 to 113 Economic co-operation Articles 120 to 126 Equal pay Article 157 European Investment Bank (EIB) Article 308 (first and second sub-paragraphs) Combating fraud on the EU Article 325(1) and (2) Disclosure of information and national security Article 346 EIB Protocol 5 - Articles 3, 4, 5, 7(1), 13, 15, 18(4), 19(1) and (2), 20(2), 23(1) and (4), 26, 27 (second and third sub-paragraphs) Privileges and immunities of the EIB Protocol 7 - Article 21”.
New clause 60—Retention of principles of EU environmental law—
‘(1) On and after exit day the environmental principles of European Union law become principles of United Kingdom law in accordance with this section.
(2) The “environmental principles of EU law” are the principles set out in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (the precautionary principle; the principle that preventive action should be taken; the principle that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay).
(3) A court or tribunal interpreting or applying an enactment must, so far as it is possible to do so, construe or apply the enactment in a manner that is compatible with the environmental principles of EU law.
(4) A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have regard to the environmental principles of EU law.’
This new clause would ensure that after withdrawal from the EU, the environmental principles of EU law would be retained as part of UK law.
New clause 67—Environmental protection: principles under Article 191 of TFEU—
‘(1) Principles contained in Article 191 of TFEU in relation to environmental protection and listed in subsection (2) shall continue to be recognised and applied on and after exit day.
(2) The principles are—
(a) the precautionary principle as it relates to the environment,
(b) the principle that preventive action should be taken to avert environmental damage,
(c) the principle that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source, and
(d) the principle that the polluter should pay.’
This new clause would ensure that environmental principles under Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union would continue to apply in the UK after exit day.
Amendment 93, in clause 4, page 2, line 45, leave out sub-paragraph (b).
The test set out at Clause 4(1)(a), that such rights are available in domestic law immediately before exit day, is sufficient for those rights to continue to be available following the UK’s exit from the EU.
Amendment 70, page 2, line 47, at end insert—
‘(1A) Rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures under subsection (1) shall include directly effective rights contained in the following Articles of, and Protocols to, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union—
Amendment 148, page 2, line 47, at end insert—
‘(1A) Rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures under subsection (1) shall include directly effective rights and obligations contained in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
This amendment would seek to preserve after exit from the EU any rights or obligations arising from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which applied in UK domestic law by virtue of its membership of the European Union.
Amendment 94, page 3, line 4, leave out paragraph (b).
Clause 4(2)(b) excludes rights arising under EU directives which are not recognised by the courts. This Amendment would remove Clause 4(2)(b) so that rights arising under EU directives (but not yet adjudicated on by the courts) are protected and continue to be available in UK courts.
Amendment 95, page 3, line 9, at end insert—
‘(4) Where, following the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU, no specific provision has been made in respect of an aspect of EU law applying to the UK or any part of the United Kingdom immediately prior to the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU, that aspect of EU law shall continue to be effective and enforceable in the United Kingdom with equivalent scope, purpose and effect as immediately before exit day.
(5) Where, following the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU, retained EU law is found to incorrectly or incompletely transpose the requirements of EU legislation in force on exit day, a Minister of the Crown shall make regulations made subject to an enhanced scrutiny procedure so as to ensure full transposition of the EU legislation.”
New subsection (4) deals with a situation where the UK has incorrectly implemented a directive. In cases of incorrect implementation, reliance on the EU directive may still be necessary. New subsection (5) would ensure that where the UK has not correctly or completely implemented EU law, prior to exit day, there will be a statutory obligation on Ministers to modify UK law to ensure that the relevant EU legislation is correctly and fully implemented.
Clause 4 stand part.
Amendment 149, in clause 7, page 6, line 18, at end insert—
“(g) make any provision which is not compliant with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
This amendment would seek to bar Ministers from making regulations under Clause 7 which are not compliant with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Amendment 350, page 6, line 18, at end insert—
“(g) fail to pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals as sentient beings.”
This amendment holds Ministers to the animal welfare standards enshrined in Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Amendment 150, in clause 9, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(e) make any provision which is not compliant with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
This amendment would seek to bar Ministers from making regulations under Clause 9 which are not compliant with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
New clause 34—United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—
‘(1) On exit day and on any day afterwards, a public authority must act in a way which is compatible with—
(a) Part I of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and
(b) the Optional Protocols of the UNCRC to which the UK is a signatory state.
(2) So far as it is possible to do so, on exit day and on any day afterwards, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with—
(a) Part I of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and
(b) the Optional Protocols of the UNCRC to which the UK is a signatory state.
(3) On exit day and on any day afterwards, a Minister of the Crown must, when exercising any function relating to children, have due regard to the requirements of—
(a) Part I of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and
(b) the Optional Protocols of the UNCRC to which the UK is a signatory state.
(4) A Minister of Crown shall undertake and publish a Child Rights Impact Assessment if the function relating to children under subsection (3) entails any of the following—
(a) formulation of a provision to be included in an enactment,
(b) formulation of a new policy, guidance or statement of practice, or
(c) change or review of an existing policy guidance or statement of practice.’
This new clause would require Ministers and public authorities, from exit day onwards, to act in such a way as to comply with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the optional protocols to which the UK is a signatory state.
New clause 36—United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (No. 2)—
‘(1) On exit day and on any day afterwards, a public authority must act in a way which is compatible with—
(a) Part I of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and
(b) the Optional Protocols of the UNCRC to which the UK is a signatory state.
(2) So far as it is possible to do so, on exit day and on any day afterwards, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with—
(a) Part I of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and
(b) the Optional Protocols of the UNCRC to which the UK is a signatory state.
(3) On exit day and on any day afterwards, a Minister of the Crown must, when exercising any function relating to children, have due regard to the requirements of—
(a) Part I of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and
(b) the Optional Protocols of the UNCRC to which the UK is a signatory state.’
This new clause would require Ministers and public authorities, from exit day onwards, to act in such a way as to comply with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the optional protocols to which the UK is a signatory state.
New clause 28—General Environmental Principles—
‘(1) In carrying out their duties and functions arising by virtue of this Act, public authorities must have regard to and apply the principles set out in this section.
(2) Any duty or function conferred on a public authority must be construed and have effect in a way that is compatible with the principles in this section and the aim of achieving a high level of environmental protection and improvement of the quality of the environment.
(3) The principles in this section are—
(a) the need to promote sustainable development in the UK and overseas;
(b) the need to contribute to preserving, protecting and improving the environment;
(c) the need to contribute to prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources;
(d) the need to promote measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change;
(e) the precautionary principle as it relates to the environment;
(f) the principle that preventive action should be taken to avert environmental damage;
(g) the principle that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source;
(h) the polluter pays principle;
(i) the principle that environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of policies and activities, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development.
(j) the need to guarantee participatory rights including access to information, public participation in decision making and access to justice in relation to environmental matters.
(together the “environmental principles“).
(4) In carrying out their duties and functions, public authorities shall take account of—
(a) available scientific and technical data;
(b) environmental benefits and costs of action or lack of action; and
(c) economic and social development.
(5) Public authorities, shall when making proposals concerning health, safety, environmental protection and consumer protection policy, take as a base a ·high level of protection, taking account in particular of any new development based on scientific facts.
(6) Subsection (7) applies in any proceedings in which a court or tribunal determines whether a provision of primary or subordinate legislation is compatible with the environmental principles.
(7) If the court is satisfied that the provision is incompatible with the environmental principles, it may make a declaration of that incompatibility.
(8) In formulating and implementing agriculture, fisheries, transport, research and technological development and space policies, public authorities shall pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals as sentient beings, while respecting the administrative provisions and customs relating in particular to religious rites, cultural traditions and regional heritage.’
This new clause ensures that public authorities carrying out their duties arising by virtue of this act, must have regard to environmental principles currently enshrined in EU law.
Caroline Lucas
I am pleased to speak in support of new clause 30, which is in my name and those of many other hon. Members, as well as new clause 60 and amendments 93 to 95. I am hopeful of finding support across the House for new clause 30, on animal sentience, because I do not think it should be controversial.
By way of background, in 1997—20 years ago—the UK Government, during their presidency of the EU, convinced the then 14 other member states that EU law should explicitly recognise that animals were sentient beings, and not simply agricultural goods like bags of potatoes that could be maltreated with impunity. In other words, it was a recognition that, like us, animals are aware of their surroundings; that they have the capacity to feel pain, hunger, heat and cold; and that they are aware of what is happening to them and of their interaction with other animals, including humans.
The resulting protocol, which came into force in 1999, changed how animals were regarded and ensured that future EU legislation was not implemented on the basis of the lowest standards of animal welfare, but that it took animal sentience into account. That understanding has since informed more than 20 pieces of EU law on animal welfare, including the ban on sealskin imports, the ban on conventional battery cages and the ban on cosmetics testing on animals.
In 2009, the original protocol was incorporated into the Lisbon treaty as article 13 of title II. The Government have rightly and commendably committed to transferring all existing EU law on animal welfare into UK law under the Bill, but because the text of the Lisbon treaty is not transferred by the Bill, the wording of article 13 on animal sentience will not explicitly be incorporated into UK law. As things stand, despite having one of the longest-standing animal welfare laws in the world—something of which we are rightly proud—the UK has no legal instrument other than article 13 of the Lisbon treaty to provide that animals are sentient beings.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
EU laws on animal sentience have allowed Wales to lead the way on animal welfare. When Plaid Cymru was in government, for instance, we banned the use of electric shock collars on cats and dogs. Does the hon. Lady agree that as well as explicitly incorporating the wording of article 13 on animal sentience into UK law, the UK Government should not hinder or stifle any future progress on animal welfare in Wales by dictating what it can and cannot do in areas of devolved competence?
Caroline Lucas
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I absolutely support what she says. Last night, I proudly went through the Lobby on amendment 79, which would have given the devolved Administrations more of a say on the Brexit process.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
We in this country are of course well known throughout Europe as a nation of animal lovers. The hon. Lady was kind enough to say that we started off this whole process. Once we leave Europe, will she join us in ensuring that in our own laws we have the best animal welfare protection in the world?
Caroline Lucas
As a passionate animal rights and animal welfare campaigner, I obviously want the best possible animal welfare laws in this country and in all countries, and I will not diminish my commitment to that.
I simply want to say that the omission in not transferring this bit of EU law into UK law—I understand why it cannot be transferred directly—is something that we could very easily rectify. As I say, I do not expect anyone to find any great controversy in doing so. New clause 30 is simply seeking to make sure that we close that gap. I am not for a moment suggesting that the result of our not closing it would be that we all suddenly went out and started murdering kittens—no one is suggesting such a thing—but I am saying that this is an important protocol. It was important enough for the British Government to use all their influence in the EU to have it included in the Lisbon treaty, and we should continue to have it in UK law.
Caroline Lucas
No one would be more delighted than me if we had the political will, which is as important as the political legalities, to make that happen. If there was the political will to secure higher animal welfare standards in this country, no one would be happier than me.
With new clause 30, I am simply suggesting that the principle of animal sentience is an important one. In a sense, it is almost by accident that the law will not be transposed. It has been very important in the development of animal welfare law in this country, and I therefore hope that there will be agreement across the House simply to close this loophole.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The hon. Lady is making a great speech. We completely agree with her and want to take her side on this issue. Does she agree that the reality is that high animal welfare standards sometimes mean higher input costs, and that in the big wide world, as we seek new deals with countries that perhaps have much lower animal welfare standards, there will be an economic temptation to lower our standards? That is why it is so important, as she says, to incorporate those welfare standards in the Bill.
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. He has anticipated what I was going to say, but he is exactly right. When it comes to such trade agreements, it will be even more important that our standards are absolutely enshrined in law, so that they cannot be bargained or negotiated away in the interests of getting a better deal.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has said that he believes this gap should be closed. I very much welcome his support, because this is an important ethical and practical issue. It is of great significance to the UK’s ability to trade freely with the EU27 in the future. As I have said, the UK was the original proposer of the protocol, so we surely have a responsibility to ensure that its provisions are not lost from UK law by our withdrawal from the EU.
Dr Drew
On that very point, there cannot be a green group that the Secretary of State has not embraced or an animal welfare group he has not cuddled since he has been in post. Is this not a good test of whether the Government will turn their words into action? This new clause and other amendments need to be added to the Bill, otherwise it is just a case of warm words and no action.
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is spot-on. This is exactly such an opportunity for the Government to demonstrate that there is political will behind their words. Let us hope that, as a result of new clause 30 being on the amendment paper, we can agree it tonight, and then get on with many of the other big issues. I simply say that I am looking forward to the Minister’s response, but if it is not satisfactory, I very much hope to press the new clause to a vote.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
The intervention by the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) was a little unfair on the Secretary of State, because he is not just using warm words. There has been a flurry of activity and real commitment in the past four months, including banning neonicotinoids just a few days ago, placing CCTVs in every abattoir in the country, raising sentencing from six months to five years for those who engage in cruelty to animals, and banning the ivory trade. I could spend 10 minutes reeling off the Secretary of State’s achievements, promises, commitments and actions. We should celebrate that. It is extraordinary.
Caroline Lucas
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I agree with him—so far. There are still more tests to be applied to how far-reaching this Secretary of State is, but the commitments he has made so far have certainly been welcome. I hope that he will also take strong action on this Brexit Bill, in terms not only of new clause 30 but of the crucial issues of environmental governance and principles. To be honest, what I have heard so far is that different commitments will be put into national policy statements, but that is not good enough. They are not robust or rigorous enough. The jury is still out on some things, but I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in saying that the progress so far has been pretty extraordinary by the standards of previous Secretaries of State.
Geraint Davies
Does not what has just been said simply show that the Secretary of State can lift standards within the EU? The whole point about the EU is that it is not possible to push standards below a minimum threshold, but it is possible to do so outside the EU. In the future, therefore, if we are out, they can go up and down; but if we are in, they can go only up.
Caroline Lucas
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is not just about the fact that they can go only up; if we are in the EU, we can actually have an influence on the other 27 member states, as we have done on many issues, not least that under discussion, and make sure that animal welfare is improved not just in our own country but right across the EU28.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady agree that the ban on neonicotinoids would not have taken place were it not for years of sustained campaigning by environmental groups and scientific research by the European Commission? It stated that we should invoke the precautionary principle to protect our bees from those potentially toxic chemicals, but the precautionary principle will no longer be in place when the Bill is enacted.
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Lady neatly brings me on to the next issue that I want to address. She is absolutely right to say that there is real concern about what will happen to those vital principles as a result of the Bill. Her new clause 60 aims to address precisely that by ensuring that, after withdrawal, the environmental principles embedded in EU law are fully retained as part of UK law. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has a planned consultation on the principles, but I am worried about the timescale, because we need the outcome to be meaningful and to know what it is before the Bill finishes its passage through both Houses of Parliament. I hope that the Secretary of State will be in listening mode, because so many people are deeply and rightly concerned about what will happen to those principles as a result of the Bill as it stands.
The environmental law that the Bill rightly sets out to transfer into UK law is composed of not only specific legal obligations such as the prohibition on certain chemicals, but a broad and comprehensive framework in which those obligations are embedded. That framework includes a number of environmental principles—including the precautionary principle, the “polluter pays” principle and sustainable development—and they underpin and aid the interpretation of those legal obligations. That assists Governments, agencies and courts to understand and correctly interpret the aims and objectives of EU environmental law.
Currently, those environmental principles are set out in the EU treaties, and they have been instrumental in decisions such as the EU ban on imports of hormone-fed beef, the moratorium on neonic pesticides and the control of the release of genetically modified organisms in the EU. To give just one example of how that has benefited environmental protection in the UK, the “polluter pays” principle states that the polluter should bear the expense of carrying out pollution prevention and control measures. The EU’s water framework directive, which drives the sustainable management of the UK’s waterways, has led to enormous improvements in the quality of our drinking water and it is specifically based on the “polluter pays” principle.
Mrs Main
The hon. Lady is making a valid point, but some of the EU’s principles are lower than ours. For example, it will not allow us to ban microbeads. We are very concerned about plastics in the water, so I look forward to being able to enhance our waterways by being able to ban microplastics.
Caroline Lucas
I disagree with the hon. Lady. I do not think there is anything relating to the EU that is stopping us from banning microplastics. We have just done it, and in doing so we have demonstrated how the UK can show leadership. That is not just happening here in the UK. We have an influence we should be proud of, and we should be rather sad that we will probably lose it as a result of this whole process.
Mrs Main
On a point of clarification, the hon. Lady said that she was not aware that we could not ban microbeads in plastics, but an independent report from the House of Commons Library warns that any attempt to impose a unilateral ban could break EU free trade laws because microbeads are in products. I think she will actually find that even though the Government wanted to ban them in July 2017, we were warned that we would be in breach of EU trade laws if we did so.
Caroline Lucas
I really do not understand the hon. Lady, because we have done it—it has been done. All the fears that we might not be able to do it because of EU law have been absolutely shot down by the fact that we have done it. It has been recognised—done; over; finished; kaput.
Mary Creagh
The Environmental Audit Committee had a very interesting meeting this morning at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs with its Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who is in the Chamber. We look forward to the statutory instrument that will ban the manufacture of microbeads from 1 January and their sale—hopefully—from 1 July. I hope it will be laid before the House very shortly and that we are all able to sit down and pass it very swiftly.
Caroline Lucas
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that helpful update. There are many myths about what the EU prevents us from doing, so it is useful to get that clarification.
I was just explaining the different areas in which we need these environmental principles to apply. My concern is that the Bill delivers on only the first: the interpretation of retained EU environmental law. Clause 6(3) states that general principles of EU law will be retained in UK law, and that the courts will be able to interpret EU-derived law in accordance with the retained general principles of EU law, but it is not yet clear whether the environmental principles will be considered to be general principles of EU law. Neither the ECJ nor the treaties have defined “general principles”. The concern is that if the Bill does not explicitly recognise environmental principles as general principles, they could be lost altogether. Even if they are retained, as they should be, the Bill explicitly limits how they could then be applied in two ways: first, UK courts will not be able to overturn decisions or challenge actions that do not conform to the principles; and, secondly, there will be no compulsion on public bodies or businesses to refer to the principles in future actions and decisions.
Mr Jim Cunningham
The environmental protections should be enshrined in UK law because we do not want the Government to go the way of the United States on the environment, given the damage that the Trump Administration have done. The Government could be tempted to follow that.
Caroline Lucas
I agree. This country will be very interested in forming more free trade agreements as soon as possible, and under circumstances that might not necessarily be in the best interests of our own environment and standards. It therefore even more important that these things are enshrined in law, as the hon. Gentleman says.
Paragraph 3 of schedule 1 explicitly limits the legal remedies available when general principles are contravened. It will not be possible to take an action in court, or to challenge or quash any law or activity on the basis of the principles. The courts will be unable to overturn decisions, and individuals and non-governmental organisations will not be able to challenge decisions on the basis that they are not compatible with environmental principles such as sustainable development. In short, as the Bill stands, if a business or public body contravenes the principles of environmental law, it will not be possible to challenge that in court.
That is a clear departure from continuity, as the EU courts have strongly upheld the environmental principles, such as by overturning planning decisions that contravene the precautionary principle. The level of environmental protection after exit day will not therefore be as strong and rigorous as it was before exit day, unless we accept new clause 60 and do something right now to enshrine these principles in our law.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Is it not vital for air quality that we enshrine these principles in UK law, given that the Government have been told four times by the courts to improve air quality but failed to do so? It is essential that actions can be brought to enforce such really important things.
Caroline Lucas
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The role of the ECJ in applying fines has concentrated the minds of policy makers in the UK. It was only the threat of significant fines that led to the air being cleaned up in places such as London. One of the many things that worry me about the Brexit process is that, even in what the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said about closing the so-called governance gap, I have not heard any proposal from him for real sanctions to concentrate the minds of policy makers on bringing their laws into conformity.
In EU law, the environmental principles are forward looking and play a formative role in guiding not just day-to-day decisions, but future policy development. That role could be lost under the Bill as drafted. In the months and years ahead, the principles of environmental law should be applied to UK decision making in a number of high-risk areas, such as trade policy, chemicals, and infrastructure planning, but unless the Bill is amended, the legal force of the environmental principles to guide future policy and decision making will be lost.
I want to end with a few words about national policy statements. The Government have suggested several times that instead of enshrining the principles in UK law, they might instead consider using the NPS route. I have real concerns about that because an NPS is not a fixed, long-term commitment, and does not provide the long-term certainty of primary legislation. Such an approach would represent a serious step backwards from the current position.
The statutory framework for establishing an NPS limits its scope to planning matters, so we would need a new statutory instrument to have a much broader scope. Also, an NPS lacks the binding character of legislation. Courts could give little or no weight at all to policy statements so, essentially, the basic problem with an NPS is that a Secretary of State has a great deal of control over it, unlike with primary legislation. In a case in which a non-governmental organisation or an individual wanted to use an NPS to hold the Government and public bodies to account, there could be a serious temptation for the Government to amend the NPS precisely to make it less effective at holding them to account.
I want briefly to express my support for amendments 93 to 95, which the hon. Member for Bristol East will no doubt speak to. Those amendments speak to the primary intention of the Bill as expressed by Ministers. Without them, it could not be said that the same rules and laws will apply on the day after exit as on the day before, as the Prime Minister has pledged. They are needed to ensure that our laws and our rights, and indeed the intent and purpose behind them, remain the same immediately after withdrawal from the EU. Any changes to those laws and rights, other than to ensure the faithful conversion of EU law into domestic law, should be made following our exit from the EU only through primary legislation, not by any other means. Those amendments therefore ask, in a sense, little of Ministers, and so, as with new clauses 30 and 60, I hope that the Minister will respond positively to them.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I have a large degree of agreement and sympathy with what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has just said. So far as animal sentience is concerned, I suspect we may find that there is more on that already in UK law than she is allowing, but I wait to hear from the Government about that. However, I do agree that, one way or another, we need it to be present in UK law at the end of this, and I think the Secretary of State is probably pretty convinced of the same thing.
I want mainly to talk about the question of new clauses 60 and 67, or more precisely what they are aiming at and how best to achieve it, because the point at which I disagree with the hon. Lady is not one of ends but one of means. It is a rare thing to happen in the House of Commons, but I hope I might at least half-persuade her by the end of my remarks that it would be better for her to adopt a different view of the mechanics than she is suggesting.
Let me begin with this: I agree with the hon. Lady wholeheartedly that, in the light of schedule 1, we cannot possibly rely on clause 6—even as I hope it will subsequently be adjusted—and still less on clauses 2 and 3 to do the heavy lifting that she rightly wants to get the precautionary principle and other critical principles into UK law. She is absolutely right about that.
The question that the hon. Lady and I are both asking is, how best can we get over that problem and get to the position where the UK courts and the UK Administration as a whole—the Government and their agencies—carry on applying those principles in a sensible and serious way to our environmental protection over succeeding decades? This is obviously a matter not just of a minute or a day or a year, but of a long period over which we want a settled, continued policy being carried on by succeeding UK Governments of different persuasions.
If that is the question, clearly one route would be some variant of new clause 60, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), or new clause 67 or some other variant. I completely admit that that is a route, but I want first to explain why I do not think it is an optimal route and then to explain why what has been talked about by the Secretary of State is a better route.
Geraint Davies
Is not one of the central problems of the Bill that the legislation is so broadly drafted that there is no effective means for the courts to exercise judicial review, and that the reason we need these principles in it is to enable the court to get a grasp, which would be much better than if there is nothing there at all? Otherwise, we would have to live with a hotch-potch of precedents, which the Secretary of State referred to in the Select Committee.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman asked that question, because more or less the whole of the rest of what I want to say answers that very point. I think there is a better structure available to us, which will enable Parliament to be much more certain that the courts will be enforcing a set of much more detailed principles in a much more concrete and much more certain manner. I think that would answer the hon. Gentleman’s point and reassure him, and I believe it would do better at achieving what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion wants to achieve than her own suggestions.
Sir Oliver Letwin
May I explain what I have in mind? I am more than willing to give way to the hon. Gentleman again if he does not agree as I go along.
The first point about a better structure is that it does indeed need to have a statutory base, but that need not be in this Bill. In fact, I think it is much better that it should be an environment Bill, because an environment Bill gives the scope and opportunity to determine these things in much more detail and much more carefully, and gives the House, rather than what we have now—two and a half hours, not all of which will be spent on this topic—days and weeks of consideration in both Houses. That is the right way to do long-term environmental legislation.
Kerry McCarthy
The Environmental Audit Committee recommended, after its inquiry into the future of the natural environment post Brexit, that the Government bring forward an environmental protection Bill in order to do just what the right hon. Gentleman says, but there is no sign that the Government are prepared to do so. In the absence of such legislation, does he not think that the second-best option would be to protect the environment by supporting new clauses 60, 67 and 28, which are on the table today?
Sir Oliver Letwin
Well, we must leave it to Ministers to speak for themselves, but I have to say that the discussions that I and others had with the Secretary of State, who, as people have remarked in this debate, is of a very different cast of mind from some previous Secretaries of State, suggest to me that actually there will be an environmental protection Bill coming forward. I think that is—[Interruption.] Ah! Maestro! With perfect timing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State comes into the Chamber, at just the right moment for him to signify with a nod, if nothing more, that the possibility of proper environmental legislation in the form of a new statute is on his mind.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)
indicated assent.
Sir Oliver Letwin
And his mind is one that is capable of grasping these matters, if ever the mind of a Member of the House of Commons was. The first point, then, is that a proper statutory basis is superior to a specific amendment to the Bill.
Caroline Lucas
Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that the two are mutually exclusive? Why could we not have the security of knowing that we have a provision in the Bill? We are delighted with the new Secretary of State, but how long will he stay? Who knows? Who might come next? We want the certainty of the Bill now, as well as the nice hope of the environment Act that so many of us have been requesting for such a long time.
Sir Oliver Letwin
First, I am confident that this Secretary of State will be here for rather longer than some other Secretaries of State have been recently. I welcome that, because I think he is a very, very fine Environment Secretary. Secondly, I am not saying that it is inconceivable that there could be two pieces of legislation, but I think it rather inelegant to legislate in a slightly awkward way, and then to repeal that legislation in a Bill that would probably start its passage before the passage of this Bill has been completed. I would prefer it to be done properly, although opinions may differ.
Mary Creagh
We have had three Environment Secretaries in two years, and we have all been waiting for the famed environment plan for two and a half years. A 25-year environment plan will be a 22-year environment plan by the time it is actually published. What gives the right hon. Gentleman the confidence to assume that an environment Act, which would have to be underpinned by the environment plan, will be in place by the time we leave the EU, especially if we end up leaving without a transitional deal and crashing out in March 2019?
Sir Oliver Letwin
What gives me the confidence is that I think it is perfectly doable, and I think the Secretary of State intends to do it. I am in a slightly odd position—the Secretary of State has to nod each time I say these things, because I cannot speak for him—but I assure the hon. Lady that I really am very confident about that. Let us proceed for a moment, however, on the assumption that that is indeed going to happen. That gives us a place in which to do things, although of course it does not solve all the problems.
My second point is that, unlike the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, I think that a national policy statement is an ideal vehicle for the translation of these principles into something much more solid and much more determinate. A national policy statement is not just something that a Minister dreams up and issues like a piece of confetti. It comes before the House of Commons and is subject to resolution by the House of Commons, and it is therefore debated. It is exposed in draft, and it is discussed by the green groups.
There will of course be considerable debate about the exact terms of a national policy statement that seeks to turn those principles into something much more concrete, but I think there is ample scope for turning it into something of which we could be really proud. It would also have a huge advantage over mere principles when the courts came to judge the actions of the state and measure them against it—for that is exactly what would happen. A national policy statement is a policy statement by Ministers. If Ministers do not follow that policy, they are, by hypothesis, acting irrationally and in a Wednesbury unreasonable way, and can therefore be judicially reviewed. When they are judicially reviewed, the courts will look at the policy statement and compare it with their actions. If the policy statement is properly debated, properly exposed and properly expressed, those actions can be measured against it in a very determinate and careful way, and we can end up with a much more solid environmental protection than we would ever have got out of the principles.
Caroline Lucas
The idea that judicial review will be an adequate recourse is misguided. Judicial review is about only the process, not the outcome. Moreover, it is becoming harder and harder for people to obtain the necessary funds: plenty of people would not know how to begin to do it. I also do not share the right hon. Gentleman’s confidence about the way in which a court will necessarily regard a national policy statement. An NPS does not have the same quality of judiciability as primary legislation.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Perhaps we will not reach agreement about this. I disagree with every part of what the hon. Lady has just said. First, judicial review has been a highly successful mechanism for environmental campaigners. It is, in fact, from judicial review that the clean air measures have arisen. Secondly, the reason why it is particularly effective in the case of a national policy statement is that a policy statement is a policy statement by Ministers and therefore creates a presumption of Wednesbury unreasonableness if it is departed from, so it is very easy to use as a tool for judicial review. Thirdly, judicial review is the mechanism that the principles in the new clause of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, or the Opposition new clause or the new clause of the hon. Member for Wakefield, would have to operate on. It is not the case that the courts in our country would simply take a set of principles and apply them to some set of cases. They would not know what to do with them. The Government would have to be judicially reviewed for failing to apply those principles in their policy.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Oliver Letwin
I will give way in a moment.
It is much better to be in a position where we can take the Government to judicial review for failing to apply a much more detailed set of policies, which are the Government’s policies, as approved in the House of Commons by resolution, and which have been fully debated and where we then know whether the court is likely to find that the action is or is not in accordance.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I will give way to both hon. Ladies shortly, but first I want to come to a further point that is an important part of the architecture.
I do not personally believe that even the combination of an environmental protection Bill and an NPS emerging from it and under it would be sufficient. This exactly answers the last point of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion. I accept that it is difficult for campaigners and others to use the vehicle of judicial review, which is why I and some of my hon. Friends have advocated what we have proposed, and why we have agreed with the Secretary of State.
Sir Oliver Letwin
The Secretary of State is again nodding. That is why we have agreed that it is necessary under that same statute to create a body which is a prosecutorial authority, wholly independent of Government, along the lines of the Victims’ Commissioner, the Children’s Commissioner, the Office for Budget Responsibility, or the Equality and Human Rights Commission—we can choose which model—and which is an entity that is small and lean but, like the Committee on Climate Change, very serious. It would be established under statute, and charged with a duty under statute to ensure that the NPS is observed. I advocated the CCC when I was first working with Tony Juniper to get what became the Climate Change Act accepted in this House, and at an early stage I came to believe that the combination of clarity of objective and a body wholly independent and staffed by serious experts was a powerful mechanism, and so I think it has proved to be.
Caroline Lucas
I am interested in what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he proposing that the body he is describing would have the same power of sanction that currently—as we have been talking about—the ECJ has, in the ability to fine Governments, which is what finally made them conform to the air quality laws, for example? Will this body have the capacity to do something as strong as fining Government to make sure they put their house in order?
Sir Oliver Letwin
In a word, yes, because this body will be able to take the Government to court, and the courts have the power to injunct, and if the Government fail to observe an injunction, results follow. The body must have that capacity.
I am not envisaging—and I know the Secretary of State is not envisaging—anything remotely like the Environment Agency or Natural England, which are part of the DEFRA family, if I can put it that way. This agency will not be an agency of the state, carrying out the Government’s operational objectives; rather, it will be independent of the Government and will continuously be judging the Government’s actions, taking on board the complaints of others, and using the expertise.
Finally, before I give way again, let me say that I hope the hon. Lady will take some comfort from the fact that ever since I began to propose this with some of my hon. Friends, and started discussing it with the Secretary of State, those who most disagree with her and me about these things have been sticking pins in voodoo images of people like me, because they are afraid that this body might be very effective. I take some comfort from that, and hope the hon. Lady will, too.
Mary Creagh
I am interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman develop the ideas around this new body to fill the commission-shaped hole, which was what the Secretary of State described to our Committee, but I want to press the right hon. Gentleman on the point of remedy, because there is no such body. The CCC sets out goals, but does not have any remedy against Government if we fail to meet our targets; it only has the power of its authority in saying that we are missing the fourth carbon budget, or the fifth carbon budget, and so forth.
Secondly, on judicial review, the Ministry of Justice proposed to increase the fees charged to individuals and environmental groups in clear breach of the Aarhus convention, which guarantees access to environmental justice through European law for everybody and caps the costs. The only reason why that proposal was overturned was a judicial review brought by big charities such as the RSPB, not because the Government were aware of the principles.
Sir Oliver Letwin
The hon. Lady is actually making my point. If one looks at new clause 60 or new clause 67, they clearly do not create a right of action against an individual. They create the possibility of judicial review of Government, and I accept the good intention of doing so. Instead, we have the possibility of judicial review of Government not in the hands of some private charity, group, NGO or whatever, but through a taxpayer-funded, statutory body that can take the Government to court, where the Government will be measured against a precise policy statement that is authorised by this House. That is a much more powerful vehicle. In fact, it is the most powerful vehicle available to us for the control of Government. We know nothing higher than the Supreme Court as a means of holding Government to account in relation to their own policies, as approved by the House of Commons. It is an ironclad method of proceeding. I accept that we would of course have prolonged discussion of what was in the policy statement and further prolonged discussion of exactly how the body was structured. There is a basis for debate, but the fundamental structure is much more powerful than what is proposed in either of the new clauses.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on some nice blue-sky thinking about what could come in the future, but I do not see how that is mutually exclusive to the new clauses that we are debating. They relate to values that the UK has signed up to through, among other things, the Rio principles and the Aarhus convention that are currently underpinned in EU law to ensure that they are binding in British law. Leaving the EU would mean that there is no underpinning for our courts to rely on them. The new clauses would allow the courts to use them and rely on them in other judgments. If the right hon. Gentleman’s blue-sky thinking comes forward, it could happen then as well.
The Temporary Chair (Mr Gary Streeter)
Order. I know that we are in Committee, but interventions must be brief.
Sir Oliver Letwin
That was the subject of a previous intervention, and what I said in response then I will say again. The application of the principles in this Bill is a possible way to go and is not necessarily incompatible with later legislation, but it seems rather awkward to legislate inadequately and then to produce a good piece of legislation that repeals the inadequate legislation—we certainly would not want them to conflict—when it is extremely likely that the Bill in question will actually be marching through the Houses in parallel with the Bill that we are now discussing.
My second point is that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle)—this is part of the reason why we have a slight difference of view about the means—has far more faith in the current TFEU principles than is justified. They are principles of procedure that govern proceedings and hence have a big effect on the formulation of EU directives. Had they been part of EU law in a strict sense, they would of course have been incorporated into the Bill that we are discussing, and the problems that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion and I agree exist about this Bill not carrying them into UK law would not exist.
At the moment, we have weak procedural principles, and new clauses 60 and 67 seek to take those weak procedural principles and turn them into a weak procedural principle of UK law. I am recommending, and I think the Secretary of State is happy to take forward, a solid statutory basis for a powerful body operating against a statutorily based national policy statement approved in this House in order to create a binding mechanism that is far more ironclad than what is currently on offer.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
On adopting EU law into domestic law, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will accept that there is more than one legal jurisdiction in these isles. On that basis, does he believe the UK Government should be discussing and seeking agreement with the Scottish Government on how it should happen in Scotland?
Sir Oliver Letwin
I leave that to the Government, but it is noticeable that new clauses 60 and 67 would have UK application. I take it that we will be able, by one means or another, to ensure that such legislation as comes forward is so discussed with the devolved authorities that it, too, has some kind of UK application. The precise means of doing that I am neither competent nor desirous to discuss in the context of these amendments.
Sir Edward Leigh
After Brexit, we all want to have the best environmental standards possible. Before my right hon. Friend sits down, will he return to new clause 30? If he reads new clause 30, he will see that it drives a coach and horses through the entire principle of the Bill, because in matters concerning animal welfare it would make, for all time, our courts and Supreme Court ultimately subject to the treaty of Lisbon. In that sense, new clause 30 is therefore a wrecking amendment.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I did not intend to return to new clause 30, which I did not table, but my hon. Friend may well be right. I am sure the Government will have something to say about sentience in UK domestic law.
I am under pressure from the Whips to end, and I certainly will end. [Interruption.] I am very sorry. I just express the hope that we can at least continue to discuss this. My hon. Friends and I, as well as the Secretary of State, have tried to discuss this in some detail with the environmental groups, and we should continue that discussion because there is a golden opportunity to do something very good for our country and for our environment.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Temporary Chair
Order. Thirteen colleagues, and possibly more, have caught my eye with 130 minutes to go before we conclude at 10 o’clock. You can do the maths, and it is not that great. Please be mindful of others, and let us not have too many interventions. Let those who wish to speak, speak.
Matthew Pennycook
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), and I welcome the fact that he thinks this is a debate about means not ends. The debate should continue in that constructive spirit. I am particularly interested in his ideas for an environment Bill, presumably to be introduced before exit day, and his ideas about governance, which we will be debating in Committee on a later day.
I rise to speak to new clause 67 because I have not been entirely convinced by the right hon. Gentleman. The aim of the clause is simple: to ensure that the environmental principles set out in article 191(2) of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union—the precautionary principle, the principle that preventive action should be taken to avert environmental damage, the principle that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source, and the polluter pays principle—continue to be recognised and applied after exit day, which is important. In that respect, new clause 67 is broadly similar in its intent to new clauses 60 and 28. If either of those new clauses is pressed to a vote, we would be minded to support them.
The environmental principles set out in article 191 of the TFEU form an essential component of environmental law; they are not unique to environmental law, but they are principles of environmental law in general. The principles are also found in a number of international environmental treaties to which the UK is a signatory, including the convention on biological diversity, the convention on climate change and the convention on the law of the sea. At present, the UK gives effect to those obligations through its membership of the EU, and particularly through the Lisbon treaty.
As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and the right hon. Member for West Dorset said, the principles play three key roles: they are an aid to the interpretation of the law; they guide future decision making; and they are a basis for legal challenge in court.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion set out in great detail the wide range of areas in which the principles have led to tangible environment improvement benefits. As it stands, the Bill does not ensure that the environmental principles will be recognised and available in domestic law after exit, and as such does not retain those three key roles. The principles are not preserved by clause 4 because they do not confer directly effective rights on individuals. According to the legal advice that I have received, neither do they fall within the definition of the general principles of EU law that are to some extent preserved by the Bill, although the Minister may want to comment on that. Whereas the general principles apply across all EU law, by their very definition some environmental principles apply only to environmental law and policy.
If we are to retain the law we have, to be effective custodians of the environment and to be world leaders when it comes to environmental standards, it is imperative that we embed the principles in the way policy operates. To his credit, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has recognised that. However, the Government have argued that environmental principles are interpretive principles, and that as such they should not form part of the law itself. I argue that the environmental principles are not simply guidance; as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion mentioned, they have been given effect in EU law. Article 11 of the TFEU states:
“Environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Union policies and activities, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development.”
They are, therefore, a vital aid to understanding the role and function of existing legislation, as well as being an interpretative tool for decision makers and, if necessary, the courts.
For the principles to have equivalence on exit day, they must be placed in domestic legislation. I recognise that a consultation on this subject has been announced, but it will not report back before the Bill has progressed through this place. There is good reason to doubt that the direction of travel being signalled by the Government—namely, a reliance on UK case law, judicial review and some form of policy guidance—will do the job, even if all that operates alongside governance arrangements in the form of an as yet undefined watchdog, although the right hon. Member for West Dorset gave some valuable insight into what the Government are thinking in that respect.
UK case law is unlikely to retain and capture the effect of all the principles set out in article 191, as that would limit enforceability to where the principles already exist in case law. It is difficult to see how judicial review, which looks only at the legality of a decision or action rather than its scientific merits, will materially apply core environmental principles. Likewise, reliance on policy guidance—something explicitly referred to by the Secretary of State recently in evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee—is arguably an inadequate basis on which to proceed. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion noted, policy guidance is necessarily limited in scope, but there is a strong case for ensuring that environmental principles apply across Government, informing law as well as policy, to match the rigour of the treaty obligations.
Policy guidance also entails a weaker duty on public bodies: policy statements are only guidelines or material considerations for public bodies to consider, meaning that they are less likely to influence a decision than a strict duty to comply. Policy guidance is impermanent; it is prey to changes resulting from short-term political agendas—under different Ministers and different Governments—and so does not provide long-term certainty, and it lacks the binding character of statute. There should be a clear duty to comply with environmental principles in statute, to match the current strong legal obligation set out in the treaty, and the courts should be able to enforce such a duty.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
With respect to compliance, does the hon. Gentleman recognise the importance of strong UK frameworks? Although we have different jurisdictions throughout the UK, we have to make sure that we have standards that maintain the integrity of our internal market and protect the UK and the Union that we all support.
Matthew Pennycook
I agree with that, and I would add that if the environmental principles are brought into UK law in the fashion that I am describing, they will of course inform the frameworks for the devolved legislatures.
Matthew Pennycook
That point is very well made. I expect that other hon. Members will touch on that in more detail when they speak to amendments 93 to 95.
We support amendments 148 to 150 and new clause 34—the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston to remedy deficiencies in the Bill with respect to the rights of children. Her amendments are designed to preserve in domestic law any rights or obligations arising from the UN convention on the rights of the child, to ensure that Ministers act in such a way as to comply with that convention, and to protect from the delegated powers in the Bill the rights and obligations that flow from the convention.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Dominic Raab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of clause 4 and to respond to today’s second group of amendments. I also appreciate the constructive tone of the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook).
The two strategic objectives of the Bill are to take back democratic control over our laws, and to do so in a way that ensures a smooth Brexit. Clause 4 helps us to deliver on both aims. Before talking about the amendments and the application of that clause, it is worth briefly explaining the value of clause 4, which is a sweeper provision. Clause 2 retains UK implementing legislation deriving from EU instruments, and clause 3 incorporates direct EU legislation. Clause 4 picks up the other obligations, rights and remedies that would currently have the force of UK law under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972. In particular, it will ensure that we retain, on day one of exit, general principles of EU law and all directly effective rights. That means rights deriving from EU treaties that are sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional that they do not require separate bespoke implementing legislation. Instead, to date, they are relied on as national law without reference to any separate implementing legislation.
Dominic Raab
I am going to make a little progress; I am mindful of your strictures, Mr Streeter. I will take interventions on the amendments, but let me just explain the relevance of clause 4.
I will give just a flavour of the kinds of rights or obligations captured, which would include the EU-derived rights to equal pay and non-discrimination on grounds of nationality. In the context of something like competition law, it would include the prohibition on the abuse of a dominant position. The explanatory memorandum gives further illustrations. Ultimately, given that the criteria for directly effective rights are determined judicially, the scope of such rights must be for UK courts to determine. That is why it would not be right for us to draft our own definition or definitive list.
Clause 4 only converts rights as they exist and are recognised immediately before the date of exit. It serves as a snapshot of EU law on the date of exit, and guarantees a smooth legal transition out of the EU—in respect of everything of value, importance and significance—for businesses and citizens up and down the country.
Dominic Raab
I will come to the precise application shortly, but I am happy to take another intervention if my right hon. and learned Friend does not think I have answered his question sufficiently by the end.
Mary Creagh
The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) has raised this point: the rubber does not hit the road in this clause when it comes to procedures, such as when we legislate for chemicals. There is no body in this country that legislates, monitors and enforces chemicals; it is all done at a European level. There is no body extant in this country to do that on exit day.
Dominic Raab
There are bodies that deal with these kinds of things, such as the Health and Safety Executive, but I will come to that when I deal with the sector-specific applications of this principle.
Dominic Raab
I am going to make some headway because I am mindful, Mr Streeter, of your guidance about interventions. I want to ensure that those who tabled the amendments get a chance to make interventions about their amendments.
I want to turn now to the amendments themselves. We certainly support the sentiment behind new clause 30 and the related amendments, but I am afraid we cannot accept it. Let me briefly try to explain why.
Article 13 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union places an obligation on the European Union when developing certain EU policies and on member states when developing and implementing those EU policies to have full regard to the welfare requirements of animals. The intention of the new clause is to replicate—I am not sure whether it is replicate or duplicate—that obligation in domestic law when we leave the EU.
The reference to animals as sentient beings is, effectively, a statement of fact in article 13, but even though it is, in effect, declaratory, I can reassure the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) that it is already recognised as a matter of domestic law, primarily in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. If an animal is capable of experiencing pain and suffering, it is sentient and therefore afforded protection under that Act.
We have made it clear that we intend to retain our existing standards of animal welfare once we have left the EU and, indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made clear, to enhance them. The vehicle of this legislation will convert the existing body of EU animal welfare law into UK law. It will make sure that the same protections are in place in the UK and that laws still function effectively after the UK leaves the EU.
In this country—we should be proud to say this—we have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, and we intend to remain a world leader in the future. Leaving the EU will not prevent us from further maintaining such standards; in fact, it will free us in some regards to develop our own gold-standard protections on animal welfare. Animals will continue to be recognised as sentient beings under domestic law, in the way I have described. We will consider how we might explicitly reflect that sentience principle in wider UK legislation.
To tack on to the Bill the hon. Lady’s new clause, which simply refers to article 13, would add nothing, however, and she was fairly honest in her speech about the limited practical impact it would have. Given that it is ultimately fairly superfluous, it risks creating legal confusion. Obviously, if she wants to propose improvements to wider UK legislation—I am sure she will, knowing her tenacity—she is free to do so, but this new clause is unnecessary, and it is liable only to generate legal uncertainty. Having addressed some of her concerns, I hope that she will withdraw the new clause, having powerfully and eloquently made her point.
I want to turn now to new clause 60, in the name of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), who is the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, to new clause 67, in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and to the related amendments dealing with environmental principles.
The UK has always had a strong legal framework for enforcing environmental protections, and that will continue after we leave the EU. The Bill—this legislative vehicle—will convert the existing body of EU environmental law into UK law, making sure that the same protections are in place in the UK and that laws still function effectively after exit.
The Bill will directly preserve these important environmental principles, because they are hardwired into existing directly applicable EU environmental regulations and case law. Just to take two examples, the precautionary principle is included in the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals regulation of 2006 and the invasive alien species regulation of 2014, so it will be preserved by the Bill. I hope that I have gone some way to reassuring the hon. Lady, given what she said earlier.
With the inclusion of judgments on the application of the precautionary principle, EU case law on chemicals, waste and habitats, for example, will also continue to apply and will be preserved by the Bill as a matter of UK law.
Mary Creagh
I am thrilled the Minister has come back to chemicals, because we spent about three months of our lives looking into the issue. The point is not whether these things exist in our law; the point is that the body that enacts the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals will not exist on exit day, and the registrations that British companies will have paid a quarter of a billion pounds for will fall. That is one of the big problems.
Dominic Raab
The Chair of the Select Committee makes her point powerfully, and she draws quite an important distinction, which has infused some of the debates today and yesterday—the distinction between copying, pasting and preserving the substantive law and having the institutional framework. If she will allow me, I will shortly address that point squarely.
On the substantive law, I want to make the wider point that, beyond the EU framework, the Government remain committed to the internationally recognised environmental principles set out, for example, in the 1992 Rio declaration, but also in the many other multilateral environmental agreements to which the UK is a party. These include the precautionary principle and the “polluter pays” principle. We also continue to be a party to the Aarhus convention on access to information and decision making on environmental matters, which was referred to earlier. Leaving the EU will not diminish our commitment—
Dominic Raab
I am going to make a little progress, again mindful of the guidance that I have received.
Leaving the EU will not diminish our commitment to environmental principles. Indeed, it is an opportunity to reinforce them. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who was here earlier and I am sure is coming back, announced only last week our intention to publish a new comprehensive national policy statement setting out the environmental principles driving UK policy, drawing on the EU’s current principles and underpinning future policy making. The point about its relative significance, value and status was very well made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). I ally myself with his remarks. We will consult on it early next year. This is not just blue-sky thinking—it is coming imminently.
Critically—this touches on the point made by the Chair of the Select Committee—the Secretary of State has also set out plans to consult on a new independent statutory body to hold the Government to account for upholding environmental standards. I hope that that addresses concerns that some hon. Members may have not just about the substantive law but about the institutional checks and oversight that we definitely need to make sure we continue when Britain leaves the EU. I hope that addresses the point that hon. Lady made, which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion.
Turning to amendments 60, 67 and 28, I certainly understand their intention, but they are unnecessary because of the snapshot of all EU environmental principles that we are already taking at exit day under this Bill. Furthermore, the amendments would alter existing EU principles, at least to some extent—for example, in the way that they apply to public authorities. Given that the Bill’s purpose is to bring into effect the law we have currently, the amendments risk generating a measure of uncertainty and a degree of confusion about the legal position. I hope that I have addressed some of the concerns on the environment, and I urge hon. Members to not to press the relevant amendments.
I turn to amendment 93 in the name of the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). Many hon. Members have been eloquent in outlining the need to ensure that treaty rights and other provisions falling outside clauses 2 and 3 are still retained in UK domestic law. Clause 4, as I have said, is a broad sweeper provision. It will ensure that as a starting point, all existing rights available in domestic law immediately before exit day as a result of section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972 will continue after exit to be recognised and available in our domestic law to the extent that they were before exit day. Clause 4(1) deliberately mirrors the language in the European Communities Act, which for our period of membership of the EU has been used to determine what and how EU law is accurately reflected in UK law. Clause 4 goes no further than section 2(1) of the ECA currently does. It is not intended to capture a narrower set of rights or obligations, or somehow to trim back. It does not make any changes as to how those rights or obligations are enforced in our courts. Deleting clause 4(1)(b) would mean that clause 4 no longer mirrors the ECA.
I understand why the hon. Lady has tabled the amendment, but it would be a rather curious, if not perverse, outcome if what counted as EU law after we depart the Union was expanded to be wider than when we were a member—yet that would be the direct result of her amendment. Perhaps even more importantly, for individuals, businesses, courts and practitioners up and down the country, by changing and inflating the test for what counts as EU law just as we are leaving, the amendment would in practice lead to significant legal confusion after exit with regard to the scope of rights retained. I know that that was not the intention of her amendment, and I hope that she can be persuaded not to press it.
Mr Grieve
It may well be that this comes from the European Communities Act, but I still find the word “allowed” very difficult to understand in this context, in view of the plain meaning of subsection (1)(a). As one of the questions that we have perpetually raised is that our own domestic courts will have to sort this tangle out, I am concerned about any form of drafting that appears to have an ambiguity in it. It is very hard to understand what paragraph (b) adds, and my hon. Friend has not actually explained that.
Dominic Raab
I have endeavoured to explain that the aim—and, I believe, the fact—of the Bill and the clause is to reflect and replicate the device used in the ECA. I always listen to what my right hon. and learned Friend says, but if that device has worked reasonably tolerably until now, I question why it cannot continue to serve the same purpose on exit. As ever, if he has a better formulation, I am very happy to look at that with him between now and Report to see whether there is a better way of doing this.
Let us be clear about the intention of clause 4. It is a sweeper provision to make sure that we have an accurate snapshot of EU law reflected in UK law on the date of exit.
Dominic Raab
I will give way one more time, with the tolerance of the Chair.
Lady Hermon
That is enormously kind of the Minister, particularly since the Solicitor General earlier this afternoon persuaded me that his colleague would answer the question that I raised with him in an intervention. Before we are asked to agree to clause 4 standing part of the Bill, will the Minister kindly explain clause 4(3)? It states that all of clause 4 is subject not only to clause 5 but, more importantly, to schedule 1, which, as the Minister knows, stops the general principles at midnight on exit day. We listened to a lot of debate and argument yesterday about clarity and certainty for the courts. There is no definition of the general principles of EU law. Why is that, and what does the provision mean in clause 4?
Dominic Raab
I am glad that the hon. Lady made that intervention. Clauses 2, 3 and 4 are subject to the savings and the caveats in clause 5 and schedule 1. The point about schedule 1 is not that no EU principles will apply after the date of exit, but that that date is the cut-off point for recognising EU principles as reflected in UK law. New principles that may evolve after that point do not become part of UK law; only the ones that arose before that point do. That is the clear intention schedule 1(2). I hope that that gives the hon. Lady some reassurance, but we will come on to talk about the savings in clause 5 and schedule 1 on a separate day next week, when I will be happy to return to that point if she has any outstanding concerns.
Dominic Raab
Perhaps shortly, but I am going to make some progress now, because I am hearing censorious noises from the Chair and I want to respond very obediently to them.
I turn to amendment 70, in the name of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). I think the sentiment behind the amendment is laudable, but I reassure the House that the amendment is unnecessary for the protection of rights. In fact, it is potentially counterproductive. Clause 4 will save all the directly effective rights that arise under the EU treaties to the extent that they are available now; that is the point that I wanted to get across to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). We have deliberately not included a list of those directly effective rights in clause 4 or in the rest of the Bill, because there is no single, comprehensive and reliable list of all directly effective rights in the EU treaties. They are not set out in legislation—UK, EU or otherwise—but they are determined by the courts. Our approach is therefore based on procedural as well as substantive legal continuity.
The explanatory notes to the Bill set out a list of the articles from the treaty on the functioning of the European Union that the Government consider to contain directly effective rights, which will remain available in domestic law following our departure from the EU. That list, which includes article 157 on the right to equal pay, is intended to be illustrative of some of the rights that will continue to be available under clause 4. If we were to define a single list—especially if it was a non-exhaustive one—and legislate for it, we would inevitably run a significant risk of inadvertently omitting or mis-stating rights that individuals and businesses rely on, or suggesting to the courts that those rights were supposed to have a special status beyond the ones that were not listed.
We can reasonably expect individuals and businesses to want to rely on any list that we produced. Quite reasonably, they may not realise that they can rely on a wider set of rights that are not on any such list. The effect of amendment 70 would be at best to create legal uncertainty, and at worst—this is my concern—to mislead people about the rights available to them. The Government do not want that to happen, and I hope that I have persuaded the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) not to press the amendment.
I want to turn as briefly as possible—I will not take any further interventions to allow others to speak—to amendment 148, in the name of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who is in her place. It is important that the issue of children’s rights has been raised through the amendment, and I hope I can give her some reassurance. Most importantly, I want to reassure the Committee that the UK’s commitment to children’s rights and the UN convention on the rights of the child is and will remain unwavering. Our ability to support and safeguard children’s rights will not be affected by UK withdrawal from the EU.
Domestically, the rights and best interests of the child are protected in England primarily through the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002, as well as in other legislative measures. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own measures for the protection of children’s rights, in accordance with the UN convention on the rights of the child.
The UK will of course continue to be a party to the UN convention, but amendment 148 is flawed in seeking to apply an EU principle of direct effect to a global UN treaty, which is of course governed by general principles of international treaty interpretation under the Vienna convention and customary international law. I am afraid that that is a recipe for legal confusion.
In any event, we already give effect to all our international obligations under the UN convention. For example, the Children Acts 1989 and 2004 set out a range of duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. In 2013, we issued statutory guidance to directors of children’s services, which requires them to have regard to the general principles of the convention and ensure that children and young people are involved in the development and delivery of local services. The Children and Social Work Act 2017 is a further example of how we constantly seek to make sure that we not only protect children’s rights but enhance them.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Minister says that we already have a number of vehicles to ensure that we give effect to our obligations under the UN convention, but does he not accept that we have had cases in this country of decisions by the courts saying that legislation that is not compatible with the convention is, none the less, not unlawful?
Dominic Raab
As I have said, we continue to keep these matters under review. If there is a court decision, we will obviously comply with it, whatever it is. I suggest that her amendment would not meaningfully or practically enhance such rights. If what she wants to do is outside the scope of this vehicle—the snapshot that we are taking of EU law and reproducing in UK law—she should make the case for further innovations. She is of course at liberty to do so, and I would expect her to do so.
Dominic Raab
No, I will make some progress, otherwise I will be in serious trouble. I have taken several interventions.
I must turn to amendment 94, in the name of the hon. Member for Bristol East, who has also tabled amendment 95. I will address the two amendments as briefly as I can. Amendment 94 is intended to include within the scope of clause 4 rights that might arise under EU directives, but which have not yet been recognised by the European Court or the domestic courts, and might only be recognised many years after we have left the EU.
There are three basic objections to amendment 94, notwithstanding the commendable spirit in which the hon. Lady has introduced her amendments. First, amendment 94 is at odds with EU law. It conflicts not just with the UK’s approach, but with the EU’s approach to what counts as—or what the definition is of—a directly effective right. By definition, such rights need to be sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional, and they must be recognised as such by UK courts or the European Court at the date of exit. The effect of her amendment would be to inflate the definition of what counts as EU law at the very moment that we are departing from the EU, which cannot be right.
The second objection is that the amendment would not provide the accurate snapshot of the law that we are seeking to take on departure. From a practical point of view, that would risk confusion for anyone trying to glean the true legal position with any reliability.
The third persuasive argument is that the fact that we are leaving the EU means that we are taking back democratic control of our laws. With that in mind, it would not be right, as the amendment envisages, to retain an ability for thousands of directives—parts of EU law that we are not incorporating—to continue to produce new legal effects long after we have left the EU. That would run in direct conflict with the objective of clause 4 and, indeed, the whole Bill. Given the number of EU directives in force, newly found directly effective rights would have a hugely disruptive effect on UK law.
Neil Gray
It is a pleasure to have this unexpected opportunity to take part in the debate and to speak to amendment 70, which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and other hon. Friends. I will, of course, be brief. It is also a pleasure to follow the Minister. He was incredibly thorough in setting out his interpretation of the argument, but I disagree with him.
This group of amendments and new clauses focuses on the retention of rights in existing European law. Some people have taken the Government’s word that they want to transfer and protect existing rights derived from the EU and that this Bill will ensure that that happens. However, the Government are giving themselves unprecedented powers through secondary legislation, meaning that, as things stand, all aspects of our rights and law derived from the EU will be subject to swift future revision by the Government. Amendment 70 would set out in the Bill those areas of existing rights and law that we want to protect. The Government say that they have no intention of changing those things, so our amendment challenges the Government to back up their own rhetoric and ensure that existing law and rights are protected.
If the Committee agrees to amendment 70, those areas will be individually written into the Bill, and therefore protected from future change through secondary legislation. The fact that primary legislation would be required to make an alteration would mean that it would be more difficult for the Government to bring about the bonfire of red tape for which prominent Brexiteers so desperately clamour, as was hinted at earlier today.
While we sit in this Parliament of minorities, this issue is more important than ever. We have already seen how beholden the UK Government are to the Brexiteer wing of the Tory party, which has succeeded in getting the Government to table the potentially disastrous amendment 381, which would write the day and hour for Brexit into the Bill. I seriously hope that the Government accept the calls from Members on both sides of the Committee to not press that amendment to a vote at a later date.
As we consider amendment 70, it is important that we note the way in which the Government have caved in. If the Government can have their arm twisted into tabling an amendment that hamstrings their own negotiating position, the Brexiteer group could also twist their arm on these areas after Brexit. Those on that wing of the Tory party could immediately put pressure on the Government to slash away at these fundamental rights, and if they are subject to change by secondary rather than primary legislation, those rights are incredibly vulnerable.
Should the Government vote down amendment 70, it will leave their actions short of their rhetoric. It would be a hint to everyone that there actually is a plan to use these unprecedented powers through secondary legislation to weaken rights further down the line.
What rights am I talking about? Among others, I am talking about the right to equal pay, and rights of free movement and residence, as well as the protection of citizen’s rights. May I just say that it is an absolute disgrace—a moral outrage and an act of economic self-harm—that 16 months after the Brexit referendum we still have no clarity over the existing rights of EU nationals living and working in these isles? These are EU nationals who are working and advancing our public services. They are EU nationals who contribute billions to the economy and are desperately relied on for their skills in crucial industries. Most importantly, they are EU nationals who have chosen to live and work here. They have established their family life here but are now in limbo. The Government can and should guarantee their right to remain now.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
My hon. Friend makes a very good point about EU nationals. While the UK has been in deficit since 2001, the only part of the population that has been paying its own way and standing on its own two feet are EU nationals. They are in surplus to the tune of £2 billion or £3 billion. We see what happens when they start to become scarce. It is happening in Cornwall, with crops unpicked. We need these people and there should be a Government apology for the 16 months of uncertainty that they have had to go through.
Neil Gray
My hon. Friend makes very salient points. He represents a constituency that relies on those skills and labour.
If the UK Government are serious about their apparent respect for the Scottish Government’s role in this process—undermined, of course, by them voting down yesterday the devolved Parliaments’ legislative consent-enabling amendment 79 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), which Labour, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), shamefully abstained on—and want to give some integrity to their claim of respecting the role of the devolved Administrations, perhaps the Minister will provide clarity now on whether, given Scotland’s different legal jurisdiction, the UK Government have discussed and consulted on clause 4 with Holyrood. This is important because the clause is about how laws will be transposed and interpreted domestically. The UK Government must recognise that Scotland has an entirely separate legal system, even if the Leader of the Opposition is not aware of the separate existence of Scots law.
We support new clause 30, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). It deals with important animal rights, specifically to ensure that animals continue to be recognised as sentient beings under domestic law. We will vote with her in the Lobby, should the new clause be pressed to a vote.
Tim Farron
The hon. Gentleman is making very good points. I want to just draw two issues together. He talks about animal welfare protection and a moment ago he referred to EU nationals who work here. I am sure that he is aware that about 90% of the vets in UK abattoirs are from elsewhere in the European Union. The loss of their services massively challenges and threatens animal welfare, does it not?
Neil Gray
Absolutely. I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s very good point.
We support new clause 67, which stands in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, which would protect environmental provisions. This is linked to a constituency concern that I have. Last week, I visited the Tarmac quarry at Cairneyhill, near Caldercruix in my constituency. It provides 30 good jobs and some of its staff have worked there for decades. Aggregate industry businesses such as Tarmac are energy and carbon-intensive, but they are working hard to reduce their carbon footprint as responsible operators. The EU emissions trading system has underpinned the UK’s carbon reduction commitments for many years and provided a basis from which companies such as Tarmac operate. They need to know whether we will be in or out of the EU ETS. If we are out, what will the new rules be? Will they be linked to the EU ETS or to schemes such as the one in California? How will that be paid for? Who will police the rules?
It is simply not good enough for the UK Government just to say, as they have so far, that this is subject to the negotiations, and here is why: businesses such as Tarmac make very long-term investment decisions that are based on their certainty of legislation and regulation. At my visit last week, we talked about Tarmac’s plans for the Cairneyhill site 20 years down the line. It is not just for its own business’s benefit that it does this; it is to protect the supply chain for infrastructure projects commissioned by Governments across these isles. Will the Minister guarantee that EU ETS allowances issued to UK operators for 2018 will be accepted for compliance purposes at the end of the EU ETS accounting year? Without such a guarantee, UK companies will face a bill that might run into millions. This uncertainty and lack of detail is concerning businesses and stakeholders across industry and civic life, especially with the ramping up of the Government’s nonsensical no-deal rhetoric.
We have before us a mess of a Bill, but that is little wonder given that, from the start of the process, the Government have made a mess of Brexit. From taking the electorate for granted before the referendum to assuming they did not need to plan for a leave vote, triggering article 50 before they were prepared, and calling a snap election to strengthen their position but in fact creating chaos, they have made a mess of Brexit. Our amendments would provide certainty in areas of confusion, confirming our existing rights and protecting them from those who wish to sweep them away, and would finally lift EU nationals living here from their tortuous limbo. We must give them protection and the lifeline assurance of the right to remain that the Government have disgracefully denied them. I commend amendment 70 to the Committee.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
I say to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and others, perhaps as one remainer to another, that to suggest everything EU for the environment good; everything outside—
Richard Benyon
I know that that was not quite what the hon. Lady said, but I have the scars on my back. When the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) was Environment Secretary, he rightly made Britain stand up for the conservation of the seas by opposing the over-fishing of tuna in the Atlantic. The first thing sitting in my in-tray when I arrived at DEFRA in 2010, however, was a very big infraction fine against the UK for going against the EU’s direction to fish unsustainably. I also remember working with organisations such as the International Whaling Commission and sitting for hours in a meeting of the EU co-ordination body before putting our case for better whale and cetacean conservation, only to have Britain’s pro-environmental polices watered down. We have an opportunity, if we can get this right, to be more ambitious than that.
On Second Reading, I looked for measures that would secure for the long term the environmental protections we have learned to value—I entirely agree with the hon. Lady and others that measures such as the water framework directive need to be transposed into UK provision—and for a replacement mechanism following the loss of infraction. Infraction keeps Ministers awake at night, but what is the position for a sovereign nation on its own, outside a pan-national body? I have looked for an alternative, and I was tempted by her new clause, and by the Leader of the Opposition’s new clause, because I thought they might tie future Governments. However, after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), we looked for another mechanism.
Working with the Environment Secretary has been a textbook lesson in how to improve law. He and the Government recognise that there is a governance gap that we have to fill. One suggestion is the belt-and-braces but perhaps over-complicated arrangement that the hon. Lady and others have suggested, but there is an alternative that I find intensely attractive. When we took the issue to the Secretary of State, he listened and then asked questions—the process was rather like a university tutorial—and he then asked us back to tell us what he had done. His suggestion, which has been backed up by the Minister today, is something that green groups such as Greener UK and the Green Alliance have been asking for: a proposal that really locks in these measures.
The Secretary of State first suggested that we set up this new body. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset is absolutely right, because we need, through this consultation, to ensure that the body is independent, that we know its remit, that its sanctions are in place, and that it has the level of independence of the Children’s Commissioner, for example. The Secretary of State seems determined that that is what it should be, so I think we have the offer of a very good measure, because it will secure the vital ingredient, which is the national policy statement.
Kerry McCarthy
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who is very committed to protecting the environment and did an excellent job as a Minister. On a future day, we might consider a new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) that specifically deals with the governance gap. I hope that when we debate it we hear more from the Government about exactly how this agency will work, because at the moment it is only a vague proposition. It looks to be heading in the right direction, but I have a lot of questions about how it will work.
I shall speak to amendments 93, 94 and 95, and new clause 28, which stand in my name. The new clause covers similar ground to new clauses 60 and 67, on environmental principles, but I want first to speak to the amendments.
I am grateful to the Minister for thoroughly demolishing my arguments in advance of my having the chance to make them. It is not my intention to press the amendments to the vote, and I will reflect on what he said and consult with the lawyers I have been working with on the amendments, but I will outline my understanding of what the Bill means and what the amendments would improve.
The White Paper assured us that the Bill means that the whole body of existing EU environmental law will continue to have effect in UK law, and the Prime Minister promised us that the same rules and laws will apply on the day after exit as on the day before, but that is simply not the case, because the Bill does not properly capture and convert all EU environmental law into stand-alone domestic law.
There are legal obligations that will not be retained because they can be found only in EU directives and not in the domestic legislation that transposed those directives. Sometimes, that is because the directives have been incorrectly or incompletely transposed. There is also an issue in that the preambles to directives, which can be important in setting out their purpose and linking them with overarching legal principles and international obligations, will not have been transposed into UK law either, so they will not come over with the conversion.
Clause 4 may appear to deal with transposition but, as has been said, because of the inexplicable and unnecessary restrictions in subsection (1)(a) and (b), important aspects of environmental law would be lost. I was reassured to hear that the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield was struggling to get his head round some of the language in clause 4. He is a far more distinguished lawyer than I ever was, and I hope that between us all we can perhaps bring some clarity to it by the end of this process. I am sure that if we do not succeed in doing so here, those in the other place will have something to say.
The aspects of environmental law that could be lost include reporting and reviewing obligations that are crucial in ensuring that the law is complied with and up to date. Without reported data, for example, ClientEarth would not have been able to hold the Government to account on air pollution. We would also lose obligations on the Government to meet various energy performance targets.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend not agree that the action that ClientEarth brought on expansion of Heathrow could not have been pursued, had the law been as the Government propose to amend it?
Kerry McCarthy
There are various different aspects to what right we will have to pursue court cases and judicial review once this law comes into effect. We discussed some of those when we talked about the role of the European Court of Justice, the governance gap and the fact that if breaches of the law are not enforced, monitored and measured, it can be very difficult to bring court cases as well.
There is real concern about how the Government are restricting legal aid for environmental judicial review cases. Community groups really rely on this law—it is not just for groups such as ClientEarth, which is well supported and has been able to take the Government to court on air pollution three times and has instigated other proceedings. There is also a real issue about what this means for local people who want to challenge the Government—we may cover that in a different debate.
Mary Creagh
We heard in the Environmental Audit Committee session with the Ministry of Justice officials that the number of cases brought since the cap on costs was removed has fallen from 16 to 11 cases a month. The change is happening before we have even left the EU.
Kerry McCarthy
My hon. Friend is quite right. It is about the removal of the cap on costs as well, and the fact that local people bringing these cases might find themselves liable to a huge financial burden if they are not successful.
Amendment 93 removes clause 4(1)(b), which restricts rights in clause 4 to those which are
“enforced, allowed and followed accordingly”.
Amendment 94 removes clause 4(2)(b), which excludes rights arising under EU directives that have not been adjudicated by the courts before exit day. There is no explanation as to why only rights that have been litigated on or enforced are carried over. The Minister may dispute this, but my interpretation is that the result will be that contentious aspects of law will be retained, but those that have never been litigated, perhaps because they are really obvious and incontrovertible and no one has seen the need to challenge them—the ones that everyone accepts—will be the ones at risk, which seems a little bizarre.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Lady’s amendment 93. I hope she would agree that it would be helpful if the Minister responded to her amendment and the points that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) made by explaining what would be lost if paragraph (b), which is as clear as mud to many of us, were left out and paragraph (a), which is blissfully clear, were in place.
Kerry McCarthy
I can only invite the Minister to intervene on me at some point before I finish this speech and give a bit more clarity. I am glad that another superior intellect is as baffled as I was by that provision.
Amendment 95 adds wording that attempts to deal with the poor transposition of EU law, so that if retained law is found to have been incorrectly or incompletely transposed, there would be a statutory obligation on Ministers to make the necessary modifications to correct that. It says that until that piece of EU law is fully and correctly transposed, the EU directive itself can still be relied on. There are some clear examples of where we have not correctly transposed EU directives. For example, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds points to article 10 of the birds directive in relation to the marine environment, which requires Governments to carry out research and other works to inform our efforts to protect wild birds. That goes back to what I was saying earlier—that it is not possible to enforce environmental protections properly without monitoring to ascertain the scale of the problem. The requirement to carry out research has not been transposed into domestic legislation, which means that, for instance, a new seabird census is long overdue. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds was able to take that as a complaint to the European Commission, but there will clearly be a different scenario after Brexit.
New clause 28 concerns the enshrining of domestic principles in domestic law, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) and with which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) will deal shortly.
When the Government say that the Bill will ensure that the whole body of existing environmental law continues to have effect, that should mean not just specific substantive obligations but the broad and comprehensive framework in which those obligations are embedded, including the principles that underpin and aid the interpretation of environmental laws—such as the “polluter pays” principle, which states that those responsible for damaging our environment must pay, and the precautionary principle, which states that if there is a suspected risk that a policy could cause severe harm to public health or the environment, we should not proceed with it. Those principles are currently part of the body of EU environmental law in the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, and are also contained in a wide range of legal agreements to which the UK is party. They guide decision making, and provide a basis for legal challenge in court. Richard Benwell of the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust has said:
“Take out principles like precaution and polluter pays and you rip the heart out of environmental law.”
NC28 would ensure that public authorities carrying out their duties must have regard to environmental principles that are currently enshrined in EU law. Schedule 1 states—the Minister touched on this—that
“There is no right of action in domestic law”
post-exit
“based on a failure to comply with”
EU “general principles”, other than those that have been litigated on by the European Court. That creates a problem. I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify another issue that was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). “General principles” seem to specifically exclude environmental principles.
When the Environment Secretary gave evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee last week, he said that the principles could best be enshrined in UK law through guidance. Although we know that, in some cases, the precautionary principle has been enforced in the UK courts in relation to planning issues, that does not mean that it would apply more broadly than it does now. What we currently have is not simply guidance. For the principles to have equivalence on exit day, they must be placed in domestic legislation. Laws are binding, but guidance is only guidance. Public authorities must take it into account, but they need not follow it if it conflicts with other priorities.
Kerry McCarthy
I am about to finish my speech.
Guidance is much easier to change at the whim of the Government or, indeed, the Secretary of State. The courts are much less likely to uphold guidance. There is much more deference from the courts to the authority or organisation whose decision is brought under review. It is difficult to see how guidance would enhance observance of the principles above EU standard. We do not see our domestic courts doing that at present. The Environment Secretary talks of an ambition to raise standards rather than sticking to those that we currently have, and I should be grateful for clarity in that regard.
The purpose of new clause 28 is to transfer vital principles into domestic law, from the need to promote sustainable development in the UK and overseas to the “polluter pays” principle and the precautionary principle. I believe that only by enshrining those principles in UK law can we give the public confidence that they will be upheld.
Zac Goldsmith
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). Her commitment to environmental issues is beyond question, and it has been a pleasure to work with her on a range of them during the years in which I have been a Member of Parliament. It is also a huge pleasure to follow my right hon. Friends the Members for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and for Newbury (Richard Benyon). Given that they said so much of what I wanted to say, I am now tempted simply to say, “What he said.” It was a joy to listen to both speeches, because they were absolutely brilliant.
Zac Goldsmith
There are huge assumptions in that intervention. We could of course organise a rubbish free trade agreement with the US which involves lowering all of our standards to the lowest possible level, but that would not be acceptable to my constituents or the hon. Gentleman’s, and the Government are not proposing that. The example that keeps on being given in relation to the lowering of standards is chlorination of chicken, and the Secretary of State answered that question beautifully.
Zac Goldsmith
There are many examples. I have spoken out about hormones in beef often in this House—bovine growth hormones, chlorination of chicken and the use of chemicals that we do not allow in this country, or indeed in the EU. But this will come down to the quality of the negotiations that we engage in, and it is the job of this House to ensure that the agreements we reach honour and respect the standards expected by our constituents.
There is no reason to believe that we will not be able to do that. We have had absolute reassurances and some wonderful statements from the Secretary of State, and long may he avoid promotion—I hope he does not mind me saying so—because I do not want to see him move. Like the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), I do not want to see the Secretary of State bumped upstairs into a bigger job, not that he could not do it; he is doing such a good job where he is at the moment that I want him to stay there, and I have absolute confidence in him.
Suella Fernandes
I applaud my hon. Friend’s passion and expertise in this subject. Does he agree that the world-leading environmental body that is proposed for when we leave the EU is a great opportunity that Britain can grasp to take the lead on environmental standards?
Zac Goldsmith
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. In one of his interventions, the Secretary of State said that nature by definition does not have a voice and that it is our job to give nature a voice. That is what we will do if we create an appropriate institution. I am absolutely committed, as my hon. Friend is and as many Members on both sides of the Committee are, to work together to get a world-class body to ensure that nature has a voice and that the Government can be held to account. That is what we must do and will do.
Zac Goldsmith
I will answer the intervention but, with respect, I do not think that that is directly relevant to the points that we are making. We will engage in talks on a free trade agreement with the United States, and there will be argy-bargy and give and take. My view and—I am so happy to say— that of the Secretary of State is that that will not involve lowering animal welfare standards or environmental standards. Another point to make is that we do not just sign up to European animal welfare standards; our standards are higher in many respects than those applied throughout the rest of the European Union. Our pig standards, for example, are higher than any other country in Europe, and that does come with problems.
Zac Goldsmith
My right hon. Friend is correct. While we apply higher standards on our own food producers, we are accepting lower quality imports from other countries, so we are exporting cruelty to those countries, which is a problem. However, there is no question about the commitment of this Government or, indeed, of any party in our politics today—our collective commitment—to maintaining high animal welfare standards. The first campaign that I engaged in, aged four, involved persuading neighbours to let their birds out of their cages, because I could not bear the idea of the cruelty. Few people here are more committed to animal welfare than I am, but I have no concerns in this area, partly because of the assurances from Government and partly because there is a consensus in this place on the issue.
I cannot remember who asked me to give way, but I will not take an intervention whoever it was, which makes—
Zac Goldsmith
Ah, it is hard not to give way as the hon. Lady is a neighbouring Member of Parliament.
Ruth Cadbury
The hon. Gentleman talks about environment law and the Government’s so-called commitment to the environment, but does he agree that on air quality we cannot trust a Government that refuse even to consider introducing a scrappage scheme to address nitrogen oxide and particulates? They have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on defending the case that ClientEarth brought against them.
Zac Goldsmith
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am a fan of ClientEarth, but I am sure that many in this place are not. In fact, I was one of the people who helped to set it up when it came to this country, and I am proud of the small role that I played in ensuring that it is able to do its job. I will not defend the Government’s record on clean air over the past seven years, because we could and should have done all kinds of things and today’s figures are astronomical. Some 40,000 people a year are dying early as a consequence of air pollution, which is not a million miles away from the number of people who died during the smog that led to the Clean Air Act 1956. We need to bring those policies together under the umbrella of a clean air Act, which is a point that I have made many times and continue to make. However, I do not doubt the Government’s commitment to tackling such issues.
Several hon. Members rose—
Zac Goldsmith
I shall move on, because I will otherwise fail to address the key issues that I wish to address. Before I first gave way, I was talking about the discussions between Government Members, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State’s advisers and the Greener UK representatives. Those discussions were meaningful—in some cases they lasted a long time—and they led to a broad agreement on a solution. I am delighted to say that that is the solution the Secretary of State has presented in the past few days.
The Committee has heard most of the details already, but my right hon. Friend has committed not only to creating a strong, independent body with teeth that can hold the Government and their successor Governments to account on the environment, but a policy statement—the policy statement we have already been debating—that will set out and define those key environmental principles.
There is a hierarchy of national policy statements. They are not all the same, and some have sharper teeth than others. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury knows more about that than I do, and I invite him to intervene.
Richard Benyon
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. The marine policy statement that came as part of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009—the right hon. Member for Leeds Central will feel extremely proprietorial about this—is a good example of how Government can set policy, and of the tortuous discussions about how Government can adhere to that policy. It is a good model to take forward as part of this policy statement.
Zac Goldsmith
My right hon. Friend has a closer experience of this issue than I do.
The solution presented by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reflects a consensus reached between parliamentary colleagues and between his Department and the main representatives of Greener UK, who by and large have publicly welcomed the policy. I invite Members to look through the Twitter accounts of some of this country’s leading environmental campaigners and lawyers to see that, generally speaking, there is a high level of enthusiasm for the Secretary of State’s promises.
I agree very strongly with the sentiments behind many of the amendments that have been tabled, and to which hon. Members have already spoken. I am delighted the amendments were tabled, because they have had the effect of sharpening and focusing minds. I found them useful in my discussions with the Secretary of State, but I hope it will at least be acknowledged, particularly by Opposition Members, as it has been by the key pressure groups, that the amendments have already done their job.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not in his place at the moment but, if he is listening, I put on record my very sincere thanks to him for stepping up and giving nature the voice that it so badly needs.
Mary Creagh
I rise to speak to new clause 60, which was tabled in my name, and to support the amendments tabled by other right hon. and hon. colleagues.
I voted against the Bill on Second Reading because it puts sweeping powers in the hands of Ministers, sidelines Parliament and waters down our legal rights and protections, particularly environmental rights and protections. When we were asked to vote in the EU referendum, nobody voted for dirtier beaches or dirtier air.
The Environmental Audit Committee has undertaken three inquiries into the effect of leaving the EU on the UK’s environmental policy. We found that our membership of the EU has been overwhelmingly positive for our environment. We went from being the dirty man of Europe in the 1970s to bathing on cleaner beaches, driving more fuel efficient cars and, as colleagues have said, holding the Government to account on air pollution. I do not subscribe to the Panglossian view of the world that says everything will be awesome when we leave. Everything is not awesome, most particularly in the case of air pollution and seabird censuses. We are still a member of the EU and we are not meeting the laws to which we have collectively contributed and collectively signed up under successive Governments.
Eighty per cent. of UK domestic environmental laws are shaped by Brussels, so few areas of policy will be more affected by the decision to leave. Fully one quarter of the EU acquis, which the Bill is trying to cut and paste into UK law, is related to DEFRA—our beaches, rivers, coastlines and marine reserves. We have talked about the gaps in the Bill, and my amendment seeks to close those gaps because with this Bill we are running a risk that environmental law will no longer be monitored, enforced or updated and that on exit day we will be left with zombie legislation.
What we have heard from Ministers today has not reassured me, because they have outlined a path of managed divergence, which is very bad news when it comes to giving certainty to Government, businesses or investors looking to invest in this country. That is why my Committee called for a new environmental protection Act before we leave the EU. The laws are effective only if we have strong institutions to enforce them. As the Secretary of State said when he gave evidence to the Select Committee two weeks ago, there is currently a Commission-shaped hole in the Bill’s proposals.
Several hon. Members rose—
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. There is very little time left and many people still want to speak. I cannot regulate the length of speeches, but hon. Members can do so if they do not want to incur the wrath of their colleagues who will not get a chance to speak if speeches are too long.
Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
I will try to be brief, Mrs Laing. I wish to address some of the constitutional implications of this extraordinarily important Bill. I suppose that this is the most important constitutional Bill that this House has considered in many years. It is difficult to think of a Bill as important as this one, certainly since 1972.
This is not the first time that this task has been accomplished by sovereign nations. Provisions such as clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4 are to be found, in a simpler form, in the constitutions of a number of Commonwealth countries to which this country granted independence after the second world war. Invariably, those constitutions contained provisions that seek to preserve the laws as at the date that those nations became independent.
Now, they are simpler provisions because the complexity of our laws and the European Union’s laws, with the legal federalism that the EU implies, is much higher. But the essential task that those nations faced was not dissimilar from that which we face. When they became independent and the legal source of their laws changed from being the Queen in Parliament to a constitution, the task that the courts faced was not dissimilar in that, while retaining the body of the law that had existed up to the date of independence, they then became free to interpret those provisions and principles in the light of the new constitutional fact of their independence. And that will be the case for our own Supreme Court. The Bill intends to preserve continuity up to the point of exit day, and to allow the Supreme Court, under clause 6, to diverge where it thinks appropriate and to develop its own jurisprudence over successive years.
I have sat and listened throughout the debates yesterday and today, and it seems to me that we have done something of an injustice to the draftsmen of the Bill. Some very careful thinking has gone into the way in which the provisions have been balanced. I am not saying to Government Front Benchers that it is not possible to tighten some of those provisions and to provide greater safeguards, particularly in respect of the width of the powers permitted under clauses 7 and 17. But I can quite understand the policy and principle behind those provisions in the manner in which they are thus expressed.
Clause 4—we are speaking to the question of whether clause 4 stands part—is obviously an important provision, which seeks to mirror the wording of section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) asked what the word “allowed” meant in clause 4(1)(b) of the Bill. I would propose that, under that clause, the word means to admit, acknowledge or accept into our law. The word “allow” does not only mean to permit. It also carries the connotation of acceptance or admission; it certainly did in 1972. It seems obvious what clause 4 is intended to achieve: to ensure that a law that was enforced, available, recognised and allowed continues beyond exit day, in so far as that has not already been provided for by clauses 2 and 3.
I suggest to the Committee that the provisions introduced by clauses 2 to 4 are sensible, coherent and logical. I am not saying to the Government Front Bench that they cannot be improved, but I certainly understand their import. It is under section 2(1) of the European Communities Act that all the case law, the general principles and the decisions of the European Court of Justice on the interpretation of treaty provisions become admissible and admitted into our law. I take it that clause 4 is intended to achieve precisely that.
Although I accept the need for, perhaps, some tightening, I do not accept that the Bill is as wanting or as deficient as has been suggested. For example, I do not think that clause 7, which we will come to debate at a later stage, is as broad an invitation to the Executive to abuse their discretion as some right hon. and hon. Members have suggested. It is governed by three critical factors. The first is the fact that there has to be a deficiency caused by the withdrawal from the European Union. Now, if the power of the Government is limited by the fact that they have to be curing a deficiency caused by the withdrawal from the EU, it is difficult to see how they thereby gain a licence to interfere with fundamental rights or rights that have been acquired over many years in the decision making of the European Court of Justice.
My general point to those on the Front Bench is this: some parts of the Bill would benefit from some tightening, and perhaps some expression of the limitations on the discretion that is being conferred on the Executive, but I do not accept—I say this to my right hon. and hon. Friends—some of the more exaggerated and, frankly, hysterical analyses of the Bill. It seems to be a reasonably well-judged, measured and balanced set of provisions. Yes, it allows a lot of legal points to be taken, but, frankly, when a legal order is being changed to the extent that this one is, it is not surprising if lawyers are likely to have a field day.
Kate Green
I rise to speak to amendment 148 and the other amendments and new clauses in my name, which relate to the rights and interests of children. Most of the debate this evening has not concentrated on that important group of people, who will be affected significantly by this legislation, and many hon. Members will share my deep concern at the shockingly limited amount of time we have been given over the debates on the Bill to attend to such vital matters.
The decision to leave the European Union and the manner in which it is done could not be of more importance for our children and young people. They are the generation who will live with the consequences of our decisions, yet they did not get a say in them, so we have a special responsibility in this place to make sure that we put their interests at the heart of this legislation.
My amendments and new clauses seek to place that responsibility on a statutory footing and to remedy the constitutional gap that will otherwise arise in relation to children’s rights when we leave the EU. They take as their basis our existing commitments as a signatory to the UN convention on the rights of the child, which is itself the basis of the EU law and rights framework that applies to children.
The Government said that rights and obligations in the UK should, where possible, be the same after we have left the EU as they were immediately before we leave. I heard what the Minister said, and I will reflect on it: he believes that other provisions in UK domestic law will serve to continue the protection that is currently in place through EU law and its relationship to the UN convention. However, I do have concerns, and although I do not intend to press my amendments and new clauses to a vote tonight while I consider the Minister’s position, I hope that he will consider some of those concerns, particularly in relation to the Henry VIII powers. Those powers mean that amendments could be made in future to the rights currently enjoyed by children and that those rights would not necessarily be properly protected, as they are now, by the UN convention.
We have seen a number of EU instruments enacted that have conveyed direct entitlement for children on a whole range of issues, from migration, child protection, health and safety, medicine, and access to social and economic rights, to family breakdown. Some of those rights have been conferred under directives that have been partly implemented and incorporated into UK law. Nevertheless, the missing bits of the directives can be automatically accessed by children because of our membership of the EU and because the constitutional underpinning to the EU rights framework for children is that the UNCRC is followed in EU law. We see that in the treaty on European Union and in the charter of fundamental rights, which impose a constitutional obligation on member states to adhere to children’s rights standards when implementing EU law.
The position in the UK, however, is somewhat different. Although the UK has ratified the UNCRC and therefore remains bound by it, the UNCRC is viewed merely as an interpretive tool for other human rights instruments and the common law, which are directly justiciable in the UK. There is no explicit constitutional commitment to children’s rights in the UK at central Government level. Instead, our children’s rights framework relies on a combination of domestic legislation, as the Minister said, of directly applicable EU law and regulations, and of interpretation of those measures in the light of our obligations under the UNCRC and other treaties.
That gives rise to a number of concerns about the protection of children’s rights post Brexit. Unlike the Court of Justice of the European Union, the UK courts and tribunals, particularly at first instance, are largely resistant to drawing on the UNCRC or the EU charter to interpret domestic obligations. All evidence to date reveals patchy compliance with the provisions of the convention, and the UK’s human rights instruments, such as the Human Rights Act 1998, do not provide full protection for children—as we saw, for example, in the recent Supreme Court case of SG, where it was found that, despite being in breach of the UN convention, national law could breach children’s rights and still not be unlawful.
This incomplete coverage calls children’s rights into question in future when EU law is either not fully transposed or where the Bill will enable the Government to modify legislation post Brexit. That is a concern, for example, where national law is silent on the implementation of specific positive obligations, and where the absence of comprehensive protection for children across UK domestic law means that children will face gaps in their rights. Even if transposition is complete, the Bill will allow the Government to modify legislation in ways that might not conform with international obligations, without further scrutiny.
This is also a concern in relation to trade deals. Under current EU law, the free circulation of goods and services between member states has to be balanced against the need to subject such goods and services to sufficient scrutiny with a view to protecting the welfare of children who may be exposed to them. As the UK embarks on new trade deals, particularly if it withdraws from the customs union, we will need a comparable mechanism to ensure that any new trade deal includes sufficient safeguards for children who will be exposed to foreign products and services.
There are questions in relation to children’s residence and citizenship status. EU law requires that any decisions on residence and status must take into account the best interests of the child. The continuing lack of clarity in relation to the position of EU citizens, including EU child citizens, in this country is deeply troubling. Serving the best interests of children should not mean that their rights are dependent on the rights of their parents, but without a clear instrument for protecting children’s rights and interests post Brexit, they could be so dependent.
Given the range of potential gaps in the domestic legal framework for children’s rights, direct incorporation of the UNCRC into domestic law would provide sturdier protection against any diminution in children’s rights under EU laws following Brexit. Amendment 148 therefore seeks to preserve after our withdrawal from the EU any rights or obligations arising from the UNCRC. It would ensure that the rights that children have previously been able to rely on before the CJEU do not become illusory in the absence of an explicit UK constitutional commitment to children’s rights in future.
Amendment 149 would ensure that new legislation introduced by Ministers to deal with deficiencies arising from withdrawal would have to be UNCRC-compliant. Amendment 150 makes a similar provision in relation to regulations introduced by Ministers for the purposes of implementing the withdrawal agreement. New clauses 34 and 36 would require public authorities to act compatibly with the UNCRC after exit day. New clause 34 would also require a child rights impact assessment to be conducted.
In summary, my amendments would ensure that additional powers afforded to Ministers in this Bill do not contravene our international obligations. They would place on a statutory footing the Government’s undertaking to protect the same rights that children have on leaving the EU as they have before we leave. They demonstrate that the UK fully recognises the importance of children’s rights and the seriousness with which we take them.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). I am conscious that other Opposition Members still wait to speak, so I will try to keep my remarks quite brief.
New clauses 60 and 66, while I do not support them, demonstrate that there is a real consensus across the Committee about the requirement to maintain EU environmental standards beyond Brexit. Those standards are a good thing and they have done good things for our environment. Colleagues on both sides of the House have been very thoroughly briefed by, among others, Greener UK. I can report that the response to that briefing among Conservative Members was very enthusiastic, as I am sure it was among Opposition Members. The disagreement is not about what we are trying to achieve but exactly how it is to be achieved. There is no doubt that the Bill will not provide the environmental protections that we would wish, but that does not necessarily mean that there is a requirement for amending it.
The Government are already demonstrating great credentials on the environment. I hope that the ban on microbeads, the consultation on single-use plastics and the clear action plan on clean air will reassure colleagues on both sides of the House that the Government have a clear commitment to raising environmental standards in the UK, not just because we are subject to EU laws but because we seek to create the very best environmental conditions for our country. I understand the Opposition’s cynicism and perhaps scepticism and therefore why amending the Bill seems so appealing. In reality, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has indicated that legislation for environmental protection is forthcoming, and I think that that resolves the matter somewhat.
I support keenly the proposal by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) for a national policy statement, at the suggestion of which the Secretary of State nodded enthusiastically when he was in the Chamber. The NPS will expand on and explain in a UK context the principles committed to in article 191 of the Lisbon treaty, and it will clearly set out the Government’s policy on those matters. It is a good way to proceed, and it arguably provides more than the amendments would do, if we accepted them.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset that there must be an independent body to enforce those principles, and I was heartened to see the Secretary of State nodding enthusiastically when my right hon. Friend talked about the need for such an enforcer. Such a statutory body—independent, funded and with teeth—which could to take the Government and others to court, would be most welcome and exactly what we need.
We have gained a great deal from being subject to EU environmental law. It has raised standards and made our beaches, coastlines and rivers far cleaner than they used to be. In my constituency, it was announced yesterday that the bathing water quality in Burnham-on-Sea had again fallen just short of the EU standard. Although some people in my constituency might argue that that is an excuse to leave the EU, abandon those standards and say that they are no longer an issue, I disagree. We should expect to have the cleanest possible beaches. We have been set those standards, and we should seek not only to achieve them but to exceed them.
We should remind ourselves that just because we are leaving the EU it does not mean that we are turning our back on the standards that have led to such environmental improvements while we have been in it. Given the Government’s success in pursuing an exciting environmental agenda right now, we can be enthusiastic—thanks to the national policy statement and the support of a body that will help to hold the Government to account for their delivery of environmental principles—about the fact that we will be able to do far better than the EU standards when we set those standards for ourselves.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey) mentioned consensus, and the Prime Minister said in the summer that she sought a greater degree of consensus about Brexit. I gently say to the Government that it would have been helpful if we had seen more signs of that in our debate and consideration so far. It does not help, as we heard yesterday, when a new amendment is tabled and Members who attempt to vote against it are told:
“We will not tolerate attempts from any quarter to use the process of amendments to this Bill…to try to block the democratic wishes of the British people”.
That does not help to create consensus. The front page of The Daily Telegraph does not help to create consensus. After all, MPs are simply seeking to do their job in scrutinising the legislation, and we would not be doing our job if we did not.
I want briefly to refer to new clause 67, the precautionary principle and article 191 of the treaty. The Minister argued that the precautionary principle is carried forward in some of the EU legislation that we are bringing across. That is correct, but it is not a sufficient answer to the argument that article 191 should be included in the illustrative list that is contained in the explanatory notes. If the Government think, and they do, that article 120 of the treaty—it begins:
“Member States shall conduct their economic policies with a view to contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Union”—
contains directly effective rights that would be converted into domestic law as a result of clause 4, why on earth is article 191 missing from the illustrative list?
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is intended to bring existing EU legislation into UK law. As we do so, we must ensure that the fundamental rights of children are not diluted.
With our exit from the EU, the UK plans no longer to be party to the EU charter of fundamental rights, so it will not automatically benefit from the protections of children’s rights that exist within the EU legal framework. The treaty of Lisbon introduced an objective for the EU to promote the protection of the rights of children, and the charter of fundamental rights guarantees the protection of the rights of the child by EU institutions, as well as by EU countries when they implement EU law.
The best way to ensure that those rights are maintained after Brexit is to enshrine the UN convention on the rights of the child in UK law. Although the UK is a signatory to that convention, it is not enshrined in domestic law. The Bill removes from UK law the European charter of fundamental rights, proposing that fundamental rights and principles are considered in place of that charter when implementing case law or legislation that refers to it directly after exit day. The Children’s Society has rightly raised its concerns that there is no further information on what these fundamental rights would be, or any clarity about whether the development of children’s rights envisaged in EU law would be considered to be fundamental rights and principles. That is why, in the absence of any clear definition, further integration of the UN convention on the rights of the child in UK law would provide the framework for these fundamental rights for children.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
I speak in support of new clauses 28, 30, 60 and 67.
As it stands, this Bill is fatally flawed. It puts huge power into Ministers’ hands without accountability, sidelines Parliament and the devolved Administrations, and puts crucial rights and protections at risk. The Bill also imposes new restrictions on the devolved Administrations. It risks eroding basic human rights and could prevent a transitional deal on the same basic terms that we currently enjoy, including those applying within the single market and the customs union. Such an extreme Brexit was not voted for in the referendum.
It is important that we safeguard the role the EU has played in strengthening and underpinning environmental rights and protections. Most of the UK’s environmental protections stem from EU law and offer us strong safeguards. Safeguarding and protecting the environment lies at the heart of the EU, and these core principles are reflected in its policy and law. I think we know that that is not the case for this Government.
In its current state, the Bill risks leaving dangerous gaps in environmental law. It contains flaws that will leave our natural environment less protected than at present. I want an assurance from the Government that the Bill will convert the entire body of environmental law into domestic law without any watering down, and provide for new governance arrangements so that there is effective implementation of environmental standards, whatever the UK’s future relationship with EU institutions. I want the Bill to restrict the use of secondary legislation before and after Brexit, and to create processes for the robust parliamentary scrutiny of any changes made through secondary legislation during the conversion of EU law. Finally, I want it to ensure that it will be up to devolved Administrations to make their own decisions and laws on those areas that are currently devolved.
I am particularly concerned about the loss of environmental principles. European environmental policy rests on the principles of precaution, prevention and rectifying pollution at its source, as well as that of “polluter pays”. Many of the strongest protections and international commitments to which the UK has signed up are underpinned by general principles of environmental law that are enshrined in EU treaties, but these are all at risk.
Let us put this in perspective by examining what is at stake. We have seen the decline of bees, with 20 bee species lost since 1900 and a further 35 at risk. EU laws on pesticides seek to ensure that potential risks are investigated, but what will happen to that scrutiny?
We must also ensure that the polluter pays. That fundamental principle has led to the improvement of our drinking water and to fines being imposed on operators that are found to have caused pollution, requiring them to repair any damage and to invest in preventive measures. Such laws and principles go a long way in helping to protect and enhance our natural environment. Will the Government continue to issue those fines, or will they bow to the pressure of lobbyists and trade deals? Where is the scrutiny? And where is the precautionary principle, which is also vital to safeguarding our food standards? Will chlorinated chicken from the US enter the UK market? The Bill must ensure at the very least that there will be equivalent provision for environmental standards—[Interruption.]
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means
Order. There are a lot of conversations going on and I cannot hear the hon. Lady. She might be saying something important and the Committee ought to listen.
Anna McMorrin
Thank you, Mrs Laing. I was saying that the Bill must ensure at the very least that there will be equivalent provision for environmental standards and protections, and access to justice, if the UK ends its relationship with EU institutions.
What will the new body look like? The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has announced the creation of a Commission-like body post Brexit to uphold environmental standards, but he could not say whether it would be able to issue fines or demand change when or if the Government fail to uphold environmental standards. The EU Commission can currently fine the UK when the ECJ finds that it does not uphold environmental standards. Would there be a separate Commission-like body for the devolved Administrations, who make their own laws and should be able to continue to do so? The Secretary of State told the Environmental Audit Committee that he saw distinct bodies for the devolved Administrations, so how will they be funded?
What safeguards are in the Bill to provide that environmental standards will not get even worse? There are none. The Bill takes away the rights and freedoms that we currently enjoy, and once it is in force, it will be impossible to challenge an action in court. The Bill denies us our environmental rights, so I call on the UK Government not to compromise them. I ask them to work collaboratively with our devolved Governments to be ambitious, to commit to stronger environmental protection, and to support new clauses 28, 30, 60 and 67.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I regret the fact that I am rising to speak on this subject, but it is a matter of enormous public concern about which I have received dozens of representations from my constituents. It is an enormous shame that this debate has been delayed to such an extent that we have such a short time to discuss a matter of national importance about which our constituents are so concerned.
I want first to focus on animal welfare. We have heard Ministers say many times—we heard it again today—that animal welfare will be non-negotiable in our trade deals post Brexit. However, for those looking from the outside, it jars—perhaps that is the appropriate word—to hear the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs making those commitments after the Secretary of State for International Trade has suggested that chlorinated chicken could be defended. Provisions need to be hardwired and applied to the whole of Government, and that can occur only through primary legislation.
I served as a Labour MEP for three years. In that role, I was very aware that EU legislation was not perfect, as many Members have pointed out, particularly when it came to live animal exports. I was also aware that Britain went further than many other European countries in areas such as animal testing. It remains the case, however, as so many people have said, that about 80% of British animal welfare and environmental legislation comes from the EU.
Amendment 350 proposes transposing article 13 of the TFEU into UK law to recognise the sentience of animals. If we look at the words of the Environment Secretary, the Government seem to have changed their position. They appeared to give a commitment to transpose the provision back in July. I do not understand why expert groups such as the Association of Lawyers for Animal Welfare or Wildlife and Countryside Link would be suggesting that we need a separate provision if it already existed in existing animal welfare legislation. They are the experts on this, and I am listening to them. I point out that even under EU law, Britain is not a beacon in this regard. A constituent of mine, Mr Peter Tutt, has done a huge amount to raise awareness of the fact that much marine life that is recognised as sentient in other countries is not recognised as such in the UK.
The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) says he believes that legislation of this type should come forward separately, but Opposition Members have made many persuasive objections to that. I would add that a core element of the leave campaign was that environmental and animal welfare protections would be preserved after Brexit, so it is absolutely correct that they should be part of our approach and set out very clearly in this Bill. Furthermore, we cannot rely on a consultation, as its outcome is unclear and it will not be calibrated with the progress of this Bill. I will end now, because I see that Mrs Laing is asking me to do so.
Caroline Lucas
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for what has been an interesting and good debate, albeit sadly too short.
I am disappointed by the Minister’s response to new clause 30. It is not good enough to claim that animal sentience is already covered by UK law by virtue of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 since the protocol is not even explicitly included or referred to in that Act and the word “sentience” does not appear anywhere in it. The Act applies only to companion animals—domestic pets. It does not apply to farm animals, wildlife or laboratory animals. For those reasons, I intend to press new clause 30 to a Division.
On the environmental principles, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) made very interesting and exciting points. I have long called for an environment Act, but I still do not see why that has to be at the expense of getting something in this Bill. That is important, because essentially the protections need to be in law from day one of Brexit. My worry is that I do not share his optimism about how quickly we could get an environment Act through the House. I would love to think we could do it in that time, but I am not convinced we will. I shall therefore press new clause 30 to a vote.
Geraint Davies
On a point of order, Mrs Laing. We have had insufficient time for the debate, certainly to hear from me and others who wanted to speak at greater length about these very important constitutional and environmental issues.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means
Order. That is not a point of order. We have had three hours on this group and I did beg the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues not to speak for so long so that he could have a chance. I do not know why they spoke as they did in order to stop him.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Non-discrimination on ground of nationality | Article 18 |
Citizenship rights | Article 20 (except article 20(2)(c)) |
Rights of movement and residence deriving from EU citizenship | Article 21(1) |
Establishes customs union, prohibition of customs duties, common external tariff | Article 28 |
Prohibition on customs duties | Article 30 |
Prohibition on quantitative restrictions on imports | Article 34 |
Prohibition on quantitative restrictions on exports | Article 35 |
Exception to quantitative restrictions | Article 36 |
Prohibition on discrimination regarding the conditions under which goods are procured | Article 37(1) and (2) |
Free movement of workers | Article 45(1), (2) and (3) |
Freedom of establishment | Article 49 |
Freedom to provide services | Article 56 |
Services | Article 57 |
Free movement of capital | Article 63 |
Competition | Article 101(1) |
Abuse of a dominant position | Article 102 |
Public undertakings | Article 106(1) and (2) |
State aid | Article 107(1) |
Commission consideration of plans re: state aid | Article 108(3) |
Internal taxation | Article 110 |
Non-discrimination in indirect taxes | Articles 111 to 113 |
Economic co-operation | Articles 120 to 126 |
Equal pay | Article 157 |
European Investment Bank (EIB) | Article 308 (first and second sub-paragraphs) |
Combating fraud on the EU | Article 325(1) and (2) |
Disclosure of information and national security | Article 346 |
EIB | Protocol 5 - Articles 3, 4, 5, 7(1), 13, 15, 18(4), 19(1) and (2), 20(2), 23(1) and (4), 26, 27 (second and third sub-paragraphs) |
Privileges and immunities of the EIB | Protocol 7 - Article 21”—(Neil Gray.) |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance concerning the cancellation of the proposed new lorry holding park at Stanford West in Kent to deal with congestion from the port of Dover and Eurotunnel, which was announced in a written statement by the Secretary of State for Transport. We are told that Highways England has been tasked with finding an interim solution by March 2019—the same month that the UK is scheduled to leave the European Union. Given that the Secretary of State last month acknowledged that a no deal Brexit could turn the M20 into a lorry park, have you been given any indication that he will come to the House tomorrow to make a statement as to why, among other things, the Government have so carelessly wasted months and millions of pounds, and have singularly failed to put together a coherent plan to address port congestion at such a critical time for our trading future?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter but, as he is well aware, it is not a point on which the Chair can rule as a point of order. He is clearly seeking a way of bringing the issue to the attention of the House and he has succeeded in so doing. He is well aware that, if he wants to bring a Minister to the Dispatch Box, there are correct procedures whereby he can attempt so to do.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You may be aware that very important elections have taken place in Somaliland in recent days, towards which the UK has provided important support. But it has come to my attention that the Prime Minister, when answering a question in Prime Minister’s questions earlier, interchangeably used the words Somaliland and Somalia. Obviously, they are not one and the same, and I wondered how I might be able to encourage the Prime Minister just to be clear on the matter. It is of great concern to Somalilanders, and we should be celebrating the election.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wishes to bring this matter to the attention of the House. It is not a point of order for the Chair, but I am quite sure that Members on the Treasury Bench have heard him.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Tuesday 21st November 2017
(7 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 21 November 2017 - (21 Nov 2017)
20:47 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 295 / Noes: 314 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:00 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 301 / Noes: 311 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:14 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 296 / Noes: 315 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:28 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 295 / Noes: 315 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:41 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 313 / Noes: 295 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 78—Consequences of leaving the European Union: equality—
“(1) This section comes into force when the power under section 14 to appoint exit day for the purposes of this Act is first exercised.
(2) The purpose of this section is to ensure that the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union does not diminish protection for equality in the law of the United Kingdom.
(3) All individuals are equal before the law and have the right to the equal protection and benefit of the law.
(4) All individuals have a right not to be discriminated against by any public authority on any grounds including sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation.
(5) The following provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 apply in relation to the rights conferred by subsections (3) and (4) as they apply in relation to Convention rights within the meaning of that Act—
(a) section 3 (interpretation of legislation);
(b) section 4 (declaration of incompatibility);
(c) section 5 (right of Crown to intervene);
(d) section 6 (acts of public authorities);
(e) section 7 (proceedings);
(f) section 8 (judicial remedies);
(g) section 9 (judicial acts);
(h) section 10 (power to take remedial action);
(i) section 11 (safeguard for existing human rights); and
(j) section 19 (statements of compatibility).
(6) A court or tribunal must have regard to any relevant decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in considering—
(a) the application of this section generally, and
(b) in particular, the meaning of discrimination for the purposes of this section.”
This new clause would ensure that the rights of equality presently enjoyed in accordance with EU law are enshrined in free-standing domestic law after the UK leaves the EU.
New clause 79—Provisions relating to the EU or the EEA in respect of EU-derived domestic legislation—
“(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 5(1), HM Government shall make arrangements to report to both Houses of Parliament whenever circumstances arising in section 2(2)(d) would otherwise have amended provisions or definitions in UK law had the UK remained a member of the EU or EEA beyond exit day.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 5(1) and having reported to both Houses of Parliament, HM Government is bound to consider whether it should incorporate amended provisions or definitions into UK law, in order to ensure that the rights of workers and employees in the UK are no less favourable than they would have been had the UK remained a member of the EU or EEA beyond exit day.
(3) Such circumstances arising in section 2(2)(d) include but are not limited to—
(a) any future EU Directives relating to family-friendly employment rights; including but not limited to rights for pregnant workers and employees, and those returning from maternity leave,
(b) any future EU Directives relating to gender equality,
(c) the proposed Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on work-life balance for parents and carers.
(4) Reports presented under subsection (1) must include—
(i) an assessment of how such amendments to UK law would have impacted sex equality in the UK had the UK remained a member of the EU or EEA beyond exit day and
(ii) an assessment of how a failure to implement amended provisions or definitions in UK law will impact the ability of families to combine work and care in the UK and gender equality in the UK.”
This new clause would ensure that Parliament is informed of changes in EU and EEA provisions that might have amended UK laws around family-friendly employment rights and gender equality and their potential impact, as well as committing the Government to considering their implementation. This is to ensure that rights of workers and employees with caring responsibilities, and women’s rights, are no less favourable than they would have been had the UK remained a member of the EU or EEA beyond exit day.
Amendment 297, in clause 5, page 3, line 11, leave out “or rule of law”.
This amendment would remove the reference to a rule of law passed or made before exit day.
Amendment 285, page 3, line 12, after “exit day” insert—
“as appointed for the purposes of this section (see subsection (5A)”.
This paving Amendment is intended to allow for transitional arrangements within the existing structure of rules and regulations.
Amendment 298, page 3, line 15, leave out “or rule of law”.
This amendment would remove the reference to a rule of law passed or made before exit day.
Amendment 299, page 3, line 17, leave out “or rule of law”.
This amendment would remove the reference to a rule of law passed or made before exit day.
Amendment 8, page 3, line 20, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
To allow the Charter of Fundamental rights to continue to apply domestically in the interpretation and application of retained EU law.
Amendment 46, page 3, line 20, leave out subsection (4).
This amendment would remove the exclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights from retained EU law.
Amendment 151, page 3, line 26, at end insert—
“(5A) Within three months of the commencement of this section, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament regulations to create a fundamental right to the protection of personal data.
(5B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (5A) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
Clause 5(4) of the Bill excludes the Charter of Fundamental Rights from the ‘incorporation’ powers in the Bill. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to replicate Article 8 of the Charter (the Right to Protection of Personal Data) in UK domestic law within three months of the commencement of Clause 5.
Amendment 286, page 3, line 26, at end insert—
“(5A) The exit day appointed (in accordance with section 14 and paragraph 13 of Schedule 7) for the purposes of this section must not be before the end of any transitional period agreed under Article 50 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.”
This Amendment is intended to allow for transitional arrangements within the existing structure of rules and regulations.
Clause 5 stand part.
Amendment 10, page 15, line 5, in schedule 1, leave out paragraphs 1 to 3.
To allow challenges to be brought to retained EU law on the grounds that it is in breach of general principles of EU law.
Amendment 101, page 15, line 17, leave out paragraph 2 and insert—
2 (1) Any general principle of EU law will remain part of domestic law on or after exit day if—
(a) it was recognised as a general principle of EU law by the European Court in a case decided before exit day (whether or not as an essential part of the decision in the case);
(b) it was recognised as a general principle of EU law in the EU Treaties immediately before exit day;
(c) it was recognised as a general principle of EU law by any direct EU legislation (as defined in section 3(2) of this Act) operative immediately before exit day; or
(d) it was recognised as a general principle of EU law by an EU directive that was in force immediately before exit day.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of sub-paragraph (1), the principles set out in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union shall be considered to be general principles for the purposes of that sub-paragraph.”
This amendment clarifies that all the existing principles of EU law will be retained within domestic law whether they originate in the case law of the European Court, the EU treaties, direct EU legislation or EU directives. It also makes clear that the key environmental law principles in Article 191 of the Treaty are retained.
Amendment 336, page 15, line 17, leave out paragraphs 2 and 3 and insert—
2A (1) Any general principle of EU law will remain part of domestic law on or after exit day if—
(a) it was recognised as a general principle of EU law by the European Court in a case decided before exit day (whether or not as an essential part of the decision in the case);
(b) it was recognised as a general principle of EU law in the EU Treaties immediately before exit day;
(c) it was recognised as a general principle of EU law by any direct EU legislation (as defined in section 3(2) of this Act) operative immediately before exit day; or
(d) it was recognised as a general principle of EU law by an EU directive that was in force immediately before exit day.
2B Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph 2A, the principles set out in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union shall be considered to be general principles for the purposes of that paragraph.
2C For the purposes of paragraphs 1A and 1B the exit day appointed must be the same day as is appointed for section 5(1) of this Act and must not be before the end of any transitional period agreed under Article 50 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.”
This amendment would retain the existing principles of EU law within domestic law whether they originate in the case law of the European Court, the EU treaties, direct EU legislation or EU directives. The freeze date would be at the end of any transitional arrangements.
Amendment 105, page 15, line 21, leave out paragraph 3.
This amendment leave out paragraph 3, thus retaining the right of action in domestic law in relation to general principles of EU law.
Amendment 62, page 15, line 28, leave out paragraph 4.
This amendment would remove the proposal to end rights in UK domestic law after exit day in relation to damages in accordance with the rule in Francovich.
Amendment 139, page 15, line 29, at end insert—
“except in relation to anything occurring before that day”.
This amendment, together with Amendments 140 and 141, would restore the right to obtain damages after exit day in respect of governmental failures before exit day to comply with European Union obligations.
Amendment 302, page 15, line 29, at end insert—
“except in relation to anything occurring before that day.
(2) “Anything occurring before that day” in sub-paragraph (1) shall be taken to mean any action commenced before or after exit day in relation to any act before exit day.”
This amendment would enable actions to be brought under the Francovich rule either before or after exit day if they related to an act before exit day.
Amendment 335, page 15, line 29, at end insert—
“, except in cases whereby the breach of Community law took place on or before exit day.
4A For the purposes of paragraph 4 the exit day appointed must not be before the end of any transitional period agreed under Article 50 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.”
This amendment ensures that the right to obtain damages if the Government fails to uphold its obligations continues as long as the UK remains under the existing structure of rules and regulation.
Amendment 126, page 15, line 32, after “Rights” insert “or”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 62.
Amendment 127, page 15, line 33, leave out
“or the rule in Francovich”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 62.
Schedule 1 stand part.
Mr Leslie
The measures in this group have a number of things in common, and they relate largely to the rights and freedoms that many of our citizens enjoy, without debate or discussion—they are sometimes taken for granted—but that could well be threatened if we do not get this legislative process right.
Of course, the Bill was supposed to be merely a “copy and paste” piece of legislation. We were told that there were no fundamental changes in Government policy and that it was all very straightforward. The Government said, “We are leaving the European Union and becoming a freestanding United Kingdom, so we will simply cut and paste all the EU regulations and laws as they stand into UK law.” However, you will notice, Mrs Laing, particularly in schedule 1, that a number of things are not to be transposed. The Government have specifically chosen not to bring across the charter of fundamental rights.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
When I was sitting in the hon. Gentleman’s place, Labour Ministers told us that the charter would have no more influence in the United Kingdom than a copy of “The Beano”—those were the words used—because it would not apply here. Does he not look forward to a time when what Labour Ministers say will bear a greater approximation to truth?
Mr Leslie
It turns out that the charter does have value, and it certainly does have effect within the UK. I will shortly give some practical examples to show how we cannot simply airbrush this part of our current legislative framework. Many citizens, companies and organisations recognise the value that the charter brings.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Is not an example of the use of the charter of fundamental rights the one given by our right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) when he referred to the case that the EU brought against the Government, in which the current Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, as part of his argument, prayed in aid the charter. If the Secretary of State thinks that it has use, should not that same use be available to everybody else?
Mr Leslie
Indeed. My right hon. Friend has stolen the punchline that I was building up to, because that is the one example that I thought would surely clinch the argument. Of all the people who really should value the charter of fundamental rights, surely it is the Secretary of State.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Given that the charter has been part of British law for some years now, the case for repealing it must be based on some harm that it has done. I have never heard anyone describe any harm that the charter is supposed to have done to any public interest in this country, so presumably the hon. Gentleman, like me, awaits some examples to justify the proposed change.
Mr Leslie
Absolutely. We might hear a different argument from Ministers, but traditionally the Government’s argument has been, “Don’t worry about the charter of fundamental rights; it doesn’t have any effect, it isn’t necessary and we can do without it because it is already there in British law.” It is rather like what the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said in his intervention. Of course, if that is the case, why are the Government deliberately excising it from UK law, and why would they resist new clause 16? The new clause does not even require the charter to be retained—I happen to think that it should be retained—but simply states that Her Majesty’s Government should lay before Parliament within one month of Royal Assent a review of the implications of removing it.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one advantage of the new clause is that we could explore properly the impact of losing the access that the charter gives to UN conventions, for example on the rights of persons with disabilities and on the rights of the child, which currently are not fully incorporated into UK law? We will therefore lose the way in which they are currently accessible through the charter.
Mr Leslie
Indeed. We need a far more detailed analysis from Ministers of the consequences of deleting the charter of fundamental rights, which are potentially myriad and far ranging. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her tireless campaigning on children’s rights. She has tabled several amendments in relation to the UN convention on the rights of the child, and she will know that many non-governmental organisations that campaign for children’s rights, the Children’s Society in particular, have several anxieties about the deletion of the charter of fundamental rights and the lack of clarity that would exist around protecting children, who are sometimes in vulnerable circumstances.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
When children in the world are still subject to slave labour or trafficking, or are working as child soldiers, does my hon. Friend agree that the message being sent that the UK would simply do away with rights that we campaigned for, which led to the charter of fundamental rights, is an abhorrence? We need Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box and say that they have changed their mind.
Sir William Cash
One of the most fundamental questions is the notion of disapplying Acts of Parliament and the supremacy that the European Court of Justice asserts over our parliamentary Acts, which the amendments would effectively transfer to the Supreme Court. As for child protection, I was in part responsible for the Protection of Children Act 1978 and I presented the International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014, which are intrinsic Westminster Acts. We do not need the charter to do such things; we can do them ourselves.
Mr Leslie
In no way would I wish to diminish the hon. Gentleman’s contribution to child protection and ensuring that legislation is as good as it possibly can be, but we currently have that extra level of protection that the charter of fundamental rights provides. New clause 16 simply asks for an analysis from Ministers of what would happen to child protection and to many other rights if we delete the charter from our current set of legal protections.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is about not just the application of the charter of fundamental rights in British law, but the message that we send to the rest of the world? That goes to the heart of the problem with the so-called British Bill of Rights. There are no British rights; there are universal human rights. That is the message that this Government and our continent should send to the rest of the world and to places where people do not enjoy those human rights, which should be inalienable.
Mr Leslie
My hon. Friend makes a good point. If the Bill contained a provision to copy and paste many of the charter’s general rights into UK law to preserve the current arrangements, the Government would have a reasonable case to make, but there is no alternative provision. The legislation simply deletes the charter of fundamental rights.
Mr Harper
I have two points. First, when the charter of fundamental rights was introduced, it was said that it simply restated existing rights that were elsewhere in European Union law. Secondly, the argument that if rights are not given to us by the EU, we in Britain could not somehow manage to create them ourselves is utter nonsense. We are signed up to the European convention on human rights, we have the Equality Act 2010, and we are a signatory to many UN treaties. The notion that if we somehow do not adopt new clause 16, we somehow do not have any human rights is offensive nonsense.
Mr Leslie
It might well be the case that Parliament could salvage many of the protections over time and put them on our statute, but the Bill seeks to delete the charter of fundamental rights from the point that the legislation is enacted. In other words, it would take away rights that we hope may eventually be replaced, but there are none of the guarantees that we currently enjoy by virtue of our membership of the charter.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
As an old lawyer who enjoyed jurisprudence, I know that our laws and rights come from many different sources. I am an old common lawyer, so I actually do not like stuff being written down too much; I like things to develop over time. I would really need persuading about new clause 16, because it just asks for a report, which seems awfully wet.
Mr Leslie
I was trying my best to offer a hand of friendship across the Chamber and to say, “Let’s meet halfway and find a way of forging a consensus.” If the right hon. Lady wishes, there are other amendments today that ask for the charter of fundamental rights to be kept. I will certainly be voting for those, but she obviously knows that I would like to find a way, in the spirit of compromise, of reaching a consensus. I agree that a report is only a small step in that direction—hence the drafting of new clause 16—but I am massively impressed by her strength of commitment to the protection of rights in our country.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
One of the differences between the charter of fundamental rights and the European convention on human rights lies in article 8 of the charter, which relates to the protection of personal data. Is it not a particular irony that the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union relied on precisely that provision to sue the British Government?
Mr Leslie
It is probably time to elaborate on that example, because the Secretary of State—for it is he—sued the then Home Secretary, who hon. Members will know is now Prime Minister, to challenge the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 as being inconsistent with EU law. The Secretary of State himself used the argument in court that the charter of fundamental rights needed to be prayed in aid in that case. By the way, he was successful at that point in time.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
As a Government lawyer at the time, I was honoured to present that case on behalf of the Government. My real worry about bringing the charter of fundamental rights into English law is that it is too complicated and does not add sufficient rights. Everybody in the House is in favour of the rights in the European convention on human rights that have been incorporated into English law. We are very keen on those and want to protect human rights, but we do not feel that the charter adds sufficient rights to take us much further, and we found that in an enormous number of arguments during that court case.
Mr Leslie
I have no reason to question the hon. Lady’s capabilities in court, and I am in no way saying that she was a loser in that particular case, but the charter is not complicated. The rights are simple and clear. For example, “Dignity” covers the right to life and to freedom from torture, slavery, the death penalty, eugenic practices and human cloning. “Freedoms” covers liberty, personal integrity, privacy, protection of personal data, marriage, thought, religion, expression, assembly, education, work, property and asylum. Other freedoms relating to “Equality” include the prohibition of all discrimination, including on the basis of disability, age and sexual orientation, and cultural, religious and linguistic diversity. “Solidarity” includes the right to fair working conditions, and protection against unjustified dismissal. Other rights include “Citizen’s Rights” and matters relating to “Justice”. Those are simple, important rights.
Several hon. Members rose—
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I agree with the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) that we need more than a report; the rights should be enshrined. On article 25 and the rights of older people, does my hon. Friend agree that having limited protections for older people at a time when so many older people need, but cannot get, things such as social care means that we need to enshrine those rights?
Mr Leslie
I will give way to my right hon. Friend in a moment, because he has a great amendment relating to data, but I want to give an example about the protection of public health. The tobacco manufacturers sought to challenge the Government’s introduction of plain packaging for cigarettes—of course the tobacco manufacturers hated the idea and wanted to stop it—and the Government, in defence of that legislation, prayed in aid of their case the charter of fundamental rights and its protections for public health. The courts therefore upheld the UK’s plain packaging arrangements and legislation on the basis of the protections of public health rights laid out in the charter. That is a very specific example of how the charter has benefited the rights and protections of our citizens in this country.
Stephen Timms
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind reference to my amendment 151. Going back to the case brought by the now Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Secretary of State had not been able to rely on article 8, the likelihood is that he would not have won his case and that the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) would have won for the Government? Does that not give the lie to the suggestion that the charter has no impact?
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) suggested that the charter of fundamental rights contains rights that are too complicated to be incorporated into English law. Will the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) reassure her that those rights have been incorporated into Scots law, which is a separate legal system, and into all the legal systems of the other member states of the European Union? In fact, it is not too complicated to incorporate the rights into English law.
Victoria Prentis
My point is not that we do not approve of the rights, nor that we thought it was not possible to make the case without the charter, but that the charter has been part of English law since the Lisbon treaty. As good, responsible lawyers, whether acting for the Government or for anybody else, of course we use whatever tools are available to us, which in recent times have included the charter.
My point is that we do not need the provisions of the charter. It is true that it can be argued the charter can do one or two more tiny things, such as widening the class, making what we can get back greater and possibly widening the possibilities for claimants, but my case is that it is possible to do what we need to do to protect people’s human rights within the law as we have it in this country.
Mr Leslie
I hear the hon. Lady’s case that somehow the charter is not necessary, which is very much the case that Ministers have made in the past, but she has conceded that there are differences that the charter can apply. She characterises those differences as very small, but what she perceives as small or minuscule rights are not necessarily small or minuscule rights to our constituents, to members of the public or to the most vulnerable in society, who may depend on the very rights provided by the charter in crucial circumstances.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman find it odd that we are transposing all EU law into our own law while taking away the thing that underpins all EU law? We are taking away the fundamentals and foundations of the body of EU law. Is that not an odd way of going about things?
Mr Leslie
I agree. I find it odd that Ministers are saying that, somehow, the charter does not matter but are then saying that we must delete the charter in the Bill. They would almost die in a ditch to defend clause 5(4), which simply says:
“The Charter of Fundamental Rights is not part of domestic law on or after exit day.”
If the charter is so benign and so irrelevant, why not have the report? It may be tedious to some, but the report is necessary to explain whether those rights do or do not offer protections. If the charter is so ineffectual, and if this is supposed to be a copy-and-paste exercise to transpose EU law, I do not see the argument for deleting the charter.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Has the hon. Gentleman paid attention to protocol 30? Article 1(2) states:
“In particular, and for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in Title IV of the Charter creates justiciable rights applicable to Poland or the United Kingdom except in so far as Poland or the United Kingdom has provided for such rights in its national law.”
The whole point of the charter of fundamental rights, subject to the protocol, is that it does not apply in our national law.
Mr Leslie
I am not quite sure that is the interpretation of the courts, which have referenced the charter of fundamental rights in a number of cases. If the hon. Gentleman listens to the case that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) will make in respect of amendment 151, on the free flow of data across borders and on the protections we have, he will hear how the very backbone of our data protection laws, which go alongside the general data protection regulations, is represented in the charter of fundamental rights. It is not me making the case; it is techUK, the trade bodies and the organisations that campaign and fight to protect data and privacy rights. Many organisations and non-governmental organisations will be bombarding the inboxes of Conservative Members as we speak about those protections.
Mr Leslie
I want to make a little more progress, if I may, because I need to reference a number of other amendments.
I hope this is not the case, but it seems to me that the Prime Minister, worried that hard-line Eurosceptics and Brexiteers on her Benches are champing and nipping at her heels, had to throw them a bone. There was a need to give them something, and therefore the charter of fundamental rights was the scalp she felt she had to throw in the direction of some, but not all, Conservative Members. I hope that is not the case, because significant protections on data, on children’s rights and on public health—even the protections that the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union himself has used—are rights and privileges that we should jealously guard. It is our job in this Parliament to stand up and point out when the Executive are potentially trying to erode many of those rights. I hope we can keep the charter or, at the very least, have a report on its effect.
Amendment 62 also addresses changes in rights. This is not a pure copy-and-paste exercise, and the amendment seeks to preserve something known as the Francovich rule in our legal system. Essentially, it is a fundamental principle of any democracy that Governments should not be above the law. In EU law, the principle is made real by the Francovich rule, which was established by case law that provides citizens with tools to recover damages when their Government fall short of legal obligations. In this case, again, the Government are trying to do away with those protections, and I tabled the amendment—other hon. Members have tabled similar amendments—to probe the Government and to find out what will be the effect of removing the Francovich protection.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The recent prosecutions of the Government under clean air laws, for example, might not have been possible if the Francovich duty were not enshrined in law. The result of the Bill, as drafted, is that, the day before Brexit, people will have the right to claim damages from the Government for the harm they suffer, but there is a danger they will not have that right the day after Brexit.
Mr Leslie
My hon. Friend makes the point well. We can all imagine circumstances in which the Government could be in part responsible for failures to comply with various legal obligations—as she says, it might well include failure to comply with air quality directives—and those who suffer harm as a consequence of those Government failures may no longer have the right of redress. Those rights exist not only in environmental legislation but in, for instance, equal opportunities legislation. I can foresee circumstances in which a same-sex couple seek retroactively to claim their right to pension arrangements that might not have existed in the past so that they can accrue their pension rights, but they would not have redress to do so under the proposed arrangements.
The other big one is competition law, which relies very much on the right to challenge the Government, particularly on procurement arrangements. Companies that say they did not get a contract for such and such a reason may well feel that it was partly because they were unfairly treated by Government. Under the Francovich arrangements we have protections so that contracts can be let fairly, be it for house building, transport infrastructure or anything else we can name. A number of protections need safeguarding there.
Perhaps the biggest one that has not been addressed by Ministers and where Francovich may still be required is the protection of the rights of EU nationals after Brexit. A number of EU nationals will continue to reside in the UK after Brexit, but what will happen if their residency rights or definitions change, if their children are affected by changes of arrangements with the Government, or if rights to claim various tax reliefs or other things change in an unfair way for them, as EU nationals? There should be some level of redress against malfeasance by Government in that respect, so at the very least we need to hear from Ministers a better justification for the deletion of this Francovich protection.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. His amendment on Francovich echoes my own, although mine is slightly different on time limitation. Does he agree it is unthinkable that a Government who throughout this Bill have said, “All rights and protections would be guaranteed,” are now seeking to remove the ability to sue the state for imperfect administration, mostly of directives, at a time when they are about to incorporate hundreds if not thousands of pieces of EU law into our UK law? They are saying, “If anything goes wrong with any of that, you’ve got no right to sue us in the future.”
Mr Leslie
My hon. Friend is correct about that and she has tabled a very good amendment on this issue. Ministers need to do better and explain why they would seek to wrench out of the protections for our citizens this potential right-to-redress arrangement, particularly as it may well affect malfeasances and the need for redress that takes place before exit day. This is not just saying that this rule will not apply to situations that occur after exit day; its drafting would prevent that right to redress, even if the claim itself relates to an occasion prior to exit day. All hon. Members, regardless of political party, should therefore think of their constituents, the cases we pick up and the surgery discussions we have with people who ask what they can do. The Government are a large and powerful organisation—many Conservative Members often make that point about the size and power of the state—and individuals need rights in order to protect themselves in some of those circumstances. This is something that really should transcend the normal party political issues.
Suella Fernandes
As the hon. Gentleman will know, the threshold for claiming damages under Francovich is that the breach needs to be “sufficiently serious”, which is a principle stemming from EU jurisprudence and case law from the European Court of Justice. Is his position that claims will be interpreted under UK law even in the event of a lack of provision of “sufficiently serious” in UK statute, or is it that UK courts would be applying ECJ jurisprudence in that event?
Mr Leslie
Would it not be great if we were having a proper debate about retaining Francovich protections, albeit possibly making an amendment? The hon. Lady may well have a case for increasing or decreasing the level of the damage thresholds in place, but that is not what we are debating; we are debating simply the deletion of this Francovich protection—that right to redress—from our laws and protections. I would be happy to discuss with her where that level should be set, as there is a debate to be had about that, but we are talking about the principle, yes or no, and whether this should be retained within this legislation.
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend rightly suspects that the Government will say that removing the charter from the UK will not affect the substantive rights that individuals already benefit from in this country. Does he agree that the problem is that the Government do not go on to say what those substantive rights are? If we simply leave it to the common law, a future Parliament—it may not be this one—could determine that it is right to erode those rights. That is why it is important we stick with the charter.
Mr Leslie
We need to make sure that if we are transposing legislation, it is a true copy and paste, but that is not what has been proposed. I am not in favour necessarily of cutting off our relationship with the single market or the customs union. There are a lot of debates on the Brexit choices we have before us, but here we are dealing with a set of separate discussions about the rights that our citizens—our constituents—could have in a post-Brexit scenario, and we need a better justification in order to be convinced than that we should just throw these overboard at this stage.
Anna Soubry
I hope this will be a more helpful intervention. The hon. Gentleman is making a good point. The point about Francovich is that we will not be able to have a claim arising from a directive that we have accepted into substantive British law because we will have left the European Union, and that is simply not fair. People would have had a claim but we will have left, so someone who sought to make that claim afterwards will not be able to do so. It is right that we will not be subjected to any new directives, so people could not raise them, but it is bad to take away a right that people would have had as we had accepted the directive into substantive law. That is the point here.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)
I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s argument on transposing the charter of fundamental rights into British law. Is it his case that it should be transposed as a cut and paste or that it should be adapted? Article 39 talks about the right to stand for the European Parliament, article 44 talks about the right to petition the European Parliament and article 45 talks about freedom of movement, all of which would presumably no longer be relevant after we leave the EU.
Mr Leslie
I have been in Parliament since 1997, on and off, and I find that amendments can often be rebutted for a number of reasons but when people say there is a technical deficiency that tends to be the last refuge of the Minister. There may well be arguments that say that we need to cut and paste the charter of fundamental rights or the Francovich provisions, but to do so having regard to changes in the language to take account of new circumstances. Everybody can recognise the need for consequential or supplemental amendments to the legislation sometimes, but let us not kid ourselves: we are talking about some far bigger principles here. I hope the hon. Gentleman would not diminish the importance of the charter of fundamental rights and those myriad legal rights and protections we have that are so essential for the specific and general reasons I have given in this debate.
Mary Creagh
I am in violent agreement with the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) on the issue of Francovich, and I will be speaking to those points in more detail when I come to talk to my amendment. Does my hon. Friend share my concerns that certain rights in the charter such as environmental rights, consumer rights and the rights of the elderly in particular, which are not highly developed in UK case law or in any other sort of legislation, are gently being thrown out with the bathwater in this removal of the charter of fundamental rights?
Mr Leslie
That is an exceptionally important point. Our legal system is one of the finest in the world. It is a dynamic legal system and is not simply reliant on statute; it can relate to cases as they evolve. The charter of fundamental rights, which could equally be a charter within the UK law, according to this Bill, if it were transposed, could help to maintain that dynamism and the protection of rights to fill the gaps when those unforeseen circumstances arise. We do not know what issues our constituents will bring to us from one week to the next, but we may well have a constituent who has found that their rights have been deprived unfairly and who needs redress to protect them from the Government or others. In our surgeries and discussions, what will we say to our constituents in such circumstances? What will we say when they say, “But you had the opportunity to transpose and retain the protections under the charter of fundamental rights”? Will we say “Oh, well, it was a very busy day. I didn’t really notice what was going on in the Chamber. There were lots of complex things going on to do with Brexit”?
This really matters. I am delighted and proud that many Members from all parties in this House are voicing their concerns and are not prepared to see these rights just swept away on a ministerial say-so.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie). If I may say so, I do not take the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) in her description of new clause 16. It seems to me that in tabling it for consideration by the Committee the hon. Gentleman has accurately sought to stimulate an extremely important debate on the consequences of getting rid of the charter.
I sometimes feel that there is perhaps a failure of some Members to look at what has been happening in our society and country over a 40-year period. On the whole, western democracies have tended in that time to develop the idea of rights. I know that for some Members that appears to be anathema—it makes them choke over the cornflakes—but it is a development that I have always welcomed and that, it seems to me, has delivered substantial benefits for all members of our society, particularly the most vulnerable.
In this country we have had a long debate about how we reconcile rights with the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty. Indeed, in 1997 the Labour Government sought to craft—extremely ingeniously, I thought, which is why I was very supportive of it at the time—the legislation that would become the Human Rights Act in an effort to achieve that reconciliation. I think most people in this House would argue that that Act has worked very well by preserving parliamentary sovereignty for primary legislation, enabling secondary legislation to be struck down if incompatible and with the mechanism of a declaration of incompatibility when required.
The truth is that because of our membership of the European Union there are some things that many of us would regard as rights but which fall outside the scope of the Human Rights Act and the European convention, and those things have developed over the same period I mentioned as a result of our European Union membership. I appreciate that that leads to double choking over the cornflakes, because not only have those rights come from what some people might regard as a tainted source—although I am blowed if I can think why: it is just another international treaty—but on top of that is the fact that once in place the charter has no regard for our parliamentary sovereignty. It has the capacity to trump our domestic laws if there is an incompatibility between our domestically enacted laws and the principles of, or anything that has come from, the charter. That is part of the supremacy of EU law to which we have all been subject.
All that should not make us ignore the benefits that the charter of fundamental rights has conferred. Whatever we may think as we talk about parliamentary sovereignty, I venture the suggestion that if one goes out into the street and asks people whether they think that equality law, which is largely EU-derived, has been of value to this country, most people would give a resounding note of approval. I am sure they would do the same with respect to the recent Benkharbouche case in relation to the disapplication of the State Immunity Act 1978 for the purposes of enabling an employment case to be brought against an embassy that had mistreated one of its employees. Of course, as has been cited, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has availed himself of the provisions of the charter and the rights that the EU has conferred in relation to questions of data privacy and the way data is handled.
Mr Lammy
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman also aware of the simple rights that many of us will have used on behalf of a parent, such as the right to wheelchair accessibility at our airports? There are also rights that came up in the course of the youth justice review I did for the Government, to do with making courts child-friendly so that, for example, they do not intimidate a young woman having to relay a terrible case of sexual assault. Such rights did not exist in British law but now exist as a result of the charter. For that reason, we ought to give due respect to our European friends for giving us the charter.
Mr Grieve
I place great respect on the fact that, for all the faults I can sometimes identify, when the European Union was established its founding fathers wished it to be based on principles not only of the rule of law, but of a vision of human society of which I have no difficulty approving.
Mr Grieve
I will just make a little progress.
I do not have any problem with that vision at all. It worries me that, in the course of this debate on Brexit and our departure from the European Union, in this massive upheaval of venom about the EU that I have experienced personally in the past week, which seems to have no relation to reality at all and troubles me very much, we seem to be at risk of losing sight of these aspects of real progress within our society as a result of our EU membership. They are overlooked.
Sir William Cash
I have listened to my right hon. and learned Friend with great care and interest. Will he explain why the matters to which he and the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) have just referred could not be enacted? In fact, they often are enacted; I referred to the Protection of Children Act 1978, the International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014 and so forth. Does he not understand that it is terribly important to remember that implicit in the charter—as a distinguished lawyer, he knows this—is the power of the European Court to disapply Supreme Court enactments? The Factortame case was a good example of that in respect of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988.
Mr Grieve
I thought Factortame would come along at some point in this debate. My hon. Friend is of course right about that. I know that he has spent most of his career in this House agonising over the issue of the loss or diminution of parliamentary sovereignty. That is not a matter to be neglected, and if he will wait just a moment I shall come to that point.
As I said, by raising the points he has through tabling new clause 16, the hon. Member for Nottingham East has done the right thing, because we need to focus on what is going to happen after we have left the EU. Of course my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) is correct: the laws that we have enacted, as at the date of exit, as a consequence of our EU membership and the requirement for us to adhere to the charter, will remain in place, but it is interesting that they will thereafter be wholly unprotected. For example, they will not even enjoy the special protection that we crafted in the Human Rights Act for other areas deemed to be of importance.
One solution may be that, in due course, we ought to think carefully about whether there are other categories of rights additional to the European convention on human rights—heaven knows we have been here before—that ought to enjoy the sort of protection that the Human Rights Act affords other rights. That might well be the way forward. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is slightly strange that, in leaving the EU for national sovereignty reasons, we should then say that we will continue to entrench certain categories of rights protected in the charter and give them a status even higher than, for example, prohibiting torture under the ECHR. That might strike people as rather odd. On that basis, I am forced to conclude that, if we are leaving the EU, as we intend to do, the sort of entrenchment that has previously existed is not sustainable. We will have to come back to this House to consider how we move forward, but, in saying that, I think that this is a very big issue indeed.
It worries me that, when we leave in March 2019, there will be a hiatus. There will be a gap where areas of law that matter to people are not protected in any way at all. It is no surprise, therefore, that non-governmental organisations have been bombarding MPs with their anxiety. I think that that anxiety is misplaced, because I cannot believe that any Member on the Treasury Front Bench intends to diminish existing rights. However, we are in danger from two things. One is sclerosis—that the rights development will cease. Secondly, because those rights do not enjoy any form of special status—many, not necessarily all, should certainly do so—there will be occasions when we nibble away at them and then discover that they have been lost. For that reason, it is a really urgent issue for consideration by this House, preferably before or shortly after we leave.
Victoria Prentis
My right hon. and learned Friend and former pupil master is making a speech with his characteristic intellectual honesty. Nothing passes him by. In that spirit, does he agree that the charter is not really the solution to incorporating the rights that so many of us want to see incorporated, such as the new views of sexuality and children’s rights? Possibly the way forward is not to vote for this new clause, but to continue to put pressure on those on the Treasury Bench to ensure that those rights are protected in a modern and suitable way for the current world.
Mr Grieve
My hon. Friend makes a good point. As has been pointed out, this new clause just asks for a report, which means it is trying to concentrate minds on an issue. In our debate last week, one point that I made on my new clause 55, which is still hanging over the Treasury Bench like the sword of Damocles, is that there may be some ways in which we can provide—even now as we leave, as a temporary measure before we can return to the issue—some greater reassurance on the protection of key rights in the fields of equality. I strongly recommend that my hon and right hon. Friends pay some attention to that, because the issue will not go away. If we do not seek to act on it, the idea of a modern Conservative party starts to fray at the edges, and I do not wish my party to gain a reputation for ignoring these key issues.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Might I use as an example very cash-strapped services, which might not naturally wish to be extending the rights and the costs of services? For example, in the aged care sector, a couple who traditionally had to be split up due to the needs of one or other of them can, under European rights, remain as a couple. We can imagine that, in a time of cash-strapped services, that sort of right might not necessarily fall into the lap of service users.
Mr Grieve
The hon. Lady makes a valid point, but it is worth bearing in mind that that is covered by the Human Rights Act and the ECHR, so let us not get too worried. We must also face up to the fact that some socio-economic rights that require levels of cost and economic policy decisions are legitimate areas in which Parliament and Government can say that, however ideal they might be, a balance must be struck. That is why I am always careful—this probably marks me out as a Conservative—about the infinite extension of rights, because thereby we dilute their importance. That is very important to bear in mind.
Mr Harper
My right hon. and learned Friend raised the issue of the extension of rights. Is not one of the problems with the charter and its interpretation by the courts that, because it is a very general set of rights, it can be extended by courts? Unlike with the ECHR and the Human Rights Act, it is not just about declaring incompatibility, but about striking down Acts of this Parliament too. This does not get the balance right, which he accepts is very important.
Mr Grieve
That of course was one of the great anxieties when the charter was enacted. Indeed, it is the reason for the UK’s so-called opt-out, but it is not an opt-out because, in so far as the charter reflects general principles of EU law, we are bound by it. One example, which my right hon. Friend will remember, was the case of Chester and McGeoch and prisoner voting rights. There was an attempt to invoke EU law as a tool in order to force the UK Government to bring in prisoner voting, at least in relation to European elections. I think that it is fair to say that it caused much disquiet in government as to the possibility that that might be the outcome of the court case. Indeed, I went to argue the court case as Attorney General on the Government’s behalf in our Supreme Court. Invoking EU law was used as a tool, but it did not lead to that outcome.
Looking back over the history of the charter, I do not think that some of the fears that were expressed—that it would be used for an expansionist purpose by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg—have been proved to be correct. In any event, we are leaving the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union, unless we have to stay in it for transitional purposes. When we are gone it will be our own Supreme Court, in which I have enormous confidence, that will carry out that interpretation. I do not want to labour this point much further. I simply want to say that there is a really important issue for us to debate. It is about what happens to the sorts of rights that have come to us through the charter and through the EU. The matter cannot be ignored. In the short term—the sword of Damocles moment again—the Government must think about it before the Bill has finished going through this House.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
I just want to make sure that I understand what my right hon. and learned Friend is suggesting. Are there some items in the charter which are not going to be retained through the retention principles of the Bill, but which should be retained in the form effectively of becoming an amendment to the HRA, so that they are subject to the HRA’s protections?
Mr Grieve
That could be a solution, but even if we do not have time to move to that and to have the necessary debate—as we highlighted in the question about the statutory instrument powers that the Government are taking to change law—some comfort and reassurance might be provided with the fact that there are some categories of EU-derived law that could do with at least the assurance that they would require primary legislation to change them. That might go some way to providing reassurance to some of the perfectly worthy organisations that have been writing to us that there is no malevolent intent towards this important area in which rights have developed.
Mary Creagh
The general principles of European law do not cover the principles of environmental law. That was made clear to us in terms from the Dispatch Box last week. The charter does guarantee those environmental rights. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that environmental principles are one area in which this Bill is deficient and in which our rights will be lost?
Sir Oliver Letwin
I just want to follow what my right hon. and learned Friend was saying a moment ago, because it seemed to be a very useful suggestion. Is he saying that, as part of what he and I sometimes call the triage process, certain items that are classed as rights could be subject to primary legislation in full for amendment, whereas others, which are important but not rights, might be subject to the affirmative procedure and others, which are technical, will be left over for the negative procedure?
Charlie Elphicke
My right hon. and learned Friend is making a typically thoughtful and deeply considered speech. On a point of clarification, would it be right to say that there are, effectively, three different categories in the charter of fundamental rights? There are those rights that, as I indicated earlier, do not make a lot of sense in transposition, such as the right to petition the European Parliament. There are those rights that are already covered by the Human Rights Act, such as the right to life and the right to property. However, there is a third category of rights, such as that in article 41, that are not covered by our own jurisprudence and legal system, and they might usefully be so in due course.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Some of these rights are going to be incorporated in different statutes. For example, there is going to be an environment Act, which will create a new regulator and, we hope, protect those rights. Is the present proposal not a very broad brush, which is ill fitted to dealing with these rather detailed matters? Can my right and learned hon. Friend give us some reassurance that Supreme Court judges will not be left dealing with more legal uncertainty, rather than less, because they will have to adjudicate between two different rights regimes—one that is directly applicable from our own statute, and the other where they may have to declare an incompatibility with European convention rights? How will that diminish legal uncertainty, which is what Supreme Court judges are looking for?
Mr Grieve
If I understand my hon. Friend’s question, it goes to the point I made a moment ago, which was that it ought to be possible to consider whether some of these rights should be incorporated in a Bill of Rights that provides equivalent protection to that currently provided in the Human Rights Act. I think it is possible to distinguish between what matters and what does not. I am not suggesting that all environmental law would have to enjoy that protection, but I think it is possible, and an exercise that this House and the Government will have to carry out—the pressure will build for this—to give this issue some consideration. Equally, the House may decide that it is not concerned about some categories of rights and that it just wants to stick to things such as equality, data privacy and children’s rights. We will need to debate that.
Mr Grieve
No, I do not think it will create uncertainty, any more than the Human Rights Act has created uncertainty. I have to say to my hon. Friend that I do not think that that is an issue. However, as I say, I do accept that it will take time to draft and debate these things, and it is not in this current forum that we will be able to achieve that.
Mr Rees-Mogg
On the point my right hon. and learned Friend is making, I think I am in complete agreement with him. It is right for this place to consider, debate and legislate on these issues, because this is the right forum for doing that, rather than by implementing a whole slew of rights, which would then be entirely in the hands of the courts.
Mr Grieve
Yes, and there we are in agreement. It is inevitable and regrettable that we face this situation, but that is why simply to convert the charter, which, in any case, has lots in it that is unconvertible, and to say that it should maintain entrenched rights, seems to me, in the light of what we are debating in the context of Brexit, to be an impossibility. That is not something that commends itself to me.
Let me now move to a slightly narrower issue. We have to accept that, in the course of what we are doing, we are going through a complex period of transition. Forget about the transitional arrangements we may be negotiating with our EU partners—the truth is that we are creating a whole category of transitional law. By the concept of retained EU law, we are doing some very strange things indeed with our ordinary legal principles.
Clause 5(2) allows EU law to have priority over domestic law in certain circumstances. In fact, it allows for the possibility of UK law enacted prior to exit day being quashed for incompatibility with EU law that is retained on exit day. I simply make the point that, leaving aside our EU membership, which of course will have ceased, this is an utterly unique development in our legal system—it has never happened before. We are about to create a species of domestic or semi-domestic law—I would not quite describe it as feral law—which will have the unique quality of being able to override our own laws. Clause 6(3) will also allow CJEU judgments given before exit day to be binding, but not on our Supreme Court—a matter that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and I have been worrying about quite a lot in the course of the passage of this legislation.
So although the CJEU will rightly lose jurisdiction, it and EU law will keep a special status. However, that is intended to be only temporary, although how temporary is speculative, and I of course note clause 5(3), which says that this law can be modified and still retain this special status, as long as the modification, I assume, is not so dramatic or drastic that it is made explicit that it should lose it. That is different from replacement. That, I suspect, is because the Government know very well that this situation may continue for decades to come.
Yet, in the middle of that, the charter is removed. Leaving aside the other issues concerning the charter, which I have touched on, and which I do not want to go back over, that creates an unusual circumstance. EU law was always intended to be purposive, and one of the purposes is to give effect to the fundamental principles under which the EU is supposed to operate. Yet we are removing the benchmark under which this law is supposed to operate, because the charter will no longer be there, although, interestingly—I think this is an acknowledgment by the Government of the problem they have—they have then, in the next clauses, essentially allowed the charter and general principles of EU law to continue to be used for the purposes of interpretation.
It is very unclear how all this, in practice, is going to work out. That is why I tabled my two principal amendments. Amendment 8 would allow the retention of the charter. It provides an easy route to ensuring that this legal framework is retained, but for the reasons we have just been debating, there are serious issues surrounding it, which is why I think it is probably wrong to pursue it.
However, there is then the question in schedule 1 of what we do with general principles of EU law. What they are is totally undefined, but I assume—I have to assume—that if the Government are content to articulate the existence of general principles, they have done enough research to establish to their own satisfaction that general principles do exist—they are the result of court judgments interpreting the law and, indeed, the fundamental principles in the charter, but not the ones that are going to disappear on the day we leave.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Is not the important point about clause 5 that any future Act of this Parliament takes supremacy, so if there is a muddle or a problem, this Parliament can sort it out definitively? I should have thought that that would deal with the interests of all parties concerned.
Mr Grieve
My right hon. Friend almost makes my case for me. He is absolutely right that, in so far as we want to depart from anything, this House, once we have left the EU, can do what it likes, and as regards anything we enact thereafter, the supremacy of EU law is entirely removed. We can do exactly what we please, except, I am afraid, in so far as we may find ourselves still locked into trying to maintain comity with the EU when the penny drops about the economic consequences of not having it. However, I will refrain from straying too far into that area.
So the question is: is there some merit in keeping the right to bring a challenge using general principles of EU law? I would have thought that there is. I tried to work through in my mind the importance of this. First, we may have retained EU law that is deficient, defective or does not operate properly, or a court might be forced to conclude that it operates in a capricious or even unfair manner, or is disproportionate. At the moment, the only remedy for the court, unless it can bring in the Human Rights Act, will be to apply the law and somebody points out to a Minister that that law is working very badly.
Sir Oliver Letwin
In my right hon and learned Friend’s observations about schedule 1, paragraph 3(2), is he referring to retained general principles of EU law or to new ones post Brexit? If he is talking about the retained ones, I have a great deal of sympathy with his position, whereas importing rights of challenge that rely on later developments of EU law would be quite against the principle of Brexit.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am delighted, though not surprised, that my right hon. and learned Friend and I are thinking alike on this, as we have thought alike on many of these issues. Does he think, in that case, that his amendment 10 ought to be recast when, as I hope, it appears as a Government amendment on Report, so as not to remove paragraph 3 but to say, instead of “general principles”, “retained general principles”, with similar consequential adjustments?
Mr Grieve
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. As I have said on many previous occasions, whatever merits I may have as a lawyer, I am not a parliamentary draftsman. On top of that, I gently point out that, in an effort to get my amendments in early, they were, in the usual way, drafted with a wet towel around my head at about 30 minutes past midnight on the night before Second Reading. I am therefore quite sure that they are all capable of substantial improvement. Indeed, in my experience, it is very unusual for an amendment ever to be accepted just like that, apart from when it adds a comma, particularly in Committee.
Yes, of course there are different ways in which this can be approached. Indeed, my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, with whom I have had an opportunity for a bit of a chat—I shall look forward to talking to him further about this—has made it clear that he thinks I have been a bit too draconian in deleting paragraphs 1, 2 and 3. On the other hand, there are some other things in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 that I find rather concerning. However, I shall confine myself to paragraph 3 for the moment.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
On whether the drafting is entirely right, so far, as far as I am aware, the Government have had absolutely no answer to the extremely clear case that my right hon. and learned Friend has made about the proper way to protect these cases in future. The obvious thing is for the Government to accept these amendments today, because they can come back on Report and start correcting and redrafting amendments to which I am sure that he will be wholly receptive. What I would not welcome is some vague assurances from Front Benchers that they will think about it and then might come back with something on Report. The drafting can be corrected later; the points that he is making need to be confirmed today.
Mr Grieve
My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very good point. He highlights the difficulty faced by all Back Benchers, particularly Government Back Benchers, in presenting amendments—namely, the extent to which they should accept assurances from Front Benchers. That largely depends on how detailed the assurance is—whether it is woolly and vague or has some specificity to it. My judgment on whether I might press amendment 10 to the vote will depend on how specific Front Benchers can be in providing an assurance that they recognise that, even if there may be areas that remain to be debated, there is a core issue that must be addressed about the ability to bring a right of action in domestic law based on a failure to comply with a general principle of EU law when it concerns the operation of retained EU law.
Furthermore, because retained EU law has supremacy over domestic law, it must be possible that there might be instances in which our domestic law would have to be altered. The Government cannot then argue that that is an extraordinary thing to do, because they have themselves drafted this Bill in a way that allows for the possibility of UK domestic law being quashed. That will, I hope, be for a temporary period. Nevertheless, I am unable to understand how, during that temporary period, we can end up with a situation where the Government are perfectly happy to allow for the supremacy of EU law but remove the very principles that moderate it, ensure that it cannot be abused, and, in those areas that were within EU competence, provide a framework under which the Government are undertaking to operate unless or until they repeal the bits of retained EU legislation that they are bringing into our law.
Mr Grieve
Before my hon. Friend intervenes, let me say this to him. The big argument against EU law is that it was either created by “this foreign body” or it was inflicted on us and we had to enact it in order to comply with our international legal obligations. In those circumstances, it is a bit odd if we start arguing that, in view of where it comes from, the possibility of, for example, knocking it on the head because it does not comply with its own general principles should be entirely abandoned.
Sir William Cash
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not go down the rabbit hole suggested by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), which is that we should accept this incongruous proposal when in fact it involves a fundamental principle of constitutional supremacy. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) understands that. He is identifying a number of questions, and I entirely encourage him to continue to do so. I suggest, however, that it would be very unwise indeed to follow the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe as regards the Government accepting these amendments for the time being.
Mr Grieve
I understand my hon. Friend’s point. However, the purpose of this Bill, as I understand it, is to put together a package that enables a smooth transition from our presence within the European Union to our presence outside of it. That, of necessity, requires adjustments to the purity of his thinking about parliamentary sovereignty, which the Government have been required to acknowledge in the way that they have drafted this Bill. In those circumstances, it does not seem to be pushing the boundaries very much further, nor should it be seen as some treasonable article, for us to consider whether the general principles of EU law ought not to be capable of being invoked when they are probably the very thing that has, over the years, prevented the EU from turning into an even worse tyranny, as my hon. Friend would see it. [Interruption.] Well, I have to say, having listened to him, that that is usually the impression that has come across. He sees it as tyrannical because it is not moderated by the doctrine of our parliamentary sovereignty. I simply make that point; I do not wish to labour it.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Is there not an important change once we have left the European Union in that the European Court of Justice would not accept the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights because it would not accept that a higher court could intervene in any of its rulings? It therefore needed protections within its own system that within our system are provided by the European Court of Human Rights and the application of that in domestic law.
Mr Grieve
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I slightly question the extent to which we have had clear evidence of that, although I know that there has been a reluctance on the part of the European Court of Justice to accept any higher authority, despite the intention of the parties that it should become subordinate, ultimately, to the ECHR. He is right that one reason why the charter came into being was to secure compliance. I think it is rather more of a hypothetical than an actual state of affairs, although such a problem might exist in future. In any event, I do not think we are dealing here just with matters covered by the ECHR, for the very reasons that were discussed earlier in relation to new clause 16, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham East. I simply say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that the issue has to be addressed.
As I said earlier, I recognise that my amendment is not as good as it might be, and could be improved on. If the Government can give me an assurance that is adequate and goes beyond vagueness, I will be content not to press amendment 10 a vote. The issue is not going to go away, however, and when one is in this sort of dialogue with the Government, one does not want to be soft-soaped off. If that happens, there will be a road crash when we come to Report, in which I will be unable to support the Government on a whole series of matters. I hope that those things can be resolved by consensus.
I have spoken for quite long enough, but I have explained why I think that, on the important issue that we are debating today, the best solution in the interim is to use something along the lines of amendment 10 to ensure that general principles of EU law can continue to be invoked. Of course, as the transition goes on, I assume that so much EU law may disappear, but I venture the suggestion that it will continue to be relevant for some time to come.
May I, finally, touch briefly on the three other amendments —297, 298 and 299—that I have tabled? They are very simple, and they concern the use in clause 5 of the words
“any enactment or rule of law”.
I simply say that nobody I have spoken to understands why the words “rule of law” appear in the Bill. Ultimately, a rule of law is a rule of the common law; and in so far as a rule of the common law is displaced by statute, that rule will be displaced, of itself, by the courts. It does not require to be spelled out in legislation. I draw some comfort, on that, from the fact that a very distinguished lawyer who previously worked in this building shares my view that the inclusion of those words is incomprehensible. I do not think that that is a matter that I would necessarily put to the vote, if I was required to do so, but I hope that the Government might be able to provide a positive response on it. I am grateful to the Committee for listening.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
It is a genuine pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who made his case extremely well and very convincingly—it is supported by many hon. Members on both sides of Committee.
I rise to speak to amendment 46, which is designed to ensure that we keep the charter of fundamental rights in EU retained law; amendment 335, which would maintain the principles of the Francovich ruling after exit day for pre-Brexit cases; amendments 285, 286 and 287, which make provision for existing arrangements to continue during a transitional period; and, finally, amendment 336, which makes provision for retaining existing principles of EU law within domestic law until the end of the transitional arrangements.
Paul Blomfield
I think I could probably get a few more sentences into my stride before taking an intervention, but I certainly anticipate that I will take interventions from the hon. Gentleman.
The debate raises fundamental principles about the transposition of EU law and the important role of this House in holding the Government to account for their commitments. Last week, the focus of the debate was on the Government’s attempt to unravel the Prime Minister’s pledges on the transitional arrangements in her Florence speech, by the imposition of a defined exit day for all purposes. The Minister, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), made a good attempt to defend the indefensible and not commit to the application of the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union throughout the transitional period; that was not the Government’s line at the time. It would have been helpful if No. 10 had said a week ago what it said this morning, namely that the Court of Justice will have jurisdiction throughout the transitional period. If that had happened, the Minister would not have been left in such a mess.
Sir William Cash
Is the hon. Gentleman about to move on to explain why Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith fought so hard to obtain protocol 36—I think it was that one—in the Lisbon treaty, which the Conservative party opposed? At the same time as advancing the charter of fundamental rights, will he explain why we cannot pass such legislation as we wish to in this place?
Paul Blomfield
I was not about to go on to that, but clearly I am now. The hon. Gentleman knows that the charter was not binding when it was first adopted in 2000. It was made legally binding by the Lisbon treaty of 2007, which entered into force in 2009. It has, as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield pointed out, increased in significance, and the rights that it contains have become more visible and correspondingly more effective. Labour supported the charter then, and we support it now, because it has enhanced and improved European human rights protection, and by doing so it has significantly developed the quality of human rights protection in the UK. The wider point that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) makes is not relevant to the issue under discussion.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
The charter applies only when national authorities are implementing EU law. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that if it is retained, it risks creating a confusing inconsistency by giving citizens powerful rights to strike down some pieces of legislation, but not others? Is it not a case of doing either the whole thing, or nothing at all?
Paul Blomfield
I will come on to this point, but the charter is key to ensuring that retained law is treated properly and that the same rights of enforcement continue in the future. Without the charter, those rights are significantly diminished and access to them is diminished.
Let me proceed with the point I was making about how the charter goes wider than the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights, which I hope I am right in saying the Government accept. As other Members have already pointed out, it was the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union who relied on the charter in the case he brought before the High Court in 2015, against the then Home Secretary and now Prime Minister, when he was worried that the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 would impact on MPs’ ability to communicate with constituents confidentially. He cited the charter, and his lawyers argued that it went beyond the European convention on human rights and granted further protection. He relied on the charter precisely because it provided greater human rights protection than was provided for by UK law and even by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.
Despite this, the Government have not indicated which decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union under the charter they disagree with. Moreover, the explanatory notes to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill justify the decision to exclude the charter from retained EU law by saying:
“The Charter did not create new rights, but rather codified rights and principles which already existed in EU law. By converting the EU acquis into UK law, those underlying rights and principles will also be converted into UK law, as provided for in this Bill.”
If that were the case, it would be fine, but it is clearly not the case.
Drawing on existing rights, the charter set out a new framework for human rights protection under EU law. The rights contained in the charter may have existed in EU law for decades—the Government are relying on that point—but that is not enough. The whole point of the charter was that nobody could verify those rights or their sources, and as the lawyers among us will know, identifying the source of a right is imperative in securing effective recourse. In his speech, will the Minister therefore clarify whether the Government have succeeded, where others have not, in comprehensively identifying every single source of these rights? If not, how do they plan to uphold the same level of protections for these rights once we have left the European Union, because a right without effective recourse is rendered effectively meaningless?
By compiling and codifying these rights in a single document, the charter in effect created new rights and certainly created new protections. In short, the charter is the most effective key to unlocking vital rights, and to fail to transpose it and make it operable in UK law is to lock away those rights and deny UK citizens the key to accessing them.
On the data protection point on which the Secretary of State relied—my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) raises it in his amendment 151, which we support—the right to data protection exists in various documents, such as directives and regulations, but it was only by virtue of the charter creating the expressed right to data protection in article 8 that we were given the right to be forgotten.
The rights extended by the charter are not only data protection rights. Such rights start in article 1, which includes the right to human dignity. This does not exist as an enforceable right in common law or statute law applicable to retained law post-Brexit. Will the Minister, when he responds, explain how this right will be enforced after exit day if the charter is not retained?
Suella Fernandes
Will not the hon. Gentleman’s proposals create more uncertainty and raise more questions than answers? For example, considerable reference has been made to the Union, to citizens and to the right to vote and stand in European elections, but is that not at odds with our being a non-member state on our leaving the European Union?
Paul Blomfield
No. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield answered that point when it was raised by other Members. There are clearly provisions in the charter that would have to be amended to become operable—I made that point a few moments ago—but it includes fundamental rights, so the protections of our citizens will be reduced if the those rights are not carried forward. I will illuminate that point a little further.
Suella Fernandes
The hon. Gentleman proposes that part of the charter should be erased and that it should undergo some kind of surgery before it is applied through UK law. Is it not right that questions of principle and policy should not be debated in relation to this Bill, the purpose of which is to provide legal certainty and continuity, but left for wider parliamentary debate and scrutiny, and indeed the wider democratic process?
Paul Blomfield
I am genuinely puzzled by the hon. Lady’s point because she could make it in relation to all of the several thousands of laws that are being transposed. It could relate to every other part of the Bill. We will have to go through processes of adjustment to ensure their effective operability, but the question that needs to be answered—I hope it will be answered by the Minister when he rises at the Dispatch Box—is: why, uniquely, is the charter of fundamental rights being treated differently and being removed at this stage?
Hilary Benn
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case, and my anticipation of the Minister’s speech increases minute by minute as the case is advanced. Does my hon. Friend share my puzzlement, first, that given that the Government’s stated objective for the Bill was to move everything across, the one thing they have decided to leave behind is the charter; and, secondly, that Conservative Members have argued that nothing will be lost by the disappearance of the charter, yet we have already heard powerful testimony in speeches to the contrary? That testimony includes the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), when he referred to the judgment in the tobacco case, in which the charter clearly had an important impact in enabling the Government to enforce their rights in relation to their desire to have plain packaging—never mind its being the reason why the Secretary of State, in a former life, decided to call on it in trying to sue the Government. Is there not an incompatibility between the two positions?
Paul Blomfield
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Like him, I am looking forward to hearing the Minister attempting to square the circle on that one. It is one thing for the Government to argue that the charter needs to be removed, but it is another for others then to argue that it makes no difference. Let me illustrate a few other areas in which the charter does make a difference.
Let us take article 24—it was mentioned earlier—which gives effect to the UN convention on the rights of the child. While we are a signatory to the convention, that does not provide the same legal protection—simply as a convention signatory—as would be provided by the incorporation of the charter. Let us take the right to a fair hearing, which goes beyond article 6 of the European convention on human rights on the right to a fair trial, because it applies to civil rights and obligations, as well as to criminal charges. In the ZZ case, with which the Minister will be familiar, the Court of Justice of the European Union held that the right to a fair trial in article 47 of the charter applied to immigration cases. Significant issues are therefore at stake.
Let us look at article 13, which requires that academic freedom shall be respected. With the possible exception of some Government Whips—the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty’s Household, the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), was keen to see the reading lists and curriculums of university lecturers to make sure they were teaching Brexit correctly—I am sure that Members on both sides of the House agree that academic freedom is an important principle, and it is not secured anywhere else. How do the Government anticipate that these rights will be enforced in the absence of the charter, and which aspects of the EU acquis or UK domestic law could be used to guarantee these rights? That is an important question.
It is not just that excluding the charter will diminish rights; the charter has transformed access to human rights protection. As the House of Commons Library briefing makes clear, it is not just that the charter contains more rights than the European convention on human rights and codifies existing rights in one place. When we compare the charter with the Human Rights Act, we see that it has a wider class of applicants who can use it. Anyone with a sufficient interest can apply for a judicial review based on the charter, and it can also be relied on in other types of case—for example, employment tribunal claims—that are within the scope of EU law. By contrast, claims under the Human Rights Act can only be made when an individual is a victim of a rights violation.
John Redwood
Our rights always used to be guaranteed, and will be guaranteed once we have left, through a combination of common law and statute law. I do not understand what threat the hon. Gentleman has in mind regarding these rights, because if any threat emerged it would be struck down either by the Supreme Court or by Parliament.
Paul Blomfield
I am puzzled by that point, because EU-retained law will effectively become statute law, and that will be carried forward by the application of the charter. It is not quite clear what the right hon. Gentleman is getting at.
Mr Harper
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about article 6 of the European convention. I think that he said it applied only in criminal cases, but having looked at the article it enforces civil rights as well. I remember from my own experience that we took it into account in immigration cases, other tribunal cases and, I think, in some applications of procedures of the House that may or may not be compatible with that right. The measure is much wider than he suggests, so I do not think he was exactly right about that.
Paul Blomfield
As I understand it, it does not apply in all civil cases—only civil rights and obligations under the convention, so it is effectively a narrowing if we lose it.
John Redwood
The hon. Gentleman said that he did not understand the point I was making. Our rights will be guaranteed once we have left by our Supreme Court, and by common law or the application of our statute law. I cannot think of a right that he and I value that will be destroyed because we have not incorporated the charter. I think that they will be guaranteed by those ancient and tested methods.
Paul Blomfield
We are talking about statute law, and about rights such as the one on which the right hon. Gentleman’s friend and colleague, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, relied. I think that that point is clear.
Returning to the comparison of the charter with the Human Rights Act, as well as the wider class of applicants for which it provides, it allows for stronger remedies. If any national court finds that any national law is incompatible with a directly effective provision of the charter, it must disapply contravening primary legislation or quash secondary legislation. We have exercised some of the arguments around that issue, but that is much stronger than a notification of incompatibility. We should be in no doubt that losing the charter means losing rights.
Sir William Cash
Has the hon. Gentleman considered the impact in relation to alleged and actual terrorists on the question of national security and case law? Many people who would like those individuals to be deported would find that extremely difficult under the principles of the charter because of the provisions relating to the protection of family life, which have been badly abused.
Paul Blomfield
In his keenness to tackle the argument, I think that the hon. Gentleman has missed the point. That has nothing to do with the charter.
Let me turn to a separate but related point on schedule 1, which states:
“There is no right of action in domestic law”
post exit
“based on a failure to comply”
with EU general principles. The schedule also prevents courts from ruling that a particular Act was “unlawful” or from quashing any action on the basis that it was not compatible with the general principles. Damages are not allowed, so general principles are rendered irrelevant, which also reduces rights. Our amendment 336 seeks to address that by retaining the existing principles of EU law regardless of whether they originated in case law, treaties, EU legislation or directives. The date on which that retention would end would be the end of a transitional period.
Let me turn to our amendment 335 to schedule 1 on the Francovich rule. I shall be brief because others have tabled similar amendments, which we support, and I want to give them a full opportunity to make their case without my anticipating what they are going to say.
Sir Oliver Letwin
On a point of clarification, the hon. Gentleman said that the date on which the retention would end under the amendment would be the end of the transitional period. Did he mean that no new general principles of EU law formulated after that date would apply, or did he mean the retention would end at the end of the transitional period?
Paul Blomfield
If the Prime Minister’s words are to be taken at face value—we continue to operate during the transition practically as if we were still part of the membership—new principles would apply during the transitional period, although not after it had ended.
Mr Grieve
The hon. Gentleman has touched on an important point. If we are going into a transitional period retaining the architecture of EU law, or the vast majority of it for that period, to try to leave at the end of the transition and go back to the status of retained EU law on the date on which we moved into transition would be utterly unrealistic. It would have to be from the date on which we moved from transition to final departure.
Paul Blomfield
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who has made the point much more effectively than I did. That is absolutely right.
Briefly, Francovich raises some important issues of accountability. Surely there is oversight by Government, because I would expect them to accept that the right to damages should be available in cases where the breach of Community law took place before exit day, and indeed before the end of a transitional period, but discovery only took place afterwards. I am therefore seeking clarification from Ministers on that point, and I hope that they accept what hon. Members are seeking to do in amendments on Francovich.
We are pleased to support new clauses 16, 78 and 79, as well as amendments 297, 298, 299, 8,10,101,105 and 62 and the consequential amendments 126 ,127,129,140, 141, 302 and 9—just for clarity. In conclusion, I return to amendment 46, because we need some honesty from the Government. The House has not authorised the Government to use Brexit as a vehicle to deplete human rights in this country. If the Government want to reduce rights and protections, they should say so and we can debate it. What is not acceptable is to pretend that the Bill provides for the transfer of rights and protections when it clearly does not.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has made a number of statements about the fact that if Opposition parties can identify rights that will not be covered he is willing to look at them and legislate for them. We have discussed a third category of rights—not those protected by the Human Rights Act or those that will be irrelevant because they are in the charter and will no longer apply —so is the hon. Gentleman prepared to take that at face value and work with the Government to ensure that those rights that have been identified are protected?
Paul Blomfield
If the Government can identify the sources of rights covered by the charter and can explain exactly how any deficiencies or gaps left as a result of failure to transpose the charter will be identified, and if they outline what remedies they might make at a later stage, we would be happy to sit down with them and talk about that. It is absolutely clear to us that the Government should stick by their word and their claims in relation to the Bill on the need for the existing level of human rights protection to be preserved in UK law. As it stands, central to that consolidation is retaining the charter as part of the retained EU law. I hope the House will agree and I hope the House will support our amendments.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Dominic Raab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). At the outset, I would like to thank hon. Members from right across the House for their contributions to today’s debate, whether in speeches or in amendments. The Government will approach the Bill in the spirit of collaboration, and I certainly welcome the constructive contributions and diligent scrutiny hon. Members are rightly providing today. I shall seek to address clause 5, and the Solicitor General will address schedule 1 a bit later in the debate, to make sure we dwell adequately and with due consideration not only on the provisions of the Bill, but on the various issues and amendments, for which I am grateful to hon. Members, that have been raised.
Clause 5 serves two key strategic objectives: taking back democratic control over our laws and making sure we leave the EU in a way that facilitates a smooth Brexit and minimises legal uncertainty. The Bill aims to provide that the laws which apply immediately before exit day will continue to apply in the same way after we leave. Of course, the act of leaving the EU in itself means it is inevitable that some things will not and cannot stay the same. The changes made by clause 5 relate to certain aspects of EU law which are no longer appropriate, or which will not make sense when we leave the EU because we will then cease to be under the obligations that apply to us as an EU member state. The provisions are therefore essential.
Clause 5(1) ends the supremacy of EU law in relation to new law from the date of exit. That is crucial if we are going to give effect to the mandate from the referendum. At the same time, clause 5(2) makes sure that EU law passed before exit still applies as before, for the sake of legal certainty. That is important for mitigating the risks of legal uncertainty that are inevitable and inherent in departure from the EU. The rest of clause 5 reinforces those critical objectives, including by removing the instrument of the charter on fundamental rights as part of domestic law. I want to come on to address that in detail.
Mr Jenkin
May I refer my hon. Friend to clause 5(2)? My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), in his rather amazing speech which I think we all found very illuminating, said that this was a completely new principle to be applied in British law. Is it not just a translation of an existing principle in EU law into United Kingdom law for the purposes of a smooth Brexit? Is it not, in fact, less exceptional than being a member of the European Union and allowing a court in a wholly different jurisdiction to impose itself on parliamentary sovereignty?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I will come on to address very carefully the speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). I agree that there is an inherent sense that, as we move to change, things are not going to be exactly as they were before. I want to draw a very important distinction. We are leaving the EU and taking back control over our laws and the way we make our laws, so that Members across the House can exercise proper democratic control. At the same time, the substantive law—the rules and the principles—will remain the same, because of the snapshot we are taking on exit day and retaining in UK law, thereby avoiding the putative legal cliff-edge.
Dominic Raab
I will just make a little bit of progress and then I will give way to my right hon. and learned Friend.
I will address the detail of this by reference to the new clauses and amendments that have been tabled, because they usefully highlight and flag up the different concerns of hon. Members. As a matter of guiding principle, I hope all hon. Members can agree that we should not make changes that exacerbate the risk of legal uncertainty, which I think goes to the point my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) was making in his intervention. Our substantive law will remain the same on exit day, but it would be wrong in principle—indeed, I think we would find it counter- productive in practice—to seek to cling to all the procedural mechanisms that are inherent, intrinsic and inextricable institutional features of EU membership.
Dominic Raab
I will not give way just for the moment, but I will give way to the hon. and learned Lady shortly.
Dominic Raab
I will give way shortly to the hon. and learned Lady, because I know she supports some of the amendments.
I turn now to amendments 297, 298 and 299, tabled my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, and to amendments 285 and 286, tabled by the leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield wishes to remove any reference to “any rule of law”, which is a reference in the Bill to common law rules in relation to provisions addressing supremacy of EU law. In effect, his amendments—at least as I have understood them, and I stand to be corrected—would allow EU law to continue to trump the common law after the date of exit. However, this would undermine both of the key strategic objectives of the Bill. It would mean in relation to common law rules articulated after exit day that retained EU law trumps them, undermining the UK’s basic constitutional hierarchy that we are seeking to restore and affirm.
Dominic Raab
Allow me to make the point and then I will give way, because there are two sides to my right hon. and learned Friend’s amendment.
Paradoxically, with respect to the relationship between retained EU law and common law rules made up until exit day, my right hon. and learned Friend’s amendment would skew the clear and certain snapshot the Bill will take, because retained EU law would no longer supersede common law rules. By removing the common law from the operation of the Bill, I am afraid the amendments would—at least on the Government’s analysis—create considerable uncertainty for business and individuals alike.
Mr Grieve
No, I want these words removed because they are completely unnecessary. To use that wonderful word that lawyers like to apply, they are otiose—they add absolutely nothing to the Bill. The common law will be adjusted according to the statutory framework in which it operates, so I say with some regret—because someone clearly came up with the idea—that it seems rather poor drafting. Others, whom I consulted because I was puzzled by this, and who have spent their lives drafting precisely this sort of legislation, seem to agree with me. I was trying to help my hon. Friend, not create some devilish plot to scupper Brexit.
Dominic Raab
I am not sure where this devilish plot has come from—I have made no such suggestion; I was simply pointing out to my right hon. and learned Friend that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex, the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, mentioned earlier, some of the amendments run the risk of creating more, not less, uncertainty, notwithstanding their perfectly laudable and genuine aims.
If my right hon. and learned Friend’s amendment were passed, it would no longer be clear how common law rules would interact with a particular provision of retained EU law in the event of a conflict between the two. Across a range of issues, from animal welfare to competition law, the concern is that such an approach would create uncertainty about the legal position of citizens and businesses. I am sure that this was not his intention. I am not looking for devilish plots on either side of the House, but I do fear that that would be the practical reality.
Sir William Cash
On the subject of devilish plots and “The Screwtape Letters”, may I refer my hon. Friend to chapter 12 of Lord Bingham’s magisterial work, “The Rule of Law and the Sovereignty of Parliament?”? In this context, its reference to the rule of law is highly relevant, simply because it refers, indirectly or directly, to the issue of the constitutional supremacy of law making and the construction placed upon it by the courts themselves. On that issue, the rule of law does, I think, have considerable salience.
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend makes a considered and thoughtful point. Given the changes we are making—for the purposes of greater certainty and clarity—I respectfully suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and other hon. Members across the House that it is worth having some clarity and certainty on this point.
I turn now to amendments 285 and 286. We discussed similar amendments from the leader of the Labour party on day one of the Committee in relation to clause 6, and for the same reasons given during that debate, we cannot support them. I note again what the Prime Minister said in her Florence speech:
“The United Kingdom will cease to be a member of the European Union on the 29th March 2019”.
I will not speculate on the contents of the withdrawal agreement. The Government will do whatever is necessary to prepare for our exit and have already made it clear that separate primary legislation will be brought forward to implement the terms of the withdrawal agreement and any implementation period. With that in mind, the amendments would pre-empt and prejudge the outcome of the negotiations and introduce a straitjacket of inflexibility for the duration of any implementation period. We are all in the House committed to securing the very best deal with our EU friends and partners, and I respectfully suggest that the amendments would undermine that objective. I urge the leader of the Labour party not to press them.
Joanna Cherry
The hon. Gentleman said earlier that one of his guiding principles was not to exacerbate any legal uncertainty, but the Exiting the European Union Committee has heard evidence from a senior lawyer that the body of retained law will contain instruments that make explicit reference to the charter. If the charter is not part of retained EU law, how are the courts supposed to interpret the body of retained law that refers to it?
Dominic Raab
The hon. and learned Lady makes a perfectly respectable and legitimate point, but I will address it in the context of amendment 8, tabled in the name of the my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, and amendment 46, tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, both of which, in different ways, seek to retain the charter of fundamental rights in domestic law after exit by removing subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 5. I understand and appreciate the sentiments behind the amendments. Hon. Members are understandably concerned that as we leave the EU we do not see any diminution or reduction in the substantive rights we all enjoy. The Government are unequivocally committed to that objective. I remind the Committee again of the country’s record of pioneering, defending and protecting human rights standards since well before the EU existed and of our ability as a nation to withstand the darker moments in European history that have touched other less fortunate nations.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
My hon. Friend reassures us that even without the charter of fundamental rights the House of Commons can be relied upon. That was the argument when the Lisbon treaty was being ratified. There was a widespread feeling that it was not clear whether it would add anything, but we now see that it has added quite a lot, particularly around privacy law, on which the House had never done anything, and now data protection. The lobbies brought to bear on the House if ever we look at privacy by sections of the media and so on are very considerable. Why are we getting rid of a convention that has done no harm and actually has run ahead of this House of Commons at various stages? What will be gained by not leaving open that opportunity for the future?
Dominic Raab
I will come shortly to my right hon. and learned Friend’s substantive generic point and also touch on the data protection issue he raised.
The Government reaffirm and renew our commitment to human rights law. It is reflected through UK national law, including, most recently, the Human Rights Act, as well as a range of domestic legislation that implements our specific obligations under UN and other international treaties, from the convention against torture to the convention on the rights of the child. Of course, the principal international treaty most relevant to the UK’s human rights laws is the European convention on human rights. I again make crystal clear the Government’s commitment to respecting and remaining a party to the ECHR. There will be no weakening of our human rights protections when we leave the EU.
In fact, we have an opportunity to reinforce and build on our proud tradition of liberty and the protection of rights. We are already in the process of paving the way to ratifying the Council of Europe convention on preventing and combating violence against women, the Istanbul convention. We are leaving the EU, but our commitment to pan-European standards, human rights and the European co-operation in this area remains undimmed. Furthermore, as the my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield is aware, we will introduce an amendment before Report stage, dealing explicitly with the Equality Act 2010 issues that hon. Members have raised, including by requiring Ministers to make a statement before the House on the consistency of any Brexit-related legislation with the Equality Act.
It is worth reinforcing the point that the charter is not the original source of the rights contained within it. It was only intended to catalogue rights that already existed in EU law. Indeed, I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) intervened, because he wisely noted, as recently as 2011, before a European Committee, that protocol 30 governing the application of the charter
“sets out the boundaries around the charter by confirming that it neither creates nor extends any rights to EU citizens outside those that had existed pre-Lisbon, and it emphasises that member states are required to comply only when giving effect to EU law.”—[Official Report, European Committee B, 14 March 2011; c. 5.]
These rights, codified by the charter, came from a wide variety of sources, including the treaties, EU legislation and, indeed, case law, that recognised fundamental rights as general principles. All those substantive law principles and rights, of which the charter is a reflection not the source, will already be converted into domestic law by the Bill.
It is not necessary, therefore, to retain the charter in order to retain such substantive rights. With that in mind, it is right—this deals with the issue that the hon. Member for Nottingham East raised at the outset—for me to reaffirm the Government’s commitment, which the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union made to the Select Committee, to publish a detailed memorandum setting out how each article of the charter will be reflected in UK law after we leave. I can confirm that we will publish that by 5 December. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, both of whom raised this point. Let me say to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield that I am very willing to continue my dialogue with him on these important matters.
Dominic Raab
Yes, it will, and, as I was about to say, there will indeed be a Report stage. If my right hon. Friend, or any other Member, feels that our analysis is deficient, or that we have missed out a substantive right that risks being removed if the charter is not retained, once the memorandum has been considered I will be happy to sit down with my right hon. Friend—and any other Members—and discuss the issue again.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
This has been a long and complex legal argument, but let me summarise it. The issue of data protection is vital to many of my constituents, especially young people online, but it is also vital to our tech and financial services sectors. Can my hon. Friend assure me that there will be no risk of a legal challenge in relation to data protection because of the way in which these provisions are being brought into British law?
Dominic Raab
I know that my hon. Friend is an expert on these matters because of her time in the European Parliament. I shall be addressing data protection directly, but I shall be happy to give way to her again in due course.
The other argument that has been made about the charter is “If it does nothing wrong or does nothing by itself, where is the harm in keeping it?” However, as was pointed out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, the charter applies to member states only when they are acting within the scope of EU law. Indeed, it is a specific device intended to codify—not create—rights, and apply them to EU member states and other EU institutions operating within the framework of EU law. It would be curious, if not perverse, to incorporate that instrument directly in UK law, or implement it, at the very moment when we ceased to have the relevant obligations as a member of the EU.
Dominic Raab
I will make a slight bit of progress, and then I will give way.
Seeking simply to transplant the charter into our domestic law as it stands, dislocated from EU membership —given all the other points that Members have made about the way in which it would apply in practice—would not be appropriate, and, indeed, could introduce needless complexities that all of us, on both sides of the House, should legitimately seek to avoid.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
My hon. Friend has addressed my question, but, with great respect, he has failed to give an answer. It is true that the charter was originally proposed as a statement of European values to which all members of the European Union could adhere, but, as we have heard, it has developed. If it is doing no harm, why are the Government going to such lengths to get rid of it as the one specific change in the Bill? Presumably it is because it contains the words “European” and “rights”, and this was intended as a Daily Telegraph gesture to the hard right wing of my party.
Dominic Raab
My right hon. and learned Friend’s intervention was not in quite the spirit in which we have conducted our proceedings so far, but I shall try to address his underlying concern, and I shall be happy to take another intervention from him shortly if he thinks that I have still not addressed it. He is a demanding customer, but I shall keep on trying.
Dominic Raab
I am going to make a bit of progress, but I will give way shortly.
Let me, again, be clear about what the Bill does. It takes a snapshot of substantive EU law, including the underlying fundamental rights and principles at the point of exit. It converts those into UK law, where they will sit alongside the Human Rights Act and other UK legislation on human rights. That is a crucial point. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield rather perceptively asked during debates on the Lisbon Treaty in 2008,
“Will the Lord Chancellor confirm that every country that is a member of the European Union is also a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights? Indeed, I believe that every single one has incorporated it. In view of that, what is the purpose of the charter of fundamental rights?”—[Official Report, 5 February 2008; Vol. 471, c. 804.]
During the same debate, my right hon. and learned Friend made the point, far better than I can—and I say this with all due deference—that the risk of adopting the charter was that it would, at least potentially, run into conflict with domestic human rights law, thereby creating at least the potential for legal confusion. This is the point that I want to make to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe. If we incorporated or implemented the charter, we would in effect be triplicating human rights standards in UK law, opening up wide scope for uncertainty. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield was right about that then, and I think he is right about it now.
Joanna Cherry
With all due respect, I do not understand the point that the Minister is making. The charter is already part of UK law, because we are a member of the European Union.
Dominic Raab
As we leave the European Union, it will make no sense to retain the institutional framework of membership. What we will do is retain, in the way that I have described very carefully, the substantive rights that were codified in the charter. If, when we publish the memorandum, the hon. and learned Lady, or any Member on either side of the House, thinks that there is a gaping gap, we will be able to address that.
John Redwood
Will the Minister confirm that the evolution of our rights through history shows that the best way in which they are created and defended is through the democratic instincts of the British people, and that they then trust this Parliament to make sure that those rights are fully entrenched? As the Minister has assured those rights, I really do not see what the problem is. What is the threat to those rights? We have a free Parliament representing a free people.
Dominic Raab
I suppose the theory is that a majoritarian dominance—a Government with a huge majority—would trample on rights and rattle legislation through the House of Commons, as the last Labour Government did with identity cards and proposals for 90 days’ detention without charge. We saw most of that off.
Dominic Raab
I want to make a little bit of progress, but I will of course give way to the Chair of the Select Committee.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the Minister. He said a moment ago that one of the arguments he was advancing for not incorporating the charter was that it might then come into conflict with our own human rights law. Given that, as we heard from the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), it has been part of our law for some time, can he give the Committee one single example of that happening?
Dominic Raab
I think that the right hon. Gentleman should look at, for example, the Devine case on prisoner voting. It is very unclear how the case law in the Luxembourg and Strasbourg Courts meshes together. It is possible to argue in favour of one or the other, but they are not entirely consistent or compatible. When giving evidence to a House of Lords Committee in 2015, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield defended the Strasbourg Court very validly by contrasting it with the “predatory” habits of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. I think that even those who have been the most enthusiastic human rights defenders, and those on the remain side of the argument, will recognise the clash and the inconsistency between those jurisprudences.
Dominic Raab
I am not going to give way again.
The point I wanted to reaffirm is that, given that the substantive rights codified by the charter will be retained in EU law, it does not make sense to incorporate the EU charter itself, an element of the EU’s institutional architecture designed to regulate EU membership, at precisely the moment when we are leaving.
Antoinette Sandbach
Does my hon. Friend accept that there may be a third category of rights that are in the charter but are not in the Human Rights Act, and require protection, and that the source of those rights cannot be identified other than in the charter? If so, will he accept the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) that there should be an Act of some sort to deal with them?
Dominic Raab
As I have made clear, we will publish a memorandum containing article-by-article analysis of the charter and how the substantive underpinning rights at the point at which it is codified can be reflected in UK law. I am happy to continue the dialogue with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset if they believe that any rights have been missed out.
I think that this is probably the right moment to deal with amendment 151, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), and which relates to the protection of personal data.
Dominic Raab
I am going to make a bit more progress, but I will give way shortly.
The amendment relates to privacy and protections, an issue that has been mentioned by a number of Members on both sides of the Committee. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, respectfully and humbly, that the amendment is not necessary. It is not required because the Data Protection Bill will set high standards for protecting personal data, linked to the general data protection regulation. We will continue to maintain the highest standards of data protection after we leave the European Union. The Bill will also preserve in domestic law existing EU fundamental rights, including data protection rights and underlying case law, which were already part of EU law before the charter came into force. Individuals in the UK will continue to have access to well-established domestic and international mechanisms to bring their cases and obtain appropriate remedies, whether in Strasbourg or under the Human Rights Act, when they consider that their rights have been breached. That includes the right to seek a judicial remedy against data controllers or processers.
Vicky Ford
I thank the Minister for his words on the Data Protection Bill, which will give strong data protection in the UK. However, my understanding of general data protection regulation in Europe is that it is based on the fundamental principle that people own their own data, whereas the Data Protection Bill does not, as we have drafted it here, start with that fundamental principle. So we either need to amend that Bill or still recognise that principle in order for them to be equivalent; that is what we need to aim for if we want to achieve equivalence.
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend; she has made her point in a very careful way. I suggest that that is something for the passage of the Data Protection Bill in due course, if she feels there are gaps in it, and if, after having looked at the memorandum we are publishing, she is not persuaded that we will be reflecting in UK law after exit all the rights.
Stephen Timms
I am grateful to the Minister for addressing my amendment. Does he accept that it is essential that we avoid a declaration from the European Commission at some point in the future that data protection arrangements in the UK are not adequate, and we must therefore secure an adequacy determination? Does he also accept that not having article 8 somewhere on the UK statute book is an invitation to those elsewhere to find against us when that crunch decision comes?
Dominic Raab
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to be very careful to navigate our post-Brexit period in a way that minimises litigation. I cannot see that such litigation would be good for the UK and its taxpayers, and it is not good for sustaining a healthy relationship with our EU partners.
We do, of course, have article 8 in the ECHR, which is directly incorporated via the Human Rights Act, but, as I have said, if the right hon. Gentleman feels that any elements of it are not properly transposed into UK law when we publish the memorandum, the correct place for that to be considered will be the Data Protection Bill. The wider point is that the removal of the charter from UK law will not affect—
Dominic Raab
I am going to make some progress, because I have been speaking for over half an hour and the Solicitor General will want to speak again to address schedule 1.
The substantive rights that individuals already benefit from in the UK when their data is processed will be retained under this Bill. As I have pointed out, the charter is not the source of rights contained within it; it was intended only to catalogue those that existed in EU law at that moment in time.
Finally, I want to address the late new clauses tabled: new clause 78, tabled by the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), and new clause 79. On the impact our departure from the EU might have on equalities legislation, I again reaffirm the commitment I made on day one in Committee to my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, when we discussed this issue at some length. I understand the intention behind this amendment and can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that there will be no reduction in the substantive equalities protections when we leave the EU. Equally, the right hon. Gentleman’s amendment presents some very real practical difficulties, not least his attempt effectively to copy and paste the procedural model used in the Human Rights Act and then put it into this Bill for the equalities purposes.
The Human Rights Act assesses compatibility according to an international instrument, the ECHR, which is not the same. There is not an equivalent that applies to the Equality Act, but I am more than happy to reaffirm the commitment I made to my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee that the Government will bring forward an amendment before Report stage that will require Ministers to make a statement before this House in the presentation of any Brexit-related primary or secondary legislation on whether and how it is consistent with the Equality Act. I hope that reassures the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are serious about addressing the issue he has rightly raised.
New clause 79 suggests a procedural device for incorporating certain EEA-related rules into UK law. This is entirely unnecessary given the wider snapshot of EU law this Bill will take at the point of exit.
I hope I have tackled, or at least have endeavoured to tackle—
Dominic Raab
As I said at the opening of my remarks, given the intention to address clause 5 in some detail and all the underlying amendments, we have split this up and the Solicitor General will address schedule 1 and all my right hon. and learned Friend’s concerns around Francovich and general principles in due course.
I hope I have tackled hon. Members’ concerns, at least in relation to clause 5 and the charter, and I urge hon. Members not to press their amendments to a vote. This Government and the ministerial team have listened, and we will continue to reflect carefully on all the arguments made today. Equally, the Government believe the exceptions to retained EU law contained in clause 5 are right as we carefully seek to separate our legal system from that of the EU, restore democratic control to this House, and do so in a way that leaves more, not less, legal certainty. I urge hon. Members to withdraw their amendments and to pass clause 5 unamended.
Joanna Cherry
I rise to give my support and that of the Scottish National party to the amendments designed to retain the charter of fundamental rights in domestic law, and those designed to preserve legal remedies for individuals and businesses to enforce these rights in the courts and to be compensated when the rights are breached.
It is heartening to see such strong cross-party support for these amendments. I very much hope that the Conservative rebels will have the courage of their convictions to push these amendments to a vote tonight, despite the unpleasant pressure they have been subjected to as a result of the actions of certain newspapers. That is a matter for them. There are other cross-party amendments on the charter that I am sure will be pressed to a vote if those in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) are not.
Before I address why the SNP supports these amendments, I have a crucial question for the Minister. It needs to be answered, not for my benefit, but for the benefit of the whole House and, indeed, the country. The clause we are debating revolves around the supremacy of EU law and whether the charter will be part of domestic law after exit day, but, as has already been mentioned in our debate, this morning the Prime Minister’s official spokesman told a routine Westminster briefing that the Government expect
“the ECJ’s role to be unchanged during an ‘implementation period’ of around two years following the official Brexit date in March 2019”.
Are those on the Treasury Bench aware of that statement? Can they explain to us how it impacts on what we are debating today? If the Prime Minister is of the view, as her spokesman has said, that the Court of Justice’s role will be unchanged during a two-year implementation period from exit day, not only is the rather ridiculous amendment brought to this House by the Government last week defining exit day rendered utterly meaningless, but much of the debate we are having this afternoon about clause 5 and, indeed, the debate we had last week about clause 6 and other clauses are rendered meaningless.
I am not trying to score a party political point here. This is a matter of legal certainty which is of the utmost importance to all UK citizens and to UK business and universities. Which is it? Is what the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said this morning correct? Is the Court of Justice’s role going to continue unchanged during a two-year implementation period and, if so, how does that impact what we are debating today? I am very happy for the Minister to intervene on me to clarify that, but if he wishes to take advice, I am sure that his ministerial colleague the Solicitor General will clarify that vital point and the impact of the Prime Minister’s statement this morning on the entirety of this Bill, and most particularly the clause we are debating.
In any event, if this somewhat holed-beneath-the-waterline Bill is to survive and limp on, the SNP commits itself wholeheartedly to the amendments to keep the charter of fundamental rights, to keep individuals’ and businesses’ rights to sue and enforce, and to make those rights meaningful, because that is what the individual right of enforcement and Francovich damages are all about: making rights meaningful. For anyone who has studied law, a right without a remedy is a pretty useless thing; it is trite law.
The Scottish Government published their programme for government earlier this year, and reiterated their commitment to international human rights norms. It is important to remember that human rights are not wholly reserved by this Parliament when it comes to the devolution settlement, so what the Scottish Government choose to do could be very important, particularly if Scotland is to be taken out of the European Union against her will. My colleagues in the Scottish Government have emphasised that it is essential that existing safeguards are not undermined by Brexit, and that the rights enjoyed by everyone in these islands, as EU citizens, need to be permanently locked into a future deal. That is why we oppose the removal of the EU charter of fundamental rights from domestic law, and why we opposed the Government’s previous desire to repeal the Human Rights Act.
I was interested in the Minister’s reiteration—in fairness, this has been reiterated by the Government several times as part of this debate—that there is no intention to withdraw from the European convention on human rights. But, as I have already said, rights without remedies are not much use. The great thing about the Human Rights Act was that it gave UK citizens the opportunity to enforce their rights by raising actions in the courts of their own jurisdiction. Will the Minister—or the Solicitor General, when he gets to his feet—confirm the Government’s intentions regarding the Human Rights Act?
Dominic Raab
I think I have already said this, but I am very happy to reaffirm for the hon. and learned Lady that the Government have no plans to withdraw from the ECHR, or to revise or repeal the Human Rights Act.
Joanna Cherry
I am grateful to the Minister for that. I had understood that the revision and repeal of the Human Rights Act was on the back burner, but Members on this side of the House and many Conservative Members can celebrate a great victory if that plan has now been dropped and the Government are backing down on it. Unfortunately, I very much doubt that we will be in the mood for celebration as we are facing the Government’s chaotic plans for Brexit, and that is what we have to discuss today.
My colleagues in the Scottish Government in Edinburgh have recently reiterated their firm commitment to the idea that international human rights norms should not just be signed up to by the jurisdictions of these islands, but should be given direct effect by giving individuals and businesses the opportunity to raise and realise their rights in the courts. The Scottish Government have indicated that they intend to
“implement the socio-economic duty in the Equality Act 2010 by the end of this year, placing a requirement on key parts of the public sector, including Scottish Ministers, to have due regard to reducing the inequalities caused by socio-economic disadvantage when taking strategic decisions. This is a key component of our approach to tackling poverty.”
The Scottish Government also committed in their programme for government to look at how they can further embed human, social, cultural and economic rights, including the UN convention on the rights of the child. That is an indication that the Scottish Government’s direction of travel on international human rights norms is very different from the UK Government’s. It reflects the fact, as I said earlier, that human rights are not a reserved matter save in so far as the repeal or amendment of the Human Rights Act is concerned. Indeed, the Scottish Government have the power to legislate to protect human rights and intend to do so.
That leads me to comment briefly on new clause 78 and a new right in relation to equality that is intended to apply across the United Kingdom. There is a laudable intention behind the new clause, but its application in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would require discussion with and the consent of devolved Administrations, if it were to be incorporated into the devolution statutes. The Scottish Government’s and Scottish National party’s position on human rights also reflects the wishes of voters in Scotland, who voted to remain in the EU by a considerable margin and voted in considerably larger numbers for parties that support international human rights norms than for those that do not.
It is about time that this Parliament started to recognise that views across these islands are quite divergent from the sort of Brexit that the Government are proposing. The cross-party amendments would go some way towards the aim of keeping us in the charter and keeping remedies for UK citizens. Of course, that is not to say that there are not many people in England and Wales who voted to leave and also wish to see the charter of fundamental rights preserved. We heard, if I may say so, a typically eloquent speech by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield, who said that the rights that have come into our law as a result of our membership of the European Union have done good across these islands, particularly for the most vulnerable people in our society. One would hope that we could agree on that on a cross-party basis.
A lot of misinformation is going around about the charter, and that stems from a resistance to the idea that it is either desirable or necessary for international human rights norms to have direct effect in the United Kingdom. We have to recognise that the logical result of that antipathy to giving direct effect to international human rights norms is to take away rights, and the ability to realise them, from British citizens and businesses. That is surely not a desirable state of affairs, no matter which side of the House one sits on.
As we have heard from a number of hon. Members, the Government have tried to reassure us that importing EU law without also importing the charter will make no difference to the protection of rights in the various jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. Indeed, they state in paragraphs 99 and 100 of the explanatory notes to the Bill that it is unnecessary to include the charter as part of retained law because it merely codifies rights and principles already inherent in EU law. That is what the Minister told us from the Dispatch Box. As others have said, that rather begs a question: if it is just a simple codification, why bother not incorporating the charter?
As I pointed out in an intervention on the Minister, the Exiting the European Union Committee heard evidence from a senior legal academic who said that there will be legislation in retained EU law that refers to the charter, so there will be a lack of legal certainty if the charter is not there. The Minister would no doubt say, “Yes, but the general principles will still be there.” But the charter existed as a codification of the general principles in order to make them more readily accessible.
I am interested to see the list that the Minister is going to produce on 5 December, but he could make his life a lot easier—I know that he and his colleagues have a lot on their plate at the moment—if he just incorporated the charter, rather than running around with bits of paper listing the general principles when they are all listed in the charter anyway. Surely that would be the logical and practical thing to do; unless there is, to use someone else’s phrase, some devilish plot, whereby removing the charter of fundamental rights means that rights will be removed. There is some evidential basis for believing that at least some Government Members think it is a good thing not to incorporate the charter of fundamental rights because it includes rights that they do not like. I am sorry to single out one Government Member, but I did read the article in The Sun yesterday by the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes). I am not normally a reader of The Sun, but it caught my eye on Google that it contained an article about the charter of fundamental rights and I thought that every newspaper should be given a chance from time to time, so I had a little look. Like me, the hon. Lady is a lawyer, and she writes:
“This week Parliament will be asked to vote on whether to incorporate the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights into UK law. If Labour, acting with others, manage to force this through there will be legal chaos. Not only will it hand new and long lasting powers to UK courts”,
but it has also
“crept into many areas of UK law, from asylum to even national security.”
So there we have it in the words of at least one Conservative Member. There are things in the charter of fundamental rights that some on the Government Benches do not wish to be incorporated into our law.
Suella Fernandes
I am flattered that the hon. and learned Lady is quoting me in the Chamber. Does she not find it odd that the effect of her proposals would actually be legal chaos and uncertainty? We would have interacting rights regimes, with the convention through the Human Rights Act, and the charter. This would be precisely at the time at which the Bill is designed to provide legal certainty for businesses, individuals and other Governments.
Joanna Cherry
With respect, we have all that at present. The status quo is that the ECHR and the charter of fundamental rights are part of domestic law, and I do not see any legal chaos in our courts, although I do see an awful lot of political chaos.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the hon. and learned Lady agree that there is some kind of misunderstanding here, and that it is the gaps that we are addressing? We are not creating uncertainties. The situation proposed by the Bill will create gaps, and that is the main problem that we are addressing.
Joanna Cherry
The hon. Lady makes her point eloquently. Some of those on the Government Benches say that incorporating the charter into domestic law would cause uncertainty and chaos, but our point is that not incorporating it while we are incorporating everything else at the point of the snapshot is what will cause uncertainty. I do not know whether I would go so far as to call it chaos. After all, there is going to be so much chaos around after Brexit, and a difficulty in establishing the difference between fundamental rights and general principles might not be the biggest example of that chaos. However, there will be legal uncertainty. The Minister himself said that one of the Government’s guiding purposes in the legislation was to avoid legal uncertainty.
Antoinette Sandbach
Our independent judiciary is clearly quite capable of balancing the rights contained in the charter, the Human Rights Act and other pieces of domestic legislation, and it has done so successfully for many years.
Joanna Cherry
Indeed it has; that is its job. In particular, judges at the higher level such as the Supreme Court and the High Court of Judiciary in Scotland are used to grappling with the complex interplay of international treaties and international human rights protections.
I mentioned earlier that the Exiting the European Union Committee had heard evidence from a variety of witnesses about the effect of not incorporating the charter. I have to be honest and say that some of them were happy for the charter not to be incorporated, but even they said that something would be lost by its going. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have given a number of examples of what would be lost, and I would like briefly to add to that list.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
Just before the hon. and learned Lady comes to her list, may I add one more item to it? The Government have made great play of their commitment to the Good Friday agreement—the Belfast agreement—and stated that they are going to uphold all their obligations under it. One of those obligations relates to respect for human rights; indeed, that element has quite a large chapter in the agreement. Part of that obligation involves having, at the very least, an equivalence between human rights protections in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland. It is obvious that when the UK leaves the European Union, Northern Ireland will not have the protections afforded by the charter that we are discussing, but that the Republic of Ireland will. I hope that the hon. and learned Lady will therefore press the Government to fill that gap in Northern Ireland’s protection of fundamental rights.
Joanna Cherry
Indeed I will. The hon. Lady has, in her usual clear and incisive way, anticipated something that I was going to come to in a minute. Perhaps I will deal with it now, before I come to my list. As she says, the protection of fundamental rights is absolutely central to the Good Friday agreement, and has its own section in that agreement. The fact that the Bill will take the charter out of retained law raises concerns in this respect. The Good Friday agreement requires at least an equivalent level of protection of human rights in Ireland and Northern Ireland. If the charter is taken out of domestic law, there will be no such equivalent protection of human rights in Ireland and Northern Ireland, because once the UK withdraws from the EU, Northern Ireland will no longer benefit from the charter’s protections. This could pose significant problems for the Good Friday agreement—[Interruption.] The Solicitor General is shaking his head—
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
I am listening with great care to the hon. and learned Lady’s remarks and to the interventions that she has taken. Let us not forget that the Good Friday agreement was written in 1998, and that the charter of fundamental rights appeared in 2007. It is the European convention on human rights that is the key governing principle here, not the charter.
Joanna Cherry
I beg to differ. The Solicitor General is right about the dates, but as we know, the charter is merely a codification of various general rights and principles. We have significant concerns about not incorporating it, notwithstanding the little list that the Minister is going to give us on 5 December, because with all due respect, a list prepared by a Minister does not have the same weight in a court of law as a codification that has been signed up to by a number of countries.
It is not just my view and that of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) that there will be an issue for the Good Friday agreement. A briefing produced by none less than the Bingham Centre for the rule of law has raised the question of whether non-retention of the charter will impact on Northern Ireland. It has raised a series of questions, which I have just paraphrased, and I look forward to the Solicitor General answering them in more detail, rather than merely saying that there is not a problem. If I may say so, this illustrates the whole problem with the British Government’s approach to the unique situation in which Northern Ireland finds itself as a result a Brexit. There is a constant parrying, and saying, “There is not a problem, it can all be sorted out. It will all be fine.” This is what is causing us problems in the negotiations with the EU27, and particularly with the Republic of Ireland. Mere platitudes and assurances are not enough. We need some detail as to why removing the charter of fundamental rights from domestic law in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland will not pose a problem for the Good Friday agreement. However, I am sure that as we have the Solicitor General here, we will hear that detail later.
Mr Jenkin
I wonder whether the hon. and learned Lady recalls the Mostyn judgment of 2013, in which a very senior member of the judiciary expressed astonishment that there was direct applicability of the charter in UK domestic law, given that the protocol had been attached to the charter when we originally signed up to it. Given the rather temporary nature of the charter rights, how can it be so fundamental to the Good Friday agreement? It did not exist in law in this country, and was not recognised by the judiciary, even after it had been brought into force in the treaties.
Joanna Cherry
If I may say so, I think that that is to misunderstand. I am not responsible for the false assurances that were given about the opt-out when this country signed up to the charter. They did not come from the Scottish National party, and I think it is fair to say that they have now been disowned by the Labour party. In reality, the incorporation of the charter in our law has meant enhanced direct effect. I use the term “direct effect” rather than “direct applicability” because people are able to take an action and refer to those rights in the course of their action, as we saw in the Supreme Court case last summer when a gentleman named Mr Walker was able to realise equal pension rights for his husband, despite a loophole in UK law about the equalisation of pension rights for gay couples, because the EU charter closed that loophole.
I want to give the House a brief list of some of the rights involved. We have heard a lot about data protection, and I know that others will want to address that issue, but it is worth remembering that the right to be forgotten on Google and other search engines—which I believe is of interest to some Members—stems from the EU charter. There is more to it than that, however. Let us look at the words of others, rather than simply accepting the argument on my say-so.
When the Exiting the European Union Committee took evidence on these matters, Caroline Normand, the director of policy at Which?, told us that
“the Charter of Fundamental Rights contains some really important principles for consumers. The particular ones that I would highlight are the right to a high level of human health protection, which is article 35, and a right to a high level of consumer protection.”
She referred to the case last May—it has already been mentioned today—when the large tobacco companies brought judicial review proceedings challenging the regulations that introduced standardised packaging for tobacco products. The High Court dismissed the case, referencing the public health and other rights set out in the charter. That is a pretty meaningful right for public health in these islands.
Dr Charlotte O’Brien, a senior lecturer at York Law School, told the Select Committee that she had produced an approximate count for the number of times the charter was referenced in case law. She found that the charter was cited in 248 cases in England and Wales, 17 in Northern Ireland, 14 in Scotland and 98 in the European Court of Human Rights, and in 832 EU judgments, 515 of which were from the Court of Justice. Her point was that that is an awful lot of cases that would have to be read differently, and it is not clear how they are to be read differently.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. and learned Lady and I both sit on that Committee. I would like her views on another point made by Dr O’Brien, which was that the school of thought that says that excluding the charter might not make that much difference is misleading because of the extent to which it is embedded in a lot of what we would consider to be retained EU law, and disentangling that would be extremely complicated.
Joanna Cherry
Dr O’Brien did indeed make that point, and I think that anyone interested in the detail of why removing the charter from domestic law would take away rights would be well advised to read her evidence.
Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
The number of cases in which the charter is cited— 248 in England and Wales—does not mean that it has had the slightest practical effect on the outcome of judgments, as the hon. and learned Lady knows quite well.
Joanna Cherry
I do know that, because I have sat through cases—so, too, has the hon. and learned Gentleman, I suspect—in which case law has been cited and it is hard to see its relevance. However, Dr O’Brien made her point advisedly, having taken care to prepare for the Select Committee hearing, so it is not an isolated point—as the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) has indicated, there was quite a bit more to her evidence. She touched in some detail on data protection issues, but I will leave it to other Members to discuss those, because the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) had a very interesting exchange with her on these issues and will no doubt address them later, because he has tabled an amendment.
Joanna Cherry
The hon. and learned Gentleman is no doubt commenting on the English jurisdiction, and I cannot comment on that because I have not appeared here, except in the UK Supreme Court. But certainly in Scotland it is sometimes referred to, and sometimes it is relevant and sometimes it is not, but that applies to all references made in cases. However, to counter his point, there are hard examples of where the charter has made a huge difference. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield referred earlier to the Benkharbouche case, which concerned the rights of an employee in an embassy in London, and another against the embassy of the Republic of Sudan. The individual complained of unlawful discrimination and a breach of working time regulations, and she would have been denied remedy had it not been for the charter.
One may forget Dr O’Brien’s evidence about the number of references if one wants to, but look at the hard examples of where the charter has made a difference. We have also heard about the tobacco packaging legislation. There are many examples relating to data protection, perhaps the most celebrated one being the litigation of the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
I hope that the hon. and learned Lady can help me with a point of confusion that I am struggling with—I hope that I do not embarrass myself in front of more learned Members of the House. Is it not right to say that the application of charter rights in the European Court of Justice creates case law that, under this Bill, we are saying has UK Supreme Court-level status, so in effect are we not copying across ECJ case law on the charter into UK common law while not copying across the charter, and is not that nonsensical?
Joanna Cherry
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that point was also made by Dr O’Brien in her evidence. If, in the snapshot of retained EU law that will be taken on exit day, we are taking across all sorts of aspects of EU law that refer to the charter, it is nonsensical not to take the charter across as well, particularly if the Government insist on sticking to what they say in the explanatory notes, which is that the charter does not really add anything that is not already in the general principles. What it does add is clarity.
The process of leaving the European Union is already extremely complex and unpredictable, and the removal of the charter of fundamental rights simply risks creating an additional level of legal uncertainty and instability. So why do it? Why not reconsider? The Government have bigger issues on their plate, such as the Prime Minister’s spokesperson’s admission this morning that we will be in the European Court of Justice for another two years after exit day, which as I said earlier renders a lot of what we are discussing this afternoon somewhat irrelevant—at least in the short term. The Government have bigger fish to fry, so why remove the charter? Why take away from ordinary British citizens and businesspeople the right to sue to enforce their rights and to realise damages if their rights have been breached? Why do that unless it is part of a wider agenda—one bigger than Brexit—that is about rolling the United Kingdom back from its adherence to international human rights norms? The Government need to think carefully about the message they are sending out.
Sir William Cash
As I have already suggested, both Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith strongly resisted the charter of fundamental rights being made part of UK law, as made clear by my European Scrutiny Committee in its report of April 2014, which anyone can read, so it is impossible to understand why the Labour party has now taken retaining the charter as its position—although as someone said to Alice said in “Through the Looking Glass”:
“I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
The Conservative party categorically ruled out bringing the charter into UK law in our manifesto, and we also voted against the Lisbon treaty. That included the charter, which the European Court of Justice has since ruled did apply to us, because it includes the application of EU law as applied by the European Court of Justice, including assertions of constitutional supremacy over our Acts of Parliament and the vicarious power to disapply those Acts. An example of that—I mentioned this in my exchange with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve)—is the striking down by the House of Lords of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 in the Factortame case. For all those reasons, it would be unconscionable to include the charter in this Bill.
With great respect to those who have tabled amendments, the European Court of Justice’s interpretation and the case law, which is so greatly liable to EU jurisprudential elasticity by the Court itself, would thereby enable the UK Supreme Court to disapply Acts of Parliament. That is absolutely fundamental, and it would also be completely undemocratic. It has already happened under the present aegis in the case of the 1988 Act, but it would happen more and more frequently, and we would simply have to accept it, because it is not a question of opinion; it is a question of law and of fact.
Mr Jenkin
It is for the European Court of Justice to continue to interpret what the charter of fundamental rights actually means within the European Union, so if the charter was incorporated into our law, what relationship does my hon. Friend think would exist between our Supreme Court and the interpretations that would continue to be developed in the European Union?
Sir William Cash
The Supreme Court would be applying the European interpretation in that context, and I simply say that it will involve disapplication of law. It is a matter not of assertion but of fact and law that that is precisely what will happen.
I urge my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and others not to press their amendments on the charter, because to do so would be totally unacceptable. I refer to what I have alluded to already: the principle set out by Lord Justice Bingham in chapter 12 of his magisterial book on “The Rule of Law and the Sovereignty of Parliament?”, in which he publicly criticised the attitude of Baroness Hale, now President of the Supreme Court, and Lord Hope of Craighead in suggesting that the courts have constitutional authority, as against an Act of Parliament. With respect to the whole question of parliamentary sovereignty and the issue of the courts, he says that various remarks had been made but:
“No authority was cited to support them, and no detailed reasons were given.
I cannot for my part accept that my colleagues’ observations are correct... To my mind, it has been convincingly shown”—
by Professor Goldsworthy, one of the greatest authorities on this subject—
“that the principle of parliamentary sovereignty has been recognised as fundamental in this country not because the judges invented it but because it has for centuries been accepted as such by judges and others officially concerned in the operation of our constitutional system. The judges did not by themselves establish the principle and they cannot by themselves change it… What is at stake”—
said Professor Goldsworthy—
“is the location of ultimate decision-making authority… If the judges were to repudiate the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, by refusing to allow Parliament to infringe on unwritten rights, they would be claiming that ultimate authority for themselves.”
Moreover, Lord Bingham went on to say that they would then be transferring the rights of Parliament to judges:
“It would be a transfer of power initiated by the judges, to protect rights chosen by them, rather than one brought about democratically by parliamentary enactment or popular referendum.”
With some irony, the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law has put some of the contrary arguments.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points about parliamentary sovereignty, but I am not sure the point has yet been made that there has been a cosy consensus in this debate so far that everything about European human rights is wonderful and that we want to transfer those European human rights into our own law. Actually, many of us think that the advancement of European so-called human rights has been to the detriment of the rights of other people, particularly religious people, to find their own space, because European equality laws trump all other laws. When we regain parliamentary sovereignty, in this House and through our democracy, we can start asserting real human rights.
Sir William Cash
I agree with my hon. Friend’s general proposition, to which I would add that it is up to us to make our own laws. We can listen to the arguments, we can make the amendments and we can recognise human rights, as well as all the other things, as I did with the International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014. I entirely agree with his sentiment for that reason.
Lord Bingham went on to say:
“We live in a society dedicated to the rule of law”—
I note the reference to that by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield—
“in which Parliament has power, subject to limited, self-imposed restraints, to legislate as it wishes; in which Parliament may therefore legislate in a way which infringes the rule of law; and in which the judges, consistently with their constitutional duty to administer justice according to the laws and usages of the realm, cannot fail to give effect to such legislation if it is clearly and unambiguously expressed.”
I ought to add that, in fact, Lady Hale revisited that territory, before she was made President of the Supreme Court, in a speech in Kuala Lumpur on 9 November 2016.
The Conservative party opposed Lisbon, which conferred treaty status on the charter. I say this to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield with all respect, because we get on pretty well and we have had several chats over the past few days, but I trust he will recall his opposition to the Lisbon treaty and, therefore, to the charter when he was shadow Attorney General—he followed me in that post. More specifically, I hope he will recall the evidence he gave to the European Union Committee of the House of Lords, which was cited in its report published on 9 May 2016—
Sir William Cash
I know my right hon. and learned friend knows what I am about to say, but may I finish the quotation? He said that
“the European Court of Human Rights is a very benign institution, whereas I happen to think that the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg has predatory qualities to it that could be very inimical to some of our national practices”.
I would suggest that those are in respect of the question of disapplication of Acts of Parliament.
Mr Grieve
May I gently say to my hon. Friend that although this is fascinating, we are actually talking about retained EU law which will not be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union? I do have criticisms of the CJEU and the way it has operated at times, and I have had the pleasure, or misfortune, of appearing before it. Its teleological principles and its purposive interpretation of law have often been challenging in our national setting, although it is not a pariah court and by international standards it is a pretty good tribunal. So I stand by the points I made on that occasion, but they in no way diminish or undermine anything that I have said here this afternoon.
Sir William Cash
I simply add that I understand this with reference to the European Court in its existing situation, because not until we leave the EU are we able to avoid the jurisdiction of the European Court, so that applies at least for the next two years and probably for the two after that. God knows what they will do in the meantime. My European Scrutiny Committee has been holding meetings already on the European laws that have been proposed since the general election, but the problem is—
Sir William Cash
No, I will not, because, as the Chair will appreciate, I have taken a lot of interventions, as I did last time, when I took six or eight. It is impossible to get the arguments out in reply to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, with whom I have been discussing this for an extremely long time—for the best part of 20 years—if I am constrained in this way, so I am not going to take any further interventions.
What lies behind these amendments is not only the charter itself, but the whole role of judicial interpretation and jurisprudence in its application to the UK; by virtue of the way in which the amendments would apply, the Supreme Court would inherit the power to invalidate and disapply Acts of Parliament. This is a matter of the gravest constitutional significance and it goes to the heart of the stability of this country and its rule of law. In turn, that goes to the heart of our democratic system and the right of the British people to govern themselves, whichever party they come from, in respect of how they vote in free elections, exercising their freedom of choice as to whom they decide to govern them until the next general election.
All this is intrinsically bound up with the claimed virtues of the European Court itself—it is not impartial. As I said in the previous debate, when the European Court adjudicated on the Van Gend en Loos case and Costa v. ENEL in the 1960s and early 1970s, and the Internationale Handelsgesellschaft case, it was doing so on its own initiative, without any basis in EU treaties, until the Lisbon treaty, which we on this side of the House, including my right hon. and learned Friend, opposed. That is what did this. We opposed it. He opposed it. I simply make that point to put it on the record.
This Lisbon treaty, as the European Scrutiny Committee also demonstrated, was the Giscard d’Estaing proposal for a European constitution by any other name. It is part and parcel of the other characteristic of the European Court, which is the drive towards political integration and its interpretation of law by the purposive rule, even when the wording in question is neither obscure nor ambiguous. Furthermore, many different purposes may, from time to time, be in conflict with one another, but the driving force for them is the integrationist road map from which it never deviates and never will. It is the ultimate engineer of European integration. Equally, it has adopted a method of interpretation that neutralises the principle of the conferral of powers that were meant to be limited under articles 4 and 5 of the treaty on European Union. By doing so, it has extended the range and effect of European law by leaps and bounds. With that comes the extensions of competence, which in turn are everlastingly overarching and limitless. The European Court has never once annulled a general EU legislative act, except on one occasion, and when it did so, it was re-enacted almost immediately. It is permanently on the march in favour of political integration and by any standard is therefore more a political than judicial court.
Mr Grieve
As I said, the drafting of amendments is quite a complex matter, and I am the first to accept that an amendment may not meet the exact needs of the Government, even if the Government were to seek to accept it. None the less, the position is very simple and I can only repeat it: amendment 10 will be put to the vote unless the Government give some satisfactory assurances that they will respond to it.
Sir William Cash
Let me conclude. I do hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not do what he has just suggested. I say that because those measures are defective not only in the way that he has described, but in respect of paragraph 5 of schedule 1. Amendment 10 refers to paragraphs 1 to 3, but there are also difficulties in relation to paragraph 5, which I will not go into now because I have made all my remarks.
I sincerely urge my right hon. and learned Friend to listen to the arguments and to accept the fact that, for very good reasons, it would not be appropriate to press these amendments to a vote.
Stephen Timms
I rise to speak to amendment 151, which, at first sight, looks rather technical but actually references, as we have already established in this debate, a hugely important issue for the UK economy. I am very grateful to all those Members, from all parties across the House, who have signed the amendment, and to the Chairman of Ways and Means for selecting it for debate.
The amendment deals with future electronic communication between the UK and the remaining member states of the European Union. The Government’s future partnership paper on this topic, published in August, was absolutely right to highlight just how important an issue this is for the UK economy. That paper pointed out that the UK accounts for 0.9% of the world’s population, 3.9% of the world’s GDP, and 11.5% of the world’s cross-border data flows, 75% of which is with other EU countries. This is an enormously important issue, particularly for the UK economy given its reliance on its digital aspects.
The Government are absolutely right to argue that we must avoid restrictions on cross-border data flows because they would affect the UK more than almost any other country in the world. It is also right to point out that the UK has very strong personal data protection. That is currently being strengthened by the new Data Protection Bill being debated in the other place, which will bring our arrangements into line with the EU’s general data protection regulation, or GDPR, and the Government are absolutely right to make that point.
Nevertheless, we face a serious potential problem: the edifice of data privacy law in the UK rests on article 8 of the charter of fundamental rights. Under clause 5(4) of this Bill, article 8 will not be part of domestic law after we have left the European Union. Will the omission of article 8 from our law make any practical difference to how the law works in the UK? There have been some suggestions that it will not, but the evidence is that, in fact, it will.
In the exchange between the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), we heard about the evidence given by Dr Charlotte O’Brien, a senior lecturer at York Law School, to the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union. She said:
“exclusion of the charter is problematic for a number of reasons”,
and I want to quote a couple of the points that she made.
Dr O’Brien said that a large number of appeal cases in UK courts cited the charter. She added:
“That is a lot of cases that have to be read differently and it is not clear how they are to be read differently.”
One of the appeal cases under discussion—we have referred to it a number of times in the debate—involved my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson) and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), now the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.
Mr Harper
I was just listening to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the court cases. Would it not be the case, if we did not have the charter of fundamental rights and article 8, that all those cases would simply cite the other pieces of legislation he mentioned—the general data protection regulation and the Bill we are currently passing through Parliament? I do not really see the problem he is trying to fix.
Stephen Timms
The right hon. Gentleman gets right to the heart of the case. I believe that the answer to his question is no they would not, or at least we do not know what the outcome would be. I suggest that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden might well not have won his case against the Government if he had not been able to rest on article 8. The hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who intervened earlier, might have persuaded the court that the then Home Secretary, now the Prime Minister, was right in what she was doing and that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden was wrong. We do not know what that Appeal Court would have decided, but I put it to the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper)—I think he is rather implicitly accepting the point—that if article 8 had not been there for the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden to rest on, the outcome of that case and of lots of others could well have been different.
To quote Dr O’Brien again, she made the point that the gap that is created by no longer having the charter of fundamental rights in UK law is probably clearest in the case of data protection because of the charter
“creating fairly specific, concrete rights that are not necessarily enunciated in exactly the same terms elsewhere.”
I think that is the answer to the intervention I have just been responding to: actually, these rights are not readily available elsewhere.
I was delighted to hear from the Minister that we will get a document—I think he said by 5 December—setting out all the rights in the charter of fundamental rights and where they can be found elsewhere in UK law. That will make very interesting reading. I simply make the point at this stage that a number of experts are saying that some of the rights—this is particularly the case with article 8—are not elsewhere. It will be interesting to see what that document says.
It is worth reminding the Committee of what article 8 says. The first two of the three points within it state:
“Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her…Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law. Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified.”
As has been mentioned in this debate, there is a right to be forgotten, and that is provided by the right to have data rectified. It goes on to say that there needs to be an independent body in charge of all this. That is what article 8 says, word for word. My amendment says that that needs to be on the statute book in the UK. I do not think that those forms of words would cause great difficulty to the Government. We all agree that these are appropriate things, but they need to be explicitly set out in the law so that they can be drawn on in future, because they are not set out clearly elsewhere.
Darren Jones
Does my right hon. Friend recognise that if the European Commission makes a decision on equivalence, that recommendation has to go to a committee of information commissioners from the 27 EU member states, and it is for them to decide whether there is equivalence? As the Institute for Government says, when making their decision, they will check whether data adequacy is met by considering respect for fundamental rights and a scope for judicial redress. Both redress and respect are mentioned in the EU charter of fundamental rights, are they not?
Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend, who is a lawyer specialising in these matters, is absolutely right. I understand that the European Parliament also has a role in all this, and so there is a political dimension to it as well.
The position at the moment is that as an EU member state we can exchange personal data freely with others in the EU—Governments, businesses and individuals. The Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), told the Select Committee that the Government would seek to include data flows in the wider negotiated agreement for a future deep and special partnership between the UK and the remaining member states of the EU. I welcome that confirmation. However, as we keep on being reminded, we might not get a deal, so what then? If we do not get a deal and an adequacy determination, it will be unlawful to send personal data from the European Union to the UK, and, at a stroke, there will be no lawful basis for the continued operation of a significant chunk of the UK economy. I hope we all agree that we must avoid that outcome at all costs. Already, we hear that hi-tech start-ups that need access to personal data are starting to look at Berlin in preference to London because of the possibility that that problem might, in due course, arise.
The Government have argued that because we are fully implementing the GDPR, the Commission will be unable to find fault with UK arrangements even if we lose article 8. I have to say to Ministers that the UK technology sector does not agree, and my judgment is that it is absolutely right to be worried. The danger is not a theoretical one, as we see in the case of Canada. A very long-running series of negotiations has led to a pretty ambitious agreement between Canada and the EU, but Canada has only got a partial adequacy determination.
If we ended up with only a partial adequacy determination on data, it would be extremely damaging for the UK economy. The US arrangements known as “safe harbour” were famously struck down as inadequate by the European Court of Justice in a case brought by an individual Austrian citizen in 2015. That caused an enormous upheaval and led to the very rapid introduction of new arrangements in US regulation called “privacy shield”, which I understand are being called into question in a new case at the European Court of Justice by the same Austrian citizen.
The European Court of Justice is particularly sensitive about UK bulk collection of personal data. That issue featured prominently in the Appeal Court case, which we have touched on several times in this debate, brought by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden. The Court considered whether the powers in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 went too far, allowing the state to breach personal data privacy, and concluded that the powers introduced by the then Home Secretary went too far. Article 8 of the charter, specifically, was the basis for that conclusion. If article 8 is no longer in UK law, it may make life easier for future Home Secretaries who wish to do the kind of thing that the previous Home Secretary tried to do, because they are much less likely to be found in breach. That rather bruising experience at the hands of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden may well be one reason why the Prime Minister wants to keep the charter out of UK law.
Hilary Benn
My right hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. The Select Committee heard evidence from the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Wycombe, who said that the Government would seek a data adequacy agreement. Like him, I would welcome that, but it is not entirely clear whether that can be achieved, should there be a deal.
I had always understood the data adequacy decision to be a regulatory decision of the Commission in respect of a third country, as my right hon. Friend has made clear in his previous remarks. Therefore, if there is no agreement or it is not legally possible to override the decision with an agreement, all the points that he has made—that the Commission has to decide, and that the decision is subject to legal challenge and could go to the Court or to other member states—merely demonstrate how much is at stake when it comes to getting this right.
Stephen Timms
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. My understanding is that the shortest period in which a data adequacy agreement has ever been achieved is 12 months, in the case of Japan. Very often, these things take a good deal longer.
By exactly the same token, and precisely because it may be a source of satisfaction to Home Office Ministers, excluding article 8 will constitute an invitation to the European Commission and the European Parliament to find fault with UK data privacy regulation. The cases brought by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden and others would not have succeeded if they had not been able to rely on article 8. Those who look at these matters on behalf of the European Union will have no doubt in their minds, as far as I can see, that that is the case.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent case on a very complicated set of issues. Does he agree that the conclusion we should draw from the points he has made and from the observation I am about to make, which is that this has so far been a very lawyerly discussion, is that this will end up being a highly political decision? Whatever the rights and wrongs as expressed by the lawyers today, we are politicians who face a political set of choices, and we are absolutely offering those who do not have our best interests at heart the opportunity to frustrate us in future. It is a very risky endeavour, and it would be much easier to keep the charter.
Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is such an invitation, and it is a terrible risk to take. Frankly, I think it is playing fast and loose with a very important part of the UK economy.
Let me finish by quoting the industry body representing this part of the UK economy, techUK, which is very deeply concerned about this issue and supports amendment 151. It makes the point that
“the Government must do all it can to ensure that we are in the best possible position to secure adequacy, and this includes making clear, at every opportunity, that the UK’s data protection framework is equivalent to the one we have operated as an EU Member State.”
Leaving article 8 off the statute book seriously imperils the future achievement of such an adequacy determination. We will of course argue that our arrangements are adequate, but for data exchanges with EU countries, it will not be our call; it will be their call. They will make the decision: the call will be made by officials and politicians in the European Union and by the European Court of Justice. It is running too great a risk for our digital economy—at 10% of GDP, it is proportionately the biggest digital economy anywhere in the G20—and I urge the Committee not to run that risk or to play fast and loose with the UK economy, but to accept amendment 151.
Mr Harper
I should probably declare whatever the opposite of an interest is, in that unlike many of those who have spoken so far, I am afraid that I am not a lawyer. I am a humble accountant, so I hope colleagues will forgive me if I do not always get the exact legal points they have made absolutely spot-on. However, I will do my best to do justice to the debate.
I will run through the new clauses and amendments in broadly chronological order as the debate has flowed, making comments that I think are pertinent based on the arguments that have been made. Let me start with new clause 16, which was moved by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie). I listened carefully to what he said, and I think the Minister dealt with it effectively by committing the Government, quite explicitly, to producing the memorandum promised by the Secretary of State in evidence to the Select Committee by 5 December.
There was a bit of an exchange in one corner of the Chamber when my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) sought clarification on whether that would be before Report. I fear, having done a little mental arithmetic, that it will be well before Report, because there are five remaining days in Committee and given the Budget debate, even if we sat every day and fitted them all in, we will not get to Report by 5 December.
We will therefore have the memorandum while we are still in Committee, so we will be able to see whether what the Minister and the Government say is correct, as I believe it is, which is that all the articles in the charter of fundamental rights are underpinned by a retained EU law foundation that will be brought into UK law. I do not know how the Government will lay out the memorandum, but we will be able to see how each of the rights is underpinned and its legal basis. We will be able to have a debate about that, and if Members are not satisfied with the memorandum that the Secretary of State has brought forward, that will leave open the opportunity for tabling further amendments on Report. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham East will not need to press his new clause.
The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) is not in his place, but I want to pick up his remarks about the signals and messages sent out. I do not think that that is a helpful way of looking at this issue. The charter of fundamental rights came into force with the Lisbon treaty. Unlike some hon. Members, I sat through 10 of the 12 days of debate on the Lisbon treaty—much like the debates that we are having now, although we were in opposition then. Before that measure came into force, we did a pretty good job in this country of protecting rights, and we were one of the best countries at protecting rights. The idea that if we do not have the charter of fundamental rights somehow dreadful things will befall us does not stand up.
The right hon. Gentleman’s specific example of people, including children, who were held and used in slavery and servitude around the world, was a particularly poor one. This country introduced the Modern Slavery Act 2015 under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when she was Home Secretary, and demonstrated that it did not follow the world on human rights matters but led it. That groundbreaking piece of legislation introduced a significant number of measures for businesses to be able to understand supply chains, and introduced considerable legal powers to deal with human trafficking and modern slavery. It stands as a positive beacon in the world, rather than the negative one that the right hon. Member for Tottenham suggested.
Stephen Timms
May I just challenge one point? If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the Data Protection Bill currently being debated in the other place, he will see that it does not say that everybody has the right to have their personal data protected. It does not set the right in the terms set out in the article. From a European perspective, and from an Appeal Court perspective, that is potentially a problem.
Mr Harper
I will come on to that at the end of my remarks. I followed the right hon. Gentleman’s speech very carefully. He is absolutely right that we should deal with this in a serious way, because it is a very significant part of our economic present and, I hope, an increasing part of our economic future as we in this country are particularly well placed to take advantage of the digital economy.
The other interesting point flagged up by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield is the fundamental argument about rights legislation. He pointed out that some decisions on potentially striking down Acts of Parliament would have to be taken by the UK Supreme Court, not the European Court of Justice. He said he was very relaxed about that because he had great confidence in our judges, as do I. For rights legislation, however, there is a different argument to have, which is not about the nationality or otherwise of the judges or the court, but whether such decisions should be taken by judges or by democratically elected politicians in this House. We had this argument when we debated prisoner voting—not on the nationality of the judges and the court, but on whether that was a proper decision to be made in this democratically elected House or by judges interpreting a living document. That was a point my right hon. and learned Friend teased out in his remarks.
Listening to the debate as it progressed, my right hon. and learned Friend accepted that his amendments may not be the best way to deal with the potential problems he flagged up. The exchange between him and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset was very interesting and spoke to the debate on schedule 1, to which the Solicitor General will reply. Amendment 10 would get rid of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of schedule 1. The reason my right hon. and learned Friend gave for removing paragraph 3 was that it talked about the general principles of EU law and not the retained principles. Paragraph 2 tries to deal with the retained principles by saying that we keep all the general principles that have been reflected in decided case law before exit day.
That was an interesting discussion. It suggests that it might be possible for the Solicitor General to find a way for the Government to amend the Bill on Report. Clearly, my right hon. and learned Friend wanted a little specificity on that, although I do not agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, who tempted the Government just to accept the amendments and then correct them. Having been in the Solicitor General’s position at the Dispatch Box, I would prefer the risk-averse approach of inviting the House not to be tempted by the amendments and then coming back afterwards, but I accept that those tempted by the amendments will want a little specificity and detail from him about the nature of what he will reflect on and bring forward. I hope that he can produce the right level of specificity to give my colleagues that confidence.
Anna Soubry
Does this debate not show how technical this is and how good it is—I know people get a bit agitated about lawyers—to have so many lawyers, especially constitutional lawyers, on these Benches? Actually, most people are keen to get the Bill right on a constitutional level, and the more we can debate it, thrash it around, get it sorted and reach sensible compromises, the better it will be for the Bill, for Parliament and for this whole Brexit business, because it will stop some of this division and bring us all together.
Mr Harper
I am grateful for that intervention. Actually two other useful points came out that I had not previously heard in this debate. One was about rights. A discussion is under way, which will be dealt with partly in this Bill and partly in the other withdrawal Bill, on the extent to which certain important matters will only be dealt with in primary legislation. Ministers will be clear that they will not use the ability to change those important rights in secondary legislation. To some extent, that has been dealt with by the fact that we will have the other withdrawal Bill. I think that the Secretary of State has given a commitment that certain things will only be dealt with in primary legislation.
On the second point, I hope the Treasury Bench will forgive me—tempting a discussion about amending the Human Rights Act is probably not something that in my previous job as Government Chief Whip I would have wanted to encourage—but a sensible argument has been made for saying that, if there are important rights that we think are not adequately reflected in legislation, at some point, in due course if not perhaps immediately, some of them might benefit from being brought into the Human Rights Act. That might be worth thinking about, although it would have to be done very carefully, because once we start down that process of amendment, I do not know where it will end. Those two avenues for dealing with this were, I think, very sensible.
I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield accepted that it might not be right to pursue amendment 8, but, on amendment 10, although I would not agree with the approach of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, a point has been made on which Ministers could sensibly reflect. I hope that when the Solicitor General responds he will be able to make a sufficiently specific commitment to persuade my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and others not to press amendment 10.
The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), who is not in his place but whose Front-Bench team are more than adequately represented, said that rights were not as effective if their source or root was not clear. I am afraid that this is a lawyerly point that I did not quite follow, but I hope that the Minister dealt with it. The memorandum he is going to bring forward should make clear the source of each of the rights in the charter of fundamental rights, so we should be clear about the retained law being brought forward. I hope, then, that that central point of the hon. Gentleman’s argument will be dealt with.
Let me return to article 8 of the charter of fundamental rights, to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) in an earlier debate and to the fundamental underpinning of the argument advanced by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford slightly overstated what the article says. She claimed that it said that everyone owned their data, whereas it actually says that people have the right to protect their personal data. She also spoke about the level at which it was necessary for our law to be exactly the same as ongoing European legislation.
Antoinette Sandbach
The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee heard some very interesting evidence today from representatives of the aerospace and airline manufacturing sectors. They said, “We want identical regulations for the safety of passengers. It is vital to the industry for our regulations to be exactly matched with those of Europe.” There will be some areas in which we shall need regulatory matching.
Mr Harper
That is a very helpful point. There may well be areas in which, because of the nature of the product or service involved, the exact matching of regulations will be judged to be right, but that may well not be the case in every single area. Perhaps what we need is a sensible structure that allows us to have some debates and decide what is the right thing to do, and then have conversations with our European neighbours. That will be one of the big arguments as we negotiate the trade deal, because it is relevant to the extent to which we can then have different arrangements that will enable us to seize the opportunities that are undoubtedly available to us around the globe.
I was on the remain side, as, indeed, was my hon. Friend. There is also the argument that if we continue to match every single regulation introduced by the European Union, particularly when we have no say in the process, we shall not be gaining any of the benefits of not being in the EU, which would rather defeat the point of leaving in the first place. I certainly believe that, given that the country decided to leave, we need a good, deep relationship with our EU partners so that we can continue to trade with them, but we also need to be able to take full advantage of every opportunity of securing that incremental business from around the globe. My hon. Friend is right, however: we should listen to the businesses that are involved in these sectors, and make the right decisions.
Let me now deal with the specific points made by the right hon. Member for East Ham about amendment 151, which would require the laying of
“regulations to create a fundamental right to the protection of…data.”
There is an argument here about what will or will not be the behaviour of our European partners, both the member states and the Commission. It seems to me that, if we deliver legislation according with the general data protection regulation in our Data Protection Bill, along with other provisions that protect such data, the European Commission may decide, for what will be political reasons, to rule that there is some incompatibility. If the Commissioners have made up their minds, for political reasons, to be mean and horrible to us and try to damage our economy, there is not very much that we can do about that. Even if we were to do what the right hon. Gentleman has suggested, they would just dream up another excuse to damage us.
If that is how the Commission is going to behave, it is not an organisation I would want to be a part of, but I do not take the view that that is what the Commission or the other member states are going to do. It is certainly not the way we have approached the negotiations. The Prime Minister has been very clear that we want a deep and special partnership with our European neighbours. We have made clear—this is relevant on the data issue—that we will have an unconditional relationship with our EU partners on security and intelligence co-operation: we will use our assets and resources to help to defend and protect European security. On that basis, it would be very churlish if the European Commission were to take the approach the right hon. Gentleman set out.
Stephen Timms
I agree: I do not think the Commission will be churlish or needlessly spiteful. But the problem is that if we do not have a clear right in law that everyone’s personal data will be protected—if article 8 is not there any longer, we will not—that is an invitation to the Commission to find against us. My point is that we should not be taking that risk.
Mr Harper
I accept that we should not take unnecessary risks, but it seems to me that we could deal with that. I confess that I am not completely across the content of the Data Protection Bill—I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me—but it seems to me that we could make sure we deal with that concern in that Bill, and Ministers on the Treasury Bench will no doubt listen to that point.
My final point is about something that has been brought up on a number of occasions. One benefit I have from being on the Back Benches is that I do not feel the necessity to defend every aspect of Ministers’ behaviour, particularly things they did before they were Ministers. The case that keeps being cited—[Interruption.] The Ministers on the Front Bench are looking very worried now, because they do not know what I am about to say. I happen to think that the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union was not correct in the case he brought against the Government, and I happen to think that the Prime Minister when she was Home Secretary was right to defend it.
We also dealt with any potential defects in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 in the ground-breaking legislation this House passed more recently, the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. I am reasonably familiar with that legislation: I had to consider it when I was a member of the Government, and dealt with how we approached the House. The way we proceeded with that legislation was by bringing forward a Bill that was in good shape at the start of the process, and then having a very thorough scrutiny process across parties. The Opposition took a sensible, grown-up approach on it, because it was very important legislation. We dealt with the concerns, and that is the right way to proceed. This House is perfectly capable of dealing with such concerns, and this House is the right place to deal with them.
The Modern Slavery Act 2015 is a model for legislation to deal with people being kept in servitude, and, similarly, the Investigatory Powers Act is ground-breaking, world-leading legislation on how to balance individual freedoms and rights to privacy with the legitimate rights of the state to ensure it protects those citizens from those who will do us harm. This House and the other place got the balance right in that legislation, and we should have more confidence in the ability of ourselves as parliamentarians.
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), who speaks for the SNP, harrumphed a little a bit—she is not in her place to harrumph again, probably—when my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) spoke about this House being the place where we guarantee those freedoms. She was not hugely impressed by that argument, but the two examples I have given show that we should have a bit more self-confidence about this House being the place where we defend those essential rights. I therefore commend the Bill in its present shape to the House and hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee do not press their new clauses and amendments to the vote.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Temporary Chairman (David Hanson)
Order. I have no power to impose a time-limit in Committee, but I do have the power to advise. We have 20 hon. Members who wish to speak, and if we continue to have speeches of the current length, we will disappoint at least half of them. I therefore advise Members to try to keep the length of their speeches to between 10 and 12 minutes; that is a voluntary instruction.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
I rise to speak to new clause 79, which is in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends and hon. Members from other parties.
First and foremost, I recognise that the UK has voted to leave the European Union. It is an outcome that I did not vote for, but it is the position in which we find ourselves. It is now incumbent on us to strengthen this legislation ahead of our exit from the Union. We can only achieve this fully by recognising what European integration has done for us over the past 40 years, and the ways in which we can help one another.
Before entering Parliament, I was an employment rights lawyer for many years. I represented trade unions and their members for 10 years. More recently, I ran my own business providing advice on maternity discrimination and flexible working to mums and families. So I know at first-hand how many of our employment rights come from Europe. As my explanatory statement points out, my new clause would ensure that Parliament was kept abreast of changes in EU provisions regarding family-friendly employment rights and gender equality, as well as committing the Government to considering their implementation.
It is clear that working parents and carers in the UK are struggling. The Modern Families Index 2017, which examined the lives of 2,750 working parents and carers, found that more than a third of working families say that they do not have enough time or money for their family to thrive. Half of parents agreed that their work-life balance was increasingly a source of stress. A third said that work had a negative effect on their relationship with their partner, and a quarter said that it led to rows with their children. One in 10 parents would consider resigning from work without having another job to go to. Research by the Equality and Human Rights Commission shows that 54,000 new mothers in Britain may be forced out of their jobs each year as a result of pregnancy and maternity discrimination. The Fawcett Society, Working Families—the work-life balance charity—and trade unions, among others, continually fight to protect against these types of discrimination.
We have a collective responsibility to ensure that we help to protect the rights of workers and employees amid the cut and thrust of the Brexit negotiations. People voted to leave the EU for many varied reasons, but they did not vote to be worse off. Our laws on these matters must be no less favourable than they would have been had the UK remained a member of the EU beyond exit day. Indeed, the EU may well go on to legislate in ways with which we do not agree. The wording of new clause 79 is clear; it is there to inform, not to commit.
As many of my hon. Friends pointed out during the previous Committee sitting, we must make every effort to keep this House fully aware of the advancements that occur in Europe. To be clear, the new clause is not about binding the UK into implementing future EU directives in the family-friendly employment and gender equality space. Rather, it would ensure that Parliament was informed of any developments and would commit the Government to considering their implementation.
In the Prime Minister’s Florence speech, she signalled that the UK and the EU will continue to support each other as we navigate through Brexit. I have much to say on the work that we have collectively achieved in Europe, strengthening workers’ rights, maternity rights and employment practices. For example: the 1976 equal treatment directive established the principle of equal treatment for men and women in access to jobs, training and working conditions; the 1992 pregnant workers directive provided for statutory maternity leave, protected the health and safety of pregnant workers and breastfeeding mothers, prohibited dismissal due to pregnancy or maternity, and introduced paid time off for antenatal care; the 1993 working time directive provided a maximum 48-hour working week, and the right to rest periods and paid holiday; the 1996 parental leave directive provided for the right to unpaid parental leave, as well as time off for dependants; and the 1997 part-time work directive prevented part-time workers from being treated less favourably than full-time employees. All these measures have helped to improve the work-life balance and family-friendly employment rights in the UK, and it is vital that we do not fall behind Europe in the years ahead. To dismiss the last four decades of progress without looking to the future would set a dangerous precedent, which fills me with deep concern.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
I believe that, taken as a whole, the Bill works and will do what it says on the tin. Indeed, I note that no one has come up with a better plan to extricate us from the EU. Furthermore, the recent Government announcement that we should have a Bill to set out the terms of withdrawal and the implementation period will provide a good opportunity to readdress any legal complexities and tweaks that become necessary—for instance, through the proposals on human rights changing due to EU negotiations. However, the detail is what counts, and I think that this legislation is still something of an unpolished gem.
Clause 5 would change the role of the principle of the supremacy of EU law post Brexit and act as a carve-out to the concept of having retained EU law. Many of the related issues were debated on day one of our Committee proceedings in relation to clause 6. With clauses 5 and 6 in place, once the UK leaves the EU, EU law will no longer be supreme over new laws made by Parliament, and the UK courts will not need to follow European Court of Justice judgments made after exit day. However, it is time for a gripe, Mr Hanson. Ministers’ decision to speak twice on different issues within the same group has been somewhat unhelpful, because it disconnects the various parts of what we are debating. I agree the two groupings might have been preferable, but that was not on offer from the Chair. Having had my gripe, I will now move on.
Amending clause 5 to deal with the requirement of the withdrawal agreement, or even an incompatibility with it, could be activated by use of the Henry VIII powers set out in clause 9, or alternatively by delaying implementation of clauses 5 and 6 using the power in the Bill—a power that the Government currently wish to amend, but which I hope they will not—to set different exit days for different purposes.
Of course, having the position ironed out in the newly proposed implementation Bill could also be an option. This is a likely issue to be considered, as the Prime Minister did, of course, on 22 September, support a transition period, noting that
“the framework for this strictly time limited period, which can be agreed under Article 50, would be the existing structure of EU rules and regulations.”
The Government have since complained that the EU has been slow to talk about an implementation period, which is certainly concerning. It has been described as a wasting asset, but this should not reduce our urgent need to consider how we would actually implement it.
There is no doubt, from reading the views of the significant number of experts, and from what the Exiting the European Union Committee has heard in evidence, that there is some level of confusion about the meaning of clause 5(1) to (3). I hope that the Government will clarify the position, although I have to say that much of the evidence that the Select Committee received was itself conflicting as to its importance. For instance, witnesses queried the intended effect of clause 5(1): is it only a declaratory statement, or is it setting out the position for the retention of the principle in clause 5(2)?
The point is that the relationship between the supremacy of EU law and retained law is not clear to a number of people. As Professor Mark Elliott noted,
“if retained EU law is domestic law, can it inherit the ‘supremacy’ of the ‘EU law?’”
Would retained law under clauses 3 and 4 benefit from the supremacy of EU law as provided for in clause 5(2)? Professor Syrpis backed that up in his written evidence to the Committee:
“The Bill may be handled in various ways; for example Clause 5(4) excludes the Charter, Clause 6(2) states that: courts need not have any regard to anything done on or after exit day by the European Court”
and schedule 1 excludes Francovich damages.
But it remains unclear whether these exclusions relate only to the retention of EU law in UK law, in clauses 2 to 4, and the interpretation of retained EU law, in clause 6, or whether they also apply to the principle of supremacy of EU law, in clause 5. In effect, I have seen enough indecision on this to think that the Minister needs to expand on his interpretation of the supremacy principle.
Of course, if domestic courts decide on the content and meaning of law post Brexit, domestic judges are going to have to respond to the challenge, as I am sure they are very capable of doing. Clearly we should help them on their way, so far as possible, by giving clarity on such issues as scoping the supremacy of EU law, although ultimately they will have to judge—
“judges will simply have to do their best”,
as Lord Neuberger put it. Frankly, I do not see what could be put in the Bill that would make this an easy process for judges in practice. However, as Sir Stephen Laws and Dr Charlotte O’Brien told our Committee,
“there is already an existing principle whereby, when deciding on law, the courts will look at foreign judgements and treat them as persuasive but not binding”.
Professor Richard Ekins took this a stage further and thought that the provision is only there
“to make it the case that no one thinks the judges are doing anything wrong if they read them”—
meaning Court of Justice judgments—
and that
“you could delete the clause and I think the judges would, properly, do the same thing”.
Clause 5(4) exempts the charter of fundamental rights from being converted into domestic law. The first point here is that, whether or not one agrees with the provision, one could ask whether this is the right Bill to insert it into. That argument was made by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). The Bill is about converting EU law into UK law in order to have a functioning rule book, rather than dealing with policy issues—providing legal certainty rather than reshaping rights. We could have had a stand-alone Bill to deal with that, but I am not convinced that it would have helped the process, or indeed the outcome. In fact, to the contrary, I think that having the benefit of the clause 5 debate running contemporaneously is helpful—if only Ministers had thought the same when grouping today’s amendments.
As for the charter itself, it is a matter of fact that it contains certain extra rights other than those that exist in the Human Rights Act, such as the right to dignity and, as the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) elaborated, the right to protection of personal data. There is also a wider class of potential applicants, because it includes anyone with a “sufficient interest”. Also, stronger remedies are arguably available in certain circumstances, but all that still has to be within the scope of EU law, and I agree with the Government that the charter will lose its relevance after Brexit. However, in the wider context and while it is important to debate the issue, I have strong doubts that we will be losing much by removing the charter if we get the drafting of this Bill right, because many charter rights will form part of the general principles of EU law, as has been explained, and will thereby be retained by clause 6(7) and schedule 1 for the purpose of interpreting retained EU law.
Retention of the charter would also go against the principle of English courts taking control. There may be initial teething problems, but I note that the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), told the Exiting the European Union Committee that an EU legal source exists for each charter right, such that judges will be required to look at the underlying source law or rights when considering cases post exit, rather than the charter. However, I am not sure that that is quite adequate, as it seems as though the Bill will contain no right of action in domestic law based on a failure to comply with any of the general principles of EU law and the courts will not be able to disapply any new law because it is incompatible with any of these general principles, including fundamental rights. Amendment 10, tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), would address that by allowing challenges to be brought to retained EU law—law after Brexit—on the grounds that it is in breach of the general principles of EU law.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Does my hon. Friend agree that a different amendment—perhaps a Government amendment on Report—could achieve the same purpose by restricting that part of schedule 1 to dealing with non-retained general principles of law, so that retained principles could form the basis for a right of action?
Mr Djanogly
Yes, my right hon. Friend made that fair point in an earlier intervention. I am happy to say that I am open and willing to hear what the Government have to say on that, and I look forward to the Minister’s contribution later.
The concept of amendment 10 sounds reasonable to me—not least if we are to get rid of the charter—and I shall be listening carefully. However, I agree that the charter has significantly added to the complexity of human rights applications and that in removing the charter the Bill will provide an opportunity to simplify things outside the EU. The Minister has promised to deliver to the Exiting the European Union Committee a memorandum on charter rights, and I note the idea provided by new clause 16, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), of a report to review the implications of removal of the charter. I would happily accept Ministers’ assurance on that, rather than to legislate for it, and I hope that the document to be delivered to the Committee by 5 December will cover the two issues, as I think the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), said earlier.
My underlying acceptance of the Bill’s position is premised on there remaining, as now exists, a significant and meaningful body of human rights legislation in this country. That would include common law and the Human Rights Act and would be underpinned by the European convention on human rights. I am therefore pleased that the Minister took the opportunity to accept the need for retention of the ECHR in the post-Brexit period.
Wera Hobhouse
I rise to discuss new clause 78 and the amendments that are designed to retain the charter. I listened carefully to what the Minister said earlier, but if the Government are not inclined to retain the whole charter, I urge him at least to look again at new clause 78, because it would protect some equality rights.
Conservative Members like to argue that, when Britain decided to join the European Economic Community in 1975, what the British people voted for was an economic union—no less, no more—and that only afterwards the EU became a political union that we should now leave. However, if one looks at the fundamental role played by the British in drafting the European convention on human rights in 1950, this is not true. The convention aimed to protect fundamental freedoms for all Europeans and was driven by British values.
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The hon. Lady rightly speaks of our living in a global environment, but she will acknowledge that, as has been said by Members on both sides of the House, Britain leads the way in laws for equality? Therefore, what is her concern, particularly as the Human Rights Act 1998 will remain operative?
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. Legal experts the Select Committee has listened to have made the point that there are gaps, so what is the point of not taking the charter into our retained EU law as a whole, because we are taking everything else, and making sure these gaps do not exist?
Joanna Cherry
Does the hon. Lady agree that it is hard to substantiate the claim that Britain leads the world in equality rights, given that we have so often had to fall back on the charter to fill gaps in our equality laws, as, for example, in the Walker case before the Supreme Court in the summer?
Wera Hobhouse
The hon. and learned Lady makes a good point. I am proud of the British legacy of fundamental rights, but as is clear, and as seems to be stated in a lot of legal cases—as I say, I am not a legal expert—lawyers are using different kinds of law because different laws apply to different cases. That is why we have this charter and we would lose a fundamental protection if we did not have it.
Lady Hermon
I do not wish to criticise the UK Government, because in many ways and instances they do lead the way in signing up to the UN conventions. As Ministers made clear last week, in terms of international law the UK adopts a dual system. So it is all well and good for the UK Government to sign and ratify UN conventions and treaties, but they do not actually become part of our domestic law unless there is an implementing Act of Parliament, because of the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. So we send out a signal that we lead the way but in terms of enforceable rights the hon. Lady is quite right: rights for the children are not enforceable before our courts.
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the hon. Lady for making that valuable point. As someone who is not a legal expert, I believe this is about having a safeguard. We are keeping the law in the charter because it fills a gap that we would have otherwise. That is why we should retain the charter.
Let me give an example: the charter provides specific rights for children that are not replicated elsewhere in UK-wide human rights law. It requires that the child’s best interests must be a primary consideration in all actions relating to children; that children’s views may be expressed and shall be taken into consideration; and that children have a right to maintain a personal relationship with both their parents, unless this is contrary to their interests. The latter right was used in a case relating to two British children, whose father’s deportation was successfully challenged by focusing on the major negative impact on the children of loss of contact with a parent. Cases of this kind might become more common if Britain leaves the EU and EU nationals lose the automatic right to reside in the UK, with the consequent risk of family separation.
The charter also contains a prohibition on child labour which is not replicated elsewhere in UK human rights law. Another example of the charter providing greater protection is on disability rights. Disabled people would no longer be able to use the charter to support their right to independence, integration and participation in the community. This interpretive tool in the charter goes much further than the non-discrimination provisions in the Equality Act 2010. On healthcare, as we have heard, the charter was decisive in ensuring that bans on tobacco advertising were permitted. The list goes on, so why not retain the charter? Let me be a bit flippant here: I cannot help but wonder whether the Government are making this obvious omission from our statute books because some time ago the Prime Minister, when she was Home Secretary, had a ding-dong over the charter when she unsuccessfully tried to extradite Abu Qatada and this is a bit of late comeback.
To be serious again, what I worry about most in all the discussions about Brexit is that everything is being done in a big hurry because some eager Brexiteers would rather leave the EU tomorrow and not think about any consequences, even those that would mean real harm for this country. New clause 78, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), would specifically provide an overarching domestic guarantee of non-discrimination by the state. It would be a domestic replacement for the safety net for equality rights currently provided by EU law. The new clause would serve a distinctive and different purpose from the rights protected by the Equality Act 2010, and I urge the Minister to consider it again. It would provide a guarantee that our laws must be non-discriminatory in their purpose and effect, along with a mechanism to challenge them if they were. Currently, that cannot be done under the Equality Act.
Providing greater protection of our human rights has nothing to do with losing sovereignty but everything to do with doing the right thing by our own people. I am fed up with being branded undemocratic or unpatriotic for merely pointing out that the Government will be failing their own people if the Bill passes unamended.
Wera Hobhouse
The new clause has been promoted by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I take it that the commission has done careful research into how it would provide an extra guarantee that is not currently provided. The hon. and learned Gentleman should look at it carefully to understand how it is meant to work, but it is an overarching tool that, as I understand it, we currently do not have. As I said before, as a non- legal person, for me the most important thing is the safe- guarding of our equality laws and the need to match what has been done so far at European and international level.
Brexit is increasingly nothing to do with what leave politicians promised to the people. I fear it is becoming an ideologically driven process to turn this country into some sort of deregulated free-for-all, in which the progress we have made over the past four decades to protect individuals from exploitation and discrimination, in tandem with our European neighbours, is sacrificed on the altar of sovereignty. The British people did not vote to give away their fundamental rights and protections. If Parliament does not amend the Bill, let nobody claim that this is the will of the people.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I apologise for my brief absence from the Chamber during the debate—it was because of the excitement of a Delegated Legislation Committee.
I wish to say a few words about why I feel unable to support the proposals to bring the charter of fundamental rights into UK law, but before I do so I acknowledge the huge importance we should all place on the scrutiny of this historic piece of legislation. The Bill is of course a critical part of the implementation of the huge decision made by the people of the United Kingdom in the referendum last year, and it obviously has a crucial role to play if we are to avoid a regulatory gap in relation to aspects of our law that are currently covered by EU legislation. Although I do not feel able to agree with the new clauses and amendments we are debating, I fully respect the intentions of those who have tabled them.
At a time of great change for this country, it is important that we find ways to work across party divides to come together to make a success of the process of implementing the referendum result and leaving the European Union. My goal for a successful outcome is a new partnership with our European neighbours, with which I hope those on both the leave and remain sides of the debate can be comfortable. It will, of course, be important for Ministers to listen to a spectrum of views before the final terms of our departure from the EU are settled, and I know they are strongly committed to doing that.
Antoinette Sandbach
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. We are told by the Treasury Front Bench that these are existing rights which apply now, and that they are rooted in legislation from before the European Court. Given that those are rights that are applied now, why does she not wish to protect them and ensure that they continue?
Theresa Villiers
That was certainly the stated intention when the charter was originally drafted, but the judicial activism of the ECJ has seen the scope of the charter expanded. Essentially, what we are talking about is the division of power between our courts and our legislature. I do not believe that we have the national consensus to deliver such a significant change to our constitution as to enable our domestic courts to strike down our laws.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
My right hon. Friend talks about the expansion of the charter through the role of the ECJ. Can she give us an example where it has actually been the charter that has caused that expansion? In reality it is the European convention on human rights rather than the charter of fundamental rights that has tended to lead to an expansion.
Theresa Villiers
Of course, the key expansion as far as the United Kingdom is concerned was the confirmation by the European Court of Justice in the Åklagaren v. Hans Åkerberg Fransson case that the charter did actually apply to the United Kingdom and that the opt-out that was supposedly obtained by Tony Blair was not valid.
That brings me to my final reason for scepticism about the charter and the amendments. I was an MEP during the period when the charter was drafted in the EU constitutional convention with a view to inserting it in the abortive EU constitution.
Lady Hermon
As a former and, I have to say, very distinguished Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who did a really good job in that office—I mean that most sincerely, although I rarely have the opportunity to say it—the right hon. Lady will know that the UK withdrawing from the charter of fundamental rights will have an impact on the Good Friday agreement and on the perception that half of the community in Northern Ireland will have of respect for human rights, rightly or wrongly. Will the right hon. Lady therefore encourage the Government to draft a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland, which is, of course, also a key part of the Good Friday agreement?
Theresa Villiers
I can assure the hon. Lady that this Government and, I am sure, all successive Governments will remain strongly committed to the Good Friday agreement and to the protection of individual rights. As she will appreciate, of course, the agreement expressly referred to in the Good Friday agreement in relation to human rights is the European convention on human rights. However, I fully understand her point of view on this matter, and it will always be important for us as a Chamber to respect individual rights. The tenet of my speech is that we do not need the charter to enable us to do that. We have extensive legal frameworks available to us as a Parliament, and through our judiciary and legal system, and that will ensure that we properly protect our citizens, whether in Northern Ireland or in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Let me turn to my final reason for concern. I well remember the clarity of former Prime Minister Tony Blair about the fact that the charter would not be given legal force. As far back as 2000, the Prime Minister and the Europe Minister of the day stated that very clearly for the House. In 2003, the Labour Government’s lead negotiator on the convention, Peter Hain, said there was no possibility of the Government agreeing to incorporate the charter. In 2007, Tony Blair told Parliament that we had an opt-out from the charter, and this approach was supported by a number of pro-EU groups, such as the CBI. Even my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) expressed scepticism about the charter and described it as “a needless diversion”.
While the ECJ may since have ruled that the opt-out secured by Mr Blair was nothing of the sort, we now have the opportunity to see those promises fulfilled. We have a long history of protecting the rights of the individual against the arbitrary exercise of power by the state. We have ample means to do that in the future, with hundreds of years of case law and statute establishing strong principles of accountability in our unwritten constitution. We can legislate in the future if we ever find any gaps in our current framework. We do not need the charter to protect our citizens, and I appeal to Members not to accept the amendments being debated today.
Kerry McCarthy
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hanson. I rise to support amendments 101 and 105, tabled in my name. They relate to the debate we had about environmental principles on day two of the Bill’s Committee stage, and particularly about new clauses 60 and 67, and new clause 28, which I also tabled.
As it stands, UK laws that arise from EU laws such as regulations and directives and that do not comply with the general principles of EU law can be challenged and disapplied. Administrative actions taken under EU law must also comply with the general principles. I say that by way of clarification, because I think a lot of people are trying to follow the debates in this Chamber during the Committee stage, and they are perhaps wondering what on earth we are talking about, so I am trying to make things as simple and as clear as possible for the public out there—and perhaps for some of us in the Chamber as well.
That is the situation while we are members of the EU. Post Brexit, though, schedule 1, as I interpret it, places unnecessary and unjustified restrictions on how these principles will be applied. That is what my amendments seek to rectify. Paragraph (2) states that retained principles will be only those that have been recognised or litigated by the Court of Justice of the EU in a case decided before exit day. Only those principles will be retained in domestic law; others will not, even if recognised in treaties. In the debate on day two, the Minister said in response to new clause 28 that this was because we needed a cut-off point and could not have ongoing interpretation of directives that would affect the situation in the UK. However, I would argue that there is still a real lack of clarity, and a danger that if we allow only principles that have been litigated on to apply after exit day, the non-controversial ones that people do not have a problem with will end up falling away, while only the controversial ones are retained. It is also unclear whether these general principles include environmental principles, as the term “general principles” has not been defined by the ECJ or by the treaties. If environmental principles are not explicitly recognised as general principles, they could be lost entirely. I hope that the Minister can give us a bit of clarity on that.
Paragraph 3 of schedule 1 explicitly limits the legal remedies available when general principles are contravened. Under this paragraph, UK courts will no longer have the power to disapply domestic legislation on the grounds that it conflicts with these general principles. They could only be used like the pre-exit case law of the CJEU to inform the interpretation by UK courts of retained EU law. Paragraph 3(2) therefore appears to narrow the scope for judicial review that currently exists. In the previous debate, some of my colleagues argued very eloquently as to the importance of judicial review in environmental cases but also highlighted the fact that it is often inadequate, and increasingly so, given the cap that is imposed. Paragraph 3(2) would further narrow the scope of judicial review and make it harder for the public to hold the Government to account. As discussed last week, it is vital that the courts are able to enforce the environmental principles.
Amendments 101 and 105 speak to those points. Amendment 101 clarifies that all existing principles of EU law will be retained in domestic law, whether they originate in the case law of the European Court, EU treaties, direct EU legislation or EU directives. It also makes it clear that the key environmental law principles in article 191 of the Lisbon treaty are retained. Amendment 101 therefore expands the meaning of general principles to specifically include the environmental principles. Following on from that, amendment 105 seeks to retain the right of action in domestic law for the public to hold the Government to account for their breaches of the principles.
I know that the Government are proposing an environmental principles policy. I have lots of questions about how that would operate—whether it would be on a statutory footing and so on—but at this stage I ask the Minister to confirm whether they will publish at least an outline version of what that principles policy would look like while there is still time to consider it and its implications for this Bill. So far in Committee, Ministers have been very fond of asking us to take their word for it, but I am simply not prepared to do that: I want to see what these policies would look like.
Will the Minister also explain the Government’s objection to the idea of having internationally recognised principles of environmental law enshrined in UK statute? The Government could include the basic principles in UK law by accepting my amendments. Not least, that would provide us with much needed reassurance that the Environment Secretary will win out against the International Trade Secretary in ensuring that future trade deals with countries such as the US will not lead to imports of chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-pumped beef on our shelves. The Environment Secretary has encouragingly said that the UK should say no to chlorine-washed chicken from the US and that we are
“not going to dilute our high food-safety standards or our high environmental standards in pursuit of any trade deal”.
But as was pointed out during last week’s debate, the environmental principles set out in the EU treaties have been instrumental in decisions such as the EU ban on imports of hormone-fed beef, the moratorium on neonicotinoid pesticides, and the control of the release of genetically modified organisms in the EU.
The debate on day two saw a degree of political consensus emerging around the value of environmental principles such as the precautionary principle, as well as in other areas, particularly the Environment Secretary’s mooted plan for a new independent body to hold the Government to account. I hope that when we consider the governance gap on a future day, we will hear more about his plans for that body. I think we also got confirmation from the Environment Secretary, although it was only a nod from a sedentary position, that he intended to follow the Environmental Audit Committee’s recommendation and introduce an environmental protection Act. I hope that we will hear more about that and the timetable for it. I understand that the much delayed 25-year environment plan may be with us in the first quarter of next year, a fisheries Bill is coming from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the agriculture Bill is due, I think, after the summer recess. If the Government are going to introduce an environmental protection Act before exit day, they will have their work cut out for them. I would be grateful to hear a bit more about that.
Mr Cox
Broadly speaking, there have been two means of protecting human rights in international law. The first, which is generally followed by civil and continental law systems, has been to adopt charters of general rights with very broad statements of those rights and then to turn over to the courts the interpretation, in specific circumstances, of how those rights should be applied. The second, which is generally followed by common-law traditions, has been to proceed not by general statements of rights, but by specific statutory remedies in defined circumstances and by case law that defines the facts and allows the remedy to be extended by analogy with the facts of the particular case.
With due respect to Opposition Members, it seems to me as though some of them have made a mistake in equating the need for the incorporation of the charter with the protection of fundamental rights in this country. Article 7 of the universal declaration of human rights provided in 1948 that all subscribing nations to the United Nations should respect the principle of equality. But it has never been suggested that the United Kingdom, because it did not incorporate that principle into a general statement of an equality right, was not compliant with its obligation in international law, under the declaration and subsequently the covenant, to respect equality.
That is because there are two ways in which one can protect human rights. One can either adopt a general statement of rights and leave the protection of it to the courts, or one can adopt specific remedies in given circumstances that cumulatively and substantively protect those rights. Nobody has suggested that because the Soviet Union incorporated a right to equality into its constitution, equality rights were better protected there than they were in this country, which did not. Therefore, the absence of a general statement of rights, such as that in the charter—I do not say that there is not a function for such statements, but let us begin with first principles—is not to be equated with the protection of human rights. We have to look at the substantive effect of the cumulative common-law and statutory protections in our law.
That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) suggested that the Government’s approach should not be to incorporate this charter of wide, broad and, quite frankly, vague general statements of rights and allow courts to take those statements, which are often rich with value judgments, and apply them to the facts. That is why the approach of my right hon. and learned Friends on the Front Bench is right and, I suggest, consistent with the common-law tradition of this country.
Joanna Cherry
I am wondering which country the hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about, because the common-law tradition melds with the civilian tradition in Scotland. I take nothing away from his erudite explanation of the background to all this, but the point that hon. Members seek to make is that, as is the case with the Human Rights Act, having the charter of fundamental rights as part of our law gives ordinary citizens and businesses the opportunity to go to court to enforce those rights, which this Bill will take away from them.
Mr Cox
No such charter existed with binding legal force before 2009, even in the European Union, but let us look at the circumstances. I contend that there are two ways of proceeding, of which the first is to have a broad and general statement of human rights—indeed, extended human rights under the charter—and to allow the courts simply to interpret them in given circumstances.
Some Government Members and—I think—some Opposition Members believe that the proper place to resolve moral dilemmas is not necessarily in a court. As someone once said, why should a majority of five or nine judges take precedence over a majority of the 650 Members of this House on questions of moral dilemma? Many of these—
The Temporary Chair (David Hanson)
Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is not giving way.
Mr Cox
The point is that these broad and general rights are ripe with value judgments. Quite often, they are not appropriately dealt with by six or seven elderly white judges in a Supreme Court; they are better resolved on the Floor of this House and by a democratic vote in this Parliament.
Mr Cox
If my hon. Friend will forgive me for a moment, I need to develop an argument, because I want to move on.
Let us accept for the moment that there is a second and perfectly legitimate way, which international law accepts. International law does not require subscribing nations of the United Nations to adopt a Bill of Rights, and neither does the European Court of Human Rights—it never did require us to do so. It looked at the substantive and practical effect and how those rights were substantively protected in the jurisdiction. If we accept that for a moment, why should we not proceed by means of the Government’s proposed policy of examining specific statutory remedies and specific rules of common law, and considering whether the right is satisfactorily protected?
Some of us believe that the courts are not always the right place in which to deal with these matters. For example, article 20 of the charter of fundamental rights simply contains a right to equality before the law. That right has been enshrined in the common law in this country for centuries. Why should we have it in the charter of fundamental rights? Some say that there will be a problem between the two charters—
Mr Cox
I will give way to the hon. Lady, but not now.
Some say that there will be a collision. I am not sure that I buy the argument that there will be too much of a conflict or collision between the charter and convention. Quite frankly, my experience in the courts is that when both are relied on, the judge usually ignores the charter. As I said to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), the judge asks, “What does it add?” One may hum and haw, and try to come up with something, and the judge thereafter says, “Well, let’s concentrate on the Human Rights Act and the convention, shall we?”
The truth of the matter is that I do not deny that a modest—I repeat, a modest—extension in the courts has been effected in very recent years by the charter. The case of Benkharbouche is an example of an applicant being able to set aside part of the immunity from suit that the State Immunity Act 1978 conferred on a foreign embassy. Article 6 of the convention did not apply to the employment context, but article 47 of the charter, which guaranteed an effective remedy and a fair hearing in circumstances covered by the scope of European Union law, allowed that lady to argue that part of the statute should be set aside, and it was set aside.
Similarly, in the Vidal-Hall data protection case, the restriction under section 13 of the Data Protection Act 1998, which this House had imposed—it said that if people wanted to bring an action for damages under the Act, they had to show they had actually suffered damage—was set aside by the court on the basis that the data protection directive contemplated cases in which people suffered not merely damage, but distress. However, whether somebody should be able to sue the state or anybody else for damages because they have suffered distress or has to prove that they have suffered pecuniary distress is a matter for this House.
That is what I mean when I say that these matters are resolvable in numerous ways. Many Members on both sides of the House would disagree on the question of whether it was a legitimate public policy judgment that we should restrict an action for the breach of the Data Protection Acts to cases where actual damage was suffered or whether distress was enough. Why should it be resolved by a court? Why should it not be resolved by the House? That is part of the reason why Members on both sides of the House voted to leave the European Union in the first place. We believed that those kinds of decisions needed to be taken here, not by courts and not by the imposition of a law in which we did not have a majority say in this kind of question.
I want to develop what I hope is a coherent argument. I was addressing the question of whether or not there was a conflict between the human rights order—a disharmony imposed by the convention—and that which might be imposed by the incorporation of the charter. There could be real problems ahead. There will be cases in the broad and expansive definitions of European Union law, under which the charter applies when it falls within the scope of EU law, when a moral dilemma confronts a court that is asked to disapply an Act of Parliament. The supremacy principle is retained, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) observed, by the Act. In cases in which it is covered by the charter, and in which such a dilemma has arisen, the Act is set aside because of Benkharbouche and Vidal-Hall. If the charter is incorporated, its vague and general statement of rights will have binding force, so the Act will be set aside.
If I bring a case under the convention and I say that the Act should be set aside because I have suffered inhuman and degrading punishment, or some of the worst violations of human rights that could be conceived by a state, I cannot have the Act of Parliament set aside, which introduces an element of absurdity in our law. Apparently one can torture someone and not have the Act of Parliament set aside, but I cannot have my workplace rights infringed: in that case, I can have the whole caboose set aside—a whole Act of Parliament and statutory apparatus. It makes no sense, and it will bring our law into disrepute if we tolerate for long a situation in which a court faces a moral dilemma when a case is brought under a general statement of human rights. In some cases that are litigated, the court can set aside Acts of Parliament, but in other cases, it cannot do so, even when it involves the most serious violations of human rights imaginable.
Everyone accepts that the Bill legislates for an unsatisfactory situation—we can all agree on that. I tell my friends on the Conservative Benches with whom I have far more in common than that which divides us, even though we may have been on different sides of the debate on the question of belonging to the European Union, we can all agree on some fundamental things. It cannot be right to go on for long with a body of law in our overall legal order that permits and allows higher, special and better rights in certain circumstances. Incorporating the charter will exacerbate that problem. The protection of the rights that Opposition Members have rightly identified as worthy of protection can be accomplished by a different means. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who is not in his place, spoke so well on data protection. It is absolutely right that we need to make certain that our data protection laws are no less important that those we find on the continent, but we do not need to do that by incorporating a general statement of a right and leaving it to the courts to enforce.
Anna Soubry
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for giving way. He makes a very passionate and highly informed speech, which explains so much about the basis of law and the merits of the common-law system. Surely the point he did not address, however, is this: the Bill enshrines EU law into domestic British law. Therefore it does not make sense not to incorporate the charter. That is the contradiction that concerns many.
Mr Cox
It does make sense, because all that does is restore us to a position pre 2009 in the European Union. The general principles will still apply. There is no inconsistency by allowing the general principles—subject to amendments, which I am not speaking on; I have some sympathy with the amendments tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield —but I am convinced that incorporating the charter would be wrong and unwise. As a matter of policy, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members not to vote for that.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I rise to participate in this debate as something of a rarity: a non-lawyer. I will try to keep my comments within the allotted time of between 10 and 12 minutes.
I wish to follow the compelling and intelligent case made by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), and I am delighted to speak in support of his amendment 151, which highlights, in particular, the consequences facing millions of British citizens and thousands of companies if the UK’s data protection legislation cannot be reconciled with EU law post Brexit. If clause 5 is passed unamended, and should the UK crash out of the EU on 29 March 2019 without a deal, I fear that the UK will find itself non-compliant with EU law and the charter of fundamental rights, and that therefore the framework that affords us the unencumbered free flow of data—not just within the EU, but with the safe nations with which the EU has reciprocal deals, including the United States—will immediately be under threat.
The consequences for the businesses and individuals who rely every day on that free flow of data across international boundaries—a free flow that needs to occur safely and without delay, cost or detriment—are unthinkable. As the Software Alliance said in its recent report,
“The benefits of cross-border data transfers are vital, not only for the technology sector but also for financial services, manufacturing, retail, healthcare, energy and most other sectors”.
The Data Protection Bill impact assessment, published last month, recognised the huge economic importance of the UK being able to guarantee effective unrestricted data flow and predicted that being at the forefront of data innovation could benefit the UK economy by up to £240 billion by 2020. Despite the warnings of businesses and their own impact assessment, however, the Government, in implementing clauses 5 and 6, seem determined to make the UK some kind of digital island, cut off from the rest of the global digital economy.
One would have thought, at a time of so many data breaches and cyber-attacks, that ongoing data co-operation with our European partners and others was not just desirable but essential post-Brexit. If creating a digital island is not the Government’s aim, I strongly suggest they make securing a workable compliant data protection deal with the EU one of their main priorities. It is not enough for them simply to assume that we will attain the status of adequacy by default—because we will have implemented general data protection regulations—or that, come what may, the minute we leave the EU our data protection laws will automatically be harmonised with the EU’s. That is simply not the case.
As we heard from the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), the right hon. Member for East Ham and others, the European Court of Justice has already ruled, in both the Watson and Tele2 cases, that the implementing of a GDPR simply is not enough automatically to secure an adequacy by default agreement from the EU. The only avenue I can see for the Government, therefore, if they wish to achieve adequacy by default status, which they claim to desire, is to secure a deal with the EU that complies with European law before we leave. To do that, we would require a transitional period, during which we could negotiate a deal while remaining inside the single market and customs union and under the jurisdiction of the ECJ. That is one way for the Government to find time to negotiate the adequacy by default status. Of course, the other, and much more straightforward, option would be for the Government to commit to the UK remaining inside the single market and customs union and under the jurisdiction of the ECJ, given that no one in the UK ever voted to leave the single market or the customs union.
To be clear, the consequences of the UK crashing out of the EU without a deal would be catastrophic, particularly for businesses in the telecommunications and financial sectors, which are heavily reliant—almost entirely dependent—on the unrestricted free flow of data. The right hon. Member for East Ham detailed the importance of data to the UK economy. In the decade to 2015, the amount of cross-border data flow increased twenty-eightfold in the UK, and currently digital and data-intensive sectors of the economy account for 16% of UK output and 24% of our total exports. But as the clock ticks down to Brexit, I know that businesses that rely on the free flow of data are becoming increasingly concerned. They need to know now what is happening: they cannot plan for the future simply on the basis of a vague Government promise that somehow it will be all right on the night. I fear that, if they do not have guarantees about exactly what is happening well ahead of Brexit, they will vote with their feet and leave, like the European Medicines Agency, which announced last night that it was moving 900 high-tech, high-value jobs from London to Amsterdam.
Businesses cannot afford the risk of finding themselves outside the EU data protection area, and they cannot and will not wait until the last minute to find out what is happening. That is not commercially viable. Contracts would have to be rewritten and bills renegotiated, and things like that do not happen overnight. I fear that, if there is no agreement on an issue as fundamental as data protection, many large, high-net-worth companies which provide high-value jobs will begin to seek the stability that they need outside the United Kingdom.
As I said earlier, I seriously question whether maintaining a frictionless cross-border data flow is attracting enough of the Government’s attention during their Brexit negotiations. My alarm bells began ringing a number of weeks ago, when the Minister for Digital told the House that the Government were seeking “something akin” to an adequacy agreement. I had absolutely no idea what he meant then, and I am no closer to understanding now. “Something akin” to an adequacy agreement simply does not exist. An adequacy agreement is a formal legal position. It cannot be bent, moulded, or used as a quick fix to get a country, or a Minister, out of a sticky situation. The leading data protection lawyer Rosemary Jay said of adequacy agreements that the EU
“has to go through a legislative process. It is not simply within its gift to do it in some informal way”.
EU law is very clear: an adequacy decision can only be given to a “third country”— a country that is outside the EU and the European economic area—to allow it to operate securely and freely within the framework of the general data protection regulation, and an adequacy decision can only be given to a third country that meets the European Union’s high standard of data protection and whose domestic legislation is deemed compatible with the European Union’s charter of fundamental rights. The most obvious difficulty is that an adequacy decision is designed for third countries. The UK is not—yet—a third country, and it will not be a third country until the very end of the Brexit process.
There is a whole lot more to be considered. I cannot see how, without negotiating and securing a deal before leaving the EU, the UK can qualify for any sort of adequacy agreement, whether by default or otherwise. Even if the Prime Minister does secure a transitional period and is given time to sort out the UK’s adequacy problems, there is still no guarantee that adequacy by default will be achieved, because before granting an adequacy decision to a third country, the European Commission is obliged to consider a variety of issues such as the rule of law, respect for human rights and legislation on national security, public security and criminal law. That means that any deal that we reach with the EU will have to require at least a complete reworking—and, at best, a complete ditching—of the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act. In its present form, the Act leaves UK law incompatible with the charter of fundamental rights, which, as we have often heard, includes a chapter on the fundamental right to data protection.
On that basis alone, I am almost certain that the Act, which has already been accused of violating EU fundamental rights, will seriously call into question the UK’s ability to receive a positive adequacy decision. Eduardo Ustaran, a respected and internationally recognised expert on data protection, has said:
“What the UK needs to do is convince the Commission—and perhaps one day the European Court of Justice—that the Investigatory Powers Act is compatible with fundamental rights. That’s a tall order”.
The Government are understandably desperate to secure an adequacy decision by default or otherwise, but the harsh reality is that, at the very least, a lengthy and challenging legal process will almost certainly have to be undertaken before that can happen. That is why it is essential that the Government first secure the transitional period to keep the UK within the single market, the customs union and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. We have to redraft the Investigatory Powers Act to make it comply with the charter of fundamental rights—if that is even possible, given the current form of the Act. Should that not happen, we will crash out of the European Union without a data protection deal, with all the devastating consequences that that would have for individuals and businesses.
Charlie Elphicke
I had occasion to consider deeply the matter of rights and human rights when I drafted, tabled and had debated in this place a British Bill of Rights—the Human Rights Act 1998 (Repeal and Substitution) Bill. People said to me that that could not be done, that it could not be drafted and that it was an impossible project. However, with the help and counsel of many hon. and learned Friends—not least my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), who has just spoken with power, force and vigour—I was able to construct and present a Bill of Rights to this House. That is relevant to this debate because there were three key questions involved. The first question was: what are the rights? The second was: how do we interpret them? The third was: which court should decide on those rights?
Let us take the first question. What are the rights? Some rights are so basic and self-evidently true that they are not even rights at all. They are values. They go to the heart of our constitution, of our foundations, of what we believe in as a country, of what we are about and of our way of life. They involve basic stuff such as the rule of law, natural justice, the right to a fair hearing and the presumption of innocence. Those are the fundamental values of what we are about as a nation and of what we hold to be self-evident and true. When they are trampled upon, there is uproar in this place and across the country because we know in our hearts that those are the values that we hold dear. They are not rights; they are values.
There are also rights, in the Human Rights Act 1998, that we hold to be self-evident and true. They are called second amendment rights in America, and they include the right to a free press, the right to free speech, the right to determine one’s religion and the right of association. Those are important rights that go to the heart of what we are about and that we call values. Then there are the many rights set out in the European convention on human rights that have been built mainly in our own constitution and our own history. They did not just begin in 1998. They are rights that we have taken to be self-evident and true for many years, and they have found their way into the Human Rights Act, and the human rights code—a document to which it is hard to object.
Then we come to the issue of interpretation, and that is where the problems begin. The European Court of Human Rights adopts an interpretation mechanism that I call objective. It asks: do we have the right to family life, yes or no? If we have that right, we cannot be extradited in certain cases. In our own system, we tend to take what I call a more subjective view. We look at all the facts and circumstances of a case. In interpreting that right, we ask whether someone should be able to stand on that right to family life, given their conduct if, for example, they had committed a crime or run someone over. Having examined all the facts and circumstances of the case, we would say that they should not be able to stand on that right because their conduct means that they should not be allowed, ethically and in equity, to do so. That is where the British people were in so many extradition cases. They thought, “These are European rights and they are all wrong.” They are not necessarily wrong, but their interpretation was not right and did not sit well with our values, our way of life and our understanding of how principles of law should be interpreted.
The third question is: what is the proper court? I made sure that my British Bill of Rights included a clause on interpretation. It stated: first, that all facts and circumstances of a case should be considered, giving judges a wide discretion to make a full decision; and secondly, that the court should be the Supreme Court. For me, it was about making the Supreme Court supreme. I did not see why our rights as a nation should be subject to the European Court of Human Rights, or indeed to the European Court of Justice, when our own Supreme Court can determine those things very effectively. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon that it should be this House that constructs rights, that their interpretation should be in line with our own canons of interpretation as a nation, and that the Supreme Court should be supreme.
However, I would not reject the charter of fundamental rights out of hand. Let me explain why. There are rights that make no sense here, such as the right to petition the European Parliament. If we are leaving the European Union, why would we want to petition the European Parliament? On the right to free movement, to seek and have employment anywhere across the continent, that will be a matter for us to determine as a nation state when we leave the European Union. It makes no sense to include those rights in the charter—a point I made to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who agreed with me that we would need to adapt it.
The charter contains rights that draw on the European Court of Human Rights, so there is unnecessary duplication. Then there is an intermediate set of rights, which I think this House should look at. If we are to take back control, we should ask ourselves, “Is it right that some of the rights in the charter should be brought into our own system of law?” That might not be for this Bill, but it is something we should definitely consider.
Antoinette Sandbach
As we are in effect transposing the whole of EU law, with all the regulations that people have complained about for years, for example on bendy bananas, and the regulation of electrical items and consumer protections, does it not make sense to look at this third category of rights?
Charlie Elphicke
I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that it does make sense to look at this category of rights, whether in this Bill or more widely; it is something the House should consider.
Where is the balance to be struck on article 8, which relates to the protection of personal data? My view, for what it is worth, is that I should own my own data and decide what happens to it. It is my own data about me, so I should not have the Government or big businesses saying, “No, it belongs to us.” That is a debate that we should have as a country. This Bill is probably not the right mechanism for that debate, but we need to consider where the balance should lie.
Article 41 sets out the right to good administration. The Minister will say, “Well, of course we administer correctly; we are honourable men”—so are they all. But it is important that, as a matter of principle, every person
“has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the institutions and bodies”
and that the right includes
“the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken”.
It seems to me that these rights are self-evident and true, and that we ought to ensure that they are written into our codes, from the point of view of executive action, if they are not already. They include
“the right of every person to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality”
and
“the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions.”
Those things, it seems to me, are self-evident and basic about what we are and should be about. These are rights that are not written into our system fully and properly, but I think that there is a strong case that they should be. I have of late had reason to ponder such matters in more depth, and the House should consider them to ensure that we execute such things properly in our system, our way of life and the values that we hold dear. The House should take back control to ensure that the rules of law and of executive action apply to each and every person in this nation and that we strike the right balance as we take on the great responsibility of restoring sovereignty to our sovereign Parliament.
Mary Creagh
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). I voted against this Bill on Second Reading due to the powers that it puts into Ministers’ hands and the fact that it sidelines Parliament in many of these moments of incorporation. We have heard Government Members waxing lyrical about putting things back into the hands of this sovereign Parliament, but the Bill puts into the hands of Ministers the power to pass or strike out almost any law, and that point has been missed in this debate.
I am not a legal expert. I am not a barrister. I do not have a law degree. What I have is a semester spent studying Government law and policy at the London School of Economics as part of my master’s in European studies, and I have a massive book by Craig and de Búrca, which is still on the shelf in my office. As I was reading through the Bill, I noticed “Francovich” and that rang a little bell in the reptilian core of my brain. I thought to myself, “Ooh, that is one of those really important cases that I learned about 20 years ago,” and it turns out that that master’s has been the best money that I ever spent.
Francovich is one of the areas where the Government break their promise to cut and paste the whole body of EU law into UK law. Schedule 1 is their get-out-of-jail-free card and includes the things that they do not like and are not going to incorporate. There are a lot of words about why things will be difficult, why judges will be confused and why everyone will be getting themselves into a twist, but it is a rights grab and it must not be allowed to stand. We must not allow schedule 1, which is essentially a list of the ways in which the Government are curtailing legal rights and remedies that we have enjoyed as a result of our membership of the EU. Admittedly, however, some of those rights and remedies did not exist when we joined and have evolved over time through European Court of Justice jurisprudence and through the treaties.
For the last 25 years as EU citizens, we have enjoyed the right to state compensation when the Government fail to implement EU law correctly and an individual suffers a serious loss as a result—that goes back to my big green textbook. The rule was established after Andrea Francovich took his Government to court for failing to protect his rights at work. He worked for an electronics company in Italy, but he was paid only sporadically, and he was still owed pay when his employer went bust. The insolvency protection directive gives workers the right to be paid if their employer goes bust and they are owed wages, but Italy had failed to implement the directive, and the European Court of Justice ruled in 1991 that the Italian Government must make good the pay owed to Mr Francovich and, presumably, his colleagues. Since then, if an EU member state has failed to fulfil its obligations that come with membership of the EU, citizens can obtain compensation if they suffer damages as a result. I think the reason why that stuck in my mind was that the EU case law was relatively fresh 25 years ago.
How did the ruling apply in the UK? There is a particularly sad case that any one of us could have had as constituency MPs: the case of Ben Byrne. Since 1984, the second motor insurance directive has required member states to provide compensation arrangements for victims of untraced drivers and that the protection must be equivalent to that which is available for victims of insured drivers whose identities are known. In 1993 the then three-year-old Ben Byrne was hit by a car while crossing the road with his father. The driver sped off and was never found. Ben’s parents were not aware of his right to claim compensation until eight years after the accident.
We get such difficult, knotty cases in our constituency surgeries, with people being unaware of their rights and remedies under the law. Many of us will have held the hand of a constituent in terrible cases to ensure that they get justice.
Anna Soubry
There is genuine concern across this House about this matter, because it cannot be right that people cannot raise a claim on EU law “retrospectively”, as the hon. Lady puts it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) has raised this problem, so I hope the Government will examine it and come up with proposals that will satisfy this concern from right across the House.
Mary Creagh
I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention. Often the simplest sentences raise the biggest alarm bells, because things can be missed if we blink, and substantial rights are engaged in this. The Brexit Secretary said in his speech to UBS last week that the UK would remain
“in all the EU regulators and agencies”
during the transitional period. That leaves us with a further conundrum, because transitional rights are mentioned in the European Commission’s negotiating paper and it says that the ECJ will continue to be able to decide, presumably on Francovich, during any transitional period. The issue of the transitional period is stretching the elastic limits of the Conservative party and of the Cabinet at the moment in terms of which wing of the party is going to succeed, but from the point of view of economic stability and job stability in this country I certainly want to see a transitional period. This Bill raises questions about the loss of those rights if there should be, as we all hope there will be, a transitional period.
The problem is that those rights start to erode as exit day looms, because the incentive to follow the EU directives will be diminished for the Government as they will be let off the hook, given that there will be no retroactive right to sue under Francovich.
Schedule 1 therefore fails the basic test of fairness. For example, if the Government are in breach of an air quality directive, perish the thought, and people are suffering a substantial loss as a result, only those who start legal proceedings before exit day would be entitled to those damages. My amendment 139 would ensure that the right to sue the state and to obtain a remedy under Francovich is still available for those who have suffered that loss or damage before the UK exits the EU. This would allow the victims of a Government failure to uphold their rights that took place before exit to obtain those damages. It would bring fairness to this process, as well as, crucially, legal continuity and legal certainty. Brexit must not be used as an excuse to abolish citizens’ rights and protections under the law. In the referendum my constituents did not vote to reduce their rights, and I hope the Committee will be able to test the matter this evening.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I have considerable sympathy with the points just made by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh). Exactly at which point to create which cut-off when dealing with Francovich is a knotty issue, but the idea that people whose rights already exist and who are damaged before exit should be prohibited from pursuing causes that they would have been able pursue now had they had the wit to start them now is pretty offensive to natural justice, and I hope that those on the Treasury Bench will come forward with some adjustment to paragraph 4 of schedule 1.
I mainly wish to dwell on the two other issues that have been raised in this interesting debate, which has been much more of a genuine Committee stage debate than some of the debates, or some parts of them, that we have had in the previous two days’ consideration. The first is on the charter of fundamental rights, where I thought the argument was largely being won by those who argued that it was not productive to have the general principles in that charter brought into UK law, provided that we could satisfy ourselves that case law and statute between them would cover off all the material and substantive rights contained within the charter. I was therefore extremely heartened to hear the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), say that there was going to be a full analysis, which I hope will be sufficient to persuade us all that all the rights are covered off in some other way. If they are, the points that were made about the dangers of judicial activism, which is positively invited by the charter of fundamental rights, would outweigh any advantage to the charter’s incorporation.
Before I come to the main point I want to make about paragraph 3 of schedule 1, I wish to observe, as a slight qualification to some of the things that have been said in Committee, that an element of judicial activism will not only be made possible but actually be required by the Bill, because it refers repeatedly to retained principles and it is impossible for judges to engage in the application of principles without their engaging in judicial activism that goes beyond simply reading the plain face of statutes and the like.
This is all a very grey area. With that in mind, I come to amendment 10, tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), and paragraph 3 of schedule 1. His amendment refers to paragraphs 1 to 3, but in my view it refers mainly to paragraph 3. There is currently a great oddity in the way the Bill is cast. I very much hope that not too long from now my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General will come to the Dispatch Box and resolve this problem, but it is important to set out the nature of the problem.
Clause 5(2) clearly establishes the principle of the supremacy of EU law so far as the past is concerned. It spells it out in awesome terms, by including the
“disapplication or quashing of any enactment or rule of law”—
if that phrase has any meaning—
“passed or made before exit day.”
Clause 6(3)(a), which we discussed on a previous day, makes it entirely clear, at least in relation to the ordinary operation of the lower courts—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and I are still discussing with Ministers on the Treasury Bench the vexed question of the Supreme Court—that not only retained case law but
“any retained general principles of EU law”
are to be applied by the courts.
It is therefore a strange state of affairs that if we look at schedule 1, we discover that no court or tribunal will be able do the very things that the combination of clauses 5(2) and 6(3) require. No court or tribunal will be able to apply the general principles of EU law to quash or be supreme over any existing UK law. We can have a Bill that says one thing or we can have a Bill that says the opposite, but we cannot properly have a Bill that says in one part of it one thing and in another part the opposite of that thing, so some change is required. That much is, I think, simply a matter of analytical fact.
My preference, which I hope the Solicitor General is going to reflect in his remarks, is for a change of the kind that has come up in various exchanges this afternoon. It is considerably more modest than the rather uncharacteristically complete, sweeping amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. I would simply amend paragraph 3(2) of schedule 1 in such a way as to ensure that it refers to general principles of EU law other than retained principles. At that point, it seems to me, rationality would re-enter the scene, because we would then be saying that after exit day a court in the UK could not use later principles developed by the CJEU—or indeed, while we are at it, any charters or other documents produced by the EU—to overrule English statute, which would of course be a natural and proper consequence of our leaving the EU.
Sir William Cash
For the sake of the record, I would be grateful to my right hon. Friend—I nearly said “learned” because he is doing such a great job—if he also looked at paragraph 5, which, in terms of interpretation, does relate to schedule 1 as well, and so cannot be left out.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Oddly enough, I was going to say that, so I will not do so now. I agree with that. While we are at it, I hope that the Solicitor General will also tell us that paragraph 3(1) of schedule 1 will be similarly adjusted, because, clearly, we need the same principle to apply to a private right of action as applies to the quashing of an enactment.
Provided that those changes are made, I think that the basic articulation of clause 5 and schedule 1, unlike clause 6, is in reasonably good shape and therefore I hope that, as well as the very splendid offer of a full analysis of the rights, we will get a very clear statement from the Minister about the kind of amendments that will be brought forward on Report. That would certainly make me more than willing to support the Government tonight.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of amendment 46 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition; amendment 8 in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve); and new clause 16 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie).
The charter of fundamental rights is the most up to date, and therefore, in many respects, the most fit for purpose framework for the protection of human rights that UK citizens currently enjoy. It is broad based and comprehensive in its coverage but also specific in many aspects of its scope. Although the charter of fundamental rights draws together many rights and principles that are to be found elsewhere in legislation and case law, it also augments the legislation that predated it, and in doing so provides additional rights and protections to UK citizens that are not found anywhere else. It is not simply an amalgam of rights legislation that exists elsewhere in UK law, as the Government would have us believe.
The history of human rights legislation is cumulative. It has developed over centuries. Since Magna Carta, our understanding of the inalienable rights of all human beings has been growing, expanding and evolving, and legislation has been fought for and established in response. The charter of fundamental rights is the clearest articulation that we have of a 21st century commitment to human rights. It was developed painstakingly and collaboratively by all EU member states prior to its ratification in the Lisbon treaty, and it is therefore also a clear statement of our shared values and the aspects of our common humanity that bind us together and underpin the respect that we have for each other both within and across national borders.
The charter of fundamental rights is a deeply practical framework, which UK citizens rely on for protection every day. Article 1 enshrines human dignity as a right. Few would disagree that human dignity is a right, but the charter of fundamental rights is the only place in legislation that enshrines that right, affording the most basic protection to people in receipt of social care or medical treatment, among many other circumstances.
Article 8, the protection of personal data, is a new 21st century right, which provides a foundation of principle for the development of further specific legislation to protect the privacy of individuals and to regulate the use of data. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) made use of that provision when making his case against the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, and I would therefore hope that he has no wish for this provision to be rescinded and for others to be denied this opportunity.
Article 21(1) is of particular importance for LGBT people as it is the only provision in international law ratified by the UK that expressly protects people from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation. It adds a layer of protection over and above the provisions contained in the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act, and that protection would therefore be diminished without it.
Article 28, the right of collective bargaining and action, establishes the right of workers and employers to negotiate and conclude collective agreements and to take collective action to defend their interests, including strike action. Workers can also rely on the charter to challenge laws that breach fundamental rights. For example, individuals working in the Sudanese embassy in the UK used the charter to successfully enforce their employment rights in the UK courts. There are countless such examples and workers would lose such powers if the charter no longer applied in the UK. This Government have already proved their commitment to weakening workers’ rights in their pernicious Trade Union Act 2016, so I am afraid we can have no confidence that the protection of such rights can be taken on trust for the future.
There are many other provisions that are unique to the charter of fundamental rights and without which the human rights protections afforded to UK citizens will be weakened. The charter applies to EU law, and the Government say that the Bill places all EU law on the UK statue book, but if the Government have their will, and the charter is not part of domestic law after exit day, the important additional rights it affords the British public will be lost. It is therefore simply not the case that this Bill is the simple cut-and-paste job the Government would have us believe it is.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Stronger children’s rights protections exist in the devolved nations, and Ministers in Wales are statutorily obliged to have due regard to children’s rights, as expressed in the UN convention on the rights of the child, when exercising any of their functions, unlike in England. Does the hon. Lady share my concern that the Bill as it stands will remove the basic children’s rights safeguards offered by the EU charter of fundamental rights and prevent devolved nations from upholding the present arrangements and commitments to children’s rights into the future?
Helen Hayes
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and she cites yet another powerful example of the extension of rights that is afforded by the charter to all our constituents, including those in the devolved nations.
I want to say a word now about the views of my constituents and to represent their views. My constituents voted overwhelmingly—by more than 75%—to remain in the EU. They did so for many reasons—some very practical, and others deeply principled—but in all of the many conversations I have had with my constituents since the referendum, the word they have used most often is “values”. My constituents voted to remain in the EU because the EU represents their values of tolerance, diversity and internationalism, and there is no clearer articulation of these values than the charter of fundamental rights.
Many of my constituents are deeply distressed by the EU referendum result, and they have been looking to the Government for comfort and for a negotiated Brexit deal based on the values we share with the EU. Adopting the charter of fundamental rights into UK law would send a strong signal about a continued basis of shared values with the EU and a commitment to uphold the highest standards of human rights protections as the foundation for any future trade deal with the EU. Without this commitment and this level of protection, the Government demonstrate once again that they have no commitment to high standards and that the UK’s relationship with the rest of the world risks being based on a race to the bottom in terms of protections for UK citizens.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
My constituents voted overwhelmingly, by 67%, to leave—there were variations around the country. I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady’s speech, but is she seriously suggesting that the main reason most of her 75% voted to remain was the charter of fundamental rights?
Helen Hayes
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. That is not my contention; my contention is that the charter of fundamental rights is a very clear articulation of one of the many reasons why my constituents voted so overwhelmingly for remain, and I seek to represent their views today, as I am sure he seeks to represent the views of his constituents in this important debate.
The charter is the most up-to-date human rights framework from which UK citizens benefit, and it is incomprehensible that the Government should not want to commit to the same high standard as the basis for all future human rights protections for UK citizens post Brexit and as a basis for continuing to develop UK human rights law. That they will not do so is revealing and deeply concerning.
My constituents did not vote for Brexit. But, above all, they did not vote for Brexit on any terms. They seek reassurance from the Government, and they do not find it in this deeply flawed Bill. It is essential that UK citizens can continue to rely on the highest standards of human rights protection post Brexit. I will continue to fight for that, and I will vote for these amendments.
Antoinette Sandbach
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). I agree with her that human rights law is a developing area of law, but I do not agree that this Government have any intention of trying to undermine it.
We have heard a very interesting exposition of why the charter should not be translated into UK law. I accept that there are flaws with amendment 8, but I want to speak to it none the less because it is quite clear that, as I believe the Government have now accepted, the third category of rights needs some form of protection and incorporation, if it is not already protected.
The development of human rights law started out in the 1920s with the Geneva conventions. Those conventions were signed by a limited number of countries and were basically the fundamental guarantees of the rights of citizens when all law and order has broken down and they are facing the worst circumstances of war and chaos. That is the true meaning of the word “chaos”, I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes). The law has moved on and changed, and countries that were never signatories to those conventions are now subject to their requirements because they are the basis of the minimum rights that should be guaranteed in any civilisation. Countries that fail to guarantee those rights get prosecuted under the International Court of Justice in The Hague. In future we will no doubt see actions on Syria, and other actions. The 1950 convention that we originally signed, which forms the basis of our Human Rights Act, has therefore moved on, and there are rights contained in the charter that are not in the Human Rights Act.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
The extra rights, or third-category rights, in the charter seem to be predominantly matters of social policy such as healthcare and schooling. While we might all agree that those things should happen, they should not be rights in a charter but matters of policy for Government to determine. That is why I take exception to my hon. Friend’s argument. This is not really about rights but about policy.
Antoinette Sandbach
I am afraid that the Walker case demonstrates exactly the opposite. Somebody was discriminated against because they were in a same-sex marriage, and the charter guaranteed the partner’s right to the pension. That was not a matter of social policy; it was enforced because of the charter. That is why this debate is incredibly important. There will potentially be some areas that are a matter of policy, but it is important for the Government to go away and look at the amendments because serious points are being made that will affect people’s everyday lives. This is not a debate on principles that do not matter; these are really important, fundamental issues that, as a democracy, we should be looking at in a sensible and reflective way.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I entirely agree that there are anti-discriminatory rights contained in the charter. However, does my hon. Friend agree that the issue which is not yet resolved, but which the Government’s analysis may resolve, is whether those rights are already encoded in the case law and the general principles emanating from that case law, and therefore do not need to be in a separate charter for our purposes, or are not yet in the law and therefore would need to be in the charter?
Antoinette Sandbach
I do accept that that needs to be looked at. The problem with the sovereignty of Parliament is that we always get to the point where the Parliaments of the future can change and erode these rights. I agree with my right hon. Friend’s earlier suggestion that in due course the Human Rights Act ought to be amended to include the broader category of rights. We are seeing an evolution and a change in our rights, and it is important to reflect that in that Act.
Mary Creagh
The hon. Lady is making some excellent points. Several of her Conservative colleagues have argued that some of the rights contained in the charter are otiose—one of them being, perhaps, the right not to be subjected to forced expulsion. That is, thankfully, not something that we have seen in this country, but it was a persistent feature in 20th century Europe. We are now at a stage where the Home Office is sending out letters to EU nationals threatening them with deportation. Although some of those individuals may yet have recourse to their rights under the European charter, they will not be able to exercise them after we leave.
Antoinette Sandbach
The hon. Lady does my colleagues a great disservice. The rights that my colleagues described as otiose were, for example, the right to petition the European Parliament or the right to stand in EU Parliament elections. I think she is also being unfair to the Home Office, which has made it very clear that the letters to which she refers were sent out by mistake and did not accurately reflect the position.
Nothing that the hon. Lady has said takes away from the point that the charter of fundamental rights contains a third category of rights that may not have protection. I am encouraged that the Government are going to undertake the exercise that has been mentioned, which they need to do, before Report. It is important that the Committee takes very informed decisions about where the gaps are. For that reason, I very much support amendment 10.
Mr Francois
This situation has evolved over a number of years, and it continues to do so. I do not want to introduce too much of a partisan element into the debate, but I want to give an example of how the situation has changed over the past few years. When we debated the Lisbon treaty in this House in 2008—something that I was actively involved in at the time—the policy of the then Labour Government was that the charter should not be justiciable in the United Kingdom’s courts. In fact, the then Government were at great pains to stress—
Mr Francois
It is. The then Labour Government said that they had a protocol that specifically ruled that out. That is how much things have changed.
Antoinette Sandbach
There has been much misrepresentation in the House of the protocol, but it is quite clear what it said: the rights contained in the charter were existing rights. In other words, the charter did not create any new rights that had not previously existed. The position of those on the Treasury Bench is that the rights are of long standing, and they apply to UK citizens. I am very keen to ensure that where those rights may not be adequately protected, the gaps are filled. But to say that protocol 30 was an opt-out, which is how it has been portrayed in the debate, is, quite frankly, inaccurate and not right.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The hon. Lady is being generous in giving way. Can she expand on how she sees us getting from our current position to the point at which the Human Rights Act includes the rights that she thinks it should include? What sort of transition period does she envisage, and how will the rights be protected in the interim?
Antoinette Sandbach
I very much hope that those on the Front Bench will go away and undertake their promised exercise, from which we will be able to see exactly where the gaps are and where the third category of rights may fall. It seems to me ridiculous that we are going to bring over 12,000 regulations covering everything from fridges to bananas, but we are not going to deal with some of the most fundamental and basic things that guarantee citizens certain levels of protection. That is the fundamental principle, and it is why I support both amendments 10 and 8.
Anna Soubry
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is really important, given the many concerns about the Bill, that we make it absolutely clear, as she quite rightly points out, that we have a very proud history on human rights in this Parliament and in this country? The idea that this Government are in some way taking away rights from people is simply not true, and it is very important for all of us to report this, especially to our constituents, with great accuracy.
Antoinette Sandbach
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. In fact, I could not have put it better myself. In that regard, I adopt everything she says.
This is important because we have been publicly vilified for tabling amendments to the Bill. Debates such as this illustrate very dramatically to our constituents why it is so important to undertake a democratic process, which sometimes involves tabling probing amendments—I know amendment 8 is such an amendment—so that we can look at, consider and debate these issues and, I hope, come to consensus across the House. I know other Members wish to speak. These are incredibly important matters, and I am waiting to hear what Ministers say about how they will approach them.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) for her speech, which showed her great experience and knowledge from her many years practising in the legal profession. I have heard many other Members from both sides of the Committee who have eminent knowledge in this area—they have spoken in this and previous sittings and will speak in others—not the least of whom is my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), who is in his place. He studied in the school of law at the University of Leeds; I studied in the school of computing at the University of Leeds, and I hope to apply that knowledge later in my contribution.
Opposition Members are looking to the Bill to ensure that retained EU law within UK law keeps us aligned with EU rights and regulations. I am going to outline my concerns about the Government’s decision to exclude certain elements of EU law through the EU withdrawal process. For instance, it makes no sense whatsoever to me to exclude from that process the charter of fundamental rights. Where is the analysis of the effects of removing the charter from our law? What safeguards are in place to ensure that we are not creating a legal chasm that has unknowable effects on individuals and businesses?
Article 8 of the charter covers the protection of personal data—the right to privacy and the right to data protection, which serve as the foundation of the EU’s data protection law. Getting rid of article 8 could prevent businesses from building customer profiles across the EU, which will directly harm the ability of small companies to compete when selling their products on social media platforms, an area in which the UK has seen huge growth. I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has tabled amendment 151 on this matter.
The charter is fundamental to our response to the Government’s failures on clean air, an issue that is engulfing many cities across the UK, not least my city of Leeds. Article 37 ensures that people have recourse to the courts when there are environmental breaches. In fact, the UK has been sent a final warning that it must comply with the EU air pollution limits for nitrogen dioxide or they will face a case at the European Court of Justice. In the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I sit, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs could not articulate what powers and mandate a new UK environment protection agency would have to replicate the loss of article 37. He said that
“we will consult on using the new freedoms we have to establish a new, world-leading body to give the environment a voice and hold the powerful to account. It will be independent of government, able to speak its mind freely.… We will consult widely on the precise functions, remit and powers of the new body”—
no definition there. He also said:
“We also need to ensure that environmental enforcement and policy-making is underpinned by a clear set of principles”—
no definition of those principles. How can we be satisfied with an EU withdrawal process that does not provide for our leaders to be accountable for their environment failures? My constituents voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU and do not expect to lose the rights provided by the charter of fundamental rights.
Many of those rights, as has been pointed out, are well established in UK law, but many others are new rights that have been introduced since our membership of the EU and the signing of the Lisbon treaty. Will the Government argue for each of those rights in turn in the House, or are we to take it on trust that they will be retained and that we will continue to enjoy them post-exit day? Attempting to scrap the charter is cowardly and speaks to the suspicions of people up and down the country that the Government are not working for them but instead working for the hardest possible Brexit.
Robert Neill
There have been a number of powerful speeches from Members on both sides of the Committee on this important issue. I shall be as brief as I can, but I want to begin by picking up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach). This is what we are supposed to be doing in this House. This is about proper parliamentary scrutiny. I do not care about the views of writers of newspaper headlines. If any one of us stands up and seeks to scrutinise the Bill to improve it, we are doing our duty by our constituents. Anyone who thinks that doing so is somehow opposing either the Bill or the wishes of the electorate has precious little knowledge of—or, even worse, no respect for—our parliamentary processes.
In an endeavour to seek to improve the Bill and assist the Government, I supported a number of amendments tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and others, and I stand by that. I hope—I get the impression from the spirit of what has been said—that the Government recognise those issues and will find a means to take them forward constructively. That is in everyone’s good interests, but I want to reinforce as swiftly as possible the significance of that. The Government’s position in relation to the protection of human rights has been grossly mischaracterised by some Opposition Members. That does the debate no good. I do not believe for a second that it is the Government’s intention to diminish rights protection. Equally, it is important that we get right the way in which that is protected. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General will reflect on that.
I particularly want to refer to Francovich litigation, because this is a classic case of making sure that we do not inadvertently do injustice to people as we take necessary measures in the Bill to incorporate existing European law into our own. No one has a problem with that, but it is not right to deny people the ability to seek effective remedy for a course of action that arises under retained law. The whole point of having sensible limitation Acts is to prevent people from being denied a remedy with the passage of time when they have done nothing to deserve that. We need a bit more clarity—for example, if there is a pre-existing right to a course of action that is available until the moment we leave the European Union, it ought to be possible for someone, once they have become aware of that course of action, to pursue it through our courts.
Mr Grieve
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. While the Government have made an argument that there is a problem because of the international law aspect in such a piece of litigation going all the way to the European Court of Justice, there can be no argument that the same rules that applied when we were in the EU should apply to any such piece of litigation, even if the end-stop is our own Supreme Court. It is perfectly easy to do, and the Bill has to be altered to allow that to happen.
Robert Neill
The case that my right hon. and learned Friend makes is completely unarguable. There is no answer to that thus far from the Government, and the only answer is to change and improve the Bill. To fail to tie up that clear, apparent and recognised loose end in the Bill could have the effect, almost by negligence or a measure of inadvertence, of denying UK citizens rights they might otherwise have. That would seem to me to be almost verging on the disreputable. I do not believe that the Ministers on the Treasury Bench wish to do that for one second and I know they will want to put it right. I hope that they will make it clear that it is the Government’s intention to make sure that that lacuna is resolved.
Sir William Cash
On amendment 10, I am sure that my hon. Friend observed what was said about the absence of reference to paragraph 5 of schedule 1, which deals specifically with the question of interpretation. Does he also agree that one of the greatest dangers is the idea that the Supreme Court, of its own volition after we have left, will be able to disapply any legislation? Does he not agree that that is a fundamental principle, too?
Robert Neill
I think the most important principle is legal certainty. It may well be very sensible for us to start to remove, as soon as possible, bits of retained law that we do not want to keep, but it seems to me to be equally implausible to retain something without following through on the logic from whence it comes. I recognise my hon. Friend’s point, but the issue, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) pointed out, is one of the Bill’s own making. I hope that the Government will table an amendment—before the Report stage—to remove these internal contradictions sooner rather than later. I think we all want to be in the same place, but justice requires not only independence of the courts but a proper framework in which it can operate. Above all, it requires certainty. The Bill as it stands runs the risk of creating uncertainty, and that cannot be in anybody’s interest.
I have been struck by the tone of the responses we have had from the Government Front Bench so far, but it is really important to stress that this is a matter of very significant principle. We wish to give the Government the best possible fair wind. I have no doubt whatever about the intentions, credit and integrity of the Solicitor General, who will reply to the debate shortly. What he says will weigh very heavily with many of us. I am sure he will do something that is constructive and helpful, and will help to improve the Bill. This is an important point that I wish to put on the record, because if there is not something of that kind, we will have to return to the issue as the Bill progresses. I hope that that will not be necessary. I believe it will not be necessary, but it is important to stress how fundamentally significant it is. These matters may seem technical, but they are vital to the underpinning of a sound piece of proposed legislation going forward.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I support those amendments that seek to ensure that the charter of fundamental rights is not exempted when we transfer powers from the EU after Brexit. Like many people I expect, I have received a lot of correspondence from constituents, and I wanted to start by reading from one—because time is short I will just read the last section of a letter from one of my constituents, Andrew Connarty:
“I feel that the EU and its legislative and judicial bodies protect me as a citizen and have a process of checks in place to protect my human rights, my legal rights and provide me with security. A lot of conversation in the media covers the rights of EU citizens in the UK who are foreign nationals, but what about the rights of EU citizens in the UK who are British nationals?”
Andrew Connarty is one of the great number of people in this country who are fearful of what is about to happen. For them, the process of leaving the EU is not some great liberation or removal of an alien superstate that oppresses them and over-regulates them. They see this as a loss of something of themselves; they see themselves as being diminished and lessened by this process.
Some on the Government Benches will say, “Well, that view does exist, but it is the view of a small liberal elite”. Indeed, a Member earlier tried to taunt a colleague by suggesting that the vote for remain in her constituency could not possibly have been motivated by concern about the charter of fundamental rights. I accept that the great mass of people are probably completely unaware of what particular rights we are talking about, but that does not mean they are unconcerned about them. Joni Mitchell probably summed it up best with the line,
“you don’t know what you’ve got
‘Till it’s gone.”
The reason is that by their very nature political rights do not put obligations on the rights holder—they do not have to be defended and claimed every day; they put obligations on everyone else. We all have to respect the rights of others. In particular, private corporations and public institutions have to respect the rights of others. It is not until they are changed and that relationship alters that people understand that something has been taken away from them. That is why it is absolutely vital that we educate people about the process now happening.
There was some debate about whether the rights in the charter are substantial at all, about whether they mean very much and about whether they are covered elsewhere in legislation. In 2006, this Parliament established the Equality and Human Rights Commission to advise us on such matters. I have read its briefing—I suspect most have—in which it cites clear examples of articles in the charter that are not replicated in other forms of legislation and states that, if the charter is not transferred or incorporated into British law, these rights will be lost. They include—I will not read them all: article 22 on child labour; article 8 on the right to be forgotten on the internet; article 26 on independence for disabled people; and article 24 on the access of children to both parents. These are rights that we have now that we will not have if the charter does not come over post Brexit.
It is not necessary to lose these rights in order to achieve Brexit. I say to the Brexiteers: I am not one of you but you can have Brexit without losing these rights. It is entirely possible. We do not need to do this, so why are we discussing it at all? The Minister said earlier that it makes no sense to have the charter if we are not a member of the EU, because it refers to the EU, yet the entire canon of European law is being taken over and incorporated into British statute, and this charter goes along with it to give citizens rights in respect of it. It makes total sense, therefore, to bring the charter over in the process of repatriating these powers.
There has been talk that it would be silly to bring the charter over because it would create anomalies and inconsistencies with other parts of the Bill, but the Bill already recognises that there are a million anomalies in the process and makes provisions to deal with them. We wonder, then, what is so special about the charter that it cannot happen there, too. Leaving that to one side, however, the most telling argument, as colleagues have said throughout the last six hours, is surely that it is operational at the minute. Why is our legal system not grinding to a halt under the pressure of these contradictions if they are so great? The truth is they are not so great. It works at the minute, and there is no reason it could not continue to work beyond 2019.
In the absence of a rational argument for the retention of clause 5 and schedule 1, I am compelled to find myself reaching the same conclusion as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke): what is happening here is pure politics. There are those on the other side who will be satisfied by being thrown this bone, and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman put it himself, the idea of being able to get rid of a provision that includes both the word “Europe” and the word “rights” creates a double salivation, but I do not think that it just about sating those who are so Europhobic that they will get pleasure from this; I think there is something else going on as well.
The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), who is no longer in the Chamber, said earlier that the Government did not intend to remove or weaken our human rights, and I take that at face value. The Government have certainly not come here and said that that is their intention. In fact, no Members—or almost none—have said today that they want to remove people’s human rights, to weaken protection at work, or to lessen consumer protection laws in this country, although I rather fear that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) nearly let the cat out of the bag when he referred to “the wrong people” having rights in the charter.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the repatriation of powers so that he could have “real human rights” in this country. I dread to think what he means by “real human rights”. I find him an honourable fellow and I am sure that he means no malintent, but I know that there are plenty of people in our society and in our community who will take advantage of any roll-back of civil and human rights protection to ensure that our religious and political freedoms are constrained so that they can adhere to theirs. I think we need to be eternally vigilant, and I hope very much that the Government will feel able to think again.
I say this to those in the centre ground of the Tory party: “If you are just trying to keep the good ship together and keep every faction on board, and if you think that by giving this concession on human rights you will shore up the Government’s support, remember that your former leader David Cameron thought he would be able to do that by having a Brexit referendum in the first place, and look how that has worked out.” I sincerely say to them, “Once bitten, twice shy. Please think again.”
The Solicitor General
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard). Let me take this opportunity to assure him yet again that our commitment to rights and freedoms remains absolute. I spent nearly 20 years at the criminal Bar dealing with the liberty of the individual. Indeed, I think I was a human rights lawyer before we even coined the phrase, as were many other Members on both sides of the House.
The point has already been made that our rights and freedoms long pre-date modern developments, but modern developments have no doubt helped to sustain, improve and enhance the range of those freedoms. The fundamental question that we seek to ask about the charter is whether, in the final analysis—as we are no longer to be members of the European Union—it adds anything relevant or material to the sophisticated and developing body of law that has evolved over generations. I do not think so, and I have reached that conclusion after extremely careful thought.
It is tempting, after a long debate, to try and treat this as a Second Reading wind-up, but we are far from that. Other Members are anxious to take part, and I am mindful of the time. I will therefore be true to the principles of debate in Committee, and deal with schedule 1, which I hope will be agreed to. In doing so, however, I will address the various amendments that have been tabled on pages 8 to 12 of the amendment paper—which is still the same size although we are now on day three of the Committee stage, and I am pretty confident that that will remain the case.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
Before my hon. and learned Friend moves on—very authoritatively, I am sure—to the details of the amendments, may I point out that he has just made an important statement? He said that he had thought about whether retaining the charter of fundamental rights after we had left would add anything to our legal rights in this country beyond what we already have. In the past half hour, we have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) describe what she calls the third category of rights, which do not appear anywhere else in our law, and we have just heard the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) list three or four rights in the charter that are not replicated anywhere else. Which of those rights would the Solicitor General be happy to see abandoned? What is going to happen to the third category of rights? He must explain why he does not think the charter adds anything, given that the main reason people are trying to get rid of it is that it has extended the scope of European-sponsored human rights law in this country.
The Solicitor General
As the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) has mentioned, the Government will, on 5 December, publish their full analysis of the sources of the rights that we have been talking about. I remind my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) that the underlying principles of EU law from which the charter has been developed will be part of the body of law that we bring down to the UK, and will be able to be relied upon.
Mr Cox
Is not the answer to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) that the rights might not be replicated in our existing law but the protections will be? The fact that a general statement of a right is not replicated verbatim in our law does not mean that those rights are not otherwise protected adequately and fully by our laws.
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, but I feel as though I am about to become a proxy in a debate between him and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, so I will now develop my point.
The Solicitor General
If I may, I will move on to amendment 10, which would remove paragraphs 1 to 3 from schedule 1. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) earlier drew the attention of the Committee to these important matters, and I am grateful to him for the constructive way in which he has sought to approach this issue. First, we cannot agree to the removal of paragraph 1 because the effect would be to create huge uncertainty. How would our domestic courts approach the task of assessing challenges to the validity of converted law? That is a job that they have never had before. Who would defend those challenges? What remedies would be available to the courts? How could converted law that was found to be invalid be replaced? The amendment does not deal with any of those vital questions.
Similarly, we cannot accept that paragraph 2 should be removed from the schedule. There is no single definitive list of the general principles. They are discovered and developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Paragraph 2 in its current form maximises certainty by specifying a clear cut-off point and stating that a general principle needs to have been recognised by the Court before we exit. Without that, it would be completely unclear which general principles could be used as the basis for a challenge. It is not even clear whether post-exit CJEU jurisprudence could be taken into account, and so whether new principles couldbe discovered after exit. That would be completely inappropriate.
Mr Grieve
I would like gently to point out that I did not propose deleting the interpretation provision 5(2). Admittedly, it does not interpret anything because the rest is gone, but it nevertheless made it pretty clear that we were talking about retained EU law and that such law was created prior to the date of our exit.
The Solicitor General
I think that my right hon. and learned Friend has answered his own point. Without sub-paragraph (2), paragraph 5(2) becomes rather difficult to apply. I want to get to the nub of his concern, however, which is paragraph 3 of the schedule. We recognise the strength of the views that he and other Members on both sides of the Committee have expressed on this issue, many of whom have spoken this afternoon. We are listening, and we are prepared to look again at this issue to ensure that we are taking an approach that can command the support of the Committee.
Simply removing paragraph 3 in its entirety, however, is not something that we could agree to. It would result in an open-ended right of challenge based on the general principles of EU law, however they are defined, after exit. It would mean that domestic legislation, both secondary and primary, rules of law and executive action could be disapplied or quashed if found to be incompatible with those actions. Currently, the general principles apply when a member state is
“acting within the scope of EU law”,
so after exit the circumstances in which the general principles could be relied upon would not be clear.
Allowing courts to overturn Acts of Parliament, outside the context of EU law, on the basis of incompatibility with these principles would be alien to our legal system and would offend against parliamentary sovereignty.
Mr Grieve
My hon. and learned Friend raised the question of scope and when this would apply, but it seems to me that he was answering his own question, because it comes when there is a clash between the law that has been retained and has supremacy and any domestic legislation. It is precisely because the supremacy of the retained EU law is kept that it is necessary also to have the potential for the general principles to have that supremacy as well, because they are essential to the purpose of interpretation of that law.
The Solicitor General
I wanted to deal with the issue in this way, because it seems to me that the nub of the issue that my right hon. and learned Friend is concerned about is with regard to the rights of challenge relating to pre-exit causes of action. It would be possible to retain those, and in relation to executive action even after exit in areas covered by retained EU law. We can agree that there should be appropriate mechanisms for challenging the actions of the Executive. I am happy to discuss further with him what might be needed. I am also willing to discuss whether there needs to be some further route of challenge on secondary legislation.
The rights landscape is indeed complex, and we are seeking with this Bill to maximise and not remove any substantive rights that UK citizens currently enjoy. In view of my commitment to look at this again, I invite my right hon. and learned Friend not to press amendment 10 and to agree to work with us in this shared endeavour. The Government will bring forward our own amendments on Report for the purposes of clarifying paragraph 3 of schedule 1.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, who has just said some of the words that many of us hoped to hear, which is that Government amendments to that effect will come forward on Report. Will that include an appropriate amendment to paragraph 3(1) on the private rights of action?
The Solicitor General
Let me turn to paragraph 3(1) of schedule 1 to be absolutely clear. I am interested in looking at all aspects of that provision: sub-paragraphs (1) and (2).
Mr Grieve
I am most grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, who has made a really important concession at the Dispatch Box, which I much appreciate. It clearly reflects the disquiet that has been shown across the House. I can tell him now that, in the light of that, I will not be pressing my amendment to a vote. However, it is clear from what he has said that although some of the issues that I have raised have been met, I ought to put it on record that it is also clear that the issue about whether this could be used to disapply primary legislation appears to remain an area of potential disagreement between us, which I hope we may be able to iron out. I have to say that it is a strange area of disagreement, given that elsewhere we have precisely the possibility of that happening, by virtue of keeping the supremacy of retained EU law.
The Solicitor General
As I have said, I want to ensure that the dialogue that has been opened continues. My right hon. and learned Friend knows that at all times the spirit with which he and other hon. Members have tabled amendments has been entirely understood and respected by those on the Treasury Bench. We have never sought to pillory Members for doing the job of scrutinising legislation. I have been there myself many times and can remember tabling dozens of amendments in order to probe the Government’s intentions in a Bill.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
We are making some progress, but I point out that I am the second name on the amendments tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), and I shall inquire of the Chair between now and the end of the debate whether I have a right to call for a vote on those amendments, which I think I may have. I am extremely glad to hear the Solicitor General say that he will bring forward a Government amendment, because he has vigorously rejected just about every argument that my right hon. and learned Friend has used throughout the debate and has stuck rigidly to the interpretation of the Bill as it stands—with which we started. Will the Government’s amendment at least seek a compromise if it does not move completely towards my right hon. and learned Friend’s arguments? It is no good fobbing us off with more discussion if the amendment will not actually change the policy.
The Solicitor General
With respect to my right hon. and learned Friend, I have talked in detail about the various paragraphs of schedule 1, and I have been looking in particular at paragraph 3. In response to the clarifications sought by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), I made sure that all of paragraph 3 would be the subject of that clarification and the tabling of an amendment. Neither my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe nor I are fans of having our cake and eating it when it comes to EU withdrawal and, with respect, I am offering something substantial here that will certainly satisfy him this evening.
Sir William Cash
I hope that the Solicitor General will be good enough to look at the deficiencies in amendment 10. Paragraph 5 of schedule 1 deals with interpretation and therefore also applies to paragraphs 1 to 3. As he quite rightly said before he took the intervention, the matter is being scrutinised. As Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, we have it on our agenda, and we are scrutinising all such matters and will continue to do so, because we want to be sure that this House is not overridden by disapplication.
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am always interested in looking at how one particular paragraph of a schedule applies to another, but I am particularly interested in paragraph 3.
The Solicitor General
I will give way to the hon. Lady, who has been very tenacious. Please forgive me.
Lady Hermon
Patience is a virtue, and I am not blessed with an abundance of it, so I am grateful to the Solicitor General for taking my intervention, even if I have been bobbing up and down for ages.
The Solicitor General has made an important concession this evening, and I respect that. When he carries out his promised review of the Bill’s impact on rights and the general principles, may I invite him to look carefully at the impact on the Good Friday agreement? The Bill is being used in a divisive manner at home in Northern Ireland, where it is being exploited by those who wish to do so, so it would be enormously helpful if the Solicitor General could reassure us that the Bill will not have a negative impact on the Good Friday agreement.
The Solicitor General
I know that the hon. Lady has a deep, long-term commitment to ensuring that the Good Friday agreement and the subsequent progress are maintained, and I share that commitment 100%. While I may not have the same knowledge that she has of Northern Ireland, I am sensitive to and understand the fact that there is still no essential consensus about what human rights should mean for every corner of Northern Ireland. It is in that spirit that I will be happy to ensure that the impacts on Northern Ireland are fully considered at all stages of any review, re-examination or clarification of the Bill. I am grateful to her for making that observation.
The Solicitor General
I had better make some progress, but I certainly will give way to the hon. and learned Lady in a moment.
The Solicitor General
If the intervention relates to the point I was making, I will give way.
Paul Blomfield
I thank the Solicitor General for giving way. It is important that the House has clarity on the content of the memorandum he proposes to publish on 5 December. He has said that the memorandum will seek to identify the sources of each right contained within the charter. He has heard in today’s debate that there is concern on both sides of the House that he will not be able to identify the sources of every single one of those rights, and a number of instances have been cited. Will he also undertake that, where there are gaps, his review will outline what action the Government are preparing to take to fill those gaps so that, at the point of exit, we retain all the existing rights?
The Solicitor General
I make it clear that, in the words of both the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton, today and, previously, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, we are seeking to publish such details. If there are any further concerns, we can have a continuing dialogue to ensure that the information is in a comprehensive form that seeks to address the issues raised today and elsewhere. The publication on 5 December will therefore be a meaningful event that assists everybody in greater understanding and assists greater progress on getting this process right.
On the question of general principles, I emphasise that there are good reasons to say why it would not be appropriate to incorporate the constitutional and administrative principles of the EU as free-standing principles in our law by inserting a specific right of action, or to incorporate the remedy of striking down domestic legislation based on incompatibility with EU law principles, when we are no longer a member of that institution. First, some of these principles will, indeed, cease to make sense when we have left, except for the purpose of interpreting retained EU law, whereas other principles are already, and will continue to be, reflected elsewhere in our domestic law anyway.
Mr Grieve
Has not the Solicitor General, again, just answered his own question? I appreciate that some of the general principles will evaporate because they cease to be relevant, but those that are relevant to the interpretation of retained EU law must still be relevant because they will be used as a tool and aid to interpretation. In those circumstances, why should an individual or a business be deprived of raising them as arguments for saying that, in fact, this law is supposed to be supreme, and therefore able to overcome our own domestic legislation, and ask why the general principles cannot be used to have that bit of offending domestic legislation set aside? I just do not understand the rationale.
The Solicitor General
The rationale is quite straightforward in the sense that, in seeking to achieve maximum certainty, there is danger in allowing the system to create a situation in which the law might rapidly degrade in a way that does not achieve such stability and certainty. I accept it is almost reverse logic, but there is logic in trying to make sure that we have an identifiable and pretty understandable body of retained EU law.
I give the example of the EU principle of good administration, which will not have any relevance to our UK law after exit because, of course, the bodies vested in EU agencies will be returned here and all the normal domestic rules about the exercise of such powers by public bodies will apply. Another example is the principle of subsidiarity, which does not make sense outside the concept of EU membership.
Secondly, the Bill will, of course, take a snapshot of the law as it stands at the moment we leave. Retaining a right of action based on general principles of EU law, which will of course change in the future, would lead to uncertainty for businesses and individuals about their rights and obligations if we end up in a situation where pre-exit legislation could be struck down, or where administrative decisions could be challenged, on the basis of those principles.
In other words, that is an echo of what I was just saying to my right hon. and learned Friend. This is particularly the case given the uncertainty about the way in which principles could develop or about the circumstances in which they would apply after exit. It would make no sense to bind ourselves to such an imprecise, open-ended and uncertain set of principles—it does not mitigate legal uncertainty, but increases it. It makes no sense, once we are no longer an EU member state, to bind ourselves to a set of principles that are the EU’s judge-made constitutional principles, when we have our own constitutional and common-law principles. Such an approach risks duplication and confusion.
Perhaps more fundamentally, outside the context of EU law, the ability for courts to disapply primary legislation is just inconsistent with the way our constitution works and the balance of powers that has to exist between the legislative and judicial branches.
Vicky Ford
I thank the Solicitor General for saying that he is going to look seriously at these points during the Committee stage. The point of bringing EU law into the UK law is to give certainty. Each of those European regulations has strict articles—the letter of the law—and the recitals, which give guidance as to how it is to be interpreted and implemented. Will he assure me that he will seek to ensure that our judges will look at not only the articles, but the recitals—the principles behind it?
The Solicitor General
I can assure my hon. Friend that that will be the case. We had a debate about this in a slightly different context earlier in Committee, but I can assure her that all that material is relevant for any court that might have to interpret it.
Joanna Cherry
I am just reminding the Solicitor General that I asked him to answer a crucial point earlier relating to the statement made by the Prime Minister’s spokesperson that the Government expect the ECJ’s role to be unchanged during an implementation period of two years following the official Brexit date in March 2019. If that is so, it completely undermines the premise of clause 5 and schedule 1, which revolve around exit day. Is he seriously still considering allowing these clauses to stand part of the Bill, in the light of what was said this morning?
The Solicitor General
The hon. and learned Lady has a keen memory and she will not have forgotten the Government’s commitment to a separate withdrawal agreement Bill, within which will be provisions relating to the implementation, the interim, the transition period— call it what you will. It is to that period that the Prime Minister was addressing her remarks. The fact that this Bill is taking a particular course on legal exit is nothing to do with the transition period, which has to be a separate matter, and the Government have rightly made it clear that they will bring legislation to this House in order for it to determine the law when it comes to the transitional period.
I really must press on now. The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) made the most important reference to the data protection amendment that stands in his name, but the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) also spoke well about this. Let me just make these observations: the UK does not have to be subject to the charter in order to benefit from adequacy decisions on data protection once we leave the EU, because the charter applies to EU institutions and EU member states when acting within the scope of EU law. Countries that benefit from adequacy are third countries and are not required to be subject to the charter. There are many examples of countries that have adequacy by virtue of the data protection directive of 1995, including Canada, New Zealand, Switzerland, Uruguay, Argentina and the Faroe Islands.
I must also deal briefly with the further effects of amendments 101 and 336, which specifically seek to set out an ostensibly broader definition of which general principles are to be retained under the Bill to include principles as they are recognised in any EU legislation as well as case law.
The Solicitor General
I am sorry but I must press on.
The first point to make on the amendments is that whereas some of the general principles are now set out expressly in the EU treaties, the general principles were first recognised by the European Court of Justice. They were and are judge-made law, and all the principles ultimately have a basis in case law.
We debated the inclusion of article 191 of the Lisbon treaty on the functioning of the European Union at length on day two of Committee, so I will not repeat those arguments here. That said, though, I wish to re-state that the inclusion of article 191 would risk going further than the existing principles that are set out in EU and UK law today. The requirements that the amendments set out do not exist today in either EU or domestic law. If the amendments were made, they would require the courts to interpret all legislation compatibly with the environmental principles. Given that the Bill’s purpose is to bring into effect the law that we have currently, the amendments regrettably risk generating a measure of uncertainty and a degree of confusion about the legal position.
Anna Soubry
May I return to clause 5(1)? It states:
“The principle of the supremacy of EU law does not apply to any enactment or rule of law passed or made on or after exit day.”
Will the Solicitor General please look at that in light of the Government’s excellent determination that we will still effectively be subject to the ECJ during the beginning of the transition period, because if that is to be the case, it is not consistent with clause 5(1)?
The Solicitor General
I know that my right hon. Friend listens carefully to everything I say, and I am sure she would agree, first, that the transition period rightly has to be the subject of separate legislation—the Bill on the withdrawal agreement that will come before the House in due course—and secondly, that we have to cater in this Bill for as high a degree of certainty as possible for that legal exit date. That certainty is an important first step before we get into the question of transition—that interim period that I accept needs to be underpinned by primary legislation passed by this House, but which is a separate and distinct stage. I do not think there is any contradiction between the position that we want to take in a transition period—subject, of course, to the negotiation—and the clear position that we want to take in the Bill.
Before that intervention, I was dealing with amendments 101 and 336. Amendment 336 goes further, in that it would give a right of action based on a failure to comply with the environmental principles, and legislation would be at risk of being struck down by the courts if it was not compatible with them. I hope that Members were reassured and encouraged by the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 12 November of our intention to create a new comprehensive policy statement setting out the environmental principles. That statement will draw on the EU’s current principles and will of course underpin future policy making.
The Bill takes the right approach by retaining the principles as they have been recognised by the European Court, thereby providing the greatest possible clarity and certainty. Amendment 336 would alter the approach to the taking of that snapshot of EU law as it applies immediately before exit day. It effectively prejudges the outcome of the negotiations and introduces inflexibility, by seeking to bind us to decisions made by the European Court on general principles for the full duration of any implementation period. That pre-empts and prejudices the outcome of the negotiations. On that basis, I urge right hon. and hon. Members not to press their amendments.
Paragraph 4 of schedule 1 removes the right to what are commonly referred to as Francovich damages from our domestic law after exit. That form of damages is a specific EU-law remedy that arises only in certain limited circumstances when an EU member state, or an arm of that state, has committed a “sufficiently serious” breach of its EU law obligations and there is a direct causal link between the breach and the damage. This is not a wide-ranging general right to sue the Government; rather, it is inextricably linked to and constrained by EU membership. Nor, as some have suggested, is this an everyday course of action for the average citizen. The number of actual Francovich cases heard by UK courts over the past 26 years is relatively low. Estimates vary, but studies suggest that, in the 20 years following the decision in Francovich, there had only been between 22 and 25 cases.
The Solicitor General
No, I will not give way, as I need to develop my point.
For example, in 2015, in their legal challenges to the domestic legislation standardising the packaging of tobacco products, the tobacco companies reserved their right to claim Francovich damages should they succeed on the substance of their claims against the Government. I make this point because any suggestion that removing the Francovich procedure reduces access to justice for the average citizen is not reflected in the UK experience.
Mr Grieve
I am very grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. I understand everything that he is saying. He knows what I have said about Francovich damages and their disappearance being inevitable, but the point about the transition is key. I have to say to him that it is not a comfortable argument for a Law Officer of the Crown to make to suggest that just one person, or one business, being deprived of a legal right is an acceptable circumstance, because it plainly is not.
The Solicitor General
I did not say that. If that was the impression that was created, I am afraid that my right hon. and learned Friend is mistaken. What I am talking about is trying to balance out and put into context the use of this particular procedure, which needs to be done because we have not heard the other side of the argument. That is what I am seeking to do.
By contrast, all existing domestic law routes of challenge and remedies for breaches of retained EU law will remain undisturbed. For example, this provision does not affect any specific statutory rights to claim damages in respect of breaches of retained EU law—such as under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015—or the case law which applies to the interpretation of any such provisions. Nor does it affect the right to challenge the decisions of public bodies by way of judicial review. Claimants will also still be able to seek remedies through the law of tort, by establishing negligence or by a breach of statutory duty, and they will also still be able to make a claim for restitution for unlawfully levied tax or charges.
The existing right to Francovich damages is linked to EU membership and the obligations that we have as a member state to the EU at an international level. There is clearly a difference between substantive EU law, which is being kept by the Bill to prevent legal uncertainty, and the supranational procedural rules, principles and frameworks that will no longer be appropriate once we have left the EU.
Let me turn briefly to amendments 139 and 302, which take a slightly different approach. They would maintain the right to Francovich damages in domestic law, but only in relation to pre-exit causes of action. Amendment 335 would similarly maintain the right to Francovich damages in domestic law for causes of action occurring during any transitional period. The Bill sets out elsewhere—at paragraph 27 of schedule 8—that the exclusion of the right to Francovich damages would apply only in relation to claims that are brought after exit day.
I would like to assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), and indeed all Members, that we will consider further whether any additional specific and more detailed transitional arrangements should be set out in regulations.
Mr Grieve
I am delighted to hear the Solicitor General say that. As he will appreciate, the point is a very simple one: it must be the case that the damages are available if the action takes place before exit day. It is a very basic principle of law and quite easy to correct.
The Solicitor General
Perhaps I can forgive my right hon. and learned Friend his eagerness to hear the remarks that I was going to make. I am sure that when this debate finishes he and I will continue the dialogue that we have had for some time about these matters.
It would not be right to maintain, in general, such an open-ended right to this form of damages after exit for any and all potential pre-exit causes of action. I am concerned that we would end up with an almost indefinite trail of cases. That is not good for certainty, and it is not good for the transition we want to make.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Before the Solicitor General finishes his remarks, may I say, as a non-lawyer listening to what has largely been a debate between distinguished legal minds on both sides of the House, that two things strike me as important? The first is that this debate has really been about legislative quality control, rather than political Punch and Judy, and that should be very reassuring for anybody watching this debate. The second is that the tone with which my hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues have engaged with colleagues on both sides of the House to find a way through and to make the best law sends a fantastically powerful message. Will he guarantee to continue working in this spirit to take the Bill forward?
The Solicitor General
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for making that observation. [Interruption.] I can assure Opposition Members that I have listened carefully to the submissions and observations by Members on both sides of the House, in the true spirit of Committee.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
I am most grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for giving way, because, unfortunately, I was not able to be in the Chamber for a large part of the debate, as I was chairing a Bill Committee. I thank him for taking into consideration the points I raised on behalf of my constituent concerning Francovich. I hope that what he is a saying from the Dispatch Box will go a long way towards providing the comfort and certainty my constituent requires. May I thank those on the Front Bench for listening to the points I made in the debate the other day? I hope this will move us towards a successful conclusion in the case of my constituent.
The Solicitor General
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend.
For the reasons I have outlined, I would, with the greatest of respect, and in the spirit of comradeship almost, urge hon. and right hon. Members not to press their amendments.
In summation, we have listened and we will continue to reflect carefully on all the arguments that have been made today. The Government believe that the approach we are taking is the right one as we carefully separate our legal system from that of the EU and restore democratic control to this Parliament. I commend schedule 1 to the Committee.
Darren Jones
I rise to speak in support of amendments 8, 46 and 79, the excellent amendments 101 and 105 from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), amendment 151 and, given the list rattled off by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), a whole lot more as well.
While I have enjoyed the opportunity today to intervene on the legal debates the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) pointed to, it is also important, as we come towards the end of today’s debate, to think about general principles—to take a step back and to think about the politics of what we are debating today, as opposed to just the legal issues, which I may touch on briefly.
The EU charter of fundamental rights is exactly what it says on the tin: it is a statement of fundamental principles—an anchor—with which European legislation must comply. It protects the grounding of what we deem to be acceptable in our democracy. Legislative details are, of course, for debate, but we must anchor them to those fundamental rights because, as we have heard today, failure to do that can lead to actions in the courts and the awarding of damages.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, who is not in his place, said from the Dispatch Box earlier that the EU charter has no standing and therefore means nothing, but I respectfully disagree. When my constituents have the right to bring actions in the courts, and in certain circumstances to receive damages, that has value—that means something to citizens. Those are fundamental, enforceable rights, which we should be proud of.
It is right to say, of course, that the UK need only respect these rights when implementing EU law, but, as we know too well, and as we will learn over the coming weeks and months, the tsunami of EU law that we seek to copy and paste into UK law comes with principles we must protect.
My earlier intervention provides one example of why the Government’s policy is nonsensical. The fact that we are bringing ECJ case law into UK Supreme Court case law under the Bill means that the case law around the charter of fundamental rights will be in the case law of this country, yet we are not willing to bring the charter with it. That cannot make sense unless the Government are saying that they wish to pick the cases out of ECJ jurisprudence when they give them UK Supreme Court status.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) raised very powerfully the issue of adequacy and equivalence in relation to the Data Protection Bill. The Government may find it politically uncomfortable to recognise the obvious fact that on financial services, data protection and other issues where we seek to maintain equivalence in the European market, we must track and embed EU jurisprudence in order to do so. In the context of the general data protection regulation and the Data Protection Bill, that means respecting the fundamental right that one’s data is protected under the EU charter.
In the absence of those on the Treasury Bench saying to me and to the Committee which of these rights they so vehemently disagree with, I am left to draw the conclusion, in common with the Father of the House, that the only thing the Government seem to be unhappy with about the charter of fundamental rights is that is preceded by the letters E and U. Yet my constituents will suffer losses in rights and losses in their ability to enforce those rights. This is not a question of ideological Brexit party politics but of fundamental rights that are enforceable by my constituents and the citizens of this country. We cannot play politics with these issues. If we fail to keep the charter of fundamental rights, we fail to ensure that the laws brought in under this Bill are anchored to the fundamental principles on which they are drafted. As we have heard, that leaves judges to interpret the rights of citizens in the direction of the winds of the day without the statutory anchor that holds them true to their underlying principles.
Having touched on legal issues, I will move on to the general principles. If we lift our heads out of the bucket of sand that is Brexit and look around us, we must ask what repealing the charter of fundamental rights says about the type of country we are and wish to be. One of the outcomes of this Brexit process is that with the removal of the charter we have failed to set out a vision of an acceptable basis for a developed, modern democracy like Britain. That is why I support the amendments. I sense that we have lost our way, because removing these fundamental rights says something about who we are and how we should conduct business as a country. The pride that all of us share in what it means to be British and our influence in the world is based on the standards that we set at home and abroad. The purpose of having the EU charter of fundamental rights is to make a statement of the standards that we should be proud of as a developed, modern democracy. I, for one, want to continue to be proud of my country.
Speaking as a desperate remoaner, and a proud one, I have to say loud and clear that the direction of travel that we are seeing through this mess of a negotiation on Brexit, and the fact that we are debating something as nonsensical as removing the EU charter when it causes us no problems and we are bringing ECJ case law into the case law of the UK anyway, shows that we do not know what type of country we want to deliver for our citizens. In the context of losing thousands of jobs from agencies relocating and, for the first time ever, losing our seat on the UN International Court of Justice, I am filled with desperation about what type of country we are seeking to deliver.
I do not see from this Government a vision of what Britain looks like in future, and removing these fundamental rights goes to the heart of that. I want my constituents and the citizens of this country, and citizens around the world, to look to Britain to see that we protect and recognise these fundamental rights—rights that we should be proud of. I think that as Brexit continues to unfold and my constituents, and others, continue to see the losses they are suffering as a consequence of the referendum —the loss of access to the single market, the loss of access to the customs union, and today the loss of rights that are currently protected in law—they deserve the right to change their mind.
I say once again to Government Members on the Treasury Bench, who are no doubt listening intently to my comments—[Laughter.] Thank you. I say to them that this is clearly a question of politics, rather than of law, as we have heard today. I plead with them to put the ideological Brexit party politics to one side, bring sense to the Dispatch Box and protect the enforceable rights of my constituents and the citizens of this country, as proudly set out in the EU charter of fundamental rights.
Alex Chalk
It is a pleasure to be able to say a few words this evening. May I say what a pleasure it has been to listen to this debate, which has been a paradigmatic example of what a Committee debate should be? It is not about the principles of whether we supported leave or remain; it is about ensuring that the legislation is in the best possible shape, because that is our job.
I want to confine my remarks to two areas. First, I will talk about amendments 139 and 302, tabled by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) respectively, regarding the right to seek Francovich damages post-Brexit; and then I will turn to the charter. On the first issue, it is axiomatic that, if the acts of the state that caused loss took place at a time when a remedy was available, it would be wrong for that remedy to be ripped away unilaterally. It is a principle of British law that past acts or omissions must be considered in the context of the law as it applied at the time. I have heard gratefully the Solicitor General’s suggestion that he might be looking again at the matter. I respectfully suggest that that would be warmly welcomed across the House.
I turn to the charter. I want to explain why I think—despite the fact that I supported remain and I do not resile from a single argument that I made—that the Government are right not to seek to retain the charter, and why to do so would create inconsistency and confusion. I speak as someone who values human rights and who has argued forcefully in favour of remaining part of the European convention on human rights. Indeed, I have said that to leave that would be a catastrophic mistake, and I am delighted that doing so has been taken off the table.
So why do I speak as I do? Before I explain that, I will set out why we must accept that the charter does add rights and it would be wrong to consider it inconsequential, although that is not dispositive. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) suggested that it was of no more legal effect than The Beano. That is not correct. Although it is true that there is some duplication, as compared with the ECHR, there are four ways in which the charter adds rights.
First, the charter creates some substantive new rights, which some have referred to as third category rights, including the right to dignity, the right to protection of personal data, the right to conscientious objection and guarantees on bioethics and independence for disabled people. Secondly, the charter widens the scope of existing rights in English law. One example is the right to a fair trial, which exists under article 6. The charter extends that right beyond the mere determination of civil rights and obligations and criminal charges to cover, for example, immigration cases, such as the ZZ case. Thirdly, it creates a new right to invoke the charter in respect of anyone with an interest. That is, of course, far broader than the convention. Fourthly, and most importantly, whereas breaches of the ECHR can lead only to a declaration of incompatibility, action in the case of a breach of the charter is far more muscular, because it allows the charter to take precedence over UK law and, effectively, disapply it.
Having set out all that, why am I not arguing in favour of retaining the charter? The simple reason can be summed up in one word: inconsistency. There is already an inconsistency in the law. A litigant in a case involving the implementation of EU law—that is, of course, the only category of litigation to which the charter applies—is armed with a powerful legal sword, which he can use to strike down the law. But when it comes to UK-derived law, no such legal sword exists, so the scope for absurdity becomes clear. Suppose the state were to pass a law that was a clear affront to human rights. Suppose it wanted to detain suspects without charge for six months or bring back the stocks, in breach of article 4 on torture and inhuman and degrading treatment or article 3 on slavery. In those circumstances, all the litigant could do would be to try to persuade the court to make a declaration of incompatibility; the law could not be struck down. Yet if the UK sought to enforce a law regarding personal data, it could be disapplied. Would that not create a bizarre inconsistency? Such an inconsistency already exists, by the way, but I suggest that it would become more egregious and more difficult to sustain post Brexit.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
I am following my hon. Friend’s arguments very carefully, and I am very pleased to hear him setting out why the rights he is talking about will be protected after we leave the EU. Does he agree that such inconsistencies will only further the interests of lawyers, rather than our constituents, after we leave the EU?
Alex Chalk
This is about not furthering the rights of lawyers, but about how we as a House ensure that there is a corpus of law that is consistent, serves the interests of our constituents and can be considered in an intelligible and consistent way.
My view is that the remedy for this inconsistency is not for us to bring in the charter lock, stock and barrel to apply to all law. We could do that, but it would not work because it would create great confusion respecting the existing European convention on human rights, which is of course incorporated into English law and British law. Instead, the time has come—not today and not tomorrow, but at some time in the near future—to look at granting British citizens a corpus of rights to sit alongside the ECHR, as a written constitution, as it were, that extends the Human Rights Act and allows citizens to apply their rights against any law in this country. The logical next stage is to have what is in effect a written constitution.
Sir Oliver Letwin
As a matter of fact, my hon. Friend and I may be the only two Government Members who believe in having a written constitution. I thought I was the only one—
Sir Oliver Letwin
There are three of us. I am very grateful. [Hon. Members: “Four.”] Let us not count. In any event, the number is small.
Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the interim, it would be a good step if the rights we identify, as a result of the Government’s analysis, as coming out of the charter—the third category rights—should in due course, although not of course in this Bill, be added to the Human Rights Act in a way that at least enables such a degree of entrenchment?
Alex Chalk
That is exactly right. I, respectfully, completely agree with my right hon. Friend. What has been such a benefit of this debate is that we have identified a third category of rights that Members on both sides of the House recognise there is a real public benefit in adding to the corpus of rights enjoyed by the British people. I entirely agree that we should look at whether they can be added pro tem to the Human Rights Act.
My fundamental point is that, if we are inching our way towards a written constitution, retaining the charter, which is in effect a proto-constitution, on the basis of an amendment debated for just a few hours in this Chamber is entirely the wrong way to go about it. For that reason and that reason alone, I am supporting the Government.
Mr Simon Clarke
I rise to support the Bill, particularly in opposition to amendments 8 and 46, as well as new clause 16.
I want to establish from the outset that I am not in any way cavalier about the concept or the subject of human rights. They underpin a free and just society, and all parliamentarians should be vigilant in their defence. Today’s debate underscores the significance of that. However, to quote Oxford’s Professor Richard Ekins:
“There is a fundamental difference between human rights and human rights law. The Charter is one way to attempt to protect human rights, a poorly framed and…inept way at that.”
Contrary to what the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) said, I do not need the charter of fundamental rights to be proud of my country.
There are a number of reasons why I believe the incorporation of the charter of fundamental rights into our law would be the wrong thing to do. The first concerns the scope of the charter’s application. Article 51 states:
“The provisions of this Charter are addressed to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union…and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law.”
Needless to say, once we leave the Union, we will not be a member state. As has been observed, many of the charter rights are necessarily contingent on our EU membership, and still more are directed not towards member states, but the Union institutions and their policies. We have already touched on that, and I will not dwell on it further.
Let us follow the logic that we should incorporate the charter into UK law. How would this work? There seem to be two possible scenarios. First, if we were to approximate the charter’s original application, we could amend it in such a way that it applied solely to retained EU law. That is the substance of the amendments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) has pointed out, that would lead to the bizarre situation whereby some parts of UK law would be subject to a different human rights regime. That is a recipe for confusion and disaster. Alternatively, we can amend the charter so that it increases its scope to cover all UK laws and institutions. I would hazard a guess that that is not exactly what our constituents were thinking of when they voted for Brexit.
Notwithstanding that basic point, either route would further complicate the relationship between the charter and the Human Rights Act. All transposed EU law will become subject to the Human Rights Act on transposition anyway, and having two parallel and perhaps in places contradictory constitutional Acts covering precisely the same issues in the same sphere of application would serve to undermine, rather than uphold, the rule of law. That is because charter rights, most seriously social rights, are so flexible and contested that they are vulnerable to a near infinite number of interpretations, which is precisely the problem.
When I worked for my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), he would cite a quote from Montesquieu that was absolutely on point:
“Nor is there liberty if the power of judging is not separate from legislative power…If it were joined to legislative power, the power over the life and liberty of the citizens would be arbitrary, for the judge would be the legislator.”
Where we fail to legislate the judiciary fill the gaps. Rights creep has been a key objection from our constituents for many years, and rightly so. In at least two cases, British judges have gone beyond ECJ case law, relying on the charter to disapply Acts of Parliament. In Benkharbouche, parts of the State Immunity Act 1978 which protected embassies from immunity against employment law claims were set aside. In Vidal-Hall, part of the Data Protection Act 1998 was overridden, overturning a limitation on what damages could be recovered. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) said, this is properly a matter for the House to determine. The ECJ itself has overruled parts of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 by reference to the charter—a decision that puts the application of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 in serious doubt. That is not a small point. The process of striking down legislation under the charter goes far beyond the scope of the Human Rights Act, which allows the courts to make a declaration of incompatibility where there is a need to do so.
There is one final reason why we should resist charter incorporation, which is that to do so would probably be superfluous. We have heard from Ministers, who have struck a notably conciliatory tone, that the Government will provide detailed analysis of how each charter right will be addressed in a memorandum that is due on 5 December. If we are to go on to address what has been referred to as the third category of rights—rights that are not listed in the European convention on human rights and which are not rendered redundant by our leaving the EU—this process should be led by the elected House of Commons. That may very well be the right thing to do, but it is clear to everyone that retaining the charter is not the right vehicle by which to do it.
Lest we forget, the British public had no idea that the charter would evolve in the way that it has. Protocol 30 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union states that
“the Charter reaffirms the rights, freedoms and principles recognised in the Union and makes those rights more visible, but does not create new rights or principles”.
We have heard about The Beano, and about former Attorney-General Peter Goldsmith, who said in June 2004:
“The Charter is a consolidation of existing rights...It is not a mine for new human rights in this country.”
Crucially, in 2008, on Second Reading of the EU (Amendment) Bill that ratified the Lisbon treaty, David Miliband, told the House:
“The treaty records existing rights rather than creating new ones. A new legally binding protocol guarantees that nothing in the charter extends the ability of any court to strike down UK law”.—[Official Report, 21 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 1250.]
Our constituents were given an inaccurate prospectus of how the charter would evolve, although I accept it was made in good faith at the time. In the light of that, my position is very clear that the charter should not be incorporated into our law to go on evolving in that way according to the whims of unelected judges.
Tonight we have an opportunity to reassert one final time what this House has been told for the best part of 18 years: the rights under which we live should have their origin in this House and, ultimately, in the British people, under whose authority we serve.
Suella Fernandes
I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) on his debut in Committee. I am sure we will all be treated to many more thoughtful contributions based on his experience as a lawyer before coming to this place.
I apologise at the outset, but I will be adding to the chorus of lawyers. There has been an abundance of lawyers—this debate has flushed us out, Mr Hoyle. I must say that I have sat here with nothing but admiration and respect for the very learned interventions and contributions from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, whose attitude has been to try to improve the Bill. They have obviously been received with a welcome from the Solicitor General, marked by his comments just now.
The issue is not about whether the charter is in or out, and it is not about being pro-rights or anti-rights. For me, it is about whether the Bill, which is designed to provide legal certainty on Brexit day, will achieve that aim or instead create a feast for lawyers, born out of legal uncertainty. The purpose of the Bill is to avoid the overnight evaporation of EU law on the date of our exit by providing certainty and predictability for businesses, individuals and foreign Governments dealing with Britain after we leave the EU.
We want to resolve questions rather than create them, but I do have real concerns. I have great respect for some of the amendments that have been tabled, which have raised many areas of confusion. For example, how would the common-law rules, the Human Rights Act and the charter interact, especially when rights are replicated in the Act and the charter but are interpreted by different courts? We have identical rights interpreted in one way by the Strasbourg Court and in a slightly different way by the Luxembourg Court. That only provides for inconsistency and confusion. What is the position for rights that appear in one document but not the other? What is the position for rights that are in the charter, but will be rendered completely futile as a result of Brexit due to their extensive references to the EU and other EU institutions?
More concerning is the confusion created by the remedies provided in the charter and the role of the Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice. The Human Rights Act contains protections for people in many ways: the right to a fair trial, a right to life, a right to a private life and family life, and the right to be free from discrimination. We in Britain should be proud of that document. Under the Act, the Supreme Court can make declarations of incompatibility in the event of a breach. That power is limited, as a reflection of the role of the Supreme Court in our constitution and the particularly fine balance between the judiciary and our legislature—that hard-won principle of parliamentary sovereignty.
That is not an obscure notion to amuse academics. It is the key foundation of our country’s governance that in this place, in this elected Chamber, we elected representatives have the final say on what rights people are afforded, what restrictions they are subject to, what remedies they can invoke and what responsibilities they owe. That is what our job is here in Parliament. We are elected and are subject to transparency. We are accountable and we can be kicked out if necessary. Judges, in comparison, are unelected. They are, of course, expert and robust in their integrity, but they are often unknown and are away from the glare of publicity. They are not answerable directly to the public in the way that elected representatives are. That is the importance of parliamentary sovereignty and the judicial deference enshrined in, and running through, the Human Rights Act. Only in cases of ultra vires and judicial review will UK courts make such a declaration. In the event of a declaration of incompatibility, there is no obligation on Parliament or the Government to agree to make changes, but often they will respond by amending legislation to align with judgments from the courts—for example, under section 10 of the Human Rights Act. That fine balance is important to ensuring the ultimate accountability of us rule makers and legislators.
I believe that the principle of parliamentary sovereignty could be undermined by the remedy in the charter for disapplying statute, as we saw in the case of Benkharbouche in the Supreme Court last year. The effect is to disregard the relationship between the judiciary and the legislator and to render our Supreme Court more of a constitutional court than an appellate court, which interprets the law rather than declaring what the law ought to say.
Further uncertainty is caused by questions around the potential horizontal application of the charter—between individuals rather than between the state and an individual, as is the position in the Human Rights Act—and questions persist on its application to anything within the scope of EU law as opposed to the implementation of EU law. For me, those principles are not yet clarified and would only create more confusion, if the tabled amendments were to be passed. As I said, this is not about being in favour of or against rights; this is about providing a workable regime, rather than one fraught with confusion and at odds with fundamental principles.
We must not forget that the charter was not originally intended to be the source of rights for the UK. It was meant merely to codify existing rights, as an instrument of the EU, through the interpretation of the ECJ.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I think I agree with everything my hon. Friend has said. Does she agree that it would nevertheless be possible to put these rights under the umbrella of additions to the Human Rights Act and thereby enshrine them without creating a role for the Supreme Court to strike down Acts of Parliament?
Suella Fernandes
In principle, that would be possible, but I pray in aid the comments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), who has just entered the Chamber, and who eloquently explained that there is no substantive need to do that because those rights are protected in existing legal frameworks or the common law.
As I was saying, the charter is an instrument of the EU for allowing the activism of the ECJ. It is a mechanism intended to ensure the supremacy of EU law in national legal orders, as is made clear in the preamble and in the recent case of Siragusa v. Regione Sicilia, in which it was made clear that the primacy of EU law was the priority. If we are truly leaving the EU, it no longer makes sense for us to be bound by a document that is furthering EU integration.
I appreciate the constructive attitude of all colleagues in attempting to help the Government to improve the Bill, but I gently caution against the risks presented by some of the amendments. The British people voted last year to restore sovereignty to UK courts and return supremacy to our judges, because they trust our legal order. Why do they trust it? They trust it because for centuries, since 1215 and Magna Carta, this country has been the home of civil liberties and human rights and has protected the vulnerable against excesses of power. That is a tradition of which we are proud and which will be protected under this Government.
Vicky Ford
It has been a huge honour to listen to the debate, and to hear so many contributions from so many wise colleagues.
I want to talk about the fundamental right to personal data protection, an issue that I have raised before in the House. It is a very important issue, because we are in the middle of a digital revolution—in the middle of the fourth industrial revolution. The ability to process vast quantities of data is vital to our tech and digital sectors, and is driving the future of medical research. If we want to continue to play a world-leading role, we must continue to be able to exchange data easily with other parts of the world.
In the history of our country privacy has largely been protected, but that has not always been the case in many European countries. Data protection—the right to have one’s personal data protected—is a treasured right. Let me point out to the Solicitor General that data equivalence will be not just a legal but a political issue, and we must therefore leave no one in any doubt that Britain intends to respect personal data.
It is excellent that the Government have agreed to implement the general data protection regulation. It is a highly complex directive, but it was not just agreed in some far-off place in Brussels. The process was led for the Liberals by a British Liberal who sits in the House of Lords and for the Conservatives by a British Conservative who also sits in the House of Lords, and was chaired by a British Labour MEP who is still chairing the relevant committee. So Britain was very much involved in the establishment of the GDPR.
There is a technical difference between the GDPR and the Data Protection Bill. The GDPR makes it clear that its first principle is to protect the right to personal data, and it is important that we too are seen to give that direct protection. It is in the interests of both sides to provide data adequacy. After all, Britain is responsible for more than 10% of world data flows, more than three quarters of which take place between Britain and the rest of Europe. Other European countries need to maintain that data flow, but the field is continually evolving: for instance, the European Commission is looking into ePrivacy law.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) seemed to suggest that the Government were somehow not treating data adequacy negotiation seriously—we are—and told us that the Government had said they might want something “akin to” a data adequacy agreement. That is because the current agreement, the EU-US data privacy shield, is not as stable as data adequacy might be as part of a free trade agreement. There are many different ways in which that could be agreed, so let us ensure that we keep all the options open.
I hope I have given an example of an area in which rights are continually evolving—and, in a rapidly changing world, the rights that each of us has will need to evolve continually. Having listened to the debate, I think that we should not cut and paste the charter into British law now, but that we should take the matter seriously. We have been promised today that within the next two weeks—by 5 December—the Government will go through every single one of those rights, will list the parts of British law in which they already exist, and, if there are parts where they do not yet exist, will show us the process whereby they will be introduced. I think that, on that basis, we will create a more stable agreement to protect not just the rights of today but the rights of tomorrow, which is why I will vote against the amendments.
Mr Leslie
The debate on new clause 16 and the myriad other amendments has been held in a collegiate atmosphere. We have focused on the specific rights and wrongs of a number of quite technical legal points, but the one thing that stood out for me was the debate on the charter of fundamental rights. I have to tell the Minister that I am not convinced by the Government’s case. We were sold the idea that this would be “copy and paste” legislation, but that turns out not to be so. We were told that there was no need for the charter of fundamental rights, but if that is the case, what is the harm in retaining it? Those rights are incredibly important. They include the rights to privacy, personal data, freedom of expression, education, data privacy and healthcare, as well as the rights of children and elderly people. There are many rights in that charter, and it is important that we keep it within our legislative framework.
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I should like to inform the House that on 11 and 17 October I tabled written questions in which I mistakenly omitted to include a reference to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which includes a visit, in September this year, to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, sponsored by the Foreign Ministry of that country. I am pleased to be able to put that on record, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful for your patience.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 4th December 2017
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 4 December 2017 - (4 Dec 2017)
23:59 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 256 / Noes: 313 - Question accordingly negatived.
00:14 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 292 / Noes: 316 - Question accordingly negatived.
00:30 - divided: - Ayes: 290 / Noes: 316 - Question accordingly negatived.
00:45 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 315 / Noes: 290 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 65—Role of Joint Ministerial Committee—
“(1) The Joint Ministerial Committee is to be a forum—
(a) for discussing—
(i) the terms upon which the United Kingdom is to withdraw from the European Union and the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union;
(ii) proposals to amend retained EU law;
(iii) agreed legal and policy frameworks in relation to the subject matter of devolved retained EU law that are to operate throughout the United Kingdom;
(iv) a concordat setting out the process for concluding the legal and policy frameworks mentioned in sub-paragraph (iii); and
(b) for seeking a consensus on those matters between Her Majesty’s Government and the other members of the Joint Ministerial Committee.
(2) Before Her Majesty’s Government concludes a withdrawal agreement, the Secretary of State must produce a document for consideration by the Joint Ministerial Committee setting out—
(a) Her Majesty’s Government’s objectives and strategy in negotiating and concluding a withdrawal agreement;
(b) Her Majesty’s Government’s objectives and strategy in relation to establishing a framework for the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union;
(c) the steps Her Majesty’s Government intends to take to keep the Joint Ministerial Committee informed of progress in reaching a withdrawal agreement;
(d) the steps Her Majesty’s Government intends to take to consult each member of the Joint Ministerial Committee before entering into a withdrawal agreement and for taking the views of each member into account;
(e) the steps Her Majesty’s Government intends to take to seek the approval of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly before entering into a withdrawal agreement.
(3) Until a withdrawal agreement is concluded, the Secretary of State must produce a report every three months for consideration by the Joint Ministerial Committee setting out—
(a) Her Majesty’s Government’s assessment of the progress made against Her Majesty’s Government’s objectives—
(i) in negotiating and concluding the withdrawal agreement;
(ii) in relation to establishing a framework for the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union;
(b) any change to the matters listed in paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (2).
(4) Before concluding a withdrawal agreement the Prime Minister must produce a document setting out the terms of the proposed agreement for consideration by the Joint Ministerial Committee.
(5) Meetings of the Joint Ministerial Committee must, until Her Majesty’s Government concludes a withdrawal agreement, be chaired by—
(a) the Prime Minister, or
(b) the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union.
(6) In this section, “the Joint Ministerial Committee” means the body set up in accordance with Supplementary Agreement A of the Memorandum of Understanding on Devolution, between Her Majesty’s Government, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive Committee.”
This new clause would put the Joint Ministerial Committee’s role in the withdrawal process on a statutory footing.
Amendment 42, in clause 11, page 7, line 16, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
“(1) In section 29(2)(d) of the Scotland Act 1998 (no competence for Scottish Parliament to legislate incompatibly with EU law), omit ‘or with EU law’.
(2) In section 108A(2)(e) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (no competence for National Assembly for Wales to legislate incompatibly with EU law), omit ‘or with EU law’.
(3) In section 6(2)(d) of the Northern Ireland Act (no competency for the Assembly to legislate incompatibly with EU law, omit ‘is incompatible with EU law’.”
This amendment removes the Bill’s proposed restrictions on the ability of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly to legislate on devolved matters.
Amendment 164, page 7, line 16, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
“(1) In section 29(2)(d) of the Scotland Act 1998 (no competence for Scottish Parliament to legislate incompatibly with EU law), omit ‘or with EU law’.
(2) In section 108A(2)(e) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (no competence for National Assembly for Wales to legislate incompatibly with EU law), omit ‘or with EU law’.”
This amendment would replace the Bill’s changes to the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales in consequence of EU withdrawal, by removing the restriction on legislative competence relating to EU law and ensuring that no further restriction relating to retained EU law is imposed.
Amendment 132, page 7, line 19, leave out from “law)” to end of line 29 and insert
“omit ‘or with EU law’”.
This amendment is intended to remove the proposed bar on the Scottish Parliament legislating inconsistently with EU law after exit day.
Amendment 90, page 7, leave out lines 22 to 29 and insert—
“‘(4A) An Act of the Scottish Parliament cannot modify, or confer power by subordinate legislation to modify, retained EU law which relates to matters specified in Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998.’”
This amendment would remove the restrictions on the Scottish Parliament modifying retained EU law except in relation to matters that are reserved.
Amendment 133, page 7, line 33, leave out from “law)” to end of line 7 on page 8 and insert
“omit ‘or with EU law’”.
This amendment is intended to remove the proposed bar on the National Assembly for Wales legislating inconsistently with EU law.
Amendment 91, page 7, leave out from beginning of line 36 to the end of line 7 on page 8 and insert—
“‘(8) An Act of the Assembly cannot modify, or confer power by subordinate legislation to modify, retained EU law which relates to matters specified in Schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act 2006.’”
This amendment would remove the restrictions on the National Assembly for Wales modifying retained EU law except in relation to matters that are reserved.
Amendment 134, page 8, line 9, leave out from “Assembly)” to end of line 28 and insert “omit subsection 2(d)”.
This amendment is intended to remove the proposed bar on the Northern Ireland Assembly legislating inconsistently with EU law.
Amendment 92, page 8, leave out lines 14 to 28 and insert—
“‘(6) An Act of the Assembly cannot modify, or confer power by subordinate legislation to modify, retained EU law which relates to matters specified in Schedules 2 or 3 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998.’”
This amendment would remove the restrictions on the Northern Ireland Assembly modifying retained EU law except in relation to matters that are reserved or excepted.
Amendment 72, page 8, line 28, at end insert—
“(3A) This section shall not come into effect until—
(a) the Scottish Parliament has passed a resolution approving the provisions in subsection (1);
(b) the National Assembly for Wales has passed a resolution approving the provisions in subsection (2); and
(c) the Northern Ireland Assembly has passed a resolution approving the provisions in subsection (3).”
Amendment 337, page 8, line 33, at end insert—
“(6) Subsections (1), (2) and (3) shall not come into force until the exit day appointed for the purpose of this section, which must not be before the end of any transitional period agreed under Article 50 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.”
This amendment, alongside Amendment 42 and NC64, would establish that the UK Government has until the end of transitional arrangements to create any UK-wide frameworks.
Clause 11 stand part.
Amendment 165, in schedule 3, page 25, line 37, leave out paragraphs 1 and 2 and insert—
“1 In section 57(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 (no power for members of the Scottish Government to make subordinate legislation, or otherwise act, incompatibly with EU law or Convention rights), omit ‘or with EU law’.
2 In the Government of Wales Act 2006, omit section 80 (EU law).”
This amendment would replace the Bill’s changes to the executive competence of the Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers in consequence of withdrawal from the EU, by removing the restriction on competence relating to EU law and ensuring that no further restriction relating to retained EU law is imposed.
Amendment 183, page 28, line 2, leave out from first “and” to end of line 3.
This consequential amendment, linked to Amendments 164 and 165 to Clause 11 and Schedule 3, would change a heading in the Scotland Act 1998 to remove a reference to retained EU law.
Amendment 184, page 28, line 38, leave out from “(d)” to end of line 39 and insert
“omit ‘or with EU law’”.
This consequential amendment, linked to Amendments 164 and 165 to Clause 11 and Schedule 3, would change the definition of devolution issues in the Scotland Act 1998.
Amendment 185, page 29, line 5, leave out paragraph 21.
This consequential amendment, linked to Amendments 164 and 165 to Clause 11 and Schedule 3, would enable changes to the procedure for subordinate legislation in the Scotland Act 1998.
Amendment 186, page 29, line 28, leave out from “subsection” to end of line 29 and insert “(4), omit paragraph (d)”.
This amendment makes a change consequential on Amendment 165, which would omit section 80 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, making section 58A (4)(d) of that Act redundant.
Amendment 187, page 30, line 4, leave out
“before ‘EU’ insert ‘Retained’”
and insert “omit ‘EU law’”.
Amendment 165 omits section 80 of the Government of Wales Act 2006. This amendment would amend the changes made to the heading before section 80 to reflect the omission of section 80 of the Government of Wales Act 2006.
Amendment 188, page 30, line 5, leave out paragraph 31.
This amendment makes a change consequential on Amendment 165, which would omit section 80 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, making paragraph 31 of Schedule 3 in this Bill redundant.
That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Amendment 177, in schedule 2, page 19, line 47, leave out “and retained EU law”.
This is a consequential amendment linked to Amendments 164 and 165 to Clause 11 and Schedule 3.
Amendment 178, page 20, line 23, leave out “and retained EU law”.
This is a consequential amendment linked to Amendments 164 and 165 to Clause 11 and Schedule 3..
Amendment 179, page 23, line 21, leave out “and retained EU law”.
This is a consequential amendment linked to amendments 164 and 165 to Clause 11 and Schedule 3.
Amendment 180, page 23, line 25, leave out
“and section 57(4) and (5) of that Act”.
This is a consequential amendment linked to amendments 164 and 165 to Clause 11 and Schedule 3.
Amendment 181, page 23, line 31, leave out “and retained EU law”.
This is a consequential amendment linked to amendments 164 and 165 to Clause 11 and Schedule 3.
Amendment 182, page 23, line 35, leave out “80(8)” and insert “80”.
This consequential amendment, linked to amendments 164 and 165 to Clause 11 and Schedule 3, changes the reference to section 80 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 to make clear that the restriction on the powers of the Welsh Ministers not to act or legislate incompatibly with EU law is removed.
Amendment 189, in schedule 8, page 50, line 19, leave out
“section 57(4) of the Scotland Act 1998, section 80(8) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 or”.
This amendment and Amendment 190 are in consequence of Amendment 165 as no restriction relating to retained EU law on the making of subordinate legislation by the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers would apply.
Amendment 190, page 51, line 1, leave out
“section 57(4) of the Scotland Act 1998, section 80(8) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 or”.
This amendment and Amendment 189 are in consequence of Amendment 165 to Schedule 3 as no restriction relating to retained EU law on the making of subordinate legislation by the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers will apply.
Amendment 191, page 55, leave out lines 8 to 13 and insert—
(a) in paragraph (a), omit sub-paragraph (ii), and
(b) in paragraph (b), omit “or with EU law”.”.
This amendment would amend the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 on the right of the Advocate General to take part in proceedings in consequence of removing the restriction on the competence of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government by Amendments 164 and 165 to Clause 11 and Schedule 3.
Amendment 192, page 59, leave out lines 10 to 16.
This amendment, with Amendments 193, 194 and 195, is in consequence of Amendments 164 and 165 to Clause 11 and Schedule 3 which would remove the powers to make an Order in Council to adjust the new restriction on the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.
Amendment 193, page 59, leave out lines 23 to 29.
This amendment, with Amendments 192, 194 and 195, is in consequence of Amendments 164 and 165 to Clause 11 and Schedule 3 which would remove the powers to make an Order in Council to adjust the new restriction on the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.
Amendment 194, page 59, line 47, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 60.
This amendment, with Amendments 192, 193 and 195, is in consequence of Amendments 164 and 165 to Clause 11 and Schedule 3 which would remove the powers to make an Order in Council to adjust the new restriction on the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.
Amendment 195, page 60, leave out lines 13 to 23.
This amendment, with Amendments 192, 193 and 194, is in consequence of Amendments 164 and 165 to Clause 11 and Schedule 3 which would remove the powers to make an Order in Council to adjust the new restriction on the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.
Jenny Chapman
It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance, Mrs Laing. I will speak to new clauses 64 and 65, as well as to amendments 42 and 337, which stand in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
New clause 64 would establish a collaborative procedure for the creation of UK-wide frameworks. It would require that the Secretary of State must lay before each House proposals for replacing European frameworks with UK ones. We need those frameworks to enable the functioning of the UK internal market; to ensure compliance with international obligations; to ensure the UK can negotiate and enter into international treaties, or, if we leave the customs union, trade agreements; to enable the management of common resources; to administer and provide access to justice in cases with a cross-border element; and to safeguard the security of the UK. The frameworks will have a significant impact on the carefully constructed devolution settlements in the Union. They must be created in collaboration with the devolved Administrations.
The birth of devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland was a significant change to the running of the United Kingdom. The then Scottish Secretary, Donald Dewar, battled to extract powers from Whitehall mandarins, who attempted to cling on to them. Then, as now, the default position of Whitehall is to hold on to power whenever possible. There are those who believe that this pro-Whitehall centralising tendency, on display yet again in clause 11, is evidence of the Tories’ reluctance to engage with devolved Administrations, or, even worse, that it signals a persistence of their initial opposition to devolution as a point of principle.
I am pleased to say that I am not one of those people. I believe we have come a long way since 1997, thanks in large part to the persistence of Donald Dewar and others. I sense that the Government’s decision to withhold retained EU powers in Whitehall is not an anti-devolution stance, but instead one of the clearest indications yet that the Government are just not coping with the task of Brexit. The Government simply have not had the ministerial headspace—or, as Alan Milburn said, the bandwidth—to engage with the consequences of Brexit for the established, yet still young, devolution settlements now in place.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I completely agree with the point my hon. Friend is making so eloquently. Does the news from Brussels in the last few minutes about the complexity of the negotiations not show that the Bill, and the whole process of Brexit, will have far greater consequences for our country, not just for the economy but our whole constitutional settlement and the way we run our affairs here in these islands? The very serious consequences needed to have been much more clearly thought through by the Government.
Jenny Chapman
I encourage Ministers to listen very carefully to what my hon. Friend says. Like me, he has a deep concern about what clause 11 may mean for the devolved Administrations. We watch with alarm the statements being made today. We hope the position is clarified very quickly.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend refers to Donald Dewar. The basis for the devolution process came about via referendums in Scotland, Wales and both parts of Ireland to agree the frameworks under which we now operate. Is it therefore not a contempt, an insult, to the people as a whole—not just this House—for the Government to undermine the Good Friday agreement and the devolution settlement, which was endorsed by the people in referendums?
Jenny Chapman
My hon. Friend is right. People voted for these powers to be devolved and it is wrong for the Government to attempt to use Brexit as an excuse to bring them back to London.
The historian Professor Tom Devine called Scottish devolution and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament
“the most significant development in Scottish political history since the union of 1707.”
The Conservative party may have been opposed to devolution in the 1990s, and the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Administrations may not have been conceived of in the early ’70s, but they are now an important and respected integral part of the constitutional architecture of our country.
The Good Friday agreement could never have succeeded without devolution to Northern Ireland, and, in the view of many of those involved at that time, the fact that devolution to Scotland and Wales took place at the same time as the Good Friday negotiations helped to ease some misgivings about the process.
Two nations of our Union voted to remain in the EU and two voted to leave. Our nations are run by different parties with different views about what Britain should look like after Brexit. The challenge for the Government therefore is significant. Just because it is challenging, however, does not mean the Government should attempt to take shortcuts that undermine the credibility, autonomy or sharing of decision making that are now an accepted feature of our democracy.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all her work on the Bill. Is she surprised, as I am, that the 12 new Scottish Conservative Members of Parliament were sent here by the Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, under the banner of standing up for Scotland, yet it appears that, with regards to the Bill and these clauses, all they will be standing up for is the Government Whips Office?
Jenny Chapman
We will have to wait until later this evening to see which Lobby they choose to walk through. I, like my hon. Friend, was encouraged by some of the comments from Ruth Davidson and her hopes for the new group of Conservative Tory MPs, but we shall see if they live up to the billing she has given them.
Whether they want to or not, the Government must adapt to the very different constitutional circumstances that now exist. They are very different from those that existed before 1973. Clause 11, which is intolerable to the devolved Administrations, sets it as the default that powers currently exercised in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast within EU frameworks will be ripped away and held in London. First Ministers are calling this a Whitehall power grab.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a passionate speech, but does she accept that powers are not being ripped away, given that they are not there for the devolved Administrations at the moment? [Interruption.] Whether hon. Members think it right or not, as a matter of law those powers are vested in the EU, so if they come back to the devolved Administrations, they will be additional powers. Powers are not being taken away.
Jenny Chapman
I think that the hon. and learned Lady has not—if I may be polite—quite grasped what we are talking about. We are talking about a framework, within which the devolved Administrations currently make decisions, that is held now at the EU level. Our desire is for a UK framework that enables those decisions to continue to be made by the devolved Administrations. It is very different from saying, as I anticipate some Government Back Benchers will claim, “Well, the powers are currently held in Brussels, so why is everybody so worried about it?” Actually, the decision making is held in Belfast, Edinburgh and Cardiff.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that in Wales devolution actually came in two tranches—in 1997, but also in 2011, when Wales voted overwhelmingly for full law-making powers—and that any rolling back of those powers would be simply unacceptable and anti-Welsh in the extreme?
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is talking about the UK framework and the devolved Administrations. Would she care to comment on the quite astonishing scenes we have witnessed today? It is apparent that the Government have not spoken to the Northern Ireland First Minister about what should happen with respect to any deal. If we are to have special arrangements—or special alignment—between Northern Ireland and the rest of Ireland, what is wrong with giving the whole UK that special alignment? It is called all of us staying in the customs union.
Jenny Chapman
My hon. Friend is highlighting the alarm with which we are witnessing the statements coming out today—the confusion, the briefing, the counter-briefing—and with which we contemplate the destabilisation, particularly in Northern Ireland, that could result. We are deeply concerned about it. I will resist making any specific comment until we have a much clearer picture of the situation, but I am sure that every Member will want to ensure that the negotiations proceed this week and that there is a clearer outcome. The Prime Minister has asked for that to happen at the end of the week. We are expecting a full statement tomorrow, and we look forward to it. I am sure that some very serious questions will be asked of the Prime Minister tomorrow about the conduct of the negotiations.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Is there not a really important point that the Government seem to forget? When they are negotiating about a border, or no border, or about divergence from or convergence with a regulatory framework on the island of Ireland, they must speak to the First Minister of Wales as well, because the vast majority of the exports from Ireland into the rest of the European Union go through Wales. There is no point in coming up with a Bill that simply ignores the devolved Administrations.
Jenny Chapman
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that the Government seem to have acted in a rather high-handed way with all the devolved Administrations on a matter that is so fundamental to the future of the citizens of this country.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I agree with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). The other border between the United Kingdom and Ireland is the one that passes through Holyhead and Fishguard. When I asked the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, in the Select Committee, what consideration he had given to the position in Holyhead in particular—given the chaotic road across the island, the two insubstantial bridges, and the extra traffic from the proposed Wylfa B power station—his answer he gave was very clear: “None.”
Jenny Chapman
That is shocking. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues from Wales will continue to make the point as the debate proceeds. Needless to say, the Government’s attitude has been most concerning to me and to First Ministers, because it suggests that they are not interested in the needs and ambitions of the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That approach is regrettable, but it is not too late to change it.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. Just last week, senior border immigration officials told the Home Affairs Committee that the implications for the Welsh ports of Holyhead, Fishguard and Pembroke, which other Members have mentioned, are very serious in practical terms unless we remain in the customs union, for instance. That underlines the point that my hon. Friend is making about proper frameworks, the Joint Ministerial Committee and so on, and the points made in the new clauses and amendments.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The hon. Lady is making a persuasive speech. She mentioned the renowned Scottish historian Sir Tom Devine. He, of course, has made the journey from being a supporter of devolution to being a supporter of independence. Does the hon. Lady agree that if the Bill is allowed to drive a coach and horses through the current devolution settlement, a great many more Scots are likely to follow Sir Tom Devine by becoming supporters of independence rather than devolution?
Jenny Chapman
I sincerely hope that that will not be the outcome, but I have to admire the hon. and learned Lady’s ability to spot an opportunity and take it.
The Government have never argued that these powers need to be in London or that they intend to hold on to them permanently. Rather, it seems that they feel that tackling the undoubted complexities of considering how to make new arrangements with the devolved Administrations post Brexit belongs in the “too difficult” pile—something to be put off until there is more time and there are fewer distractions. However, there are no time limits on when the Government will cease to hoard the powers. While the hard-line Brexiteers on the Back Benches are promised a time and date—to the very nanosecond—for when they will see powers returned from Brussels, the nations of our Union are told to wait indefinitely. The people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland deserve better from the Government.
The Government agree with Labour and the devolved Administrations that frameworks are needed—I think—and new clause 64 assists them by outlining how that can be achieved. The presumption should be that powers remain devolved as is the case now, and that UK frameworks are created to co-ordinate policy in some areas through negotiation with the devolved Administrations. To do anything else would turn back the clock on devolution—impossible—and cause untold damage to important relationships between Parliaments.
As well as having the motivation and attention to address this issue, the Government need to trust the devolved Administrations. That is why our proposal makes explicit the obligations on each Government and the nature of the frameworks needed. So far, the Government have not exactly shone in their endeavour to develop a UK-wide approach to Brexit, so new clause 65 helps by putting the Joint Ministerial Committee on a statutory footing.
It is important to reflect on the absence of representation from Northern Ireland on the JMC. The suspension of the Executive is deeply regrettable, and permits the neglect of the needs, concerns, ambitions and hopes of the people of Northern Ireland. Their voices must not go unheard at this most critical of moments, but need to be amplified, as it is they who have the most to lose from a chaotic departure from the EU.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I am following the hon. Lady’s speech carefully. I am also looking very carefully at her new clause, but I do not see how it would resolve the question of what would happen if we set up joint structures and there was disagreement about how they will work. It can, of course, be argued that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is ultimately sovereign, so I think that it is a matter of law that if there is a disagreement, the logjam would ultimately be resolved by this Parliament and the Government in Whitehall having primacy. The question the hon. Lady has to answer is whether the structure she is putting forward would be workable in practice, or if it would just lead to conflict.
Jenny Chapman
The new clause is not intended to cause conflict—we already have a certain degree of conflict between the Administrations—but, rather, to remove that conflict, and to provide a mechanism by which issues can be resolved. Hearteningly, the JMC seems to have started to function rather better than it did when we last went around this particular issue. It has issued statements that explain how it wants these frameworks to be established, so it does not seem to be too much of a leap to write that into the Bill.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman will probably remember our attempt to put the JMC on a statutory footing when we considered the article 50 Bill, but this time the Brexit negotiations are upon us. The Government have lost their majority since our last attempt, so I encourage Ministers to take a more conciliatory approach this time. New clauses 64 and 65 would force the Government to respect both the devolution of decisions, and those who are responsible for taking the decisions.
Ian Murray
Does my hon. Friend agree that the JMC should be producing communiqués that give the public and this House slightly more information? The communiqué published on 16 October merely stated the attendees and apologies, and concluded:
“Ministers noted the positive progress being made on consideration of common frameworks”.
Does my hon. Friend agree that we need slightly more information?
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Do the Welsh First Minister, and indeed the Welsh Cabinet Secretary for these matters, agree with the wording of new clause 64? Given their public comments, I think they would find it very difficult to agree totally with its current drafting.
Jenny Chapman
My understanding is that the answer is yes. We have not worked alone on this—we have worked together with the devolved Administrations—so I am slightly surprised by that question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is angling for something. Is he trying to extract something from this that I am unaware of?
Jonathan Edwards
The plight of the First Minister has always been that new UK frameworks have to be made collaboratively in a partnership of equals. The new clause seems to suggest that this would be a matter determined by Westminster, in negotiation with the devolved Governments, but that is a totally different thing.
Jenny Chapman
The intention is that the frameworks would be achieved collaboratively. That is precisely what we are trying to achieve. It is, of course, a matter for the hon. Gentleman if he is trying to force a wedge between me and my hon. Friends and the First Minister, but I do not think he is going to be successful.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
On the point about conflict that was raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), it seems to be the way in which the Bill has been structured that creates the conflict. The Government could have done this differently. They could have said, “You can have all the powers back and we will hold a veto.” The question is about getting agreement on the frameworks when they are necessary. The two new clauses to which my hon. Friend is speaking seem to me—and, I am sure, to many people—to set out a really practical way of bringing the two sides together to get those agreements. That is the route by which we will find a way through this problem.
Jenny Chapman
That is absolutely the approach that we have tried to take. We are trying to be practical, realistic and respectful, and to work collaboratively with the devolved Administrations.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?
Jenny Chapman
I believe that the hon. Gentleman is sincere that his intervention will be on that point.
Pete Wishart
Perhaps the hon. Lady requires a note from elsewhere to say that this is not one of the amendments brought forward by the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government. In fact, the new clause says something entirely different. It states that “Ministers of the Crown” would “create UK-wide frameworks”. The Welsh and Scottish Governments want this to be a combined process that involves all the parties.
Jenny Chapman
I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I think he is dancing on the head of a pin. We want the creation of the frameworks to be done collaboratively by the devolved Administrations and the Government.
Jenny Chapman
I have already given way quite a lot. If the hon. and learned Lady does not mind, I am going to crack on now. She will have a chance to make her own speech, and I look forward to listening to it.
Mr Jones
Pursuing the same point, does the hon. Lady not accept that new clause 64(3), having provided that there should be no new frameworks created without the agreement of the devolved Administrations, would be a recipe for chaos, on the basis that if there were no such agreement, it would be impossible to create the frameworks that she seems to acknowledge as so desirable?
Jenny Chapman
The Joint Ministerial Committee said that it wanted frameworks to be created in this way, I think at the time when the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister, so I really do not understand what his objection is today.
We need look no further than Wales to learn of the practical benefits of devolution. It is right that Cardiff should decide the best way to support farmers in Wales, within an agreed framework but according to their needs and priorities. Jobs Growth Wales has so far supported the employment of 17,000 young people using European funding. That decision would not have been possible if the arrangements proposed by the Government had been in place at the time. When I was first elected, the Tories and the Lib Dems scrapped the almost identical future jobs fund in 2010. Such decisions were devolved for good reason, and we will support the devolved Administrations in keeping them. Amendments 42 and 337, alongside new clause 64, would allow the Government until the end of the transitional arrangements to create UK frameworks.
I want to make it clear to the Minister that in tabling these new clauses and amendments, Labour is attempting to assist the Government by enabling the devolved Administrations to be engaged in decisions that have a direct impact on their people. If the Government accept our criticisms and proposed improvements, Ministers will find that they have a less turbulent time in the months ahead. Do the Government really think that it is wise to pass a Bill to which the devolved Administrations are so hostile? Ministers need to focus on negotiating the best possible deal for all the people of the UK, not on embroiling themselves in constitutional rows with Edinburgh and Cardiff.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
I first want to pick up on an earlier comment about what Mr Juncker has been saying. If one could get past the headlines of the biased BBC, the reality is that Mr Juncker actually said that enormous progress has been made in the talks. It might be worth listening to what he actually has to say for once instead of listening to all the usual commentators, who are doing their best to undermine the excellent work that has been done by my colleagues in Government.
The hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) delivered an interesting speech in which she made a couple of pointed, but very kind, remarks about the fact that the Conservative party had opposed devolution, and she is of course absolutely correct. We totally opposed devolution in Wales and in Scotland, too, but it is Wales that I will talk about. Indeed, I was one of the leaders of the anti-Welsh Assembly campaign in 1999. However, the hon. Lady forgot to mention something in her long speech, despite making several references to devolution, and it is rather an important point. After the referendum in 1999, when the Welsh Assembly was voted for by just over half of the half of the electorate that came out to vote, the Conservative party totally accepted the result of the referendum. On the very next day, we said that we did not like it and that we would not have chosen it ourselves, but we respected the voice of the people of Wales. We recognised that when people vote in a referendum, even if the result is far from overwhelming, we have to adhere to the result. That is a lesson that the hon. Lady and many of her colleagues have yet to learn properly.
Susan Elan Jones
Would the hon. Gentleman like to explain to the House why he was opposed to Wales having full law-making powers in 2011?
David T. C. Davies
I would be delighted to explain, but I probably will not be able to today. It is a lovely idea, and I would be more than happy to spend 20 minutes or so on it, but—
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would like to tell the Committee that at this point. We will stick to the matter in hand for the moment.
David T. C. Davies
Let me return to the matter in hand for a minute, because the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) was also there for the underwhelming vote for devolution in 1999, and she will surely recall that the Conservative party did not call for a second referendum. We did not threaten to drag the whole thing through the courts to get the judges to overrule the will of the people of Wales. We were not going around pretending that people had changed their minds and saying that we needed to run the whole thing over again. We did not say that we were going to drag the whole thing out and do everything possible to undermine it. In actual fact, Nick Bourne, who was then the leader of the Welsh Conservatives and is now a Member of the other place, sat down with Members of all parties on the National Assembly advisory group and helped to draw up the Assembly’s Standing Orders, most of which are now in place. That is the difference between the Conservative party’s approach when we were on the losing side of a referendum and the approach of the Labour party, the SNP and many others now that they are on the losing side.
The reality is that the change will be called a power grab. I did not hear the phrase used today, but it will be described as a power grab. Of course it is a power grab, and what a wonderful power grab it is, too. We are grabbing powers from Brussels and bringing them back to London. Not only that, but over the next few years—[Interruption.] SNP Members can shout all they like; I am waiting for one of them to intervene.
Peter Grant
Perhaps the reason why the hon. Gentleman’s campaign against the Welsh Assembly in 1999 failed was that the people of Wales voted in 1997. It might have gone better if he had turned up two years earlier. As we are talking about where power ultimately resides, I believe 100% in Scotland’s ancient doctrine that the people are sovereign. Where does he believe ultimate sovereignty over Scotland resides?
David T. C. Davies
As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is for the Scots to decide, and they decided that, for the time being, ultimate sovereignty rests within a United Kingdom Parliament in which the Scots are heavily and well represented, if I may say so. I totally respect that, and I hope he does, too.
A few weeks ago, Scottish National party Members were telling us that we should all support and recognise the referendum result in Catalonia, where a nation decided that it wanted to break out of a union with Spain. I find it ironic that the SNP is saying that we have to recognise referendum results when it happens to agree with the policy but that we should completely ignore referendum results when it does not agree with the policy.
Mike Gapes
The hon. Gentleman cannot compare an unconstitutional referendum in Catalonia, in which only 2 million people took part, with a constitutional referendum in Scotland and Wales organised according to legal procedures.
David T. C. Davies
I am comparing not the two referendums but the reaction to those two referendums. On that point, I am probably on the same side as the hon. Gentleman.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman appears to be making light of the powers coming back from the EU. The Welsh and Scottish Governments were promised that the powers would go to those Administrations. The powers cover a huge number of areas. The Scottish Government reckon there are 111 returning powers, and the Welsh Government reckon the figure is 64. A huge number of areas are coming back here, rather than going to where devolved competence exists. While he is at it, will he tell us which way Monmouthshire voted in the EU referendum?
David T. C. Davies
The hon. Gentleman knows the difference between a local authority area and a parliamentary constituency, so he knows there is absolutely no way of telling what the Monmouth constituency did. He will be aware that it was quite close in the Monmouthshire local authority area. Indeed, there was a very small majority in favour of staying in the European Union. He will also be acutely aware, as I am sure is the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), that I represent 10,000 Labour-voting, traditionally working-class voters in Torfaen. I respect those voters, and they voted overwhelmingly to leave the European Union. Some people say I should not listen to such people, but I tell the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) that those people mean as much to me as anyone living in Monmouth. I will represent their views, and they overwhelmingly voted to leave the European Union.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
Is not the key point about the referendum not which regions or nations within the United Kingdom family voted one way or another but that we voted as a United Kingdom on the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union?
David T. C. Davies
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Of course, the Government’s whole purpose is to ensure there is a single market within the United Kingdom. We cannot have a situation where different nation states within the United Kingdom go off and do their own thing. If that were to happen, we would have exactly the problem that some Opposition Members complain will occur when we leave the European Union. That is what we are about today.
If one judges the Government by their actions, rather than on the words of Opposition Members, one can see that, actually, this Government and this Conservative party have, over and again, given extra powers to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Welsh Assembly. Sometimes they have been rather more enthusiastic in doing that than I would choose, but we saw it happen in 2011 and we are about to see a huge tranche of extra powers being handed over to the Welsh Assembly on 1 April 2018. The Conservative party has shown it is very willing to give extra powers to the devolved Parliaments and, to some extent, I suppose I agree with that approach. I sometimes think it is happening a bit too quickly, but it will certainly happen again. So I completely support what the Government are doing here today. They are doing what all those on the other side of the House are calling for: bringing about Brexit in a stable and controlled fashion that allows us to move forward with certainty. It is inevitable that this will lead to further powers going to the devolved Parliaments—it may not happen straightaway, but it will happen. Not one single power is coming back to London as a result of these measures; there is not one single thing that can be done by the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly today that they will not be able to do once this Bill is passed.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Welsh Assembly for some considerable time. Is he saying that if he were still there he would not be arguing in Wales, in the Welsh Assembly, for the powers in the 140 distinct policy areas that have devolved responsibility, many of them in relation to the environment, to come back to the Welsh Assembly? Would he be happy for the Westminster Parliament to make those decisions on behalf of Wales?
David T. C. Davies
I can say to the hon. Lady that that is exactly what I am saying to her. May I remind her that in 2003 I had an election leaflet that had the headline “No more powers for the Welsh Assembly” and I was given one of the biggest majorities of anyone in Wales? That is something to think about. So “yes” is the answer to that question.
This Government are doing a superb job. All sorts of people and the commentators will once again be, in the newspapers tomorrow trying to find little reasons to undermine this process. It is quite a complicated process, but I say from the bottom of my heart that I think these Ministers are doing a superb job, and they are being supported not just by their Back Benchers or all those who voted to leave the European Union, but by a majority of people in Wales, who also voted to leave the EU and are not being respected by the Labour party, Plaid Cymru and whatever is left of the Liberal Democrats. More power to them, and I look forward to joining them in the Lobby tonight.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Before I begin, I wish to pay tribute to the former hon. Member for Clydesdale, and for Lanark and Hamilton East, Jimmy Hood, who served this House between 1987 and 2015 and whose sad death we learned of today. I knew Jimmy, having been a constituent of his for a number of years, and I would like to pass on condolences from everyone on our Benches.
I will speak to amendments 72 and 184, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), as well as the remaining amendments standing in the names of Members from these Benches. First, I wish to update the House on the St Andrew’s day meeting in Edinburgh last week, where the Scottish Government and UK Government met to discuss the Bill and its impact on devolution. The talks were constructive and progress was made in some areas, especially on the subject of frameworks, a matter I will come to later in my speech. However, there is a long way to go on this Bill and, as it stands, the Scottish National party cannot and will not support it.
Clause 11 is a bare, naked power grab and it completely undermines the devolution settlements across the United Kingdom. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) often speaks about the UK taking back control from the EU, but this Bill tramples all over the devolved competences of the Parliaments in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. The Scotland Act 1998, which established the Scottish Parliament, establishes all matters that are reserved. What is happening here is that, without agreement, Westminster is taking back control over matters that are devolved, without having shown due respect and negotiating appropriately with the devolved Administrations.
We are willing to compromise and reach agreement, but we are some distance from that point. The UK Government have failed to see a sense of urgency in concluding an arrangement with the devolved Administrations. Despite our protestations, there was too long a delay in arranging meetings of the JMC, and the Government here in Westminster have to take responsibility for that. Fundamentally, nothing can be agreed until agreement is reached on both frameworks and amendments to the Bill.
The SNP’s amendments seek to remove the power grab and protect Scotland’s devolution settlement. Amendment 72 is a simple and straightforward one.
Stephen Kerr
What are the circumstances in which the right hon. Gentleman would vote for, and what are the changes he would have to see in, clause 11?
Ian Blackford
If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I will take him through that in my speech.
The fundamental point is that we must protect the interests of the Scottish Parliament. I say to the hon. Gentleman and his friends: are they willing to join us in the Lobby tonight to make sure that we do not have that naked power grab against the interests of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people, or will they simply be the poodles of the Prime Minister? Are they going to stand up for Scotland—Ruth Davidson has talked about that—or are they going to fail tonight to stand up for Scotland, which they said they would do when they got here?
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that his tone and language in this debate are quite different from what his Ministers say when they come out of their meetings with UK Government officials? We should reflect on the progress that has been made to date, rather than continually try to find a political divide on this most important of issues.
Ian Blackford
A simple one-word answer: no.
Amendment 72 is simple and straightforward. It seeks to ensure that all the devolved Administrations have a vote on approving clause 11 before it can come into effect. The principles behind the amendment are critical. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have been told time after time that this is a Union of equals. There must be equality in the Brexit process and every corner of the UK must be heard.
Ian Murray
We had a very good briefing, as we always do, from the Law Society of Scotland. It concludes, after several paragraphs of different suggestions on how this could be done more practically, that this is essentially a political decision. Does the right hon. Gentleman share that view?
Ian Blackford
Absolutely. When so many people have worked so hard over many generations and many decades to establish the Scottish Parliament, this attack on the competences of the Scottish Parliament by the Government is absolute bare-faced cheek.
The Tory Members of Parliament from Scotland should remember what they said: that they are here to stand up for Scotland. Tonight they have their opportunity. Are they prepared to see this power grab against the Scottish Parliament? Are they going to vote to take powers back from the Scottish Parliament to Westminster? That is the simple choice that Conservative Members of Parliament face tonight.
It is deeply depressing that the UK Government did not even bother to consult the devolved Administrations on the legislation before publishing it. Where is the respect when they cannot even talk to their colleagues in the devolved Administrations as they should do? I am sure that that obvious act would have saved many of the problems and headaches the Government now face over the devolved aspects of the Bill.
Stephen Doughty
I was happy to put my name to amendment 72 because it is not about whether we want this Brexit Bill to go forward or not—a leaver or a remainer could support amendment 72—but about respecting the constitutional settlement and respecting the rights of the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament.
Ian Blackford
I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. He is absolutely correct. Amendment 72 is about protecting the interests not just of the Scottish Parliament and Government, but of the Administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland.
A point was made earlier about where sovereignty lies, but this House has to be very careful about going against the wishes and the democratic institutions that have been established in all the devolved areas. We play with that at our peril. I am delighted that amendment 72 has gathered support across the House. I sincerely hope—I plead with them—that the Scottish Conservatives join us and support it tonight. Let us all stand up with one clear and united voice, defending the interests of the Scottish Parliament. Do that tonight—stand up for Scotland. It is their moment to stand up and defend the devolution settlement.
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Can the right hon. Gentleman please tell me one of the 109 powers that is not already implemented at a devolved level?
Ian Blackford
I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. If he had listened to what the Scottish Government have said, he would know that 111 devolved competences are being interfered with. That is the salient point.
When the Scottish Parliament was established, the Scotland Act 1998 defined matters that were reserved. Those matters that were not reserved were devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Areas such as agriculture, fisheries and the environment are fully devolved. In this Bill, powers over agriculture, fisheries and our environment are being taken back to Westminster. I say with all due respect to the Conservatives: do you want to trample over the powers that the Scottish Parliament has over these areas?
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he knows what I am going to say: I am not going to trample over anyone—well hardly anyone—this afternoon. I would be grateful if he addressed the Government as the Government.
Ian Blackford
My sincere apologies, Mrs Laing. You are right to reprimand me, and I apologise. I am talking about the powers that the Government are taking back—the naked power grab that is taking place against the Scottish Government.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Secretary of State and the United Kingdom Government have made it absolutely clear that, after Brexit, the Scottish Parliament will be much more powerful than it is today. Despite that the right hon. Gentleman continues to stand and spout those views. That is just not the case. Our job is to protect Scotland’s place within the United Kingdom and within the internal market of the United Kingdom. Can he tell me the value to Scotland of the rest of the UK trade compared with the value to Scotland of trade with the EU?
Ian Blackford
My goodness, that really does demonstrate that they are not getting this. Purely and simply, it is about the powers that are being taken back from the EU that will sit here in Westminster. The Scotland Act is very clear about the areas that are devolved and the areas that are reserved. It comes to this fundamental point: are Conservative Members who have been sent here from Scottish constituencies going to defend the interests of the Scottish Parliament, or are they simply going to go through the Lobby tonight and speak up for London? Are they speaking up for Scotland or for London? That is the question that the Tories face tonight.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ian Blackford
I wish to make some progress. I will happily take interventions later.
By supporting the amendment, the Scottish Conservatives would give power over how this Bill impacts the devolved Administration to the Scottish Parliament. I am sure Conservative Members will agree with their colleagues—and their leader—in the Scottish Parliament that our own Parliament should have the ability to debate and effect clause 11 and vote on its inclusion in the Bill.
Amendment 184 is a consequential amendment linked to amendments 164 and 165, tabled by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). The SNP’s amendment 184 would support amendments 164 and 165 in changing the definition of devolution issues in the Scotland Act 1998. The SNP will work with Members across this House when and where we can. Our joint amendments show just how serious we are about sending a strong message to this Government. However, it is with regret that new clauses 64 and 65, in the name of the official Opposition, do not go far enough for us on the SNP Benches. It is a concern that new clause 64 seeks to place the UK Government in control of joint frameworks and does not recognise that they should be joint creations of the two Governments.
New clause 65 grants the JMC only a consultative role. That is not good enough for the so-called “nation of equals”. We now get to the heart of the problem with this clause. The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill represents the biggest threat to the devolved settlement since the Scottish Parliament reconvened in 1999. Clause 11 seeks to restrict the Scottish Parliament’s legislative competence over EU law and aims to keep all the powers coming back from Brussels, which are under the remit of the Scottish Parliament, firmly in the grip of Whitehall officials. The outrageous way in which this legislation was drafted has united the Governments in Scotland and Wales.
After publication of the Bill, the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales published a joint statement warning against this power grab and stating that the Bill does not deliver on the promise to return powers from the EU to the devolved Administrations. That consensus highlights the extent of the problem with the legislation and the extreme power grab facing the devolved Administrations. We want to keep power where it belongs—in the Scottish Parliament.
Douglas Ross
The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants to keep the powers where they are. Does he therefore accept that he is saying that the SNP wants powers to come back from Europe to Scotland, and for Scotland to become independent to shove those powers straight back to Europe again? Those are views that ensured that the people of Moray voted for a Conservative, rather than an SNP, representative this time.
Ian Blackford
I do not appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s tone. We cannot get away from the simple fact that this legislation is trampling over the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
Lucy Frazer
The right hon. Gentleman keeps saying that we are trampling on powers that Scotland has, and I just want to correct him. Regardless of what he thinks of the principle, the position—as a matter of law—is that these powers are now vested in the EU. The Supreme Court said in paragraph 130 of the article 50 case judgment:
“The removal of the EU constraints on withdrawal from the EU Treaties will alter the competence of the devolved institutions unless new legislative constraints are introduced. In the absence of such…restraints, withdrawal from the EU will enhance the devolved competence.”
Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the Supreme Court is wrong?
Ian Blackford
The simple fact is that the Secretary of State and others have been asked on a number of occasions to name one power—just one—that will come back to the Scottish Parliament, and they have failed to do that. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Lady has ever read the original Scotland Act 1998, but she seems to ignore the fundamental point of all this, which is that the Scotland Act defines what is devolved and what is reserved. The only powers that are reserved are those expressed in the Scotland Act. It excludes fisheries, agriculture and the environment. I would think better of the hon. and learned Lady, who I know has a background in law, if she actually read the relevant documents. She would then understand exactly why people in Scotland and in Wales recognise this legislation for what it is; it is about taking back control.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
On that point, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if another region of the United Kingdom were offered “regulatory alignment” outwith the rest of the United Kingdom, it would be a real trampling on the rights of the Scottish people and the Scottish Parliament?
Ian Blackford
Indeed, although I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is referring to when he talks about regions, because we always say that this should be about an equality of nations within the family of nations of the United Kingdom. The issue of sovereignty has been raised in that context. We should remind the Committee that, although we often hear about parliamentary sovereignty, that does not apply in Scotland because the legal case that prejudices our position is MacCormick v. the Crown in 1953, which established that parliamentary sovereignty is a purely English concept that has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional history. It is the people of Scotland who are sovereign.
A recent survey by 38 Degrees shows that 62% of Scots want the responsibility over devolved areas currently held by Europe to be transferred straight to the Scottish Parliament. That is the settled will of the people of Scotland.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Ian Blackford
I will give way later.
The Scottish and Welsh Governments have tabled a number of key amendments to the Bill—amendments 164, 165, and 183 to 188—through SNP Members and Labour Members. I am delighted that these amendments have all been selected for debate today, and I will leave my friends to speak to the amendments in their own names. It must be recognised that there is deep disapproval from the devolved Administrations in Cardiff and in Edinburgh about not only how this legislation was drafted, but the extent to which it disrupts the functioning of devolved competences.
During the referendum campaign last year, Scotland was promised all sorts of powers. The Environment Secretary told BBC Scotland that Scotland would get immigration powers with a leave vote. The former Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston promised Scotland powers over fishing and agriculture. But here we are, 17 months after the referendum. There are no new powers for Scotland. In fact, Brexit means Scotland losing powers. [Interruption.] I can hear huffing from the Government Benches. I invite any Government Member to rise now and name one power—just one—that will come back to Scotland as a consequence of Brexit.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
At the start of his remarks, the right hon. Gentleman sought to give us feedback from the meeting that I held with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Scotland and the Minister responsible for exit. If the right hon. Gentleman had been party to those discussions, he would know that all 111 powers were subject to discussion between the two Governments, and the two Governments will bring forward their proposals in due course. This power grab talk and this naming one power—it is pantomime. What this Government are involved in is the reality of negotiating a way forward on this matter.
Ian Blackford
I can hear Conservative cheering, but what a waste of time that intervention was. The question was very simple: name one power coming back to Scotland. Once again, the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is London’s man in Scotland—far from being Scotland’s man in the Cabinet—was not able to demonstrate that one single power is coming back to us. It is 17 months after the referendum, and we are no further forward. The clock is ticking, and every single power, as things stand, is coming back to Westminster. That is the reality. The Secretary of State, like his colleagues from north of the border, has failed to stand up and protect Scotland’s national interest.
Paul Masterton
Is the right hon. Gentleman not just demonstrating how out of the loop he is with his own party, given that the Brexit Minister, Mike Russell, knows full well what those discussions have been about? Secondly, is the position of the SNP at Westminster different from that in Holyrood, because the SNP there has said explicitly that it agrees that agriculture and fisheries are areas where UK frameworks will be needed?
Ian Blackford
I am surprised at that intervention from the hon. Gentleman. I expressed right at the outset of my speech that we recognise that progress was made, but that progress has not been sufficient to justify the SNP supporting this Bill tonight. The whole point about our position is that we want to see frameworks in place, but we can move forward on that only when the UK Government are prepared to negotiate. Why was there a six-month period when the Joint Ministerial Committee did not meet? If there is any blame in this matter, it lies with those on the Government Benches.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is not a fag paper between the position of the SNP on these Benches and that of our colleagues up the road in Holyrood. We are united, which is more than can be said of the Conservative party, because Ruth Davidson is delivering a very different message from the one that is being delivered by the Conservatives down here. Ruth Davidson recognises the threat to Scotland of being out of the single market and the customs union. The Scottish Conservatives would serve the interests of the people of Scotland if they recognised that there is an economic threat from being outwith the single market and the customs union.
Mr Grieve
If I may say so, I have sympathy with the point that is being put across—that the way in which the Bill is drafted seems to be excessively stark and to fail to take account of the sensitivities of the devolution settlements. However, I am afraid I cannot join the right hon. Gentleman on the rhetoric, because, ultimately, as a United Kingdom, which is what we are, there has to be flexibility in reaching a sensible way forward in the light of a change in circumstance. If I may gently say so to him, because I participated actively in the debates on the devolution legislation of 1997, it was always acknowledged then that devolution was not just a one-way street; for it to work, we required that flexibility of dialogue between Cardiff, Edinburgh, Belfast and London to reach solutions and not just to get anchored on principles. While I am respectful of the point he is trying to make, I suggest to him that that might be a sensible way forward.
Ian Blackford
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend, if I may call him that, for that intervention. I always listen carefully to what he has to say, and I think that, in some respects, he makes my point. Way back last December, the Scottish Government published a paper about achieving compromise, and that is the position we have always taken. We fully recognise that we have to get to a situation where we can compromise and where we need to have joint frameworks. The nub of this argument is where the powers should lie when they come back from the EU. It would be far better if they came back to the Scottish Parliament, so that we could agree a framework; as it is, the UK has grabbed the powers and is failing to discuss these matters adequately—not just with the Government in Edinburgh, but with the Government in Wales.
The Bill returns powers solely to the UK Government and Parliament, imposing new restrictions on devolved legislatures. Scotland is getting used to Labour and Tory politicians promising all sorts of things during referendums but never delivering them. It is astonishing that just three years ago the Conservative and Labour parties were telling the people of Scotland that the biggest threat to the economy and EU citizenship was an independent Scotland—“Vote no to protect the UK’s EU membership!” Let us think about that for a minute. Now we are losing our EU membership. The economy is already seeing the effects, inflation is up and the fall in the pound and living standards has been the consequence.
The reality is that Brexit is making us poorer before it even takes hold. Our prosperity is under threat. Meanwhile, the UK Government are attempting the biggest power grab since 1999.
Ian Murray
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, whose amendments I will support this evening; I believe the SNP will be supporting Labour’s. In that spirit of consensus, may I probe a little further into what he is saying about the independence referendum? I have still to find anyone who supports independence who can explain to me how they think the EU single market is such a good thing but the UK single market is not.
Ian Blackford
The answer is very simple: we would not be leaving the single market of the UK. We are hoping to protect the interests of the people of Scotland. The simple matter in front of us at the moment, as identified by the Fraser of Allander Institute, is that we run the risk of losing 80,000 jobs in Scotland if we are outwith the single market and the customs union. A decline in wages of £2,000 per person—that is the reality of the threat. We are seeking to protect the interests of the people of Scotland.
Ian Blackford
I am going to make some progress.
The enormity of clause 11 has been highlighted by numerous legal experts. Professor Alan Page noted that the Bill proposes a massive increase in the power of UK Ministers to legislate in the devolved areas. Professor Richard Rawlings noted:
“The sooner clause 11 is cast aside, the better.”
Professor Stephen Tierney has noted a confusion around the Bill, made even more problematic by the fact that the interpretation of devolved competence will become an area of constant fluctuation.
In evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Finance and Constitution Committee in early November, the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), stated that it was “quite possible” that the clause restricting the Scottish Parliament’s competency would be “substantially reduced”. We are having this debate today without any action having been taken. I am deeply disappointed that the Government should have found time to table an amendment on the date of Brexit, but have failed to table anything rectifying the mess they have made of clause 11. The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report even concluded:
“The Order in Council powers in clause 11 and Schedule 3 are inappropriate and should be removed.”
Secretary of State, why has that not happened?
The problem with clause 11 is not just the power grab. The Law Society of Scotland has raised concerns around the modifying of conferring power by subordinate legislation to modify retained EU law. It highlights that it is not clear what Acts of the Scottish Parliament the new provision will apply to. The Bill suggests that the provision is not intended to be retrospective and will apply only to post-exit Acts of the Scottish Parliament. But what exactly is such an Act—an Act enacted on or after exit day? That would mean that legislation would be required to comply with that restriction even if it was introduced months before exit day and even if it had been passed by the Scottish Parliament before exit day.
Following the mounting pressure, lists of questions and growing criticism, the UK Government brought forward a plan of common frameworks. Although we on the Scottish National party Benches recognise that common frameworks that replace EU law across the UK may be needed in some areas, the competence in matters otherwise devolved should revert to the Scottish Parliament. The scope and content of any UK-wide framework must be agreed rather than imposed. That is the fundamental point. We welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to that principle.
Although the UK Government have indicated that they wish to develop common frameworks, it is not currently clear how policy within those frameworks might be agreed. The Law Society of England and Wales has called for discussions about where common frameworks will remain and the extent of their scrutiny. Professor Michael Keating has warned of the UK Government creating a “hierarchical model of devolution” through the frameworks. With clause 11 in place, agreement can never be reached, as the price of UK Government demands for an agreement would be reservation of the matter, putting the terms and operation of the common frameworks beyond the powers of the Scottish Parliament. Reading clause 11 leaves me in no doubt of that. Whoever drafted it had absolutely no understanding of the devolution settlements of the Scotland Act 1998.
The Scottish Government have published the 111 powers at risk in clause 11 of being held centrally in London despite falling under devolved competencies. Those powers range from agriculture, to justice, to environmental standards. Devolution has meant the divergence of policy across the UK. The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, passed unanimously in the Scottish Parliament, established Scotland as a world leader in tackling climate change. As the UK Government seek continually to catch up, any holding centrally in London of powers that affect this policy divergence will not only hold back the progress Scotland has made on environmental matters but prevent any legal measures that aim to deliver phased introductions on any proposal.
The confusion around the effect of clause 11 deepens. When asked multiple times, as I have done, to name just one power that is currently coming back, the Secretary of State has not been able to do so. Yet the Cabinet Office says that
“anything”
the devolved Administrations
“could do before we leave the EU, they will able to do after we leave”.
The truth is that this Bill does not provide for a single new decision-making power for any of the devolved legislatures. Everything goes to London, and it is for London to decide what ultimately happens to these powers. Where is our sovereignty in all this? Where is the sovereignty of the people of Scotland?
The Scottish Government have been clear that there is no way the Scottish Parliament can grant a legislative consent motion until this Bill is drastically dealt with. If no progress is made today on the amendments tabled in the names of Scottish and Welsh Members, there will be no change in that position. Let me make it clear: we do not want to be in the position of not granting a legislative consent motion. We want to do that, but in order for us to do so, the Government have to respect the powers that should sit in the Scottish Parliament. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) is saying, “Really?” We have tried to engage in this process constructively; it would be great if the Conservatives would engage in the same way.
Stephen Doughty
Is the right hon. Gentleman genuinely surprised that there has not been progress on some of the reasonable amendments that have been tabled on a cross-party basis, given that the Secretary of State for Scotland himself said to the Scottish Affairs Committee that
“it may be that some amendments can be accepted with a little bit of modification”?
I would have hoped that by this stage the Government would have made more progress on some of the very reasonable amendments that have been tabled.
Ian Blackford
The hon. Gentleman makes an important intervention. We are 17 months on from the vote and we are at a very important stage of this Bill.
We are trying to negotiate on the basis that we recognise the threats that we are facing. It is incumbent on the Government to recognise that we have to get agreement between the Government in London and the Governments in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. It saddens me that we are having eight hours’ debate today and will have eight hours’ debate on Wednesday, and the Government’s approach just seems to be that they are listening. How long does it take them to listen, and how long does it take them to respond to the fact that they are trampling over the powers of the devolved Administrations? The Government in Edinburgh and SNP Members are making it absolutely crystal clear that we do not want to be in the position of a legislative consent motion being withheld. We want to make sure that we can strengthen this Bill to the advantage of everybody, but we need to get the position from the UK Government that they are prepared to respect the Administrations in Edinburgh, in Belfast and in Cardiff.
Joanna Cherry
There is a lot of scoffing on the Government Benches. Three Committees of this House have heard evidence about clause 11—the Scottish Affairs Committee, the Exiting the European Committee, and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee—and the weight of that evidence from a number of senior, distinguished lawyers from both north and south of the border has been that there are very real concerns that clause 11
“drives a coach and horses through the devolution settlement”.
Those are not the SNP’s words but the preponderance of evidence heard by Committees of this House.
Ian Blackford
My hon. and learned Friend makes a strong case. That is why the Government should listen to her, and to the other reasonable voices that have spoken this afternoon and at other times. The Government have to recognise that they are playing with the powers that have been established under various Scotland Acts, and that is not right. The evidence is there from academics and from the Select Committees of this House that have made judgments on the matter, and the Government have a responsibility tonight to reflect on it. They must not push the matter into the long grass and say that they are listening; they have to show that they are prepared to take action.
I will sum up, because I know that many others want to speak. With the overwhelming evidence from experts in the legal profession showing how flawed clause 11 is, the best thing the Government can do is to accept that the Bill needs to be fundamentally amended. They can do that this evening, by accepting the joint Scottish and Welsh Government amendments. Common frameworks will not prevent the imminent constitutional crisis that clause 11 will create. The Government must change this Bill.
Paul Masterton
I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak, as a Scottish Conservative MP and as a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, on what I believe is being termed devolution day. I draw Members’ attention to the Committee’s—in my biased view—exceptional report, which our Chair, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), may well highlight at some point. The report was unanimous, and it draws on huge amounts of common ground between Scotland’s two Governments. That suggests that despite some histrionics, consensus exists on this area of the Bill, and that consensus will enable us to improve the Bill.
We must recognise that the debate takes place in the context of active, and now constructive, talks between the UK and the Scottish Government. That makes it a little difficult to debate the words on the page, because there are so many moving parts, but I will focus my remarks on where I believe clause 11 needs to end up and the route that the Scottish Conservatives envisage for getting there.
As has been addressed, several provisions of the Bill fall within the scope of the Sewel convention; in other words, the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly have been asked to give their consent to the Bill. The Scottish and Welsh Governments have signified that, unless the Bill is substantially amended, neither will recommend that consent be given. The UK Government’s position is, I believe, the right one. They are committed to working to obtain a legislative consent motion and expect to achieve one.
As Scottish Conservatives, we are committed to ensuring that the Scottish Parliament can give its consent to the passage of the Bill. As Members may not all be aware of the timescale, I will explain that the plan is for the Scottish Parliament to vote on whether to grant a legislative consent motion ahead of the Third Reading of the Bill in the other place. It is not an all-or-nothing event; it is perfectly possible for an LCM to be initially denied, and then for another vote on granting an LCM to be taken and passed at a later date.
Although, as readers of The Daily Telegraph will be aware, I have a number of issues with the Bill, by far the biggest concern regarding devolution is clause 11. It is my view that if we can fix clause 11, most of the other issues regarding the Bill’s impact on devolution will fall away. On Second Reading, I said that I would not allow legislation to pass that undermined the Union or the devolution settlement, and that remains my position today.
There are 111 powers currently exercised at EU level that do not fall within reserved competence under the Scotland Act 1998 and are therefore, under the scheme of the Act, devolved. Clause 11 will effectively hold those powers at Westminster level. Although that is a sensible interim measure, as the Scottish Affairs Committee heard in evidence during its enquiry, the interim phase has given rise to the “power grab” melodrama that we have heard from the SNP.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Would the hon. Gentleman like to tell us how interim interim is?
Paul Masterton
If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I am coming on to talk about that.
Clause 11 provides that the 111 powers that I have mentioned will be released to Scottish Ministers on a case-by-case basis once UK Ministers are satisfied that it is safe to do so. There is no timescale for that, and the process is unilateral. Under clause 11, the powers, once repatriated from the EU to the UK, are for UK Ministers to exercise or to devolve, as they see fit.
Joanna Cherry
The hon. Gentleman is pouring some scorn on the phrase “power grab”. He might be interested to know that the first person to use the words “power grab” in relation to the process was not a member of the Scottish National party, but the former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.
Paul Masterton
The hon. and learned Lady and I perhaps have different definitions of what is interesting.
Ostensibly, amendment 164 and the consequential amendment 165 to schedule 3 are in the names of Opposition Members, but they have in fact been tabled on behalf of the Scottish and Welsh Governments. This distinction is important, and Ministers should be mindful of it. The amendments would turn clause 11 on its head, repatriating all 111 powers directly to Holyrood. Brexit must be delivered in a way that respects devolution, but it would plainly be contrary to the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole for the devolved Administrations in Edinburgh or Cardiff to be able to use powers formerly held at EU level to pull apart Britain’s three centuries old internal market. The fact that Britain is a single employment market, with no barriers of any sort on the movement of people, goods or services is core to the case for the Union.
Pete Wishart
The hon. Gentleman is a very assiduous member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, for which I am grateful, but surely he must agree with, recognise and accept the basic premise that clause 11, as currently constituted, is unacceptable and needs to be significantly reformed?
Paul Masterton
I absolutely agree, but the point is that the amendments proposed by the Scottish and Welsh Governments go far too far. There is some middle ground, on which, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will set out where I believe we can get to.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Some of the hon. Gentleman’s Conservative colleagues have proposed their own amendments on other areas of the Bill. Why has the Scottish Conservative group of MPs not tabled any amendments to clause 11 if they share his concern?
Paul Masterton
For the simple reason that there is another JMC meeting on 12 December, and we do not believe it is right to prejudge or prejudice the outcome of those negotiations. There is going to be an agreement, and it is much better to allow such an agreement to be reached and incorporated into the Bill.
Much has been devolved since 1998, but nothing that jeopardises the UK’s single internal market. It would be in the interests of neither consumers nor producers for product safety and consumer protection rules to be different across the nations of the United Kingdom.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Paul Masterton
I am going to make some progress.
These rules are now uniform throughout the UK and many, but of course not all, should remain so after Brexit. Amendments 164 and 165 go too far and are dangerous to the Union. Frankly, I am startled that Scottish Labour—only one Scottish Labour MP is here—and Scottish Liberal Democrats are prepared to support these amendments, which could so fatally undermine the integrity of our Union. The Scottish Conservatives will not support them. However, I want to make it clear that my vote with the Government should not and must not be taken as an acceptance of clause 11 as it stands.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I am astonished. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that continual discord, arguments about the constitution and a perceived threat to the powers of the Scottish Parliament are more of a threat to the United Kingdom than anything proposed in any amendment in Committee today?
Paul Masterton
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I do not agree. I think that amendments 164 and 165 are fundamentally dangerous to the Union, and it would be dangerous for the integrity of the Union to pull them into the Bill.
Dr Whitford
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the principle of the Scotland Act 1998 was that what was not reserved was devolved? These powers could easily go to the devolved nations, which could then sit around the table. Their voices would then be heard properly in any national framework, and they would not simply be told what it would be.
Paul Masterton
If the hon. Lady was listening, she will have heard me say that I agreed that that was the purpose of the 1998 Act. I am coming on to say explicitly that clause 11, as drafted, is not fit for purpose and must be changed. It does not need to be tweaked a little; it needs to be amended and replaced with a new version. However, I do not consider now to be an appropriate stage in the process at which to demand a new draft to be brought before the House.
I fully accept that this issue is linked to active conversations tacking place between Governments, and I share my hon. Friends’ concerns about the fact that introducing new drafting to reflect where I believe we need to, and should, end up—indeed, where we will more likely than not end up—would pre-empt what are now and are expected to continue to be fruitful negotiations between the UK and Scottish Governments. I am prepared at this stage to give the UK Government the time and opportunity to take forward these matters, on the clear understanding that both sides need to move from where they now are on clause 11. We are beginning to see movement: we can see it in the constructive JMC (EN) talks, the next meeting of which will be on 12 December, and Scottish Conservatives stand ready to help broker a compromise. In our view, the impasse is readily solvable. Most of the 111 powers are technical and regulatory.
Joanna Cherry
I ask the hon. Gentleman to seriously consider what he has just said. He said that most of the 111 powers are technical and regulatory. Is he aware that the list affects huge swathes of our justice system in Scotland? Does he consider our devolved justice system and separate legal system to be simply technical and regulatory matters?
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am always grateful for the help of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands). Thank you very much. Mr Masterton must have a chance to answer the point made by Ms Cherry before we have any further interventions, although there will probably be another one in a moment.
Paul Masterton
Again, I draw the attention of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) to the fact that I said that most of the 111 powers are technical and regulatory. They cover areas either where divergence in policy between UK and Scottish Government Ministers would not be a threat to the integrity of the UK internal market, or where consistency could be maintained through non-legislative options. Those powers should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament on exit day, or as close to it as can safely and realistically be achieved.
In respect of those powers where there is a legitimate UK interest in uniformity across the UK—that is, where divergence between the nations of the UK would be contrary to the UK’s interests—it would be unsafe to allow them to be devolved without providing for constraints on how they may be used. It is in those cases that we will need common frameworks, a concept accepted as necessary by UK, Scottish and Welsh Ministers. Aspects of agriculture and fisheries are among the examples where it has been accepted that there will be a need for common frameworks.
As confirmed to the Scottish Affairs Committee by the Secretary of State for Scotland, if the frameworks are to be acceptable to the Scottish and Welsh Governments, they will have to be negotiated and agreed, not imposed top down by the UK Government. That suggestion is fairly straightforward. Each of the 111 powers will either fall to be wholly devolved to the Scottish Parliament, or the UK will step into the shoes of the EU, replacing an EU-wide framework with a new UK-wide framework, for which administrative competence will largely rest with the Scottish Parliament.
Although we will not seek to amend clause 11 at this stage, we will, in exchange for supporting the Government on amendments 164 and 165, require confirmation from Ministers that they will expedite discussions with the Scottish Government further. We seek quick progress, looking ahead to the next JMC (EN) in December and into January, and in any event certainly before the debate on Report.
My focus at this stage is very much on the framework negotiations running parallel to this debate, but I ask that the UK Government give me the assurances I seek that they will move forward urgently through the JMC (EN) with, first, identifying and agreeing areas where there is a need for legislative common frameworks; secondly, recognising that the other powers can be devolved immediately on EU exit, including as many of those where non-legislative solutions on maintaining consensus have been agreed; and thirdly, settling how the common frameworks will be agreed. I expect an assurance on the first two issues to be given by the debate on Report, and if the third has not been given by then, I expect clear and significant progress to have been made.
In time, clause 11 will need to be replaced to reflect that, but I recognise that its final form will be linked to the points I have listed, so I do not ask for, or expect, that change to be made now. Looking ahead, once agreement is reached on where frameworks are needed and how they will be agreed, I believe that clause 11 should include a draft default setting, so that the power would be held by UK Ministers until a common framework is agreed. Crucially, however, that default setting could apply only in areas where it was established that there should be a common framework and the mechanisms to reach agreement on a framework have failed.
A lot of work needs to happen between now and then, primarily on moving the frameworks on through the JMC (EN). That is why my focus will stay on that for now. I say again, however, that my vote against amendments 164 and 165 tonight is conditional and must not be taken as support for clause 11 as it stands.
Christine Jardine
What action will the hon. Gentleman take if amendments 164 and 165 are not passed and his demands do not come to pass? Would it not be more sensible to just support the amendments?
Paul Masterton
No, because I do not believe that amendments 164 and 165 provide the position in which I think clause 11 could and should end up. I have been very clear—I said this on Second Reading and I have said it again tonight—that I will not support a Bill that undermines devolution and does not respect the integrity of the Union. I do not think I could have been any clearer to Ministers.
I consider my argument to be reasonable, pragmatic, achievable and, crucially, acceptable to both of Scotland’s Governments. There is much at stake. If the steps I have outlined are not completed, the consequences are quite simple: LCMs will not be granted by the devolved Administrations and the other place will not pass the Bill. I genuinely believe that that is not a situation in which any of us want to find ourselves, and I look forward to receiving the necessary assurances from the Minister in his closing remarks.
Ian Murray
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) for his contribution. His sensible approach to the Bill shows that, while we may not reach a consensus across the parties on some of these issues, we can make the Bill better, which is why we are here. The dogma with which the Government have approached the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union and the Bill will shape many aspects of how the UK operates for generations to come. I wish that more Members had the attitude of the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire as the Bill goes through Parliament.
The hon. Gentleman wants assurances about amendments 164 and 165, which I tabled, but I say gently that the best way for him to get them would be for him and his colleagues to wander through the Lobby with the Opposition tonight and put the amendments in the Bill. That would ensure that Ministers would get the message that the current drafting of clause 11 is incorrect.
I shall speak to amendments 164, 165, 177 to 181, and 189 to 195, all of which I tabled. I appreciate that many are consequential to my main amendments, 164 and 165, and that a number will be for decision on another day. Amendment 42, which was tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, is much better drafted than mine—I wish I had said that two weeks ago in the customs union debate. It will probably be the one that is carried as it covers Northern Ireland, which I missed out because of the constitutional difficulties there.
I would like to take a few moments to pay tribute to the former Member for Lanark and Hamilton East, Jimmy Hood, who died last night. We send his wife, Marion, and his wider family all our very best thoughts and wishes in the days to come. Jimmy was a close friend of mine and of this House. He was a great source of advice, and indeed fun, particularly in the Tea Room. Perhaps I should move on to the amendments before I tell any of those stories from the Tea Room, as they may not be over-appropriate for this Chamber.
Two weeks’ ago, in the debate on the Ways and Means motion with regard to the customs union, I put it to the Scottish Conservatives that all Members in this House try their very best to represent the views of their constituents, and of those in our wider geographical areas, including our nations of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England, as well as the wider United Kingdom. The Conservative party’s leader in Scotland trumpeted the outcome of the 2017 general election in Scotland by heralding it as 13 Scottish Conservative Members of Parliament coming to this House to stand up for and to defend the interests of Scotland. In the context of the Bill, the only Scottish Conservative Member to do that so far—he has demonstrated it today and in previous votes—is the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire. One therefore has to ask: are the Scottish Conservative MPs here under the flag of the Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, or under the flag of the Whips Office of the UK Government? I suspect it is the latter.
Ian Murray
I will be happy to take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention if he tells us whether he is standing up for the interests of Scotland or the interests of his Chief Whip.
Ross Thomson
That is absolutely the case. That is why there are 13 Scottish Conservative MPs and only seven Scottish Labour Members. Indeed, a number of my colleagues are in their place on the Conservative Benches, whereas the hon. Gentleman seems to be the sole Scottish Labour Member in the Chamber. I think that the Scottish Conservatives are doing well in standing up for Scotland.
Ian Murray
I think the hon. Gentleman has just demonstrated that he will be voting with the UK Government Whips this evening against the wishes of the Scottish people and against the will of the Scottish people expressed in the referendum. When Ruth Davidson is asked about the 13 Scottish MPs, she always says that they are here to fight Scotland’s corner, but it is quite clear that they are not going to fight Scotland’s corner on these clauses.
I wish briefly to mention new clause 65, which relates to the Joint Ministerial Committee. I have long tried in the House to strengthen the case for the JMC. One of the key aspects of the original Smith commission, which was established on a cross-party basis following the independence referendum in 2014, was to strengthen intergovernmental relationships so that such issues could not occur. I was disappointed, however, during our 2015 deliberations on what became the Scotland Act 2016, when the Government rejected our amendments aimed at strengthening that relationship. The conclusion of many commentators is that weak intergovernmental and inter-parliamentary working is causing some of these problems.
In his final report, back in 2014, Lord Smith of Kelvin said:
“Throughout the course of the Commission, the issue of weak inter-governmental working was repeatedly raised as a problem.”
That has been a common thread throughout many of the documents we have seen. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which produced a report on clause 11, mentioned at great length how impenetrable and difficult it was even to determine what the JMC was discussing, what its final conclusions were, and when it was meeting. Its meetings are sporadic, and when a committee is private and produces minutes that are very sparse, the politics take over. It is clear that the UK and Scottish Governments, being different colours—blue and yellow—will never agree in the political sphere, so the JMC is diluted to a political argument and unable to achieve what it is trying to achieve.
I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman), during her wonderful speech to talk about the minutes of the JMC. The October minute from the JMC was two pages long. One and a half pages dealt with who attended and who provided apologies, and there was then a skeletal explanation of what was discussed and no real conclusions. The JMC has to be put on a statutory footing along with the parameters required to make it transparent to the public and this House. That is why we should support new clause 65, as it would give us some understanding of the processes of the JMC.
We are heading for a constitutional crisis. We have a Conservative party threatening the very fabric of the United Kingdom just after the people of Scotland decided that the UK should stay together. We have the farce of today’s events: first the Prime Minister and the Downing Street spinning that a deal is close; then, with the Prime Minister barely through her soup with Donald Tusk, Downing Street backtracking as quickly as possible from those briefings; and then, with one phone call, the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, who controls the Government—the de facto Prime Minister—pulling the rug from underneath the feet of the Prime Minister, who then turns her back on something that it was thought had been negotiated and agreed.
Mike Gapes
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, has said:
“I am surprised and disappointed that the British government now appears not to be in a position to conclude what was agreed earlier”—
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman might be making an interesting point, but it is not directly relevant to the new clause.
Ian Murray
Thank you, Mrs Laing. If I may, I will respond to what the Taoiseach said just by saying I am surprised that he is disappointed, but not surprised that he is surprised.
Stephen Doughty
With specific reference to the amendments, particularly around the importance of joint ministerial consultation on a number of matters, does my hon. Friend wonder, like me, whether the First Minister of Wales, the First Minister of Scotland and indeed the Mayor of London, whom we have heard speaking out, were in any way consulted on the potential terms that were being offered in the negotiations in Brussels today?
Ian Murray
That is my point about the constitutional crisis we are in. It seems that the only way to follow the discussions between the UK Government and the EU is on Twitter. Journalists seem to know what is happening before hon. Members. We are getting a running commentary from the Government through press releases, but there is absolutely no proper consultation with the devolved Administrations.
Ian Murray
I will give way to my friend from the DUP, because I think he might have something interesting to say.
Ian Paisley
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman thinks I might have something interesting to say as I know that he always has something interesting to say. On the general point, I do not think that anybody should get their news constantly from Twitter. Specifically on the amendments, is not the key point that we must show discernment and skill and not fall for the spin, whether that comes out of Dublin, London or Brussels? Let the negotiations run and let us see what comes out of them at the end.
Ian Murray
I could not agree with the hon. Gentleman more, but why not bring some of that to the House, rather than leaving it for commentary on Twitter? Journalists following the Prime Minister seem to know much more about what is happening than anybody in the House. If the Prime Minister were to fly home—Ministers can get back from foreign countries very quickly, as was demonstrated over the summer—come to the House and let us know what was going on, we would not need to stand here and speculate. The hon. Gentleman made an intervention about regulatory harmonisation. I think he let the cat out of the bag when he mentioned that the DUP was firmly against regulatory harmonisation in the island of Ireland, and that is why this is so important across the rest of the UK.
Stephen Doughty
Has my hon. Friend noticed that the Minister who has apparently been briefing Conservative Members has just appeared in the Chamber? Perhaps he could give us some answers about what has been going on in Brussels today.
The First Deputy Chairman
Order. No he cannot. We are discussing new clauses and amendments to the Bill, not what people are seeing on Twitter. If the Prime Minister has anything to report to the House, I am sure that she will come at the earliest opportunity to give such a report.
Ian Murray
I am grateful to you, Mrs Laing. I apologise to the Committee for digressing, but these are incredibly important matters—and actually they are directly connected to my amendments, because they about keeping the devolved Administrations informed and involved in the process.
The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire said he was seeking reassurances. What we have seen since lunch time should give him cause for concern that no assurances will be forthcoming, which is why we must put in the Bill the requirement that the Government keep the devolved Administrations properly informed. This is about not just the devolved Administrations, but the people they represent.
Paul Masterton
Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that his amendments would allow every single one of the 111 powers to be immediately devolved from day one, with no constraints, and that they would therefore enable all the devolved Administrations to do whatever they wanted, meaning that we could have divergence from day one? He believes in continuity and maintaining similarities between the four components of the UK. Does he not understand why his amendments would be dangerous to the integrity of the UK’s internal market, given that from day one the four component parts of the UK could go off and do whatever they wanted?
Ian Murray
I will answer that directly when I talk about the Law Society of Scotland’s possible options. We could devolve everything and then put agreements in place, if the JMC and intergovernmental relations worked properly. There are therefore several other options, and it is not just me saying that, but many of the organisations that have commented on the Bill.
Ian Paisley
Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his amendments? Is he suggesting that some parts of the UK should be treated differently from others? Should London have a different and better deal than, say, Cardiff, Edinburgh or Belfast? Should not we all, as UK subjects, be treated the same?
Ian Murray
I agree that all parts of the UK should be treated similarly, which is why I have always championed the UK’s staying in the single market and the customs union. That would allow us to leave the EU while keeping the regulatory harmonisation required—the very regulatory harmonisation that the hon. Gentleman railed against just a few moments ago—and keeping the UK single market operating within the EU single market.
Dr Whitford
On the question of where power actually lies, we know that many farmers voted leave, yet I know, having attended a National Farmers Union meeting on Friday, that the idea of farming and hill farming in Scotland being controlled from here is something they consider anathema. Given the failure to pass on the convergence uplift in 2013-14, they are frightened about farming powers being here.
Ian Murray
These are complex discussions and issues, but the key principle is that any power devolved under schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 should be devolved. No one is saying that everything should be devolved at one minute past midnight—or whenever we leave the European Union—but these discussions must take place by means of intergovernmental processes, and the principle should be that there should be devolution at the point at which powers come back from the EU, when it is possible for that to be done.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if the powers are devolved without a framework having first been established, whether we are talking about a European or a UK single market, that principle could not be applied, because powers would be devolved to four different Administrations who could then make whatever regulations they wanted? How does the hon. Gentleman marry that with the need—the recognised need, as he has pointed out—for a UK single market? Surely the framework should first be set, with the remaining powers then devolved to the Assemblies.
Ian Murray
But that assumes that we automatically start from the position of hoarding the powers here at Westminster, and I disagree with that principle. The principle must be that when a power is currently devolved to the devolved Administrations, that power should remain devolved—it is very simple. I accept that Members might not agree with that principle, but it is fairly sensible. My amendment 164 would merely remove from section 29(2)(d) of the Scotland Act 1998, on legislative competence, the words “or with EU law”, meaning that everything else would have to be compatible with the Act.
Deidre Brock
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the hoarding of powers at Westminster. One of the biggest problems that I see with clause 11 is that, ultimately, Scottish Ministers will not be able to amend retained EU law, potentially for an indefinite period, although UK Ministers will. That is completely against the word and spirit of the devolution settlement.
Ian Murray
It is against the spirit of the devolution settlement, but it is also against the spirit of the referendum that we heard about earlier. The Scottish people, the Welsh people and the Northern Irish people voted for devolution.
There is no doubt that clause 11 is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There are many other ways of legislating that would allow a transition on day one that would respect the devolution settlement. The Law Society has put forward such options. As the leader of the SNP said, the way in which the Government are using clause 11 is clear. There is no sunset provision and no timetable is attached. There is no list of powers, and there is no indication of when certain powers should be given priority. There is no commitment to intergovernmental working and there is no real commitment to devolution. We were diverted to today’s discussions in Brussels because that is part of the disrespect for the devolution settlement in this country, which is why the process has become so difficult.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman also acknowledge the disrespect that the Taoiseach has shown for the people of Northern Ireland? He has said that he now speaks for them, but the Democratic Unionist party and other elected parties do not. Is it not time that he knew that when it comes to Northern Ireland, democracy and the political process, the power lies here in the Chamber? It certainly does not lie with Leo Varadkar, the Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland.
Ian Murray
We may be being diverted from the point again, but I think that the Committee, the country and anyone who happens to be watching our proceedings will see that the three members of the Democratic Unionist party who are sitting in the Chamber are the real Government. They are dictating the terms of Brexit—and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is doubtless the de facto Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union—in terms of the power that they have over the Prime Minister.
As I said earlier, it is clear that between courses this afternoon the Prime Minister has gone from a negotiated agreement to a set of texts to throwing it all in the bin alongside any leftovers from lunch. It is clear that the DUP—10 Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland —are holding the Government to account and holding them by the neck, because it is much more important for the Prime Minister to hold on to power than it is to do what is the best interests of all our nations.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)
May I gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that at least there are three DUP Members in the Chamber, whereas by my count only two Scottish Labour MPs are present?
The hon. Gentleman talks a very good game for defending the Union, but the fact is that the leader of the SNP in Scotland, Mrs Sturgeon, and the Mayor of London have been very quick to start talking about how they would like divergence and special deals, which would completely wreck the union of the United Kingdom.
Ian Murray
I normally say that I am grateful for interventions, but in this instance I will refrain. I do not think that the question of how many members of how many parties are in the Chamber at any particular time is relevant. What is relevant is ensuring that Members are in the Lobby tonight. I hope that 13 of the hon. Gentleman’s Scottish Conservative colleagues will go into the Lobby with us to change the Bill, because that is what is important. This is about voting, not about talking and then doing nothing.
Paul Masterton
The hon. Gentleman is giving a very good speech, but he is not giving a speech in support of his own amendments; he is giving a speech in support of a middle ground between the positions of the UK Government and the Scottish Government. Does he not understand that his amendment would devolve everything from day one, with no constraints, thereby enabling all four constituent parts of the UK to do whatever they wanted? That is not the Labour position, and it is bonkers.
Ian Murray
It is funny that the hon. Gentleman now calls my position bonkers after seeking assurances that amendments 164 and 165 would be carried by the Government to ensure that clause 11 became much more appropriate. Perhaps he will intervene again and tell us exactly what he meant, because I am confused. He seems to want to support my amendments, not to support my amendments, to seek assurances, to vote with the Government, and to back Ruth Davidson. I am not sure where he stands.
Paul Masterton
The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have read his own amendment. I do not want either clause 11 as it stands or clause 11 as suggested by the Scottish and Welsh Governments, because both go too far. We need a middle ground, and that means knowing what the position will be in relation to powers. We do not seem to be too far apart, but the hon. Gentleman is intending to vote for something that he is not arguing for.
Ian Murray
I do not wish to be disrespectful to the hon. Gentleman. I know that he is new to this place, having been elected in June 2017. However, he could have tabled his own amendment to do what he wants to do. He has the cheek to stand in the Chamber and criticise my amendments, and say that he wants to seek assurances from his own Government, but he does not have the nerve to table his own amendment.
That highlights one aspect of the debate. Scottish Conservative Members are happy to bluff and bluster in the Chamber, straight from the Alex Salmond playbook, but when it comes to putting their money where their mouths are, they will walk into the Lobby with the Government in order not to deliver what they fundamentally believe should be delivered. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s tabling a raft of amendments on Report to ensure that clause 11 becomes a much better clause, and I look forward to his being influential with Ministers to ensure that those amendments are carried.
Stephen Doughty
Is it not the case that the reason why my hon. Friend and I—and, indeed, a number of Members on both sides of the House—had to work together to table the amendments, with the support of the Welsh and Scottish Governments, is that the Bill is deficient in so many areas, and needs to be fixed in so many areas before we can even consider allowing it to proceed, and before the Welsh and Scottish legislatures will give their consent?
Ian Murray
Absolutely. I think that it comes down to the word “trust”. Many reports on the Bill come down to whether or not the devolved Administrations trust the UK Government to deliver what they are attempting to deliver in the Bill, and I do not think we can trust them to do that. The Law Society of Scotland has argued that the Bill should be revised because clause 11 has no transitional basis: it is an open-ended provision that could last forever. We could see Ministers in Cardiff, Edinburgh, Belfast and, indeed, Whitehall arguing about the minutiae of the detail rather than getting on with the job in hand, for political purposes. We have seen in the House, in respect of every single aspect of devolution, that when it comes down to the politics, it is the people who lose out and the politics that try to win out. We should be very wary of that while we are debating this Bill.
Stephen Doughty
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. He is being very generous. Does he agree that this is relevant to an example that has been set in relation to so many issues, including the issue of the Agricultural Wages Board? We do not want case after case to end up in the Supreme Court, with vast amounts of taxpayers’ money being spent and the UK Government fighting the devolved Governments over matters on which they have the clear competence.
Ian Murray
Absolutely. We could become involved in a constitutional battle with no end in sight. The Institute for Government, which I am sure is respected by Members on both sides of the House, has said that the Bill
“has exacerbated the already serious tensions between the UK and the devolved Governments”,
and we see that day after day. The Repeal Bill Alliance concluded:
“By returning all EU power to Westminster against the wishes of Scotland and Wales, the EU (Withdrawal) Bill is an attack on the principles of devolution.”
So time and again Committees of this House, independent bodies and respected bodies tell us that this Bill is deficient, is a power grab by the Government, and could be done in a different way.
The report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee concludes that, on clause 11:
“The overall concerns regarding the devolution aspects of the EUW Bill arise from the constitutionally insensitive nature of the UK. Government’s approach”.
I am trying through these amendments to take away some of that constitutional insensitivity, so as to be able to get to a place where we can be much more comfortable that the Government will do what they said they would do.
The Brexit Select Committee and its well respected Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), have also produced a report on the Bill and found that
“the devolved administrations have insufficient trust in the process for agreeing these future relationships and have, accordingly, indicated that they will withhold legislative consent from the Bill.”
That is an incredibly serious issue, because the Scotland Act 2016 put the Sewel convention on a legislative footing that means the UK Government should not be legislating in devolved areas unless the Scottish Parliament, or any of the other devolved Administrations, pass a legislative consent motion. They are saying they will withhold an LCM as this Bill is currently constituted, which would mean we end up in yet another constitutional difficulty with regard to whether this Bill will even be passed.
What will the UK Government do? They will ride roughshod over the constitutional settlement, over the Sewel convention, and over the Scotland Act 2016, in which the convention was put on a statutory footing, in order to get this Bill through. But if they were just to work cross-party on clause 11, and, indeed, with some of their own Members from the Scottish Conservatives, they might get to a place that we could all support and respect.
It is worth working through some of the alternative solutions put forward by the Law Society of Scotland, particularly for the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire, who is desperate to find an alternative to this clause. The society is not saying that any of these solutions takes preference over the others; it is merely proposing some of the different ways this could be done to make it less constitutionally insensitive. One of them is:
“Repeal the EU law constraint and amend schedule 5 to re-reserve specific competences to the UK level to enable UK Government to establish common frameworks.”
That would, essentially, allow us to devolve the vast majority of the competences coming back from the EU, and, with agreement, reserve some of the more complicated issues as may be required, agriculture being one that has been mentioned.
The society’s second alternative suggestion is:
“Replace the cross-cutting EU constraint with new cross-cutting constraints, for example to protect the UK single market and/or to comply with international obligations. These might be more or less extensive than the EU law constraint in practice, but would have the benefit of (a) an underpinning principle and (b) catering for unforeseen cases.”
I am not advocating any of the suggestions, but it is worth airing that there are alternatives to clause 11 in this Bill.
Another of the society’s suggestions is:
“Repeal the EU law constraint leaving EU competences to fall as determined by schedule 5”
of the Scotland Act 1998,
“and any new common frameworks to be established by agreement between the UK Government and the devolved administrations.”
That provides a direct answer to the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire. We could devolve everything, but come to an agreement with regard to some of the UK-type frameworks and common frameworks that might be required.
Alternatively, we could:
“Adopt the provisions in the bill on a transitional basis only and subject to a specific cut-off date. At the expiry of the transitional period, powers in devolved areas would revert to the devolved legislatures, unless specific alternatives had been put in place.”
Indeed, we could clearly mix and match from the four alternative solutions from the Law Society of Scotland, but this goes back to the fundamental principle of trust—to the fundamental principle of whether the UK Government and devolved Administrations are truly working together to seek a solution or whether the politics of this trumps the solutions that might be required. That is why we should pass the Opposition Front-Bench new clause on the JMC.
I have proposed these amendments to try and take the edge off this Bill. We are heading into a constitutional crisis. The Conservative party has left this country out of the EU and is risking the constitutional framework of the UK. The question that cannot be answered by this Government is the same question that the Members of the SNP cannot answer, but in reverse: why are the EU single market and customs unions so important—as I believe they are, and on which we see the issues with regard to the island of Ireland—but the UK single market is not? Likewise, I say to the Conservative party, how can they have stood on a platform in the 2014 Scottish referendum saying that removing Scotland from the UK single market would mean a hard border, customs checks and no free movement of people from Scotland into England, and defending that principle, but do completely the opposite in terms of the island of Ireland now? We cannot have the single market and customs union principles on one hand, and then discard them on the other because it suits our political ideology.
It is clear that having a frictionless, seamless border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland while not staying in the single market or the customs union is utterly impossible to achieve. I say that because I was persuaded by the arguments the UK Government made back in 2014 that removing Scotland from the single market of the United Kingdom would require a hard border at Berwick.
Joanna Cherry
The hon. Gentleman keeps referring to the single market of the United Kingdom. Does he agree that what we have in the UK is a unitary market, because we do not have four separate states, but instead have a union of four separate nations? What the EU has is a single market, which is a regulatory alignment of sovereign states. We do not have that in the UK; we have a unitary market. Will the hon. Gentleman use his language more carefully, please?
Ian Murray
That is legal semantics. I can buy an animal in Edinburgh and sell it in London, crossing the border with it in the back of my car—not that I would do so, as that would probably be illegal, but this is just to highlight the point—and do that in one single market, and not have any customs checks or transfer paperwork, apart from the legal paperwork required, and I could also do that across the EU. Outside the legal semantics, the point I am making is that the SNP says the EU single market is a good thing, and I agree, but says the UK single or unitary market is a bad thing, and I disagree. We also have the Conservative party saying that the UK single market is the most wonderful single market in the world, and I agree, but it is also saying that the EU single market is a bad thing and we must come out of it, but we can keep all the benefits of that at the same time.
Joanna Cherry
The crucial difference between the single market and the unitary market is that in the single market there are at present 28 sovereign states who meet together to make their rules from the top down, whereas in the UK’s unitary market the rules are imposed from the United Kingdom. This supports the hon. Gentleman’s argument, because his argument, which I agree with, is that these frameworks across the UK should not be imposed from the top down, but should grow up organically from the bottom.
Ian Murray
We have just had a bombshell there; the hon. and learned Lady has just told us that she wants to stay part of the UK. That is what we can surmise from that intervention, and I completely agree with her that the best way for Scotland, and Wales, to thrive is to stay part of the UK. Indeed, in my view, the best way for the UK to thrive is to stay part of the single market and customs union of the EU, and all of these issues would therefore fall away, because we would not need clause 11, because we would not need the framework in place to be able to put UK frameworks together, because we could stay within the frameworks that are already in place. It is strange that we will spend a significant amount of time in this Chamber, in the Committee Rooms of this House, and in all the devolved Administrations discussing frameworks that we already currently have.
The Government strategy is that they want every benefit they currently have from the EU while not being a member of the EU. I suggest that if the Government want to achieve that, they should stay in rather than wrench themselves out. That would resolve all the problems, and would have saved the Prime Minister lunch this afternoon, because they would have had a very straightforward solution to their problem.
I will not press my amendment to a vote if those on my Front Bench are going to press amendment 42, because they are very similar in nature. My Front-Bench colleagues’ amendment is much more technically efficient than my proposal, and we know that technically ineffective amendments tend to be criticised. I will therefore support my Front-Bench colleagues’ proposal, and finish by saying that the simple solution for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales would be to stay in the single market and the customs union.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Sir David, thank you for calling me at this stage of the debate.
To be fair to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), I think she was chafing against the Act of Union, which, as she correctly described, established a unitary market. The Act of Union banned tariffs between Scotland and England and established the free movement of goods.
I commend the use of the word “trust” by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), which he used regularly, but I question whether he is in fact doing much to promote trust, as this debate needs to do. He talked about heading into a constitutional crisis, but I think he did so to create a sense of distrust.
I was also disappointed when the hon. Gentleman questioned the motives of my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies. One could suggest that people in glass houses should not throw stones. I do not know which part of the Labour party he represents, but they come in diverse characters these days. Is he in that part of the party that supports its leadership, or the part that is trying to get rid of it? Is he part of Momentum or against it? I do not know whether he is living in fear of deselection. The one thing we do know about him, however, is that he is subject to the Labour Whip. It is not unusual for members of a governing party to be subject to a single Whip, but I think he undervalued the highly significant speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton).
My hon. Friend made it clear that his support for the Government on this issue “should not and must not be taken as an acceptance of clause 11 as it stands.” That demonstrates the fact that, while my hon. Friends representing Scottish constituencies take the Conservative Whip, they demonstrate an independence of mind and work with their colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, whom I met recently on a visit to the Scottish Parliament, along with Scottish Conservative and Scottish National party Members, to discuss clause 11. My hon. Friend also made it clear that the legislative consent motions might not be granted for clause 11 as it stands.
We all accept that the Gina Miller case made it clear that the requirement for legislative consent motions in the devolved Parliaments would not effectively block the passage of the legislation in this House, but it has created some constitutional tension. My hon. Friend pointed out that the progress of the Bill is likely to be somewhat impeded by the absence of legislative consent motions from Holyrood and Cardiff, and from Northern Ireland if the Assembly is operating there. This is an important message. It demonstrates that the devolution that Labour said it was promoting when it gave us devolution has turned into a very different constitutional reality—
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
There was a referendum. It was the will of the people.
Mr Jenkin
I am sorry, I did not realise that I was saying anything particularly provocative—[Interruption.] Yes, there was a referendum, but the constitutional reality has turned into something much more federal in character than the proponents of the original legislation told us it would be.
I do not want to detain the Committee for long. I have chosen to speak in the debate because I am the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which is looking at the relationships between the four Governments and Parliaments of the United Kingdom. We issued a report on inter-institutional relations earlier this year, in the previous Parliament, and we issued an interim report just last week on clause 11. That followed meetings that we held in Edinburgh, which will be followed by further meetings in Cardiff and Edinburgh, and if we can get to Northern Ireland, we will. What was striking about the meetings in Cardiff and Holyrood was how little this kind of interchange takes place, how slenderly we know other individuals in other Parliaments throughout the United Kingdom, and how there are no formal mechanisms for proper exchange between the four Parliaments of the United Kingdom. What a shortage that is!
This debate is less about leaving the European Union and more about devolution. It is about reconciling competing narratives of what devolution in the United Kingdom has come to mean, and about dealing with the lack of trust we have inherited from the present devolution settlement. The debate about clause 11 reflects that.
Usually, when devolved powers are going to be legislated for in this House, there is a great deal of discussion, large numbers of papers are produced in all parts of the United Kingdom and eventually, a piece of legislation emerges with a degree of consensus around it. This Bill emerged in much shorter order. We are told that there was very little discussion about the contents of clause 11. This underlines how, under strain, the reflex of our constitutional habits is not to consult. We in the United Kingdom Parliament, and those of us who support United Kingdom Governments, in the plural, have to recognise that there is a serious gap in our capability to discuss, explore, befriend and understand each other throughout the United Kingdom.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
I am interested in the point the hon. Gentleman is making, but is it not the case that the UK Government consulted very little with Members of all parties across the House during the preparation of this Bill after the referendum? Does he agree that that was a massive mistake?
Mr Jenkin
The hon. Gentleman has been in this House for quite some time, and he should be used to that by now. That is the way in which Governments have tended to behave. Yes, we have tried to improve things. We now have pre-legislative scrutiny, for example. I did not vote for the Lisbon treaty, which put article 50 into the treaties. I did not vote to have a two-year time limit on the negotiations on leaving the European Union. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman did vote for the Lisbon treaty, however, so I think he should take more responsibility than I should for the time constraints under which we are now operating.
Ian C. Lucas
What is unusual about this Bill is that it followed a referendum that means we are going to leave the European Union, and there are splits in both the major parties on this issue. The right approach would have been for the Government to consult much more widely on how this legislation should be taken forward. The reason that it is in such a mess at the moment is that the Government are allowing a small coterie to dominate the conduct of the process, rather than consulting the House as a whole.
Mr Jenkin
I do not accept that the Bill is in any kind of a mess. I think that we ought to keep the effects of clause 11 in proportion. From the perspective of the Government—and, in reality, from the perspective of what actually happens in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—the clause is a status quo measure. The powers, while not reserved by the Scotland Acts, were reserved by virtue of our membership of the European Union, so there is no power grab. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to, I can quote from the evidence that the Committee received from Mr Nigel Smith. He was the chairman of Scotland Forward, which ran the pro-devolution campaign in 1997. He stated:
“Nobody who voted for the Scottish Parliament exactly twenty years ago need worry—there is no ‘power grab’ underway.”
We did receive countervailing evidence. Incidentally, the report we published last week is an interim report. We produced no conclusions or recommendations, but we wanted to surface and discuss many of the pieces of evidence that we have received and make them available for this debate.
Pete Wishart
The main conclusion of Alan Page’s work, with which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is more than familiar, is that clause 11 proposes a hierarchical version of devolution whereby this place has all the central powers. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not know that, because that was the main conclusion. Clause 11 creates a hierarchy of devolution under which, for the first time, this place has control in asserting its sovereignty, and Scotland would fall far under the radar. I am surprised that he is not familiar with that work.
Mr Jenkin
The hon. Gentleman will be surprised no longer, because my next point is that the manner of clause 11 reflects a lack of sensitivity on these matters. Clause 11 suggests that there will be no time limits on the retention of powers and no process for the discussion of how powers should be handed over. There is only consultation through the JMC, which meets sporadically, and there is no statement of long-term aims for where the powers should eventually lie.
Returning to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South and his comments about trust, we should be asking how we can build some trust. The great gap in the devolution settlement, as it exists, is that it is based on a binary notion of what devolution means: power is either reserved or devolved. In fact, most decentralised systems of government have shared competences. The EU itself operates substantially on the basis of shared competences and, paradoxically, it is leaving the EU that is exposing the flaws in the devolution settlement. There are so few mechanisms for dealing with shared competences—virtually none.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the functions or strategists that can deal with this matter is the Joint Ministerial Committee?
Mr Jenkin
I do agree, but the number of times that the JMC and its sub-committees have met formally is few. Months can go by with no meetings, and then a Whitehall Minister will say, “Ooh, we should have one.” That does not inspire confidence. Perhaps the JMC should have fixed diarised formal meetings every year, because there would be things to discuss whether or not a Minister of the Crown here actually thinks there might, and that would give people an opportunity to get to know each other better.
Martin Whitfield
Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that diarised meetings and more interaction might lead to confidence and agreement between the Governments?
Mr Jenkin
I could not agree more, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge—I am not being accusatory—that this has been a failure of previous Governments as well as this one. When the Select Committee visited the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Government during the 2010 Parliament, First Minister Carwyn Jones actually complained to us, perhaps with more rhetoric than was justified, that he had been trying to get a meeting with Prime Minister David Cameron for months and months—more than a year—but had not been allowed to have one. We need fewer excuses for people who want to be destructive and more confidence that meetings will take place and that they are valued by all parties.
Stephen Kerr
Is it my hon. Friend’s view that the mechanisms that determine such communication should be established by statute?
Mr Jenkin
I have an open mind on that, and I have fiddled around with my amendments, which have not appeared on the order paper today, to see whether we can find a way of doing that. I do not know whether this is the right Bill through which to do that—probably not—but such things are statutory in other decentralised systems. There clearly needs to be something much more formal, but we should perhaps experiment without statute first to see whether it is necessary. My Committee took evidence from one civil servant and a former Speaker’s Counsel who said, “It has worked very well for the past 300 years, so why do we need statute?” but that does not recognise that we now have competing political centres with, I repeat, competing narratives about what the constitution actually is. SNP colleagues talk about the natural sovereignty of the Scottish people, but the legal constitutional reality is that the Queen in Parliament in Westminster is still absolutely sovereign. Those things need to aired, discussed and understood.
Deidre Brock
Further to that point, the Scottish Government have consistently made it clear that they cannot support the Bill as it stands, so if the UK Government do not vote for amendment 72 tonight, would that not render the Sewel convention completely pointless and not worth the vellum it is written on?
Mr Jenkin
I hear the hon. Lady’s impatience, but we need to be more patient. We are not completing the consideration of this Bill this evening, and I am encouraged by the work done by the First Secretary of State, who chaired the last meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee and seemed to be drawing people together around some agreed principles for how joint frameworks might be approached. We all want to see that, so let us hope that that work will continue.
Kevin Brennan
The hon. Gentleman was mildly critical of the Welsh First Minister for using rhetoric, but the rhetoric in that relationship came from Prime Minister David Cameron, who said that he wanted to follow a respect agenda but then failed even to have a meeting with the First Minister. May I also correct the hon. Gentleman on something? Ministers actually know each other very well at the moment and met extremely frequently prior to the introduction of this Bill. The problem is that UK Ministers ignored the advice that they were getting from both Scottish and Welsh Ministers, which was that something like clause 11 would be utterly unacceptable.
Mr Jenkin
The better we know each other, the more we will forgive each other for the rhetoric. That is what I found when my Committee went to Edinburgh on a semi-formal visit. The hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) and I, as Chairman, had some open and frank discussions about some difficult issues with people I had never even met before, but we of course found that there was lots of common ground.
My next point is that there are no inter-parliamentary arrangements. We had to scrabble around for a bit of budget to do the trip. We found it in the end, but there needs to be a habit of people in this Parliament interacting much more openly and frequently with our counterparts in the other Parliaments. For example, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee have competences that are shared by Committees in different Parliaments. Those Committees should be meeting regularly together. Another suggestion worthy of consideration is that there should be some formal inter-parliamentary council in the United Kingdom to allow representatives of all four Parliaments to meet on a regular basis on some kind of neutral ground.
Vernon Coaker
The Good Friday/Belfast agreement set up many inter-parliamentary institutions, both east-west and north-south. The hon. Gentleman talked about trust. How does he think that trust has been helped by what we saw this morning, with the Government saying there would be a deal on the border in Ireland and the Prime Minister then having to come out of lunch because the DUP either had not been consulted or had not agreed to the arrangements? What does it do for both Unionism and nationalism in Ireland when such things happen? Frankly, it looks as though the Government are in chaos, do not know what they are doing and, in pursuing it, are undermining the whole peace process in Northern Ireland.
Mr Jenkin
Sir David, am I to be tempted to enter a debate on today’s negotiations, or should we wait until tomorrow, when perhaps someone will come to tell the House something about what has been going on?
A formal inter-parliamentary council that meets on a regular basis would be another opportunity for parliamentarians to understand each other better.
Kevin Brennan
Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that there is an inter-parliamentary council? The British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, which obviously includes the Government of the Republic of Ireland, provides an opportunity for parliamentarians to get to know each other. Perhaps it would be useful if, as the Chair of the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, he were to be a member of that Assembly. On today’s issues, does it not show that we have a Prime Minister who is in office but not in power and a DUP that is in power but not in office?
Mr Jenkin
I am endeavouring to raise the tone of this debate, and obviously I am not succeeding with certain Opposition Members.
My final suggestion goes to the heart of what clause 11 is about. I mentioned that, in previous discussions about devolution, there has always been a Silk commission or a Calman commission. There has always been a body that has deliberated, drawn out the more controversial politics and tried to make the discussion more objective. I wonder whether there is a case for the Government convening some kind of standing commission, under the scrutiny of a joint group of parliamentarians, to dispassionately look through the powers returning from the EU that intersect with the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies in order to determine what powers should lie where, both immediately as we leave the European Union and in the longer term.
At the moment, I am afraid my criticism of clause 11, as it stands, is that it does not give any assurance about process or much assurance about consultation, time limits or sun-setting. It just sets out this static proposal.
Gerard Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Chris Bryant
On a point of order, Sir David. I am not sure whether you were in the Chamber earlier, but Mr Speaker made it clear when asked that the Prime Minister intended to make a statement to the House tomorrow about the negotiations and discussions she has been having with the DUP and Europe.
I gather that Downing Street is notifying the press, not this House, that there will be no such statement tomorrow and that the Prime Minister does not intend to make a statement. Is there any way you can make sure that Mr Speaker is aware of this and, for that matter, that Downing Street is fully aware that if we are taking back control—I thought that was the whole point—this House should be kept fully and appropriately informed of the negotiations at every stage?
The Temporary Chair (Sir David Crausby)
I will certainly pass on your remarks to Mr Speaker but, in the meantime, you have made your point to the House.
Pete Wishart
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), who I commend for his thoughtful speech and for how his Committee has sensitively considered some of these issues. We have seen the interim report, and I look forward to the full conclusions. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) is a member of the Committee, so the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex has more than able deputies to back him up.
I rise to support the amendments variously tabled on behalf of the Scottish and Welsh Governments in the name of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members. The key point is that where we are going requires cross-party attention, support and consensus, but it also requires cross-institution support. The efforts to try to resolve some of the difficulties in clause 11 not just in this Chamber but, to give them credit, in Committees, in the other place and in the Scottish Parliament have to be noted. We are starting to see progress on concluding some of these conversations and discussions. This debate will help us to move things on.
Gerard Killen
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the danger of clause 11 is that it seeks to replace Scotland’s relationship with the EU with Scotland’s relationship with the UK? It is important for the Government to set the tone on how they intend to proceed on an equal basis with the devolved Governments.
Pete Wishart
The hon. Gentleman is, of course, absolutely right. I will address some of those issues. He is spot on that there is an imbalance in how everything is repatriated. The repatriation of the powers is the central feature that concerns us.
Devolution is an elegant solution. Devolution in this country is asymmetric, with the different Parliaments and Assemblies having different powers. The United Kingdom is a complex constitutional nation, and we have designed devolution to meet the demands of a complex, multi-nation United Kingdom. We therefore muck around with the basic premises and principles of devolution at our peril, which is why clause 11 presents such a clear danger and threat that it must be amended.
It is also important to say that Scotland did not vote to leave the European Union. Every single local authority area in Scotland voted to remain in the European Union. I now have constituents who are very concerned about the chaotic cluelessness at the heart of the negotiations and discussions about taking this country out of the European Union. The Scottish Parliament has become collateral in all those conversations and discussions. There is real concern about how our Parliament will operate and about the powers it has the right to expect and to progress with.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the secret to the Government’s thinking on this Bill is in the fact that they are insisting on including a date for withdrawal from Europe but that they refuse to include a sunset clause to give us a date when the powers they are about to grab from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will be repatriated?
Pete Wishart
That is an important point, because a sunset clause is the sort of thing we need to see. It would give confidence to the hon. Gentleman and me, rather than just naming the day that we leave the European Union—we are all familiar with that date, anyway.
It is important that we set the context for this debate. We have to see Northern Ireland in the context of devolved powers. Today, we believed we had some sort of solution to the Northern Irish question. There was an agreement. The Prime Minister of Ireland was prepared to get to his feet and say that a solution had been delivered and garnered, only for it to be knocked out of the water by a telephone conversation with Arlene Foster. That is where some of these issues about devolution have gone.
We have now heard the elegant phrase “regulatory divergence”. I had never heard of it before today, but it is fantastic and I want to hear more of it. If regulatory divergence works for Northern Ireland, I am thinking it could just about work for Scotland, given the range of powers we have in the Scottish Parliament and the legislative competence we have in a swathe of areas. So let us hear more about this regulatory divergence. I am disappointed that none of my DUP friends are in, as they could have talked a bit more to me about some of their concerns. The last thing we need in the Scottish Parliament is to be sucked into all this process, so it is incumbent on this Government to ensure that devolution continues to operate on the basic premise set out in the 1998 Act. The sooner we get reassurance that that is their view and they introduce considered amendments, we will be happier—it starts with clause 11.
I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, and I looked at his Committee’s report, saw the witnesses he brought forward and was surprised that he referenced Nigel Smith. My Committee also looked at this issue, hearing from a variety of witnesses—the House of Lords Constitution Committee and the Scottish Parliament Committees have also looked at it—and it is hard to find anybody with expertise in constitutional politics, either on the legal frameworks or in terms of having an academic interest, who does not agree that clause 11 does not work and is in need of amendment. Of all the guests that have been before the various Committees dealing with these matters it is difficult to find someone who would support the Government’s position, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on doing so.
There needs to be a basic understanding that the Scottish Government have stated that if clause 11 proceeds as currently constituted, they will not be in a position to recommend a legislative consent motion. That will lead, at the very least, to a constitutional stand-off, which would be singularly unnecessary and unhelpful, and would of course get in the way of all the other issues the UK Government have to deal with in this Brexit mess. Surely the last thing they want is to get into a constitutional stand-off with the Scottish Government. I know that progress has been made and that there is not much difference on some of these things, so it would be much better if the UK Government just fixed this for goodness’ sake. They should just get it sorted if we are so close; they should accept these amendments as a way forward and we could all then get relaxed and happy about the fact that there will not be any sort of constitutional issue to do with it. The Minister needs to say that we are going to be doing that.
It is good to have a look at what has been included in this Bill, particularly in clause 11, so let us start with something that the clause does not do. We have to be clear that it does not return powers from the EU to the devolved Administrations. Instead, it returns powers within the devolved competences solely and exclusively to the UK Government and Parliament. Worse than that, it imposes new restrictions on how the Scottish Parliament can operate when it comes to these devolved competences. The Scottish Parliament and Government will take a double hit. The clause would give the UK Government power to legislate in relation to policy areas that are the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government.
There is another issue, which has not been touched on today. At the point where we leave the EU, all these powers are repatriated to the UK Government and into some form of redistributive system—we are not really clear how that would work, as that has not been stated. When we leave, the EU will of course continue to amend and legislate in these areas, and the UK Government will be legislating on behalf of the Scottish Government. So there will be a space in between, from when we leave, where there is a divergence between EU law and UK retained law, which this Government solely and exclusively fit. Not only will the UK Government have powers on retained law when we leave the EU, but they will have ongoing responsibilities, as we continue to make that journey from leaving the EU, to try to fill that gap in between.
Stephen Kerr
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on making a very positive contribution to this debate compared with the speech we heard earlier from the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). The worthy report that his Committee produced, which is a huge contribution to the establishment of common ground, states:
“We recommend that the UK Government agrees with the devolved administrations what areas should be subject to common frameworks and which ones can be devolved.”
Is that not exactly what is going on? Is that not the common ground that he and we are seeking so that we can get this process to move?
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. My Committee looked at these issues and considered them seriously, and we hope our report makes a contribution to addressing some of these issues. The key point that he makes, and the thing we have to start to get to in agreeing issues relating to common frameworks, is that they have to be agreed by the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament before they can be progressed. This idea that frameworks can be imposed upon devolved Assemblies and Parliaments is unsustainable and cannot be operated. That is—
Several hon. Members rose—
Pete Wishart
I will make some progress; I will deal with our report before letting Members in. The key point is that this needs to be agreed and consented to before progressing. We have to get that in place in order to start moving forward on this sort of thing.
Pete Wishart
I have given way to the hon. Gentleman. A lot of people wish to speak and I know he will get a chance, so he will be able to come back to this and we can have a conversation about it.
Clause 11 also changes the fundamental dynamic between the Scottish Parliament and this House. Under the clause, the UK assumes a role as the master and repository of all retained EU legislation in devolved areas. As I said to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, who is deep in conversation with the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), the provision creates for the first time a hierarchical model of devolution, as Alan Page said in the work that he did on behalf of the Scottish Government. This House will face absolutely no restriction in how it may want to operate in its areas of devolved competence, but the Scottish Parliament will face restrictions. This represents a sort of “know your place, Scotland”, whereby this House asserts its sovereignty on the Scottish Parliament. That is not good enough. We have a conversation among several Members about sovereignty and our different understanding of and approaches to it culturally. This House obviously takes the view that parliamentary sovereignty is what it is all about, whereas we take the view that it is about the sovereignty of the people and the claim or right of the Scottish people to assert their sovereignty. This idea of a “know your place, Scotland”—
Pete Wishart
I have given way to the hon. Gentleman and I want to make some progress. In large swathes of devolved competencies, we will be subject to UK frameworks, determined and controlled by the UK Government. That will never be satisfactory to anybody who works in any of the devolved structures and any devolved parliamentarian.
Let me try to make it simple for the Brexiteers—although when I look around I do not see very many of them. It is strange to look around and see mainly remain types; I do not know who to pick on. I am trying desperately to see a Brexiteer. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) will do. I will try to make it simple for him so that he can get an understanding of this issue. This situation is like Scotland giving up its place in the European Union as part of the United Kingdom in order to join a UK super-state, but the super-state does not seem to be as benign as the European Parliament. For Scotland, this UK super-state we are expected to be part of would make its jaundiced view of the EU look like a benign, cuddly, receptive institution of enlightenment. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) for this analogy. He is not in place, but I hope he will join us later with his words—
Pete Wishart
I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already. This UK super-state seeks to control and restrict the operation of Scotland, and it is prepared to strip us of powers faster than any United Kingdom Independence party cartoon version of some evil EU bureaucrat or Commissioner would. I wish to make a comparison with Ireland, because it is instructive. Ireland, as a member of the EU, can almost stop the progress of Brexit—it has the powers to do that, and in the past couple of weeks it has asserted that that might be something it may be obliged to seek. Scotland, as part of the UK super-state, does not even have the power to legislate for the best interests of hill farmers in Perthshire—that is going to be left to this House.
That shows how power grabbing the UK super-state and this place are going to be. This is a real power grab, more menacing than any fantasy dreamt up by our Brexiteer friends in relation to their death star version of Brussels. They are even starting to use the words of the super-state. Our integrated UK joint economy is now to be “the single market”. Any minute now the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex will be made a UK commissioner and we will start to see “UK-pol” and “UK-atom”. This is the sort of place they are going with this creation of the British super-state. We have to be very careful when we are designing these things. We do not want to swap our useful place in Europe in order to be junior and subservient members of their British super-state.
Pete Wishart
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman just to shut him up for a bit.
Stephen Kerr
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to shut me up. All the things he has said for the past few minutes, which have detracted from the tone of his speech, are covered in “Common Frameworks: Definition and Principles” published by the Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations) on 16 October 2017. It describes in detail exactly how we will go about creating the common frameworks. It is the complete opposite of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He is making it up as he goes along—it is very entertaining, by the way.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, as always, but I do not recognise his view of the way things are progressing. If he will forgive me, I will make some progress and we will look at some of these issues once again. I am not going to satisfy him on these matters and his intervention has certainly not reassured me about the general progress that we have to make.
Let us get back to more of a consensual tone, because I note from the hon. Gentleman’s irritation that I may have been a tad too political in some of my remarks. I look around and I see my colleagues from the Scottish Affairs Committee on the Conservative Benches. I am genuinely grateful for the contribution that they have made. We have designed a way forward in our recommendations and observations that might help to resolve this issue. Resolution is what is required, and I think we all agree that we can find it. Although our recommendations do not directly match what is in the amendments, they are roughly in the same territory.
I think that we all agree that a framework should be agreed and not imposed. Looking around, I think that we are all agreed on that one. That is good. I think that we agree that the UK Government should not legislate on areas of competence devolved to the Scottish Government. Perhaps there is not so much agreement on that one. It genuinely disappoints me that Conservative Members still believe that it is right for the UK Government to legislate in areas of devolved competence. I am looking at the ministerial team, hoping that they will reassure me that that is not what they are seeking to do. No, I am not getting that either. We will leave that there. We were doing well and making a bit of progress, but perhaps that is a step too far. That is the difficulty that we are starting to encounter.
I am pretty sure that Ministers do not share my characterisation of the process, so I will be interested to hear what they say. I am interested in how they will describe the repatriation of devolved competences straight to the United Kingdom, instead of to the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments where they should be; how we will come together to agree the common frameworks, working together in a spirit of consensus—all the warm, cuddly things that the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex suggested he wants—instead of having them imposed; and then some sort of process of redistribution through Orders in Council and all that sort of stuff. It is disappointing that we cannot hear that.
Amendments 164 and 42 would ensure that the UK Government had to consult and secure the agreement of the devolved Administrations in this context, so they roughly match what I have said. Indeed, they roughly match what the Secretary of State for Scotland has said. This is a really good quote from when he came before the Scottish Affairs Committee:
“A UK framework is not a framework that the UK Government imposes; it is a framework that is agreed across the United Kingdom.”
That is the approach that we need to hear more of, and we need to see how that works out. I very much support the cross-party amendments that were tabled on behalf of the Scottish and Welsh Governments, which are mainly in the name of the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). I appreciated his comments today.
I am sorry to say to Labour Front Benchers that we cannot support new clause 64. I know that it is the lead new clause, but we will abstain because it suggests that the frameworks should be designed by the UK Government; not that they should come together with all the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments. Unfortunately, we cannot side with Labour on that. I hope that it withdraws that new clause. I am looking at the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook). Please withdraw it because it is not helpful. We need all the parties in this House to work together. The presumption that the UK Government will be responsible for initiating the frameworks is not acceptable to us.
I do not even think that that is acceptable to—I am looking at Welsh colleagues—the Welsh Assembly, which the Labour party runs. I am looking at the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). He will have to tell me whether the Welsh Government are absolutely happy about the UK Government designing frameworks.
Paul Masterton
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the amendments he is discussing do not reflect the recommendations of the Scottish Affairs Committee and go further than those recommendations? Does he therefore understand why we as Scottish Conservatives are not in a position to support those amendments? It is not about talking Scotland down or being whipping boys for the Conservative Government, but a recognition that that is not the agreeable position where the Scottish Affairs Committee landed?
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I said that. I said that the amendments do not directly match our recommendations, but that they are in roughly the same territory. I think that he will agree with me about that. He is right that they do not match.
Pete Wishart
Yes, of course—as long as I am hearing from the Welsh Government.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman gives me more power than I currently have. I refer him to the detail of new clause 64. Subsection (3) states:
“Ministers of the Crown shall only create”
these frameworks with the advice and consent of the devolved Administrations. We put that forward with the aim of securing their agreement. It relates to the wider discussion and to the other amendments about the Joint Ministerial Committee. I do not think that we should be doing things on a UK-wide basis without their consent. Unfortunately, that is exactly what the Government are doing.
Pete Wishart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that. I just refer him to exactly what is in new clause 64:
“Ministers of the Crown shall only create UK-wide frameworks”.
The presumption is that Ministers of the Crown will create them.
Pete Wishart
It speaks about consent, but that leaves it to Ministers of the Crown to create the UK-wide frameworks. That is not acceptable.
Kevin Brennan
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers are also Ministers of the Crown?
Pete Wishart
Absolutely, but that is not the intention of the new clause.
It is shame we are in this position, because the Scottish Government and Welsh Assembly amendments, which all appear in the name of the hon. Member for Edinburgh South, were very clear in their focus and direction. Why Labour Front Benchers felt they had to come along and table new clause 64, I will never understand, but I leave it up to them. I have explained to them why we cannot support it this evening and I think they understand that reason. Let us leave it at that.
Lastly, I turn to my Scottish Conservative colleagues, ever so gently. [Interruption.] No, I think they have entered into this debate with a degree of consensus. The speech by the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) was very thoughtful and well delivered. However, this is a big test for them tonight. The devolution settlement is at stake. These are critical decisions that we must take. They can believe Ministers, but I do not know what reassurances they have received that this will be resolved. I have worked with Scottish Government colleagues and they have told me that progress has been made, but nothing is decided. The best way to get progress and to ensure that there is total focus from Ministers is to vote for the amendments. That will tell them clearly that all of us across this House say that something has to be done.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I want to be absolutely clear about the new clause, because it says clearly:
“Ministers of the Crown shall only create UK-wide frameworks if they have consulted with, and secured the agreement of, the affected devolved administrations.”
It is very, very clear. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should be working across parties as much as possible, but there is really no need to split hairs. That is very, very clear.
Pete Wishart
I do not know what part of that line the hon. Gentleman does not understand:
“Ministers of the Crown shall only create UK-wide frameworks”.
It does not talk about anybody else. I will leave that there. It is unfortunate. I do not know why Labour Front Benchers could not have come to us and had a conversation about it. We could have put forward our concerns. We could have come together consensually, as we have been doing quite a lot, and worked something out, but unfortunately that was not the approach they wanted to adopt. That was up to them.
Back to my friends in the Scottish Conservative party—I feel like I have neglected them now. This evening is a test for them. The future and the principles of the devolution settlement are up for grabs this evening. They can trust these guys here—the Ministers—trustworthy though they may be, to do the right thing. Perhaps they have received assurances that the Government are going to do all these things and that everything is going to be all right.
But what is not acceptable—I know most of my Scottish Conservative colleagues and friends are new to this place—is for this to go to the unelected House of Lords to be amended. That is what increasingly this Government are doing. They do not like to accept amendments in this place, which is a democratic outrage. This House, which we are all elected to by our constituents, should be the exclusive place in which these things are resolved and fixed down. If those Tories think that we should resolve these really important issues in a place that is full of unelected donors and cronies and failed Members of Parliament—I am thinking about the guy who opposed me in the Scottish Parliament and who managed to get himself in there and a role in the legislature—then that is their view, not mine. When we have debates about such critical issues, we owe it to our constituents to ensure that it is we who decide and determine them and not those in another place, which is unelected.
I hope that the Scottish Tories are right—I am looking round now and can see that they have full confidence that this will be resolved and fixed down—but the one way that they can definitely guarantee that they will get their way is to vote. That is what we do in this House: we vote on issues that we agree on and support. For the sake of the devolution settlement and to ensure that we get some sort of solution to everything that we need to get fixed, they should back us tonight, stand up for Scotland and make sure that these amendments are passed.
John Lamont
I will speak to the measures that relate to Scottish devolution, particularly clause 11, which we have heard so much about during this debate. However, before I do so, I want briefly to talk about my role in this process, and indeed that of other Scottish Conservative and Unionist Members here and in the Scottish Parliament. Our job is to ensure that the Bill is in a form that will ensure that the Scottish Parliament can give its approval through the legislative consent procedure. It is fair to say that without a legislative consent motion, the Brexit process will shudder to a halt and create a constitutional crisis. It is therefore imperative that the consent of the Scottish Parliament is achieved.
John Lamont
No, I just want to make a little bit of progress.
Although I do not support the amendments proposed by the Scottish and Welsh Governments—I will try to outline my reasons why—I do think that the UK Government need to do more to find a way forward with the devolved Administrations. The leader of the SNP here, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), completely misjudged the tone of the debate. Peddling lines about “power grabs” when the complete opposite has clearly been stated to be the case really was staggering. Moreover, I was astonished that the hon. Members for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) seemed to be supporting the Scottish Government’s amendments, which would do so much harm to the integrity of the UK internal market and to Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom, given that so many of their voters voted overwhelmingly for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom in 2014.
Christine Jardine
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that I and, I hope, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) are doing what we believe is necessary to protect the devolution settlement? By doing so, we are doing much more to protect the United Kingdom than the Conservatives, who may actually be undermining it.
John Lamont
It is my colleagues on the Government Benches who have made the Scottish Parliament as powerful as it is today. The Scottish Secretary has given a guarantee that, after Brexit, the Scottish Parliament will have even more powers. The problem with the amendment that the hon. Lady intends to support is that it goes too far. It would harm the internal market of the United Kingdom and undermine Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom. I do not believe that that was what the voters of Edinburgh West or of Edinburgh South voted for when they voted for their MPs, with their Unionist credentials, back in June.
Mrs Moon
I just find this debate absolutely ironic. We talk about the power of the devolved Assemblies at a time when one individual, in a quick phone call with the Prime Minister, can scupper the whole policy and the whole plans for devolution. Nobody from the Democratic Unionist party is in the Chamber to argue their case. DUP Members will go into the Lobby to vote, but they will not come here to argue their case. That is the shame of this debate. There is no parallel between what is happening in Northern Ireland, and what is happening in Scotland and Wales.
John Lamont
The hon. Lady should perhaps look at last week’s discussions between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Deputy First Minister for Scotland about how powers should be divided between this place and the Scottish Parliament. I believe that genuine progress is being made, but we should not rush it.
Ian Murray
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to correct his inaccurate record. He talked about my constituents in Edinburgh South. I should know them better than he does, and they voted 68% to 32% to keep Scotland in the United Kingdom. There is no greater defender of that United Kingdom than me, but perhaps he would like to reflect on the fact that the danger to the United Kingdom is Brexit and English votes for English laws. He stood on a manifesto saying that he would not only maintain the single market and the customs union, but enhance them.
John Lamont
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. I will leave it to him to explain to his constituents why, by pressing his amendment, he will be putting at risk Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom. The amendment would damage the internal market of the United Kingdom and Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom. We are not supporting it because it goes too far. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) explained, we want to amend the Bill, but we will not do so if it puts Scotland’s place within the United Kingdom at risk. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South would do that, and that is something that we will be reminding his voters of.
I come to this debate as someone who was disappointed with the result of the referendum in 2016, but I am also a democrat. We need to accept the result and move on to ensure that we get the best outcome possible for Scotland and the United Kingdom. SNP Members would do well to show a degree of acceptance of that, too. They have been on the losing side of two referendums in recent years, but they seem to be unable to accept the result of either.
Our job now is to deliver Brexit smoothly and in a legally coherent way. That is why the Bill is so important. It is horrifically complicated—I expect that most people in our country do not really understand what it is all about—and it could affect many aspects of our everyday lives, particularly in constituencies in parts of our country that are also governed by devolved Parliaments and Assemblies. Rather than focusing on the detailed wording of each clause, my approach has been to focus on outcomes. What do Scottish residents living in the border communities that I represent want to achieve from this process? What do Scottish farmers believe to be important? What do Scottish businesses and traders want from leaving the EU? What do our fishermen want to see on the other side of Brexit day? Ultimately, they all want as little disruption as possible. They want to be able to trade, move, and work within Scotland’s most important trading partner—the rest of the United Kingdom.
Stephen Doughty
Given the concerns that the hon. Gentleman is raising about many issues and the complexity that he is describing, is he not surprised to hear that, in recent moments, the statement that the Prime Minister was due to give to the House tomorrow about the negotiations and these matters of devolved Administrations has apparently been cancelled? The Prime Minister will not be coming here. Does he not agree that she should come to this House to explain just what is going on with these negotiations?
John Lamont
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will not get involved in a running commentary on what he has been reading on Twitter. I look forward to hearing what the Prime Minister has to say when she is ready to speak to us.
My priority from Brexit is twofold. My first priority is to protect the integrity of the UK internal market, which is worth four times more to Scottish businesses than that of the European Union. The other priority is to get the best possible access to the EU market. That, I believe, is also the priority of SNP colleagues, although there are differences over how we define the word “possible”.
The amendments proposed by the Scottish and Welsh Governments would, I believe, put the United Kingdom internal market at risk, which is why I cannot support them. By automatically devolving powers, they would place unnecessary barriers to trade between Scotland and the rest of the UK, our largest market. While accepting the need for common frameworks, the Scottish Government’s approach seems to be that everything should be devolved on day one and there should then be a process of trying to re-reserve powers to Westminster at a later date once we know what trade agreements require a UK-wide approach. That approach would bring an extra layer of uncertainty at an already uncertain time.
Martin Whitfield
Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that these powers have already been devolved? We are talking about powers coming back that have already been devolved, rather than something fresh and new.
John Lamont
These powers are with the European Union just now. We all accept that there will be a need for UK-wide framework agreements, and we need to get the process right. Why rush into devolving everything to the Scottish Parliament when the framework agreements might require powers to be retained at a UK level to protect the UK internal market, and to allow us to enter into trade agreements with other countries around the world? It is critical that we get things done in a logical and thoughtful way, rather than rushing into a situation that we might be unable to unpick further down the line.
Stephen Kerr
Does my hon. Friend agree that there are many moving parts in the current process? Our debate is taking place at a time when many things are on the move. For example, there was a very positive meeting last week between representatives of Scotland’s two Governments. Does my hon. Friend welcome that, and does he believe, as I do, that we should be optimistic that we can come up with an agreement based on some of the things that the Scottish Affairs Committee mentioned in its report?
John Lamont
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Significant progress is being made between the two Governments, which was why I was so disappointed with the opening remarks of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber. There is not a million miles between the two Governments.
Christine Jardine
But does the hon. Gentleman accept that this is not just about how well Scotland’s two Governments are talking to each other? It is also about Wales and Northern Ireland—it is about each devolution settlement. We should not expect the situations in Wales and Northern Ireland to be dependent on the outcome of talks between Scotland’s two Governments.
John Lamont
I accept that the UK Government are holding discussions with the other parts of the United Kingdom, but I am here to represent a Scottish constituency and my Scottish constituents. I would not be doing my job properly if I did not focus on Scotland and the challenges that Brexit will present there.
John Lamont
I want to make a little bit more progress.
I completely reject the Scottish Government’s unhelpful narrative in the early stages of this process—we have heard it from some who have spoken today—that there is a power grab. No powers that are currently exercised by the Scottish Parliament will be reserved to the Westminster Parliament. Every decision that the Scottish Parliament could have taken before Brexit will still be possible after March 2019. The Scottish Parliament will, in fact, be given greater powers as we leave the European Union. This Bill maintains the current powers of the Scottish Parliament. It merely replaces the restriction on legislating contrary to EU law with the restriction on legislating contrary to EU retained law.
Chris Elmore
I am beyond confused by the hon. Gentleman’s assumption that we would reserve the powers that come back from the EU here on the basis of trade deals. The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) is shaking his head, but the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) did say that the powers would be reserved based on trade negotiations. As a Welsh MP, I want to know whether the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk is saying that this British Parliament is to forfeit Welsh lamb in favour of Trump’s chicken. Will he clarify what he means by the powers being reserved based on trade?
John Lamont
My comments relate to the UK-wide framework agreements, on which I thought there was cross-party agreement. We need the framework agreements to protect the integrity of the UK internal market’s operations. As we progress out of Brexit, we will enter into trade deals with other countries, and it is important that the United Kingdom as an entity can offer one approach—common standards—in those negotiations. That will be good for Scottish business and for our constituents, and it is one reason why the framework agreements are so important.
John Lamont
I just want to make a little more progress.
The UK Government have made it crystal clear that clause 11 is temporary until powers can be devolved. It is simply wrong to suggest that the Bill is some sort of power grab by Westminster. I suggest that this is just another chapter in the SNP’s book of grievance politics.
Joanna Cherry
The hon. Gentleman makes a point about the power grab, but he needs to understand that this phrase is not just used by the SNP. As I said earlier, it was first used by the former British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. Government Members have been surprised that I am quoting Gordon Brown, but the Conservative and Unionist party needs to understand that all the Scottish parties—apart from the Conservatives—are united in their desire to protect the devolution settlement. The hon. Gentleman is describing what he hopes will happen, but clause 11 will not enable that to happen, because it involves top-down imposition, rather than organic upwards agreement.
John Lamont
The hon. and learned Lady is misrepresenting the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party’s position. We are completely committed to devolution. We have delivered more powers to the Scottish Parliament than any other party in this Chamber and we will continue to do so after Brexit. It is completely disingenuous to suggest anything else.
Joanna Cherry
On a point of order, Mr Crausby. The hon. Gentleman has used the word “disingenuous”. We have already heard from the Chair once today that that word ought not to be used about another hon. Member. I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that I am being disingenuous. We might disagree, but I am not being disingenuous. I invite him to withdraw the comment.
The Temporary Chair (Sir David Crausby)
The hon. Gentleman should not have used the word “disingenuous”. I am sure that he will learn from it.
John Lamont
I will learn, Mr Crausby, and I am happy to withdraw the remark.
The hon. and learned Lady said that the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party was in some way not supportive of devolution, which is just not the case. She has given me the opportunity to repeat my point: this party has delivered more powers to the Scottish Parliament than any other party in this Chamber, and it will continue to do so after Brexit.
John Lamont
No; I think I have heard quite enough from the hon. and learned Lady this evening. Despite the rhetoric of the Scottish National party, the opposite is in fact true, as the UK Government and the Scottish Government are relatively close to reaching an agreement.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be of better service to all our constituents if we dialled down the rhetoric and looked closely at the positions that we all hold? We all agree that we need some common frameworks, and we all agree that the JMC and bilateral negotiations are the right way to make progress. Does he agree that we need to let the negotiations progress so that they can inform future changes to the Bill?
John Lamont
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Both sides agree on the need for common frameworks. As I listened to the Scottish Government’s Michael Russell and the Secretary of State for Scotland speaking yesterday, it was clear that significant progress has been made in the discussions between the two Governments, which is to be welcomed.
I also welcome the clear statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland that the UK Government’s default position will be devolution in policy areas that are already devolved, and that common frameworks must be agreed, not imposed on the devolved Administrations. The problem with the SNP’s demands is that they would rush a complicated process. I do not support an arbitrary timetable for listing what will be devolved and what needs to be dealt with on a UK basis until that has been agreed between the two Governments. I hope that we can proceed in a constructive way to achieve that. Although the Government are right to take their time, we do need further clarity from them on such matters during the progress of the Bill. In particular, we need more information about the areas in which common UK-wide frameworks are likely to be required.
Finally, it is absolutely not constructive—internally and within the EU—to have the threat of a second independence referendum hanging over the Brexit negotiations. We have seen the front pages of the Scottish press this morning, with the First Minister again talking about the case for independence. I see some SNP Members nodding enthusiastically. This is creating an extra layer of uncertainty for businesses in Scotland and making the task of negotiating with the EU even more difficult.
Ian Murray
It seems as if the hon. Gentleman is coming towards the end of his speech. Before he does, will he clarify a matter for the Committee? Is he saying that if something is part of a UK-wide trade deal, it will remain reserved to this place even though it is devolved under schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998?
John Lamont
If the two Governments agree that a power is required for the framework, that is the type of power that will have to be retained. That will protect the integrity of the UK market and allow our country to do trade deals with other countries of the world, but it will be an agreed position. That is why the discussions between the Scottish Government and the UK Government are so important. That is why I have said throughout my speech that I believe significant progress has been made to get to this point, which I certainly welcome.
I urge the SNP to put the national interest first and to work more constructively with the UK Government to achieve what we all want, which is the best outcome for Scotland and the United Kingdom from leaving the EU. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the UK Government to ensure that this Bill works for Scotland and for my constituents in the Scottish borders.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
In the past few weeks, we have spelled out many reasons why this Bill will leave the UK worse off in terms of human rights, workers’ rights, animal rights and environmental protections. However, it is designed to leave our devolved Governments and Parliaments worse off too.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I entirely agree with the speech my hon. Friend has made so far. [Laughter.] I am sure I will agree even more as it develops further. She talks about the devolved Administrations, but is the truth not that this Bill also denudes this Parliament of powers through a number of Henry VIII clauses?
Anna McMorrin
I thank my hon. Friend, and I completely agree.
Wales voted for a devolved Government 20 years ago. I was part of that campaign, and I was proud to see the then UK Labour Government bring that about. We now see a more successful and confident Wales than we did two decades ago, but I fear that we are about to go backwards. The Tories have made it clear that, when it comes to devolution, they just do not get it. Anyone who understands the basics of devolution can tell you that this Bill is taking us backwards. The powers devolved to Wales must stay in Wales.
Clearly, the issue is one of trust—trust to exercise devolved powers responsibly, trust to carry out measures that represent the people of Wales and trust to provide meaningful scrutiny of legislation. However, why should we in Wales trust a UK Government that are leading us to such a shambolic Brexit? As it stands, after Brexit, the devolved Governments will be at the mercy of Whitehall.
Stephen Kerr
The hon. Lady’s remarks lead me to conclude that there seems to be no basis, in her mind, on which Wales’s two Governments can get together and make agreements, but there has to be trust. We have to have some basic trust between our levels of Government —otherwise, we will not be able to progress. Surely she is not advocating constitutional confrontation rather than consensus.
Anna McMorrin
I think we are seeing the beginnings of a constitutional crisis right now actually. [Interruption.] I will go on to explain if the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) will let me.
After Brexit, devolved Governments will be at the mercy of Whitehall mandarins with complete control over the time, place, method and future of the repatriation of powers from Brussels. We need only an elementary understanding of how institutions and Governments work to understand that this is leading us to a constitutional crisis.
Devolution is one of our country’s great strengths. The last 20 years have shown devolution to be a success, with our Governments in Wales and Scotland able to forge their own distinctive paths with confidence. Decisions about Wales are best made in Wales by the people of Wales. This is not an argument for nationalism, but one for democracy. Governments formed here in Westminster are not best placed to dictate what happens in Wales.
This Bill lets down the constitutional settlement and the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. First, as drafted, clause 11 places a new and significant constraint on the devolution settlement and shifts the power dynamic around setting common UK frameworks firmly in the direction of the UK Government. As yet, the UK Government have provided no information on how these common frameworks will be agreed, the timetable for agreeing them or how Parliament and the devolved legislatures will be involved in the process.
Stephen Kerr
I am afraid that what the hon. Lady is saying is just not true. The excellent report produced by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee reproduces in full the agreement from October —just a couple of months ago—which spells out exactly how these common frameworks will be put together between the Governments. [Interruption.] No, that is what it says in this report.
Anna McMorrin
I am afraid the Chair disagreed with the hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] Well, the hon. Gentleman should speak to the Chair and to other Conservative Members about that.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that, in a number of EU policy areas, the UK Government are in fact acting as the Government of England.
Mr Jenkin
I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way—I know she is trying to get on with her speech.
Yes, we published the conclusions of the last Joint Ministerial Committee in our report because they, I think, do show the good faith of the Government. However, I also understand why people have doubted the good faith of the Government—because clause 11 is so bald, if I may say so. We need reassurances around clause 11 that do not necessarily change the substance of it but give assurance that there will be a process and a timetable. That would certainly be a good step.
Anna McMorrin
I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I agree absolutely that we need far more information on how the common frameworks will be agreed, the timetable for agreeing them, and what is involved in the processes.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
But the very fact that there is no timetable surely gives weight to the argument that what we are seeing here is a crude power grab.
Anna McMorrin
I thank my hon. Friend, and I completely agree. That is what I am saying in my speech—that this is an absolute power grab to the centre and away from the devolved Administrations.
Paul Flynn
My hon. Friend is being extremely generous in giving way.
Could we take a practical example of what will happen? The Welsh Government have wisely introduced a law on presumed consent for organ donation—it is settled, and it has saved 40 lives. The United Kingdom Government have not introduced such a law, and England has lost 400 lives. Scotland is in the process of introducing such a law, but the power it has to do that is being grabbed back here. Will that kill people in Scotland? That is an example of this legislative paralysis, which is taking away Scotland’s powers to do something that is much needed.
Anna McMorrin
Absolutely. I completely agree. That just shows that what we have here in a number of policy areas is a constitutional crisis emerging and the UK Government acting as the Government of England, not the Government of the UK, leading to a number of possible conflicts of interest when it comes to imposing pan-UK structures.
Secondly, it is crucial that Welsh Ministers and the Welsh Parliament are responsible for correcting and amending all areas of EU law that are devolved. Restricting involvement means taking away powers that have been devolved for 20 years and creates an inequality between the nations of the UK, as has just been described by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn). That endangers the proper functioning of any UK single market—one of the main aims of this Bill.
We have seen the mess the Prime Minister is making of these negotiations, and we have seen the mess today. She is held to account by a small minority party—the DUP—and we have seen that this afternoon in the negotiations. A hard Brexit or no deal would seriously challenge devolution, as well as risking the Union. As a devolutionist who wants the UK to stay together, I think these issues are likely to cause the UK to begin to unravel. The UK Government must take responsibility.
Finally, the UK Government know they cannot win this. They may be able to whip their Members here in the House of Commons, but they cannot whip their Members in the Lords. Those Members are determined to expose what this Government are doing and will not let them off lightly.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
Like the hon. Lady, I represent a constituency in a devolved part of the United Kingdom. Many in the House believe that clause 11 should be amended and have put their point to the Government, but will she work constructively with the Government and be specific—not fan the flames of nationalism, which we all know are at play and could undermine our United Kingdom?
Anna McMorrin
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not fanning any flames of nationalism; I am talking about democracy in this place and the democracy of the UK. The Welsh Government have tried on many occasions to negotiate with the UK Government. That has not been possible, so we have the opportunity to vote with our Front Bench on these amendments.
Chris Elmore
My hon. Friend makes the point that Conservatives with constituencies in devolved parts of the UK should vote with us this evening. The Welsh and Scottish Governments have been saying for years that the JMC should be put on a statutory footing. That would build trust between the Government and the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish legislatures. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Anna McMorrin
Yes. It is so important that structures and discussions are formally put in place across the country.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
I recall that during the passage of the Wales Bill last year we specifically asked for the JMC to be put on a statutory footing. The Government said no.
Anna McMorrin
The Government will probably see the error of their ways as the Bill passes through the Lords and they lose there. My advice is that the Government should avoid any more embarrassment, listen to our devolved nations and amend the legislation before it is too late.
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
On 23 June last year, I voted, like more than 1 million Scots and more than 17 million Britons, to leave the European Union. I did not take that decision lightly; the caricature of leave voters as romantic zealots with no regard for our economy could not be further from the truth. Brexit is a practical decision, and I believe that the United Kingdom will be better off, and less exposed to risk, by taking control of its own destiny and trading with partners around the world, rather than becoming increasingly tied to the whims and fortunes of the European Union.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Jack
I will make some progress, if I may. Voting remain was a leap of faith that I could not take. I am not here to call for chaos; in fact, it is crucial to the short-term success of Brexit that we disengage from the EU with as little disruption as possible. That is why I support the Government’s plan for a time-limited implementation period after exit day. It is also why I support the Bill, which ensures that the statute book will continue to operate normally on exit day. We have a whole future ahead of us in which to use the controls that we will gain from Brexit to reform the laws and regulations in agriculture, fisheries and so on. At present, the focus should be on ensuring that the process of Brexit runs smoothly. The Bill recognises that.
For me, that approach extends to our devolution settlement in Scotland. We all expect the Scottish Parliament to become more powerful as a result of Brexit, but it is vital that we have secured common frameworks that ensure that the Union continues to function properly after Brexit. The Scottish Government, I hasten to point out, agree—and I commend them for that.
I call on both of Scotland’s Governments to come to a quick agreement. Scots deserve clarity in advance about exactly which powers will rest with Holyrood and which with Westminster after Brexit. The amendments to clause 11, proposed by SNP, Labour and Liberal Democrat Members, do not help that process. Clause 11 preserves the current devolution settlement.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
One of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues has just said that he wants specifics about clause 11, while another says that the Conservative party respects the devolution settlement. Can the hon. Gentleman explain what it is about amendment 72—
“This section shall not come into effect until…the Scottish Parliament…the National Assembly for Wales…and…the Northern Ireland Assembly has passed a resolution approving the provisions”—
that does not respect the devolution settlement or support his position?
Mr Jack
I will come to that. That is going to happen anyway—by legislative consent motion.
Clause 11 preserves the current devolution settlement. Holyrood will not be stopped doing anything that it can do now, and nor will it automatically become able to do anything that our current EU membership stops it doing. This is simple and easy to understand, and it provides a solid basis for the talks currently taking place over which EU powers will be devolved.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstands what is happening. At the minute, the EU has legislative competence in 111 devolved areas, to ensure compatibility with the treaty on European Union. After Brexit, that will not be the case; what is being proposed is that the UK Parliament should be given legislative competence over these devolved areas that it currently does not have. That is a material change and constraint on devolution.
Mr Jack
That is correct—that is what we are negotiating about. The 111 powers are already devolved at implementation level. That exists at the moment. The question is about where the frameworks sit in respect of the powers that come back from the EU. We have to look at our internal market and how we would better run our country.
On issues such as food standards, it makes complete sense for us to have one framework for the United Kingdom, so that everyone can participate in the trade deals that we do. If we had different rules and regulations in different parts of the United Kingdom, our overseas trade agreements and internal market would fall apart.
Hannah Bardell
The hon. Gentleman talks about different regulations. Surely he understands the desire in Scotland, which the votes cast in Scotland reflected, to stay in the single market and the customs union and have the same rules and regulations. Only England and the other parts of the UK that leave may be threatened with different regulations.
Mr Jack
The United Kingdom voted to leave and we respect that democratic decision. Earlier, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said that the councils of Scotland were confused, that there was a lot for them to look at and that every council voted against. In 2014, I remember that 28 of 32 councils voted to stay in the United Kingdom. Hon. Members should respect that, just as I respect the decision taken by the United Kingdom to leave the European Union.
Mr Jack
I am going to make some progress. By the time we reach Report, I hope we will have a better idea about what common frameworks are needed and how Scotland’s two Governments, in Westminster and Holyrood, will work together to implement them. That is the clarity that Scottish businesses want and need.
Almost two-thirds of Scotland’s exports go to the rest of the United Kingdom. I represent Dumfries and Galloway, which is but a few miles from both England and Northern Ireland, so this matter is particularly important to my constituents. If the internal market of the United Kingdom is harmed, Dumfries and Galloway will be among the worst hit areas. That is why I believe the amendments to be pointless at best, and harmful at worst. The forthcoming round of post-Brexit devolution must be conducted in a clear, measured way, preserving the internal market of the United Kingdom.
Christine Jardine
I want to speak specifically to amendments 132, 133 and 134. Like many others before us today, they are designed to protect the integrity and powers of the devolved Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by removing the proposed bar on legislating inconsistently with the EU in each case. I have been disappointed that in this debate we have not been able to reach the consensus that members of the Scottish Affairs Committee and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) mentioned on the frameworks. There has been no suggestion, as far as I have heard, that we do not all agree on the need for a framework—it is the devolution of the powers that we are concerned about. This Bill appears to facilitate a power grab by this Government that, in its own way, undermines the devolution settlement and the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
It may have amused SNP Members that, while in the past I have appeared to be critical of their Government, I am agreeing with them on many things today. For example, I have criticised their Government’s handling of Police Scotland, pointed to GP shortages, and highlighted plummeting standards in Scottish education. However, those are criticisms of an Administration and their policies. They have never been criticisms of the Scottish Parliament, of the exercise of its devolved powers, or of any other Administration’s ability to exercise devolved powers. This now represents the settled will of the people of Scotland.
Stephen Kerr
The hon. Lady is a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, which took evidence from the Secretary of State for Scotland, who was adamant about the fact that there would be additional powers to the Scottish Parliament and about the fact that the existing powers would remain. In fact, this Bill cements those powers to the Scottish Parliament. What has she heard that makes her think anything to the contrary?
Christine Jardine
I will come on to that. As the hon. Gentleman himself has said, it is currently being negotiated between Scotland’s two Governments exactly what the framework and the powers would be, and until we have that assurance we cannot be absolutely sure.
Today I find myself in the strange position where I feel as though I have been transported back 25 or 30 years, to a time when the Opposition parties are all in favour of devolution and campaigning for devolution, and the Conservatives are needing to be persuaded.
Christine Jardine
No, that is how it is. The Conservatives are needing to be persuaded, even though they themselves admit that they are unhappy with aspects of clause 11. They are looking to their own Whips rather than to what might be best for the devolution settlement in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
We should not forget that the leave campaign argued that Brexit would lift restrictions and lead to Scotland gaining major powers, yet today we find ourselves considering a Bill that aims to modify and place restrictions on both the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly in relation to EU law. Surely we cannot allow this erosion of our democratic processes. I appeal to Conservative Members, particularly those who have served at Holyrood, to support us in this. Their party may not have originally supported devolution, but they, of all people, must recognise its significance today.
As part of the EU withdrawal process, Scotland’s two Governments are currently discussing where the powers returned from the EU should be vested and how the new frameworks should operate. Just as the 111 powers relating to Scotland are being discussed, the Welsh Government have a list of 64 powers that they feel could be vulnerable under this agreement. Both Administrations are looking to this place for amendments to the Bill that will ensure that they continue to have approval over the aspects that affect them. Indeed, only last month, Scotland’s First Minister stated that the Bill as it stands is not one that her Government would recommend for approval.
This is the specific point where I would take issue with the Conservative allegation that it is Opposition Members who are undermining the Union. If we do not put forward a Bill that can get a legislative consent motion in the Scottish Parliament, we threaten the very fabric of the agreement and throw ourselves into a constitutional crisis. I do not want to be responsible for that. It will undermine the Union in the same way that the Conservative Government’s actions in taking us out of the European Union with a hard Brexit will cost Scotland perhaps £30 billion and put 80,000 jobs at risk. Those are the threats to the United Kingdom, not the debate we are having here today.
Tom Brake
Would my hon. Friend also like to consider the threat to the United Kingdom that is represented by the debacle that is happening with the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland in the context of ensuring the coherence of the United Kingdom? Surely the Government are failing on that front as well.
Christine Jardine
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. That is yet another example of how this Government are undermining the United Kingdom at every turn.
For Opposition Members, the drive is to protect the devolution settlement and potentially the stability of the United Kingdom. There are a number of other amendments that are similar to ours which we are happy to support, and we will not press ours to the vote. Our overriding priority is to get this Bill in shape so that there is no danger that when it goes to the Scottish Parliament it does not get that consent and we face the crisis that Opposition Members have worked so hard to avoid for the past five years.
Ross Thomson
This has been a very interesting debate. It has been quite extraordinary to hear some of the rhetoric from Opposition Members about power grabs. I do not care where that phrase originated. Whether it was Gordon Brown, Kezia in the jungle, or Patrick Harvie, the fact is that it is simply not true.
It is amazing that Opposition Members have found this new belief in sovereignty. Let us go back to some basic facts. For the past 40 years, the UK has ceded its sovereignty to the EU and its institutions, with literally thousands of pieces of legislation being imposed on the UK and all its nations, and our Parliament having no ability to scrutinise them—
Ross Thomson
No, I am just getting started.
There has been no ability to scrutinise them, amend them, or even reject them. Now, on the day that we leave the EU in March 2019, powers will be returned to the UK and the Scottish Parliament will become more powerful than it already is.
Ross Thomson
No, thank you.
The Scottish Parliament will regain powers over agriculture, the environment and transport, for example. We have seen quite an astonishing level of hypocrisy from Opposition Members today. Where was the SNP’s belief in sovereignty when over the past 40 years laws were imposed on the people of Scotland by the EU without debate in this place, or over the past 20 years without debate in Holyrood?
Jo Stevens
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me stop him in mid-flow. Has he never heard of the European Parliament?
Ross Thomson
I am aware of the European Parliament, which cannot reject the legislation that is imposed on it by unelected commissioners. This is about re-establishing democracy. The EU has nothing to do with democracy—it is a deficit in democracy. We are taking that back. Opposition Members should celebrate that fact.
The Temporary Chair (Sir David Amess)
Order. We cannot have two Members standing at the same time. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is giving way.
Ross Thomson
Thank you, Sir David.
There was no option for debate, and no opportunity to amend or even reject those laws. Where was SNP Members’ concern for sovereignty then?
Ross Thomson
I would like to make some more progress before I take an intervention.
SNP Members have manufactured the power grab argument in grievance, yet we have heard time and again from the First Minister, all the way along, that the position of the SNP is for full membership of the European Union. [Interruption.] There we go; we have had it confirmed again. The SNP’s position is to support full membership of the European Union for an independent Scotland. The argument that SNP Members are making today is clearly fake news, because they do not want a single one of the new powers that will come to Scotland. They want the EU to retain and maintain those powers.
Stephen Kerr
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, as is characteristic of him. Does he agree that SNP Members here are not representative of the SNP Government in Scotland? The SNP Government are quite attracted to the idea of these additional powers and would quite like to have them, but SNP Members here are indulging in rhetoric.
Ross Thomson
My hon. Friend is right that the rhetoric of the SNP group in Westminster is very different from that of the SNP group in Holyrood.
Ross Thomson
No, I will answer this point first. It looks as though we are achieving a real consensus about the powers that will come to Scotland, but we have just heard the SNP’s heated rhetoric in this Chamber. I know the SNP group in Holyrood, because I worked with them, and I know that Alex Neil and some bashful others are very keen on Brexit and powers coming back to, and being exercised in, Holyrood. SNP Members in Westminster want those powers to lie with the EU, and they want the EU to retain and maintain full control over all those areas.
Given that the EU is still very much travelling in the direction of greater integration, the SNP will simply want to cede even more powers to the EU if they get their way and win a second independence referendum. Boy, we in the Conservative party will do everything to prevent that from happening. There is no power grab here; this is simply the SNP’s great power giveaway.
Ross Thomson
The hon. Gentleman will want to hear this point, believe me. The SNP is only stronger for Brussels, while the Scottish Conservatives deliver for Scotland yet again with an even stronger Scottish Parliament. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford)—he has just come back into the Chamber; that is terrific timing—should reflect more on the comments in his speech. He says that the people of Scotland are sovereign. If that is the case, he should respect the sovereignty of the people of Scotland who said no to independence in 2014, and who rejected in 2017 the SNP’s premise of a second independence referendum. Unlike the SNP, Scottish Conservatives will continue to deliver for Scotland, and for its businesses, communities and people.
Ian Blackford
I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that, when we appeared in front of the Scottish electorate in 2016, we won a mandate to deliver a Scottish referendum if Scotland was dragged out of the EU, the single market and the customs union. Lastly, we have got 35 MPs; we won the election in Scotland.
Ross Thomson
In 2016, the SNP went into the election with a majority in Holyrood and lost it. The SNP now depends on the votes of the Greens to see through its legislation, its budget and a second independence referendum. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the election in June. I do not know whether he has looked behind him, but 21 of his colleagues have gone missing, including the former leader of the SNP, Alex Salmond, and the party’s leader in Westminster, Angus Robertson. In that election, it was quite clear that the people of Scotland wanted to send the First Minister a message: “In 2014, we said no and we meant it.” That is why there are fewer SNP Members here than there were. There may be 35 of them, as the right hon. Gentleman says, but 13 Scottish Conservatives have achieved more for Scotland in five months in the last Budget than 56 SNP MPs ever did in two years.
I want to get back to my previous point. We will always stand up for Scotland’s businesses, communities and its people.
Ross Thomson
I have literally just answered a point, so I will finish making this one. We will ensure that no barriers are created to trade within the UK. Even the SNP Scottish Government—including the Brexit Minister, Mike Russell—accept that there will have to be common UK-wide frameworks, because they are needed. That is reflected in the Scottish Affairs Committee report, as other colleagues have highlighted in the debate. We need common frameworks, because a UK single market or unitary market—whatever we want to call it—is our greatest asset and we need to maintain it. Where frameworks are needed to underpin the work of companies and individuals across all parts of our United Kingdom, we will make the case for such frameworks.
Luke Graham
Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the SNP always talks down Westminster, this is a great opportunity to talk up Holyrood and Westminster and use the common frameworks to find areas on which we can pull together and act as one great country?
Ross Thomson
My hon. Friend is right. Scotland has two Governments: the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government. I know from my own constituency that my residents like it when both Governments work together, rather than being at each other’s throats. We have co-operated on city deals, for example, to achieve something, and we need to see more of that, because my constituents are absolutely fed up with the back-biting.
Drew Hendry
On the subject of powers, does the hon. Gentleman still subscribe to what was written on the banner that he held outside the Scottish Parliament for the Vote Leave campaign? The banner urged people to vote to
“LEAVE the EU and give control of the Scottish fishing industry to our democratically-elected Scottish Parliament”.
Does he still agree that those powers should go to the democratically elected Scottish Parliament?
Ross Thomson
I am so grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that up. By leaving the European Union, we can take back powers over fishing, and we will come out of the common fisheries policy. As we heard earlier in this debate, the SNP wants to take us straight back into the EU and therefore drag every fisherman in Scotland straight back into that very policy, selling Scotland’s fishermen out. That has been confirmed today, but the Scottish Conservatives, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), will stand up for Scottish fishermen and deliver a Brexit that works for them. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to say so.
Stephen Kerr
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that the people of Scotland like it when Scotland’s two Governments work together. We have heard several times from SNP Members—not the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), whose speech was, I thought, rather positive—that that negotiation and co-operation has not started. But the Select Committee’s report states:
“We recommend that the UK and Scottish governments continue their efforts to secure agreement”.
“Continue” suggests that something has started, does it not?
Ross Thomson
I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. It is clear from this debate that I want these powers to come to the Scottish Parliament, but SNP Members want them to stay with the EU. I find it fascinating that I have a higher opinion of the ability of Nicola Sturgeon and her Cabinet to make decisions on such matters in Scotland than her own party in Westminster does. That really tells us something.
To continue with what I was saying, we will need UK-wide frameworks in areas such as food labelling.
Ross Thomson
I want to make some more progress, please.
It would make no sense whatsoever to have four different sets of food labelling rules, because it would simply add to our companies’ costs and cause confusion for customers right across the UK. Common frameworks are needed to secure the functioning of the UK internal market, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) said, while acknowledging policy divergence and ensuring that we comply with international obligations.
We cannot support the SNP’s proposal because of the danger that it poses to the integrity of the UK single market, and therefore to our United Kingdom. Let us be absolutely honest. Is it a surprise to anyone that the Scottish nationalist party would suggest something that would create barriers in our UK, in order gradually to break it up? Absolutely not. I gently urge our colleagues in the Scottish Liberal Democrats and Labour to be cautious, because the SNP’s amendments are simply a Trojan horse for the Scottish Government. We in the Scottish Conservatives will work constructively with our colleagues to achieve something better, and I am sure that the Government will reflect on what they have heard tonight.
Ross Thomson
No, thank you.
We need clause 11 to work for our United Kingdom—to protect it as well as enhancing our devolution settlement. It is in the interests of all our constituents that a deal is reached and an LCM is passed in the Scottish Parliament, so perhaps the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber should reflect on his pantomime performance earlier this afternoon. I know he is no longer in the Chamber, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) stated, the Scottish Conservative group will work constructively with our colleagues to help to support both of Scotland’s Governments in moving forward with a withdrawal Bill that will strengthen Holyrood and maintain the integrity of the UK.
In his speech, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) spoke about having confidence in the UK Government. I actually have confidence not just in the UK Government, but in the Scottish Government because I believe they will come to a deal that will work for the whole of the United Kingdom and for Scotland’s place within it. I do not think we should act prematurely tonight because, as we know, there is an upcoming meeting of the JMC, and there is more to come from such a process. We will not support the amendments tonight because we are taking a constructive, productive approach that will actually deliver for Scotland, rather than playing the politics of grievance.
Stephen Doughty
It is a shame to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson), the tone of whose speech was in stark contrast to those of the more thoughtful colleagues who recognise the very serious problems with the Bill, and particularly with clause 11.
I absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that I would not sign up to any Trojan horse for independence or for breaking apart the UK. I have been very happy to work together with Scottish National party Members and others on some of the amendments, but they know full well where my views stand on the Union, and we will not agree on that. We can absolutely agree, and I state this as a proud devolutionist, that we have a constitutional settlement that we have spent many years—20 years, in fact—establishing, and I am very proud to support it at all levels. If we throw apart that settlement, we do so at our peril. We are already seeing the chaos created after the negotiations in Brussels today, which is affecting parts of our economy because of the uncertainty for business. Do we really need to add to that uncertainty and chaos in the constitutional settlement of the UK and our islands? I do not think we do.
I rise to speak to amendments 182 and 186 to 188 in my name and those of the hon. Members for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), for Arfon (Hywel Williams), for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), the right hon. Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). I support the amendments tabled on behalf of the Welsh and Scottish Governments, and I also add my support to new clauses 64 and 65 tabled by the Opposition, as well as amendment 72 tabled by the Scottish National party—I have put my name to it as well—about legislative consent motions, and the important amendment 337 about transitional arrangements. We will not be speaking much about transitional arrangements today, but they affect the devolved settlements as much as they do many other parts of the Bill.
Withdrawal from the EU represents a major constitutional upheaval for the United Kingdom. I spoke and voted against the Bill on Second Reading, and the Committee will already be aware of my grave concern with the proposed sweeping powers that Ministers intend to gift themselves, bypassing Parliament and in effect subverting the long-established principle that legislative power and sovereignty is in the purview of this Parliament.
The Government are seeking to subvert not just this House, but the elected—duly democratically elected—Governments of the United Kingdom. The amendments I have tabled with other Members seek to protect the devolution settlement. I have with me the various Acts pertaining to Wales. A serious amount of work, effort and consideration has gone into them over 20 years. They are not perfect—they do not necessarily get everything right or include what I and others would like—but they have been developed with the advice and consent of the Welsh people, as have the other settlements with the people of Scotland and of Northern Ireland. They have also been developed by Members of this House, including many Members from across England who take a keen interest in such matters, not least when they relate to the internal borders of the United Kingdom and the differences that may exist.
Although far from perfect, the legislation laid down in law the permanency of the National Assembly for Wales as part of our constitutional arrangements. I am now incredulous that Ministers are seeking to undermine the ability of Ministers of the Crown in Wales, and indeed Scotland, by allowing Whitehall Ministers to pass swathes of secondary legislation in policy areas that it has been long established are administered from Edinburgh and Cardiff Bay.
For those who do not know, the National Assembly is in the heart of my Cardiff South and Penarth constituency, and I take a great interest in that body. I worked there in its early days—in fact, on the first few days after it opened—and like many of the more recently elected Welsh Members in this House, I have spent time in and around both Welsh and UK institutions and I recognise the importance of the settlement we have and how it works for the people of Wales, as indeed it does for Scotland.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is making a good speech showing up the deficiencies of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. Does he agree that current events show the vastly advantageous situation in which Ireland finds itself? Its Parliament is not dependent on this place but is actually pulling the strings and telling this place what to do, and this place has to listen.
Stephen Doughty
I do not want to get too drawn into conversations about the state of the negotiations. I have already said that they are absolutely shambolic. Members from Northern Ireland are present and I am sure that they will contribute, if they wish to do so, and there will be a great number of debates on Wednesday.
I am absolutely clear, however, that Wales should not be treated less favourably than any other part of the United Kingdom. I am sure that Scottish Members would say the same about Scotland. Whether that relates to debates about remaining in the single market and the customs union—I believe that we should do so—or to other areas of legislative competence or to funding, about which this place has had many lively debates, Wales deserves to be treated as an equal. The First Minister, Carwyn Jones, is absolutely right to have made that absolutely clear this evening, given the shambolic events in Brussels today.
To return to the advice given to Assembly Members, its chief legal adviser has said that the Bill means that, effectively,
“London could step in and make law for Wales on devolved matters”.
The Bill does not stipulate that that would be subject to the agreement of the Welsh Government or the Assembly. In some cases—I am trying to be charitable—constitutional conventions, such as the Sewel convention, would apply, but the reality is that we are expected to take these matters on trust, when we could be legislating for them and getting the Bill’s detail right.
David Rees, a Welsh Labour Assembly Member and Chair of its External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee, has said:
“If this Bill does seek to constrain the Assembly’s powers, then it could be seen as undermining devolution and the democratic will of the Welsh people, as expressed in the 2011 referendum on full law-making powers for Wales.”
When we talk about referendums, we need to be clear that they all have value and importance. We need to listen to them all, not just one, and not just interpret them as we see fit. Scottish colleagues have also said as much, with the Scottish Brexit Minister saying very clearly:
“The current proposals are a direct threat to the devolution settlement which the people of Scotland overwhelmingly voted for”.
We are talking about different mandates and our democracy; let us make sure that we listen to all parts of that democracy, not just some of them.
The Library clearly states:
“Matters of devolved competence are effectively reserved in this Act of UK Parliament… Devolved competence frozen…which will go out of date over time… No statutory basis for discussing and making new frameworks.”
That is why Labour Front Benchers’ new clauses 64 and 65 are so important. We need to give statutory effect to those frameworks, and we need clear guidance and processes. There is a small degree of disagreement among Members of different parties about their impact, but I will not dwell on that. It is clear that we need clear frameworks to debate and discuss these matters.
As currently drafted, clause 11 will amend both devolution Acts for Wales by inserting a new restriction on the competence of devolved legislatures. The Welsh and Scottish Governments consider that those provisions fundamentally cut across the principles of the devolution settlements, which is why the amendments that so many Members have signed would remove those restrictions in clause 11 and schedule 3.
I do not want to get into too much technical detail, but there is a crucial point to be made about the nature of Welsh devolution and how it has developed, particularly in the new Wales Act 2017, some parts of which have yet even to come into effect. I urge Ministers to look carefully at the sequencing. They do not seem to have thought through the commencement dates of different parts of the Act and how they relate to the Brexit process.
The question whether Wales would have reserved or conferred powers was at the heart of the debate about that Act. Mark Drakeford, a Welsh Government Minister, made some clear points about that in his evidence to the Assembly’s External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee. He said that, essentially, there would be a move backwards from the reserved powers model and that the areas set out in the Bill would be subject to conferred powers. He set out the case very clearly, and I hope that you will excuse me, Sir David, if I quote what he said:
“In the Welsh Government’s view, this is an extremely complex and confusing basis on which to construct a properly-functioning system of legislative devolution. Even if we agreed with the policy behind clause 11, we would have strongly to oppose the way the Bill impacts on the structural foundations of devolution, reversing as it does many of the gains for devolution which adoption of the Wales Act reserved powers model aims to create.”
This is the danger of the Brexit Bill process. Those who drafted the Bill seem to lack an understanding of devolution and the different ongoing processes. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have much in common, but they are different. One big gain we achieved in the passage of the Wales Act was moving to a reserved powers model, which the Scottish Parliament and Government have enjoyed for some time. It seems absurd for that to be suddenly rolled back, changing and creating different categories when we have just set out what we thought was a settlement. That is an absurd situation.
Hywel Williams
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. There is a good deal of agreement between us. He talks about the 2017 Act and some of the more abstract aspects that people listening in perhaps might not understand or follow, but there are practical and technical implications for children’s rights, the environment and so on. Does he not think that those aspects should be explored fully before we move to a vote? I certainly hope to do so.
Stephen Doughty
Absolutely. The danger of this place is that we sometimes get into the technical detail, but do not talk about the implications. Fundamentally, this is about where the Welsh Government and the Welsh Assembly have powers over the areas that affect many parts of our lives. When we talk about the impact Brexit could have on the agricultural sector, transport and customs arrangements—look at the debate on Ireland and Northern Ireland today—we need to speak a lot more about how the maritime border between Wales and the Republic of Ireland could be completely messed up, and the effect of the shenanigans and chaos of today’s negotiations on the prospects for Welsh businesses, ports and hauliers. These are real things that affect real lives. They might seem obtuse within this place, but they have an impact in reality.
Finally, I want to reflect on what the Exiting the European Union Committee said in paragraph 77 of its recent report. It was very clear about the problem of trust, and I think that this gets to the heart of the matter. The Government expect us to trust them that everything is going to be okay: there will be no problems; this is all going to fine; and, as I said, it is going to be all right on the night. The Committee said:
“Whilst the Government has said that it plans to work with the devolved administrations to reach agreements on UK common frameworks, the devolved administrations have insufficient trust in the process for agreeing these…relationships and have, accordingly, indicated that they will withhold legislative consent from the Bill. The Government must improve engagement with the devolved administrations. It must reach an agreement with the devolved administrations, which might result in changes to the Bill, setting out how and when…competencies will be devolved.”
What surprises me about this process is that the Government have known about those concerns. They have heard them repeatedly from Welsh and Scottish Ministers. They clearly were not listening to the concerns of some of their Northern Irish colleagues; otherwise we would not have seen today’s mess.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Those concerns have been laid out by the Scottish Government for over a year now. Surely today’s actions by the UK Government show that if they can concede on Northern Ireland with regard to the customs union and the single market, despite the Democratic Unionist party vetoing that, they can make the same offer to Scotland and to Wales.
Stephen Doughty
I completely agree. The simple way to resolve all these issues would be for us to stay within the customs union and the single market, to stop messing about, get on with it and remove half the problems that will be created for Wales, Scotland and elsewhere. That is my very clear view.
What I cannot understand is that the Government have been told about these problems repeatedly by Welsh Government Ministers. They have been told about these problems repeatedly by the legal advisers in the devolved Administrations. They have been told about these problems repeatedly by Members of this House. They have had plenty of time to come up with some fixes. Some of these areas are really not that contentious. They are practical. They are not about wrecking the Bill or stopping Brexit; they are about making sure we keep a stable constitutional settlement in these islands.
And yet, where is the evidence that the Government have listened to any of it? So far, there is very, very little. In fact, the Secretary of State for Wales has barely been in here for the debate. Other Ministers have been here for longer. The Secretary of State for Scotland at least had the courtesy to take part in it and make some interventions. The Secretary of State for Wales has been completely absent, apart from about 20 minutes at the start of Bill. I do not think that that shows respect for the people of Wales and for the Members of the Welsh Assembly who have been putting these concerns forward. I sincerely hope that Ministers do listen and come up with fixes to these problems. Otherwise, I can tell them that they will have a very rocky ride on Report and in the other place and that they will have very little, if any, chance of getting the legislative consent motions, which they say they want to receive, from the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this lively debate. I am here to represent all my constituents as best I can, not just those who voted for me and not just those who voted in 2016 to leave. It has been estimated that approximately 54% voted to leave, but I also represent those who continue to have concerns about what will happen after we leave the EU. I appreciate the concerns expressed by many of my constituents, even if I do not necessarily always share them. I will come on to talk about why.
I can understand, to some extent, a certain level of cynicism towards the UK Government—of any Government—by our population. There seems to be a belief, however mistaken, that Scotland’s best interests could be side-lined in the EU withdrawal process. The UK Government, however, are working with, not against, the devolved Administration in Edinburgh to deliver an outcome that works for the whole UK, including Scotland. It is about getting the best deal that works for Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland inside the United Kingdom—that is the key point I want to keep coming back to—so when the SNP and its supporters suggest that Scottish Conservative MPs somehow do not have the best interests of Scotland and the Scottish people at heart, I find that, quite frankly, offensive and insulting. Conservative Scottish MPs, as has been shown, speak up regularly for not only our constituents, but for Scotland as a whole.
I was surprised to hear so much mention of the so-called power grab, considering the amount of progress that has been reported between Ministers from both Scotland’s Governments on that very topic. I was happy to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) quote Nigel Smith, who led the Scotland Forward campaign, that there is actually no power grab. The Bill is about continuity and certainty as much as it is about control. Powers that currently sit with Brussels will return to the UK, but we will still have devolution after Brexit. The devolved institutions, particularly the Scottish Parliament, will end up, through a period of systematic and methodical transition, with more powers than it currently holds. It will certainly have far more powers than if we followed the SNP’s policy of staying in the EU.
The SNP wants the Scottish Government to have more powers, but it does not necessarily want to devolve those powers any further than Edinburgh. It would rather see powers go back to Brussels than to our rural and coastal communities, for example. It has two obsessions: independence and centralisation. [Interruption.] Scotland is far bigger than just the central belt. [Interruption.] It is nice of the SNP to join us.
The Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, has provided the leaders of the devolved Governments with an opportunity to help to shape the UK’s exit from the EU. This is important because there is a clear need for UK frameworks to protect the sectors of our economy most heavily influenced by EU laws.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Can the hon. Gentleman imagine any politician elected in the Republic of Ireland thinking that Ireland could not manage such matters itself, especially given what has happened today? Why does he require—demand, need—London to do this? Can he not stand on his own two feet and look at the world eye to eye? What is this puppy-dog need for London to sort it all out?
David Duguid
I do not recognise those concerns. As has been said by several hon. Members tonight, this is a matter of trust, and I accept that it is probably far easier for Scottish Members on the Government Benches to trust the Government to get on with the job of delivering the Bill as required.
As I said, the leaders of the devolved Governments have an opportunity to help shape the UK’s exit from the EU. This is important because there is a universally recognised need for UK frameworks to protect sectors of our economy heavily influenced by EU laws, particularly agriculture and fisheries, which are very important to my constituency. It is universally recognised, including by the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, that UK frameworks are necessary and must be established, not imposed, as has been mentioned. This should be done in full partnership with the UK Government. That recognition was shared in what I thought was quite a beautiful moment between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) in a recent meeting of the Scottish Affairs Committee.
Deidre Brock
The hon. Gentleman talks about devolved Administrations being involved in discussions, but none of them is involved in the negotiations themselves, because of the UK Government’s decision to exclude them. Does he agree that in the end that was a big mistake?
David Duguid
The UK Government are interacting actively with the devolved Administrations, but it has to be recognised that it was the UK that voted to leave the EU and it is the UK that has the responsibility for the negotiations.
It is disappointing that the SNP is attempting to undermine the progress made by its Ministers in Holyrood on working towards UK-wide frameworks that work for Scotland. Despite the best efforts of SNP Members, the United Kingdom is still a united kingdom. To expect powers currently held by Brussels to devolve straight to the Scottish Parliament, without a transitional stage in between, is simply not practical or in Scotland’s long-term interests. I say that as someone who believes that Scotland is better off in the Union, whether or not SNP Members agree.
In conclusion, I am confident, particularly given the bending of ears by my Scottish Conservative colleagues and me, that the Government will do right for Scotland. Devolution will be strengthened, but not by these amendments.
Hywel Williams
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), who talked about the promise of more and better powers than the Scottish Parliament currently holds. I suppose the same goes for Wales, but the problem is the question of when, and how we can be sure. While he ruminates on that, perhaps I will get on with my speech.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Although the Tories might need to ruminate on that, clearly Leo Varadkar does not. He has the powers and he is using them.
Hywel Williams
Indeed. That was an instructive point for us all.
I rise to speak to Plaid Cymru’s amendments 90 to 92. I am pleased to have co-sponsored the similar joint Welsh and Scottish Government amendments although, for reasons that I will make clear, I prefer my own versions.
The UK constitution is unwritten—or at least it is not written down all in one place—and is constantly evolving. It has evolved in such a way that we no longer live in a one-Parliament state. The UK consists of four representative, governing and law-making bodies, not one. That might seem like stating the obvious but, as I noted in my speech on our first day in Committee, there is no operative Assembly in Northern Ireland, the Parliaments in Wales and Scotland are considered differently from this one in Westminster, and of course England is invisible, except that we accept at the very least that England is de facto represented by this place, which raises questions of conflicts of interest.
The point is that democracy and its values apply to all, not just to one, and devolution demands that all parts of the UK have a say, not just one. As Members will know, the devolution statutes operate through a reserved-powers model in which certain matters are listed as the UK Parliament’s responsibilities. That means that matters not explicitly reserved to the UK Parliament are within the competence of the devolved legislatures.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman is making a good point, and the rhetoric of a UK single market would make sense if the UK was composed of independent states, instead of being one super-state.
Hywel Williams
The hon. Gentleman has made that point already, and I agree with it.
In contrast to the EU internal market, the nature of the UK internal market appears to be self-evident and a matter of common sense to many people. It might be great and it might be something that has grown organically and suits us all, but how often have we seen apparently simple, clear and—crucially—unregulated systems descend into a writhing tangle of irreconcilable and conflicting interests? That is what might happen. We might wish for a simple UK internal market, but we might regret it if we wish for it. We will vote for new clause 64 but, if it is passed, we will give close consideration to how it could be improved through further amendments.
Subsidiarity is supposedly one of the governing principles of the European Union. Powers are supposed to be exercised as close to the citizen as possible. That model does not exist in the UK, where the UK Government remain sovereign. We rely on the separation of competences listed in the newly enshrined reserved powers model in the recently passed Wales Act 2017. This Bill, as it stands, undermines and reverses 20 years of the existence of the National Assembly for Wales.
Professor Rawlings, the professor of public law at University College London, in evidence to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on 31 October, highlighted the concern over what he describes as the double-hatted nature of the UK Government, meaning that they simultaneously represent the UK-wide Government and the Government of England. I raised that point during my speech on our first day in Committee. As I said earlier, this raises a concern not only about conflicts of interest, but about the fact that the subcultures, networks and assumptions of large Departments, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, are focused, almost unconsciously, on England. That has been a recurring theme throughout Select Committee evidence sessions. As I said with reference to the Department of Health, this is a long-standing difficulty.
In evidence to the Brexit Committee on 17 October, Laura Dunlop, QC said:
“In our prototype framework—whatever our internal market is destined to look like—at the moment, there is one party in the discussions that is wearing two hats, and that is the UK Government, who are also required to speak for England. That is a significant difficulty, in my view.”
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West and I were there to hear Laura Dunlop say that. On 24 October, Dr Viviane Gravey told the Welsh Affairs Committee:
“What I mean by giving greater powers is that during that period planned in the Withdrawal Bill, UK Ministers will be able to change the law that has been given back from Brussels, but the devolved”
Governments
“will not. There is then a question of whether any changes made will be in the interests of the whole of the UK or just of England.”
That is the question.
The United Kingdom consists of four countries—four political bodies—not just one. Democracy requires and values all voices, not just one. Devolution demands that all countries within the United Kingdom have a say in the future, not just one. Members will have the opportunity today to stop this Westminster power grab. If all the Opposition parties turn up to vote, and vote together in the interests of the devolved countries, we can stop this encroachment on Welsh sovereignty and put all four UK countries on an equal footing.
Mr David Jones
It is a great pleasure to be asked to address the Committee as a lonely Welsh voice in this Scottish enclave south of the Gangway. I should like to say how impressed I am with my new Scottish colleagues, and with the way in which they stand up for their constituencies and for Scotland.
It was always predictable that clause 11 would be one of the more contentious clauses in the Bill, given that it impinges on the devolution settlements that have been created over the past 20 or so years. When we consider what the clause seeks to achieve, it is important to consider the history of devolution in this country. In the case of Scotland and Wales, it was implemented as a consequence of the two referendums that were held in 1997. That was some years after the United Kingdom became a member of what was then the European Economic Community. Indeed, all our devolution legislation was put in place after we joined. It is important to remember that, at the time of accession to the European Union, devolution was not contemplated.
It was in the context of our membership of the European Union that the various devolution settlements were crafted. The powers that were conferred on the new devolved bodies are consequently subject to overriding EU law, regulations and common frameworks, the principal purpose of which was to protect and preserve the integrity of the European single market, as we have heard repeatedly today. It is a fact, however, that as a consequence of the protection of the European single market, those reservations have operated to protect what I am quite happy to call the UK internal market—
Pete Wishart
Does the right hon. Gentleman think that France has a French internal market and that Germany has a German internal market, or are they just national economies? Does Perthshire have a Perthshire internal market?
Mr Jones
I have never been to Perthshire but I am sure that it is a delightful place. In this country, we have four countries and three devolved bodies, which have competence in the area of economic development, among other things. The hon. Gentleman and I might be at odds on this, but I take the view that there is a United Kingdom internal market. He can come to the contrary conclusion if he wishes.
Hywel Williams
I am intrigued. Can the right hon. Gentleman identify anyone who has spoken in the House today who has argued against having a UK internal market?
Mr Jones
No, but I can identify several people who have denied its existence. Clause 11 seeks to ensure that the integrity of the internal market is not compromised, by preserving the restrictions that prevail in respect of EU law.
It is quite clear that the proposals in clause 11 have caused immoderate anger in certain quarters. The SNP Scottish First Minister and the Labour Welsh First Minister actually joined forces to describe what is proposed as a “naked power grab”, a phrase which has been repeated again and again during this debate, but the fact is that it is nothing of the kind. The competences that are the subject of the retention proposed by clause 11 have never been exercised by the devolved authorities since devolution was first implemented. In practical terms, not one iota less power will be exercised in Belfast, Cardiff or Edinburgh than in the current state of affairs. If there is a diminution in power, it is very much theoretical.
Since the devolved bodies first condemned the proposals in the summer, it is fair to say that their position has moderated considerably. However, I find it intriguing that that position does not appear to have moderated in this House. Indeed, certain Opposition representatives seem to be at odds with their own parties in the devolved areas. Preserving the UK internal market is, after all, extremely important to every constituent part of the United Kingdom. Some 63% of Scottish exports go to the rest of the UK. For Northern Ireland, the equivalent figure is 60%. In Wales, it is a bit less at 49.2%, but I suggest that that is due to the distorting effect of Airbus exports, which form a disproportionately large element of the Welsh economy. Whichever way one looks at it, it is therefore important to guard against any policy divergence that might imperil or damage the internal market. It is also important to ensure that the UK Government have the power to conclude trade agreements with third countries post-Brexit, free from concern that the devolved authorities may be legislating in a manner contrary to the obligations contained in such agreements.
We have heard this evening that the provisions of clause 11 affect approximately 111 devolved competences in Scotland, 64 in Wales and an estimated 149 in Northern Ireland. Many of them exist in the fields of agriculture, the environment and fisheries, where it is generally agreed, not least by those who would be closely affected by market distortion, that it is necessary to preserve common frameworks. As my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) pointed out, we need to look at the individuals who are most likely to be affected by policy divergence. For example, NFU Cymru—the Welsh branch of the National Farmers Union—supports the retention of common frameworks so that the price commanded by Welsh lamb, which is certainly the highest-quality lamb in the United Kingdom, is not adversely affected by differing husbandry practices in other parts of the UK.
The UK Government have always made it clear that the retention of competence effected by clause 11 is intended to be only temporary. Decisions on where competences may lie in the long term will be taken at a later date. I fully agree that that should not take too long, and a Minister should indicate from the Front Bench what sort of timescale they anticipate the Government will adopt when deciding and agreeing with the devolved Administrations on where those competences should lie.
Dr Whitford
That is the problem. There is no timescale. This place is snarled up in dealing with Brexit work, and that pressure will be even greater after Brexit. Those of us from the devolved countries feel that the needs of our farmers and fishermen will be way down the agenda for the devolution work being done here.
Mr Jones
I remind the hon. Lady that I am also from one of the devolved countries, so I understand her point and I understand that a timescale is needed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Brexit has always made it clear that the devolved authorities will ultimately have considerably enhanced powers after this process is complete.
Mr Nigel Smith has been extensively quoted in this debate, and what he has to say is of some significance. He was the chairman of Scotland Forward, the campaign for a yes vote in the 1997 Scottish referendum, and he makes a businesslike and practical statement of the position:
“simply giving into demands from the devolved administrations for a complete takeover of powers would quickly fragment policy coherence threatening the function of the UK single market and even over time the political integrity of these islands.”
That would probably be quite welcome to certain Opposition Members. Nigel Smith continues:
“It would be necessary to establish where coherence was vital and where policy could be devolved or shared. There are also financial considerations in some areas. Temporarily retaining the powers in Westminster through clause 11 while this is assessed and negotiated seems nothing more than procedural common sense. As a long-standing devolutionist, I support the process on this basis.”
He is entirely right. It is common sense. We need to assess where powers properly lie, but that process should not take too long.
I am heartened that, at the Joint Ministerial Committee in October, the various Administrations agreed to work towards the establishment of the necessary frameworks. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) indicated, it is not a question of the United Kingdom Government imposing where those powers lie; it is a question of agreement. The communiqué that followed the meeting said:
“There will also be close working between the UK Government and the devolved administrations on reserved and excepted matters that impact significantly on devolved responsibilities.
Discussions will be either multilateral or bilateral between the UK Government and the devolved administrations. It will be the aim of all parties to agree where there is a need for common frameworks and the content of them.
The outcomes from these discussions on common frameworks will be without prejudice to the UK’s negotiations and future relationship with the EU.”
It seems to me that the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations are moving positively towards agreement on where those competences should lie, but I stress that the process should be pursued as expeditiously as possible. I have a huge amount of sympathy for those on both sides of the House who have indicated that there is currently a degree of uncertainty. The best way of resolving that uncertainty is by working quickly and co-operatively with the devolved Administrations.
I therefore believe clause 11 should be supported by the House. I endorse once again what Nigel Smith, a practical devolutionist, has to say about the matter. I also believe those who are promoting the various amendments, most of which appear to be aimed at ensuring the powers that are repatriated pass straight to the devolved Administrations, should think again. Without a coherent agreement beforehand, there could be chaos in this country, which is frankly the last thing we want.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) made some important points about the wider issue of devolution. We need to revisit the various institutions that operate the devolution settlements in this country. It is fairly clear that the JMC process is not working. It has been honoured by Governments of all stripes more in the breach than in the observance. Indeed, I believe that during the last Labour Government several years passed without a meeting of the JMC. This cannot be right. It is important that the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations should have regular dialogue, one with another. I am not persuaded that that needs to be put on a statutory basis, but it needs to be something more than a chore for the various Administrations. It is important that a dialogue be constantly maintained. We are moving into a new era in this country, a post-Brexit one, and it is important that there should be that constant dialogue and that all Administrations within the UK understand that they all have a duty, one to another, to work positively to ensure the prosperity of this country and its citizens. At the moment, that is not happening and this needs to be revised and reviewed. I do not believe this Bill is the proper vehicle for such changes, but once this process is over we are going to need to look at those institutions again carefully. We need to move into that new era.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Temporary Chair (Sir David Amess)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the Committee that the debate finishes at 18 minutes past midnight. Many Members are waiting to speak and I want to give the Minister plenty of time to respond to the debate. So unless colleagues keep the speeches to about 10 minutes, there will be any number of disappointed Members.
Joanna Cherry
I rise to support the amendments standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), and those that have been drafted by the Scottish and Welsh Governments, which have cross-party support from the SNP, the Labour party, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats.
I want to dispel a myth emanating from Conservative Members before I look at clause 11 in any detail: the idea that there is some sort of division between the position of my Scottish Government colleagues and the SNP. I can assure those Members that that is not the case and we regularly meet the Scottish Government Brexit Minister, Mike Russell. Let me tell Conservative Members what Mr Russell told a number of Sunday newspapers yesterday. He said that these cross-party devolution amendments are “non-negotiable” and that, if the UK Government want the SNP to recommend support for the Bill in the Scottish Parliament, they must be passed. He continued:
“I don’t want to leave anybody in any doubt, if the Bill cannot be amended—”
as per these amendments—
“there cannot be a legislative consent motion, there cannot be the progress that the government wants.”
So let there be no doubt of the SNP position on this, which is the position of the Scottish Government and of the Welsh Government, and which has the support of the Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru and the Labour party in this Chamber.
It is important to focus on clause 11. We have heard a lot of general rhetoric today, but what we are actually looking at is that clause. I am not going to use my own analysis of it. I am going to use the analysis of much more eminent lawyers than myself. Let me start by briefly declaring an interest, as I am going to quote the views of the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland on the Bill and I am a member of the faculty, although I am no longer practising. It has pointed out that 111 areas were listed as potentially requiring a common policy framework and that the list is too long, its content is too broadly drawn and some of the 111 areas were so imprecise
“as to be incapable of meaningful understanding”.
It said that the proposed approach of this Government to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
“threatens to encroach on matters that are already devolved and legislated on by Holyrood under the current settlement.”
That is the view of the Scottish Bar, of which I am a member; I wish I could say they were all members of the SNP, but they are not, as they comprise people from all political persuasions and none.
The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) referred to the evidence given to the Brexit Select Committee by Laura Dunlop, QC, who is the faculty’s spokesperson and head of its law reform committee. The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law has convened a group of experts to look at the Bill, under the chairmanship of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who was in his place earlier. It, too, has been extremely critical of clause 11:
“In a constitution where legislative power is divided between the national parliament and devolved parliaments, uncertainty about the division of legislative power undermines foreseeability and predictability about the overall legal framework and is therefore inimical to the Rule of Law.
Clause 11 of the Bill is such a law: it re-defines the scope of devolved legislative competence after Brexit.”
Those are the words of a group of expert lawyers convened by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law. It is not an SNP partisan view, but the view of a cross-party group of lawyers.
Pete Wishart
My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. The Scottish Affairs Committee has not heard one dissenting voice to the fact that clause 11 is thoroughly bad for devolution. It is not just all the constitutionalists and all the legal experts who agree with that; the Conservatives agree with it too. They do not believe that clause 11 is fit for purpose. What can she do to encourage them to join us this evening to ensure that we make progress and change the clause significantly?
Joanna Cherry
I am encouraging those Conservatives to listen to the experts who have given evidence to the various House of Commons Committees,whether orally or in writing. I have mentioned several of them. May I mention what Dr Jo Hunt, from the University of Cardiff, said to the Exiting the European Union Committee? She said:
“This should be a profound constitutional moment, where the nature of the UK is properly addressed, and a debate and discussion is had about what the United Kingdom is for and what the roles of the various parties in the United Kingdom are. We have had any number of Select Committee reports from the Commons and the House of Lords dealing with interinstitutional relations, intergovernmental relations, and devolution”.
Now is the moment, when we are allegedly taking back control, to look carefully at how we distribute those powers within the nations of the United Kingdom. We should not simply bring them back in one box from Brussels, rest them at London and leave it to London to decide when and if Edinburgh and Cardiff ever get sight of that power.
There is a terrible irony here. Many Brexiteers went on at great length about how Brussels imposes its will on the United Kingdom, but that is actually a fundamental misunderstanding of how the European Union works. As has been explained, it works by a number of sovereign nations pooling their sovereignty and participating in a process of decisions. If anyone on the Conservative Benches really is a Brexiteer who believes in taking back control and does not like the way, in their opinion, Brussels has imposed on the UK, surely that should make them even more motivated to ensure that the centre—Westminster—does not impose on the constituent nations of the UK.
Luke Graham
We have all raised concerns about clause 11, and we are trying to constructively address them. The hon. and learned Lady makes her position about devolution clear, but she also talks about a chance to refresh the whole constitutional settlement for the United Kingdom. Will she work constructively with Members on the Government Benches to address issues such as air quality, which is devolved? It would be better if we had a joined-up UK approach and if that were reserved with climate issues and other such issues, so that we look effectively to get the best outcome for our constituents and not just go on to political dogma.
Joanna Cherry
The Scottish National party has always worked constructively with all parties to ensure that the principle of subsidiarity is respected within these islands. However, what we are not in the business of doing is simply lying supine while all these powers are brought back from Brussels and left here at Westminster, with absolutely no time limit—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) may not like it, but this is the weight of the evidence that we have heard about the effect of clause 11. It is not my view; it is the view of many others.
Several hon. Members rose—
Joanna Cherry
I will continue my point.
We are told that it is imperative for everything to be imposed on Scotland, Wales and indeed Northern Ireland from the top down, because we have a UK single market.
Joanna Cherry
No, we have heard a lot from the hon. Gentleman. I only have a little time left, and I want to develop my point about the single market, because it is very important. I am indebted to the Scottish blogger and writer Paul Kavanagh—better known on these Benches as the Wee Ginger Dug—for my thoughts on this matter. He has pointed out that there is no such thing as a UK single market. At the moment, the United Kingdom is a unitary state, and what exists in the UK is the internal market of a unitary state. A single market refers to the situation where there are several distinct and discrete national entities coming together from the bottom up in a mutually agreed and negotiated regulatory framework. That is what the EU is at present. It is not what we have in the United Kingdom at present. Indeed, after Brexit, if this Bill goes through unamended, the unitary state of the United Kingdom will be even more centralised than it is at present.
At the moment, the EU states decide collectively what regulations they want to govern the EU single market. On the basis of the Bill as currently drafted, what will happen is that Ministers of the Crown—by the way, that does not include Scottish Ministers; the definition just talks about Cabinet Ministers—will decide on these frameworks, and they will be imposed on us.
I am conscious of what you said, Sir David, so I will bring my remarks to a close, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
On the definition of what constitutes a single market and a unitary market, my interpretation is that any marketplace’s singularity is simply defined by the friction in the trade and the commerce carried out within it. By definition, it is not really something that we can simply sign up to or leave. It is about the extent to which there is a commonality of regulatory and trading arrangements, and cultural and institutional relationships. Therefore, this definition does not really hold water in that respect.
Joanna Cherry
The distinction I am drawing is between a single market and a unitary market. I am saying that the European Union is a single market because it is a collection of sovereign states that come together and participate in making common regulations. The United Kingdom, as framed by this withdrawal Bill, will not be such a single market. It will be a unitary market where the regulations and the frameworks are imposed from the top down. That is the distinction that I seek to make.
Joanna Cherry
As I said, I am drawing my comments to a close.
I want to address one of the many points we have heard from the Government Benches. I think it was the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) who said that he is upset and disappointed that the issue of independence is still on the table. Well, I will tell him why it is still on the table; today gives us a good example. The majority of people at the last Scottish election voted for Members of the Scottish Parliament who want another independence referendum—it is called democracy —and the Scottish Parliament itself has voted that there should be another independence referendum if it is necessary because of the Brexit process. But the reason why so many of us in Scotland are interested in the notion of independence really arises from the current crisis in which the United Kingdom finds itself. I will finish by quoting the First Minister of Scotland, who today said:
“Right now, Ireland is powerfully demonstrating the importance of being independent when it comes to defending your vital national interests.”
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
This debate concerns all constituent countries of the United Kingdom, but I will reserve my remarks to Scotland as I represent West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine.
As a Member of Parliament of the 2017 vintage, which is a very fine vintage, I am finding—along with everyone else, I am sure—that one of the most common questions asked of me on the doorsteps and in constituency surgeries is, “How did you vote in the referendum on membership of the European Union?” On such occasions, I deploy one of two answers. I either say, “I’m terribly sorry that I did vote to remain, but I promise you that the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union, and we will make a success of it”, or I answer, “Yes, I know. Like you, I voted to remain, so I’m sorry, but the fact is that we are leaving the European Union. And, you know what? I think we will make a success of it.” That is very easy. Being a Scottish Member of Parliament, another regular inquiry is whether I believe that powers returned from Brussels should be directly transferred to Holyrood. It is not a simple question. [Interruption.] No, it is not, and it requires more than a simple answer. Unfortunately, that is hard to get across on the doorstep, or even in this Chamber.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Let me make it simple for the hon. Gentleman. The founding principle of the devolution settlement is that things that are not reserved are automatically devolved. Is it or is it not his belief that clause 11 fundamentally undermines that principle?
Andrew Bowie
Like my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton), I believe that changes will have to be made to clause 11 as it stands, but that we cannot support the amendments tabled by the SNP as they would fatally undermine the United Kingdom and the common market that we all share.
Let us look at the facts of the devolution settlements. The current devolution settlements reflect the UK’s membership of the European Union. They provide that devolved institutions cannot act or legislate incompatibly with EU law. This has meant that, while we have been within the EU, we have had overarching laws and frameworks across the UK, which has meant that businesses in the UK can trade with one another knowing that they share agreed standards and that we have agreed approaches on how to manage our shared resources. Ultimately, it has meant that Britain can enter into international agreements knowing that our whole country can meet our obligations. That is vital. It is complex and hard to explain to people when we are out knocking on doors, but it is vital that we try. The future of our internal market, which exists, and of our United Kingdom depends on our making a success of Brexit, and that means making a success of devolution and the settlement for our nations and regions.
Ian Murray
The hon. Gentleman is talking a lot about being on the doorsteps in his constituency. When his constituents ask him whether he thinks clause 11 is deficient and whether he would like it fixed, does he explain how it is deficient and how he would like it fixed?
Andrew Bowie
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I have to admit I have never been asked specifically on the doorstep how I think clause 11 is deficient, but when I am I will explain the issue to people, and if the hon. Gentleman holds on, I will get to that in my speech.
Let us be clear: this is not a power grab. It is part of a process through which we must work to achieve the best possible settlement to ensure continuity for business, the integrity of our internal market, and the future success of our United Kingdom. We must, and we will, make a success of this process.
Pete Wishart
Is the hon. Gentleman actually saying that if, for whatever reason, clause 11 was not passed or was significantly amended, what he refers to as the UK’s single market would be done away with?
Andrew Bowie
I am not sure I actually understand the premise of the question. I will give way again if the hon. Gentleman would like to explain.
Pete Wishart
It is quite straightforward. The hon. Gentleman is alleging and suggesting that, for some reason, if clause 11 were significantly amended, his internal market would be at risk. Does he actually believe for one minute that, if clause 11 were rejected, his internal market would absolutely disappear?
Andrew Bowie
I am arguing that, if we agreed to the provisions set down by the Scottish National party and the other Opposition parties, it would be fatally undermined and at risk.
Just to prove my point, we all know that making a success of Brexit and protecting and strengthening our internal market are not in the interests of the Scottish National party, whose raison d’être remains the destruction of our United Kingdom. Conservative Members are committed to making these things work and to making a success of this exciting new chapter in our island’s story for business and for peoples from Inverbervie to Ipswich, and from Banchory to Bognor.
That is why the UK Government are working tirelessly with the devolved Administrations in Cardiff and Edinburgh, and with the various parties in Northern Ireland, to make sure that when we leave the European Union in 2019, the laws that protect the integrity of our market, and the common frameworks that ensure parity and access across Britain, remain the same as they are today. That will involve compromise, but surely even the greatest hardliner would agree that it makes no sense for each of the four nations of our United Kingdom to have different rules and regulations or different regulatory bodies for packaging, animal welfare or aircraft noise, for example.
If we get this right, little will change for most people and most businesses. For the fisherman, it will still be Marine Scotland responsible for implementing rules and regulations on the quayside. For the farmer, it will still be the Scottish Government making a mess of their support payments. But instead of Brussels being responsible for overarching frameworks or new laws, or for negotiating trade deals, fishing quotas and common agricultural payments, it will be the sovereign United Kingdom Parliament in London, which is directly responsible and accountable to the British people.
Andrew Bowie
I will not give way, I am afraid, given that I have to wrap up soon.
As things stand today, it is a fact that, thanks to the actions of this Government, the Scottish Parliament is now one of the most powerful devolved legislative Assemblies in the world, with powers over—[Interruption.] It has powers over justice, education, health, transport, the environment and, now, taxation and elements of social security. The jury is still out on whether that is a good thing, but that may be to do with the parties that have been in charge of those regulations, rather than the powers themselves.
Far from Lord Robertson’s claim that devolution would kill nationalism stone dead, we are about to enter our 11th year of nationalist Government in Scotland, so I remain worried for our Union. For me and the people of the north-east of Scotland, which I have the huge privilege to represent, I am afraid that, far from the renewing or revitalising experience promised by the architects of devolution in 1999, the reality of devolution has been cuts, tax rises, a failing education system and the perception of a central-belt bias in all decision making.
However, just because devolution in its current form has not worked for my constituency or my constituents, that does not mean that it cannot. The point is that, as we today debate new powers that might be going to the Scottish Parliament, it is high time that the current Administration in Holyrood looked at their record in managing the powers they already have and the effect that has wrought on the north-east.
This afternoon and this evening, we have heard a lot from the SNP about power grabs, a betrayal of the Scottish people, Scotland being dragged out of the EU against its will and how we are undermining the devolution settlements, when, of course, nothing could be further from the truth. We all know that concessions are going to be made on both sides of the Committee on this argument. We all know that the Scottish Parliament will have sweeping powers under common UK frameworks on a whole raft of areas.
I will support clause 11, and I will vote against the Opposition provisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire said earlier, amendments to clause 11 will be required: we do require a legislative consent motion if we want the other place to pass the Bill. I think that all sides appreciate that. That is why we expect movement on the issue this month at the JMC. However, this is a process. The Opposition amendments would undermine our United Kingdom and threaten our common market. That is why I cannot support them.
Neil Gray
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in one of the most important constitutional debates impacting on Scotland since the re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament. The whole basis and foundation of how Scotland is governed is being discussed today. We should not underestimate how important that is; we cannot allow today to be politicked away or the issues to be kicked down the road. We must consider what is before us carefully and in a non-partisan way. Cross-party working has already started in the tabling of amendments, which have been drafted jointly by the Labour Welsh Government and the Scottish National party Government.
Anyone who understands politics in Scotland will appreciate that Labour and the SNP do not often agree on constitutional issues; that is not a flippant point, but a serious one, on which Ministers might reflect. I fully support amendments 72, 164, 165 and 183 to 188, in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) and the hon. Members for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). They all aim to protect the devolved settlements of both Wales and Scotland. Indeed, just about every speaker this evening has expressed great concern about clause 11 as it stands, perhaps with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) —even the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) highlighted that clause 11 impinges on the devolved settlements. That is where my concern lies with the so-called UK frameworks.
I understand that it would be sensible in some areas for there to be agreed principles across these isles—I think that of a future independent Scotland’s relationship with the rest of the UK, so why would I not think it now?—but for intra-national frameworks to be strong, effective and deliverable, they need to be agreed on the basis of mutual partnership, without a dominant and dictatorial director.
Neil Gray
To be fair, the hon. Gentleman has had a good say this evening.
I am not the only one concerned about the direction of travel that the UK Government appear to think we are taking. NFU Scotland has, as I am sure Ministers will be aware, a series of red lines regarding Brexit, many of which are pertinent to today’s debate. I will pick a few out: it wants a replacement for the common agricultural policy that will support the industry in the medium to long term; agriculture must continue to receive the same level and proportion of funding as it does now in the post-2022 landscape; and crucially for tonight, although the Treasury should finance the new policy on a UK-wide funding basis, NFU Scotland says that
“Any approach that adopts a ‘Defra-centric’, one-size-fits-all policy on to the devolved nations would not be acceptable.”
That is why it is crucial that powers in devolved areas are returned to the devolved nations, not held centrally. To do anything other than devolve and then seek to agree a framework agreement in devolved areas would undermine devolution. It would set a dangerous precedent if the UK Government set the terms of devolved policy and then left it to the devolved nations to fill in at the margins. That point was reiterated by Professor Michael Keating when he said the Tory plan would create a “hierarchical model of devolution” where
“the broad principles are set in London and the details filled in across the nations.”
That is not devolution, but executive management. It is anti-devolution, and would rip up the terms and principles of the Scotland Act 1998.
Brexit already poses potentially huge challenges for Scotland economically and constitutionally. Keeping the Bill as it stands in this area would not just be a hard Brexit—it would be a constitutionally regressive Brexit. At this stage, it is worth returning to NFU Scotland’s Brexit priorities: that Scottish and UK agricultural and food products must have frictionless access to existing and new export markets, and that the domestic market must not be exposed to cheaper imports that lack Scotland’s exemplary animal welfare and environmental standards. Continued access to a skilled and competent workforce, within both the farming and food processing sectors, must be secured as a priority. Continued, targeted farm support will be vital, not least through an unknown transition period. This support must be refocused on action-based measures to bring about improved productivity across sectors while delivering environmental benefits and safeguarding and enhancing product standards—the bedrock of a thriving farming, food and drink sector for the post-Brexit era.
I am not closed to the idea that there may be opportunities from Brexit should the UK Government listen and act in a way that is inclusive and bipartisan, but that has not happened to date, no matter what Ministers try to say. The Scottish Government’s compromise proposals have been dismissed and ignored, and that is why we are at today’s crucial juncture. [Interruption.] Conservative Members, some of whom represent farming constituencies, ought to listen to this. NFU Scotland shares the Scottish Government’s desire for continued membership of both the single market and the customs union. Perhaps now the UK Government will realise that they need to allow for tailored arrangements to allow varying national priorities across these isles to be reflected.
How topical it is that we should be discussing aspects of devolution relating to Brexit as we learn, this very day, of what the UK Government appear to be willing to concede in their negotiations with the EU regarding Northern Ireland. In essence, they are conceding that the compromise plan that was presented by the Scottish Government last year for a bespoke deal for Scotland in retaining single market and customs union membership—a plan dismissed as impossible—was on the table earlier for Northern Ireland and has now been discussed. There will be no hard border on the island of Ireland, in summation. It appears that the DUP has put the brakes on that—the irony is there for all to see. What a precedent that sets.
It is time that the UK Government acknowledged that Scotland, as well as Northern Ireland, has the right to expect a bespoke Brexit deal, and that there is nothing precluding a deal that protects Scotland’s interests, as we have been arguing all along. Clearly, for Scotland, that means the ability, for example, to have a different immigration system, and continued membership of the single market and the customs union. Sadly, though, that does not appear to be the path the UK Government are willing to follow, regardless of the consequences either for Scotland or for the future of the United Kingdom. Why not? I fully understand why Northern Ireland needs a bespoke deal. I have no issues with the UK Government pursuing that—in fact, I congratulate them on it—but why do Scotland’s needs matter less? To deny Scotland the same opportunity as Northern Ireland is being afforded would be ridiculous and indefensible. To take back powers from the EU that are clearly devolved competencies and have them sitting here at Westminster for some future divvying-up shows a lack of political or critical thinking, shows a lack of trust or respect towards the devolved nations, and is—quite frankly—lazy. To refuse to look at fresh areas of devolution like employment law to help Scotland deal with Brexit in the most flexible way is equally untrusting, disrespectful, and lazy.
The UK Government must understand the concerns that are being raised. They must not want to rip apart and fundamentally undermine the devolved settlement. Surely they must be willing to engage and accept amendments so as to make Brexit, if not politically palatable, at least reasonable for the devolved nations. I hope that all Members representing Scottish constituencies will support the amendments to be voted on later tonight.
Stephen Kerr
I will—[Interruption.] Yes, I am going to speak. I know that SNP Members will be very pleased about that. I will keep my remarks short because a number of people want to speak, but I want to respond to the idea that has been traded pretty commonly in the past couple of speeches about the imposition of a devolution settlement vis-à-vis the frameworks. The Scottish Affairs Committee report quotes the Secretary of State for Scotland, who said:
“A UK framework is not a framework that the UK Government imposes; it is a framework that is agreed across the United Kingdom.”
I believe that that is a definitive expression of the Government’s policy in relation to the nature of frameworks and how they will be achieved.
Every time we have a debate in this House in which devolved powers and Brexit are mentioned, the Scottish nationalists go crazy—[Interruption.] Yes, berserk; that is a good word. A number of contributors, including the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), have spoken positively about how we can work together to create common ground and lift the issue from the trenches of political warfare in which, too often, the SNP wish to put it.
Ian Murray
The hon. Gentleman is one of the 12 new Scottish Conservative MPs. Many of his colleagues have already said that clause 11 is deficient, and they would like it to be amended. Will he tell us whether he thinks it is deficient, and how he would like it amended?
Stephen Kerr
I will come on to that point, if the hon. Gentleman will let me make some progress through my speech.
I remind the Committee that despite what we heard to the contrary, the Conservative Government delivered additional powers to the Scottish Parliament in 2015 and 2016 in fulfilment of their vow, making it the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world. That was a Conservative promise made and kept. The SNP wants to create a crisis, and I hope that we in the Conservatives will continue to be reasonable in our approach to the issue.
Andrew Bowie
Does my hon. Friend agree that SNP Members have absolutely no interest in our making a success of Brexit, because their only aim is to break up our United Kingdom?
Stephen Kerr
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I was about to say that the SNP is like a collection of 35 carbon copies of the famous Rikki Fulton creation, the Rev. I. M. Jolly. SNP Members sit there on the Benches, depressing the nation and bringing their grim worldview to the people of Scotland. Being so cheerful keeps them going. They talk themselves and Scotland down, and they imply that our Scottish entrepreneurs, our businesses and our communities will be unable to cope with any change and unable to take advantage of the opportunities that the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts mentioned and that will undoubtedly arise as we leave the European Union.
Stephen Kerr
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing the Fraser of Allander Institute to the attention of the Committee, because the institute also points out that the perpetual threat of a second independence referendum is having a dragging effect on the Scottish economy.
Mr Sweeney
The hon. Gentleman referred earlier to the Scottish Parliament being the most powerful Parliament in the world, and I am aware that he opposed its initial creation but now recognises its benefits. The creation of the Scottish Parliament has resulted in regulatory divergence between parts of the United Kingdom. Does that fact not undermine the whole logical position of the Tories’ argument against our amendments? Surely, it has already been established that divergence exists but there is still a viable single market in the UK.
Stephen Kerr
In my opinion, divergence brought about by devolution enriches the fabric of the Union, but the divergence we are talking about could, in a very real sense, undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom’s common market.
I have had emails from constituents that regularly begin with the words: “I believe that Brexit should strengthen devolution for Scotland, not weaken it.” Many other Members will have had similar emails. I want my constituents to know that that is exactly my position. I want a Brexit that strengthens the democracy of our country and strengthens the devolution settlement for Scotland. I ask Ministers, in the summing up at some point tonight, to make it clear again that the Bill guarantees the existing devolution settlement and the existing powers of the Scottish Parliament and promises that there will be more powers to come.
In regard to the tone and manner in which this issue is discussed and debated, I wish to pay tribute—SNP Members will not be surprised to hear me say this—to Ruth Davidson, Professor Adam Tomkins and others, who have worked as honest brokers in this process, by working with the Scottish and UK Governments to bring them together to build consensus. I believe consensus is vital for the new constitutional settlement we need to reach.
I welcome the recent change of tone from the Scottish Government, especially from the First Minister. When she came out of Downing Street on her last visit to London, I thought she had some very positive things to say. As a Scot, I welcome that: I welcome the fact that the First Minister of my country is willing to be a positive contributor, rather than a simply a detractor.
I want take this opportunity to express my full confidence in the approach and style of the First Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Scotland, who are leading the UK Government in the very important talks with the Scottish Government. I have great confidence that there will come out of the discussions an agreement that will be sustainable because it will be built on consensus. Consensus is not gained by shouting matches or feigned indignation—we see quite a lot of feigned indignation in this place—and all I would say is thank goodness the SNP leadership in Edinburgh has more maturity than some of the MPs it sends to London. I remain hopeful, and I am optimistic.
Stephen Kerr
I was just about to deal with the hon. Gentleman’s previous intervention, but I will sit down.
Ian Murray
I was about to ask the hon. Gentleman when he was going to talk about the deficiencies in clause 11 and what he would do to sort them out.
Stephen Kerr
I will say this much: it is not that I do not understand people’s concerns about clause 11, because I share some of those concerns. As the intergovernmental discussions progress and the Bill returns to this House, as it will, before it goes to the other place, it is very much my hope that there will be some greater detail in clause 11 to help all hon. Members to have a degree of confidence in its intent.
We are talking about trust, or the lack of trust, and that issue is keeping us from working out a satisfactory agreement. Steps must be taken to underpin the trust that needs to exist on both sides—the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. The UK Government will have to demonstrate trustworthiness in the way that the Bill is amended, as it must be, and the Scottish Government will have to show trustworthiness by committing themselves to the outcome of these talks to the extent that they will publicly state their support for the passage of a legislative consent motion in the Scottish Parliament. To me, that is what trust looks like.
Deidre Brock
If the UK Government genuinely wish to show willing towards the Scottish Government and their concerns about the Bill and clause 11 specifically, does the hon. Gentleman not think that powers should be devolved directly to the devolved Administrations first and then that frameworks should be agreed? One wonders what the UK Government are actually afraid of. The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) spoke about powers being devolved when the UK Government think it is safe to do so. Why is there such concern about not sending those powers to the Scottish Government?
Stephen Kerr
There are, as we have discussed, either 109 or 111 powers. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee report lists 111. There is an issue of trust that we need to address to underpin any eventual agreement. The point is that the Bill will need to be amended. Those amendments will need to reflect where the powers will eventually rest, and whether they will go straight to the devolved Administrations on the day we leave the European Union, or if some will be subject to mutual agreements—memorandums of understanding—that will create the frameworks to support the functioning of the UK’s internal market. I hope very much that the Government will bring forward some detail to add light with regard to those issues.
Ian Murray
Like many of his colleagues, the hon. Gentleman is therefore admitting that clause 11 is deficient. He is almost but not quite telling us how he might fix it, but even so he is going to vote in favour of it this evening.
Stephen Kerr
Yes, and that is no surprise, because I sit on the Conservative side—the Government side—of the House of Commons. I believe and trust in the Government. I believe that Ministers will deliver on a settlement. I do not know why that is such a surprise to Opposition Members.
Jenny Chapman
The hon. Gentleman has told his Front-Bench colleagues that he will vote with the Government this evening but, should the Bill return unamended in this House, what would be his inclination on Third Reading?
Stephen Kerr
In common with other colleagues who have spoken today, I expect there to be amendments, and when those amendments come to the House in due course, it will be because everyone involved in this process, including the UK Government and the devolved Administrations—the Scottish Government are my immediate interest—will have put on an adult head because there is so much at stake for our country. I happen to think that one of the most positive contributing factors to the change of climate has been the Scottish Affairs Committee’s excellent report, which is a step in the right direction.
Ian Murray
On a point of order, Sir David. I am slightly confused about the process in this Chamber. The hon. Gentleman is making a fine speech, but he keeps talking about amendments that will result in him supporting the Bill. Have you been notified of the Government tabling any amendments to clause 11?
The Temporary Chair (Sir David Amess)
That is not a point of order; it is a point of frustration.
Stephen Kerr
Let me press on, because I did say that I would be brief, and I am in danger of not keeping that promise.
I insist on the Government doing what has to be done to ensure that there is no disruption to the UK home market. I want to be clear that when I say the UK, I mean Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I do not want a Brexit that weakens the United Kingdom politically or economically. I am a Unionist. I do not want to see the creation of needless barriers that hinder the frictionless function of Scotland’s most important marketplace, namely the rest of the United Kingdom. The process should avoid any unwarranted points of difference that make it more difficult to trade throughout the UK, because that would inevitably affect business, which would inevitably affect jobs.
Common standards will be needed for the common market within the UK, and those standards will need to be set democratically and transparently. Businesses are looking for leadership on these matters as much as they are looking for harmony throughout the UK single market. It is time to step up to the plate in that respect. Frameworks for the operation of the UK single market must be set at a UK level on the basis of agreement across the United Kingdom, including with the devolved Administrations, and it is up to us as politicians to rise to that challenge.
I am not calling for a whole raft of complex arrangements, because I do not think that would help anything, but we do need some jointly agreed common frameworks. I acknowledge and welcome the Scottish Government’s positive approach towards that end. I believe that the two Select Committee reports that were published in the last couple of weeks have been hugely helpful to the aim of bringing about the co-operation and partnering needed between Scotland’s two Governments.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
Thank you, Dame Rosie. I shall attempt to keep my remarks within the time limit handed down by the Chair, at least 20 minutes ago.
As a member of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, I have been in the privileged position of being able to talk, both formally and informally, with constitutional and political experts about many things, including clause 11. As part of the process of formulating our latest report, the Committee’s Chair, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), and I travelled to Edinburgh and took evidence from panels of experts over two days. It was an enlightening and informative experience.
Under clause 11, a potential 111 powers that could be devolved to Scotland will be held at Westminster until such time as the UK Parliament sees fit to devolve them. The UK Government’s stance is, “Trust us; we’ll do the right thing.” And trust them we have over the years: we trusted them to deliver the Calman report but they did not; we trusted them to deliver on the Smith commission but they did not; we looked to the Sewel convention and we saw right through it; and we listened to, and were influenced by, a vow that was not a vow.
In September 2014, the then Prime Minster David Cameron told us that we were a “family of nations”. We were told that Scotland could lead, not that the Government would attempt to put a lead on Scotland, but every amendment requested by SNP MPs, who were democratically elected to represent the citizens of Scotland, was voted down. When we voted to stay in the EU, our views were ignored. When we asked to sit at the table during the negotiations, we were snubbed. I can assure the Minister that the words “the cheque is in the post” and the promise that you will respect me in the morning will not work any more.
I am well aware of the cold, hard fact that the UK Government do not have to do anything, but Scotland is not a faithful hunting dog standing at its master’s heel, waiting on its orders. Scotland in the Union is a concept rooted in the past. The ties that bind us come from, in part, a shared history—a history of conflict and conquest—but the sun set on the empire a long time ago. It might come as a surprise to some, but 59 colonies have walked away from the empire and, as a new dawn rises, so does Scotland. We want a different future from the one set out for us, but Scotland cannot choose its own future when we have to seek permission to do so.
Clause 11 does not set out a timetable for transition. Professors Richard Rawlings and Alan Page have both raised concerns that clause 11 is described as a transition agreement, but that there is no provision for that in the Bill. Despite that, we are currently designing our Scotland. Civic Scotland, combined with academia and business, is already coming together to design the country we want to live in. Discussions in think-tanks and at public meetings about the Scotland we want to be are common occurrences. There is a growing awareness that Scotland, with the right powers, can reform our energy business, banking sector, and agriculture and fishing industries.
We could even negotiate our own trade deals, like Norway, Iceland and the Faroe Islands do. The Faroe Islands negotiate their own trade deals because the Danish Government respect and trust them. We could each define our own future and still be trading partners and valued neighbours, while continuing to help and support each other, but only if that is achieved through mutual respect for each other’s sovereignty. And there is the rub: clause 11 shows no respect or trust for Scotland or any of the devolved authorities.
Dr Tobias Lock, a senior lecturer at Edinburgh Law School, has said:
“The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill will result in a shift in balance between the powers Westminster has in practice and the powers Holyrood has in practice with Westminster’s powers being augmented and Holyrood's staying the same.”
That concern is shared by Professor Nicola McEwen, professor of territorial politics at the University of Edinburgh. She identifies that clause 11 is fundamentally a problem of trust. The UK Government do not trust the devolved Governments to refrain from using repatriated powers to create policy and regulatory divergence that might harm the UK’s internal market and create problems in trade negotiations. This, she argues, overlooks the considerable constitutional authority that the UK Parliament already retains over market regulation, trade, and the making and implementation of international treaties. For their part, the Scottish and Welsh Governments do not trust the commitment of the UK Government to devolve repatriated powers after Brexit and/or to agree and govern UK common frameworks on a genuinely co-operative basis. Once the existing imbalance has been augmented, when will it be realigned?
Scotland, if given the right powers, could negotiate with the European economic area and European Free Trade Association to seek what is best for Scotland but not detrimental to the rest of the UK. However, we are hamstrung by a UK Government who are scared of their own shadow, constantly looking over their shoulder and wondering from where the next challenge or crisis will emerge. We have a UK Government propped up by bluster and buffoonery.
Individuals may be protected by personal wealth that generates self-confidence and self-assurance, and supports a “devil may care” attitude—one that nudges us forward, assuring us that it will be all right on the night—but the vast majority of people in the UK are less well protected from the economic turmoil that lies ahead. They have concerns about jobs, pensions and visas. They have rightly turned to the UK Government time and again for reassurance, but their concerns are not being addressed. All that has been offered is a sickly mix of jingoistic imperialism. The Scottish Government wish to bring clarity and seek the powers to govern responsibly, but clause 11 does not provide that authority or opportunity. It must be amended forthwith, and the powers due to the Scottish Parliament—powers that will be best used by the Scottish Government, in the best interests of the citizens of Scotland—must be repatriated to the Scottish Parliament immediately after the UK leaves the European Union.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)
I rise to support clause 11 and schedule 3. Let me say at the outset how grateful I am to all Members for their contributions to the six-hour debate that we have had so far today, and for the thoughtful consideration that has been given to this part of the Bill. I assure the Committee that I shall listen carefully to, and take very seriously, all the views that are expressed on these issues.
The Government have been clear about the fact that the Bill is about continuity, certainty and control. That applies equally, and without exception, to people in businesses in all parts of the United Kingdom. Clause 11 is about delivering certainty while guaranteeing all the existing powers of the devolved institutions. The current devolution settlements reflect the UK’s membership of the EU, and on that basis, they provide that devolved institutions cannot act or legislate in a way that is incompatible with EU law.
Ian Murray
I apologise to the Minister for interrupting him so early in his speech. Many members of his own party have said that clause 11 is deficient and requires amendment. Does he believe that, and, if so, how does he intend to amend it to make it less deficient?
Chris Skidmore
I will set out the Government’s position in due course during my speech. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman intervened within 30 seconds of the beginning of my speech, and he is not accepting the answer that I have barely been able to give. I hope he will appreciate that I have a speech about the amendments to get through. When it comes to the clause itself, however, we are interested in the views of all Members and all devolved Administrations, and, above all, we are seeking a legislative consent motion. We are determined to approach the clause with a view to consensus.
As I was saying, the current devolution settlements provide that devolved institutions cannot act or legislate in a way that is incompatible with EU law. That has provided common, overarching laws and approaches throughout the UK while we have been in the EU. Those common approaches and laws have meant that businesses, regardless of where they are based in the United Kingdom, can trade with each other in the knowledge that they share agreed standards.
Stephen Doughty
The Minister is making an important point about businesses being able to trade. Given the amendments that we have been discussing and the importance of consultation with the devolved Administrations, will the Minister tell me whether the proposals that were put forward in Brussels today on the Northern Ireland-Irish border were discussed with the First Ministers of Wales, Scotland or, indeed, Northern Ireland?
Chris Skidmore
It is not for me to comment, during a Committee stage, on the process of European negotiations. There is a time and a place for that. I am not going to get into a discussion with the hon. Gentleman about the process of EU negotiations. We must ensure that the Prime Minister has the opportunity to reach out to Brussels, but I am here to discuss clause 11 and schedule 3 and the amendments, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue to do so.
I was talking about the common approaches that enable us to trade with each other in the knowledge that we share agreed standards. We have agreed approaches on how to manage our common resources, and the UK can enter into international agreements knowing that we, as a country, can meet our obligations. As we leave the EU, the simple question is about where we need to retain the common approaches in EU law and where we do not. In the immediate term, clause 11 and part 1 of schedule 3 create a mechanism for those common approaches to continue to apply throughout the UK after exit.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister speaks of common approaches across the EU. We have heard today about the possibility of an alignment between the Northern Irish arrangements and those of the Republic and the rest of the EU. How will we retain those common approaches if, for instance, the UK negotiates a new trade deal post-customs union, and we end up with circumstances in which that would, or would not, apply to Northern Ireland? How on earth can the Minister reconcile that with the offer that the Government have been talking about today?
Chris Skidmore
I note that the hon. Gentleman has just walked into the Chamber. He is welcome to make a speech later on setting out his own principles; I would listen to that very carefully. I am addressing clause 11 and schedule 3 to the Bill. There is a time and a place for the wider discussions he wants.
Deidre Brock
On the temporary nature of these proposals, why have the Government not chosen just to put in place a sunset clause? Why is no date indicated, because the lack of one creates an enormous amount of uncertainty for everyone?
Chris Skidmore
The issue around placing a sunset clause on this provision is that, in a way, it creates an artificial cliff edge. The sole purpose of clause 11 is to ensure that the UK statute book is complete on exit day. We want to ensure that we work towards common frameworks, and that we can ensure that, when we have that statute book prepared for exit day, we have common frameworks and non-common frameworks in place. Having a sunset clause creates an artificial cliff edge to work towards that date, whereas we might want to create some of those frameworks before that date, and there might need to be some corrections to the withdrawal agreement and the EU withdrawal agreement Bill that has been announced, and some deficiencies that need to be corrected. Having a sunset clause is therefore unhelpful for the purposes of this clause in itself.
Returning to the issue of the policy areas where EU law intersects with devolved competence, as I have said, common frameworks will not always be required, or can be achieved through non-legislative means like concordats, and in such cases clause 11 provides a mechanism to release decision-making powers from the temporary competence arrangement through the Order in Council procedure, giving new powers to the devolved Administrations.
Pete Wishart
I am listening carefully to the Minister’s speech, but I am not hearing much about addressing the concerns of the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies, which are clearly saying that what is being proposed drives a coach and horses through the devolution settlement. How on earth is the Minister going to take on board their real concerns about what this Bill does to devolution, not least through clause 11?
Chris Skidmore
I have listened for six hours to the concerns of Members, but outside this Chamber there is an entire process that I want to touch on later in my speech, and which I hope the hon. Gentleman will reflect upon. There might be hostility in this Chamber from those who say that the Government are somehow taking clause 11 and ripping up the devolution settlement, but that is hyperbole. Clause 11 is a temporary competence limit that is being applied simply by taking EU law and it becoming EU retained law.
Chris Skidmore
No, not at the moment.
There are no powers that the devolved Administrations currently have that they will be losing. We have therefore had tremendous engagement on the framework that we are delivering, and I will touch on that engagement shortly. In particular, in the JMC (EN) process there has been huge good will from the colleagues of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) in the Scottish Government, and his officials, above all, working tirelessly behind the scenes, trying to deliver on what we need to do.
Chris Elmore
The Minister uses the word “temporary”. How long is temporary, and why is that not specified in the Bill?
Chris Skidmore
The hon. Gentleman points to the word “temporary”, and I repeat that this is a temporary competence limit—[Interruption.] He wants to know how long temporary is. It is as long as it takes to ensure that we have a complete statute book that is in the interests of continuity, certainty and control for UK businesses. We want to ensure that we have time to be able to correct the statute book and ensure that this is done properly. To create an artificial time limit would be unhelpful to this process. As he knows, the First Minister of Wales is going forward with the JMC (EN) process. That engagement is taking place, and I will talk about that later in my speech. This means that when it comes to ensuring that we have the temporary competence limit on the face of the Bill, the Order in Council process gives new—
Chris Skidmore
No, I have given way a lot—[Interruption.] I am going to carry on with my speech; otherwise I will not get through it. Other Members want to speak, and although I could stand here and take up all the rest of the time, I think it would be inappropriate to do so.
The Order in Council procedure will provide an opportunity for those powers to be returned to the devolved Administrations. This highlights a well-established procedure for adapting the parameters of the devolved competence, which requires debate and approval in the UK Parliament and the relevant devolved legislatures. It is absolutely right that the devolved legislatures are able to debate and consider any additional areas of competence being released to them through this mechanism. Of course we acknowledge that the Scottish and Welsh Governments have taken a different view on the mechanism to provide the necessary certainty, but we are in agreement that common frameworks will be needed in some areas. In some cases, legislative frameworks might be required, and we hope to continue working closely with our counterparts in the devolved Administrations to establish exactly what those will look like.
Ian C. Lucas
I am puzzled. The Minister has made it clear that the Government’s intention is to maintain the current legislative situation, so far as the clause is concerned. Why then did he not seek agreement with the Welsh and Scottish Governments before he brought this legislation to the Chamber? Why did he not achieve a resolved position before coming to the Chamber with the Bill?
Chris Skidmore
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the clock is ticking, and that we have a limited amount of time in which to ensure that our statute book is prepared for exit day. We are determined to do that, because we need that certainty, control and stability. Businesses need to know that the statute book will be complete on exit day.
We have had a tremendous amount of engagement with our Welsh and Scottish partners, and I am perfectly happy to place in the Library records of the meetings between the First Secretary of State and his counterparts so that Members can see the level of engagement involved. I think that they would be quite struck by the number of meetings that have taken place and the work that has gone on behind the scenes. Members might be hostile in the Chamber today, but their Welsh and Scottish counterparts are working constructively with the UK Government because they recognise that we need some serious politics here and that we need to ensure that we have certainty and control for businesses.
Chris Skidmore
No, only once for each person. I will give way to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford).
Dr Whitford
Why will having a Brexit date give certainty and clarity, yet having a date on which the powers would move to the devolved Governments is considered unacceptable?
Chris Skidmore
We will be discussing the clause 10 powers to which the hon. Lady refers on a separate day—on the morning of day five. Clause 11 is about ensuring that the statute book is prepared for exit day. In a way, exit day provides that temporary limit. We know that we need to make changes to the common framework, but beyond that, we do not yet know what the negotiation period will look like when it comes to ensuring that we need an implementation period. That is why we cannot necessarily provide that certainty.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Skidmore
I will give way to the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) now.
Mike Gapes
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Clause 11(3) refers to the Northern Ireland Assembly. Is the position for Scotland and Wales the same in the Bill as it is for Northern Ireland, given that the Good Friday agreement is underpinned by an international treaty between two countries and that it explicitly mentions the European Union?
Chris Skidmore
We are moving on to some of the clause 10 issues around international obligations, but when it comes to schedule 3, which I had hoped to touch upon later in my speech, we are determined to ensure that we obtain legislative consent from all the relevant devolved Administrations. Although the Assembly is absent, we are already working with officials in Northern Ireland to ensure that their perspective is reflected, but we are determined to move forward as the United Kingdom, which includes Northern Ireland.
Martin Whitfield
Does the Minister envisage requesting the legislative consent motions before explaining what amendments the Government are going to make to the Bill?
Chris Skidmore
As I have stated, the Government’s intention is to seek legislative consent for the Bill from all the devolved Administrations, where possible. We have already seen legislative consent memorandums being tabled in Scotland and Wales, and we are determined to ensure that we work with all our devolved partners and with officials in Northern Ireland and that we legislate on behalf of the United Kingdom.
Chris Skidmore
I am going to carry on with my speech. The hon. Gentleman has already intervened and now he decides to—[Interruption.]
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. We cannot have sedentary interventions. If the Minister wants to give way, he will give way.
Chris Skidmore
We have been working closely with the devolved Administrations on these questions and will continue to do so, progressing the discussions and the necessary analysis of where common approaches are and are not needed, through ongoing bilateral and multilateral discussions between Ministers and officials.
In an excellent speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) highlighted the important progress that was made at the recent JMC (EN) meeting on 16 October, when the UK Government, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government agreed to a set of principles to identify where we will need frameworks. Given the myth busting that needs to take place around the JMC (EN) process and given how open and transparent it already is, it may be appropriate to quote from a communiqué regarding an agreement by all the devolved Governments and the First Secretary of State on the definition and principles of the common frameworks. It states:
“As the UK leaves the European Union, the Government of the United Kingdom and the devolved administrations agree to work together to establish common approaches in some areas that are currently governed by EU law, but that are otherwise within areas of competence of the devolved administrations or legislatures. A framework will set out a common UK, or GB, approach and how it will be operated and governed. This may consist of common goals, minimum or maximum standards, harmonisation, limits on action, or mutual recognition, depending on the policy area and the objectives being pursued. Frameworks may be implemented by legislation, by executive action, by memorandums of understanding, or by other means depending on the context in which the framework is intended to operate.”
The communiqué then goes on to set out some important principles for where common frameworks
“will be established where they are necessary in order to: enable the functioning of the UK internal market, while acknowledging policy divergence; ensure compliance with international obligations”.
Jenny Chapman
I may be able to save the Minister a job here. New clause 64 includes what he is reading out, word for word. Given that he supports the principles, is he not inclined to accept new clause 64?
Chris Skidmore
The hon. Lady did not touch on the communiqué and seemed to push it to one side without acknowledging the importance of the process. When the JMC (EN) process is taking place, her new clause is unnecessary. I will touch on why it is unnecessary to legislate when we have all this work ongoing to provide flexibility for the devolved Administrations to draw up a communiqué exactly like this one.
To carry on with what I was saying, common frameworks will
“enable the management of common resources; administer and provide access to justice in cases with a cross-border element; safeguard the security of the UK.”
The frameworks will also
“respect the devolution settlements and the democratic accountability of the devolved legislatures, and will therefore: be based on established conventions and practices, including that the competence of the devolved institutions will not normally be adjusted without their consent; maintain, as a minimum, equivalent flexibility for tailoring policies to the specific needs of each territory as is afforded by current EU rules; lead to a significant increase in decision-making powers for the devolved administrations.”
In the absence of Northern Ireland Executive Ministers, the Northern Ireland civil service will continue to be part of these discussions. We are building on the positive and constructive joint working between our Administrations to continue to accelerate our progress on common approaches. For example, there is ongoing work between officials from the devolved Administrations and the UK Government on how policy areas intersect with the devolution settlement. There have been several deep dives into those policy areas, and the work will be presented at the next JMC (EN) on 12 December, where we hope to make further progress by assessing more of the detailed work that has been carried out.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
How does the UK Government’s approach to working together with the devolved Administrations differ from their approach to working together with, say, Dublin and the other members of the EU27? Is one not a meeting of equals and the other a meeting of master and underling?
Chris Skidmore
The work on the common frameworks that clause 11 addresses points to the fact that we are keenly working with the devolved Administrations on drawing up those frameworks. We have an absolute commitment to ensuring that we can look at the principles that were agreed between our Governments on 16 October and that explicitly recognise that frameworks will not be needed in many of the areas currently governed by EU law.
As we have said from the outset, the Bill starts a process that will lead to a significant increase in decision-making powers. That is not a power grab. We are ensuring that more powers go back to the devolved Administrations and legislatures.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The Minister talks about the constructive relationship with the devolved Administrations. Has he taken time to look at what they have said about the shambles today?
Chris Skidmore
A bit of a wasted intervention. I am here to talk about clause 11. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read the clause, but he came in slightly late.
Chris Skidmore
The hon. Gentleman is very kind, but we are discussing the effect of clause 11 and schedule 3 —that is the purpose of Committee.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Skidmore
I have already given way.
We want to build momentum over the coming months in the continued bilateral and multilateral discussions between Ministers and officials. Let me be clear that the Government are the party committed to devolution. Our record shows that, and we will continue to press on with devolution. Working through these frameworks is part of that, but we also want to protect the benefits of our Union across the UK and across each of our constituent nations, benefiting us all.
Chris Skidmore
No.
I am grateful to hon. Members for raising important points of detail on the ongoing framework process. They are right to acknowledge that work has been done today on agreeing the guiding principles for the future frameworks, and that the further analysis is the product of the ongoing engagement between officials and Ministers in the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. Of course, the outcomes of those discussions are important not just to Governments but, most crucially, to the people and businesses across the UK to whom the rules apply.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
The Minister is talking about the impact on people in the UK. Under the Good Friday agreement, people in Northern Ireland can choose to be British or Irish, or both. Will that remain the case after Brexit? If so, seeing as Ireland remains a member of the EU, will people in Northern Ireland still be able to choose to be EU citizens?
Chris Skidmore
I do not disagree with what the hon. Lady says. It is important to note that, when it comes to the common frameworks procedure, the communiqué agreed on 16 October states:
“Frameworks will ensure recognition of the economic and social linkages between Northern Ireland and Ireland and that Northern Ireland will be the only part of the UK that shares a land frontier with the EU. They will also adhere to the Belfast Agreement.”
By way of myth busting, it is not the case whatsoever that the Good Friday agreement will somehow be affected.
Clause 11 introduces part 1 of schedule 3, which makes the same provisions in relation to devolved Executive competence—that is, any secondary legislation that the devolved Administrations might make. In addition, provisions in the Bill extend competence to the devolved Administrations so that devolved Ministers can exercise the powers provided by clause 10 and schedule 2 to make the statute book operate effectively once we have left the EU.
In recognition of the current standing of the existing devolution settlements, part 2 of schedule 3 ensures that a significant number of corrections are made to the devolution statutes arising from the UK’s exit from the EU. Together, clause 11 and schedule 3 preserve the current scope of devolved competence. They ensure that any decision that could have been taken by the devolved Administrations and legislatures prior to exit day can still be made after exit day, and that devolved Ministers can exercise powers to make sure that law in areas of devolved competence works correctly. They set up the Order-in-Council process, which will allow for an increase in decision-making powers of the devolved institutions as discussions with the devolved Administrations on common frameworks progress. The Government have repeatedly stated, as I have today, that this is a temporary arrangement; it is a safeguard against a cliff-edge situation as we leave the EU to provide certainty for people and businesses in all parts of the UK. Just as importantly, it allows time for discussion about the future: on where common approaches are needed and where they are not. It is our overriding aim to work with the devolved Administrations to define which areas need frameworks and which do not as soon as possible.
It was absolutely right for the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) in the debate on clause 2 to raise the matter of consultation with the political parties in Northern Ireland in the absence of a power-sharing Executive. I would like to reassure her that this Government value the views of those parties on the devolution provisions in the Bill, and officials have provided briefings on the Bill to each of the parties represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly that wanted them. In addition, officials have been engaging with their counterparts in the Northern Ireland civil service on the technical and legal aspects of the Bill to make sure it operates properly in the context of Northern Ireland law. That is, of course, no substitute for a devolved Government in Northern Ireland, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland continues to prioritise the talks between parties to restore the power-sharing Executive. This Government are sincere in their wish to discuss these matters, particularly with regard to common frameworks, with the Northern Ireland Executive when they are restored.
I reiterate that I welcome scrutiny by the House on the approach the Government have taken. I also welcome the vital contributions that the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government, and the devolved legislatures, have made to today’s debate by publishing their views on how—
Ian Murray
I feel that the Minister may be finishing his remarks. I intervened at the beginning of his speech to ask whether he would tell us where he thinks clause 11 is deficient, as many of his colleagues have said it is, and how he thinks that, as the Minister responsible for it, he is going to fix those deficiencies.
Chris Skidmore
As I stated at the opening of my remarks, and as I will state throughout my speech and at the end of my remarks, we are open to hearing from those who seriously want to look at this Bill and consider how we productively ensure that our statute book is complete on exit day. We are in a Committee stage at the moment and there is a process to go through here, and there is a process outside this House in the JMC, which I have spoken about. It is not for me as a Minister to prejudge the discussions that may take place at JMC (EN) next week, on 12 December. What I will say is that I will ensure that when it comes to the agenda of that meeting, the discussions that have taken place in Committee are reflected and discussed in JMC (EN).
Stephen Doughty
I thank the Minister for what he is saying, but it is clear that the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government, and Members of this House working with them, have proposed clear and specific amendments that are not about blocking the Bill or undoing Brexit; they are about retaining a stable constitutional settlement in these islands. Will he accept those amendments, as his colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland said he might?
Chris Skidmore
I am discussing whether the clause should stand part of the Bill and I am about to turn to the hon. Gentleman’s amendments. I hope that he can wait in eager anticipation for my remarks and that he will not be disappointed, although he may be.
I reiterate that I welcome scrutiny by the House on the approach that the Government have taken. As I said, I also welcome the vital contributions the Scottish Government, Welsh Government and devolved legislatures have made in this debate by publishing their views on how devolution aspects of the Bill might be improved. This Government are clear that we want to consider all those views and make improvements to the Bill where we can, but I also emphasise that it is right that we provide certainty across the UK, as this clause seeks to do, and do not take any action to undermine the integrity of our United Kingdom.
I will also take a moment to reflect on the insightful contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), informed by the evidence to and input from the members of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. He made a number of pertinent points and I will turn to those now. He is right to say that leaving the EU is that opportunity to revisit some key constitutional questions. As I have set out today, the Government’s aim in introducing clause 11 is to do precisely that: to give us time to give these important issues the consideration they deserve.
We welcome the views of experts such as my hon. Friend and his Committee on these issues of intergovernmental institutional relationships. The Government are ensuring that we engage with other external experts such as leading academics on these questions. What we are focused on today is how we provide that certainty and continuity we need in the law on exit day and how we give ourselves time to consider the issues properly and reach the right answers. I welcome my hon. Friend’s continued contributions to this discussion.
New clause 64, which relates to the creation of common frameworks, comprise three subsections and I will take each in turn. First, the new clause would require the Government to lay their proposals for the replacement of European frameworks with UK ones before each House of Parliament. It is not the position of the UK Government, or of the devolved Administrations, that the existing UK frameworks will be replaced by our own common frameworks in every instance. Instead, we expect more power to sit directly with the devolved Administrations as a result of our leaving the EU.
As I mentioned earlier, we are working closely with the devolved Administrations to determine where future frameworks, whether legislative or non-legislative, will be required in each of the policy areas in question. Although joint conclusions have not been drawn at this point—as I have stated, I do not want to prejudice the outcome of the discussions with the devolved Administrations—we believe that the majority of policy areas will not require legislative frameworks.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Surely the determination is very simple. It is set down in the Scotland Act 1998 that what is not reserved is devolved, so if it comes from Europe, it will be devolved. It is set down and it is simple. It should not be up to the Minister to be judge and jury. He talks about partnership, but he should respect the law.
Chris Skidmore
As I set out clearly at the beginning of my speech, when current EU law—which it is the UK’s position not to breach—is transferred to become retained EU law, we need to look at the areas where we need to create common frameworks. That is the position that the hon. Gentleman’s own Brexit Minister, Mike Russell, has taken. Mike Russell signed the communiqué and agreed to look at these common approaches and to look at retained EU law being transferred across.
The hon. Gentleman should speak to members of the Scottish Government, because they seem to understand the need to work with the UK Government to come up with common frameworks. He seems to be unaware of the process of engagement that is taking place outside the House. His constituents will not thank him for bringing up constitutional points and not acknowledging that, in looking at the common frameworks procedure and at EU law, we need to ensure that, when it comes to exit day, there is certainty, control and stability in respect of our statute book. We need to ensure that clause 11 provides for that.
Should our detailed discussions conclude that UK-wide or parallel legislation is necessary, both Houses of Parliament will of course have an important role to play in scrutinising the detailed proposals. Where policy areas are released from the temporary arrangements provided for in clause 11, the Order in Council process provides a mechanism to do precisely that to ensure that these decisions are subject to careful scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament and the relevant devolved legislatures.
Secondly, the new clause would permit the establishment of frameworks only where the criteria set out in it are met. That is also unnecessary. Although I agree with the criteria, which, as the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) pointed out, have been lifted by and large from the broader principles that underpin the creation of frameworks, they form only one part of the picture. The broader principles were agreed by the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments at the meeting of the JMC (EN) on 16 October and were published in the communiqué that I have put on the record. To ensure that the interests of Northern Ireland were heard, a senior official from the Northern Ireland civil service was in attendance.
Those broader principles recognise, among other things, the importance of a wider range of issues, including
“the economic and social linkages between Northern Ireland and Ireland”.
Not only do we have an established set of detailed principles; we have put those principles into practice through a process of ongoing engagement and analysis with the devolved Administrations on where common frameworks are or are not needed. It therefore follows that the more limited set of criteria in the new clause is unnecessary.
Finally, the new clause would permit the creation of frameworks only if they were subject to consultation agreements with the affected devolved Administrations. Once again, that is unnecessary. As the agreed principles published in the communiqué make clear:
“It will be the aim of all parties to agree where there is a need for common frameworks and the content of them.”
The Government are committed to intensive discussions on the areas where common frameworks will and will not be required with the devolved Administrations, and those are happening right now. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Darlington to withdraw the new clause.
New clause 65 seeks to enshrine the Joint Ministerial Committee in legislation. The Joint Ministerial Committee is a forum for the UK Government and the devolved Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to discuss matters of joint interest and is underpinned by a memorandum of understanding between the four Administrations. Specifically, it provides for a focus of intergovernmental relations and allows attending Ministers to present the positions of their own Administration in a multilateral setting. There is no need to enshrine the JMC provisions in legislation as set out in new clause 65. Indeed, doing so would place limitations on the ability of the members to adapt to what is a rapidly changing political landscape.
The current basis for the JMC has been agreed by all four Administrations and allows for wide-ranging discussions, including on topical issues such as EU exit. The JMC, as set out by the written agreements, must remain adaptable enough to address those four Governments’ interests. If this clause were to be added to the statute book, it could severely hamper the JMC’s ability to do so.
The scope of the committee and its supporting sub-committees is not solely to discuss the domestic impact of EU exit and negotiations with the EU. The JMC plenary, which is chaired by the Prime Minister, should also continue to discuss matters agreed by the Administrations as set out by the terms of reference under subsection (1) (a). As drafted, new clause 65 would significantly limit the scope of the Joint Ministerial Committee. The provisions under subsection (1) are already being demonstrated through the JMC on EU negotiations sub-committee. My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State chaired the most recent JMC (EN) meeting on 16 October and will chair a further meeting on 12 December to build on those discussions that have taken place so far.
There are also other sub-committees that are equally important for the integrity of intergovernmental relations. The provisions under subsection (5) stipulate that either my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union must chair all further meetings of the Joint Ministerial Committee until a withdrawal agreement is concluded. That would ignore the role of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State who chairs what I am sure will be recognised as an important sub-committee on EU negotiations as well as other sub-committees of the JMC that already exist, such as the sub-committee on Europe. Such provisions will remove the flexibility afforded to the Joint Ministerial Committee to adapt and evolve.
The existing written agreements coupled with the ongoing multilateral and bilateral engagement between Ministers and officials make this new clause redundant. The versatility of the committee is achieved through consensus of the participating Administrations and therefore we urge the Opposition not to press their amendment.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman talked earlier about co-operation and listening. Our party represents the Government of Scotland. Then there is the party that represents the Government of Wales. In this spirit of co-operation, which amendments will he be taking from either of those parties?
Chris Skidmore
I am currently going through the list of amendments and setting out the Government’s position on them. When it comes to looking at the Bill, the Government will listen to those who seek to improve it constructively. We are in Committee at the moment, and we have amendments and legislative consent memorandums that have been tabled by the Welsh and the Scottish Governments. The Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), and I have been to Scotland to give evidence. My hon. Friend has also given evidence to Welsh Select Committees. We are determined that it is not just SNP Members who have a veto over this process. There is a consensus that we need to seek across all devolved Administrations—
Chris Skidmore
I have given way to the hon. Gentleman several times; I will not do so again.
Chris Skidmore
No, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman came in relatively late. I have given way to him several times. I am making my point in response to the amendment, which he does not even want to listen to. The point is that there is a reasonableness test: the UK Government are determined to be the reasonable partner, but we will listen to anyone who puts forward amendments to the Bill and who is determined to ensure that our statute book is protected on exit day, that the UK integral internal market is protected, and that we have that stability, certainty and control that we need for businesses and for the people of Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland, as they will not thank us if we do not work together to ensure that that is achieved. The point of clause 11 is to ensure that we have that stability, certainty and control.
I now turn to amendment 337, which is to be read with amendment 42 and new clause 64. It provides that existing EU law limits on devolved competence will remain in place until the end of the transitional period. At that point, amendment 42 would give the devolved Administrations and legislatures the power to legislate in relation to those matters currently subject to EU law but that are otherwise devolved.
I will discuss amendments 90 to 92, 132 to 134 and 164, which essentially provide the same effect as that of 42, which means that the devolved institutions will be able to diverge from those retained EU law frameworks after exit day. I will also deal with consequential amendments 177 to 179, 181, 185 and 191 to 193, which flow from those substantive amendments. I understand the intention behind these amendments, but we cannot agree with the effects. I have already set out the measures in clause 11 that establish the temporary arrangement that maintains the currents parameters of devolved competence, taking no decision-making power away from the devolved Administrations or legislatures. This means that where we have common approaches across the UK by virtue of EU law, they will continue to apply as they currently do after exit day.
It is vital that we provide certainty to businesses and to people who live and work across the UK, and that laws in place remain consistent while we work with the devolved Administrations to consider where we may need common approaches and where we do not. The amendments risk undermining not only that certainty, but out precious Union. Let me be clear: this Government are committed to ensuring that power sits closer to the people than ever before. Our commitment to strengthening the devolution settlements is clear from the statute book with, most recently, the Wales Act 2017 and the Scotland Act 2016, which has made the Scottish Parliament one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world.
In line with our commitment to devolution, we have been clear that we expect the process of leaving the EU to result in a significant increase in the decision-making powers of the devolved Administrations. But we are also clear about how this must happen. We need careful analysis with the devolved Administrations to determine the areas where common UK-wide or GB-wide approaches need to be retained, and the areas where they do not.
Ian Murray
The Minister is addressing the amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends. The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) said that he agreed with the principles of my amendments 164 and 165, and that, although he would not vote for them, he expected that the Government would come back with something different to deal with the deficiencies in clause 11. I have not quite heard the Minister admit that the clause has deficiencies. What will he bring back to the Committee that it can vote on that will satisfy his own Scottish Conservative Members with regard to the principles of amendments 164 and 165?
Chris Skidmore
I have already stated that the Government are prepared to listen to all those who seek to improve the Bill. We will use this opportunity to reflect on all the speeches made by hon. Members in Committee; that is what Committee is for. I have stated a commitment to ensuring that the content of today’s debate is shared with all members of the JMC (EN) on 12 December. There is a process to look at the establishment of common frameworks, and the careful analysis needs to take place with the consent of or working with the devolved Administrations and their officials. I am pleased that we have made good progress on this with the agreement at JMC (EN) with the Scottish and Welsh Governments on the principles that will guide our future framework discussions.
Stephen Doughty
The Minister is being generous in giving way. My name is on a number of these amendments. Will he be absolutely clear on one point? The Welsh Government and the Scottish Government have tabled amendments in good faith that are aimed at being constructive and making the Bill more sensible, with the support of many Members across the Committee. Indeed, Members of the Minister’s own party have pointed out problems with the Bill. Am I correct that, despite those points, he is not going to accept any of the amendments?
Chris Skidmore
We have always made it clear that we stand ready to listen to those who offer improvements to the Bill. Engagement at all levels of government—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman does not want to listen to what I have to say. He wants me to accept an amendment; I have given way several times, yet he is not prepared to listen to what the Minister has to say. Engagement at all levels of government is a usual part of the process, and this engagement must be at all levels of discussion, not just that which takes place in this Chamber. We want to work with the devolved Administrations, and we have been clear that we would like all parts of the UK to come together in support of this legislation, which is crucial for delivering the outcome of the referendum.
We continue to believe that the provisions in clause 11 are vital to providing the necessary immediate certainty to people and businesses while we discuss where common frameworks are and are not needed. We recognise that the Scottish and Welsh Governments have taken different positions from our approach, and we welcome the contribution to the debate. We remain open to suggestions and thoughts about how to ensure that the Bill works to deliver a functioning statute book for all parts of the UK. However, we cannot accept changes that would undermine the UK’s internal market or increase difficulties for people and businesses.
We are also clear how this process must happen. As I have said, we need the analyses to take place. We are clear that we will make progress with the JMC (EN), and that we will ensure that our final analysis indicates that legislative frameworks will be unnecessary for a majority of those policy areas. Following the agreement of the principles of the JMC (EN), we have already commenced work with the devolved Administrations, building on the work that is taking place at both ministerial and official level to make quick progress on the potential role for frameworks in some specific policies areas including agriculture, justice, home affairs and public health, where deep dives have taken place with officials from all Administrations. This work is allowing us to explore the different form the frameworks could take.
I should say that a legislative framework is by no means the only method. Indeed, as I said, legislative frameworks are likely to be used in a limited number of areas. There is far more use for non-legislative frameworks, including memorandums of understanding, concordats and informal collaborative working arrangements, as already happens.
In removing clause 11, these amendments fail to recognise the importance and value of our internal market and of having consistent rules for individuals and companies. They pre-empt the vital work we are undertaking with the devolved Administrations, and prejudge the outcome of our negotiations with the EU. Until we know the outcome of those negotiations, we cannot have certainty over how these powers, in places, will relate to our future relationship with the EU or, therefore, at what level they should be exercised in the future.
I note that Members have referred to evidence given to various Committees. I have heard their points, but it is important to come back to the motivation and need for the Bill: to provide certainty and control.
Sir Stephen Laws, formerly first parliamentary counsel, has pointed out that the devolution settlements were agreed in the context of our EU membership. That is why we are focusing through our discussions on common frameworks with the devolved Administrations on what our constitutional arrangements should be outside the context of our EU membership. That is what the provisions in the Bill give us the space to do, by maintaining the parameters of devolved competence.
I stress again that the mechanism here is not an end; it is an important first step in the process of returning these powers from the EU to the UK, enabling us to do the necessary work to determine where further powers can be released to the devolved Administrations.
I must reiterate that I understand the intention behind the amendments—that powers sit at the right level once we have left the EU. I am clear that the process we are going through does not change our unshakeable commitment to ensure that devolution in the UK is even further strengthened so that we may have more devolution and more union across the UK.
I turn now to amendment 165, which I will take with consequential amendments 180, 182 to 191, 194 and 195, tabled by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). Amendment 165 would allow the Scottish and Welsh Governments to make secondary legislation to change retained EU law in the areas that are currently subject to EU law. Taken together with other provisions of the Bill, part 1 of schedule 3 is intended to maintain the common frameworks across the UK that have been created by EU law. In particular, that will ensure that no new barriers to people living and doing business across the UK are created after we leave the EU.
As I have made clear, the Bill guarantees that the current decision-making powers of the devolved Administrations are respected. Anything the devolved Administrations could do before exit day they will be able to do after exit day. Our priority must now be to prepare our statute book for exit, and we want to work closely with the devolved Administrations to do that.
It is through the work on the common frameworks and the discussions with the devolved Administrations that we can make progress on specific areas and seize the opportunities to improve policy in the UK. As I mentioned earlier, the next JMC (EN) is scheduled to take place on 12 December, and it will continue that accelerated process of assessing where frameworks are needed and where they are not. We will prioritise those areas of greatest interest and significance.
We very much hope to see further steps forward, but it is right that we do these things in discussion and collaboratively with all Governments across the UK. Once it has been agreed through ongoing engagement, which this Government are committed to, where common frameworks are not required, we can use the Order in Council power to release decision-making powers to devolved Administrations. For that reason, the amendment is unnecessary, and we would urge the hon. Gentleman not to press it.
Let me turn now to amendment 72, tabled by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), which would enshrine a requirement for the Government to seek a legislative consent motion from the devolved legislatures. As the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, said on day one of Committee stage, we want to make a positive case in favour of legislative consent for this vital piece of legislation and to work closely with the devolved Administrations and legislatures to achieve that. As I have mentioned, there has been an extensive programme of engagement with the Scottish and Welsh Governments and legislatures. In the absence of the Executive in Northern Ireland, official level engagement also continues with the Northern Ireland civil service.
We do not recognise the need for this amendment. The Government have already explicitly recognised the role of the Sewel convention in the Wales Act 2017 and the Scotland Act 2016. I ask hon. Members to look at our track record: we are committed to the devolution settlements and the conventions that we have established.
We continue to believe in the importance of the Bill, which is in the national interest, and we will work to deliver it with the devolved Administrations. The question of ensuring certainty both for our statute book and our internal market when we leave the EU is of great significance to all parts of the UK. We would like all parts of the UK to come together in support of this legislation, which is vital to the securing of a smooth and orderly exit. I urge the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) to withdraw the motion.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. As colleagues will see, a number of hon. Members still want to speak. If interventions are kept to a minimum and speeches are kept under about eight minutes, everybody will get in.
Mike Gapes
Having listened to this debate for seven hours and been in the Chamber for most of it, I can say that occasionally it was like watching paint dry. I want to comment on something that the Minister just said: that the Government cannot accept changes that would undermine the UK internal market or businesses. That seems a little ironic on the day the Prime Minister has shown how strong and stable she is and when we are in such a crisis over Northern Ireland and the issues relating to the Good Friday agreement.
Sadly, Democratic Unionist party Members seem to have gone AWOL; I assume that they are out discussing how to spend £1 billion. They, of course, were not part of the negotiations that led to the Good Friday agreement and were not happy when we brought in the institutional frameworks established as a result of the 1998 legislation. I had the pleasure of being in Mo Mowlam’s team during those negotiations. I was a very minor person in the process—as the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Political Development Minister, my good friend Paul Murphy—but it was a great achievement of our Labour Government.
As Tony Blair has so eloquently put it and John Major has also said, today the Good Friday agreement is in danger. Those of us who have looked at these issues understand that the agreement has three strands. One is the internal political situation in Northern Ireland, which is clearly not going well. The Assembly and Executive are not functioning and the civic forum that was supposed to be established under the Good Friday agreement does not exist.
Then there is strand 2, which is the Irish dimension, the North South Ministerial Council and the implementation bodies; it is supposed to cover agriculture, education, transport, the environment, health and EU programmes. Strand 2 is going to be undermined by the decision to leave the single market and the customs union.
Then there is strand 3, which is the east-west British-Irish Council and the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. We now understand that the Irish Government are right to express concerns about the position we face. I was in Dublin three weeks ago with the Foreign Affairs Committee. We also went to County Cavan. We drove along the road that goes from one side of the border to the other, and back across, through County Monaghan. The only way anyone knows they are in Northern Ireland is that there is a building with a “Fireworks for sale” sign. Fireworks cannot be sold in the Irish Republic, but they can be bought in Northern Ireland—that is a bit ironic, but we will not go there.
The reality is that we have fields on both sides of the border, cows that move backwards and forwards, farmhouses that are divided and institutional structures such as the veterinary organisations. We have the milk that is taken from cows in the south and cows in the north, put together in the same factory, mixed together with whiskey, and comes out as Baileys, which is then marketed as an Irish whiskey derivative, and there is an all-Ireland trade arrangement on that basis. Similarly, with tourism, Northern Ireland and the Republic are promoted together globally.
We are putting all this in jeopardy—putting it all at risk. We have to understand how difficult it was to get the Good Friday agreement and how not necessarily just the reality of the economics but the symbolism of the politics will come back, and people will have to think about their differences rather than what unites them. At the moment, there are many Irish citizens living in Northern Ireland because one can have either a British passport or an Irish passport—it does not matter. Will the European Court of Justice apply to those people living in Northern Ireland? Will they have protection even though they are living in the UK? These are interesting and complicated issues.
The Mayor of London, the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government have all said that we need to stay in the single market and the customs union, but above all we need to listen to the voices of the people of Northern Ireland, who want us to stay in the single market and the customs union. Although they claim the contrary, Democratic Unionist party Members do not speak for Northern Ireland—they speak only for one part of Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland voted to remain. Northern Ireland wants to be in the single market. Northern Ireland, collectively, wants to keep the institutions of the Good Friday agreement.
It is fundamentally important that we recognise in this Bill that there are special circumstances relating to Northern Ireland. When I intervened on the Minister—eventually he gave way to me—he did not respond to my point, which was that there is no specific understanding of the differences in Northern Ireland. The all-Irish Good Friday agreement—Belfast agreement—institutional framework is crucial and fundamental, and we have to preserve it and keep it. We will break up the United Kingdom and we will cause dangers and conflict again on the island of Ireland. We will damage relations with our closest neighbour and best friend. We have such a good British-Irish relationship, as we saw when Her Majesty the Queen went to Croke Park, and as Mary McAleese told us when she was the Irish President at the time. That is at risk, and we must not let it happen. Please, please support the continuation of the Good Friday agreement.
Alison Thewliss
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), because that was an absolutely perfect speech. It had to be made and I am glad that he did it.
We have talked in general terms today about lots of the things to do with the new clause and what it might mean, about clause 11, and about the 111 things that require some attention. I want to look at how issues of waste are dealt with within the EU. The EU waste framework directive flows into the Waste (Scotland) Regulations 2012. The European landfill directive, the European packaging and packaging waste directive, and various other EU directives are currently implemented by the Scottish Government. The EU sets the rules within those frameworks and directives, and the Scottish Government have flexibility, as do the other devolved nations, on how they implement them.
Without any certainty over what happens on the day of Brexit, we can have no deal, no certainty and no regulation of those matters. In Scotland, we have developed a circular economy strategy and made a lot of progress towards the implementation of the EU’s circular economy action plan. We have made more progress than the rest of the UK has, and we have made different progress. The directives have given us the flexibility to take a different road. Were the matter to come back to the UK Government, we could not be guaranteed the flexibility we need to make progress with the plans that we have already embarked on.
The Local Government Information Unit recently produced an excellent briefing on waste disposal and Brexit. The briefing raises specific concerns about the future UK directive, which could well be less ambitious than our plans. We have heard a lot from various Tories in the past about cutting red tape and regulations, but doing so could have a serious impact on the interesting and important issue of waste collection. Scotland’s zero waste plan is award winning and ambitious, as we are on climate change. We should have full control over it, and we should not have to drag behind the UK if it does not wish to step forward as quickly as we do.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The hon. Lady says that the plan is ambitious, but, in practice, waste from Scotland is simply being transferred into England, and there is very little enforcement of the so-called zero waste plan.
Alison Thewliss
I would take issue with that, and our plan is ambitious. An awful lot of our plan depends on the existence of a European market for waste. Lots of waste goes backwards and forwards to Europe for processing.
There has been no clear detail from the Government about what they mean by an interim period or a temporary period before further powers are released to the Scottish Government. We already know that the market for waste exists, and taking that market away will create uncertainty. Businesses face huge uncertainty, because there is a big private market in waste; I have a large processing facility in my constituency, for example. The Confederation of Paper Industries has said that its members need to be sure which regulations they will have to operate under. If paper is going into European markets, it needs to meet the standards required by those markets, so we need the regulations in place to allow that to happen.
Hon. Members might not know that paper is a £6.5 billion industry. The UK is the world’s largest net importer of paper, and the industry is doing quite well out of the Bill, which is producing huge amounts of paper. The regulations determine our participation in the paper market, and certainty is important. We need clarity, so that we can make progress on recycling and other things that we have started on. If our ability to work under directives is taken back to the UK Government, who do not share exactly our environmental ambitions or links to European markets, where does that leave Scotland?
There is uncertainty as well for local government. If we do not have the rules or the framework, can we just throw our waste in the street and the council is no longer obliged to collect it? Those things are underpinned by EU waste directives about the processing and treatment of waste, and without them there is no framework at all.
I want to speak briefly about where the power lies in another area. The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) and a couple of hon. Members who are no longer in their places mentioned food and food labelling, a lot of which is dealt with by the European Food Safety Authority. Of particular interest to me is the labelling and marketing of infant formula. I am fairly sure that the Scottish Government may wish to act to regulate infant formula further, but the UK, as has been evidenced in questions that I have raised on the issue, may not wish to do so.
The UK has long used EU law as a means to get around the full implementation of the international code of marketing of breast-milk substitutes. If we are no longer in the EU and we can set up the frameworks ourselves and make progress on the issue, why should the Scottish Government have to lag behind? Why should we have to wait while those powers are held at Westminster for an indeterminate length of time—it has been described as temporary and interim, but how long it is we do not know—when we want to make progress on policies?
The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) made a very good point about organ donation and presumed consent in that, when the Welsh Government had such powers, they made progress and had a good policy, which has led the way in the UK. In Scotland, we have had the smoking ban and other progressive health policies. If action on such policies is wrapped up in frameworks or EU directives, how can we be certain—in the context of clause 11 and of this Government not accepting any amendments that would give the devolved Administrations competence in these areas—that the devolved Administrations will be able to take the action we actually want to take, and how long will we have to wait for Westminster to give us back our powers?
Tommy Sheppard
I was going to reassure the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), who is no longer in the Chamber, that, given the lateness of the hour, I can do nothing other than be reasonable and mild mannered in my presentation. He seemed fearful that SNP Members would go berserk and worried that we were putting our case with too much passion. Let me try to put this as reasonably as I can.
I want to agree with Members who have talked about the positive cross-party nature of what is happening. There are three parties on the Opposition side of the House that differ quite significantly on our preferred constitutional outcome or endgame for Scotland, but we are united in trying to defend the gains of devolution that have been made during the past 20 years. Indeed, I think that some of the Scottish Tories might feel that way too, given the discussions we have had in the Scottish Affairs Committee. They seem too timorous to exercise that conviction by going through the Lobby with us tonight, but perhaps they will be persuaded in the fullness of time.
By way of context, we need to remember two things. One is how the interplay between the referendums of 2014 and 2016 in Scotland affects this debate. I was on the losing side in 2014—I lost the Scottish independence campaign—and I accept that result. However, it is important in understanding why Scotland voted to remain in the United Kingdom to look at some of the assurances that were given by the people who won that campaign, because that affects this debate. I am going to talk not about the obvious one, which is what was said about EU membership itself, but about two other things.
First, all parties that campaigned for a no vote in the 2014 referendum went out of their way to stress that there was no threat to the devolution settlement, and that they would defend and extend it. The other assurance given was that should Scotland vote to remain in a political Union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland, this was not a matter of one country being subsumed into a much larger neighbour, but the creation of a partnership of equals—a multinational yet unitary state—with the views of Scotland therefore respected in any future debates. I am now calling to collect from this Government on both their respect for and commitment to devolution because, as far as I can see, the way in which clause 11 is currently written means that it recognises neither of those points. It is regrettable that at this relatively advanced stage of our discussions on the Bill, we still do not have any agreement whatsoever about some basic things.
The other factor we need to remember by way of context is of course the debate about devolution itself. I was heavily involved in the campaign that led to the creation of the Scottish Parliament, arguing for yes, yes in 1997. I was not in the House when Members debated the Bill that became the Scotland Act 1998, but I observed the proceedings and we can read the transcripts. We know that Parliament, led by the late Donald Dewar, clearly took a maximalist position. It basically said that everything should be devolved unless there was a case for its not being so, which is why the 1998 Act lists not the powers that are devolved, but the powers that are reserved.
If we had not been in the European Union when Parliament was debating the Act, how many of the 111 areas of responsibility would have been reserved and how many would have been devolved to the Scottish Government? The truth is that practically all of them would have been devolved without question, because there would have been no compelling case for reserving them. I think that people misunderstand the nature of the debate when they talk about the transfer of competences from the EU to the UK following Brexit.
Let us be quite clear that the reason why the European Union currently has some legislative competence in devolved areas is to ensure compliance with the treaty on European Union. That is what this is about. If Brexit goes ahead and we come out of the European Union, that, de facto, will not be required, so whatever the UK Government say about taking on these areas of competence, it will not be about complying with the terms of the treaty on European Union. The only thing it can be about, given that we already have a single economy in the United Kingdom, is convergence on policy. The transfer raises the possibility that we will move from compliance with international agreements to compliance with domestic policy. That is what I mean by a power grab, because it represents a severe potential constraint on the ability of the Scottish Parliament to legislate and act in its devolved areas.
Ministers will say, “That’s not the intention. This is a drop-off point for the powers so that we can then decide the best way for them to go to their final resting place.” I have to say to them that we are politicians, not psychics. We have to deal with what is written in the Bill that they have brought before us, not their intentions for what might happen as they go towards their endgame. What is written in the Bill is most clearly not what is being argued for by Ministers. If that were the case, we would have a schedule by now outlining which of the 111 powers can go straight to the devolved authorities on exit day, which of them definitely need to be reserved in the context of the 1998 Act, and which of them need further exploration through some sort of process, but we have heard nothing about a single one of them.
I say to Ministers that, even from a public relations point of view, would it not have been sensible to at least chuck a few of these powers the way of the devolved Administrations? No. 9 on the list is about blood safety. What is it about the Scottish health service and blood transfusion service that they do not trust? Why on earth would blood safety need to be reserved to the UK? Energy efficiency is another power on the list. Is it the end of the world if Scotland pioneers aspects of efficient energy use and perhaps leads the way in the UK? How is that a threat to the Union? Why do Ministers need to keep those powers? There are other examples that illustrate the ridiculousness of arguing that there should be even a temporary drop-off of these powers at Westminster. Such powers should clearly go to the devolved Administrations.
I am left wondering why this is being done. The obvious first answer is the phenomenal degree of administrative competence involved. I think that there is malintent on the part of some Conservative Members, but probably not on the part of its Front Benchers. However, I think Ministers have got themselves into a situation in which, because they have been incapable of producing a plan, they simply have no option but to say, “Trust us for now; we’ll do the best thing in the end.” It is very difficult for this Parliament to accept those assurances.
I think there is another red herring with the idea that a further reason why these powers need to be retained and examined further is that there might otherwise be interference with the United Kingdom’s ability to strut the post-Brexit globe in its ambition for “Empire 2.0”. There is a fearfulness that people in Scotland or Wales might act like the Wallonians and try to frustrate the creation of an international trade agreement. How ridiculous is that? Would it really matter if the Scottish Government introduced a policy that said, “We don’t wish to have genetically modified food in our food chain”? How is that a threat to an international trade agreement? All that would need to be done would be simply to specify that that was what people would need to deal with in Scotland, and that anybody wishing to sign the agreement would, quite reasonably, be able to do so.
The only way that that could become a threat to post-Brexit deals would be if there was a suggestion that the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly should take to themselves a power to veto a future UK international trade agreement, but no such power is being discussed. It is ridiculous that we should not by now be discussing which powers are going where, rather than arguing that nothing can be done apart from a power grab by the Westminster Government.
Finally, the common frameworks that we need for these 111 areas are going to be entirely different, depending on the individual area. In some cases, it might just be a simple matter of agencies north and south of the border talking to each other and sharing best practice. There are probably very few areas that actually require a full-blown statutory regulatory framework across the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
indicated assent.
Tommy Sheppard
The Ministers are nodding their heads. If that is the case, why have they not identified them? Why not bring forward proposals for dealing with the joint arrangements? I do not attribute malintent to those on the Government Front Bench, but there are people within the Conservative party—I see that the Scottish Tories have gone home—[Interruption.] I am sorry; they have left the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) as the lone representative. [Interruption.] Two of yer! I withdraw the remark; only 80% of them have gone home.
Conservative Members talk about the process we are engaged in. We are engaged in a process of considering amendments to a Bill. I say to the Scottish Conservatives that they should think again about going through the Lobby with the Government tonight, because if they do so, they will give the Government succour, rather than putting pressure on them to come forward and make agreements and changes. If that happens, it will provide sustenance to those Conservative Members who never believed in devolution in the first place, and who will use Brexit as an opportunity to roll it back and take power to the centre.
Deidre Brock
I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I rise in support of amendments 72, 184 and 185. I am disappointed the Minister will not accept a single amendment or new clause tonight.
It is clear from the amendments that have been tabled, and from many speeches we have heard today, that there is general opposition among Members to the power grab in the Bill, even from people who aspire to be Whitehall Ministers and would wield that power if they did. I also think that the previous Prime Minister—the one who dragged us into this mess with his cunning plan of a referendum—would oppose it. His respect agenda did not run very far, but it did at least run. I urge the current crop of Ministers to aspire at least to clear that very low bar.
The Scottish Secretary has assured us on several occasions that powers repatriated from Brussels will be held at Westminster only temporarily. We could call that the “fluffy protocol”, or the political equivalent of “It’s only resting in my account, guv.” As yet, however, we have seen nothing to suggest there is anything coming down the road to confirm that that is guaranteed to happen. If that were the intention, surely the sensible, logical and easy thing to do would be to have a sunset clause in the Bill that would see the powers transferred to devolved Administrations timeously. Numerous experts, including witnesses to the Scottish Affairs Committee, on which I sit, have advocated that but, like several other things that should have been achieved, that has not happened.
The in-depth analyses of the effects of Brexit that were promised have not been delivered to the devolved Administrations. Some extremely superficial desk research was proffered as if it were the Rosetta stone, but the paucity of what has been delivered leads me to the inescapable conclusion that the Government have no idea what is or might be down the road, or what turns the road might be taking before we get there. The only certainty Ministers seem to have is that the map says “Here be no monsters”. Well, there are monsters, and they are in the Bill. The monsters are those that will damage devolution settlements with the tearing away of responsibility, power and resources from the devolved Administrations to be sucked into the abyss that is a Whitehall trying to deal with Brexit.
Judging by the confusion, bewilderment and disorientation that we have seen so far, just today, in fact, the aftershocks of Brexit are likely to keep hitting the UK—its economy, its international standing and its ability to attract immigrants—for decades. There are no indications that anyone in Whitehall will have the time, patience or inclination to run the rule over coming legislation to make sure that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are properly considered. The devolved Administrations deserve the right to try to mitigate the deleterious effects of Brexit as much as is possible. I believe that the attitudes in each of those Administrations, including Stormont when it gets back on its feet, will differ from those here in great measure on a number of issues. My hon. Friends have already made significant reference to that issue. I appreciate that large swathes of England are about to get sideswiped by the effects of Brexit as well. They undoubtedly have cause for complaint, but I am here to speak for Scotland.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock).
I rise to speak in support of new clause 64 and the Labour amendments that seek to address the sidelining of the devolved Administrations. Since devolution, over 17 years ago, there has been considerable divergence in many policy areas between the different parts of the UK. Environment and rural affairs policy has been significantly devolved, and this is one area where Brexit will have a huge impact. The day before the UK Government triggered article 50, the Welsh Government provided rural communities with a £250 million boost via the final tranche of the rural development fund to help them become more resilient after Brexit. We need this support to continue.
This evening, we have listened to the detail and intricacies of clause 11, the impact of which will have a detrimental effect on Wales, if powers come back to Westminster from Wales. I will take my speech in a different direction, however, so that I can highlight the needs of the farming community in Gower in the light of the new clauses and amendments. As we all know, there might not have been much truth in some of the claims made by the leave campaign, but many farmers had no reason to disbelieve politicians when they were told that
“Wales would not be one penny worse off after Brexit”
and that Welsh farming would have
“at least as much support”
as it currently has after Brexit, but we are yet to see any funding guarantee from the Government that will ensure that Welsh farmers get, at a minimum, the same level of funding support they currently receive through the common agricultural policy after 2020-21.
The Tory UK Government have refused to provide assurances about matching the current level of funding, but they have also failed clearly to explain what will happen about any future trade rules for farmers. The right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) stated that NFU Cymru supported the retention of a common framework for agriculture, but decisions made in Westminster would most definitely not reflect the needs of the devolved nations, particularly of sheep farmers in Wales. There has been no mention, either, of how any support there is for farmers will be distributed between the devolved Administrations.
The Farmers’ Union of Wales supports the UK’s remaining in the single market and the customs union. The president of the FUW, Glyn Roberts, stated it was “the only sensible outcome” as much of the uncertainty about the future would just disappear. NFU Cymru has also stressed that access to the EU single market must be tariff free. We wait on tenterhooks for news from Brussels about whether a special deal can be struck for Northern Ireland, but as the First Minister, Carwyn Jones, said earlier, we cannot allow different parts of the UK to be treated more favourably than others. If Northern Ireland is to stay in the customs union and the single market, why cannot Welsh farmers profit from the benefits of remaining in them as well? They currently have a fantastic global reputation for quality produce, higher environmental standards and animal welfare protections. Wales needs to retain that strong brand, underpinned by high standards, but we have still not had any guarantees on how we can protect it.
It is more important than ever for Members of Parliament to engage with the farming community and the farming unions, which is something that I am proud to do. In my constituency, farming focuses on dairy, lamb and beef. I have met many farmers, and have discussed the post-Brexit situation with dairy farmer Andrew Stevens of Llannant Farm and with Dan Pritchard of Gower Salt Marsh Lamb. Dan has been involved in agricultural talks in Brussels, and says that the main concern for sheep farmers is uncertainty: because no one knows what is happening, it is impossible to plan for the future. Given that profits are already being squeezed for farmers, certainty about a future trade deal with the EU needs to be prioritised, or many more farmers will lose their businesses and stop farming. If Welsh farmers put their trust in the Tories, they will find themselves out of business.
The lamb, beef and dairy industry in Wales is subject to high standards of regulation, and we are proud of that. It ensures that produce from Wales and the United Kingdom is of the highest quality. Welfare should be a high priority, but the big issue for Welsh farmers is that Tory austerity means that people cannot afford to make better choices. Farmers will be unable to compete without either some sort of protection or some assistance to export so that we can continue to sell our goods in the EU and to other countries. Given the threat of tariffs and the risk of losing subsidies, the farming industry in Wales is feeling vulnerable. There must be public procurement in which the produce from our Welsh farms has priority. Our schools, hospitals and armed forces should be using British produce, including produce from Wales.
During my discussion with Dan from Gower Salt Marsh Lamb, he identified one positive aspect of our leaving the EU: the possibility that other markets could be tapped into. However, while farmers hope that that may happen, the prospect of a tariff on their current trade with France, the EU’s largest importer of lamb, makes future business inconceivable. The fact that such huge changes are on the horizon means that leaving the EU is an uphill battle for Welsh farmers. The message from farming unions in Wales is clear, and the message from the Welsh Government is clear: the UK Government must maintain current levels of investment in farming in Wales after Brexit, to ensure that Welsh farmers remain competitive and can produce food of the highest standards.
I support new clause 64 because it would establish collaborative procedures for the creation of UK-wide frameworks only if Ministers
“have consulted with, and secured the agreement of, the affected devolved administrations”,
such as Wales.
Drew Hendry
We have heard a great deal about clause 11 tonight. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) described it correctly earlier, and even Conservative Members representing Scottish constituencies admitted that it was faulty in its current form. Indeed, it is nothing more than a power grab which is fatally undermining the devolution settlement in all the nations of the United Kingdom.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and London) (SNP)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech. I do not know whether he has seen the coverage of last week’s rural broadband debate, during which Scottish Tory Members shouted across the Chamber, “Strip the Scottish Government of their powers.” That is their attitude. There is no doubt that there is a power grab at stake.
Drew Hendry
My hon. Friend has made a good point. It is important for us to be aware that there are forces that would like power to be taken away from Scotland.
Clause 11 was drafted by people with no understanding of devolution law. It is a midden in its current form. There are questions about the mechanisms that will result from it. Surely, if the Prime Minister’s “union of equals” statement is correct, frameworks should be agreed, not imposed. If, as the Minister said earlier, this is a temporary situation, why should it not lie with the Scottish Government to take that power temporarily until the frameworks are agreed? Our amendment 72 ensures that the devolved legislature would give consent to those appropriate areas in clause 11 before it comes into effect.
As we have heard, the fact that there are 111 powers demonstrates the scowth of the issues at stake. As things stand, however, UK Ministers could simply make changes to important policy areas without the formal consent of the Scottish Government or the Welsh Government, or the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly.
We are told to trust that a deal will be done—that we can expect this to happen—but I think people were expecting something to happen today, yet that deal did not happen. How can we have confidence that things will be done and a deal will be delivered when Arlene Foster can just pick up the phone and say, “No, we don’t like that”?
There are 111 areas covering a massive range of Scottish life: fishing, farming, law, data sharing, aircraft noise, pesticides, fracking, flooding, water quality, food, forestry, organs, blood safety—as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) pointed out earlier—land use, railways, renewables and victims’ rights.
It is clear that those at the top of the profession in legal circles believe clause 11 is drafted without an understanding of devolution law. As Professor Alan Page put it:
“Not only does the Bill propose a massive increase in the power of UK Ministers to legislate in the devolved areas, it also proposes that their exercise should not be subject to any form of Scottish parliamentary oversight or control. What is proposed therefore is a law-making system fundamentally at odds with two of the key principles on which the devolution settlement is based.”
He was not the only one. Professor Rick Rawlings noted:
“The sooner clause 11 of the Withdrawal Bill is cast aside, the better. Constitutionally maladroit, it warps the dialogue about the role and place of the domestic market concept post-Brexit.”
On clause 11, even the Law Society of England and Wales has called for discussions about where the common frameworks will remain and their scrutiny. Professor Alan Page said that
“the real purpose of Clause 11 is not to secure legal continuity but to strip the devolved institutions of any bargaining power that they might have when it comes to the discussion of common frameworks and all the rest.”
We welcome the fact that there will be discussion over devolved areas of responsibility; consultation, however, does not satisfy the needs of devolution, and the UK Government should seek consent from the Scottish Government before exercising delegated powers in devolved areas, and the same goes for Wales and Northern Ireland. People’s jobs, businesses and farms, their environment at sea, in the air, above ground and below ground, virtual lives and literal lives, justice we depend on, and even the blood in our veins: tonight we must vote to uphold the rights of people across the nations and ensure that power is not taken from them.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I begin by echoing the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), because clause 11 is an unashamed power grab; it is undermining the devolution settlement, and it drives a coach and horses through devolution across these islands. In the time that I have to speak, I will talk about the impact it will have on farming, particularly in my Argyll and Bute community.
It is generally accepted that Scottish farmers, particularly farmers and crofters working the land on the west coast, face vastly different challenges from farmers in the rest of the UK. Not only do Scottish hill farmers toil with some of the poorest land, but they face additional challenges from climate, geography and topography, and so much so that 85% of Scottish agricultural land is classed “a less favoured area” compared with just 17% of English agricultural land.
Given that Scottish farmers face specific challenges, surely it stands to reason that they need a bespoke solution that recognises the vast differences that exist across these islands. It is understandable that the Scottish Government and the Scottish farming community are demanding confirmation that all powers relating to agriculture post-Brexit will automatically be passed to the relevant legislature—in this case, the Scottish Parliament. I fear that this Government are taking us down a dangerous road. They are deliberately proposing fundamentally to alter the basic principles of devolution.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the word “road”, which prompts me to intervene on him. When the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and I—and indeed the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara)—drive to the west, we see big signs telling us that the road was built with the assistance of the EU. One of the biggest questions in the minds of my constituents is: what will replace that funding stream? This relates to the ability of farmers and crofters to access their beasts.
Brendan O’Hara
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is why my constituency, his constituency and the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber all voted to remain in the European Union. As things stand, all the powers connected to agriculture will go to London post-Brexit. It will be London that decides what happens.
Ian Blackford
My hon. Friend is making a first-class contribution to the debate. I declare an interest as a crofter. Is it not the case that the UK Government have form on this? When they were given convergence uplift money in 2013, there was a distinct intention that 86% of those funds should come to Scotland, yet they have given us only 16%. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who is sitting on the Front Bench, made sure that Scotland did not get what it should have done. We have been short-changed by Westminster. It is little surprise that we do not trust Westminster to look after us in this regard.
Brendan O’Hara
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I will touch on that issue in a moment.
Let us be clear that this is not just an SNP argument. The National Farmers Union of Scotland has made it absolutely clear that any move to impose what it describes as “DEFRA-centric policy” is completely unacceptable to Scotland. I agree wholeheartedly with the union when it states:
“The Scottish Government must retain the ability to manage, support and implement schemes, policies and regulations as it currently does”.
If the UK Government are serious about protecting Scottish agriculture, I suggest they listen to the president of the NFUS, Andrew McCornick, who has made it clear that the union’s priorities include securing friction-free trade, access to skilled labour and a support package specifically designed for Scotland. He was absolutely spot-on when he said that maintaining access to the single market and the customs union was essential for Scotland’s farmers. On today of all days, if a deal can be found for one part of the United Kingdom to remain in the single market, there can be no other reason than political pig-headedness that such a deal cannot be found for Scotland.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, if immigration powers were to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, that would allow us to make provisions for agricultural workers? That was proposed by the Environment Secretary, who is on the Government Front Bench at the moment.
Brendan O’Hara
I could not have put that better myself. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct.
We have heard much today from the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) and for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) about trust. They said that we should trust the UK Government to do the right by the Scottish farming community, but why would the Scottish farming community trust this Government to do the right thing? This is a Government who shamelessly robbed the Scottish farming community of the convergence uplift, and I doubt that that community will ever trust them again. The Government have to recognise the hugely important part that the Scottish farming community plays, economically and socially, in our lives. It is a vital component of our rural economy. It keeps the land productive and, in many cases, it is members of that community who keep the lights on in the glens of Argyll and the west highlands. I fear that London and Whitehall do not understand that community.
In conclusion, Brexit is a huge challenge for the Scottish farming community. Without a deal on agriculture that does not return legislative competence from Brussels to the Scottish Parliament, Brexit poses an existential threat to Scotland’s farming communities and will be a disaster. Tonight is the first real test of whether the Scottish Conservatives, who are wrong on a whole host of issues, actually put Scotland’s interests first; or are they, as many suspect, simply the Conservative party on manoeuvres in Scotland? They know that, if they choose to vote with the Government tonight and let the Bill go unamended, the result will be catastrophic for Scottish farming. What comes first: their loyalty to the captain of a sinking ship or to the rural communities of Scotland? Be in absolutely no doubt that no serious person believes that lumping Scotland in with the rest of the UK on agriculture is a good thing. This is a litmus test for the Scottish Tories, and I look forward to joining them in the Lobby.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
I rise to support the amendments in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends and to oppose clause 11. I have sat here since 3 o’clock, and I have been to the toilet once, nearly equalling Mr Speaker’s record, so he is obviously having an influence on my ability to hold in my water.
As a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I want to discuss my concerns about clause 11 and Scotland’s environmental laws. Since Scotland gained a devolved Parliament, the political conversation on the divergence of policies has in many cases become diametrically opposite to the policies here in Westminster. I have always believed that, if someone wants to change the world, they have to get busy in their own little corner. The Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament have done and are doing just that, and they are backed by the people of Scotland in trying to come up with more policies to improve social wellbeing and social mobility. A better community means that a better community spirit can be established, but if the present Tory Government stand in the way of our targets, aims and aspirations, do not think for one minute that the Scottish people will take that lying down—they will not.
The Scottish Government have steadily improved their environmental policies, which have been praised by a variety of academics and recognised by various politicians from other countries, who have commented positively on Scotland’s aims and ambitions. During a trip by the Environmental Audit Committee to Washington earlier this year, the president of one of the universities that we visited could not speak highly enough of the Scottish Government and all their chemical policies, and I want the Labour party and the Conservative party to remember that. The Scottish Government have provided certainty of policy on environmental issues and that policy sits at the top of the tree. Investors like that. Investors who believe in corporate responsibility like that. Investors in people and businesses who see the positive social impact that good, sustainable policies deliver to all parts of the community like that. Expert commentators like that. Most importantly, our people—the Scottish people—like that, and it is the right thing to do. That is why it is so important that we as a country protect our carefully thought-out policies—our devolved policies.
I want to give some examples of comments about our policies that have been given to the Environmental Audit Committee. Professor Holgate, who is an expert on the health effects of poor air quality, said:
“Scotland is taking a lead in this area… Scotland has been able to… keep the relationships between the public, health and local authorities intact. In this country”—
England—
“they have drifted apart”.
He praised the Scottish Government’s approach to tackling poor air quality and their adoption of World Health Organisation guidelines on fine particulates into law—the first country in Europe to do so. He challenged England to raise the bar—I like that. Do we need to protect these policies? Yes, we do.
We simply must not get soil health wrong. Sir Peter Melchett and David Thompson attended our Committee. During their evidence, David Thompson said:
“The Scottish Government…have a statutory requirement to produce a land use strategy under their Climate Change Act, which is not the case for the rest of the country.”
Sir Peter Melchett said that the Scottish Government were looking at the science of soil protection 15 years ago and that the science is linking more closely in Scotland than he has
“ever seen happen in England.”
I like that. Sir Peter Melchett and David Thompson are educated, knowledgeable people. Do we need to protect that policy? Yes, we do.
I will now get a wee bit into the crux of the matter, the re-reservation of powers and the possible threat to Scotland’s environment. Emma Barton, the Royal Yachting Association’s planning and environmental manager, and Professor Carolyn Roberts, vice-president of the Institution of Environmental Sciences, both appeared before the Environmental Audit Committee. When I asked them about marine protection zones, Emma Barton said:
“As far as I am concerned we have had a…positive experience in Scotland… I don’t have any particular concerns…in Scotland.”
When I asked Professor Roberts about the possible post-Brexit danger that devolved Administrations would be forced to take things they do not want, such as genetically modified crops or fracking, her answer was yes. Again, I pressed her on whether these powers could be taken back, and she said, yes, of course they could.
The complexity of working out exactly what the devolved Administrations can and cannot do will mean that every legal decision they make in areas touched by European legislation will be open to challenge at UK level. Effectively, this could turn them into paper Parliaments whose decisions could be overturned by anyone with the resources to launch a case at the UK Supreme Court. The Scottish Government agree that common frameworks are needed to guide many legislative areas across the UK post-Brexit, but the frameworks need to be agreed, not imposed.
My last quote is from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who was sitting in the Chamber earlier. He has said that he had his own “Damascus moment” on environmental issues, which I welcome, but he raised eyebrows at the EAC in November with his answers on devolved matters. He promised to clarify his position, which he has done by way of a letter to the Committee. Or has he? The letter said:
“In particular, we will explore with the devolved administrations whether they wish to take a different or similar approach. We have been clear throughout that we respect the devolution settlements, that we expect more powers to be devolved and that no decisions which the devolved administrations currently make will be taken from them.”
Consider that. I repeat it:
“no decisions which the devolved administrations currently make will be taken from them.”
Post-Brexit, will the Government honour the Environment Secretary’s statement and make the temporary position permanent?
Jenny Chapman
After eight hours of debate, during which I lost count of the number of contributions, I do not think I heard a single speaker on either side say that there was not an issue with clause 11. The Minister seems to accept that it has some deficiency, yet after eight hours he will not say what he thinks it is or how he intends to remedy it. He has not seen fit to accept a single amendment or new clause put before him today, despite saying he welcomes reasonable, practical contributions. For that reason, I shall seek to put new clause 64 and amendment 42 to the vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Under Standing Order No. 83D(4), I must now put the single stand part question.
Question put (single Question on successive provisions of the Bill), That clause 11 stand part of the Bill; and that schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 6th December 2017
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 6 December 2017 - (6 Dec 2017)
17:14 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 296 / Noes: 316 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:56 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 288 / Noes: 316 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:11 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 287 / Noes: 312 - Question accordingly negatived.
20:29 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 286 / Noes: 311 - Question accordingly negatived.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 338, in clause 10, page 7, line 14, at end insert—
“(2) But regulations made under Schedule 2 must not be incompatible with the full provisions of the British – Irish Agreement 1998 and the Multi-party agreement (the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement) to which it gives effect, including—
(a) the preservation of institutions set up relating to strands 1, 2 and 3 of the Good Friday Agreement,
(b) human rights and equality,
(c) the principle of consent, and
(d) citizenship rights.”
This amendment seeks to ensure that the rights provided for under the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement continue to be implemented and are protected.
Clause 10 stand part.
Amendment 307, in schedule 2, page 16, line 12, leave out
“the devolved authority considers appropriate”
and insert “is essential”.
This amendment would limit the power available to a devolved authority to deal with deficiencies in retained EU law arising from withdrawal in such a way that it could only make provision that is essential to that end.
Amendment 209, page 16, line 13, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.
Amendment 308, page 16, line 18, leave out “they consider appropriate” and insert “is essential”.
This amendment would limit the power available to a Minister of the Crown acting jointly with a devolved authority to deal with deficiencies in retained EU law arising from withdrawal in such a way that they could only make provision that is essential to that end.
Amendment 210, page 16, line 18, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.
Amendment 166, page 16, line 33, at end insert—
“(6) Sub-paragraph (4)(b) does not apply to regulations made under this Part by the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers.”
This amendment would include the power to confer a power to legislate among the powers of the Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers to make regulations under Part 1 of Schedule 2 to fix problems in retained EU law arising from withdrawal, in line with a Minister of the Crown’s powers under Clause 7.
Amendment 211, page 17, line 1, leave out paragraph 3.
Amendment 167, page 17, line 9, at end insert—
“(3) This paragraph does not apply to regulations made under this Part by the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers.”
This amendment would provide that the power of the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers to make regulations under Part 1 of Schedule 2 extends to amending directly applicable EU law incorporated into UK law, in line with a Minister of the Crown’s power in Clause 7.
Amendment 168, page 17, line 13, at end insert—
“(2) This paragraph does not apply to regulations made under this Part by the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers.”
This amendment would provide that the power of the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers to make regulations under Part 1 of Schedule 2 includes the power to confer functions which correspond to functions to make EU tertiary legislation, in line with a Minister of the Crown’s power in Clause 7.
Amendment 169, page 17, line 20, at end insert—
“(2) This paragraph does not apply to regulations made under this Part by the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers.
Requirement for consultation in certain circumstances
5A No regulations may be made under this Part by the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers acting alone so far as the regulations—
(a) are to come into effect before exit day, or
(b) remove (whether wholly or partly) reciprocal arrangements of the kind mentioned in section 7(2)(c) or (e),
unless the regulations are, to that extent, made after consulting with a Minister of the Crown.”
This amendment would replace the requirement for consent from a Minister of the Crown for regulations made by Scottish Ministers or Welsh Ministers in fixing problems in retained EU law that arise from withdrawal if they come into force before exit day or remove reciprocal arrangements with a requirement for Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers to consult with a Minister of the Crown before making the regulations.
Amendment 135, page 20, line 18, leave out paragraph 10.
This amendment is intended to remove the proposed restriction in the Bill on devolved authorities modifying retained direct EU legislation etc.
Amendment 322, page 20, line 25, after “Crown”, insert
“and excluding any provision that could be made under paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006”.
This amendment, and Amendments 323, 324 and 325, would prevent the Welsh Ministers from using powers proposed in the Bill (to deal with deficiencies in retained EU law arising from withdrawal) to amend the Government of Wales Act 2006.
Amendment 323, page 20, line 41, after “5”, insert “or”.
This amendment, and Amendments 322, 324 and 325, would prevent the Welsh Ministers from using powers proposed in the Bill (to deal with deficiencies in retained EU law arising from withdrawal) to amend the Government of Wales Act 2006.
Amendment 324, page 20, line 41, leave out “or 7”.
This amendment, and Amendments 322, 323 and 325, would prevent the Welsh Ministers from using powers proposed in the Bill (to deal with deficiencies in retained EU law arising from withdrawal) to amend the Government of Wales Act 2006.
Amendment 325, page 20, line 43, at end insert—
“(f) the provision does not modify the Government of Wales Act 2006.”
This amendment, and Amendments 322, 323 and 324, would prevent the Welsh Ministers from using powers proposed in the Bill (to deal with deficiencies in retained EU law arising from withdrawal) to amend the Government of Wales Act 2006.
Amendment 309, page 21, line 38, leave out
“the devolved authority consider appropriate”
and insert “is essential”.
This amendment would limit the power available to a devolved authority to prevent or remedy a breach of international obligations in such a way that it can only make provision that is essential to that end.
Amendment 212, page 21, line 39, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.
Amendment 310, page 21, line 43, leave out “they consider appropriate” and insert “is essential”.
This amendment would limit the power available to a Minister of the Crown acting jointly with a devolved authority to prevent or remedy a breach of international obligations in such a way that they could only make provision that is essential to that end.
Amendment 213, page 21, line 43, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.
Amendment 287, page 22, line 9, after “or revoke”, insert
“, or otherwise modify the effect of,”.
This amendment would ensure that the restriction in this paragraph could not be undermined by the use of legislation which does not amend the text of the Human Rights Act but modifies its effect.
Amendment 288, page 22, line 10, at end insert “, or
“(f) amend, repeal or revoke, or otherwise modify the effect of, any other law relating to equality or human rights.”
This amendment would broaden the restriction in this subsection to protect all legislation relating to equality and human rights (and not only the Human Rights Act 1998).
Amendment 326, page 22, line 10, at end insert—
“(f) amend, repeal or revoke the Government of Wales Act 2006.”
This amendment would prevent the Welsh Ministers from using powers proposed in the Bill (to comply with international obligations) to amend the Government of Wales Act 2006.
Amendment 170, page 22, line 10, at end insert—
“(4A) Sub-paragraph (4)(d) does not apply to regulations made under this Part by the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers.”
This amendment would provide that the power of Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers to make regulations under Part 2 of Schedule 2 includes the power to confer a power to legislate, aligning those Ministers’ powers to the power of a Minister of the Crown under Clause 8.
Amendment 136, page 22, line 25, leave out paragraph 15.
This amendment is intended to remove the proposed restriction in the Bill on devolved authorities modifying retained direct EU legislation etc.
Amendment 171, page 22, line 32, at end insert—
“(3) This paragraph does not apply to regulations made under this Part by the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers.”
This amendment would provide that the power of the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers to make regulations under Part 2 of Schedule 2 extends to amending directly applicable EU law incorporated into UK law. This brings the power into line with the Minister of the Crown power in Clause 8.
Amendment 172, page 23, line 11, at end insert—
“(4) This paragraph does not apply to regulations made under this Part by the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers.
Requirement for consultation in certain circumstances
16A (1) No regulations may be made under this Part by the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers acting alone so far as the regulations—
(a) are to come into effect before exit day, or
(b) are for the purpose of preventing or remedying any breach of the WTO Agreement, or
(c) make provision about any quota arrangements or are incompatible with any such arrangements,
unless the regulations are, to that extent, made after consulting with a Minister of the Crown.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1)—
“the WTO Agreement” has the meaning given in paragraph 16(2),
“quota arrangements” has the meaning given in paragraph 16(3).”
This amendment would replace the requirement for a Minister of the Crown to consent to regulations made by the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers to ensure compliance with international obligations if they come into force before exit day or relate to the WTO or quota arrangements, with a requirement for the Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers to consult with a Minister of the Crown before making the relevant regulations.
Amendment 311, page 24, line 11, leave out
“the devolved authority considers appropriate”
and insert “is essential”.
This amendment would limit the power available to a devolved authority to implement the withdrawal agreement in such a way that it could only make provision that is essential to that end.
Amendment 214, page 24, line 12, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.
Amendment 312, page 24, line 16, leave out “they consider appropriate” and insert “is essential”.
This amendment would limit the power available to a Minister of the Crown acting jointly with a devolved authority to implement the withdrawal agreement in such a way that they could only make provision that is essential to that end.
Amendment 215, page 24, line 16, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.
Amendment 289, page 24, line 32, after “or revoke”, insert
“, or otherwise modify the effect of,”.
This amendment would ensure that the restriction in this paragraph could not be undermined by the use of legislation which does not amend the text of the Human Rights Act but modifies its effect.
Amendment 290, page 24, line 33, at end insert “, or
(h) amend, repeal or revoke, or otherwise modify the effect of, any other law relating to equality or human rights.”
This amendment would broaden the restriction in this subsection to protect all legislation relating to equality and human rights (and not only the Human Rights Act 1998).
Amendment 327, page 24, line 33, at end insert—
“(h) amend, repeal or revoke the Government of Wales Act 2006.”
This amendment would prevent the Welsh Ministers from using powers proposed in the Bill (to implement the withdrawal agreement) to amend the Government of Wales Act 2006.
Amendment 173, page 24, line 33, at end insert—
“(4A) Sub-paragraph (4)(d) does not apply to regulations made under this Part by the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers.”
This amendment would include the power to confer a power to legislate among the powers of the Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers to make regulations under Part 3 of Schedule 2, in line with a Minister of the Crown’s powers under Clause 9.
Amendment 174, page 25, line 11, at end insert—
“(3) This paragraph does not apply to regulations made under this Part by the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers.”
This amendment would provide that the power of the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers to make regulations under Part 3 of Schedule 2 extends to amending directly applicable EU law incorporated into UK law, in line with the Minister of the Crown power in Clause 9.
Amendment 175, page 25, line 15, at end insert—
“(2) This paragraph does not apply to regulations made under this Part by the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers.”
This amendment would provide that the power of the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers to make regulations under Part 3 of Schedule 2 includes the power to confer functions which correspond to functions to make EU tertiary legislation.
Amendment 176, page 25, line 28, at end insert—
“(3) This paragraph does not apply to regulations made under this Part by the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers.
Requirement for consultation in certain circumstances
25A (1) No regulations may be made under this Part by the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers acting alone so far as the regulations make provision about any quota arrangements or are incompatible with any such arrangements unless the regulations are, to that extent, made after consulting with a Minister of the Crown.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1), “quota arrangements” has the meaning given in paragraph 25(2).”
This amendment replaces the requirement for Minister of the Crown consent to regulations made by the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers to implement the withdrawal agreement if they relate to quota arrangements, with a requirement for the Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers to consult with a Minister of the Crown before making the relevant regulations.
Amendment 317, page 25, line 31, at end insert—
“Part [ ]
Welsh Ministers—Power to make consequential and transitional provision
[ ] (1) The Welsh Ministers may by regulations make such provision as is essential in consequence of this Act.
(2) The power to make regulations under sub-paragraph (1) may (among other things) be exercised by modifying any provision made by or under an enactment.
(3) In sub-paragraph (2), “enactment” does not include—
(a) primary legislation passed or made after the end of the Session in which this Act is passed, or
(b) any provision of the Government of Wales Act 2006.
(4) The Welsh Ministers may by regulations make such transitional, transitory or saving provision as is essential in connection with the coming into force of any provision of this Act or the appointment of exit day.
(5) No regulations may be made under this Part unless every provision of them is within the devolved competence of the Welsh Ministers for the purposes of Part 2.”
This amendment would provide a power to the Welsh Ministers to make consequential and transitional provision within the devolved competence of the Welsh Ministers.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Amendment 313, in clause 7, page 5, line 7, at end insert—
“( ) But the power in subsection (1) may not be exercised to make provision for Wales to the extent that that provision would be within the devolved competence of the Welsh Ministers for the purposes of Part 1 of Schedule 2.”
This amendment would prevent a Minister of the Crown from making provision to deal with deficiencies in retained EU law arising from withdrawal to the extent that the provision would be within the devolved competence of the Welsh Ministers.
Amendment 89, page 6, line 11, at end insert—
“(da) apply to Wales unless they relate to matters specified in Schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act 2006,
(db) apply to Scotland unless they relate to matters specified in Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998,
(dc) apply to Northern Ireland unless they relate to matters specified in Schedules 2 or 3 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998.”
This amendment prevents Ministers of the Crown from making regulations under the powers in Clause 7 that apply to Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland other than in relation to reserved (or, in the case of Northern Ireland, excepted and reserved) matters.
Amendment 158, page 6, line 13, after “it”, insert—
“() modify the Scotland Act 1998 or the Government of Wales Act 2006,”.
This amendment would prevent the powers of a Minister of the Crown under Clause 7 of the Bill to fix problems in retained EU law from being exercised to amend the Scotland Act 1998 or the Government of Wales Act 2006.
Amendment 318, page 6, line 13, after “it”, insert—
“() modify the Government of Wales Act 2006,”.
This amendment would prevent the Government of Wales Act 2006 from being amended by regulations under Clause 7.
Amendment 144, page 6, line 14, leave out from “1998” to end of line 18 and insert
“or otherwise affect any legislation derived from the Belfast Agreement of 10 April 1998 or the intention of that Agreement.”
This amendment is intended to ensure that the EU Withdrawal Bill does not affect any legislation derived from the Good Friday Agreement or the intention of the Good Friday Agreement.
Amendment 161, page 6, line 25, at end insert—
“(9) The consent of the Scottish Ministers is required before any provision is made in regulations under this section so far as the provision would be within the devolved competence of the Scottish Ministers within the meaning given in paragraph 9 of Schedule 2.
(10) The consent of the Welsh Ministers is required before any provision is made in regulations under this section so far as the provision would be within the devolved competence of the Welsh Ministers within the meaning given in paragraph 10 of Schedule 2.”
This amendment would require a Minister of the Crown to first seek the consent of the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers before making any regulations under Clause 7 on Scottish or Welsh devolved matters.
New clause 39—Provisions of the Good Friday Agreement—
“Before making any regulations under section 9, the Minister shall commit to maintaining the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement and subsequent Agreements agreed between the United Kingdom and Ireland since 1998, including—
(a) the free movement of people, goods and services on the island of Ireland,
(b) citizenship rights,
(c) the preservation of institutions set up relating to strands 1, 2 and 3 of the Good Friday Agreement,
(d) human rights and equality,
(e) the principle of consent,
(f) the status of the Irish language, and
(g) a Bill of Rights.”
Amendment 315, in clause 9, page 6, line 45, at end insert—
“( ) But the power in subsection (1) may not be exercised to make provision for Wales to the extent that that provision would be within the devolved competence of the Welsh Ministers for the purposes of Part 2 of Schedule 2.”
This amendment would prevent a Minister of the Crown from making provision to implement the withdrawal agreement to the extent that the provision would be within the devolved competence of the Welsh Ministers.
Amendment 147, page 7, line 5, at end insert—
“(bc) amend or repeal the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (except with the intention of preserving the effects of the Belfast Agreement of 10 April 1998 after exit day).”
This amendment is intended to maintain the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement after the UK leaves the EU.
Amendment 320, page 7, line 8, at end insert “, or
(e) modify the Government of Wales Act 2006.”
This amendment would prevent the Government of Wales Act 2006 from being amended by regulations under Clause 9.
Amendment 160, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) The consent of the Scottish Ministers is required before any provision is made in regulations under this section that modifies the Scotland Act 1998.
(3B) The consent of the Welsh Ministers is required before any provision is made in regulations under this section that modifies the Government of Wales Act 2006.”
This amendment would prevent a Minister of the Crown from using the power to make regulations under Clause 9 implementing any withdrawal agreement to change the devolution settlements for Scotland and Wales without the consent of the Scottish Ministers or Welsh Ministers.
Amendment 157, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section unless the requirement in section [Provisions of the Good Friday Agreement] has been satisfied.”
Amendment 163, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) The consent of the Scottish Ministers is required before any provision is made in regulations under this section so far as the provision would be within the devolved competence of the Scottish Ministers within the meaning given in paragraph 18 of Schedule 2.
(6) The consent of the Welsh Ministers is required before any provision is made in regulations under this section so far as the provision would be within the devolved competence of the Welsh Ministers within the meaning given in paragraph 19 of Schedule 2.”
This amendment would require a Minister of the Crown to first seek the consent of the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers before making any regulations under Clause 9 on Scottish or Welsh devolved matters.
Amendment 321, in clause 17, page 14, line 4, at end insert
“or the Government of Wales Act 2006.”
This amendment would prevent the Government of Wales Act 2006 from being amended by regulations under Clause 17.
Amendment 316, page 14, line 9, at end insert—
“( ) But the power in subsections (1) and (3) may not be exercised to make provision for Wales to the extent that that provision would be within the devolved competence of the Welsh Ministers for the purposes of Part 2 of Schedule 2.”
This amendment would prevent a Minister of the Crown from making transitional, transitory or saving provision to the extent that the provision would be within the devolved competence of the Welsh Ministers.
Amendment 145, in clause 8, page 6, line 30, at end insert
“including the Belfast Agreement of 10 April 1998.”
This amendment is intended to maintain the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement after the UK leaves the EU.
Amendment 346, page 6, line 30, at end insert
“including those arising under the British-Irish Agreement 1998”.
This amendment would allow Ministers to make regulations to fulfil obligations arising out of the British-Irish Agreement (which commits to implementation of the Multi-Party Agreement).
Amendment 314, page 6, line 30, at end insert—
“( ) But the power in subsection (1) may not be exercised to make provision for Wales to the extent that that provision would be within the devolved competence of the Welsh Ministers for the purposes of Part 2 of Schedule 2.”
This amendment would prevent a Minister of the Crown from making provision to prevent or remedy any breach of international obligations to the extent that the provision would be within the devolved competence of the Welsh Ministers.
Amendment 146, page 6, line 35, at end insert—
“(bc) amend or repeal the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (except with the intention of preserving the effects of the Belfast Agreement of 10 April 1998 after exit day).”
This amendment is intended to maintain the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement after the UK leaves the EU.
Amendment 159, page 6, line 38, at end insert “, or
(e) modify the Scotland Act 1998 or the Government of Wales Act 2006.”
This amendment would prevent the powers of a Minister of the Crown under Clause 8 of the Bill to ensure compliance with international obligations from being exercised to amend the Scotland Act 1998 or the Government of Wales Act 2006.
Amendment 319, page 6, line 38, at end insert “, or
(e) modify the Government of Wales Act 2006.”
This amendment would prevent the Government of Wales Act 2006 from being amended by regulations under Clause 8.
Amendment 347, page 6, line 38, at end insert—
“(e) be incompatible with the British-Irish Agreement 1998 and the Multi-party agreement (the Belfast / Good Friday Agreement) to which it gives effect, including—
(i) the preservation of institutions set up relating to strands 1, 2 and 3 of the Good Friday Agreement,
(ii) human rights and equality,
(iii) the principle of consent, and
(iv) citizenship rights.”
This amendment is intended to ensure that the power to make regulations to fulfil obligations arising out of the British-Irish Agreement could not be used in a manner incompatible with those obligations.
Amendment 162, page 6, line 40, at end insert—
“(5) The consent of the Scottish Ministers is required before any provision is made in regulations under this section so far as the provision would be within the devolved competence of the Scottish Ministers within the meaning given in paragraph 18 of Schedule 2.
(6) The consent of the Welsh Ministers is required before any provision is made in regulations under this section so far as the provision would be within the devolved competence of the Welsh Ministers within the meaning given in paragraph 19 of Schedule 2.”
This amendment would require a Minister of the Crown to first seek the consent of the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers before making any regulations under Clause 8 on Scottish or Welsh devolved matters.
Lady Hermon
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon on this very important Bill, Mrs Laing,
I am enormously grateful to the Members who put their names to my new clause 70. I am sorry that Democratic Unionist party Members did not find time to do so. I am sure they wanted to, but they have obviously been busy with other things, such as speaking to the Prime Minister. When, or if, I press my new clause to a vote this afternoon—I am clearly signalling to the Government and to you, Mrs Laing, that if I do not receive a satisfactory response from the Government, I intend to press it to a vote—it will be quite difficult, as I sit as an independent, to provide the Tellers. However, my hon. Friends—I call them friends—in the Scottish National party and the Labour party have kindly indicated that they will provide the Tellers.
I find myself in an extraordinarily difficult position. When I hear the Prime Minister and the Brexit Secretary repeat their commitment to the Good Friday agreement, as I often do, I welcome that enormously. However, I of course expected the Government to match their words, rhetoric and promises about the Good Friday agreement with actions. When I first collected my copy of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, I expected to see a commitment written in bold that the Good Friday agreement—otherwise known as the Belfast agreement—would be protected, even though the UK is going to leave the European Union.
I have read the Bill very carefully. As right hon. and hon. Members will know, the Good Friday agreement or Belfast agreement was an international agreement between the Irish Government and the British Government. As an international agreement, it had to be incorporated in our domestic law, and that was done by the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Good Friday agreement is absolutely fundamental. It has given us peace and stability for the past 20 years in Northern Ireland, and there can be no denying that. Unfortunately, the first mention of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which incorporated the Good Friday agreement in our domestic law, is in clause 7. It is not at the beginning of clause 7 but in subsection (6), and it is not at the beginning of subsection (6) but in paragraph (f) at the end.
For the benefit of Members—including DUP Members, who have been busy doing other things, as I have said—let me take a moment to read out clause 7(6). Ministers will be given sweeping powers under clause 7 to do what they consider appropriate to prevent, remedy or mitigate deficiencies in retained EU law. The point I must emphasise to the Committee is that the sweeping powers provided in clauses 7 to 10 are replicated or duplicated in schedule 2 for the devolved authorities. The reference to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which I struggled to find, is in clause 7(6). It states:
“regulations made under this section may not…amend or repeal the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (unless the regulations are made by virtue of paragraph 13(b) of Schedule 7 to this Act or are amending or repealing paragraph 38 of Schedule 3 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 or any provision of that Act which modifies another enactment).”
I commend the legislative draftsmen and women, because I am sure it is technically correct, but what on earth does it mean? The legislation has to be clear to those people who read it who are not lawyers, and the vast majority of Members of this House are not lawyers. The language is not clear.
May I say to the Clerks of the House—the brilliant Clerks, who serve the House long hours into the night and with such enthusiasm—that I am enormously grateful to them for their patience personally with me and for their diligence and great wisdom in drafting new clause 70? The new clause puts in black and white a bold statement of the commitment to the Good Friday agreement and to the principles which I call in shorthand in the new clause “the Belfast principles”. Those are the principles enshrined in the Good Friday agreement.
For Northern Ireland Unionists, the Belfast principles include the constitutional guarantee, through the consent principle, that Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom unless and until there is a border poll and the people of Northern Ireland, and only Northern Ireland, say otherwise. It is not in the gift of No. 10, thank goodness; it is not in the gift of Dublin; it is governed by the people of Northern Ireland in a border poll. The constitutional principle is guaranteed among the Belfast principles in the Good Friday agreement, as is the principle of mutual respect for all communities across Northern Ireland, who were so divided by the troubles—respect and equality, irrespective of how a person votes, their political opinion and views or their religion. Non-discrimination and equal respect for all is guaranteed in the Belfast agreement.
There are many other principles—I could go on—in that document, which is enormously important for people not just in Northern Ireland, but particularly in Northern Ireland. I stand here as a Unionist and I am proud to defend the Belfast agreement—the Good Friday agreement. I say that with great pride because I grew up, not in in some stately home but on a 50-acre farm west of the River Bann in County Tyrone, very close to what unfortunately became known as the “murder triangle” for the number of people, both Catholic and Protestant, who were murdered by the IRA and subsequently by loyalist paramilitaries as well. Our postman was murdered at the end of our lane. Many of our farming neighbours were attacked on their tractors, or went out to a shed and opened the door, and there was a booby trap that blew off their head or face. My late father made it to 92, but he had to attend innumerable funerals of our neighbours, both Catholic and Protestant.
There is no monopoly on pain and suffering—every single one of the DUP Members in this House, their families and neighbours, suffered as well—but likewise in County Tyrone in 1981, when we had a Conservative Government led by the late Margaret Thatcher, we had the hunger strikes, which unfortunately became the best recruiting agent the IRA did not have in 1981. Ten young men starved themselves to death—highly emotive within the Catholic community, the republican community, the nationalist community. They were the sons of neighbours of ours in County Tyrone. All communities suffered.
Many Members of this House will have no idea who Jack Hermon was, because they are all so young. My dear late husband, who died with Alzheimer’s nine years ago, was the longest serving Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. During the appalling terrorist campaign waged by the IRA and subsequently by the Provisional IRA, which morphed into something called the Real IRA, and by loyalists—do not forget the woe, the suffering, the grief that was caused by loyalist paramilitaries—he described his officers as extraordinary men and extraordinary women doing an extraordinary job, and they did. In Northern Ireland, with a population of 1.8 million, 302 RUC officers were murdered. That is an awful lot of dead police officers.
In the 10 years that Jack was Chief Constable, he had to attend almost 100 funerals, and that undoubtedly affected him, but I tell the House that when the Good Friday agreement was signed and I talked to him about the constitutional consequences of having Sinn Fein in the Executive, Jack listened to me patiently and then lifted one finger and said, “If it saves the life of one police officer, I’m voting for this.” Jack supported publicly the Good Friday agreement, the late Mo Mowlam and her efforts at that time.
The Good Friday agreement has brought all of us in Northern Ireland stability and peace, from which the whole of the UK has benefited, the Republic of Ireland has benefited, and—since we are talking about Brexit—the European Union has benefited. After all, the IRA placed bombs in Germany, Spain, Gibraltar and elsewhere. Underpinning the Good Friday agreement—the foundation for it—was the fact that the Republic of Ireland and the UK had joined the European Union on the same day, at the same time. It was the cornerstone, the foundation of the Good Friday agreement. Under the agreement, those born in Northern Ireland could choose to identify themselves as British or Irish, or indeed both, but they also regarded themselves as Europeans.
The border became virtually invisible where once we had had watchtowers, murders, security checks and unapproved roads. The roads had been cratered, so that someone going to school on the other side of the border, or to a community hall, or church, or chapel, had to get out of their car and tiptoe around on the uncratered part of the road. Those roads have been filled in again. We have normality in Northern Ireland, we have peace, and we undoubtedly have people alive today who would not otherwise be alive.
Let me say ever so loudly and strongly to senior members of the Conservative party that I do not want to hear them or see them on television talking about pushing ahead and no deal—“Let’s just move on with no deal.” It is an absolute nonsense. It is so reckless and so dangerous. The Home Secretary stood here yesterday and made a statement about counter-terrorism. Dissident republicans are active. They are dangerous and ruthless—utterly ruthless. If I had a child or grandchild choosing a career—I have no grandchildren, by the way; I have two children, both of whom have chosen careers other than politics, sadly, because we need leadership in Northern Ireland and young people to come into politics—I would not encourage them to join the UK Border Force or Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in the event of no-deal Brexit, because inevitably we will have a hard border.
It must be a moral responsibility and duty on this Government to take care of all personnel, all officials, in HMRC, in the Police Service of Northern Ireland and in the UK Border Force. It is all very well and good to have talked about “taking back control” of our borders—that was a catchy refrain during the EU referendum—but I never could, and still cannot all these months later, get any clarity on how exactly we proposed to take back control. However, in the event of no deal, we would certainly face a hard border, and dissident republicans would regard Police Service of Northern Ireland and HMRC officers, and UK border officials, as legitimate targets. I do not want that on my conscience, and I do not believe for one moment that the Prime Minister or the Government want that either. I plead with senior Conservative party members to stop the nonsense of talking up no deal. The Home Secretary wisely described no deal as “unthinkable”, and it is. She may not be here, but I quote her anyway, because I agree with her and hold her in very high regard.
Why am I so committed to this issue? It is because half my life has been blighted by the troubles. I was not involved in politics when the Good Friday agreement was signed. I was not then a member of the Ulster Unionist party, of which David Trimble was leader. He and I had taught together in the law faculty of Queen’s University Belfast. If anybody cares to look, they will see that my specialism was EU law; that is another reason why I am so passionate about this subject. David Trimble, who was such a remarkable, courageous leader of the Ulster Unionist party, never quite liked or understood my interest in EU law, yet now he is in another place and is asked for his views on so much. He and I will never fall out, but we have always disagreed over the EU. My love for it continues.
I accept that Brexit will happen. We as the United Kingdom have to come out together, and the Prime Minister made that quite clear at Prime Minister’s questions today, but in doing so we cannot risk undermining all that has been gained through the Good Friday agreement—the lives that have been saved and the normality that we have had. That will carry on, but people in Northern Ireland are extremely nervous. There is one party, the Democratic Unionist party—and I am just describing, factually. DUP Members are colleagues and friends, though sometimes I wonder, given the tone of voice that they use towards me. Let us remember the history: a previous Conservative Government, led by Margaret Thatcher, caused such divisions, hurt, anger, rage and outrage in one part of the community in Northern Ireland—the republican nationalist community —and there was the way that the hunger strikes were handled. It is critical that the Conservative Government, who are supported by the DUP, bear in mind all the people of Northern Ireland, and that the DUP does not speak for or represent all of them.
Mr Clarke
I do not think that I am one of the senior members of my party whom she is criticising. Does she agree that the Prime Minister, 48 hours ago, reached an agreement with the Taoiseach that seemed to show that the Prime Minister shared the hon. Lady’s concerns? We cannot have an open border without having some regulatory and customs convergence on both sides. That all came to an end when the DUP vetoed it, which makes it extremely important—more than it was—that her new clause be put into the Bill to make sure that we are not back-sliding. Of course, the DUP could always rescue its reputation by confirming that its only objection was to not having regulatory and customs convergence across the whole United Kingdom, and by agreeing, as she and I do, that regulatory and customs convergence across the whole island of Ireland is in the interests of inhabitants on both sides of the border.
Lady Hermon
That was very interesting. Lots of points were raised there. The DUP will have to speak for itself, and I am sure that at some point this afternoon, its Members will want to contribute to the debate. I am hugely grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for confirming that he feels that the Government should accept my new clause; I thank him.
I felt deeply embarrassed for the Prime Minister on Monday. What was so interesting in her demeanour during Prime Minister’s questions today was her confidence at the Dispatch Box, and her response to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who had a question on the Order Paper. It was a very interesting question, and the Prime Minister’s reply was significant. She seemed so calm, not that she does not normally seem calm—forget about the party conference; that was a very difficult experience for her, and we would not like that to happen to any of us. I suspect that she has spoken a lot to the leader of the DUP since Monday; that is what I hope, but I am not in that inner circle. I am not a member of the DUP, and its members do not come along to me and say, “Here’s the draft memorandum; have a look at it.” I hope that I am right in saying that there has been progress. If I am not, I am sure that a DUP Member will quickly get to their feet to contradict me, and they are not doing that.
Nigel Dodds
Could the hon. Lady answer the question posed by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who asked whether she accepts, as he does, that it is a good idea to have regulatory convergence and common rules between Northern Ireland and the Republic? Could she give a straight answer to that, because many in Northern Ireland now view her as being on the side of the Dublin Government on these issues?
Lady Hermon
I thank the right hon. Gentleman so much for that. [Interruption.] Yes, what do you do in response to that?
Lady Hermon
I can hear. If the right hon. Gentleman gives me a chance, instead of chuntering away, I might actually reply to him.
The Prime Minister, and yesterday the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, made it absolutely clear—at least this is what I understood by the Secretary of State’s statement—that it was always the intention of the Prime Minister and the Government to have the same regulatory alignment right across the United Kingdom. For the record, if the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) wants me to say this again, I am a Unionist. I am not in the pocket of, am not propping up, and have not spoken to, the Dublin Government, and I strongly resent the implication, in his question, that I am doing that.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The hon. Lady and I have got on very well since entering the House together—16 years and I think four months ago, as the Speaker might say. Does she agree that my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) asked her a very specific question relating to what the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said about convergence across the island of Ireland? In the few minutes that have elapsed since then, I have not heard an answer to it.
Lady Hermon
I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman—or the hon. Gentleman; I just promoted him. That is not what I understood, so there is no point in putting up a straw man for me to knock down. I understood that the proposal that the Prime Minister took with her to Brussels was always to have been that the entirety of the UK should have the same alignment. The Prime Minister is no one’s fool. She has made it quite clear that she will protect the integrity of the whole United Kingdom. She had already ruled out having a border down the Irish sea. I therefore believe and trust that when she went to Brussels, she had always planned that there would be convergence throughout the United Kingdom, and that Northern Ireland would not be treated differently from the rest of the United Kingdom. That is the confidence that I have.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
The hon. Lady may share with me a certain amount of bemusement. There can be no question for me, as a Unionist, of a separate regulatory arrangement for Northern Ireland, permitting it to have regulatory equivalence or convergence with the Republic. Convergence either applies to all of us, or cannot apply at all. I have to say that all of us having regulatory convergence with the Republic, and indeed the rest of the EU, strikes me as a very good idea.
Lady Hermon
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. Even though he sits on the other side of the Chamber, I have always regarded him as a friend. He has just summed up how I feel. I will not stand here and criticise our Prime Minister—she is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, and I believed that her stance when she went to Brussels on Monday was that the convergence would apply to all of the United Kingdom. I did not believe for one moment that she would cast Northern Ireland off somehow to a regulatory framework and convergence on the island of Ireland, and not with the rest of the United Kingdom.
Of course, I do not want Northern Ireland to be treated any differently from the rest of the United Kingdom. We are all coming out of the EU—sadly—on 29 March 2019. The referendum result in Northern Ireland was in favour of remaining, but the UK-wide result will be honoured. The Prime Minister has said that repeatedly. As we move towards that, I urge and encourage the Government to adopt, in some form of words, new clause 70, because the principles of the Good Friday agreement, which I and the other Members who have put their names to the new clause are proud to support, must be protected in black and white on the face of that Bill. That is the assurance I need from the Government this afternoon, otherwise I will test the House’s commitment to the Good Friday agreement.
Mr Grieve
I do not intend to speak at length. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and I completely agree with all the sentiments she expressed about the benefits that the Good Friday agreement has conferred on our country generally and on our international relations with the Irish Republic. It has been a step change in improving the quality of life for all citizens in this country, particularly those in Northern Ireland, about which the hon. Lady spoke so eloquently.
It is clear that the Brexit process is challenging in the context of maintaining those benefits. I regret that, during the referendum campaign last year, those of us who highlighted the consequences that could flow did not get as much register as we would have liked. In the cost-benefit analysis between staying in and leaving the EU, the Good Friday agreement was a factor that should have been taken into account properly, but I regret to say that some of the enthusiasts for our leaving the EU seem to have systematically ignored it.
However, we are where we are. It is clear that we will have to try to manage the Brexit process in a way that does not adversely impact on the Good Friday agreement. I listened carefully to DUP Members, and I can well understand that any suggestion that leaving the EU involves uncoupling Northern Ireland and putting it into a separate regulatory regime for the benefit of maintaining the Good Friday agreement, or regulatory equivalence with the Republic of Ireland, is a complete non-starter. It is totally unacceptable to me, and I did not understand the Prime Minister’s words and the agreement she reached as being indicative of her intending to do any such thing. If she was, all I can say is that she will not long survive her party’s views, which are unanimous on this matter, irrespective of whether Members most enthusiastically embraced Brexit or most vigorously sought to prevent it. We therefore need to park that on one side.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 70 and amendment 174. I applaud the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) for her initiative in seeking to put the principles of the Belfast agreement on the face of the Bill and for a wonderful speech. I think that all of us who listened to her were moved by her memories of times past, to which none of us wants Northern Ireland to return. So much progress has been made in the peace process in recent years, not all of it in the public eye, and it would be an appalling betrayal of the good work done by so many people in sometimes dangerous situations if that were not protected.
A huge range of legacy issues is being addressed, not least the higher rate of unemployment and the consequential effects for the coming generations. Having the principles nailed into the legislation helps to ensure that Ministers here take note of the needs of the communities of Northern Ireland.
It has been clear throughout the whole process since the triggering of article 50 that the Government and their Whitehall machine have had little, if any, time for the devolved Administrations or their opinions on how to proceed with negotiations, what the final outcome should look like or what kind of continued links with the EU we should aim for. The obvious exception, of course, is the leader of the DUP, who appears to have a veto on things. What a tangled mess an ill-judged election and a poor campaign created.
The importance of Northern Ireland having a border with Ireland that facilitates the continued trade and social interaction between the communities on either side cannot be overstated. Clearly, it is in the best interests of the communities there to continue within the customs union and single market, and why any politician, from Stormont or anywhere else, would want to destroy that relationship is beyond me, especially given that the people voted to remain in the EU.
There is a parallel issue, in that people who have been ripped out of the EU against their will should also receive whatever minor and insufficient recompense is on offer, and that is where amendment 174 comes in. If there is no longer any EU membership, the Scottish Parliament should be able to amend the legislation handed down from the EU. The original imposition in the Scotland Act 1998 of a requirement to follow EU legislation was intended to ensure that the devolved Administration complied with EU law, and if that is no longer needed, the devolved Administration should have the right to change the law concerned. There is much more to be done to balance the devolution settlements properly after Brexit, but one small step would be accepting amendment 174.
Let me end by complimenting the hon. Member for North Down again on new clause 70.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I rise to speak in favour of new clause 70, and to make it clear that unless I hear some good reason why I should not vote for it, I shall do so, because I think it is eminently sensible. I think we are now reaching a point in all this when people have just got to be big and strong and brave and say that they will do what they believe is right, and put the interests of our country—the United Kingdom—before political allegiance and everything else. This is bigger and more important than anything else. We are embarking on a course of a magnitude that we have not seen for decades, and it is important that we get it right, not just for my generation but for my children and my grandchildren.
Like, I think, everyone else in this place, I was extremely moved by the wonderful and wise words of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), whom I am going to call my friend. I think I am about her age, and in one respect I am like her and unlike the young people whom she rightly identified. I say that with no disrespect, because it is good to see young people in this place, but they probably cannot believe what it was like during the period of the troubles.
I was fortunate—I was not living in Northern Ireland then, as the hon. Lady and other Members were—but I remember that time incredibly well. I remember the terrible bomb that exploded in Birmingham when I was a child. I remember that, almost every night, my television screen was filled with terrible pictures of brave soldiers and remarkable police officers who were putting themselves absolutely on the frontline, and were doing so in a unique way. They were not engaged in some terror in another country; this was happening on their doorstep. This was their community, and these were their people. What they went through was even worse than what soldiers in a foreign field go through, because those soldiers will eventually return home to their own country, but these brave men and women returned to homes that were literally around the corner. It was a truly dreadful time, and the terror did not just come from the IRA in all its various guises: it also came from some of the extreme protestant movements. And, of course, caught up in the horror were real human beings. I never thought that this would happen. I could not see, as a young woman, how we could ever reach the period that we have now reached, a period of peace in Northern Ireland.
When I was a defence Minister, I had the great pleasure of going to Northern Ireland myself. It was the first time I had ever been to—I was going to say Ulster, but to Northern Ireland. I was delighted to be there, and, if I may say so, particularly delighted to be there with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), but one of the things that really troubled and appalled me was the fact that the military covenant, which applies throughout the rest of the United Kingdom, did not extend to Northern Ireland in the way that it should have. One of the young men whom I met there had lost a limb in Afghanistan. It was nothing to do with the troubles; he had fought for his country somewhere else. He was denied the treatment and services to which he was absolutely entitled, for no other reason than that he had served in the British Army. That was a symbol of the disharmony, the pure prejudice, that still existed in some quarters. Equally, however, much progress has been made.
As we heard from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), Brexit reality is unfurling. People are now recognising the reality of what 17 million voted for. I am going to be frank about this: I made a compromise. I put aside my long-held belief that our future should lie in the European Union and voted against my conscience, and I have accepted that we are leaving the European Union. What saddens me is that others cannot compromise in the same way. There are still people “banging on about Europe” from a hard-line, ideological position: Notwithstanding the fact that we lost our majority in the general election, they are still banging on in that hard-line, hard-Brexiteer way, and it is not acceptable. Let me respectfully say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that if I can compromise, and if my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) can compromise and accept that we are leaving the European Union, they too must compromise. They must drop the rhetoric and come and find a solution to the Brexit problem, which will undoubtedly be a nightmare unless people compromise.
That is why I will no longer vote against my conscience. I am going to go through the Lobby with the hon. Member for North Down because it is the right thing to do. We must put aside our political differences—and in some instances, such as mine, put aside our long-held views—and vote for what is right and best for our country.
Let me gently say to Ministers that it does not help when we are told that we will be leaving the customs union, and we will be leaving the single market; we have to find a compromise. I think that the Prime Minister moved towards that with the idea of “regulatory alignment”, which makes a lot of sense. People are coming together. A consensus is forming, and I think that the consensus neatly lies with the customs union. I do not care what we call it—regulatory alignment, and all the rest of it. I am not interested in terminology. All I am interested in is getting the right result, and the right result in Northern Ireland and Ireland is no hard border. How do we achieve that? Through the customs union. It is very simple, and it will win support.
The danger of what is happening is that we are not bringing the people of this divided country back together. The more people bang on with their rhetoric, the more alienated other people are becoming, especially younger people. I have said this before, and it is a bit of an old joke, but in my terms that means anyone under the age of 45. They are looking at this place and listening to these debates and arguments, and what they see and hear is a bunch of older grey-haired men who seem determined to decide their future in a way that is not beneficial to their interests. I have said that before, and I am sorry to say that I was proved right. I warned my party that those people would punish us at the ballot box, and on 8 June that is exactly what they did.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I agree with much of what the right hon. Member has said, and I commend what was said earlier by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). Does the right hon. Member agree that the Government need to recognise that if they are to take courage, it will be from the peoples of Northern Ireland who endorsed the Good Friday agreement on an 81% turnout and voted 71.2% in its favour, and that the Government should listen not to the ne-er-do-wells on the Back Benches of any political party but to the cross-party, cross-community roots in Northern Ireland?
Anna Soubry
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I think that this is a good way for me to end my speech. The hon. Member for North Down said exactly the same: if the Good Friday agreement meant that one person’s life was saved, it was worth supporting. Northern Ireland is an example of how people can put aside rhetoric and long-held beliefs, and come together to secure a peaceful, prosperous future for all generations, including generations to come. That is what the Committee must do now: it must find the compromises and find the solutions so that we can come back together, get on with the rest of what we have to do, and deliver a Brexit that works for everyone.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the excellent speeches of the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), and of course the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). I was not planning to speak at great length about new clause 70 and other issues this afternoon, but I was profoundly moved by what she said. I think she speaks for many people in Northern Ireland whom I know and love, and it is a shame that there are not more voices like hers calling for that moderation and focus on what really matters, which is peace and stability.
Mr Gregory Campbell
When indicating the substantial contribution and progress made in recent decades in Northern Ireland, I caution the hon. Gentleman and other Members against attributing that in total to the process that started in 1998. The ceasefires—among those who should not have started killing people in the first place—commenced in 1994, four years before the Belfast agreement. So a process of people converging, to use the in-phrase, in a very realistic way away from violence and towards embracing peace had begun long before the Belfast agreement. I say that merely to bring a note of historical accuracy to the debate, as we are in danger of rewriting the past, as many do in Northern Ireland.
Stephen Doughty
Indeed, many men and women of courage and conviction on all sides in that process pushed forward the need for peace and stability and an end to the violence and killings on all sides. I pay tribute to all of them, including some of the many fantastic individuals whose names we do not know; I think particularly of those in the Quaker community and others who worked behind the scenes so tirelessly to bring sides together. This is clearly a process over many years, and it is not yet fully resolved; there are still some who would seek to undermine that process, and that stability and peace.
This touches me as well. My family served in Northern Ireland in the British Army. Parts of my family originate from what is now the Republic and others from Northern Ireland itself—the Cassidys in my family came from Northern Ireland over to Kirkcudbrightshire in Scotland. I have friends, too, in all parts of the island of Ireland. In fact, I travelled as a young member of the Welsh Labour party to a conference organised by an organisation called Encounter, which brought together young members of all the parties in all parts of the British Isles and the Republic of Ireland. Despite having those family connections and having heard the tales from those in my family who had served, I was utterly shocked and astounded to walk through the Falls and the Shankill roads, to see the peace lines and to hear the stories of those from all sides of the conflict whose lives had been so dramatically affected and who had lost loved ones. It is incumbent on all Members in all parts of the House to remember where we were, where we have come from and what remains to be done.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Speakers today, particularly the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) and my hon. Friend, have reminded us of how the troubles affected everyone in Northern Ireland. I visited Northern Ireland during those times. Brief mention has also been made, in particular by the hon. Member for North Down, of how the troubles affected us in this country. I was a child living in Birmingham when those bombs went off. My father was a magistrate and we had to look under the car every morning before getting into it to go to school. Of course , the Conservative party suffered the most appalling attack at its heart. The troubles affected us all—
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady is not making a speech; she is making an intervention, and there will be plenty of time for her to make a speech, with the full rhetoric, later. If she has a point to intervene on, will she do it very briefly, please?
Ruth Cadbury
My sincere apologies.
Does my hon. Friend agree that we were all affected by the troubles, and that this is an opportunity to remind the House that we cannot go back to those days? This debate is so important for that reason.
Stephen Doughty
I wholeheartedly agree, and who can forget the Warrington bombing, for example, and the many other tragic events that affected young and old and people from all walks of life, in mainland UK as well?
How extraordinary it is that we would even contemplate putting any of the progress that has been made at risk. It was particularly important to hear what the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield and the right hon. Member for Broxtowe said. This goes beyond party politics and wider issues that we will have disagreements on in this House. This is about stability, peace and the constitutional settlement, and, ultimately, respect for the will of the people on the island of Ireland about their future. It is about understanding where that lies. It is not about games that some might choose to play for other purposes around this whole Brexit process.
That also draws into stark relief the role the EU has played in being a force around peace processes and stability, and not just in the UK. I do not claim that the EU was responsible for all the progress in Northern Ireland. I do not claim anything of that nature, but we have seen the role it has played in preventing a further outbreak of violence in Cyprus and in encouraging countries and different communities to come together in the Balkans. This was substantially lost from the debate we had around the referendum. Our coming together in Europe around shared values, peace and stability has helped to bring people together.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I am listening very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Of course none of us here—heaven forbid—would use this situation to do impure things like politics, but does he agree that there are those who would seek to manipulate the current situation for other goals? I am thinking in particular of the French intention to take business from the City of London and of some—I emphasise some—in Dublin who perhaps see an advantage in the current situation, which has led to a lot of discomfort on the island of Ireland.
Stephen Doughty
We are not here to talk about France’s intentions as regards the City of London; we are here to talk about the constitutional settlement in these islands, and I cannot understand why the Government would not want to accept new clause 70, given that it clearly sets out an agreement that they as a Government are committed to. I certainly will proudly go through the Lobby, or happily act as a Teller for the hon. Member for North Down later to make sure that that vote goes forward.
I shall now move on to other amendments, relating to clause 10 and schedule 2, tabled in my name and those of Members of other parties, regarding Wales and Scotland, the wider devolution context and the constitutional settlement we have. Clause 10 gives effect to schedule 2 and sets out the power of the devolved authorities to correct deficiencies in domestic devolved legislation that arise from withdrawal from the EU and to remedy potential breaches. Those infamous Henry VIII powers are included in those provisions. Using those powers, devolved Ministers would be able to modify retained EU law to correct those deficiencies and to act in various ways to deal with the circumstances of leaving. The crucial point, however, is that the same powers are given concurrently to UK Ministers in areas where devolved competence is absolutely clear, and those Ministers are free from the scrutiny of the devolved legislatures.
UK Ministers have been given the exclusive power to amend retained direct EU legislation—that which comes from EU regulations rather than from directives—which covers otherwise devolved competences, as we discussed at great length the other day. There is therefore a significant inequality in the powers that have been given to Ministers. I am delighted that those on the Labour Front Bench and others are opposed to that, as are Welsh Labour and many others from across the parties. Our amendments seek to address that issue. The Welsh Government have argued:
“Direct EU legislation (such as EU regulations) can only be amended by a Minister of the Crown, and would fall to be scrutinised by Parliament even if the subject was one that was devolved to the Assembly.”
When we discussed the amendments the other day, I was disappointed by the response from the Minister. Despite the assurances that we had had from the Secretary of State for Scotland when he appeared before the Scottish Affairs Committee, and despite other commitments that had been made about respecting reasonable and constructive amendments tabled by the devolved Governments, there was no willingness to take on board any of the amendments. We had no commitments on them, which was extremely disappointing.
The amendments are not about wrecking the Brexit Bill or about stopping the process. We all have different views on where we should go, but the amendments are about ensuring that we continue to have a stable and effective constitutional settlement and do not suddenly start grabbing back powers or giving UK Ministers new powers to interfere in areas that have long since been devolved. Let us not forget that it is almost 20 years since the advent of the first devolution Acts.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman refers to the importance of having stability. Does he also think it important to have legal certainty, and therefore to have mechanisms to ensure that our laws work well and quickly as soon as Brexit happens?
Stephen Doughty
Indeed, but why did the Government reject the amendments that we tabled on putting the Joint Ministerial Committee on a statutory footing and on establishing framework-making powers? Many of those amendments would indeed have provided legal stability. The hon. and learned Lady surely knows that many of the legal powers in these areas are devolved in relation to both Executive and legislative competence. I am sorry to say that the attitude of UK Government Ministers has worsened in the last few days. The Brexit Secretary yesterday described the Welsh First Minister and the Scottish First Minister as “foolish”. That is hardly the attitude that we expect, especially when Ministers keep telling us that we are in a relationship of respect.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
Would the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that Ministers in the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament have called UK Ministers of the Crown far worse things than “foolish”?
Stephen Doughty
I am speaking about the context of these negotiations. Lots of things get said in all the legislatures of the UK that I am sure some of us would perhaps not say at certain times, but we are talking about a serious set of negotiations.
I have taken assurances from Ministers in good faith about the nature of those negotiations, only to hear another part of the UK Government saying something quite different. The Bill as it stands is highly deficient. Many Scottish Conservative Members were very clear about the deficiencies in clause 11 the other day. They were very unhappy with those provisions. I urge the Government, in line with what the Secretary of State for Scotland has said, to look carefully at these amendments and to accept some of them. Otherwise, I warn them again that there will be serious problems with the Bill on Report and when it reaches the other place in relation to the legislative consent motions. The Secretary of State for Scotland told the Scottish Affairs Committee in October:
“As a UK Government, we are discussing those amendments with the respective Governments to understand fully what is sought to be achieved…It may be that some amendments can be accepted with a little bit of modification…it is ultimately for this House to determine whether amendments are successful in relation to the Bill.”
However, we have yet to see any movement so far from Ministers on these amendments.
I want to turn to two important amendments tabled in my name and those of my colleagues. They are grouped for debate today, which makes perfect sense, but I understand that we will not vote on them until a later date. Amendments 158 and 159 get to the heart of the matter. The constitutional settlement relating to Wales and Scotland is governed by the various Wales and Scotland Acts. One of the big issues that was trumpeted in the Wales Act 2017—I am sure that the same was true of the various Scotland Acts—was the permanence of the constitutional arrangements, the permanence of the Welsh and Scottish Governments and their legislatures, and the permanence of their legislation, yet powers are now being granted in this Bill to amend the very Wales and Scotland Acts that form the basic constitutional building blocks of the devolution settlement. That is why amendments 158 and 159 are so important. Amendment 158 would prevent the powers of a Minister of the Crown, under clause 7 of the Bill, from being exercised to amend the Scotland Act 1998 or the Government of Wales Act 2006. Amendment 159 relates to international obligations but essentially does the same thing.
The Secretary of State for Wales stated on Third Reading of the Wales Bill—now the Wales Act 2017—in September last year:
“The Bill meets the commitments in the St David’s Day agreement. It delivers a devolution settlement for Wales that is clearer, fairer and stronger, and it…delivers a historic package of powers to the National Assembly that will transform it into a fully fledged Welsh legislature, affirmed as a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional fabric, enhancing and clarifying the considerable powers it currently has.”
He also said that that Bill introduced the reserved powers model, yet we saw on Monday how that model is now being undermined by moving to a conferred powers model again. He went on to say:
“As part of the clear boundary of devolved and reserved matters…the Bill draws a clear line between those public bodies that are the responsibility of Welsh Ministers and the Assembly, and those that are the responsibility of the UK Government and Parliament.”
He said that the Wales Bill would draw
“a line under the constant squabbles over where powers lie”.—[Official Report, 12 September 2016; Vol. 614, c. 727.]
I therefore find it extraordinary that, at this stage in the negotiations, we have a Bill that will give UK Ministers the power to undermine that permanency of settlement and blur the lines between what is devolved and what is not, which will undoubtedly lead to further expensive squabbles in the Supreme Court and elsewhere about where the powers lie. I cannot understand why the Bill has been drafted in this way, despite the repeated concerns that have been expressed by the Welsh and Scottish Governments and others about the Bill as it is framed. I cannot understand how we got to this stage, without finding a solution to this issue. I will certainly want to press amendment 158, and potentially amendment 159, to a vote at the appropriate point, because they go to the heart of this group of amendments.
Lucy Frazer
It is really important that all the devolved Administrations retain powers, and it has been said that they will actually increase their powers, which overall would be a good thing. The hon. Gentleman has stated, however, that there will be a reduction in powers for Wales. Does he accept that that cannot be the case in circumstances where it is stated for all the devolved Administrations and all the devolution Acts that the UK Parliament has the power to change the laws of the devolved Administrations? Therefore, as a matter of law, the UK Parliament already has the power—under section 28 of the Scotland Act 1998, section 107 of the Wales Act 2006 and section 5 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998—to change the laws of those devolved Administrations.
Stephen Doughty
I would gently say to the hon. and learned Lady that I do not think she fully understands the legislation or the devolution settlement. The big point that was made by the Secretary of State for Wales in the passing of the Wales Act 2017 was about the permanency of the Assembly and the Welsh Government and their powers and responsibilities. This Bill undermines all that. It opens up a back door to allow the UK Government to amend, by Executive fiat, the very legislation that establishes the Welsh and Scottish Governments and the two legislatures. That is an extraordinary situation, and it should not be the case.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s argument, but in relation to a point made earlier, why would anyone in this House ever give powers to or take back powers from the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Ireland Assembly without the proper scrutiny of this Chamber?
Stephen Doughty
Indeed. I might have taken some Ministers at their word in the past, but there are others who would love to take back powers or to act without reference either to this Chamber or to the Chambers of the devolved legislatures, as we have seen on a whole series of issues. Ultimately we would end up in the Supreme Court, wasting lots of taxpayers’ money and in dispute. That cannot be the way to keep stability in the constitutional settlement.
My amendments are in no way intended to wreck the Bill or to undermine the process that the Government have set out, but they are absolutely essential to maintaining a stable settlement with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The events of the past 36 hours have shown why the Government have simply not paid enough serious attention to the unintended consequences of their various grand rhetorical statements. I will therefore seek to press amendment 158 to a vote at the appropriate time.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
It seems to me that the Brexit negotiations have finally started to reach a serious stage over the past two or three days. It is rather unfortunate that it is now 18 months since we held the referendum and more than six months since we invoked article 50, but we are still at the stage, which the British Government agreed to, of discussing the three preliminary points, based on our withdrawal, before we can get to discuss our new trade arrangements.
In my opinion, the rights of EU citizens could have been settled in five minutes, with a mutual recognition allowing British people who have moved to the continent and EU citizens who have moved here to retain the rights they expected to have when they made that important move. The financial arrangements should have taken about half an hour, because it was perfectly obvious that there would be financial obligations. We would not have known what the obligations were until we had concluded the negotiations, but the heads of agreement—the basis upon which the mathematics could eventually be done—should not have taken very long. The difficulties were political, and they were here in British politics and in the Conservative party. That delayed progress for a long time.
It is the extremely important Irish question that has posed the first really big issue that has to be solved properly. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) made an extremely eloquent and moving speech—I will not attempt to rival it. Like her, I certainly remember the Irish troubles. I lived in Birmingham at the time when there were serious bomb attacks there. My first visit to Northern Ireland was with other Conservative MPs. We caused the security people a little consternation by entering a no-go area in Derry with John Hume, who I think had got us a laissez-passer from the IRA so that we could get in and see the conditions there. More seriously, several MPs were killed. I knew Airey Neave and the Rev. Robert Bradford, and Ian Gow was a good friend of mine.
The hon. Lady put it eloquently and movingly. I hope that nobody in this country still underestimates the huge achievement that the Good Friday agreement represents, or indeed the huge achievement it represents that Northern Irish politicians of all complexions have turned it into such a success, making Northern Ireland a more cohesive and peace-loving society, because nobody wants to return to anything resembling the troubles.
We agreed to address the Irish border problem as a preliminary issue, but nobody seemed to pay it any serious attention until about a week ago. Certainly, it was scarcely mentioned in our rather agitated British debate in this country. It was thought a rather odd feature that the Irish Government had somehow persuaded the other members to raise with us. But the effect on the Irish border of our leaving the European Union is of immense significance, for all the reasons we have now been stressing.
I thought that the Government’s policy on the border was slightly ludicrous. They keep saying that they are committed to an open border, and that is absolutely right and consistent with the Good Friday agreement. They then say that we are leaving the single market and the customs union. I have said many times in the House that those two outcomes are completely incompatible; the two together are an oxymoron—I think that is the correct phrase—because we cannot have one with the other.
I thought that at last the light had dawned and that the Prime Minister had moved in her discussions with the Taoiseach and reached an agreement. Despite the assertions she had been giving all the way through, but consistent with them—obviously she would say—she had agreed on behalf of the Government, and no doubt believed that she would get the approval of this House, to have regulatory convergence, in certain areas at least, across the border. I, like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), took that to mean the whole United Kingdom, because we cannot have separate arrangements in Ireland.
At last common sense was dawning, I thought, because, whatever we call it, we cannot have any trade agreement with any other country in modern times unless we have agreed to mutually binding arrangements for regulatory and customs convergence—either harmonisation or mutual recognition in set areas. We will not get a trade agreement with Samoa—I think the Secretary of State has just headed there to make exploratory noises—if we tell them that we are not going to agree to any binding regulations or rules that will be mutually acceptable in whatever goods and services we trade.
That satisfied me, but then came this bewildering veto.
Mr Gregory Campbell
I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has returned to the veto, because vetoes have been mentioned several times in the debate thus far. Does he agree that what has been thoroughly unhelpful in the past 10 days is the arrival of Donald Tusk in Dublin, in effect to hand the Irish Taoiseach a veto by saying, “We in Europe stand with you, and whatever you want, we will back you.”?
Mr Clarke
That is hardly surprising. I do not think that Donald Tusk would go to any of the other 27 member states without saying that he accepts that their consent is required, and in this case, in particular, the Government of the Republic of Ireland have to be party to any agreement.
That seemed to be addressed by the fact that our Prime Minister was able to reach an agreement with the Taoiseach on regulatory arrangements—the precise details would have to await the ultimate free trade deal—in order to obviate any necessity for a closed border. I hope that the reason the DUP vetoed it was not that it was tempted by the idea of going back to border posts and controls; I do not think that the DUP is any more in favour of that than any other Member who has spoken in this House. I hope that it was sheer incompetence that the DUP had not been shown the text or kept party to the negotiations.
I will go no further than this, but I find it absolutely astonishing, if we are moving on to this issue, that the closest possible relationship would not be maintained with the devolved Government in Belfast. Had I been a member of the Government in Belfast—a highly unlikely prospect—I would have been rather indignant at not being closely consulted, and I certainly would have wanted to know what the terms were likely to be rather well in advance. If that is the explanation—the expression of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) gives the impression that might have quite a lot to do with it—I hope that the devolved Government will share with us all the importance of getting this right and maintaining the Belfast agreement and will therefore lift this veto, reach some understandings and let it proceed.
That brings me to the amendments. I think the negotiations are likely to succeed in the end. I take an optimistic view because, on both sides of the channel, an overwhelming number of politicians, diplomats and officials are perfectly sensible people. On the whole, the ones involved in the negotiations have a better understanding of what we are talking about than the average citizen. They all realise that the public interest in every one of the 28 countries is in reaching a sensible agreement that minimises the damage and maintains, as far as possible, the freedoms of trade and movement.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
It is always a mixed blessing to speak after the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). Mixed because, obviously, I agree with much of what he says but could never possibly match the way in which he says it.
I begin by addressing amendment 167 and the other amendments in my name and in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). I would like to bring both sides of the Committee together by taking the opportunity to wish Finland a happy 100th birthday today, and to wish all Finns in the UK and around the world a happy 100th independence day. Finland, of course, is a fully sovereign and independent nation, and a member state of the European Union to boot, demonstrating that the two are entirely compatible. Once again, the Finns are a lesson for us all. As a historical footnote, Finland declared independence at a time of political mayhem in the state from which it seceded—there are always lessons from history.
Today’s debate is set among the chaos of the Prime Minister’s inability to get a deal on Monday. We were promised a coalition of chaos after the general election, which is one promise the Prime Minister has been able to keep.
The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) made an extraordinarily powerful speech in moving new clause 70. I hope that all Members, even those who may not agree with her, listened closely to what she had to say—we listened, and other Members did, too. The new clause seeks to preserve the principles of the Good Friday agreement. Years of hard work have gone into peace in Northern Ireland, as noted in the powerful speeches by Members on both sides of the Committee. I hope colleagues from Northern Ireland will not mind, but it would be remiss of me not to mention that the St Andrews agreement, which was part of that process, was signed in my constituency. Some hon. Members were there at the time.
Given the precious goal of long-term peace in Northern Ireland, it is astonishing that this Bill fails to address the issue, and that even in Committee we are having to remind the Government of their responsibilities. That reflects the Bill’s wider issues on the devolved Administrations. The previous Member for Moray, Angus Robertson, rightly raised the problems of the Irish border earlier this year, and the Prime Minister told Angus, just as Vote Leave told us, that there was nothing to worry about. I bet the Prime Minister wishes she had listened to Mr Robertson—there was plenty to listen to.
Mr Robertson was not alone. The Committee on Exiting the European Union noted in its report published last week—I hope members of that Committee will not mind my quoting it—that it is not possible to see how leaving the customs union is reconcilable with the imposition of a border, and it concludes:
“In the light of the recent statement from the Irish Government about the border, Ministers should now set out in more detail how they plan to meet their objective to avoid the imposition of a border, including if no withdrawal agreement is reached by 29 March 2019.”
The Minister will be keen to tackle that when he speaks shortly.
The Prime Minister travelled to Brussels on Monday to discuss a deal on regulatory alignment. It is not for me to comment on when other Members may or may not have seen the detail and on what discussions were had—I am sure hon. Members will take the opportunity to comment themselves—but SNP Members think that regulatory alignment is quite a good approach. The Scottish Government first proposed such a resolution about a year ago in “Scotland’s Place in Europe”. It is also notable that in that publication we took on board the views of other political parties and experts—we are okay with listening to experts on the issue of Europe. The Government would do well to listen.
Of course, we believe that remaining in the single market would make it a lot easier for the UK Government to give certainty to business and the economy, and it would also be helpful on Northern Ireland. Yesterday Peter Hain, a former Labour Member, called on the Prime Minister to keep the whole UK in the single market and the customs union in order to avoid “sacrificing” the Good Friday agreement. We in the SNP obviously wholeheartedly agree with him. We recognise the historic and constitutional importance of the Good Friday agreement, and we will vote to protect it tonight if the hon. Member for North Down presses new clause 70 to a vote.
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s tireless efforts. There are areas on which she often disagrees with us and with many Members of the House, but there are inherent dangers if this Government only take on board the views of the DUP. They should, of course, take on board the DUP’s views, but they should also take on board those of all political parties, and I pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s efforts to ensure there is the strongest possible voice for everybody in Northern Ireland. That might sometimes make for uncomfortable listening for me and for others across this House, but it is extraordinarily important, and I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for doing this.
I turn to the amendments standing in my name—amendments 166, 167, 170, 171 and 174. Some of these points have been raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). Amendments 166 and 167 were put together by the Scottish and Welsh Governments, and confer further powers to legislate and give Scottish Ministers the ability to make their own amendments to the directly applicable EU law. The ability of Scottish Ministers to have these powers is vital for the proper functioning of the Scottish Parliament and it also keeps consistency of law where we have different legal systems across—
Stephen Gethins
I see the hon. Gentleman shaking his head, but of course this is not just my view; it is shared by other Members and by the Law Society of Scotland. Amendment 167 gives Scottish Ministers the ability to make a different change in Scotland, where Scotland’s circumstances require it. After all, that was the entire point of having a devolution settlement in the first place. Preparing our laws for exiting the EU will be technical, but it will require significant policy choices, such as those in environmental areas, where organisations such as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency will co-operate with its counterparts in Brussels directly. That brings me to another point, which I am sure the Minister will deal with. One matter we will have to address in readying for exit is who should replace the EU regulators within the UK—we are not entirely clear on that. This might be technical but it is extraordinarily important, and I am sure the Minister will pick up on it.
Amendment 167 expresses deep concern from the devolved Administrations that if only UK Ministers have the ability to make fixes in EU regulations, the UK Government could subsume powers coming back from Brussels and act as regulator for the whole of the UK in relation to an area of devolved policy, such as environmental standards. Again, that is incredibly important.
Amendments 170, 171 and 174 aim to ensure that devolved Ministers should have the same powers in respect of matters falling within devolved competences as UK Ministers are being given in clauses 8 and 9. As the Bill stands, if the need arose to deal with a power to make subordinate legislation in a devolved area, the Bill would require Scottish or Welsh Ministers to go to the UK Government to ask permission for them to do it on their behalf. That is clearly not acceptable to the devolved Administrations and to Members across this House. Amendment 170 would lift this unnecessary restriction on devolved Ministers’ powers. It would equalise the powers between the UK Government and devolved Administrations, giving each their proper role on reserved and devolved laws.
Stephen Gethins
To give everybody a little break, I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Given the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s amendments, has it occurred to him that these powers were ceded to the EU in order to maintain an integrity of the internal market? Equally, when these powers return to the UK, there will be a need, in the interests of many Scottish businesses, to maintain the integrity of the UK market, which is of vital importance to the Kingdom of Scotland.
Stephen Gethins
I have many face-palm moments when it comes to Tory Brexiteers and that was another one. To compare the internal market of the EU, with its independent member states, with that of the United Kingdom is astonishing and it demonstrates the lack of understanding of the EU that lay at the heart of vote leave and continues to lie at the heart of these arguments. It also misunderstands the state of the United Kingdom now. It is not the same state as it was 40 years ago. Devolution, whether one agrees with it or not, and I know that many Conservative Members would rather we did not have devolution, has changed the framework in which the United Kingdom exists. The right hon. Gentleman makes the point: we must have these powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament to make them work.
Anna Soubry
The hon. Gentleman and I agree on many of these matters, but I have to take him up on this point. It is not on to say that Conservative Members do not agree with devolution. Let us be clear that we do, which is why we happily voted for an Act—I believe in the last Parliament—that conveyed even more powers of devolution to the Scottish Parliament.
Stephen Gethins
I thank the right hon. Lady for her point, but I should make it clear that I said that some Conservative Members have perhaps not come to terms with the devolved Administrations. [Interruption.] If Ministers have come to grips with it and believe in devolution, and believe it should exist within a devolved settlement, they will back our amendments. If they do that, they will be able to prove me wrong in my point. I look forward to their backing our amendments and doing that later on today.
Stephen Gethins
Not at the moment. I want to move on and there is plenty to go through.
The Bill gives UK, Scottish and Welsh Ministers the power to make instruments needed to ensure that our laws are still compliant with our international treaty obligations when we leave the EU. However, the Bill, as drafted, means that, unlike the UK Ministers, devolved government cannot use this power to amend directly applicable EU laws—amendment 171 aims to rectify that. Of course, the Minister will be backing that.
Amendment 174 is equally important. In fact, it would be good to understand exactly what is going on with the UK Government’s position on this matter. The Bill gives UK, Scottish and Welsh Ministers the power to make instruments needed to implement the withdrawal agreement. However, unlike the UK Ministers, devolved Administrations cannot use this power to amend directly applicable EU laws, and this amendment would rectify that anomaly, too.
Leaving the power restriction aside, the UK Government have planned to introduce separate primary legislation on the withdrawal agreement. What purpose, then, does clause 9 actually serve? And will the Minister explain how this restriction on devolved Administrations can exist, given that there will be a separate piece of legislation to give effect to the withdrawal agreement? These amendments were not drawn together just by the SNP; they drew support from across this House. If Members do not mind my saying so, that was not the most important part of this; the most important part was Scottish and Welsh Government officials sitting down together—this is not always easy—with SNP and Labour colleagues, and Plaid Cymru colleagues in Wales having significant input, too, to pull these amendments together. I hope the Minister will give them serious thought. I do not want to leave the EU, but this is a way of compromise. The right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) may disagree with me on some things, but we agree that we are both willing to compromise on this, and the Minister needs to look at it. If he is serious about the devolved Administrations still working after we leave, I urge him to examine these amendments.
I turn to the devolved delegated powers. A lot of discussion and consultation has gone on in Holyrood on the subject, and I know that Liberal Democrat, Labour and Green Members, and others, have raised this. A lot of discussion and consultation has gone on with Scottish Ministers and members of other political parties to try to reach some consensus. On difficult issues such as this that is a good way of trying to reach out, and I commend Scottish Ministers for having done that. I also commend Opposition politicians in the Scottish Parliament for having sat down and tried to reach an agreement on this, as that was a responsible thing to do. Once again, the devolved Administrations are leading, where Westminster should perhaps follow.
As a result of that, the Scottish Government are committed to working with the Scottish Parliament and its Committees to agree a set of principles and a process that will ensure that the instruments that are made under the Bill receive the appropriate scrutiny. We hope that the UK Government will do the same for the UK Parliament, and we on these Benches look forward to those discussions. Again, I wonder whether the Minister can tell us what plans he has to reach a consensus across this House.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Is this not one of the key differences? I refer to the undertakings the Scottish Government have given about how they will use the delegated powers that we are seeking through these amendments, as opposed to the naked power grab, through the Henry VIII clauses in this Bill, which we will come to on another day, by the UK Government.
Stephen Gethins
My hon. Friend makes a good point about the power grab, but of course Government Members do have the opportunity to prove us wrong and back the amendments that have been drawn together in a cross-party way. I very much look forward to doing so.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
We are speaking about a power grab. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the power grab the SNP wants is for Scotland to become independent and then give all these powers that he wants back in Scotland straight back to the EU?
Stephen Gethins
Today is the day Finland celebrates its 100th birthday as an independent sovereign state, and it has no problem with full membership of the European Union and with the sovereignty that comes with it. I concede that sharing sovereignty is sometimes okay. Some Conservative Back Benchers, including the hon. Gentleman, may not agree with that, but sharing sovereignty in some areas with the EU is a good thing: on areas such as trade and the environment, there are benefits for his constituency as much as for mine. Such areas are crucial and we do not have a problem with sharing sovereignty on them. For instance, we would have our own say when fishing becomes a political priority in a way it never was for the United Kingdom Government.
Stephen Gethins
No. I am going to move on, but I would like to see the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) table some amendments. The Secretary of State for Scotland said in questions earlier that there will be amendments. I accept that Scottish Conservative Members have their misgivings, and they have made some valuable points, but I was disappointed that they have not tabled any amendments themselves. That was remiss of them, especially at a time when we are able to work on a cross-party basis.
I shall move on, because there is quite a lot of technical stuff to consider. The SNP has tabled a series of amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber that would delete the word “appropriate” and insert the word “necessary”. This is relevant to the discussion on delegated powers. The recommendation came not from the SNP or Labour, or even from the Liberal Democrats or anybody else, but from the Law Society of Scotland. We have been happy to work with external stakeholders who, I concede, know a great deal more about this stuff than I do. I am always happy to take guidance and advice on these issues, and I recommend that all Members think about doing so.
The need to rein in the meaning of the word “appropriate” was first highlighted by the House of Lords Constitution Committee, which published its report on the great repeal Bill and delegated powers back in March. That report gave credence to amending the legislation, with particular attention to the use of the word “appropriate”. The House of Lords Committee suggested that
“a general provision be placed on the face of the Bill to the effect that the delegated powers granted by the Bill should be used only…so far as necessary to adapt the body of EU law to fit the UK’s domestic legal framework; and…so far as necessary to implement the result of the UK’s negotiations with the EU.”
Our consequential amendments 209, 210, 212, 213, 214, 215 take into account those recommendations.
I welcome the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who I believe is seeking to achieve with them an outcome similar to what SNP Members seek. There are outstanding concerns about how in practice powers excluded from Scottish Ministers may work. A number of private international law instruments may need specifically Scottish adaptations, given the separateness of Scots law and the Scottish judiciary. It is clear that this Bill needs to be significantly amended. When senior legal experts are speaking out on almost every single clause, we have to wonder whether we should continue with the Bill or just start again from scratch, but we are where we are with this. I hope that Ministers will take on board the amendments that come not just from political parties but from across the board.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman should be in no doubt that amendments cannot be a Trojan horse and they cannot frustrate the democratic will of the people of the United Kingdom. The question is really simple: does he accept that the Bill is necessary, and that it is largely procedural?
Stephen Gethins
It should not be incumbent on any Member of Parliament to pass any old law that the Government want us to pass. If this place does not believe that the Bill is fit for purpose, we have a responsibility to interrogate it. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he is allowed to make amendments. That is something that he, as an MP, can do. There are hundreds of amendments, many of them tabled by Opposition Members but some tabled by Government Members. I hope that, in due course, Scottish Conservative Members will start to table amendments to Bills, because that is something an MP is allowed to do and I encourage them to do it. If we do not think that a Bill is fit for purpose, we will not vote for it, and I would not expect any other Member to do otherwise.
I pay particular tribute to the Scottish and Welsh officials who have worked so hard on this legislation over the past few months. Often, when we discuss amendments in Parliament we are doing so at the end of a process, but there are officials in the devolved Administrations and elsewhere working extraordinarily hard on this. The Secretary of State for Scotland said earlier that he will table amendments—at 500-plus days on from the EU referendum, I am glad to hear that—so will the Minister tell us when those amendments will be tabled?
On a historical note, I noticed earlier that Brexiteers were hailing Henry VIII as a great Brexiteer. Henry VIII was never King of Scots, but he was responsible for the rough wooing of Scotland.
Stephen Doughty
I am not going to woo the hon. Gentleman, but I thank him for giving way. Of course, Henry VIII and the Tudors originate from Wales—I am sure he knows about Tudor/Tudur and all the connections there. Given that we heard the Secretary of State for Scotland talking about amendments to clause 11, if we do not get the necessary changes to clause 10, would the hon. Gentleman welcome votes on amendments 158 and, possibly, 159, which I have tabled, to make sure that the Government cannot just amend the Scotland and Wales Acts willy-nilly?
Stephen Gethins
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman made what will be, I am afraid, the final intervention, because he makes an excellent point. I agree with him wholeheartedly and thank him for bringing that up. Henry VIII’s Welshness does not excuse the rough wooing, and nor does it excuse the Henry VIII powers taken in the Bill. We have to learn from history and we have to learn from bad legislation. Significant amendments need to be made because the Bill is not fit for purpose as it stands. I look forward to an extensive speech from the Minister in which he addresses the many points that have been made. Should the hon. Member for North Down wish to press her new clause to a vote, we stand ready to support her.
Douglas Ross
Thank you, Mr Streeter, for calling me to speak. I have sat through several of the Committee’s debates so far, but have only been able to intervene. This is the first time I have had the chance to make a speech and give my take on the amendments before us.
I feel fortunate to have been in the Chamber to listen to the speech by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). We share something in common in that my wife is a police officer—just a sergeant in Keith, I have to say; not quite at the level reached by the hon. Lady’s husband. When she spoke about the troubles in Northern Ireland and the efforts her late husband went to with so many colleagues, it touched a raw nerve for those of us who are so closely connected with our police, fire and ambulance services and the sacrifices they still make on a daily basis to protect us.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Lady said about new clause 70. It is useful that we have had this opportunity to discuss the Belfast agreement, because although she gave a thoughtful and moving speech, I hope she accepts that nothing with respect to our departure from the European Union and, indeed, nothing in the Bill, will compromise the Belfast agreement. Her words were very useful in giving us an opportunity to discuss and debate this issue, but I am not sure it is necessary for us to support new clause 70, because there is already clear information to show that the Belfast agreement is secure.
Lady Hermon
The Good Friday agreement created cross-border institutions and policies that have been supported and, indeed, financed by the European Union, and lots of finance has gone into improving the border areas. That commitment is going to go when the UK leaves the European Union, so it is inevitable that the terms of the Good Friday agreement will be altered. My new clause would keep the changes to an absolute bare minimum, making only those changes that are absolutely necessary on account of Brexit.
Douglas Ross
I am grateful for that intervention, but the Government have been clear about their ongoing support for the Belfast agreement, and nothing that will materialise from Brexit or, importantly, the relevant clauses of the Bill we are discussing, will diminish that in any way.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
The issue is not whether the Government are in agreement, but that they are co-guarantors of an international agreement.
Douglas Ross
I am not saying anything against that, but what I am trying to put across is that it is quite clear that there is support for the Belfast agreement without the need for new clause 70.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
I accept everything that my hon. Friend is saying, and join him in paying tribute to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), but does he not agree that perhaps this is a time where some form of underpinning of the Good Friday agreement, by one means or another, might be helpful in building trust?
Douglas Ross
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We are doing some of that by debating this very issue today. By proposing new clause 70, the hon. Member for North Down has allowed us the opportunity to discuss that in this place today.
Dr Murrison
My hon. Friend is very generous in giving way. On the institutions that were set up under the Good Friday agreement and with regard to peace and prosperity on the border, does he agree that there is an ongoing duty on the European Union, established by article 8 of the Lisbon treaty, to promote neighbourliness, which will underpin all of the institutions to which the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) has referred?
Douglas Ross
I agree with my hon. Friend, and believe that it is useful to get that on record.
I want to move on to the amendments on the devolved Administrations under discussion today. My constituency of Moray was split right down the middle on Brexit. Of all the 382 areas in the United Kingdom that counted the votes on the European Union referendum, Moray had the closest result of anywhere. Out of 48,000 votes, just 122 votes, including my own, gave remain the edge over leave. None the less, Moray did come within a whisker of being the only Scottish local authority to vote leave.
Moray is not a bitterly divided community. Like most communities in Scotland, and indeed in the United Kingdom as a whole, people in Moray want Brexit to be done with as little disruption as possible. It is in that spirit that this Bill works to ensure that our statute book—our legal and regulatory infrastructure—continues to operate as normal after exit day. Due to the sheer amount of tweaks that will need to be made after more than four decades of our laws becoming ever more intertwined with those of the European Union, it is only right that the Government have delegated powers to effect those adjustments where appropriate.
Likewise, in the light of our devolution settlement, it is only right that the Scottish Government and the other devolved Administrations have delegated powers to make their own adjustments where appropriate.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept the concerns that have been raised by the Law Society of Scotland on the areas of this Bill relating to the separate legal system in Scotland?
Douglas Ross
I know Michael Clancy very well, and have seen the briefing that the Law Society provided for this debate. I accept its concerns on this, just as I accepted the many concerns that it had over plans in the Scottish Parliament that I debated in my time there. The Scottish Government were quite happy to ignore the evidence—
Douglas Ross
The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head, but the Law Society was absolutely against the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012 and continues to be. The Scottish Government and the SNP Members north of the border are happy to ignore the views of the Law Society of Scotland when they do not suit their argument. Now SNP Members in this Chamber tell us that we have to agree with absolutely everything that the Law Society says.
Stephen Kerr
On that point, did the Scottish Parliament not vote that that 2012 Act should be repealed?
Douglas Ross
I believe that we may be straying slightly from the point. I may now have to declare an interest as a football referee in Scotland. Yes, my hon. Friend is correct that the Scottish Parliament has voted for that Act to be repealed, and the SNP has still done nothing about it.
Much of what we are discussing today should not be controversial. Quite simply, it is what is needed to keep this country operating after exit day with as little disruption as possible. There should, therefore, be consensus behind the broad principles of clause 10 and schedule 2 of this Bill. Where there is not, I suspect that it is because of a burn-it-down mentality that is less concerned with the real world and more intent on achieving some other ideological goal. However, no amount of ideology will keep our industries properly regulated on 30 March 2019. Brexit is happening; it is happening to the entire United Kingdom, and it is our duty now to ensure that it goes as smoothly as possible.
There appear to be two broad themes in the proposed amendments to schedule 2. Some amendments restrict the powers given to the devolved Administrations, while others expand them. Some of my Scottish Conservative colleagues have spoken about the need for a middle ground on clause 11. Well, with respect to clause 10 and schedule 2, it occurs to me that we have already got the middle ground. Amendments 209 and 307 take issue with the provision that a devolved authority may use its delegated powers as it “considers appropriate”. The SNP, it seems, would prefer to replace that with as it “considers necessary”, while Welsh Labour would prefer that a devolved authority make such provision as “is essential”. I welcome the SNP’s new-found restraint when it comes to the powers of the Scottish Government, who have spent the last decade centralising as much power as possible in their own hands. We are seeing it with the NHS in Scotland—centralisation from the SNP. We have already seen it with the police and fire services—centralisation from the SNP.
Several hon. Members rose—
Douglas Ross
I will give way in a minute. The SNP is obsessed with centralisation and it is to the detriment of communities such as mine in Moray and swathes of Scotland which have been let down by this centralising SNP Government.
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Gentleman refers a great deal to the Scottish Parliament. In the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government are bringing everyone together on the issues pertaining to this Bill and trying to seek consensus. Does he think that his Front-Bench team should follow the same example?
Douglas Ross
What I would really like to see is the SNP spokesperson on this issue discussing this very matter with the SNP’s Brexit Minister in Scotland. What we are seeing north of the border is a Brexit Minister and the Deputy First Minister engaging with the First Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Scotland. Over the weekend, we heard some positive noises from both of my Governments—at United Kingdom level and at Scotland level—but that does not seem to be replicated by SNP Members here who simply want to show that they are against Brexit at all costs, and they want grievance politics over and above actually delivering for Scotland, which is very unfortunate.
Douglas Ross
I will not give way, as I wish to make some progress.
If the SNP wants to limit the power of the Scottish Government, it may do well to tell its colleagues in Holyrood to start returning power to local communities in Scotland. However, in this instance, SNP Members should be more trusting of themselves. “Appropriate” is, in fact, the appropriate word. Perhaps it is even the necessary or essential word. “Appropriate” gives the devolved Administrations the right latitude to make adjustments that are genuinely effective. As I have said, it is crucial that the statute book continues to operate effectively after exit day, and we cannot risk setting our restrictions so tightly that we compromise that goal.
On the other hand, some of the proposed amendments aim to expand the powers of the devolved Administrations, and they risk, ultimately, undermining the vital internal market of the United Kingdom.
Sir Desmond Swayne
The difficulty is that it will be in the interests of Scotland that there is a swift increase in the volume of trade as a consequence of new trade agreements that are negotiated. That will be significantly limited if the powers to deliver those agreements have been diffused throughout the United Kingdom.
Douglas Ross
My right hon. Friend is completely correct. The SNP and its Members here seem to want to go for their ideological aims rather than protecting the vital internal market that is so important for Scotland and the United Kingdom. Let us take, for instance, allowing the devolved Administrations to amend directly applicable EU law. That would be inconsistent with the spirit of clause 11, which at least provisionally returns all that is currently the EU’s power to Westminster, and thus ensures that there is no divergence, and therefore no trade barriers, between the four nations of the UK after exit day.
Now, clause 11 is not perfect—we heard that earlier today from the Secretary of State for Scotland at Scottish Question Time and indeed from my colleagues on Monday—but I expect it to be improved. It should be improved through negotiations between the UK Government and the Scottish Government, and between the UK Government and the other devolved Administrations, not through the amendments before us today.
Once again, I urge the SNP to have more confidence in their own colleagues in Holyrood. I, for one, fully believe that these negotiations will reach a satisfactory conclusion by Report. As with the proposed amendments to clause 11, these amendments today are unnecessary and, indeed, even harmful. At a time when negotiations are taking place, it is totally wrong for these amendments to go through and shift the very ground on which those negotiations are based.
So we come to the middle ground, which is where I started my speech today. We maintain the existing restrictions on the devolved Administrations as a basis for the ongoing negotiations between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, and in order to preserve the internal market of the UK, which is vital to businesses in my Moray constituency, vital to businesses in Scotland, and vital to businesses the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. We should maintain the existing provision—that the devolved Administrations may act where appropriate in order to ensure that they can use their delegated powers as effectively as possible and make Brexit as smooth as possible. The many proposed amendments to clause 10 and schedule 2 pull us in many different directions, none of which are good. The middle ground and the best ground is where we are already.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
I wish to speak to amendments 338, 346 and 347 in my name and the names of my hon. and right hon. Friends. I also wish to make it clear that my party and I would support new clause 70, should it be put to a vote. I was heartened by the intervention of the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), who said that he also supports the new clause.
As the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) argued so eloquently and persuasively, new clause 70 protects the Belfast principles throughout and beyond our departure from the European Union, just as Labour’s amendment 338 prevents delegated powers from being used in any way that would undermine the Good Friday agreement. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) for his thoughtful guidance in devising amendment 338.
Too many—including, I suspect, many of my constituents—see the Good Friday agreement as an event that took place almost 20 years ago, already consigned to the history books. The agreement was, and is, the result of years of work by too many committed souls to name each one. It is an agreement that is as moving to read now as it was then. Beautifully simple are the words that drew to an end the decades of brutality, misery and conflict that had befallen the island of Ireland and beyond for decades. None of us living on this side of the Irish sea can truly comprehend the opportunity for a new beginning for Northern Ireland that was made possible by the Good Friday agreement. The declaration of support for the agreement says it best:
“The tragedies of the past have left a deep and profoundly regrettable legacy of suffering. We must never forget those who have died or been injured, and their families. But we can best honour them through a fresh start, in which we firmly dedicate ourselves to the achievement of reconciliation, tolerance, and mutual trust, and to the protection and vindication of the human rights of all.”
To say that the Labour party is proud of its role in bringing the agreement into being does not convey sufficiently the time, political and emotional investment made by Tony Blair, Paul Murphy, Mo Mowlam, Jonathan Powell and countless others, by choice, in the process. Peace and security in Northern Ireland mattered to the Labour party then and it matters no less to us now. But it is important to say, too, that the work of John Major and many in this Chamber should be recognised, appreciated and acknowledged.
We have seen this week that all the challenges involved with implementing the UK’s decision to leave the European Union unite and are magnified in the context of Northern Ireland. The separation by sea from the rest of the UK and the joining by land of Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland quickly expose the weaknesses of any flippant attempt to provide a single line answer to the question of our future relationship with the EU.
Northern Ireland finds us out. It is the test by which any proposed deals can be said to succeed or to fail. Ruling out the customs union and a changed relationship with the single market before trade talks have even begun fails the Northern Ireland test. Why? Because of the potential reappearance of a hard border, which all parties say they do not wish to see. But we cannot wish away problems. If we have different tariff arrangements from the EU, we will need to collect tariffs from the EU, and the EU will need to collect tariffs from us. If we have different product standards and regulations, goods will need to be inspected to see if they are allowed in each other’s markets, particularly agricultural produce. In Norway and Sweden, that means a hard border. In America and Canada, that also means a hard border. Ambition is not enough to prevent it from meaning a hard border on the island of Ireland too.
Dr Murrison
To my knowledge, the United Kingdom Government are not proposing to erect tariff barriers, and they do not want to have regulation. Therefore, there would be no need for a hard border in the way in which the hon. Lady describes. If the European Union wishes to collect tariffs or erect regulatory barriers, the European Union will have to erect a hard border, but the UK Government surely cannot be answerable for that.
Jenny Chapman
I struggle to see how the originator of the border—who would erect it—is of any consequence to the people of Northern Ireland. A border is a border and it needs to be avoided at all costs.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
It is quite clear that the proponents of Scotland remaining in the UK during the 2014 Scottish independence referendum were right to argue that taking Scotland out of the UK single market would mean the erection of a hard border at Berwick. Given what we have just heard from the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), does my hon. Friend think that the situation would be any different in the context of Northern Ireland?
Jenny Chapman
As earlier contributors have made clear, this issue is the one that finds out the fantasists from the realists. If the Government have the ambition of avoiding a hard border in Northern Ireland, they need to explain exactly how they intend to achieve that.
Stephen Kerr
Is not the hon. Lady putting the cart before the horse? The next phase of the negotiations will determine the future relationship between the EU and the UK. Is not she presuming an outcome that very few people would actually be in favour of?
Jenny Chapman
I am just making it very clear to the Government and all other observers that this matter is not something on which the Labour party is prepared to compromise. That point may need to be made again as we proceed, but it absolutely ought to be made now too.
Anna Soubry
Perhaps the hon. Lady can help us. Does she agree that it is absolutely agreed by everybody—the EU, Ireland, Northern Ireland and everybody here—that we do not want a hard border, and that the Government have accepted that there will be a hard border unless we get a proper deal, which is why they conceded that point and offered up solutions in their White Paper? Would she further agree that the difficulty is that the solutions that have been offered up are unworkable unless the Prime Minister’s excellent idea is put across the whole United Kingdom? It is a great idea, but it should not apply only to Northern Ireland because we are a Union.
Jenny Chapman
I agree with the right hon. Lady, and she can probably guess that I will be making the point later in my speech that we need a solution that works for the whole United Kingdom.
The next issue is north-south co-operation. The Committee will know that strand 2 of the Good Friday agreement sets out a framework under which the Administrations in Belfast and Dublin can establish some common policies across the island of Ireland. I am sorry, Mr Streeter; I have missed out an important section of my speech. I will just go back and ensure that I do not omit any important issues. This is the peril of taking too many interventions.
The point I wanted to make is that we cannot simply wish away problems, that if we have different tariff arrangements from the EU, we will need to collect tariffs from the EU and the EU will need to collect tariffs from us, and that the Government’s ambition is not enough to prevent the reintroduction of a hard border on the island of Ireland. Therefore, the north-south co-operation that has been established is incredibly important, and the United Kingdom has a solemn commitment to support this co-operation.
From strand 2, the island of Ireland has the six north-south implementation bodies, and the co-operative work of the North South Ministerial Council. The European Commission reportedly estimates that there are 142 areas of north-south co-operation that are affected by EU rules and regulations. The Government may quibble with that number, but there can be no doubt that common EU rules and regulations facilitate co-operation in areas such as the environment, health, agriculture, energy, higher education and telecommunications.
It was always envisaged by the parties to the peace process that EU rules and regulations would help to facilitate north-south co-operation. The Belfast agreement states that the North South Ministerial Council will
“consider the European Union dimension of relevant matters, including the implementation of EU policies and programmes and proposals under consideration in the EU framework.”
As Britain leaves the EU, it falls to this generation of political leaders to face up to the challenges that Brexit poses to the Good Friday agreement and make good on the efforts of those who worked so hard to reach agreement in 1998. We must cherish and respect what was achieved almost 20 years ago.
We need to preserve not only the institutions that were set up in relation to strands 1, 2 and 3 of the Good Friday agreement, but human rights and equality, the principle of consent and citizenship rights. The understanding that it is for the people of Northern Ireland, and the people of Northern Ireland alone, to determine their future is the principle that underpins the Good Friday agreement and subsequent agreements. The UK Government and the Irish Government are co-guarantors of the agreement and together must ensure that that promise is kept.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Yes, the Irish Government and Her Majesty’s Government are co-guarantors, but does the hon. Lady agree that the Irish Government have acted in very bad faith by dismissing the views of a vast number of people in Northern Ireland on the issue of Brexit?
Jenny Chapman
No, I do not agree with that at all and I will not be tempted into some kind of debate about it. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a speech to that effect, he is very welcome to do so, but I will not agree with him.
Those elements of the agreement matter not only because they were necessary to bring lasting peace, but because they have enabled the economic rebirth of Northern Ireland. Nothing harms the prospects of young people or businesses like uncertainty and instability. Northern Ireland benefits from natural beauty, the ingenuity, creativity and resilience of its people, and a shared determination to never return to the suffering of the past. As a non-partisan coalition of businesses put it, we must ensure that
“society in Northern Ireland does not become collateral damage in any Brexit discussions.”
The Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the Confederation of British Industry in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action and the Ulster Farmers Union got it right when they produced an agreed position on the Brexit negotiations. They say that an “open frictionless border” must be maintained between Ireland and Northern Ireland, and between Great Britain and the island of Ireland. They say that
“Brexit must not be used as a pretext to dismantle hard won workers’ rights or to drive down employment standards”.
On this and on many other issues, the Labour party is as one with the people of Northern Ireland. There must be no hard border, the preservation of the common travel area between Ireland and the UK, no undermining of the Good Friday agreement, and full involvement of workers’ representatives, business and the community and voluntary sectors in articulating the concerns and protecting the interests of all citizens of Northern Ireland.
Indeed, everybody sensible who examines this issue in any depth soon reaches the conclusion that the Government must do what they have as yet failed to do and answer the question of how they plan to achieve their objective of no physical infrastructure and no customs border, as outlined in their position paper earlier this year. But answer it they must, because a hardening of the border will undoubtedly harm business and the economy. I was left in no doubt about that when I met farmers and business leaders in Northern Ireland recently. It will also harm the everyday lives of those who frequently cross the border for social, cultural, leisure, educational or health reasons. Whether it is because of the outstanding work that has been done by CAWT—co-operation and working together—in recent years to make sure that the border is not a barrier to accessing healthcare or the thriving agri-food trade that makes up 33% of north-south trade, avoiding a hard border must be our ambition.
If we are to have non-negotiable issues, the avoidance of a hard border in Northern Ireland should be the thickest and most indelible of red lines. As the Brexit Select Committee said in its report:
“We also recognise the unique challenges posed by the need to preserve the peace settlement in Northern Ireland, including issues that go far beyond trade and customs.”
Everybody knows that this is not just about moving butter; it is about daily life and identity for thousands of people. The Select Committee goes on to ask: how will the Government avoid a hard border if no deal is reached by 29 March 2019?
Continued progress in Northern Ireland goes hand in hand with prosperity and stability. The Good Friday agreement and subsequent agreements have provided certainty about the continuation of an approach to the future of Northern Ireland that is shared between the British and Irish Governments and the people of Northern Ireland. Putting a commitment to the agreement on the face of the Bill and preventing Ministers from legislating in any way that is contrary to the agreement would provide some of the clarity, certainty and reassurance that the businesses and citizens of Northern Ireland say they need.
Let us pause to reflect on the heart of the issue that the Good Friday agreement settled: the violence between communities and traditions that raged for generations and that took and scarred so many lives in Northern Ireland. Today, the people of Northern Ireland, so many of whom were affected by the troubles, will be watching, waiting and hoping that the Government can offer a cast-iron guarantee that the Good Friday agreement will be protected and preserved in every sense. There has been much talk of red lines as we have debated Brexit since the vote to leave. Maintaining our commitment to the Good Friday agreement and guaranteeing that Ministers cannot legislate incompatibly with it should be a red line for every last one of us in this Parliament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) and I echo many of the sentiments she has voiced from the Dispatch Box.
I have reordered my speech so that I can turn quickly to the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and to the importance of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. First, I will speak briefly to clause 10 stand part. As those who have studied the Bill will recognise, clause 10 is very short. Schedule 2, which relates to it, is rather more complex and we have a huge number of amendments to schedule 2. I therefore ask whether interventions on those various amendments can wait until we have dealt with the important issue of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
Clause 10 and schedule 2 are straightforward but essential. They provide the devolved Administrations with the powers they need to prepare our statute book for leaving the EU by dealing with deficiencies in retained EU law, ensuring ongoing compliance with international obligations and implementing the withdrawal agreement. As we set out in the White Paper, the task of preparing our statute book for exit is one that we share with the devolved Administrations. The law that will be preserved under the Bill has effect in areas that are devolved, as well as those that are not. We will leave the EU as one United Kingdom, but devolution is a vital part of that United Kingdom, and it is right that ensuring that there is certainty and continuity should be a shared and collective endeavour in which every Parliament and Assembly plays its part.
It is absolutely right, therefore, that we equip the devolved Administrations with the powers they need to correct the laws for which they are responsible, just as it is right for the UK Government to have powers to correct those laws that affect the UK as a whole. It is important, as we have, to set the parameters for those powers. We believe that we have achieved the right balance by focusing on the specific aims of the powers and by applying safeguards. That will ensure, for instance, that they are not used in ways that might disrupt the ongoing EU negotiations or the workings of our internal market. Today is an opportunity for the Committee to examine how we have struck that balance, and I will continue to listen with great interest to the views of Members across the Committee.
I am grateful for the contributions that have been made by committees in the devolved legislatures to the debate that we are having today. I am also grateful to those who gave evidence to those committees. These are complex matters and I welcome their engagement and the attention that these issues have been given. We will consider carefully all the evidence that has been put forward by those committees in today’s debate.
We have heard a huge amount in this debate about the importance of the Belfast agreement. I say to the hon. Member for North Down that we appreciate enormously the attention and work she has put into the new clause. Her new clause seeks to clarify that any Ministers using the powers in the Bill would have to have regard to, and abide by, the Belfast agreement. We absolutely recognise the importance of the issue that she raises. I think I can safely say that her opening speech was one of the most powerful evocations of the importance of that agreement. I pay tribute to her for the courage and clarity of her remarks.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The Minister has told us that he is not going to accept new clause 70. Timing is important, too. Does he realise the signal that will be sent out if Ministers ask their party to vote against it at the end of this debate?
Mr Walker
Let me reiterate to the right hon. Gentleman that we are absolutely committed to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
I will now turn to some of the technical detail on new clause 70, because it is important to reflect that, as I said at the beginning, we support the principles behind it.
Mr Walker
If my right hon. Friend will give me a moment, she may be interested in what I have to say next.
I do appreciate the enormous effort that the hon. Member for North Down has put into drafting new clause 70, but we could not currently accept it. There are some concerns around it. It goes further than requiring Ministers and devolved Departments to have regard to the key principles. Subsection (4)(a) would require the Secretary of State to refuse consent to reserved provisions in devolved legislation unless the provision is necessary only as a direct consequence of the UK’s exit from the EU. This would place a much greater constraint on the provision than can be made for Northern Ireland as compared with the rest of the UK, even in circumstances where there is no impact on the Belfast agreement. As I said earlier, this Bill cannot be used to amend the Belfast agreement. It would create doubt and uncertainty on the use of these powers if we suggested otherwise. The Northern Ireland Act can be amended only in the very limited circumstances that I have already addressed.
I therefore urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the motion, but to work with us. We will work with Members across the House to absolutely ensure that the Belfast agreement is respected as we move forward.
Lady Hermon
I have a very high regard for the Minister, but I have to say that I am profoundly disappointed by what he has said. I am not a legislative draftsman. Technically, there may be difficulties with this new clause, but, for goodness’ sake, the Government absolutely have to put the principles of the Good Friday agreement into this Bill. That is where the Government need to stand with all the people of Northern Ireland and say to them that, even if we are leaving Europe, as we are doing—Brexit is going to happen—we are not going to allow that decision to undermine the sterling work and the peace and stability of the Good Friday agreement. I am pleading with the Government to give a commitment that they will look at the technicalities, and change the technicalities, but accept this new clause this afternoon.
Mr Walker
Our commitment to the Belfast agreement is absolutely clear. We are committed to it. We are not changing it as a result of this Bill. The Bill would not allow us to do that. We are protecting the Northern Ireland Act in this Bill. We will work with the hon. Lady and with hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies in all parts of the House to secure the legacy of the Belfast agreement.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
My hon. Friend keeps reiterating, with ever greater passion, the Government’s 110% commitment to the Belfast agreement. The reason for not putting it into the Bill is, with great respect, an extremely obscure drafting point, which I have tried to follow but cannot quite, because the provision that he refers to is extremely narrow indeed. It applies to possibilities that may arise after withdrawal from Europe—minor consequences. If there is anything wrong with the drafting, the Government can correct that on Report and they will probably not meet any passionate resistance from anyone in the House. In view of what the Minister said, the Government should show their commitment by accepting the new clause, and all this other footnote stuff can be sorted out at a later stage.
Mr Walker
I have great respect for my right hon. and learned Friend. On the point that he makes, the Government have absolutely accepted their commitments to the Belfast agreement. It is already a matter of international law. We are committed to that agreement. It is annexed to the British-Irish treaty, and we will continue to respect it in the way in which we approach this whole issue. We will work across the House, as we always have, constructively to ensure that the approach that we take is absolutely in line with the Belfast agreement, and we have done that throughout this process.
Stephen Doughty
I, too, share the serious disappointment expressed by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). I reiterate the comments that have just been made by the Father of the House. It would send the strongest signal if the Government accepted the new clause, coming back to the House to correct any technical deficiencies at a later stage. The Government are going to ask Members to vote against the principle of the Belfast agreement, which is an extraordinary thing to do. [Interruption.] No matter what the Minister says, that is a very dangerous situation.
Mr Walker
Let me make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that no one who supports the Bill will vote against any principles in the Belfast agreement. It is absolutely clear that the Belfast agreement is protected and is something that we intend absolutely to continue to deliver on. We cannot accept an amendment that, in this case, would create doubt about the protection of the Northern Ireland Act. We need to ensure that through this process we create continuity and certainty. I again urge the hon. Member for North Down not to press the new clause, because our commitment is absolute. We will meet that commitment to the Belfast agreement. If she does press the new clause to a vote, that could create the wrong impression for some people outside the House.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
In all honesty, no one in the House who has ever been a Minister or has had any responsibility at all understands what the Minister is talking about. Minister after Minister has accepted amendments with which they agreed, then asked their draftsmen to sort out any technical issues. Instead of doing the sensible thing and doing that, the Minister and Government Whips—if, as I hope, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) pushes the new clause to a vote—will ask their MPs to vote against the principles of the Good Friday agreement. That is how it will be seen by people who look at votes in the House.
Mr Walker
Let me repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I have made very, very clear: no one in the House would be voting against those principles. The Government absolutely support those principles, which are enshrined in the Northern Ireland Act, which is protected under the Bill.
Dr Murrison
I urge the Minister to hold his ground. My principal difficulty with new clause 70 is that it is purely declaratory. He has made it as clear as he possibly can that the Government are committed to the Good Friday agreement, as are we all. The Minister and his colleagues have resisted declaratory amendments to the Bill, and they should do so again on this occasion.
Mr Walker
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who chairs the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. I was pleased to give evidence to his Committee the other day on the importance of these issues. I can assure hon. Members across the House that we absolutely have put the importance of no hard border in Northern Ireland and the importance of our commitments under the Belfast agreement at the heart of our approach from the beginning.
Lady Hermon
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way once again. I have to say to him ever so gently but firmly that that is a high-risk strategy. The message will be sent from the House that there is no support in the Government for the principles of the Good Friday agreement if that is not taken up—[Interruption.] Would the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) give me a moment? It would be enormously helpful—it is the principles of the Good Friday agreement: that is what new clause 70 embodies. It does not expand on them—it reflects the principles of the agreement—so will the Minister, instead of putting that high-risk strategy to the House, give a clear commitment that he will take away my new clause and work on it, with a view positively to reflect the tone and spirit in which it was drafted in the first place?
Mr Walker
I absolutely give the commitment that we will take away the hon. Lady’s new clause and will ensure throughout the whole of the process that we protect the principles of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. That is something that we are absolutely committed to doing and I can tell the hon. Lady that nobody in this House will be voting against any principles in the Belfast agreement. It is crucial that we make that point clear.
Mr Grieve
I have great sympathy with the approach of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) in her anxiety about seeing the Good Friday agreement respected. That said, it is right that it is an international agreement and I have some difficulty seeing how that can easily be incorporated in a statute relating to another matter. It is either declaratory or it has some effect—one or the other. I simply say to my hon. Friend the Minister that this is an area where the Government may seek and need to provide reassurance, but whether the hon. Lady is right that it needs to be specific on the face of the legislation is, I think, more complex, because it raises as many problems as it may provide answers.
Owen Smith
I am grateful to the Minister, who is being extremely generous with his time. We do not for a minute doubt his commitment to the Good Friday/Belfast agreement. However, we on the Opposition Benches take incredibly seriously our bipartisan approach on Northern Ireland, and in that context I put it to him that he must listen to the statement from the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), who says that in Northern Ireland this will be perceived as a backward step in support for the Good Friday/Belfast agreement by the Conservative Government. That is why he must think again.
Mr Walker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and for his comment earlier. I agree that we should continue to work on this issue in a bipartisan way, and not just in a bipartisan way but with all parties in Northern Ireland, and with the hon. Member for North Down, in taking this issue forward and providing all assurances that the legal protections in international law and the Northern Ireland Act, as well as all our commitments under the Belfast agreement, are met.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
May I just say to the Minister that I have not had a single email, letter or phone call, or any contact, from my 100,000 constituents in Northern Ireland asking me to vote for this new clause? The idea that people in Northern Ireland are sitting back with bated breath waiting for the new clause of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) to be passed so that the Good Friday/Belfast agreement can be secured is unreal.
Mr Walker
The Good Friday/Belfast agreement is and will continue to be secure.
I want to move on, and will turn to amendment 89, tabled by the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), along with amendments 313 to 316, tabled by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). These amendments would prevent UK Ministers from being able to use powers in the Bill in areas of otherwise devolved competence. Additionally, the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), whom we have heard from today, has tabled amendments 161 to 163, which would require the consent of devolved Administrations for UK Ministers to exercise their powers in devolved areas.
I would like to take this opportunity to stress a simple but important fact: the concurrent powers in the Bill do not undermine the devolution settlement. Rather they give the UK Government and devolved Administrations the tools required to respond to the shared challenge of ensuring the operability of our statute book in a collaborative way. This reflects current practice. Concurrent functions have always been a normal part of our devolution arrangements and they are an important tool in ensuring that we can work together in the most efficient way. Take, for instance, new schedule 3A to the Government of Wales Act 2006, which lists no fewer than 34 laws containing concurrent functions for UK and Welsh Ministers, including powers to make subordinate legislation. We should not forget that section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 is concurrent and is routinely used to make a single set of regulations to implement directives relating to devolved matters, such as the Marine Strategy Regulations 2010. Removing the concurrent tool would remove the vital flexibility from which we and the devolved Administrations already benefit in preparing our statute book. Such flexibility and greater efficiency will be crucial if we are to achieve the considerable task ahead of having a complete and functioning statute book on exit day.
Amendments 161 to 163, tabled by the hon. Member for North East Fife, would add to the process additional layers that have not previously been needed for equivalent powers by requiring consent from devolved Ministers. This might render the Government and the devolved Administrations unable to ready the statute book for exit day, and they therefore threaten the legal certainty that the Bill is meant to deliver.
Let me remind Members on both sides of the Committee that the Government have already committed that we will not normally legislate to amend EU-derived domestic law relating to devolved matters using any of the powers in the Bill without the agreement of the devolved Administrations. The powers build on the existing successful ways of working between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, and the Government have committed to this ongoing collaborative working. I therefore urge those hon. Members not to press their amendments.
I now turn to amendments 158, 159, 318, 320 and 321, tabled by the hon. Members for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and for Aberavon. Taken together, the amendments would prevent amendment of the devolution statutes using the powers in clauses 7 to 9 and 17. In addition, amendment 160, in the name of the hon. Member for North East Fife, would require the consent of Scottish or Welsh Ministers if the Scotland Act 1998 or the Government of Wales Act 2006 were amended using the power in clause 9.
I want to start by saying that I have listened to and I am grateful for the debate we have already had on these amendments both in this Parliament and in Committees in other Parliaments. The Committee is right to pay careful attention to any changes to the devolution settlements, so I thank the hon. Members who have tabled these amendments and the Committees of the devolved legislatures that have drafted some of them for drawing attention to these issues.
A number of references in the provisions of the devolution statutes will not make sense once we leave the EU and will need correcting to ensure our statute book continues to function. We recognise the standing of these Acts, and for this reason we have corrected as many deficiencies as possible in the Bill—in part 2 of schedule 3. As Members will no doubt have noticed, these corrections are technical and I stress that they are devolution-neutral. They do not substantively change the boundaries of competence; nor will any of the corrections that are still to be made.
I want to reassure the Committee that we intend to correct the remaining deficiencies by working collaboratively and transparently with the devolved Administrations. Where possible, this will include correcting deficiencies using the existing powers such Acts already contain for amending the reservation schedules. This process with the devolved Administrations is already under way.
Specifically on the power to implement the withdrawal agreement—the topic of amendment 320, in the name of the hon. Member for Aberavon—it can be used to modify the devolution statutes only where it is appropriate to implement the agreement that will result from our negotiations with the EU. It cannot be used to modify them in any other way, and it simply is not true that any UK Minister can make any change they like to the devolution settlements. I hope I have reassured the Committee that the Government do understand that concern, but the amendment does not support our aim of a smooth and orderly exit.
Similarly, amendments 159 and 319 seek to restrict the use of the international obligations power to modify the Scotland Act or the Government of Wales Act. I want to be clear that these powers cannot be used to unpick or substantively change the devolution settlements. As I am sure the Committee will recognise, it is quite normal to use delegated powers in such a way. They have previously been used to amend the devolution statutes to ensure that our laws reflect the most accurate position in law, and ultimately to ensure that we fulfil our international obligations.
Jenny Chapman
I am slightly concerned that the Minister will sit down before he has had a chance to make any comment on amendment 338, in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, which would prevent Ministers from legislating in any way incompatible with the Good Friday agreement. I am sorry to refer him back to that, but I am concerned that he has not yet said anything about this amendment.
Mr Walker
I apologise to the hon. Lady. I think I mentioned that amendment in the run-up to addressing the detail of new clause 70 in the name of the hon. Member for North Down, but let me say that Ministers will not and cannot legislate incompatibly with the Good Friday agreement. We are bound by that agreement, and I have been very clear that this Government remain absolutely committed to the Good Friday agreement and have already put our obligations under it at the heart of our commitments.
On amendment 160 in the name of the hon. Member for North East Fife, I want to comment on the fact that such powers have previously been used, because it is important to recognise that this issue has already been addressed. For instance, the Treaty of Lisbon (Changes in Terminology) Order 2011, which was made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act, amended the Scotland Act 1998, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 2006 to give effect to new terminology relating to the European Union. Leaving the EU will require changes of a similar technical nature across the settlements, and that is what the powers enable.
Stephen Gethins
I thank the Minister for going into such detail. Earlier today, the Secretary of State for Scotland said he would be introducing changes. To which amendments might those changes refer and when might they take place?
Mr Walker
I cannot say at this stage, but let me repeat that in both this debate and the debate on clause 11, we have been clear that we are listening to the Committee and engaging with it, and we will give the matters raised careful consideration. I think the comments made by the Secretary of State for Scotland reflect that approach. It is important that we move forward together with all the devolved Administrations and ensure that the United Kingdom and each part of it can deal properly with their statute book.
Anna Soubry
I know the Minister wants to make progress, but I have grave fears. Is there not some way we can sort out the business of new clause 70? I am not saying that the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) should withdraw it, but it seems to me that there is a better way. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has met the Minister and the Solicitor General, but we should put a meeting together and get it sorted out—get the assurances. I trust the Minister and what he says at the Dispatch Box, but there is going to be a big problem with misinterpreting any vote against the new clause. It needs to be sorted, and I suggest that the hon. Lady and the Minister meet to see whether this can be sorted out.
Mr Walker
I am happy to take up my right hon. Friend’s suggestion, and to work with the hon. Member for North Down and Members in all parts of the House. The hon. Lady has expressed a strong position and I will work with her to ensure that, as we go through this process, we do everything in our power to continue to protect the Good Friday agreement. My right hon. Friend makes a constructive suggestion, which I welcome.
Clause 17 is the subject of amendment 321, tabled by the hon. Member for Aberavon, whom we have missed in these debates. I emphasise that we have sought to include the majority of consequential amendments needed to the devolution settlements in the Bill, in schedule 3 part 2, but we must be equipped to fix any additional problems that come to light and this standard power, constrained by case law, is the right way to do any tidying up—for example, of cross-references—that could be needed as a result of the Bill coming into force.
The hon. Gentleman also tabled amendments 322 to 327, which would constrain Welsh Ministers’ ability to modify the Government of Wales Act 2006, including removing their ability to correct those parts of the Act that currently fall within devolved responsibility. The 2006 Act is, for the most part, a protected enactment, which means that it cannot generally be modified by the devolved institutions. That makes sense, because the Act sets out how powers are devolved to Wales, but there are certain exceptions to that protection: that is, where it is agreed that it should be within the legislative competence of the Assembly to modify that Act. That was agreed by this Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales when the 2006 Act was passed and again when the Wales Act 2017 was passed.
Ensuring that devolved Ministers have those powers follows the reasoning and decisions made in enacting those Acts and respects the decision of this House and that of the National Assembly for Wales in giving consent. We think it right that, in those areas, Welsh Ministers should be able to use their power to correct deficiencies. Where Welsh Ministers need to make corrections to the 2006 Act, the National Assembly will of course have the ability to scrutinise any changes and to set out the approach to scrutiny that it proposes to take. We do not think, therefore, that the amendments would place a reasonable restriction on Welsh Ministers, as it would put them at significant disadvantage in ensuring that the 2006 Act is fit for purpose, legally sound, and reflects the context of leaving the European Union. I urge the hon. Member for Aberavon not to press those amendments.
Stephen Doughty
The cross-party amendments would not have been tabled, or indeed recommended by the Welsh and Scottish Governments, if everything was hunky-dory and fine in the negotiations between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. We got some movement from the Secretary of State for Scotland this morning. Will the Under-Secretary of State also move on amendment 158, which stands in my name, and perhaps on some of the other concerns that the Welsh and Scottish Governments have set out so clearly?
Mr Walker
I absolutely respect the effort of, and have referred a number of times to the evidence collected by, Committees; some of these amendments are tabled by Committees, and we respect that. We want to engage with them, which is why I am trying to give a comprehensive response on all these matters. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased with some of the things I have to say. We absolutely want to engage with the Committees, because I recognise that we are talking about important institutions that we need to engage with successfully. With that in mind, I have been to give evidence to Committees of the Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, so I say to the hon. Gentleman: keep listening.
Stephen Gethins
I am grateful to the Minister for his detailed responses. He talks about consulting. In an internal market, about which the Minister has spoken, there are different states that have an equal say. What will the arbitration mechanism be and will the Government go further than merely consulting the devolved Administrations?
Mr Walker
As we discussed in great detail on day 4, direct Government-to-Government contact is happening on those issues. We have the JMC process—it will meet next week—and I hope that we can all agree ways to move forward that allow this to be delivered for each part of the UK. The consultation process will ensure that we take the approach that works best for the UK as a whole and takes into account the needs of each part of the UK. It will also ensure that existing common approaches are not undermined while we work through with the devolved Administrations where they will and will not apply.
Deidre Brock
The Minister failed to answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) asked. What will the arbitration mechanism be for deciding that?
Mr Walker
I do not want to pre-empt the agreement that I believe can and will be reached in the not-too-distant future through the JMC process. That is not what we are legislating for. We are legislating for providing continuity and certainty across the UK. I have just described how we can ensure that that delivers for every part of the UK. That is important.
Amendments 168 and 175 are related to the amendments I have just discussed. They would remove the restrictions on devolved authorities using the correcting power and the withdrawal agreement power to confer functions that correspond to EU tertiary legislation. Examples of tertiary legislation include the vast majority of the technical detail of financial services law, which is set out in a form of tertiary legislation known as binding technical standards. They are functions that are currently exercised at EU level. Just as with direct, retained EU laws, the rules made under them apply uniformly across the UK. We therefore believe that where such functions need to continue, it is right and consistent with our overall approach for the decisions about who should exercise them to sit at UK level. Of course, it will be possible for UK Ministers to confer such functions on the devolved Administrations or devolved public bodies, if we agree together that that is appropriate. That will be subject to the wider negotiations on shared frameworks.
I will deal with amendments 166 and 170, again tabled by the hon. Member for North East Fife and amendment 173, which the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth tabled. They would allow the devolved Administrations to sub-delegate the powers conferred on them by schedule 2. We do not advocate prohibiting sub-delegation by the devolved Administrations in every circumstance. It is explicit on the face of the Bill that sub-delegation is permitted for rules and procedures for courts and tribunals. Rather, it is our view that these powers should not be broader than is appropriate, and that sub-delegation by devolved Administrations should therefore not be admitted in every circumstance. However, as I said to the Committees, I should welcome any examples of areas in which Members believe that sub-delegation by devolved Administrations would be needed, and I will take away and consider any examples that are provided today. We are having discussions with the devolved Administrations as well, so they will also have opportunities to provide such examples.
Amendment 317 would take the unusual step of conferring on Welsh Ministers the power to make consequential and transitional provision. That is because the corresponding amendment to clause 17 would prevent UK Ministers from using the power in relation to matters that are within the competence of Welsh Ministers. It is not normal to confer such powers on devolved Ministers in an Act of Parliament. The Wales Act 2017 contained the power, but conferred it only on UK Ministers. Despite the great constitutional significance of that Act, there were neither calls for the power to be taken from UK Ministers in relation to devolved matters in Wales, nor calls for it to be granted to Welsh Ministers.
In the interests of transparency and accountability, we have sought to include in the Bill a number of significant consequential and transitional provisions that are necessary in relation to devolved matters. I should welcome any further explanation of instances in which devolved Administrations would need to make such types of consequential amendment. We do not currently think that there is any need for the power to be conferred on devolved Ministers as a result of the Bill that would reverse usual practice, and I urge Members not to press the amendment to a vote.
Let me finally deal with amendments 169, 172 and 176. I thank Members for their careful consideration of these technical provisions. The amendments relate to clauses that provide safeguards to ensure that due consideration is given when Ministers in devolved Administrations use their powers in ways that have implications for the rest of the UK. The amendments would, in effect, convert the requirements for devolved Ministers to gain the consent of UK Ministers when exercising the powers in certain circumstances into consultation requirements.
Let me turn first to the requirements included for international obligations and withdrawal agreement powers. Here the safeguards are focused principally on obligations that will need to be met at a UK level: the management of UK-wide quotas and our UK obligations under the World Trade Organisation agreement. We therefore believe that there is an important role for the UK Government to play in agreeing such amendments in these limited circumstances, given the broader consequences for other parts of the UK. Indeed, where the powers exist in order to implement the UK’s international agreements, it is important that that can be done expeditiously and fairly within the UK so that we can meet those international obligations, and that requires a common view across the UK.
Again, we have taken the view that the right approach is to require consent for that purpose. A requirement of consent provides a clear and decisive process for us to ensure that the interests of each part of the UK are taken into account. The requirements included for the correcting power are primarily concerned with our relationship with the EU. It is right that we consider any use of such powers that could prejudice the EU negotiations, and that is why we think it is right to include the consent requirements in the Bill.
I have made it clear that the Government stand ready to listen to those who have sincere suggestions for how we might improve the Bill. Today we have had a useful debate on this subject, and hon. Members have made the case that requiring consent might not be the right approach to the practical problem that I have described in relation to the correcting power in particular. Scottish Conservative Members and others have expressed concern about the issue. However, I assure the Committee that we will take away and carefully reflect on the suggestions that have been made today, and consider whether sufficient assurances can be provided through different means.
Karin Smyth
May I take the Minister back to new clause 70? Given the signals and impressions given by the House over many years in relation to British-Irish relations, he will appreciate the importance of what is happening today. Can he tell us when the Government decided not to accept the new clause? I understand that it was tabled several weeks ago. Did the Government make that decision before the weekend, or in the last few days?
Mr Walker
The Government have made their position absolutely clear, but let me again reiterate our firm commitment to the principles of the Belfast agreement, and to ensuring that we respect and meet those principles throughout this process. I have offered to meet the hon. Member for North Down to continue this conversation and ensure that we do everything we can to meet those commitments throughout the process. I think it is important that we are listening and responding to these debates on behalf of the whole United Kingdom.
I conclude by extending my gratitude to Members for their thoughtful consideration of all these provisions. To allow us the time to consider the comments made and their important practical implications, including for our negotiations, I urge Members not to press their amendments today, but I reiterate the offer to continue to work with the hon. Lady and all others across this House, to ensure that we deliver on the principles and our commitments under the Belfast agreement.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I just point out that 15 Members still wish to speak and there is one hour to go.
Ian Paisley
I will keep my comments as brief as possible.
I congratulate the Members who have managed to bring various new clauses before the Committee of the whole House; they add to the debate and to the colour and tapestry of this place. In particular, I congratulate my colleague, indeed my cousin, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) on introducing the lead new clause. Even though, as she knows, I do not agree with her on the principles, it has added to the debate.
Ian Paisley
I will give way to the hon. Lady later, but I first want to explain some of my detailed points, given the warning we have just had from Mr Hoyle.
On new clause 70, the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) said that the DUP does not speak for all of Northern Ireland. He is, of course, absolutely right, and we have never claimed to do so. However, there are seven Members who could be in this place tonight but who do not bother coming, and they could make many of the points that they claim they are so passionate about and support the provisions they wish to support. There is no reason in principle why they cannot be here; the reasons are political cowardice and political convenience only. But others cannot chastise my party and the people we represent in this place, because we do come here, we do make our voices heard, and we do raise the issues that we care passionately about and that are put to us. As the Member who received more votes in Northern Ireland than any other Northern Ireland Member, I am more than happy to speak for those people and ensure my constituents’ voice is heard on these issues. We will not take a vow of silence—which would be convenient to many in this House—out of some form of false shame.
Stephen Gethins
I rise to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. When I made my comments, what I meant was that an issue as big as Brexit should require the Government to take on board as many views as possible. The hon. Gentleman is right to make the point he made: the SNP does not represent everybody in Scotland and the DUP does not represent everybody in Northern Ireland, and that is precisely why the Government should be reaching out.
Ian Paisley
I only go so far with that point, because it is wrong in this sense: every issue that comes before this House—whether a minor constituency petition or a major European withdrawal Bill—is important to the people we speak for, and we must give it the full weight and dignity that it therefore deserves.
I was delighted that tonight the Minister from the Dispatch Box nailed the fallacy that new clause 70 would bring about—the fallacy that that new clause is the only way that Her Majesty’s Government can show their commitment to the Good Friday agreement. That is common unnecessary grievance; this matter does not need to be brought before the Committee, as the Minister explained well. In fact, I would venture to suggest that the lives of soldiers and police officers, and the money from taxpayers from across the whole of the United Kingdom, as well as an international treaty, have in many ways demonstrated the Government’s commitment to the Good Friday agreement—the Belfast agreement—and the follow-on agreements. It is wrong to support this grievance culture that we are so good at in Northern Ireland. The Government are clear that they do support the Good Friday agreement, and it would be wrong to add it to this Bill. It diminishes an international treaty to say it has to be reinforced again in a Bill to which it is not relevant.
The Belfast agreement makes scant comment and reference in all of its 35 pages to the EU and its activities. It makes several references to the European convention on human rights, which is outwith the EU, and it is right to do so, and it makes one reference to the process of d’Hondt—a European mathematical mechanism for electing people in a particular way and sharing out political office—in its 35 pages, but there is no reference whatsoever to key elements of the EU.
Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a logical and thoughtful case. Does he not agree that all the substantive protections that were intended after 1998 to protect the Belfast agreement in Northern Ireland’s domestic law were introduced either in the Northern Ireland Act, or in specific statutes that still apply or will apply in retained law as a consequence of this legislation, and that all the substantive protections will therefore still exist? The declaratory or mandatory provision that would be introduced by new clause 70 would simply cut across those protections and introduce significant legal uncertainty.
Ian Paisley
The hon. and learned Gentleman has nailed it extremely well. By agreeing to this proposal, we would be diminishing the principles that many colleagues say they are signed up to and support, because we would be limiting the provisions to a few words on the front of this Bill. That would be unnecessary and the wrong way to treat an international treaty signed by Her Majesty’s Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland.
No case has been made that demonstrates that the Belfast agreement will be directly impacted by this withdrawal Bill. People have talked about its impact tangentially, but no specific case for a direct impact has been made. That is because, as I have said, the claim that the agreement is in some way under threat from the Bill is a made-up grievance by the Irish. It is not under threat. It is irrelevant to the Bill. To entertain that claim plays into the domestic politics of the Republic of Ireland, and it is not our place to do that in this House. We should stay well away from that.
I do not often quote David Trimble—Lord Trimble, as he now is—but I am going to make an exception tonight, given that he was one of the authors, principal negotiators and signatories to the agreement. His words are extremely helpful. He has said:
“It is not true that Brexit in any way threatens the peace process. There is nothing in the Good Friday Agreement which even touches on the normal conduct of business between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Leaving the European Union does not affect the agreement because the EU had nothing to do with it—except that Michel Barnier turned up at the last moment for a photo opportunity. The European Union does have a peace and reconciliation programme for Northern Ireland but there is no provision for it in the EU budget. It is financed from loose change in the drawer of the European Commission.”
It is also the case that Her Majesty’s Government have committed to provisions for a reconciliation programme, which they will take forward post-Brexit. That will probably be a much more targeted and beneficial fund for many of the representatives of the third sector who are knocking on the doors of Northern Ireland Members of Parliament to demand that the money should be used a lot better. That helpful insight from David Trimble should be borne in mind by all Members on both sides of the House.
For those who say that they are so committed to the principles of the agreement, the Father of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), pointed out what he called the oxymoron of the border issue. The fact of the matter is that the Irish foolishly got the matter of the border into phase 1 of the agenda. I believe that they were wrong to do that. They should have made sure that they got it into phase 2 or phase 3, because the real issue that concerns them is trade. The Irish have overplayed their hand considerably. They need a trade deal more urgently than Northern Ireland does.
Let us look briefly at the cost to the Republic of Ireland of having no deal. That is something that is never done in this place. We are always looking at what the cost to us would be, but the cost to our partner would be significant. If the Republic of Ireland does not get a trade deal, its GDP will collapse by 4% almost overnight. That is the figure that has been produced in its own Dáil report. The Republic of Ireland’s largest trading partners are the United Kingdom—with which it will no longer have a free trade arrangement—the USA, Canada, India and Australia. Those trading partners are more important than the EU to the Republic of Ireland. In the area of fishing alone, 40% of the Republic’s fishing market is in our waters. If we close those waters to the Republic of Ireland, the Spanish and Portuguese boats and other boats from across the EU will be fishing in the Irish box rather than in our fishing waters. Ireland would soon find that its fishing trade had gone completely.
It is utter madness for the Republic of Ireland to make this a key issue, because a closed border would damage it more. It is not my party saying that it wants to build a border, and it is not the Unionists of Northern Ireland or Her Majesty’s Government. Who is going to build this border? Is it the Republic of Ireland? Is the EU going to instruct people to build it? We have indicated that there are other mechanisms by which we will control our border, and that is what we will do.
Finally, Mr Hoyle, much time has been taken discussing the regulatory consequences for Northern Ireland. Today at the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, industry representatives agreed that perhaps the tables should be turned on the Irish Government and they should follow UK regulations post-Brexit, rather than us following EU regulations. I suggest that maybe the Irish should be the ones who compromise. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) said that he supports regulatory alignment, but he seems to support it only if it applies to the whole UK, and not if it applies solely to Northern Ireland. I think that matter should also be nailed.
Finally, Mr Hoyle—[Interruption.] Those words often galvanise, Mr Hoyle. The utter confusion that the Labour party has shown on this matter is what confuses me most. The economic spokesman, John McDonnell, has said that we must leave the single market in order to respect the referendum result. The deputy leader, Tom Watson, has said that we should stay in the single market and the customs union permanently. Jonathan Ashworth and Jenny Chapman, the Front-Bench spokesman here tonight, have said that we have to leave the single market. [Interruption.] Diane Abbott has said that we should keep freedom of movement—
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Mr Paisley, you know the rules on using Members’ names, and you did promise me that this was your final point. I think “Finally” is now here. You have two seconds before I call the next speaker.
Ian Paisley
The fact of the matter is that the utter confusion on the Opposition Front Bench on an issue as important as Brexit is only amplified when they give us this hand-wringing sanctity about supporting the Good Friday agreement but then give no evidence as to why provisions such as those proposed should be in the Bill.
Dr Murrison
I will be brief, Mr Hoyle. I would like to start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) on a truly spectacular speech. I wish that her new clause were a probing amendment, because then I would be even more fulsome in welcoming it. She has done us a great service by giving us this opportunity to affirm our commitment to the Good Friday agreement, and I am pleased that the Minister made that abundantly clear. It is important that we do that regularly, because although we might think that it is self-evident, it needs to be restated time and again.
I am ever so slightly disappointed by one Member—he is not in his place, so I will not name him—who seemed to suggest that those of us who will not support the new clause, if it is pressed to a vote this evening, are in some way villainous. That is not good. That is not the right thing to be suggesting to people outside this place. If the new clause falls this evening, that will in no way suggest that this House’s support for the Good Friday agreement is diminished. We have made it abundantly clear today that that commitment stands and is embodied in international law, and nothing we need to do with the Bill will amend or alter that in any way.
My worry with the new clause is that it is declaratory. We are lucky to have our hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) here to opine on the matter and on the complexity that would be introduced into legislation, perhaps giving his colleagues a bean feast in picking apart competing bits of legislation, were we to accept the new clause.
I am put in mind of similar amendments considered in Committee on previous days. I am thinking particularly of the pressure placed on me, and I suspect on every hon. and right hon. Member, by concerned constituents urging an amendment to include sentient creatures in the Bill. It was quite difficult to face that down, because of course we all believe that animals are sentient creatures. Indeed, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 makes that clear and goes well beyond the measures currently on the European Union’s statute book. Such amendments are unnecessary because they are declaratory and virtue signalling, and I believe that new clause 70, notwithstanding the technical flaws touched on by the Minister—I suspect those flaws would be remediable—is incorrect because it is declaratory. I very much respect the hon. Member for North Down, and it is with great regret that I will not be able to support the amendment this evening.
Mr McFadden
I rise to support new clause 70, tabled by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). Let me begin by paying tribute to her courage, and to her wonderful and moving speech at the start of this debate. The aim of the amendment is both simple and important: to place in the Bill the continuing importance of the Belfast or Good Friday agreement in the new post-Brexit context in which it will have to operate.
We have already seen the difficulties that contradictory red lines from the Government have caused; red lines on the single market, customs union and no border infrastructure have been jostling and competing with one another, producing the tensions we have seen this week. Fundamentally, this is a tension between two things. We can be part of a rule-based European-wide system, whatever language is used, be it “regulatory alignment”, “convergence” or some other form of words, in which case we keep the economic benefits from the UK and there is absolutely no need for a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Alternatively, we can make a decision to leave the system in its entirety, in which case we have different systems and regulations on either side, we have major consequences for our economy and we necessitate a border. We either have a border or we do not. It is not a negotiation—it is a decision. All the way through, this kind of decision will have to be confronted. If we get a deal and we get approval to move on to phase two of these negotiations in the coming days, this kind of decision will confront us more and more. Avoiding the decision and pretending it is not there or that we can simply pick and choose from what we like in both options is what produced the chaos and humiliation this week.
On the issue of the Good Friday agreement, the amendment seeks to ensure that any changes are only those arising directly as a consequence of the UK’s decision to leave the European Union. It therefore places obligations on the Secretary of State and on Ministers in the devolved Assembly to act in line with the principles of the agreement. Those principles are hugely important. First and foremost was a rejection of violence and a commitment to exclusively peaceful means in the pursuit of political ends. Secondly, this was about consent. The agreement respects whatever choice the people of Northern Ireland make about their constitutional status and says
“it would be wrong to make any change in the status of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people”.
That was hugely important, but the agreement is also a package. What it says about equality and the equal status of people from every community is very important.
Mr McFadden
We are under some time pressure, so I would rather continue.
The agreement is also important in what it says about identity, and I wish to stress this point. It gets to the heart of the old problem that dogged Northern Ireland politics, which was the view that if one community gained, the other had necessarily lost. The tyranny of identity politics can be that it forces people to choose between multiple and overlapping identities—are they one thing or the other? When it comes to identity, the genius of the Good Friday agreement is that it does not force people to choose. Instead, it talks of
“the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both”.
Let us not forget the “or both", as it is very important. It gives everyone in Northern Ireland an equal status and a legitimate sense of belonging.
Mr McFadden
I am going to continue. The point about identity is crucial, because we have to understand that the Good Friday agreement’s effects were not just economic or governmental, but profoundly psychological. By enshrining these principles, the agreement turned a page. The great danger is that Brexit is seen as going back, and we must not go back in any sense of the term. So if hon. Members want to know why the amendment is important and why it is necessary, I say to them that that is why it is necessary. It is because we must hold dear to these principles in a new political context, where, for the first time in history, one country is going to be outside the European Union and its neighbour is going to be inside it. We have never had that before.
When the agreement was signed, it was different: both countries were members of the European Union. Twenty years on, we must guard against any complacency that would see the agreement as a 20-year-old document that can simply be put aside. The agreement was the basis for a new normality, which has not only saved many, many lives—although it certainly has done—but led to a new normality in trade, in relations between the UK and Ireland, and in relationships within Northern Ireland and on both sides of the border. There is peace, but it must not be taken for granted, be treated harshly or be subject to complacency. Great care must be taken.
The Minister and Government Members have, essentially, put forward two arguments for not accepting the new clause: first, that it is technically flawed and, secondly, that it is declaratory and does not add anything. Both those things cannot be true. The truth is that if the Minister wanted to avoid a vote tonight, he should have accepted the new clause. That would have shown that he was willing to legislate for what he said at the Dispatch Box. The excuses he has given for not accepting it are out of the standard book of Ministers’ excuses for not accepting amendments. He said, “I agree with the sentiment, but it is technically flawed. I will give the hon. Member a meeting.” Ministers have been standing at that Dispatch Box saying that kind of thing for decades. The truth is that if he wants to avoid a vote, he has to go much further and guarantee that he will legislate to put in the Bill a commitment to the Good Friday agreement in the new post-Brexit context in which it will have to operate. By doing that, he would be making a statement confirming that we hold dear to the beliefs enshrined in the agreement.
I return to the question of identity. Those in Northern Ireland should be able to choose freely to be British or Irish or both. Brexit must not become a divisive wall that separates those identities. It must not mean losing those all-important words “or both”, and all the beneficial consequences that have come from them.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I remind everybody that there are still 12 speakers to go.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
I apologise to you, Mr Hoyle, and to the Committee, for slipping out at a critical moment and missing part of the Minister’s speech.
I wish to address new clause 70, moved by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). I wholly sympathise with the sentiments she expressed. I worked on Merseyside through the ’80s and ’90s, and I remember the bomb scares and the real horror. We did huge trade buying hides in Northern Ireland and southern Ireland, and I remember just how difficult and grim it was. I totally sympathise with all those who lived through it. I wholly concur with the hon. Lady’s tribute to her sadly late husband and all those in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the security forces, the British Army—I proudly wear the wristband of the Royal Irish, which is stationed in my constituency and represents Irish men and women from every single one of the 32 counties—and the Ulster Defence Regiment who held the peace. Under intense, miserable provocation and terrorism, they enabled the peace process to take place.
It is worth remembering that there was extraordinary bipartisan unity in the House. John Major’s Government took some hideously difficult decisions, including to start talks while terrorism was still being conducted. The Labour party under Tony Blair took up the process, and that resulted in the Belfast agreement, but do not forget the bipartisan support in Dublin and Washington. It was the absolute unity among the two main parties in the three capitals that helped to bring about the peace. We have to pay tribute to all the local players who also had to swallow hugely difficult decisions. I pay particular tribute to Lord Trimble, who brought about the agreement.
It is at this stage that I shall mention the European Union. As the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) mentioned, the European Union is mentioned only twice in the Belfast agreement—first in the preamble and then in article 17 in a quick mention about the North South Ministerial Council. Obviously, the European Union has been supportive. There has been significant peace money. In the Government’s position paper, it is clear that that peace money could be continued after 2020.
Mr Cox
My right hon. Friend might well reflect on the fact that section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 creates quite a complex but rather delicate mechanism for the enforcement of many of the Belfast agreement principles. It relies not on a court, but on the Equality Commission, and the Secretary of State is at the apex, the decision maker, and decides whether or not a public authority is obeying the principles of equality in the Belfast agreement. If this new clause is introduced into Northern Ireland’s law, it will unquestionably create a situation of complex uncertainty as to how it sits with the Northern Ireland Act.
Mr Paterson
I am grateful that my hon. and learned Friend, who knows considerably more about the law than me, concurs with my comments that this new clause could be justiciable. On those grounds, I will not be supporting the hon. Lady’s new clause, but I hope that she has a satisfactory meeting with the Minister.
I am more concerned about the promise in the Prime Minister’s article 50 letter—it was in the position paper published in the summer—about the border:
“We want to avoid a return to a hard border between our two countries, to be able to maintain the Common Travel Area between us, and to make sure that the UK’s withdrawal from the EU does not harm the Republic of Ireland.”
That is absolutely spot on. As I see it, the real risk to the Belfast agreement comes from some of the developments over the course of this week. As the customs paper said in the summer, the border issue is soluble with technical measures. If we look at the figures: of Northern Ireland’s sales, 66% stay in Northern Ireland and 21% go to Great Britain. Therefore, 87% are within the UK—the single market of the UK. Only 5% of Northern Ireland’s sales go south of the border to the Republic of Ireland. Going the other way, only 1.6% of the Republic of Ireland’s exports go north over the border. That is according to the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency.
I am concerned that the issue of the border is being blown up out of all proportion in relation to the size of the problem. There is a border today—a currency, tax and excise duty border. It is a tax point; it is not a customs inspection border. The Government’s position paper, published in the summer, includes proposals such as electronic invoicing, authorised economic operators, and derogation for small businesses in the border area. “Farming Today” this morning reported that the majority of Northern Ireland’s milk goes to dairies in the Republic. It is milk from the same farmer in the same tanker on the same road and with same destination every day. The situation is manageable with modern technology and good will on both sides.
I know some members of the Irish Government. I went there regularly as the shadow Secretary of State and very regularly as the real Secretary of State. When I was Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I worked closely with Simon Coveney, who I am delighted is the Tánaiste. He is a thoroughly practical and effective politician, who got a grip on the common agricultural policy around the time that Ireland had the presidency of the Council of the European Union, and drove the reform through with real determination.
I really hope that, with good will, the issue of the border can be settled. A hard border is completely impractical. It cannot work. Nobody wants it on either side. The problem can be resolved. The issue that blew up earlier this week is that there can be no difference in regulation between one part of the United Kingdom and another. Any change in regulation has to pertain to every part, including Northern Ireland, to keep the integrity of the United Kingdom.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
We have 11 speakers left, with something like 20 minutes to go. It is just not going to happen if this continues.
Tom Brake
Unfortunately, I do not share the optimism of the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) about how easy it will be not to have a border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
I will park Liberal Democrat amendments 144 and 147 on the basis that new clause 70 seeks, perhaps more effectively than my amendments, to ensure that the Good Friday agreement is honoured. Therefore, if the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) seeks to push her new clause to a vote, she could also have me as a Teller. I am not sure of the collective noun for Tellers, but a troop of Tellers would be available to her.
The hon. Lady illustrated, in a moving speech, the importance of the Good Friday agreement and ensuring that it is not damaged in any way. She did that with great credibility. She said that the impact of no deal on Northern Ireland could be catastrophic, reckless and dangerous. I was pleased to hear about her legal expertise in relation to the European Union. Now, she may not have heard this because she was on her feet at the time, but one of the DUP Members—I think it was the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who is no longer in his place—said, from a sedentary position, “That explains a lot.” I am sure that the hon. Member for East Londonderry will not mind me mentioning that because he meant, of course, that it explains why the hon. Member for North Down has as much in-depth legal knowledge about the European Union as she was clearly demonstrating in the debate. I am sure that the comment was not intended to be disrespectful. The hon. Lady has, indeed, set out her expertise in this matter during many debates in this place.
The hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) mentioned the role that the Scottish and Welsh Governments have played in engaging all parties in the process of drawing up amendments. I am aware of that and I very much welcome it. I agree with him entirely that that is something that, unfortunately, is not being reciprocated by our Government in this place. I made a very generous offer to the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. I said that I would sit down with him and go through the Liberal Democrat amendments, because I was sure that they could help him in seeking to achieve some improvements to the Bill. I made that generous offer on 24 October, but I am still waiting for a reply. If the Government want to engage, the willingness is there; they just need to respond positively.
The Minister said that the Government are very committed to the Good Friday agreement. I take him at his word—he is a Minister who says what he means and means what he says. I am not sure I can say that for all the other Members on the Government Front Bench. He could demonstrate that simply by putting it on the face of the Bill. Perhaps that is declaratory, but we often make declaratory legislation in this place. The commitment to 0.7% of gross national income for international development is perhaps an example of declaratory legislation that Members support.
I listened carefully to the Minister. I will support the hon. Member for North Down if she presses the new clause to a Division. One thing is certain: whether or not the European Union is mentioned or referred to in the Good Friday agreement, it is very clear that what the Government do in relation to the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland has a heavy bearing on the ability of Northern Ireland to maintain the relative peace and prosperity that it has experienced in recent years. I will not press my amendments to a vote.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
I echo many of my colleagues when I say that as we leave the European Union, our main goal must be to ensure that we leave in an orderly manner, with minimal disruption to businesses and individuals. Like the rest of the Bill, clause 10 and schedule 2 work to achieve that aim. Quite simply, like clause 11, they make sure that there is no scope for the UK Government or any of the devolved Administrations to make changes that lead to the four nations of the Union diverging from each other. Such divergence would damage the internal market of the United Kingdom; although that sounds abstract, in practice it means new pointless barriers being erected that make it more difficult and expensive for trade between the four nations to take place. That market is worth billions of pounds in exports to businesses right across Scotland.
The chaos of such divergence must be avoided. That is why I oppose the various amendments to clause 10 and schedule 2 that seek to increase the delegated powers of the devolved Administrations. There is no power grab in the Bill, just common sense. However, it is important that the devolved Administrations have appropriate delegated powers to correct legislation to ensure that it continues to function after Brexit. Maintaining the statute book and minimising disruption is the entire point of the Bill, after all.
Giving delegated powers to the devolved Administrations is a necessary consequence of our devolution settlement and of the fact that—much like here in Westminster—in Holyrood, Cardiff Bay and, in time, Stormont, the changes that need to be made cannot be made just by primary legislation. As the Minister stated, it is important that the devolved Administrations’ powers are substantial enough for them to be able to make the right tweaks, rather than feeling unable to do anything more than make bare-bones tweaks that leave the statute book barely functioning. We want a fully functioning statute book after Brexit, not a barely functioning one.
I therefore oppose the amendments that aim to restrict the delegated powers of the devolved Administrations. It is right that the Administrations should be able to make tweaks as they deem “appropriate” and not be restricted to a tighter definition of what is “necessary”.
I suspect that when we revisit the Bill on Report, we will have a much clearer idea of exactly what powers will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament and the other devolved legislatures after Brexit. I look forward to another great devolution of powers under a strong Conservative UK Government. SNP Members must remember that just because we support the Union, it does not mean that we oppose devolution. Quite simply, it patronises the majority of Scots who voted to remain part of the United Kingdom to suggest otherwise.
We need the UK Government and the Scottish Government to work constructively together. I hope that we will soon see progress on common frameworks and an agreement on how we can best preserve our most important internal market—our United Kingdom.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
While I of course support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), I will address my speech to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), who is no longer in her place.
The issues of Ireland and the Good Friday agreement and its relevance to the people who live in the border areas are of genuine personal interest to me and to many of my constituents. It would not have been that long ago that my late grandfather would have walked from Convoy into Strabane. Back then there was no border, and none of us would ever want to go back to the border that came in during those intervening years.
Luke Graham
I am aware of time restrictions, Mr Hoyle, so I will not take any interventions. I shall speak to amendments 174 and 169. It will come as no surprise to hon. Members that I do not support amendment 174 and other amendments tabled by Scottish National party Members. The reason for my opposition, and my party’s opposition, to those amendments is that they expand powers to amend directly applicable EU law, undermining the proposed UK frameworks that the devolved Administrations indicated that they favoured.
I may be new to the Commons, but devolution is even younger than I am. Although it is still evolving, the Bill and subsequent Bills will provide us with a real opportunity to progress the discussion and the devolution settlement. I want to make one or two points very clear, as they have been raised by Opposition Members. No Government Member is threatening the permanence of any devolved institution. In fact, any change would have to come to the Commons, where Members represent Scottish, Welsh, English and Irish constituencies. We will make sure that any change goes through the House and is subject to scrutiny.
Finally, devolved consent and operation are not necessarily better. I suggest that Members look at the SNP Administration in Edinburgh, and the performance on education and health—devolution does not always produce better results. Devolved legislatures are not models of efficiency. The Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh was starved of legislation for over six months last year, and it spent more time debating Brexit and international affairs, which are reserved, than education, justice and health combined, which are explicitly devolved.
Several hon. Members rose—
Luke Graham
I am sorry, I am completely out of time. [Interruption.] It is completely true; those are facts. One thing that has been made clear—
Several hon. Members rose—
Luke Graham
I said that I would not take interventions; I am really sorry, as I usually would. What has been made clear by Members across the House—
Luke Graham
I am sorry, I am not going to give way to the hon. Lady, who arrived late. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) spoke powerfully about the sacrifice and dedication of many people to the United Kingdom. Opposition Members did not only hear her words but understood them. I hope that most Members, with some exceptions, want us to be committed to the United Kingdom and want amendments to the Bill to strengthen it, both in devolved and reserved matters, so we had better serve our constituents and not political dogma.
Conor McGinn
I am an MP from Northern Ireland, but not a Northern Ireland MP, which makes speaking in debates such as this one rather peculiar, because everyone from Northern Ireland has a background or perceived affiliation. I find, when I say something that nationalists agree with, that they say, “Well, he hasn’t forgotten where he has come from.” When I say something with which they disagree, they say, “He should be ashamed of himself, given where he has come from.” Similarly with Unionists, when I say something with which they agree, they say, “Fair play to him, given where he is from.” When I say something with which they disagree, they say, “Well, what would you expect?” I have a knack of annoying everyone, which I hope to continue in the two minutes available to me.
I want to make a couple of quick substantive points, then say something about the Good Friday agreement. First, the only people seeking to change the border, or who have proposed a fundamental change to the border, are those who propose that we leave the single market and the customs union. It was the UK Government who fundamentally altered the nature of the border when they suggested that, not the Irish Government. The principle of consent is firmly enshrined: Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom until the majority of the people there decide otherwise. Notwithstanding that, there is a unique position, because people born in Northern Ireland have a right to Irish citizenship by virtue of their birth there. My constituents in St Helens do not have a right to be Irish because they are born in St Helens, nor do people in Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow or Cardiff.
Jenny Chapman
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way at this late stage. Like him, I am deeply disappointed by the Government’s inadequate response to arguments made today to protect the Good Friday agreement. I am also disappointed that they appear to be prepared to risk a vote that could be perceived as challenging bipartisan support for the agreement, but we are not prepared to do that, so we will not seek to divide the Committee. I thought my hon. Friend should know that before he continues.
Conor McGinn
I thank my hon. Friend for that; the position is very strong and very clear.
The legacy of the peace process is not a Labour legacy; it is a legacy shared between us all. I hope that the Conservative party will reflect on that in these debates, and I am disappointed that the Government have not accepted the new clause today. It is disingenuous to say that the European Union is not mentioned in the Good Friday agreement. Its writ runs through the Good Friday agreement, which was predicated on the basis that we would both remain members of the European Union, and around strand 2, which is north-south co-operation, and strand 3, on east-west co-operation, it is mentioned specifically in terms of areas we can discuss, and there are shared competences.
I want also to remind the Committee that although we talk a lot about the referendum to leave the European Union and its result, the Good Friday agreement was passed by referendums on both parts of the island of Ireland by a majority of people exercising their democratic right. We need to respect that referendum as well as the referendum on the European Union.
The debate focuses primarily and largely on trade, tariff and regulatory alignment. The Good Friday agreement and the peace process are much more than that. I said in this House in my maiden speech that there was no contradiction in being British and Irish, or to having feelings of loyalty, affinity and affection for both countries. That is being tested by this process, but I stand by it. I plead with the Government: through this Brexit process, do not make people choose.
Lady Hermon
This has been a wonderful debate, and I greatly appreciate the contributions from all sides, even when they disagreed with new clause 70 and even when they were made by Members of the DUP who disagreed with new clause 70. Despite my disappointment, which is real, and that of other Members, the greater objective is to maintain the Good Friday agreement and its respect and integrity, and to ensure that we do nothing in this House that gives succour to dissident republicans or increases the risk of terrorism. I will therefore not press the new clause to a vote.
I will, however, accept the very nice invitation to tea with the Minister, but I do not just want tea and buns. I want a commitment from him now—I want him to intervene on me—that the Good Friday agreement will be preserved in some other form, if not today.
Mr Robin Walker
I give the hon. Lady that commitment. The Good Friday agreement is an absolute commitment that we stand by and it will be preserved. I will work with the hon. Lady, as I have been invited to do, to ensure that through the whole of the process we deliver on the principles.
Lady Hermon
I will take that as a commitment that at tea we will agree that the Good Friday agreement will be written into the next Bill—perhaps the withdrawal Bill. The Minister just has to nod.
Mr Walker
As I said to the hon. Lady in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, we are in the process of negotiating the withdrawal agreement and therefore we cannot pre-empt the detail of the Bill. Clearly, we want to enshrine the principles in the withdrawal agreement and that Bill will legislate for that. There is a logic to what she says and I am happy to follow up and discuss it further.
Lady Hermon
With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2
Corresponding powers involving devolved authorities
Amendment proposed: 167, page 17, line 9, at end insert—
“(3) This paragraph does not apply to regulations made under this Part by the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers.”—(Stephen Gethins.)
This amendment would provide that the power of the Scottish Ministers and the Welsh Ministers to make regulations under Part 1 of Schedule 2 extends to amending directly applicable EU law incorporated into UK law, in line with a Minister of the Crown’s power in Clause 7.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 80—Transparency of the financial settlement—
‘(1) Financial provision may be made for a financial settlement agreed as part of any withdrawal agreement under Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union.
(2) Subsection 1 applies only if the financial settlement honours obligations incurred by the United Kingdom during the period of its membership of the EU.
(3) The Treasury must lay before both Houses of Parliament an estimate of the financial obligations incurred by the United Kingdom during the period of its membership of the EU, together with reports from the Office of Budget Responsibility, the National Audit Office and the Government Actuary each giving its independent assessment of the Treasury’s estimate.
(4) Any financial settlement payment to the European Commission or any other EU entity may be made only in accordance with regulations made by a Minister of the Crown.
(5) Regulations under subsection (4) may be made only if a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the House of Commons.”
This new clause ensures that any financial settlement as part of leaving the EU must reflect obligations incurred by the UK during its membership of the EU, must be transparent, and must be approved by Parliament.
Amendment 54, in clause 12, page 9, line 4, at end insert—
‘(5) No payment shall be made to the European Union or its member states in respect of the making of a withdrawal agreement or a new Treaty with the European Union or any new settlement relating to arrangements that are to be made after exit day unless a draft of the instrument authorising the payment has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.”
This amendment would ensure that there is a vote in the House of Commons to approve any settlement payment agreed by Ministers as a consequence of negotiations on a withdrawal agreement or new Treaty with the European Union.
Clause 12 stand part.
Amendment 152, in schedule 4, page 32, line 35, leave out “(among other things)”.
This amendment would limit the scope of regulations modifying the levying of fees or charges by regulatory bodies to only the effects set out in sub-sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c).
Amendment 339, leave out lines 1 to 3.
This amendment would remove the power of public authorities to levy fees or charges via tertiary legislation.
Amendment 340, page 33, line 3, at end insert—
‘(3A) Regulations under this paragraph may not be used to prescribe fees or charges that go beyond that which is necessary for recovering the direct cost of the provision of a service to the specific person (including any firm or individual) who is required to pay the relevant fee or charge.”
This amendment would prevent delegated powers from being used to levy taxes.
Amendment 153, page 35, line 8, at end insert—
‘(3) Modification of subordinate legislation under sub-paragraph (2) may not be made for the purposes of—
(a) creating a fee or charge that does not replicate a fee or charge levied by an EU entity on exit day, or
(b) increasing a fee or charge to an amount larger than an amount charged by an EU entity for the performance of the relevant function on exit day.”
This amendment would prevent Ministers using the power for public bodies to alter fees and charges either to create a fee or charge that does not currently exist for the purposes of EU regulators, or to increase a UK charge to be higher than an existing EU fee or charge.
That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
The Temporary Chair (David Hanson)
Order. Will Members leaving the Chamber please do so quietly so that the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) can continue?
Mr Leslie
Clause 12 relates to the financial provisions of Brexit. New clause 17 seeks to clarify that a specific legislative instrument is needed to authorise payment in relation to a withdrawal agreement settlement and that that can be permitted only if approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
It is important that we do not glide by some of the big aspects of Brexit. It has massive ramifications, one of which is the fabled “divorce bill” as it is sometimes characterised. Some people say that it is simply the settlement of obligations and liabilities, but phase 1 of the discussions, which the Government have agreed with Michel Barnier to conduct before we move on to phase 2 on the framework of future trade relations, has to include a financial settlement. It is therefore important that Members of Parliament understand it, approve it and enter into the arrangement with their eyes wide open.
We are not considering small sums of money. Last week, it was widely reported that the financial deal had been made, but we can never be absolutely sure about such reports. It was also reported that the Prime Minister had a deal with the Republic of Ireland and the rest of the EU on the Northern Ireland border, and we all know what happened to that in recent days. However, it feels as though Ministers, the European Commission and others have sort of agreed a financial settlement, so last week we tabled an urgent question to press the Government. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury responded to it, but unfortunately she was a bit coy about the divorce bill. We were not allowed to know how much it would be. We were told that it was still part and parcel of the negotiation process, and how dare we ask? We were also told that it was unreasonable of us to intrude on sensitive negotiating arrangements. It seemed peculiar to me that it was all right for the British Government to tell Michel Barnier, Jean-Claude Juncker and the European Commission how much HM Government and British taxpayers were prepared to pay, but somehow Members of Parliament, never mind the British public, were not grown up enough to know the real sum.
Ian Murray
It seems peculiar that, when we are supposed to be taking back control, the House has not been given any kind of figure that we can scrutinise. The only figure we have is £350 million a week for the NHS, which we know is a complete lie.
Mr Leslie
That was the surprise, and not just for us. Perhaps we were a bit cynical and did not expect the £350 million a week for the NHS on the side of the red bus to come to fruition, but I think that the British public were genuinely surprised when it turned out that, rather than Brexit’s giving us that fantastic dividend, it was actually going to cost us a considerable amount.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is not surprising that the public were surprised. We may have accepted that much of what was promised during the referendum might fall apart subsequently, but even after the event the Government were telling us a very different tale. My hon. Friend will remember being with me on the International Trade Committee when the Secretary of State came along and said, “I don’t expect us to pay anything to leave.” My constituents heard that said not just during the referendum, when they might expect to hear things that were somewhat fanciful, but many months later. The Government were saying, “We won’t be paying anything to leave.” What we are hearing now is very different.
Mr Leslie
It is worth listing the promises that were made to the British public in the run-up to the referendum, not just by Vote Leave but by individual Members of Parliament, including the Environment Secretary and the Foreign Secretary. On 22 June 2016 they wrote, on behalf of Vote Leave:
“We will take back control of our money”.
The International Trade Secretary said:
“Instead of handing over £350m a week to Brussels we should be spending that money on local priorities”,
such as the NHS.
I am delighted to see that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) is present. He is very assiduous when it comes to these issues: I will grant him that. Before the referendum, he asked “How should we spend this Brexit bonus?” It was suggested that riches would be available for our vital public services. Those were the promises that were made to the British public.
Stephen Doughty
Is it not all the more extraordinary that we are told not only that we will have to pay tens of billions as a divorce bill, but that the Chancellor has already put aside £3 billion—on top of the £750 million that has already been spent—just to cope with the costs of preparing for a potential no-deal Brexit?
Mr Leslie
We saw that £3.7 billion of supposed Brexit preparations in the Treasury Red Book at the time of the Budget, but I suspect that it is quite a modest sum. I know that there are former Chancellors of the Exchequer and others who have more experience than I do in this regard, but I think that those sums may have been set aside for a softer Brexit. If we ended up with a cliff edge with people saying, “We don’t need even a free trade agreement; we can cope on our own in a WTO scenario”, those Brexit preparation costs could be significantly higher.
Anna Soubry
The hon. Gentleman is making an extremely important point. Lots of people who had become really fed up and disaffected with politics and politicians took out their frustrations in the referendum. As the hon. Gentleman has said, many of them genuinely believed that if we left the European Union, there would be more money to be spent on our NHS. He is right: not only will we not have that money, but our economy could begin to retreat—and if we do not get a good deal but fall back on WTO rules, it undoubtedly will—and we will have to put aside, by way of example, £3 billion for Brexit, money that could have gone to the NHS. So my question to the hon. Gentleman is this—
Anna Soubry
May I just ask this question? Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that there are many forms in which that disaffection may be manifested as we see our NHS actually—
The Temporary Chairman
Order. The right hon. Lady must make short interventions. If the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) wishes to give way, he can do so again, but the right hon. Lady must make short interventions.
Mr Leslie
The right hon. Lady was making an incredibly important point, Mr Hanson. It is not just a question of the divorce bill—the financial settlement—and it is not just a question of the billions to be set aside for Brexit preparations. The bigger issue that the right hon. Lady was raising is what will happen in a dynamic economy if our trade opportunities shrink, and if obstacles and tariffs are put in the way. This is not just our assessment, or opinion. The Chancellor himself published a table in his Red Book which showed what he and the Office for Budget Responsibility expected to happen to tax receipts over the next few years. He anticipates that by 2021 tax receipts will have fallen by not just £10 billion or £15 billion, but by £20 billion. That is £20 billion less revenue for the Exchequer to spend on the vital public services we want. This is a triple whammy, therefore, in terms of the costs of Brexit, and it is a surprise to many members of the public, who were told precisely the opposite.
Tom Brake
May I suggest that in fact it is a quadruple whammy, because the hon. Gentleman has not yet referred to the fact that the mythical impact assessments that the Government have or have not conducted—we are not quite sure—probably contain some very large figures about the damage Brexit is going to cause to the 58 sectors on which those reports were apparently conducted?
Mr Leslie
It almost beggars belief that we are hearing not only that the Cabinet has not yet discussed the sweeping of the single market and customs union from the table, and has not yet had the chance—it is very busy—to discuss the future relationship between the UK and the EU, but that it has not even bothered to commission impact assessments. If ever there was an example of a no-questions-asked Brexit—we just career headlong towards the cliff edge, blindfold, and we do not want to ask questions—this is it. We want no information, say the Government. That is the situation we are in.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is very well informed and of course, as we know, very bright, so perhaps he can inform the Committee of the cumulative net cost of the EU—our net payments over the last 42 years.
Mr Leslie
People have speculated that the net cost in terms of payments was about £10 billion a year, although some have said it was less, depending on how we look at it, but there is a cost to be paid for being a member of any club. We have to weigh against those fees and charges the benefits we get from being a member. If we are a member of a club and are gaining benefits from it, we have to ask whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and the benefits outweigh the costs. It is clear in terms of the wider economic expectations, and the Chancellor’s own assessments of what is going to happen to tax revenues in the future, that we are potentially going to be poorer as a result of some of the Brexit scenarios we are seeing.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the net benefits has been peace and prosperity across Europe?
Mr Leslie
Yes, it is true that the benefits are not simply financial. There are social benefits as well as economic benefits, and environmental benefits, and general welfare benefits that we have had in terms of the stability of the continent for such a prolonged period of time. Those benefits should not just be idly swept away; they should certainly be assessed, and the Cabinet should certainly be discussing them.
Dr Murrison
Not only is the hon. Gentleman very wise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) pointed out, but he is also very fair. In the interests of fairness, and in the context of the point about the £350 million a week, does he accept that greatly exaggerated claims were made by right hon. Members, some of whom remain in this House and some of whom are no longer in this House, about what would happen on day one after we voted to leave the EU? So far as I am aware, there have been no plagues of frogs and locusts, and the sky has not fallen in.
Mr Leslie
And we have not left the EU left. The hon. Gentleman makes the point that in any election or referendum campaign there are of course claims and counter-claims, but the success of the leave campaign has caused the situation we are now in, compounded by the choices made subsequently—the interpretations that were not on the ballot paper about sweeping away the single market and the customs union. These have led not to my assessment of what will happen to tax revenues, but to the hon. Gentleman’s own Chancellor of the Exchequer’s assessment. We can talk about our expectations during the campaign, but the hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that the public feel that a result was reached during the course of that referendum and they will look to those who advocated leave and think of the promises made at the time, and expect them to be fulfilled.
Stephen Doughty
We rightly debate all the figures, including the infamous £350 million on the side of the bus, but do we not also need to look at the real impact on the ground? The fact is that we are now having to recruit new customs and border officials to deal with the potential consequences of Brexit instead of spending Home Office budgets on new police officers.
Mr Leslie
Yes, there is a sense that the nation should be talking about how to tackle the massive challenges that we face—questions of productivity, of opportunities for young people and of the kind of healthcare improvements we can expect in the 21st century—but they have now been put on the back burner while we try to negotiate an inferior free trade arrangement to the one that we currently have. This is a kind of salvage operation.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I am a new Member here, and most of the people around the House do not have a clue who I am, but as a new Member, I think I might bring a slightly fresher approach to the debate. Nobody in their right mind would sign a blank cheque for this amount of money, but if I tried to explain to my constituents why I am not going to be consulted about the final sum, I could not do it. It’s nuts!
Mr Leslie
At the very least, we should know what we are being asked to pay. We know that the Foreign Secretary told the European Union to “go whistle”, and perhaps that is still the Government’s official policy. We also know that only in September the Brexit Secretary was saying that a figure of £50 billion was “nonsense”. Since then, of course, we have seen completely different reports. Parliament and the people deserve to know the sum involved. The idea of a blank cheque is completely unacceptable.
Toby Perkins
I am worried that my hon. Friend is going to move on from the important point that he has just raised about the impact assessments. There is a serious question about the competence of the Government if they have gone ahead with this without producing those assessments. There is a more important question, however. We as Members of Parliament were told that there were 58 documents that went into excruciating detail, but it now appears that that was not true. Amid all the talk about what happened outside this place, we must not forget the central point that the Secretary of State stood at the Dispatch Box and told us that those documents existed and that the Prime Minister had looked at a summary of them. He is now saying that those documents do not exist, so what he said was not true.
Mr Leslie
My hon. Friend’s anger about this is correct. For all the bonhomie and swagger of the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, this is unacceptable. He always has a cheeky little smile and a glint in his eye, but we should not let him off the hook. With all that bluster, he was saying, “Oh, don’t worry, there are oodles of detailed impact assessments but you must realise that they are commercially sensitive. We can’t possibly share them, but don’t worry, detailed impact assessments have been produced.” It now turns out that his bluff has been called, and when the curtain was pulled back we saw that those things did not exist, and he is now cycling away. Nobody expected this to be quite so threadbare.
Mr Leslie
I would like to make another point before I give way again.
This brings in the wider theme about sidelining Parliament and creating a sense that we should not have proper scrutiny of these issues. The new clause is about scrutiny, as is the debate going on in the Brexit Select Committee. It is also about the fact that sovereignty lies not in the hands of Ministers but in the hands of Parliament as the representatives of the people, and we need to do our job. The massive land grab of legislation, under the Henry VIII clauses in the Bill, is not acceptable. The cloak and dagger pretence about the impact assessments is not acceptable. Also, the idea that the divorce bill will be somehow covered over in some grubby hidden backroom negotiations, itemising only the textual liabilities rather than showing us the pounds, shillings and pence figures, is not acceptable.
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
The new clause goes to the heart of the argument made for the UK leaving the European Union: this House would take back control. It was done in the name of parliamentary sovereignty. Does my hon. Friend not find it curious, therefore, that the Members who argued in the name of parliamentary sovereignty that we should leave—I see the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) in his place, and the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and others—do not support his new clause? I find it remarkable. That this House should approve any divorce bill would be the ultimate reassertion of parliamentary sovereignty.
Mr Leslie
I see the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) nodding his head, so he agrees. He is an honourable gentleman, because he does believe in parliamentary sovereignty. Many hon. Members agree that the new clause is not about whether we believe in the single market or the customs union; it simply states that when the withdrawal agreement comes to fruition there needs to be a specific vote on the money, because it will come from the taxes collected by the Exchequer—by the Government—and authorised by Parliament. There needs to be authority. I want to see hon. Members who advocated the whole process, on both sides, having to put their mouth where their money is and go through the Lobbies to state an opinion about the amount of money involved.
Mr Cox
Has the hon. Gentleman considered whether his new clause would achieve that, because it is phrased so that a draft of the instrument authorising a payment must be approved, but that would not require a specific sum? It could simply be a framework regulation allowing for such a payment to be made. Surely his new clause is not to the point.
Mr Leslie
The hon. and learned Gentleman, who considers these matters in great detail, will understand that this matter relates to clause 12, which details financial provisions. Clearly it would be impossible for the Government to bring forward such a motion that did not have the clarity that the House expects. In my generosity, I drafted the new clause so as to make it as broad and flexible as possible. Any information would be better than no information. I know that he is urging me to be firmer with the Government on the issue—a manuscript amendment is always possible, so I look forward to that. Let us give the Government a chance to accept the new clause, because it is perfectly reasonable.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is exposing whether the Government are hiding facts from the House over the cost of the divorce bill. Is he concerned, as I am, that the lack of scrutiny means we do not know what we are getting for the money? For instance, we have heard from Government Members that we are leaving a club. Well, we have to settle our tab before leaving a club. They are also confusing that with the future trade deal. We are not seeing what the cost of the trade deal will be. There seem to be two figures here: the cost of leaving and the cost of a trade deal—but we are not getting that detail from the Government.
Mr Leslie
No, and of course we are talking about the divorce bill now, even though we have had no sight of it, because the Prime Minister is naturally anxious to move on from phase 1 to phase 2 of the talks. I almost feel sorry for her, because she is being pulled from pillar to post, with the hard Brexiteers wanting one thing and the DUP always yanking her chain in another way. The EU is of course a stickler when it comes to sufficient progress, but sufficient progress is what she wants to achieve, so she will give them a nod and say, “We will give you a divorce bill settlement, but please don’t publish how much it is, in case Parliament and the public find out.” If it is in the order of £67 billion, which is in the back of the OBR’s red book—I doubt it will be that high—that equates to £1,000 for every man, woman and child in this country. Members should just think about that when they are next in their constituencies: £1,000 for every single person they see will be part of that divorce bill.
Tom Brake
Does the hon. Gentleman believe, as I do, that the Government have managed to convince themselves that the EU is going to “go whistle” and that leaving will not cost us a penny because they get their information from too limited a number of sources? I do not know whether he is familiar with the Legatum Institute—I know that the Minister on the Front Bench is a fan—but the Government seem to give it undue access, and possibly influence, and it has a specific agenda.
Mr Leslie
I do not want to get too side-tracked into my opinions on the advice given by the Legatum Institute. Let alone the Government, I suspect the Legatum Institute has not been doing many impact assessments. The Legatum Institute might be a good cheerleader for the cause—there are many good cheerleaders for that particular cause—but that emotional response is not necessarily evidence-based.
A minute ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) raised the question of what we will get for this divorce bill settlement. That raises the next natural question. Many commentators are assuming that, by moving on to phase 2, we part with this £50 billion or £60 billion and, at last, we are finally able to talk about trade. Actually, under article 50, we will not be entering trade deal territory; we will be entering territory that is about a framework for the future relationship with the European Union.
Mr Leslie
I will give way in a minute.
It is important the Committee realises that phase 2 is not trade talks. The £50 billion does not secure a trade deal. Article 50 refers to:
“an agreement...setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.”
Phase 2 of these article 50 talks will look at only the framework, not the substance of future relationships. The details of that full trade deal will begin only when the UK becomes a third country, which is important because we are getting to the notion that this is the only financial commitment for which we are on the hook. Phase 2 is actually a bit of an interregnum period. The actual detail of the trade relationship will come after we have left, after exit day. The whole Committee needs to appreciate that.
Anna Soubry
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill is paving the way for a hard Brexit? The Bill is dealing with everything up to exit day, and thereafter, if we get a deal, it will be sorted out after we have left the European Union.
Mr Leslie
That is why so many of the amendments tabled by the right hon. Lady and by other hon. Members are crucial to ensuring that Parliament keeps its foot in the door in this process so that we do not just give things away, money for nothing, by giving Ministers total power on exit day to negotiate these arrangements and treat Parliament as a rubber stamp after the fact. We have a duty to make sure we get whatever best deal is possible. Phase 2 could simply be heads of agreement. It could be a couple of sides of A4 simply saying that, after exit, we intend maybe to talk about the details of a particular trade deal. This £50 billion or £60 billion is not purchasing a trade deal.
Ian Murray
Is my hon. Friend arguing that this country will spend up to £67 billion, over which Parliament will have no say, to leave a club and to take us on to a stage to create a framework to re-enter a relationship with that club?
Mr Leslie
More or less, and that that relationship may never match, even partially, the arrangements that we have at present.
If my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will bear with me, we then have to imagine that we have just gone past exit day. We might have a heads of terms framework. We then, of course, enter a two-year transition period, if we are lucky. How much will we have to pay during that transition phase? The notion that our divorce bill is the end of the money is, of course, not right. I anticipate that, during the transition, if we are on the exact same terms as now, which is the impression we have from the Government, we will obviously have to continue paying into the club for those years of transition.
If we want to get any deal at all, especially one that is better than Canada’s comprehensive economic and trade agreement, we will also have to pay into the club for future years. If we are lucky enough to get the inferior arrangement that is the Norway deal, which is certainly better than absolutely nothing but is not as good as the single market and customs union membership we have right now, we will have to pay to be members of the club. The idea that the full benefits of Brexit are to come is a fallacy. The Norwegian people pay £140 per head each year for the Norway arrangement. We pay about £210 to £220 per head per year, so roughly two thirds of that cost will continue, for the inferior relationship. These are costs to our taxpayer that they need to know about, so that they can make assessments of the these things.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend aware yet of the evidence the Chancellor gave to the Treasury Committee this afternoon, when he, in effect, confirmed that there has been no Cabinet decision or agreement about the desired end position of the British Government? So we are leaving the single market and the customs union—that is not a decision taken by the Cabinet—but if we ask any Minister what the form will be to deliver on the Florence speech, they will not be able to give us a Government position. What an absurdity this is.
Mr Leslie
It is not just an absurdity; it is massively irresponsible for the Government to run headlong in a direction without knowing where they are going and without doing any assessments of potential costs. It is important that the British public see this, because they need to understand that this is not a fait accompli. We do not just have to throw up our hands and say, “Nothing can be done about this. It is all just going to happen.” The British people do have power. They do have a chance to change course. I believe we will see the clock ticking away and there will come a moment when we have to make a judgment and say, “Are we just going to continue to this timeframe?” Article 50 can of course be revoked or put on pause, and we need to consider that as an option. The British people do have the right to think again if, on reflection, they see that this process is too costly and potentially too damaging.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a good case. There is a further cost that he is not taking into account, which is the cost to the public finances. We know that the Red Book takes no account of the £40 billion or £50 billion in the divorce bill, which means that the Government’s forecast—or the OBR’s forecast—for the public finances will be shot to pieces. That means interest rates will go up faster than anticipated and the cost of Government borrowing will go up. This is a major economic event and we need an assessment of that as well from the Government. Does my hon. Friend agree with me?
Mr Leslie
Yes. All hon. Members, not just the Government—there are such hon. Members even on the Labour Benches—will want to commit public resources to all sorts of things, and they need to recognise that if the cost is £60 billion, that is not something to be sniffed at. In a couple of years’ time the deficit is projected to be about £30 billion a year, so we are talking about the equivalent of two years of deficit to be added, presumably, to the national debt at that point in time. That is all notwithstanding what happens to our wider economic circumstances. These things should not just be dismissed.
We should be putting the House of Commons at the centre of this process and not treating it as a peripheral part of the Brexit arrangements. That is why this new clause is so important. Brexit is a costly exercise and Parliament needs to have the chance to properly reflect on it. A potential divorce bill of £1,000 for every man, woman and child in this country certainly should not just be brushed aside. When we ask ourselves what we are getting for this arrangement, we see that we are getting the chance to rip up the finest free trade agreement—a frictionless, tariff-free agreement—of anywhere in the world, for the chance to have something inferior. The current path we are on is not about taking back control; this is about losing control. The idea that Parliament should simply step to one side and agree to have control taken away from it is not acceptable to me and to very many hon. Members. This new clause would at least drag Brexit back into the sunlight and let the public hold those responsible to account.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
With his customary eloquence, the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) has given a splendid speech about many things. I wish to divert slightly from his path by taking his new clause seriously as a legislative object, rather than engaging in the interesting questions he raised about the utility or otherwise of the whole of Brexit. The Committee is called upon to decide whether proposed amendments to the legislation are meritorious in terms of achieving the objects of the Bill, and that is what we have done in Committee on many other occasions as we have gone through the Bill.
It is obviously right that Parliament should control public expenditure. The withdrawal agreement will be an element of public expenditure, so one might think that new clause 17 was meritorious. However, it is clear that the payments that the new clause describes will, if they arise at all, be part of an agreement. The Government, rightly, have already said that Parliament will have a vote on the agreement. We cannot vote on an agreement without voting on the financing of an agreement, because the agreement will stipulate the financing. Therefore, new clause 17 is entirely otiose and there is no reason for the House to vote in favour of it. The House should reserve its voting for a later moment when the Government introduce the amendment to allow us to control the agreement, which I shall certainly support.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I think the Government have gone further. They have said that if there is an agreement, primary legislation would probably be needed to implement it, which means that the full procedures for statutory approval would be required in order for there to be the power to make any payments—as I understand it, there are no legal grounds for making additional payments to the EU, and if the Government wish to do so, they will need legal grounds—and then to cover the full implementation of the agreement.
Sir Oliver Letwin
As so often, my right hon. Friend snatches the next words from my mouth. I was about to say that the House will, as he rightly observes, be called on to vote on primary legislation, as we understand it, which will of course require something called a money resolution, with which I know the hon. Member for Nottingham East is fully familiar because I have heard him make long speeches about them on several occasions. He is an expert at doing so, and no doubt he will enjoy doing so again when the relevant resolution comes before the House, but new clause 17 is not necessary to achieve the objective.
Mr Leslie
The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about wanting to probe the details of the new clause, which is specifically about amounts of money paid out without authorisation. He must agree that despite their name, money resolutions do not always specify a sum of money. A draft withdrawal agreement would not necessarily have to set out the amount of money, either. If he has heard otherwise from the Government, I would be interested to know.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I do not think there is the slightest chance that a withdrawal agreement will be put before the House that does not specify, or enable one to calculate, an amount of money, because there is no indication that the EU would accept such a thing. Whether or not we should be paying such an amount is a separate matter. In any event, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) just said from a sedentary position, if that is a deficiency of a forthcoming money resolution, it is a deficiency shared by new clause 17, which also does not stipulate anything about an amount. One way or the other, I fear that the new clause is otiose. It has given an admirable opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to make an interesting speech, but that is its only virtue. The House should have nothing further to do with it.
Jenny Chapman
It is a real pleasure to be called to contribute. I wish to speak to new clause 80 and amendments 339 and 340 in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
New clause 80 would require a vote in the House on the financial settlement that the Government agree with the European Union. Further, it would require the House to be informed in its decision on that matter by reports from the Office for Budget Responsibility and the National Audit Office. Amendments 339 and 340 would prevent tax or fee-raising powers from being established via tertiary legislation and limit any fees that are levied by public bodies to the cost of the service that the fee is intended to cover.
I should start by referring Members to the third report of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee from September, which examined the Bill before us today. The report draws our intention to the fact that the delegated powers memorandum notes that those powers would enable
“the creation of tax-like charges, which go beyond recovering the direct cost of the provision of a service to a specific firm or individual, including to allow for potential cross-subsidisation or to cover the wider functions and running costs of a public body.”
The report alerts Parliament to the danger of allowing organisations full-cost recovery of their services without parliamentary scrutiny as it could allow them to gold-plate the services that they offer. As the report says:
“A tax-like charge means a tax.”
And it
“should not be allowed in subordinate legislation. They are matters for Parliament, a principle central to the Bill of Rights 1688. Regulations under clauses 7 and 9 cannot impose or increase taxation.33 But regulations under Schedule 4 may.”
The report goes on to make the point that that means that Ministers can tax. They can
“confer powers on public authorities to tax and they can do so in tertiary legislation that has no parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever.”
New clause 80 also addresses this issue of a lack of parliamentary oversight. As we all know, the Government are in the process of attempting to conclude the first phase of negotiations with the European Union. Part of that process is agreeing a financial settlement, which reflects the obligations that the United Kingdom has incurred as a result of its membership of the European Union. Labour has always been clear that Britain should meet its obligations. We cannot seriously hope to make new agreements on the international stage if we are seen to go back on what we have already agreed. Britain is a far better, fairer and more reliable ally than that.
As the Chancellor said when he attended the Treasury Committee today:
“I find it inconceivable that we as a nation would be walking away from an obligation that we recognised as an obligation.”
He continued:
“That is just not a credible scenario. That’s not the kind of country we are and frankly it would not make us a credible partner for future international agreements.”
On that, we are agreed. But we have also been clear that the deal must be fair to the taxpayer. Already the Government are attempting to bypass the scrutiny that should take place in this Chamber. This money belongs to the UK taxpayer and they have a right to know how much, and for what they are paying. It is true that the public interest in discovering more about the financial settlements that the Government intend to make with the EU is great, and that there will inevitably and rightly be extensive media coverage. The details, some certain and some speculative, will be pored over by commentators. Estimates will be made and objections proffered on the basis—sometimes, I venture to say—of inaccurate or incomplete information. That is not a satisfactory way to proceed. The House must get a grip of this process and demand the ability to scrutinise and take a view on the deals reached.
Our new clause argues that this House should have a vote, and also that the vote should be properly informed. Being properly informed means that independent analysis by the OBR and the NAO must be provided to assist this House in its consideration of the deal. We are going to need that, because the financial settlement will not be straightforward, and unvarnished truths will be hard to come by. Crudely speaking, the Government will try to make the amount look as reasonable as possible and the EU will try to show that it has everything that it thinks it is due.
The Government will want to highlight estimates that show how payments will be less than half the €100 billion liability, once UK projects have been taken into account. As Alex Barker in the Financial Times put it last week:
“Ministers are banking on Treasury budget wizards making the exit price look as small as possible.”
The two sides in the negotiation could look at the same agreement and come up with net estimates that are quite different.
Helen Goodman
I am just puzzling over how the Government think this will work. Has my hon. Friend thought about this: it is highly likely that we will make not one big payment, but a number of payments over a period of time, which means that the payment could be spread into another Parliament? Given that no Parliament can bind its successor, how does she think that the Government can make this agreement?
Jenny Chapman
That is a very interesting point. As a fellow member of the Select Committee on Procedure for several years, I am not surprised that my hon. Friend has spotted this. I would be fascinated to hear what the Minister has to say about that when he gets to his feet later this evening.
Parliament ought to have the ability to debate, scrutinise and reach its own conclusion on this matter. If we do not, we will be the only people not tussling with it. This Parliament wants to do as the people said we should: take back control. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in response to an urgent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) that to give Parliament details about the settlement
“would not be in our national interest”—[Official Report, 29 November 2017; Vol. 632, c. 327.]
That is not good enough. She said that she will “update the House” when there is more to say, but we do not want to be updated; we want the ability to decide.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I was slightly not expecting to be called to speak then. I am very glad that I have been—honestly. It is good to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, particularly on the financial aspects of the Bill. Given the rumours that we heard last week in the press about the divorce bill, which have not yet been substantiated by the UK Government, this is a good time to be having this discussion.
As a number of hon. Members have said, it is clear that the divorce bill is likely to be significant. But the reason that we are making assumptions—or trying to come up with ideas about what the divorce bill might look like—is because there are no solid facts coming out of the Government. It would be incredibly useful for all of us if the Government were to say, “This is how we expect the divorce bill to be structured. This is what we expect the money to be spent on. This is how we expect it to be allocated.” We would then be able to provide appropriate scrutiny, which is the job not just of the Opposition, but of Back-Bench Government Members. It would be useful if we were able to do that.
The Government say that they have not pinned down exactly how much money we are talking about, but they have not even said that they will tell us the breakdown of the money in the end. They have not promised that level of certainty. It is all well and good for Conservative Members to say, “I’m sure that the Government will give us this information.” It would be a positive step forward if the Government actually committed to doing that.
We cannot have the devolved Administrations having to pay money towards the divorce bill. It is ridiculous that this Parliament would in any circumstances suggest that the devolved Administrations should have to pay towards something that Scotland and Northern Ireland did not vote for as those countries. It would be incredibly galling if it were suggested that we had to use the money that we would spend on public services, over which the devolved authorities have discretion, to pay any portion of the divorce bill. We would completely disagree with that.
My best guess, given the lack of information from the Government, is that the divorce bill that is being spoken about is not for future trade access, or to allow us to get into the single market or to use the customs union. In fact, the Government have been clear that they do not want us to be in the single market or the customs union. This £50 billion or €50 billion or up to €100 billion—who knows how much it will actually be—is just for our ongoing liabilities. It is not to give us access. As I have said, if the Government said what it was actually for, we would throw less accusations across the House at them about it.
New clause 80 on the transparency of the financial settlement pretty well covers what we are seeking from the Government. We need to see all that detail and it would be good to see it as soon as possible.
We have seen how the Government have behaved. The Prime Minister’s speeches have not been made to this House and she has had to come to the House afterwards to make statements. I think that, when the divorce bill is agreed—when there is a signature on the dotted line—the UK Government should have to come to tell the House first. If we are talking about bringing about sovereignty, that is the way in which such things should be undertaken. There should not just be an announcement or a speech; there should be a proper announcement to this House so that the divorce bill can be effectively scrutinised. That would be the best way to do business.
I will move on to parliamentary scrutiny and the issue of sovereignty. The hon. Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) spoke about fees and levies being put into statutory instruments. She was absolutely correct that, if something is a tax-like charge, it is a tax. Therefore, it should not go through a Delegated Legislation Committee; it should be in primary legislation that is discussed on the Floor of the House.
The statutory instrument system we have is already pretty rubbish. We are given the SI without much notice. When we go into the Committee, we do not know how things will go. It tends to be made up of a number of MPs who are pretty disinterested, most of whom have not read the legislation. I have been on two SI Committees over the past couple of weeks. One took about five minutes and the other took much longer and involved a much more in-depth discussion. Before we go into an SI Committee, we do not know which one of those it is likely to be, because no measure of priority or importance is given to them in advance. If we are going to put everything, from taxes to the replacement of EU workers legislation, through an SI Committee, we need a better SI system in this House to ensure that there is proper scrutiny.
To have another slight rant about proper scrutiny, the estimates process in this House is utter nonsense and does not provide proper scrutiny. I have been shouting about that for a very long time and I will not stop. If the UK Government decide that the £50 billion will go through the estimates process and will not, therefore, be properly scrutinised, there will be an awful lot of incredibly upset Members in this House, and not just on the Opposition Benches. I would like the Government, if possible, to be very clear that if there is to be a vote on this money in Parliament, there will be a proper vote—not a vote as part of the estimates process, during which we are not allowed to discuss things in great detail.
Martin Whitfield
As well as upset Members in this House, does the hon. Lady not envisage thousands of upset people outside this place—namely, our constituents?
Kirsty Blackman
I absolutely agree. If the incredibly inadequate estimates procedure were used, an awful lot of my constituents would say to me, “Why did you not talk about this?”, and I would have to say, “Because it didn’t happen to be picked by the Liaison Committee and therefore we had to talk about something else and couldn’t vote on specifically amending this matter.” That would be a major concern to people here and people outside. It would be great if the Government could give the commitment today that any vote on the divorce bill will not happen through the estimates procedure and will be properly scrutinised on the Floor of the House.
It is really important that we do get House of Commons approval for any financial settlement that is agreed on. It absolutely has to be agreed by this House. I would prefer it also to be agreed by the House of Lords. It would be sensible for it to have as much scrutiny as possible before any agreement happens. We are making it very clear that that is very important to us.
Last week, I called for the Chancellor to bring forward an emergency Budget. The Budget that we had the week before last made no mention of payments in relation to a withdrawal settlement, but the Chancellor must have had some idea about this. I can only assume that he did, but given that the DUP did not know what was going on with the agreement that had been made on Monday, perhaps he did not. He should have had some idea of the ballpark figure that was going to come out in the news the following week, and therefore it should have been in the Budget. As it was not in this year’s Budget, the Chancellor needs to come to the House and introduce an emergency Budget explaining how he is going to pay this bill—which taxes he is going to raise, perhaps—and where the money is going to come from, and then this House should properly debate the matter.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I agree with the hon. Lady to a large extent. We do not want hidden protocols whereby certain secret agreements about expenditure do not come before the House. We want full exposure and a comprehensive view of this.
Kirsty Blackman
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, with whom I used to serve on the Scottish Affairs Committee. This does need to be as transparent as possible. Every bit of money that is agreed between the UK Government and the EU as part of the withdrawal settlement needs to be itemised. We need to know what the UK is agreeing to pay for and the timescale over which we will be paying it.
Wes Streeting
I entirely agree with the points that the hon. Lady is making. It was interesting that this afternoon in the Treasury Committee, the Chancellor acknowledged that the cost to the UK of settling any outstanding debts with the European Union will be small beer compared with the costs if we do not get a good long-term trading relationship with the EU. There are two issues: the short-term cost and the impact on the scorecard, and the long-term cost to the economy and the damage that that will do if we cannot move on to phase 2 of these talks.
Kirsty Blackman
I absolutely agree. I will come on to the more indirect costs in a moment, but first I want to mention one more thing in relation to direct costs.
There is still ongoing uncertainty about the replacements, or possible replacements, for EU structural funds—for example, the Horizon 2020 money, the social fund and the common agricultural policy payments. We have a level of certainty on some of those in the very short term, but what happens after April 2019? What happens to the projects that currently receive money, or are likely to be bidding for money in future? What are the UK Government going to do to replace those funds? We do not have any certainty on the replacements for most of the direct funding.
I now move on to the indirect costs of Brexit. I am totally baffled as to whether or not there are economic impact assessments. The UK Government told us that there were impact assessments. They were incredibly clear that there were impact assessments and so they definitely knew how this was going to impact on the economy. Then, at the Brexit Committee, the Secretary of State said that there are no economic impact assessments. Any kind of responsible organisation does an economic impact assessment—before it takes an action, preferably. If an organisation is in this crazy situation where it has signed up to an action and drawn all these ridiculous red lines, it will probably be wise to do the economic impact assessments then so that it has an idea of quite how much of a mess it has got itself into.
Tom Brake
I do not know whether the hon. Lady is one of a number of MPs, including me, who put in a freedom of information request to access these reports. The response we got was that they could not be released because the information contained therein would damage the UK’s negotiating position. I do not know whether she has been to see the reports, but frankly there is nothing in them that could not be obtained by googling different sectors. I am not quite sure why that was used as an excuse for not releasing them to Members of Parliament.
Kirsty Blackman
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I have heard that pretty insubstantial information has been provided, particularly on the numbers.
I was concerned to note that the UK Government have made a call for evidence on trade remedies. They want information from companies, organisations and sectors about which trade remedies are important to their sector. The UK Government do not know which remedies are important, because they have not done the work. They do not have a good enough understanding of the sectoral impact of Brexit.
I shall highlight a few things in relation to that. The Bank of England recently asked what would happen to cross-border derivative contracts and insurance policies after Brexit. The UK Government have not answered the question. I asked them what would happen to rules of origin and what would happen to companies that, for example, made cars in the UK. What would happen to free trade arrangements that call for cars to have 55% or 60% UK content? Currently, it is EU content, but in the event of Brexit we would seek 55% or 60% UK content. Our cars do not have that much UK content, so I asked the UK Government for their position on rules of origin and what they were doing about that. Basically, the answer was “We don’t really know.”
There has been a complete lack of understanding. An awful lot of companies and organisations are going to the Government and saying, “This is our problem. You need to fix it—and you can do it this way.” Most of them have come up with solutions and have suggested ways to fix things. Insurance organisations, for example, have a huge problem. If they sell insurance to someone in an EU country, after exit date they will no longer be able to collect premiums or pay out in the event that someone makes a claim, and they will not be allowed to write to those people to tell them that they cannot do those things, because that is how the rules work.
The UK Government could attempt to give certainty now on a number of such issues, including customs. The economic impacts of this are unbelievable, and the regulatory impacts are baffling even the Government. The impacts are going to be too big for anyone to comprehend. Most of the stuff that we will look at in future, according to how the Bill is drawn up, will be dealt with in SI Committees. It is totally inadequate to discuss incredibly important regulatory regimes, levies and taxes in such Committees. That is not how the Government should proceed. They should change their mind on that and look at the amendments that have been tabled, particularly by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie). The SNP is willing to endorse them, and we thank him for introducing them.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman). I share her bemusement at where we have got to on the impact assessments, which we have now been told do not exist. Like her, I would have thought that that work would have been done—it certainly should be done. If it has not been done—we have been told that it has not been done—it urgently needs to be done so that the Government and the House can take an informed view about where we are heading.
I wish to speak briefly to my amendments 152 and 153 to schedule 4, which touch on the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman). She pointed out that while it was a good thing that Ministers could assure us that no new taxes would be introduced as a result of the sweeping powers that the Bill gives to Ministers—I am glad that new taxes are not going to be imposed on us through the use of these powers—nevertheless the Bill gives them the powers to impose charges. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make the point, which was also made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, that there is frankly precious little difference between taxes and charges. There are wide powers in the Bill to impose new charges, so my amendments 152 and 153 are intended to constrain the power of Ministers to impose charges, which could be almost limitless in scope. I hope that the Minister, in winding up the debate, will be able to give assurances to the Committee that these powers will not be used in ways that none of us would want. I hope that by probing the Minister’s intentions through my amendments I will receive the assurances I seek.
Amendment 152 would amend line 35 of schedule 4, on page 32. The schedule is slightly alarmingly worded, and the amendment is to part 1, which deals with the power to provide for fees or charges. Paragraph 1(3) lists various things that Ministers can introduce regulations to do: to prescribe fees or charges; to provide for recovery of any sums payable; and to confer power on public authorities to do rather similar things. The sub-paragraph explicitly allows Ministers to introduce regulations on those three things, but its first line also reads:
“Regulations under this paragraph may (among other things)”.
Apart from the three specific things, which, frankly, sound rather alarming, it seems that there are some other, non-specified things that the schedule would empower Ministers to do. Amendment 152 simply proposes the deletion of the words “among other things”, so that at least Ministers can do only three things to demand money from taxpayers or charge payers.
Helen Goodman
I just want to make sure that I have understood what my right hon. Friend is saying. Surely what is being proposed here is that Ministers’ ability to use secondary legislation to impose taxes should be constrained, and they will be allowed to impose charges—not that if the Brexit bill is ginormous and the public finances are in a mess, Ministers will have stood at the Dispatch Box now and committed never to increase income tax. That is the correct understanding, is it not?
Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The amendment simply constrains Ministers’ ability to introduce new charges—she calls them taxes, and she has every right to do so—under the secondary legislation envisaged in schedule 4. What I hope the Minister will do is assure us that by “among other things” he is not envisaging some great long list of new money-raising powers.
Helen Goodman
Before my right hon. Friend moves on, is it not worth considering those EU agencies, such as the European Medicines Agency, that are financed by charges on the industry, not by the taxpayer? We should really be hearing from the Minister how the Government propose to fund such agencies in future.
Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We come directly to that point in amendment 153, in which we propose to add to schedule 4 the words set out on the amendment paper, which I shall read out. We propose to constrain Ministers’ powers by saying, first, that regulations
“may not be made for the purposes of…creating a fee or charge that does not replicate a fee or charge levied by an EU entity on exit day”.
That is exactly the point my hon. Friend has just raised. We of course recognise that a lot of charges are imposed at the moment by EU bodies of one sort or another—she mentioned a very important one—and that, in future, comparable fees or charges may well need to be levied by UK entities, but the aim of the first paragraph of amendment 153 is to make it clear that Ministers cannot impose new fees or charges for which there is not already a counterpart from the EU entity.
Sir Oliver Letwin
The right hon. Gentleman is doing exactly what needs to be done in Committee, and I have considerable sympathy with his ambitions. Has he considered whether the reference to remedying deficiencies as the basis for secondary legislation powers under the Bill would in any case have the effect he is describing?
Stephen Timms
I had not considered that, and the right hon. Gentleman may well have a point. I would be interested to know whether that is indeed the case. That interesting point is certainly worth pursuing, and I would welcome it if he expanded on that later.
Secondly, amendment 153 states that Ministers cannot bring forward regulations for the purpose of
“increasing a fee or charge to an amount larger than an amount charged by an EU entity for the performance of the relevant function on exit day.”
Let me take the example my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) mentioned. The European Medicines Agency does very important work, and it charges the industry for that work. I am suggesting that the secondary legislation powers in schedule 4 should not be used to introduce a charge for the same function that is higher than the one currently charged by the European Medicines Agency. There may well be a loss of economies of scale in leaving the European Medicines Agency, and it may well be that undertaking that function purely for the UK will be a less efficient process than doing it EU-wide, as the European Medicines Agency does, but I do not think the secondary legislation powers in the schedule should be used to impose on industry or any charge payer a fee that is higher than the one currently charged by the EU entity.
I accept that there may well in due course need to be some higher fees or charges than those currently levied by EU entities, because the process may well be less efficient when carried out at a UK-only level, but I do not think the secondary legislation powers should be used for that purpose. If Ministers want to bring forward a proposal to impose a higher fee or charge, they should do so through the proper parliamentary process, with scrutiny by this House, not through secondary legislation powers.
Helen Goodman
One of the points made to me by those in the industry is that if these fees and charges shoot up, that will have an impact on their competitiveness, which is the last thing we want. Does that not reinforce my right hon. Friend’s point?
Stephen Timms
Once again, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, my amendments arise specifically from the discussions I have had with those in the tech sector who are worried about the prospect of being hit by substantially larger fees and charges in the future, which is exactly what the powers in the schedule would allow Ministers to do.
I very much hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that these powers will not be used in that way, and that we will not find that industry and charge payers of other kinds are hit by fees or charges that are not being charged at the moment or are higher than those currently being charged. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.
Tom Brake
Although new clause 17 may be otiose, to echo the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), it does at least give Members the opportunity to express strong views on aspects of Brexit. I wonder whether among Government Members there is any sense of humility, shame or embarrassment about what they are inflicting on the country. Looking at the chaos and instability, and indeed the loss of influence, the UK has experienced in the past few months, I would have thought that some Conservative Members would be starting to question their enthusiastic endorsement of action that is weakening the United Kingdom and leaving us much, much poorer.
I know there are Members on both sides of this House who were remain supporters and who are keeping quiet and biding their time. They tell me that they are waiting for the polls to shift before coming out and voicing their concerns about the impact of Brexit more openly. I point out to them that they do not have much time to wait for the polls to shift before Brexit goes ahead—if it goes ahead. I say “if” because there is nothing final about it. Clearly article 50 is revocable, and although the will of the people on 23 June last year expressed itself one way, current polling suggests a majority in favour of a vote on the deal.
Mr Leslie
The right hon. Gentleman’s remarks so far are interesting. Is it not telling that those who urged the country to take this course—those who feel that Brexit will provide this dividend, these great riches—are amazingly mute today? When it comes to the crunch, they do not want to be seen to defend Brexit and the impact it will have on the public finances. I think they should be made to vote for the consequences of the actions they argued for.
Tom Brake
I agree absolutely. That is why new clause 17, which the hon. Gentleman moved, is not otiose at all. It would put people on the spot: they would have to vote, hopefully for a figure. I hope the Government will want to do that, in the name of accountability and transparency. We need a figure, because there is a real risk. We have seen press reports that some arrangement will be reached whereby the Government and the leading leave campaigners within the Government will be saved the embarrassment of a very large—£45 billion to £50 billion—figure being put into the public domain. As several Members have said this afternoon, that is the down payment, not the final divorce settlement.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
Speaking as one who voted to remain, I was disappointed on that Friday morning, but I accept the will of the people. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that we ignore that decision made by the people of the United Kingdom?
Tom Brake
I am absolutely not doing that. That is why I just referred to the idea of having a vote on the deal. The whole point of that is to have a public popular vote. We, the Liberal Democrats, have made it clear from the outset that the only way democratically to answer the question posed by the marginal result on 24 June last year—52% to 48%—is through a vote on the deal for everyone in the country. Before the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) intervened, I was talking about current polling. The Survation poll suggested that 50% of the population now support the idea of a vote on the deal, and only 34% oppose it.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Does my right hon. Friend not agree that we should call this process a confirmation of the first decision? Then we could keep things very neutral: people could confirm that this really was what they voted for. What should any of us who are democrats be afraid of? If there is confirmation of the original decision, fine, but let us wait and see whether people want to confirm their original decision.
Tom Brake
I certainly agree with the intent behind what my hon. Friend says, although I would hesitate to call the vote confirmation of the original vote; this vote would be different in nature, given the facts now available to us—given that the initial settlement will be £45 billion or £50 billion; that huge problems have been created at the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland; and that 16 or 17 months on, the issue of EU citizens here is still not resolved.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman has sparked a highly relevant debate. The referendum asked whether we should leave or not. What we are debating in the Bill is how we leave. We have learned that the process is a series of decisions; there is not one way to leave the EU. We need to keep every option open, not shut doors as this Government are doing, so that if the public mood shifts, as it might well do, all options are open.
Tom Brake
I agree. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will regret, as many Opposition Members and I do, that very early on, the Government shut down some of the options available to us regarding the single market and the customs union. There was no attempt by the Government to negotiate with the European Union on whether there was scope for the EU to give ground, including on freedom of movement. I know from contacts that I have had that there would have been some appetite among some EU countries to give ground on freedom of movement, but that is not something that the Government sought.
Stephen Kerr
We have had a huge election within the past six months. The Conservative party went into that election with a manifesto commitment to honouring the outcome of the June 2016 referendum. I am not sure that I quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman does not understand about what the result of that election meant for the representation of the parties in this House. The majority of Members in this House are elected on a platform of leaving the European Union.
Tom Brake
The clearest outcome of the general election was that the hon. Gentleman’s party lost its majority and is now in an unwieldy and dangerous relationship with the Democratic Unionist party. The route that the Government are going down—a particularly hard Brexit—was not endorsed in the general election.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
We have discussed the Irish border an awful lot this week. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one obvious solution to the Irish border situation is for the whole UK to remain in the single market and customs union?
Tom Brake
Absolutely; that is probably the only safe solution to the question of Ireland and Northern Ireland—and it is one that, unfortunately, our Government ruled out at the outset. They probably rue the consequences of that decision.
I have strayed slightly from new clause 17, but I certainly do not think that the new clause is otiose. When the right hon. Member for West Dorset called it that, it reminded me of his term in the Cabinet Office. I am absolutely convinced that as a senior Minister with an overview of the activities of all Government Departments, he would never have accepted the Government’s going forward with an economic project on the scale of Brexit without insisting that each Department conducted a decent impact assessment for all sectors for which it was responsible. If he disagrees and wants to say that when he was at the Cabinet Office, he would have been perfectly happy with the Government forging ahead in this way with the single biggest economic—and, I would say, most damaging—project that the country has undertaken in 50 years, I give him the opportunity to do so now. Members will note that he has not taken it. I think that must be taken as an indication that he not happy with Conservative Front Benchers, who have decided to proceed without conducting any impact assessments of Brexit.
When Opposition Members heard from Ministers about impact assessments and sectoral analysis, we rightly expected the Government to have conducted an impact assessment of hard Brexit, of perhaps the Norway model and the Turkey model, of no deal and of our current arrangements to inform the House properly about the impact of Brexit. We would then have known about not just the down payment of £45 billion, or whatever it will be, but the long-term financial consequences for the automotive, pharmaceutical and agricultural sectors and all the other sectors that will be so greatly affected.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Gentleman is making an incredibly powerful case about the importance of data. Just today, John Curtice has released information that proves that a majority of the British public now believe that Brexit will be bad for our economy, so even the British people have twigged that something is awry. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the lack of impact assessments will compound that sensation?
Tom Brake
The British public cannot but note the incompetence that our Government have shown. Whether they were leave or remain supporters, when they see a Government in chaos, conducting negotiations in a cack-handed manner, it is not surprising that they are beginning to worry about the impact of Brexit.
Bill Grant
The right hon. Gentleman mentions impact assessments. I wonder whether our 27 friends in the EU might do a retrospective impact assessment of the time when David Cameron went to Europe to ask for some concessions on our arrangements as a member of the EU. He went for a basket of bread and came back with a basket of crumbs. The impact assessment should be directed at them. We would not be where we are today if things had been different. We should ask ourselves who has brought us to where we are. The answer is our friends in Europe.
Tom Brake
We are here today debating the impact that the hon. Gentleman’s Government will have on every single man, woman and child in this country by pursuing a hard Brexit agenda. I do not think he believed what he was saying when he tried to shift the blame to the EU for what happened to David Cameron’s negotiations. However, I made the point earlier that if the EU had been faced with the realistic prospect of the UK leaving, I think it would have been much more amenable to making more substantial concessions.
Hon. Members may be pleased to hear that I am about to conclude—[hon. Members: “Hooray!] Thank you. Apparently, Brexit is about taking back control. We therefore need to ensure that new clause 17 is put into statute so that Parliament has the opportunity to take back control and demonstrate whether we think that the down payment of £45 billion, £50 billion or £55 billion is a price worth paying for the views of a relatively small number of Brexit-obsessed Conservative Members of Parliament.
Martin Whitfield
I want to speak in support of the new clause. I have listened to several hon. Members compare the purchase of houses and cars with Brexit. I have also heard Members point to the necessity of knowing exactly what we are buying. With such a large transaction looming, a simple figure is the least one should expect. Beyond that, however, I think it perfectly reasonable to ask how the figure was calculated. When I receive my bill in a restaurant, I expect to be able to see how much each item cost. I look at the bill, and then—hopefully—I pay. Alternatively, I dispute the bill, and say, “I was not taken with the main course.” Similarly, if I am looking at cars, I may say, “This car is not worth that.” If a survey has shown that there are serious problems with a house, I say, “I am not prepared to pay that: I expect you, the owner, to put it right first.”
Mr Leslie
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for parliamentary sovereignty, clarity and transparency. Do his constituents, like mine, not expect that when they elect a Member of Parliament, that Member of Parliament’s job is to exercise sound stewardship of the money that they part with—the money that they give to the Chancellor and the Treasury when they pay their taxes? Would they not be mystified, and very angry, if they thought that we were nodding through £40 billion or £60 billion without specific authority? Would they not be absolutely astonished at the Government’s implied proposition?
Martin Whitfield
That clearly must be the case. There is an expectation on us to explain how the pounds, shillings and pence are spent, rather than just say, “Oh, it was just nodded through,” and when asked how much it cost, say “I have no idea.” That is unacceptable to those who send us here, and rightly so, because it is their taxes that pay for this; it is their work, their productivity and their hard graft—to use a phrase I heard earlier today—that raises the money to meet these bills.
The draft of the instrument in new clause 17 and of the regulations in new clause 80 are put there on the expectation that there is some transparency. The events of the last few days, weeks, and certainly months would have seriously benefited from having had far more transparency about what is happening. It is not necessarily the case that keeping hidden a sector title of “Forestry” aids our negotiations. If there were more transparency, the Government would have had far more useful and sensible advice from various industries around the UK. If they consider, even or stumble upon the idea of, an impact assessment for the regions, and perhaps if they share with the regions that that is being carried out, the regions—and indeed the devolved powers—could share some of their expertise, so that, as with these amendments, when measures come back to this House we may make a reasoned decision based on facts, influenced by our constituents’ views and genuinely aiming to make the best of a situation that, much like the vaunted driverless cars, could be heading for an absolute disaster.
Ian Paisley
When the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) moved new clause 17 he made a number of worthy points that need to be addressed. I will obviously be voting against the new clause if it is pressed to a vote, and I hope that that is the point, but in terms of the raison d’être of all of these amendments, the cat has been let out of the bag: the hon. Gentleman wishes to revoke article 50 and thereby overturn the will of 17.4 million people. That is the be-all and end-all—that is the raison d’être of what we have heard tonight. The whole tactic of these amendments—no matter how reasonable they might sound and how powerfully supported by some Members—is essentially to do-over the will of the British people.
Mr Leslie
The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair. He should look at the text of the amendment, which simply says that the consequences of Brexit—the costs to the public and his constituents, who might have to fork out £1,000 per man, woman and child—should be authorised by this Parliament; we should take back control. The hon. Gentleman can imply all sorts of motives on my shoulders for tabling it, but it would be honourable if we could address the topic at hand.
Ian Paisley
I am addressing the topic. Does the hon. Gentleman deny that he wishes to revoke article 50 and turn over the will of the British people?
Mr Leslie
The point that I made was that article 50 can be revoked if the British public wish that to be the case. The Prime Minister has not denied that is the case; she might say that it is Government policy not to revoke article 50, but she has not said that it is impossible to do so. I was simply pointing out a legal reality.
Ian Paisley
The hon. Gentleman says he has pointed out a legal reality, but the Labour party’s position on all of these matters is now no clearer than mud. Are we ultimately going to honour the will of the British people, enact this Bill, and withdraw from the EU? That is the bottom line. All these amendments are slowly but surely being exposed as having a different motivation. It was said earlier that there was a need to put the Brexit Members of Parliament on the spot and get them to vote for the consequences of Brexit. I will happily walk through the Division Lobby tonight to vote down new clause 17, for the very reason that I wish to put into practice and into law the will of the British people. They voted to leave, and we must bring it on and allow them to leave. Confusion has been allowed to reign as a result of the proposed amendments.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
I have never heard anybody put this argument in quite this extreme way. The British public answered the simple question of whether they wished to leave the European Union, but that question carried within it hundreds of highly complicated sub-questions which now have to be addressed after the negotiations. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should not, for example, discuss the basis on which we make a contribution towards accrued pension liabilities during our membership of the European Union because our masters, the people, have decided that we must pay those accrued pension liabilities and are indifferent to how much that will cost? That is an absurd misuse of the one simple question about whether or not to stay in the EU.
Ian Paisley
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Father of the House, has been a Member of Parliament for many years, and he will know that it is only very occasionally that the British people are asked their view by way of a referendum. Indeed, that has probably happened on only two occasions in his lifetime. On both of those occasions, the will of the British people was enacted by this place. Yes, of course there is debate. Who says that there should not be reasoned debate? [Hon. Members: “You.”] I do not say that, and I have not said that. Don’t be silly—[Interruption.] I am not saying it now. I am saying what the raison d’être behind the debate is, which is very different. Let us have the debate. I have actually used the words “bring it on”. If the Father of the House is suggesting that this occasion is just the same as every other occasion, I have to tell him, with due respect, that he is wrong. The will of the people has been expressed through a referendum. That is what makes this different.
Wera Hobhouse
Is not this debate bringing out the fact that the will of the people is a very mixed bag? Is it not therefore admissible for us to get close to the will of the people through these debates and, if it appears that we are going to get a great result out of Brexit, to go to the people again and ask them to confirm or reject their original decision? That is what I call democracy.
Ian Paisley
The hon. Lady has made the point about having a second referendum on a number of occasions, and I believe that the proposal has been rejected. She is of course entitled to keep making that call, but I believe that it will continue to fall on deaf ears. However, she is right to continue to fight her corner.
Ian Paisley
Yes, and every single poll that I have read about myself and my party tells me that I have lost every election, but in reality I have won them all. The poll that ultimately counts is the one that is taken by the people.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the logic of the Lib Dems’ position—which they certainly did not put forward on Second Reading of the Bill that introduced the provisions for the referendum—is that we should have three referendums? In that way, it could be the best of three, or they could carry on until they got the result they wanted.
Ian Paisley
My hon. Friend puts his finger on a very Irish solution to the problem. I remember the Lisbon treaty. The Irish voted against it, but they were told by their political masters that they had made the wrong decision and had to vote again. This is ultimately a ruse to ignore the will of the British people, as expressed in a referendum on this matter.
Tom Brake
I just want to get the hon. Gentleman on the record saying that, whatever happens to public opinion and however bad the negotiations go, even if the 50% who believe that there should be a vote on the deal grows to 90%, he is adamant that, because of the vote on 23 June 2016, nothing can ever change.
Ian Paisley
In the same way that public opinion changed from 1973 to the present—
The Temporary Chair (David Hanson)
Order. I remind Members that we are supposed to be debating the financial provisions. We are straying into the terms of any second referendum.
Ian Paisley
I will take your instruction, Mr Hanson, but I think that the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) knows where I stand on that point.
I was hoping to hear some clarity from Labour’s Front Bench tonight, instead of more confusion. I was hoping to hear some key arguments about why the Opposition are putting forward some of these amendments to deal with the consequences of the divorce bill. I wanted to hear them deal with who should pay, with freedom of movement and with the single market. I wanted a hard and fast line, but I am afraid that we heard even more confusion.
We have had a diet of this confusion for some time. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said that we must leave the single market and respect the referendum result. The hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Tom Watson) said that we should stay in the single market and the customs union permanently. The hon. Members for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) and for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) said on another occasion that we have to leave the single market. The right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said that we should keep freedom of movement. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the Leader of the Opposition, and the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the shadow Brexit Secretary, have said that freedom of movement ends with Brexit.
We really need more clarity from the Labour party. If it is going to try to persuade us on these key issues, it needs a single position. At least the Government, for all the problems that have been pointed out, have a single position. I think that would be a good starting point.
Helen Goodman
I am pleased to have the opportunity to support new clause 17, moved with great elan by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), new clause 8, tabled by the Labour Front Benchers, and amendments 152 and 153, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms).
It seems completely reasonable for the House to expect the Government to produce papers explaining the basis of the payments that we will have to make in order to secure a successful Brexit. We want to know from the Government in writing what legal obligations they accept, what they agree to in relation to our obligations under the current five-year EU budget, what they believe our long-term liabilities are—such things as pensions—and how our share of the EU’s assets are being taken into account in the calculation. For example, it would be extremely helpful to know the Government’s position on the European Investment Bank, because we still do not have clarity on that. That will obviously play some part in the divorce Bill. We need to know what the number is, but we also need to know whether it has been worked out in a reasonable way, because at the moment it is not at all clear how the assessment has been made. We are asking for a parliamentary opportunity to look at this.
We also want to know Ministers’ plan for how the payment will be made. What will be paid earlier and what will be paid over time? What account will Ministers take of fluctuations in the exchange rate? The pound has fallen by 12% since the referendum in the summer of 2016. That is not a huge amount, but it has a significant impact on these numbers. If the Government agree a figure of £50 billion, it would increase the bill by €6 billion or £5 billion. How will the Government manage such exchange rate risks?
Tom Brake
Does the hon. Lady agree that a good way for the Government to publicise precisely how much the bill will be is for them to put the figure on the side of a red bus and for senior members of the Government to drive around the country publicising the £45 billion down payment?
Helen Goodman
That is a good, eminently sensible idea. I will return to the public’s attitude when I wind up my remarks.
This is a significant sum. When we bailed out the banks 10 years ago, we spent £133 billion. Now we are talking about a figure of £50 billion, which will have a significant impact on the public finances. I am sympathetic to the remarks of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) on the inadequacies of the current estimates procedure. Given that this is an exceptionally large sum of money on an exceptionally important item, and given that this is exceptionally politically sensitive, we expect a much better way for Parliament to approve the sums of money. That is what new clauses 17 and 80 are driving at.
I am worried about the impact on the public finances. Not only is this a big number, but it seems to be a big number that the Chancellor did not take into account when putting together the Red Book, in which he included the current net payments to the EU of £9 billion a year up to 2019 and, thereafter, £12 billion a year of continued expenditure on items coming back to this country that are currently the responsibility of shared EU programmes, such as agricultural support, universities and R and D. He put in £3 billion for transitional costs, such as new computer systems at HMRC and the Rural Payments Agency, but he did not put anything in for the divorce bill. His forecast of the deficit coming down and of debt starting to fall towards the end of this Parliament is bound to be wrong unless the Government present the British people with a whopping great tax bill.
Peter Kyle
Does my hon. Friend agree that, considering our current trajectory under this Government, the other big black hole in the Red Book is how much we will have to pay for access to the single market after we leave?
Helen Goodman
My hon. Friend is right, but I am confining myself to the impact of new clauses 17 and 80.
We need to understand how Ministers will cope with this big bill when the deal is done. Will Ministers give everybody a massive tax bill—and it will be a massive tax bill, because we are talking about at least £800 per person, or £3,000 per household—or will they increase Government borrowing?
I return to the simple point about the promises that were made by, among others, the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), during the referendum campaign—the £350 million a week for the NHS that we saw on the side of a bus. This is £16 billion a year. After the Brexit vote, I had a number of public meetings with my constituents and asked them what their expectation was when they voted to leave the EU. I will never forget this nice old lady saying, “Helen, it will be marvellous, because now there will enough money for the Government to reopen the A&E in Bishop hospital.” That is obviously not what the Government have in mind. It is incumbent on them to be open and clear with the British public, and that is what new clauses 17 and 80 are driving at.
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
We have all heard the famous phrase “a week is a long time in politics”. Well, it has now been almost 18 months since the public voted to leave the EU and in that time lots of new issues have come to light. From leaving the single market and customs union, to the renewed tensions over the Irish border, we know things now that voters could not have been expected to know all those months ago. We also know that the Brexit divorce bill is likely to cost the Treasury upwards of £50 billion. That is almost £2,000 per household that could have been put to more positive use but instead becomes the opportunity cost of Brexit. Some people will say, “That’s money that would have been paid to the EU anyway”, and to some extent they are right. The difference is, however, that the money we paid to the EU in the past bought us collective benefits and access to shared resources, such as Euratom and the European Medicines Agency, that are now at risk as a result of Brexit.
Dr Williams
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. We have no idea how much extra it is going to cost us to establish our own agencies to cover the roles of the many European agencies we have shared. This opportunity cost is not simply about the raw cash we need to spend; it is also about the time and other resources devoted to making this happen. When I stood for election to Parliament, I had in my mind a long list of issues I wanted to address and ideas I wanted to drive forward to make this country a better and fairer place. Instead, I find that much of the time in this House is now being devoted to tackling the myriad problems that have arisen, and working to reduce the harm that may come to our country and our economy from leaving the EU.
This whole process is not just an opportunity cost—it is also an opportunity lost. Nobody in my constituency who voted to leave the EU voted to make our NHS worse off. They wanted to see it improve and, if anything, were persuaded by a somewhat misleading figure on the side of a bus, but the threats to our health services are very real. Just yesterday, Dr Jeanette Dickson, from the Royal College of Radiologists told the Health Committee that the isotopes we import for cancer treatments could be rendered useless by delays in the customs process. Quite simply she told us, “If we do not have an assured supply, the reduction in rate of cure means more people will die of thyroid cancer.” That is thousands of lives every year that will be at risk if we get this wrong.
Voters did not vote to make their family poorer either; they genuinely wanted to see our economy thrive and believed that exiting the EU would bring renewed prosperity for their families. But with slowed economic growth, a collapse in the value of the pound and rising costs of imports, that flourishing economic future seems a far cry from this Government’s current performance.
Ian Paisley
Earlier in this debate, I was accused of having an extreme view on something. Is it not rather extreme to suggest that people are going to die of cancer because of this? Seriously, listen to yourself!
Dr Williams
I recommend that the hon. Gentleman looks at what was said by the expert who provided evidence to the Health Committee yesterday. She explained what would happen if we get this wrong—what I suggested was conditional, because I said “if” we get this wrong. She said that radio isotopes that we do not produce currently in the UK and need to import from other European countries, and that are essential for cancer treatment, will not be available to provide that treatment.
Carol Monaghan
Just to add a little more on that, these isotopes often have a half-life of six hours, which means that within 24 hours they are effectively useless for treatment. We do not have the ability to produce them here so they must be imported. If we are not part of the Euratom treaty, we will have serious problems with cancer treatment. It is not scaremongering, it is fact.
Dr Williams
I thank the hon. Lady for adding to the evidence. We must listen to the evidence.
As we know, the proposals before us would require the divorce bill to be assessed by independent watchdogs, and I support that. It is important that the information that comes out of the Government’s negotiations with the EU is properly scrutinised in this Chamber and beyond. As a scientist, I learned to follow evidence. When new evidence emerges, so must our course of action change. As a doctor, if a test carried out on a patient revealed a totally unexpected result, I would repeat the test again rather than plough on with a process that I thought would harm the patient. For some years, medical professionals used to say that smoking was not a risk to people’s health, and they also used to tell pregnant mothers that moderate drinking during pregnancy posed no risk to the health of their child. With the benefit of hindsight, new information and the evidence we have now, how ridiculous do those statements seem?
We must continue to keep an open mind and to scrutinise the divorce-bill negotiations and Brexit more widely. As the opportunities seem to diminish and the potential for harm to our economy and society increases, we must also be willing to ask whether this is what the public voted for. Yes, we have a duty to act on behalf of our constituents, but as representatives, not simply delegates. I promised the residents of Stockton South that I would fight and work for them all, regardless of how they voted. The public must have the right to change their minds; that is one of the key aspects of democracy. It is why we have elections every five years—or perhaps more often. If public opinion shifts, we must all be able to look at matters again.
Attention to detail and accountability to Parliament are crucial to the Brexit process, and particularly the divorce bill. That is why I shall support new clauses 17 and 80 tonight.
The Temporary Chair (David Hanson)
Order. I am happy to call both hon. Members—indeed, I have no discretion not to call the hon. Members for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) and for Ilford South (Mike Gapes)—but I must point out that they have not been present since the start of the debate. I have no discretion on this matter, so I call Graham Stringer.
Graham Stringer
I am grateful for your comments, Mr Hanson. You are right I have not been present in this particular debate for the whole time, but I have been in many of the debates and this is the first time I have stood up to speak on the issue. I shall not detain the Committee for very long.
Following on from the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams), of course people in every democracy have the right to change their minds. The correct way to do that is through the same means by which the referendum came about in the first place: a political party should say in its general election manifesto that it wants a referendum, win that election and hold another referendum. The Lib Dems tried that at the most recent election; admittedly, they gained seats, but they lost votes. That is the way to do it, not by calling on the most immediate opinion poll.
Opinion polls change. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South and other Members may be interested in a poll taken by Lord Ashcroft the day after the referendum. He surveyed all those people who had voted for Brexit and found that 94% of them had not voted for it on economic grounds, so a lot of the arguments about economics do not apply to the people who voted to leave.
Peter Kyle
To clarify a point, the 2015 Labour manifesto opposed a referendum; Labour was led then by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). Two weeks after the general election, we were whipped to vote for the piece of legislation that enabled that, and the Labour party did so. Did my hon. Friend think that we were wrong because it was not in our manifesto? We opposed a referendum in the manifesto
Graham Stringer
I have to say that I found it a bit curious, having voted for a referendum for many years, to find all my Labour colleagues finally in the same Lobby as me. The argument given by the leadership at the time was that the election had been lost, the public had voted by a majority for a referendum and it was going to recognise that.
On the financial issues, I am always in favour of transparency, which is what the essence of this argument is about. It is difficult for any Member not to be in favour of transparency, but with regard to the actual wording of the amendments, they are rather biased in terms of costs and do not, as I would have preferred, put the savings in the context of what we do not have to spend. As has been said, in all certainty, net, there will be a saving. People opine that there will be huge costs to leaving the EU. I do not know what the Government are likely to pay or not pay. I suspect that they will end up paying too much, but if we look at the history of the common market and the EU, over that period, we have probably paid half a trillion pounds net—a huge amount of money. What has been the benefit of that? We have gone from having a balanced trade with the EU to running a deficit of about £70 billion a year.
Mr Leslie
I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I accept the point that there could be savings or, in my view, much bigger costs, but could we at least agree, here and now, that the £350 million a week for the NHS, which was on the side of that big red bus, is not going to happen?
Graham Stringer
I do not know what decisions will be made. I believe that the Government are likely to pay too much. Let us ask ourselves: why would we be paying money so that the rest of the EU can trade with us and every year sell us £70 billion more in goods than we are selling to the EU? Why is that a deal that we should be keen to support? I suspect that the Government will come back and put it to—
Stella Creasy
Whatever my hon. Friend’s feelings towards the European Union, he has just said that he fears that we may pay too much, whatever the number is. New clause 17 is about knowing what that number is. Surely he must support that principle. Then we can answer the question about whether it is too much, not enough or completely irrelevant.
Graham Stringer
I hope that my hon. Friend was listening to me when I was arguing in favour of transparency. I was arguing against the particular wording of these amendments, which I believe to be biased. Of course we should be transparent about what things cost, and we should have the right to have a view and determine what we think about that. Who could argue against that? All I am saying is that, if we are paying £40 billion over 40 years, that is probably against £400 billion that we would be paying, and that should be the context in which these figures are produced.
Graham Stringer
I am sorry about this, Mr Hanson. I will not give way again after this intervention, because I did say that I would not take much time.
Wera Hobhouse
As a member of the Labour party, the hon. Gentleman should understand the word “solidarity”. He has just been talking about the fact that Europe is much more than just a financial project. Is this not about European solidarity and we, as one of the richest countries in the world, acting in solidarity with people and countries in eastern Europe, which, for decades, have been losing out? Now we are helping those countries and their democracies to thrive.
Graham Stringer
There could be a very long answer to that question, which I will not give. All I will say is that the EU—and this is one of my reasons for voting to leave it—has had a hostile view to democracy and national sovereignty from its very conception. I believe that we should have solidarity with those countries that are moving towards democracy and improving the rights of their citizens, but I have never believed that the EU is a body that can do that.
There has been an assumption in the debate not only that the finances and paying for a trade deal were good things, but that most of the regulations that came from Europe have been good and most of the application of those regulations has been good. There are many regulations that are not good. The clinical trials directive is the obvious one, which I have discussed with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) previously, but there are many others, including the electromagnetic field directive, which nearly wrecked much of our medicine. There has been an anti-scientific view from the EU that has stopped the development of genetically modified organisms in the EU. One has to take a balanced view. There have been good things from the EU, but there have also been many negative and bad things.
Finally, the essence of many comments that have been made today is that it is difficult to become an independent country. These are essentially the arguments of imperialists. It is not that difficult for a powerful economy such as ours to take over its own democracy and become independent again.
Mike Gapes
I was here for seven hours on Monday before I spoke, so I feel that I can say at least a few words today.
We face a fundamental choice in this debate. Are we still a parliamentary democracy, or do we simply—because of a very narrow vote on 23 June 2016—take our eyes off of the detail and go like lemmings towards anything in order to implement a decision that is thought to be irreversible? The leave campaign told us that it was about taking back control. The reality is that this Parliament must assert itself and take back control from an overweening and incompetent Executive who want Henry VIII powers in their Bill and wish us just to be supine—to lie down and accept anything that they come forward with.
That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) tabled new clause 17, which I am delighted to support. It would mean that there has to be an independent assessment of the costs of the Government’s proposals. We in this House—this democratic Parliament —can then assert centuries-old tradition against overweening Executive power. We can decide democratically. We can assert and take back control. That is why we need to vote for new clause 17 and support the associated amendments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their participation in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) on his new clause, because he has achieved a considerable widening of the debate’s scope, which has led to a wide range of contributions.
Clause 12 is not about paying any negotiated financial settlement. It is about ensuring that Parliament has authorised the Government and the devolved Administrations to incur expenditure under this Bill. It is also about the preparation for the making of statutory instruments under the powers of the Bill or under existing powers to make subordinate legislation as modified by or under the Bill. The clause has two functions. The main text of the clause is concerned with parliamentary approval for the Government to spend money. The clause also gives effect to schedule 4, which is concerned with fees and charges by which the Government, devolved Administrations and arm’s-length bodies raise money.
Clause 12 and schedule 4 will ensure that all the money that might flow into and out of the Exchequer as a consequence of this Bill is proper and respects the long-established rules for the relationship between this House and the Treasury, as laid down in the 1932 Public Accounts Committee concordat and the Treasury guidance in “Managing public money”.
Taking back control of functions the UK has long delegated to European Union institutions may cost money. That expenditure will come from the use of the powers in the Bill. Although at this stage in the negotiations it is too early to say precisely what that expenditure will be, it might involve expanding public authorities in the UK, recruitment at those authorities or setting up new IT systems. That is not to say that the UK cannot perform those functions more efficiently and, crucially, at a lower cost than the European Union, but clearly we cannot say that it will cost the Government nothing at all to carry out the new responsibilities. It is therefore vital that the financial aspects of taking back control and preparing to take a fully independent position on the world stage are put on a sound and proper footing.
Stephen Timms
Does the Minister accept that we should hope that those fees and charges will be lower than those that have been paid until now to EU institutions?
Mr Baker
I am happy to tell the right hon. Gentleman that, as a good Conservative, I certainly hope to reduce the costs on businesses and individuals. I will come to his amendments in a moment.
New clause 17 and amendment 54 show an understandable desire to protect the role of this House, but they are not necessary. The Government have always been clear that the negotiated financial settlement will be part of our withdrawal agreement and that the House will be given a vote on that agreement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union was very clear on 13 November when he announced the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill. He said that, as one of the principal elements of our agreement with the EU, we expect that legislation to include authorisation to pay any financial settlement that is negotiated with the EU. The Bill we are debating today is about ensuring that the statute book is operational on exit day, not about paying any settlement. The same argument applies to new clause 80.
Mr Leslie
The Minister says that there will be an opportunity to vote on the finances, but only as part of the entirety of the proposed withdrawal agreement. Would it not be proper, as is the case with many other financial issues, for the House separately to authorise financial expenditure in relation to exiting the European Union? Surely the Government should commit to that power for the House of Commons, or will he deny us that opportunity?
Mr Baker
I am confused by the hon. Gentleman, because he is such a diligent Member of the House. I explained moments ago that we will bring forward the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, which will cover any financial settlement, among other withdrawal issues. I would of course expect that Bill to go through the normal legislative processes, during which he and other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will have a full opportunity to scrutinise those provisions.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). The power in part 1 of schedule 4 can be used to create fees and charges of the type that amendment 153 is concerned with. That power can be used to establish new fees only in relation to functions being transferred to UK entities under the powers in this Bill. In most cases, one might expect that it will be replacing a fee set at EU level, but in some cases it may be right that it will be better value for the taxpayer and for users of the services to create a new fee to pay for functions that the UK previously funded through the EU budget.
Amendment 152 does not recognise the need for adjustments to other, peripheral aspects of the fees regime in connection with charging fees or other charges—for example, arrangements for refunds, which I think all Members can agree should be possible so as not to leave ordinary hard-working fee payers unfairly out of pocket. Furthermore, future Governments, in the fullness of time, may wish to simplify charges, amalgamate them, or charge less for one function or another.
Stephen Timms
In future it may be necessary to do all sorts of things, but surely the powers in this Bill should not be used to impose new charges on businesses that are not being paid at the moment.
Mr Baker
This Bill, first and foremost, is about exiting the European Union successfully, with certainty, continuity and control, as the right hon. Gentleman will know. I draw his attention to schedule 2(7), which makes it very clear that in the event that a provision imposed a fee or charge, or conferred a power to sub-delegate, it would go to the affirmative procedure and this House would have the opportunity to vote on it.
I turn to amendment 339 on sub-delegation. It is right that this House keeps strict control over all financial matters, but this Bill is about ensuring continuity. I remind the Committee that this power is available only if the public authority is taking on a new—[Interruption.]
The Temporary Chairman (David Hanson)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but there is quite a lot of hubble and bubble from Members who have not been in the debate. Members who have been here for the past three hours wish to listen to the Minister’s response.
Mr Baker
Thank you, Mr Hanson.
The power is available only if the public authority is taking on a new function under this Bill, and the fees and charges must be in connection with that function. The amendment would force Ministers to exercise this power on behalf of public authorities, such as the Financial Conduct Authority, which this House has made statutorily independent from Ministers. The Government believe that it is right that where Parliament has already granted the power to set up rules within these independent regulators, fees and charges of the type envisaged by this power should continue to be exercised by those public authorities. For good reasons, they have been made independent of Government, and Parliament should have the option to maintain that status quo. I stress that the terms on which any public authority would be able to raise fees and other charges will be set in the statutory instrument that delegates the power to them; and that, as I said, any such delegation would trigger the affirmative procedure, ensuring that this House considers and approves any delegation of the power and how it would be exercised.
Amendment 340 on cost recovery has the disadvantage that it would prohibit what I hope Labour Members would consider to be progressive principles of ensuring a spreading of the burden of regulation. It also might not allow regulators to cover the cost of enforcement.
Clause 12 and schedule 4 are about delivering a successful EU exit with certainty, continuity and control. Clause 12 is not about enabling the payment of any negotiated financial settlement, and neither is schedule 4 about subverting the normal process of raising taxation. The amendments muddy the waters of what these provisions are for. These provisions are simply about ensuring that the financial aspects of taking back control and preparing to take a fully independent position on the world stage are put on a sound and proper footing.
Stella Creasy
The Minister said that he thought that all the amendments muddied the water, but he has also said that it was right that Parliament should have a vote on the money—on the divorce bill—and that there should be parliamentary oversight of any additional controls. Why then is he not going to accept amendments that simply ensure that that is the case? Just what kind of control is he seeking to take back?
Mr Baker
As the hon. Lady would expect me to say, what I want is Parliament to have proper control over our laws, our money, our borders and our trade policy. Having expressed my gratitude for her intervention, I hope that I have tackled right hon. and hon. Members’ concerns, and I urge them not to press the amendments.
Mr Leslie
I have heard what the Minister said. In fact, he even had the gall to use the phrase, “take back control” while simultaneously telling Parliament that it cannot have a separate, free-standing vote on this massive divorce bill, which will potentially cost the constituents of every single Member in the Chamber—every man, woman and child—up to £1,000 a head. They expect accountability for those decisions, and I want all those hon. Members, particularly those who advocated a hard Brexit, and who still potentially advocate going over the cliff edge into World Trade Organisation terrain, to walk through the Lobby and be held accountable for the amount of money that it will cost taxpayers for decades to come. That is why I do not wish to withdraw new clause 17. I believe that Parliament should exercise control over those amounts of money. Let us take back control and have accountability for those sums of money. I wish to push this to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Tuesday 12th December 2017
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 12 December 2017 - (12 Dec 2017)
21:11 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 293 / Noes: 315 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:25 - The House divided: - Ayes: 295 / Noes: 312 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:38 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 93 / Noes: 215 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:50 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 291 / Noes: 315 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:04 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 292 / Noes: 314 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
New clause 24—Scope of delegated powers—
“Subject to sections 8 and 9 and paragraphs 13 and 21 of Schedule 2, any power to make, confirm or approve subordinate legislation conferred or modified under this Act and its Schedules must be used, and may only be used, insofar as is necessary to ensure that retained EU law continues to operate with equivalent scope, purpose and effect following the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU.”
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the powers to create secondary legislation given to Ministers by the Bill can be used only in pursuit of the overall statutory purpose, namely to allow retained EU law to continue to operate effectively after exit day.
New clause 27—Institutional arrangements—
“(1) Before exit day a Minister of the Crown must make provision that all powers and functions relating to the environment or environmental protection that were exercisable by EU entities or other public authorities anywhere in the United Kingdom before exit day which do not cease to have effect as a result of the withdrawal agreement (‘relevant powers and functions’) will—
(a) continue to be carried out by an EU entity or public authority;
(b) be carried out by an appropriate existing or newly established entity or public authority in the United Kingdom; or
(c) be carried out by an appropriate international entity or public authority.
(2) For the purposes of this section, relevant powers and functions relating to the UK exercisable by an EU entity or public authority include, but are not limited to—
(a) monitoring and measuring compliance with legal requirements,
(b) reviewing and reporting on compliance with legal requirements,
(c) enforcement of legal requirements,
(d) setting standards or targets,
(e) co-ordinating action,
(f) publicising information including regarding compliance with environmental standards.
(3) Within 12 months of exit day, the Government shall consult on and bring forward proposals for the creation by primary legislation of—
(a) a new independent body or bodies with powers and functions at least equivalent to those of EU entities and public authorities in Member States in relation to environment; and
(b) a new domestic framework for environmental protection and improvement.
(4) Responsibility for any functions or obligations arising from retained EU law for which no specific provision has been made immediately after commencement of this Act will belong to the relevant Minister until such a time as specific provision for those functions or obligations has been made.”
This new clause requires the Government to establish new domestic governance proposals following the UK’s exit from the EU and to ensure statutory and institutional basis for future environmental protection.
New clause 35—Regulations (publication of list)—
“(1) Within 1 month of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must publish a draft list of regulations that the Government intends to make under section 7.
(2) A list under subsection (1) must include—
(a) the proposed title of the regulation,
(b) the area of retained EU law it is required to correct,
(c) the Government Department who has responsibility for the regulation, and
(d) the proposed month in which the regulation will be tabled.
(3) The Secretary of State must ensure that a list published under subsection (1) is updated within one month from the day it was published, and within one month of every subsequent update, to include any regulations that the Government has since determined it intends to make.”
This new clause would require the Government to produce a list of regulations it intends to make under the Bills correcting powers, and to update that list each month, in order to provide clarity about when, and in which areas, it believes the power will be necessary.
New clause 37—Governance and institutional arrangements—
“(1) Before exit day a Minister of the Crown must seek to make provision that all powers and functions relating to any right, freedom, or protection, that any person might reasonably expect to exercise, that were exercisable by EU entities or other public authorities anywhere in the United Kingdom before exit day, and which do not cease to have effect as a result of the withdrawal agreement (‘relevant powers and functions’) will—
(a) continue to be carried out by an EU entity or public authority;
(b) be carried out by an appropriate existing or newly established entity or public authority in the United Kingdom; or
(c) be carried out by an appropriate international entity or public authority.
(2) For the purposes of this section, relevant powers and functions relating to the UK exercisable by an EU entity or public authority include, but are not limited to—
(a) monitoring and measuring compliance with legal requirements,
(b) reviewing and reporting on compliance with legal requirements,
(c) enforcement of legal requirements,
(d) setting standards or targets,
(e) co-ordinating action,
(f) publicising information.
(3) Responsibility for any functions or obligations arising from retained EU law for which no specific provision has been made immediately after commencement of this Act will belong to the relevant Minister until such a time as specific provision for those functions or obligations has been made.”
This new clause would ensure that the institutions and agencies that protect EU derived rights and protections are replaced to a sufficient standard so those rights and protections will still be enjoyed in practice.
New clause 53—Dealing with deficiencies arising from withdrawal in relation to child refugee family reunion—
“(1) In the exercise of powers under section 7 (Dealing with deficiencies arising from withdrawal) the Secretary of State must in particular make regulations amending the Immigration Rules in order to preserve the effect in the United Kingdom of Commission Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 (establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person).
(2) In particular, the regulations made under subsection (1) must provide for an unaccompanied minor who has a family member in the United Kingdom who is a refugee or has been granted humanitarian protection to have the same family reunion rights to be reunited in the United Kingdom with that family member as they would have had under Commission Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013.
(3) The regulations under subsection (1) must require an assessment of the best interests of the minor, taking into account possibilities for family reunification, the minor’s well-being and social development, safety and security considerations, and the view of the minor.
(4) Regulations under this section must be made within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.
(5) For the purpose of this section “family member” in relation to the unaccompanied minor, means—
(a) their parents;
(b) their adult siblings;
(c) their aunts and uncles;
(d) their grandparents.”
This new clause is intended to provide for refugee family reunion in the UK in place of the family reunion aspects of the Dublin III Regulation, allowing adult refugees in the UK to sponsor relatives who are unaccompanied children to come to the UK from around the world.
New clause 62—Enforcement of retained environmental law—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations under section 7 of this Act for the purpose of ensuring that retained EU legislation relating to environmental protection continues to be monitored and enforced effectively after exit day.
(2) The regulations must, in particular—
(a) create a statutory corporation (to be called “the Environmental Protection Agency”) with operational independence from Ministers of the Crown to monitor environmental targets set by retained EU law relating to environmental protection;
(b) require the statutory corporation to report to Parliament every year on progress in meeting those targets and to make recommendations for remedial action where appropriate;
(c) allow the statutory corporation to publish additional reports identifying action or omissions on the part of Ministers of the Crown that is likely to result in targets not being met.”
This new clause would require Ministers of the Crown to make specific provision for the enforcement of EU legislation relating to environmental protection.
New clause 63—Environmental standards and protections: enforcement—
“(1) Before exit day a Minister of the Crown must make provision that all powers and functions relating to environmental standards and protections that were exercisable by EU entities or other public authorities anywhere in the United Kingdom before exit day and which do not cease to have effect as a result of the withdrawal agreement (“relevant powers and functions”) will be carried out by an appropriate existing or newly established entity or public authority in the United Kingdom.
(2) For the purposes of this section, relevant powers and functions include, but are not limited to—
(a) reviewing and reporting on the implementation of environmental standards in practice,
(b) monitoring and measuring compliance with legal requirements,
(c) publicising information including regarding compliance with environmental standards,
(d) facilitating the submission of complaints from persons with regard to possible infringements of legal requirements, and
(e) enforcing legal commitments.
(3) For the purposes of this section, relevant powers and functions carried out by an appropriate existing or newly established entity or public authority in the United Kingdom on any day after exit day must be at least equivalent to all those exercisable by EU entities or other public authorities anywhere in the United Kingdom before exit day which do not cease to have effect as a result of the withdrawal agreement.
(4) Any newly established entity or public authority in the United Kingdom charged with exercising any relevant powers and functions on any day after exit day shall not be established other than by an Act of Parliament.
(5) Before making provision under subsection (1), a Minister of the Crown shall hold a public consultation on—
(a) the precise scope of the relevant powers and functions to be carried out by an appropriate existing or newly established entity or public authority in the United Kingdom, and
(b) the institutional design of any entity or public authority in the United Kingdom to be newly established in order to exercise relevant powers and functions.
(6) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make time-limited transitional arrangements for the exercise of relevant powers and functions until such time as an appropriate existing or newly established entity or public authority in the United Kingdom is able to carry them out.”
This new clause would require the Government to establish new domestic governance arrangements following the UK’s exit from the EU for environmental standards and protections, following consultation.
New clause 82—Tertiary legislation—
“The powers conferred by this Act do not include power to confer any power to legislate by means of orders, rules or other subordinate instrument, other than rules of procedure for any court or tribunal.”
Amendment 65, in clause 7, page 5, line 4, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.
This Amendment would reduce the wide discretion for using delegated legislation and limit it to those aspects which are unavoidable.
Amendment 15, page 5, line 5, leave out from “effectively” to end of line 6 on page 6.
Amendment 49, page 5, line 7, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations under subsection (1) may be made so far as necessary to adapt the body of EU law to fit the UK’s domestic legal framework.”
This amendment would place a general provision on the face of the Bill to the effect that the delegated powers granted by the Bill should be used only so far as necessary.
Amendment 131, page 5, line 7, at end insert—
“(1A) A Minister of the Crown must by regulations make provision to maintain, preserve and protect the rights of any citizen of an EU member state who was lawfully resident in the UK immediately before exit day, and in particular to continue their right to be lawfully resident in the UK.”
This Amendment is intended to preserve after exit day the rights, including residence rights, of EU citizens in the UK.
Amendment 264, page 5, line 7, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State shall make regulations to define “failure to operate efficiently” for the purposes of this section.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to define in regulations one of the criteria for the use of Clause 7 powers to deal with deficiencies arising from withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 1, page 5, line 8, leave out “(but are not limited to)” and insert “and are limited to”.
To restrict the power of a Minister to make regulations to amend retained EU law to cases where the EU law is deficient in the way set out in the Bill.
Amendment 56, page 5, line 8, leave out “(but are not limited to)”.
This amendment would remove the ambiguity in Clause 7 which sets out a definition of ‘deficiencies in retained EU law’ but allows Ministers significant latitude. By removing the qualifying phrase ‘but are not limited to’, subsection (2) becomes a more precise prescribed set of circumstances where Ministers may and may not make regulations.
Amendment 277, page 5, line 41, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament a report setting out how any functions, regulation-making powers or instruments of a legislative character undertaken by EU entities prior to exit day and instead to be exercisable by a public authority in the United Kingdom shall also be subject to the level of legislative scrutiny by the UK Parliament equivalent to that available to the European Parliament prior to exit day.”
This amendment would ensure that any regulatory or rule-making powers transferred from EU entities to UK public bodies receive the same degree of scrutiny that would have been the case if the UK had remained in the European Union.
Amendment 359, page 5, line 41, at end insert—
“( ) Retained EU law is not deficient only because it enables rights to be exercised in the United Kingdom by persons having a connection with the EU, which other persons having a corresponding connection with the United Kingdom may not be able to exercise in the EU as a consequence of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU.”
The amendment would make clear that retained EU law cannot be modified under clause 7 to restrict the rights of EU nationals or businesses in the UK simply because UK nationals or businesses may lose equivalent rights in the EU as a result of the UK’s withdrawal.
Amendment 57, page 5, line 42, leave out subsection (4).
This amendment would remove the scope for regulations to make provisions that could be made by an Act of Parliament.
Amendment 32, page 5, line 43, at end insert “, apart from amending or modifying this Act”.
This amendment would remove the proposed capacity of Ministers under Clause 7 to modify and amend the Act itself via delegated powers.
Amendment 121, page 5, line 44, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section which provide for the establishment of public authorities in the United Kingdom.
(6) Subsection (5) applies to but is not limited to—
(a) Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators (ACER),
(b) Office of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC Office),
(c) Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO),
(d) European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex),
(e) European Agency for the operational management of large-scale IT systems in the area of freedom, security and justice (eu-LISA),
(f) European Asylum Support Office (EASO),
(g) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA),
(h) European Banking Authority (EBA),
(i) European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC),
(j) European Chemicals Agency (ECHA),
(k) European Environment Agency (EEA),
(l) European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA),
(m) European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA),
(n) European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA),
(o) European Medicines Agency (EMA),
(p) European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA),
(q) European Union Agency for Network and Information Security (ENISA),
(r) European Police Office (Europol),
(s) European Union Agency for Railways (ERA),
(t) European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), and
(u) European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).”
This amendment ensures that the Government cannot establish new agencies using delegated legislation.
Amendment 388, page 5, line 44, leave out subsection (5).
Amendment 61, page 6, line 3, leave out sub-paragraph (ii).
This amendment would remove the ability of Ministers to replace or abolish public service functions currently undertaken by EU entities without making an alternative provision for those equivalent public services to continue domestically after exit day. Retaining the existing functions undertaken by the EU is an important principle that the part of this sub-clause could potentially undermine.
Amendment 5, page 6, line 3, leave out “abolished”.
To prevent the abolition by SI of a function currently carried out by an EU entity in the UK, as opposed to its replacement or modification.
Amendment 108, page 6, line 4, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment seeks to prevent the establishment of new public bodies by means of secondary legislation only, as opposed to primary legislation.
Amendment 17, page 6, line 6, at end insert—
“(5A) Regulations under this section must be prefaced by a statement by the person making the regulations—
(a) specifying the nature of the failure of retained European Union law to operate effectively or other deficiency arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union in respect of which the regulations are made, and
(b) declaring that the person making the regulations—
(i) is satisfied that the conditions in section 7 are met,
(ii) is satisfied that the regulations contain only provision which is appropriate for the purpose of preventing, remedying or mitigating any failure to operate effectively or other deficiency in retained European Union law arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union in respect of which the regulations are made,
(iii) is satisfied that the effect of the regulations is in due proportion to that failure to operate effectively or other deficiency in European Union retained law arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, and
(iv) is satisfied that the regulations are compatible with the Convention rights (within the meaning of section 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42)).”
This amendment replicates the provisions in the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which limit Ministers’ powers even in a time of declared emergency. They ensure that statutory instruments are proportionate and necessary.
Amendment 48, page 6, line 6, at end insert—
“(5A) But a Minister may not make provision under subsection (4), other than provision which merely restates an enactment, unless the Minister considers that the conditions in subsection (5B), where relevant, are satisfied in relation to that provision.
(5B) These conditions are that—
(a) the effect of the provision is proportionate to the policy objective,
(b) the provision does not remove any necessary protection, and
(c) the provision does not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect to continue to exercise.”
This amendment is intended to prevent the regulation-making power from being used to remove necessary protections.
Amendment 104, page 6, line 6, at end insert—
“(5A) A public authority established under this section will be abolished after two years.”
This amendment provides for any new public authority established under secondary legislation to be temporary.
Amendment 342, page 6, line 6, at end insert—
“(5A) Regulations to which subsection (5) applies must so far as practicable ensure that all powers and functions exercisable by EU entities or other public authorities anywhere in the United Kingdom before exit day which do not cease to have effect as a result of the withdrawal agreement are carried out by either an EU entity, an appropriate public authority in the United Kingdom or an appropriate international entity after exit day”.
This amendment would ensure that standards, rights and protections currently maintained by EU entities or public authorities in member states will continue to be maintained in practice following the UK’s exit from the EU.
Amendment 123, page 6, line 10, at end insert—
“(ca) weaken, remove or replace any requirement of law in effect in the United Kingdom place immediately before exit day which, in the opinion of the Minister, was a requirement up to exit day of the United Kingdom’s membership of the customs union,”
This amendment is intended to prevent the regulation-making powers being used to create barriers to the UK’s continued membership of the customs union.
Amendment 124, page 6, line 10, at end insert—
“(ca) weaken, remove or replace any requirement of law in effect in the United Kingdom place immediately before exit day which, in the opinion of the Minister, was a requirement up to exit day of the United Kingdom’s membership of the single market,”.
This amendment is intended to prevent the regulation-making powers being used to create barriers to the UK’s continued membership of the single market.
Amendment 222, page 6, line 11, at end insert—
“(da) remove any protections or rights of consumers which are available in the United Kingdom under EU law immediately before exit day.”
This amendment would prevent the Government from using powers in the Act to remove any consumer protections or rights enshrined in EU law after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.
Amendment 332, page 6, line 11, at end insert—
“(da) remove or reduce any rights available to unaccompanied child refugees or asylum seekers (including those who wish to claim asylum) concerning their admission or transfer to the UK under—
(i) Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 (the “Dublin Regulation”); or
(ii) Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States;
(db) remove any rights or obligations derived from the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Treaty on the European Union, or the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which can be applied to the treatment of unaccompanied child refugees or asylum seekers (including those who wish to claim asylum) concerning their admission or transfer to the UK,”
This amendment would prevent a Minister from using regulations under Clause 7 of the Bill to remove or reduce rights under the Dublin Regulation, the 2004 Directive on freedom of movement, or to remove rights or obligations under TFEU, TEU or the Charter of Fundamental Rights, regarding admission or transfer to the UK of unaccompanied child refugees or asylum seekers (including those who wish to claim asylum).
Amendment 333, page 6, line 11, at end insert—
“(da) establish a new entity or public authority in the United Kingdom charged with exercising any powers and functions currently exercisable by EU entities or other public authorities anywhere in the United Kingdom before exit day in relation to the environment or environmental protection”.
This amendment would ensure that any new institutions required to enforce environmental standards and protections following the UK’s exit from the EU can be created only by primary legislation.
Amendment 52, page 6, line 12, after “revoke” insert “the Equality Act 2010 or”
This amendment would prevent regulations under the Bill being used to amend the Equality Act 2010.
Amendment 363, page 6, line 12, after “revoke”, insert “, or otherwise modify the effect of,”
This amendment would ensure that the restriction in this paragraph could not be undermined by the use of legislation which does not amend the text of the Human Rights Act but modifies its effect.
Amendment 364, page 6, line 13, after “it”, insert—
“(ea) amend, repeal or revoke, or otherwise modify the effect of, any other law relating to equality or human rights,”.
This amendment would broaden the restriction in this subsection to protect all legislation relating to equality and human rights (and not only the Human Rights Act 1998).
Amendment 2, page 6, line 18, at end insert—
“(g) make any other provision, unless the Minister considers that the conditions in subsection (6A) where relevant are satisfied in relation to that provision.
(6A) Those conditions are that—
(a) the policy objective intended to be secured by the provision could not be secured by non-legislative means;
(b) the effect of the provision is proportionate to the policy objective;
(c) the provision, taken as a whole, strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by it;
(d) the provision does not remove any necessary protection;
(e) the provision does not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect to continue to exercise.
(f) the provision is not of constitutional significance”.
To narrow down the circumstances in which this power can be exercised.
Amendment 25, page 6, line 18, at end insert—
“(g) remove or reduce any protections currently conferred upon individuals, groups or the natural environment,
(h) prevent any person from continuing to exercise a right that they can currently exercise,
(i) amend, repeal or revoke the Equality Act 2010 or any subordinate legislation made under that Act.”
This amendment would prevent the Government’s using delegated powers under Clause 7 to reduce rights or protections.
Amendment 73, page 6, line 18, at end insert—
“(g) make changes to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning the rights of workers in the UK unless the Secretary of State has secured unanimous agreement from the Joint Ministerial Committee.”
Amendment 96, page 6, line 18, at end insert—
“(g) limit the scope or weaken standards of environmental protection.”
This Amendment ensures that the power to make regulations in Clause 7 may not be exercised to reduce environmental protection.
Amendment 109, page 6, line 18, at end insert—
“(g) amend, repeal or revoke any legal right derived from EU law and operative in UK law immediately before 30 March 2019.”
This amendment seeks to prevent the delegated powers granted to Ministers by Clause 7 being used to weaken or abolish existing EU-derived legal rights, such as those on workers’ rights, equality, and environmental protection.
Amendment 233, page 6, line 18, at end insert—
“(g) make changes to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning the co-ordination of social security systems between the UK and EU member states unless the Secretary of State has consulted with the relevant Minister in each of the devolved administrations.”
This amendment would require that changes cannot be made under Clause 7 to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning the co-ordination of social security systems between the UK and EU member states unless the Secretary of State has consulted with the relevant Minister in each of the devolved administrations.
Amendment 234, page 6, line 18, at end insert—
“(g) make changes to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning eligibility for UK pensions unless a public consultation on these changes has taken place.”
This amendment would require that changes cannot be made under Clause 7 to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning eligibility for UK pensions unless a public consultation on these changes has taken place.
Amendment 239, page 6, line 18, at end insert—
“(g) make changes to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning agricultural policies in the UK unless the Secretary of State has secured unanimous agreement from the Joint Ministerial Committee to those changes.”
This amendment would ensure that the power to make regulations on agricultural policy under Clause 7 could not be exercised without agreement from the Joint Ministerial Council.
Amendment 240, page 6, line 18, at end insert—
“(g) make changes to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning fisheries in the UK unless the Secretary of State has secured unanimous agreement from the Joint Ministerial Committee to those changes.”
This amendment would ensure that the power to make regulations concerning fisheries under Clause 7 could not be exercised without agreement from the Joint Ministerial Council.
Amendment 266, page 6, line 18, at end insert—
“(g) amend, repeal or revoke the Equality Act 2010 or any subordinate legislation made under it.”
This amendment would prevent the powers in Clause 7 being used to amend Equality Act 2010 legislation.
Amendment 269, page 6, line 18, at end insert—
“(g) remove, reduce or otherwise limit the rights of EU citizens resident in the UK.”
This amendment would prevent the powers in Clause 7 being used to remove, reduce or otherwise limit the rights of EU citizens resident in the UK.
Amendment 272, page 6, line 18, at end insert—
“(g) make provision which, in the opinion of the Minister, could pose a threat to national security.”
This amendment would prevent the powers in Clause 7 being used to make provision which could pose a threat to national security.
Amendment 389, page 6, line 18, at end insert—
“(g) confer a power to legislate (other than a power to make rules of procedure for a court or tribunal).”
Amendment 138, page 6, line 18, at end insert—
“(6A) Regulations may not be made under this section unless a Minister of the Crown has certified that the Minister is satisfied that the regulations do not remove or reduce any environmental protection provided by retained EU law.”
This amendment ensures that regulations under this section cannot interfere with environmental protection under retained EU law, by requiring a Ministerial certificate.
Amendment 360, page 6, line 18, at end insert—
“(6A) A Minister of the Crown must as soon as reasonably practicable—
(a) publish a statement of Her Majesty’s Government’s policy as to modifications of retained EU law under this section, so far as they appear to the Minister likely to affect industry and commerce in the United Kingdom, and
(b) consult with representatives of, or participants in, industry and commerce as to the modifications which are necessary or desirable.
(6B) In subsection (6A) “industry and commerce” includes financial and professional services.”
The amendment would require early consultation with representatives of the financial and professional services industries on relevant modifications which are to be made under clause 7.
Amendment 385, page 6, line 18, at end insert—
“(6A) A Minister of the Crown must by regulations make provision to replicate the protections in relation to ‘protected persons’ as defined in Part 3 of the Criminal Justice (European Protection Order) (England and Wales) Regulations 2014 after exit day.”
This amendment is intended to require the Government to make regulations that continue to recognise European Protection Orders issued by courts in other EU member states after exit day.
Amendment 16, page 6, line 21, leave out subsection (8).
Amendment 88, page 6, line 25, at end insert—
“(9) Regulations may only be made under subsection (5)(a)(ii) if an impact assessment on the replacement, abolition or modification of the functions of EU entities is laid before each House of Parliament prior to them being made.”
This amendment prevents Ministers of the Crown from being able to replace, abolish or modify the functions of EU Agencies without laying impact assessments on its effect before both Houses of Parliament.
Amendment 334, page 6, line 25, at end insert—
“(9) In the exercise of powers under this section the Secretary of State must guarantee the standards and protections currently required as a result of the National Emissions Ceilings Directive, the Ambient Air Quality Directive, the Industrial Emissions Directive, the Medium Combustion Plant Directive and Directive 2004/107/EC relating to arsenic, cadmium, mercury, nickel and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in ambient air.”
This amendment would ensure that the UK maintains existing air quality standards and protections following the UK’s exit from the EU.
Clause 7 stand part.
Amendment 206, in clause 9, page 6, line 43, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”
To require the final deal with the EU to be approved by statute passed by Parliament.
Amendment 114, page 7, line 1, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment seeks to restrict the delegated powers granted to Ministers by Clause 9.
Amendment 18, page 7, line 2, leave out “(including modifying this Act)” and insert
“except modifying this Act, the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 and any Act granted Royal Assent in the session of Parliament in which this Act is passed”.
This removes the power of Ministers to amend this Act, the Parliament Acts and any Act granted assent in this session of Parliament. It is necessary so as to safeguard the constitutional provisions in the Parliament Acts, such as the provision that a Parliament cannot last more than five years and the relative powers of the House of Lords.
Amendment 30, page 7, line 2, leave out ‘(including modifying this Act)’ and insert
“, apart from amending or modifying this Act”.
This amendment would remove the proposed capacity of Ministers in Clause 9 to modify and amend the Act itself via delegated powers.
Amendment 59, page 7, line 2, leave out “including” and insert “but not”.
This amendment would prevent the Ministerial order making powers in Clause 9 being used to modify the European Union (Withdrawal) Act itself.
Amendment 368, page 7, line 6, leave out “or”.
This amendment is preparatory to Amendment 370.
Amendment 369, page 7, line 7, after “revoke”, insert “, or otherwise modify the effect of,”
This amendment would ensure that the restriction in this paragraph could not be undermined by the use of legislation which does not amend the text of the Human Rights Act but modifies its effect.
Amendment 13, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(e) make any provision, unless the Minister considers that the conditions in subsection (3B) where relevant are satisfied in relation to that provision.
(3A) Those conditions are that—
(a) the policy objective intended to be secured by the provision could not be secured by non-legislative means;
(b) the effect of the provision is proportionate to the policy objective;
(c) the provision, taken as a whole, strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by it;
(d) the provision does not remove any necessary protection;
(e) the provision does not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect to continue to exercise;
(f) the provision is not of constitutional significance”
Amendment 27, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(e) remove or reduce any protections currently conferred upon individuals, groups or the natural environment,
(f) prevent any person from continuing to exercise a right that they can currently exercise,
(g) amend, repeal or revoke the Equality Act 2010 or any subordinate legislation made under that Act.”
This amendment would prevent the Government’s using delegated powers under Clause 9 to reduce rights or protections.
Amendment 98, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(e) limit the scope or weaken standards of environmental protection.”
This Amendment ensures that the power to make regulations in Clause 8 may not be exercised to reduce environmental protection.
Amendment 115, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(e) amend, repeal or revoke any legal right derived from EU law and operative in UK law immediately before 30 March 2019.”
This amendment seeks to prevent the delegated powers granted to Ministers by Clause 9 being used to weaken or abolish existing EU-derived legal rights, such as those on workers’ rights, equality, and environmental protection.
Amendment 268, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(e) amend, repeal or revoke the Equality Act 2010 or any subordinate legislation made under it.”
This amendment would prevent the powers in Clause 9 being used to amend Equality Act 2010 legislation.
Amendment 271, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(e) remove, reduce or otherwise limit the rights of EU citizens resident in the UK.”
This amendment would prevent the powers in Clause 9 being used to remove, reduce or otherwise limit the rights of EU citizens resident in the UK.
Amendment 274, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(e) make provision which, in the opinion of the Minister, could pose a threat to national security.”
This amendment would prevent the powers in Clause 9 being used to make provision which could pose a threat to national security.
Amendment 370, page 7, line 8, at end insert “, or
(e) amend, repeal or revoke, or otherwise modify the effect of, any other law relating to equality or human rights.”.
This amendment would broaden the restriction in this subsection to protect all legislation relating to equality and human rights (and not only the Human Rights Act 1998).
New clause 1—Scrutiny Committee—
“(1) For the purposes of this Act ‘a scrutiny committee’ refers to either—
(a) the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, or
(b) a Committee of the House of Commons which is established to perform the specific functions assigned to a scrutiny committee in this Act.
(2) The scrutiny committee referred to in subsection (1)(b) shall be chaired by a Member who is—
(a) of the same Party as the Official Opposition, and
(b) elected by the whole House.”
This new clause establishes the principle that there shall be a Commons triage committee which works alongside the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to determine the level of scrutiny each statutory instrument shall receive.
New clause 6—Government proposals for Parliamentary scrutiny—
“Within one month of Royal Assent of this Act the Leader of the House of Commons shall publish proposals for improved scrutiny of delegated legislation and regulations that result from this Act.”
This new clause would require the Government to bring forward early proposals for the House of Commons to consider as changes to Standing Orders to reflect the scrutiny required as a result of changes to regulation and delegated legislation made by this Act.
New clause 26—Scrutiny of statutory instruments—
“(1) A Parliamentary Committee shall determine the form and duration of parliamentary and public scrutiny for every statutory instrument proposed to be made under this Act.
(2) Where the relevant Committee decides that the statutory instrument will be subject to enhanced parliamentary scrutiny the Committee shall have the power—
(a) to require a draft of the proposed statutory instrument be laid before Parliament;
(b) to require the relevant Minister to provide further evidence or explanation as to the purpose and necessity of the proposed instrument;
(c) to make recommendations to the relevant Minister in relation to the text of the draft statutory instrument;
(d) to recommend to the House that “no further proceedings be taken” in relation to the draft statutory instrument.
(3) Where an instrument is subject to enhanced scrutiny, the relevant Minister must have regard to any recommendations made by the Parliamentary Committee pursuant to subparagraph © above before laying a revised draft instrument before each House of Parliament.
(4) Where an instrument is subject to public consultation, the relevant Minister must have regard to the results of the consultation before laying a revised draft instrument before each House of Parliament or making a Written Statement explaining why no revision is necessary.”
This new clause seeks to ensure that a Parliamentary Committee rather than ministers should decide what is the appropriate level of scrutiny for regulations made under the Act and that the Parliamentary Committee has the power to require enhanced scrutiny in relation to regulations that it considers to be particularly significant or contentious.
Amendment 68, in schedule 7, page 39, line 13, leave out sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) and insert—
“(1) If a Minister considers it appropriate to proceed with the making of regulations under section 7, the Minister shall lay before Parliament—
(a) draft regulations,
(b) an explanatory document and
(c) a declaration under sub-paragraph (3).
(2) The explanatory document must—
(a) introduce and explain the amendment made to retained EU law by each proposed regulation, and
(b) set out the reason why each such amendment is necessary (or, in the case where the Minister is unable to make a statement of necessity under sub-paragraph (3)(a), the reason why each such amendment is nevertheless considered appropriate).
(3) The declaration required in sub-paragraph (1) must either—
(a) state that, in the Minister’s view, the provisions of the draft regulations do not exceed what is necessary to prevent, remedy or mitigate any deficiency in retained EU law arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU (a “statement of necessity”); or
(b) include a statement to the effect that although the Minister is unable to make a statement of necessity the Government nevertheless proposes to exercise the power to make the regulations in the form of the draft.
(4) Subject as follows, if after the expiry of the 21-day period a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament appointed to consider draft regulations under this Schedule (“the joint committee”) has not reported to both Houses a resolution in respect of the draft regulations laid under sub-paragraph (1), the Minister may proceed to make a statutory instrument in the form of the draft regulations.
(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under sub-paragraph (4) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(6) The procedure in sub-paragraphs (7) to (9) shall apply to the proposal for the draft regulations instead of the procedure in sub-paragraph (4) if—
(a) either House of Parliament so resolves within the 21-day period,
(b) the joint committee so recommends within the 21-day period and neither House by resolution rejects the recommendation within that period, or
(c) the draft regulations contain provision to—
(i) establish a public authority in the United Kingdom,
(ii) provide for any function of an EU entity or public authority in a member State to be exercisable instead by a public authority in the United Kingdom established by regulations under section 7, 8 or 9 or Schedule 2,
(iii) provides for any function of an EU entity or public authority in a member State of making an instrument of a legislative character to be exercisable instead by a public authority in the United Kingdom,
(iv) imposes, or otherwise relates to, a fee in respect of a function exercisable by a public authority in the United Kingdom,
(v) creates, or widens the scope of, a criminal offence, or
(vi) creates or amends a power to legislate.
(7) The Minister must have regard to—
(a) any representations,
(b) any resolution of either House of Parliament, and
(c) any recommendations of a committee of either House of Parliament charged with reporting on the proposal for the draft regulations,
made during the 60-day period with regard to the draft regulations.
(8) If after the expiry of the 60-day period the draft regulations are approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the Minister may make regulations in the form of the draft.
(a) revised draft regulations, and
(b) a statement giving a summary of the changes proposed.
(9) If after the expiry of the 60-day period the Minister wishes to proceed with the draft regulations but with material changes, the Minister may lay before Parliament—
(a) revised draft regulations, and
(b) a statement giving a summary of the changes proposed
(10) If the revised draft regulations are approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the Minister may make regulations in the terms of the revised draft.
(11) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (1) to (10) regulations are made in the terms of draft regulations or revised draft regulations if they contain no material change to their provisions.
(12) In sub-paragraphs (1) to (10), references to the “21-day” and “60-day” periods in relation to any draft regulations are to the periods of 21 and 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft regulations were laid before Parliament.
(13) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (12), no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which either House is adjourned for more than four days.”
This amendment would require the Minister to provide an explanatory statement on whether the regulations simply transpose EU law or make further changes, subject to a check by a committee of the House, and require that if the regulations involve more than simple transposition the super affirmative procedure must be used.
Amendment 129, page 39, line 13, leave out paragraphs 1 to 3 and insert—
“Scrutiny procedure: introductory
1 A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 7 may not be made by a Minister of the Crown unless it complies with the procedures in this Part.
Determination of scrutiny procedure
2 (1) The explanatory document laid with a statutory instrument or draft statutory instrument containing regulations under section 7 must contain a recommendation by the Minister as to which of the following should apply in relation to the making of an order pursuant to the draft order—
(a) the negative resolution procedure:
(b) the affirmative resolution procedure;
(c) the super-affirmative procedure.
(2) The explanatory document must give reasons for the Minister’s recommendation.
(3) Where the Minister’s recommendation is that the negative resolution procedure should apply, that procedure shall apply unless, within the 30-day period—
(a) either House of Parliament requires that the super-affirmative procedure shall apply, in which case that procedure shall apply; or
(b) in a case not falling within paragraph (a), either House of Parliament requires that the affirmative resolution procedure shall apply, in which case that procedure shall apply.
(4) Where the Minister’s recommendation is that the affirmative resolution should apply, that procedure shall apply unless, within the 30-day period, either House of Parliament requires that the super-affirmative resolution procedure shall apply, in which case the super-affirmative resolution procedure shall apply.
(5) Where the Minister’s recommendation is that the super-affirmative procedure should apply, that procedure shall apply.
(6) For the purposes of this paragraph a House of Parliament shall be taken to have required a procedure within the 30-day period if—
(a) that House resolves within that period that that procedure shall apply; or
(b) in a case not falling within paragraph (a), a committee of that House charged with reporting on the draft order has recommended within that period that that procedure shall apply and the House has not by resolution rejected that recommendation within that period.
Super-affirmative procedure
3 (1) for the purposes of this Part of this Schedule, the “super-affirmative resolution procedure” is as follows.
(2) The Minister must have regard to—
(a) any representations,
(b) any resolution of either House of Parliament, and
(c) any recommendations of a committee of either House of Parliament charged with reporting on the draft order,
made during the 60-day period with regard to the draft order.
(3) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Minister wishes to make an order in the terms of the draft, he or she must lay before Parliament a statement—
(a) stating whether any representations were made; and
(b) if any representations were so made, giving details of them.
(4) The Minister may after the laying of such a statement make an order in the terms of the draft if it is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5) However, a committee of either House charged with reporting on the draft order may, at any time after the laying of a statement under sub-paragraph (3) and before the draft order is approved by that House under sub-paragraph (4), recommend under this subparagraph that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order.
(6) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under subparagraph (5) in relation to a draft statutory instrument, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the draft statutory instrument in that House unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.
(7) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Minister wishes to make an order consisting of a version of the draft statutory instrument with material changes, he or she must lay before Parliament—
(a) a revised draft statutory instrument; and
(b) a statement giving details of—
(i) any representations made; and
(ii) the revisions proposed.
(8) The Minister may after laying a revised draft statutory instrument and statement under sub-paragraph (7) make regulations in the terms of the revised statutory instrument if it is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(9) However, a committee of either House charged with reporting on the revised draft statutory instrument may, at any time after the revised draft statutory is laid under sub-paragraph (7) and before it is approved by that House under sub-paragraph (8), recommend under this sub-paragraph that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the revised draft statutory instrument.
(10) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under sub-paragraph (9) in relation to a revised draft statutory instrument, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the revised draft statutory instrument in that House under subsection (8) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.
(11) In this Part—
(a) the “30-day period” means the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which the draft statutory instrument was laid before Parliament;
(b) the “60-day period” means the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft statutory instrument was laid before Parliament;
(c) the “affirmative resolution procedure” has the same meaning as in section 17 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006;
(d) the “negative resolution procedure” has the same meaning as in section 16 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006.”
This amendment would ensure Parliament has the power to determine, following recommendations by the Minister, which parliamentary procedure should be used to scrutinise statutory instruments containing regulations that deal with deficiencies arising from EU withdrawal. It also provides for use of the “super-affirmative resolution procedure” whereby a committee of either House can recommend that no further proceedings be taken in relation to a draft order, which can only be over-turned by a resolution of that House.
Amendment 20, page 39, line 13, leave out
“which contain provisions falling with sub-paragraph (2).”
This amendment is linked to Amendment 21 and removes the provision that certain statutory instruments can be introduced under the negative resolution and requires all SIs made under Clause 7 to go through the affirmative route with a vote in both Houses. It means that the Government could not bypass Parliament by refusing to grant time for a debate on annulling an SI.
Amendment 216, page 39, line 14, after “unless” insert—
“(a) the Minister laying the instrument has made a declaration that the instrument does no more than necessary to prevent, remedy or mitigate—
(i) any failure of retained EU law to operate effectively, or
(ii) any other deficiency in retained EU law arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU, and
(b) ”.
Amendment 21, page 39, line 17, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3)
This amendment is linked to Amendment 20 and removes the provision that certain statutory instruments can be introduced under the negative resolution and requires all SIs made under Clause 7 to go through the affirmative route with a vote in both Houses. It means that the Government could not bypass Parliament by refusing to grant time for a debate on annulling an SI.
Amendment 33, page 39, line 17, after “if” insert
“a scrutiny committee determines that”.
This amendment together with Amendments 34 and 35 would establish that it is for Parliament to decide which level of scrutiny a Statutory Instrument shall receive under Clause 7 of this Act, and that matters of policy interest will be subject to the approval of both Houses and to amendment.
Amendment 34, page 39, line 29, at end insert—
“(g) is otherwise of sufficient policy interest to merit the application of sub-paragraph (1).”
This amendment together with Amendments 33 and 35 would establish that it is for Parliament to decide which level of scrutiny a Statutory Instrument shall receive under Clause 7 of this Act, and that matters of policy interest will be subject to the approval of both Houses and to amendment.
Amendment 265, page 39, line 29, at end insert—
“(g) defines “failure to operate efficiently” under section 7(1A).”
This amendment, linked to Amendment 264, would ensure that any regulations to define “failure to operate efficiently” under section 7(1A) would be subject to affirmative procedure.
Amendment 3, page 39, line 30, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) to (10) and insert—
“(3) A Minister of the Crown must not make an Order under (1) and (2) above or any other Order to which this Schedule applies, unless—
(a) a draft Order and explanatory document has been laid before Parliament in accordance with paragraph 1A; and
(b) in the case of any Order which can be made other than solely by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the Order is made as determined under paragraph 1B in accordance in accordance with—
(i) the negative resolution procedure (see paragraph 1C); or
(ii) the affirmative resolution procedure (see paragraph 1D); or
(c) it is declared in the Order that it appears to the person making it that because of the urgency of the matter, it is necessary to make the Order without a draft being so approved (see paragraph 1E).
Draft Order and Explanatory document laid before Parliament
1A (1) If the minister considers it appropriate to proceed with the making of an Order under this Part, he must lay before Parliament—
(a) a draft of the Order, together with
(b) an explanatory document.
(2) The explanatory document must—
(a) explain under which power or powers in this Part the provision contained in the Order is made;
(b) introduce and give reasons for the provision;
(c) explain why the Minister considers that—
(i) in the case of an Order under section 7, include, so far as appropriate, an assessment of the extent to which the provision made by the Order would prevent, remedy or mitigate—any failure of retained EU law to operate effectively; or any other deficiency in retained EU law arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU,
(ii) in the case of an Order under section 8, include, so far as appropriate, an assessment of the extent to which the provision made by the Order would prevent or remedy any breach, arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU, of the international obligations of the United Kingdom,
(iii) in the case of an Order under section 9, include, so far as appropriate, an assessment of the extent to which implementation of the withdrawal agreement should be in force on or before exit day.
(d) identify and give reasons for—
(i) any functions of legislating conferred by the Order; and
(ii) the procedural requirements attaching to the exercise of those functions.
Determination of Parliamentary procedure
1B (1) The explanatory document laid with a draft Order under paragraph 1A must contain a recommendation by the Minister as to which of the following should apply in relation to the making of an Order pursuant to the draft Order—
(a) the negative resolution procedure (see paragraph 1C); or
(b) the affirmative resolution procedure (see paragraph 1D).
(2) The explanatory document must give reasons for the Minister’s recommendation.
(3) Where the Minister’s recommendation is that the negative resolution procedure should apply, that procedure shall apply unless, within the 20-day period either House of Parliament requires that the affirmative resolution procedure shall apply, in which case that procedure shall apply.
(4) For the purposes of this paragraph a House of Parliament shall be taken to have required a procedure within the 20-day period if—
(a) that House resolves within that period that that procedure shall apply; or
(b) in a case not falling within sub paragraph (4)(a), a committee of that House charged with reporting on the draft Order has recommended within that period that that procedure should apply and the House has not by resolution rejected that recommendation within that period.
(5) In this section the “20-day period” means the period of 20 days beginning with the day on which the draft Order was laid before Parliament under paragraph 1A.
Negative resolution procedure
1C (1) For the purposes of this Part, the “negative resolution procedure” in relation to the making of an Order pursuant to a draft order laid under paragraph 1A is as follows.
(2) The Minister may make an order in the terms of the draft Order subject to the following provisions of this paragraph.
(3) The Minister may not make an order in the terms of the draft Order if either House of Parliament so resolves within the 40-day period.
(4) For the purposes of this paragraph an Order is made in the terms of a draft Order if it contains no material changes to the provisions of the draft Order.
(5) In this paragraph the “40-day period” means the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft Order was laid before Parliament under paragraph 1A.
Affirmative resolution procedure
1D (1) For the purposes of this Part the “affirmative resolution procedure” in relation to the making of an Order pursuant to a draft Order laid under paragraph 1A is as follows.
(2) The Minister must have regard to—
(a) any representations,
(b) any resolution of either House of Parliament, and
(c) any recommendations of a committee of either House of Parliament charged with reporting on the draft Order, made during the 40-day period with regard to the draft Order.
(3) If, after the expiry of the 40-day period, the minister wishes to make an Order in the terms of the draft, he must lay before Parliament a statement—
(a) stating whether any representations were made under sub-paragraph (2)(a); and
(b) if any representations were so made, giving details of them.
(4) The Minister may after the laying of such a statement make an Order in the terms of the draft if it is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5) If, after the expiry of the 40-day period, the Minister wishes to make an Order consisting of a version of the draft Order with material changes, he must lay before Parliament—
(a) a revised draft Order; and
(b) a statement giving details of—
(i) any representations made under sub-paragraph (2)(a); and
(ii) the revisions proposed.
(6) The Minister may after laying a revised draft Order and statement under sub-paragraph (5) make an Order in the terms of the revised draft if it is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(7) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (4) an Order is made in the terms of a draft Order if it contains no material changes to the provisions of the draft Order.
(8) In this paragraph the “40-day period” has the meaning given by paragraph 4(5)(a).
Procedure in urgent cases
1E (1) If an Order is made without being approved in draft, the person making it must lay it before Parliament, accompanied by the required information, after it is made.
(2) If, at the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which the original Order was made, a resolution has not been passed by each House approving the original or replacement Order, the Order ceases to have effect.
(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1), “required information” means—
(a) a statement of the reasons for proceeding under paragraph 1E; and
(b) an explanatory document, as set out in paragraph 1A (2).”
To set up a triage and scrutiny system under the control of Parliament for determining how Statutory Instruments under Clause 7 of the Bill will be dealt with.
Amendment 67, page 39, line 30, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
This amendment would facilitate the use of affirmative and super-affirmative procedures, other than for the transfer of functions of EU public bodies.
Amendment 35, page 39, line 33, at end insert
“, unless a scrutiny committee determines that the instrument is of such significant policy interest that it ought to be subject to approval of each House with a procedure that allows for amendment.”
This amendment together with Amendments 33 and 34 would establish that it is for Parliament to decide which level of scrutiny a Statutory Instrument shall receive under Clause 7 of this Act, and that matters of policy interest will be subject to the approval of both Houses and to amendment.
Amendment 392, page 39, line 33, at end insert—
“( ) See paragraph 2A for restrictions on the choice of procedure under sub-paragraph (3).”
This amendment signposts the existence, and location within the Bill, of a scrutiny process involving a committee of the House of Commons for regulations under Clause 7 for which there is a choice between negative and affirmative procedures.
Amendment 130, page 40, line 23, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) and insert—
“(2) The procedure provided for in paragraphs 1 to 3 of this Part in respect of the Houses of Parliament applies in relation to regulations to which this paragraph applies as well as any other procedure provided for by this paragraph which is applicable to the regulations concerned.”
This amendment applies the procedures set out in Amendment 129 in respect of the UK Parliament for regulations made jointly by a Minister of the Crown acting jointly with a devolved authority.
Amendment 4, page 40, line 32, leave out from “is” to end of line 34 and insert
“subject to the rules set out in paragraphs 1 to 1E above.”
Consequential amendment to Amendment 3.
Amendment 393, page 42, line 4, at end insert—
“Parliamentary committee to sift certain regulations involving Minister of the Crown
2A (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if a Minister of the Crown who is to make a statutory instrument to which paragraph 1(3) applies is of the opinion that the appropriate procedure for the instrument is for it to be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(2) The Minister may not make the instrument so that it is subject to that procedure unless—
(a) condition 1 is met, and
(b) either condition 2 or 3 is met.
(3) Condition 1 is that a Minister of the Crown—
(a) has made a statement in writing to the effect that in the Minister’s opinion the instrument should be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, and
(b) has laid before the House of Commons—
(i) a draft of the instrument, and
(ii) a memorandum setting out the statement and the reasons for the Minister’s opinion.
(4) Condition 2 is that a committee of the House of Commons charged with doing so has made a recommendation as to the appropriate procedure for the instrument.
(5) Condition 3 is that the period of 10 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the draft instrument was laid before the House of Commons as mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) has ended without any recommendation being made as mentioned in sub-paragraph (4).
(6) In sub-paragraph (5) “sitting day” means a day on which the House of Commons sits.
(7) Nothing in this paragraph prevents a Minister of the Crown from deciding at any time before a statutory instrument to which paragraph 1(3) applies is made that another procedure should apply in relation to the instrument (whether under paragraph 1(3) or 3).
(8) Section 6(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (alternative procedure for certain instruments laid in draft before Parliament) does not apply in relation to any statutory instrument to which this paragraph applies.”
This amendment ensures that regulations under Clause 7 for which there is a choice between negative and affirmative procedures cannot be subject to the negative procedure without first having been subject to a scrutiny process involving a committee of the House of Commons. The scrutiny process envisages that the committee will make a recommendation as to the appropriate procedure in the light of draft regulations and other information provided by the Government.
Amendment 394, page 42, line 31, at end insert—
“(7) Sub-paragraph (8) applies to a statutory instrument to which paragraph 1(3) applies where the Minister of the Crown who is to make the instrument is of the opinion that the appropriate procedure for the instrument is for it to be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(8) Paragraph 2A does not apply in relation to the instrument if the instrument contains a declaration that the Minister is of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make the regulations without meeting the requirements of that paragraph.”
This amendment permits the scrutiny process for deciding whether certain regulations under Clause 7 should be subject to the negative or affirmative procedure to be disapplied in urgent cases.
Amendment 36, page 43, line 3, after “if” insert
“a scrutiny committee determines that”.
This amendment together with Amendments 37 and 38 would establish that it is for Parliament to decide which level of scrutiny a Statutory Instrument shall receive under Clause 8 of this Bill, and that matters of policy interest will be subject to the approval of both Houses and to amendment.
Amendment 37, page 43, line 15, at end insert—
“(g) is otherwise of sufficient policy interest to merit the application of sub-paragraph (1)”.
This amendment together with Amendments 36 and 38 would establish that it is for Parliament to decide which level of scrutiny a Statutory Instrument shall receive under Clause 8 of this Bill, and that matters of policy interest will be subject to the approval of both Houses and to amendment.
Amendment 22, page 43, line 19, at end insert
“or if the Government has not provided time on the floor of the House for a debate and vote on a prayer against the statutory instrument signed by the Leader of the Opposition or 80 Members of the House of Commons.”
This would mean that if the Leader of the Opposition or 80 members of the House of Commons were to sign a prayer against an SI that was subject under Schedule 7 to the negative procedure, the Government would have to provide time for a debate and a vote on the floor of the House or lose the SI. At present there is no such provision in the House of Commons.
Amendment 38, page 43, line 19, at end insert
“,unless a scrutiny committee determines that the instrument is of such significant policy interest that it ought to be subject to approval of each House with a procedure that allows for amendment.”
This amendment together with Amendments 36 and 37 would establish that it is for Parliament to decide which level of scrutiny a Statutory Instrument shall receive under Clause 8 of this Bill, and that matters of policy interest will be subject to the approval of both Houses and to amendment.
Amendment 395, page 43, line 19, at end insert—
“( ) See paragraph 10A for restrictions on the choice of procedure under sub-paragraph (3).”
This amendment signposts the existence, and location within the Bill, of a scrutiny process involving a committee of the House of Commons for regulations under Clause 8 for which there is a choice between negative and affirmative procedures.
Amendment 23, page 43, line 26, leave out
“which contain provisions falling within sub-paragraph (2).”
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24 and removes the provision that certain statutory instruments can be introduced under the negative resolution and requires all SIs under Clause 9 to go through the affirmative route with a vote in both Houses. It means that the Government could not bypass Parliament by refusing to grant time for a debate on annulling an SI.
Amendment 24, page 43, line 30, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
This amendment is linked to Amendment 23 and removes the provision that certain statutory instruments can be introduced under the negative resolution and requires all SIs under Clause 9 to go through the affirmative route with a vote in both Houses. It means that the Government could not bypass Parliament by refusing to grant time for a debate on annulling an SI.
Amendment 39, page 43, line 30, after “if” insert
“a scrutiny committee determines that”.
This amendment together with Amendments 40 and 41 would establish that it is for Parliament to decide which level of scrutiny a Statutory Instrument shall receive under Clause 9 of this Bill, and that matters of policy interest will be subject to the approval of both Houses and to amendment.
Amendment 40, page 43, line 43, at end insert—
“(h) is otherwise of sufficient policy interest to merit the application of sub-paragraph (1).”
This amendment together with Amendments 39 and 41 would establish that it is for Parliament to decide which level of scrutiny a Statutory Instrument shall receive under Clause 9 of this Bill, and that matters of policy interest will be subject to the approval of both Houses and to amendment.
Amendment 41, page 43, line 47, at end insert
“, unless a scrutiny committee determines that the instrument if of such significant policy interest that it ought to be subject to approval of each House with a procedure that allows for amendment.”
This amendment together with Amendments 39 and 40 would establish that it is for Parliament to decide which level of scrutiny a Statutory Instrument shall receive under Clause 9 of this Bill, and that matters of policy interest will be subject to the approval of both Houses and to amendment.
Amendment 396, page 43, line 47, at end insert—
“( ) See paragraph 10A for restrictions on the choice of procedure under sub-paragraph (3).”
This amendment signposts the existence, and location within the Bill, of a scrutiny process involving a committee of the House of Commons for regulations under Clause 9 for which there is a choice between negative and affirmative procedures.
Amendment 374, page 44, line 5, at end insert—
“Amendment of definition of “law relating to equality or human rights”
6A A statutory instrument containing regulations of a Minister of the Crown under section 14(7) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
This amendment provides for draft affirmative resolution scrutiny for the power to the definition of “law relating to equality or human rights”, inserted by Amendment 371.
Amendment 397, page 45, line 11, at end insert—
“Parliamentary committee to sift certain regulations involving Minister of the Crown
10A (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if a Minister of the Crown who is to make a statutory instrument to which paragraph 5(3) or 6(3) applies is of the opinion that the appropriate procedure for the instrument is for it to be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(2) The Minister may not make the instrument so that it is subject to that procedure unless—
(a) condition 1 is met, and
(b) either condition 2 or 3 is met.
(3) Condition 1 is that a Minister of the Crown—
(a) has made a statement in writing to the effect that in the Minister’s opinion the instrument should be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, and
(b) has laid before the House of Commons—
(i) a draft of the instrument, and
(ii) a memorandum setting out the statement and the reasons for the Minister’s opinion.
(4) Condition 2 is that a committee of the House of Commons charged with doing so has made a recommendation as to the appropriate procedure for the instrument.
(5) Condition 3 is that the period of 10 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the draft instrument was laid before the House of Commons as mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) has ended without any recommendation being made as mentioned in sub-paragraph (4).
(6) In sub-paragraph (5) “sitting day” means a day on which the House of Commons sits.
(7) Nothing in this paragraph prevents a Minister of the Crown from deciding at any time before a statutory instrument to which paragraph 5(3) or 6(3) applies is made that another procedure should apply in relation to the instrument (whether under that paragraph or paragraph 11).
(8) Section 6(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (alternative procedure for certain instruments laid in draft before Parliament) does not apply in relation to any statutory instrument to which this paragraph applies.”
This amendment ensures that regulations under Clause 8 or 9 for which there is a choice between negative and affirmative procedures cannot be subject to the negative procedure without first having been subject to a scrutiny process involving a committee of the House of Commons. The scrutiny process envisages that the committee will make a recommendation as to the appropriate procedure in the light of draft regulations and other information provided by the Government.
Amendment 398, page 45, line 40, at end insert—
“(7) Sub-paragraph (8) applies to a statutory instrument to which paragraph 5(3) or 6(3) applies where the Minister of the Crown who is to make the instrument is of the opinion that the appropriate procedure for the instrument is for it to be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(8) Paragraph 10A does not apply in relation to the instrument if the instrument contains a declaration that the Minister is of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make the regulations without meeting the requirements of that paragraph.”
This amendment permits the scrutiny process for deciding whether certain regulations under Clause 8 or 9 should be subject to the negative or affirmative procedure to be disapplied in urgent cases.
Government amendment 391.
Amendment 207, in clause 17, page 13, line 35, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.
Amendment 208, page 14, line 7, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.
Amendment 373, page 14, line 13, at end insert—
“(8) Regulations under subsection (1) or (5) may not amend, repeal or revoke, or otherwise modify the effect of, any law relating to equality or human rights.”
This amendment would replicate, for the powers in clause 17, the equality and human rights restrictions on other powers in this Bill (as modified by other amendments).
Amendment 205, in clause 8, page 6, line 28, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.
Amendment 110, page 6, line 31, leave out subsection (2)
This amendment seeks to restrict the delegated powers granted to Ministers by Clause 8.
Amendment 31, page 6, line 32, at end insert “, apart from amending or modifying this Act”.
This amendment would remove the proposed capacity of Ministers in Clause 8 to modify and amend the Act itself via delegated powers.
Amendment 365, page 6, line 36, leave out “or”
This amendment is preparatory to Amendment 367.
Amendment 366, page 6, line 37, after “revoke”, insert “, or otherwise modify the effect of,”
This amendment would ensure that the restriction in this paragraph could not be undermined by the use of legislation which does not amend the text of the Human Rights Act but modifies its effect.
Amendment 367, page 6, line 38, at end insert “, or
(e) amend, repeal or revoke, or otherwise modify the effect of, any other law relating to equality or human rights.”.
This amendment would broaden the restriction in this subsection to protect all legislation relating to equality and human rights (and not only the Human Rights Act 1998).
Amendment 12, page 6, line 38, at end insert—
“(e) make any provision, unless the Minister considers that the conditions in subsection (3A) where relevant are satisfied in relation to that provision.
(3A) Those conditions are that—
(a) the policy objective intended to be secured by the provision could not be secured by non-legislative means;
(b) the effect of the provision is proportionate to the policy objective;
(c) the provision, taken as a whole, strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by it;
(d) the provision does not remove any necessary protection;
(e) the provision does not prevent any person from exercising any right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect top continue to exercise;
(f) the provision is not of constitutional significance”
Amendment 26, in clause 8, page 6, line 38, at end insert—
“(e) remove or reduce any protections currently conferred upon individuals, groups or the natural environment,
(f) prevent any person from continuing to exercise a right that they can currently exercise,
(g) amend, repeal or revoke the Equality Act 2010 or any subordinate legislation made under that Act.”
This amendment would prevent the Government’s using delegated powers under Clause 8 to reduce rights or protections.
Amendment 97, page 6, line 38, at end insert—
“(e) limit the scope or weaken standards of environmental protection.”
This Amendment ensures that the power to make regulations in Clause 8 may not be exercised to reduce environmental protection.
Amendment 111, page 6, line 38, at end insert—
“(e) amend, repeal or revoke any legal right derived from EU law and operative in UK law immediately before 30 March 2019.”
This amendment seeks to prevent the delegated powers granted to Ministers by clause 8 being used to weaken or abolish existing EU-derived legal rights, such as those on workers’ rights, equality, and environmental protection.
Amendment 267, page 6, line 38, at end insert—
“(e) amend, repeal or revoke the Equality Act 2010 or any subordinate legislation made under it.”
This amendment would prevent the powers in Clause 8 being used to amend Equality Act 2010 legislation.
Amendment 270, page 6, line 38, at end insert—
“(e) remove, reduce or otherwise limit the rights of EU citizens resident in the UK.”
This amendment would prevent the powers in Clause 8 being used to remove, reduce or otherwise limit the rights of EU citizens resident in the UK.
Amendment 273, page 6, line 38, at end insert—
“(e) make provision which, in the opinion of the Minister, could pose a threat to national security.”
This amendment would prevent the powers in Clause 8 being used to make provision which could pose a threat to national security.
Amendment 371, in clause 14, page 10, line 26, at end insert—
““law relating to equality or human rights” means—
(a) the Equality Acts 2006 and 2010;
(b) the Human Rights Act 1998; and
(c) other enactments relating to equality or human rights.”
This amendment defines “law relating to equality or human rights” for the purposes of other amendments which would broaden protection provided by the Bill from interference with the Human Rights Act to include other provisions about human rights and equality.
Amendment 372, page 11, line 48, at end insert—
“(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend or modify the definition of “law relating to equality or human rights” in subsection (1).”
This amendment would allow Ministers to amend the definition of “law relating to equality or human rights” inserted by Amendment 371.
New clause 76—Non-regression of equality law—
“(1) Any EU withdrawal related legislation must be accompanied by a statement made by a Minister of the Crown certifying that in the Minister‘s opinion the legislation does not remove or reduce protection under or by virtue of the Equality Acts 2006 and 2010.
(2) In subsection (1) “EU withdrawal related legislation” means—
(a) any statutory instrument under this Act;
(b) any statutory instrument made by a Minister of the Crown wholly or partly in connection with the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU; and
(c) any Bill presented to Parliament by a Minister of the Crown which is wholly or partly connected to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU.”
This new clause would ensure that legislation in connection with withdrawal from the EU does not reduce protections provided by equality law.
New clause 77—Co-operation with the European Union on violence against women and girls—
“(1) Within one month of Royal Assent to this Act, and then once in every subsequent calendar year, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report on continued co-operation with the European Union on matters relating to violence against women and girls.
(2) That report must include, in particular, an assessment of how, following exit day, co-operation with the European Union will replicate mechanisms which exist within the European Union before exit day to—
(a) maintain common rights for victims of domestic and sexual abuse when moving across borders,
(b) reduce female genital mutilation (FGM),
(c) reduce human trafficking,
(d) reduce child sexual exploitation, and
(e) enable data sharing relating to any of (a) to (d).
(3) The first report made under subsection (1) following Royal Assent must—
(a) include an assessment of the amount and nature of funding provided by European Union institutions to organisations based in the United Kingdom for the purposes of research, service provision, and other activity relating to ending violence against women and girls, and;
(b) outline plans to provide comparable resources for research, service provision, and other activity relating to ending violence against women and girls in the United Kingdom.”
This new clause calls for the Government to lay a report before Parliament laying out how cross-border action to end violence against women and girls will continue after exit day, assessing the extent of current European Union funding for work to end violence against women and girls, and setting out the Government’s plans to provide comparable resources.
Mr Leslie
I thought for a minute, Mrs Laing, that you were going to read out all the amendments grouped today, which might have taken up some considerable time.
Today’s debate is about taking back control—about Parliament and the powers of the House of Commons to hold the Executive to account and to overrule it if we wish to do so. New clause 18 essentially says that it is time for the Government to be honest about the extensive and wide-ranging powers they want to take away from Parliament, which essentially is what the Bill proposes to do. Some might say that my new clause does not go far enough, that it is a little tepid: it simply says that the Government ought to commission a proper independent report into the constitutional ramifications and implications of their proposal. In my view, they have not thought the process through properly. They denied the House a pre-legislative scrutiny process for the Bill and, importantly, ignored an extremely detailed and thoughtful report and set of recommendations from the House of Lords Constitution Committee, which went into painstaking detail to review Ministers’ proposals, particularly those in clause 7. It also did so with respect to clause 9—we will not be voting on aspects of clause 9 today, but certain amendments to it have been grouped for discussion.
I accept that if we leave the EU, the acquis—the body of existing EU law—will need to be converted into UK law. We were told, of course, that the Bill was supposed to be a simple “copy and paste” exercise that merely transposed those EU rules under which we have lived for the past 30 or 40 years into UK law. Despite the early recommendations from the House of Lords Constitution Committee, made long before publication of the Bill, back in March, Ministers have made a real error in failing to distinguish between the technical and necessary task of transposing existing laws from EU to UK statute and the wider powers that Ministers are taking potentially to make substantive policy changes, by order, in areas that currently fall within EU competence. In other words, they have not sought to curtail the order-making powers simply to focus on that transposition exercise. The order-making powers go far wider into a whole array of policy making areas.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
We were told that we were bringing powers back to this Parliament so that this Parliament could take decisions. Why, then, are the Government trying to introduce something similar to the Henry VIII clause? Does it not make a mockery of their promises?
Mr Leslie
Exactly. People voting in the referendum might have been moved by that slogan “take back control”, but I do not honestly think many voters thought that that meant taking back control from a European Executive and handing it to Ministers of the Crown, outwith the powers and scope of Parliament to do much about it, yet that is effectively the proposal in clause 7.
I want to emphasise that this is not simply an exercise in transposing technical and necessary measures. The Government have extended the scope of the Bill into policy-making capability, which brings in the question of divergence. We have heard a lot recently about concepts of full alignment and this notion of diverging from rules and policies. The way clauses 7 and 9 have been drafted would allow Ministers, by order, through negative statutory instruments that we rarely get the chance even to vote on in this place, to make policy changes that could affect policy functions and the rights of our constituents—perhaps as part of a deregulating agenda—if that is indeed what the Government of the day sought to achieve.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
My hon. Friend, like me, will have read in the newspapers about the Cabinet split opening up on divergence, with various Cabinet Ministers backing divergence and others not. How does he think this squares with the Prime Minister’s promise to our European partners and the Government of the Republic of Ireland that we will stay in full regulatory alignment after we leave?
Mr Leslie
I suspect that the European Commission and the Republic of Ireland Government saw the phrase “full alignment” and thought that full alignment meant full alignment. It turns out from the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday that full alignment does not quite mean full alignment. She said it only meant aligning the areas in the Good Friday agreement protocol, but of course that predates the notion of our leaving the single market and the customs union, so the Good Friday agreement did not cover such narrow issues—I say that sarcastically—as goods and manufacture trade. The list of issues that she thinks full alignment covers does not include trade in goods, which is a staggering thing, because of course if we do not cover trade in goods, we end up with that hard border, which is absolutely the point we have got to.
John Redwood
Ministers have assured us that if they want to change policy—if, for instance, they see a need for a new fishing policy, or a new customs and trade policy—there will be primary legislation and full parliamentary debates in both Houses. Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that? We are dealing with a very narrow set of provisions, relating only to statutory instruments to deal with technical matters which, of course, the House can ultimately determine in any event.
Mr Leslie
It is touching that the right hon. Gentleman takes those assurances from Ministers at face value, but the Ministers may not be here for very much longer. Who knows? If we are going to make policy changes, that should be done in a Bill that comes before Parliament, or in a statutory instrument subject to affirmative resolution.
I now invite Members to pick up their copies of the Bill, because I want to deal with a couple of provisions in clause 7 which I think contradict the understanding of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) of the scope of the order-making powers that are being taken. It is, in fact, fairly wide. Clause 7(4) states:
“Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament.”
In other words, a provision in a statutory instrument could have the same effect as one in primary legislation.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
When statutes are being considered and Bills are being drafted, there does on occasion come a point at which we must accept that assurances given, for example, at the Dispatch Box will have to complement the inevitable small grey areas. However, that should not prevent us as a Parliament from scrutinising legislation and insisting that, so far as possible, it is drafted in conformity with the purpose for which the Government say that they intend to use it.
Mr Leslie
That is why Members often say in the House, “Let us place it on the face of the Bill”, which means “Let us put in writing, in black and white, something that can then be held up in a court of law”, rather than a mere verbal promise from a Minister who, as I have said, could be here today and gone tomorrow. These things matter, and if we are to do our job properly we need to get our statute right.
It is not an exaggeration that clause 7(4) represents a massive potential transfer of legislative competence from Parliament to Government. It is a sweeping power that would make Henry VIII blush if he were to see it today. My amendment 57 would delete the sweeping nature of clause 7(4), because Ministers have not ensured that their powers are as limited as possible; on the contrary, they have ensured that they are as exceptionally wide as possible.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) referred to Bills relating to, for instance, trade and customs. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that those Bills are very likely to contain the very same Henry VIII powers?
Mr Leslie
Indeed. There are, I think, eight pieces of subsequent legislation which are also opening up this precedent. Effectively, Members of Parliament are being patted on the head and told, “Do not trouble yourselves. We will sort out all these areas of policy. We will just go away and if you really object, you can petition us about it.” That is not good enough.
Let me now turn to clause 9. We are not voting on it today, but the grouping of the amendments allows us to discuss issues relating to it. Subsection (2) states:
“Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament (including modifying this Act).”
If, having gone through all the rigmarole of debating the proposals that are before us today and made all sorts of promises, Ministers then say, after Royal Assent, “Actually, we did not like that bit of the Act”, they will be taking order-making powers to amend this very provision.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
It is not just a question of assurances given from the Dispatch Box. In clause 9, Ministers are proposing to take a power that would enable them, after the event, to get rid of what they have described as safeguards in the Bill if they feel like it, by means of the mechanisms provided in that clause. Does that not undermine the confidence that the House can have in those safeguards, given that they may no longer be in the text of the Bill when it becomes an Act?
Mr Leslie
It is almost an Alice in Wonderland “down the rabbit hole” concept: the notion that we are passing an Act that hands powers to Ministers to amend not just any other Act of Parliament, but the Act itself. It is completely ridiculous. I know that Conservative Members will say I am making the point because I am sceptical about Brexit or something, but this is a constitutional issue. It is about ensuring that Parliament is sovereign, and that Members of Parliament can override the executive and curtail excessive behaviour. I shall be astonished if clause 9(2) is still there after Royal Assent, because if the House of Commons does not deal with it, the other place will certainly have to do so.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I have some sympathy with the points that the hon. Gentleman is making, but why did he not raise these objections when his own party was passing legislation that could be self-amending in exactly the same way, without a sunset clause—for example, the Scotland Act 1998?
Mr Leslie
If that is indeed the case, two wrongs do not make a right, but I do not think that any other provision is quite as extensive as this. The hon. Gentleman’s loyalty to the Government knows no bounds—he has to come to their defence, because it is important for someone to do so—but I think that, in this particular instance, even he may be slightly embarrassed by quite how far Ministers have gone.
Clause 7(1) states:
“A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate”.
The term “appropriate” is entirely undefined, and it is the only condition imposed on the Minister’s desire to address “deficiencies” in the law. The House of Lords Constitution Committee has said:
“This application of a subjective test to a broad term like ‘deficiency’ makes the reach of the provision potentially open-ended.”
The Government tabled amendment 391 to try to ameliorate some of the concern about that, but it barely constitutes a concession. It merely requires Ministers to make explanatory statements that provisions are “appropriate” in order to justify the order-making power. It is because it is so broad that I tabled amendment 65, which would at least shift the subjective threshold from “appropriate” to “necessary”. I believe that requiring Ministers to feel that a regulation is necessary would present them with a stronger test and a higher threshold. It would allow them to retain fairly broad powers, but I think that it would provide an extra safeguard. A Minister may think that something is appropriate without having to justify it, and I feel that we should expect more in a Bill such as this. The Constitution Committee has also said:
“We proposed that ‘a general restriction on the use of delegated powers’ could be achieved using ‘a general provision … placed on the face of the Bill to the effect that the delegated powers granted by the Bill should be used only so far as necessary to adapt the body of EU law to fit the UK’s domestic legal framework’”.
I followed that advice by tabling amendment 65.
Clause 7(2) implies that the scope of the Henry VIII powers are not exhaustive at all.
That subsection begins with the phrase:
“Deficiencies in retained EU law include (but are not limited to) where the Minister considers that retained EU law”
does x, y and z, and it goes on to set out a series of particular conditions.
The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) has also spotted this issue in his amendment 1, and this caveat does not have to be limited to the exceptions set out in clause 7. Again, that provision is too broad and gives too much power to Ministers. Ministers might well say, “Well, it’s not our intention to go beyond the list of prescribed areas in clause 7”, but the Bill as drafted does not constrain their successors; as I have said, there will, of course, always be further Ministers after the current ones have moved on.
Mr Grieve
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those who draft legislation go off to Government Departments, show the draft and ask whether that covers all the things that need to be covered, and are then inevitably told that the Department is worried that something has not been covered? Perhaps this should be an encouragement to those on the Treasury Bench to go away and think again about whether the list they have produced is not in reality exhaustive. If it is not, perhaps they would like to identify during today’s debate where they think there might be these extra powers that take them beyond the limits they have listed.
Mr Leslie
The right hon. and learned Gentleman and any other Member who has had the privilege of serving as a Minister will know exactly what civil servants will advise, which is, “Well, you don’t know the exact circumstances, so seek as wide a power as you can possibly get away with through Parliament, if it will turn a blind eye to it. We can deal with the consequences thereafter.”
Unfortunately for them, Ministers will not be able to get away with that on this occasion, because we have spotted this land grab attempt. It is not appropriate; if they feel that there should be exceptions or that certain circumstances should be accounted for, those must be set out in the Bill, not just left in these current loose terms.
Current Ministers might feel that they are responsible stewards of Government, but I invite hon. Members to imagine circumstances in which we end up with a malign Government of some sort, shape or variety, such as some sort of extreme Administration—who knows what might happen in years to come? These Henry VIII powers are extremely sweeping. They will be available to Ministers in years to come and could leave the door open to some quite arbitrary near-autocratic actions of a future Government.
For example, if a future Government sought to lift the 48-hour working week provisions that EU law currently gives to employees in this country, Ministers would by order potentially have the scope to do that under the powers in clauses 7 and 9. If Ministers wanted to require the banking sector to have more capital requirements under these provisions, they would be able to simply make those orders. If Ministers wanted some sort of aggressive or inappropriate state intervention to distort competition, favouring one producer over others, they would be able to do that through the provisions on these order-making powers.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a real concern across the UK in relation to workers’ rights, particularly as many in government at present were saying during the EU referendum campaign that the roll-back of workers’ rights was one of the reasons why they advocated a leave vote in the first place?
Mr Leslie
The Bill’s provisions are so wide-ranging that the protections that our constituents have enjoyed to this day as a result of European regulations and rights could be at risk—not from Parliament, but from a ministerial sweep of the pen, through the making of an order: a negative statutory instrument.
Mr Jim Cunningham
We had a good test of that some time ago in relation to trade union rights, through what the Government did to the Trade Union Bill during its passage through Parliament. Does my hon. Friend agree that the big test will be something the Government are being evasive about: will this Parliament get the final vote? We were told during the referendum campaign that Parliament would have its say and everything would be brought back here, yet the Government are doing everything in their power to avoid giving Parliament the final vote on this.
Mr Leslie
The offer from the Government has been a binary yes or no motion at some point when we see the withdrawal agreement, and then—potentially after the fact, post-signature by Ministers—a Bill later on down the line. That is obviously not good enough, but we will come to many of those issues in tomorrow’s debates. For now, there are further deficiencies in the way clause 7 has been drafted to be addressed.
Clause 7(5) talks about the functions and public services that the regulations can amend. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield has spotted in amendment 5, as I have in amendment 61, that these powers could allow Ministers to sweep away a public service function currently undertaken by an EU agency without making alternative provisions; Ministers have talked about a function being not only “replaced” or “modified”, but “abolished”. Ridiculously, Ministers have snuck in this phrase, under which by order they can abolish a whole area of public service activity through the powers they are granting themselves in subsection (5). That could affect lots of obscure and small areas of public policy that do not matter to all our constituents but will certainly matter to some, including chemical safety certification, medicine risk assessment activities, aircraft airworthiness, preparedness for disease prevention and control, aeronautic research, energy market trading, and maritime pollution.
There are lots of functions that EU agencies currently fulfil. Some Members might say that they should be fulfilled within the UK, which is a perfectly good argument, but clause 7 would allow Ministers to abolish those functions entirely by order. I do not believe that is appropriate, and that is why I think amendment 61 and certainly amendment 5 are necessary.
Mary Creagh
My hon. Friend has talked about the many agencies that we currently rely on to regulate all manner and aspects of our national life, but he has neglected to mention the regulatory and enforcement functions carried out by the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. Does he share my concern that, particularly in the environmental sphere—which I will talk about in my speech—removing the Commission as an enforcement body could be very detrimental to standards in all areas of regulation?
Mr Leslie
My hon. Friend has done important work as Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee on some of these questions. These are not small matters; they are important functions that over the years we have developed and grown to expect. Some of them are provided by EU agencies, but they should not be able to be abolished simply by order—by the sweep of a ministerial pen—without reference to this place and without the House of Commons having some ability to decide.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government might well find other ways of delivering these functions, but the key point is independence? We need the authorities that deliver these safeguards and regulatory activities to be independent of Government and to be accountable to the people.
Mr Leslie
Indeed, and there are good arguments for having independent provision of many of these assessments. We might feel that many regulatory activities currently undertaken by EU agencies need to be undertaken by our regulators here in the UK, rather than being brought into a Government departmental function, to give them that further arm’s-length independent status. I want to talk about some aspects of that shortly.
I want to make reference, too, to the Procedure Committee’s set of amendments that the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and others have tabled to try to deal with what could be thousands of negative statutory instruments—orders by Ministers that do not automatically come up for a vote in the House of Commons. I totally respect the work of the Procedure Committee, and it is important that it has gone through this process, but I do not believe that the proposed committee would be an adequate safeguard. I do not believe that it would fulfil the concept of what a sifting committee ought to be.
We need a Committee of the House that can look through the hundreds of statutory instruments that are currently not for debate and be able to pick them out and bring them forward for an affirmative decision. The Procedure Committee’s amendments would not quite do that; they would simply create a committee able to voice its opinion about the designation of an order as a negative statutory instrument. That could be overruled or ignored by Ministers. Indeed, if a Minister were to designate such a negative statutory instrument as urgent, it would not even need to be referred to that committee. That is a pretty low threshold, and a pretty weak concession.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Is it my hon. Friend’s understanding that the committee would have an automatic Conservative party majority, because of the changes to Standing Orders?
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
We will look at the composition when we look at the Standing Orders. It is not covered in the contents of the amendments today, but people will have an opportunity to debate that issue on another occasion.
Mr Leslie
That is true, but it deserves to be debated today as well. If we are creating a committee, it is perfectly legitimate to argue that we need to know whether it will have teeth and exercise bite, or whether it will be reluctant to do so. The question that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) asked about its composition is perfectly reasonable.
Chris Bryant
For that matter, the Procedure Committee has regularly suggested changes to Standing Orders that the Government have refused to move forward. I have seen the right hon. Member for Broxbourne more furious than anyone else in the Chamber because the Government have refused to act on that, so it is inadequate to suggest that Standing Orders might make arrangements in this regard.
Mr Leslie
My hon. Friend’s point is well made. Again, it goes to show that if we are to assert ourselves as the House of Commons and create a committee to deal with this flood of negative statutory instruments, that needs to be done in a way that has teeth. We will debate the Bill and kick it around and it will go to the House of Lords, but we need to ensure that it has teeth when it comes back.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Leslie
I am conscious that a lot of Members want to speak, and I want to get to the end of my remarks.
There are other issues relating to the standard of scrutiny, and perhaps the Procedure Committee will want to think about them as well. Currently, when regulatory policy issues are decided in Europe by EU directive or regulation, the European Parliament—to which our constituents have been able to elect people—has a quite large set of scrutiny and decision-making powers over those laws. If we are moving the law-making power from the EU to the UK, surely we should also replicate the level of scrutiny that those laws received from the European Parliament and have that same arrangement in the UK Parliament. That is not happening in the Bill, however, which is why amendment 277 has been tabled.
I was partly inspired by conversations with the Association of British Insurers, which is concerned about the potential to lose a level of scrutiny as the policy-making powers are transferred across. The UK Parliament’s ability to scrutinise some of these things is not as tough as that of the EU Parliament. The ABI has said that it supports amendment 277, which states that any additional powers transferred to the UK regulators must be matched by equivalent scrutiny mechanisms and democratic accountability. That is not a small point, because a massive array of issues is coming at us thick and fast in clauses 7 and 9, and they have to be mentioned.
Finally, I want to touch on amendment 124, which has been tabled in the name of the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). It would prevent regulations from undermining the operation of the single market. The Government have conceded that we are, de facto, going to remain in the single market and the customs union, certainly during the transition phase. It is important that protections should be in place to ensure that orders made by Ministers cannot erode those single market freedoms that we enjoy during the transition period.
Also, if we end up—as I suspect we should—staying in the single market and the customs union, we do not want anything in the Bill that will erode the operation of those important frictionless tariff-free trade arrangements in goods and services that we currently enjoy. Amendment 124 has great merit, and I certainly hope that all Members will consider giving it their support.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend mentions the single market; I wonder whether he noted the research published today by the Rand Corporation in the United States that made it clear that any kind of fantasy deal with the United States while President Trump is in charge would do nothing for us compared with remaining in the single market and the customs union.
Mr Leslie
Yes; I think many hon. Members are under the illusion that free-trade agreements are an okay substitute for the single market arrangements that we now have. Our economy is 80% service sector. We take for granted the frictionless movement of goods, parts and components, and amendment 124 would—
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. If the hon. Gentleman is out of order, I will tell him that he is out of order. Does he wish to convince me that it is in order to speak about this particular matter?
Mr Leslie
I absolutely do, Madam Deputy Speaker. Amendment 124 talks about protecting the single market provisions, and that is why, in today’s debate, as well as getting into constitutional areas such as protecting Parliament’s rights, we also have a duty to talk about the single market. The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington’s amendment addresses this point. This is something that many of us feel very strongly about, and we are not going to give up without a bit of a fight.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is right when he says that Margaret Thatcher was pretty much the authoress of the single market. Does he agree that, as trade develops, the best places to do business will be those nearest to us—not those far away, which mean that goods have to be conveyed over huge distances?
Mr Leslie
We are putting a lot of effort into trying to get free trade deals with New Zealand, Australia and other countries, and much as I would love free trade deals with all of them, the fact is that our biggest markets are our nearest neighbours. Having that single market and that customs union is incredibly important, which is why amendment 124 should not be dismissed and I believe Members should support it. We also need to pay attention to the powers and rights that Parliament must now assert if we are to ensure that the Executive do not take back the control that many of our constituents thought was coming to their representatives after the referendum.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
As always, I am lost in admiration for the extraordinary eloquence of the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie). It is unfortunate that he has a tendency, as he exhibited on this occasion, to be so carried away by his eloquence as to take arguments that many Government Members also consider important and extend them to the point where they become definitely untrue. This diminishes the force of those arguments. I believe that the Bill is over-drafted—for some of the reasons that he adduced, to give the Government greater scope for dealing with a whole series of problems, in a way that the civil service often recommends to Ministers—but it is not the case that it offers the unconstrained powers that he was suggesting. His world is a world without a Supreme Court, and without judgments of the meaning of deficiency. He alleged that the meaning of “appropriate” was entirely obscure and then used it, by my count, five times himself. We all knew what he meant and so would a court. One does not need to go to the extents to which he was going to point out that the Bill requires some amelioration in respect of the secondary legislation powers, a point which many Members on both sides of the Committee made during an earlier debate. He could have rested with that, which would have taken rather fewer minutes.
I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, because unlike the hon. Member for Nottingham East I think that amendment 393—if I remember the number correctly—is carefully judged. I think it probably will provide—[Interruption.] I apologise for getting the number wrong; I was referring to amendment 397. In any case, the Procedure Committee’s amendment seems to be the right way to tackle the question of triage, and it is well judged and well drafted. I hope that Ministers will tell us in their responses from the Dispatch Box that recommendations from the Procedure Committee will in this instance always be respected in the House. I do not think that we need to worry about a completely separate set of Ministers dealing with the recommendations, because the recommendations will be made in the coming months. We need a combination of that amendment plus an assurance from the Dispatch Box that the Procedure Committee’s recommendations will be observed, and I think we could rest on that.
Chris Bryant
I just worry about this whole business of relying on the Government saying that they will always go by a recommendation that comes from a Committee. Several times I have heard Ministers stand in the Chamber and say that if the Opposition demand a vote on the annulment of a Standing Order, there will always be one. However, over the past few years, there have on repeated occasions been no debates or votes, even when demanded by the Opposition and a large number of Government Members. It is almost sweet of the right hon. Gentleman to place such confidence in Ministers, but they are sometimes not to be trusted. We just put temptation in their way.
Sir Oliver Letwin
The hon. Gentleman is a doughty defender of his party interest and of the House of Commons. On this occasion, if such an assurance is given from the Dispatch Box and if the advice of the committee is not followed, people on both sides of the House will cause a sufficient fuss to ensure that the House does have the opportunity to debate instruments under the affirmative procedure.
John Redwood
Will my right hon. Friend clear up one other uncertainty created by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie)? Is it not the case that the powers that we are debating are strictly time limited to two years from the date of departure? This is not a long-term issue.
Sir Oliver Letwin
One of the most striking moments of hyperbole was when the hon. Member for Nottingham East asserted that the situation would last for many years. He will of course know, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) points out, that the provisions are sunsetted.
Chris Bryant
Unfortunately, that is not true because the Government are able to change the Act by statutory instrument.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Except of course it is, because if the amendment is accepted, as the Government intend, the committee will be empowered to make a recommendation to have something debated by the affirmative procedure in the House should such an eventuality arise. In those circumstances, if we have an assurance from the Dispatch Box that something will be so debated, the hon. Gentleman and I will be able to join forces to prevent such a thing from happening. That is a genuine lock, and this debate depends on whether we want to engage in party political games or whether we want a serious approach to ensuring ministerial accountability. Amendment 397 is serious, and my hon. Friends and I are keen to ensure that its changes are made. I note that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) has also put his name to the amendment, which gives me great comfort that it is a serious effort to cure the problem.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
On the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) about amending the Act, which I will refer to in my own speech, I just want to draw the Committee’s attention to paragraph 6 (2)(g) of Schedule 7. For us to amend the Act, any change would have to relate to the withdrawal agreement and its implementation and would be subject to a vote in both Houses.
Sir Oliver Letwin
That is indeed true. I suppose that Opposition Members would tend to argue that only the courts could enforce that, which is an oddity with the principle of comity, but I think we are dancing on the heads of pins here. I am confident that the Government do not intend to use that power to get rid of the constraints within the Bill. I am equally confident that the serious issue here is whether significant changes are proposed by the negative procedure and, I repeat, the Procedure Committee amendment seems to handle that serious issue, which is in contrast to the highly hypothetical considerations that have already been put before the Committee.
Amendments 62 and 63 were, in a different form, the subject of some serious discussions earlier in Committee. They relate to how we bring the important environmental principles in the treaty on the functioning of the European Union into English law at the time of withdrawal and to how we replace the useful role that the Commission has played in being an independent enforcement agency for environmental law that is governed by those principles in its procedures and substantive actions.
Helen Goodman
Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to new clauses 62 and 63 or amendments 62 and 63?
Sir Oliver Letwin
New clauses 62 and 63. I do apologise. I am very bad at remembering the nomenclature, but I know which ones I am talking about. They are the ones that relate to the environment—their proponent, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), is sitting behind the hon. Lady—and we had a long discussion about them earlier in Committee. Since those discussions inside the House, many of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), and I have had considerable conversations outside the House with various people, such as the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, green non-governmental organisations and others. I am now confident that the Government will bring forward proper new primary legislation to create an independent body outside the House with prosecutorial powers that will replace the Commission as the independent arbiter to enforce environmental rules and to ensure that the Government are taken to task in court without the need for the expense of class action lawsuits.
Sir Oliver Letwin
May I continue for a second? I may anticipate what the hon. Lady is going to say, but I will give way if I do not.
In addition to such a body being put on a statutory basis, I am confident that included in the relevant legislation will be a direct reference to the principles, so that it is clear that the policy statement, which will be mandated, must look to those principles and must explain how the Government of the day intend to carry forward the principles into action. The policy statement will then become justiciable and will, under the forthcoming legislation, receive support in the form of a resolution of this House and will therefore attain a statutory force of its own.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I will give way to both hon. Ladies, but I will just say one last thing in case they were going to make this point. Many people have raised the question of whether all this work will be done in time—I see the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) nodding and I suspect that she will want to raise that point—and I see that if there was doubt about whether it was, that would be a reason for legislating here, as opposed to waiting for a proper new statute. I am delighted to say that we have talked sufficiently to Ministers to be confident that they will be bringing forward both the consultation and the legislation in time to ensure that it is in place before we exit the EU. Of course, I would also want to wait until January to see the consultation to ensure that that engagement is fulfilled, and I am sure that the other place will want to look at what is said in the consultation and to assure itself that the new statute is coming forward before it consented to allow this Bill to proceed without the amendments that are being proposed. I believe that the right way to do this is in separate legislation. It is not about this business of Brexit; it is about trying to get the right answer for the environment. It is much better that we should do that in a fully fledged Bill that will be properly debated and contains all the relevant provisions and powers, which will never shoehorn into this Bill. I genuinely believe that that is the best way forward.
Caroline Lucas
I am pleased about the measures that the right hon. Gentleman outlines, to which the Government are apparently committed, but I am still worried about time, and I do not share his confidence that, given the amount of business that the Government have to get through in a small amount of time, we can be absolutely sure that the new body will be in place in time. Why can we not have a belt-and-braces approach? I agree that the Bill is not the ideal place to put such a provision, but it is an awful lot better to have it in the Bill than nowhere. I do not share his confidence that it will definitely get through Parliament in time otherwise.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I do not suppose that I will succeed now in persuading the hon. Lady. I do not wholly disapprove of the idea of her and others pursuing aggressive amendment tactics here and in the other place to ensure that the Government continue to respond effectively and rapidly. Once the consultation paper emerges and the Secretary of State has made further statements about this, and once legislative time has been allocated in the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee, assuming it is still called that, we will have that confidence. I would prefer to rest on that, because it would be at the least inelegant and possibly positively damaging to pass one piece of legislation and then introduce another that repealed or amended it. That sounds to me like a recipe for confusion.
Should we become sceptical at a later date about whether the Government will bring separate legislation forward, it would be open to the House of Lords to table amendments in the other place, which would come back to us. I, for one, would want to see those amendments made if the Government did not intend to put something in place before EU exit day. I am currently confident that they will, and that is the only basis on which I will not be voting for the new clause this evening.
Mary Creagh
I do not share the right hon. Gentleman’s confidence that all this will be done in time, and I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). We have been waiting two and a half years for a 25-year environment plan, which will be a 22-year plan by the time it is published. We have had promises of legislation on fisheries and the common agricultural policy, and today a draft animal sentience and animal welfare Bill has been published. There is already a legislative logjam in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as a result of the decision to leave the EU, and at the moment there is a reporting gap. Although there may be a new body in the future to do some of the enforcement, I do not believe that it will be up and ready at the point of leaving, when all our reporting obligations, which currently rest with the European Commission, will fall.
Sir Oliver Letwin
There are quite a lot of bits to unpack in that. If we were to leave without an agreement and hence without a transition period, there would be some merit in her observation, although the gap would be short if the new body had been legislated for by the time we left. If the Government’s plan succeeds and there is a transition period, we will no doubt be bound by the current rules during that period so there would be two full years in which to establish the new body. It is not likely that the hon. Lady’s concern on that front will be realised in practice, although I admit some theoretical possibility of it.
The hon. Lady adduces a legislative logjam in DEFRA. I accept the facts that she presents, but I see them exactly the other way round. We have a Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who is probably the most powerful one we have had for a long time, for various reasons of which hon. Members on both sides are acutely conscious. He is probably more committed to this agenda than any we have seen in recent times in either Administration—[Interruption.] I am conscious that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) will inevitably cavil slightly at that, and I respect his record. I genuinely believe that the current Secretary of State is even more devoted to the environment than he was.
An awful lot of DEFRA legislation will inevitably have to be brought to the House before exit. No Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary and no Government could resist it. One cannot exit the EU without solving the problems of the common fisheries policy and the common agricultural policy so there is a natural legislative slot, and this powerful Secretary of State will be more than capable of bringing before the House the relevant statutory provisions. They will not be simple; they will require mature deliberation in both Houses. I am sure we all agree that it is incredibly important that we get the provisions exactly right. We need to make sure that it is a genuinely watertight system, with a set of policies that apply, that the court will enforce and that can be brought to court by an independent body. We need to ensure that the independent body is genuinely and completely independent of the Government, that it can bring Ministers to court, that it is properly funded and staffed and that it looks at the way in which the principles are applied through the policy statement in practice.
I believe that if all that can be done in a proper statute, it would be not just a replication of where we have been, which is now much lauded but was in practice very imperfect, but a huge advance on that. We would have a more comprehensive enforcement of a better environmental legislative framework than any country on earth. That is a goal worth striving for in a proper Act, instead of trying to shoehorn into this Bill a set of new clauses and amendments that are well intentioned but cannot perform the same purpose.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
My right hon. Friend makes a brilliant speech. [Laughter.] I cannot disagree with a single word that he has said. I strongly agree with him. The main sticking point is not the aspirations of the Secretary of State to build an independent body that is sufficiently resourced to hold the powerful to account in the way that he has described. The issue is timing and trust. Exactly the same arguments were used just a couple of weeks ago in relation to animal sentience. Sceptics in the House questioned the commitment of the Government to deliver a sentience Bill and said that if it was delivered, it would be a watered down version. We have proof this morning of the Government’s intent; we have a sentience Bill that goes way further than anything in EU law. It applies to all animals, all sectors, all parts of government. It takes us forward in a dramatic and meaningful sense, and that is what I hope we can expect from the initiative of the Secretary of State. I apologise for speaking for so long.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I agree with my hon. Friend. He is being unduly modest, because in large part it is due to pressure from him that the Government have introduced such an effective and incisive Bill in a timely fashion. I agree that that gives us considerable confidence about what will happen on this other, even wider ranging matter.
Caroline Lucas
I am pleased to see the change on animal sentience, but to correct the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), the debate a few weeks ago was about whether we needed new legislation to provide for animal sentience when we left the EU. The Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and said that we did not need new legislation as it was already covered by existing UK domestic legislation. So I am pleased to see a screeching U-turn, but let us not pretend that it was not a screeching U-turn.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I have steadfastly resisted for 21 years engaging in meaningless partisan debate, and I am not going to abandon a career’s worth of effort in that direction to answer that point. Animal sentience is built into English law in various ways already, but the new Bill will vastly strengthen the position compared with what it is today under European law. That is a huge advance for our nation, one that many people on both sides of the House can be happy with. As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park was pointing out, there is an exact parallel with what we and the Government are seeking to do in relation to environmental regulation. I really believe that if we could lay aside both the inevitable divisions about Brexit itself and the inevitable play of party politics, and simply focus on what is going to do the best thing for our environment, we would see that the programme we have before us is a huge advance and one we should gratefully welcome.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Laing, and to follow the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). I rise to speak to new clauses 63 and 1, amendments 32 and 25, which stand in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and amendments 342, 333, 350, 334 and 33 to 41.
For the purposes of clarity, I intend to break my remarks down into three parts. I will first speak to those new clauses and amendments that relate to the purpose, scope and limits of clause 7. I will then turn to those that relate specifically to the clause 7 power to transfer functions from EU entities and agencies to UK competent authorities. I will finish by turning to new clauses and amendments that relate to the Government’s proposals about how Parliament will scrutinise and, where necessary, approve secondary legislation made under the powers provided for by not only clause 7, but clauses 8, 9 and 17.
I turn first to the purpose, scope and limits of clause 7. As I said when winding up for the Opposition in the debate on Second Reading, the delegated powers conferred on Ministers under clause 7, and clauses 8, 9 and 17, are extraordinary in their constitutional potency and scope. They are, to put it plainly, objectionable and their flaws must be addressed before Third Reading. As such, when it comes to the correcting powers provided for by clause 7, what we are debating is not whether there is a need to place limits on these powers—that, I hope, is beyond serious dispute. What is at issue today, and what I intend to cover in the first part of my remarks, is what limits should be placed on these powers and why.
Just as the Opposition accept that the Brexit process requires legislation to disentangle the UK from the European Union’s legal structures and to ensure that we have a functioning statute book on the day we leave, we also understand, in light of the legislative reality that must be confronted between now and exit day, that no Government could carry out this task by primary legislation alone. We therefore accept that relatively wide delegated powers to amend existing EU law and to legislate for new arrangements following Brexit where necessary are, and will be, an inevitable feature of the Bill. Given how much EU and EU-related law has been implemented through primary legislation, we also recognise that the Bill will have to contain Henry VIII clauses. We appreciate that there is a difficult balance to be struck between the urgency required to provide legal continuity and certainty after exit day and the equally important need for safeguards to ensure we maintain the constitutional balance of powers between the legislature and the Executive.
We also believe, however, that to the extent that relatively wide delegated powers are necessary, they should not be granted casually and where they are granted they should be limited, wherever possible, and practical. That is particularly important given how remarkable the correcting powers provided under clause 7 are in their potency and scope. On their potency, it is important to recognise that the Henry VIII powers contained in clause 7 are of the most expansive type. As has already been noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), clause 7(4) makes it clear that the power granted by subsection (1) can be used to enact regulations that make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament, and clauses 8(2) and 9(2) make equivalent provision in respect of the powers conferred by both those clauses.
These are extraordinary powers, for if it is possible for regulations made under clause 7(1) to make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament, that must extend logically to amending or repealing any kind of law, including provisions in other Acts, in the context of wide-ranging purpose of the clause: to remedy any deficiencies that arise in retained EU law. Furthermore, paragraph 1(2)(8) of schedule 7 explicitly confirms that the powers in clause 7 can be used to create powers “to legislate”. As the powers can be used to do anything that could be done by Act of Parliament by means of subsection (4), the Bill itself can be used to create further Henry VIII powers. As such, if this Bill is passed unamended, we face the prospect of Ministers—perhaps not this Minister or Ministers in this Government—having the ability to use the Henry VIII powers in this Bill to confer further such powers upon themselves or other UK institutions; we are talking about delegated legislation piled on top of delegated legislation. That is an outcome that no Member of this House should regard as an acceptable prospect, but it is possible using the powers conferred under clause 7, as drafted.
Chris Bryant
We might think that the most extreme legislation that would be on the statute book allowed for emergency powers. The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 makes it absolutely clear that, when Henry VIII powers are to be used, the Minister must explain why they are important, why they are necessary and that they have met an appropriate level of proper jurisdiction beforehand, but none of that is available in the Bill. Is it not therefore important that we have measures such as amendment 17, which adds to the clause?
Matthew Pennycook
Absolutely. My hon. Friend spoke powerfully about this matter on Second Reading, and he is right in saying that the scope of the powers in this Bill is not narrow, as some Conservative Members have argued; these powers are extraordinarily wide and unprecedented in the post-war period. I struggle to find other examples of Acts that have drawn their powers this wide.
Secondly, and perhaps more concerning, clause 7(1) will allow Ministers to make such regulations as they consider appropriate for the purpose of preventing, remedying or mitigating
“(a) any failure of retained EU law to operate effectively, or
(b) any other deficiency in retained EU law”
arising from exit. What is meant by the entirely subjective phrase “operate effectively” is left entirely open, a point rightly highlighted by amendment 15, which stands in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and others. What is meant by deficiencies is more precisely defined, but clause 7(2) still only provides a non-exhaustive set of examples of what is considered to fall within this category. As such, it leaves Ministers with considerable latitude in determining when retained EU law contains a deficiency. The explanatory notes to the Bill seek to reassure us that the power could not be used by a Minister just because he or she considered the law in question to be flawed prior to exit. Today’s Minister will no doubt repeat that it is not the Government’s intention to use this Bill to make major policy changes or to establish new frameworks in the UK beyond those which are necessary to ensure we have a functioning statute book on exit day. But in the absence of a definitive criteria of what constitutes a deficiency, or, indeed, restrictions on how deficiencies might be addressed in the Bill, there is still scope for the Executive to enact substantive changes to policies in areas that were previously underpinned by EU law, whether by lowering permissible air quality levels or modifying crucial employment protections.
Stephen Doughty
I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent forensic examination of what is at fault in the Bill. Does he agree that there is deep suspicion and mistrust because we have heard speeches from Members who might seek to form the Government at some point—particularly the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) and others—who have made it clear that they want a deregulated race-to-the-bottom economy and society? It is all very well to have assurances from the current team of Ministers, but what if others were in their place?
Matthew Pennycook
That is precisely our concern. We discussed that at length on day 2 in Committee, when we were talking about the need for enhanced protection for retained EU law because it will be stripped away from its underpinnings in EU law post-exit.
A further concern about the language in clause 7(1) is that, given how wide clauses 2, 3 and 4 are in respect of what will come under the umbrella of retained EU law, Acts of Parliament that are linked to EU law, such as the Equality Act 2010, will be susceptible to change by statutory instrument under the clause. That would be an entirely unacceptable situation. There are many different ways in which the constitutional potency and scope of the correcting powers provided under clause 7 can be circumscribed, and we support many of the amendments tabled to the clause that share that same basic underlying objective.
Amendments 32 and 25 are the means by which my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have attempted to limit those correcting powers. Amendment 32 would diminish the potency of the delegated powers in the clause by removing the ability to modify or amend the Act itself. I listened to what the Minister said about the schedules and how they dictate things, but I would argue that there seems to be a difference—if Members wish to direct their attention to it, this is on pages 39 and 43 of the Bill—between the process that applies to clause 7 and that which applies to clause 9, with respect to whether a vote in the House would be required for Ministers to amend the Act itself. Perhaps the Minister will elaborate further on that in his response.
Amendment 25 would reduce the scope of the powers by constraining their capacity to reduce rights and protections, while amendments 350 and 334 would buttress amendment 25 by putting specific limits on the powers in question by requiring Ministers to pay full regard to the animal welfare standards enshrined in article 13 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union and to guarantee that the air quality standards and protections that are currently underpinned by EU law are maintained in practice following our departure.
Given how widely drawn the powers in clause 7 are, coupled with their potency and scope and the inherent subjectivity of the language in subsection (1) in key respects, ministerial assurances and promises to go away and have a cosy chat, as we have had on other days, are not good enough in this instance. The powers entail a significant transfer of legislative competence from the legislature to the Executive and open up the real possibility of substantive changes being made in policy areas that previously were underpinned by EU law. Restrictions on the powers must be placed in the Bill, whether through amendment 32 or 25, or some other combination of amendments. I look forward to hearing from the Minister not only that the Government now accept as much but what they intend to do about it.
On the new clauses and amendments that relate specifically to the clause 7 power to transfer functions from EU entities and agencies to UK competent authorities, Ministers have been at pains to point out throughout this process that many of the corrections to retained EU law made under the correcting power in clause 7 will be mechanistic, textual or technical in nature. That will undoubtedly be the case, but many others will not be. As other Members have noted, the powers in clause 7 allow for not only the creation of new UK public authorities using the affirmative procedure but the transfer of EU regulatory functions to existing UK institutions using the negative procedure. However, in neither case does the clause 7 power as drafted ensure that retained EU law will be made operable in ways that replicate and maintain, in so far as is practical, all the existing powers and functions exercisable by EU entities. As a result, the clause does not guarantee that the powers and functions of entities such as the EU Commission or other EU agencies will continue to operate with equivalent scope, purpose and effect after exit day.
Amendment 342 would address the problem by making it clear in the Bill that regulations to which subsection (5) applies must, again in so far as is practical, ensure that the standards, rights and protections currently maintained by EU institutions, or other public authorities anywhere in the UK, continue to exist in practice after exit day and that the UK competent authorities that are overhauled or created for that purpose have the resources, expertise and independence required to carry out their task effectively. That they do so is crucial not only for legal certainty and continuity and to ensure continued confidence in UK products and services, but as a guarantor of stability and redress for citizens and civic bodies in key areas in which there is a clear risk that Brexit will leave a governance gap.
The need for such an amendment is particularly important when it comes to the environment. I take the point made by the right hon. Member for West Dorset that we discussed this matter in Committee at length on other days. Of course, it relates intimately to the environmental principles, although they are outside what is covered by clause 7. We have tabled new clause 63 to require the Government to establish new domestic governance arrangements, following consultation, for environmental standards and protections and, crucially, to ensure that the new arrangements provide robust enforcement mechanisms when environmental requirements and standards are not met.
The Government’s thinking about this policy area has clearly moved on from their early insistence that existing regulatory bodies, parliamentary scrutiny and the use of judicial review alone would be sufficient to provide oversight of Government and public body conduct. The pledge by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to create a new environmental watchdog and to consult early in the new year on its scope, powers and functions is welcome, but as things stand we have no clear indication of the watchdog’s scope, powers and functions; no clarity on whether the Government are seeking agreement with the devolved Administrations with a view to implementing similar measures in their jurisdictions; and no sense of whether or not the watchdog will be able to levy credible sanctions or provide for effective enforcement of breaches.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, I think what he says about the devolved authorities is incorrect. As I understand it, the Secretary of State made it perfectly clear that, if possible, he would like the devolved Administrations to come along with the process and share in the institutional framework. Of course, that is not a decision he can make; it is up to the devolved Administrations.
Matthew Pennycook
I am happy to take that on board. I learn more about Government environmental policy from the right hon. Gentleman than I do from his Front-Bench colleagues, so I happily stand corrected.
Mary Creagh
What the Secretary of State announced to the Environmental Audit Committee on 1 November was the beginnings of an idea. During that evidence session, the one new environmental body morphed into four potential environmental bodies, which have yet to morph into a consultation, which has yet to be published. At the moment, we are chasing chimeras—I do not know whether I have pronounced that correctly. [Interruption.] I thank the genius of the group, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), for helping me with my Greek pronunciation. What I have described stands in stark contrast to the hop, skip and jump on the animal sentience legislation that has been rushed out before Christmas—the triple jump on animal welfare legislation. The issues relating to devolution are further complicated by the promise to the Republic of Ireland on full regulatory alignment on agriculture, water and waste, which is now going to continue regardless.
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend makes a series of good points. I do not take the Government’s commitment in this policy area lightly and I do not take issue with it. What is at issue is the scope and powers of the watchdog and the timing. I share the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) about whether the new watchdog will be up and running in time and whether it will have the powers necessary to carry out the same functions as the institutions and agencies that currently exist.
New clause 63 would ensure that robust new domestic governance arrangements for environmental standards and protections were in place before exit day. It would also ensure that the body tasked with filling the governance gap was established by primary legislation before that date and that its scope, powers, functions and institutional design were shaped by public consultation.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, I am interested to understand whether the purpose of new clause 63 is a UK-wide set of policies that would apply in Scotland and Wales, which would therefore remove a competency on the application of environmental law from the Scottish Government to Westminster.
Matthew Pennycook
The scope of new clause 63 is for the environmental watchdog in England, as we have already said. There would have to be agreement between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government about whether they choose to take the same approach.
Mary Creagh
One point that my Committee has specifically made on the devolution settlement is that business does not want to deal with four regulators setting up four different sets of rules and regulations on waste, on water and on chemicals. It wants one set of regulations to deal with, and it has made it consistently clear that the set of rules that it would like to continue to abide by is that set by the European Union.
Matthew Pennycook
I absolutely agree. The devolved Administrations, as my hon. Friend has reminded me, agree that they want to take a UK-wide approach to this issue, but it would have to be an agreement.
Let me turn now to those new clauses and amendments that relate to the Government’s proposals about how Parliament will scrutinise and, where necessary, approve secondary legislation made under the powers set out in schedule 7(6). It is clear that the vast majority of hon. Members and the Government have accepted that the House’s current procedures for scrutinising negative and affirmative instruments are not acceptable. The hundreds of SIs that will flow from clauses 7 to 9 and 17 need something different. It is encouraging that Ministers have listened and have made it very clear that they intend to accept the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and other members of the Procedure Committee. We welcome those amendments and the establishment, as our new clause 1 proposes, of a parliamentary Committee to sift or triage regulations, and we support their incorporation in the Bill. Frankly, it is better than nothing, but it is the minimum of what might be expected, and we do not believe that they go far enough.
Amendments 397 and 398 propose that every SI made only via the negative procedure will be sent to the new Commons committee for consideration, with the committee determining within a 10-day window which ones would be required to be made under the affirmative procedure. That is an improvement on the arrangements proposed in this Bill as it stands, because it provides for discretion beyond the very narrow category of regulations attracting the affirmative procedure currently set out in schedule 7, and it will ensure that Ministers will not have unfettered discretion to decide whether the affirmative or negative procedure should apply in cases where an exercise of powers does not fall within one of the categories set out in the Bill.
Ministers must justify why the new committee will not be tasked with looking at SIs made under the affirmative procedure, or with examining the justification for using the SI in question to remedy a particular deficiency in EU law. Importantly, they must justify why, in urgent cases, which I know is a phrase that is undefined, Ministers can simply bypass the committee. Lots of these matters will be dealt with under Standing Orders, but it is right that we press for some clarity today. I hope that the Minister will provide further clarification on the composition of the new committee, in particular whether, as proposed in our new clause 1, the chair will be elected by the whole House and will be, and will be seen to be, independent of the Government. Ministers must further explain why they do not believe that the new committee should have the powers to recommend revisions to individual SIs.
Amendments 397 and 398—here I stand to be corrected by the hon. Member for Broxbourne or others on the Committee—make no such provision for revision. In this respect, they differ in a crucial aspect from the proposals set out in the Procedure Committee’s interim report of 6 November, which, while not providing for a formal mechanism for revising secondary legislation, did suggest a process by which a request could be made to Ministers to revoke and remake any particular SI underpinned by the scrutiny reserve. Without provision for this House to request, in certain limited cases, that a particular SI be revised, hon. Members will face a Hobson’s choice—take it or leave it with regard to regulations that may entail highly significant policy choices and have potentially serious or far-reaching implications, with “leave it” in these circumstances meaning a hole in the statute book.
Our amendments 33 to 41 make it clear that any new sifting committee that is established must be given the means not only to determine the level of parliamentary scrutiny that each SI is accorded in proportion to their significance and policy implications, but to make recommendations as to how particular SIs might be improved by revision—if necessary if only by means of the committee in question recommending that an instrument either be withdrawn and re-laid in a more acceptable form or, if a negative, be revoked and remade.
I wish to touch on one last issue: when it comes to the effective scrutiny of secondary legislation, it is crucial, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has argued, that long-standing parliamentary conventions are adhered to. Even after the process of sifting undertaken by the new committee, SIs subject to the negative procedure can only be annulled if the Government of the day themselves allow time for the House to debate the matter and to have a vote on it. Yet, as my hon. Friend pointed out today and on Second Reading, the Government have consistently refused in recent years to honour that convention, just as they no longer honour the convention that Opposition day motions are voted on. We have a very recent example that illustrates how this Government have used delegated powers not just to avoid parliamentary scrutiny, but to legislate in open defiance of the will of the House in relation to the matter of tuition fees. The original Act in question with regard to that matter allowed any statutory instrument raising the tuition fee limit to be annulled by either House, and assurances were given by Ministers in both the previous Labour Government and the coalition Government that any such SI would be taken on the Floor of the House.
By contrast, this Government prevented any vote whatever on the matter, and then refused to accept the vote of the House against the regulations. When they tabled the regulations the day before the 2016 Christmas recess, the Opposition prayed against them on the first sitting day this year, but despite the conventions of the House, the Government dragged their feet for months until eventually conceding the point and scheduling a debate on 18 April. Then Parliament was dissolved for the election.
After the election, the Government stalled and it was left to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) to secure parliamentary time using Standing Order No. 24. Eventually, we had to provide Opposition time on an Opposition motion to revoke the regulations, which the House agreed, only for the Government to refuse to accept the result, after telling Government Members to boycott the vote. Therefore, when Ministers say that Parliament still has a meaningful say on delegated legislation, there is a catch—and it is a Catch-22. They can refuse time for a vote within the 40 days, then say that it is too late for any vote to count once the deadline has passed.
This Bill includes powers that not only open up the very real possibility of substantive changes being made to policies in areas that were previously underpinned by EU law, but to amend primary legislation. If the Government are willing to ignore so flagrantly the conventions of this House when it comes to an issue as controversial and as important as university tuition fees, why on earth should this House assume that those conventions will be honoured when it comes to Brexit legislation?
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend has made an absolutely essential point. Fundamentally, does he agree that if this process is to be about taking back control, it must be about Parliament and the representatives of the people taking back control, not a Government, and certainly not a minority Government, taking back excessive powers?
Matthew Pennycook
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. That is why strengthened scrutiny procedures for approving secondary legislation made under this Bill are so important, and it is also why long-standing conventions must be honoured, so that in the rare cases where the Committee might recommend an SI be subject to the negative procedure but the Opposition disagrees, there is a chance to bring the matter before Committee.
John Redwood
This debate is very important. As someone who wants this Parliament to take back control on behalf of the sovereign British people who voted in that way in the referendum, I can see that there is an irony in this debate. We hear that a number of Opposition Members are very worried that Ministers will have too much power as a result of this legislation, but by the very act of our having this debate, and in due course the votes, on how we should proceed, I think that we are demonstrating that, indeed, Parliament is taking back control. The purpose of these debates today and tomorrow and the subsequent votes will be for Parliament to set a very clear framework within which Ministers will have to operate.
We are, after all, debating how we translate a very large burden of existing European law into good United Kingdom law in order to ensure continuity and no change at the point when we exit the European Union. This is a task that unites people of all political persuasions, whether they were in favour of leave or remain, around the need for legal certainty. We all see the need to guarantee that all that good European law under which we currently live will still be there and effective after we have left.
We also agree something else: some of us do want to change some of those laws. I want to change the fishing law very substantially, because we could have a much better system for fishing in this country if we designed one for ourselves. We will probably need to amend our trade and customs laws, because as we become an advocate for and an architect of wider free trade agreements around the world, that is clearly going to necessitate changes, which we think will be positive. I think we all agree that where we want to change policy—to amend and improve—we should do so through primary legislation. As I understand it, Ministers have agreed with that. I am sure that this House is quite up to the task of guaranteeing that Ministers will indeed have to proceed in that way, so that we know that when they wish to change—amend, improve or even repeal—policy, they will need to come through the full process of asking for permission through primary legislation.
Today we are talking about the adjustments, many of which are technical, that need to be made to ensure the continuity of European law when it passes from European jurisdiction to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom Parliament and courts. Ministers will obviously play up the fact that they think most of these matters will be very technical, such as taking out the fact that the UK is a member of the European Union when we exit and rewriting the legislation to point out that we are no longer a member of the European Union, or decreasing the number of members states by one from the current number if they are referred to in the regulation. More difficult will be the substitution of a UK-based body for a European body to ensure proper enforcement. Many of us see that as largely technical, although there may be wider issues. This Parliament is now properly debating how much scrutiny that kind of thing would require.
We have three possible models to ensure parliamentary sovereignty over any of these processes. The weakest is the negative resolution procedure, whereby Ministers will have to make a proposal for technical changes to the law, and Parliament will have to object and force a vote if it wishes to. The middle model is the affirmative resolution statutory instrument, whereby Parliament will have a debate and a vote; Ministers would make a proposal and we would have a vote. In some cases, we might even conclude that we need primary legislation, as it appears we are deciding with the issue of animal welfare. In that case, we wish not only to transfer the European law but to ensure that it is better in British law, so that will need primary legislation.
Today we are debating how to determine which of those processes are appropriate for each of the different matters that arise. A lot of items will definitely be in the technical area of rather minor changes just to ensure that things work smoothly, which is what I thought the Government were trying to capture in clause 7. We have heard from Opposition Members who think that the clause goes too far and will allow the Government to elide matters from the category of technical changes to the category where there are more substantial changes going on, and still leave us with the negative resolution procedure. I am not as worried as some Opposition Members. The power under the clause is a two-year power only, so it is clearly related to the translation and transition period, which I find reassuring. There are also clear restrictions in clause 7(6) on Ministers changing taxes, inventing criminal offences and all those kinds of things, because they would obviously require primary legislation. We need to continue our debate on whether those two lists—the list of permissive powers and the list of restrictions—are the right lists.
Chris Bryant
I have been listening very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. He is resting on the word “technical”, which he has used repeatedly, but that is not what the Bill says. If the Government had come forward with something saying that they will only be able to use secondary legislation in technical changes, we might have been interested in looking at it. But that is not what it says; it is a widely drawn list. The right hon. Gentleman may well have perfect confidence in the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Chipping Wycombe. Sorry, he is the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker)—[Laughter.] Well, the constituency used to be Chipping Wycombe. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) might have confidence in this particular Minister, but it may one day be another Minister. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the Leader of the Opposition is a Marxist revolutionary in a Venezuelan style. Well, he might yet be a Minister who will be making precisely these decisions, and that is why we should always legislate with caution.
John Redwood
I am intrigued to hear that characterisation of the hon. Gentleman’s leader; it is not a phrase that I have ever used in this House. I find that very interesting, but I do not want to take the conversation into that party political realm.
We are trying to explore the proper constraints and controls to put on Ministers through this primary legislation, which will drive our democratic processes for this transfer of law. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response because I want reassurances—of the kind I think he will be able to give me—that this power is well meant and is designed to prevent Parliament from being clogged up with literally hundreds of rather minor drafting changes. Such minor changes are simple consequences of going from being a member to being a non-member that we do not need to worry about too much, so we need somebody to do them for us. The Bill says that Ministers are going to do it for us. Various Members are a bit sceptical about that for some surprising and interesting reasons, such as that we have just heard. There is also a suggestion, which has a lot to recommend it, that there be a sifting mechanism so that Parliament is involved in the process and can say to Ministers, “We do think this matter is a bit more than technical, so we cannot have the negative resolution procedure. This has to be a proper debate and a proper vote in order to preserve parliamentary process.”
Mary Creagh
On that point, does the right hon. Gentleman think that the draft Animal Welfare (Sentencing and Recognition of Sentience) Bill, which was published today, is a technical measure or something that merits scrutiny on the Floor of the House—and, ditto, the new environmental body that has been proposed by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs?
John Redwood
As I understand it, that decision has been made for me. I have not yet had the advantage of reading the draft Bill, so I cannot give the hon. Lady my personal view, but the Government’s view is that it is primary legislation. They think that even though that Bill is reaffirming practices in European law, because the Government think that it is going a bit further than European law, they have quite properly said, “We must make this primary legislation.” The example makes my case rather well that the Government are being cautious because they are trying to reaffirm and go a bit further than European law, probably in a direction that most people in the House would be entirely comfortable with. But the House will have the benefit of going through the full processes of primary legislation. I hope that there will be other examples like that, where Ministers recognise that there could be changes of substance that will warrant either primary legislation or a statutory instrument.
I do not want to take up too much time because many people wish to speak, but I would like to pick up on something that the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), started to mention and which I found very interesting. He drew our attention to the way in which we handle statutory instruments in the House in general. There are occasions when it is a weakness of our procedures that we cannot amend a statutory instrument, and we need to think about this for the future. This issue does not arise just from the transfer of European law; it goes to the fundamental business of how we generally exercise control and ensure that legislation works.
I remember being on a statutory instrument Committee under the previous Labour Government for an SI to regularise a series of payments to councils because the Government had been a bit late in giving themselves the legislative permission to make the payments—there was a surprise. I realised as soon as I read it that somebody had put in the statutory instrument the full amounts of money involved, and someone else had come along and put, “£millions” across the top of the table, so we were actually invited to vote six extra noughts on every figure going to the councils.
I am a generous man, but I thought that that was a bit excessive because it meant that the sums were probably bigger than the GNP of the country. If not, they were certainly approaching the GNP of the country in a rather alarming way. I was regarded as a bit of a nuisance for pointing this out because there was absolutely no way of correcting the figures. The Committee just had to sit and enact the statutory instrument as it was, even though it was clearly laughable, giving far too much cover for payments and not acting as a proper control. That is a minor example, but it shows that there are occasions when Ministers make mistakes and when it would be quite helpful if there were some kind of correcting procedure.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making an important point because he is exposing the very fact that, despite the fine occupant of the Front Bench today, one cannot be 100% certain of the quality of the procedure that is being carried out from the ministerial office. This House is fundamentally the custodian of the public purse and the taxpayers’ money, and we must be absolutely certain that no cheques are blank and signed and left on Government desks.
John Redwood
I am glad we agree about that. I am trying to make a helpful suggestion for the future on this issue and a wider issue to which we need to return at some point. We need a system that establishes parliamentary control—as I have explained, all the methods we are discussing today are parliamentary control of one form or another—but we may need to think about how we improve processes for the future when that control is a statutory instrument.
Mr Grieve
My right hon. Friend is making some important points. If I may say, I have signed up to the amendments tabled by the Procedure Committee because they are a reasonable compromise, but they are most deficient in the absence of a revision mechanism to ask a Minister to reconsider. My right hon. Friend may agree that, even at this stage, those on the Treasury Bench could go away, reconsider the issue and bring a further amendment forward on Report to deal with it.
John Redwood
That may be hanging a bit too much on this piece of legislation. I think this is a wider issue, which Parliament may need to consider, so I was not going that far in my recommendation. However, Ministers would be well advised, if by any chance they did make a mistake in a draft instrument, not to do what the previous Government did and just drive it through, but to accept that they needed to withdraw it and to come back with a corrected version, which would make for better order.
The Bill as drafted, with the amendments to provide a process to make the task of parliamentary scrutiny manageable, is a perfectly sensible package, and I look forward to hearing sensible promises from Ministers on the Front Bench, who I am sure will want to exercise these powers diligently and democratically.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
I rise to speak to amendments 264, 222, 73, 234, 239, 240, 266, 269 and 272, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), and amendment 233, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray). I will also speak in general terms to amendments 206, 268, 271, 274, 216, 265, 207, 208, 205, 267, 270 and 273, in the names of my hon. Friends, which are grouped for debate today, but which will be voted on tomorrow. May I also say that I hope the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) will push his amendment 158? It was debated earlier in Committee, but it is very germane to this debate. [Interruption.] I read that list out because I could not possibly memorise it.
As I said on Second Reading, we are in a dilemma of our own making. We are discussing the possibility that all these powers should be given to Ministers simply because we have not adequately prepared for the process of leaving the European Union. It is three months now since Second Reading, and we do not appear to have gone one step forward in terms of knowing what the effects of that process will be on the body of legislation that already exists in the United Kingdom.
Anna Soubry
It is really quite important to understand that this is the process of leaving the European Union, and it has nothing to do with being unprepared in any way. It was always known—well, in as much as we ever knew anything about Brexit—that this was the sort of thing we would have to do to convey this huge body of EU law into domestic British law, and, on that, we are all agreed.
Tommy Sheppard
The right hon. Lady has much greater faith in the Government’s intentions than I perhaps do. What I am trying to suggest—I thought she might possibly agree with me—is that, by this stage in the process, we ought to have some definition of which Acts of Parliament will require amendment, because there are anomalies in them with regard to the body of EU retained law, and we ought to have narrowed down the number of areas in which we have to give Ministers the power to use their discretion and to bring forward changes through delegated legislation to our existing legislation. The fact that we have not narrowed that down and that we are still talking about giving Ministers quite sweeping and general powers is quite alarming, and I only hope that, as we go to the next stage of this process, we will get more clarity. Ministers’ defence is basically to say, “Trust us to rectify these anomalies and to get things right,” but Opposition Members are saying, “Well, we would be better able to trust you if we were able to get a reassurance that you are not going to use these powers in certain areas.” Yet, Ministers are resisting every attempt to qualify and limit the exercise of these powers.
Tom Brake
I would like the hon. Gentleman to cast his mind back to before 23 June last year. Can he recall prominent leave campaigners suggesting at any stage during that campaign that there would, in fact, be this very large power grab and that taking back control meant the Executive taking power away from Members of Parliament?
Tommy Sheppard
No, the implication was clearly given that control would be taken back by the people. In fact, it seems that control is being taken back by the Executive. In as much as power is going anywhere, it is not coming into this Chamber, certainly at the moment.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I was struck by the rather sweeping statement by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), in reference to clause 7, that we apparently all know what “appropriate” means and that the courts will know what “appropriate” means. Does my hon. Friend, like me, look forward to hearing from the Minister what “appropriate” means, and does he, like me, agree with such distinguished lawyers as those at the Law Society of Scotland and JUSTICE that “appropriate” gives far too wide a discretion to the Government?
Helen Goodman
I just want to back up the hon. Gentleman’s request for more information from the Government. In our report, the Procedure Committee called on the Government to publish
“as soon as possible…an outline schedule for the laying of instruments before the House.”
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we still do not know what the Government have in mind.
Tommy Sheppard
If we had some more of that detail, we would be a little more reassured, and we would not be able to attribute anything other than good intentions to the Government in this process. However, that is not the situation we are in at the moment.
Words are extremely important in this process, because words and meaning have to be shared for us to move forward. If we look at what happened last Friday, we can see a clear example of how one set of words can mean two entirely different things to two different people. It looked as if the Prime Minister—I am sure she genuinely believed this—was signing an agreement on behalf of this country with the 27 other member states of the European Union. She described it as a series of commitments that were being made by this country at this interim stage in the process. Within 24 hours, however, we had the spectacle of one of her closest advisers turning round and taking to the public airwaves to say that these were not commitments at all, but merely a statement of intent. He was sternly reprimanded and corrected the following day, but that does show that, unless we are very careful and precise about the words we use, there is scope for ambiguity and, therefore, misunderstanding.
The first word we should be very careful about is “deficiency”, which appears throughout the Bill, and which is the subject of several of the amendments I am talking to. The word “deficiency”, as it appears in the Bill, need not necessarily mean the absence of something; the EU retained law being brought over could also be deficient if it contains something that prevents the Government of the day from doing what they want to do. I do not want to engage in hyperbole or to give dramatic, unreasonable examples, and I am sure that, for the vast bulk of things, we would all expect to have primary legislation to make policy change, but this issue does open up the scope for making significant policy changes without reference to this Parliament or to primary legislation.
We have already had mention of the working time directive—the 48-hour limit on weekly work. I am not suggesting that the Government would necessarily want to use these powers to overturn completely that and to substitute 48 with 72. However, a Minister in the future—in the period of transition—might well find that the 48 hours is overly prescriptive in a mandatory sense, and might choose to make it more of an advisory notion, rather than something that is absolute and that can be challenged. With the stroke of a pen—overnight—the rights at work of millions of people in this country could simply be eroded. If the Minister is saying that that is not the intention and that it will never happen, he should support amendment 75 in the Lobby tonight, which will make sure that will not happen, because it will exempt workers’ rights from the scope of the legislation.
Tim Farron (Waterford and Lonsdale) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making some excellent points, and I would like to back him up on them. Would it be worth reflecting on the fact that, rightly or wrongly, being in the European Union means that we make some colossal policy assumptions? On environmental matters, one of those assumptions is that it is right that we invest public money in farming to make sure that we protect our countryside. However, we also, without ever having a debate in the House about it, assume that it is right to, effectively, subsidise food in this country. We may now be in a position where we are about to accept that assumption or to move away from it, with colossal consequences for the whole of our society.
Tommy Sheppard
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point that is a further illustration of the dilemma that is now facing us.
Tommy Sheppard
I will give way in a moment, but I want to give a third example, which the Minister may also wish to talk about, regarding the common agricultural policy. At the moment, Scottish farmers are waiting on £160 million of refund payments under the CAP because of the way that it was changed in recent years. The way in which those payments are to be distributed is currently the subject of EU regulations, but what if the Government felt that that was somehow unfair and they wanted to change it? Then, without reference to primary legislation and or to Parliament, they could do so, and the material amount of money that farmers would get would be different from what they expect now. That is just a simple illustration of how these policies could change. I now happily give way to the Minister if he still wants to intervene.
Mr Baker
Could the hon. Gentleman revisit each of the examples he has given and explain why he thinks that they would be deficiencies arising from our withdrawal from the EU, because having listened carefully to him, I do not think that, as my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General is saying, any of them could be classed as deficiencies arising from our withdrawal?
Tommy Sheppard
I do not think that they are deficiencies—that is not my point. My point is that a Minister or a future Minister might regard them as deficiencies, and therefore might change the law in this way.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman has talked about the importance of language in this debate. Should we not all be worried by the actions of this Government over the latest rise in tuition fees, where they refused a vote in this House and ignored an Opposition day debate? The actions of this Government should worry us all when we look ahead to these future arrangements.
Tommy Sheppard
Indeed so. There is always the danger that some of the policies that Government may wish to get through, and would run aground were they to try to introduce them through primary legislation, may be sneaked through the back door in a salami-style way. We do not know. The point is that we are being invited to give Ministers the power whereby these things could happen.
Mary Creagh
I understand and sympathise with the hon. Gentleman’s point on deficiencies. Does he agree that over the weekend we have seen varying interpretations of the meaning of full regulatory alignment, which seems to mean all sorts of different things to different people as the Cabinet tries to have its fudge and eat it?
Tommy Sheppard
Indeed. While I am tempted to digress into a debate on what happened with the phase 1 agreement and regulatory alignment, I think I had better stick to the subject in hand.
With regard to defining “deficiencies” properly, amendment 264 calls on the Government to provide reassurance by bringing forward clear definitions of what they might mean by “deficiencies”. If we had that, we might be better able to consider whether to give them these powers.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I do not know whether it would be possible to find definitions that would help. However, the hon. Gentleman seems unwilling to accept, or certainly has not alluded to, the fact that secondary instruments, as opposed to primary legislation, are justiciable. Our courts are quite used to concepts like deficiency and appropriateness. Is that not what we are relying on—the action of the courts?
Tommy Sheppard
I accept that these things may be challenged, but I am trying to argue for a democratic process whereby it is the elected representatives of the people who debate and choose the policy direction in various areas.
Joanna Cherry
Is the point not really that, as has been pointed out by JUSTICE and the Law Society of Scotland, the term “appropriate” is so wide that it gives the courts a breadth of discretion that they themselves have told us that they do not want?
Tommy Sheppard
Indeed. That takes me nicely to my next point, which concerns the word “appropriate”.
Tommy Sheppard
Can I make a little progress? I do not usually say that, but I am barely halfway through at the moment.
The word “appropriate” is one of those words that is so open-ended and ambiguous that it could literally mean all things to all people. That is why I am a big fan of amendment 2, in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), which attempts to give some definition to what we mean by “appropriate”. I was not quite sure what he was implying about pressing it to a vote, but I hope that he is going to—I would be very happy to support it.
Amendments 205, 206, 216, 17 and 265 also attempt to define the word “appropriate”, with the effect of substituting the word “necessary”. That is a much more agreeable term, because “appropriate” is subjective: what is appropriate for one person may not be appropriate for the other, but what is necessary has to be evidenced by reasons. If something were to be appealed and come to court, it would be much easier to question necessity than appropriateness. These amendments would also be useful.
Let me now talk about the aspects relating to devolution—again, without getting into the phase 1 agreement. Clearly, the whole matter of how powers are exercised by Ministers, whether those powers are residual or broad-brush, has a critical impact on the devolved Administrations. I hope that the Committee will support amendment 161, which requires Ministers to get the consent of devolved Administrations when they are making secondary legislation on matters that affect them. I hope that that sort of qualification will be uncontroversial, but I dare say that it will not be.
Perhaps the most important amendment is 158 in the name of the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth. It simply says that the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 2006 should be exempt from the set of powers that we are giving to UK Ministers to bring forward secondary legislation. The Government already accept that the Northern Ireland Act 1998 has been exempted, so Ministers need to explain why they would exempt one devolved legislature and not the others. How can it be justified in one place and not in the others? Surely it is a simple matter of common sense to say that this provision should confer on UK Ministers an exercise of power in relation to the matters that this Parliament is responsible for, not in relation to those that other Parliaments are responsible for.
I want briefly to mention human rights. I appreciate that the Secretary of State has tabled an amendment, now to be part of what we are discussing, in which he refers to examining the equalities implications for any particular piece of legislation. However, we can do more than that. I want to know why the amendment says that we should exempt the Equality Act 2010 and the Equality Act 2006 from the powers being given to Ministers. If the Government do not accept that, there is always the danger of people implying from their actions that they may wish to do something that would constrain or overturn some of the safeties and securities in those Acts.
Let me talk about the experience that this place has in making secondary legislation. This will not be so important, I suppose, if we end up with a tiny number of residual matters that need to be considered in this way, but if that is not the case—if, because of a lack of legislative time, the Government try to put an awful lot of matters through secondary legislation—then we will be very ill-equipped to deal with that.
Like many Members, I have sat on Delegated Legislation Committees. They are effectively a rubber stamp; we hope that the officials and civil servants who draw up the regulations have worked them out, double-checked them and made sure of them, because we rarely get the opportunity to get into a debate. I well remember a recent Delegated Legislation Committee to which I turned up determined to get involved in a discussion of what the regulations were about, to the dismay of other Members. They were dismayed not by the content of what I said, but by the fact that I said it and made the meeting last 30 mins rather than three, so they missed their subsequent appointments.
That is how Delegated Legislation Committees work at the minute. People regard them as a rubber stamp and something of a joke. If we did not have faith in our civil service and those who prepare the regulations, we would be in a bad way indeed, and that cannot continue. I accept that the amendments tabled by the Procedure Committee are an attempt to overcome many of those deficiencies, but I think that they are baby steps. Of course they are worth taking, but they are minor changes to our procedures. If we try to load on to the existing procedures a vast array of secondary legislation, those procedures will not be fit for purpose and we will end up making bad and ridiculous legislation.
The debate has been about Henry VIII powers. I hope that those who argue for such powers do not go the way of the architect of the previous Henry VIII powers, Thomas Cromwell, and end up in the Tower or dead. I am sure that they will not, but I caution them, when they are considering how much power to give to Ministers—how much power to transfer from the legislature to the Executive—to take a minimalist rather than a maximalist perspective. If they do not, those of us who argue that this is a major power grab by the Executive from the legislature will be entirely justified in doing so.
I urge Ministers to tell us this in their summing up: if they reject every single amendment that is designed to constrain their area of operation—to define the manner in which they might exercise judgment on such matters—what on earth are they going to do instead to reassure this House? We need to know that we are not giving them carte blanche to go forward and do what they want without reference to the democratically elected representatives of the people in this country, for whom control was meant to have been taken back.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. I will do so perhaps rather more briefly and concisely than many others have done, because I know that lots of people want to contribute to this debate.
Up to now, I have sought not to encumber the House and the Government with lots of amendments to an already extensive and comprehensive Bill. I have certainly sought not to bind the Government’s hands in the very difficult process of exiting the EU in the months and years to come—particularly in the complex and important negotiations, which received a substantial boost last Friday. No hon. Member should be in any doubt that there is a serious and growing prospect of our agreeing to a mutually beneficial conclusion to the Brexit negotiations. Why would anybody in this House not want that to happen?
There is, however, an aspect of the Bill that merits a new clause. I am speaking primarily to new clause 53, which is in my name and that of other right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the House. The new clause is designed simply to perpetuate an existing arrangement in family reunion rules. We should take great pride in our involvement in that arrangement. Many of us are concerned that if it does not continue, vulnerable children who are fleeing conflict in the middle east, in particular—this House has heard much about them in the last few years, and is familiar with the situation—could be detained in places of danger. We are doing much to help such children, and we need to do more.
I have seen at first hand the benefits of the Dublin arrangements. My right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and I went to Athens as the guests of UNICEF earlier in the year to visit the refugee projects. I am aware that many other hon. Members have been to Greece, Italy and Calais to see the results of getting it wrong further up the line. The situation in Italy, in particular, is rather more extreme than that in Greece. In Greece, we saw UNICEF and other aid agencies working with a Government under great pressure, and doing a pretty impressive job. Some 30,000 refugees arrived in Greece in 2016, but the number of arrivals has since fallen to a more manageable level. That—not least the almost 3,000 unaccompanied children among those 30,000 refugees—still represents a serious challenge, however.
Tim Farron
I commend the hon. Gentleman for all the remarks that he has just made. I, too, have visited many camps and spoken to unaccompanied child refugees. Does he agree that the case he is making serves as a reminder that our acting honourably and decently, as a country and a continent, does not constitute a pull factor—we are simply responding to the push factor of the appalling circumstances from which those people are fleeing?
Tim Loughton
The hon. Gentleman’s interest in this subject, like that of most others in the House, is exceedingly well founded, but I do not want to confuse the Dublin scheme with other schemes, about which we have had debates in this country.
This approach is aimed at—Government policy is also, quite rightly, aimed at—trying to keep children who have lost their parents or become separated from them in places of safety. Where possible, such places should be close to their places of origin, from where they may, if possible, be repatriated to countries such as Syria. They can be housed in communities who speak the same language and have similar cultures, which will provide some degree of continuity in their otherwise traumatic, ruptured existence. When that is not possible and there are family members in other European countries, the children can be given stability with them.
I do not want to get into the schemes, such as those set up in the past by other countries, that I am afraid have acted as a magnet for children who, at the hands of people traffickers and others, have taken to boats in very dangerous circumstances. The policy of this Government has been the absolutely right one of trying to keep such children out of the hands of those who want to profit from human misery and take advantage of their desperate circumstances.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It may disturb the hon. Gentleman to know that I have signed his new clause, and I agree very much with him and the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) on this issue. This weekend, I was in Calais, where a 10-year-old is sleeping rough because we do not have the systems in place under the legislation to be able to assess his right to be in the UK. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what is so important about the amendments to protect the Dublin process is not just its principles, but its practice and what happens if and when we leave the European Union?
Tim Loughton
I am not alarmed by the fact that the hon. Lady has signed my new clause 53; I am flattered and encouraged. I would expect nothing else from the hon. Lady, who has taken an interest in this area. However, Calais is a sign of failure: it should not be happening. We should be dealing with those children closer to home, or leapfrogging Calais altogether and placing them in places of safety in the United Kingdom, Sweden or France itself. The issue is baffling to me—I have spoken about it many times. If what is happening in Calais was happening in the United Kingdom, our children’s services would be placing those children in a place of safety, not allowing them to remain at liberty and be exposed to people traffickers, sex traffickers and all sorts of other criminals who would harm them.
I want to get back to what my new clause attempts to do. As we leave the European Union and therefore Dublin III, the UK’s different—in this case, slightly more restrictive—immigration rules will provide the only means by which refugee children can be legally reunited with their families. As the UK looks to improve our own laws through the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and to replicate the provisions ensuring that children stranded in Europe can be brought to join asylum-seeking family members in the UK, it is imperative that it should broaden the scope of the definition of “family” in our own British immigration rules so that these are in line with the current European ones. That will allow children to be reunited with close family members, wherever they are. Hence the importance of continuity and of perpetuating the existing situation, which works well; it could work better, but the principle is certainly absolutely right.
The UK’s immigration rules can apply to children anywhere in the world, and they therefore provide a safe and legal route for children, avoiding the need for them to embark on perilous journeys to Europe, which have been discussed. We need to build on this very positive aspect of the rules. The UK should amend its immigration rules on refugee family reunion to allow extended family members who have refugee or humanitarian status—adult siblings, grandparents, aunts and uncles, as I have mentioned—to sponsor children in their family to join them in the UK when it is in the child’s best interests to do so. That point about the child’s best interests must be absolutely paramount, as it is the basis of all our child welfare legislation in this country. After years of conflict, many of these children have been orphaned or do not know where their parents are, but they may have grandparents, aunts and uncles, or adult brothers and sisters in the UK, who can care for them.
If these changes were made to the UK immigration rules, that would enable children to be transferred from their region of origin and reunited in a regular, managed and safe way. Refugee family reunion transfers would all be processed by UK embassies or consulates, meaning that we could take back control of this process and ensure it works at a speed—it needs to be quicker than it is now—that is in the best interests of the children.
Without the changes, children will continue to be vulnerable in being forced to take dangerous journeys and put themselves at risk. The whole thrust of our asylum policy on looking after these vulnerable children has been to keep them away from such harm. Last year, some 700 unaccompanied refugee children were united with their families using the European system, which is on top of all the other schemes to which the UK currently subscribes.
I hope that my new clause is a helpful probing amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for Immigration, who has met my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough and me to discuss this issue. He is sympathetic to what we are trying to achieve. I acknowledge that the timing of the new clause might be better in a forthcoming immigration Bill, but it is useful to put it on the record now to get a comment from Ministers about the Government’s intentions at the appropriate time and perhaps with more appropriate wording; the word “appropriate” continues to appear.
My new clause is intended to build on the good work that the UK Government have done for so many thousands of child refugees so far. That good work has resulted from the huge investment—now of over £2.3 billion on Syrian refugees alone—aimed at frustrating the people traffickers and others who would harm these very vulnerable children. Such a change would show that the United Kingdom intends to continue, after Brexit, to be a leading force for humanitarian good outside the EU on the basis of British principles, British attitudes to the welfare of the child and British generosity in looking after, as we have done for so many years, those most in need. This system works, and we must make sure that it continues to work after Brexit.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I rise to speak briefly to amendments 48, 49 and 52 in my name. They have cross-party support, including from other Select Committee Chairs, because they are about safeguarding the role of Parliament and preventing the concentration of power in the hands of the Executive.
Before I talk in detail about those amendments, I want to support new clause 53 and the words of my Home Affairs Committee colleague, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). He is right that we need to continue with our historical obligations towards refugees and with the principle of family reunion, ensuring that child refugees are not separated from their family and do not lose their rights to be reunited with family members who can care for them, especially when families have been separated by persecution and conflict. He is also right that this is about preventing the people traffickers, the exploitation and the modern slavery that can cause such harm and blight so many lives.
Our Committee has often found evidence that leads us to want the Dublin III process to work faster and more effectively, not for the principles behind it to be ripped up and thrown away. I therefore welcome the fact that, as the hon. Gentleman has said, Ministers have shown an interest in supporting the continuation of these historical obligations. I hope that that will be addressed if not in this Bill, then in either an immigration Bill or in the withdrawal agreement Bill in due course.
The amendments I have tabled to clause 7 address the concern, raised by so many of us, that Parliament is being asked to hand over considerable powers to the Executive without sufficient safeguards. That concentration of powers in the hands of the Executive—a concentration not seen since the days of the infamous Tudor monarch—goes against the very reason why all of us were elected to this place: the legislature has an historic obligation to place checks on the power of the Executive, in order to prevent concentrations and abuses of power, in relation to Brexit or to anything else. It is an obligation that each of us takes on when we swear the oath at the Dispatch Box.
Mr Grieve
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). I draw the Committee’s attention to my new clause 82 and amendments 15, 1, 388, 5, 2, 389, 16, 13, 3, 4 and 12. I apologise to the Committee for so burdening the amendment paper this afternoon, but that simply reflects the importance of clause 7 and the fact that, while there are many important aspects to the Bill, clause 7 and the powers that the Government intend to take in order to deal with deficiencies arising from the UK’s withdrawal are so controversial.
I remember a long time ago, when I was newly elected to this place, listening to a debate in which an Opposition Back Bencher, also newly elected, asked why we have Second Reading debates at all, because, in view of the size of the Government majority, they were bound to be a foregone conclusion. She suggested, as I recollect, that in the circumstances Second Reading should be merely formal and that we should move straight on to the Committee stage. The issue before us today touches directly on what was said then, because it is not only a question of parliamentary sovereignty that is at stake, and the extent to which we want to hand over power to the Executive; it is also a question of whether we want to maintain the rule of law by good governance. This House, not without good reason, has over time evolved processes and procedures that present the Government with hurdles when it comes to the enactment of primary legislation. We take Bills through Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading precisely because we, and our forebears in this place, have come to understand that that is the way, by a process of debate through which we moderate each other’s ideas, we are likely to achieve the most sensible outcome. Indeed, we have been doing that consistently. I praise the Government for the time they have given us to do precisely that on the Bill.
However, that is the very reason why we should be so cautious when the Government ask us to change the rulebook, for what are undoubtedly primary legislative changes, to give them the power to bring about all those changes by statutory instrument. It may be that statutory instruments can be debated—although in many cases, as we know, they are not—but the fact remains that the process of debate, particularly if it touches on matters of importance, is likely to be incomplete and unsatisfactory. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) so tellingly made the point about the deficiencies of our statutory instrument system in relation to not being able to ask Ministers to go away to consider the deficiencies—if I may hijack that word—in their own proposals.
That is why I have found clause 7 particularly difficult in the context of being able to support the Government. There are two ways in which the challenges of clause 7 can be met. The first is to improve the scrutiny process by which the House goes about its business. The second, as has been suggested by the numerous amendments I shall come back to in a moment, is to try to restrict the scope of the powers the Government have taken, or at the very least to get the Government during the course of the passage of the Bill to justify each and every one of them.
On the scrutiny process, the Government have moved. I tabled amendment 3, which appears on the selection list for debate this afternoon, because I went to the Hansard Society, as I am sure other hon. Members did, and got its assistance in looking at ways in which our scrutiny processes might be improved. Amendment 3 and the consequential amendments derived from it came from that exercise. I have to say to the Minister—I again endorse my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham; I am sorry he is not in his place to hear my eulogy of him—that we very badly need a total reform of our statutory instrument system. It is deficient in a whole range of matters. The Bill provides a possible opportunity on how we might make a significant change: providing a proper triage mechanism, giving the House a degree of control over the process, allowing for a dialogue between the House and the Minister, and still enabling statutory instruments to be enacted.
The Government, who I appreciate are under a lot of pressure over a whole range of matters, in particular the word “time”—which I think Monsieur Barnier keeps on repeating, but it is a matter with which we all in this House have to concern ourselves—have been reluctant to do that. In has stepped my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) to tell us that he has a different way of approaching this. Looking at the Procedure Committee’s proposals, I am impressed by what his Committee has achieved. I continue to have some reservations about some aspects, in particular the point highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham on the inability to engage in preliminary dialogue and to ask for revision, but for the purpose of dealing with the avalanche of statutory instruments about to come in our direction the amendment that has been tabled will enable the House to do its job properly.
Much is going to depend—I hesitate to say this, because in this House we are all equal—on the Government’s common sense on how those who are to be appointed to the Committee are chosen. There are plenty of Members on all sides who have a keen understanding of what a statutory instrument is, a keen understanding of how it should work and an ability to sniff out when it is being misused. It is those individuals, if I may say so to my hon. Friends and to the Whips on the Government Front Bench, who ought to be appointed. Without that, a committee will have no credibility at all. I appreciate that we will have to move on to consider Standing Orders. If we do this properly and with good will on all sides, my assessment is that the Government will be helped.
Mr Grieve
I am already the Chairman of another Committee of Parliament, and I think it might be undesirable to burden me with extra work. Indeed, there are plenty of other people in this House who are capable of doing this work. Obviously, if somebody wanted to ask me, I would give it consideration, but I am always conscious of being rather too thinly spread as it is, so I do not put myself forward.
Mr Grieve
Such organisations can be summoned before the new Select Committee. They can come along and provide input to the committee on anything that has been tabled; that has been my understanding of how it would work and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, sitting to my right, has just confirmed that. There is a mechanism here. Obviously, to come back to the point I made earlier, this depends on the quality of the committee and shows why it will be so important. It also comes back to the Procedure Committee and how it works. For all those reasons, I think that this is a workable arrangement.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
On the quality of the committee and the scrutiny process, the committee will be scrutinising changes to detailed pieces of European legislation. In my experience, in other countries’ Parliaments, an expert committee often does the scrutiny. So financial experts would consider a piece of finance legislation; environmental legislation would be considered by environment experts; and a judicial piece of legislation might be considered by those involved with their justice committee. Does he agree that it would be sensible to include Members with expertise in the underlying legislation, as well as in British legal practice, on the committee?
Mr Grieve
That would be a very sensible course of action. As I say, the burden is on the Government to show some common sense and inventiveness in how they approach this. My understanding is also that, as was mentioned earlier, the committee will not have a Government majority—
Mr Grieve
Indeed. To that extent, it will, as I understand it, have sufficient flexibility and will, I hope, also be able to command enough confidence. These are difficult issues, but, as I say, I am mindful of the fact that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, having been asked to consider this, have gone and done it in a conciliatory and sensible spirit. For that reason—we were talking earlier about trust—this is one matter on which I have trust in the way that they have responded and that this will be sufficient for the work we have to do.
In the longer term, this issue will not go away, and I feel strongly that this House ought to be thinking about how it can assert itself again to take a better system of scrutiny than that which we have at the moment. Heaven knows, I have sat through enough of these Committees to know their deficiencies. It is also noteworthy that, although some jurisdictions have specialist committees linked to each of their select committees to consider legislation, we do not—something I have always found mystifying. I also served for four years on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It was a very interesting Committee, but, again, it did not really have the necessary bite to correct what were sometimes egregious howlers, of the kind that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham pointed out.
I turn now to the other way this matter can be looked at: by trying to constrain the powers the Government are taking. Of course, the vast majority of the amendments I have tabled along with my right hon. and hon. Friends concern constraining those powers. For example, amendment 2, which has been mentioned, would use a process first introduced in 2006 in seeking to constrain the powers set out by applying the concept of reasonableness and proportionality. Another example is my amendment 1, which would leave out the words
“(but are not limited to)”,
and so limit the deficiencies to the list of powers and functions set out in clause 7(2).
The Government have here an enormous menu of options by which the powers in clause 7, and indeed elsewhere in the Bill, can be constrained. I do not want to repeat some of the things we have said in earlier sittings of this Committee. The question for me is: how will the Government respond? There is a legitimate argument from the Government, which I have heard and listened to, that they ought to go away and consider the variety of amendments—mine are not the only ones; a great range of amendments have been tabled from across the House, and each, in my judgment, is valid. The Government have to come up with a response on how they can constrain the powers set out. At the moment, my opinion is that these powers are far too stark, far too great and not necessary. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), to whom I also always listen very carefully on these matters, approaches this matter from a slightly different angle, so I was interested to hear him say that he thought the powers were excessive and unnecessary—I hope that I do not paraphrase him wrongly.
In those circumstances, the Government have to think again. I do not want to be particularly prescriptive, because it seems to me that there are a range of ways in which this could be done. I want to hear from Ministers this afternoon broadly how they will respond to the amendments and give some thought to coming back on Report with a constraint on the powers set out. There are probably two ways this can be done—indeed, we could do both. The first is to accept some of the amendments. On my amendment 1, for example, I continue to be bemused that, in view of the extensive nature of subsection (2)(a) to (g), it is in fact necessary to provide a further power. I think that there are excessive jitters within Departments. Somebody ought to have the courage to say, “Find me some examples that fall outside the scope,” and if they can, they should add those to the list and take out the unlimited nature of the powers at the top of the clause.
I accept, picking up something that was said earlier in Committee, that the word “deficiency” provides some constraint. I take the view that if an attempt were made to extend the use of the powers outside of correcting a deficiency, it could be challenged in court, but we do not want to end up with court challenges. I say to Ministers that that would be the worst possible place to end up in January 2019—the clock ticking and people claiming the Government have used excessive powers. That would contribute to chaos rather than certainty, so the issue needs to be addressed.
The second issue, which has been highlighted by some of the other Members who have spoken, is whether the Government can sensibly identify areas of particular concern to the House, such as children’s rights, environmental law or equality rights, that can be safely cordoned off—or, in the case of children’s rights, specifically inserted—to reassure the House that these powers will not be used for a purpose other than that which was intended. That seems to me to be the challenge.
For those reasons, I am going to listen very carefully. I want to avoid putting any of my numerous amendments to the vote, but that will depend first on the answer that I receive from the Dispatch Box this afternoon and secondly on whether the answer is sufficiently clear and shows a willingness by the Government overall—we have debated this on previous days—to go away and consider the matter properly, and then come back with a sensible proposal on Report. I should be happy to wait until then, because that is exactly what the process of legislation is about—waiting to see what the Government come up with—but I put them on notice that if what they come up with is inadequate, the debate on Report will allow us to re-table amendments, or table them in a slightly different form. If necessary, we will vote on them, and I will vote to ensure that the powers are not as they currently appear. That is the challenge to the Government, and I expect a response. Provided that I receive that response, I will sit on my numerous amendments this afternoon.
Let me say one more thing, about a matter that has not been much touched on. My new clause 82 deals with tertiary powers. This is a little bit technical, but I do not like tertiary powers. I do not like them one little bit. They are, of course, powers that ultimately do not come to this place at all. I want to find out this afternoon what tertiary powers are actually for, and I want the Government to give some examples to justify their appearance in the Bill. I confess that I found it slightly difficult to see why they had crept in. One or two people have suggested some possible reasons, but I should like to hear rather more this afternoon; otherwise, again, I put the Government on notice that I shall return to this matter on Report. I do not think that the world would come to an end if they were to disappear from the Bill, although my hon. Friend the Minister may persuade me otherwise. As a result of the Government’s approach, we have already made great progress on triage. I am grateful to them for that, because it is exactly how the Bill should be dealt with. However, I want to see some progress on constraining the powers and making them less extensive, because I think that they are unnecessarily broad.
Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
As ever, I am considering what my right hon. and learned Friend is saying with enormous care. Much of it has enormous force and makes a great deal of sense. However, if his objective in amendment 2, which inserts proportionality and reasonable tests, is to avoid resort to the courts, I should point out that the insertion of a clause of that kind is more likely to encourage resort to the courts than to deter it.
Mr Grieve
Such measures may act as a constraint, but once Ministers have taken the plunge, there will not be much that we can do. That is precisely why there is a menu of options. I personally would prefer Ministers to do a proper exercise of asking themselves whether they really need individual powers in their current extensive form. That would be the easier course, and it would provide much greater certainty and avoid the lawyers, although it might do my hon. and learned Friend out of a brief fee or two, but lawyers on the whole ought not to benefit from defective legislation in so far as possible. I am grateful to the House for listening, and I look forward to hearing the response of my hon. Friend the Minister.
Mary Creagh
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). If he is concerned about tertiary legislation, I invite him to co-sign my amendment 291, which will be taken on day 8 of our consideration of this Bill, and which would require all tertiary legislation made under powers under these regulations to be subject to parliamentary control. That would go some way towards addressing some of the concerns he and I have about tertiary legislation.
I rise to speak to new clause 62 and amendment 138, tabled in my name. This Bill poses a severe risk that environmental legislation on exit day becomes zombie legislation, no longer updated or enforced, and vulnerable to being watered down or dropped entirely. Amendment 138 seeks to prevent environmental protections from being watered down, and new clause 62 would require the Government to come up with a solution to the governance gap.
That is important because 80% of the UK’s environmental protections come from EU law. This Bill will have to deal with swathes of environmental law, and we do not want it tampered or fiddled about with in any way if we leave. Those laws have brought us a very long way since the 1970s when we were seen as the dirty man of Europe, but they are neither self-executing nor self-policing. They set air quality targets, climate change targets and water quality standards, and the rules and regulations affect almost every aspect of our waste management industry. It was interesting that the Prime Minister said yesterday that waste, water, food and agriculture would all be subject to continued regulatory alignment; we wait to see what that means in practice. Those laws mean we bathe on cleaner beaches, drive more fuel-efficient cars and can hold the Government to account on air pollution.
We are part of a global gold standard in chemicals regulation, and the chemicals and pharmaceuticals industry yesterday wrote to the Environment Secretary stating in terms that it wishes to stay in the registration, evaluation and authorisation of chemicals regulation. On a previous day’s consideration of this Bill, the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, told me in response to my concerns on REACH that it is directly applicable in UK law, but he fundamentally misunderstands what REACH does. It creates a body—the European Chemicals Agency—which regulates, evaluates, authorises and enforces that law. We do not have such a body in UK law, so although that directive may be directly applicable and be valid in UK law, there is no body to carry out its functions. As we go through this Bill we are going to find that that is the case. There may be a body that the Minister thinks he can dump those functions on through a duplication of legislation, but that is not a perfect or elegant solution. Today, we are a world leader in environmental standards, and, crucially, we are able to hold this Government to account. That certainly focuses Ministers’ minds when there is the threat of infringement or infraction proceedings.
Leaving the EU means we lose those governance, enforcement and accountability mechanisms, and new clause 62 requires the Government to ensure that environmental law is enforced after exit day. That is why my Committee called for a new environmental protection Act. The Government have said that that will not be necessary, so since they have refused to introduce such an Act, amendment 138 aims to preserve retained EU environmental law. Much of this environmental law will need technical corrections, and the unpicking of 40 years of legal ties to EU institutions and agencies is the biggest administrative and constitutional task that this country has faced since world war two.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend aware of the fact that at least half of the approximately 42 EU agencies that exist offer no provision for the participation of third countries? Could she perhaps ask Members on the other Benches how the Government can possibly build the necessary capacity when we are unable to participate in those agencies?
Mary Creagh
My hon. Friend raises an excellent point, which has also been raised by the European Chemicals Agency. Those registrations, which will have cost our businesses £250 million, will fall on exit day. I know that that particular agency does allow third countries to participate, but when I tabled a parliamentary question to various Departments about the work they had done to prepare to duplicate the work of those regulatory agencies, I got a series of flannel-type replies that essentially said, “We don’t know how much it is going to cost, we don’t know what the system is going to be and we haven’t really started the work.” That is simply not good enough. Businesses and citizens deserve certainty. We are going to need between 800 and 1,000 statutory instruments before exit day to correct retained law. In a letter to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in September, the Environment Secretary said that there were 850 pieces of legislation relating to his Department that would no longer work after exit day unless they were corrected. That is an absolutely huge body of law.
Clause 7, as we have heard, gives Ministers powers to make regulations that they believe are appropriate—again, I dispute what “appropriate” might be—to
“prevent, remedy or mitigate…any failure of EU retained law to operate effectively”—
again, how do we know what the full scope of this clause will cover? This is a huge amount of law—
“or…any other deficiency in retained EU law”
where this arises from exit. The Bill’s explanatory notes contain a worrying and rather brazen example of what this means. They use the example of the UK having to obtain an opinion from the EU Commission, stating:
“In this instance the power to correct the law would allow the Government to amend UK domestic legislation to either replace the reference to the Commission with a UK body”—
should the Government decide to have one—
“or remove this requirement completely.”
Once we start to see the removal of reporting and enforcement requirements, we get to the heart of the Bill, which is that Brexit is a deregulators’ charter. This is about taking rights away and about ensuring that environmental and social rights are lost to our citizens. I do not want to see Ministers making those sweeping changes with no scrutiny in this place.
In part 1 of schedule 7, paragraph 3(2) waives the affirmative procedure for regulations where the Minister is of the opinion that
“by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make the regulations without a draft being so laid and approved.”
That basically says that the Government will not consult this House if the matter is urgent. They have said that they will accept the amendments tabled by the Procedure Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), but those provisions could be waived if a Minister was of the opinion that the regulations were urgent. The Government want to pass 800 to 1,000 statutory instruments, 850 of which are in the environment sphere. Can anyone tell me which of those regulations will not be urgent, given that they need to be passed before exit day?
Mary Creagh
I thank the Minister for that clarification.
What could possibly be watered down? The Environmental Audit Committee asked the Transport Secretary for a guarantee that air quality standards would not be watered down after Brexit, but he refused to give us that guarantee, saying that he found it
“hard to believe that any Minister is going to stand before this House and argue for a reduction in air quality standards.”
He is right. No Minister will have to stand before this House and argue for that, because the Bill does away with that requirement. We saw the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union’s mask slip once before during his statement to this House on the White Paper, when he said:
“This is about reversing—well, not reversing but amending—and dealing with 40 years’ accumulated policy and law.”—[Official Report, 2 February 2017; Vol. 620, c. 1220.]
That was a Freudian slip that I return to time and again. We have also seen that from the Environment Secretary. Paeans have been heaped on his head, but in April, between his visiting Donald Trump in January and his rehabilitation to the Cabinet, he railed against the habitats directive, which he now somehow wants to protect from himself. He talked about homes in his constituency being governed by the habitats directive and how onerous it was for developers to have to offset their projects with green spaces. There is obviously more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents, but he was a deregulator before his damascene conversion. He is now deeply penitent, spending his day listening to the experts, and has since acknowledged that the environment needs to be protected from
“the unscrupulous, unprincipled, or careless”.
I wonder which of his colleagues he had in mind and who may yet succeed him at DEFRA.
How might Ministers go about watering down EU standards? The 2008 classification, labelling and packaging regulation or CLP regulation—CLP means something quite different in Labour terminology—is an example of direct EU legislation under clause 3, which will become retained EU law under clause 6. The CLP regulation aligns the EU’s system of classifying, labelling and packaging chemical substances. It enables chemical products to be traded in the European single market while protecting workers, consumers and the environment. It is why drain cleaners—the sulphuric acid that has been used in the terrible acid attacks—and paint strippers bear the red diamond hazard signs, with which we are all familiar. The regulation will need to be corrected after exit day, but the corrections proposed in the Government’s delegated powers memorandum show how the CLP regulation would be dramatically watered down.
The draft statutory instrument proposes to omit article 46 of the CLP regulation. Article 46 obliges the Government to enforce the safety standards in the regulation and to report on how well those standards are being enforced. In that draft SI, the Government say that because the Commission does not exist, they do not need to report to the Commission, and because they do not need to report, they do not need to enforce. This is a granular and detailed amendment, but that is the sort of thing that the proposed sifting committee will have to consider with an electron microscope to get to the heart of every single deficiency, some of which—with the best will in the world—will not appear until there is a legal challenge. We do not want the labelling and packaging of dangerous chemicals not to be enforced and not reported to any body. Some hon. Members may not be as sceptical as I am about Ministers’ intentions, but none of us can predict the future. We have had three Environment Secretaries in as many years.
Amendment 138 would protect retained EU environmental law, requiring Ministers to certify that they are satisfied that regulations made under clause 7 will not remove or reduce any environmental protection provided by retained EU law. That certification—similar to that created by the Human Rights Act—would be justiciable, meaning that it can be challenged in a court of law. An individual or group could apply for a judicial review if they felt that regulations made under clause 7 had removed or reduced environmental protection. That would not delay leaving the EU, but it would provide a vital check on the powers in clause 7, and it protects the protections.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I just ask Members to bear in mind that a lot of colleagues wish to speak and the Minister will be coming in at some point.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I certainly will bear that in mind, Dame Rosie, and thank you for calling me.
I rise to speak to my amendments 392 to 398. I am not going to read out each one for the benefit of colleagues, because all colleagues can read. The amendments have been covered by various colleagues, from both sides of the House, so I shall stick to discussing the broad principles, but I will of course be happy to answer any questions or criticisms that colleagues may have.
First, may I thank the Procedure Committee for its hard work in producing the report published on 6 November? It is worth pointing out to colleagues how well Select Committees perform in this place. We are obsessed—or all too often we give the impression that we are obsessed—with partisan politics. Of course when people tune in on Wednesday at midday, that is what they see in this place. Our report was agreed unanimously by 15 Members of Parliament, six of whom are Government Members and nine of whom are Opposition Members. It is important to get that on the record. Also important is the fact that we did not let the pursuit of perfection get in the way of sensible compromise.
I can understand that a number of colleagues here today are somewhat disappointed, or remain dissatisfied, with what the Government have brought forward, but, as we have heard from Opposition Front Benchers, Opposition Back Benchers, Government Front Benchers and Government Back Benchers, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), there is broad acceptance that these amendments are a very positive step forward. As Chair of the Committee, I of course endorse that view.
Let us not underestimate the powers that the sifting committee will have. A Select Committee is like water: it gets in everywhere and all too often into places where it is not welcome. So I am certain that with a good and strong chairman who is respected by both sides of the House, a committee comprising experts—committed parliamentarians—will do the right thing by this place.
Chris Bryant
The thing is that the hon. Gentleman’s Committee is chaired by a man who is respected by both sides of the House and much loved by many people in all parts of this House, yet his Committee has regularly produced reports that have been completely and utterly ignored by the Government. That is the problem: he is still asking us to trust the Government in the end.
Mr Walker
I count the hon. Gentleman as a great friend, and say to him that yes, all too often I have come to this place in a state of high dudgeon, deeply depressed by the performance of my Government’s Front-Bench team, but on this occasion I assure him that the Government have accepted amendments and tabled draft Standing Orders, which are available today for all colleagues to read, so progress has been made. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that the report had the support of every member of the Procedure Committee.
The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) expressed concern about what teeth the sifting committee would have. It is absolutely right that, as he identified, the committee would not be able to insist that the Government change a negative statutory instrument into an affirmative one, because if it could, the committee could just turn around and say, “Right, we want every single negative SI to be affirmative, and that’s the end of it. Be on your way and we’ll see you in a couple of years’ time.” I do not think that would be sensible.
The political cost to my Front-Bench colleagues of going against a sifting committee recommendation would be significant. The committee will have to give a reason why it is in disagreement, the Minister will be summoned to explain his or her Department’s position, and it will be flagged up on the Order Paper if a particular SI has not been agreed between the sifting committee and the Government. That will result in a significant political cost, because what we do most effectively of all in this place is to generate political cost. When a Government fail, or even, indeed, when an Opposition fail, there is a cost to their credibility and reputation. It is important to highlight that.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Procedure Committee, and I really welcome its proposals. Does he think that this idea should be extended to all statutory instruments?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend tempts me so much. It is not my intention today to spook the Government, but I think the sifting committee will probably be so successful that the Government and the House will want to embrace it for all negative SIs going forward.
I listened to the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) about the performance of Delegated Legislation Committees. I share those concerns, but a Minister turns up at those Committees, and it is often we Members of Parliament who fail to hold that Minister to account. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) is on the Front Bench, and I remember discussing this issue with him in the 1922 committee when he was but a humble foot soldier, like me. I remember a blog he posted early in his tenure in this place, in 2010, in which he expressed dismay at the lackadaisical approach of scrutiny in Delegated Legislation Committees. Again, that is not the Government’s fault; it is our fault as Members of Parliament. What is so refreshing about these eight days of scrutiny of the Bill on the Floor of the House is that right hon. and hon. Members of Parliament from both sides of the House and from all sides of the argument are turning up and holding the Government to account. It is our duty to do that in every Committee of the House.
I said I would be brief, and I think I have been. I hope I have covered most of the relevant concerns, but there is one further concern to which I would like the Government to respond. Several speakers have rightly identified that the Bill will result in up to 800 or 1,000 SIs—it could be more; it could be a little less. The Government have reassured us that the Cabinet’s Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee will look at the workload to manage an effective flow without peaks and troughs. That is a useful reassurance, but the Government need to go further. There needs to be a system, which was identified by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), where the House can have sight and pre-warning of what is coming. That might be difficult to achieve, but I hear what she is saying and think that it is a sensible suggestion. On that note, and accepting that all colleagues here have read the Select Committee report and the Government response, and are adequately familiar with the amendments, I shall sit down and not detain this wonderful place further.
Tom Brake
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker). He has set out a system, which will be tested the first time the Government refuse a recommendation from the Committee. Then we will see whether the system works in practice.
There are many, many amendments, cross-party in nature, which I will be supporting if they are pressed to a vote today, including amendments from the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), who opened this debate, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and many others whom I do not have time to mention. That underlines the cross-party nature of this whole matter.
There are a number of amendments in my name—a disparate group, ranging from EU citizens and the single market to EU agencies and their UK successors, and equality and human rights legislation. I shall focus principally on the single market and the equality and human rights legislation.
Amendment 124 is on the single market. Members here will know that I am very much after red meat when it comes to the single market: I think that the UK should stay in the single market permanently. However, in case Members here are reluctant to support the amendment, I wish to point out that that is not what it actually brings about. It is quite specific in ensuring that the Government cannot use regulation-making powers in a way that would lead the UK to diverge from the single market. On that basis, I hope that Members on both sides of the House will not see it as seeking to lock us into the single market permanently, which of course is what I would like to do; it is slightly less wide-ranging than that.
Angela Smith
May I take it from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that he is arguing that we should indeed be keeping all options on the table, including the single market, and that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed?
Tom Brake
Absolutely. Many Members on both sides of the House know that one of the most damaging things that the Government did from the outset was to rule out membership of the single market and the customs union—particularly the customs union. We can see what problems that has caused in relation to Ireland and Northern Ireland. Even now, that can has simply been kicked down the road. The issue has not been resolved in any shape or form.
It is probably fair to say that people, including Members in this House, now have a much clearer understanding of exactly what the single market is. I know that there are Members, particularly on the Government Benches, who claim that, during the course of the EU referendum campaign, people had a very clear idea of what the single market was and what the customs union was; they did not want to be in them. Frankly, I do not believe that to be true. It may be that some of those Members had in their constituencies a trade specialist or an economist who knew precisely what the single market and the customs union were, but I am afraid that, broadly speaking, there was not a great degree of awareness of what they constituted—I am talking about the fact that the single market ensures that UK companies can trade with the other 27 EU countries without any restrictions and without facing arbitrary barriers. That is why it is essential that people support this amendment.
I hope that, in the longer term, the Government will see sense and realise that it is in the UK’s economic interests to stay in the single market and the customs union. I know that my amendment has cross-party support, but I hope that I will also get support from the Labour Front-Bench team, because that will reinforce the message that I am hearing from the Labour party that it is committed to the single market and customs union for the transition period. What I need to hear is that, beyond the transition period, there is also a commitment to the single market and the customs union. The Labour Front-Bench team say they are worried about jobs, and such a commitment is the best way of securing jobs in the United Kingdom. I hope I will get support for that; I will be pressing amendment 124 to a vote.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will get a lot of support from the Labour Benches if his amendment is pressed to a vote. To be fair to our Front Benchers, they have made it clear that they think the option of staying in the single market and the customs union should remain on the table after the transition. The right hon. Gentleman was not quite fair in his description of our Front-Bench policy as I understand it.
Tom Brake
All right—the right hon. Gentleman is probably closer to his Front Bench’s policy than I am, certainly in respect of the understanding of it, if not necessarily the direct input. I hope that Labour may be able to take things one step further: to make staying in the single market and the customs union not an option but the party’s actual policy. As I said in an earlier intervention, staying in the single market was in the 2015 Conservative manifesto, which also mentioned the benefits of doing so.
I turn to amendments 363 and 364, and a number of other related amendments, which are on equality and human rights law. The amendments are needed to prevent changes to fundamental rights being made without full parliamentary scrutiny. The Bill permits Ministers to amend laws, including Acts of Parliament, by delegated legislation. The Government have said that the powers will not be used for significant policy changes and that current protections for equality rights and workers’ rights will be maintained. I welcome those commitments, but in order to protect fundamental rights, it is essential that they are guaranteed by reflecting them in the extent of the delegated powers in the Bill.
Many other Members have quoted the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, so I will not. That Committee has expressed strong concerns about the Government’s approach, as has the House of Lords Constitution Committee, which it might be worth quoting. It believes:
“The executive powers conferred by the Bill are unprecedented and extraordinary and raise fundamental constitutional questions about the separation of powers between Parliament and Government.”
That point has been repeated by many Members during these days of debate.
I welcome the fact that the Bill already prevents the use of delegated powers to amend the Human Rights Act 1998, which, of course, recognises the importance of the rights it protects. However, if the Bill does that for the Human Rights Act, I do not quite understand why it does not protect the rights in other Acts. The Equality Act 2006 and the Equality Act 2010 must also be protected, as must the Employment Rights Act 1996 and secondary legislation such as the Working Time Regulations 1998, which were mentioned in an earlier contribution. My amendments would protect the rights in such legislation. I am unlikely to press them to a vote, but the Labour party’s amendments 25 to 27 are similar. In fact, they could be improved by providing equivalent protection to the Equality Act 2006.
In the first day in Committee, the Government made a commitment to table amendment 391, which they have done. I welcome that, but I would like the Minister to clarify one point. I think it was the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), who said that the Government would ensure that they would address
“the presentation of any Brexit-related primary or secondary legislation”—[Official Report, 21 November 2017; Vol. 631, c. 904.]
But as far as I read it, the amendment refers only to secondary legislation. I am not sure whether that means that there will be further amendments, that the Minister misspoke originally or that we are to expect more. Perhaps the Minister will pick up on that point when he responds.
I have a couple more minutes, in which I will refer briefly to EU citizens’ rights. Now, I hope that people are not under the impression that, in moving on to phase 2 of the negotiations, EU citizens in the UK or UK citizens in the EU are happy with where we are at; clearly, they are not. Some 3 million EU citizens in the UK still have significant concerns around the time limits being placed on certain protections. They are also concerned about the all too frequent errors that occur in the Home Office—something with which we are all too familiar—which they anticipate leading to a large number of problems with the proposed changes regarding their status. Nor are UK citizens in the EU any happier with the outcome, and they are as critical of the EU as they are of the UK Government in terms of the speed with which they have moved on. However, as has been said in the debate, given that nothing is agreed until everything has been agreed, those issues can still be pursued.
The final point I want to make relates to amendment 121. If I had had time, I would have read out the list of 21 organisations, although by the sounds of it, given the earlier intervention on this issue, I have missed about 19 organisations, because there are more than 40. However, I would have liked to ask Members present, in a moment of truth and honesty, whether any of them had anticipated that all the organisations on the list would be affected by our leaving the European Union—if, indeed, we do leave, because nothing is certain on that front. I suspect that not a single Member here would have claimed, if they had answered honestly, that they knew of each and every one of those organisations.
We are going to have to go through a costly process of creating our own organisations, with heavy costs attached to that. The purpose of the amendment is simply to ensure that the Government are not able to create these new agencies, or to give substantial new powers to existing agencies, by way of delegated legislation, because that is the sort of thing that needs to be done through Parliament and through primary legislation.
Thank you, Dame Rosie. I think I have kept within your time limit. I would just like to reinforce the point that I will be pressing amendment 124 to a vote, and I hope I will receive support from both sides of the House for it.
Anna Soubry
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), and I will indeed support his amendment 124 when he presses it to a vote. It is, effectively, about the benefits of the single market and making sure that, as much as we can, we retain our membership of it, especially after we have left the European Union.
I rise to support all the amendments I have signed, which are mainly those that have been drafted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). I also rise to support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), and I congratulate him and his Committee on coming up with their proposals. I also thank him for reassuring some of us who were concerned that this creature that was created, quite properly, to address the concerns that many right hon. and hon. Members identified on Second Reading might not have any teeth. However, he explained that the effect of sanctioning a Minister, as he quite properly identified it, has political consequences that do the job. On that basis, I am content with the proposed new committee. Obviously, I have concerns, but I am delighted that the Government have accepted the relevant amendments.
If it is pushed to a vote, I will also vote for amendment 49. I thought that the speech by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) was admirable. In fact, her amendment is hardly revolutionary; it is an entirely proper amendment to this important piece of legislation and this clause. It uses the word “necessary”, and I think that that was the word used in the original White Paper. I will therefore be supporting the amendment.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for his probing amendment. If I had got round to it—I have signed so many amendments—I would have signed his, for what that is worth. In looking at his speech in particular, and at so many of the other speeches we have heard today, it is really important to understand what people like and do not like about this place and, indeed, about politicians. The public actually like it when we agree across parties; people mistake that. I am not saying that the public do not enjoy some of the spectacle of Prime Minister’s questions—there is nothing wrong with a good hearty debate and row on points that will forever divide us; they identify our political beliefs and parties. However, on those occasions when we agree, the British public absolutely like it.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
May I introduce you to Bill Cash?
Anna Soubry
I did not hear what the hon. Lady said, but I am sure that Hansard did, so I will move swiftly on.
I say to those on the Treasury Bench, and anybody else who might be listening to this speech, that the profound difference between those people and people like me—right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, right across these green Benches—is that we have accepted the result, although it may break our hearts to do so. That is quite a dramatic statement, but many people are genuinely upset that we are going to leave the European Union. Nevertheless, they have accepted the result even though it goes against everything that they have ever believed in. They have not only accepted the result, but then voted to trigger article 50. One of the things that saddens me as much as it saddens me that we are going leave the European Union—probably more so—is the inability of the people who supported and voted for the leave campaign to understand and respect those of us who were remainers, who voted to trigger article 50, and now genuinely say that we are here to help deliver this result to get the best deal that we can as a country, putting our country before our own views and before our party political allegiances.
It may be that some leavers, especially some people in Government or formerly in Government, cannot accept that because unfortunately—I am going to have to say this—they judge people like me by their own standards. For people to say that by tabling an amendment one is somehow trying to thwart or stop Brexit is, frankly, gravely offensive. That level of insult—because it is an insult—has got to stop. People have to accept that there is a genuine desire certainly among people on the Government Benches, and on the Opposition Benches, to try to come together to heal the divide and get the best deal for our country.
Angela Smith
Does the right hon. Lady accept, too, that a significant proportion of the voters who voted leave would agree with her that the hijacking of the leave argument by a small minority is damaging the debate?
Anna Soubry
I very much agree with the hon. Lady. It is not right and it is not fair. It also, as she rightly identified, does not reflect leave voters. We have got ourselves into a ludicrous situation whereby a very small number of people in this place, in this Government, and indeed in the country at large, suddenly seem to be running the show. That is not right, because they do not reflect leave voters, who, overwhelmingly, are pragmatic, sensible people who unite with the overwhelming majority of people who voted remain and who, frankly, want us all to get together, move on, get the best deal, and get on with Brexit.
That, I think, is where the British people are. I think they are also uneasy, worried and rather queasy because of all the things that we have spoken about in this place. They now realise, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, that it is very difficult, this Brexit. It is indeed difficult to deliver it, and many people thought from the rhetoric of the leave campaign that it would be oh, so easy. Indeed, others—such as the Secretary of State, who is beautifully arriving in the Chamber—believed that a trade deal would be done in but a day and a half.
I am being pragmatic, so I am not going to make any more such points; I am going to try to move the discussion on. But I urge all members of Her Majesty’s Government, especially those in the most important positions, to please reach out to the remainers—now often called former remainers—who made up the 48%. I urge those Government members not to tar us with the paintbrush that they may have used for many years, but to try to build a consensus. That means that the Government need to give a little bit more than they have given so far.
The reason why I support the single market, the customs union and the positive benefits of immigration is not that I am some treacherous mutineer. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is hardly some sort of Brexit mutineer, but he is an excellent example of someone who quite properly tables a probing new clause because he is doing his job as a Member of Parliament. That is why amendments have been tabled by all manner of people, and they have been supported in a cross-party manner to a degree that apparently has not been seen for a very long time. That is commendable.
I am no rebel, because like many of my former Back-Bench colleagues who now sit on the Front Bench, I made it very clear to the good people of Broxtowe that I was standing as a Conservative but I did not endorse my party’s manifesto in relation to the single market and the customs union. Sitting on the Front Bench today are hon. Members who, in the past, stood quite properly in their constituencies as Conservatives while making it very clear that they did not support our party’s policy on the European Union and would campaign for us to withdraw. I make no criticism of that. I say, “Thank goodness,” because that is what we want in a good, healthy democracy. But it is ironic, is it not, that the Secretary of State has rebelled, I think, some 30 times on European matters?
Anna Soubry
He says, “More.” I do not criticise him for doing so. I bet he has never been called a Brexit mutineer—well, he would not have been called a Brexit mutineer, but I am as sure as anything that he has not been abused in the same way as other people who have had the temerity to table an amendment and see it through. The Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) rebelled, I think, some 30 times between 2010 and 2015. He and the Secretary of State will understand how important it is for us, having made our case clear to our electorate, to be true to the principles on which we stood and got elected. When we come here, if we do nothing else, we must surely uphold those principles—our mandate—by tabling amendments and voting for them.
If the Government are genuine about getting a good deal and healing the great divide—I very much hope that Ministers understand the damage that is still being caused to our country and the importance of healing the divide—they must reach out tomorrow, if not today, and do the right thing so that we get the right result. That will enable us to build on the consensus that broke out on Friday and move forward with delivering Brexit to get the best deal for everybody in our country.
Jess Phillips
I associate myself with the comments of the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). I agree entirely with her on this, as well as on a great many other things. I take the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) as my inspiration: if I cannot get what I want, I will just wait 40 years—saying the same thing—and it may come around again.
I will speak to amendment 385 and new clause 77, which are in my names and those of right hon. and hon. Friends, as well as right hon. and hon. Members from other parties. In the White Paper published earlier this year, the Government committed to continuing to work with the EU to preserve European security, to fight terrorism and to uphold justice across Europe, yet no mention at all was made of plans to continue the work, post-Brexit, with their European partners to protect women and girls fleeing violence. I need not really point to the lack of a certain sort of Member of Parliament—those with a certain chromosome—in the Brexit team or among those currently on the Treasury Bench as to why that was the case.
This omission is stunning given the current state of affairs in the UK. An estimated 1.3 million women in England and Wales experienced domestic abuse last year alone, while 4.3 million women will have experienced domestic abuse at some point since the age of 16. In addition, about one in five women will experience stalking or sexual assault at some point in their lifetime. Despite that desperately worrying state of affairs, the Government have so far failed to guarantee that such survivors of violence will enjoy the same legal protections post-Brexit as they do now.
Amendment 385 would at least retain one aspect of this protection. In February 2016, history was made in the Hammersmith specialist domestic abuse court, when the first European protection order was issued in England and Wales. This enabled the survivor to move to Sweden, enjoying protection in both the UK and Sweden. In the same year, another survivor was issued an EPO, allowing her to move to Slovakia safely. The UK has also recognised a number of EPOs issued by other EU member states in 2015 and 2016, meaning that these survivors were protected on entry to the UK. According to data provided by the European parliamentary research service, Britain makes disproportionate use of the framework, accounting for almost half of all orders granted in 2015 and 2016.
Mary Creagh
Does my hon. Friend think that the fact that we are disproportionately represented in that way reflects the UK’s status as both a transit point and a destination for people trafficking? It would be abhorrent if the process of leaving the EU afforded less protection to such survivors.
Jess Phillips
Absolutely. I cannot give with any real certainty the exact reason why Britain uses the orders more than anywhere else, except for the fact that—I can definitely say this—our human trafficking rates are much higher compared with other European countries. The issue that worries me is that British Governments of many colours over many years have prioritised domestic violence services and protection orders in relation to human trafficking, and it would be a real stain on what is not a bad reputation for this Government—certainly on human trafficking—if we undid some of the protections that we rely on very heavily in the realm of human trafficking.
While the number of EPOs granted since their inception is still quite small, because the framework is very young—let us say that, in its infancy, it is the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley compared with the hon. Member for Stone—there is no telling how the uptake may increase in the future. We must certainly not deprive survivors making use of the orders of what they have been guaranteed so far, otherwise they will continue to be vulnerable and to be abused. Amendment 385 would ensure that, at the very least, UK courts continued to recognise EPOs issued by EU member states.
There are a great many other ways in which the UK co-operates with the EU on issues such as human trafficking, female genital mutilation and forced marriage. Such issues are prevalent in many parts of the country. For example, in 2010, up to 900 schoolgirls across Birmingham were at risk of FGM. One in five children in Birmingham will have experienced or seen domestic violence before they reach adulthood, and at least 300 forced marriages take place in the west midlands every year.
Mr Baker
I rise to speak to clause 7 and to amendment 391, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which puts the Government’s commitment to transparency into the Bill by requiring that the explanatory memorandums relating to each statutory instrument must include a number of specific statements. I would like to put it on the record that the Government will support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) on behalf of the Procedure Committee—I will be happy to move them formally if the Chair does not call them for separate decisions. I see from my speaking notes that I am due to speak to approximately 134 amendments, so I apologise in advance if I deal with any of them superficially.
The Government do not propose delegated powers lightly; we do so only when we are confident that secondary legislation is the most appropriate way to address an issue. This House is right to guard jealously its rights and privileges. It is for the purpose of taking back control to this Parliament that millions of people voted to leave the European Union. We want to limit any powers that we are seeking, in so far as we can, while ensuring that they can meet the imperative of delivering a working statute book on exit day.
The power in clause 7 is essential to achieve continuity and stability in the law. The day the UK leaves the EU is drawing ever nearer. If we simply stop at converting and preserving retained EU law, the day after exit the UK statute book will contain many thousands of inaccuracies, holes and provisions that are not appropriate. That would have real-world consequences, leaving errors in the laws that businesses and individuals, sometimes unknowingly, rely on every day. I am grateful that the general premise that we need to take these steps has been accepted by Members on both sides of the Committee and on the Labour Front Bench.
The power in clause 7 is intrinsically limited. As I and other Ministers, including the Secretary of State, have said from this Dispatch Box, it is not a power for Ministers to change law simply because they did not like it before we left the EU. Clause 7(1) is clear that Ministers may only do what is
“appropriate to prevent, remedy or mitigate—
(a) any failure of retained EU law to operate effectively, or
(b) any other deficiency in retained EU law,
arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU.”
If an issue does not arise from our withdrawal from the EU, Ministers may not amend the law using the powers in the clause.
Clause 7 is required to address failures to operate and deficiencies where the law does not operate effectively—for example, with reciprocal arrangements between the UK and the EU that have not formed part of any new agreement. Subsection (2) illustrates what these deficiencies might be. The clause is also subject to a number of direct limitations: it sunsets two years after exit day; and, as listed in subsection (6), it cannot impose or increase taxation, make retrospective provision, create certain types of criminal offence, implement the withdrawal agreement, amend the Human Rights Act 1998 or amend some sections of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Will the Minister clarify from the Dispatch Box that Opposition Members’ assertions that it would be possible under the provisions for the Government to introduce secondary instruments that changed the safeguards in the Bill are misplaced because no court would allow that to happen under the provisions of appropriateness and deficiencies?
Mr Baker
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. I will come on to the specific differences between clause 7 and clause 9 in relation to the power to amend the Act, but I will say now that the Act itself cannot be amended under clause 7. I will come on to develop that point later.
Clause 7(5) lists some possible uses of the power. These could range from fairly mechanistic changes to correct inaccurate references, to more substantial changes to transfer important functions and services from EU institutions to UK equivalents. Both types of change are important to keep the law functioning appropriately. At this stage, we do not know for certain what corrections might need to be made. The negotiations continue and there is a large volume of law to correct in a short space of time.
Mr Baker
If I may, I will explain my approach to interventions, which I should have mentioned at the beginning of my speech. My speech has about 24 sections to address the 130 amendments that have been tabled. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I would like to finish speaking on clause 7 stand part before I come on to his amendment. If he will allow me, I will give way to him then.
Secondary legislation made under this power is subject to entirely normal parliamentary procedures. I will come on to talk more about how we ensure sufficient scrutiny of secondary legislation when I speak to the amendments. The Government have always been clear that we will listen to the concerns of Parliament during the passage of the Bill and reflect on its concerns. We are committed to ensuring that Parliament has the right opportunities to scrutinise the Bill and its powers, so I am glad to have the opportunity to address concerns that have motivated many Members to table amendments to the scrutiny provisions in the Bill, alongside the debate on the powers themselves.
We should, however, all be in no doubt that without this power vital functions could not be carried out because they would not be provided for in our law. The UK could have obligations to the EU still existing in statute that would not reflect the reality of our new relationship. There would be confusing errors and gaps in our law. I say again that we do not take lightly the creation of delegated powers, but neither do we take lightly the imperative to deliver a stable, orderly exit that maximises certainty for the UK. Clause 7 is essential to achieving that task.
New clause 18, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), calls for an independent report into the constitutional implication of the powers in clause 7. There have already been a number of such reports and this is likely to continue. For example, the report he suggests sounds similar to the excellent and thoughtful report published recently by the Exiting the European Union Committee. A requirement for one more report after Royal Assent would, it seems to me, add little to the Bill and the definition of its powers. I reassure the House that the Government have listened to Members and to the Committees that have reported on the Bill.
I will turn a little later to amendments 392 to 398, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, but I am glad to report that the Government said yesterday that we would accept the amendments to enhance scrutiny of the powers through a sifting committee. Taken together with Government amendment 391 on the content of explanatory memorandums, we believe the amendments deliver more than the sum of their parts, so the House can be assured of the effective scrutiny of the powers in the Bill. I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Nottingham East, but I will give way if he still wishes to intervene.
Mr Leslie
The Minister mentioned clause 7(5) in relation to the regulatory powers to replace, modify or abolish public service functions. He will know that one of my amendments would delete the Government’s ability to abolish functions by those orders. I wonder whether he could give us examples of public service functions or regulatory activities currently undertaken that the Government may wish to abolish.
Mr Baker
I will come back to that later, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman for a start that the translation functions of the European Union and various institutions will no longer be required.
I come now to amendment 1, from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). It has support from all sides of the Committee including, I do not mind telling him, from me, in spirit. The Secretary of State has asked me to put on record that he, too, is sympathetic to the idea of narrowing the Ministers’ discretion. My right hon. and learned Friend seeks to restrict the power of Ministers to make regulations to amend retained EU law to cases where the EU law is deficient only in the way set out in the Bill.
We have listened carefully to my right hon. and learned Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) and others, and the specific proposal in amendment 1 and amendment 56, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham East, is to convert the illustrative list of potential deficiencies in the law in clause 7(2) to an exhaustive list. As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, we do not think that it is possible to do that at this stage.
We know that there will be thousands of deficiencies across our statute book and it is impossible at this stage definitively to list all the different kinds of deficiencies that might arise on exit day. To attempt to do so risks requiring significant volumes of further primary legislation on issues that will not warrant taking up parliamentary time. The specifics of the deficiencies will inevitably vary between cases and it will therefore not be possible to provide a definition that accompanies them all, as amendments 264 and 265, tabled by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), also seek to do. An exhaustive list would risk omitting important deficiencies, so rendering the powers in clause 7 unable to rectify the statute book. To require primary legislation in such circumstances would undermine the purpose of the Bill and the usual justifications for secondary legislation, such as technical detail, readability and, crucially, the management of time.
We cannot risk undermining the laws on which businesses and individuals rely every day. Our goals are to exit the EU with certainty, continuity and control. However, I listened extremely carefully to the speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, my constituency neighbour, and to his appeal for us properly to consider this issue. I hope that he will not mind my saying that I think that we have already properly considered the issue, but we are perfectly willing to work with him and others to continue to reflect on this point with an eye on Report. We heard a very informative intervention on this point from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox). My right hon. and learned Friend will know that we are wrestling with the susceptibility of what we do to judicial review, which might undermine the certainty that we are trying to deliver.
Mr Grieve
I understand that, and I realise that I am setting a bit of a challenge. Of course, amendment 1 is only one way to deal with this. Interestingly, amendment 1 is the least justiciable route because of its clarity. Other amendments, such as amendment 2, do raise the issue of justiciability. One way or the other—I put this challenge to my hon. Friend—the Government will have to come back with something that tempers the starkness of these powers. I leave it to my hon. Friend’s discretion, which is precisely why I have not tried to fetter him over this.
Mr Cox
I wonder whether my hon. Friend might be attracted by this idea. At the moment, as drafted, the clause gives an inclusive, non-exhaustive list of examples, but I wonder whether the principle of ejusdem generis might not assist us if it were slightly redrafted. One could draft it so that any extensions beyond the inclusive list had to be of the same kind or species as those that were listed. That might give some comfort, if they have to be of a similar character to those enumerated in the Bill.
Mr Baker
I am extremely grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, and I would be happy to meet him, our legal team and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield to take their suggestions on board. I am keen to address this, and I know that the Secretary of State is keen to do so, but I am not in a position today to have tabled or accepted an amendment. I ask them to bear with me and have further meetings with us and our legal teams to try to find a way through.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
The Minister is being very generous and carefully considered in his responses. May I just check what he has said? Is he saying that he intends, if he can, to bring forward an amendment, perhaps on Report, to fix this, after these conversations have taken place, given the sympathy he says both he and the Secretary of State have for the amendments, or is he unable to give that promise to the Committee?
Mr Baker
I will be very straightforward with my hon. Friend: we are keen to move on this issue, but, as several hon. and learned Friends have acknowledged, it is a tricky issue, so we will need to reflect further on how a movement might take place. The Attorney General, who is in his place, and the other Law Officers are well aware of this issue, but we are conscious of the imperative of being able to deal with deficiencies in the statute book, as well as of the advice of hon. and learned Friends.
Mr Grieve
I am sure that the Minister will deal with this on some of the other amendments, but the other limb of this is whether certain categories of retained EU law need special protection. All that, I suggest, needs to be looked at as a whole. I am convinced that if the Government do that, they will probably be able to come up with the right solution, and one that commands the confidence of the House.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene?
Sir Edward Leigh
My hon. Friend has taken several interventions. Some of us have loyally supported Ministers throughout this process, and we want him to be robust, keep his lead in his pencil, deliver the Bill and ensure that none of our laws are left in limbo. I encourage him to the last.
Mr Baker
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his robust support, and I shall certainly watch out for my lead.
Our approach is to provide for the greatest possible scrutiny and transparency of the statutory instruments as they come forward. We began that process of providing transparency in the delegated powers memorandum accompanying the Bill, and in recent days we have published further information on how clause 7 would be used, including yesterday two draft SIs in the key area of workers’ rights, but there is more we can do to provide for scrutiny and transparency, which brings me to amendments 391 and 392 to 398, which will come before the Committee for a vote tomorrow.
I am pleased to repeat that the Government intend tomorrow to accept amendments 392 to 398, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, who is not here, but who nevertheless is a great champion of Parliament against the Executive, as he has demonstrated on multiple occasions. The Procedure Committee, which he chairs, agreed the amendments unanimously. I pay particular tribute to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, whose report informed the Committee’s work, I understand. If his amendments are not moved separately, the Government will be happy to move them formally at the appropriate moment.
The amendments will establish a sifting committee in the House to look at instruments made under the power in clause 7 and two other key powers in clauses 8 and 9. I draw the Committee’s attention to the draft Standing Orders that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has published to establish a new Select Committee to consider the negative instruments in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne proposes. The amendments draw on the expertise of the Procedure Committee, and the Government believe that they offer a solution that will give transparency to the House over the Government’s choice of procedure and ensure that the House can recommend that any negative instrument under clauses 7 to 9 instead be debated and voted upon as an affirmative instrument.
The Government have also tabled amendment 391, which will place our commitments to transparency in the Bill and require that explanatory memorandums relating to each statutory instrument include a number of specific statements. The amendments are aimed at improving the scrutiny and transparency of the SIs that are to come. If the House accepts them, they will together be more than the sum of their parts. The combination of the proposals of the Committee and the Government will mean that any deficiency the Government identify in retained EU law will be transparent to the House. In the light of this information, or any other concerns, the House will have a mechanism to propose a negative instrument for the increased scrutiny provided by a debate and a vote in the House.
I particularly noted what my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) said about the political costs of not complying with the Committee’s recommendation. She nods; I am grateful. I am confident that, given that this proposal is in harmony with the way in which other Select Committees work in relation to the Government, it will provide an adequate means of holding Ministers to account on the choice of procedure.
Mary Creagh
In the absence of the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), whose proposal this is, does the Minister envisage introducing the enhanced sift procedure—the mechanism for informing other Select Committees or Members with a particular interest in a subject—on Report?
Mr Baker
The hon. Lady has put her point on the record, but what we are doing is accepting the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne. I also draw her attention to the Standing Orders.
A number of Members have referred to the general need for a reform of the scrutiny of statutory instruments. I spent a very informative weekend reading the Hansard Society’s book “The Devil is in the Detail”, which I recommend to any Member who wishes to be fully apprised of the case for the reform of delegated legislation, but I must add that this is not the moment for a complete reform of secondary legislation. What we need to do is accept the amendments from the Procedure Committee, and to move forward.
Vicky Ford
May I make a very brief observation about the sifting committee and the expertise? In my experience, the scrutiny of detailed European legislation is sometimes best performed by people with expertise in it. That is why the House of Lords EU Committee has sub-committees on financial affairs, external affairs, energy and environment, justice, home affairs and so forth. Would my hon. Friend at least consider using a sub-committee of that kind, given that it might enable him to complete the sifting process more quickly?
Mr Baker
I think that my hon. Friend has made a strong case for her membership of the sifting committee. I hope that, if the Whips Office has heard her appeal, she will become a member in due course and will enjoy it very much indeed.
Let me now deal with amendment 2. Conditions similar to those in the amendment, tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, are proposed by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) in amendment 48. Again, we have significant sympathy with the intention behind the amendments. However, they would introduce new terms into the law and invite substantial litigation, with consequent uncertainty about the meaning of the law as we exit the EU.
Mr Baker
May I just finish making my case? I must point out to my right hon. and learned Friend that I can speak for two or three hours if I take all the interventions, or I can press on.
I hope to give the Committee some reassurance. Any provision made under clause 7 must be an appropriate means of correcting a deficiency in retained EU law arising from withdrawal. It is a strong test, and it represents a significant limit on the provisions made under clause 7. The limit can ultimately be guarded by the courts, although I note what my right hon. and learned Friend said about that. However, the right place in which to determine which changes in the law are appropriate is Parliament, which is why I hope Members will accept that their concerns have been addressed by the provisions that we have made for greater scrutiny and transparency in the case of each statutory instrument.
Mr Grieve
I have noted my hon. Friend’s comments, and I appreciate them, but may I take him back for a moment? All these issues are linked. I acknowledge the contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), but let me return to the discussion of amendment 1. One possibility might be that the list could only be added to by a statutory instrument. After all, given the extensive powers in the Bill, it would present a double lock. If the Government wanted a new power, or area of power, they could secure it through an SI anyway, because of the extent of the power that we are giving to them. The Minister might like to consider that point.
Mr Baker
I shall return to the clause 7 versus clause 9 argument a little later.
Amendments 3 and 4 were also tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend. The Government agree with his goal of ensuring that instruments under the Bill are accompanied by all the information that the House, the public and, indeed, the sifting committee need in order to understand what they can do and why. We also agree that more can be done to ensure that the House has the proper opportunities to scrutinise the instruments. As I have said, the Government have therefore accepted the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, and we will also table amendments to address long-standing concerns about information. The Government believe that the proposed committee represents an option that balances our concerns about the ability to plan and the limited time available before exit day with some Members’ well-stated and long-standing concerns about the efficacy of the scrutiny of negative SIs in this House. Those amendments will address the unique challenge posed by the secondary legislation under this Bill, ensuring that the Government’s reasoning on procedure is transparent to the House and that the House can recommend that any negative instrument should instead be an affirmative one.
Beyond all that, the Government have tabled amendment 391 which will require that explanatory memorandums are alongside each SI and include a number of specific statements aimed at ensuring the transparency of SIs that are to come, and act as an aid to this House, providing more effective scrutiny. These statements will explain, for instruments made under the main powers in this Bill, what any relevant EU law did before exit day, what is being changed, and why the Minister considers that this is no more than is appropriate. They will also contain information regarding the impact of the instrument on equalities legislation. The wording of our amendment and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne differs from that proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, but, as he has said, he has put his name to it and I am pleased that we are therefore able to move forward.
I turn now to the issue of what is necessary and amendments 49, 65, 205 to 208, 216 and new clause 24. Amendments 49 and 65 bring us to the important debate about whether the power in clause 7 should allow necessary corrections or appropriate corrections. “Necessary” is a very strict test, which we would expect to be interpreted by a court as logically essential. Where two or more choices as to how to correct EU law are available to Ministers, arguably neither would be logically essential because there would be an alternative. Ministers therefore need to choose the most appropriate course. If two UK agencies, such as the Bank of England or the Financial Conduct Authority, could arguably carry out a particular function, the Government must propose which would be the more appropriate choice. Also, if the UK and the EU do not agree to retain an existing reciprocal arrangement and the EU therefore ceases to fulfil its side of the obligations, the UK could decide it is not appropriate for the UK to provide one-sided entitlements to the EU27; it might not be legally necessary for the UK to stop upholding one side of the obligation, but it might not be appropriate for us to continue if the EU is not doing so.
Yvette Cooper
It is my understanding that the Minister is saying that courts that were told that Ministers had two options, both of which might be necessary solutions to a particular problem, would therefore say that neither passed the necessity test because Ministers had chosen between the two of them. That sounds utterly ludicrous as a way in which the courts would make a decision. Will the Minister elaborate by providing a case law example of a situation where the courts have been given such a necessity test and have decided to rip up all necessary options on the basis that there were too many necessary choices?
Mr Baker
I will see whether, before I sit down, my memory can be jogged on an example of case law, but I am only a humble aerospace and software engineer and I do not mind saying to the right hon. Lady that I have sometimes observed that we dance on the head of a pin over particular words. In order to protect the law and the public purse, I think the Law Officers would require me to take appropriate advice from lawyers on the nature of these words and to abide by it as we proceed through the legislation.
Joanna Cherry
Earlier in our debate, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) said that we all know what “appropriate” means and so would a court. Can the Minister tell us what “appropriate” means in this context?
Mr Baker
I think what we would say to the hon. and learned Lady is that “appropriate” will follow the plain English definition, which she will find in various places, but what I want to do is move on.
I want to set out why it is important that the test of appropriateness extends to the use of the power in clauses 8 and 17, to which the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber has tabled amendments 205, 207, 208 and 216. For example, leaving the EU, the customs union and the single market may alter the way in which the UK complies with its international legal obligations in relation to taxation, and there will not always be a clear single choice about how to comply with those obligations. Clause 8 will give Ministers the flexibility, as necessary, to make those changes. Using the word “necessary” would risk constraining the use of the power to the extent that where it is appropriate for the UK to adjust our domestic legislation to ensure compliance with international obligations but where there are multiple ways to do so, we might not be able to ensure compliance with our important obligations under international law, thereby undermining the core intention of clause 8.
John Penrose
I will endeavour not to try my hon. Friend’s patience too much; he is being very generous. I want to clarify one point. I think that his previous response on the difference between “necessary” and “appropriate” will have suggested to the plain non-lawyerly listener that he was accepting the principle that there should be no greater powers than are necessary to ensure that EU law is ported across correctly, and that the only argument he is making is that there might then be a legal interpretational problem when he has more than one choice. Will he at least confirm that he does not wish to bring in, for himself or for any other Ministers, powers that are higher than “necessary” as a basic principle, and that he will therefore try to find words that will give him that minimum level of—
The Temporary Chair (Mr Gary Streeter)
Order. This is a rather long intervention, and the Minister has made it clear that he does not wish to take too many more interventions as he is seeking to make progress.
Mr Baker
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare for putting his own clarification into my remarks.
The Government wish to take the minimum powers necessary—the minimum powers required—to do the job before us, which is to deliver a working statute book by exit day. We do not intend to make any major changes of policy beyond those that are appropriate to deliver a working statute book, where the law after exit day is substantially the same as the law before exit day, so that individuals and businesses can rely on it. The issue surrounding the definitions of “necessary” and “appropriate” is a technical and legal one, rather than a general issue of intent, and I stand by what we have said. We understand that “necessary” would be interpreted as logically essential and could land us with the problem that I have illustrated, with Ministers facing a number of choices about how to proceed. So if I may, I will leave that issue there.
The use of the word “equivalent” in new clause 24 is just as problematic. Returning to the example of a reciprocal arrangement that no longer exists, if we were —with the support of this House and entirely appropriately in line with our agreements with the EU—to end the obligations that were placed on the UK in law, this new clause could lead to a court taking the view that that would not be keeping the equivalent scope, purpose and effect of the law in relation to how the law stood before exit. This would undermine the Bill’s core objective of maintaining a functioning statute book once we leave the EU. I therefore urge right hon. and hon. Members not to press their proposed amendments, and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) to withdraw her new clause.
I now want to address new clauses 1, 6 and 26, and amendments 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 68, 129 and 130, tabled by the Leader of the Opposition and others. These would all change the scrutiny process for secondary legislation made under the Bill. We have heard some fine speeches from distinguished parliamentarians, and it is clear that a great deal of thought has gone into the amendments and the arguments supporting them. First, let me be clear that we are committed to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny throughout the whole process of our withdrawal from the EU—Members will know that we make statements, Committee appearances and so on—and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made clear, Parliament will have a vote on the contents of the withdrawal agreement. Crucially, where we are seeking not to replicate current arrangements but to take substantially new approaches, there will be separate pieces of primary legislation for Parliament to work through, as we are beginning to see with the legislation that is being introduced.
However, we must be mindful of the large volume of statutory instruments necessary and the limited time available to work through them if we are to provide certainty and stability on exit. We are working to the timetable of the article 50 process, and there is over 40 years of EU law to consider and correct to ensure that our statute book functions properly on our exit from the EU. According to EUR-Lex—the EU’s legal database—more than 12,000 EU regulations and over 6,000 EU directives are currently in force across the EU. If the majority of statutory instruments do not complete the parliamentary process before we leave the EU, there will be significant gaps in domestic law, which could raise real problems with real consequences. Our law currently gives powers to EU regulators across a wide range of areas that affect people’s lives, from aviation safety to the environment, and we therefore have a duty to act.
New clauses 1 and 26 and amendments 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 68, 129 and 130 would all give a parliamentary committee or either House of Parliament the role of deciding the scrutiny procedure that each statutory instrument must follow. We are sympathetic to the intention behind the amendments, which is why we made our announcement in relation to the Procedure Committee’s recommendations. All that is in harmony with the existing arrangements for the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the House of Lords.
Amendments 34, 37 and 40, tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, would apply the affirmative procedure to a statutory instrument of sufficient policy interest, which is ambiguous and does not involve a practical, clear trigger for the affirmative procedure. Ultimately, it would end up being for the courts to decide what is “of sufficient policy interest”, creating legal uncertainty, which is contrary to the Bill’s central aim. I hope that Opposition Members will agree that that has been superseded by our commitment to the sifting committee.
Amendment 22, tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), would introduce a means for the Leader of the Opposition or a certain number of MPs to trigger an automatic debate on an SI made under the negative procedure. Again, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that has been superseded by the sifting committee.
I will now address several amendments relating to the important matter of environmental protection, on which this Government have a proud record. Amendments 96, 97, 98, 138, 333 and 334 and new clauses 27, 62 and 63 were tabled by the Leader of the Opposition and others. We agree with the intentions behind the amendments and new clauses and understand hon. Members’ concerns, but it is essential that the clause 7 power exists as drafted in the Bill. Its purpose is to make changes, often of a technical nature, to deal with deficiencies in retained EU law. While simple in nature, it is essential to ensuring that legislation that protects the environment and rights remains consistent and continues to function effectively once we leave the EU.
Turning to new clauses 27, 62 and 63, the UK has always had a strong legal framework for environmental protections, and that will continue. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has recognised the risk of the governance gap, which has been explained, and that is why he announced on 12 November our intention to consult on a new independent and statutory body to advise and challenge the Government, and potentially other public bodies, on the environment, stepping in when needed to hold bodies to account and to enforce standards. We will consult on the specific scope and powers of the new body early next year. We understand the intention behind the new clauses, but they would create problems for our framework of environmental governance, about which we have made announcements.
New clause 27 would go further than the existing governance mechanisms for environmental protections set out in EU and UK law. For example, it would require the Government to give powers to this new independent body or bodies to set standards or targets and to co-ordinate action on the environment. Within the current EU mechanism, the exercise of those powers, such as legislating to set standards, would typically involve the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament; it does not normally rest solely with an independent body or bodies. Legislating for new standards and targets should be a matter for our Parliament in future.
New clause 62 would prejudge the consultation’s outcome and would necessarily limit the possible remit of a new body by requiring that it be established by regulations under clause 7. This power for functions currently exercised by EU institutions could be replicated by being given to UK bodies to exercise. Therefore, for example, significant domestic changes to the law post EU exit or new areas of the environment would fall outside its remit.
While we support the intention behind amendments 97, 98, 96, 138, 333, 334 and new clauses 62 and 63, they give no definition of what an environmental protection is or precisely how one might know that such protections were being weakened or narrowed. We believe that the hon. Members would be preparing the starting gun for a vast quantity of litigation so we cannot accept the amendments to clause 7, 8 or 9 or the new clauses.
Allow me to reiterate, Mr Streeter. Clause 7 powers are temporary powers limited in scope. Restricting the use of those powers further, as many of the amendments seek to do, would threaten rights and protections established in domestic and EU law, which we will be retaining. This is contrary to what I believe is the intention behind many of the amendments, so restricting the power as proposed would be counterproductive and we cannot accept the amendments.
Amendments 25, 26, 27, 52, 109, 111, 115, 266, 268, 267, 222, 363 to 373 and new clause 76, plus those amendments consequential on them, deal with the protection of rights in relation to the power in clause 7 or parallel restrictions in clauses 8 and 9. The UK has a long tradition of ensuring that our rights and liberties are protected domestically and of fulfilling our international human rights obligations. The decision to leave the EU does not change that. I reiterate the Government’s firm commitment to protecting rights throughout the EU exit process. As we have debated previously, the Bill ensures that, so far as possible, the laws we have immediately before exit day will continue to apply. As part of this approach, clause 4 will continue to make available any rights and so on which currently flow into domestic law through section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972 within the overall scheme of the Bill.
Moreover, the clause 7 power is already restricted so that it cannot amend, repeal or revoke the Human Rights Act 1998 or any subordinate legislation made under it. The restrictions sought by amendments 25, 109, 363 and 364 are therefore not necessary. I am aware that amendments 365, 26, 366 and 367 would place the same restrictions on the powers in clause 8. The clause 8 power is already restricted so that it cannot amend, repeal or revoke the Human Rights 1998 or any subordinate legislation made under it. The restrictions sought by amendments 365 to 367 are therefore not necessary.
Mr Baker
I will come on to the Equality Act within a page.
Amendments 52, 266, 267, 268, 370, 371 and 372 have been tabled by the right hon. Members for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, for Ross, Skye and Lochaber and for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). They would prevent any changes to the Equality Act. As part of the Government’s clear commitment to maintaining equalities protections throughout the process of EU exit, we have tabled amendment 391, which will ensure that the amendments that will be made to equalities legislation under this and certain other powers in the Bill are transparent, and provide confirmation that the Minister has had due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct prohibited under the Equality Act.
Indeed, hon. Members may not be aware that the Government have already published a document on our website setting out the changes that we intend to make to the Equality Act, making it clear that they are limited to technical adjustments that are designed to ensure that the protections established in the Act continue to operate after exit.
Let me just run through them for the right hon. Gentleman. They include: references to the European Parliament; references to future EU obligations, including new EU obligations implemented under the European Communities Act 1972; references to EU law as a generic term and harmonisation measures; references to specific EU directives which are set out in the paper; and, finally, references to the UK as part of the European economic area. So I commend that paper to right hon. and hon. Members who are interested and/or concerned about it. With that in mind, as changes are necessary, as set out in the paper, I urge right hon. and hon. Members not to press their amendments.
Mr Baker
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for putting me right on that point, but I shall now have to press on rather than explore it. [Interruption.] I am not in a position to answer it, but I will see whether my memory can be jogged.
I turn to the issue of children’s rights, where I am grateful that I have the opportunity to discuss amendment 332 and new clause 53, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). I congratulate him on the powerful speech he made, reminding the House of its obligations. His new clause has received broad support across the House, including from my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), among others. This new clause and amendment 332, tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), give me the opportunity to clarify our position on child refugee family reunion and asylum seekers.
The Government’s commitment to children’s rights and the United Nations convention on the rights of the child is and will remain unwavering. Our ability to support and safeguard children’s rights will not be affected by the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. Domestically, the rights and best interests of a child are already protected through the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption and Children Act 2002, in addition to other legislative measures across the UK. Existing laws and commitments already safeguard children’s rights.
The Government support the principle of family unity and we have in place a comprehensive framework so that families can be reunited safely. The Dublin regulation itself is not and has not been a family reunification route. It confers no right to remain in the UK on family grounds and there is no provision for children to apply for family reunification under it. Crucially, the Dublin regulation creates a two-way process that requires the co-operation of 31 other countries. We cannot declare that we are going to preserve its terms when we need the co-operation of other countries to make it work.
We understand our moral responsibility to those in need of international protection, and that will not change as we leave the European Union. We value co-operation with our European partners on asylum and we want that co-operation to continue, but the way to ensure that is through the negotiations, not by making changes to the Bill before we have been able to make progress on this matter. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham and those who support his new clause but, as he said, changes are required in immigration rules. I am grateful to him for his stating the probing nature of the new clause. I ask him to work with Ministers, whom I think he said he has now met, to deliver the right changes to the immigration rules.
Tim Loughton
I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification, and I do hope that we can make some progress in, say, an immigration Bill. Nevertheless, will he explain to me why it requires the co-operation and agreement of 31 other countries for the UK to be able to say that we will take genuine unaccompanied asylum-seeking children with relatives who are legitimately in this country but who happen not to be their parents?
Mr Baker
My hon. Friend makes his case with particular force. I am sorry to have to tell him that I am not in a position to accept his new clause on that basis. I ask him to work with members of the Government on the immigration Bill that will contain the measures that he and the rest of us wish to see to ensure that we meet our humanitarian obligations.
Stella Creasy
The Minister’s colleagues gave a statement on 1 November 2016 that made the commitment to take children from Europe, and it is those children whose rights under the Dublin regulation would be taken away. Can he understand the concern about the fact that he has just announced that the requirement to work with 31 other countries would supersede that? Will he give a cast-iron guarantee that the commitment made in that statement on 1 November 2016 to take children from Europe and to do our fair share for refugee children will be honoured in full?
Mr Baker
These are matters for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Bills for which her Department is responsible. I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me and understand that it is with the Home Office that these matters need to be taken forward. This Bill is about how we leave the European Union with certainty, continuity and control in our statute book.
Amendments 15 and 16 are on the power to deal with deficiency—
Mr Clarke
I understand my hon. Friend’s difficulties. He is responding to new clauses and amendments on an amazingly wide range of topics that keep going into other departmental areas, but it is quite useless if the winding-up speech consists of the Minister saying in a series of statements that he is in no position to answer the questions. If there is an important Home Office question, as there is with the issue of child refugees, it would be normal for a Home Office Minister to be in attendance and to rise in some suitable way to answer the debate. My hon. Friend is reading very competently his carefully prepared brief, which concludes at every stage by saying, “I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.”
Mr Baker
I am grateful for my right hon. and learned Friend’s intervention, which has disappointed me neither in the sympathy that he expressed for my predicament nor in the sting in its tail. The Bill is the responsibility of the Department for Exiting the European Union, with the collaboration of other Ministers who are assisting in its passage. He is absolutely right that it covers a wide range of issues. I believe that I have given an answer on the particular point raised.
On two points of technical legal detail, I have asked for my memory to be jogged in the course of the debate, and I very much hope that I will be able to give an answer before I sit down. My right hon. and learned Friend will understand that I am not, like him, a learned Member of this House; I am a humble aerospace and software engineer. It is necessary for me to go through the clauses of the Bill that relate to parliamentary scrutiny and do not require technical legal expertise.
Mr Baker
I will not give way, because I need to make progress and to keep my remarks to some form of limit.
Amendments 15 and 16, tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, seek to narrow the categories of deficiencies arising from our withdrawal from the EU. The removal of clause 7(8), as amendment 16 proposes, would restrict our ability to keep the law functioning as it does now. Subsection (8) is about deficiencies arising not only from withdrawal, but from how the Bill works. For example, the Bill does not preserve directives themselves, as we have already debated, but instead preserves the UK law, which implements them. In some instances, there are provisions in directives, giving powers or placing restrictions on Government or on EU institutions or agencies, which it would not have made sense to transpose in UK law, but which then need to be incorporated in order for the law to continue to function as it did before exit. For example, the Commission currently holds a power to restrict the disclosure of confidential information in the financial services sector, which is referenced by UK implementation of the capital requirements directive 2013, but which will need to be transferred to the UK. We might also want to transfer powers that the Commission currently has to define what counts as hazardous waste, which is currently in the waste framework directive.
Subsection (8) allows the clause 7 power to correct deficiencies that arise from that withdrawal together with the operation of the Bill. For example, it might be appropriate to lift a relevant part of a directive and insert it into UK law in order to keep the law functioning as close as possible to how it does presently.
Mr Baker
Well, I am extremely grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, who I am very happy to see does remain my friend, as well as my constituency neighbour. I cannot tell him how happy I am to discover that that is the case.
Earlier, my right hon. and learned Friend asked me why Government could not accept additional protections requirements in amendment 13, given that that appears in other legislation. A similar test does appear in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, but the powers in that Act are rarely used, in part because of its complicated requirements. Moreover, the detail of that Act and its powers justify such a test as it is about deregulation. We consider that the existing restrictions in clause 9 are the right ones.
I move forward to amendments 131, 269 to 271, and 359 on restriction of the powers relating to EU citizens’ rights. Since those amendments were tabled, we have secured much-needed agreement on citizens’ rights through our negotiations. I hope Members will be glad that we have now made sufficient progress, subject to the European Council meeting, and that we will be able to move forwards.
The final agreement with the European Union on citizens’ rights is still subject to our negotiations with the EU. However, of course, we expect to give effect to those in the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill. The House will therefore have both a meaningful vote on the agreement and on its debates on the primary legislation necessary to implement it. I therefore invite hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
On amendment 359, we seek clarity on the current wording in relation to deficiency by means of a loss of reciprocity. We want to clarify that the Government do not intend to use it in a broad sense—in theory, it could be used in a very wide sense. In fact, it is intended to be narrow, so that major changes to policy, such as citizens’ rights to work or to come to this country, will be effected by primary regulation, not by regulation under clause 7.
Mr Baker
I understand my hon. Friend’s point. Just to reassure him: it is our firm intention to carry through the agreement, which he can read in the joint report of the negotiators, into legislation so that citizens can rely on it in the United Kingdom through that withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, which I hope we can put before the House in due course.
Amendments 31, 32 and 57 seek to remove so-called Henry VIII powers. I can confirm that amendment 32 is not necessary because the power in clause 7 cannot be used to amend the Act itself. It would be outside the scope of the power—ultra vires. Neither can the power in clause 8 be used for this purpose. Let me be clear: only the power in clause 9 states that it can amend the Bill. None of the other powers in the Bill make that statement. As I said earlier in an intervention, in the event that the use of a clause 9 power is proposed to amend the Act, it would be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Mr Grieve
My hon. Friend touches on an important issue. Might it not be the case that any such power done by regulation ought to be done by affirmative resolution? I just suggest that that might be the solution to dealing with tertiary powers, because of their unusual nature. In view of the list he has given us, it seems to me that, in all likelihood, these things would be done by affirmative resolution, but that is something the Government might like to consider between now and Report.
Mr Baker
I just draw my right hon. and learned Friend’s attention to paragraph 1(2)(c) of part 1 of schedule 7, which would require that the affirmative procedure be used if a provision
“provides for any function of an EU entity or public authority in a member State of making an instrument of a legislative character to be exercisable instead by a public authority in the United Kingdom”.
So instruments of a legislative character coming across would trigger the affirmative.
Mr Baker
There are also some matters in relation to fees and charges, which we discussed earlier in the debate. What I would say to my right hon. and learned Friend is that, where he has doubts, we have agreed to the sifting committee, and if he is concerned, I hope he will consider membership of that committee so that he can play his part in seeing through this set of measures.
Mr Charles Walker
May I apologise, as Chair of the Procedure Committee, for arriving late to my hon. Friend’s speech? I thought I had missed all of his speech, then I realised I had missed half of it, but it now seems that I have only missed a third of it. However, I do apologise for arriving late, and I hope he accepts that apology at face value.
Mr Baker
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend.
Let me return to my notes in order that I might give the Committee an accurate presentation of these measures. Where this type of specialist legislative function exists at EU level, we will need to ensure that the responsibility is transferred to the appropriate UK body so that the UK has a fully functioning regulatory regime in time for day one of EU exit. This might be the case where, for example, it is more appropriate for the Health and Safety Executive in the UK to update lists of regulated chemicals than the Secretary of State, or where it would make sense for the Prudential Regulation Authority to take on responsibility for updating monthly the detailed methodology that insurance firms must use to prudently assess their liabilities. Both these legislative functions are currently carried out at EU level and will need to be taken on by the appropriate UK regulator after exit.
To reply to the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, any SIs made under clause 7 that transfer a legislative function or create or amend any power to legislate will be subject to the affirmative procedure. This is provided for in schedule 7. Therefore, Parliament will be able to debate any transfer of powers and consider the proposed scope of such powers and the scrutiny proposed for their future exercise, which will be set out in any instrument conveying that power. Recognising that some of the existing EU regulation that will be incorporated into UK law will be of a specialised and technical nature, clause 7 allows the power to fix deficiencies to be sub-delegated to the UK body that is best placed to perform the task. EU binding technical standards—the detailed technical rules developed by EU regulators for financial services—are a good example of where we might sub-delegate the clause 7 power. These standards, which run to almost 10,000 pages, do not make policy choices but fill out the detail of how firms need to comply with requirements set in higher legislation. The PRA and the FCA have played a leading role in the EU to develop these standards, and so they already have the necessary resource and expertise to review and correct these standards so that they operate effectively in the UK from day one of exit. I appreciate the concerns of my right hon. and learned Friend and the hon. Member for Nottingham East, but I hope I have demonstrated why we cannot accept these amendments.
Amendments 17, 360 and new clause 35 require additional information. As I have said, we have tabled amendment 391, which will require the explanatory memorandums alongside each statutory instrument to include a number of specific statements aimed at ensuring the transparency of the SIs that are to come and acting as an aid to the most effective scrutiny that this House can provide.
I would like to take a particularly special moment to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), in whose name amendment 360 is tabled, that we have laid in the Library draft SIs that will help everyone to understand the sorts of changes that we might need to make under clause 7. I would like to reassure him that the Treasury has been engaging with the financial services industry extensively since the EU referendum on the range of issues affecting the sector as we withdraw from the EU. That engagement continues and it includes regular official and ministerial discussion with industry and trade associations and bodies such as the International Regulatory and Strategy Group. That includes discussions on our approach to the domestication of EU financial services regulation through this Bill. That will continue and grow throughout 2018. The Treasury is also working closely with the Bank of England and the FCA to ensure the UK’s smooth and orderly withdrawal from the European Union.
By supporting a close working partnership between industry, regulators and Government, the Government will ensure that their approach to domesticating EU financial services regulation is well understood and based on input from stakeholders. Consistent with the objectives of this Bill, the approach in financial services is to provide certainty and continuity for firms after exit with the UK maintaining high regulatory standards. Financial services is one of the areas where a bold and ambitious free trade agreement could be sought. We are ambitious for that deal and we would do nothing in clause 7 to undermine it.
Robert Neill
I am grateful to the Minister for devoting that portion of his speech to the detail on financial services. That is important for the City, as he knows, and the proposal to publish draft statutory instruments is a well-tested and welcome route.
Vicky Ford
I have a quick question about financial services legislation and deficiencies. I want to get it clear in my head, as a non-lawyer, that deficiencies would not cover material policy changes. For example, European banks, including British banks, currently do not have to hold any capital against sovereign debt issued by EU member states. Changing that could be considered to be dealing with a deficiency, because we will no longer be a member state, but it would be a policy change. Will the Minister confirm that that sort of amendment would be picked up and would go through the affirmative procedure?
Mr Baker
The committee will be busy, and that is why I am so grateful for the fact that several hon. Members—presumably including the hon. Gentleman—seem to be volunteering to do the important duty of serving on it, which no one should take lightly. I say to my hon. Friend that we have been extremely clear that any major change will come through primary legislation, but I cannot say that there will be no policy changes at all, however minor. The reality is that if a function comes back to the UK and we have to make a choice about whether it is allocated to the PRA or the FCA, that could be described as a policy choice.
I want to be clear with the Committee. I cannot say that there will be no policy changes whatever, but I can say that the Bill is about certainty, continuity and control. It is about making sure that the law works the day after we exit in substantially the same way as it worked the day before, from the point of view of those who are subjected to it. I can see that my hon. Friend brings great insight to the matter.
Matthew Pennycook
On a related point about the new sifting committee, will the Minister outline the Government’s view—this is partly a matter for Standing Orders—on how the chair of that committee would be appointed and whether Parliament could have a role in the election of the chair, rather than the post being appointed by the Government?
Mr Baker
The hon. Gentleman has been generous enough to say that he appreciates that that is a matter for Standing Orders. I am very sensitive to the role and powers of Parliament, which we have discussed throughout proceedings on the Bill. As a Minister, I really do not want to stand at the Dispatch Box and trespass—in this debate, of all places—on Parliament’s right to set its own Standing Orders.
Mr Charles Walker
We based the model on the European Scrutiny Committee, in which the Chairman is appointed.
Mr Baker
I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
I move on to consent from the devolved Administrations. Amendments 73, 233, 239 and 240 were tabled by the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber and the hon. Members for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) and for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins). Taking the right hon. Gentleman’s amendments together, we are committed to continuing to respect the devolution settlement fully. We will work closely with the devolved Administrations as we develop fisheries and agricultural legislation, which will be brought through by separate Bills to deliver an approach that works for the whole United Kingdom.
At this point, I hope that the Committee will not mind if I refer to points raised in our previous debate on devolution. Amendments were tabled about a restriction on the power relating to national security. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, we are proposing a bold new strategic agreement that provides a comprehensive framework for future security, law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation—a treaty between the UK and the EU—that would complement our existing extensive and mature bilateral relationships with our European friends to promote our common security. That is just one outworking of the Government’s commitment to national security.
I now turn—I think, finally—to amendment 385 and new clause 77. Amendment 385, tabled by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), seeks to replicate the protections in part 3 of the Criminal Justice (European Protection Order) (England and Wales) Regulations 2014 in relation to protected persons. As I understand it, the amendment seeks to provide that the relevant authorities in England and Wales would continue to recognise and act on the orders made under the EU directive by the remaining member states, whether or not they act on ours.
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her powerful speech, but we cannot accept the amendment at this time because our continued co-operation with other EU member states’ courts is a matter to be negotiated. The outcome of the negotiations is not yet certain, and it would therefore be premature to seek to replicate in our law one side of a reciprocal arrangement that may not continue. However, I am happy to make it clear that if the forthcoming negotiations produce an agreement to continue access to the regime established under the directive, or something like it, appropriate steps in legislation will be brought forward to implement it at that time. I therefore urge her not to press her amendment.
Jess Phillips
I hear what the Minister is saying and I take on board that this has to go through the new negotiations. What I am trying to do with the amendment is to ask Ministers to remember that this needs to go through the negotiations, because it was completely missing from the White Paper on the earlier negotiations.
Mr Baker
The hon. Lady’s point is well made and has been heard by me and my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I am grateful to her for making it.
The hon. Lady also tabled new clause 77. It may assist the Committee if I explain that the Government are taking forward a range of work to tackle violence against women and girls and that we are already required to lay annual reports before Parliament on the issue in the context of the Council of Europe convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence—the Istanbul convention.
The coalition signed the Istanbul convention in 2012 to demonstrate its strong commitment to tackling violence against women and girls, and this Government have made absolutely clear our commitment to ratifying it. The convention seeks to continue promoting international co-operation on this issue. Indeed, it is the first pan-European legally binding instrument that provides a comprehensive set of standards to prevent and combat violence against women.
The hon. Lady will know that we have engaged and will continue to engage with a range of international partners, including the EU, in our efforts to tackle this issue. For example, we recently participated in work with the Council of Europe—as Members will know, it includes both EU and non-EU member states—to develop a best practice guide on stopping forced marriage and female genital mutilation.
I know the hon. Lady desires ensuring that Parliament is updated on this issue. As she will be aware, on 1 November we laid the first report on progress towards ratification of the convention, as required by the Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Act 2017. The report, which we are required to lay annually, sets out the action we are taking to tackle violence against women and girls and how we comply with the measures set out in the convention. In addition, once the UK has ratified it, we will be required to submit regular reports on compliance to the Council of Europe. As right hon. and hon. Members will appreciate, we want to avoid duplicating our existing reporting requirements in this area.
We are committed to doing all we can to address violence against women and girls both domestically and internationally. As the hon. Lady will be aware, our cross-Government strategy outlines our ambition that no victim of abuse is turned away from the support they need. It is underpinned by increased funding of £100 million, and a national statement of expectations sets out a clear blueprint for good local commissioning and service provision. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Lady that the Government have been, and will continue to be, committed to tackling violence against women and girls and to updating the House on our work in this area and that she will therefore not press her new clause.
Mr Baker
The right hon. Gentleman enjoys a jest, but I hope that the Committee will understand that, as I set out at the beginning of my speech—I have now been on my feet for an hour and 20 minutes, compared with an indication that I would take an hour, so I needed to pare down my remarks—it is not the Government’s policy, as he knows, to remain in the single market and the customs union.
In the interests of allowing other hon. Members to contribute to the debate, I will conclude my remarks. We face an unprecedented legislative challenge, to which the power in clause 7 is the only practical solution. The power is only a temporary solution to achieving our key objective: a functioning statute book in time for exit day. The Government believe that we have made significant concessions on the issue, both with the sifting committee and by putting into statute the requirement to include certain information in the explanatory memorandums. I hope that those concessions have tackled the concerns expressed throughout our consideration of these amendments. I am conscious of the commitment I gave to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield in relation to the scope of the powers, and I look forward to working with him. I will finish by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne for all that he has done, with the unanimous support of the Procedure Committee, to ensure that the House has the proposal for a sifting committee.
Helen Goodman
It is a great pleasure to follow the Minister, who presented a rather unbending policy posture this afternoon, but with his usual great good humour. On Second Reading I spoke mainly about the problem of the Henry VIII powers and the excessive use of delegated legislation in the Bill, and I feel justified, given the criticism outside the House that this was a power grab by Ministers.
When looking at clause 7, there are two big issues that we need to address: the scope and content of the delegated legislation, and the institutional architecture. I was therefore pleased to be a member of the Procedure Committee when it agreed to a report that acknowledged the problem and said that the House has a unique and unprecedented requirement and that we need special mechanisms to suit the task ahead. When I first told the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) last January that we should be looking into the Henry VIII powers, I think he was rather underwhelmed, but I think that now, on reflection, he is pleased that we did so. Only he could have secured a consensus between, for example, the hon. Members for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), the Scottish National party and me, which is a great credit to him. Our report sought a committee of the House to oversee all the delegated legislation.
I am happy to support amendments 393, 395, 396 and 397, which will put in the Bill the requirement for a sifting committee. I am even more pleased that the Government have accepted those amendments—the first changes they have accepted since publishing the proposals last summer. They will give the House a key role in overseeing the delegated legislation. As the Minister said, it is extremely important that Ministers will be required to produce explanatory memorandums. Without those, the committee would have a next to impossible task.
I think that the approach whereby the committee will give advice to Ministers so that statutory instruments can be upgraded from the negative to the affirmative resolution procedure is absolutely essential, because it means that the committee will be able to say that on some issues there must be a debate and a vote of the whole House, or that Ministers must provide an adequate explanation. I also think that the timetable that we have set out, of 10 days, is reasonable. However, I have some doubts about amendments 394 and 398, which would allow Ministers to step outside the process when they believe that the matter under consideration is urgent, because, as we all know, that could be abused by being stretched in a way that undermines the process.
I know that hon. Members, particularly those on the Opposition Benches, are somewhat doubtful about the efficacy of the amendments, but I pray in aid the Hansard Society’s assessment—I think it is the most neutral and impartial assessment one could look for—which agrees that the procedure has been strengthened. There is now a requirement to lay accompanying documents. The House will have more power, and the committee will be able to refer statutory instruments to further debate and upgrade the level of scrutiny.
I regret that the amendments do not reflect fully the report that the Procedure Committee published in November, which said that there should be a scrutiny reserve. That is what the European Scrutiny Committee has and I think that that would be better. It would also be better if Ministers followed the Committee’s recommendation to publish now a full list of the delegated legislation they expect to bring forward.
The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), who is on the Opposition Front Bench, would strengthen the process significantly by ensuring that Parliament was able to decide rather than just be consulted. He referred to the terrible saga of tuition fees, where the House was ignored by the Government. That is not reassuring and Ministers must know that. Indeed, one wonders at Ministers who did that knowing that this proposed legislation would be brought forward with a great package of statutory instruments under the negative procedure. That seems to be an extraordinary bit of behaviour. My hon. Friend also tabled amendments that would enable raising the scrutiny level to super-affirmative. Perhaps Ministers should still consider that.
Hon. Members interested in the sifting committee’s terms of reference, make-up and membership will have another opportunity to debate them when the Standing Orders come forward. The Leader of the House put forward some Standing Orders, but they are amendable. If hon. Members wish to change them, it is open for them to do so. I remind all hon. Members on both sides of the House that House business is not whipped business, so they do not need to fear—[Interruption.] I can see one Minister looking at me quizzically. House business is not whipped business, so Members can take a view in line with their conscience on what they think would make for the strongest sifting committee.
On the scope of clause 7 and the content and substance of the statutory instruments, Ministers are being very inflexible and I do not think that that will serve them well. My constituents have contacted me—I am sure other hon. Members have been contacted—with their concerns about environmental policy and animal sentience. I know Ministers have another route for dealing with the animal sentience issue. We also have very strong concerns about children’s rights. In September, we had a very good seminar on children’s rights led by Liverpool University’s law department, which brought together people with concerns about this issue from all parts of the United Kingdom, including Scotland and Northern Ireland. I really feel that the Minister’s response on new clause 53 and the position of child refugees is very disappointing, as is what he said about the UN convention on the rights of the child, which is covered by amendments 149 and 150. Now, that has not been debated today, but we will be voting on it later.
I want to point out to the Minister that he cannot rely on the Children Act 1989, which contains provisions on the best interests of the child, in the way he seems to think he can, because it applies only in certain classes of case referring to children. For example, it does not apply to housing decisions. It is simply not the case that the child’s best interest always has priority in English law, and if we wanted to do something about that we would incorporate the UN convention on the rights of the child into English law, as we did with the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act in 1998.
The Minister was very forthcoming in his debate with the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) on the question of looking again at the definition of deficiencies and the list of examples in the Bill. However, many hon. Members will have been extremely disappointed by his inflexibility and failure to shift on the question of whether the negative resolution process can be used where the Minister thinks it is appropriate and not necessary. This was covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) in amendment 68 and my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) in amendment 49. I have to say to the Minister that I do not think that he convinced many Opposition Members on that.
Similarly, on tertiary legislation, it is incredible to argue that the financial regulators are not making policy choices. They are. It may well be that they are in a better position given the length, complexity and technical nature of such matters to be the people responsible for those regulations. It may well be that they are in a better position to do that than Members of this House, but I do not think the Minister should claim that policy choices are not being made here, because they clearly are being made all the time.
Mr Baker
I will have to check the record—I was just flicking through my speaking notes—but I am sure that when I said that there were no policy decisions, that was about a 10,000 page document about how institutions were to comply with regulations. On the particular point about tertiary legislation and the financial regulation system, I feel sure that when the hon. Lady and I served together on the Treasury Committee she would have been as indefatigable a defender of the independence of the Bank of England as I would have been. Surely she does not want to undermine that.
Helen Goodman
I do not wish to undermine that. I just want the Minister to present what I believe to be a more accurate picture to the House about the content of tertiary legislation. That is the point that I am making.
It simply comes down to the fact that clause 7 gives Ministers too much scope. That brings into doubt whether the stated intention of the Bill, which is, simply, to translate the body of European law on to the UK statute book, is all that can happen once the Bill is passed. That is the problem with it.
The thing that will probably most concern our constituents is the proposal to abolish the functions of the EU agencies. That is extremely worrying and we do not get clear answers from Ministers on individual cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) spoke about this in relation to the European Environment Agency and the European Chemicals Agency. The Minister will have seen, as I did yesterday, on the front page of the Financial Times the pressure from the chemicals and pharmaceuticals industries over chemicals and medicines safety regulations. When we ask Ministers in other Departments what will happen, we do not get any certainty. This is not at all reassuring. There are big risks for the economy if we do not handle this much better than the Government are handling it now. The issue of the regulations of the agencies is the thing that can have the most significant impact on the economy. Whatever else people voted for when they voted to leave the EU, they certainly did not vote to lose jobs and be poorer.
Mr Walker
I thank the right hon. Lady—I mean the hon. Lady—for her kind words. Why she is not right honourable escapes me! Perhaps that will be remedied soon. One of the important things to remember about the sifting committee, as she reminded me yesterday, is that if, as I suspect, there will be eight Government members and eight Opposition members, the chair, who will be appointed, will only cast a vote in the event of a tie. That is the very effective check and balance built into the committee. Yes, it might be—will be—a Government chair, but if all eight Opposition members vote and the seven non-chair Government members vote, the chair will not come into play. He or she will only come into play in the event of a tied vote.
Helen Goodman
The hon. Gentleman is displaying his usual charm in trying to make hon. Members feel that the Standing Orders put forward by the Leader of the House are peerless. I suspect that hon. Members will want to come back and debate the make-up and terms of reference at the time. I would also be grateful if Ministers could relay to the Leader of the House that we are disappointed that neither she nor her deputy have been present at any point in this debate, when we have been discussing something that concerns the role of the House. We hope very much that they will also be flexible if, when we have that debate, there is a consensus for changing the draft Standing Orders just published.
Robert Neill
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and to participate in this debate. This, of course, is what Parliament is about at the end of the day. The amendments, including the two that stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), which have been debated at length, are all about improving the Bill. I noticed in the world of Twitter and spin merchants this afternoon the suggestion that amendments to the Bill on key issues, if carried, might somehow weaken the Government’s position with our European counterparts and undermine the confidence of our European partners in our ability to deliver. Shall we just park that as the tosh and nonsense that it is? Anyone who spins that out, on whoever’s behalf, should be ashamed of themselves.
I know that the two Ministers certainly would not take that view. The spirit in which they have approached the debate is welcome. This is about improving the Bill to ensure the right outcomes at the end of the day. That is why the points made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) were so important and why I endorse every word he said. It is also why I warmly welcome the work of the Procedure Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) in finding a means to a better level of triaging, in effect, of these very significant statutory instruments and regulations.
The point has been well made by both my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend that the broader picture here is how we scrutinise secondary legislation in this place. I think that everybody concedes that it is woefully inadequate and does not bear comparison with many other Parliaments. It is an example of how being the mother of Parliaments does not necessarily mean we are the best. We need to improve our work, but I think we are taking a workmanlike and sensible approach, which I appreciate. There will, no doubt, come a point when we shall need to look at the way in which we deliver the deal—and I am delighted that we are now able to move on to phase 2. I look forward to the time when the House is given a proper vote on that, or, indeed, on the lack of any such deal.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I want to speak briefly in favour of amendments 15 and 49, 132, and 5 and 2, tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and the Leader of the Opposition.
I know that many Members in all parts of the House have spent hours battling away on the Bill over the past few weeks, and I am full of admiration for them. I do not remotely pretend that I could compete with their expert knowledge of Europe or the constitution, and I will certainly spend as many hours as I can find poring over the Minister’s brief after tonight’s performance to see whether I can improve my understanding. Despite all this effort, however, all we have really seen are a few nudges and hints from Ministers to date; there has been no real tangible progress in terms of any substantial change to this Bill. That is the most worrying thing about the whole process. It appeared tonight that the Minister was sent out with a brief designed purely to bat away everything put in his way. That suggests to me that the Government are not interested in taking on board the views of Members of this House.
I am choosing to make a contribution at this stage in the debate because I believe that clause 7 is the nub of the Bill; it is certainly the area about which constituents have contacted me the most. That is because it is where we learn whether Parliament is going to be taking back control, or whether we are on the verge of leaving one big bureaucratic union to which many people in this country object—whatever our views, that is one of the reasons why people object—only to hand over unprecedented powers to Ministers in a Government who do not actually have a majority. More than anything, clause 7 is about parliamentary sovereignty and our rights as parliamentarians to represent the interests of the public, especially where they do not coincide with the interests of the Executive. That is what this is really about.
Amendment 15 addresses the fact that clause 7 attempts to define partially and envisage deficiencies that may arise. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield is right that it makes much more sense to leave this open and hence it is better to say:
“A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate to prevent, remedy or mitigate…any failure of retained EU law to operate effectively”,
and simply leave it there. The attempt to go further with a partial list does not help us.
Amendment 49 deals with a similar concern, but is clearer about the fact that delegated powers should be used only when absolutely necessary. Why should we give increased delegated powers to the Executive when we are not convinced of the necessity for them? It is their job to convince us of their necessity. Our job today is to build protection against the risk of a Minister acting excessively.
Amendment 1 makes it clear that, whatever the arguments about taking back control, no one thought when that phrase was used in the referendum campaign that it meant handing excessive powers to Ministers without proper parliamentary scrutiny; and of course, turning to amendment 32, it would be absurd in parliamentary terms if the very delegated powers that the Minister is given in order to amend defects in his plans are then capable of being used to reconstruct the entire Act. The Minister claims that that will not happen, but I was not massively convinced; it was a long performance—there is no argument about that—but I was not convinced. I have recently read Tim Shipman’s book, and I am aware that the Minister has lots of skills and talents, which came to the fore in the lead-up to the referendum. However, I wish I had seen more evidence today of how he goes around convincing colleagues; I did not witness that happening at the Dispatch Box tonight. We have to ask whether we are on a slippery slope. Is this about dismantling parliamentary authority? Is this the start of law-making by Executive fiat and therefore the bypassing of this entire place? If that is the case, that is not what we came here for and it is not what this Bill should be about.
Amendment 5 returns to the fear that existing functions, and therefore rights, could be taken away from the British people in an exercise that is supposed to be about making EU law operable from exit day. That is not the debate that we have been having here, however, and it is not what the Government have been concentrating their energies on. I cannot see how anyone who genuinely believes in parliamentary democracy could be satisfied to see this Bill, and clause 7 in particular, go through unamended. That would be tantamount to our giving up our proper rights and responsibilities.
I know that we will not come to this until another day, but by the same token it would be a total dereliction of duty if we were to make a withdrawal agreement that was not subject to full and proper parliamentary scrutiny and a meaningful vote. Otherwise, what was the referendum for? If all we are going to achieve is a transfer of power from Europe to a bunch of Ministers in a Government without a majority, we will have defeated the whole purpose of the exercise.
John Penrose
I sympathise instinctively with an awful lot of fears and analyses expressed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe); I speak as a former constitution Minister. I am the No. 2 signatory on six of the amendments tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve)—not quite the total number that he has tabled. I was persuaded and inspired to do that because I was equally concerned that, under the guise of taking back control, we were going to fail to take back control—that Parliament would unintentionally but none the less effectively be an end run if we were not careful.
I have been focusing on two areas. The first is the sifting committee. The second is the scope of the ministerial powers to introduce statutory instruments not only under clause 7 but under clauses 8 and 9, which are obviously linked and which will be discussed and voted on today and tomorrow. For me, and I think for my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, the sifting committee has been largely put to bed by the excellent cross-party work of the Procedure Committee, to which I pay tribute.
This might not be to everybody’s taste, but because it is a cross-party Committee, because the matter has been carefully debated and thought through, and because this is a significant step in the right direction, I am certainly willing to back the Committee’s proposal. My right hon. and learned Friend has put his name to the Committee’s amendment: he and I are not minded to press our version, which was based on proposals from the Hansard Society. We are happy not to press that to a vote, and instead to support the proposals from the Procedure Committee.
Incidentally, I must gently and respectfully disagree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, because I think that the Government’s behaviour over the sifting committee amendments shows that they have given ground. They have accepted some amendments—[Interruption.] He is suggesting that they have given only a small amount of ground, but I think it could be larger than he is giving them credit for. That is because we would otherwise have faced two big problems.
One problem would have been that it is impossible for the Government to predict at this stage precisely what SIs will be introduced. We all know that there will be a large number of them, and we can probably guess what 95% of them are going to be, but we will not be able to guess 5% of them simply because we do not know what is going to be in the final agreements. There will obviously also be other things that are consequential on that that we will discover much nearer the day. Therefore, having a sifting committee of parliamentarians that can be flexible and make proper, balanced judgments of what is important and what needs a higher level of scrutiny is no small thing.
Mr Charles Walker
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words about the excellent work of the Procedure Committee. Does he accept that one of this House’s great achievements has been the work of Select Committees and the cross-party consensus that they can find and build?
John Penrose
I absolutely accept that. Another important thing about the sifting committee will be that many of the other bits of Brexit-related legislation that are starting their journey through this House may contain large numbers of statutory instruments—potentially primary legislation-amending statutory instruments. What we agree for this particular Bill may well be an important template for how we treat those similar powers in subsequent pieces of legislation. We are doing important work here and it is crucial that we do it. I also urge my hon. Friend to broaden out the Procedure Committee’s approach to look more broadly at SI scrutiny powers after all this is done; many of us would encourage him to do that. However, such an approach is perhaps too wide for this Bill right now.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Before my hon. Friend moves on from sifting, does he agree that it represents substantial progress that we have heard from the Dispatch Box today that the recommendations made by the Procedure Committee will be respected by the Government in their conduct in the House?
John Penrose
Absolutely. Those commitments will be important and consequential, but we also need to ensure that everything gets baked properly into the Standing Orders and that the relevant votes are passed correctly.
Moving on to scope, I think still we have further to travel. A whole slew of amendments—not just the three or four tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield that I have put my name to, but those of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and others—are trying to address the scope of the powers that Ministers will be given. In fact, Ministers themselves have accepted the principle, saying that they are sympathetic to the idea of trying to limit the scope of the powers. The Minister said that both he and the Secretary of State would like to do that if they could; it seemed to be a question of how, not whether it was desirable in principle.
When I tempted the Minister in an intervention, he also said that the view in the Department is that Ministers want to try to take just enough powers to successfully translate EU laws into British laws and no more. We all accept that there must be no less than the minimum required, but he was clear that Ministers only want to take the minimum. The question is not about the principle of necessity and sufficiency; it is about how that is translated into a legal wording that will allow the principle to be clearly expressed. I gently, but I hope forcefully, say to Ministers that the words in the Bill at the moment do not pass the sniff test for an awful lot of us in the Chamber.
I am extremely pleased, therefore, with the open, positive and constructive way in which Ministers have approached the issue and with the commitment from the Dispatch Box this afternoon to go back and have a further look. I could not tempt the Minister into a firm promise to introduce an amendment, but I think that that is going to be necessary by the time we get to Report if the Bill is to be amended in a way that becomes acceptable and passes the sniff test for most of us here.
The Minister was saying—I paraphrase him—that Ministers accept the principle that the minimum necessary, the necessity test, is the right one in principle, but they cannot find the right words because if they use the word “necessary”, and they have multiple necessities, the courts will interpret that in a way that is unhelpful and does not deliver what everyone wants. The problem Ministers have is that the word that they have chosen instead of “necessary” is too broad and brings in all sorts of other possibilities that give a great deal of concern around the House that Ministers will unintentionally but in practice introduce other powers that they have said this afternoon they do not desire, need or want to give themselves in principle.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Is my hon. Friend sure that the source of the problem lies in the term “appropriate”? The more I have listened to the debate this afternoon, the more it has seemed that the problem may come from the word “arising”. Perhaps we need words more like “entailed by”, which would limit the scope of appropriateness.
John Penrose
What my right hon. Friend has just demonstrated is the point that I was just about to come on to. We are going to need different words—in the plural—than we have at the moment and the discussions that have been promised from the Dispatch Box, even if an amendment has not yet been promised, will be essential to get the issue right. It is not right at the moment.
During the debate this afternoon, three or four options have already been proposed from the Back Benches, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) just now and by a couple of others. It is clear that there is no shortage of solutions; it will not be acceptable for Ministers to say, “This problem is too hard so we are going to stick with what we have.” There are enough brains in the room for us to get this right—there are certainly enough on the ministerial Benches and among advisers. So it ain’t going to be good enough for Ministers to say, “We understand the principle and have already accepted it in our remarks today, but it is all too hard and we can’t possibly manage it.” That will not fly.
I have discussed this response with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. We are content, based on what we have heard, not to press the amendments on scope that we have tabled here this evening. However, it will be essential before we get to Report to see some creative alternatives that solve the problems that hon. Members on both sides of the House have alluded to. People on both sides of the House can propose lots of possible solutions. We need to find some that work and make sure that Ministers are content to introduce them in the impressively constructive tone with which they have already addressed the issue of the sifting committee. That needs to be done before Report.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I speak in support of the amendments to clause 7 in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and other hon. Members. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) has already mentioned, they are amendments 264, 222, 73, 233, 234, 239, 240, 266, 269, 272 and 161. They are important because they go to the heart of the debate on democracy—whether so much power in so many important areas should be exercised by Ministers without substantial oversight by Parliament. I have not been reassured by the Minister’s lengthy response.
Particular importance has to attach to protecting the rights of consumers and of workers, and I was disappointed at the Minister’s rejection of the amendments we suggested. We have heard some rumblings from Government Back Benchers and fellow travellers that leaving the EU is an opportunity to strip away protections from workers, consumers and the environment, and to cut supposed “red tape” from manufacturers and producers. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) reminded us of the previous views of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on this. The Foreign Secretary has also been one of these siren voices in the past, and the Brexit Secretary wrote an article during the EU referendum in which he said:
“The continental response to competition is, rather than trying to compete, to make sure that regulation tilts the playing field in their favour.”
He also said that:
“while the single market may seem like a good idea, in reality it has distorted market incentives, reduced competition and burdened European economies with unnecessary regulations.”
So there are people at the very heart of the UK Government who seriously believe that regulations designed to keep us safe and to prevent us from being ripped off, and regulations to ensure that the environment gets a break and that workers get paid and protected properly, are bad things. There are Cabinet Secretaries of the opinion that these things were invented by European bureaucrats as a weapon against UK productivity—that truly is health and safety gone mad.
I mention the current Government members to make it clear that there is a clear and identifiable danger to our continued safety, to the standards we expect in goods and the services we buy, and to the rights that workers enjoy—and it occupies Whitehall today.
As has been said by other Members, the extent of the power aggregation is such that it would leave Ministers, in effect, changing primary legislation by fiat. This is a coup, a very Tory coup, that is seizing power from this place—the power to create and amend legislation—and centralising it in the hands of a few who would have nothing to do with these protections and who would claim that we did well enough without them before.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady believe that the British electorate were better protected when these powers resided in Brussels, as they indeed still do? Does she think the people making these decisions in Brussels were more accountable than Ministers will be in this House after we leave?
Deidre Brock
This is exactly the point, is it not? Under this form of legislation Ministers will not be as accountable to this House. I am also of the view that environmental legislation, for example, has been well served by the European Parliament, so I have to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman.
Parliamentary scrutiny would be severely limited by the form of statutory instrument being proposed, but the sheer volume of secondary legislation that is likely to be washing through the system will render effective parliamentary scrutiny almost impossible. We need checks and balances inserted into the system to ensure that there is not legislation made in haste for which we all repent at leisure. I welcome the fact that at least a sifting committee has been accepted by the Government, but it does not go far enough. It would be a sensible argument for this secondary legislation, where it is necessary, to be subject to the super-affirmative procedure. I would like to hear from Ministers why that has not been considered or, if it has, why it has been rejected. Such an approach would not solve the problem, but it would, at least, nod in the direction of solving it.
We also have to recognise that other Administrations have a substantial interest in these decisions, and a degree of co-operation and respect is required. Therefore, “taking back control” has to have an element of that good, old-fashioned, EU principle of subsidiarity. Decisions that have large impacts on the devolved Administrations should be co-decisions. That is why the Joint Ministerial Committee should be involved in making them; it is why there should be proper consultation across the Administrations before changes are made to social security provisions; and it is why there should be consent from the Welsh and Scottish Administrations for any changes to the law that affect provisions within devolved competences.
We have heard the opinions of parliamentary Committees and of outside bodies. I know that experts are not viewed particularly favourably on the Government Benches, but they do have an important role to play, and many experts, including the Law Society of Scotland and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, have expressed serious concerns. Those concerns should be heeded in this place and heard by Ministers. It is clear that the furious Brexiteers who drove on when sensible voices were urging caution have ignored this advice:
“Heat not a furnace for your foe so hot
That it do singe yourself.”
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clauses 53 and 77 and to amendments 385, 1, 2, 3, 5, 48 and 49. In view of all the speeches we have heard so far and the long speech from the Minister, I hope to deal with these matters quite briefly because many of the issues have already been discussed and, in some ways, addressed from the Dispatch Box.
Today, we are debating the rectifying of deficiencies that would result from bringing EU law into UK law. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) said, whatever we might think about the process of leaving the European Union, it is happening and we need to bring EU law into UK law if our withdrawal is to work successfully. I have always said that Brexit is good news for lawyers, and I say that with respect to my former profession.
New clause 53 was spoken to so impressively by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and through it he seeks to address the potential loss of family reunion aspects of the Dublin III regulation and to propose alterations to the UK’s system by taking the key definition of “family” from the Dublin III convention and applying it to the UK’s refugee family reunion rules. Earlier this year, as my hon. Friend said, we went to Greece as guests of UNICEF to visit and talk to those who had travelled and were seeking refuge and looking to join family members in other parts of Europe. It was a moving and rather depressing but also ultimately inspirational visit that showed the power of the human spirit, particularly in younger people in search of a better life.
Parents and families often send their young people off to look for a better life here in Europe. Many of the young people we saw had made the dangerous journey to access family reunion under the Dublin III rules. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, Dublin III allows children to join their extended family once they reach Europe. Under the regulation, the definition of extended family includes uncles, aunts, grandparents and older siblings. If, after Brexit, children fleeing war and persecution will be able to rely only on the UK’s immigration rules, they will have a right to be reunited only with their parents, as the existing UK immigration rules provide only for the right of parents with refugee status or humanitarian protection to sponsor their under 18-year-old dependent children to join them in the UK. The UK rules do not provide the same right to other family members.
We have to recognise that in many of these circumstances, it is because a young person’s parents have perhaps been killed or are unable to look after them that wider family members might offer protection and the chance of a new life. Ministers were clear, right from the White Paper onward to the way the Bill was presented on Second Reading, and in speeches on this subject, that no rights would be changed or policy changes made in the Bill. It is about making sure that EU law that is brought back to the UK works and that deficiencies are corrected if necessary.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Did my right hon. Friend share my puzzlement at the answer that the Minister gave to that point at the Dispatch Box? It seemed an argument was being made that Dublin III requires co-operation that would be impossible to guarantee. As I understood it, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and my right hon. Friend herself are both recommending a change in our immigration law to ensure that we parallel the situation that currently obtains under Dublin III.
Nicky Morgan
My right hon. Friend puts it extremely well. I was going to say that the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), was one of the most ardent campaigners for the UK to leave the European Union, presumably—I think I have heard him and others say this—on the basis that the UK would then be able to do what was right for us and what we judged to be in the national interest and the right thing to do for our place in the world, so there was irony in his saying that we would not be able to do that because of restrictions and because it would not be allowed under the rules. That seemed to drive a coach and horses through what has been sold to me sometimes as the benefits of Brexit. I might remain unconcerned, but on this, I think that there might well be an opportunity for us to improve the current situation. I hope very much that the UK Government will take up such an opportunity.
If leaving the European Union gives us a chance to provide more clarity to our immigration rules, it has to be a good thing. From what the Minister said, I understand that there may be another piece of legislation, namely the forthcoming immigration Bill, that might be more suitable for tackling the issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, we have spoken to the Minister for Immigration. I hope that we can take advantage of this opportunity to look again at the rules to clarify the fact that we want to mirror the Dublin III rules as we go forward. Ministers can be assured that, if this is not picked up when we get to that immigration Bill, my hon. Friend and I will be tabling a similar amendment in order to probe further and to hold the Government to account.
It is important that the United Kingdom remains committed to helping the most vulnerable both here and abroad. Surely that must be partly what a global Britain—by which I mean Britain taking its place on the world stage and making a difference—has to be about. This is the sort of amendment that says much about our values as a Government, as a party and also as a country. We do not want to make it even harder for young people to come to this country to build a new life and to make the most of themselves. I view this issue through the inspirational work of the Baca charity in my constituency.
Let me turn now to new clause 77 and amendment 385, which were spoken to so well by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips). She knows a lot about these sorts of issues so I will keep my remarks very brief. Again the point is that the protections for those at risk of violence or worse must surely be maintained as we leave the European Union. I cannot honestly believe that any Member in this House would want Brexit to stop the current protections for those at such risk.
The hon. Lady’s amendment picks up on the European protection orders that allow a person who is protected against a perpetrator in a member state to retain that protection when they travel or move within the European Union. I heard what the Under-Secretary said at the Dispatch Box. I take the point that this is a detailed amendment and that, perhaps, it is better dealt with by the relevant Ministers from the relevant Department—the Home Office. I think that the Minister, who is back in the Chamber, did agree that this point would be, and should be, on the negotiation agenda. The desire for UK courts to continue to recognise European protection orders after exit date must surely be right, and I will support the hon. Lady in her amendment. There are a number of other Members—I cannot remember the exact number—who have signed this amendment to make sure that these issues are on the negotiation agenda. When talking about leaving the European Union, it is very easy to boil it all down to trade, to numbers and to statistics, but there are people whose lives will be affected, as we have also seen with EU citizens living here and UK citizens living abroad.
Finally, the Prime Minister has been committed throughout her political career to ending human trafficking, fighting female genital mutilation and having a strong strategy to fight violence against women and girls. She has been very clear on this, so I cannot believe that she would not want these protections to be upheld after the exit date.
Finally, let me turn to the Henry VIII powers and the amendments laid by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) who was particularly concerned about the concentration of powers in the hands of Ministers. I think she is right. I am a former lawyer, and one of the legal tendencies is continually to try to draft against what can go wrong when a client is about to embark on something—whether they have been advised to do it or not to do it. A lawyer’s task then is to try to find them protections. Although we can have confidence in current Ministers with regard to the powers that they might want to exercise, we never know what might happen in the future. If this Parliament does not ask why Ministers want all these powers and what they are going to do with them, the next generation of MPs, and the ones after that, will want to know why; they will want to know why we did not seek to apply some limitations on the exercise of those powers.
I am pleased that the Government have listened to the concerns about Henry VIII powers and are going to accept the amendments tabled by the Chair of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker). He has secured an important concession—that Ministers will keep Members of Parliament informed of the forthcoming statutory instruments. I hope that Ministers will take that on board. Parliament must be involved in scrutinising powers that are exercised by the Executive. It is a fundamental tenet of this country’s unwritten constitution. I have set out two examples: the protection of the rights of vulnerable children and of those at risk of violence or worse. We should be asking how the statutory instruments needed to bring those laws back from Europe will be exercised and drafted, and we should be checking it all.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposed changes to the standing orders are particularly welcome in that they provide specifically for the new committee, as I understand it—I am looking for approval from the Chair of the Procedure Committee —to use the Select Committees that deal with each Department to look in detail at the departmental statutory instruments, so we will have real expertise available?
Nicky Morgan
That is an excellent point and a very good idea. There has always been a wider call for the Treasury Committee, which I am privileged to chair, to look more broadly at finance legislation.
The Minister had a difficult job this afternoon. There were a lot of amendments for him to deal with, many of which were very detailed and some of which were clearly not within his departmental remit. This proves the point that we do need Members of Parliament who have an expertise in their background, sit on a Select Committee or have held a particular ministerial brief. This is the time for them to offer their expertise to the House and the country in order to ensure that we get the law that we are bringing back from the EU correct.
Mr Charles Walker
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that although time is short and there is a great deal of urgency to get this done, it seems that the House is up for it, and that we will find the time and the sense of vim and vigour to really exercise our scrutiny function?
Nicky Morgan
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that those listening get the impression that, whatever our views about the wisdom or otherwise of leaving the European Union, the fact is that the decision has been made. We need to make it work in order to set things up for the next generation of people in this country and for the next generation of Members of Parliament, who at some point we will hand the batons on to in our constituencies. If we are to do that, we have to ensure that the legal system we put in place works, the details are right and adequate scrutiny has been given.
The appetite of Members to debate this Bill—I am sure that this will happen on other consequential Bills needed to implement our withdrawal from the EU—shows that we are prepared to put in the hours and want to help. It also helps to build a consensus in this House. I hope that that will show the country a leadership that is about Members of Parliament taking responsibility for getting it right for the country and acting in the national interest. On this critical issue of EU withdrawal, which will affect the country for decades to come, we must absolutely show that leadership as a House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) talked about Parliament being here to improve legislation. Amendments should not be an affront to the Government. They will obviously disagree with some. They might agree with the principle of others, but would want to reword them in a way that finds approval with the parliamentary draftsmen. There will also be some that they will initially want to resist, but if they test the will of the House, they will find that Members want to make those amendments. In fact, such amendments may very well improve legislation and help with parliamentary handling. As the Minister said, we are dealing with 40 years of law and there are hundreds of issues, but there is an opportunity to do things in the UK’s way.
I am very persuaded by amendment 49, which talks about the limitation of powers and having no concentration of powers. There are perhaps improvements that can be made to it, and the amendment the Government have said they will accept on the work of the new sifting committee is very welcome. However, the amendment sends an important signal about the way the constitution in this country works, and for that reason, if the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford presses it, I will support it this evening.
Angela Smith
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. It is a real privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan). I rise to speak primarily to new clause 18 and to new clauses 24 and 27 and amendment 124. I will also speak more broadly to a range of amendments that have been selected for today’s debate.
Clause 7, which today’s proceedings are primarily concerned with, stands as a significant extension of the powers available to Ministers of the Crown. The speech by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) went to the heart of the debate we have had today in relation to what he called the principle of necessity. His test for whether clause 7 stands worthy to pass through to the next stage of the legislative process is, “Does it meet the principle of necessity or go beyond the test necessary to meet the principle of necessity?” I would suggest that, as it stands, the clause does not meet that test.
The right hon. Member for Loughborough made a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) made at the beginning of today’s proceedings: one of the key questions relating to that test is whether Members of Parliament in the future will look back at what we do today and over the next few months and determine that we gave Ministers too much power in this Bill. For me, that is one of the real questions at the heart of the principle the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare outlined earlier.
As it stands, the only pieces of legislation safeguarded in the clause are the Human Rights Act 1998 and some aspects of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. As has been pointed out many times this afternoon, not even the Bill is safe from the hands of Ministers once enacted. As drafted, the Bill will give Ministers flexibility way above and beyond what is necessary, allowing them to create or amend any legislation on the UK statute book to mitigate any failure or deficiency in retained EU law.
I am not convinced that my constituents—even those who voted to leave the European Union—possess the sort of blind faith the Government seem to be asking for, and I certainly do not have that blind faith at the moment. Indeed, a number of parliamentarians on both sides of the Chamber clearly have significant reservations. Further, of course, I am not persuaded that such sweeping powers are necessary.
I understand that the time constraints associated with the article 50 process and the volume of legislative amendments required to implement Brexit put pressures on the Government—I totally acknowledge that. I also understand that putting all the corrections into the Bill at this stage would be entirely impractical and that the Government do require flexibility to respond to all eventualities as negotiations with the European Union take place. In that sense, the spirit of the debate today has been very helpful, and the Government have to concede that most of the contributions have been made with the intention of improving the Bill and ensuring that it works in protecting the legislation we want to transpose into UK law.
Even so, as I have said already, the powers the Bill asks for are too broadly defined and risk undermining the sovereignty of Parliament. There is a balance to be struck between giving the Government the necessary tools to implement Brexit and not forgoing parliamentary scrutiny. What the Bill proposes does not strike that balance, which is why I support new clause 24 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), which stands as a really serious attempt to define properly the principle of necessity.
Just last year, the Brexit Secretary told the Commons Select Committee that he did not foresee any major or material changes being made by delegated legislation. If that is not necessary, what possible justification can he have for including such sweeping powers in the Bill?
In its recent report, the Lords Constitution Committee outlined a number of requirements of Bills granting Henry VIII powers. In essence, it recommended that the breadth of any powers given should be as narrow as possible, which is clearly not so in this case. This point is furthered by the Supreme Court justice, Lord Neuberger, who says that
“the more general the words used by Parliament to delegate a power, the more likely it is that an exercise within the literal meaning of the words will nevertheless be outside the legislature’s contemplation.”
In other words, the broader the powers given, the more likely that, if exercised, litigation will follow. That point was made very powerfully by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), and the Government do need to respond to it.
In their March 2017 White Paper, the Government said that their proposed procedures represented
“the beginning of a discussion between Government and Parliament as to the most pragmatic and effective approach to take in this area.”
I am afraid that so far, despite the concessions made, we have not got there. There are issues relating to the scope of the Bill that have been very clearly articulated today. Amendment 392, accepted by the Government, represents progress, but it does not go far enough because it deals only with part of the problem.
Triage is fine, but at the end of the day the scrutiny process does not allow Parliament to amend or send back a statutory instrument for further consideration by the Government. That is a real weakness in the scrutiny system that must be addressed, as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield said. That is why I support new clause 18, which gives Parliament the chance to look properly and in depth at what is needed to ensure that Parliament has proper powers of scrutiny over the delegated legislation process in relation to this Bill. The Hansard Society report gives us a really good start in that process. The Government have no need to be alarmed about new clause 18. This can be done reasonably quickly, and Parliament has the right to expect it.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) is not here to speak to her new clause 27, which is a shame, because the environment is at the very heart of the Brexit process, yet so far it has been fairly peripheral to the debate. If we are going to get Brexit right, the Government need to understand that environmental standards are the one thing that matters to every citizen in this country. Everybody who voted in the referendum, whether leave or remain, will expect the Government to maintain environmental standards at least to the level where they are now.
James Heappey
The hon. Lady says that the environment has been peripheral to the debate so far. I am sure that she will have seen the comments from the chief executive of Greener UK and the enthusiasm of that organisation regarding the debate that we had in this Chamber one evening two weeks ago when we spent four hours debating the environmental parts of the Bill.
Angela Smith
The test of whether the Government are committed to maintaining environmental standards—and indeed to improving them, as the Secretary of State continually tells us—will be whether their approach to our future outside the European Union allows those environmental standards to be maintained. If we fall back on World Trade Organisation rules, it will be extremely difficult for this country to maintain environmental standards at the level we enjoy now.
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is currently looking at this issue. People in every single aspect of the agricultural sector—whether beef, lamb, poultry, pork, cereals or grain—have said that if we fall back on WTO rules, environmental standards may have to fall because we will lose our competitive edge and we will not be able to compete within that scenario. Environmental standards are not being taken seriously enough by the Government.
It is all very well for the Secretary of State to make populist claims about what he wants to achieve—when, indeed, what he was claiming he had already achieved has not been delivered—but he has to put his money where his mouth is. He cannot be a hard Brexiteer and a champion for environmental standards. The two are completely contradictory. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) can shake his head, but every sector in the economy is making this point.
The chemicals industry wants to stay within REACH, as does the water industry. Every major industry in this country likes the environmental standards that we enjoy now and wants to maintain them but worries about the impact on our environmental standards of not having a deal and not staying in the single market. It is all very well to live in a wonderful cloud cuckoo land and think that we will continue to enjoy in future everything that we have got now and that we will be able to do trade deals across the world, while ignoring the reality that we live next door to the European mainland. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman thinks we can deliver that, but those on his side of the argument have so far failed to tell us how we will do so.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the hon. Lady agree that the European Union has been a force for good for the environment? Through the European Union, this country has done things that it would never have done on its own.
Angela Smith
Environmental standards have improved in this country because the European Union—particularly the single market—has employed the concept of the level playing field. We have been able to maintain high environmental standards because we are competing at the same level as every other member state and the majority of our trade is with the European Union. One can only think about what will happen if our doors are opened, in an unregulated environment, to imports of American beef, American cereal and all the rest of it. What guarantee can those on the leave side of the argument give us that we will be able to protect ourselves with environmental legislation in that context?
Vicky Ford
I agree with the hon. Lady that a great deal of European legislation on the environment has been a force for good, but I warn her against scare- mongering, because much of that great European environmental legislation was led by British influence. British MEPs led the habitats directive, the birds directive and much else. The Government have said that they are committed to keeping high standards and not introducing hormone beef, chlorinated chicken and so on.
Angela Smith
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but she clearly was not listening to what I said. Of course the UK has led on many of those improvements, but why were they secured? Because we are in the single market, which is the reason why the standards work and have become embedded in the European Union. The single market helps us to maintain the level playing field that is necessary if we are to compete effectively in it, and leaving it will endanger the maintenance of those standards. If we fall back on WTO rules, certain standards cannot be properly assessed when a country makes its mind up about what it can and cannot import.
We have to be careful about assuming that we have been some kind of marvellous leader in environmental standards in the European Union. Yes, we have, but the mechanism that has made that possible is the single market. As was pointed out earlier, a Conservative Government helped to put together the architecture for the single market, because they understood the importance of that mechanism for delivering the standards that we all enjoy.
If any Member wants to put all that in danger, all I ask is that they think carefully about doing so, because the consequences could be really rather severe. That is why I will be supporting amendment 124. At the end of the day, it is really important that, as the Prime Minister has pointed out and as I said in my earlier intervention, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. On that basis, nothing in the Bill should preclude the possibility of the UK staying in the single market and the customs union. That is really important, and Parliament needs to take that point seriously.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), for whom I have a great amount of time. I shall not continue the debate about the environment on this occasion, but I welcome her consideration of points of scrutiny. I have, however, come to a slightly different conclusion, as I will outline in a moment.
It is a pleasure to speak to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), which are also in my name and those of other Members. In particular, I am delighted that the Government have accepted amendments 393 and 397. I believe that this demonstrates consensus, and I want to focus on consensus this evening. These amendments have been tabled by Procedure Committee members from both sides of the House and, indeed, from both sides of the Brexit debate. They genuinely benefit from a consensus of support precisely because they do not seek to replay the many arguments of the referendum or undo the will of the British people as expressed in it. We recognise that the UK has voted to leave, and the amendments come up with a way of helping to make that happen.
One reason why that is important, particularly in the context of scrutiny, is that the referendum day poll of about 12,000 voters, commissioned by the noble Lord Ashcroft, showed that the biggest single reason for voting leave—it was given by over half of leave voters—was to take back control of, among other things, the laws and decisions of the United Kingdom. The amendments tabled by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee do just that: they focus on sovereignty, give Parliament control and ensure scrutiny of our laws.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) said, it is important to recognise that amendments, whether these or others, are not necessarily seeking to reopen the Brexit debate. These amendments certainly do not do so; otherwise, I would not be supporting them. Instead, it is important to consider how to provide scrutiny of the laws that will be in place once we leave the European Union, which is what people have voted for.
In this instance and in that context, I am content with the Government’s proposed usage of the so-called Henry VIII powers in the Bill. The Leader of the House and the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), were very frank and reassuring when they appeared before the Procedure Committee, as did the shadow Leader of the House, in what I thought was a good-spirited discussion of the substantive issues at stake.
I will come on to the scale of the challenge ahead in a moment, but I just want to say that, for a number of reasons, I am not particularly worried—strangely, some Labour Members have said they would be—about what would happen if the Labour party were ever in government again. The first is that the powers are mostly limited in nature. I do not want Labour Members to come back into government, for reasons that will be obvious, but I am not worried because the Government have clearly set out what the secondary legislation is and is not intended to do.
The Bill enables Ministers to create the necessary correcting instruments to prevent, remedy or mitigate any failure of or deficiency in retained EU law, but, as the excellent and independent House of Commons Library briefing sets out, “express legal limitations” are imposed on the secondary legislation. The secondary legislation cannot be created to impose or increase taxation, to create new criminal offences or, as the Minister said earlier, to amend human rights legislation. This is a well controlled piece of legislation designed to deal with the challenge of leaving the European Union in a way that allows parliamentary scrutiny while ensuring that the Government can get a smooth and orderly Brexit through this place.
Primary legislation will be needed on a number of key issues over which Parliament will become sovereign when we leave the European Union, such as a customs Bill, a trade Bill, an immigration Bill, a fisheries Bill, an agriculture Bill, a nuclear safeguards Bill, an international sanctions Bill—I am sure there are many more in the minds of Ministers—but there is only a short space of time. Given the sheer volume of retained EU law, there is no alternative to the Henry VIII powers for dealing with any deficiencies. The delegated powers under clause 7 are essential in that light.
The alternative would be legal chaos. With over 20,000 EU laws, having an individual parliamentary vote on each would take over 200 days of parliamentary time—sitting 24 hours a day, seven days a week. To be rid of that chaos, which I hope Opposition Members seek to rid our country of, and to provide the certainty that I am sure businesses in their constituencies and mine want to see, and indeed as witnesses to the Procedure Committee have pointed out, with this volume of delegated legislation being made in such a short space of time, any additional scrutiny by Parliament will provide further legal certainty to the courts and confirm that any law is the will of a sovereign Parliament, but it must be done in a way that allows the Government to get on and do it.
That brings me to a potential concern, which I hope Members agree has been satisfactorily addressed. As the Government have been at pains to make clear many times, the main purpose of the Bill is twofold: first, to respect the referendum result; and secondly, to ensure that our country has a functioning statute book on leaving the European Union. I was therefore pleased to see the inclusion of condition 3 in amendments 393 and 397, which makes it clear that if no recommendation as to whether regulations should be subject to the negative or affirmative procedure has been made by a committee of the House, then after 10 sitting days they can proceed by the negative procedure.
I hope that no committee would seek to play such games on this issue, such is the significance of leaving the European Union, but this critical condition will prevent any committee that was so minded from frustrating the progress of a statutory instrument in order, by extension, to frustrate the will of the British people to leave the European Union positively and constructively. It will stop that happening, enabling scrutiny without sabotage.
Let me affirm again that I am very pleased that these amendments have secured consensus across the parties. While the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union—that is not up for debate—this, I believe, will help to ensure that there is parliamentary scrutiny of the laws that need to be in place once we leave, but without stepping on the Government’s legislative toes or tying their hands in the negotiations with the European Union. That is ever more important as we progress to the stage 2 negotiations on trade and other matters. That relates to amendment 124.
I firmly believe that trade is our kingdom’s path to prosperity, and our generation’s chance to widen consumer choice, reduce the cost of living, improve quality of life and give those with the tightest purse strings a hand up. This we seek to do while maintaining the greatest possible access to, but not membership of, the single market. Leaving the European Union is not just about economics and markets, though; it is about the political and constitutional view of the British people. It was a vote to take back control of our laws as well as our borders, trade policy and money. These amendments enshrine that control.
I understand that the Government have accepted these amendments, and I hope that they will have continued support across the House, and indeed that the committee, once it is set up, will have the support of Members across the Brexit divide, ensuring that it can conduct its work in an effective and well respected manner.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hanson.
I rise to speak to support new clause 24 and amendment 96, in my name, as well as amendment 104, also in my name, which relates to new clause 27 and others on institutional arrangements. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) intends to return to the Chamber to press new clause 27 to a Division, but it is an important clause about governance arrangements and I hope she does.
It is welcome that the Government have accepted the Procedure Committee’s amendments. There was much concern about the sweeping powers set out in clauses 7, 8 and 9, which, as many Members have said, would give Ministers excessively wide powers to make secondary legislation. There has been near universal recognition that we need to strengthen sifting and scrutiny powers, and there is huge scepticism about the process under schedule 7 for sifting through the 800-plus statutory instruments. There is a suspicion—I believe it to be justified—that it was to avoid much needed parliamentary scrutiny and that it could be used to weaken EU laws in the process of transposition.
I understand what the hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) said, which is that there simply is not the time to work through them one by one, but that is why some of us voted against triggering article 50 when the Government chose to rush into it. We knew that this was an incredibly complex procedure and that it would not be easy in the way that some Conservative Members said it would be. We needed the time to do this properly. The reason we cannot do it properly is because we triggered article 50 too early.
Mr Jayawardena
Does the hon. Lady not accept that the European Union was very clear that until we triggered article 50 we could not begin any of the discussions to allow us to consider any of these matters?
Kerry McCarthy
In the previous Parliament, I was a member of two Select Committees. I was on the recent chemicals inquiry. It is not just that Ministers have not got their heads around it and do not know where they want to go in terms of chemicals regulation, it is that they have not even had discussions with stakeholders. They have not even explored the issues. They are coming to it almost with a blank sheet of paper way after the referendum vote was held. A lot of these discussions should have taken place before we even had the referendum, so we could know what we were letting people in for.
I welcome the Procedure Committee’s amendments, but they do not provide for enhanced scrutiny as such. They simply provide a mechanism for a committee to recommend that statutory instruments introduced under the Bill should be treated under the affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure. The committee sits, but it does not scrutinise. Members may request a debate and a vote, but they cannot require a vote to take place. The White Paper said that MPs could require a debate, but that is simply not correct. The Hansard Society described that inaccuracy in the White Paper as ignorance at best, deception at worst. Members who have been in the House for some time will know that for an affirmative resolution to be objected to and end up in a proper debate is very rare. The tactic is used very infrequently. I believe we need a model that allows for enhanced scrutiny. It should include options such as: requiring a Minister to provide further evidence and explanation for the statutory instrument; requiring a debate and vote on the Floor of the House; allowing a committee to be able to recommend amendments to a statutory instrument, which many Members have mentioned; and public consultation. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) talked about alerting Members to what is being brought forward before the House as a statutory instrument, because it is all too true that so many of them just pass unnoticed and we do not know what we are legislating on.
Enhanced scrutiny alone is not enough. The power to make corrections in clause 7 is still too broad, too general and too vague. It needs to be improved and clarified. The Bill must also put stronger substantive limitations on the powers in the Bill itself, including a general limit, as in new clause 24, and specific limits to safeguard environmental standards, such as in amendment 96. It is only by carefully restricting the Government’s powers and effectively scrutinising their use can we prevent powers in the Bill from being used in ways that weaken environmental protections or threaten to roll back 40 years of environmental gains. The hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey) said that Greener UK praised the earlier debate on the environment. I think it was praise for the amendments tabled and the discussion rather than the end result, because the Government did not accept any of the amendments, but we will continue to push on those issues.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Temporary Chair (David Hanson)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind hon. Members that we are just over an hour away from the knife, and I still have 11 hon. Members seeking to catch my eye. Time will have to be very limited if all hon. Members are to get in.
James Heappey
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I wish to speak about the many amendments that concern environmental regulation, specifically new clause 27, amendment 104 and new clauses 62 and 63. Like many other speakers, I have received some excellent briefing material from Greener UK, which encapsulates the ambitions of many in the non-governmental organisation community, and I would like to thank it for the enthusiasm with which it has engaged with colleagues on both sides of the House. It has made an excellent effort in seeking to make very clear what it expects. It is clear also that there is a consensus about what we are trying to achieve. There is just a slight disagreement about how exactly to legislate for it.
I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House, irrespective of what they think should be done to the withdrawal Bill, would congratulate the Environment Secretary on the excellent commitments he has made in recent weeks. They have shown very clearly that the ambition for environmental regulation after Brexit is not merely to maintain the status quo, but to take UK environmental regulation further. That is great news.
We also want the environmental principles enshrined in UK law. We debated that point at length the other week, and there was some satisfaction that that was indeed the Environment Secretary’s intent for the Bill he will bring forward. I agree with my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), that it was a shame that Hansard could not record his nodding during the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), but there is no doubt that those of us in the Chamber clearly saw his acquiescence to the requests being made.
Kerry McCarthy
I think Hansard did record that the Environment Secretary nodded his assent, but I am not entirely sure that he knew what he was nodding his assent to.
James Heappey
For those of us with an environmental mindset, there is a temptation—and I may say more about this later—to think that it is almost too good to be true that the Environment Secretary should sit there and, quite unequivocally, nod to all those requests. People are not quite willing to accept that it is true, but I am not sure that the things that my right hon. Friend has been saying about environmental matters in recent weeks should do anything to discourage us from believing that it is. He really has been setting the pace.
The non-governmental organisations have raised a number of matters. I agree with what they are saying, but I also believe that what we are already doing in the Bill and—much more importantly—our commitments beyond it will meet their expectations. Their concern about the governance gap is entirely justified. There needs to be a new body to reinforce the regulatory standards that we establish.
Significant powers relating to our environment are being vacated by the EU, and we must, as a matter of urgency, ensure that those powers are allocated to either existing or new regulatory bodies. Those bodies must be independent, they must be accountable, they must be accessible to the public who are seeking redress, their processes must be transparent, and they must have teeth so that they can hold Governments and others to account. We all agree on that, and nothing that I have heard from the Environment Secretary suggests that his ambition for legislation on the environment post-Brexit will not deliver those requirements.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the environment does not stop at borders, and that international agreements on environmental protection are vital? The danger that I see is that the UK is going it alone. It is important that we all do this together—and, in fact, we have been doing it together, which is why we have the single market and the European Union.
James Heappey
I take the hon. Lady’s point, but I am not sure that the EU is necessarily the only vehicle for the purpose. The Minister for Climate Change and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), attended the One Planet summit in Paris today, where she talked to representatives from countries all over the world, outside the EU and within, about arresting climate change.
The marine conservation Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), was in Malta six or seven weeks ago at a global UN conference on ocean rescue. Again, that was not an EU vehicle, but the UK was showing leadership among countries around the world. I understand that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), has been at a conference about fishing in the last couple of days, and that the discussion was not EU-orientated but global. I am therefore not entirely convinced that the UK is “going it alone”. We are clearly well embedded in a whole range of international forums in which we can discuss our environmental ambitions globally.
As the hon. Lady rightly said, these are issues that cross borders. However we regulate the environment in the United Kingdom—and I am confident that we will be much more ambitious here than the EU is currently with its own regulations—we cannot turn our back on the rest of the world. Indeed, there is no evidence that we would, given the amount of international engagement that we already have, and the extent of the leadership that we are showing on so many issues relating to the environment and climate change.
I was surprised to note the Scottish National party’s support for new clause 27, in particular. I accept what was said earlier by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) about the intention to establish a regulatory body in England that might seek to be matched in Scotland and Wales, and that agreement would be sought from the devolved powers. However, the Bill refers specifically to a UK-wide regulatory framework. I will gladly give way to any SNP Member who wishes to intervene, but I wonder whether that in some way challenges the SNP’s desire for the greater devolution of powers rather than their centralisation. Why would the SNP support a measure that refers to centralised regulation?
Furthermore, the DEFRA consultation on the new enforcement body must be published urgently. [Interruption.] I will gladly give way.
The Temporary Chair (David Hanson)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is supposed to be actually in the Chamber in order to intervene.
James Heappey
As I said, the DEFRA consultation on the new enforcement body must be published urgently; I agree with the NGO community on that, and Members on both sides will want to encourage the Environment Secretary to do exactly that. I also agree that our ambition should be that the new Bill to establish this new body, and to make the UK’s environmental ambitions post-Brexit clear, should be passed through Parliament by March 2019. We will all want some reassurance from the Secretary of State in the near future that that is indeed his ambition.
Earlier, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset spoke at much greater length than I intend to on the detail of this, but he is absolutely right that the Environment Secretary is clearly meeting the ambitions of everybody who is contributing to this debate from an environmental perspective. Some might choose to put their fingers in their ears, say it cannot possibly be so and seek to manufacture disagreement where there is none, but the Environment Secretary—in this Chamber, in the press, in the speeches he has been giving to the environmental community, and in his meetings with NGOs, I believe—has been very clear about what he intends to do.
Seeking to amend the Bill simply for the sake of amending it does not add anything to our ambition for stronger environmental regulations post-Brexit. We can be very confident that the Government are leading us in the right direction on environmental regulation. They are going far further than the EU currently does, and that is the key point: we should see current EU regulation merely as the floor for UK environmental regulation post Brexit, not the ceiling. I am confident that the Secretary of State has every intention of doing that.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Temporary Chair (David Hanson)
Order. I again remind Members that there is a knife outside my control. Ten Members, possibly 11, wish to catch my eye and time is limited.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I rise to speak to amendment 88, tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends in Plaid Cymru and colleagues from other parties. It would prevent Ministers of the Crown from being able to replace, abolish or modify the functions of EU entities without first laying impact assessments on its effect before both Houses of Parliament. I appreciate that impact assessments are not popular among some Ministers; indeed, the Brexit Secretary made it clear last week that he does not believe in them at all, especially in terms of large-scale changes. It appears that he does not believe in applying a bit of forethought and method; perhaps a wet finger in the wind might suffice, or even the slaughter of white and black cockerels at midnight and the examination of their entrails afterwards. In the interests of clarity, by “impact assessment” I do not mean a sectoral analysis; my definition of impact assessment, as any good dictionary will tell us, is a
“prospective analysis of what the impact of an intervention might be, so as to inform policymaking”.
Beyond the single market and customs union, there are upwards of 45 pan-European agencies that form the basis of our international relations across a range of policy areas. These agencies are intertwined with hundreds of EU programmes designed to progress societal, economic and environmental standards, from ensuring that planes can safely take off and land to the regulation of life-saving medicines.
Clause 7 will allow Ministers to put aside the advances made by our membership of those agencies, regardless of any formal assessment of the impact that action would have on our society, economy and environment. We have already seen the European Medicines Agency abandon the UK and move to Paris, with Amsterdam taking the European Banking Authority, resulting in the loss of over 1,000 jobs. Before being able to replace, abolish or modify any EU entity functions, this place should know exactly how doing so will affect their constituents.
I represent a university constituency, and we have a strong interest in new research and student mobility programmes, and in the agencies through which those programmes operate. For example, Erasmus+ is managed by the Education, Audiovisual and Cultural Executive Agency. There are 2,000 international students in Bangor. Without the participation in the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 scheme, without the continuation of Interreg funding, and without Erasmus+, universities in the UK will lose much of their competitive edge, and my constituency of Arfon will be hit disproportionately hard.
There is a ready-made solution for the Westminster Government as they navigate the labyrinth of Brexit. Norway has negotiated participation in 12 EU programmes and 31 EU agencies. The areas covered include anything from research co-operation and statistics to health and traffic safety. Norway has done this through its membership of the European economic area. It is about time that this Government paid due regard to the impact of their actions in formulating policy, and I therefore urge them to reconsider the issue of EU agencies and the programmes that they facilitate, while they still can.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Hanson, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. Speeches on both sides of the Chamber have been technical, detailed and passionate, including the response from the Minister, and I hope to be able to add a few of my thoughts to this measured debate.
Leaving the European Union was never going to be easy. It was inevitable, after 40 years of the EU creeping into every crevice of our daily lives, that Brussels’ overarching bureaucracy would touch every piece of domestic legislation imaginable. Ultimately, the whole point of the Bill is to ensure a clean, smooth Brexit that allows for an orderly transition from inside the EU to out. Transferring EU law to UK law is a mammoth task that requires an enormous amount of bureaucracy to complete. It is simply unfeasible for this Parliament to go through every piece of legislation affected by the EU line by line to approve its transfer into domestic law. I read recently that an individual vote on each of the 20,319 EU laws would take more than 200 days of parliamentary time, and that a debate on every page of those laws would take a similar amount of time. That simply is not feasible. The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill does a bulk copy and paste, ensuring that when we leave the EU in March 2019, our domestic legislation is not caught short. Understandably, deficiencies will arise. Those deficiencies are clearly laid out in clause 7(2), and if we are to ensure an orderly Brexit, they need cleaning up. No Member of this House believes that enough parliamentary time exists to fix all these faults, and that is why clause 7 is so important.
Clause 7 is not, as we often read in the papers, some kind of Tudoresque power grab; nor does it ride roughshod over Parliament. It provides delegated powers to a Minister to fix obscure but consequential deficiencies in legislation for a short period of time. Those delegated powers will never be used to make drastic policy changes. Such changes have always required, and always will require, a Queen’s Speech or primary legislation. It is public and transparent, and it requires a majority vote. The sole purpose and scope of the delegated powers is to ensure that EU law is still operable after the UK leaves the EU. That is what our constituents want: consistency and security. Even those who want us to stay in the EU appreciate why this is so important, as we have heard from Members on both sides of the House, and from those who voted to remain as well as those who voted to leave. The Procedure Committee amendments that were accepted yesterday will create a sifting committee, confirming even more rigidly that Parliament will always have an input.
We are leaving the EU to bring back control to our courts and our Parliament, and clause 7 bolsters this. Ultimately, once we are out, this Parliament, elected by the British people, will be able to go through what we like and what we do not like, in our own time. For those still concerned that clause 7 is some sort of Tory plot designed to wipe away all workers’ rights, subsection 7 makes it clear that, two years after exit day, these powers will no longer exist. There is a sunset clause. Not only that, but Ministers in the devolved Administrations will be able to use the same powers to amend legislation that falls into their catchment. This is further evidence that the Government are committed to a Brexit that works for the entire UK. It will be up to Holyrood, Cardiff and Stormont to choose how to use their increased decision-making powers.
It is vital that the Bill is passed as cleanly as possible, because it is a key component in ensuring that our departure from the EU is orderly. Clause 7 will play a big part in a smooth Brexit. It is not a power grab, and it is not the beginning of the kind of dictatorship that some would argue was taking place when we were inside the EU. We have a responsibility to our public to deliver on Brexit, and we should not delay or protract the process any further. The act of leaving the European Union represents a powerful decision to restore democracy to this Parliament, and I am pleased to support the Bill and to support the public who voted for this in the largest numbers in our country’s history. I hope that my speech was short enough for you, Mr Hanson.
Stella Creasy
I have now been in the Chamber for seven hours, apart from a brief sojourn to serve on a statutory instrument Committee related to fish taxes in Scotland, which feels completely apposite given today’s debate. No one is suggesting that there will not be points at which we may want to have a way to amend legislation, but I have concerns about clause 7. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) because I have a completely different opinion on what clause 7 offers. This is about so much more than taxes on fish.
It is important that our constituents understand that we are discussing a clause that gives Ministers the ability to introduce legislation when they consider it appropriate. I consider pudding always to be appropriate, but it is not necessarily necessary. This is one of those matters where the wording is crucial. The deficiencies that the Bill identifies are not limited as long as something can be called a deficiency, which is a huge loophole into which Ministers can reach.
The SIs that Ministers can bring in will have the effect of primary legislation—the same as any Act of Parliament—and the legislation can abolish functions of the European Union covering a whole range of issues. It would be a brave, bold, disciplined Minister who is not tempted by those powers. That is what we are discussing tonight. The hon. Member for Wealden suggested that the provisions do not look like a power grab, but they do not give power to the courts; they put power in Downing Street. That is the Opposition’s concern, which my Front-Bench colleagues have so ably set out.
In the time available, I want to explain my particular concerns about the Henry VIII powers and amendment 332, which relates to a good example of what could go wrong. It is clear that the Henry VIII powers are not about taking rights away; they are about sweeping them away. As the House of Lords Constitution Committee said, the use of such powers
“remains a departure from constitutional principle”.
We know from recent years just how often Ministers have been tempted: cuts to tax credits, student maintenance grants, fracking, fox hunting, winter fuel payments, the electoral register and individual voter registration, and legal aid entitlements. Whether or not someone agrees with those policies, they are not fish taxes. They are not minor amendments to existing legislation. They represent major policy changes that the Government pushed through, or tried to push through, using SIs.
Since 1950, over 170,000 statutory instruments have been laid by Departments—2,500 a year. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, is not in his place, but he was talking about 1,000 SIs resulting from this legislation alone, which is half a year’s worth of work and represents an awful lot of sifting. Only 17 of those 170,000 SIs were rejected. Indeed, the last time that the Commons rejected a statutory instrument was in 1979. The House of Lords has been more robust, having rejected six such instruments, and it has been rewarded with the Strathclyde review.
Amendment 49 is important because it is clear that when Governments have the ability to use SIs in this way, they do so. It is also clear that this House has not been able to exercise a comparable power of check and balance. Even when such SIs are lawful, the Supreme Court has said that they should be challenged in court. As the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) said, this Bill is almost a lawyer’s charter.
I want to give the hon. Member for Wealden the example from amendment 332, which covers the elephant in the room during our debates on this Bill and relates to the rights of the British public and of future British citizens around freedom of movement. Freedom of movement has been bandied about as the reason why many people voted for us to leave the European Union. It is a key pillar of the single market—I will be supporting amendment 124 this evening because the single market represents the best deal for all our constituents—but we must address the question what we mean by freedom of movement.
We know that freedom of movement is a right worth fighting for. It means that kids in our communities can work for companies that have bases in Berlin or Rome, and they can be sent there without any hesitation. It means that if someone falls in love with their French exchange partner, they can move to Paris with them or the exchange can come and live here. It means that someone can be one of 4 million students every year who spend a year in another European country benefiting from that kind of education. These are freedoms that our communities are likely to need more options to access in the future, not less. It also means that people have come to our country and helped our NHS. They have brought jobs and investment, and, yes, British citizens have fallen in love with them. Their kids have gone to school with our kids. They are our neighbours, our friends and our family.
All that is now at risk. Whether we voted leave or remain, whether we think the referendum was about freedom of movement or leaving the single market, we should support the idea that Parliament, not Ministers, should make or rewrite decisions if Ministers do not like the outcome of our discussions. It is clear that the failure of the previous Prime Minister to reform freedom of movement does not mean that we should give up these rights without asking about those changes, and that is what amendment 332 would give us as a Parliament the power to do. It would stop clause 7 being used to make that a decision made by means of a statutory instrument.
The Temporary Chair (David Hanson)
Order. If hon. Members do not keep to five minutes now, we will not get every Member in to contribute to the debate.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
It is a great honour to follow the wonderful women from Wealden and Walthamstow in their different speeches this evening. This is not a time to re-argue the referendum debates—they happened last year. This is the time to look forward, not to think about what we have left behind but to think about how we forge new relationships not only with the EU but with its single market and with other parts of the world.
One of the reasons why the Bill and tonight’s discussion is so important is that it is about the way we as legislators intend to act. The rest of the world is watching us, and if we want to have deep, close co-operative relationships with other parts of the world, it is up to us to act in a predictable manner, to be honest and transparent. I am proud that as a Conservative during my time in Brussels I helped the Conservative-led Governments champion the better regulation agenda, which I have mentioned before. It is an agenda that says, “Before you make any changes to law, you consult those who will be affected and you consider the impacts, and you don’t make decisions behind closed doors.” That is why I added my name to amendment 3, as so many different pieces of European legislation would be affected.
The Library mentioned three of those, with one being fisheries, mesh size and fishing nets. Everybody who has been watching “Blue Planet” knows how important protecting our sea is. I am glad that the Library said it would be relatively straightforward to bring that piece of legislation directly into British law. It also talked about the open internet access law, which is fundamental to freedom of speech in a digital age; it deals with whether or not someone’s internet provider can block or throttle content from others. That piece of law will need a number of policy decisions to be made when it is brought from European law into British law.
The Library also mentions the bank capital requirements, which is really boring law—it was five years of my life. It is deeply detailed but really important to our major financial services legislation and will involve policy decisions. So we need to make sure those policy decisions are made in an open and transparent way.
I am very glad that, thanks to the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), the new sifting process has been put in place, not only under amendment 3, but under amendment 393, which the Government now support. I am also pleased that overnight last night they announced they would support a new European scrutiny instruments committee, which will scrutinise the various changes that need to be made to our law in this transposition and bring in expert guidance. We need the expertise of the Treasury Committee to look at changes to banking law and of the Environmental Audit Committee to look at changes to environmental law, because only in that way will we ensure that these details are properly addressed.
Clause 7 is complicated. It says that the Government will only be allowed to deal with “deficiencies”, but the Bill contains no definition of them. We have heard Ministers tonight say that they will look again at this issue of deficiencies and whether they can give more clarity on that. Where a significant policy decision is being made that affects real stakeholders in the real world, we should have affirmative decisions.
There are also confusing powers in the Standing Order on what powers the statutory instrument committee will have. It says that the committee can turn a negative into an affirmative procedure only where a provision is of the type specified in paragraphs 1(2), 5(2) or 6(2) of schedule 7 of the law. When we read those paragraphs, we see that they are actually very limited. So that committee will need to think very hard about the principles of transparency that it wants to engage in, because it is in all our interests to make sure that when we move on to these new agreements—this new legislation—we give certainty not only to those watching us from overseas, but to the many people and businesses that these legal changes could affect.
Wera Hobhouse
I rise to speak in support of amendment 124, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), and new clause 27, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). I am very pleased that she is here to introduce it later on.
What is the biggest long-term issue facing people here in Britain and across the world? It is not Brexit and it is not the world economy; it is climate change and the environment. For decades, we have thoughtlessly exploited our planet, heated the atmosphere and polluted the earth. The price we pay for continuing as before will be enormous.
As part of the European Union, Britain is making progress to tackle climate change. Together, we have signed up to the Paris agreement. Many European laws and regulations, which are our laws, have been a force for good and have nudged the UK towards better environmental protection and better protection for human health. That was possible through the effective enforcement of those laws by EU agencies and the European Commission. The Bill carries with it the risk that we might scrap the commitments we have shared with the EU to go it alone, or to throw in our lot with America or another country.
I want this country to become the greenest in the world. Before I became an MP, I was closely involved in improving how we dealt with our household and commercial waste following the EU landfill directive. Landfill produces a potent greenhouse gas, methane, and diverting landfill waste through recycling, composting and waste reduction is the only way to stop this greenhouse gas getting into the atmosphere. The UK is still one of the worst recyclers in the developed world, according to figures released the other day.
We have a long way to go and would not have gone as far as we have without the EU pushing us in the right direction and the effective enforcement of the European enforcement agencies and the Commission. We have talked for a while today about how the UK has been a leader on particular EU legislation. That is the beauty of the EU: in some areas, we are leaders; in other areas, such as air pollution, other countries have been leaders. Together, we have produced a body of legislation that makes things better for us all. Another example of good EU legislation is how our beaches have been cleaned up following EU directives. British beaches are now 99% clean and safe—that is what the EU has done for us.
The environment is owned by everybody. It is not a person or legal entity that can complain. Private ownership in a deregulated world does not protect the environment. That is why the legal principles that underpin the EU, as well as powerful and independent enforcement bodies, are so essential.
Frankly, I am not reassured by Ministers. The recent Brexit impact assessment debacle or the war of words over regulatory alignment or divergence are prime examples of why we should not be bamboozled by fine words, but keep a watchful, eagle eye on the Government’s every move. The draft animal welfare Bill that has been produced in a panic is not at all reassuring, but rather an example of how all the Government can do in the face of Brexit is to firefight. Indeed, the biggest problem for me is that Brexit has to happen in such an enormous rush, and that there is apparently the need to undo in a few short months the laws, regulations, enforcement, co-operation and partnerships that have evolved over 40 years.
The protection of the environment depends on cross-border co-operation. The environment is not a game of politics. It is the one thing that can either guarantee or endanger our own survival. The next best thing to staying in the EU would be to stay in the single market and the customs union. That alone would protect the high standards for the environment, health, safe employment, consumer protection and animal rights, and the oversight and enforcement of those standards by independent agencies. That is why everybody in the House should support amendment 124, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington, which would ensure that the Bill’s provisions would not undermine EU regulations and their enforcement during the transition period, while we are still operating in the single market.
At the very least, we should set up independent regulatory bodies that are effective and have enough teeth to hold powerful organisations, global companies, industries and individuals to account, and new clause 27 would allow that to happen. Of course, it would be great if we could count on everybody to do the right thing, but experience tells us otherwise. Environmental crimes continue unfettered where there are not powerful laws and powerful enforcement agencies.
Would it not be a tragedy if Brexit meant that we aligned ourselves with Trump’s America, pulling out of the Paris climate change agreement, expanding our fossil fuel industry, undermining our renewable energy industry, trampling over environmental protection laws and sitting idly by as the planet warmed up? Climate change is not “Project Fear”; it is the worrying and brutal reality. I started by saying that climate change is the biggest challenge of our age—bigger than Brexit. What a tragedy it will be if the environment and vital action to tackle climate change are the biggest victims of Brexit.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
Today’s sitting has considered many important amendments on issues that I have long supported. New clause 27 in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and amendment 96 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) would ensure that we do not fall into a regulatory black hole when it comes to environmental protection. The Secretary of State’s appearance before the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I sit, did not assuage any of our fears in that regard. New clause 53 in the name of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) focuses on our obligations under Dublin III to help to reunite children and families who have been separated by war or persecution. I support those amendments and hope that they will be pressed to a vote. They are just three of a legion of amendments that show the true cross-party nature of the concerns about this Bill.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Hanson, for the opportunity to join hon. Members in their criticism of the extraordinary breadth of the Henry VIII powers contained in this Bill and the inadequacy of existing scrutiny procedures for dealing with them. I welcome the host of amendments that have been tabled by hon. Members to help remedy these concerns.
The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) helpfully identified that there are two different types of amendments that seek to improve the situation. One group seeks to limit the scope of the powers so that they are used only in appropriate circumstances and only for the specific purpose of correcting tightly defined deficiencies. A second group of amendments seeks to enhance our ability to scrutinise the statutory instruments that Ministers will make using these powers. All those ideas are welcome. If several of them were passed this evening, they could make this part of the Bill a little bit more palatable.
I will focus on a third type of amendment that throws up a different issue in relation to clause 7—an issue for which I am not sure we have found the perfect remedy. Rather than limiting the use of Henry VIII powers or strengthening oversight of them, this group of amendments would require that the Government take action to ensure that certain important provisions of EU law can operate effectively after withdrawal. After all, clause 7 expressly anticipates—in fact, the whole thing is premised on the fact—that there will be chunks of retained EU law that will not operate effectively if deficiencies are not prevented, remedied or mitigated.
The express purpose of this Bill is saving and incorporating EU law as it stands on withdrawal day, but this purpose would be undermined considerably if parts of that EU law were allowed, whether by accident or design, simply to fester away uncorrected and therefore unable to operate effectively. It is for those reasons that a number of amendments have been tabled positively requiring action to be taken, including new clauses 62 and 63 on environmental law, amendment 131 on the rights of EU citizens and amendment 385 on European protection orders. I will focus on a similar example—new clause 53.
New clause 53 would require changes to the immigration rules to retain the effectiveness of the Dublin regulation. Dublin III is far from a perfect set of rules, but it has the welcome goal of ensuring that an asylum claim is determined in the most appropriate EU member state. Its most positive feature is the ability for a person who has made a claim in one member state to seek to have that claim transferred and determined by another member state—for example, where a young asylum seeker has a sibling, aunt or uncle in that country. For all the flaws of the Dublin regulation, those provisions are surely worth saving, regardless of how negotiations proceed.
Even though the rules are retained by the Bill in theory, Dublin III would clearly struggle to operate effectively unless corrected under clause 7. To prevent that, new clause 53 is designed to ensure that those powers are used so that “take charge” requests can continue to be made in the UK. Going further, for one limited and vulnerable group, the new clause seeks to bring the definition of family contained in UK family reunion rules in line with the definition of family in the Dublin regulations. It would mean that an unaccompanied child could seek family reunion with a broader group of family members without needing to make dangerous journeys to Europe in order to claim asylum and make a Dublin request. Currently—with the exception of when joining parents—alternative options for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children under the immigration rules are too restrictive and costly. As a result, they are rarely used. As UNICEF makes clear, a failure to take action risks adding to the number of unaccompanied children forced to take dangerous journeys with smugglers and traffickers in order to reach close family in the UK. That is why new clause 53 is so important.
I turn finally to a more general question. For every amendment or new clause that we are debating today requiring that retained and incorporated EU law in a particular area must be corrected using these powers, there will be large swathes of other EU laws where there is no such requirement. The question that occurs to me is: what happens if, by oversight or choice, the Government do not fix those provisions, rendering key measures useless? What are our courts going to do if confronted, for example, by a citizen seeking to establish rights under retained EU law when that retained law is riddled with deficiencies? Is the court supposed to try to make that work? Does the person lose their ability to exercise that right? I do not think that this issue has been touched on in the debate. In short, I wonder whether we still have work to do to find the appropriate and comprehensive solution in this Bill.
Should there be a mechanism, for example, to put Ministers under an obligation or duty to ensure that retained EU laws operate effectively? Should our courts be required to interpret retained EU laws in such a way as to make them operate effectively wherever possible? Should there be a procedure to allow courts to flag up rules they have found cannot operate effectively? More modestly perhaps, do we simply need to require the Government to publish a list of all the deficiencies they have found in retained EU law and to detail what, if any, action they are taking to remedy them? That is, do we require the Government to list not only the statutory instruments they intend to table under clause 7, but what deficiencies they have identified that they are not going to rectify in that way? I am concerned that, without such changes, Parliament’s intention of retaining EU law and an efficient and effective statute book after exit day may not prove as effective as we would wish.
Caroline Lucas
I rise to speak to the provisions in my name, and particularly to new clause 27, which I hope to press to a vote later this evening. I apologise to Members for being absent from the debate for a couple of hours while I was in a Committee.
New clause 27 aims to preserve the high level of environmental protection that comes with membership of the EU. As we have discussed tonight, there is a very real risk that Brexit will create a big gap when it comes to the enforcement, in particular, of environmental law and standards in this country. The European Commission’s monitoring of member states’ action to implement and comply with EU law, backed up by the European Court of Justice’s ability to impose effective financial sanctions, have been an absolutely vital driver in pressing for and delivering environmental improvements in the UK. The example of clean air in London is just one case study that makes that point. In the absence of an effective domestic enforcement regime replicating the vital roles and functions currently performed by the Commission and the ECJ, it is difficult to see how the Government can deliver on their manifesto pledge to leave the environment in a better state than they found it.
On day 2 of the Committee, on 15 November, we had a good debate on the case for fully transposing the EU environmental principles into UK law. The debate was ultimately fruitless in terms of amending the Bill, but we heard a great deal from both sides of the Chamber about the importance of the EU environmental principles to the future protection of the environment in this country.
Perhaps most significantly, environmentalists such as myself were encouraged by a rather remarkable double act, with nods and comedic timing, of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. From that, we learned a little more about the Secretary of State’s plan, first announced on 12 November, to consult on a new independent statutory body to
“advise and challenge government and potentially other public bodies on environmental legislation…stepping in when needed to hold these bodies to account and enforce standards.”
More to the point, we were led to believe that the Secretary of State now intends to introduce an environmental protection Bill to establish an environmental protection body with prosecutorial powers and independence from Government that is charged with policing and enforcing a national policy statement incorporating the EU environmental principles.
That amounts to a welcome recognition on the part of the Secretary of State of the risk of an ever-widening governance gap on environmental protection after the UK leaves the EU if there is not a domestic enforcement regime. Taken at face value, it also seems to be an acknowledgment that the new environmental protection body must be absolutely independent of Government; must be prosecutorial and investigatory so that it can hold the Government and other public bodies to account, including through the courts if necessary; and must be robust and durable so that it cannot easily be abolished or have its functions eroded by stealth.
However, what we still do not know is whether this is a concrete plan that will soon be put into practice so as to ensure the protection of environmental standards in the UK from March 2019, or something that the Secretary of State alone ruminates about while in the bath.
Caroline Lucas
I am sorry—I love having discussions with the right hon. Gentleman, but I am aware that other people want to speak.
I will come straight to the point. My case is that the right hon. Gentleman wants me to have enough faith in the Secretary of State and in the capacity of this Government to get through a whole new piece of legislation in time. The crux of this debate is whether the rest of the House is prepared to go along with the confidence the right hon. Gentleman demonstrates, or whether we want to have a belt-and-braces approach.
The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that the idea of putting something in the Bill was inelegant. It may well be inelegant, but it is also a belt-and-braces way of making sure that, come the day we leave the EU—if indeed we do—we have all this legislation in an enforceable form on our statute book. If the Government are already saying, “Of course we’re going to do it—why worry?” why would they be so afraid of putting this into the Bill too? I appreciate that it is not elegant, but I would rather be inelegant and effective than elegant and ineffective.
That is why I want to press new clause 27 to a vote. It is a belt-and-braces way of ensuring with absolute certainty that when EU laws are brought into UK law they are properly enforceable and can be properly implemented. I had more to say, but to be fair to others, I will end now.
Stephen Kinnock
I rise to speak to new clause 37, tabled in my name and the names of many hon. Friends.
Before I turn specifically to the detail of the new clause, I would like to summarise the powers and functions of regulatory institutions. In essence, they are: monitoring and measuring compliance with legal requirements; reviewing and reporting on compliance with legal requirements; enforcing legal requirements; setting standards or targets; co-ordinating action; and publicising information. Thus we see that regulatory institutions and agencies play an absolutely central role in the proper functioning of our economy and, indeed, of our broader society. They are, as it were, the traffic lights that keep the traffic flowing around our economy, and the shields that protect our fundamental rights and freedoms.
I turn my attention to the impact that Brexit will have on the vital role that EU agencies currently play. We all know that the transition phase will, in essence, be a carbon copy of the status quo minus our representation in the EU institutions. The problem is that when we leave the EU on 29 March 2019, we will become a third country, and we will be leaving the 52 agencies that currently carry out the tasks and functions that I listed. According to research commissioned by the House of Commons Library, 16 of those 52 agencies have no provision whatever for third country participation and a further 12 allow only for observer or a vague co-operation status. That means that 28 out of the 52 EU agencies have no provision for third country participation. We are therefore facing, at the time of leaving, a yawning and very dangerous governance gap.
The purpose of my new clause is to force the Government to commit to institutional parity, meaning that all powers and functions currently relating to any freedom, right or protection that was exercised by EU agencies should continue to be carried out by an EU agency, be carried out by an appropriate existing or newly established entity or be carried out by an appropriate international entity.
Without UK institutions to take on the job of EU agencies, we will see fundamental rights, protections and regulations being removed by the back door having been rendered unenforceable. This Bill will then not be worth the paper it is written on unless it is backed up by regulatory agencies. The risks are daunting. How will we reassure businesses that wish to invest in our country if we cannot guarantee a predictable and consistent regulatory regime? How will we reassure consumers that our food hygiene standards are up to international standards? How we will we reassure people that our nuclear safety, chemicals or medicines are up to international and European standards? We can do this only if we have strong regulatory agencies to implement the terms of our legislation. I therefore commend new clause 37 to the Committee.
Chris Stephens
I wish to speak in favour of amendment 73, which was spoken to by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard). The amendment asks that workers’ rights be agreed by the Joint Ministerial Committee and seeks to clarify the role of the committee in this regard. There are three reasons why that should be done. First, there is divergence. Employment law is totally devolved to Northern Ireland; it is partially devolved to Wales, where the Welsh Assembly took the decision—rightly, my view—to amend the worst aspects of the anti-Trade Union Act; but, for reasons beyond my understanding, employment law is not yet devolved to Scotland. Secondly, there is a real concern about the impact on women workers, who would be very vulnerable to roll-back given the history of delivery on these measures, especially as most have been informed by EU directives and law. Thirdly, of course, there is a trust issue. Who would trust a Conservative Government on their commitments to workers’ rights?
The amendment is designed to explore the extent of the Government’s respect for the Joint Ministerial Committee’s role, and the extent to which they intend to use their powers. Either they respect joint working and consultation to achieve the best solutions in a post-Brexit world—in that case, the amendment should pose no challenges—or there is an agenda of bypassing the devolved Administrations at every turn, and shifting power and decision making back to Westminster.
The Henry VIII powers are a constitutional affront, given the secretive nature of their use. Ministers could use them to bypass Parliament, the judiciary and the devolved Administrations, or quietly to reshape the law without scrutiny. When it comes to employment law, I contend that the Government might wish discreetly to reverse particular Supreme Court decisions on, for example, the civil service compensation scheme, workplace consultations and industrial tribunal fees. In the Unison case, the Supreme Court held that the fees order was unlawful as a matter of not only domestic law, but EU law. Given all the cases in which the Government of the day have suffered a reversal of a decision to which they held so strongly that they were prepared to go to the Supreme Court, and in which EU law formed part of the judgment against them, it is not fanciful to think that they might want revisit the issues, especially when it comes to employment law and workers’ rights.
When Brexit fails to deliver the promised economic bonanza, it is logical to assume that a free market, anti-worker party will look to erode workers’ rights to boost profits. I commend to the Committee the TUC paper “Women workers’ rights and the risks of Brexit”. It outlines clearly and in detail the specific threat that Brexit poses to women workers. Legislation and protections have evolved under the protection of EU law, so we are right to be concerned that removing that umbrella will mean that there are stormy days ahead for women workers.
It is not so much that the rights concerning equal pay, maternity and sex discrimination will disappear overnight, but I share the concerns that hard-fought rights will be eroded, particularly if that can be done under the cover of statutory instrument and ministerial diktat. We saw that with the anti-Trade Union Act 2016—not just in the attitudes of Conservative Members in the Chamber, but in the approach to delegated legislation.
Stephen Doughty
The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is absolutely right. Is it not also the case that the Government have tried to undermine the Welsh Government’s efforts to protect trade unions by trying to strike down parts of that Act?
Chris Stephens
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point for me. He is absolutely correct that that is what the Government are trying to do. Statements have been made in the House of Lords, including by the former chair of the European Conservatives and Reformists group in the European Parliament, who has previously called for the scrapping of
“the working time directive, the agency workers’ directive, the pregnant workers’ directive and all the other barriers to actually employing people.”
That was said by Lord Callanan, now a Minister of State at the Department for Exiting the European Union—and the Conservatives ask us to trust them on workers’ rights! I would not trust them enough to send them out for the rolls in the morning. The Tories cannot be trusted on workers’ rights; if they were truly interested in workers’ rights, they would accept the amendment.
Mr Leslie
This has been a very important debate. Some may feel that this is a dry issue of constitutional process and ask how it relates to the question of Britain’s role in the rest of the world. However, it is fundamentally important to recognise Ministers’ land grab in attempting to take very sweeping powers, by order—not simply to transpose technical and necessary EU laws into UK law, but potentially to take whole areas of public policy and make changes by regulation with the sweep of a pen.
Anyone who looks at clause 7, the subject of this debate, will see a number of gaping holes that allow Ministers to drive a coach and horses through a whole series of policy areas. They can say that an order is “appropriate”, and that is all they have to prove—they are not “limited” to the areas that are set out.
By the way, the Minister was not even able to describe what the word “appropriate” meant. He was asked to do so in an intervention, and he could not. Ministers have also taken powers, by order, to abolish public services currently undertaken by EU agencies. This is a serious breach of the constitutional principle that Parliament should normally dictate what can be done by the Executive, who are trying to take very many powers.
A lot of amendments have been considered today. I hope that we can vote on amendment 124, because it would make sure that nothing undermines the UK staying aligned with the single market after exit day, which is a very important principle. In her amendment 49, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) deals with some of the Henry VIII powers. Given that there are so many other amendments and I know hon. Members want to prioritise theirs, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my new clause 18.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 63
Environmental standards and protections: enforcement
‘(1) Before exit day a Minister of the Crown must make provision that all powers and functions relating to environmental standards and protections that were exercisable by EU entities or other public authorities anywhere in the United Kingdom before exit day and which do not cease to have effect as a result of the withdrawal agreement (“relevant powers and functions”) will be carried out by an appropriate existing or newly established entity or public authority in the United Kingdom.
(2) For the purposes of this section, relevant powers and functions include, but are not limited to—
(a) reviewing and reporting on the implementation of environmental standards in practice,
(b) monitoring and measuring compliance with legal requirements,
(c) publicising information including regarding compliance with environmental standards,
(d) facilitating the submission of complaints from persons with regard to possible infringements of legal requirements, and
(e) enforcing legal commitments.
(3) For the purposes of this section, relevant powers and functions carried out by an appropriate existing or newly established entity or public authority in the United Kingdom on any day after exit day must be at least equivalent to all those exercisable by EU entities or other public authorities anywhere in the United Kingdom before exit day which do not cease to have effect as a result of the withdrawal agreement.
(4) Any newly established entity or public authority in the United Kingdom charged with exercising any relevant powers and functions on any day after exit day shall not be established other than by an Act of Parliament.
(5) Before making provision under subsection (1), a Minister of the Crown shall hold a public consultation on—
(a) the precise scope of the relevant powers and functions to be carried out by an appropriate existing or newly established entity or public authority in the United Kingdom, and
(b) the institutional design of any entity or public authority in the United Kingdom to be newly established in order to exercise relevant powers and functions.
(6) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make time-limited transitional arrangements for the exercise of relevant powers and functions until such time as an appropriate existing or newly established entity or public authority in the United Kingdom is able to carry them out.’—(Matthew Pennycook.)
This new clause would require the Government to establish new domestic governance arrangements following the UK’s exit from the EU for environmental standards and protections, following consultation.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 13th December 2017
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 13 December 2017 - (13 Dec 2017)
19:00 - divided: - Ayes: 309 / Noes: 305 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:17 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 297 / Noes: 316 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:30 - divided: - Ayes: 294 / Noes: 315 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:42 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 292 / Noes: 311 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:00 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 292 / Noes: 314 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:14 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 291 / Noes: 315 - Question accordingly negatived.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 4—Arrangements for withdrawing from the EU—
“Notwithstanding any powers granted under this Act, no Minister of the Crown may agree to the arrangements for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union referred to in Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union until Royal Assent is granted to an Act of Parliament—
(a) authorising the Minister to agree to an exit day to be specified in the Act,
(b) authorising the Minister to agree to those arrangements that will apply after exit day, the arrangements to be specified in the Act.”
This new clause would ensure that a separate Act of Parliament would be required for Ministers to determine exit day and to set out the arrangements that will apply after exit day.
New clause 19—Publication of the Withdrawal Agreement—
“The powers for Ministers set out in section 9 shall not come into force unless and until a final withdrawal agreement made between the United Kingdom and the European Union has been published and copies placed in the Libraries of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.”
This new clause would ensure that the wide-ranging powers for Ministers to implement the withdrawal agreement set out in Clause 9 of the Bill cannot come into force until the withdrawal agreement has been published.
New clause 38—Status of Irish citizens in the United Kingdom—
“Before making any regulations under section 9, the Minister shall commit to making available to Irish citizens lawfully resident in the United Kingdom after exit day any status, rights and entitlements available to Irish citizens before exit day, inclusive of and in addition to their status, rights and entitlements as EU citizens.”
New clause 66—Parliamentary approval for the outcome of negotiations with the European Union—
“No exit day may be appointed under this Act until the terms of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, including leaving the EU without an agreement, have been approved by both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause is intended to establish that Parliament has a meaningful vote on the terms of Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union.
New clause 68—Terms of withdrawal: approval by Parliament—
“(1) The Government shall not conclude any agreement on terms of withdrawal from the European Union, or on the UK’s future relationship with the European Union, until those terms have been approved by resolution in both Houses of Parliament.
(2) Approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament must be sought no later than three months before exit day.”
This new clause would require the Government to seek Parliamentary approval for its exit agreement with the EU at least three months before exit day.
New clause 69—United Kingdom withdrawal from the EU—
“(1) Subsection (2) applies if either of the conditions in subsection (3) or (4) is met.
(2) The Prime Minister must seek an agreement with the EU on one or more of the following—
(a) extending the negotiations beyond the two-year period specified in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union; or
(b) agreeing that negotiations over the final terms of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU may take place during a negotiated transitional arrangement which broadly reflect current arrangements and which begins immediately after the Article 50 notice period expires and the EU treaties cease to apply to the UK; or
(c) any other course of action in relation to the negotiations (with the EU over the withdrawal of the United Kingdom) which has been approved in accordance with this section by a resolution of the House of Commons.
(3) The condition in this subsection is that no Article 50 withdrawal agreement has been reached between the United Kingdom and the EU by 31 October 2018.
(4) The condition in this subsection is that an Article 50 withdrawal agreement has been reached between the United Kingdom and the EU but the proposed terms of withdrawal have not been approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament by 28 February 2019.
(5) Nothing in this section may be amended by regulations made under any provision of this Act.”
The intention of this new clause, which could be amended only by primary legislation, is to specify the actions that should be taken if the Government does not secure a withdrawal agreement by 31 Oct 2018 or that Parliament does not approve a withdrawal agreement by 28 February 2019.
New clause 75—Implementing the withdrawal agreement (No. 2)—
“(1) No powers to make regulations under this Act may be used for the purposes of implementing the withdrawal agreement.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament detailing how implementing the withdrawal agreement will be achieved through primary legislation.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1) and (2), “implementing the withdrawal agreement” may include any necessary provision for a transitional period after the exit day appointed for section 1 of this Act.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (1) and (2), “implementing the withdrawal agreement” must include any necessary provision to ensure that any citizens of any EU Member State who are lawfully resident in the UK on any day before exit day can continue to be lawfully resident after exit day on terms no less favorable than they currently enjoy.”
This new clause is intended to ensure that primary legislation is used to implement the withdrawal agreement, including maintaining EU citizens’ rights.
Amendment 7, in clause 9, page 6, line 45, at end insert
“, subject to the prior enactment of a statute by Parliament approving the final terms of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.”
To require the final deal with the EU to be approved by statute passed by Parliament.
Amendment 355, page 6, line 45, at end insert “, subject to—
(a) the prior enactment of a statute by Parliament, and
(b) an affirmative resolution passed by the National Assembly for Wales, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly, approving the final terms of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.”
This amendment would require the final deal with the EU to be approved by statute passed by both Parliament and by the devolved administrations.
Amendment 361, page 7, line 2, at end insert—
“( ) Regulations under this section may, notwithstanding sections 1 and 5(1), make provision to replicate, for such an implementation period as is provided for in the withdrawal agreement, any aspect of the operation of EU law in the United Kingdom.”
The amendment would make clear that aspects of EU membership, such as the automatic effect of EU law and enforcement and adjudication mechanisms, can be maintained for an implementation period if the Government agrees to do so as part of the withdrawal agreement.
Amendment 142, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(e) remove, reduce or otherwise amend the rights of any citizen of an EU Member State who was lawfully resident in the UK on any day before 30 March 2019.”
This amendment seeks to protect the existing rights of EU citizens living in the UK.
Amendment 47, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under this section unless the terms of the withdrawal agreement have been approved by both Houses of Parliament.”
Amendment 196, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under this section until a Minister of the Crown has submitted a formal request to the President of the European Council that the UK should continue to be a member of the European Union’s Political and Security Committee after exit day.”
Amendment 197, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under this section until a Minister of the Crown has submitted a formal request to the President of the European Council that the UK should continue to be a signatory to all agreements signed through the European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy.”
Amendment 198, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under this section until a Minister of the Crown has submitted a formal request to the President of the European Council that the UK should continue to be a member of the European Union’s Foreign Affairs Council.”
Amendment 199, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under this section until a Minister of the Crown has submitted a formal request to the President of the European Council that the UK should continue to be a member of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.”
Amendment 227, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under this section until the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the UK leaving the EU single market on the forecast to the UK’s public finances.”
This amendment would require publication of a Government assessment of the impact of the United Kingdom exiting the EU single market on the UK public finances, before any regulations are made under section 9.
Amendment 228, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under this section until the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid before Parliament an assessment of the impact of exiting the EU single market on levels of GDP growth.
(3B) Any assessment under subsection (3A) shall set out an assessment of the impact of exiting the EU single market on levels of GDP growth in—
(a) Scotland,
(b) Northern Ireland,
(c) England, and
(d) Wales.”
This amendment would require publication of a Government assessment of the impact of the United Kingdom exiting the EU single market on the levels of GDP growth in the UK and in each part of the UK, before any regulations are made under section 9.
Amendment 229, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under this section until the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid before Parliament an assessment of the impact of ending freedom of movement on the UK’s public finances.”
This amendment would require publication of a Government assessment of the impact of the United Kingdom ending freedom of movement on the UK’s public finances, before any regulations are made under section 9.
Amendment 230, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under this section until the Chancellor of the Exchequer has laid before Parliament an assessment of the broadened responsibilities of the UK Treasury following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require publication of a Government assessment of the broadened responsibilities of the UK Treasury following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, before any regulations are made under section 9.
Amendment 300, page 7, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) No regulations may be made under this section until—
(a) the Government has laid before Parliament a strategy for maintaining those protections, safeguards, programmes for participation in nuclear research and development, and trading or other arrangements which will lapse as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from membership of, and participation in, the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom), and
(b) the strategy has been approved by both Houses of Parliament.”
This amendment would prevent the Government using any delegated powers under Clause 9 until it had secured Parliamentary approval for its proposals to replace any provisions that cease to apply as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from membership of Euratom.
Amendment 55, page 7, line 9, at end insert
“or until the withdrawal agreement has been published and legislation proposed in the 2017 Gracious Speech in relation to customs, trade, immigration, fisheries, agriculture, nuclear safeguards and international sanctions has been published.”
This amendment would ensure that powers to Ministers to make regulations implementing the withdrawal agreement cannot be exercised until such time as the withdrawal agreement has been published along with the publication of associated legislative proposals on customs, trade, immigration, fisheries, agriculture, nuclear safeguards and international sanctions.
Amendment 19, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) Regulations under this section will lapse two years after exit day.”
Although the power conferred by this clause lapses on exit day, there is no sunset clause for the statutory instruments provided under it. This would make all such statutory instruments lapse two years after exit day and require the Government to introduce primary legislation if it wanted to keep them in force.
Amendment 74, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has signed an agreement with the EU guaranteeing that the UK will remain a permanent member of the EU Single Market.”
Amendment 75, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has signed an agreement with the EU guaranteeing that the UK will remain a permanent member of the EU Customs Union.”
Amendment 116, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until such time as the terms of the withdrawal agreement have been approved by a Ratification Referendum, giving voters the options of supporting the terms of the withdrawal agreement, or remaining in the EU.”
This amendment seeks to ensure that Ministers cannot make and use secondary legislation for the purposes of implementing the withdrawal agreement until such time as that agreement has been approved by a Ratification Referendum.
Amendment 143, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until such time as the Government has signed an agreement with the EU that maintains and guarantees the existing rights of EU citizens living in the UK, and UK citizens living elsewhere in the EU, as of 29 March 2019.”
This amendment seeks to protect the existing rights of both EU citizens living in the UK, and UK citizens living elsewhere in the EU.
Amendment 156, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section unless the requirement in section [Status of Irish citizens in the United Kingdom] has been satisfied.”
Amendment 224, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a strategy for the UK to retain access to the EU’s Emissions Trading System markets after withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy to retain access to the EU’s Emissions Trading System markets after withdrawal.
Amendment 225, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a strategy for the UK’s continued participation in the North Seas Countries’ Offshore Grid Initiative after withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for the UK to continue participation in the North Seas Countries’ Offshore Grid Initiative after withdrawal from the EU.”
Amendment 231, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Chancellor of the Exchequer has published a statement setting out a strategy for retaining access to the European Investment Bank.”
This amendment would require the Government to publish a strategy for retaining access to the European Investment Bank.
Amendment 232, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Chancellor of the Exchequer has published a statement setting out a strategy for retaining membership of the European Investment Fund.”
This amendment would require the Government to publish a strategy for retaining access to the European Investment Fund.
Amendment 238, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid a report before Parliament setting out a strategy for seeking the maintenance of UK membership of the European Food Safety Authority on existing terms after withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the Government to publish a strategy for continuing to be a member of the European Food Safety Authority.
Amendment 241, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid a report before Parliament setting out a strategy for seeking the preservation of reciprocal healthcare agreements on existing terms as under social security coordination regulations 883/2004 and 987/2009 after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.
(6) Any changes to regulations in subsection (5) shall only be made after—
(a) the House of Commons has passed a resolution approving changes to regulations mentioned in subsection (5),
(b) the Scottish Parliament has passed a resolution approving changes to regulations mentioned in subsection (5),
(c) the National Assembly of Wales has passed a resolution approving changes to regulations mentioned in subsection (5), and
(d) the Northern Ireland Assembly has passed a resolution approving changes to regulations mentioned in subsection (5).”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a strategy for seeking to ensure that reciprocal healthcare arrangements continue after the UK leaves the EU.
Amendment 242, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid a report before Parliament setting out a strategy for seeking to maintain UK membership of the European Medicines Agency on existing terms after withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the Government to publish a strategy for continuing to be a member of the European Medicines Agency.
Amendment 243, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid a report before Parliament setting out a strategy for seeking to maintain UK membership of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work after withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the Government to publish a strategy for continuing to be a member of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work.
Amendment 244, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid a report before Parliament setting out a strategy for seeking to maintain UK membership of the European Chemicals Agency after withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the Government to publish a strategy for continuing to be a member of the European Chemicals Agency.
Amendment 245, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid a report before Parliament setting out a strategy for seeking to maintain UK membership of the European Single Sky Agreement on existing terms after withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the Government to publish a strategy for continuing to be a member of the European Single Sky Agreement.
Amendment 246, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid a report before Parliament setting out a strategy for seeking to maintain UK membership of the European Aviation Safety Agency on existing terms after withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the Government to set out a strategy for seeking to ensure that the UK continues to be a member of the European Aviation Safety Agency after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 247, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid a report before Parliament setting out a strategy for seeking to retain UK membership of the European Maritime Safety Agency on existing terms after withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for seeking to ensure that the UK continues to be a member of the European Maritime Safety Agency after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 248, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid a report before Parliament setting out a strategy for seeking to retain UK membership of ERASMUS on existing terms after withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for seeking to ensure that the UK continued to be a member of the ERASMUS scheme after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 249, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid a report before Parliament setting out a strategy for seeking to maintain access for the UK to reciprocal roaming charge agreements on existing terms as under Regulation 2017/920, after withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would seek to ensure that roaming charges do not come into effect after exit day for UK citizens in the EU and vice versa.
Amendment 250, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid a report before Parliament setting out a strategy for seeking to retain UK membership of Creative Europe on existing terms after withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for seeking to ensure that the UK continued to be a member of Creative Europe after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 251, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has made a formal request to President of the European Council that the UK continues membership of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights after withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the UK to make a request to the President of the European Council for continued UK membership of the European Agency for Fundamental Rights after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 252, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has published a strategy for reaching an agreement with the EU to enable the UK to have continued access to Passenger Name Records after withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for seeking to ensure that the UK continued to have access to Passenger Name Records after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 253, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to have access to the Schengen Information System after withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to have access to the Schengen Information System after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 254, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to have continued access to the European Arrest Warrant.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to have access to the European Arrest Warrant after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 255, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to have membership of EUROPOL.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to have membership of EUROPOL after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 256, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to have membership of EUROJUST.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to have membership of EUROJUST after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 257, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to have access to the European Criminal Records Information system with the EU.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to have access to the European Criminal Records Information system with the EU after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 258, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to have access to the Prüm Council decisions relating to fingerprint and DNA exchange with the EU.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to have access to the Prüm Council decisions relating to fingerprint and DNA exchange with the EU, after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 259, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to have access to the False and Authentic Documents Online (“FADO”) internet-based image archiving system.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to have access to the False and Authentic Documents Online (“FADO”) internet-based image archiving system after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 260, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to participate in the Convention on Mutual Assistance and Cooperation between Customs Administrations of 1997 (“Naples II Convention”).”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to participate in the Convention on Mutual Assistance and Cooperation between Customs Administrations of 1997 (“Naples II Convention”), after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 261, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to have access to the EU Intelligence Analysis Centre.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable the UK to continue to have access to the EU Intelligence Analysis Centre after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 262, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid a report before both Houses of Parliament setting out a strategy for ensuring that lawyers registered to practise in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland shall not lose their right of audience at the European Court after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to enable British-registered lawyers to continue to appear before the Court of Justice of the European Union, after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 263, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid a report before both Houses of Parliament setting out a strategy for ensuring that lawyers from England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland shall not lose their status of legal profession privilege concerning communications with regard to proceedings before the European Court, after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for reaching agreement with the EU to ensure that communications from British-registered lawyers with regard to proceedings before the European Court continue to be covered by legal profession privilege, after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 275, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid before both Houses of Parliament an agreement with the Scottish Government for the freedom of movement of EU citizens in Scotland to continue after exit day.”
This amendment would facilitate the continuance of free movement in and out of Scotland after exit day.
Amendment 276, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid a report before both Houses of Parliament setting out a strategy for continued participation by the United Kingdom in the common European Asylum System.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for continued participation by the United Kingdom in the common European Asylum System, after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 343, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a strategy for a food standards framework after withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out a strategy for a food standards framework after withdrawal from the EU, before making any regulations implementing the withdrawal agreement.
Amendment 351, page 7, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has laid a report before Parliament setting out plans that seek to secure continued clinical trials agreements as under EU Regulation 536/2014 after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.”
This amendment would ensure harmonisation of clinical trials across the EU Member States will continue in the UK after the UK leaves the EU.
Clause 9 stand part.
New clause 7—Consultation—
“The Government shall follow the principles set out in the Cabinet Office Code of Practice in respect of public consultation in advance of regulations being made under powers granted by this Act.”
This new clause would commit Ministers to abiding by the existing Cabinet Office code of practice on consultations in respect of regulations to be made under the Bill.
New clause 12—Social, employment and environmental protection—
“Any rights, protections, liabilities, obligations, powers, remedies and procedures which exist immediately before exit day in the fields of—
(a) social and employment law, and
(b) environmental law
will not be amended through any regulations made to deal with deficiencies or withdrawal unless approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament or by Act of Parliament”
This new Clause would ensure that social, employment and environmental laws cannot be changed by the order-making powers delegated to Ministers without a vote in Parliament.
New clause 57—Citizens’ Jury on Brexit Negotiations—
“(1) A citizens’ jury shall be established to enable UK citizens to be consulted on the progress of negotiations between the UK and the EU on the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, and the approach outlined in UK Government White Papers.
(2) The citizens’ jury shall in total be composed of exactly 1501 persons.
(3) Members of the citizens’ jury shall be randomly selected by means of eligibility from UK citizens on the current electoral register as registered on the date of this Act receiving Royal Assent, with allocation across the nine UK Government Regions, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland weighted by population, and a stratification plan, with the aim of securing a group of people who are broadly representative demographically of the UK electorate across characteristics including whether they voted Leave or Remain.
(4) The jury will be broken down into individual sittings for each of the nine UK Government Regions in England, as well as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
(5) The sittings will be for no more than 72 hours at a time, facilitated by independent facilitators, and if required, by electing fore-people from within their number.
(6) Membership of the jury will be subject to the same regulations and exceptions as a regular jury, but membership can be declined without penalty.
(7) The citizens’ jury will be able to require Ministerial and official representatives of the UK Government and the Devolved Administrations to give testimony to them to inform their work, and to have the power to invite other witnesses to give evidence as required.
(8) The citizens’ jury shall publish reports setting out their conclusions on the negotiations and UK Government White Papers.
(9) The first report from the citizens’ jury shall be published within two months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, and subsequent reports shall be published at intervals of no more than two months.
(10) Costs incurred by the citizens’ jury shall be met by the Exchequer.”
Clause 16 stand part.
Amendment 226, in schedule 7, page 39, line 29, at end insert—
“(g) makes changes to the application of the 2012 Energy Efficiency Directive in the UK.”
This amendment would make any changes to the application of the 2012 Energy Efficiency Directive in the UK subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.
Amendment 235, page 39, line 29, at end insert—
“(g) makes changes to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning the rights of workers in the UK.”
This amendment would require that the rights of workers currently afforded by EU law that are being transposed into UK law can be changed only through affirmative procedure.
Amendment 236, page 39, line 29, at end insert—
“(g) makes changes to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning rights for disabled people in the UK.”
This amendment would require that the rights of disabled people currently afforded by EU law that are being transposed into UK law can be changed only through affirmative procedure.
Amendment 237, page 39, line 29, at end insert—
“(g) makes changes to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning annual leave rights,
(h) makes changes to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning agency worker rights,
(i) makes changes to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning part-time worker rights,
(j) makes changes to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning fixed-term worker rights,
(k) makes changes to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning work-based health and safety obligations,
(l) makes changes to EU-derived legislation concerning state-guaranteed payments upon an employer’s insolvency,
(m) makes changes to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning collective redundancy rights,
(n) makes changes to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning terms and conditions of employment rights,
(o) makes changes to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning posted worker rights,
(p) makes changes to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning paternity, maternity and parental leave rights,
(q) makes changes to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning protection of employment upon the transfer of a business, or
(r) makes changes to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning anti-discrimination.”
This amendment would list areas regarding workers’ rights where changes to EU-derived law could be made only through affirmative procedure.
Amendment 293, page 39, line 33, at end insert—
“(3A) Regulations appointing any exit day may not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would require regulations appointing an exit day to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 328, page 39, line 42, leave out sub-paragraphs (6) and (7).
This amendment, and Amendments 329 and 331, would remove provisions in the Bill that prescribe scrutiny procedures for the National Assembly for Wales. These amendments, coupled with Amendment 330, would allow the National Assembly for Wales to set the scrutiny procedures it considers appropriate for the control of powers proposed for the Welsh Ministers under the Bill.
Amendment 329, page 41, line 15, leave out sub-paragraphs (10) and (11).
This amendment, and Amendments 328 and 331, would remove provisions in the Bill that prescribe scrutiny procedures for the National Assembly for Wales. These amendments, coupled with Amendment 330, would allow the National Assembly for Wales to set the scrutiny procedures it considers appropriate for the control of powers proposed for the Welsh Ministers under the Bill.
Amendment 155, page 42, line 17, at end insert—
“(3A) A Minister cannot make a declaration under sub-paragraph (2) unless they have satisfied themselves that they have sufficiently consulted—
(a) relevant public authorities,
(b) businesses,
(c) people, and
(d) other organisations
who are likely to be affected by the instrument.”
This amendment would require that, when using the urgent cases provision in the Bill, the Minister must first consult with businesses and other relevant organisations.
Amendment 154, page 42, line 31, at end insert—
“(7) For the purposes of this paragraph “urgent” has the same meaning as “emergency” in Section 1 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.”
This amendment would limit the circumstances in which Ministers can use procedures for urgent cases to circumstances in which there is a serious threat of damage to human welfare, the environment or the security of the United Kingdom.
Amendment 51, page 43, line 26, leave out paragraph 6
This amendment is linked to New Clause 3 to require the Government to implement the withdrawal agreement through separate primary and secondary legislation rather than through this Bill.
Amendment 294, page 44, line 37, after “section 17(5)” insert “, other than regulations to appoint an exit day,”
Consequential to amendment 293.
Amendment 295, page 45, line 5, after “section 17(5)” insert “, other than regulations to appoint an exit day,”
Consequential to amendment 293.
Amendment 344, page 45, line 11, at end insert—
The intention of this amendment is that tertiary legislation under the Act should be subject to the same parliamentary control and time-limits as are applicable to secondary legislation.
Amendment 58, page 45, line 23, leave out “urgency” and insert “emergency”
This amendment would remove the wider latitude currently allowing Ministers to make regulations without Parliamentary approval “by reason of urgency” and instead only allow such executive action “by reason of emergency”. An emergency is a situation that poses an immediate risk to human health, life, property, or environment.
Amendment 330, page 45, line 40, at end insert—
“Scrutiny of regulations made by Welsh Ministers
11A (1) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this Act of the Welsh Ministers must be made in accordance with the procedures from time to time set out in the Standing Orders of the National Assembly for Wales for the scrutiny of regulations under this Act.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) applies to statutory instruments made by the Welsh Ministers acting alone and to statutory instruments made by the Welsh Ministers acting jointly with a Minister of the Crown.
(3) The Standing Orders of the National Assembly for Wales may set out different procedures for the making of different statutory instruments or for different categories of statutory instruments under this Act and, for the avoidance of doubt, may empower the Assembly or a committee of the Assembly to decide which of those procedures is to apply to an instrument or category of instruments.
(4) For the purposes of section 11A of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, and any other provisions of that Act referred to in that section, the provisions set out from time to time in the Standing Orders of the National Assembly for Wales for the scrutiny of regulations under this Act shall be deemed to be provisions of an Act.”
This amendment would allow the National Assembly for Wales to set the scrutiny procedures it considers appropriate for the control of powers proposed for the Welsh Ministers under the Bill.
Amendment 301, page 46, line 18, at end insert—
“12A Any power to make regulations under this Act may not be exercised by a Minister of the Crown until 14 days after the Minister has circulated a draft of the regulations to the citizens’ jury appointed under section [Citizens’ jury on Brexit negotiations].”
The intention of this amendment is to provide for a citizens’ jury to be consulted before regulations are made under this Act.
Amendment 223, page 46, line 29, at end insert—
“14A Any power to make regulations in this Act relating to the oil and gas sector may not be made without—
(a) consultation, and
(b) an impact assessment, a copy of which must be laid before Parliament.”
This amendment would require consultation and an impact assessment before legislation affecting the relating to the oil and gas sector is changed by regulations made under the Act.
Amendment 331, page 48, line 14, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
This amendment, and Amendments 328 and 329, would remove provisions in the Bill that prescribe scrutiny procedures for the National Assembly for Wales. These amendments, coupled with Amendment 330, would allow the National Assembly for Wales to set the scrutiny procedures it considers appropriate for the control of powers proposed for the Welsh Ministers under the Bill.
That schedule 7 be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.
Amendment 29, in clause 17, page 13, line 34, leave out subsections (1) to (3)
This amendment would remove a widely drawn delegated power, which covers anything that happens as a consequence of the Act.
Amendment 99, page 14, line 13, at end insert—
“(8) Regulations under this section may not limit the scope or weaken standards of environmental protection.”
This amendment ensures that the power to make regulations in Clause 17 may not be exercised to reduce environmental protection.
Amendment 100, page 14, line 13, at end insert—
“(8) No regulations may be made under this section after the end of the period of two years beginning with exit day.”
This amendment imposes the same restriction on the regulation making powers under Clause 17 as applies to other regulation powers in the Bill.
Amendment 296, page 14, line 13, at end insert—
“(8) No regulations may be made under this section after the end of the period of two years beginning with exit day.
(9) Regulations made under this section may not amend or repeal retained EU law.”
This amendment would place restrictions on the power to make consequential and transitional provision.
Clause 17 stand part.
Yvette Cooper
I rise to speak to new clause 3, which has cross-party support, but also amendment 7, which does something similar to my new clause, albeit, I confess, in a rather more elegant way. I defer to the drafting powers of the former Attorney General in drafting his amendment.
This, on day seven in Committee, is really where we get to the crunch on this Bill. There are two big anxieties about the content of the Bill that finally come clashing together in clause 9. The first is the sweeping use of secondary legislation through Henry VIII powers, which, regardless of one’s views on the overall legislation, have caused some unease in all parts of the House because of the way in which they concentrate power in the hands of the Executive and cut deep into our historic role in Parliament to hold the Executive to account. The second anxiety is about getting the final Brexit deal right and about making sure that Parliament has a real, meaningful say on the deal, which will define our country for generations, and that we decide together what “taking back control” should mean.
Clause 9 is where those two anxieties come crashing together, because it allows a huge concentration of power in the hands of the Executive, and it does so over the final withdrawal agreement on the outcome of Brexit. Notwithstanding the commitments that the Prime Minister has made today and the written statement that we have seen, the reality is that clause 9 would allow Ministers to start to implement a withdrawal agreement entirely through secondary legislation and to do so even before Parliament has endorsed the withdrawal agreement.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Many of us hear what the right hon. Lady says about the Henry VIII clauses and the power grab, but does she not accept that the quid pro quo of that is that, while many in this House were quite happy for the EU to conduct a power grab, they seem less trusting of their own Government when it comes to these clauses?
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about parliamentary sovereignty, which was indeed a key issue that was debated in the referendum. In fact, many people argued in the referendum that what they were doing was bringing sovereignty back here, from having shared sovereignty with the EU. I do not think we are arguing that sovereignty should be handed over in a concentrated way to a small group of Ministers instead. That is the responsibility on us. We know that of course there are times when Parliament needs to give Ministers power on our behalf to use through secondary legislation, but we should do so cautiously and sensibly and make sure that the right safeguards are in place. That is the problem with the Henry VIII powers in this Bill, and not just in clause 9 but in clause 7. The challenge, too, is that we are being asked to do that on an issue that will define our country for generations. Each and every one of us will be judged on what we did in this place to get that Brexit deal right.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does the right hon. Lady agree that it is most welcome that, since my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) tabled his amendment 7, it has been agreed that there does need to be an Act of Parliament? Is not the weakness of clause 9 that there is still no trigger requiring the consent of Parliament to the withdrawal agreement before the regulations can be laid and used?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is exactly right, and that is why we have a cross-party interest in these issues. Not only is there no trigger on the face of the Bill—clause 9 will still allow Ministers this huge concentrated power to go ahead and implement the withdrawal agreement without Parliament’s agreement—but there is also a second difference, certainly for me in what Ministers have set out so far, about how a meaningful vote should take place. I want to come on to that as well.
New clause 3 says that Parliament will not yet give the Government permission to use secondary legislation to implement the withdrawal agreement, and that instead the Government must set out their plans for primary legislation to implement the withdrawal agreement. If secondary legislation is needed at that time, as part of the implementation process, those powers should be taken in the withdrawal agreement Bill—the second Bill—so that Parliament is not just handing over a blank cheque, but is deciding what powers are needed and making sure that the proper scrutiny and checks and balances are in place at that time.
I do not think this is really a controversial proposal. It is basically saying that Parliament should hand over no more power to the Executive than it needs to and should not hand over power to the Executive until it needs to and until it knows what is going on. New clause 3 also has the effect of requiring a meaningful vote in primary legislation on the withdrawal agreement before it can be implemented. That is not really a controversial proposal either. It simply says that we should have a proper vote on the most important thing to pass through Parliament in a generation—and a meaningful vote in primary legislation, as is fitting for something so important—and that we should do so before and not after we give Government the powers to start implementing it.
Amendment 7, which was tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), has broadly the same effect. Rather than removing the powers from clause 9, it simply says that they cannot be used until a statute or primary legislation has been passed supporting the withdrawal agreement. Again, that means that Parliament does not blindly hand over powers to the Executive in a trusting way without knowing what the consequences will be or what the agreement looks like.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
The whole point of this Bill is that it is taking back power to this country and this Parliament, so that we can decide for ourselves what will happen. All the significant powers in the Bill are subject to the affirmative resolution and those that are not will now be subject to a sifting committee. We are recovering from a situation where, as members of the European Union, we had handed over all these decisions, lock, stock and barrel, to the European Union, so the Bill is a massive improvement, and to dress up this attempt to reverse Brexit as an argument in favour of parliamentary sovereignty is nothing but cant.
Yvette Cooper
Oh my, what Stalinism is this?—that any attempt to disagree with the way in which this Bill is drawn up is somehow a betrayal of Brexit! What rubbish! How insecure are Members who object to any changes in the Bill, if they cannot see that it is Parliament’s job—a job that they argued for when they stood up and tried to defend parliamentary sovereignty—to take some responsibility by scrutinising legislation and proposing amendments to it? That is all we are doing now. We are putting forward an amendment to the way in which the Brexit process—the withdrawal process—should take place. The idea that this somehow undermines the referendum decision is just a load of rubbish and the hon. Gentleman well knows it, and if he had any better arguments, he would put them, rather than using something that is so ridiculous.
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
The argument that we have heard from the right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) and the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) is really quite ludicrous. They opposed what they described as a power grab by Brussels—by the European Union—while we were members of the European Union. They now seem to be advocating a power grab by the Executive, although they said that they wanted to take back control for the legislature of this country. If taking back control does not mean taking back control for the legislature, why on earth did we have the referendum in the first place?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right. Let me say to the Conservative Members who seem to be suddenly so keen to give away powers from Parliament to the Executive, that part of our historic tradition has always been our objection to concentrations of power, and indeed our relationship with the EU was a sharing of power rather than a concentration of power. I realise that people objected to that, and this debate is not a rerun of the referendum; it is about how we implement the referendum result. However, it is also—or should be—about Parliament having the confidence to say, “We do not believe in concentrations of power, and we think that each and every one of us has a responsibility to do what we, as elected parliamentarians, think is right, and get the best Brexit deal for the country.”
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
The power that the Executive will have in making regulations under the clause will be subject to Parliament, because secondary legislation comes to Parliament. These regulations are of a different order of magnitude from regulations made by the European Union, which can be made by qualified majority vote against the will of the British Government and are automatically British law. So this is, in fact, restoring parliamentary oversight to the making of laws.
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Gentleman has himself been a strong advocate of the responsibilities and powers of Parliament, but it does not take long for him to become completely lost down a sidetrack and start talking about what our relationship with the EU has been for very many years. The point is that this process is about how that relationship will change. We know that it is due to change as a result of the referendum and the article 50 negotiations, but the responsibility for all of us is to determine how it should change. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do, and as well as every other Member in the House, that the giving of powers in secondary legislation concentrates powers in the hands of Ministers, and does not receive the same scrutiny. Furthermore, this is not just about the concentration of power through clause 9; it is also about the process through which the Government want to make the decisions on the withdrawal agreement in order to trigger clause 9.
Anna Soubry
I assume that the right hon. Lady has read clause 9. Does she share my concern about the fact that some people seem not to have done so? Am I right to conclude that the clause means that the Government negotiate a withdrawal agreement—arguably one of the most important things that have happened for decades—which will not come to us here, but will be implemented by Ministers? As the Bill stands, that is it: apparently there will be no further involvement of this sovereign Parliament.
Yvette Cooper
I do agree, and I think that goes to the heart of our concern.
It ought to be possible for the Government to agree to my new clause 3, or to amendment 7. Let us think about the points that they have already made. First, they have recognised that there is a problem if too much power is concentrated in the hands of the Executive. They said so yesterday during the debate on clause 7, and I think that they recognise the importance of safeguards on the use of Executive powers. Secondly, they have said that there will be a meaningful vote on the withdrawal agreement. I welcome that, but I think there is still a difference between us on what counts as a meaningful vote. Thirdly, they have said that there will now be primary legislation on the withdrawal agreement, and I welcome that as well. If we put all those three things together in the right way—the commitment to primary legislation, the commitment to a proper vote and say for Parliament, and concern about the concentration of powers—we get amendment 7 or new clause 3. It is the same thing.
Sir Oliver Heald
Following the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), may I ask whether the right hon. Lady agrees that the statutory instruments that we are discussing relate to matters of constitutional significance—matters of the sort that we normally only debate on the Floor of the House? It would be wrong for those matters to be dealt with in Committee when the House has not necessarily even agreed to the withdrawal agreement.
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. This is not the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, which was all about minor and detailed changes and consolidating legislation through secondary legislation—or that, at least, was its intention. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, this is about hugely constitutionally significant legislation and changes that will affect the course of events in this country for generations.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The right hon. Lady mentioned the different definitions of a “meaningful vote”. Does she agree that a vote that took place at a point at which, for instance, Parliament could not say to the Government, “What you have negotiated is not acceptable” would not constitute a meaningful vote?
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Gentleman is exactly right. The timing of the vote matters, but so does its constitutional status. That is why I think it immensely important for this to be a statutory vote.
Let me explain why the Government’s words and the Prime Minister’s words—in the written ministerial statement, in various letters and so on—are not enough, and why we need to vote on either amendment 7 or my new clause 3. First, the Government’s unwillingness to put their promises on the face of the Bill is a problem. Parliament needs commitments in legislation before we can give the Executive such strong powers—such constitutional powers—and we need that commitment on the face of the Bill before and not after we do so. Secondly, there is still a difference between us on what counts as a meaningful vote. Without either new clause 3 or amendment 7, it would still be possible for Ministers to offer only a vote on a motion on the withdrawal agreement, and that indeed is the Prime Minister’s intention. The written ministerial statement published this morning says:
“This vote will take the form of a resolution in both Houses of Parliament and will cover both the Withdrawal Agreement and the terms for our future relationship.”
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
Does the right hon. Lady share my concern about the fact that the vote on the motion of both Houses will come after the ratification of the treaty, and the fact that this House has no power or ability to change treaty terms under the ratification, which renders any vote on the motion meaningless?
Yvette Cooper
I think the hon. Lady is right. The Minister will be able to clarify this later, but I think it is a key point that the vote on the primary legislation— on the implementation of the Bill—will not happen until after the treaty has been ratified. I think that there is still some confusion about whether the vote on a motion, or a resolution, will happen before or after the ratification of the treaty, but the main point I want to make about the weakness of trying to do this simply through a resolution is that it is the primary legislation that counts, and it is clear from what the Minister has said, and what has been said in the written ministerial statement, that the primary legislation vote, the statutory vote, will not happen until after the ratification and the whole legal process have been completed.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Dominic Raab)
The written ministerial statement makes it very clear that the meaningful vote will come after the negotiations have been concluded, but before ratification. That is precisely why it was published today.
Yvette Cooper
I think that there is a big difference between us on the word “meaningful”. I shall be happy to give way to the Minister again, but I think that he should clarify the position, and confirm that the only vote that we will have before the ratification of the treaty is a vote on a motion.
We are talking about a “take it or leave it” deal, and about a “take it or leave it” vote on the completed deal. That is the only thing that is there, even in the written ministerial statement; and there is no guarantee in the legislation, by the way. The Minister is not proposing to put that on the face of the Bill. Even if we take the written ministerial statement in good faith, and even if we rip up our commitment to putting things on the face of the Bill, all that the Minister has given us is the possibility of a vote on a motion, not a vote on primary legislation before the ratification of the treaty.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I would not take any consolation from what the Minister has said. The formal process of ratification of a treaty, under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, is that the treaty is laid before the House by a Minister, and if the House has not annulled it within 21 days, it goes ahead. However, we can only have a vote on annulment if the Government allow it, and in recent years they have regularly chosen not to do so. It is perfectly possible, consistent with what the Minister has just said, that the only vote we would have—and this may be what he means by a meaningful vote—is the vote on annulment, which is a “take it or leave it”, completely meaningless vote.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that goes to the heart of this: in the end, the power is still concentrated in the Executive’s hands, whether it is the power to give us a vote on the treaty at all or the power over the timing of any of these votes. That is all still in the Government’s hands, with no reassurances in the Bill, and then there is still only this proposal simply to have a vote on a motion, not a vote on statute with all the scrutiny that brings.
Several hon. Members rose—
Yvette Cooper
I am conscious of time; I will give way again, but many Members want to speak in this important debate.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Has my right hon. Friend given any thought to the consequences of the possibility, under the Government’s proposed procedure, of this House voting in favour but the other place voting against the motion?
Yvette Cooper
That is clearly a possibility, but I think we should trust in the maturity of Parliament. It is possible for people to vote in different ways, but we have long-standing processes between our two Houses for resolving differences and debating them. My problem is that we are not actually being given the opportunity to have those proper meaningful votes through legislation, and instead we just have these motions, which have no constitutional status.
Anna Soubry
Can the right hon. Lady confirm that it is Government policy that this place will be given, to use their expression, a meaningful vote? For example, as the talks progress, some hon. Members might say, “Well, hang on a moment; my pharmaceutical industry is being excluded from this arrangement on trade under this particular head of agreement.” That is an example of doing something “meaningful”—the ability of those of us in this place, acting on behalf of our constituents, to change some of the drift of the negotiations, to get a deal that suits everybody in our country.
Yvette Cooper
I agree: it is hugely important that this vote has the proper status in Parliament, as well as our being able to debate the detail.
Chris Bryant
The point about a potential difference between the House of Lords and the House of Commons again makes me concerned that the Government are toying with only allowing a vote on an annulment motion, presumably tabled by the Opposition rather than the Government, on the original treaty, because then they would have sanction under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which determines what happens if there is a difference between the Lords and the Commons. So, again, I spy a rat.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right, and that again shows the importance of having these commitments in the Bill, so that there can be no doubt and no possibility of the Government using clause 9 to start implementing an agreement on which there has been no meaningful vote.
Mr Jenkin
Can the right hon. Lady explain how the timing will work? If there is to be legislation to approve a withdrawal agreement before March 2019, what happens if the agreement is reached too late to allow that legislation to go through all its stages—[Interruption]—or is this a plan to delay the Brexit date?
Yvette Cooper
I thought part of the way through the hon. Gentleman’s intervention that he was finally coming up with a sensible point. I have no control over the timing of the Government’s negotiations; I hope that they and the EU will get on with this quickly, because in particular we need the transitional agreement pinned down as early as possible, as businesses need certainty—and they need that as much in my constituency as in the hon. Gentleman’s. So I hugely hope there will be plenty of time for all these debates to take place. In the event that, against the Government’s will—they have said they do not want this—it ends up being a late deal, Parliament should have the opportunity to ask the Government to extend article 50 for a couple of months, to be able to implement it properly. In fact, the Government will have to do that anyway, because they will not be able to bring clause 9 powers through fast enough not to have to do so.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Is it not far more likely that the Government will have to do that long before then, because everyone, including the Brexit Secretary, recognises that it is simply not possible to get everything agreed within the next year, plus a few months?
Yvette Cooper
That may be the case. It is clearly not what the Government want, and many of us want the certainty early on. Either way, in the end, however, the timing of the article 50 process will be determined by the Government and the EU states together, but Parliament should be able to put its view to the Government, and Parliament so far in this process will be given no choice in that and no opportunity to have its say.
There is another problem with doing this through a resolution. It is not a fit and proper way to decide something so constitutional to simply do it through a resolution or motion of this House, especially when the Government have shown, in their attitude to Opposition day motions and to resolutions they have lost, that they do not give those sorts of motions and resolutions much status and significance at all, and they do not have constitutional or legal status.
It is only fitting, therefore, for us in this Parliament to say that we should do this through statute, but that is also the most important way to make sure the vote is meaningful. As several Members have said, a motion being put to Parliament that, as the Brexit Secretary has suggested, basically says, “Vote for this deal, whatever it is, or leave with no deal at all,” in the end is not a meaningful vote for Parliament. If Parliament is being given the choice of endorsing the deal the Government have come up with, whatever it is, or alternatively saying in effect that we want no transitional agreement, no security co-operation—nothing at all—and we want to just go straight off the edge of a cliff, that in the end is not proper scrutiny and not a proper meaningful vote. It also provides no incentive for Ministers to have to make sure that what they negotiate can get support in Parliament.
At present, the Government have more incentive to come up with a deal that will get the support of the European Parliament than the support of this place. That is not on; that is not acceptable. It is unacceptable that they have more incentive to focus on the interests of the European Parliament than they have to focus on the interests of, and the potential to build consensus in, this Parliament. That is why we need a vote on statute; that is why we need a statutory vote; and that is why we need either amendment 7 or new clause 3, to have a meaningful vote before, not after, the treaty is ratified.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
The right hon. Lady talked about a delay of perhaps a couple of months, but if the treaty is not right in the eyes of this Parliament, a couple of months could turn into a couple years, and, indeed, some people would like it to be a couple of decades. Therefore, she talks about a meaningful vote, but what about the meaningful vote of the people of this country, who voted last June to leave the European Union? We need to get this done as quickly as possible, to deliver what the British people voted for.
Yvette Cooper
We had a referendum on whether or not Britain should leave the EU. That referendum has taken place; that decision has taken place; and Parliament has respected that decision. Despite how individual Members might have voted in that referendum, or on which side we might have campaigned, as a whole Parliament has respected that referendum result. The referendum did not decide how we leave the EU, however, or what the Brexit deal or transitional agreement should be. That is the responsibility now for the Government in negotiations, but also for this Parliament.
I point out to Members who claim that somehow we cannot have a parliamentary debate on this because it is an internationally negotiated deal—because, somehow, it is a done deal—that Parliament must be able to have a say in this process and we should trust Parliament to be mature and responsible. A lot of Conservative Members said that if we let Parliament vote on article 50, the sky would fall in because it would somehow stop the Brexit process, rip up the referendum result and get in the way of democracy. But actually, the Members of this Parliament know that we have a responsibility towards democracy. We have a mature responsibility to our constituents to defend the very principles of democracy. That is exactly why many of us, including me, voted for article 50, to respect the referendum result, but we do not believe that we should then concentrate powers in the hands of Ministers to enable them do whatever they like. We have a responsibility to defend democracy and those democratic principles. It is our responsibility as Members of Parliament to have our say and to ensure that we get the best deal for the country, rather than just give our power to Ministers.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
The right hon. Lady might agree with me that what causes more consternation overseas among those observing what is going on are the signs that we as a Parliament and as a Government seem from time to time to completely lose our marbles and get involved in polemical arguments that are far removed from the actual matters that we are supposed to be discussing.
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is exactly right, and I will defer to him to set out his amendment and describe its impact. The idea that we should make a confidence issue out of every single adjustment to the Brexit process or to the withdrawal Bill is just nonsense.
If we have a Bill before Parliament, it has to be possible for Members of Parliament to table amendments to it and to vote on them. In a hung Parliament, that is even more the case. The Prime Minister asked for a mandate to do all this her own way, but she did not get it. She got a hung Parliament. That puts even more responsibility on us all to work together to find something that will build consensus across Parliament and across the country. In a hung Parliament, the Government sometimes lose votes because Parliament has to do its job to build the right kind of consensus and to get the right kind of outcome.
In the end, this is all about Parliament and democracy. Each and every one of us has a responsibility to our constituents not to hand over, share or give up our authority and our sovereignty, but to exercise our responsibility to get the very best deal. For centuries, Members of Parliament have fought tooth and nail to defend democracy and the powers of Parliament against Executive power. We cannot be the generation that just rips that up and hands over all the power to the Executive. We have a responsibility—now more than ever, given the gravity of the decisions before us—to use that power responsibly and to try to build consensus. To be honest, if the Government cannot build a broader consensus in Parliament, there is no chance of their building a broader consensus in the country, and if they cannot do that, we will end up with everybody rowing over the Brexit deal for a generation to come. For the sake of all of us who want to get back to discussing our schools, our hospitals and all the other issues that face our Parliament, I urge Ministers to accept either amendment 7 or new clause 3, and to start trying to build a consensus that can get us a sustainable Brexit deal.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I rise to support new clause 3 and amendment 7. As mine is the second name attached to amendment 7, which was tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who is mainly responsible for it, I also incline to the view that it is slightly the better drafted, but I will support either proposal if one or both are put to the vote.
I might well succeed in being reasonably brief, because I agreed with every word of the speech made by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and I will not repeat what she said. A welcome note of cross-party consensus exists across a large part of the House, and it represents the cross-party consensus that is in favour of what is lazily called a soft Brexit and of having the best possible close relationship with the European Union after we leave.
The main issue in this debate seems to turn on what we mean by a “meaningful vote”, which relates to our discussion on the role of parliamentary sovereignty in a situation of this kind. I accept that today the Prime Minister—not for the first time—promised us a meaningful vote, but she later went on to qualify that slightly by talking about the need for statutory instruments to be brought forward during the period of the Bill, within the extraordinary powers that the Bill gives Ministers to enact, by regulation, even changes to British statute law. We have to be clear what a meaningful vote is, and the key is the timing. It is quite obvious that if the British Government are to be responsible to the British Parliament, the vote must take place before the Government have committed themselves to the terms of the treaty-like agreement that is entered into with the other member states. Any other vote will not be meaningful.
Mr Clarke
I will give way in just a second, but let me finish this point.
That means that a meaningful vote cannot take place until a detailed agreement has been arrived at about certainly the precise nature of our trading and economic relationships with the single market of the European Union, and actually quite a lot else besides, because we still have to embark on the security discussions, the policing discussions and the discussions about which agencies we are going to remain in and which agency rules we are going to comply with. This is, we all agree, a huge and complex agreement, and it is going to determine this country’s relationships with the rest of the continent of Europe and the wider world for generations to come. Can that happen before March 2019?
We face the genuine difficulty that it is quite obvious that we will not be remotely near to reaching that agreement by March 2019, and we have to think through what that actually means. The negotiators have been very optimistic in saying that they will have first a transition deal and then a deal by 2019. I am sure that they will try, but they have not a chance. I think that what they are actually saying—certainly the continental negotiators—is that they might be able to have some heads of agreement on the eventual destination by March 2019, which we can all carefully consider. They will certainly have to agree a transition deal of at least two years within which the rest of the process will have to be completed.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford that everybody wants things to be speedy, because one of things that this country is suffering from most at the moment is the appalling uncertainty caused by the fact that we have taken a ridiculous length of time to reach three obvious conclusions on the three preliminary points that had to be determined as the basis of our withdrawal. At the moment, however, we do not quite know what the British Government are going to be seeking as their end goal in the negotiations that are about to start, because the British Government, within the Cabinet, have not yet been able to agree exactly what they are seeking.
If I may say this to my desperately paranoid Eurosceptic friends, it is not as if I am somehow trying in some surreptitious remainer way to put a spoke in the wheels of the fast progress of the United Kingdom towards our destination. The Government do not know what leave means. Nobody discussed what leave meant when we were having the referendum. Our overriding duty is not just to our political allegiances and so on; it is to provide this country with a good, responsible Government who face up to the problems of the real world and, accountable to Parliament, can produce the best new order that they can for the benefit of future generations.
Mr Lammy
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is demonstrating why he is Father of the House, so I hesitate to interrupt him, but on his point about having a meaningful vote prior to the Prime Minister of the day making the deal, does he agree, with his wealth of experience, that if we are to keep the country together, it is important that that Prime Minister has in the back of her head when trying to pull off that agreement, “I have to get this through my Parliament”?
Mr Clarke
The right hon. Gentleman makes one of the points that I was going to make. The most important effect of passing either new clause 3 or amendment 7 —there is actually more to this than a meaningful vote, if we consider the various stages—and achieving proper parliamentary accountability is that that would affect the tenor of the negotiations. Like every other Head of Government in the European Union, our Prime Minister would need to have at the back of her mind, “Can I deliver to the House of Commons what I am thinking of conceding?” Every other political leader in Europe will do that, because they will have to sell what they sign up to to their own Parliaments. If we do not have a meaningful vote, we will be the only member state whose negotiators are not under a legally or constitutionally binding commitment to sell the deal, because they will be able to make the deal and then come back to the House of Commons and the House of Lords and say, “This is it. What do you think of it?”
Chuka Umunna
The Father of the House is absolutely right that the Bill essentially gives the Government a blank cheque. On timing, the only commitment I can see in today’s written ministerial statement from the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union about what will happen before we leave the EU is that the proposed withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill will be introduced before we leave. That is clearly unacceptable. Any piece of legislation seeking to do what that Bill has in mind must be passed before we leave the European Union, even if that means extending the process to maintain parliamentary sovereignty.
Mr Clarke
I agree entirely, and my next point is linked to that. The nature of the parliamentary approval cannot just be a motion; it must have statutory basis, which is the route that the Prime Minister has followed. There are various reasons for that, but the obvious one is the extremely uncertain status of resolutions of this House under current parliamentary practice. The Brexit Secretary is only the latest example of someone saying that anything that is not statutory is not legally enforceable, but just a “statement of intent”. The House of Commons keeps passing all kinds of motions with which I ferociously disagree, but they get carried by this House and make all kinds of criticisms of what the Government are doing. We have moved into a new era in which the Government are allowed to keep saying, “Parliament may pass motions, but they are worthless expressions of opinion. They are not part of our being accountable to the elected body of the House.”
Sir Oliver Heald
Of course the original plan was not to have a Bill, but to rely on statutory instruments under clause 9 to effect changes of constitutional significance. It was then made clear recently—I think on 17 November—that we will in fact have a Bill. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that to try to make such changes by secondary legislation just is not on? It is very unlikely that the courts would say that such constitutionally significant changes could be made under secondary legislation.
Mr Clarke
Again, I agree entirely, and that takes me back to something that has occurred all the way through this process. I am obviously standing here in disagreement with the Government, of whom I am critical in many respects, due to both the policy and how it has been conducted, but I have had some sympathy with them since the election, because they are trying to carry through this enormous, controversial and historic measure when they do not have a parliamentary majority, except when they can persuade the Democratic Unionist party to turn up and support them.
The process started with the extraordinary suggestion that the royal prerogative would be invoked, that treaty making was not going to involve Parliament at all, and that leaving did not require parliamentary consent. Rather astonishingly, that matter had to be taken to court, and it came to a fairly predictable conclusion. The next idea—I will not repeat what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) said—was that everything would be done by statutory instruments under broad powers. However, we are slowly getting to what I would have thought is the fundamental minimum that a real parliamentary democracy should be demanding: the country will not be able to enter into a binding treaty commitment until the details have received full parliamentary approval. How we get there is no doubt a matter of some difficulty, but it must be addressed.
Mr Clarke
I will give way in a second.
The debates on this Bill have typified this Government’s approach to parliamentary scrutiny. I understand their difficulties when they have no majority and their Members include people like me and those who are trying to interrupt me—we are allegedly on the same side of the House—who fundamentally disagree with each other.
I have attended every day of our debates on this Bill. We spent yesterday discussing parliamentary scrutiny, but our proceedings have not been a great advertisement for such scrutiny. The Government’s reaction to each and every proposal is to say how carefully they have listened, how important it is and how they will go away and think about it, but then to explain why the drafting of the Bill will not currently be amended. I am sure that I have done that myself when taking legislation through the House, and it is always a joy to find out that one can get away with it for quite a long time. After a bit, one gets used to the fact that one can get away with it as long as one is suitably polite and flattering to those who are proposing amendments. The actual reasons that have been given for rejecting proposals have been all about administrative convenience—that they are obscure drafting amendments. I congratulate the parliamentary draftsmen on creating arguments of such extraordinary minutiae to support the amazing aspirations of civil servants who see a mountain of work before them and hope that most of it can proceed with the minimum of political scrutiny.
What we have not heard, and I will have to hear it today, is the political argument against Parliament having a meaningful say. What is the constitutional argument that says Parliament should be denied a statute before the Government enter into all these commitments? I have not so far heard a word expressed to try to explain that to me. That should be the key, dominant thought in the Government’s mind as they negotiate. Of course they will have to think about what will satisfy the Foreign Secretary and the Environment Secretary, and of course they will have to get something for which the Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph and The Sun will criticise them least, and so on, but I do not think Parliament is an afterthought to those vital considerations; I think it is the parliamentary process that matters. The rest is a problem for some press officer.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend said earlier that other Parliaments across Europe will have a say and we will not, but I posit that that is not true. This is about the withdrawal agreement, which will be agreed under qualified majority voting by the European Council, so it is not true that every Parliament across Europe will get a say on this subject.
Mr Clarke
Qualified majority voting is an excellent innovation achieved by the Thatcher Government when we were explaining to the other Europeans how they could have an effective free trade agreement. The number of times that British Governments have ever been outvoted under qualified majority voting is tiny. Qualified majority voting could be extremely important in these negotiations, because otherwise a Government of some small state—I will not name any, because they are all friendly—could suddenly decide they have some great lobby group at home that does not want to concede to the British something that the British Government have set out to achieve. The whole thing could then be held up.
The agreement will have to go to all the Parliaments. The Parliament of Wallonia will no doubt be allowed to have a say, which, if this Government have their way, this Parliament will not. The Parliament of Wallonia will be allowed to have a say, and I am not sure whether the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments will—that remains to be seen. European Governments will all have to take a view and defend that view to their own Parliament in each and every case.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It is disorderly to say that an hon. Member is misleading the Committee. I suggest that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) settles down and allows the Father of the House to continue.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
Qualified majority voting means that each Government cast a vote and, if we get a qualified majority, that is the effective decision. Each Minister who takes part in that vote is, of course, accountable to their own Parliament, to which they go home and defend their vote. If it is on a difficult, controversial subject, any sensible Minister—all those Ministers—will take the view of their Parliament before going to cast their vote on behalf of their country. It is utterly ludicrous to say that this Parliament should be denied a vote and not allowed a role because qualified majority voting somehow replaces it. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) says that what I say is untrue and, with great respect, I would say that his argument is an absurdity.
Mr Baron
I respect my right hon. and learned Friend’s consistency on this issue. He is on public record as having once said that he looks forward to the day when the Westminster Parliament will be nothing more than a council chamber of the European Parliament.
When my right hon. and learned Friend says that leavers did not know what they were voting for, he risks sounding very condescending, because we knew exactly what we were voting for: to reclaim our laws and to reclaim our finances. Although one accepts his point that one cannot predict the future in any detail, that is as much true for the EU as it is for this country.
Mr Clarke
My hon. Friend is not the sort who usually repeats the more scurrilous right-wing rubbish that fanatical Eurosceptics come up with about what I have and have not said in the past. I am not, and never have been, a federalist. I would not pursue a united states of Europe. It is social media stuff to start throwing in that kind of thing when we are in the middle of a serious parliamentary debate.
When the public were invited to vote in a referendum, they were invited to take back control, which was not defined. It was mainly about the borders and about the 70 million Turks and all the rest of it. They were told in the campaign that our trade with the European Union would not be affected in any way. Indeed, that is still being held out as a prospect by the Brexit Secretary and others, who seem to believe that they will get unfettered trade without any of the obligations.
The discussions we have had in Committee on previous days about the details of what “single market” and “customs union” mean, and so on, would have been a mystery to anybody whose knowledge of the subject is confined to the arguments reported in the national media on both sides. Those arguments are largely rubbish, and it is now for this House to turn to the real world and decide in detail what we will do.
Anna Soubry
The Father of the House is right that there will be a qualified majority vote on the withdrawal agreement. That agreement will not go to each individual Parliament in the same way that the actual trade agreement will. Does he share the concerns of many people, as that now dawns upon them? They had thought that this place would have some sort of say on the trade deal—the actual final relationship that we will have with the European Union—but, actually, we will have no such say because the deal will not be finalised until after we have left the European Union. Does he agree that that is now concerning many citizens across the length and breadth of this land who did indeed apparently vote to take back control?
Mr Clarke
I agree entirely. My right hon. Friend eloquently underlines the point that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford raised and that I am trying to make. We must have a meaningful vote before the final trade deal—indeed, the whole deal—is agreed by the Government.
Let me try to lower the temperature by going back, as I rarely do, to reminisce for a moment.
Sir William Cash
My right hon. and learned Friend and, I believe, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), both concede that amendment 7, at this crucial moment, is defective and would not work for a variety of reasons. I have indulged what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) has said about scrutiny and responsibility and the rest, but does he agree that it is not appropriate to press such an amendment to a vote when, in fact, it would make a nonsense of itself? It would be a meaningless vote about a meaningful vote.
Mr Clarke
No doubt my hon. Friend will catch your eye, Dame Rosie, when he will be able to explain why he thinks the amendment is technically defective, but this is the kind of argument we have had against every proposition that has been put forward throughout the passage of the Bill. I heard the Prime Minister personally promise us a meaningful vote and then go on to explain how the Bill would have to be used to make statutory instruments; so we are talking about the very wide powers in the Bill being used probably even before the end of the article 50 period—I think that is what she said. This amendment would prevent that; it would prevent those powers from being used until a statute has been passed by this House confirming its approval and also giving legal effect to whatever final agreement has been arrived at. I bow to my hon. Friend’s legal skill—he was indeed in parliamentary law when he practised—but I cannot for the life of me see why this is defective.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, once again, to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Rosie, just as it is to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the Father of the House, who gave an informed and powerful speech that we would do well to take on board as we proceed in today’s debate.
I rise to speak to new clause 66 and amendments 30, 27 and 29, which stand in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I also intend to speak to amendment 28 and to the wider question of whether clause 9 should stand part of the Bill. In its policy impact, clause 9 is arguably the most important in the Bill and, taken together, clauses 9 and 17 give rise to a very wide range of interlocking issues. For the purposes of clarity, I intend to speak first to amendments 30, 27 and 28, which relate to the purpose, scope and limits of clause 9 and whether it should stand part of the Bill. I will then turn to amendment 29, which relates to the purpose, scope and limits of clause 17. I will finish by dealing with new clause 66 and the thorny issue of Parliament’s role in approving the final terms of the UK’s exit from the EU and any associated transitional arrangements that might be agreed.
I turn first to the purpose, scope and limits of clause 9. The Government have argued that the clause 9 power is necessary in order that they have sufficient flexibility to give effect to whatever is in the withdrawal agreement and to ensure that there are no holes in the statute book after exit day. The withdrawal agreement, it should be noted, is defined in clause 14 as an agreement, whether or not ratified, agreed with the EU under article 50, meaning that the powers in clause 9 could be used before a withdrawal agreement is ratified but not, as the clause makes clear, after exit day for the purposes of the Bill, because the power will expire at that point.
In the light of the Secretary of State’s announcement on 13 November that the Government intend to bring forward a withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill in order to give the agreement and any agreed transitional arrangements domestic legal effect, an announcement, it should be noted, that was confirmed in writing in the joint UK-EU report published last Friday, it is entirely unclear why the Government still require the powers provided for by clause 9.
Let me set out why we believe that to be the case. In that announcement on 13 November, the Secretary of State made it clear that the major policies set out in the withdrawal agreement, including those reached last week on citizens’ rights, Northern Ireland and the financial settlement, along with any agreement on transitional arrangements, would be implemented by means of the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill and not by secondary legislation provided for by the Bill before us. So barring some unforeseen delay in the concluding of a withdrawal agreement, if the Government are not to create significant legal uncertainty following our departure with regard to the major policies covered by such an agreement, the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill will have to have come into force by 29 March 2019 at the latest. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) covered that point.
In legal terms, any transitional arrangements agreed to could not bridge a post-exit gap, because even if some elements of the withdrawal agreement come into effect at the end of any such period, an agreement on transition itself will have had to have been given legal effect in the UK by means of the very same primary legislation, namely the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill. As such, unless the Government are proposing to begin the process of implementing the withdrawal agreement and any agreed transitional arrangements immediately after the final terms of such an agreement are reached, but pre-ratification, by means of secondary legislation in this Bill—a point made earlier by the right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), who is not in his place—a course of action for which there is no justification, given that the phase 1 joint report published last week sets out in black and white the intention to provide a specified period to approve the agreement and transitional arrangements in accordance with our own constitutional procedures and to prepare the statute book in accordance with that agreement, there is simply no need for the powers provided for by clause 9, including the broad power under that clause to amend the Bill itself.
Mr Jenkin
I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but is it really that unreasonable that the Government might need to avail themselves of these powers in clause 9 while the withdrawal and implementation Bill is proceeding through the House of Commons? If the timetable is compressed, that Bill would not be on the statute book and the powers there would not be available. So clause 9 is necessary for that purpose. Of course the withdrawal and implementation Bill could circumscribe the powers in clause 9 and indeed close them off once that Bill is on the statute book.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman has pre-empted a point I was going to come to. In the scenario he gives, there is no need for the timetable necessarily to be compressed. If it were squeezed, what would that say about the role that Parliament will have on the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill? In his scenario, there would also be no need for the secondary legislation in this Bill, which could be included in a similar form in the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, when we would have a better idea about what it will be needed for and can more adequately circumscribe its scope. As for this idea that we have a withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill making its way through this House at the same time as secondary legislation implementing elements of that agreement hang over this place, such an approach would create serious confusion.
Anna Soubry
Has it come to the hon. Gentleman’s attention that, were the Bill passed without either amendment 7 or amendment 4 being made, and were there then a change of Government to one who believe in a hard Brexit, we could leave the European Union on absolutely no agreement, with no deal and no recourse whatever to this Parliament to have any say in that, because the Bill is completely silent about what would happen in the event of no deal?
Matthew Pennycook
The right hon. Lady makes a very important point. Although I concede that amendment 7 provides for an additional check because it requires primary legislation, our new clause 66 highlights an important point: we would wish to bind the Government so that Parliament would get a say even in the event of a no-deal scenario. I shall return to that point later.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is concerned about the potential for a compressed timetable and the consequences of what may flow from that, but is that not actually following from the will and vote of Parliament? Parliament passed into law article 50, which it agreed to by bringing the Lisbon treaty into law, so this is the natural consequence of what Parliament itself has determined.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman is right that the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 and the article 50 notification gave effect to their own timetable. That is why it is so important that we have transitional arrangements on current terms that allow us flexibility to negotiate the final deal. I will return to this point later, but there is no way that, before we leave in March 2019, we will have agreed the future relationship. We will have agreed heads of terms at best.
Matthew Pennycook
If it is all right, I am going to make a bit of progress because many Members wish to speak.
As I have said, I do not think there is a need for the powers in clause 9 because secondary legislation of a similar type could be included in the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill. Why the need for such powers? We do not think there is any justification for them. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s justification for why the clause needs to stand part of the Bill but, unless amendment 7, tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), is passed, the Opposition will vote for the clause to be struck from the Bill.
If clause 9 remains part of the Bill at the end of the parliamentary process, its constitutional potency and scope must be highly circumscribed. I do not intend to dwell extensively on what limits should be placed on the clause 9 power because, in general, the same arguments apply as those that I set out at length in the Committee’s deliberations on clause 7 yesterday. I will say, though, that amendment 27 to clause 9, similar to our amendment 25 to clause 7, would constrain the capacity of the powers in clause 9 to reduce rights or protections.
The powers in clause 9 are different from the powers in clause 7 in a particular way: namely, the extraordinarily wide power explicitly provided for by clause 9(2) gives Ministers the power by regulation to modify—a term that clause 14 makes clear covers amendment and repeal—the Bill itself once enacted. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) pointed out on Second Reading, there is no example throughout the history of the 20th century of a Bill that has ever sought to do that—not in time of war and not in time of civil emergency. In fact—this is a point that my hon. Friend continues to make, and should—every single emergency powers Act has specified that there should not be a power in such legislation for Ministers to alter primary legislation. We do not believe the power is justified, and amendment 30 would limit the potency of the delegated powers in clause 9 by preventing them from being used to amend or repeal the Act itself.
Let me turn briefly to the purpose, scope and limits of clause 17, which gives powers to Ministers to make any consequential provisions that they consider appropriate in consequence of the Act and to make any transitional provisions that might be needed as a result of the Bill coming into force. In contrast to our position on clause 9, we acknowledge that there is an established precedent with regard to consequential and transitional provisions, so we will not be voting against clause 17 standing part of the Bill, but it must be circumscribed.
A clause as widely drawn as clause 17—it is arguably the most widely drawn of all—set in the context of a Bill of such constitutional and legal significance that it covers almost every element of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and, it could be argued, nearly every facet of our national life, means that the power to make consequential provisions under clause 17 is not as tightly limited as it might be in other pieces of legislation. As such, it inevitably throws up the possibility that the powers in subsections (1), (2) and (3) of clause 17 could be used to make changes to vast swathes of secondary and primary legislation, including legislation in this Session up to May 2019.
When he responds, the Minister will no doubt cite other statutes that provide for not dissimilar powers, but having looked closely at a fair number of them, I am not convinced that any are so widely drawn as this one, and none are contained in legislation as constitutionally significant as this Bill. The Hansard Society was right to refer to clause 17 as a “legislative blank cheque” for the Government, and the power must be restricted. Amendment 29 would achieve that aim by removing subsections (1), (2) and (3) of clause 17. If the Government believe that that is the wrong way to restrict the sweeping powers in the clause, they can of course come forward with their own suggestions, but the principle of circumscribing the powers in the clause must be accepted.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
I just want to clarify whether the hon. Gentleman means what I think he means by what he just said. Does he mean that if the House did not approve a withdrawal agreement, his view is that the Government should have to ask for an indefinite extension of article 50 until the House has approved a set-up that it finds acceptable?
Matthew Pennycook
I do not think that is necessarily the case, for several reasons. First, there is no reason why a withdrawal agreement cannot be reached, perhaps even sooner than October 2018—
Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
You told us it would take a long time.
Matthew Pennycook
I think it will take a long time. The Minister can confirm this, but I assume the Government would be pleased to conclude the withdrawal agreement before October 2018, if possible. However, there are several things that might happen, one of which is that the Government go back to the negotiating table and try to improve on the deal. I cannot see what is unreasonable about filling in the gaps or asking for revisions, were that the expressed will of the House.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way yet again. I think that he has just confirmed not that it would necessarily follow that the Government would have to extend indefinitely, but that it would be possible that the Government, in his view, should have to extend indefinitely because this House had not agreed to the withdrawal agreement. In other words, he is saying, is he not, that, if this House does not approve the terms on which we leave, until and unless it approves the terms on which we leave, we should not leave. Is he saying that, or not?
Matthew Pennycook
What I am saying is that there is any number of options that might happen, but let us bear in mind there is a period after October 2018 for the Government to return to the negotiating table and seek to revise or improve the terms. It does not necessarily mean an extension of article 50—I know that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to draw me down that path.
Several hon. Members rose—
Matthew Pennycook
I wish to make a little progress.
That is why we tabled new clause 66, which would guarantee, by means of prescribing when exit day for the purposes of this Bill can be appointed, that both Houses have a meaningful vote on the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and, just as critically, a vote in the event that no such agreement is reached and the Government are determined to take us out of the EU without a deal—a catastrophic scenario that would result in legal chaos, significant damage to our economy, the erection of a hard border in Northern Ireland and serious harm to Britain’s standing in the world. We have consistently called for the Government to make it clear that no deal is not a viable outcome.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
In the event of a no deal, people are concerned about falling into World Trade Organisation rules and tariffs, but will my hon. Friend confirm that, of course, the WTO does not cover services, which are the majority—in fact, 80%—of our exports and which require intricate, detailed negotiations? In the case of a car, two thirds of it are now services and often parts of the car go across borders. Therefore, does he not accept that having no deal would not be a disaster—it would be a catastrophe?
Matthew Pennycook
I agree with my hon. Friend’s point about services. I say to all hon. Members who are happy to contemplate a scenario in which the Government walk away from the negotiations and this House is merely a spectator in that outcome, that that is not acceptable and this House should not accept it.
Matthew Pennycook
I will make some progress, I am afraid, because a number of hon. Members wish to speak. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) will do so.
New clause 66 would ensure that there is a vote on a motion, not just in the event of a withdrawal agreement being concluded, but, crucially, when no such deal has been concluded, should that be the case. That outcome appears less likely following the agreement the Government reached last week and the clarification that the default position in the event of no deal will be regulatory alignment, but it remains a possibility, and Parliament must have a say.
As I have said, there are many, many ways of ensuring that Parliament has a meaningful vote. Amendment 7, tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), is very well drafted. I do not think that it is deficient. We would definitely support it and we would not press new clause 66 if he pressed it to a vote.
Matthew Pennycook
I am very, very pleased to hear that. We will support the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the amendment in that eventuality.
I will conclude by saying that, subject to the kind of constraint that would be put in place if amendment 7 were incorporated into the Bill, we remain of the view that the power to appoint an exit day for the purposes of the Bill should be placed in the hands of Parliament, not Ministers, and also that the flexibility inherent in clause 14 with regard to exit day should be retained, because it is essential to finalising in some scenarios a withdrawal agreement and any transitional arrangements that need to be agreed to. We need only look at the mess last week to justify the need for such flexibility. As such, we believe that amendments 381 and 382 tabled by the Government with the aim of putting a specified exit date, and indeed time, in the Bill are an ill-conceived and unnecessary gimmick and on that basis we intend to oppose them if they are pushed to a vote.
This whole debate is about whether right hon. and hon. Members are content for Parliament to be a spectator, a passive observer, of one of the most important decisions that has faced our country in generations. Parliament must have a grip on the process, which is why we have tabled our amendments and new clauses.
Mr Grieve
I am most grateful to have the opportunity to participate in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook). I agreed with virtually every word that he said.
In speaking to amendment 7, in the name of my hon. Friends, myself and other hon. Members, I am conscious that it has taken on a life of its own. When the Committee stage of the Bill started, it was my intention—and I hope one that I have observed and honoured throughout—to try to approach the amendments that I tabled in the spirit in which they are intended, which is to try to improve difficult legislation while entirely recognising the many challenges that the Government face. Brexit is full of risk and full of complexity—legal and otherwise—and the Government are entitled to my support, wherever possible, to carry Brexit out as smoothly as they can and with the least impact on the well-being of the citizens of our country. That has been my aim throughout.
I very much regret that—as often tends to happen in these matters—while some sessions in Committee have led to sensible amendment and the Government considering matters, or going away to look again and making some helpful suggestions, in the case of amendment 7 we seem to have run out of road. What happens in those circumstances, I regret to say, is that all rational discourse starts to evaporate. The purpose of the amendment, the nature of it, is entirely lost in a confrontation in which it is suggested that the underlying purpose is the sabotage of the will of the people, which it most manifestly is not. That is then followed by a hurling of public abuse; large numbers of people telling one that one is a traitor; and, I regret to say, some of one’s hon. and right hon. Friends saying slightly startling things. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), for example, said that I am grandstanding, when I do not remember ever having suggested such a thing to him about the way that he has expressed his views on Europe at any time in his career—including, I might add, when I tried to be a loyal member of his team when he was leader of my own party.
Mr Baron
My right hon. and learned Friend will know that I have never participated in any of that sort of language. May I gently put it to him that amendment 7 leaves open at least the possibility that, given that the EU does not want any member to leave and that there is therefore no incentive for it to negotiate a good deal that would be acceptable to this Parliament, we could find ourselves in a permanent state of limbo, deadlocked in unproductive negotiations?
Mr Grieve
I note what my hon. Friend has said and I am very grateful to him for the way in which he put it, but I happen to disagree with him. If he listens to me he will understand why I think that I am right on that point.
The consequence is that we completely lose sight of what the key issues are, and if I may say so before I move on, that matters a lot, because in the course of this, we also lose sight of the fact that we are the Parliament of a deeply divided country on this issue. When I go and lecture to sixth-formers occasionally and talk to them, I point out that the parliamentary process is not just about the imposition of the will of the majority on the minority; it is the process by which we obtain consent for what the majority chooses to do.
The difficulty with this referendum is that, having invoked the public will, which, I regret to say, is not entirely tempered in its expressions of view by some of the courtesies that we extend to each other here, we run the risk of losing sight of the fact that 48% of the electorate did not wish for the policy that we are currently pursuing and have deep concerns about, not trying to reverse it, but the extent to which it will have an adverse impact on their well-being, and request us as a Parliament to pay as much attention to what they are saying as we undoubtedly have to do to those who voted in the referendum and said that they wanted to leave. The most worrying aspect of the debate, as it has progressed, is how we become polarised and so fixated on ends that we fail completely to look at means. We look at the top of the mountain, but not at where we are going to put our foot next. As a consequence, we run serious risks of badly letting them down—all of them, collectively—by enacting bad legislation and taking very foolish decisions.
Of course, when this confrontation comes along, the negotiations immediately stop, the conversation ceases, the Government’s steamroller is invoked, and the atmosphere can suddenly get really quite unpleasant; and I regret it. As a consequence—I will come back to this in a moment—I have to tell my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that I think they have lost a series of opportunities in the dialogue we have had on this to come to a sensible outcome. With that, I turn to the issue that is, in truth, under debate.
Paul Farrelly
Is not the advantage of the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s very helpful amendment that it would give certainty? It would nail down, in black and white, what we have agreed and would place a legal responsibility on the Government. We would then avoid a situation whereby what people think has been agreed simply becomes a statement of intent within a matter of hours and days.
Mr Grieve
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that I will be able to develop some of those points in a moment.
As was rightly said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the Government had a notion when this debate started that it was possible to pull out of the European Union by use of the royal prerogative. Fortunately, time, common sense, debate and a small amount of judicial intervention has pointed out that that is not possible. As a consequence, my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench have correctly begun to understand that in fact there has to be a proper process. I appreciate the points that have been made about a meaningful vote and how we can actually get that in the context of Brexit; it is a real, live issue. Nevertheless, I greatly welcome the written ministerial statement, which sets out what appears to be a constitutionally tenable process for Parliament approving or considering the deal by motion, and then moving on to implement the deal by primary legislation.
Of course, the Government know that they must proceed by primary legislation because, in view of the comments during the Miller case, it is blindingly apparent that there must be a serious risk of legal uncertainty if anything other than a statute were to be used to take us out of the EU at the end. That is the last thing that my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench should want, because that will cause even more trouble and difficulty than they already have in the challenges they have to face.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will forgive me if I appear pedantic, but does not this Bill and the enactment of article 50 take us out of the European Union at the end, whereas the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill legislate for the consequences?
Mr Grieve
Yes. If, indeed, we were leaving with nothing further to do, that might be a good point. But it seems to be a pretty universal view, even on the Government Benches—although this perhaps does not apply to my hon. Friend—that simply leaving to jump off the top of the tower block is not the best thing to do. Therefore, there will need to be primary legislation to implement the undoubted new constitutional order that we will have after 29 March 2019.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr Grieve
May I just make a tiny bit more progress?
As the Government’s position has shifted, they have come up with a written ministerial statement, which seems accurately to reflect the right direction of travel. But the difficulty is that clause 9 is entirely incompatible with what the Government have set out.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I happen to agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that it would be undesirable for us to leave without an agreement. Indeed, I think that the Government agree with that. But I will go back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) a moment ago. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in the event that it were not possible to reach a further agreement, it would then be the case that the actions of Parliament already taken—including in triggering article 50—would constitute a proper answer to the Supreme Court’s point that Parliament, and Parliament alone, can remove us from the EU?
Mr Grieve
Yes, I think I agree with my right hon. Friend that the action of Parliament in triggering article 50 would do that. But it is not, I think, the intention of the Government to do any such thing, and never has been. Indeed, if it is the intention of the Government to do such a thing, I hope very much that they will tell me as soon as possible, because I think I might be withdrawing my support from them.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
Is not the point that, everything else being equal, even if nothing else happens, article 50 has been triggered so we are leaving the European Union on a set date, unless 27 other countries decide to extend the date? Therefore, this argument is about the UK’s internal process. It is not a question of the EU or anyone else holding things up.
Mr Grieve
There are a series of processes. I do not wish to get too diverted from my main point. We are intending, and will require, a further statute in order to achieve what the Government have set out. I hope very much that we do not leave with a no deal on anything, because we would not be able to fly off to Rome on the day after, we would have no security co-operation and we would, indeed, be mired in complete and utter chaos.
The reality is that clause 9 is incompatible with the programme that the Government have set out. At the time that clause 9 was inserted, I think that the Government had not yet fully worked out the implications of how withdrawal had to take place.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr Grieve
In a moment. I do not wish to take up too much of the Committee’s time.
My point brings me to the specifics of clause 9, which is an extraordinary and wide power to remove us from the EU by statutory instrument, and moreover—this is the most telling point—to ask the House to give the Government effectively a blank cheque to draft statutory instruments to achieve something when at the moment we do not know what that is.
Mr Jenkin
I am listening very carefully, but clause 9 is not about implementing our leaving the European Union; it is about implementing a withdrawal agreement. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) did not vote for article 50, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) did. That is when he voted to leave the European Union and that is decided, so he is incorrect to say that clause 9 is deciding when or how we leave the European Union.
Mr Grieve
If I may say so, I think my hon. Friend has misunderstood what I said. The fact is that clause 9 provides a power, exercisable once this Bill comes into force before exit day, to implement something when we do not at present know what that is. Therefore, it is a very strange thing to ask Parliament to sign off.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Is not the supreme irony the fact that clause 9 is actually the child of article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, which the Government are now supporting? This provision is the Lisbon treaty timetable. It is not in any way trying to give power or control back to this House to amend that in any way or to ensure that the UK leaves the European Union at the time that is fortuitous. The UK is just accepting what is in the Lisbon treaty and the Government have welded themselves to that very idea.
Mr Grieve
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.
Ultimately, the centre of this point is that we are being asked to give the Government a power that can be exercised on something, but we do not know what that something is. Logically, the moment to make the statutory instruments to enact our withdrawal would come when we have this further statute—whatever it happens to be called—and have debated it in this House. We will then have structured the powers conferred by statutory instrument to achieve what Parliament wants and thinks is necessary to carry out withdrawal. That is the point, and pre-empting matters in this fashion is odd. Indeed, it is so odd that I heard one Minister—I will not reveal who—informally saying that they questioned whether the clause 9 power was in fact still needed, in view of how the Government were progressing this matter.
Mr Grieve
In a moment.
On my key issue and what I was trying to tease out in tabling amendment 7, I could, I suppose, have simply said that I will not support clause 9. Indeed, if my amendment is not accepted, I am afraid I shall be voting against clause 9 this evening—I have no option—but rather than do that, the purpose of my amendment is to try to explore what it is that the Government want clause 9 to do that, in fact, we should not be doing when we enact the legislation at the end.
It is for the Government, in those circumstances, to explain themselves; it is not for Parliament simply to roll over and accept something because the Government say that that is what we should do. Indeed, if we all get told that we must support the Government out of loyalty because to do otherwise would undermine the Prime Minister—I think that is cuckoo, for the reasons given by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)—we need to know why.
Last week, I engaged in a whole series of dialogues with the Government, trying to understand what was bothering them. At one point, I thought we might be getting to the point where we would reach an agreement that some power might be needed in the Bill before we came to the final Bill, although I will come back to that in a moment. It started to dawn on me that one possibility was that this power might be exercisable, but only provided it could not be used to bring anything into force—we might lay some statutory instruments, but they could not be brought into force in any way until the end statute had been passed.
That is where I thought we might be—and then everything closed down, and I am none the wiser why the Government need this power, except that I note that a journalist who seemed to have been speaking to a briefing was told it might be required to effect the registration of EU citizens. I thought to myself, “I thought we were going to have an immigration Act to do that.” So I am still at this moment—this afternoon—absolutely at sea about why this power is needed. If the Government cannot make a case for this power, it should not be here.
Even at this stage, I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, if they accept this amendment, which is absolutely central and necessary to ensuring that a power of this scope cannot be abused in a way that the House should not tolerate, and if they want to come back on Report and tidy it up because there is some adjustment or some caveat they want to put in, I will of course listen to what they want to say—my job is not to make their lives more difficult—but I am not prepared to sign away such an extensive power, when it appears to be contrary to the Government’s stated policy on how Brexit will be carried out and, in fact, surrenders without any good reason the control of this House over how the Government conduct Brexit.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
If my right hon. and learned Friend’s version of what our vote would be were to prevail, rather than the Government’s version, what would happen if, close to our leaving date, Parliament voted against any agreement there might have been and against no deal?
Mr Grieve
Ultimately, as my right hon. Friend knows, this Parliament is sovereign, although its sovereignty does not extend to concluding agreements with other parties in international relations that the Government do not wish to adhere to or sign up to. I have no idea what the circumstances are going to be in 12 months’ time. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich: we are dealing with a whole series of hypothetical questions. I get a bit fed up when I keep on being asked, “What is it? Surely, it is a choice between the deal on offer and no deal.” I do not know. There is no way that any of us can know, and that is why the process matters so much. If we get the process right, we will answer correctly each question as and when it arises. Far from that hurting or damaging the Government, it will enhance their power. To come back to the point I made in an intervention, it will convey an impression of purpose and method to our EU partners in negotiation, whereas, at the moment, the major thing that has been undermining our negotiations is the impression of chaos in our procedure and our aims.
Sir William Cash
I am extremely intrigued by the line that my right hon. and learned Friend has taken, with which I largely agree in relation not to the substance, but to the deficiencies he now seems to have accepted could, in some shape or other, be tidied up, as he put it, on Report if we were to get to that unfortunate situation. I simply ask him: is he able to elucidate how his amendment would actually work in practice?
Mr Grieve
I have been pleading with the Government throughout the past four weeks, pointing out to them that this is a really important amendment, and asking them please to respond to it. I have asked them what alternative they might have that could persuade me that they had a working proposal that should command the approval of the House and my own approval. I have been doing that repeatedly, and I was striving to achieve those things last week, but the blunt reality is—I am sorry to have to say this to the Committee—that I have been left in the lurch as a Back Bencher trying to improve this legislation, because silence has fallen. There has simply not been a credible explanation. The last explanation was, “Here is your written ministerial statement. That ought to be enough for you. In loyalty, you should now support the Government.” However, that does not answer the question.
Anna Soubry
Has my right hon. and learned Friend also looked at this issue: does he think that, should the Government decide that the best deal is the European Free Trade Association—we would effectively be Norway—some right hon. and hon. Government Members have worked out that, without his amendment or the new clause moved by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), this country would become like Norway and go straight into EFTA, without this Parliament having a say on whether that is what leave meant?
Mr Grieve
It would indeed be a remarkable outcome. Certainly, I think that Parliament ought to have a say. Those reasons highlight the difficulty of clause 9. There are other difficulties with the Bill, but clause 9 really has it.
I want to bring my remarks to an end, and I simply say that I do want the Government to listen. The opportunity is here for them to accept the amendment and then to come back on Report and explain themselves further or to tidy the amendment up, and I will listen and try constructively to help them if, indeed, any of this power is needed, but I am not prepared to sign off clause 9 in its present form.
The one merit of amendment 7—I tailored it very carefully and I tried quite deliberately to avoid the no-deal scenario, which is a very legitimate issue, but it is not what I went for—is that I wanted to make sure that these powers could not be used to pre-empt a statute that we should probably be considering this time next year. It is plainly wrong, and if it is to be departed from, the Government have to provide a credible reason for it.
Alex Chalk
May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend about a point I am struggling with and that others may be struggling with, too? On the one hand, given that the Government have conceded that there will need to be a statute to implement any agreement, it is difficult, for me at any rate, to see what the point is of clause 9, and Parliament should not legislate in vain. That is point one. On the other hand is the key point not that we will get a vote on that statute, so does this really matter? That is the part I am struggling with, and I would very much welcome my right hon. and learned Friend’s views.
Mr Grieve
I think that this does matter. If I understand the reason why the Government want this power, it is that, at the time when we may be considering the next statute, they will also be pushing through this House statutory instruments setting up structures for our departure from the EU that may be, or that we might consider to be, at variance with what we need in the fresh statute that we are considering. I think that that is a form of constitutional chaos, actually. I cannot see how it produces any clarity at all. For that reason—a reason of good process—this is a mistaken course of action, particularly because it is not necessary.
We have heard the argument, “We’re going to run out of time in leaving the EU.” I simply repeat what I have said previously. I realise that this is hugely objected to by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends because they are so fixated on getting us out. The article 50 mechanism provides for a sensible structure to enable us to leave smoothly, yet for reasons that I do not understand, the aim of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends seems to be to mess it up as much as possible. There is the famous amendment 381, for example, which we are going to come back to next week and which I have already indicated I will not support under any circumstances whatsoever. If we actually stick to a sensible process, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), then we will get the right answers. As I say, if the Government are to justify keeping clause 9, they have to provide us with chapter and verse—and they simply have not done so. I have asked, and I have not had it.
In those circumstances, the only proper course of action—I say this with the greatest reluctance—is that I am going to have to vote for my amendment, and, if necessary, if it is not passed, I will vote against clause 9, because without my amendment, clause 9 becomes a really very worrying tool of Executive power that does not appear to have any reasonable presence in this legislation. Apart from on HS2, I do not think that I have ever rebelled against the Government in my 20 and a half years in this House. I do find it quite entertaining that some who criticise me for speaking my mind on this matter are individuals who appear to have exercised the luxury of rebellion on many, many occasions. But that said, there is a time for everybody to stand up and be counted. As Churchill said, “He is good party man—he puts the party before himself and the country before his party.” And that is what I intend to do.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Temporary Chair (Sir David Amess)
Order. The Chair obviously recognises the importance of this debate. There is a very, very long list of colleagues wishing to speak, so unless colleagues keep their remarks to about seven or eight minutes, without interventions, there will be many disappointed Members.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I rise to speak to amendment 47, which stands in my name. It is a great privilege to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who has shown great resolution, fortitude and reason in the face of unreasonable criticism. We admire him for it.
We are debating the single most important question in the Bill: how the House can exercise its view on the withdrawal agreement in a way that gives us control. “Control”—there is a word we have heard before. It resonated throughout the referendum campaign, but when Members start to argue that Parliament should have some control over this process, it seems to send shivers down Ministers’ spines.
Amendment 47 arises from an exchange that I had with the Secretary of State on Second Reading. When I asked him to give us a very simple assurance that clause 9 will not be used to implement the withdrawal agreement until Parliament has had the opportunity to vote on it, he replied:
“It seems to me to be logical”.—[Official Report, 7 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 354.]
What has been set out in today’s written ministerial statement appears to give that undertaking, but if that is what Ministers are prepared to do, why not put that into the Bill? I similarly welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that there will be separate legislation to implement the withdrawal agreement, but if Ministers are prepared to give that commitment, we want to see that in the Bill, too, which is why I shall vote for amendment 7.
The question has been asked—I want to ask it, too, because it has exercised the Select Committee—“What is clause 9 now for?” It is a very simple question indeed. Timing and the order in which these things are done are absolutely crucial in this debate, and that point was made forensically and forcefully by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield. May I suggest a new principle? We often heard it said during reports back from the negotiations that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, so I suggest that we agree that nothing should be implemented until everything is agreed.
The written ministerial statement says something interesting, and rather puzzling:
“The Bill will implement the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement in UK law…Similarly, we expect any steps taken through secondary legislation to implement any part of the Withdrawal Agreement will only be operational from the moment of exit, though preparatory provisions may be necessary in certain cases.”
My simple question for Ministers is this: secondary legislation where, and arising from what? Does this refer to clause 9, which a lot of Members think should no longer be in the Bill, or is it advance notification that there will be provision for secondary legislation under the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill that we have been promised? We need some clarification.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), who spoke so ably from the Front Bench, drew attention to the statement by the Secretary of State on 13 November in which he said, in announcing that Bill:
“This confirms that the major policies set out in the withdrawal agreement will be directly implemented into UK law by primary legislation”.—[Official Report, 13 November 2017; Vol. 631, c. 37.]
That is very interesting. I must confess that I did not understand the full significance at the time, so will Ministers also enlighten us on this? What are the major policies and what are the minor policies, and in which Bill, and by what means, will those minor policies be implemented?
The next issue of timing is the idea that exit day should be set as 11 o’clock in the evening of 29 March 2019. The Government amendment to implement that proposal would cause all sorts of trouble, not least because of the way that this Bill was originally drafted, as the Select Committee heard in evidence from Ministers, who confirmed that they would be able to set different exit days for different purposes. The Committee thought that that seemed to provide a great deal of flexibility, but the amendment would bring that possibility to an end, and in the process bind the Government’s hands to an hour of the clock on a day at the very moment when they may well need maximum flexibility so that they can bring the negotiations successfully to an end. The amendment really makes no sense.
As the Committee said in its report, the proposal would cause “significant difficulties” if the negotiations went down to the wire. Of course, we had the famous evidence from the Secretary of State in which he suggested that the negotiations might go to the 59th minute of the 11th hour, although since then there has been a certain amount of rowing back, because that would not be consistent with the pledge that we have been given. That was why the Committee said that it would not be acceptable for Parliament to be asked to vote after we had actually left the European Union. The timing of all this is absolutely fundamental to making the vote meaningful. A vote may be meaningless unless at some point in the procedure the timing ensures that it is meaningful. We have to get the order right.
Michel Barnier said at the start of the process that he wanted to bring the negotiations to an end next October. We have 11 months to go to deal with a very long list of issues that we have not even started to broach. The agreement that was reached last week, which we welcome, is the easy bit of this negotiation—the really difficult bit is about to begin. Those who had thought that leaving the European Union would be about keeping all the things they liked and getting rid of all the things they did not like are now in for a rude awakening as they come to realise that choices have consequences and trade-offs will need to be made.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The right hon. Gentleman is getting to the nub of the issue. If a meaningful vote, by his definition, means that Parliament should be able to say to the Government, “We don’t like the deal that you have got, and we’re not accepting no deal, so go back to the EU and negotiate another deal,” what chance does he think there is that those who do not want us to leave in the first place will ever offer a deal that this House could buy into?
Hilary Benn
The hon. Gentleman anticipates precisely the point that I was going to make—[Interruption.] I was. As we have already heard, all the Ministers and Prime Ministers who negotiate in this process will say at some point, either in the main forum or in other discussions, “I’ll never get this through my Parliament.” That is the accountability we are talking about. It is called democracy, and it is really important that Ministers, Prime Ministers and negotiators have that thought in their minds when they are negotiating on behalf of the country and the House. In such circumstances, I think the House would first want to ask why we were facing no deal, and it might well wish to give the Government fresh negotiating instructions. The House might want to tell the Government to go back in and say, “On reflection, we would like to suggest that we do the following.” There must be sufficient time for that to take place if we are going to get a reasonable deal.
Another point I want to make—I am conscious, Sir David, of what you said about the time—is that Ministers need to understand why they are having such difficulty with this fundamental debate on the Bill. It has to do with the history of the Government’s handling of the whole process. At every single stage, this House has had to demand our role and our voice. I remember the answer when people first asked what the Government’s negotiating objectives were: “Brexit means Brexit.” When a follow-up question was asked, we were told—
Hilary Benn
I am still wrestling with the concept of a red, white and blue Brexit, and I did not find it very enlightening.
The second answer was, “No running commentary,” but that eventually had to give way to the Lancaster House speech and a White Paper. Then we asked, “Will Parliament get a vote?” Almost exactly a year ago, when the Prime Minister last appeared before the Liaison Committee, I asked her that question. She was unwilling to give me a commitment on that occasion, but we all pressed, and in the end the Government conceded that there would be a vote.
We argued that there would need to be separate primary legislation to implement the withdrawal agreement, but what did the Government do? They produced this Bill, which says, “No, no. We’ll just do it all by statutory instrument.” That was until amendment 7 appeared on the horizon, at which point the Government changed their mind. If the Committee insists, as I hope it will, on amendment 7 later today, that will be because of our experience of the Government’s handling of the Bill so far. They have not acted in the spirit of seeking consensus, even though the Prime Minister said earlier that that was what she wanted to achieve.
The final point I want to make is simply this. Parliament has no intention of being a bystander in this process. We intend to be a participant, as I have said on a number of occasions, because this decision affects every part of the country, every business and every family. Today’s debate and vote are all about control, which must ultimately rest not in Ministers’ hands but in our hands. It is up to us to make sure that that happens.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Until now, with the exception of some interventions, I believe that all contributions have been, in one way or another, in support of amendment 7 and its correlative amendments. I hope, Sir David, that you will allow me a little leeway with timing to address my points, because I do believe that the debate has so far been one-sided.
I want to start by talking about the speech made by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who was characteristically good-humoured and articulate, and the fine speech from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook). I will then turn to amendment 7 and the speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). They all brought the cat out of the bag very well. As I will explain in a moment, I distinguish between what the Opposition are after and what my right hon. and learned Friend is after.
The right hon. Member for Leeds Central and the Opposition spokesman in effect said this. The House of Commons voted by a vast majority for a referendum, the people by a narrow majority voted to leave and the House of Commons voted by a vast majority to trigger article 50, which says:
“The Treaties shall cease to apply…from the date of…the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification”.
That has been accurately described by some on the EU side of the negotiations as an inevitable process to leaving, but the Opposition say that the House should be capable of telling the Government that they must seek to reverse the process by seeking—not necessarily by obtaining, because we cannot guarantee that they would obtain—
Sir Oliver Letwin
Yes, that is what the right hon. Gentleman said. The logic of what he was saying carries us remorselessly there, and I will come on to explain why.
Sir Oliver Letwin
The right hon. Gentleman cannot continue to shake his head with conviction. His logic carries him there because he defines a meaningful vote as one that gives the House the capacity to reject either a deal it does not like, or the possibility of exiting with no deal. This is not a matter of opinion or value; it is a matter of logical fact. The only alternative to accepting a deal that we do not like or refusing to accept no deal is to leave the whole matter aside and not exit the Union. We either exit without a deal or we exit with a deal. If the deal is rejected but the Government are told that we cannot leave without a deal, we cannot leave.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I will, of course, give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment. I just wanted to expose the logic very clearly, because there are no other logical possibilities. I challenge him to explain what the other possibility is.
Hilary Benn
I set out—very clearly I thought—in my speech what the other possibility is. For the avoidance of any doubt on the right hon. Gentleman’s part, I have said repeatedly in this House that we are leaving the European Union at the end of March 2019—and, indeed, I voted for the article 50 legislation. I was discussing today the terms on which we will leave. It is perfectly possible for Parliament to look at the terms and say, “We do not like them; we would like different ones,” and to give the Government different instructions, provided that there is time. That was my point.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Of course it is possible for the House of Commons to tell the Government that it does not like the terms, and of course it is possible for the Government to go back and ask for the terms to be changed, but it is also possible—
Sir Oliver Letwin
Please, allow me to continue. It is also perfectly possible, as the right hon. Member for Leeds Central knows, because he is a fine logician, for the other side in the EU negotiations to reject such alternative terms. We therefore hit the question that he cannot evade: under those circumstances, is he or is he not hoping—the Opposition spokesman made what he was hoping for perfectly clear—that Parliament will have the right to tell the Government that they cannot leave on terms that Parliament does not accept? I really think that that is important, if we are to be honest about this, because that is what the right hon. Gentleman and the Opposition spokesman are suggesting.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I have no doubt that it is also what the right hon. Lady who is now seeking to catch my eye wishes to suggest. I will let her do so, and then I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford).
Yvette Cooper
The logic of the right hon. Gentleman’s position is that he wants to rule out any possibility for Parliament even to ask the Government to go back to the negotiating table. Of course he is right that, in the end, this is about a negotiation, and the 27 other European countries will have a view and such a negotiation will take place. The logic of his position, however, is that he wants to rule out any say for Parliament at all, or any attempt by Parliament to ask the Government to try to get a different or better deal, or to change the terms, and that makes absolutely no sense at all for anybody who believes in the role of Parliament.
Sir Oliver Letwin
First, the right hon. Lady has said nothing to contradict my point about what she and other Labour Members are arguing, and secondly, as a matter of fact, that is not a correct characterisation of my position. I am perfectly happy that Parliament should ask the Government, if there is time, to go back and reconsider the terms they are negotiating. I have no problem with that at all. The question is what happens if they cannot succeed in negotiating those terms and, in the end, we reach that crunch point.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am not going to give way to anyone except my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford.
Vicky Ford
May I take my right hon. Friend back to what he said about article 50? It is true that that says:
“The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless”—
I repeat, unless—
“the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.”
That is exactly the point. If we are close to a deal but, for example, struggling to get the last vote through the European Parliament, the 28 countries may wish to take a little more time.
Sir Oliver Letwin
My hon. Friend makes my point for me. The very point I am making is that no UK Government and no UK Parliament can guarantee that the other side would agree to any such thing.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I will give way to the Opposition spokesman in a moment.
There therefore can arise circumstances in which the choice, in the end, is between accepting leaving with no deal and not accepting leaving. I continue to believe—it is important that there is honesty on this point—that Opposition Members are essentially arguing that this House should have the ability to derail the process.
Matthew Pennycook
I do not think that that is a fair characterisation of my argument. The right hon. Gentleman has said that there is a possibility, in certain circumstances, of sending the Government back to ask for the deal to be changed. It is possible that that might be turned down, so it is not certain, but it is possible. Does he think that that should be an option, and if so, if he votes against amendment 7, what other mechanism might we use to send the Government back to at least try to improve a deal that this House felt was sub-optimal?
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am very happy to answer that question, and it will bring me neatly on to the point I want to make about the amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. The answer, of course, lies in the combination of the proceedings on the resolution that will have to be agreed by this House, during which it will be perfectly possible for this House, both in debate and in the way it votes, to tell the Government, if there is time, to go back and try again; and of the proceedings on the withdrawal and implementation Bill, during which again, if there is time, the House could reject the proposition and ask the Government to go back.
We then come to the nub of what happens if there is no time anymore because the Government cannot get a renegotiation and cannot get an agreement—a further prolongation—of the kind that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford describes. The question arises of whether Opposition Front Benchers are recommending, in those circumstances, that leaving without a deal is the possibility it needs to be for article 50 and the referendum to be respected. That is a crunch question that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich cannot avoid.
Matthew Pennycook
I will be brief, and then leave it there, but I want to pick up on two of the right hon. Gentleman’s points. First, I think there will be time. Last week’s joint agreement makes it clear that there must be time, in accordance with our own procedures, to look at the withdrawal agreement and then ratify it.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there is a possibility, on the basis of the Government’s commitment to a motion, to send them back to renegotiate, but that is not what his Secretary of State says. The Secretary of State says of the motion it is an up/down deal, and that a no vote would be the end of it—leaving without an agreement; not going back to the negotiating table.
Sir Oliver Letwin
There is no possibility of precluding Parliament from making such a resolution one way or the other. That is up to Parliament, and it is up to the Government of the day at that point to respond as they choose. No Government would sensibly respond in the way the hon. Gentleman describes, so I do not think that that is a realistic possibility.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I will give way to each of my hon. Friends, but let me say that I will not then give way again before I turn to the main part of my speech, which is about amendment 7.
Mr Djanogly
My right hon. Friend will be aware that all parties are aiming for next October for the negotiation of the final deal, but the Secretary of State has said that he will keep negotiating until March 2019 and that, if necessary, he will go on after that into the implementation period, so there should be time one way or another.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I agree with my hon. Friend. There may well be time; I am not in any way denying that. The point I was trying to make is that Labour Members have alleged that it is proper for Parliament to be able to have what they have described as a meaningful vote. They have made it perfectly clear that what they mean by a meaningful vote includes the ability to tell the Government that they cannot continue to leave the European Union if the terms on which they wish to leave are not acceptable to Parliament. That is a logical fact, and people can agree with it or disagree with it. I do not in any way impugn the motives of Labour Members; it is a perfectly reasonable thing for them to think. It is just that we ought to be honest about the fact that that is the proposition they are putting forward, which is in marked contrast to the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield in his amendment 7.
Mr Baron
May I suggest that amendment 7, as presently drafted—this is central to my right hon. Friend’s point—has a major deficiency, because it could leave things in a permanent state of limbo? There is no incentive on the EU’s side to help to negotiate a good deal that is acceptable to this Parliament, which means that we could be left in deadlock for a period of years. I raised that point with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), but he did not cover it in his speech.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point, which I will come back to in a moment.
In turning to amendment 7, let me start by saying something on a personal level. I have been in the House for exactly the same length of time as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield—I think we entered it on the same day, as it happens—and I have served with him in a number of capacities both in opposition and in government, and I have the highest personal regard for him. I have invariably found that when he says something he means it, and I have never found him to be one of those who plays games. Moreover, although I profoundly disagree with him about his amendment, for reasons that I will put forward, I think his motives in producing it are totally honourable and straightforward, and deserve the respect of everyone in the House of whatever persuasion they may be.
There is a reason, however, why I think the amendment is a very bad one. I want to expose an extremely important point about it, which began to come out in the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend and others. It would not have the effect that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central or the Opposition spokesman seek: it would not actually make it impossible to continue the article 50 process and leave without an agreement. There may be some Members on either side of the House who are tempted to vote for amendment 7 on the basis that it would have such an effect, but it plainly would not.
What amendment 7 would prevent is the issuing of orders under this Bill until another Bill that the Government intend to bring forward has been enacted. If it was agreed and we had not been able to pass the withdrawal and implementation Bill, it might in certain circumstances create the inconvenience of our not being able to issue orders to implement a withdrawal agreement to which the Government had signed up. However, not being able to implement the provisions of an agreement in domestic law does not prevent us from signing and ratifying the agreement and does not prevent us from leaving the European Union. Anybody on either side of the House who imagines that amendment 7 would have the effect of creating what the right hon. Member for Leeds Central called a meaningful vote is under a severe logical illusion. It would do no such thing. The Opposition have tabled, I think, a new clause that would have the effect of giving that power to Parliament, but amendment 7 would not do it.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
My right hon. Friend perfectly clearly sets out that a serious constitutional impasse is possible if this House does not pass an agreement, because article 50, even if it is delayed a bit, will eventually lead to our leaving. That assumes—he does not do so, but some of the more hard-line Eurosceptics do—that there are people in the EU who want no deal. I have never met any such person, because actually they would suffer from having no agreements on flights, security, policing and all the rest of it. As has been said, we are inevitably dealing with hypotheses and nobody, whatever their views, really has the first idea where we will be in 18 months’ time, but his suggestion is a most unlikely consequence. If this House rejected a deal, the British Government would go back and say, “We’ve got to have a better one.” I personally would guess that the other 27 nation states would reconsider and see whether they did not have to give a better one in order to the get the deal that they had already tried to sign up to.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I think that is a very possible eventuality, which takes us back to our earlier discussion. I certainly agree that if, upon a resolution, the House refused to accept the withdrawal agreement suggested by the Government and agreed by the EU, it is very likely that the Government would go back and try to renegotiate it, and it is very possible that they would succeed in doing so. I do not deny any of that. My point is that amendment 7 would not force that result, because all it would do is, under certain circumstances, stop certain kinds of orders being issued under this Bill.
Mr Grieve
I picked this amendment with some care, precisely because I wanted to avoid the suggestion that by tabling it I was trying to sabotage Brexit. I was trying to prevent the potentially abusive use of a power in clause 9 when the Government were saying that they were going to do something different. That was the purpose behind the amendment. It was also, if I might say so, to prod the Government into responding, which I very much regret they have failed to do.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am delighted by my right hon. and learned Friend’s intervention, because I agree that he has succeeded in doing that. He has not created the so-called meaningful vote that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central and the Opposition want. He has instead pointed out an issue with the use of the order-making power in this Bill. The question is: is it a good amendment in those terms? We have accepted that it is not a question of creating or not creating a meaningful vote, to use the term used by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central, but just a question of trying to get the Bill into good order—a pursuit in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and I have joined on many occasions during Committee proceedings. However, I think that on this particular occasion, this particular amendment is not a particularly good way of doing that. I will explain why I think that is the case, and I hope that the Government will instead come forward with another way of achieving the same effect.
It is a very odd situation indeed to have an amendment to what will become a section of an Act that refers to another piece of primary legislation as the basis for an order-making power in the first piece of legislation. In fact I think it is virtually unprecedented.
Mr Grieve
The Bill is unprecedented, because it is asking us, in the light of what the Government themselves say they are going to do, to sanction a power that undermines a further statute that the Government intend to pass, which should be the source of power for removing us from the EU.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Now I am beginning rather to agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. Therefore, my suggestion is that if that is the purpose of his amendment, it would be far better that it come back as a Government amendment on Report that achieves that effect in a different way and directly, without the gross inelegance of referring to another piece of legislation. It should mainly limit the power in clause 9 to things that are urgent and immediate, and perhaps even specify what sorts of things they might be.
As a matter of fact, I rather share my right hon. and learned Friend’s inclination to believe that clause 9 in its present form came forward before the Government were clear about the need for the implementation and withdrawal Bill, and that Ministers and officials have so far been quite hard pressed to identify exactly which powers are required in clause 9 under the new dispensation of that forthcoming Bill. The Government therefore have a good opportunity to promise from the Dispatch Box today that they will come back on Report with an amendment that is correctly phrased in such a way as to limit the order-making power in clause 9. That would avoid the possibility—this is the point that I want to make to my right hon. and learned Friend and other hon. Friends—of suggesting that we are in any way creating a launch pad for the efforts of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central and Opposition Front Benchers to create what they call a meaningful vote, which is in fact an ability to trigger us not leaving.
Mr Grieve
There will undoubtedly be an opportunity at the end of this process, if this House were so minded, to reject a deal. I have to say—my right hon. Friend may agree with me—that ultimately the House could bring this Government down, if it had to or wanted to do so. That is our constitutional ability.
My right hon. Friend’s main point does not find favour with me, because the only way we will get something sensible on Report is by getting amendment 7 on the statute book and on the face of the Bill. I asked repeatedly for an engagement along precisely the lines that my right hon. Friend has identified, and it was consistently rejected. That is why I will vote for amendment 7, and if I may say so, I would encourage him to do likewise.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am surprised by that, because my right hon. and learned Friend has a long and distinguished record of voting for good law. I do not think that this is good law, for the reasons I have identified. I think it really would be better if we had a correct amendment at a later stage of proceedings.
Sir Oliver Heald
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the current plans create the risk of parallel legislation, with an Act of Parliament dealing with our withdrawal agreement going through at the same time as all sorts of orders, because there is no trigger mechanism for, or constraint on, the order-making power? Therefore, is not my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the former Attorney General, doing the House a service by seeking to avoid the risk of parallel proceedings, which is something that this House never does?
Sir Oliver Letwin
I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that we ought to avoid the possibility of parallel proceedings, but my suggestion would certainly achieve that. If the Government were to come forward at a later stage with an amendment that made it clear that clause 9 could be used only for urgent things of a specified kind, that would prevent the possibility of parallel proceedings.
Anna Soubry
May I suggest another way forward, which is that we agree to the amendment and then, given that this is Committee stage, the Government can go away and fine-tune it, which is what they thought it needed? They had the opportunity to the table their own amendment, but they did not see that commitment through and table one by 3 o’clock on Friday. There is another way. Let us vote on and accept the amendment today and put a meaningful vote in the Bill; and if it needs a twiddle and a tweak, we can come back on Report and I am sure we will all agree to that.
Sir Oliver Letwin
But if my right hon. Friend agrees with me that our purpose in this case is not to create a so-called meaningful vote but simply to ensure that clause 9 is not used to create parallel proceedings or to give carte blanche, it would clearly make sense for the Government to make that undertaking rather than to accept an amendment that has an unnecessary effect.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)
Looking at this matter independently, as one does these days, it strikes me that my right hon. Friend’s argument raises a serious question about why clause 9 needs to be in the Bill at all. We are going to have a withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, and if the Government cannot say what it is that might be urgent, why should we have this clause at all?
Sir Oliver Letwin
Now that there is to be an implementation and withdrawal agreement Bill I do not personally yet understand the need for clause 9. However, the right way to deal with that is for the Government either to say that they will consider getting rid of clause 9 or to make the kind of restricted amendments on Report that I was describing. In any of those ways, the problem would be resolved without the need for this kind of tension, and that would surely be desirable.
Mr Grieve
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way again. In a sense, he unmasks my strategy. I have spent the whole time trying to be sotto voce about this, trying to get some common sense into the Government, which I have been unable to do. It is for that reason that, I very much regret, there really is no alternative to amendment 7. It may be inelegant—although I do not think it is—but it does the business. It would stop the Government doing something that they should not be doing. I could not agree with him more that clause 9 could be removed entirely. It would very sensible if the Government were to do that, but if I had suggested that they would have been upset with me, and it would have made the relationship and the negotiation even harder. In the spirit of conciliation I avoided that brutality and came up with something different.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Speaking personally, I do not think there would be anything very brutal about the Government deciding on Report that it would be sensible to not have clause 9 in the Bill, given that there will now be a separate piece of legislation to achieve the same effect.
Chris Bryant
I hope that means the right hon. Gentleman is now calling on the Government not to move that clause 9 stand part of the Bill, and that, if they do not do that and instead insist that clause 9 does stand part of the Bill, he will vote against it. That is the obvious logic of what he is saying.
Sir Oliver Letwin
It was with some regret that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. I have never known him to take a position that was not partisan and slightly ludicrous, and that was a classic example. Here am I irenically trying to achieve a result that would be in the interests of the nation—good legislation that has the effect my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield agrees he is trying to achieve, but which would not have the disadvantage of enabling the Opposition Front Benchers, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central and others, including the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), to achieve the meaningful vote they want to achieve. But what does he want to do? He wants to create some trouble. Well, that is fine—that is what happens in Parliament. My suggestion, however, is not that the Government should be defeated tonight or engage in some huge reversal, but that they should make the sort of change they often make in Committee and on Report—there is, after all, much time to consider the issue on Report if necessary. I want them either to make an adjustment to clause 9 or remove it. That would overcome the difficulty without creating a platform for ending our withdrawal, which is I think the subterranean motive of many on the Opposition Benches—although not, I stress, of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir Oliver Letwin
I will give way two last times and then I really must sit down, because I have said everything I wanted to say and I am now just responding.
Heidi Allen
I am afraid I am little overwhelmed by the legal expertise all around me—I will just speak very plainly. Does my right hon. Friend not understand the difficulty and the trust issue when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield has been trying for weeks and weeks, with all good intentions, to engage the Government in this process and has failed? There comes a point when enough is enough and the voice of Parliament has a role in saying, “Put this in the Bill.”
Sir Oliver Letwin
I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but I do not agree with her. There is a well established process for Bills in this House that includes a Report stage. If one wishes to table an amendment in the House of Commons that the Government will not accept, it is perfectly possible to do so on Report. There is no reason to force the issue in Committee. As a matter of fact, the Bill will proceed through the other place, where there will be many, many proceedings. I do not have the slightest doubt—I am sure all my hon. Friends would agree—that it will send messages back to this place, so that will give us another opportunity. I do not stress that, though; it is enough that we have the Report stage. I quite agree that there is a mischief here, but I think it is a restricted mischief and I do not think the amendment is needed to deal with it. There are other means of dealing with it. It could be done on Report, and I therefore do not think that “enough is enough” applies now.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The right hon. Gentleman has been digging a hole for himself on clause 9 quite successfully. The way he has been speaking, he seems not to understand that the amendment would only giving the House the possibility of a vote. Given the way the Brexiteers have been winning every vote, if a vote was held on a deal the only reason it would be lost is if it was a terrible deal for the UK. His argument is the equivalent of somebody setting sail on the Titanic and refusing to take any lifeboats.
Sir Oliver Letwin
It is very odd—it is as if the hon. Gentleman has not been here, but I have seen his body here all the time. The fact of the matter is that the House has had a series of votes, it is going to have a further series of votes, and then it is going to have a whole pile of votes on, inter alia, the new implementation and withdrawal Bill. In fact, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield is totally in agreement with that. There is no question of whether we give the House a vote. It is going to have a vote. The question is: what is the articulation of that with clause 9? That is what those of us who are being serious about this have been trying to discuss.
I really feel that I have come to the end of my remarks. I apologise, Sir David, that I am long past time. I hope you will accept that it is because I was answering points from other Members.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
We have been discussing new clause 3 and amendment 7, which is about process in this place and, as has been said, whether there is any point in clause 9 if there is going to be a withdrawal agreement Bill. The problem is that, if clause 9 remains in the Bill, the Government will still have powers in the interim to make changes, including to the Bill itself. That means that, when the Bill completes, the Executive could simply change it in any way they wanted.
On the issue of having a vote that is meaningful, if the only option we have is the deal that comes back or no deal, frankly, that is Hobson’s choice. What should have been happening is what the Prime Minister categorically refused: a running commentary. Other Governments in Europe have sent people back to the negotiating table to try to make changes when legislation has been enacted. It is important that we remember the paucity of the debate running up to June 2016. We did not explore all the impacts. There was one debate in this Chamber on the EU and the economy. There was no debate in this Chamber on the health or social impacts, or on the loss of rights and opportunities. We did not have that. We did not air these issues—it is like having the Brexit debate now.
I want to speak to amendment 143, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), which looks for a signed agreement to protect EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU.
Antoinette Sandbach
On a point of order, Sir David. I am not able to hear what the hon. Lady is saying because behind me there seems to be an inordinate racket being made by one of my colleagues. I wonder whether it would be in order for you, Sir David, to make the point clear that this is an incredibly important debate and Members of Parliament should be able to hear what is being said.
The Temporary Chair (Sir David Amess)
The hon. Lady is entirely right. We should be courteous to each other. I should also add, while I am on my feet, that I said at the start that with so many people wishing to speak, if people spoke for seven or eight minutes each, everyone would be called. It is now down to three or four minutes.
Dr Whitford
Thank you, Sir David. I hope, as my party’s Front-Bench representative, and perhaps as the only SNP Member who will get to speak, that that timing does not apply to me.
I also wish to speak to amendment 241, which stands in my name and those of my colleagues, and which would preserve reciprocal healthcare and social security rights under the social security co-ordination regulations 883/2004 and 987/200, and to amendments 270 and 271, which stand in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and which would prevent the Executive from using clauses 8 and 9 to reduce the rights of EU citizens in this country.
There was supposedly a breakthrough last week. The phase 1 agreement having been achieved, some level of agreement was meant to be fixed, but unfortunately it was then unpicked on “The Andrew Marr Show”. Moreover, we are still hearing the phrase, “No deal is better than a bad deal”, which completely undermines the agreement made last week. I make this plea: having reached a phase 1 agreement on citizens’ rights, this issue should now be taken out of the negotiations and a deal to give them security should be brought forward in the upcoming immigration Bill, and not left another year for the withdrawal agreement Bill.
It has been a year and a half already. Many Members know that my husband is German. There are many people here with EU spouses. We have friends who have been in extreme anxiety and uncertainty for a year and a half. This is not happening in March 2019; it is happening now. Ten thousand EU nationals have left the four NHSs because their children are being bullied and they feel insecure. They are going home “to be safe”. That is an appalling indictment of the current situation.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The hon. Lady is making an incredibly strong point, and one that gets lost in all this debate about article this and article that: these are real people’s lives. Does she share my anger at the way the Brexit Secretary has played fast and loose with people’s lives? He went on “The Andrew Marr Show” and completely ripped up an agreement that people thought on Friday was done and which would have a big impact on their lives.
Dr Whitford
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Among other things, we are talking about preparing for a future deal, but the suffering and anxiety of EU nationals and EU national families in this country is already happening. They should have been given surety the morning after the vote, but instead we heard phrases such as “bargaining chips” and “playing cards” and were told they were key in the negotiations.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that young early-career researchers in the academic sector, for example, are highly mobile and can easily move elsewhere? We should be rolling out the red carpet for them to make sure they stay, but instead we are treating them worse than dirt on our shoes.
Dr Whitford
I absolutely agree. As I said, we have lost 10,000 EU nationals from our health services. We have seen a greater than 90% drop in the number of EU national nurses registering to come here. It is not just about protecting the people already here. For the four NHSs across the UK, the workforce is one of their biggest issues, yet we are sending out such an unwelcoming signal that we will struggle to attract anyone else.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
I agree with many of the hon. Lady’s points, but is it not vital that we send out the clear reassurance, which the Prime Minister gave at the Dispatch Box to all our NHS and care staff, that they and their families are welcome to stay, that we want them to stay and that their rights are now guaranteed?
Dr Whitford
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady, but unfortunately it is not enough to come to the Dispatch Box every couple of months with warm words of welcome to EU staff, when in between women who are raising families here, with British partners or partners of EU origin, are being turned down for permanent residency because they have not taken out private comprehensive health insurance. We have had 100 EU nationals sent “prepare to leave” letters. Friends of ours tried to get citizenship for their three children, who were born and grew up in Scotland: the eldest and youngest were given passports; the middle child was refused. I am sorry but the experience of EU nationals on the ground over the past year and a half has been horrendous. If the phase 1 agreement last week is to mean anything, we must incorporate it into the immigration Bill to give them certainty now, instead of telling them they might have to wait another year before they find out what their future will be.
To exercise the right to live anywhere, access to healthcare and social security is crucial. It has made such a difference, not just to EU nationals here, but to our pensioners who have settled in the sunny uplands of the northern Mediterranean. What position will they be in if they cannot access healthcare? We must recognise that freedom of movement was not a one-way street; our young people and professionals have been able to take advantage of it for the past 40 years. We are taking that away from the next generation, which is something that I find terrible.
The Government say, and it is in the phase 1 agreement, that they accept keeping regulations 883 and 987, so let us bring that in. Let us get that down on paper and get it passed, because saying to EU nationals, “You’re welcome to stay, but there might be no deal, which means you’ll have no legal standing and you won’t be able to use the NHS,” is no use to anyone.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
In relation to the points and the amendments from the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), does my hon. Friend agree that, without the transparency of knowing what we are progressing to, many of the items that she is talking about cannot be agreed in the House? We leave ourselves open to the accusation made by Kathy Sheridan in The Irish Times this morning that the Government are
“failing to establish in advance what questions should be asked. Of utterly disdaining an alternative, unifying vision while obsessing about trade, blue passports and colonial nostalgia.”—[Interruption.]
Dr Whitford
Okay, I am just going to move swiftly on. It was a speech, so my hon. Friend has had his chance to get that in.
There are multiple agencies that are important for the nations across the UK, but my particular interest is of course health. We know that the European Medicines Agency is moving to Amsterdam, but the much bigger issue is the UK coming out of the European Medicines Agency. This is a body that has massively reduced bureaucracy, streamlined the launch of new drugs and meant that the pharmaceutical industry has to go through only one registration process for 500 million people. That is why drugs are launched in Europe at much the same time as America and about a year before Canada and Australia. Given some of what is going on in NHS England—including the budget impact assessment, which can allow expensive drugs to be delayed for three years—what I am hearing from those in the pharmaceutical industry is that they see the UK as a hostile market and that they may not come six months later or a year later. It may take longer than that because they only see the point in paying the extra cost to register when they have a chance of their drug being used in the NHS.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Lady is making an important point. Is she also mindful of the fact that, at a critical time for the future of the pharmaceuticals industry, there is currently no certainty even on cross-border production, which many of our companies are involved in, including GlaxoSmithKline in my constituency?
Dr Whitford
I agree. Processes such as quality control, batch certification and lot release must take place in the EU. Several centres in Scotland and, indeed, throughout the United Kingdom will have to move.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Whitford
I must make progress. A long queue of Members are waiting to speak.
The EMA also leads on research, especially on rare and paediatric diseases. It simply is not possible for a single country to carry out such research. My amendment 351 is intended to ensure that we continue to participate in clinical trials under the clinical trials regulation that will come into effect in April, and maintaining standards of data protection is crucial to that. If we rush into a race to the bottom, we will end up as pariahs and we will simply not be able to co-operate with others.
I support amendment 300, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) and which concerns Euratom, but I want to clear up one point. The issue of access to a secure supply of medical radioisotopes was raised by the Royal College of Radiologists, but was dismissed by the Government because the isotopes are non-fissile. It is true that they are non-fissile, but we had a catastrophic shortage between 2008 and 2010 as a result of which I, as a breast cancer surgeon, could not carry out my bone scans. The new technique of sentinel node biopsy which was being rolled out had to be delayed and stalled, and I would have to choose which of my patients might have access to the one dose of technetium that we had to do a bone scan. That is why the Euratom Supply Agency set up the European Observatory on the Supply of Medical Isotopes, and it managed the situation.
We face real challenges in the coming years. The reactors that produce molybdenum, from which we get technetium, are not in the UK. We do not produce any of that stuff, and we do not yet have a replacement technique as those reactors go offline. It is important for the Government to realise that, if we are not part of the observatory, if we are not participators, the Euratom Supply Agency will have no obligation to us. It might help us, but we will be at the back of the queue, and that will affect patients.
New clause 44, tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), calls for an assessment of the impact of Brexit on health and social care and on workforces, especially social care workers. The percentage of EU nationals working in social care is even higher than the percentage in the NHS, but they will not qualify for tier 2-type visas. They are often not highly paid, but we rely on them utterly.
Staying in the single market and the customs union would solve all our problems, including the problem of the Irish border, but consideration of that is still being ruled out. I call on the Government to step back from creating all these difficulties, and reconsider the possibility of our staying in the single market and the customs union. The EU is not just about trade; it is also about rights and opportunities, and about co-operation.
Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)
I am very grateful, Mr Amess—[Hon. Members: “Sir David Amess.”] I am so sorry. I should remember that nearly everyone who is speaking in this debate has a knighthood.
I am very grateful, Sir David, for the chance to speak in this important debate. It has been extraordinarily interesting and, actually, enjoyable. I want to make a brief detour on amendment 7, because the dialogue between my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) was absolutely terrific. Listening to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset took me back—to a certain extent—to meetings that I had with him when I was a Minister. You could not go in and order a cup of coffee without engaging in a two-hour debate about exactly what was meant.
In the end, however, the answer emerged, and it emerged in this exchange. Notwithstanding all the technical debate, it is extremely simple. Clause 9 was written before the Government realised that they would have to put the withdrawal agreement into a statute, and now that they have to put it into a statute, both clause 9 and, potentially, amendment 7 have reached their sell-by date. The offer from my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset is serious and real: to come back, effectively, with a rewritten clause 9 which tells Parliament exactly what the Government need to do as we implement the withdrawal agreement in legislation. Do they need some powers—I could understand that—to do some things that are essential preparatory work? I thought my point was good enough to stimulate—
Mr Rees-Mogg
What my right hon. Friend is saying is spot-on: clause 9 gives some powers that trouble even Eurosceptics. I have never felt comfortable with the self-amending part of the Bill, and the solution advocated by my right hon. Friend, and proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), is very attractive.
Mr Vaizey
I can barely stand up again, because I am slightly overwhelmed by the outbreak of consensus.
I shall end this section of the speech with some unashamed flattery, as I look at the triumvirate of titans on the Treasury Front Bench: three Ministers for whom I have the utmost admiration, including my constituency neighbour, the Solicitor General, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland). They have heard this debate, and they are thoughtful and effective Ministers and I am sure they will have taken the mood at least from a certain part of this House about the brilliant opportunity for a solution to this Gordian knot.
Mr Clarke
Before my right hon. Friend tries to urge us all into withdrawing these amendments and waiting for the Government to bring forward their own amendments on Report, let me say that we have been trying to do that through 70 hours of Committee stage. It is no good regarding the Committee stage of this House as an interesting opportunity for Members of Parliament to talk to each other and for Ministers to get up and say they will think about it; we have two days for Report and Third Reading, and the plain aim of the Government is to just enjoy going through this slightly tumultuous and interesting debate and sail on to the House of Lords with the Bill largely intact as it stands. That has been their obvious tactic from a very early stage.
Mr Vaizey
I bow to my right hon. and learned Friend’s wisdom and experience on that point. I am a consensus merchant and simply thought there might be a way forward, but I totally understand that votes might have to be exercised tonight in order to stiffen the Government’s backbone to provide a solution. But nevertheless it has always been the case proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield that the Government will have an opportunity on Report potentially to alter his amendment.
Mr Vaizey
If they can justify it, of course.
The second part of my remarks, which will be as brief as possible because so much time has been taken up, is about amendment 300, standing in my name, which has the largest number of signatories of any amendment to this Bill. I am astonished that only four of them are Conservatives, but I think that reflects the standing in which I am held in my own party; I could not even persuade the leader of the rebel alliance, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, to sign my Euratom amendment, and I really do not want my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset to talk about bad law when he comes to look at it.
The point of the amendment is simply to put the issue of Euratom under parliamentary scrutiny, and I note the comments made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) in her excellent speech about the importance of Euratom in our medical life, and her own real experience at the chalkface in her extraordinary work. So Euratom is not an esoteric issue; it affects us all. It has been debated in the House before and I shall not spend a lot of time talking about how extraordinarily successful our nuclear industry is. My own personal interest comes from the fact that although Culham is not in my constituency, many of my constituents work there, and it depends on Euratom. I thank the Government for last week’s announcement of £86 million of investment in Culham for two new centres of excellence for the testing of components and for fuel storage; that is a real vote of confidence in Culham.
The point, of course, about Euratom is that nobody voted to leave it. Euratom was not in the European Union Referendum Act 2015, and was not on the ballot; it falls under a separate treaty. So the British people did not have a chance to have a referendum on our membership of Euratom.
The reason we are leaving Euratom is technical. Legal advice, which we have not seen, deems Euratom to be inextricably linked to the European Union and therefore an article 50 notice would be defective if it did not include Euratom. However, the mood of the Government and, I think, the House is that we are leaving Euratom on a technicality, not because we object to being governed by Euratom. There is no mood among the general population to leave Euratom as far as I am aware, and I think that only one hon. Member has managed to stand up and say that there is a plausible reason to leave it.
Mr Vaizey
The implications of leaving Euratom, some of which have already been identified by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, also extend to our nuclear industry, which provides 20% of this country’s energy. At the moment, we simply cannot move nuclear material around unless we are members of Euratom. So when we leave Euratom, we will have to have, in effect, a Euratom-style arrangement to allow us to move goods around. “Goods” can mean a variety of things. We imagine highly radioactive canisters being moved in special trains at the dead of night, but the movement of goods also involves mundane things such as heat pumps, motors, spares and other components, all of which, because they are part of the civil nuclear ecosystem, have to be moved under the terms of these treaties.
Euratom covers not only objects but the freedom of movement of people. We depend on our membership of Euratom for a nuclear power industry, for our medical industry—isotopes have been mentioned—and for the Joint European Torus at Culham, where Britain has done extraordinarily well. Huge advantages have been made in robotics and other sciences, and there are £500 million-worth of contracts already in ITER, the successor to Culham, thanks to the expertise we have built up here.
Let me make it clear that, throughout this process of our technical move to leave Euratom, Ministers have been absolutely brilliant in engaging with me and other hon. Members who share my concerns and have similar interests. They have bent over backwards to do what they can to accommodate our concerns. Looking forward, we need Ministers to give us clarity on a number of issues. We need nuclear co-operation agreements with other countries—the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan and possibly the European Union as well—and they need to be in place by March 2019. These agreements can be complex, and they can depend on the legislation in other legislatures. For example, the US Congress would have to pass a new nuclear co-operation agreement with us. We will also need a new safeguards regime, and this will come in through the Nuclear Safeguards Bill as a contingency, although I understand that the Government might want Euratom to continue to cover the safeguarding role.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for tabling this amendment. As he knows, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee published a report today on our future relationship with Euratom. The cross-party Committee agreed that we needed as close a relationship as possible with Euratom, in part because of the safeguarding issue. Dr Golshan of the Office for Nuclear Regulation said in evidence to the Committee that our safeguarding would not be at Euratom standards by March 2019, notwithstanding the Nuclear Safeguards Bill that is going through Parliament. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that until we have reached Euratom standards, we need either a transition period or a close association with Euratom to ensure that there is no deterioration in standards in our civil nuclear sector?
Mr Vaizey
The hon. Lady and her Committee have published an excellent 45-page report this morning, and I read it when it was hot off the press. It makes all the points that I want to make about the need to have as close an association as possible with Euratom, particularly in regard to safeguarding. What worries me about the Office for Nuclear Regulation is that, while the will and desire are there, this is another job that cannot be done overnight. It will need to triple the number of inspectors over the next four years, for example. Training a qualified inspector takes between 12 and 18 months; it takes five years to train an unqualified one. The ONR already needs another £10 million just for recruitment and IT, not even for specialist equipment. Some people argue—in fact, I think it is in the BEIS Committee report—that the specialist equipment at Sellafield, which is currently owned by Euratom, would have to be replaced, at a cost of £150 million.
We need clarity on the nuclear co-operation agreements, clarity on the safeguarding regime and who will conduct it, and clarity on whether we will reach International Atomic Energy Agency standards, which the ONR is currently aiming for as a realistic target—Euratom’s standards are higher. We also need free movement of nuclear workers in the broadest sense, and I am not talking about nuclear scientists; I mean the people who actually build nuclear power stations. For example, I think the UK has 2,700 registered steel fixers, half of which will be needed to build Hinkley Point C. That kind of specialist construction worker will come under the category of nuclear workers. As for the future of our continued international co-operation, a particularly live issue at the moment is the extension of funding for the Joint European Torus, which is currently going through the Council for the fiscal years 2019-20, and the European Union is keen to get clarity from the Government on our intentions.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The key point about that work programme is that Austria will be taking over the presidency of the Council of the European Union next year. That is incredibly worrying and means that the timeframe to which we are working is July 2018, not later, which is one of the reasons why we need parliamentary scrutiny of what is happening.
Mr Vaizey
The hon. Lady is entirely correct because Austria is an anti-nuclear state, and there is some suspicion that some difficulties may emerge if the matter is not wrapped up before the Austrian presidency.
The amendment’s purpose is to provide parliamentary scrutiny of the important process of replicating the effect of a treaty that nobody wanted to leave. My challenge to Ministers is to engage with the amendment, and I look forward to hearing from the Dispatch Box whether the amendment is acceptable or whether they have an alternative way of providing the House with a strategy. On that note, after 14 minutes, I will sit down.
Chris Bryant
Sir David—for you are indeed beknighted—it is good to take part in this debate immediately after the right hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey). However, I am slightly saddened that he was so disparaging of all the Opposition Members who have signed his amendment. If we are just cast aside with such casual, reckless, gay abandon, we are never going to do that again, are we?
The British way in parliamentary matters has always been that we govern by consent, not by Government fiat, so Parliament should never be conceived of by a Government as an inconvenience that has to be avoided if possible. Parliament should be seen as an essential part of how we carry the whole nation with us. The Government should have more strength in Parliament than they do if they try to circumvent Parliament.
Getting the process right, as several hon. Members have already said, is absolutely essential. We are going to be deciding what many assume will be a long-term settlement for this country for generations to come. We cannot simply try to go ahead with a railroaded version of that settlement that only carries 52% of the country, or perhaps even less by then—who knows?—because we will in the end undermine the very institutions that people have been trying to say should be sovereign. I say to the Government that no amount of jiggery-pokery will sort things out. At the end of the day, parliamentary shenanigans will do far more harm to this country’s political institutions than we should countenance.
The Government already have phenomenal power and—I have used this figure before, but it is true—this is the first time in our history that more than half of Government Members are now either Ministers, trade envoys or Parliamentary Private Secretaries and are beholden unto the Government in some way or other. We have more Ministers than Italy, France and Germany put together, so the Government’s hold on Parliament in our system is already phenomenal, yet they have introduced clause 9, which is truly exceptional. I have tabled several amendments, which I will not address because I do not think there is any great point. The honest truth is that I would prefer to see the whole clause out of the Bill.
The moment I saw clause 9, I thought, “If there is a real reason for this, surely by now the Government would have argued why they have to have these powers.” Now the Government say a Bill will be introduced on the agreement and its implementation. If there really is a need for those powers, clause 9 should be in that Bill and not in this Bill at all.
I love all four of the Ministers sitting on the Government Front Bench to death, and obviously the safest thing to do today is for one of them to stand up—they could stand up one after another, as in “Spartacus”—and say, “We will not support this. We will not urge the Committee to consider taking on this clause as part of the Bill, because we know we do not really need it.”
People might ask, “If the Government do not really need clause 9, why does it matter if the clause is in the Bill at all?” The problem is that every single Government in the history of the world have always used every power they have to the umpteenth degree. It is a temptation, and we should take temptation out of the Government’s hands if they are not prepared to take it out of their own hands. Let us bear in mind that the Bill will allow the Government to change the Parliament Acts and the Representation of the People Acts. [Interruption.] The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice is standing up! Oh, he’s not.
Admittedly, changes to the Parliament Acts and the Representation of the People Acts by secondary legislation would have to be made via the affirmative process and there would be a vote in both Houses.
Chris Bryant
I will give way to the 16th century, but I cannot imagine for an instant how the hon. Gentleman could support such a change.
Mr Rees-Mogg
As I have said, I have my doubts about parts of clause 9, but it says that a Minister of the Crown may, “by regulations,” do things
“for the purposes of implementing the withdrawal agreement”.
It is hard to see how that could change the Representation of the People Acts. The hon. Gentleman slightly overstates his case.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman entices me down the road of one of my amendments. Previous legislation allowing Governments such extensive powers, such as the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, has made it clear that, when tabling statutory instruments, Governments have to argue the case for why those statutory instruments are necessary. In this case, the Government have not even added that provision to the Bill, which is what makes me suspicious.
A doubting Thomas is a good man, but he should follow through on his doubts. I hope that means the hon. Gentleman will be joining us in the Lobby tonight, although I have a sneaking suspicion the smile that just crept across his face indicates that he has no intention of doing so.
There has been much talk about what is a meaningful vote. I read theology at university. My theology professor, John Macquarrie, was a wonderful man who had a rather strange half-American, half-Scottish accent. He was asked by a student, “What is the meaning of God?” And he answered, “You should not ask me, ‘What is the meaning of God?’ You should ask me, ‘What is the meaning of meaning?’” That is the kind of existential debate we are having today.
What does it mean to have a meaningful vote? First, I would say that the vote cannot simply be on a fait accompli. It is not meaningful to vote on something after it has already happened and it has already been decided. It cannot just be a vote on a treaty because, as I have already tried to explain, the provisions on treaties in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 state that the Government do not have to provide for a vote on treaties, because it is not an affirmative process. They merely state that, if the House says within 21 sitting days that the treaty should not be agreed, the Government have to have another go, if they want to. That is a problematic process for us.
In addition, a treaty is unamendable. One thing everybody has been arguing in this debate is that we need to be able to send the Government back to negotiate again if we think the deal is not good enough. This cannot be simply be on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. That is what Hobson, the 17th century stable owner said: “You can either take the horse closest to the door or you will not take a horse at all.” It is like Henry Ford’s saying:
“Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black.”
My fear is that the Prime Minister will want to be a stable owner trying to persuade everybody to take the horse closest to the door, and I do not believe that will be a meaningful vote.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman not concede that there was a meaningful vote on 23 June 2016, when people voted to leave the European Union? The problem with the amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) is that it could be, and no doubt is designed to be, used to try to overturn and frustrate that meaningful vote. [Interruption.] My right hon. and learned Friend laughs, but it is a shame he does not have the courage of his convictions to admit that that is what his game is. If people in this House use that amendment for those purposes, the backlash from the British public will be like none seen before, and he should beware of that consequence.
Chris Bryant
Plenty of Members have plenty of courage about their convictions and have demonstrated it effectively in recent weeks. I do not think the hon. Gentleman should be deriding others because they have chosen to take a different direction. I am not sure whether he has been here for the whole debate—he might have missed a few minutes or indeed most of the hours. He is right that I am a remainer and I would prefer the country to remain in the EU—I admit that openly—but my constituents voted to leave and the country voted to leave, and we are going to leave. But we have to make sure we take the whole country with us, and we will not do that by a parliamentary process that gives far too much power to the Government and does not allow for proper scrutiny in this House.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman join me in my call to the Secretary of State, which I have made in this House, to set out a timetable whereby we understand what the process is and how he conceives the process of decision making being? That would give us all some certainty about when we would have that meaningful vote and whether we could amend things.
Chris Bryant
I would love to, but the truth is that the Government do not have the foggiest idea when anything is going to happen. They have suggested that something might be available in October 2018—perhaps it will, but perhaps it will not. This reminds me of the hymn we used to sing:
“God is working his purpose out, as year succeeds to year”
The Government are trying to work out what their purpose is, day by day, hour by hour. They have no idea at the moment, which is why we have to make sure we get the process right before we engage in it; otherwise there is a danger that we will be railroaded without making proper, good decisions.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman said earlier that he was focused on getting the best possible process. Should we not be focused on getting the best possible deal in our negotiations? We know the EU does not want us to leave, so if he puts a process in place where the EU can simply knock a deal back to this Parliament, does that not give the EU the incentive to give us the worst possible deal, on the basis that we are more likely to reject it? We will simply have endless negotiations.
Chris Bryant
That is where we disagree. I believe that we will get the best possible deal only if we have the best possible process; the two go hand in hand. Indeed, if the Government introduced a Bill to implement an agreement and they started to lose votes on individual elements, they would probably then go back to Brussels and say, “You know what? I cannot get this through Parliament, so you’re going to have to give me a better deal.” At that point, I think that our colleagues and friends in other countries in Europe would improve the deal. I believe we would end up with a better deal.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s argument with great interest, because I was waiting for the “or”. He has just asserted what would happen if we did not have a good deal, Parliament rejected it and the negotiators were sent back, but then what? If it is felt that the best deal has been offered, what is his fall-back procedure? We would leave with no deal whatsoever.
Chris Bryant
Obviously, if the Government cannot get their deal through Parliament, they may be in trouble. That is a certain truth. However, if the Government get nearly all their deal but key amendments are carried by the House—for instance, on immigration, the financial deal or the rights of EU citizens in this country or elsewhere—we could help to strengthen the Government’s arm, not weaken it at all. When I was Europe Minister, my experience was that when something was on the table in Brussels that I disagreed with and did not want to see implemented, the strongest argument I had with Brussels was, “I won’t be able to get that through the British Parliament.” If we have a system in which a deal does not have to go through the British Parliament in line-by-line detail, the Government will be weakened in the negotiating process.
Anna Soubry
Is not that the whole point about what happened last week? After what happened on the Monday, when things all fell apart and were ghastly, we saw an absolute desire and it was clear that everybody, including the EU, came together to make sure that our Prime Minister got a deal. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when we talk to people, we hear that it is now absolutely clear that the leaders and all the various other people from the other EU countries accept that we are leaving? They have heavy hearts about it, but they know that we are leaving and it is now simply a question of sorting out the deal. Of course, it is not as simple as all that, but they have accepted that we are leaving. People really have to stop the conspiracy stories and the myths.
Chris Bryant
I agree. As I have said before, I also believe that there is a significant degree of agreement among all parties in this House, and probably in the House of Lords as well, about what the final agreement should look like. If the Government abandoned the strategy that they have so far adopted and decided to search for that consensus—“We’re going to try to get 650 MPs through the Division Lobby in favour of the final deal”—they would stand a better chance of getting the best deal for Parliament.
Chris Bryant
I am sorry, but I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Chris Bryant
No. The hon. Gentleman can point and hail as many cabs as he wants, but I am not going to give way to him again because others wish to speak.
All too often, the Government have urged us to accept clause 9 and the related measures on the basis of trust alone. As has already been said, it is just too difficult to see how we can put that trust in their hands. For a start, they have systematically ignored resolutions of the House over the past seven years; they have regularly refused to allow annulment debates on statutory instruments so that they could be meaningful—they have refused to do that even when they have guaranteed at the Dispatch Box that they were going to do so; and they have insisted on having majorities on all Committees. I fear that if we allow the Government to have excessive powers, they will tend to use every single one of those powers. The truth is that they seem to want a carte blanche.
I wish the Government welcomed the role of Parliament in this process, but I just do not detect that. The devil will be in the detail. The Government cannot just bamboozle the people with verbiage that has absolutely no meaning whatsoever: “Brexit means Brexit”, “a red, white and blue Brexit”, “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”, and all the rest of it. It is a denigration of the English language, let alone anything else.
What we actually need is a Bill, with words in it that have legal effect, because, in the end, this is an existential matter for Parliament. Are we really a sovereign Parliament if we surrender our power to the Government? Not really. Are we really a representative democracy if MPs are denied a truly meaningful role in the process? Not really. Are we really a United Kingdom Parliament if we carry only 52% of the country with us? Not really.
Dominic Raab
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who made some very serious constitutional points with great colour and eloquence. I am grateful to hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed to this debate through their various amendments and speeches. My approach over the course of my speech—I suspect that it will take me an hour to get through it—will be to take clause 9 first, and then to come on to clauses 16 and 17 as well as schedule 7.
It may be helpful to hon. Members who want to intervene to know that I will first explain the function of clause 9 and why it is necessary, and then set out some of the illustrations that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) suggested were required. I will come on to talk about the limits, and then I will address the amendments, including amendment 7, which was tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). The key issue will come down to timing, so I will also touch on that, but first, let me set the scene.
Clause 9 highlights the interaction between diplomacy at the international level and the domestic legislative preparation for Brexit. The Government are committed to securing the best deal that we can with our EU partners for the whole United Kingdom against the very acute time pressure set out under the article 50 process imposed on us.
Clause 9 enables regulations to be made for the purposes of implementing the withdrawal agreement. It is now, as hon. Members have said, a supplementary provision to give us agility in the negotiations and the flexibility of legislative procedure to deliver the best deal under time pressure. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union announced to this House on 13 November the Government’s intention to bring forward new primary legislation in the form of the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill to give effect to the major elements of the withdrawal agreement. That will include citizens’ rights, the implementation period, the financial settlement and the other issues wrapped up within the exit negotiations.
Dominic Raab
May I just make a little progress?
I am not sure whether every hon. Member has had a chance to read the written ministerial statement that was published today—it is entitled “Procedures for the Approval and Implementation of EU Exit Agreements”—but it is worth taking a look at it with regard to some of the concerns that have been expressed. We intend to introduce the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill after there has been a successful vote on the final deal in Parliament. Notwithstanding that, it remains essential that clause 9 stands part of this Bill. We do not yet know the precise shape or outcome of future negotiations, and it is important that the necessary legislative mechanisms are available to us so that we fully implement the withdrawal agreement in time for the exit date.
Dominic Raab
I will make a small amount of progress but then, of course, I will take the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
There will be a wide range of more technical separation issues that will need to be legislated for in time for our exit on 29 March 2019. Some will be better suited to secondary legislation, and it would not be practical to account for the sheer volume of all these issues in primary legislation. It is of course not uncommon for the principles of an international agreement to be implemented, at least to some degree, through secondary legislation. To give just one example, the Nuclear Installations (Liability for Damage) Order 2016 implements the 2004 protocol to the convention on third party liability in the field of nuclear energy.
As for how we implement such secondary legislation, clause 9—this is the crux—offers a material benefit in terms of timing. We would be able to start—not complete—laying some of the statutory instruments soon after reaching agreement with our EU friends alongside the passage of new primary legislation. It is impossible to say with 100% precision at this point all the technical regulations that will be required to implement the withdrawal agreement before the full terms have been negotiated. That is obvious, and is accepted by Members on both sides of the House. However, some regulations might be required, and some will require a lead time of several months, so we need to reserve the ability to use clause 9 as soon as practically possible after a deal has been concluded. If we waited for further primary legislation to receive Royal Assent, that might be too late and we could be too squeezed for time, even in the scenario in which we reach an agreement in October, as is our current aim.
Dr Whitford
Does the Minister recognise my point about the situation that EU nationals are in now? Will the Government consider moving their issue into the immigration Bill, which should be coming imminently, rather than leaving them in limbo for another year?
Dominic Raab
All hon. Members should heartily welcome the agreement we have reached on the principles that will protect the 3 million EU nationals in this country—we want them to stay and to know they are valued—and the 1 million British expats abroad. Of course, there is still a significant amount of detail in the withdrawal agreement that will need to be worked up, so the hon. Lady may be putting the legislative cart before the diplomatic horse. Can we at least recognise that we have made substantial progress—and substantial progress from the EU’s point of view—which is why we are proceeding to trade talks?
Dominic Raab
I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman shortly. He has been very patient and I did say that would take his amendment. Sorry, I meant that I would take his intervention, not his amendment—just teasing.
Clause 9 is not intended to be used to implement major elements of the withdrawal agreement. Its role will be to assist with making regulations to deal with the more technical separation issues that are better suited to secondary legislation. There will be a large number of such regulations and they will need to be in place in time for exit day.
Mr McFadden
The Minister said that the House would vote on a resolution. This morning’s written ministerial statement also refers to the House voting on a resolution on the final agreement. What would the Government’s response be if the House were to vote against that resolution? What would it mean for Parliament and for the country?
Dominic Raab
I will come to that. It is very clear that we would not be able to proceed with the withdrawal agreement, but that does not mean that we would stop Brexit from happening. That is set out very clearly in the written statement, which also repeats points that have been made before in statements at the Dispatch Box.
Dominic Raab
I am just going to make a bit more progress.
I will address the point raised by the Labour spokesperson, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, because I think he was on to something regarding the need to spell out and illustrate, albeit not necessarily exhaustively, the kinds of scenarios in which clause 9 remains relevant in the light of the proposed primary legislation. Let me offer a few illustrative examples.
Clause 9 may be required to legislate for the position of ongoing administrative proceedings when we leave the EU. This is a broad basket of technical issues, including the technical aspects of ongoing proceedings on competition and anti-trust issues under regulation 1/2003, for example, which sets out the co-ordination between the Commission and national competition authorities. Another example is the ongoing procedures on concentrations between undertakings in mergers under regulation 139/2004, and the allocation of jurisdiction between the EU and national authorities. These detailed and technical issues do not need to be put on the face of a Bill, but they must be legislated for in time for exit.
Another area for which clause 9 could be used relates to the privileges and immunities afforded by the UK to the EU—its institutions, bodies and staff—post exit. Privileges and immunities are a standard feature of international law, and are generally considered necessary for the proper functioning of international organisations. Privileges and immunities for the EU are currently implemented under protocol 7 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. After exit, the EU will continue to require privileges and immunities to cover any functions it has, although the precise contours may differ according to the deal that we strike. Our agreement on privileges and immunities will need to be implemented in domestic legislation.
Antoinette Sandbach
The point is that clause 9 is so widely drafted that it could apply to absolutely anything that could be linked with EU withdrawal. I am sure that the Department for Exiting the European Union has done a great deal of analysis—indeed, the Minister is showing that in his speech—of the areas that may be affected at the point of withdrawal. Surely that is the point at which the Government need to come to the House and, rather than speculating about what might be affected, actually identify that to us so that the powers can be limited precisely to those areas for which the Government need them.
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for the constructive way she makes her point. Of course, until we have the withdrawal agreement, we will not know precisely the nature of the technical—
Dominic Raab
May I at least give the answer before my right hon. and learned Friend jumps in?
That is why the agility that clause 9 gives us is important. I do not mean to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) in a lawyerly way, but it is not quite right to say that clause 9 can legislate for anything in the context of departing the EU. It relates only to the withdrawal agreement, and I think she said it related to withdrawing from the EU.
Another illustration of what clause 9 could be used for is the spelling out of the technical detail of how ongoing UK cases at the European Court of Justice should be handled, and how the UK courts should treat resulting judgments. Some of that might be done under this Bill, and some under the withdrawal agreement, but we will need to clarify things such as the types of cases that would be in scope and the precise procedural points in terms of whether a case could be considered to be pending, among others. Without that clarification, how such cases should be treated might not be clear. We would run the risk of legal uncertainty, as well as uncertainty for the individuals involved in those cases.
I do not want to make too much of that before my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield jumps in. He is quite right—he has made this point before, and he may want to hear me out before I take his intervention—that, in 2016, there were 23 preliminary references from UK courts and just one infraction case against the UK. So we do not expect this issue to affect large numbers. None the less, for those affected, it is still important to get this right.
Mr Grieve
I want to understand this, because it is rather important. We are going to enact a withdrawal agreement Bill—I think that is what it is called. I would expect that to have statutory instrument powers—the very statutory instrument powers we can consider in relation to the scope of the withdrawal agreement when deciding what we then enact by secondary legislation to take us out. I begin to wonder whether, in fact, it is the Government’s intention not to have any statutory instruments made under that agreement at all, but to seek to make them entirely through the mechanism of clause 9 before we have had the opportunity of considering what we actually want. That is why clause 9 is, I have to say to my hon. Friend, so mischievous. While I would be prepared to listen to some great exception, abandoning the normal legislative process in this way seems to be utterly undesirable, so I would press my hon. Friend on what is going to happen with this withdrawal agreement Bill. Are we going to have secondary legislation under it?
Dominic Raab
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend. I should just say to my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury that I will come on to talk about the restraints on the exercise of clause 9 later. However, in relation to my right hon. and learned Friend’s point, if we waited for the withdrawal agreement Bill not just to be introduced after the withdrawal agreement has been signed but to be fully enacted—if we waited for it to complete its full passage—we would not have time to deal with the volume of technical secondary legislation that we need to put through.
Dominic Raab
No, that is not right. We would be required to wait for the withdrawal agreement Bill to be enacted, so that is not right.
Dominic Raab
No, I am going to make some progress.
I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield is engaging with this very seriously and constructively and that he is frustrated, but there is no getting around the timing issue that we have.
Dominic Raab
No, I am going to make some progress.
Nor is there any getting around the long tail of technical, regulatory secondary legislation that we will need to get through if we want to provide the legal certainty that will make for a smooth Brexit.
Dominic Raab
I will give way to the right hon. Lady later, and I am coming on to talk about her amendment.
I just want to address the point made by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich about illustrations of what this power will be used for, because I hope that that will serve to assuage some of the concerns. The power could also be used to legislate, for example, for the status of goods that have been placed on the UK market at the time of our withdrawal, subject, of course, to what we agree with the EU on that. That could include a whole range of very technical, detailed measures to ensure that EU products continue to be made available in the UK, with no additional requirements on relabelling; to define what is meant by “placed on the market” for those products that benefit from the measures agreed; or to establish measures to facilitate continued oversight of those products. Again, these examples are illustrative, not exhaustive. However, I hope that I have at least addressed the kinds of cases that we are talking about, and also given an idea of the scale and volume of the technical separation issues that will need to be legislated for in time for exit day. Clause 9 will make an important contribution to a smooth Brexit in precisely those areas.
Yvette Cooper
Timing is the crucial issue. Given that there are many examples of an accelerated process being used to get primary legislation through this place on many different matters, including in a single day when that has been necessary, why would it not be possible, if time was starting to run out, to have a very simple one or two-clause Bill that would do the bits of things on which the Minister needs to get agreement and to put the secondary powers in place, and therefore at least have a vote on primary legislation? Why is it not possible to do that very quickly to deal with the concerns that have been expressed?
Dominic Raab
It is just not practicable. I will come on to address the timeframe for how we are going to approach the agreement, the meaningful vote on a resolution, and then the withdrawal agreement Bill.
Sir Oliver Heald
Does not my hon. Friend think that there should be a trigger within clause 9 to require the consent of the House to the overall withdrawal agreement that is reached before the powers are exercised? Otherwise those powers are unrestrained, and that seems wrong. Does he have a view on that?
Dominic Raab
My right hon. and learned Friend touches on a very important principle. I hope that I will be able to give him satisfaction on that precise point later.
Having dealt with the technical scope of the power and some illustrations of the scale of what it is going to be used for, and before I address the timing issues, I want to touch on the limitations and parameters—
Dominic Raab
I will give way to my right hon. Friend later. If she will just be patient, I want to make a bit of progress, given the time available.
It is worth looking very carefully at the limitations and parameters constraining the exercise of clause 9. It can only be used to implement the withdrawal agreement, and even then subsection (3) makes it clear that it cannot be used to levy taxation, to make retrospective provision, to create relevant criminal offences, or to repeal or amend the Human Rights Act 1998. Paragraph 6 of schedule 7 further requires the affirmative procedure in a whole range of scenarios, from the establishment of new public authority functions to the imposition of any fee exercised by any such authority. Critically—I am not sure that all hon. Members have picked this up—the power endures only until exit day. Its operation is shorter than that under clause 7. On the Government’s current expected timetable, it would, in practice, be used for only about six months, so it is not the open-ended power that some have suggested.
In addition, the Government have accepted the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) to establish a sifting committee to advise on the scrutiny procedures used for secondary legislation under the Bill. That will apply to this clause. That is on top of the Government amendment tabled last week that mandates Ministers to provide explanatory material for all the statutory instruments made under the principal powers of the Bill. We are listening. We are committed to making sure that Parliament plays a crucial role—a fully transparent scrutiny role—in the exercise of clause 9.
In sum, the power under clause 9 is required to legislate domestically for the large number of more technical separation issues that must be settled in time for exit day if we are to have the smooth Brexit that, whether we voted leave or remain, we all agree is crucial from here on in. The regulations—
Dominic Raab
I will just finish this point before I finally give way to my right hon. Friend, who has been very patient.
The regulations will be subject to the established methods of parliamentary scrutiny, with additional scrutiny provided by the new sifting committee. This is a time-limited and constrained power, but it is also an important power to help us to prepare for a smooth Brexit.
Anna Soubry
Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Bill was drafted before the general election on 8 June? If I am wrong about that, could he please tell us when the Bill was drafted?
Dominic Raab
As someone who was brought into government reasonably recently and on to the Committee even more recently, I would have to check. I am happy to provide that clarity by the end of proceedings. I suspect that the process has been an iterative one, but let me see whether I can come back to my right hon. Friend on that.
Clause 9 is not just an important part of the procedural toolkit; it serves a much bigger function that we must not overlook. It sends a message of clarity and confidence to our EU partners that we are ready, willing and able to conclude and implement a deal. By the same virtue, it sends an equally important message to our citizens and businesses that we are equipped to secure a smooth legal transition. I understand the concerns raised through the various amendments, and we should debate them. I will come on to them, and I hope that I will be able to give hon. Members some further reassurance.
Chuka Umunna
May I ask the Minister two questions? First, in respect of the statement made by the Brexit Secretary this morning, can the Minister confirm that the withdrawal agreement Bill is not guaranteed to come before the House for a vote before exit day? All the statement says is that the Bill will be introduced before exit day.
Secondly, why do the Government find so objectionable the idea of activating, if necessary, the third part of article 50, which allows for the Government to ask for an extension if we run out of time as a result of the many unforeseen practical problems? Ministers are talking from the Dispatch Box as though that third part of article 50 did not exist. Why was it included, if not to allow for an extension if the time expires and we have not achieved what we want?
Dominic Raab
I have enjoyed having proper debates with the hon. Gentleman both during the referendum and since. I point out that, as the written ministerial statement makes clear,
“the substantive provisions will only take effect from the moment of exit.”
I know that he wants to drag me down into the territory of the no deal scenario and Parliament’s ability to send the Government back to renegotiate. As a former Foreign Office lawyer who spent six years in that Department and worked on EU matters, in practice I think it unlikely that that would be meaningful in any way, shape or form. The point has been made in the debate that if that looked likely, we would be positively incentivising the EU to give us, and we would end up with, worse terms. [Interruption.] It is not pure speculation; it is grounded on six years of working as a lawyer in the Foreign Office and conducting negotiations. [Interruption.]
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) should not have been shouting in the first place, and he definitely should not have been shouting over me as I called for order. We are having a very detailed discussion here, which does not lend itself to shouting from Members on one Bench or the other.
Dominic Raab
Thank you, Mrs Laing. Many of the amendments that have been tabled have focused on the exact nature of the regulations that will be made under the power in clause 9. The exact use of the power will, of course, depend on the content of the withdrawal agreement that we reach with the EU. That agreement will be debated and voted on by this Parliament. The Government have made a clear commitment on that, and it should not be prejudiced or pre-empted now. There has been a lot of talk about a meaningful vote in this House, and the hon. Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) has raised the matter again. I will come on to that, and to the key issue of timing. May I say to hon. Members gently, and with the greatest respect, that such a vote would be pretty meaningless in any event if we were not ready to implement on time the deal that we want to do with the EU?
Mr Kenneth Clarke
I thought a moment ago that the Minister was rejecting the idea of a meaningful vote, but I am delighted to hear that he is getting on to it. Does he accept that it is perfectly likely that as the negotiations come to an end, the Government will want to enter into a deal, but they will have given in to pressure from the right wing of the Cabinet and Back-Bench Members of the party and rejected various things on offer from other EU members? That is a far more likely scenario than no deal being the other EU members’ preferred option. In such a case, it would be absolutely essential that the first thing we had was a parliamentary decision on a meaningful vote. We could then legislate, once that particular British issue had been resolved where it should be resolved—in Parliament.
Dominic Raab
From my experience, I must say that I think that is a rather rose-tinted perspective on EU negotiations. I should also say that the same arguments were made about my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister going into the phase 1 negotiations, yet we are on the cusp of formal ratification of the joint report dealing with the first phase issues. The Prime Minister has made some difficult compromises and shown flexibility precisely to get the deal that I think my right hon. and learned Friend welcomes—I also welcome it—even though we were on different sides during the referendum campaign.
I turn to new clauses 3 and 75, which attempt to remove clause 9 wholesale from the Bill. They would undermine one of the important strategic objectives of the Bill, which is to provide the legal means to implement the withdrawal agreement thoroughly in domestic law. I hope I have explained the important, albeit residual, role that clause 9 stands to play in light of the separate primary legislation covering the withdrawal agreement. To remove clause 9 would increase the legal uncertainty, and I hope that the new clauses will not be pressed.
I want to spend a little bit of time focusing on amendments 7, 47 and 355 and new clause 68, but particularly on amendment 7 in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. May I say at the outset that I do not think he has any ulterior motive in tabling the amendment? I have had a number of constructive conversations with him, and I look forward to more in the future. By dint of that, I hope he accepts that I have followed through on every assurance I have given him, and that I have not failed to live up to the undertakings I have given him. It is in that spirit that we on both sides of the debate need to proceed as the Bill goes through the House.
Amendments 7 and 355 call for a separate statute to be enacted approving the withdrawal agreement before the powers in clause 9 can be used. There are a number of problems with doing so. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) mentioned the constitutional issue, and I agree with him about that. From a practical point of view, however, the crucial problem is the effect that amendment 7 would have in significantly curtailing the timely advantage that we will gain from clause 9. One of the key benefits of the clause is the ability to start to use it reasonably swiftly after the withdrawal agreement has been reached.
To add an unnecessary Bill to the parliamentary agenda—in addition to Parliament’s meaningful vote, as set out in today’s written ministerial statement, and on top of the new withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill—would be restrictive enough. However, to make the first use of the powers in clause 9 wait until the additional legislation has fully passed through Parliament would unduly compress the time we will have to prepare the legislative groundwork, and would risk greater uncertainty. With the greatest respect in the world, I am afraid that is why the amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield is defective.
Dominic Raab
If I may, I will finish my comments on this amendment, and I will then let my right hon. and learned Friend critique them in the round. I suspect such a critique is coming.
In rare and exceptional cases, we may need to exercise the powers in clause 9 to pass statutory instruments before the final enactment of the primary legislation, which will be on the date of exit. Let me give an illustration of why it may be necessary for operational changes to be in put in place before that point. An example is where specific statutory authority is needed for a monitoring body to supervise the implementation of the terms of the agreement on citizens’ rights, if that cannot be done in advance under other primary legislation. Such a body would need to be set up beforehand so that it was ready to operate on day one, but we may not know its precise content and contours until relatively late on in the negotiations.
Yes, the potential scope for reliance on clause 9 has been reduced by the Government’s commitment to primary legislation to implement the withdrawal agreement and the implementation period, but it is still important to retain it. The fetter imposed by amendment 7 would risk materially damaging responsible preparations for exit, including in sensitive areas such as citizens’ rights. I know that that is not the intention of my right hon. and learned Friend, to whom I am very happy to give way.
Mr Grieve
I am again most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He will know—I touched on this in my comments—that when this issue was first raised, I suggested that one possibility might be to allow statutory instruments to be laid and voted on by this House prior to the enactment of the further statute, but not allow them to be brought into force until that further statute had been enacted. That would allow the House to stop the statutory process if it was not happy with it. As I understand it, the further statute has to be enacted before the date we leave, because without it we do not have the powers to pull out. In those circumstances, I find it impossible to understand why my suggestion might not solve his problem. I think he will agree that that is where our dialogue stopped. If he actually wants to do something even before that, I have to say to him that, as a matter of principle, I object.
Dominic Raab
My right hon. and learned Friend is right about almost everything; the only point he is not right about is that I think he will find that my suggestion to him was the appropriate way to deal with that. I will come on to give him precisely the assurance he is asking for, although we have not had a chance to get it on to the face of the Bill. I would argue that a political assurance, which I will give him on top of the others that have been given, ought adequately to address his concerns.
With the genuine and material risk of my right hon. and learned Friend’s amendment in mind, I hope I can go further, bridge the gap and reassure hon. Members, and assuage any residual concerns they may have about the operation of clause 9 in practice. I want to provide three very clear assurances to the House.
First, secondary legislation passed under clause 9 will either be affirmative or considered by the Committee established under the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne. Secondly, the Government are committed to publishing such statutory instruments in draft as far as possible, as early as possible, to facilitate maximum scrutiny, which is another point we have discussed.
Thirdly, we expect that the vast majority of statutory instruments enacted under clause 9 will not come into force until exit day, when the withdrawal agreement comes into force. But I can give my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, and the Committee, the concrete assurance that, following the timeframe set out in today’s written ministerial statement, none of the SIs introduced under clause 9 will come into effect until Parliament has voted on the final deal. I hope that that provides important reassurance and is sufficient for hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.
That approach has two advantages. First, it retains our ability to use clause 9 in time to fully implement the withdrawal agreement. It also squarely addresses the concern, fairly and honestly reflected in amendment 7, that there should be a meaningful vote—the critical point made by my right hon. and learned Friend—and that we should not bring new law implementing the withdrawal agreement into effect if Parliament votes that agreement down.
Dominic Raab
The hon. Lady, as ever, sums up the situation very neatly. Clause 9 is absolutely necessary to make sure that we can fully implement the withdrawal agreement and provide legal certainty. The problem with amendment 7 is that it emasculates that ability because of the time pressure it places on us. That is why, with the greatest respect to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, it is not an effective amendment and we cannot accept it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dominic Raab
We have only two hours left, and I want to make some progress, but I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I think that my hon. Friend is suggesting a route to solving the problem raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). Could not the requirement that the resolution be sanctioned by the House before the implementation of those orders be put into a revised version of clause 9 on Report?
Dominic Raab
I would hope that the assurances we have made, along with the written ministerial statement, are adequate, but there is nothing stopping any hon. Member coming back and having another go. We have—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda is sitting there tapping knowingly. He has been talking about the separation of powers between the legislature and the Executive, and now I am being asked to correct homework for hon. Members. That is not necessarily the course on which to proceed. What I will do, as we have done all along and as I think as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield knows, is to continue to discuss all these matters with my right hon. and hon. Friends as we progress. The important point to understand—we have not had a huge amount of time to go into the details of what the compromise assurances might be—is that at the moment amendment 7 is defective and would have very real consequences for our ability to deliver on the deal we do with our European partners.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Does that mean, therefore, that the Government would accept an amendment on Report that put on the face of the Bill that there would be a vote, as is stated in the written statement, on a resolution in both Houses of Parliament that would cover the withdrawal agreement and the terms of our future relationship? Is that what the Minister is saying?
Dominic Raab
What I am saying is that my hon. Friend has had an assurance, given by me at the Dispatch Box, that I hope addresses his concern. If hon. Members want to come back on Report with further amendments, I will continue to give them proper consideration. I think all hon. Members who have dealt with me directly have found that I have been true to that commitment.
Dominic Raab
No, I am not going to give way again.
Amendment 47, tabled by the Chair of the Exiting the European Union Committee, is slightly different in that it would make the use of clause 9 dependent on approval of the withdrawal agreement by both Houses without specifying statute. Similar timing concerns apply. We would need to retain the option to ready statutory instruments before such approval, but I have made clear, and I make clear again, that they would not enter into force until Parliament had held its meaningful vote.
New clause 68 replicates the provisions of amendment 47, with the addition that the Government must seek the approval of Parliament no later than three months before the date of exit. We cannot bind ourselves to such strict sequencing constraints when the latter stages of the negotiations remain unknown. To do so, in fact, would be irresponsible. It is also a vague and arguably defective new clause, I say with the greatest respect, because it is not clear whether by the “conclusion” of the agreement the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) means finalisation of the text, signature, ratification or entry into force. For those reasons, I hope hon. Members will not press their new clauses and amendments.
Dominic Raab
I am going to make some progress.
Amendment 116 would require a referendum on accepting the deal or remaining in the EU before the clause 9 power could be used. I do not think that is feasible, and it is not desirable. The Government are clear that the British people have voted to leave the EU. We will deliver on their direction. We will deliver on their mandate. Frankly, this is a pretty thinly veiled attempt to block Brexit and defy the result of the referendum, in contrast to some of the other, legitimate, concerns raised across the House. If hon. Members wanted to hold a second referendum on the terms agreed with the EU, the proper time and place to argue for such a requirement was when the EU Referendum Act 2015 was passed. I therefore urge that the amendment not be pressed.
New clause 4 would require separate legislation to set the exit day, and new clause 66 states that the exit day cannot be set before Parliament has given its approval for the terms of the withdrawal agreement. The Government accept the case for legislative prescription of the exit day for the sake of finality and legal certainty, so I hope that the new clause has been rendered unnecessary.
New clause 19 and amendment 55 mandate that the power in clause 9 cannot be used until the publication of the withdrawal agreement, and that it should not be available until all other exit Bills have passed. It is clear that regulations cannot be made under clause 9 until an agreement exists and its contents are known. It is not necessary, then, to require on top of that that the agreement be published and placed in the House of Commons and House of Lords Libraries before the power can be relied on. It is of course standard practice to lay international treaties before Parliament under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Equally, it is not right to tie the use of this power to the publication of other primary legislation passed in this Session. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) not to press the amendment.
Amendment 361 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who is the Chair of the Justice Committee.
The amendment would create a separate power to legislate for the implementation period. I hope that the Government’s announcement of a separate Bill—primary legislation—covering the withdrawal agreement and the implementation period addresses his concern.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I am grateful for that. It was intended as a probing amendment, particularly to ensure that these issues were ventilated. Given the assurances in previous days of the debate, I obviously will not push it. While I am on my feet, however, may I ask the Minister to reflect again on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy)? I really think that the Government would find a means of resolving these matters if they were to bring forward their own amendment in the form suggested.
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I hope he understands how, in good faith, I am seeking to engage with hon. Members on all sides of the House. It was my suggestion that the assurance would be made to him. We will reflect further as we lead into Report—
Robert Neill
I mentioned the wrong constituency name. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford would not at all want to be involved in that matter. The Minister knew who I meant. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) who made the point, and I hope that the Minister will consider it.
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend’s point is well made.
I turn now to equalities legislation. Last week, the Government tabled amendment 391 to schedule 7. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said that the Government had not come back with any amendments in response to requests. This is a clear example of where we have listened and returned. The amendment will require Ministers to state in writing, when using the powers in clauses 7 to 9, whether they amend equalities legislation and that they have
“so far as required to do so by equalities legislation, had due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Equality Act 2010.”
Dominic Raab
The right hon. Gentleman is quick off the mark. I am about to address his point. When the Bill was introduced, the Government published an equalities analysis of the Bill, and I can reassure the Committee and him—I know that he raised this on a previous day—that, as promised, we will make a similar statement in relation to all other Brexit primary legislation that has been or will be introduced to this House. I pay tribute—if she is here—to my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), the Chair of the Women and Equalities Select Committee, for raising this important issue and for her advice in helping us to address it in a sensible and practical way.
Dominic Raab
The amendment has been tabled, and I am giving the right hon. Gentleman the assurance now that the same formula will be applied to all Brexit-related primary legislation, so he can take that one to the bank.
I turn now to amendment 19, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda. I understand his position and what he is trying to establish, but if the regulations made under clause 9 were to lapse two years after exit day, it would set a very rigid legislative timeframe for the Government and risk unnecessary disruption. If the two-year deadline expired unmet, it would create holes or risk creating holes in the statute book. I sympathise with the intentions behind the amendment, and I just wonder whether it was intended to tempt Eurosceptics on the Government Benches, but it is too rigid a fetter on Parliament’s ability to manage its legislative priorities between now and 2021, and it would risk exacerbating the very uncertainty that the Bill is designed to reduce.
Amendments 74 and 75 attempt to tie the use of clause 9 to our continued membership of the single market and the customs union. The Government have been clear that we are leaving the EU, and that necessarily means we are leaving the single market and the customs union. The amendments rehash old ground. The Government are clear that we are seeking a deep and special partnership with the EU, including as frictionless free trade as possible, and that will inevitably be linked to the withdrawal agreement. It is good news that we are moving to the negotiations on that area, following the success of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and the Prime Minister. The amendments, with the greatest respect to their SNP authors, would be counterproductive on their own terms, because they would undermine our ability to secure and implement the withdrawal agreement, which itself will be necessary for agreeing the future partnership agreement and maintaining barrier-free trade.
Charlie Elphicke
I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend’s argument on clause 9. It seems to me that the initial intention was to do the withdrawal agreement by regulation, since when the principle of a withdrawal agreement implementation Bill has been conceded. Under the circumstances, is not the proper thing to withdraw clause 9, to prevent Opposition Members, particularly from the SNP, from using it as a Christmas tree to put Brexit-stopping measures in place?
Dominic Raab
The problem is that clause 9, although now of residual use and scope, remains vital if we want the smooth Brexit that hon. Members in all parts of the House profess to want.
In fairness, we have spent a lot of time on those amendments. I want now to turn to amendments 142, 143, 275 and 156 and new clause 38, which seek to restrict the use of clause 9 with respect to citizens’ rights. As the Prime Minister reiterated in her speech in Florence on 22 September and since, we value the contributions of EU citizens living in the UK. We want them to stay. That is why the Government repeatedly made it clear that securing the rights of EU citizens resident in the UK on exit, and equally the rights of UK nationals living on the continent, was a top priority. I am sure the whole House will join me in welcoming the fact that the joint report by the UK and EU negotiators published last Friday forms the basis of the agreement after the first phase of negotiations, which will cover the rights of EU citizens here and British citizens on the continent, giving them the security, the assurances and the confidence they need.
Again, I acknowledge the vital contribution that EU citizens make to our economy and our social and national life. We will ensure that EU citizens living in the UK at the date to be specified in the light of the negotiations will be able to apply for settled status under UK immigration law once they have completed five years’ residence here. In the light of the agreement reached, I hope that hon. Members will not press those amendments.
New clause 38 and amendment 156, meanwhile, cover the specific issue of Irish citizens’ rights. Maintaining the common travel area with Ireland, protecting the reciprocal rights of British and Irish citizens, is a primary objective for the UK and has been since the Prime Minister’s Lancaster House speech in January. The common travel area arrangements between the UK and Ireland and the Crown dependencies, and the associated rights, have existed for many years. They pre-date the UK and Ireland’s membership of the European Union. Although it extends to the whole of the UK, the value of the common travel area and associated rights is clearly most felt in Northern Ireland. These arrangements facilitate, among other things, the north-south co-operation provided for in the Good Friday agreement and daily life on the island of Ireland.
There is a strong appetite on both sides of the border and in all parts of the UK to maintain those rights. They are distinct from EU membership and are already provided for by domestic legislation. The joint report by UK and EU negotiators safeguards these interests. Given that agreement and the strong commitment from both the UK Government and, in fairness, the European Commission that these arrangements are protected and will be protected, new clause 38 and amendment 156 are unnecessary, and I respectfully ask hon. Members not to press them.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I am very grateful indeed to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. I just want him to clarify a very important issue. We are talking about clause 9 and amendments to it. The Minister and his colleagues will know that any regulations that could be made under clause 7 are restricted, in that they cannot create new criminal offences, cannot have retrospective effect and cannot affect the Human Rights Act. Those exemptions are mirrored in clause 9, apart from the reference to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the protections given to the Good Friday agreement. In the light of the Prime Minister’s statement to the House on Monday about the commitments to the Northern Ireland Act and the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, why is there such a glaring omission in clause 9, in terms of the protections offered to the Northern Ireland Act?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. There is absolutely no intention to use clause 9 in any way that would disrupt the Belfast agreement. The short answer to her is that these are just different technical devices, dealing with different technical aspects of withdrawal.
Lady Hermon
Forgive me for correcting the Minister. I do not mean to be rude, but clauses 7 to 9 extend to Northern Ireland, so these powers will also be extended to Northern Ireland—schedule 2 extends them to Northern Ireland—so if we had an Executive up and running again, Ministers in a devolved Assembly could make regulations that affected the Good Friday agreement. The protection to the Good Friday agreement—the Belfast agreement—has to be written into clause 9, so I suggest that the Government take it away tonight, redraft it and come back on Report with something that satisfies everyone in this House, including the Minister.
Dominic Raab
It is important that any changes that may need to be made to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to ensure that the UK can honour its international commitments can be made. Any such changes could be made only to ensure ongoing compliance with our international obligations, and could not substantively change the agreed devolution settlement or deviate from the terms of the Belfast agreement. I should be happy to write to the hon. Lady and spell that out in more detail.
Vicky Ford
As a new Member, I have listened intently as many Members on both sides of the Committee—some who voted to remain and others who voted to leave—have talked about the fundamental flaws in clause 9. The rest of the world is watching how we regulate at the moment. Will the Minister give an undertaking that the Government will come up with amendments to clause 9 on Report?
Dominic Raab
As I said earlier, clause 9 retains the residual necessity to provide us with agility in these negotiations. I think that I have given the assurances on substance that Conservative Members and, I believe, some Opposition Members wished to hear. If other Members want to table amendments on Report, I will of course continue the dialogue in which I have engaged all along.
Dominic Raab
I am going to make some progress, because I have been on my feet for some time.
Dominic Raab
I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I have given way to him already. I am going to make some progress.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) knows better—and he also knows better than to raise his eyebrows because I have called for order. He does it often enough, and it is not his job.
Dominic Raab
A number of Members have tabled amendments seeking to maintain the UK’s membership of EU agencies, institutions and international agreements, as well as our participation in EU programmes and access to EU systems and databases. They also seek to ensure that measures are put in place so that we are ready domestically to thrive when we leave the EU. Those amendments include amendments 196 to 199, 241 to 261, 276, 224 and 225, and a number of others.
The Government recognise that a large number of the UK’s relationships with non-EU partners and international organisations are linked to our membership of the EU, and specifically to the Euratom treaty, which deals with nuclear co-operation. Maintaining close links after we leave is important, and in many cases will be in the interests of both the UK and the EU.
Mr Vaizey
I know that my hon. Friend has been on his feet for 50 minutes. We should be happy to have another 50 minutes, because he is doing brilliantly. He has just mentioned Euratom. As he knows, amendment 300 was signed by more Members than any of the other amendments. I hate to keep asking him to come back with proposals on Report, but will he give a commitment that the Government will at least publish a strategy for their future relationship with Euratom by then, and that the strategy will be updated quarterly so that we can maintain progress? As I said in my speech earlier, Ministers have been brilliant on this issue, but we do need to partner with them.
Dominic Raab
The Government intend to present a written ministerial statement to Parliament before Report which will set out our vision, or strategy, for a close association with Euratom. I hope that the commitment to that statement will reassure my right hon. Friend, and that he will not feel the need to press his amendment to a vote.
Dominic Raab
I want to make some progress, but I will give way once to the hon. Lady.
Rachel Reeves
On the subject of amendment 300, will the Minister confirm that the Government intend any implementation period for leaving the EU to apply to leaving Euratom as well?
Dominic Raab
That will be addressed in the written ministerial statement and the strategy that will be forthcoming very shortly, and the hon. Lady will have an opportunity for scrutiny then.
We will work with the Commission on addressing those international agreements when the parties have a shared stake, and a shared interest, in continuity. Similarly, the Government recognise the need to maintain a strong relationship with the EU in the future. We are seeking to forge a deep and special partnership with our EU friends, and our relationship with the EU’s agencies and bodies on exit will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. No final decisions have yet been made on our future relationship with the EU’s agencies and bodies after leaving the EU, and we are carefully considering a range of options. Where there is a demonstrable national interest in pursuing a continued relationship with an agency or other EU body, the Government will look very carefully at whether and how we can pursue that, and of course it is a matter for negotiations.
That brings me to why these amendments are, while well-intentioned, unhelpful. The first reason is because negotiations are ongoing and we cannot allow our negotiating position to be prejudiced or pre-empted. The Government are working to achieve the best possible deal with the EU. We welcome the constructive and thoughtful amendments from hon. Members, but we cannot accept any that might undermine the Government’s negotiating position or restrict our room for manoeuvre, not least in terms of striking the kind of arrangements that hon. Members in tabling these amendments want to see.
Dominic Raab
I am going to make some more progress, if I may.
Secondly, the Government have committed to ensuring that the withdrawal agreement with the EU can be fully implemented in UK law by exit day. The clause 9 power to implement the withdrawal agreement will be crucial in achieving this in the way I have described. This power will help to ensure we are in a position to swiftly implement the contents of the withdrawal agreement required to be in place for day one, ensuring maximum legal certainty upon exit. Again, I respectfully remind hon. Members that, if the UK is unable to implement the withdrawal agreement in time, that risks us being unable to meet our obligations under international law and scuppering the prospects of the very deal I think Members on all sides want to achieve.
To ensure a smooth and orderly exit, it is essential that appropriate legislative changes have been made by the point of exit. We want to give ourselves the capability to make those appropriate changes swiftly, and to support businesses and individuals and make sure the country is ready. The power in the Bill enables that, and those aims will be put at risk by these amendments.
I now turn briefly to amendments 227, 228 and 229, which prevent the clause 9 power from being used until a number of economic assessments have been published. The Government have been undertaking rigorous and extensive analysis to support our exit negotiations, to define our future partnership with the EU and to inform our understanding of how EU exit will affect the UK’s domestic policies. The Government have already established a process for providing economic and fiscal reports. The OBR independently produces official forecasts for the Government and is required to produce detailed five-year forecasts for the economy and public finances twice a year at autumn Budget and spring statement. Those forecasts reflect publicly stated Government policy at the time that those forecasts are made, and that includes policy on leaving the EU.
We have been very clear that we will not disclose material that might undermine the UK in the negotiations. In particular, in any negotiation, information on potential economic considerations is very important to the negotiating capital and negotiating position of all parties.
The Government want to get the best deal for the UK and hope—and, indeed, are confident—that this House is united in that goal, even if the means to achieve it may differ on some aspects of detail, and we do not want the UK’s negotiating position to be undermined. For that reason, we cannot support those amendments.
Amendment 230 requests an assessment of the broader responsibility of the Treasury. That is unnecessary. The Treasury’s core purpose is to be an effective finance and economics Ministry. As a finance Ministry, the Treasury will continue to account for public expenditure and manage the public finances. As an economics Ministry, it will continue to prioritise policy that reduces obstacles to growth, and manage key relationships with finance Ministries overseas. The Government do not see the UK’s withdrawal from the EU changing those core responsibilities of the Treasury, and an assessment to confirm that would be a waste of valuable public finances and is unnecessary.
I turn now to amendments 262 and 263. The Government recognise the huge importance of the legal services sector to the UK economy; it contributed £24 billion in 2015. The Government also recognise that legal services underpin many other important parts of the UK economy, including financial services, manufacturing and the creative industries. We propose a bold and ambitious partnership between the UK and the EU, and we will prioritise securing the freest trade possible in services. The Government are committed to securing the best deal for the legal profession.
In the Government’s July position paper, “Ongoing Union judicial and administrative proceedings”, the Government also made it clear that leaving the EU will end the direct jurisdiction of the European Court. At the same time, the UK is committed to minimising uncertainty and disruption for individuals and businesses, including those arising from changes in the treatment of cases pending at the time of exit. That is why we want an agreement on an implementation period based on the existing structure of rules and regulations, so that there is only one set of changes. The laying of such reports, as proposed in the amendments, would delay and impede the important legislative work necessary to prepare the legal services sector for all possible negotiation outcomes, and I urge hon. Members to withdraw the amendments.
Amendment 343 would prevent regulations from being made under clause 9 before the Secretary of State had laid before Parliament a strategy for a food standards framework after EU withdrawal. The UK has a world-leading set of standards on food safety and quality, backed up by a rigorous legislative framework. The Department of Health, the Food Standards Agency and other relevant Government bodies are working closely together to ensure that the regulatory regime for food safety remains robust as Britain leaves the EU. The Government are committed to ensuring high food standards at home and promoting high standards internationally. There will be opportunities to build on our world-leading reputation for quality and standards, but it would not be appropriate for the Government to tie their use of the clause 9 power to the publishing of any individual or particular reports.
The purpose of clause 9 is to incorporate the withdrawal agreement fully and comprehensively into UK law, so that we can fulfil our obligations under the withdrawal agreement and under international law. The power is not intended to be used to report on the Government’s post-exit domestic strategy. To caveat the power or to define it in that way would cause uncertainty, both for our EU partners and for businesses and citizens in this country. I hope that I have addressed as many of the amendments relating to clause 9 as possible, and that clause 9 will now stand part of the Bill unamended.
I shall now turn briefly to clauses 16 and 17 and schedule 7. Clause 16 gives effect to schedule 7, which provides for the parliamentary scrutiny of the secondary legislation made under the powers in the Bill, including under clause 9. The Bill attempts to strike a balance between the need to prepare our statute book in time for the end of the article 50 process and the need, on the other side, for Parliament to undertake proper scrutiny. The Bill does this using long-established parliamentary procedures. These are the usual procedures that have been used by all Governments for decades with no dilution of the normal scrutiny process.
However, the Government have always said that we would listen and reflect on the concerns raised by the House. We understand the concern that there might not be enough scrutiny of the instruments made under the Bill. That is why the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), made it clear in the Committee yesterday that the Government would support the amendments tabled by the Chair of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), which I hope will be supported by the whole of this Committee.
These amendments draw on the Procedure Committee’s expertise and its recent interim report, and will ensure that the House has an opportunity to challenge the appropriateness of the use of the procedure for instruments made under the three main powers in the Bill. The amendments do this without undermining the certainty that we wish to provide. For instruments brought forward under clause 9, as with the other powers in the Bill, this means that where the Government propose the negative procedure for an instrument, the House will be able to recommend that it should instead be debated and voted on as an affirmative instrument, giving an even clearer voice to this House in scrutinising how these powers are used. Other instruments, if not made using the urgency procedure—which I will come to—will be affirmative, guaranteeing the opportunity for a debate on the instrument.
Schedule 7 sets out a series of triggers for the use of the affirmative procedure. These are for some of the substantial uses of the power or for those where more complex decisions are required—for example, creating a new public body, creating new fees or other charges, or creating new powers to legislate. The Minister responsible for the instrument can also choose the affirmative procedure even where the instrument does not meet any of the tests in schedule 7. We have taken the same approach to changes to either primary or secondary legislation. Some changes to primary legislation can be mechanistic and minor, and adopting the affirmative procedure for small corrections to primary legislation would be impractical. Instead, the requirement for affirmative procedures is based on the type of change rather than the type of legislation in which the change is being made.
In rare cases, there are urgency procedures, both in the Bill as introduced and in the amendments tabled by the Chair of the Procedure Committee. I can assure the Committee that we would only use those procedures very sparingly—for example, in cases where there was a clear practical reason to have a correction made in time for exit day or for a particular other day when limited time was available. Such a situation could arise, for example, because the content of a particular statutory instrument was dependent on a negotiation that took place nearer the end of the exit process. I know there are amendments on the paper today, such as those in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie)—I am trying to see whether he is still in his place, but no, he is not at the moment—which seek to restrict the use of this power to “emergency” situations. I hope the Committee will understand that the word “emergency” is not quite right in these circumstances, and that “urgency” is the more accurate description if we are to ensure that we have legal certainty.
Finally—I am grateful to the Committee for its patience—clause 17 is designed to make consequential and transitional provision to other laws as a result, not of our exit from the EU, but of the operation of the Bill. It contains powers to ensure that the Bill is properly bedded into the statute book and could be used, for instance, for housekeeping tasks such as revoking designation orders.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
This debate started with an extremely eloquent and passionate contribution by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) on the meaningful vote that this House has been promised, on the timing of that vote, and on how we can ensure that the Government do not proceed with the detail of the withdrawal agreement, and probably the ultimate trade agreement, without the consent of this House. My hon. Friend the Minister has spent an extremely valuable hour taking us through the foothills of the drafting of the Bill and the administrative procedures that might be necessary before we leave. I asked him for a political argument if he wants to resist the idea, put forward by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that this House demands a meaningful vote before the Government actually start enacting the outcome of any agreement they have made, so does he have a little time to address that? Is there anything left in his notes that covers that?
Dominic Raab
I welcome the chance to reiterate what has already been said and what is already set out in the written ministerial statement: we will guarantee that there will be a meaningful vote in this House, and that none of statutory instruments introduced under clause 9 will enter into force until we have had that meaningful vote. That squarely addresses the substantive issue that my right hon. and learned Friend is getting at. He criticises me for dealing with all the other amendments, but it is only fair in the proper course of parliamentary proceedings to ensure that all amendments from all hon. Members are fairly addressed.
Dominic Raab
I will not. I am going to finish, because I have been at it for well over an hour and I want to make my final points and give other Members the opportunity to have their say.
Orders under clause 7 will designate Ministers so that they can exercise the power in section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 to implement EU obligations. Once the 1972 Act is repealed, designation orders will be redundant, so we need to be able to tidy up such laws on the statute book. Hon. Members will know that consequential provisions are a standard part of many pieces of legislation, even legislation of constitutional importance such as the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 or the devolution Acts. Equally, transitional provisions are a standard way of smoothing the application of a change in the UK statute book.
The Bill already includes the lengthy schedule 8, which contains consequential amendments, but some more may be needed, and it will take time for departmental experts to identify and correctly resolve others. For example, the Bill amends the definition of “enactment” in the Interpretation Act 1978, and Departments will need to review all the references to “enactment” across the whole statute book to identify any that need amending as a consequence of the Bill. That is not a novel use of a consequential power, because the definition of “enactment” was inserted into the 1978 Act by the Scotland Act 1998, and the consequential power in the 1998 Act was then used to amend other references as a consequence. The Government are therefore taking a normal power to make these and other important but technical consequential amendments as they are identified.
Hon. Members will know that transitional, transitory and saving provisions are standard ways to smooth the introduction of change to the statute book. As with clause 9, it is important that we can provide legal certainty to everyone in the UK, from businesses to individual citizens. For example, the Bill removes the UK from the direct jurisdiction of the Luxembourg Court, but the UK will remain a full member of the EU up until the very moment of exit. The power could therefore make specific provision for court cases still before a court on exit day. Again, schedule 8 introduces some of those measures, but Government will need some residual flexibility to ensure that we do not create uncertainty as we leave. I can reassure the Committee that the Government cannot abuse such powers. Case law and an array of legal authorities provide a very narrow scope for the exercise of the powers, which are necessary to ensure that we can enable a process of exit from the EU that promotes maximum certainty. I commend clauses 16 and 17 and schedule 7 to the Committee.
Several hon. Members rose—
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Now that the Minister has spoken and taken a great many interventions, many of the issues before us have been fully discussed. I appreciate there are a lot more amendments to be spoken to, but the Committee will know that a lot of people have just risen to indicate that they wish to speak, and we have less than an hour and a half left.
I cannot impose a time limit in Committee, but if hon. Members speak for more than three minutes, they are depriving someone else of the opportunity to speak. That might indeed be the intention of some hon. Members, and there are many hon. Members who prefer to listen to their own voice than to give any time to others. We shall see in the next hour and a half which is which.
I am sure I can rely on Seema Malhotra to behave properly.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mrs Laing. I will do my best but, with short notice, I may struggle to bring my speech down to three minutes.
It is a pleasure to follow many hon. Friends and hon. Members in lending my support to new clause 3, amendment 7 and new clause 66, which speak to the intention of Members on both sides of the Committee to engage constructively and thoughtfully on the role of Parliament and on when, and how, Parliament has a say on the fundamental issue of the withdrawal agreement.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to address my new clause 69 and to thank the 40 hon. Members from both sides of the Committee who put their name to it. New clause 69 seeks to lay out a simple road map to provide clarity on the role of Parliament in the final months before Brexit.
The Government put out a statement today, setting out the role of Parliament in approving the agreements and how the agreements will be put into force. Notwithstanding the Minister’s comments, I will lay out why the statement does not go far enough in addressing this fundamental issue—the Minister also did not adequately address these points.
The Brexit Secretary said in his written statement—there is no disagreement with this—that:
“A Withdrawal Agreement will be negotiated under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union…whilst the UK is a member of the EU. It will set out the terms of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU…as well as…any implementation period agreed between both sides.
Article 50(2) of the TEU sets out that the Withdrawal Agreement should take account of the terms for the departing Member State’s future relationship with the EU.”
We believe that partially parallel process is soon to be under way.
Michel Barnier has said that he wants to have the withdrawal agreement finalised by October 2018, which is indeed the Government’s stated intention. The Prime Minister said today that she fully expects the vote to be “well before March 2019.” The Government have committed to holding a vote on the final deal as soon as possible after the negotiations have been finalised, and the Brexit Secretary’s statement says:
“This legislation will be introduced before the UK exits the EU”.
I very much hope that all goes according to plan. It is in the interest of the country for there to be an orderly, stable and predictable Brexit process that enables businesses and families to plan ahead and do all they can to manage the risks of transition. If the Government are as confident of that as they would wish us to believe, I hope they are able to confirm today that they will accept amendment 7 and respond to the points raised in my new clause 69, which seeks to do nothing other than include in the Bill the commitments the Government made in their stated policy intentions. Although I will not be pressing new clause 69 to a vote, I reserve the right to bring back the issues at a later stage.
Legislation is not passed to plan for when things go well but to provide protections and a route map for action when things do not go well. There may well be an honest intention to reach a deal by October 2018, but there is no guarantee. I am not attempting to talk down the Government’s negotiation attempts, but there has been a consistent view—indeed, reiterated by the Prime Minister today—that she fully expects a vote before March 2019. That is not a promise, because we know it cannot be.
I am also representing the views expressed by the Brexit Secretary on 25 October 2017, when he said we could go up to the 59th minute of the eleventh hour. The Government may have sought to row back on that, but the experience suggests and the reality is that it may well end up being the case.
Michel Barnier said this morning that negotiations are difficult and “tough” and that he wants steps to be taken for an “orderly withdrawal”. He has stated today that a full trade deal will not be possible by the time the UK leaves the EU. With only 15 months left to Brexit day, we must recognise that in these complex times the unpredictable can happen, and that in those circumstances, which none of us would wish to see, we need to have planned ahead effectively. We need certainty for Parliament, for our constituents, and for business and industry about how we will proceed.
My new clause states that in the event of no deal being reached by October 2018 or a deal not having been passed by both Houses of Parliament by February 2019, with a month to go the Prime Minister must: seek agreement with the EU to extend the article 50 time period; or seek agreement with the EU to finalise the terms of the withdrawal agreement through the period of transition after the article 50 notice expires and the EU treaties cease to apply to the UK; or seek agreement on any other course of action in line with a resolution of this House. This is important as it gives an opportunity for timely—I repeat, timely—engagement of this House, which is critical in order for any vote to be meaningful.
My new clause does not specify which of those the Government should seek to do, but it sets out three clear options that could be vital in keeping order and stability in the weeks and months before exit day. Let me be clear also that this is not about an unnecessary extension of the process; it is about allowing provision for and clarity on the circumstances in which it may be called upon, most likely for a short period of months. That can only be helpful in managing the risks of Brexit, particularly in the event that a deal is well under way but has not been finalised. It would certainly not be against the spirit of the referendum result, and at the time could precisely be in the national interest.
I do not believe that in truth this approach should be any great distance from Government policy, and it simply picks up on paragraph 3 of article 50, which states:
“The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.”
I do not believe there has been any suggestion from the European Council or elsewhere that such a request would not be agreed to if it were proven to be necessary.
In the light of aspects of stated Government policy, new clause 69 and amendment 7 should be nothing other than helpful. I wish to make a few points on this, Mrs Laing, which I shall summarise. The Government have made it clear that they will want to see a vote of this Parliament—after a challenging journey on that policy, they made that commitment in their manifesto in May. As has been stated today, however, the challenge is that it is not clear, and there certainly is no consensus on, what constitutes “meaningful”. Indeed, there has been a difference in view on this. First, the Secretary of State said:
“The House will have the opportunity to vote on any number of pieces of legislation before we get to the end and then will have a vote to decide whether what it gets is acceptable. I cannot see how it can be made more meaningful than that.”—[Official Report, 2 February 2017; Vol. 620, c. 1222.]
Yet, five days later, his deputy Minister at the time, the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), said:
“Let me say this. It will be a meaningful vote. As I have said, it will be the choice between leaving the European Union with a negotiated deal or not. To send the Government back to the negotiating table would be the surest way of undermining our negotiating position and delivering a worse deal.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2017; Vol. 621, c. 273.]
This is surely the crux of the issue about the ability of Parliament to influence this Government and the negotiations to get the best deal for our country.
That brings me to my final point, which is about the issue of no deal. If the Government were to proceed on the basis of no deal, that itself would not be after a vote of this House. No deal obviously would bring huge risks to our economy and it would have a legally questionable status, and those views of stakeholders are of no surprise to Ministers in this House.
I would rather we were not in this positon and I would rather not have had to table the new clause, but I believe strongly that it would provide important safeguards for the country and for people in our constituencies, who will be picking up the pieces if we crash out of the European Union. Parliamentary scrutiny and sovereignty are our duty and responsibility. I may not push for a vote today, but I reserve the right to bring my new clause back to the House, depending on what further comments the Minister makes. The House deserves a definite timeline for a vote, and to be confident of the meaningfulness of that vote.
Mr Jenkin
I have listened to this entire debate with close interest. I think that we are all agreed that we want an orderly process for leaving the EU, which means a sensible withdrawal agreement along with a clear and detailed commitment to an EU-UK trade agreement and a period of implementation, but I also think we all agree that if no satisfactory agreement arrives, we still all voted to leave the EU. Well, we nearly all voted to leave the EU: I respect my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), but he voted against the triggering of article 50, as did some others. Those of us who voted to trigger article 50 voted to leave on 29 March 2019.
Stephen Kinnock
Article 50 clearly states that an extension can be requested, so when we voted to trigger it, we voted to trigger a clause that included the possibility of requesting an extension.
Mr Jenkin
I will come back to the way Parliament interacts with the process, but it would be really rather foolish for this House and the Government to premise all their plans on the basis that that request would be acceded to, because it would require unanimity. I have not heard a single public statement from the EU or a European diplomat that suggested for a moment that they would countenance extending the deadline. Of course, why would they? The deadline written into article 50 is to their advantage. I expect that the hon. Gentleman would have voted for the Lisbon treaty, which contains article 50, but I did not vote for it. I have always thought that article 50 was a snare and a trap. It sets a deadline, against which we are now negotiating, and that is the only prudent way to negotiate.
I loathe secondary legislation that amends primary legislation expressed in Acts of Parliament. It is an odious practice that has entered the legislative process in this House—this is by no means the first Bill that contains so-called Henry VIII clauses—but I can justify such powers as a basis for reversing the effects of our membership of the EU. It may seem to be an irony, but it is by the process of secondary legislation that we have been gradually integrated into the EU.
We have seen order after order coming under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. More often than not, it was a “take it or take it” option: we did not even have a “take it or leave it” option once it was expressed in EU law. The advantages of allowing secondary legislation under this Bill are that, first, the legislation will ultimately be answerable to the House; secondly, the powers are temporary; thirdly, they can be subject to revision or annulment at any future time; and finally, they are underpinned by the democratic authority of a referendum.
On a “take it or leave it” vote, I do not remember debating a single new treaty that was offered to the House on the basis that we could amend the treaty by passing an Act of Parliament. Whether to accept the Lisbon treaty was a “take it or leave it” decision. We were told that if we did not accept the treaty, it would create such chaos that it would force us to leave the EU.
I do not doubt the bona fides of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and others on the Government Benches, but my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) exposed very ably the fact that there are people in the House who want to use amendment 7 as a means to extend the negotiation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe was absolutely explicit on that point. I appreciate that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), did his best to avoid answering the question, but he made it clear that he thinks the deadline will have to be extended.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
I thought for a moment that my hon. Friend meant all that stuff about my challenging the result of the referendum.
Mr Clarke
I am sorry; I misheard my hon. Friend. I do not think for one moment that we will have completed any of these negotiations by March 2019, but I will wait to see. There are perfectly clear arrangements in article 50 for the time to be extended. I have met several other European politicians, including some of those involved in the negotiations, who rather expect that to happen.
Mr Jenkin
As I say, it is not something that we can bank on.
May I just deal with this question of what is a meaningful vote? I cannot find anything clearer than the ministerial statement that was issued this morning. It says that
“the Government has committed to hold a vote on the final deal in Parliament as soon as possible after the negotiations have concluded.”
It continues:
“This vote will take the form of a resolution in both Houses of Parliament and will cover both the withdrawal agreement and the terms for our future relationship. The Government will not implement any parts of the withdrawal agreement—for example by using clause 9 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill—until after this vote has taken place.”
That seems to provide the assurances that my right hon. and learned Friend is looking for and that the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice has repeated already from the Dispatch Box.
Anna Soubry
Does my hon. Friend agree that, to be meaningful, there has to be some time between that vote and such time as we leave the European Union? That is the whole point. A meaningful vote comes before something that is basically to be rubber-stamped. That is the whole point of “meaningful”. When does he anticipate that we will have that vote?
Mr Jenkin
The right hon. Lady knows as well as I do that the intention is to try to conclude an agreement by October 2018, but, again, there is no guarantee of that fact, in which case the resolution will be tabled soon after 2018. May I just point out that amendment 7, proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, is trying to create a meaningful vote by turning this resolution of both Houses into a statute?
Mr Jenkin
Yes, a statute has been promised, but not as a means of second-guessing the negotiations. At what stage in the passage of the statute does my right hon. and learned Friend expect the Government to use that moment and say, “Oh, well, they haven’t agreed with this bit of the agreement; we’ll have to go back.” Is it during the passage of the statute that the negotiations would have to continue? Making this decision a statute does not alter the discussion about a meaningful vote.
Mr Grieve
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I think that he may misunderstand the position. The House will have an opportunity, at the time that it is asked to move a motion approving the deal, to express its view, but it will also have an opportunity to express its view during the passage of the statute. Both those are necessary pre-conditions constitutionally for our leaving the European Union. I cannot help that; that is just how it is. Let me reiterate: the purpose of my amendment is to prevent the powers in clause 9 being used until this key statute has been enacted. That is the purpose.
John Redwood
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a process completely driven by Parliament? We have an Act of Parliament to send the letter, an Act of Parliament proposed now to withdraw and then another Act of Parliament to implement any agreement. The whole thing is completely under parliamentary sovereignty. Will he also confirm that we must have the date in the Bill to ensure legal continuity, as, under international law, we are leaving at the end of March because of the treaty?
Mr Jenkin
It is wishful thinking that the deadline will be extended. Where I disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield is over the fact that, somehow, he thinks that the withdrawal agreement is necessary for us to leave the European Union and that the statute for the agreement is therefore necessary. Unfortunately, it is not. He voted for article 50, which triggered the process of leaving. Everything else is for our domestic legislation. Let us hope that there is a withdrawal agreement, but, actually, this Bill is what is necessary to provide legal continuity. Unfortunately, requiring another Act of Parliament before provisions of this Bill come into effect is just muddying the waters.
As the Minister has already demonstrated very forcefully, this is not an effective amendment. If my right hon. and learned Friend wants to table a different amendment, as colleagues almost seem to be suggesting, that might be a way to resolve this. I beg my right hon. and hon. Friends on this point. There is a summit tomorrow. This is not the moment to try to defeat the Government—[Interruption.]
Angus Brendan MacNeil
On a point of order, Mrs Laing. Are summits now to be sovereign over Parliament?
Anna Soubry
On a point of order, Mrs Laing. I will put up with all sorts of things, but I will not have an hon. Member saying that I have said things that I have not said. Will my hon. Friend retract what he said, because I have not said, “It’s too late”? What I have said is that we have been speaking to the Government for months. This matter was first raised in this place in February and we are still waiting for a resolution.
The First Deputy Chairman
The right hon. Lady knows that that is not a point of order. It is a point of debate. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) is about to conclude his speech, and the more that other hon. Members shout at him and interrupt him, the less chance other Members will have to speak.
Mr Jenkin
I think that some people in this House might be trying to delay Brexit, some of whom may be supporting the amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, but I perfectly accept his bona fides and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage. I simply conclude that there is an opportunity for the discussions to continue. It is not necessary to bring this matter to a vote this evening.
Chuka Umunna
I will try to do this in three minutes, and I have three principal points. I do not want to speak for long because the points I will make in support of amendment 7 and new clause 3 have already been made very well by the right hon. and learned Members for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), my right hon. Friends the Members for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), and others.
My first point is that if taking back control does not mean passing amendment 7, I do not know what does. We were told that we were leaving the European Union to reassert parliamentary sovereignty, and it seems to me that that is exactly what amendment 7 would do. Clearly, the Government are refusing to accept it. We have heard nothing from the Dispatch Box that suggests that they are prepared to concede on this, forcing the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield to press the amendment to a vote. That brings me to my second point.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman and others who are supporting his amendment have been attacked, as he mentioned earlier, not just in this place, but beyond. They have been called mutineers and saboteurs, and have faced all the rest of the abuse. Ministers and other Tory Members of Parliament in particular who have been attacking them have absolutely no right whatever to do so because the reason that the right hon. and learned Gentleman tabled his amendment was that he felt that it was in the national interest.
Now, the Brexit Secretary has voted against his party over 90 times. The International Trade Secretary has done so 19 times; the International Development Secretary, five times; and the Leader of the House, who was here earlier, seven times. Actually, look around the Government Benches. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) has voted against his party 73 times; the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), 64 times; the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), 95 times; and we cannot, of course, forget the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who has voted against his party more than 100 times. So none of these people can now lecture people who are seeking to do the right thing in the national interest on this amendment. None of them can lecture people about rebelling on this or any other matter.
Antoinette Sandbach
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is deeply insulting for those who have time and again voted against their Prime Minister and their Government to suggest in this crucial Bill, which will help to set the future course of this country, that it would be wrong for us to do the proper scrutiny and to apply for votes in this House?
Chuka Umunna
I could not agree more with the hon. Lady. She is absolutely right.
As my third point, before I quickly wrap up, I want to be absolutely clear about what I believe we mean when we talk about a meaningful vote. For all the technical points that have been made from the Dispatch Box today and for all the high-quality legal debate we have had in this Chamber, the fact of the matter is that we cannot have a meaningful vote on the terms of our withdrawal unless it comes before we leave the European Union. Nothing said from the Government Dispatch Box today or at any other time has committed us to ensuring that we have that vote before we leave.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, who is no longer in his place, talked about time. The reason for the third part of article 50 allowing for an extension is so that people can extend the time if they run out of time to make the practical arrangements for a country’s withdrawal from the European Union. With all due respect to the Minister and his seven years as a Foreign Office lawyer, or whatever his experience, we do not know, unless we ask the question, whether we will be able to get the extension provided for in that article. It is pure speculation on his part to suggest that, somehow, if we run out of time by 29 March 2018, our EU partners will not be reasonable enough to grant us the time to follow the correct procedures in this Parliament.
In a way, my final point was made just now by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach). We have a duty as legislators to properly scrutinise things that come before us. We will not be forgiven by future generations—of course, many of these people did not vote for us to leave the European Union—unless we scrutinise what the Government are doing to ensure that we get the best deal for these people. Of course, there are many issues that weigh on our shoulders. Everybody here will say they are acting in the national interest, and they act on behalf of their constituents, but let us be honest: there are other issues that always play on people’s minds. How will this affect me and my political journey? How will it affect my party? However, the hon. Lady was absolutely right: this is one of those moments when we have to do the right thing by the country—and nothing else.
Mr Baron
I rise to address amendment 7, in particular, which I hope the Committee will reject if it is put to a vote. However, may I first quickly put on record an exchange I had with the Father of the House—I am sorry he is not in the Chamber. In his usual courteous manner, he suggested that I had misquoted him when I said he had once said:
“I look forward to the day when the Westminster Parliament is just a council chamber in Europe.”
He suggested I had got the quote from social media, but, in reality, it is given in volume 23 of the International Currency Review from 1996. I thought it wise to put that right, if only for the record.
I note the amendment in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), and I see that he is also not in the Chamber. He once suggested that, having been the only Conservative to vote against going into Libya, I was leading the charmed life of a rebel. I think he now knows that when we vote against our Government, we are not leading a charmed life—it is a pretty awkward situation sometimes, and I think he is now finding that out for himself.
Amendment 7 has several flaws. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) set out a number of them. He also spoke about the importance of having clarity of intention when addressing this issue, but I want to raise an additional point that has not been covered. Amendment 7 is fundamentally flawed because it leaves open at least the possibility—given that the EU does not, in reality, want any member to leave—that as there would be no incentive for the EU to negotiate a good deal that this Parliament could accept, we could find ourselves in a permanent state of limbo, deadlocked in unproductive negotiations for months and months with no incentive for the other side to pursue a constructive deal. Members should reflect hard on that practical flaw as they go through the Lobby, assuming that the amendment is put to the vote.
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the incentive would be to make sure that the deal was as bad as possible so that we would be left in a limbo whereby we cannot leave, yet cannot move on?
Mr Baron
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are trying to negotiate a good deal, but it takes two to tango. The amendment leaves open the door for the other side not to try to negotiate a good deal, knowing that it could drag out the negotiations and therefore prevent, at least until this Parliament were to accept the deal, our leaving the EU. If that was the case—
Mr Baron
I will in a second if I can just finish my point.
If that was the case, it would be an outrage with regard to the result of the EU referendum, in which over 17 million people voted to leave with the best possible deal. Those 17 million people had no third option on the ballot paper. There was not an option of staying in a semi-permanent state of negotiating limbo while talks progressed over a period of months and maybe years; it was a very clear yes or no. In addition, such a limbo—
Antoinette Sandbach
I am slightly confused by the point that my hon. Friend is making. I thought that taking back control meant taking back control to this Parliament, but that is clearly not his argument. In fact, he almost seems to distrust parliamentarians, despite the fact that we voted for the referendum and to trigger article 50.
Mr Baron
I can help my hon. Friend with her confusion, because the point is very simple. If an amendment suggests that the option is left open for the other side in any negotiation not to negotiate in good faith, so that this Parliament does not sanction the deal because it is not a good deal, that will delay our exit. It is very straightforward. It takes two to tango in a negotiation. I suggest that she reflects on that.
While most of us want a deal, those who criticise the Prime Minister’s position that no deal is better than a bad deal create a series of straw men to support their case. The term “no deal” itself is something of a misnomer, because it creates the idea of some sort of cliff edge. Nothing could be further from the truth. Trade flows regardless of trade deals. The UK would simply revert to using the same WTO rules that govern its trade with countries such as the United States, China, Australia, New Zealand and Brazil—hardly unimportant countries.
As for the trade deals themselves, the next straw man is the suggestion that the UK would find it difficult to negotiate them in sufficient time. If Australia can negotiate trade deals with China, South Korea and Japan within 18 months, there is no reason why the UK cannot do likewise. If anything, a trade deal with the EU will be easy to negotiate because many of the trade barriers have already been removed.
The suggestion that inward investment would suffer without a trade deal is another straw man. That is to ignore the fact that investment is about relative advantage, as anybody who has worked in the City or in industry will understand. Our much lower corporation tax rates, our more flexible labour market practices and policies, the strength of our R and D and science, our language and our time zone more than compensate for having to pay an average WTO tariff of 3% to 5%, particularly given that the currency has already depreciated.
Tonight I will be supporting the Government and rejecting amendment 7. The Prime Minister has been very clear that we will be leaving the EU—that includes the customs union and the single market—in March 2019, and that the European Court of Justice will have no further jurisdiction over British law. I support the stance that no deal is better than a bad deal, and that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. That includes any proposed financial settlement.
My final point is that there is another reason why I support the Government, and it relates to trust. We are not privy to the ups and downs or the ins and outs of the negotiations, so one has to make a judgment as to whether the individuals concerned are honourable. I believe the Prime Minister to be honourable in what she has said. Having known the Ministers involved for many years, I also trust them to deliver the best possible deal. I suggest that those who support proposals such as amendment 7 should trust the EU a little less and their own Government a little more. Our Government have, after all, made concessions in good faith.
Tom Brake
Perhaps I could suggest a handicap system for Members who observe the advisory time limit on speeches.
If the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) thinks that the European Union is keen to drag things out, he has clearly not spoken to many EU diplomats. They want this to be over; they are not as obsessed with Brexit as he might be.
I commend the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) for his rational discourse in relation to amendment 7. Unlike me, he cannot be described as wanting to stop Brexit. He does not want to, but I do—democratically, with a vote on the deal. That is covered by amendment 120, which we will vote on next Wednesday. But he and I are certainly in the same place when it comes to the importance of parliamentary sovereignty, and legislative rigour and accuracy. He set out cogent arguments in favour of amendment 7, and he described the extent to which he has bent over backwards in the last few weeks to try to secure agreement from the Government on a way forward, but failed to do so.
The Minister’s main argument against amendment 7 was time pressure. The Government have, to a great extent, inflicted that problem on themselves, whether through the general election that they called, by triggering article 50 when they did, or by refusing to entertain the option of extending the article 50 process. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) said that EU had not offered such an extension but, as I understand it, the UK has at no point ever asked for one. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield set out a very neat solution to the problem that the Government outlined, and the Minister did not manage to convince the very experienced senior Members who were sitting behind him. He might not have seen it, but the body language and facial expressions of those behind him reinforced the point that, frankly, the Government have not deployed very cogent arguments in favour of opposing amendment 7. I look forward to voting on that amendment, and to Parliament taking back control.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I will not be voting for article 7, because I think it is a mistake—[Interruption.] I am extremely grateful; I mean amendment 7. The amendment calls for legislation to be put in afterwards, which is a very unusual thing for a Bill to do—I believe it is unprecedented. If people do not like clause 9, they should vote against it, rather than voting for this unusual amendment.
I want to make it clear, however, that I very much accept the good faith of those who argue for amendment 7. Those of us who opposed the Government when they were very pro-European should not criticise Members such as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve)—Disraeli pronounced the constituency name slightly differently—when they decide to take the reverse position of the one we took in previous years. What they are doing is completely reasonable.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a quite natural solution, which is to put the assurance given at the Dispatch Box into the clause when the Bill comes back on Report?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend’s speech was absolutely brilliant. He got to the heart of all these matters, and indeed he provided a solution, which is that there should be such a good-spirited compromise that places some faith in the Government, as it is reasonable for Members of Parliament to do. We should recognise that it is better to have a clear response on Report that covers the whole problem than to agree an amendment that is constitutionally abnormal, because we should not agree to such amendments.
I follow the Minister’s argument that there are circumstances in which clause 9 could be useful. If an agreement comes relatively late on, I understand that there will be an urgency in getting statutory instruments presented. There also will be a Prorogation before May 2019, so there might be a delay in the proceedings on the withdrawal and implementation Bill and therefore a need for urgent action. If we pass a motion, as may be legislatively required, to accept the proposed statutory instruments, that will both maintain parliamentary control and give the Government the flexibility that they are likely to need.
This issue becomes very significant because, as we leave, we will want legislative continuity and clarity. The date has been set, and that has been debated, but the key is that the date has been set by previous decisions of Parliament. It is in no sense an erosion of parliamentary sovereignty, because the date is set out in the Act triggering article 50 and in the Act incorporating the Lisbon treaty into UK law. The timeframe was set under voluntary Acts of Parliament requiring things to be done by 29 March 2019. It therefore follows that there is some pressure on time, so it is perfectly reasonable for the Government to ask for such flexibility.
I conclude on the vote at the end—the final meaningful vote. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), as he so often does, made an elegant point when he said that this is a metaphysical decision for us about the meaning of meaning. The issue is that Her Majesty’s Government have already promised that we will have a vote on the deal before the European Parliament does, but there is no deal until the European Parliament has voted. The European Parliament has to agree to the deal—as part of the article 50 package, this is decided by an enhanced qualified majority vote, subject to the approval of the European Parliament—but we have already been promised a vote before the matter is voted on by the European Parliament.
Anna Soubry
My hon. Friend is probably right, but my understanding is that the definition of withdrawal agreement clearly says “whether ratified or not”, so we do not have to follow the European Parliament. However, unless we get a meaningful vote, it may well end up being able to vote on something that, frankly, we will not be able to vote on.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but the Government have already said that we will have a chance to vote on the withdrawal agreement before the European Parliament.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Well, that vote must by its nature be meaningful. As we know, it is very easy to have a meaningful vote: we just table an Humble Address, and then it is binding on Her Majesty’s Government, as is quite clear from all previous parliamentary and constitutional procedure. We can engineer a meaningful vote even if the Government are trying to be a bit slippery, which I happen to doubt very much, because I think Her Majesty’s Government would never dream of being slippery—they would not know how to be slippery. It is hard to think of a Government in the whole of history being slippery.
In the whole schedule leading to the ratification and approval of the withdrawal agreement, there is a requirement for a vote in this House. There is also a requirement, now agreed with the European Union, that there will be a withdrawal and implementation Bill—[Interruption.] I am sorry that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) is getting impatient, but this is a very important matter. The rights of Parliament will absolutely and clearly be preserved, and I hope that Her Majesty’s Government will listen to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, because his is a solution with which I think everybody can be happy.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
The votes we will have at 7 o’clock will be the most important since this House voted to trigger article 50. Those of us who want to have any real influence over how we leave the EU must vote for a meaningful vote in Parliament. That is not being guaranteed. We will not have a meaningful vote on either the initial withdrawal agreement and the very broad terms—which is all they will be—of our future relationship with the EU, or the full agreement governing our future relationship with the EU, which the Government have finally admitted can be legally concluded only once the UK has left the EU.
On the first issue, all that is being offered is a take-it-or-leave-it vote on whatever the Government agree, with no guarantee that the actual vote will take place before exit day. The written ministerial statement is clear that the legislation—not the vote—
“will be introduced before the UK exits the EU”.
In reality, it will be a choice between giving the Government a blank cheque and in effect turning this Parliament into a rubber stamp, or taking a leap into the abyss.
What meaningful say will this House have if the alternative to rubber-stamping the Government’s deal is no transition agreement, meaning that our businesses will face a cliff edge; no deal for EU citizens living here or for UK citizens abroad; and no deal on the Irish border, which is so vital for protecting the Good Friday agreement? The sword of Damocles is over our heads, and we should say no.
A meaningful vote would give this House sufficient time and mean that it would not face a last-minute threat. It would give this House the power to send the Government back to the negotiating table, and the power to request that the remaining EU27 extend the article 50 deadline if we needed to get a better deal. That is also why it is so important not to have a fixed time and date in the Bill—because we may well need all the flexibility we can get.
The final overall trade deal with the EU will govern the UK’s future relationship with the EU for decades to come, but what is on offer is even worse. The written ministerial statement says that
“the agreement governing our future relationship…may take the form of a single agreement or a number of agreements covering different aspects of the relationship.”
It is pretty clear what will happen in the EU27 countries. The statement says that
“agreements on the future relationship are likely to require the consent of the European Parliament and conclusion by the Council. If both the EU and Member States are exercising their competences in an agreement, Member States will also need to ratify it.”
What do we get here? The statement says that the Government will introduce further legislation only
“where it is needed to implement the terms of the future relationship”.
There is no guarantee of any legislation, apart from when the Government deem it necessary, and there is no ability to disagree to or amend those deals, only to implement them.
That is unacceptable. MPs must have a meaningful vote on the initial withdrawal agreement and on the future trade agreement or agreements—and that must be on the face of the Bill. Nothing that the Prime Minister or the Brexit Minister have said today, or in the Brexit Secretary’s written ministerial statement, have addressed those concerns at all. Even if they had, words and assurances are not enough. The Prime Minister is not in a position to give us those assurances—indeed, no one on the Government Front Bench is, because they may not be there when our future trade and other deals with the EU are agreed. It will be many years before that happens. They have not addressed any of those points, and I say to hon. Members on both the Opposition and Government Benches that this is the time to put country before party. If we want an influence and a say over the future of this country, I urge them to vote for amendment 7.
George Freeman
This House and the people voted to leave in the referendum, and I respect that. Like the vast majority of hon. Members across the House, I am committed to making a success of Brexit in the spirit of a Brexit that works for the whole country. I strongly support the Prime Minister in her endeavours, her Lancaster House speech and her Florence speech. Indeed, I was proud that my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) described me as a model convert to the cause. We have to show those who did not vote for Brexit that this is a moment of national renewal that will inspire renewal economically, culturally and politically. That brings us to clause 9.
The people of Mid Norfolk voted to bring powers back to Parliament. They want Parliament to be given the powers to scrutinise legislation, and they want to stop the process of European legislation too often passing through unscrutinised and this House passing bad legislation. Do not take it from me, take it from my hon. Friends who I suspect I am going to disagree with tonight. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) put it beautifully:
“This referendum gives the British people the great opportunity to restore their precious but damaged democracy.”
He went on to say that
“the sovereignty of the British people required a sovereign Parliament that they could dismiss and they could influence”—[Official Report, 9 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 1099.]
in the legislation that we pass. Clause 9 goes right to the heart of whether we have that power. Do not take it from me, take it from the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which has argued that clause 9 could enable significant constitutional rights, such as the rights of EU citizens resident in the UK, to be implemented in domestic law by negative procedure regulations, even if that requires amendments to primary legislation. The Committee also criticised clause 9 for providing the ability to amend provisions of the Bill through secondary legislation, saying that it was “wholly unacceptable”. The report argues that clause 9 is the widest Henry VIII power in the Bill.
It is for those reasons, I think, that we have heard doubts about the clause this afternoon, in a most fascinating debate, from hon. Members who, like me, support the Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) described the clause as containing “mischief” and urged the Government to take heed and recommend a compromise. The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) has said very eloquently and very consistently that he is not comfortable with the clause. We all know what happened—the clause was drafted before the Government, laudably, promised to give this House a vote. That having been done, as my right hon. and learned Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald), a former Attorney General and a former Solicitor General, have made clear in legal terms rather more powerfully than I can, the clause makes no sense.
This afternoon we have heard Back Benchers on all sides ask Ministers to provide clarity on why these extraordinary powers are needed. We have not heard the answer. In such circumstances, the all-important trust that goes right to the heart of this issue—between Back Benchers and Front Benchers, between Parliament and the Executive, and between the people and their Parliament—is stretched. Those who fear a conspiracy against Brexit—a conspiracy to use the scrutiny they have fought so hard against them. However, to turn that back around on those of us who want to reassure the people of this country that this is not a conspiracy against them but a moment of renewal inverts the logic of this moment. To hear only a traditional stubbornness from the Front Bench—one that I have shared in my time on the Front Bench; we know the brief, with civil servants saying, “Don’t give an inch”—without any reason or explanation is worrying. If this was simply some technocratic measure to do with a minor implementation of minor secondary legislation, I dare say the Committee would not be worried, but this is a Committee of the whole House for good reason: this goes right to the heart of the protection of our liberties. One of the worst aspects of the problem we are all trying to solve is Parliament passing legislation without scrutinising it.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Temporary Chair (Sir David Crausby)
Order. I remind Members that if they keep their contributions short, more hon. Members will be called.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Brexit has had many titles, but in my view it is fast becoming the Laurel and Hardy Brexit, because it is one never-ending fine mess—a multifaceted fine mess, indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) keeps a running total on how time is passing. It is 530 days since the Brexit vote, when apparently all the voters knew what they were voting for, yet we are still working out what it meant—there are Committees in this place trying to work out what it meant. He also tells me that there are 470 days to go before the cliff edge. The fine mess and the vanity are coinciding with the Government’s avoidance of a meaningful vote. They are tied to the timescale of article 50 as laid out in the Lisbon treaty—a strange place for a Brexiteer Government to be.
To me, it is pretty obvious. If the vote is between a deal and a crash-out, a deal wins. If the vote is between a deal and the status quo, with access to the single market, the status quo wins. Surely nobody is going to put the country—our constituents, themselves and their families—into a worse situation than we have now or raise the possibility of higher trade tariffs with up to 94 countries, as well the base load of the 27 EU countries. Another question: is this going to be a transition deal or a maintenance deal? Last Monday, the Prime Minister said she did not want two cliff edges, so it looks as if there is going to be a maintenance deal.
Opponents of amendment 7 are treating it as if it somehow aims to block Brexit or remove powers from their hands. It does not block Brexit. This is a Brexiteer Parliament, unfortunately. It is rolling over to article 50. Both Front-Bench teams want out of the single market and out of the customs union. The amendment, tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), would put power in the hands of parliamentarians. To reject the amendment would be like setting sail on a cruise liner, striking an iceberg and finding out you had refused to bring any lifeboats. The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) fears that the other side will not be incentivised to make a deal. If that situation arises, deal with it then—do not tie our hands now for the sake of actions we might want to take in the future. The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) finds himself deferring, I think, to the European Parliament, which is a very interesting thing.
My final plea tonight is to wider society. As Chair of the International Trade Committee, I have companies coming to me moaning and telling me about Brexit. They have to step up to the plate and take part in this debate. We should have had impact assessments tonight, but we did not get any—they are more elusive than Donald Trump’s tax returns. Companies in the City have to start informing this debate. They should have been doing it before now, because it would have helped tonight. My plea is aimed at boardrooms across the UK: they must get their voices heard, because if they do not, they will go down with this lot here.
Sir Oliver Heald
Parliament should have a meaningful vote on the EU withdrawal agreement before it is implemented. Clause 9, which is the subject of amendment 7, allows Ministers to implement the EU withdrawal agreement by secondary legislation. That was always a mistake. The courts were never going to accept a situation whereby the EU withdrawal agreement was brought into our law by secondary legislation—major constitutional legislation brought in by statutory instrument.
The Government, to be fair, acknowledged that. After presenting the Bill to Parliament, there came a point where they said, “No, we will need a Bill to implement the EU withdrawal agreement.” That is right, but what a mess. In my view, Parliament is entitled to have a meaningful vote on the agreement before the powers in clause 9 are used, so there needs to be a trigger in clause 9; otherwise, once the Government have reached agreement with the EU, they would be able just to start laying legislation.
Of course, we have had some welcome commitments tonight and during the day, but on something as important as this, where there are very significant powers involved, I feel that as parliamentarians and lawmakers we should have a say and the Bill should reflect what the Government are saying. If they are saying, as I believe they are, that what I have described will not happen until Parliament has approved the agreement, it should say that in the Bill. Indeed, it was noticeable that those who do not agree with the amendment, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), all agree that the provisions are flawed. It has been some time now that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) has been saying, “Come forward with your own amendment, O Government, so that this is in the right order and it has the protections that lawmakers would expect in the Bill.”
I am sad to vote, as I am going to, for article 7—[Interruption.] I said “article”, just like my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset. I am sad to vote for amendment 7, but I feel I should and that it is an important principle that, when we make the law, we get it right in the Bill.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I rise to speak to amendment 355, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends and sets out our position that an affirmative vote by devolved bodies prior to enactment is required.
If the process of Brexit could be summed up in one word, it would be “control”. For me, taking back control also means bringing the exercise of powers as close as possible to the people. The final deal will be subject to ratification by all EU member states, the EU Parliament and sub-state parliaments, variously numbered at 33, 37 or 38—take your pick. By the same token, I believe that the constituent parts of the UK should have the same final say as our counterparts in the EU. The final deal with the EU should be approved in statute passed by both the Westminster Parliament and the devolved Administrations, hence amendment 355.
We have repeated our arguments many times for remaining in the European single market and customs union. Wales’s goods-based, export-led economy relies on its close links with the EU single market, with 67% of all Welsh exports going to the EU and the single market sustaining 200,000 jobs. We already know that the stakes are high for Wales, so Wales must have a stake and a say in the final deal. I will not revisit the arguments I have made during previous debates on the Bill about the constitutional intricacies of the Sewel convention, but I wish to say to my Labour friends that not giving the devolved Governments a stake in the final deal risks subjecting our nation to policies, and indeed an ideology, that have so far caused our country grievous harm.
To conclude these brief remarks, the whole argument boils down to control. Following the referendum, the principle of returning control is not at issue. What is at issue is where that control lies. The minority Government party asserts that finally control rests here and here alone, but if the UK is a shared enterprise, based on mutual respect between Westminster and the devolved Governments, that party should also accept my amendment 355, which, to adapt a phrase from the Father of the House, is the fundamental minimum for a devolved parliamentary democracy.
Kevin Hollinrake
I have listened carefully to the many esoteric legal arguments that have been advanced this evening. I am afraid that my comments will be far more prosaic and practical. I was on the remain side of the referendum debate, but, like most of my colleagues, I am now focusing on trying to secure the best possible deal, and that deal must centre on what a meaningful vote would be.
What does “a meaningful vote” mean? If it means “deal or no deal”, I think that that is a recipe for securing the best possible deal, but if it means “deal or no deal, or go back to the negotiating table”, perhaps indefinitely and with no time limit, I think that that is counterproductive. It would be detrimental, and would undermine our negotiating position. I am not suggesting for a second that that is the desire of those who promote a meaningful vote of that kind, but I think that that would be the effect.
Rather than looking only at the legal context, we need also to look at the political, economic and financial contexts. Of course the negotiations were always going to be difficult after 44 years of integration with the European Union, but they will also be difficult because of the European Union’s position. The EU clearly does not want us to leave, which is understandable for some of the reasons that I have given, but also, primarily, it does not want others to leave, and that must be its priority during the negotiations. If this were a marriage of equals and therefore a divorce of equals, that meaningful vote with those three different options would be fine, but that is not where we are. Of course, the EU also recognises that 75% of Members of Parliament were on the remain side of the argument.
We have to look at the EU’s perspective as well as that of the UK, which is why I think that the Prime Minister was not only right to offer a fair deal in her Florence speech, but right to say that we would not be afraid to walk away with no deal. That gives the EU one chance to get this right, whereas a meaningful vote-plus would give the EU many, many chances to get this right—to give the worst possible deal to get it right. Its incentive would be to put the worst deal on the table initially, knowing that Parliament would reject it and keep going back to the table. That cannot be the right negotiating position.
None of us wants to leave on the basis of no deal. WTO rules would clearly not be in the country’s interests, and it would not be in my own interests outside Parliament either. Nevertheless, I do not want to be locked into an organisation that simply will not let us leave other than on disadvantageous terms.
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Let me say to him that—reflecting the mood of the Committee, having taken advice, and, in particular, having listened very carefully to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin)—the Government are willing to return on Report with an amendment on the face of the Bill clarifying the undertaking and assurance that I gave in my speech that statutory instruments under clause 9 will not come into force until we have had a meaningful vote in Parliament.
Kevin Hollinrake
I hope that the Minister’s intervention will satisfy some of my colleagues.
Let me end by saying that I will be supporting the Government this evening. In my view, it is time for us to grit our teeth and simply get on with it.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
I rise to speak about my amendments 293, 294 and 295, which deal with the issue of who decides exit day, but rather than making the speech that I originally prepared, I will keep my remarks brief and broad.
The Prime Minister’s decision to set the exit date and to write it into law is another panic move, and it puts her into a self-tying straitjacket. It is a sop to the hard Brexiteers, and it creates a rod for the negotiators’ backs. It weakens, rather than strengthens, the UK’s position in the crucial nine months that are left for us to negotiate a good deal. Eighteen months after the referendum, we have seen the bluff and bluster on the withdrawal agreement. The Foreign Secretary has gone from telling our European partners to go whistle to being little Tommy Tucker singing for his supper to the tune of £40 billion. We have seen a tug of war take place on EU citizens’ rights, and a deal on no hard border with Ireland taking place in frantic late-night phone calls—a deal that the Brexit Secretary later undermined by calling it a mere “statement of intent”, which has caused all sorts of problems.
Antoinette Sandbach
Throughout the referendum campaign, leave campaigners spoke about taking back control, and it was seemingly a powerful message that resonated with the electorate. There is no doubt that the message, which was one of the crucial undertones of the campaign, meant bringing powers back to this Parliament, not to the Executive. That is why amendment 7 is so crucial.
It may be stating the obvious, but it cannot be reiterated enough that the Government are presiding over a monumental task of immense importance for the future of this country. In any such change, it is imperative that Parliament maintains close scrutiny and oversight of the process—of all aspects of the withdrawal agreement, from security co-operation to ease of trade with our European partners—so that we, as Members of Parliament, can best represent our constituents. These aspects must be scrutinised and debated by this House. If we are not given a say on that detail, we cannot fulfil our responsibilities to our constituents, and those responsibilities are the most motivating factor behind my support for a meaningful vote on the deal.
Clause 9 provides sweeping powers to the Government to deal with some residual situation, as the Minister described it, that he would like to retain control over. I am afraid that I am not willing to vote to give away the parliamentary sovereignty that I exercise on behalf of my constituents for some residual control to the Executive. If the Minister needs that power in relation to the withdrawal Bill, he needs to come back to this House and ask for it and explain why. I am afraid I found his explanation at the Dispatch Box today utterly unconvincing. Although I am grateful for the indication he has given about Report stage, unless that amendment is submitted in manuscript now, or amendment 7 is accepted, I will vote for amendment 7 tonight.
We have been pushing discussions with this Government for weeks and we have made our point very clear. I fully back the Prime Minister. I support her in trying to get the best deal for Britain, but I will not give away parliamentary sovereignty to the Executive on the basis of a request for them to have residual powers in this Bill.
Mr Grieve
While I was briefly out of the Chamber, an announcement was made of a Government concession, but I have to say, it is too late. I am sorry, but you cannot treat the House in this fashion. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) may agree with me that the best way of getting progress in this area is by moving amendment 7 and thereafter we can co-operate with the Government in trying to achieve its aim.
Stephen Kinnock
I rise to support amendment 7, tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). I have listened with great interest to all the excellent speeches and interventions by right hon. and hon. Members this afternoon and, for me, three key themes have emerged. First, there is real disagreement about the meaning of “meaningful”. Secondly, there is confusion about the terms of article 50. Thirdly, there is an issue of trust.
On the first point, it is crystal clear that this vote cannot be meaningful if it is binary. It has to be taken on the basis of us having an opportunity to instruct the Government to extend article 50 if necessary. On the second point, article 50 clearly gives the Government the opportunity to seek an extension of the period, and there is no reason whatever why the EU27 would reject that request. It is enshrined in the treaties, and for that to have meaning, they would clearly have to listen to our request. Why on earth would they not accept that request if it was in our mutual interest to do so?
Anna Soubry
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a moment comes in one’s life when, on the most important issue that this nation has faced in decades, we have to set aside party differences and even party loyalty and be true to our principles and to what we believe in? It could be that that moment is now.
Stephen Kinnock
I agree absolutely with the right hon. Lady. I pay tribute to her and to a range of other right hon. and hon. Members across the House. This is not an easy choice to make. It is always difficult in these circumstances when there is a huge amount of interest and focus on what we are about to do in this House. It is essential that hon. Members stick with their principles, and sometimes that means putting country before party. I pay tribute to every right hon. and hon. Member who will do that this evening. This is indeed a matter of trust. The challenge that we face is that if this provision is not put on the face of the Bill, we will not have the confidence and the assurance that we in this place can indeed take back control and reassert the sovereignty of this place, which is what 17 million people voted for on 23 June 2016.
Stephen Kinnock
I am afraid I must push on, because we are moving towards the deadline.
Having paid tribute to those right hon. and hon. Members for what they are doing this evening, I commend the terms of amendment 7 to the Committee. I will be honoured to go through the Division Lobby with those right hon. and hon. Members this evening.
Charlie Elphicke
The Committee will know that, from my point of view, we cannot get out of the European Union fast enough. Time and again, I have said that we need to be ready on day one and be prepared for every eventuality, deal or no deal—or, should I say, regional deal or global deal—but we must remember why we are taking back control. It is because of the vision we have for our country and because of our values. Those values include the rule of law, natural justice and the sovereignty of Parliament. The rule of law exists to ensure that executive power is not abused, and that is why I object to clause 9. It is not right that a measure of this sort should be put through by any form of statutory instrument.
I welcome the fact that the Government are going to bring forward a withdrawal agreement and an implementation Bill, and nothing I have heard today has indicated to me any sense of urgency or any reason why a statutory instrument will need to be put through in a hurry. As far as I am concerned, I am prepared to stay up all night long to pass legislation to get us out of the European Union as soon as possible. For that reason, I urge the Government to withdraw clause 9, and I have to say that I will not be able to support it on stand part.
Mr Lammy
I am coming up to my 18th year in the House. During that time, we have had serious votes on going to war in Iraq and in Syria, and on different occasions, parliamentary sovereignty has asserted itself. On the war in Iraq, we thought we had the information, but it turned out that we did not, and we went to war. On Syria, despite some strong arguments to intervene, we chose not to. I also remember sitting through the night for the 90-day detention legislation under Tony Blair, and this House resisted the move to a 90-day detention period for those arrested for terrorism offences. Tonight, we are again being asked to make a very important decision that will affect the future of this country.
I might say that the sovereignty of this Parliament is why we are here in the first place, so I applaud the Government Members who are standing by their principles and remembering the importance of coming back to debate in this House. This is about timing. We may have had a discussion about what is meaningful, but I think we all know what is meaningless. It is meaningless to have a debate and a vote in this House after the decision is made. For all those reasons, I hope that we will return after the vote on amendment 7 and find that we really have given back sovereignty to the UK Parliament.
Vicky Ford
The Government have now made it clear that the House will have a final meaningful vote on the EU withdrawal agreement before the UK leaves, which is extraordinarily important because the last point in the process of withdrawal is actually the vote in the European Parliament. My former colleagues—the ones who are trying to help us get an amicable agreement in that Parliament—have told me that unless there is a full democratic process here, there will be people who try to scupper the deal in that last vote in the European Parliament. The rest of the world is watching how we legislate, and transparency is important.
I am new to British legislation, but I have heard it time and again from Members as diverse as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) that the powers in clause 9 are inappropriate, too strong and could mean that the Government are able to make material changes to legislation without a scrutiny process before we leave. I am therefore extremely pleased that the Minister made his announcement at the last minute. If he would like to, I would love him to intervene once more to ensure that everybody has heard exactly what he said.
Dominic Raab
I am delighted to intervene again and, reflecting the mood of the House, I can tell my hon. Friend that we are willing to return on Report to put an amendment on the face of the Bill making it crystal clear that statutory instruments under clause 9 will not enter into force until we have had a meaningful vote in Parliament.
Yvette Cooper
This has been a thoughtful debate that has shown the strength of this House, but the thoughtfulness and strength of this House are exactly why the House needs to have a meaningful statutory vote on the withdrawal agreement before the extremely extensive powers in clause 9 are used. The Minister had an hour on his feet; we have had six hours of debate today and many months of debate beforehand, and he still has not come up with a manuscript amendment to clarify what he will do, nor have we had a commitment yet from the Government that the vote will in fact be a statutory one. The only reason that the Minister could give as to why there should not be a statutory vote on the withdrawal agreement was the timing, and yet there are so many examples of when this Parliament has used expedited procedures to get a statute in place just as fast as any resolution.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
My understanding is that the Minister has just said that the Government will use clause 9, and will start legislating statutory instruments, long before the due day; it is just, having been legislated, they will not come into force until the due day. That is some kind of concession, but does the right hon. Lady agree that something better might be arrived at in the later stages of this Bill?
Yvette Cooper
I certainly think that something much better is needed, because the powers in clause 9 are unprecedented, and Parliament should not hand over such unprecedented powers to the Executive blindfold, without our knowing what the withdrawal agreement will be. There have been so many examples, whether it is the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013, the Police (Detention and Bail) Act 2011, the Loans to Ireland Act 2010, the Mental Health (Approval Functions) Act 2012, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 or the Northern Ireland (Ministerial Appointments and Regional Rates) Act 2017, Act after Act that has been through an expedited process—they can be done within a week. We can do this if we need to. Timeliness is not a problem.
That is why we need a vote, and that is why Ministers should just stop arguing. They should either ditch clause 9 and agree to new clause 3, or agree to amendment 7.
In order to support the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9
Implementing the Withdrawal Agreement
Amendment proposed: 7, page 6, line 45, at end insert “, subject to the prior enactment of a statute by Parliament approving the final terms of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union.”—(Mr Grieve.)
To require the final deal with the EU to be approved by statute passed by Parliament.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 345, in clause 8, page 6, line 32, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, include regulations to match or exceed World Health Organisation air quality standards.”
This amendment is intended to ensure that the UK continues to meet international air quality standards after withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 292, page 6, line 38, at end insert—
“(e) impose or increase taxation”
This amendment would prevent the imposition or increase of a tax by regulations made under Clause 8 to comply with international obligations.
Amendment 390, page 6, line 38, at end insert—
“(e) confer a power to legislate (other than a power to make rules of procedure for a court or tribunal).”
Amendment 352, page 6, line 40, at end insert—
“(5) Any power to make, confirm or approve subordinate legislation conferred or modified under this Act and its schedules must be used, and may only be used, insofar as is necessary to ensure that standards of equalities, environmental protection and employment protection, and consumer standards will continue to remain in all respects equivalent to those extant in the EU.
(6) In particular, no agreement relating to international trade or investment with the EU or with a third-party state or states shall be made that permits or requires standards of equalities, environmental protection and employment protection, and consumer standards to fall below those extant in the EU at the time.”
This amendment would ensure that in exercising the powers under this provision, the Government maintains equivalent standards to the EU, and in particular, in making trade agreements.
Clause 8 stand part.
Mr Leslie
What a privilege it is to have the opportunity to speak on such a momentous evening when Parliament has had the guts and foresight to stand up to the Executive, take back control and give hope to those who thought that all hope was lost, and to see Members from all parties working together in the national interest.
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is wonderful to see so many former Ministers on the Conservative Benches discovering their love of parliamentary sovereignty when they are no longer on the ministerial merry-go-round. I have far greater respect in this place for those parliamentarians who have never held ministerial office and actually respect this place, even when things are not going their way.
Mr Leslie
I have even more respect for those who have never held ministerial office and who actually vote with their conscience, rather than looking at the ministerial ladder ahead of them and deciding to suppress their views for other reasons. Anyway, we have been there and dealt with that issue.
In speaking to new clause 20, I want to make a couple of introductory remarks. Over the last 44 years, I think, of Britain’s membership of the EU, the UK has accrued a massive array of international obligations, rights and authorisations via a series of 759 treaties—this is absolutely right—with 168 non-EU countries. Of course, after 29 March 2019, those treaties, because we have accrued them by virtue of our membership of the EU, will fall away. They will cease to exist; they will be no more; they will have ceased to be; they will have expired—they will be ex-treaties. The United Kingdom will no longer be party to those agreements with those third countries, unless of course we have made efforts to replace them beforehand to provide for a smooth continuation.
New clause 20 would require Her Majesty’s Government to publish one month after Royal Assent—we can give them that month to get themselves together—a comprehensive assessment of each of those treaties, agreements and obligations; to set out if there are any requirements they want to amend or renegotiate; and to make an assessment of whether the powers in clause 8 might need to be used. Sir David, you will know, in your eagle-eyed way, that clause 8 gives powers to Ministers, for two years at least, to make a series of orders and regulations to prevent or remedy any breach in those international treaties, as if achieved by an Act of Parliament. I pay tribute to the late Paul McClean, the Financial Times journalist who sadly died in September, who, in one of his final reports, carried out an extremely comprehensive analysis and assessment of some of these many treaties and international obligations.
Mr Leslie
That is indeed a question I was coming to. I am sure that the Minister will tell us that the Government have made an itemised assessment of all those 759 treaties.
Those treaties break down as follows: 295 bilateral and multilateral trade deals, whose approval is needed to recreate any multilateral arrangements that will fall away as we leave the European Union; 202 regulatory co-operation agreements, including on data sharing, anti-trust and so forth; 69 treaties on fisheries, including access to waters and sustainable stocks; 65 treaties on transport and aviation services agreements; 49 treaties on customs agreements, including on the transportation of goods; 45 treaties on nuclear agreements, including on the use of nuclear fuel with other countries, parts and know-how; and 34 treaties on agriculture.
Mr Leslie
Indeed, and after the Minister has finished the first page of his speech, on the impact assessment, he will turn it over and tell us about the contingency plans that will be in place.
Imagine, Sir David, that you are a Government Minister at this point in time and you are thinking, “Well okay, I’ve got all these 759 treaties. What are we going to do? How are we going to deal with this? How much time is it going to take to renegotiate them or at least make sure they can be carried over?” Let us assume that all the other parties to those agreements are happy simply to cut and paste them across. Of course, we cannot necessarily assume that, but let us do so. If, for each agreement, it took a civil servant one day to analyse the contents, a day to contact the third party country concerned, of which there are 160, perhaps a day to track down the decision makers in the relevant Departments here in the UK and the other country, perhaps a couple of days in dialogue with that other country—it would be pretty good if they could do it in a couple of days—and maybe a day to bring together our Ministers and their Ministers, we would be talking, on top of the costs of travelling to those other countries and legal costs, some tens of thousands of hours of civil service time.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Because the hon. Gentleman has, notwithstanding his personal views, accepted the will of the electorate, no doubt the logic of where he is leading us is to put off leaving the European Union for some indeterminate period of time until all these issues are sorted out.
Mr Leslie
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents knew all this before they voted in the referendum. I am not convinced that many members of the public, whether they voted remain or leave, actually spotted the downstream consequentials of exiting the European Union in this way. Of course, they employ us, as Members of Parliament, to answer these questions. That is our job and it is what we are here to do.
Sir Desmond Swayne
On that basis, is it therefore the hon. Gentleman’s intention to reopen the question so that the public can revisit their decision?
Mr Leslie
My view is that the British public always have the right to think again and decide the fate of this country as they see fit, but for the time being, in this Bill and with new clause 20, it is reasonable for us to scrutinise the Executive and to say, “How are you going to do it? How are you going to make sure that all the important aspects of those 759 international treaties will be smoothly transposed after 29 March 2019?”
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the other parties to these treaties may not quite have the incentive to be as quick as we might need them to be?
Mr Leslie
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As these are potentially fresh treaty discussions, other countries may wish to take the opportunity to reopen or revisit the treaty provisions. We may, of course, have entered into those agreements in different political times, so who knows what they may be?
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
As always, my hon. Friend makes a compelling case for changing the Bill. Given that the Government are battered and bruised this evening after their outstanding defeat, if the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box and says that they do have assessments of the impact of our leaving these international treaties, should we believe them?
Mr Leslie
I will believe the Government if they publish the assessments, and I am prepared to make an appointment to go to a private reading room in the ex-Treasury building if needs be, but this must be a bit more than an analysis of how many treaties there are: it must be an assessment of their impact and importance.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an important point. Of course, I support his new clause.
I have long been in favour of the arms trade treaty, parts of which fall within EU competence. The EU as a whole was involved in the negotiations on the treaty, and we are a party to it as an individual country. We also have the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria as well as domestic legislation. The arms trade is one of the issues that cut across many different areas of competence, and we are party to a number of treaties relating to it. Is that not exactly the sort of issue that should be examined?
Mr Leslie
It is, and I think it is particularly incumbent on those who advocated Britain’s exit from the EU to tell us what their plan was. How were they going to solve that problem? It should not be entirely incumbent on the myriad Conservative Members who were fighting for Britain to leave the EU only to disappear when the really tough job came along of deciding how we were to pick up the pieces and ensure that the treaties could continue in some way, shape or form.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should carry out an impact assessment to establish whether they have the capacity to negotiate the treaties, given, for example, the Secretary of State for International Trade’s recent admission that they do not have the capacity to negotiate trade deals?
Mr Leslie
Indeed. For example, last time I heard, only three officials at the Department for Transport were dedicated to negotiating aviation agreements. Those three poor civil servants, although hopefully there are four or five by now, will have a heck of a job on their hands to repair all the open skies agreements and international aviation treaties—that is in just one sector, so think of the implications. But I am sure that those who were advocating a leave vote have a plan to cope with the whole scenario.
Tom Brake
I just wanted to help the hon. Gentleman. Given his position in the Chamber, he might not have been able to see that both Ministers were frantically texting earlier. I suspect that they did not have the list of treaties to which he is referring. He might need to supply it at the end of the debate so that they can start doing some work on this.
Mr Leslie
I want to make a bit of progress as others want to speak.
We in the UK are thinking that we must replace a lot of these treaties. When we leave the EU, our exit will affect not just us but the EU, because a great many of its treaties, obligations and agreements with third countries around the world were predicated on the existence of 28 members. Minus the UK, the other members may need to renegotiate their treaties as well. Ministers might not give two hoots about the implications of that, but those on the EU side of the negotiating table probably do care about it, and that will have ramifications for our negotiations.
Of course, the Foreign Secretary was always telling us that all the other countries around the world were queuing up to do deals with us. He had to fight them off as they asked, “Please may we have a new trade agreement with you?” I have not personally seen that particular queue, but perhaps when the Minister winds up the debate he will be able to tell us how many countries have been knocking on our door seeking new trade agreements.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman obviously thinks very little of this country if he feels that other countries around the world do not want to do trade deals with the United Kingdom. Why does he think that?
Mr Leslie
Those countries already have very good trade agreements with us by virtue of our membership of the European Union, and they are worried about losing the opportunity to have good trade arrangements not just with us, but with the rest of the EU, if those agreements are ripped up and thrown up into air, creating uncertainty. I will be the first person, as a member of the International Trade Committee, to go around the world and try to get those trade agreements, if indeed we do have Brexit, but until that point, I want the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he explained to his constituents before the referendum that all these international treaties were going to be ripped up. Did he say that to them?
Sir Hugo Swire
The hon. Gentleman needs to answer the question that I asked him first, with all due respect. He said there would be concern among many of these other countries—he did not say which—about what kind of trade agreement there would be, and about access to markets and so forth. Of course they will have concerns; we will also have concerns—that is part of any bilateral trade negotiation. Why does he think, despite these concerns, that they will not wish to do deals with us?
Mr Leslie
I hope that countries do, and we will need them to, otherwise we will literally be planting carrots in our back gardens. If we do not have trade deals with the rest of the world, we will have to produce more domestically, rather than having the living standards we have previously enjoyed. I am a very pro-trade Member of Parliament, and the right hon. Gentleman should know where I stand on many of these questions. That is why I am asking what the consequences will be not just if we move away from the trade arrangements we have—the finest, frictionless free trade agreement of anywhere in the world that we have right now with the single market and the customs union—but if we then rip up the free trade agreements with non-EU countries that we have enjoyed by virtue of our EU membership. That is another 12% of our exports. Some 50% of our exports are with the EU through our existing trade arrangements, and then there is another 12%—actually, there is another 14% because there are other territories of those non-EU countries as well. That is a big chunk of our trade. I am very concerned about how effectively we can carry out the grandfathering of those FTAs with the rest of the EU.
We must also bear in mind that there are 164 members of the WTO, and they have rights of veto and objection on many occasions. In fact, we recently tried to lodge a suggestion on dividing tariff-rate quotas. This is getting technical, but that is basically dividing up the EU’s share of low or zero-tariff allowances when countries such as New Zealand or Australia try to import lamb. Amazingly, Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America have lodged an objection to the British divvy-up of those tariff-rate quotas. Of course, apparently America should have been knocking on our door, as we were at the front of the queue, supposedly, but it still lodged an objection to our very first relationship with the WTO.
Mary Creagh
My hon. Friend rightly raises the issue of these countries objecting to any changes to quota, because they will first and foremost seek to protect their own economies, not our economy. In the event that we get a percentage of the EU quota but for whatever reason—customs barriers; non-tariff barriers; the withdrawal of purchasing power—that quota of goods cannot be sold into the UK, those countries’ flexibility to then sell those goods to the EU is lost. That is why they are digging their heels in so early on this issue.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
There is another complication. If we are saying that we are going to have regulatory alignment on cross-border issues with regard to Northern Ireland, specifically on agriculture, given that we are in the EU orbit in that sense, how on earth can we then have WTO trade arrangements elsewhere unless we give the same conditions that apply to the Irish Republic to every other country in the world, which the EU cannot accept?
Mr Leslie
There is a big issue relating to the most favoured nation status arrangement because of clauses in the existing EU free trade agreements. If we are given a deep and special relationship with the EU, the EU will be obliged to offer the same access to Korea and to Canada under the comprehensive economic and trade agreement. There are implications to all this. If we pull one thread, all sorts of things appear.
Mr Leslie
I will finish shortly. I know that I am trying the right hon. Gentleman’s patience.
The 36 regional and bilateral free trade agreements with 63 other countries are exceptionally important, but there are also trade-related agreements, including mutual recognition agreements and standards for conformity assessments. The Department for International Trade has also said that there are multiple hundreds of mutual recognition agreements. The list is getting bigger and bigger, and it is all on the shoulders of the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker).
Hannah Bardell
The hon. Gentleman is going into great detail about the amount of time and effort that is going to be spent, and the number of treaties and trade deals that will need to be done. Does he agree with me on the broader point that we are treading water here? A huge amount of money and parliamentary time is going to be spent, and nothing else will be able to be done.
Mr Leslie
Let us think about all the important priorities for our constituents, including public service reform and living standards. This is one of the most frustrating things: we are treading water just to keep up what we already have. Indeed, things will not be as good as the arrangements we already have. What annoys me most is when Ministers try to gloss over this and pretend that it is all going to be fine, saying, “There’s no problem here. There’s nothing to see.” Lord Price, who used to be a International Trade Minister, tweeted about the 36 free trade agreements, saying that they were all fine and that:
“All have agreed roll over.”
The current Minister of State at the Department, the Minister for Trade Policy, retweeted that. However, when we ask the Secretary of State whether countries have agreed that they all roll over, we are told, “Well, we haven’t had any objections from them to suggest they might not roll over.” Will they want to renegotiate? We are told, “Well, we haven’t heard from them yet.” This is an incredible example of trying to put the best possible gloss on the situation, and to get past exit day and worry about it all afterwards. The Government will then pretend that everybody knew about this beforehand.
I will finish my remarks now because I want to hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies); we need an assessment of these treaties and of what could be lost; we need an assessment of the risks and of what is at stake; and we need honesty and transparency from Ministers about the consequences. This is not what the public expected when they voted in the referendum, and that is why I urge Members to support new clause 20.
Geraint Davies
I shall speak to amendment 352, which seeks to maintain for future trade deals the EU rights and protections that are currently enjoyed in other trade deals. A problem that has already been mentioned is that we are going to move away from the comfort zone of the EU, a massive trading bloc which, on 8 December, agreed the key provisions for a trade deal with Japan that will embrace 30% of global GDP and 600 million people and that has integrated in it the Paris agreement. It does not have investor-state dispute settlement, but it does have various protections. One of my key fears about that particular agreement, which will come into effect in March 2019, is that such agreements take a long time to put together. If we want to come along after the event and say, “Can we join in?” the chances are that the terms will not be as good.
As for our negotiations with other countries, if we exit the EU and expect Chile or Uruguay or some other country to offer us the same trade terms that it has with the EU, which is a much bigger bloc, at a time when we are much weaker, we will be seen among the international trading community as a vulnerable victim of our own self-inflicted harm. They will say, “We will give these terms to the EU, but you are just a small player compared with the critical mass of the EU.” That would undermine not only the financial impact of the terms of trade, but the standards that we currently enjoy.
People will be aware that the REACH arrangements—the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—mean that manufacturers in Europe are required to prove that a chemical is safe before it is sold. In America, however, manufacturers can basically sell asbestos and other harmful products, and it is for the United States Environmental Protection Agency to tell them that they cannot. The worry is that our regime and our standards may change as we are thrust into the hands of the United States, and that workers’ rights, human rights and other rights may change due to China.
The Minister will know that the widespread use of hormones in meat production in America is giving rise to premature puberty among children, and that the widespread use of antibiotics is leading to much greater resistance to them. There is also chlorinated chicken, genetically modified food and other things, and we will be under enormous pressure from the United States to accept standards that are below those that we enjoy as a member of the EU. Donald Trump stood up at his inauguration and said that he would protect the American economy from the foreign countries that were taking America’s jobs, and he has already shown in the Bombardier case that he will play tough. The United States is a much bigger player than Britain, and the competition between the EU and the US is a matched fight when it comes to the negotiation of a deal such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. We will be a much smaller player, and we will have left the conditions of the EU.
Ministers currently have quite widespread powers to sign deals. The current International Trade Secretary signed a provisional agreement for the comprehensive economic and trade agreement without parliamentary approval, and we should be drawing such powers in for parliamentary scrutiny, amendment and agreement. There is a risk that a negotiated settlement that reduces the standards that our citizens enjoy will happen outside this place. I therefore tabled amendment 352, which seeks to maintain the same standards, rights and protections that we enjoy in Europe, as protection in case we end up being asked to vote on trade deals that have all sorts of dire consequences beneath the surface for public health, workers’ rights and consumer protection.
Tom Brake
The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned chlorinated chicken, and he should be worried not only that the Americans may seek to impose it on us, but that our International Trade Secretary has said:
“There are no health reasons why you could not eat chicken that had been washed in chlorinated water.”
Our own International Trade Secretary therefore seems to be advocating the consumption of chlorinated chicken.
Geraint Davies
It is an interesting idea that foxes have been eating chlorinated chicken.
As the right hon. Gentleman says, the concern is that the International Trade Secretary, even at this early stage, will look to undermine consumer standards, health standards and other standards in order to fix a deal and have something on the table to avoid the humiliation we see coming. As has been pointed out, it is in the interest of other countries to hold back from striking an early deal and to let the UK sweat. We will be in a difficult place if we do not have agreement on tariffs with the EU and elsewhere.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as well as chlorinated chicken and other items, infant formula is regulated differently in the US from in the EU? There are higher levels of aflatoxins in US infant formula than in EU infant formula, which could prove detrimental to infant health.
Geraint Davies
People will know that the EU has enormous capacity for negotiating trade deals, and we have been relying on it for the past 40 years. Over the past few years the EU has had an intricate dialogue with the United States on TTIP and with the Canadians on CETA to try to bring about some sort of harmonisation and agreement. TTIP has hit the buffers and is not going forward, but my point is that we simply do not have that negotiating capacity. If the EU’s huge capacity cannot achieve agreement in a short amount of time—it takes a long time to get these things right—what hope do we have? Very little.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the EU was able to extract additional protections on the environment and workers’ rights from the Canada deal because the EU worked together as a big bloc? At one moment it looked like the EU would be unable to extract those protections, and it happened only because Belgium and other countries insisted. On our own, we must not be able to be picked off by Canada, the US or any other country—they have already tried to pick off the EU.
Geraint Davies
That is precisely right. What we are now seeing with the Japan deal, as with CETA, is that it will now explicitly protect the right of states to set higher regulatory standards than their treaty partners; public services; the precautionary principle; labour rights; and sensitive economic areas. The deal will also make an explicit commitment to the Paris climate agreement and will safeguard policies intended to protect the environment.
With those blueprints for a harmonious future, we are now jumping ship. We will be left on our own, floating around in the sea and striking out to hold on to bits of timber for dear life. This is very frightening. Earlier we discussed the situation of a deal or no deal, but the problem is that when we do strike a deal, the EU is not there to penalise or punish us; it is simply there to respect the interests of the EU27, which it will. The EU27 will tell us what we are getting, and we will have to like it or lump it. Lump it would be much more painful—we would go on to WTO rules, which people often mention in this Chamber. People need to remember that WTO rules apply only to goods, not services. The trade in services agreement is currently being negotiated outside the WTO so, because 80% of our exports are services, a large amount of our exports will not even have trade with tariffs; there will simply be no agreement on trade. As there is ambiguity between goods and services, such as with cars—cars are two thirds services because of subcontracted labour, lawyers, payroll and various other things—it is a complex area.
A no deal situation would be catastrophic, and the Europeans know that, so they will say what they want and we will have to accept it. If that is unacceptable and much worse than the status quo, the people of Britain should have a final say with a vote on the exit deal. That is not in amendment 352—people do not need to worry about that—although the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) has tabled amendment 120, which we will consider next week. Half the public already want a vote on the exit deal. Only 34% do not want a vote, and 16% do not know. As it emerges how appalling the future being created at the hands of this Government will be, there will be growth in support for such a vote.
Amendment 352 simply says that we should aim to, and would require us to, enjoy the current protections, rights and standards we have in the EU in future trade agreements, in the knowledge that those standards are going up, as I pointed out is happening in the case of Japan. All I am asking for is that we keep the current parity, so that as Europe moves up we at least stay the same, rather than plunge down into the depths of poverty, lower health standards and so on.
Sir Desmond Swayne
I have a great deal of affection and respect for the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), and he has drawn attention to a perfectly proper area of concern, to which, strangely, his remedy is merely a report—but then the mask slipped. We have heard all this sanctimonious guff this afternoon about the need for this House to take back control and about proper scrutiny—everything we heard in the earlier debates —but now we see the real motive. Of course he was assisted by others, whom comrade Lenin would have properly referred to as “useful idiots”, but now the mask has slipped.
The real motive—the hon. Gentleman made it absolutely explicit—is to reopen a question that he does not believe was given sufficient attention at the referendum. That has just been confirmed by the hon. Member for Swansea East—
Sir Desmond Swayne
Swansea West. The hon. Member for Nottingham East said that he did not believe that people should not have an opportunity to revisit their decision, and that they have a perfect right to change their mind—I accept that. I am not in favour of some sort of African democracy of one man, one vote, once. People perfectly rightly have an opportunity to do that, but if there was one thing on which both sides in the referendum campaign were agreed it was on the importance of the vote that took place on 23 June 2016. He has every right to campaign for a second referendum, and I am glad that he has made it explicit this evening in advocating for his amendment that that is the real agenda. The purpose is to delay for long enough for something to turn up. An essential ingredient of giving time for something to turn up so that people will change their minds is delay, and that is what the process of all today’s amendments has, in essence, been about.
Matthew Pennycook
I am not sure how to follow both of those contributions, but hon. Members may be relieved to know that I am going to make a brief one as I rise to speak to amendment 26, which seeks to change clause 8. I will focus on two specific points, the first being the purpose of clause 8 and the second being its scope.
The purpose of the clause, as set out in the Bill’s explanatory notes, is to give
“ministers of the Crown the power to make secondary legislation to enable continued compliance with the UK’s international obligations by preventing or remedying any breaches that might otherwise arise as a result of withdrawal.”
I say to the Minister gently that it is not entirely clear what breaches might require the clause 8 power. It is not clear to us that where breaches occur they could not, in most cases, be remedied by clause 7 or by powers contained in other legislation, for example the Trade Bill, which has already been published, or domestic legislation. I do not intend to discuss what my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) said in his comprehensive speech, in which he gave a set of examples about the types of international treaties and obligations the Government will have to deal with. However, it would be useful to hear some further examples from the Minister. To date, we have heard about only one international obligation, or perhaps a couple, where the Government believe the clause 8 power must be used. As the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee noted, the Government have not been explicit about the sort of obligations they have in mind for this clause.
On the scope of clause 8, we have many of the same concerns that we have about the scope of the powers in clauses 7, 9 and 17. Clause 8(3) contains some, although not all, of the explicit restrictions that apply in clause 7. In any case, we believe, just as we do with those clauses—that is why we tabled amendment 27 to clause 9 and amendment 25 to clause 7—that the scope of the delegated powers in clause 8 should be circumscribed so that they cannot be used to reduce rights or freedoms.
I know that many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), wish to make speeches, so with that I draw my remarks to a close.
Hannah Bardell
The House has heard many technical and legalistic arguments focused on the economic, trade and legal impacts of our leaving the EU, but so far in the Brexit process and debate, the interests of children and their rights have been barely mentioned. That said, I was pleased to hear the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) about baby milk and the related regulations.
It is important to focus on children, their rights and the effect of Brexit on their future. In all of this, our children have had very little voice or decision-making opportunities for the future of the UK. All our children depend on UK, EU, international and UN provisions and treaties to protect them and to secure their future rights. It is sad and ironic that it was this Conservative Government who refused to let 16 and 17-year-olds participate in the EU referendum.
No one said it better than my former colleague and my dear friend, the previous Member for Gordon—I know all Members miss him as much as I do—who summed up the hokey-cokey politics of this Conservative Government by saying:
“The case for votes for 16 and 17-year-olds has been demonstrated by the Scottish referendum—not as some academic exercise but on the joyful and practical experience of a generation of Scotland’s young people…Claims that teenagers are disengaged with politics or incapable of understanding constitutional issues was blown apart by the great contribution by young people in Scotland during the campaign…It is a ludicrous situation and nothing better illustrates the total lack of imagination which typifies the Conservative Party at its worst and their headlong pursuit of self-interest…It encapsulates Tory arrogance and the insult to young people will neither be forgotten nor forgiven.”
That is an extremely good point.
I remember studying, not that long ago, politics at the University of Stirling, where I learned about further EU integration. It seems very sad that the students of the future will be studying this process, our performance and the decisions that were made. I wonder what the textbooks and political history books will say and how they will read. I think they will say that this has been a political catastrophe—a series of unfortunate events.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
One key thing that future students will read about and find incredibly difficult to understand is how the same people who for 40 years argued that the EU had taken sovereignty away from this Chamber were prepared to give that sovereignty so quickly to the United Kingdom Government Executive. That is what all these clauses, including clause 8, will end up doing.
Hannah Bardell
Not surprisingly, I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.
Tom Brake
Does the hon. Lady agree that there will probably be a chapter in the history books called “Impact Assessments”, and students will study the reasons why a Government took the most catastrophic economic decision for the country without having conducted any impact assessments of its effect on the economy?
Hannah Bardell
I absolutely do agree. It will probably say “Impact Assessments” and there will just be a blank page, because that is the reality of the situation. It will probably serve as an abject example of how not to do democracy, and sadly we will all be judged under that banner. I do hope, though, that the history books will include those of us who opposed how this process is being carried out.
It is important to reflect on the fact that, whatever people thought of the Scottish referendum, it was held up as a gold standard and that, when the Electoral Commission reflected on the referendum on Brexit, its view was that it happened in too short a timescale and that there was not proper opportunity for debate and discussion. That is important. It is sad that we set a gold standard on one referendum and then seemed to go backwards.
The other day, sitting on the Tube, reading the Evening Standard, I was quite aghast to read an article celebrating its new appointment of a journalist to Brussels. Is it not ironic that news agencies and the press are suddenly appointing journalists to Brussels? Not that long ago, I read a report that said that, out of all the countries in the EU, the nations of the UK had the worst representation in terms of journalistic reportage. So it is no surprise that, after 10 years and longer of blaming the EU for all our ills and of not properly reporting on it, people were ill-informed and we did not have a proper period for debate.
I come back to my point about children. The House of Commons Library briefing paper on Brexit stretches to almost 200 pages, yet children are mentioned only three times. The Brexit White Paper mentions children only once. It urges us all to work towards a stronger, fairer and more global Britain. Well, is that not ironic because we are going to be weaker, less equal and less outward-looking? We are going to be the exact opposite of what those right-wing Brexiteers seemed to want for us across the UK.
Alison Thewliss
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that there has been no proper commitment yet to continuing with Erasmus+, which gives so many children in my constituency opportunities to go and make friends, to travel out into the world and to broaden their horizons?
Hannah Bardell
I absolutely agree. A delegation from across the EU—from Spain, France and many other countries—came to my constituency to meet and work with our children. It was so incredible to see the friendships that were struck up and the experiences that were shared. The thought that my three-year-old niece, or any children that I have, will not get to experience that is heart-breaking. We should all reflect on that. What are the young people of the nations of the UK going to miss out on because of the poor decision making and the poor decisions that are being pushed by this UK Government?
The Executive powers provided in clause 8 put current UK international obligations under serious threat. As we know, the UK Government cannot be trusted to uphold international obligations. We have seen time and again instances of them turning a blind eye to our obligations. In Yemen, for example, more than 300 incidents that could violate international law have been tracked by the Ministry of Defence since the conflict began two years ago, yet the UK continues to sell arms to Saudi Arabia.
One of my hon. Friends talked about the Trade Union Act 2016 and how workers’ rights have been rolled back. When all this power comes back, supposedly, to the UK, what faith can we have that our rights and obligations will be upheld by this Government?
We have spoken about Erasmus, regulations and what our young people are going to do. I strongly believe that the whole rhetoric in this process has been damaging. Some of the phrases that have emerged, the slogans that have been put on the side of buses and the way that political discourse has developed during this period echo, sadly, the Trump Administration. That scares me and, I am sure, many others deeply. We hear that Brexit means Brexit, that it will be a red, white and blue Brexit, that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, that there are economic impact studies, there are no economic impact studies—yes there are, oh no there are not—and that the post-Brexit trade deal will be the easiest in human history. We have had a political hokey-cokey on the grandest scale and who are going to be the ones who lose out the most? It is going to be the young people of our nations who have to deal with the impact of Brexit and clean up the mess that many in this Government seem hell-bent on creating. For their sake—for your children’s sake—and for the future of all our nations in the UK, let us stop this madness.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
It has been a pleasure to listen to this wide-ranging debate and to hear some of the speeches, not all of which seemed to be specifically about clause 8. I compliment my opposite number, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), who very accurately described the clause.
Mary Creagh
I do have a speech on clause 8 and I would like to raise some specific points, but I am slightly concerned that the Minister might now be about to speak for 15 minutes, in the tradition that he started yesterday, and I am worried that he will not be able to respond to my specific points.
Mr Walker
I am very happy to do my best endeavours to ensure that the hon. Lady does get five minutes to make her speech; she often has interesting points to bring to these debates. Let me discuss briefly, therefore, what clause 8 is for.
As we leave the EU, it is essential that the Government can ensure that we do not breach any of the UK’s international obligations. These international obligations stretch from our promises to other nations, some of which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), to those we have undertaken as a sovereign and responsible participant in international organisations such as the Council of Europe and global ones such as the WTO. This need to prevent breaches of our international obligations is the reasoning behind the clause.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
I appreciate the Minister’s explanation of the scope of clause 8. Does he agree that, just like clause 7, clause 8 is limited in that it relates only to withdrawal issues and is a sunset clause?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend make a good point on the exact matter that I was going to come to in a moment; she pre-empts me brilliantly.
Clause 8 is needed—I think that this answers the point made by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich—because not all the UK’s international obligations that might be affected by withdrawing from the EU are implemented domestically in what will be retained EU law. Those which are implemented elsewhere are therefore out of scope of the correcting power in clause 7. In addition, there are restrictions on the use of clause 7 relating to, for example, taxation that might, in some circumstances, prevent important changes to comply with international arrangements from being made. We need this power because we need to be prepared for all eventualities.
I would like to clarify that any SIs made under clause 8 that transfer a legislative function, or create or amend any power to legislate, will be subject to the affirmative procedure, as provided for in clause 7. Therefore, Parliament will be able to debate any transfer of powers, and consider the proposed scope of such powers and the scrutiny proposed for their future exercise. Clause 8 gives Ministers a temporary and limited power, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) said, to make regulations to prevent or remedy breaches of international obligations. The provision contained in the secondary legislation must be an appropriate way of doing so and will have to pass before this House under the parliamentary procedures that we have been discussing over the past couple of days. In addition to its limited goals, the power is subject to a number of further limitations. It expires two years after exit day and, as listed in subsection (3), it cannot “make retrospective provision”, create certain types of criminal offence,
“implement the withdrawal agreement, or…amend…the Human Rights Act”.
Mr Walker
Perhaps I can respond to the hon. Lady’s intervention before she even makes it. It is important that we have the power to maintain all our international obligations. As we have discussed in a previous debate, one of those international obligations is to the international element of the Belfast agreement. We will absolutely maintain our commitment to that.
Lady Hermon
I am grateful to the Minister for pre-empting the intervention, but he is referring to my earlier intervention regarding clause 9. Will he use this opportunity to confirm at the Dispatch Box that neither clause 8 nor clause 9, which we have just passed as amended, will be used in any circumstances to amend the Good Friday agreement by regulation?
Mr Walker
At all—by regulation or in any other way.
I will turn briefly to the amendments and respond to new clause 20 in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham East. My Department is leading cross-Government work to assess and act on the international agreements for which, as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, arrangements will need to be made to ensure continuity for businesses and individuals. Any that require implementing legislation or parliamentary scrutiny before ratification will go through the appropriate, well-established procedures. We are working with our international partners to identify the full range of our agreements that might be impacted by our exit from the EU, and we will be taking their views into account. It would not be appropriate at this stage to publish the type of assessment proposed in new clause 20. Doing so would prejudice the outcome of these discussions and how any action would be put into practice.
Mr Leslie
I am just looking for a small concession. If the Minister will not do an assessment, will he at least publish a list? The Financial Times has its list of the 759 treaties. Could we have some information from the Government in the public domain about the task that has to be undertaken? That, at least, would be a welcome step.
Mr Walker
We will be coming forward with more information on this front in due course. However, a lot of the hon. Gentleman’s speech was specifically about trade issues, and we have a Trade Bill that deals specifically with those issues. If I might gently say, a lot of what the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) talked about related to the content of the Trade Bill rather than this Bill.
We do recognise the need to promote stability for businesses and individuals, and we will aim to transition agreements as seamlessly as possible. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Swansea West—I am afraid he is no longer in his place—and I would like to reassure him that this clause has nothing to do with future trade agreements. It is purely to do with our existing international commitments and how we make sure we continue to meet them in the context of leaving the EU.
Clause 8 is a very specific power, which will be available only where a breach of our current international obligations arises from the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. It ensures that we will be able to continue to honour international obligations, which might otherwise be affected by our withdrawal, and it is key to ensuring that we can take our place on the global stage as a fully independent nation. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Members for Nottingham East and for Swansea West will consider not pressing their amendments.
I want to address amendment 345 in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. It is well intentioned but unnecessary. The power in clause 8 has a narrow and specific purpose, and can be used where our international obligations might be breached as a result of leaving the EU. World Health Organisation guidelines are not international obligations; they are used to inform air quality standards in international and EU legislation, but they do not, of themselves, form an obligation to be complied with.
The UK has a strong track record on protecting our environment, and in leaving the EU, we will safeguard and improve on that. The whole purpose of this clause is to ensure that we leave the EU with maximum certainty, continuity and control, and that, as far as possible, the same rules, laws and international obligations apply on the day after exit as on the day before.
Of course, some of the existing mechanisms that allow scrutiny of environmental targets and standards by Governments will not be carried over into our law, and that is why the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced on 12 November our intention to consult on a new, independent statutory body to advise and challenge Government, and potentially other bodies—
Mr Walker
I am going to give the hon. Lady a chance to speak, so I hope she will wait.
That body will also potentially advise and challenge other bodies on environmental legislation, stepping in when needed to hold them to account and to enforce standards. The Government will consult on the specific scope and powers of that body early next year.
We have a number of amendments—from the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and the hon. Member for Wakefield, whom I will do my best to give a chance to speak—that seek to place further restrictions on the use of the clause 8 power, beyond those already in the clause. These amendments give me another opportunity to restate our firm commitment to ensuring that environmental protections and the rights of individuals—particularly EU citizens resident in the UK—are maintained as we bring EU law on to the UK statute book. This commitment will be reflected in the use of this clause to ensure that, from day one of withdrawal from the EU, the UK is able to comply with its international obligations.
As we stressed during yesterday’s debate on clause 7, the defence and security of the realm is always the first duty of Government, and the Government are absolutely committed to national security and securing the right future arrangements for security with the EU. I would like to take the opportunity to reassure the Committee that we cannot see that anything that damages our national security would be an appropriate way to ensure continued compliance with international obligations. The same would be true of any change to equalities legislation.
All these amendments are well intentioned, but we have been clear in previous debates that we will preserve rights through this Bill, and not reduce them. In those earlier debates, we also set out that, by giving no definition of what, for example, an environmental protection is, or how one might judge that such a protection was being weakened, amendments along these lines risk unnecessary litigation, undermining the certainty that this Bill aims to create.
In the specific context of clause 8, which is about upholding our international obligations, it is very difficult to see how that could do anything other than require us to preserve rights and protections. Parliament has already approved the UK being party to a number of international conventions and international organisations, such as the World Trade Organisation. We are committed to these international relationships. A key part of that is ensuring that we fully comply with our international obligations. Leaving the customs union and the single market may alter the way in which the UK complies with some of these obligations, specifically with regard to the treatment of WTO most favoured nation status.
Amendment 292 in the name of the hon. Member for Wakefield—I know that she wants to speak to it—does not acknowledge these changes in respect of taxation, or the fact that there will not always be a clear choice about how to comply with such obligations in future. Clause 8 gives Ministers the flexibility to make those changes. Of course, however, we will listen to what she has to say. I understand the honourable intentions behind these amendments, but we believe that this clause is well drafted to continue to meet our international obligations.
The UK is a nation whose word is its bond. This Government introduced the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill to ensure a smooth and orderly exit from the EU. Our desire to leave the EU in this way applies both to the actions we take domestically and to our actions in relation to international partners. Clause 8 is key to delivering that, and I commend it to the Committee.
Mary Creagh
I thank the Minister for rushing through his speech so that I get the chance to have my five minutes to talk about amendment 292.
Clause 8 allows Ministers to make any regulations to prevent or remedy any breach in our international obligations as we leave the EU, but it also contains a Henry VIII power allowing for those regulations to do anything that an Act of Parliament can do. That includes amending or repealing any Act of Parliament ever passed. It is the most extraordinary and unusual power. I was going to raise the Northern Ireland Act 1998, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) for getting the Minister on the record on that.
The Government have been very scant on the details about the sorts of international obligations that may be affected. They have also been unable to say—I was listening carefully to the Minister—why regulations under clause 8 can impose or increase taxation. We do not want to end up in a situation where the Government can raise tax-like charges by statutory instrument. That gives away the supremacy of this place on taxation. The “appropriateness” test is too broad, and it undermines the supremacy of Parliament. We cannot have taxation by the back door.
Crucially, I did not hear the Minister say anything about tertiary legislation. We have focused a lot on SIs—the secondary stuff. Tertiary legislation enables a new public body that needs to be set up, such as a chemicals body, to charge fees. This may not be controversial at first, but there may come a time when such bodies want to increase the fees, as happened when the Ministry of Justice wanted to increase probate fees by, I think, 1,500%. Why is there a double standard in clause 8 as regards secondary and tertiary legislation? We want tertiary legislation to be given the same parliamentary control and the same time limits as secondary legislation. My amendment 292 seeks to restore the supremacy of the House on financial matters.
I want briefly to deal with the environmental regulation that the Minister talked about. The Government currently have a “one in, three out” rule. Many of our environmental regulations come from international mixed agreements signed and ratified, as he said, by the UK and the EU; some are bilateral and some are multilateral. The Environmental Audit Committee has been looking at our progress in reducing fluorinated gases. These are very powerful greenhouse gases with a global warming potential 14,000 times more harmful than carbon dioxide. They are in commercial refrigeration systems, in our car air-conditioning systems, and in 70% of the 60 million asthma inhalers that we use in this country every year. Targets for reducing those gases are set and monitored by the European Union, but we are also a signatory to the UN framework, so it is a mixed agreement. We have just ratified the Kigali amendment to reduce F-gases by 85% by 2036. That agreement is monitored by the EU, so the Bill will convert the regulation into UK law and we will need new regulations.
The explanatory memorandum states that the new regulations may be subject to the Government’s “one in, three out” rule. We cannot have the Government making hundreds, if not thousands, of new regulations that get caught under that absurd administrative rule, so I want the Minister to assure the House that it will be scrapped. I have written about that as the Committee Chair, and Lord Henley has said that there is no clarity about it and no decision has been made. That has to change.
Mr Leslie
This is an incredibly important series of discussions. We need more information on the 759 international treaties that may fall on exit day, and I am glad that the Minister indicated that more information would be forthcoming. I want to vote for new clause 22 on the European economic area and the single market, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 22
EEA Agreement
“(1) No Minister may, under this Act, notify the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EEA Agreement, whether under Article 127 of that Agreement or otherwise.
(2) Regulations under this Act may not make any provision that would constitute a breach of the United Kingdom’s obligations under the EEA Agreement.
(3) Regulations under this Act may not amend or repeal subsection (1) or (2).”—(Heidi Alexander.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 20th December 2017
(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 20 December 2017 - (20 Dec 2017)
21:09 - divided: - Ayes: 114 / Noes: 320 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:23 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 319 / Noes: 294 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:36 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 295 / Noes: 318 - Question accordingly negatived.
21:51 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 294 / Noes: 318 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:05 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 296 / Noes: 316 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:19 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 23 / Noes: 319 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 77, in clause 13, page 9, line 9, at end insert—
“(3) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a) make provision enabling or requiring judicial notice to be taken of a relevant matter, or
(b) provide for the admissibility in any legal proceedings of specified evidence of—
(i) a relevant matter, or
(ii) instruments or documents issued by or in the custody of an EU entity.”
Clause 13 stand part.
Amendment 348, in schedule 5, page 36, line 9, at end insert—
“(c) any impact assessment conducted by Her Majesty’s Government that in any way concerns the economic and financial impact of in anyway altering, modifying or abolishing any relevant instrument.”
This amendment would require the Government to publish its economic impact assessments of the policy options for withdrawal from the EU.
Amendment 76, in schedule 5, page 37, leave out paragraph 4.
That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
Mr Leslie
Merry Christmas to you, Dame Rosie, and to all hon. and right hon. Members.
Under the peculiar vagaries of the Government’s programme motion, we have ended up with a peculiar day 8 in Committee, with a potential four-hour chunk to debate amendments to schedule 5, which is quite a narrow area of concern—the publication of retained EU legislation and rules of evidence—and, in theory, only four hours in the second half to debate the massive number of remaining amendments. The Committee will understand why I probably do not want to spend too much time on this first group, because I suspect a large number of hon. Members will want to speak on the second group.
Nevertheless, I will have a crack at new clause 21 because it is always worth probing the Government on every part of a Bill. This new clause would ensure that, when Her Majesty’s Government publish EU retained legislation, they accompany it with a summarising explanatory document setting out, in terms that are readily understandable, its purpose and effect.
This might seem an obvious point, and someone might say, “Of course Ministers intend to do this. Surely, if we have all the legal gobbledegook we normally get in statute and in primary and secondary legislation, there will be a summary not just for Members of Parliament but for the public to read and understand so they know what they are talking about.” But that practice has only been in effect for a small number of years and, although it started with the good intention of providing explanatory statements and explanatory notes, it has slipped back a bit from the original intention. When hon. Members pick up a dense and complex proposal, they will often find that the explanatory notes basically say the same thing, perhaps with a few dots and commas changed here and there, and feel that the proposal is as impenetrable as it ever was.
The point is that clarity is needed if we are to transfer a great set of EU legislation into UK law. Such clarity is an important principle that Parliament should underline and establish, which is what new clause 21 seeks to do. More than that, when we legislate we should make it clear not just for the lawyers but for everyone so that all our constituents know and understand the consequences of the laws we are putting in place.
Such clarity was not always evident in the referendum campaign in the run-up to June 2016. In fact, many would still say that there was a lot of obfuscation and opacity, and that the consequences of Brexit were not clear at all. In my view, as much clarity and plain English as possible should be obtainable.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Leslie
Before I give way, I have to confess that I am a serial offender when it comes to not necessarily speaking in plain and clear terms, so I am not pretending in any way to be the world’s greatest simple communicator on such things. I am sure I will transgress this afternoon.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Another advantage of new clause 21 is that it would enable the Government to give us a clear explanation and perhaps say that “regulatory alignment” and “regulatory convergence” mean the same thing.
Mr Leslie
My hon. Friend takes the words out of my mouth. He has spotted that the famous paragraph 49 of the phase 1 agreement between the negotiators on the EU side and the negotiators on the UK side talks about maintaining regulatory alignment, which is a phrase that manages to span all sorts of different interpretations. The EU and Republic of Ireland side believes “full alignment” to mean full alignment and that we will essentially have the same arrangements as we have now. But when the Prime Minister returned to the House of Commons, she sort of said, “Oh, no, it is a very narrow meaning in the terms set out in particular paragraphs of the Belfast agreement.” It is amazing how words can mean one thing to one listener and another thing to an entirely different listener.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I agree that clarity is usually an admirable virtue, but if the thing the Government are trying to describe is not very clear in itself—perhaps because it is very complicated and impossible to make clear, or perhaps because it is deliberately obfuscating—what happens then? We cannot have a dishonest account of what a complex clause is doing.
Mr Leslie
We should not assume that those watching our proceedings, or reading them in Hansard, entirely trust the Government or Members of Parliament simply to know and understand what is happening. People outside have a right to know, and of course we expect businesses and members of the public to interpret the legislation we pass.
This is a signal moment, and the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) rightly pointed out on, I think, day 2 in Committee that we are about to copy and paste a phenomenal body of legislation, which has accrued over decades, from the EU corpus of law into the British legal context. That requires us to pause for a moment to think about whether we are properly articulating to our constituents and others what exactly is happening in this process.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman refers to trust in the Government. Does he think our constituents will be reassured by the Prime Minister’s confirmation on Monday that the Cabinet’s discussions on our future trade deals do not involve the Cabinet having any assessment of the impact of different potential models?
Mr Leslie
Governments would normally be expected to have information and facts, with evidence being collected and presented and with an assessment made based on information that has been analysed and digested in a professional way, but it appears that, although we were told they exist, the impact assessments do not actually exist but are sectoral analyses. What is the difference between an impact assessment and a sectoral analysis? Well, we have been discussing that for quite some time.
Returning to EU retained legislation, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield rightly pointed out that we have lived with important legal understandings, such as on equalities law and environmental law, for a number of decades. Those understandings have been tenets of our expectations of the civilised society in which we live. Of course, they will now be transferred from European law into UK law. If they had originated in this House, they would have been enacted in primary legislation and any changes would have had to be made through primary legislation. But the Government’s proposal is to take this new category of EU retained law and bring it into UK law, and it will not have the same status as primary legislation. In many ways, it will be repealable or amendable, often by secondary legislation—by statutory instrument. This is not a point about Brexit; it is about the process of transposition. It is important that the public know what is going on when we are doing this. If a transfer is taking place, information should be set out in the explanatory notes, not just about the technical details, but about the weight that those legal rights will have once they come back into UK law.
There are a number of other aspects to this—
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting and relevant point, although it is of course true that all this legislation came in via secondary legislation in the first place and Parliament will have considerably more control over the secondary legislation that amends it than we currently have over the method that created it. I would imagine, as I am sure he does and the Government do, that Acts of Parliament will become more important, particularly if we want to make sure that this is not challengeable in the courts, as secondary legislation is much more vulnerable to challenge through the courts than primary legislation.
Mr Leslie
Yes. Although we disagree on many things, I think we can agree that if we are going to do this exercise, it needs to be done thoroughly and robustly, making sure that the intent of Parliament and the laws we are transposing are robust enough to withstand the test of time. Having explanatory statements to accompany those is an important development that has helped us in our legislative process recently. If we are going to have a sifting committee—it is not really a sifting committee; the procedures committee will be doing this—looking through all these statutory instruments and picking out which ones it thinks should not be passed through the negative procedure, this explanatory process ought to be in place to help hon. Members figure out which of these hundreds or even thousands of aspects of legislation are important enough to flag up to hon. Members more widely. That is a small point but it needs making. Other issues arise relating to “tertiary” legislation and the powers the Bill is giving to agencies and regulators to make, or to amend or remedy, laws. Again, I would like these things to be flagged up in plain English, wherever possible, so that parliamentarians can know about them. In essence, new clause 21 is about transparency, clarity and shining a light on this complicated bandwidth of activity that is about to hit all hon. Members, and that is important.
The only other point I wanted to make on this group—
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of this place for far longer than I have. We have lived through 40-odd years of what he is now describing as “dense and complex” legislation which applies to the UK, but only at this stage does he seem to be concerned about what that legislation really means. Why has he not been so similarly vexed and exercised these past 40 years?
Mr Leslie
I have been vexed and exercised for quite a long part of the past 40 years, but that is my problem. The hon. Gentleman should know that as we go forward we are creating a new type of legislation. It is true that many of the European directives and regulations have been adopted over the years in different ways, but we are now importing this great body of EU retained law. It is going to affect him and his constituents, as well as my constituents. The first point to make is: can we understand what it is? That provides a useful opportunity in this exercise—
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman may agree with me that if there are deficiencies in the way EU law has been imported into our law, the last thing we want to do is to perpetuate them by keeping the uncertainties after we have gone. Yet schedule 5 raises a number of uncertainties, which this House would do well to address.
Mr Leslie
We are doing our duty by at least trying to comb over these issues now.
I wish to commend the Labour Front-Bench team on their amendment 348, which seeks to ensure that impact assessments are made properly and thoroughly before we take many of the decisions in this whole Brexit process. We already know enough about what has happened with the Brexit Secretary promising impact assessments and their turning out to be sectoral analyses. Many of us will have gone to the reading room and looked at the hastily written 50-odd documents, which would be good if someone was writing a master’s degree dissertation on the aviation sector—they are full of facts and information—but do not really provide much more analysis than people can already get off Google.
Where we did get an insight, although it may have been a slip of the tongue, was when the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared before the Treasury Committee on 6 December and said that he has
“modelled and analysed a wide range of potential alternative structures between the European Union and the United Kingdom”
and that
“it informs…our negotiating position”.
So obviously there does exist within government some level of impact assessment and analysis that has not yet been placed in the public domain. It might be that the Brexit Committee wishes to explore that further or that the Treasury Committee wishes to do so, but it is important that we know whether this is simply a reference to the pre-referendum work that was done under the former Chancellor George Osborne or whether further assessments have taken place, independently undertaken by the Treasury. We need to know what analysis the different Departments have undertaken and what sort of modelling on the different sectors of our economy has been done.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that the Government produce assessments, whether or not they are “sectoral assessments”, on issues that are a lot more trivial than such an important thing befalling our country as Brexit? It is therefore imperative that we have detailed assessments on how this will affect our country.
Mr Leslie
Yes. That again gets to this question: are we accidentally bumbling our way through, where nobody has thought about doing an assessment, or, worse, is this work being done but then hidden, covered up and held back from Members of Parliament and from the public at large? I suspect that any serious analysis worth its salt will show that there are some damning consequences of exiting the single market and customs union, and I think that needs to be shared with the wider public.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Brexit Secretary was rather lucky when he appeared before the Select Committee, because having agreed to produce papers, he got out of it by sticking to a narrow definition of “impact assessment”? It was semantics that enabled him to get away with just producing the new documents, which he had hastily produced in the past few weeks, containing bland descriptions of where we are. As the originals are important documents, as these questions have been looked at and as we were told a summary had been sent to the Prime Minister, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the House’s motion meant that whatever documents the Government had that bore on the subject, they should have been produced? The Brexit Secretary should not have been allowed to get away with saying, “Strictly speaking, they’re not impact assessments.”
Mr Leslie
I do agree with that. We should not just skim over this question. These are some of the most profound decisions that Parliament will make for a generation and, if we are going to do our jobs correctly as Members of Parliament, having the right facts, getting the evidence, assembling the analysis, making sure we can weigh up the pros and cons of all these matters, and getting readily understandable, plain English explanatory statements of what is actually being proposed are prerequisites. They should be there to make us do our jobs properly.
Sir Desmond Swayne
How does the hon. Gentleman imagine that the assessments are going to be any less divisive than the issue that we are seeking to assess? The assessments are based on assumptions, and we profoundly disagree about the assumptions.
Mr Leslie
That is getting us into this question about experts again and whether there is such a thing as a fact or whether everything in this world is an opinion. It is important to make sure that if there are facts and if we can prove cause and effect—for example, if we know that the introduction of inspections or a hard border is going to slow down lorries going through a particular port—we can, QED, prove that there is going to be a particular consequence for the economy. That sort of analysis ought to be shared with the wider world.
Stephen Doughty
I wanted to give my hon. Friend an example before he concludes. Last week, the Prime Minister claimed that the UK would make “significant savings” as a result of our leaving the EU, but I have asked questions and Treasury Ministers have not been able to explain what those savings will be or to put a figure on them. Yet Financial Times analysis suggests that we will lose £350 million per week, which contrasts with what was on the side of that red bus.
Mr Leslie
That is right. That Financial Times analysis was worth sharing and should be shared, but we should not rely on journalism alone to do the job. We have a professional civil service; let us not gag it or try to lock it under the stairs somewhere. We should let that expertise come out so that we can all see and hear it.
Mr Duncan Smith
I only want to help the hon. Gentleman. Does he think it would have been a lot easier had the Exiting the European Union Committee asked the Secretary of State for the impact opinions that he may well have had?
Mr Leslie
Again, when is an assessment an opinion? In some ways, it diminishes and slightly denigrates the professionalism of our civil service to suggest that its output is merely conjecture or opinion. There are some things in this world that are facts, from which we can draw conclusions and which any rational observer would not really question.
Mrs Moon
May I read my hon. Friend the steel sector view? It says that
“it will be a lengthy and potentially very costly process for UK manufacturers to break into new markets…Returns on sales to new markets will frequently be poorer than from existing contracts with customers in neighbouring countries.”
Is not that something that the British people need to know?
Mr Leslie
That is the level of analysis and assessment that deserves to be shared and that was not available to the public prior to the referendum. It should not be dismissed but made more widely available. Members, and beyond them voters, can weigh up the different opinions. Some Members might rubbish representatives of the steel sector and say, “What do they know? I know better,” but we can weigh these things up and bring them into balance. We have the opportunity to debate transparency. Let us allow sunlight to flood over this issue and make sure that we are better informed going forward than we were before the referendum.
Mr Grieve
It is a pleasure to participate in the Committee’s consideration of schedule 5 and clause 13, although the reality is that the clause says very little and the schedule says a great deal.
As we have just heard, part 1 of schedule 5 provides for the publication of retained direct EU legislation by the Queen’s printer, which should be completely uncontroversial because its purpose is to promote transparency and access so that people in the United Kingdom can know what the law is. That is not some slight matter. One of the points that has been gently canvassed in the debate so far is the extent to which EU law may have created, in the way it has been brought into UK law, a degree of uncertainty as to what it is, in which case that is the last thing we should retain when we carry out this retention of the law. One of the central principles of the rule of law is that the law must be
“accessible…intelligible, clear and predictable”.
That is one of Lord Bingham’s principles of the rule of law, and it should matter to the House very much with respect to how it legislates. People need to be able to understand what activity is prohibited and therefore discouraged, and what their rights are so that they are able to claim whatever rights they have.
The interesting thing about part 1 of schedule 5 is that paragraph 2 empowers Ministers to make exceptions to the duty to publish retained direct EU legislation by
“giving a direction to the Queen’s printer specifying the instrument or category of instruments that are excepted.”
There appear to be no limitations on that power and no guidance on when such instruction might or might not be appropriate. My first question to my colleagues on the Treasury Bench, and particularly my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, is: what is the Government’s intention in respect of that exception? Why is it there—we need to understand why it has been included in the Bill—and how will it be used in practice? It seems to me that it is desirable that the entirety of retained direct EU legislation should be made available through the Queen’s printer, so what is the intention as to the circumstances in which a Minister might remove himself from the duty and give a different direction? There is, perhaps slightly to my regret, no amendment to address that question—had I focused on it slightly better at an earlier stage and not been diverted by other matters, I might have tried to tease it out by tabling an amendment—but as we are also debating whether the clause and schedule should stand part of the Bill, it is important that we give the matter some consideration. Indeed, it ties in exactly with what the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) said in introducing new clause 21, which is on exactly the same principle or philosophical issue of providing certainty.
My second question is about part 2 of schedule 5, which provides for Ministers by regulations to enable or require judicial notice to be taken of retained EU law or EU law. There are no limitations whatsoever on this delegated legislative power to enable or require judicial notice to be taken and, as far as I can see, nor are there any provisions to require that a Minister can make such regulations only under certain circumstances—for example, regulatory harmonisation might be a legitimate reason for making such regulations. This is a classic Henry VIII power, as paragraph 4(3) provides total Henry VIII powers, and is only limited, under paragraph 4(4), to primary legislation made or passed before the end of the Session in which this Bill is passed.
All that takes me back to an interesting debate the Committee had on a previous day—which one has rather faded out of my memory—in which my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and I raised our continuing concerns about the judiciary having a lack of clarity about how they were supposed to interpret and apply retained EU law. Lord Neuberger and Lady Hale have expressed concern that the Bill is insufficiently clear about how retained EU law should be interpreted by the courts post exit. Lord Neuberger in particular was concerned by the prospect of the courts having to determine questions of regulatory harmonisation against divergence between UK and EU law—an essentially political topic, with possible economic consequences to the interpretation. As it happens, regulations made under part 2 of schedule 5 might address the judiciary’s anxiety about the need for better guidance on retained EU law, but what troubles me is that this provision again subtly sidelines Parliament from any role in providing guidance, as it is a matter of Executive discretion.
I must say to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, and to my other colleagues on the Treasury Bench, that I do understand the Government’s difficulties. The whole Bill is about an accretion of power to a Government who do not really know how they are going to have to use that power and are fearful that something will come up that will require them to act swiftly, and who therefore think that they have to maximise the tools at their disposal.
Forgive my repeating this—I think that the Bill has been quite well improved as it has gone through the House and, indeed, some of the assurances that have been given will lead to further improvements, I have no doubt, on Report—but it was this sort of thing that made me describe the Bill as a monstrosity on Second Reading. It is so contrary to the normal way in which one would expect to legislate for Parliament both to grant the powers that a Government need, including, where necessary, powers of secondary legislation, and at the same time to make sure that these cannot run out of control. On the plain face of the Bill, this is really one of the immense Henry VIII powers. The Government have decided to resolve this issue by taking a very big sledgehammer to the normal structures.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
During last Wednesday’s debate, I specifically asked whether the Bill was first drafted before the June general election. My view—I do not know whether my right hon. and learned Friend shares it—is that this Bill was all about delivering a quick and hard Brexit, and the reason for these extraordinary powers is that they were needed by Ministers to execute that process in quite a short period of time. Does he think that there is any merit in that?
Mr Grieve
I think I might be a little kinder to my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, because it seems to me that at the time the Bill came into being, the Government still thought that it was all that was required to take us out of the EU. I think that that is where its genesis and origin lie. In actual fact, one of the supreme ironies is that for all the heat that has been generated—we have carried out some proper scrutiny as well, but certainly, last Wednesday, there was a lot of heat—much of what we are doing here might well turn out in practice to be completely academic. In fairness to the Government, once they were landed with this immense problem, I am not sure that they were wrong to proceed in this way, but it just so happens that that is where we are going to end up. However, that is not a reason why we should not pay attention to the powers that the Government are seeking to take—we do have to pay attention to them.
Mr Grieve
I will give way to my right hon. Friend in just a second, because I do not wish to speak for very much longer.
For that reason, I do hope that a bit of focus can placed on schedule 5. I do not have any amendments tabled. I am not about to create difficulties for the Government or to divide the House on schedule 5, but I will, if I may, just ask a question as we approach Report, because I cannot believe that this will not be looked at in the House of Lords. It would be quite nice for the Christmas period to be used for quiet reflection on just how wide these powers are and whether, yet again, the Government might, on reflection, be able to circumscribe them a little bit, so that they appear to be slightly less stark in terms of the power grab that they imply. That is quite apart from the fact, to come back to my first point, that the exception in paragraph 2 giving Ministers the power not to print strikes me as very, very odd.
John Redwood
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Henry VIII powers, as he calls them, in the Bill are much more modest than the Henry VIII powers in the European Communities Act 1972 that it replaces? This is about only transferring existing law into UK law. Where and when we wish to amend, improve or repeal, that will require a full parliamentary process, which it did not need when it came from Europe.
Mr Grieve
I understand my right hon. Friend’s point. Of course, I am mindful of it—it has been raised on numerous occasions during the passage of the Bill—but the system that we had to follow as a result of our EU membership implied that that law, having been agreed by the Council of Ministers and translated into directives, had direct effect in this country and was then applied, not usually through primary legislation but by means of secondary legislation, or indeed directly sometimes. I understand all that, but it does not provide a justification for taking unnecessary powers in trying to effect our departure.
As I said, there is something a bit odd about schedule 5. There must be legal certainty, so why are the Government taking for themselves a power to create legal uncertainty if they so wish? Let us be clear about this: if guidance is a matter of Executive discretion, it is a very unusual state of affairs indeed. There is guidance and guidance. There may be general guidance that Parliament might give as to how it intends retained EU law to be treated. I do not have difficulty with that. Indeed, I think that it may be something that we will have to do. As we have discussed—my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset and I were in agreement about this—we think that Parliament might want to explain how it wishes this matter to be approached generally. That, if I may say, is a rather different thing from saying that Ministers can suddenly wake up one morning and decide, “I want the law to be interpreted in a different way on some specific matter, and I am going to lay a statutory instrument before Parliament that will enable me to do that.” It is a very unusual thing to do, and the Government must be in a position to justify it. It slightly troubles me that the law can be tinkered around with in this form. Obviously, Parliament can decide what it likes about changing law. Occasionally, we change laws by statutory instrument, through regulatory change, but it is not something that we should do lightly.
Mr Jenkin
Clause 13 is confined to the publication and rules of evidence. The schedule itself is about publishing what is retained direct EU legislation. Can my right hon. and learned Friend describe to me what latitude the Government would have that could do so much damage, or be so capricious, within the powers of the Bill, and can he give an example of what would be so damaging and outrageous?
Mr Grieve
As I have explained, this is a Henry VIII power, so within the period in which this power is operational—this is on my reading, but perhaps my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will correct me—a Minister of the Crown may, by regulation, essentially change the way in which retained EU law is handled by requiring
“judicial notice to be taken of a relevant matter, or…provide for the admissibility in any legal proceedings of specified evidence of…a relevant matter”.
That is a very extensive power. Effectively, it gives a power to rewrite how legislation should be interpreted.
Mr Grieve
The examples could be endless—[Interruption.] Well, if there is an established rule by which, for example, EU law is currently being applied, a Minister could say that, in future, that should be disapplied because notice should not be taken of its previous application.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that it is not correct to compare the direct application of EU law with Henry VIII powers? When EU law is made, we all sit around the table. EU law is not other people’s law but our law. We sit at the table when EU law is being made, so it is an incorrect comparison.
Mr Grieve
I do actually agree with the hon. Lady and, I am afraid, disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). Of course, membership of the EU implies a pooling of sovereignty, but the decision-making process by which law has been created in the EU is one that is done not by faceless bureaucrats, but by the Council of Ministers. There is absolutely no doubt about that at all—
Mr Grieve
I do not wish to be dragged off into some new polemical argument. My hon. Friend says in secret, but, if I may say, we are signed up to hundreds of treaties other than that with the EU in which we pool our sovereignty to come to common positions with our fellow treaty makers.
Lady Hermon
I am extremely grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. I agree entirely with his eloquent points about the power that schedule 5 transfers to Ministers of the Crown. Will he spend a moment reflecting on the definition of a Minister of the Crown that is set out in clause 14? The definition comprises not just Ministers, but
“also includes the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs”.
The power in schedule 5 is being given to a very broad range of individuals.
Mr Grieve
The hon. Lady is right. [Interruption.] Next to me, from a sedentary position, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex is saying, “It’ll only be used for technical matters.” Indeed—let us be clear about this—I strongly suspect that that is the intention, but this is a very extensive power and, as it is worded, it goes way beyond technical amendments. As we are in Committee, it seems perfectly proper for me, as a Back-Bench Member of Parliament—it does not matter which side of the Chamber I am sitting on—to ask my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench to explain to the Committee how the power will be used. I gently say to my hon. Friends that the problem with this debate is that the heat that starts to come off very quickly goes into issues of principle about what has been going on over the past 50 years. Could we just gently come back to focus on the issue at hand?
Mr Duncan Smith
I want to take up my right hon. and learned Friend on one small point. After agreeing with the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and justifying the past 40 years by saying that decisions were agreed by Ministers sitting together to make law, he knocked down his own argument as to why he cannot support what Ministers are doing because, of course, they would use this power as Ministers who have been elected to implement change and make law. My right hon. and learned Friend cannot have it both ways. Either he thinks that the last 40 years were wrong, which is why one defends the idea of change, as he did originally; or he thinks that the last 40 years were fine, in which case there is no attack on this particular aspect of the Bill.
Mr Grieve
I am afraid that I disagree totally with my right hon. Friend. In the last 40 years, we decided to pool sovereignty as a matter of national interest and necessity. This is a totally different issue; it is about our domestic law. When it comes to matters of domestic law, this House does not have the necessary constraint, which is the very reason why I have asked these questions. I am quite confident that my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench will be able to provide some cogent answers to the points I have raised.
Mike Gapes
Is there not also another difference, which is that decisions within the European Union are not just taken by meetings of the Council of Ministers, as there is a co-decision process that involves elected Members of the European Parliament representing all 28 member states?
Mr Grieve
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I do not want to get dragged into revisiting the way in which the European Union works. The European Union has many flaws, and there are many issues on which I have seen fit to criticise it during my years in the House—including, sometimes, the way it goes about its business. Having said that, this constant conflation of the two issues when we are carrying out scrutiny of what will be domestic legislation is, in my view, not helpful. We need to focus on what we are doing. If we do, we will come up with the right answers.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who made a characteristically thoughtful and reasonable contribution. It is always remarkable to see how such thoughtfulness and reasonableness can be so provocative to some Government Members.
I wish to speak to amendments 348 and 349 in my name and the names of my hon. and right hon. Friends. I hope, in doing so, to build on the agreement across the Committee that was evident last Wednesday, when we made the decision that Parliament should have a meaningful vote on the final Brexit deal.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Just for clarification, amendment 348 is in the first group of amendments and amendment 349 is in the next group.
Paul Blomfield
Thank you for that clarification, Dame Rosie, although I think that the points that I am making stand regardless.
Following on from the decision last Wednesday, let us be clear that an overwhelming majority of Members respect the result of the referendum, as was reflected in the vote on article 50, but there is also a clear majority who reject the deep rupture with our friends and partners in the EU 27 that is advocated by some of the more extreme Brexiteers. In the months ahead, that clear majority needs to find its voice. Most Members—many more than reflected in last Wednesday’s vote—recognise that our future lies in a close and collaborative relationship with the EU. [Interruption.] I am sorry if that was provocative to some Government Members. The Prime Minister describes that relationship as a “deep and special partnership”. It is a relationship based on maintaining common EU standards and regulations necessary for our future trading relationship, and it is vital in protecting jobs and the economy.
It is also a majority of the House who recognise that the referendum was a close vote—not the unprecedented mandate that some have suggested. Yes, 17.5 million people voted to leave the EU in 2016. That is roughly the same number as voted to remain in 1975, although that represented 67% of voters in 1975. It was a clear decision, but a close vote, and one that we should be implementing in a way that unites the country, not in a way that drives a further wedge between the 52% and the 48%.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should be trying to bring people together, rather than separating them. In that context, will he explain his definition of Brexiteer? He used the word earlier in the phrase “more extreme Brexiteers”. In his definition, is every Member who voted for article 50—I think that five sixths of the House did so—characterised as a Brexiteer?
Paul Blomfield
Clearly not. Like hon. Members across the House, including the overwhelming majority of the Opposition, I campaigned to remain in the European Union because I thought it was right thing to do economically and politically for our country and our continent. But I voted for article 50. That clearly does not characterise me as an extreme Brexiteer. Since I was elected in 2010, it has startled me that a small number of Members seem to define their politics by their ambition to leave the European Union at any cost and at any price; that is what I would describe as extreme.
Richard Graham
Again, just for clarification, Members who voted for article 50 are not Brexiteers, but presumably those who did not vote for article 50 are also not Brexiteers. Therefore, none of us is a Brexiteer; or are we actually all Brexiteers and just trying to resolve the issue?
Paul Blomfield
I am not really sure where the hon. Gentleman is trying to go with that argument. My point is that an overwhelming majority in the House wish to see us implement the decision of 2016 sensibly, and in a close and collaborative relationship with the EU 27. There are others—a small number, whose voices I expect to hear shortly—who would see us leave at any cost, and I regret that.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
My hon. Friend says a number of extreme Brexiteers in this House want to leave at any cost. Does he accept that a small number of Members will do anything—anything—to stop the United Kingdom carrying out the wishes of the British people to leave the European Union?
Paul Blomfield
No, I do not, and it is unfortunate that some people have been characterised in that way, as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and others were by some of their colleagues last week. If I can now make some progress—
Paul Blomfield
Well, while we are talking about extreme voices, I am happy to give way.
Mr Jenkin
There are right hon. and hon. Members who say they want to honour the result of the referendum, but who actually want the European Union to carry on controlling our laws. I call them Brexinos—people who want Brexit in name only. There may well be a majority of them in this House, but that would not be respecting the result of the referendum, would it?
Paul Blomfield
The hon. Gentleman is a good example of those who see conspiracy in any corner. I note the article he wrote in The Guardian on 8 October under the title “It’s a sad truth: on Brexit we just can’t trust the Treasury”. He went on to say:
“There is no intrinsic reason why Brexit should be difficult or damaging, but the EU itself has so far demonstrated it wants to make it so…it has co-opted the CBI…the City and…the Treasury to assist.”
Well, I think that the majority of Members take a more rational view.
The decision taken in 2016 was not a mandate for driving over a cliff edge with no deal or for having no transitional arrangement in place. It was not a vote for leaving all the agencies and partnerships from which we have benefited over the years and could continue to benefit or for turning our back on the single market, walking away from the customs union or—I say this with an eye on the contribution made in the last debate by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), who is paying more attention to his phone than to the debate—turning our back on the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Mr Duncan Smith
Is the hon. Gentleman not guilty himself, however, of attempting to interpret what the vote was for? On the ballot paper was the issue of whether to leave; the rest is down to negotiation. So, surely, his position is as absurd as that of anyone who says they know these things. He does not know. He knows only one thing: that the British people voted to leave. The rest is for negotiation.
Paul Blomfield
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The rest is indeed down to negotiation, and it is down to this Parliament to make the final decisions.
In the right hon. Gentleman’s contribution to, I think, the debate on day one, he sought to interpret the mandate by saying that the primary reason, from the research he had done, for leave voters voting as they did was their antipathy to the Court of Justice of the European Union. I was quite surprised by that, because I talked to hundreds of people on the doorstep who told me they were voting to leave, and the jurisdiction of the CJEU was not one of the regular issues raised.
Therefore, after day one, I took the time to look at the right hon. Gentleman’s research, which was carried out in partnership with the Foreign Secretary’s and the Environment Secretary’s favourite think-tank, the Legatum Institute. I located the report, and I read it with interest. Unusually, it did not include data on the full results, only the final weighted results, but the interesting thing was the question itself. Whereas the other choices were value-neutral—the economy, immigration, national security or the NHS— one option was
“The ability for Britain to make its own laws”—
a leading question if ever I heard one. [Interruption.] If the question had been “Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice”, the right hon. Gentleman may well have found a different answer. Other research, with larger samples—
Mr Duncan Smith
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can skip that and go to the point that was in that pamphlet, which made it clear that when people were asked what their primary reason was for voting to leave, it was “Take back control”—control of our laws, our borders and our money. He can debate that as much as he likes, but the public knew about that when they voted.
Wera Hobhouse
Are we not in a discussion about who interprets what? Is it not therefore time that we asked the people: what did they mean?
Paul Blomfield
We will come to that point in the second half of our debate today, and I will take the opportunity to comment on it then. However, to answer the right hon. Gentleman, the point I was making was that he sought to interpret the leave vote in a way that, on the basis of the research he cited, was flawed.
Analysis he might look at of nearly 3,000 British people, which was conducted by the NatCen Social Research, found that concerns about immigration were the driving factor for 75% of leave voters, which should not surprise him, because that was something he put very much at the centre of his arguments during the leave campaign.
If we know what the vote was not, let us remind ourselves what it was: it was simply a vote to leave the European Union. The campaign was hugely divisive. I spoke at dozens of meetings during the campaign, and the very last question of the very last meeting, in a local church, was, “How are you going to put our divided country back together again after all this?” Sadly, that question is as relevant now as it was then, as some of the abuse faced by Conservative Members after the vote last week demonstrated.
Meeting that challenge is a responsibility for us all, and it starts with us recognising that the majority in this House speaks for the country in wanting a sensible approach to Brexit. Instead of fuelling division, the Government should reach out and seek to build on that consensus for the next phase of the negotiations, in a way that will bring people together.
Last week’s drama should have been unnecessary. We should have been able to readily agree on the sovereignty of Parliament and on a meaningful final vote for this place. Labour amendments 348 and 349—when we come to it—which seek the publication of any impact assessment conducted by the Government, should be as uncontroversial as the idea that Parliament should have a say.
Clearly, events have moved on since these amendments were tabled, but real issues do remain. We obviously brought a motion on the issue to the House on 1 November, asking that impact assessments should be passed to the Exiting the European Union Committee. We did that for the same reason that the House voted last week: we want proper transparency and accountability in this process, but that is not what we got.
The Government neither amended nor opposed our motion, but they hoped to sidestep it. When Mr Speaker confirmed it was binding—
Richard Graham
On a point of order, Dame Rosie. My understanding of the advice you gave earlier is that amendment 348, which is about impact assessments, is not being discussed at this moment. I think that you told us that this debate is supposed to be about new clause 21, which is about clear English. That is why I asked the question about the shadow Minister’s definition of the word “Brexiteer”. However, I have not heard anything about new clause 21, and I think that you said we are going to take amendment 348 later.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
No, I think the hon. Gentleman misheard. I actually said that amendment 349 was in the second set and that amendment 348 is in this set, as is clause 13 stand part and schedule 5—hence why the debate is a little wider than the hon. Gentleman might wish it to be.
Paul Blomfield
Thank you, Dame Rosie.
The point I was making was that when Mr Speaker confirmed that our motion was binding and, indeed, that the Government should comply urgently, they clearly found themselves in a bit of a fix. Three weeks later, they finally produced something, although it was not what we voted for. I was really keen to read the papers that had been described by the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union as offering “excruciating detail” on the impact of the various options we faced as a country when leaving. So I, like a number of other Members, booked my slot for the DExEU reading room at the earliest opportunity.
On 5 December, I turned up at 100 Parliament Street and reported to reception. I was accompanied, closely, to the room. When I arrived, I was required to hand over my mobile phone. Having been sat at the table, two lever-arch files were brought to me from a locked cabinet, and as I read them I was supervised by two civil servants. So what did I find? Nothing that could not have been found in a reasonable internet search—which is presumably what the civil servants had been doing over the preceding three weeks in order to prepare them.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I went through the exact same experience. I visited the Cabinet Office and gave in my mobile phone, and made my written notes on the various tables in the section I was interested in. Afterwards, I found that I was given the identical information by submitting written parliamentary questions —so why all the secrecy?
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend makes the point very well. Why all the secrecy for what was available in that room, because there was certainly no assessment—or analysis, if we are playing with words—of the impact of the policy choices facing the Government and the country?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
The education section starts by saying, “We will not touch on the effects on Horizon 2020 or Erasmus.” It does not touch at all on non-higher education. There is no impact assessment on summer schools or language teaching in this country. Clearly, the work was not really done even with an internet search.
Paul Blomfield
We are probably straying on to dangerous territory if we start talking about the content, such are the rules surrounding the documents until such time as they are made public, but those of us who have been there know that they provide no analysis and no impact assessment. So it was no surprise when the Secretary of State told the Brexit Committee last Wednesday that the Government had undertaken “no quantitative assessment” of the impact of leaving the customs union—just one of the policy choices we face. Yet just a few hours later, in a room just a few yards away, the Chancellor told the Treasury Committee that the Government had
“modelled and analysed a wide range of potential alternative structures between the EU and the UK, potential alternative arrangements and agreements that might be made.”
The Chancellor’s answer was developed in oral questions last Thursday by the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who is in his place. He said:
“Our sectoral analysis is made up of a wide mix of qualitative and quantitative analyses examining activity across sectors, regulatory and trade frameworks and the views of stakeholders.”—[Official Report, 14 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 588.]
Let us bear in mind that the Secretary of State had said that no quantitative assessment has been undertaken on the impact of leaving the customs union. So in this
“qualitative and quantitative analysis of regulatory and trade frameworks”
have the Government for some reason exempted the customs union?
Tom Brake
Is the hon. Gentleman confused, as I am, about the reasons why the Government seem to have this problem—I do not know whether it is an ideological objection—with conducting impact assessments? We heard from the Prime Minister on Monday that Ministers are sitting down to discuss our future trading relationship with the European Union without having in front of them any impact assessments on what the different economic impacts of these models might be. How irresponsible is that?
Paul Blomfield
The worry is that either they are not conducting them or they are conducting them and not sharing them in the way that was required.
Mike Gapes
Could not there be another, far more simple, explanation—that the Secretary of State is heading a Department that should be renamed “the Department for Winging It”?
Paul Blomfield
That is probably the sort of phrase that the Secretary of State might use on some occasions.
On 2 February 2017, the Secretary of State told the House:
“We continue to analyse the impact of our exit across the breadth of the UK economy, covering more than 50 sectors—I think it was 58 at the last count—to shape our negotiating position.”—[Official Report, 2 February 2017; Vol. 620, c. 1218.]
Was he right? Or was the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) right when he said recently that the Secretary of State
“has never actually referred to impact assessments… These were a fiction of the media and the Labour party”?
If the Government are playing with semantics, claiming that assessments of impact and impact assessments are not the same thing, they should be aware that they are at serious risk of misleading the House. Even more worryingly, have they, as we have heard suggested, actually not undertaken this work at all? Are they hiding these assessments in semantics—hiding them from the House and from the Select Committee—or do they not even have any work to hide?
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
I want to speak briefly on new clause 21 and amendment 348. I also want to make some points in response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), because I agree with him on half of what he says and not on the other half. I will keep that stored up for the end to try to persuade him to stay; otherwise, I am sure that cups of tea may beckon for many.
I think that new clause 21, tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), is the great confession that we have been waiting for from the pro-Europeans in this House. The new clause has been given the support of some of the most luminous pro-Europeans known to the nation: the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), and that great panjandrum of pro-Europeanism, the distinguished gentleman the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable). All have signed this new clause. It says what we Eurosceptics have been saying all along: that the European Union produces its law in a form of gobbledegook—stentorian, sesquipedalian sentences that nobody can ever understand—and that when it is brought into British law, it should therefore be brought in in a plain English translation. The title of the new clause is “Plain English summary”.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
I agree with my hon. Friend’s description, actually. Does he agree that a lot of these things are almost as bad as the drafting of the Finance Bills that the Government bring before the House of Commons year after year?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am extremely grateful for the humility being shown by my distinguished right hon. and learned Friend, a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who admits that some of the Bills brought forward by his own former Department are incomprehensible to the lay reader. It is a broader problem of legislation, but it has been a particular problem of European legislation. That is why I have some sympathy for the new clause. As EU law is brought into UK law, which is widely accepted as the right starting point for when we leave the European Union, the Government ought to seek to do it in a form that is intelligible and easy to understand. This is one of the areas where I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, who said that that is one of the principles of the rule of law. As we do this, we should of course be sticking to principles of basic constitutional fairness.
It is glorious that the second argument of the Eurosceptics has been accepted in this new clause. The first argument is the basic one of taking back control, but the second is that the fundamental nature of the way in which the EU created law, and the whole body of the acquis communautaire, was not comprehensible to most people, was not subject to satisfactory democratic control, and was a bureaucratic monster that rolled on and on regardless.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Of course I give way to the hon. Lady, whose constituency I encircle.
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, for giving way. Has he ever tried to put any legislation in front of an ordinary person and ask him or her whether it is comprehensible? Our discussion demonstrates our difficulty, as parliamentarians, in making comprehensible to the people who elect us what we are actually about.
Mr Rees-Mogg
In North East Somerset, we do not have ordinary people. We have only exceptional, brilliant and talented individuals of the highest and finest calibre. I have a serious point to make in that: we, as politicians, should never use the term “ordinary people”, implying that we are some priestly caste who understand the mysteries of legislation, whereas ordinary people do not.
Wera Hobhouse
I apologise for the use of the term “ordinary people”. I accept that it is possibly not a very good way of describing the people who elect us.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for that. I think the point is important, and we should try to remember it.
A lot of the legislation that we pass can be explained to everybody—even to ourselves—in an understandable way. If we look at the Treasury Bench, we see some of the finest brains in Britain. They get up at the Dispatch Box and explain to us what is going to be passed into law, in terms that even Members of Parliament—including those of us who are not learned Members—can understand. I think that laws can be explained simply, and that is a worthy ambition.
New clause 21 makes the important point that during our period of membership, the EU increasingly turned out law that people did not understand. We have a golden opportunity to improve the quality of the legislation that we pass, improve people’s general understanding of it and improve our own understanding of it. Clarity is just and fair. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, that we want to apply this to our own work as well. There is no point in complaining about the European Union in that regard, but making our own laws incomprehensible. As an aside to what he said, one of the reasons why there is so much tax avoidance is that tax law is written in so complicated a manner.
Amendment 348 is important, and as the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) rightly said, it touches on the subject of the Humble Address that was brought forward on 1 November. The Government have dealt with the matter, and it is important to look at what they have done in response to the Humble Address. Many Conservative Members have opposed the European Union on the grounds of parliamentary sovereignty and an understanding of the nature of our constitution. We must recognise that a Humble Address motion is unquestionably binding. That has always been the tradition of this place. It is quite clear from “Erskine May” that there is a profound duty on the Government to fulfil the terms of any Humble Address. It will be interesting to see how often the Opposition use that procedure over the next few years to try to get information from the Government.
It is worth noting why the Humble Address procedure fell out of practice. I think the real reason was that Governments tended to command sufficient majorities in the House that a Humble Address motion they opposed would not get through. In the situation of a very slim overall majority, with the help of our friends from the Democratic Unionist party—
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is not expensive help. That is quite wrong. As the hon. and learned Lady knows, the £1 billion is less than was spent in Northern Ireland in the last Parliament. It is quite right that a Unionist party should help to form a Unionist Government.
Humble Addresses fell out of favour because they simply could not be got through. We need to look at how the Government responded to the Humble Address. My initial reaction was that the Government had not fulfilled the terms of the Humble Address, because it was not initially clear that the impact assessments did not, in fact, exist. The first indication was that the Government were nervous about producing information —they never said “impact assessments”—that might undermine the negotiating position. That seemed a sensible point to make, but not one that could conceivably override a Humble Address, which took precedence over it.
As the information was presented to the Exiting the European Union Committee, it became clear that the Government had been as helpful as they possibly could have been in producing information that had not, in fact, been requested by the Humble Address, which asked for something that did not exist. I think that technicalities in this field are important, and it is rational for Governments to follow them.
I happen to think that that is a lesson for the Opposition. If they are to call for Humble Addresses, they must make sure that those Humble Addresses are correctly—even pedantically—phrased to ensure that they are asking for something that really exists. I feel that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central was being unfair when he criticised the Government for failing to produce information that did not exist. The Government did as much as they could to produce the two folders—the 800 pages—of sectoral analysis. When we look through the record, we see that that is what the Government always admitted existed. The Government were careful to answer questions by referring to sectoral analyses, even if the questioner asked for impact assessments. That, I think, is where the misunderstanding developed that such impact assessments existed.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been in to read the documents, but by no stretch of the imagination are they an analysis or an assessment. They are purely descriptive. Either they have come from Wikipedia or—I think this is more likely—they are a bad piece of GCSE coursework, which would get a fail if it was supposed to contain analysis.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I did go to see the documents, as a member of the Exiting the European Union Committee. I was lucky; I was not told that I had to hand over my mobile telephone, my secret spyglasses or whatever other kit I might have borrowed from James Bond and brought with me so that I could try to take these secret bits of information out to the wider world. I did not have to suffer the great indignity that some other hon. Gentlemen have suffered. I was allowed to sit down and plough through the documents.
I must confess that on that afternoon, I would have been happier reading a P.G. Wodehouse or a similarly entertaining document. I also confess that there was not a great deal in the bit that I read that could not have been found out by somebody with an able researcher or competence in the use of Google. None the less, the information had all been brought together in a usable fashion in one place, and it was an analysis of the sectors covered. It may not have been exciting, it may not have been the read of the century and it may not have won the Booker prize. None the less, it was a detailed sectoral analysis and it more than met the requirements laid down by the Humble Address, which asked for something that did not exist.
Wera Hobhouse
The hon. Gentleman is extremely generous to give way again to me. I asked the Secretary of State in the Select Committee where and when he thought the misunderstanding had arisen, but I do not think I got a very satisfactory answer. He had plenty of opportunities in the House to correct us and say, “These are not impact assessments; they are sectoral analyses.” He never chose to do that, and I am still waiting for the answer. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that the Secretary of State did not have the opportunity to clear up that misunderstanding?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I do not agree with the hon. Lady. I think the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), made the situation clear from the Dispatch Box. He said in no uncertain terms that there were not impact assessments, but there were sectoral analyses. Dare I say that there are none so deaf as those who will not hear? I think the House did not particularly hear that those impact assessments did not exist, and therefore rode over the information that was given from the Dispatch Box.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so generous. I brought up the issue with the Secretary of State in October 2016, when he told me:
“We currently have in place an assessment of 51 sectors of the economy.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 938.]
The hon. Gentleman knows as well I do that there are only 39, and they do not look like assessments of sectors of the economy. Will he join me in asking Front Benchers whether they will clarify their position on that issue?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is moving away from the Humble Address, which asked for impact assessments, not assessments of the economy by sector. He is asking about another piece of information, which he is quite entitled to do. It is perfectly legitimate to ask for that information, but it in no sense represents a breach of the Humble Address; nor is it covered by amendment 348. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene again? No?
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
In fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) on the SNP Front Bench, he was referring to his own question, not the Humble Address, so will the hon. Gentleman address his point?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Yes, but I was saying that the terms of the question asked by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) and the Humble Address were different. The Humble Address is a binding motion, but although the hon. Gentleman’s questions are very important and deserve to be taken seriously—and treated, as all questions should be, properly and diligently—they are not binding in themselves. It might be a great thing if the hon. Gentleman’s questions were to become binding and have the force and weight of the whole House of Commons behind them, but that is not yet the situation. I will now happily give way to my right hon. Friend.
Sir Desmond Swayne
We are rehearsing matters that I thought had been thoroughly covered, but the reality is that had the Secretary of State not addressed the requirements of the Humble Address, he would have been guilty of a contempt, and Mr Speaker has made it absolutely clear that that was not the case.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend has put the matter so well that I can move on to my final point.
I wish to make a point about the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield and Henry VIII powers, where we have come from and where we are going to in relation to new laws being implemented in the United Kingdom. The part on which I agree with him is that we in this House should always treat Henry VIII powers with the deepest suspicion. The job of the House of Commons is to protect the powers of the House of Commons against an over-mighty Executive. Dare I say to those on the Government Front Bench that all Executives seek to be over-mighty? It is in their very nature, whether our side or Labour is in power. Those of us on the Government Back Benches should always remember that we will not be in government forever. [Hon. Members: “Shame.”] I am sorry to say that, but I take a very long view of history, and I can see that at some point in the next millennium we may, heaven help us, have an SNP Government—
Mr Rees-Mogg
But not for the United Kingdom as a whole—no, not yet. I will wait for the SNP to put up a candidate in North East Somerset, and we will see how well that goes down.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Would my hon. Friend concede that some of us are always in opposition whichever party is in government?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend puts the point beautifully. That is actually the historical and traditional job of Back-Bench Members of Parliament. We should be here to protect the interests of our constituents and the interests of the constitution, and to hold the Government—of whichever party—to account.
That is why I am in such agreement with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield about the undesirability of Henry VIII powers. However, I said I would diverge from him at some point. The point on which I diverge from him is the perhaps slightly academic one about where we have started from. I think it is inconsistent to say that Henry VIII powers exercised by the British Government, subject to the normal parliamentary procedures of this House and another place, are worrying, but that the Henry VIII powers used under the European Communities Act 1972 were not.
Mr Grieve
My hon. Friend makes a perfectly reasonable point, and there is an argument that this House should not concede Henry VIII powers without very good reason indeed. I suggest that the difference is that the 1972 Act carried the clear implication that this was a necessity in order to meet our international obligations. The question I have asked this afternoon is whether these powers are required to meet some domestic necessity. My hon. Friends on the Front Bench may be able to reassure me that they are, but as the powers are so extensive, it is right that we should question them.
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is always right that we should question such powers. That issue was about meeting our international obligations, but we volunteered to take on those international obligations by treaty without allowing the House to have the final say on the regulations that would come in. A political decision was made for the convenience of the then Government to do this in such a way to get that treaty agreed, but that was just as much a power grab from this House as what is currently proposed. Indeed, to my mind, it was a very much greater power grab because of the way in which laws in the European Union are introduced. The key is not co-decision making, which we have heard about—that is marginal, and came in at a later stage—but the fact that the right to present a new law rests with the Commission, which is the least democratic part of the European Union.
One of the glories of this House is that any right hon. or hon. Member may at any point, after the first few weeks of a new Session, go up to the Public Bill Office and seek to bring in a new Bill. The right of initiation of legislation lies with all of us, not just people who win the lottery or have ten-minute rule Bills. It lies not just with the Government; any right hon. or hon. Member has that right. It is such an important part of our ability to represent our constituents and to seek redress of grievance. The highest form of redress of grievance is an Act of Parliament; interestingly, Acts of Parliament emerged at the beginning of the 14th century from the presentation of petitions to this House that Members then turned into Acts. This is at the heart of our democratic system, but it was immediately denied by the basis on which laws are introduced within the European Commission.
Kevin Brennan
The hon. Gentleman is of course right about the ability of Members to introduce a Bill, but glorious though the right is, is he not slightly exaggerating its force? Given the Executive’s control of the timetable, the likelihood of any Bill introduced in such a way being able to make it into law is pretty minimal.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The likelihood is minimal because it would be fairly chaotic if we had 650 Bills coming through each day—understandably, there has to be a means of making this House work; none the less, we have such a right. When Members bring forward really important Bills that are of fundamental significance and have support across the nation, they do eventually get through, despite the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), as well as of me and one or two others, to talk out rotten Bills. When Bills are of high quality and have support, they do get through, and that is very important.
Kevin Brennan
Will the hon. Gentleman name one that has got through via that procedure during the last Session?
Mr Rees-Mogg
In the last Parliament, we got through a major reduction in prejudice against people suffering from mental health disorders—for example, allowing them to become Members of this House. That very important Act of Parliament was carried by pressure from individual Members. Nobody sought to talk it out—it had very widespread support—and it was taken through by a Back Bencher.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Autism Act 2009 was such an example, as was the legislation creating marine protection zones that was brought in by our former hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Such Bills do come through—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) is saying that they were not presentation Bills. It is fair to say that a presentation Bill very rarely gets through in the first instance, but it can often go on to become a ballot Bill or to receive Government support, so it is the beginning of the process. I certainly would not advocate that each of us should have the right to get a Bill made into law, but we have the right to initiate the process. That is at the heart of the democratic process, but the EU lacks such a system, which is why the 1972 Act created a worse set of Henry VIII powers than the set now being created. Overall, however, as it is nearly Christmas, I am in happy agreement with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I have the results of today’s deferred Divisions—I know you have all been anxiously awaiting them—which I will now announce. In respect of the question relating to local authorities (mayoral elections), the Ayes were 317 and the Noes were 231, while of those Members representing constituencies in England and Wales, the Ayes were 293 and the Noes were 221, so the Ayes have it. In respect of the question relating to combined authorities (mayoral elections), the Ayes were 317 and the Noes were 231, while of those Members representing constituencies in England, the Ayes were 285 and the Noes were 195, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]
Joanna Cherry
It is always a little daunting to follow the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). I thank him for his gracious offer that an SNP politician might wish to stand in his constituency, but I can inform him that the only Scottish politician looking for a safe seat in England at the moment is the leader of the Conservative and Unionist party. The rest of us are quite happy with our seats in Scotland, safe or otherwise.
I wish to speak to amendments 77 and 76, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and other SNP Members. Clause 13 and schedule 5 deal, as we have heard, with rules relating to publication and rules of evidence. SNP Members are less concerned with the rules relating to publication, although I would be interested to hear the Government’s response to the pertinent questions raised, as always, by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). We are very happy with the idea—in the terms of schedule 5, paragraph 1—that:
“The Queen’s printer must make arrangements for the publication of”
these relevant instruments, but we share the concern that he very ably articulated as to why there might be certain instruments that would fall into a category that should not be published. It seems most odd.
We also welcome the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) and in the name of the Labour Front Bench. We absolutely support any amendments that seek to achieve transparency and clarity. We also very much support amendment 348, which seeks to revisit the issue of impact assessments, because we share the concerns that were expressed from the Labour Front Bench, and by others who have intervened, about the sorry saga of the impact assessments. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) explained in relation to a question he asked in 2016, there were occasions when the impression was given on the Floor of the House that economic impact assessments existed, no matter what might have been said in response to the Humble Address.
It is also worth bearing in mind that the Humble Address related only to sectoral impact assessments. It did not relate to the impact assessment that has been made in relation to the Scottish economy. It is worth reminding ourselves that both the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, in response to a question I asked when he gave evidence before the Exiting the EU Committee, and the Secretary of State for Scotland, in response to questions raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), said that impact assessments in relation to the Scottish economy do exist, and that they will be shared with the Scottish Government.
Stephen Gethins
My hon. and learned Friend makes a powerful point. Will she put it to the Minister that the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union told me in October 2016 not only that there were 51 sectors rather than 39—there was some confusion, and I thank the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) for giving way to me on that—but that there was also an assessment that was promised to the Scottish Government back in 2016?
Joanna Cherry
Indeed. And more recently than 2016, following up on that, evidence has been given to two Select Committees of this House that impact assessments relating to the Scottish economy exist, and will be shared with the Scottish Government. I can tell the House that they have not as yet been shared with my colleagues in the Scottish Government, and we have not as yet had any clear backtracking as to the existence of these documents. No doubt that is something that will be pursued in the new year, but I very much welcome the commitment of Labour Front Benchers to continuing to pursue the issue of impact assessments because, as others have said, either they exist and they are not being shared with us—and we know that they do exist in relation to Scotland because we have been told that by two Government Ministers—or they have not been carried out, which is an extraordinary dereliction of duty by the Government if they care at all about protecting the economies of the various nations of these islands.
In relation to the SNP’s amendments to clause 13 and schedule 5, we are very much indebted to the expert assistance we have received from briefings prepared by the Law Society of Scotland for the benefit of all SNP Members, and we have worked closely with the society to inform some of our more legalistic amendments. Those amendments—76 and 77—stem from written evidence that the society has provided to various Committees of this House and the other place.
In the society’s response to the White Paper “Legislating for the United Kingdom’s Withdrawal from the European Union”—which many of us have now forgotten about; it seems a lifetime ago—the society recommended that once the process of identifying European Union-derived UK law was complete, that body of law should be collected in an easily identifiable and accessible collection. We believe that schedule 5, paragraph 1 is a significant step forward in that direction, and will be of significant assistance to those to whom this body of law will apply and their advisers, but we agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham East that matters would be assisted if they were published in plain English. We also agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield that the Government need to tell us why they want to give themselves the power to withhold publication of some of these instruments. It is hard to imagine what reason there could possibly be.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The hon. and learned Lady is making a very interesting speech. Retained rights for EU citizens perhaps go that little bit further, because they are specific to EU citizens in this country—hence the reference, perhaps with a little more certainty, to the European Court of Justice—but she is seeking to imply that same strict standard for all retained EU law.
Joanna Cherry
The point I am seeking to make is that having vigorously resisted my amendment, which I tabled for the benefit of everybody living in the UK in relation to issues of certainty about the interpretation of retained EU law after exit day, the Government have now conceded some ground—they are going to provide that certainty for EU citizens living in the UK—so why, if it is good enough for EU citizens living in the UK, is it not good enough for UK citizens living in the UK? Perhaps even more importantly—this adds force to my argument—senior members of the judiciary, both current and retired, have very serious concerns that the wording in the Bill as it stands will involve them in having to make political decisions.
In the past few days, we have seen the kind of vicious opprobrium that can be levelled at those who are seen to have made political decisions on the constitution where the EU is concerned, and earlier this year we saw the level of opprobrium directed at senior members of the judiciary for applying the law. The judiciary’s concern, therefore, is very real. I am not here just to advocate for the judiciary; I am here to advocate for democracy, the separation of powers, and the protection of the constitution. I may well have, as my ultimate goal, an independent Scotland with its own written constitution, but as long as Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom I am very interested in preserving UK citizens’ rights and democracy in the UK as a whole and protecting the notion of separation of powers within the constitution.
The Government do not have to take my word for it. They should look very closely at the evidence given to the House of Lords EU Justice Sub-Committee on 21 November. Lord Hope of Craighead pointed out that clause 6(2), as presently drafted, gives them a discretionary freedom rather than an obligation. Lord Neuberger, the former President of the Supreme Court, said:
“Clause 6(2), as drafted—it is a matter for a judge whether, and if so in what way, to take into account a decision of the Court of Justice on the same point in the regulation or directive, rather than in our statute. The problem for a judge is whether to take into account diplomatic, political or economic factors when deciding whether to follow the decision of the CJEU. These are normally decisions for the legislature, either to make or to tell judges what to do. We talked about our system in this country of judges being given a wide discretion, but this is an uncomfortably wide discretion, because a judge will have to take into account, or in some cases will be asked to take into account, factors that are rather unusual for a judge to have to take into account and that have political implications. It would be better if we did not maintain this system of judges being free to take decisions into account if they saw fit, if they were given some guidance as to the factors which they can and cannot take into account. Otherwise we are getting judges to step into the political arena.”
The issue of how the judiciary are to be given guidance on the interpretation of retained EU law arises directly from the wording of schedule 5 and takes us back to the wording of clause 6(2).
Joanna Cherry
The Solicitor General is raising his eyebrows at me, but if he looks carefully at schedule 5, as I am sure he has, he will see that it talks about the procedure for interpreting retained EU law. That is why I am revisiting these issues. I am also revisiting them because former Supreme Court judges Lord Neuberger and Lord Hope gave this evidence to the House of Lords after our discussions on clause 6(2) in this House. It is new evidence that the Government really should take away and look at before Report.
Huw Merriman
In a former career, I would take cases and seek direction from the courts on what they believed the law, or previous cases, were intending. Courts and judges are used to exercising discretion. Clause 6(2) makes it quite clear that they may do so if they consider it appropriate, in the same way they can refer to Commonwealth judgments if they believe that to be appropriate. I do not recognise the picture of the judiciary that the hon. and learned Lady is painting.
Joanna Cherry
I recognise it, because in my former career I appeared regularly in the Supreme Court of the UK and the supreme courts of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman may not recognise my concerns, but if he shares my professional background, he should recognise the concerns of senior members of the serving judiciary and the retired judiciary. These are very real concerns. They are telling us that clause 6(2), as currently drafted, on how they will be directed to interpret retained EU law after exit day, does not give them the clarity they desire and would leave in their provenance issues that are political and economic, and factors that, to use Lord Neuberger’s words, are rather unusual for a judge to have to take into account. This is complicated.
Joanna Cherry
I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield for agreeing with me on this point. I would expect him to do so, because he, like me, will be paying very careful regard to what current senior judges and retired judges are saying.
I would like to conclude by quoting what Lord Thomas said to the House of Lords Committee after Lord Neuberger and Lord Hope had given their evidence. He said that he entirely agreed:
“It will be a very real problem for future judicial independence and the rule of law if this”—
the guidance—
“is not clarified.”
Put briefly, the problem is that leaving domestic courts free to make independent judgments on such crucial constitutional issues raises the prospect of politicising the judiciary’s institutional role in the Brexit process, resulting, potentially, in further regrettable attacks on the integrity of UK judges like those we saw earlier this year and last week. I therefore ask the Minister to address this problem before Report. I have no doubt that it will be addressed in the House of Lords, but I think it should be addressed in the elected House. The elected House should sort this out and not leave it to their lordships.
The Solicitor General
Given the spirit in which the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) moved new clause 21, I was anticipating some form of Christmas truce, and that we would perhaps emerge from our trench lines and play football. As the debate went on, however—this is inevitable on such issues—divisions soon emerged. We have had quite a fierce debate on aspects of the policy surrounding our exit from the EU. First, there was the question of when an impact assessment is not an impact assessment. We then—I am not criticising the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry)—started down the road of, in effect, reopening the debate on clause 6(2). I did raise my eyebrows at her. I take the point that there is a link with schedule 5, but she will immediately recognise that the schedule tries to answer the old question of whether the recognition or understanding of EU law for the purposes of judicial interpretation is a question of fact or a question of law. It is a mechanism to an end, rather than the means of interpretation itself, which is of course within clause 6.
Joanna Cherry
My point is that, having rightly conceded that it is a question of law, the Government need to address how that law is interpreted by the judiciary.
The Solicitor General
I was about to say to the hon. and learned Lady that, tempted though I am to embark on a long debate with her about why it is important that those who criticise clause 6(2) come up with some sensible alternatives, I am conscious that the Mace is under the Table and that this is a debate in Committee on clause 13 and schedule 5. I do, however, commend to her the evidence I gave to the Lords Constitution Committee last week, at which the very questions she raises were asked of me by Lord Judge and Lord Pannick. In discussion with them, I made the point that, for example, a check list of dos and don’ts for judges would not be an appropriate way forward. There was a measure of agreement with that assertion, but inevitably these issues will be considered in the other place. Having said that, I think that she is right to make no apology for airing these matters in this House, because it is vital, on a Bill as important as this, that we, as elected Members, inform the other place that we have not given it cursory examination, but considered it very carefully indeed. To that extent, I am extremely grateful to her.
There have been many interesting and important contributions to the debate, and I urge the Committee to agree to clause 13 and schedule 5. It is good to see the hon. Member for Nottingham East back in the Chamber. I took the spirit with which he moved his new clause to heart, and I hope that I can respond in kind to him, but there is one word that perhaps sums up the debate, and indeed my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who used it himself: sesquipedalian. It is a synonym for polysyllabic, and I am afraid that it is inevitable in such a debate that we will use words of more than two, three or, dare I say, four syllables. I will, however, try to curb my natural inclination to enjoy such diversions and to meet the hon. Gentleman’s argument that we speak in plain English.
On schedule 5, which is the meat of this debate, it is worth reminding ourselves—I say this particularly in response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve)—that we are talking about means of publication and the rules of evidence to be applied. It is important that I gently remind hon. Members of that, lest we start to soar again into the stratosphere of constitutional debate and get unduly worried about the Government seeking to accrue massive power, when really we are talking about, first, how all this information can be presented to the public and, secondly, how the courts should be enjoined to take notice of it.
I will go through the points raised by my right hon. and learned Friend, particularly with regard, first, to paragraph 2 in part 1 on exceptions from the duty to publish. It is important to note that the direction power under paragraph 2(2) does not allow a Minister to make something retained EU law; it is there merely to enable the Government to ensure that legislation that is obviously not retained EU law does not have to be published. We are trying to minimise the potential for confusion, but we have to be realistic. It will not be possible to ensure without exception that only retained EU legislation is published. We do not think—quite properly, in my opinion—that it is the place of the Queen’s printer to make the determination of what such legislation is. That is why the Bill, quite reasonably, gives powers to Ministers to do this instead.
The powers in part 2 are not quite as alarming as might have appeared at first blush. They are clear and limited. The purpose of the creation of new rules of evidence is to allow them to sit alongside existing rules, including those in primary legislation. Importantly, these powers are subject to the affirmative procedure, which ensures a vote in this House. I will give my right hon. and learned Friend two examples of where the power to make a direction under paragraph 2 may be used in respect of all or part of an instrument. The first would concern an EU decision addressed only to a member state other than the UK. For example, the small hive beetle is a particular issue in Italy, and Commission implementing decision 2014/909 concerns certain protective measures with regard to confirmed occurrences of that insect. It is addressed only to Italy and quite clearly should not be published as part of EU retained law.
The Solicitor General
As I have said, this is a power of publication. It is important not only that we formally delete it, as my right hon. and learned Friend says, but that we provide that it does not end up in the wrong place and thereby mislead the reader or those who want to find an authoritative source for retained EU law. Another example would be EU regulations that have entered into force but are only partially applicable here immediately before exit day. One example is regulation 2016/2031 on protective measures against pests of plants, which has entered into force. One provision applies now, but the rest will apply in the EU only after exit day. To answer him directly, that is why the power exists.
I shall move on to paragraphs 3 and 4. Paragraph 3, as the keenest Members will have observed, is based on section 3(1) of the 1972 Act, which provides that
“any question as to the meaning or effect of any of the Treaties, or as to the validity, meaning or effect of any EU instrument, shall be treated as a question of law”,
and, of course, when something is a question of law, a court can determine the meaning of that law for its own purposes. Foreign law is normally a question of fact to be pleaded and then proved, often by recourse to expert evidence. Quite rightly, however, we want to allow a question of EU law to continue to be treated as a question of law after exit day, for certain purposes, such as when it is necessary to decide the question of EU law for the purposes of interpreting retained EU law in legal proceedings here.
Lady Hermon
Will the Solicitor General take a moment to explain the status of the long preambles to EU regulations and directives? We are taking all this back, so what is their status to be? How will the courts interpret the preambles to regulations and directives that become part of retained EU law?
The Solicitor General
Like any other part of a document, it will, of course, have effect. A preamble is an important statement. It is different from, say, an explanatory note or accompanying document—it is part of the measure and therefore will have force. We are seeking to download that documentation and make it part of our domestic law so that when we read it across, people will know that it is part of our domestic law, albeit in that category of retained EU law.
Lady Hermon
The hon. and learned Gentleman, like everyone in the House, will be well aware that our legislation does not have long preambles. I think that the judges need further guidance. He has indicated from the Dispatch Box that the preambles will have force. What weight should the judiciary across the UK give to those preambles, as they are not accustomed to them in British legislation? What does “force” actually mean?
The Solicitor General
To be fair to our judges, they already have the task of interpreting and applying EU regulations and all EU legislation that has direct effect. With respect to the hon. Lady, it will not be a new task for them, and I trust Her Majesty’s judges to get it right. As I said in response to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West, it is tempting for the House to try to set out a list of judicial dos and don’ts, but I do not think that that is an appropriate approach. I trust and respect the judiciary to get this right, as they almost invariably do. They answer the question that is put to them, and deal with it in a robust and independent way. As one of the Law Officers responsible for upholding the rule of law, I am happy to reiterate on the Floor of the House that I have the utmost confidence in our domestic judiciary to get it right.
Paragraph 4 is based on subsections (2) to (5) of section 3 of the 1972 Act. Those subsections distinguish between EU-related matters which are to be judicially noticed—such as EU treaties, judgments of the Court and the Official Journal of the European Union—and other matters which, in theory, fall to be proved to the Court, such as EU instruments. For the latter category, rules are provided about how such matters are to be admissible to our courts. It is worth noting that the power in paragraph 4 to make evidential rules is again subject to the affirmative procedure, as it will be used to replace rules commonly found in primary legislation. I think it is important for all Members to note the context in which these powers are to be used.
Mr Grieve
My hon. and learned Friend is giving a very helpful explanation of the powers in paragraph 4. He may agree that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) should listen to it with care. There he was, expressing his great concern about the way in which legislation and EU law was handled in this country—and is still being handled before we leave the EU—but here the Government are replicating the process for when we have left. I am not allowed to speak in French in the Chamber, but plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
The Solicitor General
My right hon. and learned Friend is not just a lawyer but an historian. He will know that a previous Solicitor General, the late Lord Howe, steered the Bill that became the 1972 Act through the House of Commons. I nod to his memory. He knew what he was about, and he helped to produce an extremely important and effective piece of legislation. I make no apology for replicating aspects of it in this Bill.
Let me reassure the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West that the fact that the provision is in a schedule is not significant. It is on the face of the Bill—in primary legislation—and it receives the same high level of scrutiny that it would if it were one of the clauses. I think it only right that clause 13 is drafted in a general way and there is particularity in the schedule. That is good, modern drafting practice, as I am sure the hon. and learned Lady will acknowledge, given her extensive study of other Bills on which we have worked together.
Joanna Cherry
That was not just my concern. It was a concern expressed by the Law Society of Scotland which, as I have said, informed the SNP amendments. May I take up a point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve)? These are extremely sweeping powers, but they are tucked away in a schedule.
The Solicitor General
I take the hon. and learned Lady’s point with the utmost seriousness, as I hope I always do, but, with respect to her, I think there is no real significance to be attached to the fact that the provision is in a schedule. This is hardly the longest piece of legislation that the House will have seen, but it will certainly be one of the most pored over—and rightly so. The hon. and learned Lady is doing justice to that through her interventions.
Let me now deal directly with new clause 21. Of course I recognise the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham East, but I do not consider it feasible to impose a statutory duty requiring summaries of all retained direct EU legislation. The scale of that task would be hard to overstate. I have used the word Sisyphean before, and I think that it applies in this case.
According to EUR-Lex, the EU’s legal database, there are currently more than 12,000 EU regulations in force. To impose a statutory duty of requiring plain English summaries of them would, I think, be disproportionate, given that many explanatory materials have already been issued by the EU about EU law—and, indeed, by UK bodies, including the Health and Safety Executive. One example is documentation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals regulations published by the European Chemicals Agency. That measure has been mentioned many times in the Committee. I believe that, at present, the law is accessible.
Mr Leslie
I am grateful to the Solicitor General for addressing new clause 21 in that way, which will be useful to the poor members of the committee that has been given the task of sifting what should and should not be negative statutory instruments. The commitment to provide explanatory memorandums that are readily understandable is very helpful. Dealing with perhaps 12,000 regulations is, of course, a massive task, but does the Solicitor General not agree that that might be one of the unforeseen consequences of Brexit?
The Solicitor General
I think that there are many consequences on which the hon. Gentleman and I could dwell on another occasion. The fact is, however, that it is my task to try to ensure, as one of the Law Officers, that the principles of the rule of law to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield referred in his speech—accessibility, clarity and certainty—are adhered to. We will deal with the issues so that we uphold those important principles, which were set out by the late Lord Bingham.
Lady Hermon
I am grateful to the Solicitor General for his generosity in giving way again. As he knows, we do not currently have a functioning Assembly in Northern Ireland, so we do not have Ministers who can abide by his direction about explanatory memorandums that will be issued when EU regulations and directives are brought back, in this context to Northern Ireland. Will he confirm that the Departments in Northern Ireland will have an obligation—a duty—to provide explanatory memorandums in that connection?
The Solicitor General
I think it must follow that when there is no Executive functioning in Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Office is carrying out functions as a substitute for the Executive, the duty will apply to that Department. I assure the hon. Lady that when we introduce statutory instruments, there will be explanatory memorandums from one source or another. Various Departments will have different responsibilities for the drafting and publication of the statutory instruments, and it will be their duty to produce the explanatory memorandums for Members to consider. I cannot envisage an exception being made. Northern Ireland will be covered in the way in which the hon. Lady wants it to be.
Paragraph 1(4) of schedule 5 enables the Queen’s printer to make arrangements to publish documents that may be considered useful in connection with anything else published under the schedule. That, I think, allows for the approach that the hon. Member for Nottingham East is requesting. We are committed to ensuring that the law remains accessible and comprehensible after exit day, and on that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause, which I think he said was a probing measure. He will have noted my comment, and I understand his position.
Amendments 76 and 77 have been addressed in particular by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West. Amendment 77 seeks to place the power for a Minister to make provision about judicial notice and the admissibility in legal proceedings of specified evidence of certain matters into the Bill. Judicial notice is a term that covers matters that are to be treated as already within the knowledge of the court, and are therefore not required to be “proved”, as other evidence would be, in the usual way. Amendment 76 would remove that power from schedule 5, while not replacing the provisions that clarify the scope of that power.
The power in part 2 of the schedule covers a limited, technical area, and the affirmative procedure will apply. My worry is that, with the removals that amendment 76 would make, we will lose clarity on how those powers are to be applied. I imagine that the intention of those who support the amendments is that those clarifying provisions would be inserted underneath the power, but I think that we achieve greater clarity by putting them in this schedule in the way that we have, so I respectfully ask the hon. and learned Lady and the other Members who have tabled the amendments not to press them.
Finally, I will deal with amendment 348. It is tempting for me to plunge into the debate about impact assessments and regulatory and sectoral analyses, but this is an amendment about this Bill, of course, and I remind all Members that an impact assessment for this Bill was published when it was introduced. That is in line with the general practice of Governments of different parties in recent years of publishing impact assessments alongside legislation. We want to continue pursuing that approach, but it must be done in a proportionate and appropriate way.
Amendment 348 would impose an open-ended requirement on the Queen’s printer to publish impact assessments, and could, I fear, create a duty it could not meet. The Queen’s printer does not have a responsibility to decide what should be published alongside legislation; it merely publishes what the Government ask it to, and quite rightly so, we might think. At the same time, Ministers have a specific responsibility, endorsed by Parliament, not to release information that would expose our negotiating position. This amendment would risk doing precisely that in a way that would put the responsibility on to a non-ministerial department—the Queen’s printer—which, with respect to it, is in no place to know what analysis is being undertaken, or to make a judgment about what can be published appropriately, safely and proportionately.
In the context of those remarks, I ask the hon. Member for Nottingham East to withdraw the new clause, and I support the passage of clause 13 and schedule 5 and beg that they stand part of the Bill.
Mrs Moon
I rise to speak in support of amendment 348 and new clause 21.
Today, I took the short and wide pavements over to the Department for Exiting the European Union; what a waste of my time that was. I went because I wanted to read what was written in relation to the workforce impacts for the large numbers of my constituents from Bridgend who work in the Ford engine factory and with Tata Steel. So I went to look in particular at the automotive sector and the steel sector reports.
The Ford engine plant is the largest engine works in Europe, and Tata next door in Port Talbot employs the largest number of people in steelworks in the UK. It was interesting that when I got there—having gone through the whole palaver of not taking my phone with me and being walked up to the Department, being asked to sign myself in and being handed the two big files—I found that the document started off by telling me what it was not: the first page I had to wade through told me that 58 sectorial impact assessments do not exist. So what I had gone there to see did not exist. Instead I was told that the paperwork consisted of qualitative and quantitative analyses in a range of documents developed at different times since—that is an important word—the referendum, so this was going to be new information: it was going to be information and analysis not available before the referendum and therefore, sadly, not available to the voters in my constituency or indeed to Members.
The 38—not 58—sector documents consist of descriptions of the sector, comments on EU regulations, existing frameworks for how trade is facilitated between countries and sector views. In the end, they are sector views, and nothing the Government had collected together was worth going there to read. They did not contain commercial, market or negotiation-sensitive information, as the documents told me, so why on earth could it all not just have been emailed to all MPs? There was nothing there that would upset anybody; all it would have done was insult people, not worry them. Apart from the sector views, it told us nothing that could not be found from a good read through Wikipedia.
There is no Government impact assessment, or indeed any assessment, even in the one part of the document worth reading: the sectoral view. The sectoral view is just there: the Government do not say what they are going to do about it, or even whether they think it is relevant—they just ignore it.
Sir David, what I was greeted with at DExEU would, in all honesty, have insulted us when we were both serving on the Select Committee on Defence; if that had come to us from the Ministry of Defence, we would have sent it back and said, “Do it again.” It was insulting. Members of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly would have been confused by such pathetic information being placed before them. So perhaps that is why we are not making it public.
I read the report relating to the automotive and steel industries. The report admits that automotive is central to the UK economy and a key part of our industrial strategy, so we would think that the Government would want to make sure that whatever they were going to do would protect it. The industry employs 159,000 people, with a further 238,000 in the supply chain. I did like one line, which said that the UK is a global centre of excellence for engine design, and offered the example of Ford; that is us down in Bridgend. Automotive earns us £40.1 billion in exports, and the EU is the UK’s largest export market, so we would think this is pretty important stuff.
What were the sectoral view and the concerns? Again, there was nothing new; my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) and I could have written this ourselves. In fact, we could probably have written a better sectoral analysis than anything the Government have produced; it was pathetic.
Mrs Moon
I agree with my hon. Friend.
The sector has said that World Trade Organisation rules and current EU third country tariff schedules will bring a 4.5% tariff on components and a 10% tariff on cars; I think we already knew that. We were also informed that Japanese and Ford motor manufacturing make the UK their base because of access to the EU market. There is a major statement and recommendation there: it will be devastating for motor manufacturing in the UK if we do not continue to have access to the EU markets.
We were also told that automotive is a high-volume, low-margin industry operating a just-in-time process. It was said that customs checks would add to administrative costs, delay production and shipments and create the need for increased working capital and that they would increase the cost of production in the UK. Concern was expressed about access to key engineering staff if higher immigration controls were in place, exacerbating skills shortages where a significant skills shortage already exists, with 5,000 job vacancies, especially in engineering design and production engineering.
Mrs Moon
No, I am going to carry on, because others need to get in.
Turning to the steel sector, I found what I already knew: Wales employs 5,000 people in the steel industry, and the knock-on effect on the steel industry in Port Talbot, Neath, Swansea, Ogmore and Bridgend will be devastating if those jobs are affected in the slightest. I did not waste my time going through all the Government nonsense again; I went straight to the sectoral views. The view of the steel sector was very blunt, just like the people who work in it, and I like that. It stated that policies and practices should remain as closely aligned to the EU as possible. Have I heard the Government promise that at any time during these debates? No.
The sectoral view asked that we retain the UK’s existing trade relationship through the EU’s free trade agreement and similar preferential trading agreements. I have seen no promise of that either. It said that this should be a priority over the negotiating of a new free trade agreement. It also said that if we are to minimise the disruption that Brexit will entail, it will be vital that UK trade policies and practices remain as closely aligned to the EU as possible. The sector would not be happy to learn about the bonfire of the vanities proposed under the Henry VIII clauses in the Bill. My local employers and workforce need to know in advance of our exit that the Government have taken into account the economic and financial impact on their lives, their jobs and the future of their children before modifying or abolishing anything.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
The Government say that they have carried out significant impact assessments covering the Welsh economy, but they have not been shared with the Welsh Government. What are they, and do they actually exist?
Mrs Moon
I took that intervention from my hon. Friend because she is a Welsh colleague, and she and her constituents will also be affected by these job losses in automotive and steel. This was nothing to do with rejecting an intervention from the Conservative Benches; it was about giving the Welsh voice prominence in this place, just for a change. Welsh workers are deeply affected by these industries, and it is appalling that the Welsh Government have not been given the information that they need to do what they can. It is equally appalling that we as elected Members are not being given the information that we need to work to protect the people we were elected to protect. The typically patriarchal attitude towards the workforce revealed by the impact assessments that have been done so far is deeply worrying. I do not think that any in-depth analysis of the financial impact has been done.
Interestingly, I was in the USA last week at a defence conference, during which the question of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and a potential free trade agreement with the UK came up. A very senior member of the Trump Administration told us that the US had an ambition for access to all services in each other’s markets and that it was particularly keen to have access to the UK’s financial services. We were told, however, that it would not be as keen if the US was subject to the European Court of Justice, because it would not want its companies to have such judicial oversight. I think that tells us everything we need to know about the importance of our remaining in the customs union and the single market and being subject to the European Court of Justice. That is how we will protect not only our workforce but the consumers who buy the products that they produce.
Richard Graham
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), who has spoken so well today, and indeed throughout these debates. This is the first time that I have risen to speak on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, and I do so because I wish to add a little to what has already been said about amendment 348. I do not intend to revisit the arguments put forward in the previous Humble Address, or the decisions taken by our Select Committee. That issue has been dealt with, but since the shadow Minister hinted that the Opposition would come back to it, I want to focus on the substance of the amendment and on why I disagree with it so strongly.
It is my belief that what amendment 348 seeks to achieve is without precedent in the history of negotiations by our country. It would require the Government to publish their economic impact assessments of the policy options for withdrawal from the EU. However, the missing words at the end are “during our negotiations on withdrawal from the EU”. Those missing words matter, because this is a particularly important negotiation for our nation—nobody is any doubt about that—and because this is a particularly delicate time. The Government start negotiations on the implementation period and on our future relationship with the EU soon after the new year. On the other side of the negotiating table, the EU has made it absolutely clear that it will not be publishing all its research. We will therefore certainly not see any published analysis, let alone any impact assessments relating to, for example, what no deal would mean for specific ports in northern Europe, or to any potential drop in GDP for the town of Calais.
Richard Graham
Let me just develop my argument first, if I may.
It is therefore a curious affair that we should expect our own negotiating side to lay out in great detail what our own negotiating position should be. I tried to find precedents in our negotiating history, and I did some analysis of negotiations in which I was involved in the later stages. Those were the negotiations leading to the joint declaration on the future of Hong Kong in the early 1980s. Some Members will remember that there was considerable concern at the time about the economic future of Hong Kong under the sovereignty of communist China, and therefore about confidence—above all, economic confidence—in the territory. Were any economic analyses of the different scenarios published? No; not least because, had they been published, all of them would surely, at that time, have made the assumption that any change in the existing arrangements would have been negative to the economy of Hong Kong, and therefore probably to the UK as well.
In fact, today—20 years after the handover—whatever our concerns might be about the commitment to some of the freedoms guaranteed under the joint declaration, Hong Kong has surely made significant economic progress. My point is that any analysis at that time would have been done on the consensus assumptions of the early 1980s, which would have been substantially wrong and, if published, would almost certainly have been an impediment to the sensible, pragmatic, diplomatic negotiating compromise that was then achieved to everybody’s benefit. In the same way today, the range of assumptions behind trying to calculate which future road in the negotiations will be most economically beneficial makes that almost impossible to calculate, so let me give a few examples of the sort of questions that would have to be considered.
The latest statistics show that our current trade is 43% with the EU and 57% with the rest of the world. If our relationship with the EU did not change—if we were not leaving the EU—what would those figures be in five or 10 years’ time? The figure for EU trade has declined, but would that continue or reverse? Would the strong predictions for growth in Asia prove optimistic and accurate or would they underestimate what will happen? Right now, we are exporting more goods than services, which was unimaginable five years ago, but will that continue? How would different trends in goods and services affect our future trade across the world? Which countries would we benefit more from trading with if our goods were doing better than our services or vice versa? When we leave the EU, with whom will we reach free trade agreements? FTAs are just one of the tools available to us, so what other trading arrangements will we set up? How long will each of those agreements take, and what will their economic impact be?
Looking at south-east Asia—the area where I work for the Prime Minister—if we want to, will we be able to move on individual free trade agreements faster than the current progress of the EU? What about the US—the biggest of them all? We know that the US executes 25% of its trade with the European Union with the UK alone and that 50% of its financial services trade is with the UK. Its interest in having a separate FTA with us will largely depend on the degree to which we offer something different or the degree to which we converge, have equivalence or have mutual recognition of the regulations and laws in the EU. Given what I have just outlined, how can we possibly know the economic impacts of various aspects of future potential scenarios with the EU?
Peter Grant
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He seems to be arguing not for or against the publication of information, but against the whole idea of any kind of economic impact assessment at all, which makes me wonder what the Chancellor’s last Budget statement was about. If he is being consistent, does he also think that none of the 16 economic impact analyses published by the Government in the run-up to the Scottish independence referendum were worth the paper they were written on? They were also based on surmise and speculation.
Richard Graham
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because, as a historian, I think he raises an interesting question: to what extent have economic forecasts ever been accurate? He might wish to study the assessments of the Office for Budget Responsibility, which have on the whole been consistently gloomy over the seven years that I have been in the House. He would be hard pushed to find a record of any Government being successful in economic forecasting, because all sorts of assumptions have to be made. As a previous Prime Minister once remarked, it is so often in life that events shape things, rather than our own forecasts of what the future might look like.
The hon. Gentleman helpfully takes me back to my point, which is that all these forecasts and assessments of potential impacts depend on a huge number of variables. They will alter by individual company, by sector, by technology and by much else besides. Whatever any Government trying to deliver such an assessment could come up with in terms of the net benefits for different scenarios, they will inevitably prove inaccurate. Therefore, arriving at impact assessments in the definition that the Government use—with clearly quantified conclusions and benefits—would almost certainly prove misleading.
To publish such assessments is to share them with every negotiating partner of the UK and would be a huge own goal. Instead, we should expect the Government to continue doing what they have been doing: setting out their strategy in broad terms, as the Prime Minister did in her Lancaster House and Florence speeches. In due course, a third speech may be needed to shed light on what our Government feel about those important terms, “convergence”, “alignment”, “equivalence” and “mutual recognition”; to highlight the benefits of our services to us and to Europe; and to say why a broad and deep partnership will benefit both us and Europe, including in regard to the sectors of defence, security, research, aerospace, nuclear energy, development, academia and many others besides.
Mr Dhesi
I rise to speak in favour of amendment 348 and new clause 21. The vote to leave the European Union was an unanticipated shock to the UK economy that increased uncertainty and reduced our country’s expected future openness to trade, investment and immigration with our neighbouring partners, the EU. The pound depreciated by approximately 10% immediately after the referendum. The depreciation raised inflation by increasing import costs of both final goods and intermediate inputs.
Today, according to Citibank analysis, long-run inflation expectations are up to 3.3%, but by June this year the Brexit vote was costing the average household £7.74 per week through higher prices. That is equivalent to £404 per year. Higher inflation has also reduced the growth of real wages; that is equivalent to a £448 cut in annual pay for the average worker. To put it another way, the Brexit vote has already cost the average worker almost one week’s wages owing to higher prices—and we have yet to leave the EU. Amendment 348 refers to impact assessments. We need clear impact assessments to ascertain how such things as well as hard-fought workers’ rights, shared values and environmental protections will be safeguarded.
Several promises were made. Post Brexit, UK Governments will be expected to fulfil the promises made during the referendum campaign. Immigration was, without doubt, a major reason for the result, but at least half of immigrants to the UK every year are from south Asia, Africa and the Caribbean, and they are unaffected by EU laws. It would also be difficult to reduce the number of EU citizens in the UK unless there was a misguided programme to expel them and the UK was prepared to countenance similar expulsions of its citizens from the continent. The challenge will be not how to limit in-flows—something that featured so prominently in the leave campaign—but rather how to sustain the much needed flows of EU nationals to fill jobs in sectors such as agriculture, services and construction, an industry I have been involved in for over two decades.
Kate Hoey
I am following my hon. Friend carefully. Does he agree that my constituents’ relatives from the Caribbean should have the same opportunity to come to this country as those from the European Union, who can come here by right? That is part of the reason why many people from ethnic minorities voted leave: they saw that there would be a fair immigration system, not one that was biased towards 27 other countries.
Mr Dhesi
I have listened closely to my hon. Friend, but we will need to wait until the immigration Bill is introduced to see exactly how we will be affected.
Many British voters believe that by favouring Brexit they were voting for greater spending on the national health service and the rest of the British welfare state. Those voters will become even more dissatisfied when they discover that Brexit will not, in fact, provide anything close to the additional £350 million a week for our NHS that was claimed.
New clause 21 refers to clear explanatory statements about what is happening across this entire process. After Brexit, the UK and devolved Governments will need to carry out many functions that are currently the responsibility of Brussels, including everything from customs checks to determining agricultural subsidies. Before that happens, however, much of the civil service will be consumed by managing the leaving process between now and the end of any transition period.
Ultimately, the UK is undertaking an enormous administrative challenge in a very short space of time. The Government are reportedly seeking to employ an extra 8,000 staff by the end of the 2018 to help manage the process, with Departments recruiting heavily in recent months. However, it should be noted that they are starting from a very low base. Public sector employment, as a share of people in work, was below 17% in June 2017, the lowest level since records began in 1999, which suggests that the civil service will be unable to manage Brexit alone and will therefore increasingly need to rely on external actors to undertake many of its functions.
On amendment 348, if the Government cannot even compile impact assessments or sectoral analyses—take your pick—in “excruciating detail,” as the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said, how will they effectively manage the process? Our Parliament should be sovereign, and collectively we all need to take back control, but the implications for democratic accountability will be quite profound if and when outsourced services fail to meet public expectations.
If the 3 million EU nationals currently in the UK decide to apply to remain after Brexit and those applications are not processed properly by a private contractor, for example, who will be held accountable when people are wrongly forced to leave? On top of that, the sheer complexity of the Brexit process means there will be a range of convenient scapegoats whom the Government could blame when things go wrong.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the National Audit Office report, published yesterday, on the Brexit work of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It is already clear that the Department is under pressure, and it is making significant use of external consultants. With no promise of finances, much of the work programmed for Brexit is at risk. Does he agree that could be a significant problem?
Mr Dhesi
My hon. Friend corroborates what I have been trying to outline.
Rather than taking back control of public services, Brexit is likely to result in more public services being run at arm’s length from directly elected representatives, who will seek to avoid being held responsible for poor performance. It is also vital that our trade agreement with the EU does not prevent economic growth and the growth in jobs and prosperity that comes with exporting our goods.
New clause 21 is all about information, but where is the information for businesses and workers in my Slough constituency? Large businesses in my constituency such as Mars, the confectionary producer, have interconnected sites and factories across Europe, making up an integrated network in which raw materials are moved across borders. Finished products made in one country are packaged, distributed and sold in others. Representatives of Mars are concerned about the return of barriers to the supply chain and about the possible impact on jobs. During visits to their factory in my constituency, I was told:
“It is a fact that Europe after Brexit will remain a critical market for UK exports and likewise the UK will remain an important market for goods produced and manufactured in other European states. There can be no economic advantage from either side restricting trade with a large market situated on its doorstep. In simple terms, if the UK and the EU fail to agree on a new preferential deal, it will be to the detriment of all.”
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a large company such as Mars is able to import cocoa, chocolate and nuts from African and Latin American states and get over all the trade complexities in that import business, so it is very easy for it to get over some minor issues that he is concerned about with regard to the EU trade?
Mr Dhesi
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that, but I would point out to him that we already have trade agreements, which is why in a previous exchange in Parliament I pointed out that we need to ensure that we have increased access arrangements and that we continue with the existing access agreements for developing countries.
Tom Brake
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that Mars is clearly able to make an assessment of the impact of the different types of economic arrangements we might have with the EU after we leave, whereas the Government are not? We heard this in an intervention from the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who is no longer in his place; he completely disregards any value in impact assessments whatsoever. Why can Mars do it but the Government cannot?
Mr Dhesi
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that intervention, because if Mars can do it, I am sure we can do it within Parliament. The Government’s approach is, in essence, keeping business in the dark.
In conclusion, a cliff edge scenario, with us sleepwalking into no deal, which is where this Government seem to be heading, would be severely damaging to us and our economy. We need to change course and avoid this fate of no deal. A starting point on that would be clear and detailed impact assessments.
Mr Leslie
I thank the House for going into much more detail than we perhaps initially expected on these clauses and amendments. It is has been a worthwhile investigation of schedule 5. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), in particular, raised pertinent points about rules of evidence, and we have heard good speeches from many of my hon. Friends, too. The Minister says that schedule 5 allows those explanatory memorandums to be produced by Government to help the House to sift through these potentially 12,000-plus statutory instruments that are going to come, so I will take his word on that and we will hold him to account on it. In those circumstances, and as we have many other issues to discuss, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
New Clause 13
Customs duties
“A Minister of the Crown may not make regulations to appoint exit day until Royal Assent is granted to an Act of Parliament making provision for the substitution of section 5 (customs duties) of the European Communities Act 1972 with provisions that shall allow the United Kingdom to remain a member of the EU common customs tariff and common commercial policy.”—(Mr Leslie.)
This new clause would ensure that provisions allowing the UK to remain a member of the Customs Union, as currently set out in section 5 of the European Communities Act 1972 but set to be repealed by section 1 of this Act, will be enacted ahead of exit day.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Temporary Chair (Sir David Crausby)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 399.
Amendment 349, in clause 14, page 10, line 46, leave out “for a term of more than 2 years”.
This amendment would prevent Ministers using delegated powers to create criminal offences which carry custodial sentences.
Government amendment 400.
Clause 14 stand part.
That schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.
New clause 8—Committee of the Regions—
“Her Majesty’s Government shall—
(a) maintain a full consultative role for local authorities throughout the process of withdrawal from the European Union, in due time and in an appropriate way in the planning and decision-making processes for all matters which concern them, and
(b) provide for a formal mechanism in domestic law fully to replicate the advisory role conferred on local authorities via membership of the European Union Committee of the Regions.”
This new clause would ensure that the current consultative role that UK local government currently have via the EU Committee of the Regions would be replicated in the UK after exit day.
New clause 10—Transitional arrangements—
“Her Majesty’s Government shall, in pursuit of a new relationship between the United Kingdom and European Union after exit day, seek to negotiate and agree transitional arrangements with the European Union of sufficient duration to allow—
(a) the conclusion and coming into force of new trade agreements replicating as closely as possible all those trade agreements currently applying to the UK by virtue of its membership of the EU before exit day;
(b) an associate membership of the EU Single Market so that the regulatory settlement existing between the UK and EU before exit day can continue for the duration of transitional arrangements, which shall be not less than two years after exit day.”
This new Clause would require the UK Government to seek transitional arrangements that would allow existing trade agreements which currently apply to the UK to be negotiated and continued for the circumstances applying after the UK has exited the EU, and would seek transitional arrangements including an associate membership of the EU Single Market for not less than two years following exit day.
New clause 11—Ongoing regulatory requirements—
“After exit day the Secretary of State shall continue to assess all EU regulations, decisions and tertiary legislation and publish a report to both Houses of Parliament assessing the costs and benefits of each regulation and directive and whether HM Government should consider it expedient to propose a similar reform to UK domestic legislation in order to secure an ongoing regulatory alignment between the UK and the EU going forward.”
After exit day the European Union is likely to continue to produce legislation, regulations and decisions that would have applied to the United Kingdom if we had remained a member of the EU. This new clause would require Ministers to publish an assessment of new and developing EU laws and regulations and whether there would be benefits or costs for the UK in adopting similar legal changes to UK domestic legislation with a view to maintaining regulatory alignment with the EU as far as possible.
New clause 31—Promotion of the safety and welfare of children and young people following withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union—
“(1) The Secretary of State shall make the arrangements specified in this section for the purposes of safeguarding children and promoting their welfare from exit day onwards.
(2) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a strategy for seeking continued co-operation with—
(a) the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation (Europol),
(b) Eurojust, and
(c) the European Criminal Records Information System
on matters relating to the safety and welfare of children and young people.
(3) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a strategy for seeking continued participation in the European Arrest Warrant, in relation to the promotion of the safety and welfare of children and young people.”
This new clause would require the Government to lay before Parliament a strategy for maintaining co-operation with certain EU bodies and structures after exit day for the purposes of promoting the safety and welfare of children and young people.
New clause 32—Programmes eligible until exit day for support from the European Social Fund—
“The Secretary of State shall bring forward proposals for a fund to support, on and after exit day, programmes and projects which—
(a) relate to
(i) the promotion of social inclusion amongst children and young people,
(ii) efforts to combat poverty and discrimination amongst children and young people, and
(iii) investment in education, training and vocational training or skills and lifelong learning for children and young people, and
(b) would have been eligible for funding up until exit day by the European Social Fund.”
This new clause seeks to maintain financial support after exit day for projects and programmes which would have been eligible for funding from the European Social Fund.
New clause 33—Mitigating any inflationary risks after exit day—
“(1) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a strategy for mitigating any risks which withdrawal from the EU may present to low income families with children.
(2) The strategy set out in subsection (1) must include a commitment to assess each year whether rates of benefits and tax credits are maintaining value in real terms relative to costs of living as defined by the Consumer Prices Index.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a strategy for mitigating any potential risks which withdrawal from the EU might present to low income families with children.
New clause 40—European Neighbourhood Policy—
“The Secretary of State shall, by 30 September 2018, lay before Parliament a strategy for seeking to maintain a role for the UK in the EU’s European Neighbourhood Policy after exit day.”
New clause 41—European Development Fund—
“The Secretary of State shall, by 30 September 2018, lay before Parliament a report on the Government’s policy on future payments into the European Development Fund.”
New clause 42—EU Citizens’ Severance Payments—
“The Secretary of State shall, by 30 September 2018, lay before Parliament a report on the Government’s policy on EU citizens’ rights to severance payments at EU agencies based in the UK.”
New clause 43—Diplomatic Staff—
“The Secretary of State shall, by 30 September 2018, lay before Parliament a report on the Government’s policy on future arrangements for the UK to second diplomatic staff members to the European Union External Action Service.”
New clause 44—Duty to make arrangements for an independent evaluation: health and social care—
“(1) No later than 1 year after this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make arrangements for the independent evaluation of the impact of this Act on the health and social care sector.
(2) The evaluation carried out by an independent person to be appointed by the Secretary of State, after consulting the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the relevant Northern Ireland departments, must analyse and assess—
(a) the effects of this Act on the funding of the health and social care sector;
(b) the effects of this Act on the health and social care workforce;
(c) the impact of this Act on the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the health and social care sector; and
(d) any other such matters relevant to the impact of this Act upon the health and care sector.
(3) The person undertaking an evaluation under subsection (1) above must, in preparing an evaluation report, consult—
(a) the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the relevant Northern Ireland department;
(b) providers of health and social care services;
(c) individuals requiring health and social care services;
(d) organisations working for and on behalf of individuals requiring health and social care services; and
(e) any persons whom the Secretary of State deems relevant.
(4) The Secretary of State must, as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving a report of the evaluation, lay a copy of the report before Parliament.”
This new clause would require an independent evaluation of the impact of the Act upon the health and social care sector to be made after consulting the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the relevant Northern Ireland department, service providers, those requiring health and social care services, and others.
New clause 46—Consultation assessing impact of no agreement with the EU for workers on withdrawal—
“Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must carry out a public consultation assessing the impact on—
(a) workers in the EU who are UK citizens, and
(b) workers in the UK who are EU citizens
if no agreement is reached with the European Union on the UK’s withdrawal.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out a public consultation within six months of the passing of the Act, assessing the impact of not having an EU withdrawal deal on workers in the EU who are UK citizens, and on workers in the UK who are EU citizens.
New clause 47—Assessing the impact of leaving the EU on social and medical care provision for disabled people—
“Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of leaving the EU on social and medical care provision for disabled people living in the UK.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish within six months of the passing of this Act an assessment of the impact of leaving the EU on social and medical care provision for disabled people living in the UK.
New clause 48—Mutual Recognition Agreements—
“(1) In the course of negotiating a withdrawal agreement, Her Majesty’s Government shall seek to maintain after exit day the full range of mutual recognition agreements with which the United Kingdom has obtained rights of product conformity assessments and standards by virtue of its membership of the European Union.
(2) In respect of mutual recognition agreements relating to the safeguarding of public health, within one month of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must publish a strategy for ensuring that existing UK notified bodies, in accordance with provisions laid out in the EU Medical Devices Regulation, may continue to conduct conformity assessment certification for both UK and EU medical devices to ensure continuity within and beyond the European Union.”
This new clause would require the UK Government to seek to maintain existing mutual recognition agreements and to publish a plan for UK notified bodies (such as the British Standards Institute) to continue to perform conformity assessments for medical devices and pubic health-related products deriving both within the UK and from across the EU.
New clause 52—Duty to secure safe harbour—
“(1) It shall be the duty of the Prime Minister to seek to secure the United Kingdom’s continued membership of the Single Market and of the Customs Union until such time as the Prime Minister is satisfied that the conditions in subsections (2) and (3) are met.
(2) The condition in this subsection is that the United Kingdom and the European Union have reached an agreement on the future trading relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union.
(3) The condition in this subsection is that the United Kingdom has developed a satisfactory framework for immigration controls in respect of nationals of European Union Member States not resident in the United Kingdom on the date on which the United Kingdom ceases to belong to the European Union.”
New clause 54—Implementation and transition—
“(1) Her Majesty’s Government shall seek to secure a transition period prior to the implementation of the withdrawal agreement of not less than two years in duration, during which—
(a) access between EU and UK markets should continue on the terms existing prior to exit day,
(b) the structures of EU rules and regulations existing prior to exit day shall be maintained,
(c) the UK and EU shall continue to take part in the level of security cooperation existing prior to exit day,
(d) new processes and systems to underpin the future partnership between the EU and UK can be satisfactorily implemented, including a new immigration system and new regulatory arrangements,
(e) financial commitments made by the United Kingdom during the course of UK membership of the EU shall be honoured.
(2) No Minister of the Crown shall appoint exit day if the implementation and transition period set out in subsection (1) does not feature in the withdrawal arrangements between the UK and the European Union.”
This new clause would ensure that the objectives set out by the Prime Minister in her Florence speech are given the force of law and, if no implementation and transition period is achieved in negotiations, then exit day may not be triggered by a Minister of the Crown. The appointment of an ‘exit day’ would therefore require a fresh Act of Parliament in such circumstances.
New clause 56—Saving of acquired rights: Gibraltar—
“(1) Nothing in this Act is to be construed as removing, replacing, altering or prejudicing the exercise of an acquired right.
(2) Any power, howsoever expressed, contained in this Act may not be exercised if the exercise of that power is likely to or will remove, replace or alter or prejudice the exercise of an acquired right.
(3) In subsection (2) a reference to a power includes a power to make regulations.
(4) In this section an acquired right means a right that existed immediately before exit day—
(a) whereby a person from or established in Gibraltar could exercise that right (either absolutely or subject to any qualification) in the United Kingdom; and
(b) the right arose in the context of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union and Gibraltar’s status as a European territory for whose external relations the United Kingdom is responsible within the meaning of Article 355(3) TFEU and to which the provisions of the EU Treaties apply, subject to the exceptions specified in the 1972 Act of Accession.
(5) Nothing in this section prevents the use of the powers conferred by this Act to the extent that acquired rights are not altered or otherwise affected to the detriment of persons enjoying such rights.”
The purpose of this new clause is to ensure that the Bill does not remove or prejudice rights (for instance in the financial services field) which, as a result of the UK’s (and Gibraltar’s) common membership of the EU, could be exercised in the UK by a person from or established in Gibraltar, where that right existed immediately before exit day.
New clause 59—Mutual recognition of professional qualifications—
“(1) In the course of negotiating a withdrawal agreement, Her Majesty’s Government shall seek to maintain after exit day the mutual recognition of professional qualifications which the United Kingdom has obtained under Directives 2005/36/EC and 2013/55/EU by virtue of its membership of the European Union.
(2) HM Government shall ensure that competent authorities for the purpose of the European Union (Recognition of Professional Qualifications) Regulations 2015 may continue to recognise professional qualifications obtained in the European Union as equivalent to qualifications obtained in the UK after exit day to ensure continuity.”
This new clause would (a) commit the Government to seeking to replicate in the withdrawal agreement the framework for mutual recognition of professional qualifications the UK has at present and (b) allow competent UK authorities to continue to recognise EU qualifications as equivalent to their UK counterparts.
New clause 61—Regulation for the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)—
“(1) The Secretary of State must take all reasonable steps to ensure that the United Kingdom participates in the standards and procedures established by the Regulation for the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (“REACH”) (Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006) after exit day.
(2) Subject to the provisions of the withdrawal agreement, steps under subsection (1) may include regulations under section 17, or another provision of this Act, providing for full or partial participation of the United Kingdom in REACH.”
This new clause would ensure that after withdrawal from the EU, the UK continued to participate in the Regulation for the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals.
New clause 71—Mutual market access for financial and professional services—
“(1) Before exit day, a Minister of the Crown must lay before Parliament a report assessing the progress made by Her Majesty’s Government in negotiating continued mutual access to markets in the EU and the United Kingdom for businesses providing financial or professional services.
(2) ‘Mutual access to markets’ means the ability for a business established in any member State to provide services in or into the United Kingdom and vice versa.”
This new clause would require a Minister to report before exit day on the Government’s progress in negotiating mutual market access for financial and professional services
New clause 72—Importation of food and feed: port health etc.—
“(1) Before exit day, a Minister of the Crown must lay before Parliament a report assessing the progress made by Her Majesty’s Government in negotiating—
(a) continued mutual recognition of standards, inspections, certifications and other official controls, and
(b) a continued basis for co-operation among public authorities, as between the United Kingdom and the EU in relation to food or animal feed—
(i) produced in, or imported from a third country into, the United Kingdom or a member State, and
(ii) subsequently exported from the United Kingdom to a member State, or vice versa.
(2) Any power of the Secretary of State or a Minister of the Crown (including a power under retained EU law) to make regulations requiring or authorising the charging of a fee or other charge in respect of the inspection of food or animal feed on its importation into the United Kingdom must, so far as reasonably practicable, be exercised so as to allow public authorities conducting such inspections fully to recover any costs incurred in the carrying out of such inspections.”
This new clause would require a Minister to report before exit day on the Government’s progress in negotiating mutual recognition of controls on food and feed imports. It would also require the Government to permit, so far as possible, full cost recovery for authorities carrying out border inspections of food or feed.
New clause 83—Strategy for UK wind energy sector—
“(1) Within six months of any vote in the House of Commons on the terms of withdrawal from the EU, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a strategy for supporting the UK wind energy sector in its ability to export competitively to markets in the EU.
(2) The strategy set out in subsection (1) must assess the impact that—
(a) tariffs,
(b) quotas,
(c) customs checks, and
(d) other non-tariff barriers
arising from any withdrawal agreement with the EU will have on the UK wind energy sector’s ability to export competitively to EU markets over the next twenty years.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a strategy for supporting the UK wind energy sector in its ability to export competitively to markets in the EU following exit day, and to do this within six months of any vote in the House of Commons on the terms of withdrawal.
New clause 84—UK higher education sector: participation in EU programmes—
“(1) Within six months of any vote in the House of Commons on the terms of withdrawal from the EU, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a strategy setting out its intentions regarding the nature of the UK higher education sector’s future participation in—
(a) the 2014-2020 Horizon 2020 programme,
(b) the Erasmus+ Exchange programme, and
(c) future EU research, collaboration and student exchange programmes.
(2) The strategy set out in subsection (1) must set out its intentions regarding the extent to which the UK higher education sector will be able to access existing and future EU programmes after exit day both—
(a) during any transitional period, and
(b) following any transitional period.
(3) The strategy set out in subsection (1) must also estimate the future impact that any withdrawal agreement will have on the UK higher education sector in terms of—
(a) the financing of future research,
(b) the quality of future research, measured according to the Research Excellence Framework, and
(c) the ability to participate in future EU-wide collaborative research programmes in the twenty years starting from the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent.
(4) The strategy set out in subsection (1) must also set out the extent to which UK Government funds will address any shortfalls identified from calculations and estimates made as a result of subsections (2) and (3).”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State, within six months of any vote in the House of Commons on the terms of withdrawal, to lay before Parliament a strategy setting out its intentions for the UK higher education sector’s future participation in current and future EU research, collaboration and student exchange programmes following exit day. This strategy would have to set out the long-term impact that the withdrawal agreement will have on the UK’s future participation, and set out the extent to which UK Government funds would mitigate this impact.
New clause 85—Strategy for economic and social cohesion principles derived from Article 174 of TFEU—
“(1) The Secretary of State shall, before 31 December 2018, lay before Parliament a strategy for developing principles for economic and social cohesion derived from Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
(2) The strategy laid under subsection (1) shall state the principles derived from Article 174 of TFEU.
(3) The principles under subsection (2) shall form part of UK domestic law on and after the day of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.
(4) The aims of the strategy under subsection (1) shall be—
(a) to reduce inequalities between communities, and
(b) to reduce disparities between the levels of development of regions of the UK, with particular regard to—
(i) regions with increased levels of deprivation,
(ii) rural and island areas,
(iii) areas affected by industrial transition, and
(iv) regions which suffer from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps.
(5) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make provision for programmes to implement the strategy.
(6) Programmes under subsection (5) shall run for a minimum of ten years and shall be independently monitored.”
This new clause would enshrine in domestic law the principles underlying Article 174 (Title XVIII) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Government amendment 401.
Clause 15 stand part.
Amendment 362, in schedule 8, page 49, line 4, after “document” insert “(not including a contract)”.
The amendment would make clear that the Bill does not modify the interpretation of contracts relating to EU law.
Amendment 102, page 50, line 2, leave out paragraph 3
This amendment would remove the additional power provided in paragraph 3.
Amendment 103, page 50, line 41, leave out paragraph 5
This amendment would remove the future powers to make subordinate legislation in paragraph 5.
Government amendment 402.
Amendment 380, page 55, line 16, leave out sub-paragraph (1) and insert—
“(1) For the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998, any retained EU legislation is to be treated as subordinate legislation and not primary legislation.”
This amendment would amend the status of EU-derived domestic legislation to subordinate legislation for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Amendment 11, page 55, line 17, leave out “primary legislation and not”.
This amendment would remove the proposal to allow secondary legislation to be treated as primary for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Government amendments 403 to 405
Amendment 291, page 58, line 31, leave out paragraph 28 and insert—
“(1) The prohibition on making regulations under section 7, 8, or Schedule 2 after a particular time does not affect the continuation in force of regulations made at or before that time, except where subparagraphs (2) and (3) apply.
(2) Regulations may not be made under powers conferred by regulations made under section 7, 8, or Schedule 2 after the end of the period of two years beginning with exit day.
(3) Regulations made under powers conferred by regulations made under section 7, 8, or Schedule 2 may not be made during the two year period in subparagraph (2) unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would require all tertiary legislation made under powers conferred by regulations to be subject to Parliamentary control.
That schedule 8 be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 9 be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 18 stand part.
Amendment 120, in clause 19, page 14, line 40, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) The remaining provisions of this Act come into force once following a referendum on whether the United Kingdom should approve the United Kingdom and Gibraltar exit package proposed by HM Government at conclusion of the negotiations triggered by Article 50(2) for withdrawal from the European Union or remain a member of the European Union.
(2A) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, appoint the day on which the referendum is to be held.
(2B) The question that is to appear on the ballot papers is—“Do you support the Government’s proposed new agreement between the United Kingdom and Gibraltar and the European Union or Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?”
(2C) The Secretary of State may make regulations by statutory instrument on the conduct of the referendum.”
This amendment is intended to ensure that before March 2019 (or the end of any extension to the two-year negotiation period) a referendum on the terms of the deal has to be held and provides the text of the referendum question.
Amendment 82, page 14, line 40, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (2A)”.
This amendment is a consequential amendment resulting from Amendments 78, 79 and 80 to Clause 1 requiring the Prime Minister to reach an agreement on EEA and Customs Union membership, gain the consent of the devolved legislatures and report on the effect leaving the EU will have on the block grant before implementing section 1 of this Act.
Amendment 85, page 14, line 42, at end insert—
“(2A) But regulations bringing into force section 1 may not be made until the Secretary of State lays a report before—
(a) Parliament, and
(b) the National Assembly for Wales
outlining the effect of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU on the National Assembly for Wales’s block grant.”
This amendment would require the UK Government to lay a report before the National Assembly for Wales outlining the effect of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU on Welsh finances, before exercising the power under section 1. This would allow for scrutiny of the Leave Campaign’s promise to maintain current levels of EU funding for Wales.
Amendment 86, page 14, line 42, at end insert—
“(2A) But regulations bringing into force section 1 may not be made until the Secretary of State lays a report before—
(a) Parliament, and
(b) the National Assembly for Wales
outlining the effect of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the Single Market and Customs Union on the Welsh economy.”
This amendment would require the UK Government to lay a report before Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales outlining the effect of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU Single Market and Customs Union before exercising the powers in section 1.
Amendment 219, page 14, line 42, at end insert—
“(2A) A Minister of the Crown may not appoint a day for any provision of this Act to come into force until the Secretary of State has published a report on which Scottish products will be identified with geographical indications in any future trade deal that Her Majesty’s Government seeks to negotiate after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, and has laid a copy of the report before Parliament.”
This amendment would require publication of a Government report on which Scottish products will be identified with geographical indications in any future trade deal that Her Majesty’s Government negotiates after the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.
Amendment 220, page 14, line 42, at end insert—
“(2A) A Minister of the Crown may not appoint a day for any provision of this Act to come into force until a Minister of the Crown has published an assessment of the effect of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU on Scottish businesses and laid a copy of the assessment before Parliament.”
This amendment would require publication of a Government assessment of the impact of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU on Scottish businesses.
Amendment 221, page 14, line 42, at end insert—
“(2A) A Minister of the Crown may not appoint a day for any provision of this Act to come into force until a Minister of the Crown has published an assessment of the effect of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU on food and drink safety and quality standards, and has laid a copy of the assessment before Parliament.”
This amendment would require publication of a Government assessment of the impact of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU on food and drink safety and quality standards.
Clause 19 stand part.
Mr Leslie
We find ourselves in the last part of day eight of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill Committee. Frankly, it has come around far too soon. Members might want another day before Christmas—I do not know whether that can be arranged at the last minute by the Leader of the House.
This group of new clauses and amendments relates to a set of incredibly important issues. I am particularly keen to speak to new clause 13, which relates to the customs union, but there are many other new clauses and amendments in the group that are worth dwelling on. Before I come to new clause 13, I shall point out a few of them.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when he and I tabled new clause 54, we did so consciously trying to replicate Government policy as stated in the Florence speech? If the Minister would fairly promptly acknowledge and accept that, we should be able to save some time for the other important matters to be discussed in relation to this group.
Mr Leslie
That is an excellent suggestion. We could almost add new clause 54 to the copy-and-paste process, given that it is based on the Prime Minister’s own words. Obviously, I personally would like to go further, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I tabled the new clause in the spirit of compromise.
New clause 48 serves to highlight the important but often overlooked question of mutual recognition agreements. MRAs are another series of international obligations between countries. The UK has obtained rights for notified bodies to undertake conformity assessments to make sure that standards across the EU are complied with and that UK firms can certify assessments of conformity across that market of 500 million people by virtue of the process that they undertake in the UK. If we lose that MRA process, it could cause immense disruption to many businesses and sectors in the UK.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I know that Ministers are already aware of REACH—the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—but the regulatory compliance of companies such as BASF in my constituency is essential to the continuation of effective trading across borders. I really do not want to see companies moving elsewhere, perhaps where regulations are easier to follow, because we will lose good jobs in research, development and manufacturing, and all in the incredibly important science, technology, engineering and maths sector. Does my hon. Friend agree that our leaving REACH will put that at risk?
Mr Leslie
I entirely agree and my hon. Friend is completely correct to stand up for her constituents and local businesses and to make that point, which is too often overlooked. We need mutual recognition arrangements like the REACH regulations. It is often said that big corporations want to get out of such regulations, but in this case they want to stay part of that framework because it allows them to access markets. If we sacrifice that access, they will lose out and jobs will go as a result.
On a related issue, new clause 59 concerns the recognition of professional qualifications throughout the EU. I have been talking to the Royal Institute of British Architects, which is very worried about British graduates in architecture and those already in practice who often have services to sell across that wide range of 28 countries—as it is currently—and it is deeply concerned about whether its professional qualifications will continue to be recognised for the purposes of its ongoing business in that wider market. This is really serious stuff, and I hope that the Minister will address the matter when he has time to respond to these amendments.
New clause 11 is about how Parliament should be able to keep track, even after exit day, of regulations that are being made in the European Union. When we leave, we will obviously have our own jurisdiction and the EU will have its own jurisdiction, but if the EU continues to evolve its regulatory practices and to make new changes to rules and laws, we need some device to keep us informed in the UK Parliament so that we have the choice over whether to contract with those rules and stay in alignment or to ensure that we have regulatory equivalence. This is really more of a procedural new clause, but it is just asking the question of how we will keep in touch given that these are our near neighbours and the markets with which we have to remain aligned.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is proposing a whole series of amendments that would certainly improve the current dire situation of this Bill, but is not a simple solution to all these amendments to stay in the single market and the customs union?
Mr Leslie
That is indeed the simple solution. I was building towards that crescendo, but there is always somebody who steals my punchline. That is effectively the conclusion that I have reached. Before I do reach it, there is another important measure, new clause 8, that English local authorities have been keen to see in the Bill. Currently, they have consultative rights on those areas of policy that are currently decided within the European Union framework by virtue of their membership of something called the Committee of the Regions. I know that some Government Members may baulk at that as some sort of bureaucratic committee that has no purpose, but many local authorities value the voice that they have through that committee into the policymaking process at European level. The question they are asking is: will they still have those same consultative rights when those areas of policy are brought back into a UK context? It is a fair question and I hope that the Local Government Association’s points will be addressed.
The main issue that I want to discuss is new clause 13, which relates to the customs union. It would ensure that we do not get past exit day without new legislation that allows the UK the option to remain a member of the customs union—in other words, the EU common customs tariff and common commercial policy. We must be absolutely crystal clear about this: ditching the most efficient tariff-free, frictionless free trade area in the world is what we are on the brink of doing for something that will inevitably—inevitably—be inferior. The referendum ballot paper did not include that question and put it in front of our electors. What we have seen is the Prime Minister’s interpretation of the result of that referendum, but that does not have to be Parliament’s interpretation.
If we find ourselves messing up the way that the UK border operates, the Irish land border, our ports and our airports, then vast swathes of our businesses and our economy face very, very significant disruption. Indeed, customs is, potentially, the overnight cliff-edge issue that will hit the headlines if we get this wrong, particularly if we have no deal—that hard Brexit.
Let us consider the issues at stake: last year, goods worth £382 billion were traded between the UK and the European Union. That is virtually the same amount as the UK traded with the rest of the world, so we are talking about trade of half of our goods. In fact, the system currently works so well across the 28 countries— 500 million people—that professionals talk not about exports and imports, because the movement of goods and services is so seamless and frictionless, but about arrivals and dispatches. It is as simple as that. That is how businesses regard the inventory available to many of them through the warehouses across the European Union. For car manufacturers in the UK, selling a car to a customer in Birmingham is just as simple as selling one in Berlin or Brussels. Fewer than 1% of the lorries that go through Dover or the channel tunnel—the main conduits for goods and traffic—require checks, so it is a smooth and seamless process at present.
Tom Brake
It is indeed. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has visited Dover port. If he has, he will know that the site has no room available for customs checks. If he has visited the channel tunnel, he will also know that there is no capacity whatever to do any customs checks there.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are failing to understand the deep complexity of supply chains in the EU? He is talking about the finished product of a car, but there are also many automotive components that go backwards and forwards between the UK and mainland Europe. Sometimes within a single company, one part is made on mainland Europe, fixed into a car in this country and then exported back out to Europe. I also believe that the planning application for the lorry park was rejected because the council failed to carry out an environmental impact assessment.
Wera Hobhouse
The Brexit Select Committee actually visited Dover and we then met a representative of the port of Calais. Although this country is prepared to build a lorry park, the French side will not build a lorry park because it has a migrant crisis. The port of Calais will just close under these circumstances, so where will we export to and import from?
Angela Smith
May I turn my hon. Friend’s attention to Ireland? Freight traffic to Dublin has enjoyed a growth rate of 700% since the establishment of the single market, but the control zone of the terminal is no bigger than it was in the 1980s, thanks to the fact that it has enjoyed the dismantling of customs control and port health control. Is he aware of any preparations or investment to deal with this potential problem if we do abolish the customs union?
Anna Soubry
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with my view that most people in this country do not understand the huge benefits of the customs union? Of course, a huge swathe of people have never had any experience of stuff being stopped in customs. I certainly remember those days because of my age. Has it been his experience that British businesses are in many ways even more concerned about the movement of goods and tariffs and not being in the customs union than the actual imposition of the tariffs themselves? Companies such as Rolls-Royce in neighbouring Derby hugely benefit from these large supply chains and they are really worried about our leaving the customs union.
Mr Leslie
The right hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) are right to focus on supply chains. The tariff could be a problem. Who knows what that would be—3%, 4% or 5%—if we fell back on the World Trade Organisation? Think of the disruption to business planning. A lot of firms would almost need to have an insurance policy at their disposal for the warehousing just to cope with the flows. We could be on the brink of many manufacturers fundamentally having to move away from the just-in-time business models that they have developed; it is almost like “RIP JIT” in this circumstance. We could almost see a whole new business model—we could be stepping back into the 20th century and earlier—if we get this wrong.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and indeed to the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), for drawing attention to this wider point, which greatly troubles manufacturers in my constituency, in particular. As things stand, they manufacture and ship immediately to customers in other parts of the European Union. We have a huge shortage of available space for new warehousing facilities in Greater Manchester, and it is really important that the Government understand that wider context—it is not just a question of problems at the ports.
Mr Leslie
We must not take these arrangements for granted. Many of our constituents have taken them for granted for decades now and thought, “Oh, well, this is all seamless,” so they would not understand, as the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) said.
It is worth just walking through what happens when we do not have this sort of seamless arrangement. If a country is outside the customs union, this is what happens to goods that are destined for elsewhere. Before departure, people have to complete an export declaration, which is often lodged with a freight forwarding company. At the port of exit, the goods need to be cleared by the authorities, who decide whether inspection is needed. If so, the goods are possibly placed into storage and checked. Then, once they have left and travelled to the port of entry in the destination country, they are presented to the authorities via another declaration process, and potentially placed in storage again. Then there are country-of-entry checks and risk assessments; there is revenue collection; there could be checks for smuggled, unlicensed goods; and there are things such as hygiene, health and safety measures, labelling, consumer protection checks, the administration of quota restrictions, agricultural refunds, and trade defence checks to ensure that things are not being dumped unfairly in the country. All these administrative processes will absolutely add to the export process for goods.
Melanie Onn
Great Grimsby is well known for its fish and fish processing. We have discussed extensively some of the issues around delays to things such as automotive sector products, but we also have fresh products, such as fish. Fish is caught in Norway and imported to Grimsby, and it is an essential part of the fish processing industry. Any additional delays to that product will mean that supermarkets will not buy it—they will not want it—and the quality will reduce. That will have a really serious impact. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the issues around the delays and to make sure that the Government understand that reducing those delays in any way possible has to be at the forefront of their considerations.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I wonder why the hon. Gentleman is concerned for companies on that particular point, when Norway is not in the European Union or the customs union—it is in the single market. Therefore, the customs union aspect simply does not apply to Norway.
Mr Leslie
The hon. Gentleman will know that there are concerns. He said Norway was a “vassal state”—I think that was his phrase. I do not think the Norwegians would see it that way, but they have had to simply take instructions, in many ways, in terms of the European Union arrangements on a lot of these questions. With many of our products, particularly in the manufacturing sector, the customs union has given us great opportunity to thrive, and we have done particularly well in recent years on the back of that.
Wera Hobhouse
On that point, the Norwegian border is very interesting. Norway is in Schengen, so it does border checks on goods, but it does not need to do border checks on people. The main problem, of course, is that we are not in either. We need, at some point, to address the issue of how we check that lorries are not bringing into this country people we do not want to be here. I know that taking back control of our borders is a very important point, but there will be important discussions to be had about how we make that possible. Container ports will be okay, because we can seal the loads, but it will be a lot more difficult with lorries, because they take separate loads from separate consignments, and they need to be opened several times. So the issue of people smuggling is becoming quite potent.
Mr Leslie
The hon. Lady deals with the point incredibly well.
If we end frictionless trade or introduce barriers, with potentially the return of a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, very significant problems will arise. The Government are either deluding themselves by saying, “There’s some miraculous blue-skies technological solution to all these things”, or deluding others because of the fudging and obfuscation that is going on, when, in moving from the phase 1 to the phase 2 process, they put in a form of words that seems to be interpreted in almost as many different ways as there are people reading them. They have kicked the issue into the long grass for now, but we are not going to be able to get to a decent deal without this unravelling.
Ian Paisley
The long list of checks that the hon. Gentleman read out that would be applicable are, as he knows, currently applied. That is done in a very mechanical way, often by computer through a trusted trader-type scheme. A lot of the mechanisms, procedures and protocols that he read out, especially for food and medical products, are already applied. What would lead to new and additional checks is a change in tariffs between our exports and imported goods. Therefore, surely the imperative for everyone in this House is to urgently get on to the part of the negotiations where we can get a tariff-free deal with the EU. Otherwise some of the issues that he highlighted will need to be covered.
Mr Leslie
I agree that we want to have a tariff-free relationship with our European neighbours—that much we can all agree on. However, the hon. Gentleman should look at the circumstances where we export to third countries outside the European Union that are not part of the free trade agreements that we have accrued over the 40 years of our membership of the European Union. Those free trade agreements are there for a reason. As we heard earlier, the reason people want out of the pure WTO arrangement and into an FTA is precisely that they want to minimise many of the transactional barriers and the inertia that can be there.
Let us take the car industry as an example. The chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the car industry’s own representative, is now voicing concerns about investment in the sector gradually beginning to ebb away, partly because of the uncertainty of this whole situation. The level of investment in the industry in the UK was £2.5 billion in 2015, then £1.6 billion in 2016, and it is heading to less than £1 billion this year. Car companies are “sitting on their hands”, according to the chief executive of the SMMT.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I want to take my hon. Friend back to what he was saying about the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. We had evidence this morning at the Brexit Committee on this. As he knows, in their recent agreement with Brussels, the Government committed to having no infrastructure at the border, and, if necessary, to our providing full regulatory alignment with the internal market and the customs union in order to achieve that. Is he encouraged by that commitment, even though the Government’s current policy is not to stay in the customs union, because if it stands, it looks very likely that we will have to, in effect, stay in the customs union?
Mr Leslie
Absolutely. If we can maintain full alignment, which was the phrase used in that agreement, that is essentially the same thing as a customs union arrangement. However, there was a caveat in that Ministers said that it would apply unless specific solutions can be found for divergence that they might want to see. That is a bit like the European negotiator’s way of saying, “Come on then, do your best—let’s have a look at what you can dream up.” The worry that I had when the Prime Minister returned was that her interpretation of full alignment was to reference the old list within the Good Friday agreement that merely talked about areas such as agriculture, energy and tourism but excluded trade in goods, which is a pretty big part of the issue at the border. I do not think the European Union signed up to this thinking that there was an exclusion for trade in goods. It is a question of “watch and wait” until the situation unravels.
Tom Brake
May I bring the hon. Gentleman back to another border that he referred to, namely that between Norway and Sweden? Our Secretary of State for Transport is on record as saying that that is a completely frictionless border, across which things move with ease. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is not the case? I think it was the Swedish trade body that said Norway is the hardest country to trade with.
Mr Baron
Before the hon. Gentleman whips himself up into too much of a state of pessimism, may I gently remind him that inward investment is at a record high? If anything, it has picked up recently. In addition, because the EU has no free trade deals with big trading partners such as the US, China, Australia and New Zealand, and neither do we. That has not prevented trade from being conducted handsomely; if anything, our surpluses are with those countries rather than with the EU.
Mr Leslie
I will come to the US situation in a moment. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that the inward investment figures are massively inflated because of mergers and acquisitions data. When we consider the buy-outs of some of the large technology companies—[Interruption.] Well, I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman should necessarily interpret the stripping out of British ownership of such companies as a great British success. If he digs beneath the statistics, he might see a slightly different picture.
Our mythology about the UK’s potential to strike a great and bountiful set of trade deals if we could only rid ourselves of the shackles of the customs union is becoming a bit of a joke across the British economy.
Mr Leslie
I will give way in a moment. Our justification for leaving the customs union has to be more than simply to keep the Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade in a job. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), who is keen to intervene, took evidence on some of these questions this morning.
I think that the potential United States deal that the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) referred to is being kiboshed as we speak. The US would want an agricultural basis for any trade deal with the UK, but there is a reason why the Americans dip their chicken in chlorine: they have entirely different and lower animal welfare standards than do the UK and the EU. If we were to do an agricultural deal with the US on the basis of those lower standards, it would undercut our farmers, abattoirs and food producers, who would have to chase each other down to the level of the lowest common denominator. It is contradictory to hear the Environment Secretary saying that he does not wish in any way to reduce safety standards or animal welfare standards, and he may well be killing off the idea of a US trade deal with his pronouncements.
Angela Smith
My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way again. This morning, the Secretary of State further entrenched his position, which will make it very difficult to complete a US trade deal involving food and food products. The other evidence that we have received in the Select Committee has indicated, week after week, that many parts of the agricultural sector believe that the UK Government over many generations—not just this Government, but previous ones—have never done the political or diplomatic brokering work necessary to build our export trading position with third countries outside the European Union. What on earth makes us think that we can now pull off this magic trick of building trade around the world to replace that which we have had with the European Union?
Mr Leslie
It is possible that our civil service will eventually gear up to do these things, and I would be the first person to say that we of course want to do new trade deals to repair some of the damage caused by this whole process, but it is not going to happen overnight. In fact, as you will remember, Sir David, Vote Leave promised during the campaign ahead of the referendum that we would be negotiating trade deals the day after the referendum and that they would all get going straightaway, but we are yet to see any of that actually kick off.
Ian Paisley
The hon. Gentleman has highlighted this contradiction, so will he explain why the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) has not signed new clause 13—after all, he is on the record as saying that staying in the customs union would be a “disaster”—and why, given that Labour Members were whipped to vote against staying in the customs union, they have now made a volte-face and decided that staying in it is a possibility? What actually is the decided and determined policy of the Labour party on this issue?
Mr Leslie
I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) can speak for himself; he has done in the past and will do so again. I take the view that we should not shilly-shally on this issue, but stand up and say that there are risks to business and to our borders from our ports and airports being clogged up. We should also say that there is an economic cost—revenue costs for the Treasury—that could mean years of Brexit austerity ahead. All hon. Members, whichever side of the House we are on, need to recognise that some of the responsibility for these things will fall on our shoulders if we do not stand up now and say that staying in the customs union is the right way to proceed.
Anna Soubry
Given the hon. Gentleman’s experience, has he, like me, talked to people about the detail of the EU-Canada comprehensive economic and trade agreement, as well as about what the Australians and the Indians—and many other countries that are apparently queuing up to do these great trade deals with us—want? At the core of any free trade agreement with such countries will be an absolute requirement for their people to be able to come to our country quite freely, as they can with the accelerated migration policy under CETA. Under that free trade deal, the Canadian people have the ability to come into parts of the European Union. It is a myth to think that this is about trade, because a huge part of it is about immigration.
Mr Leslie
Absolutely. The right hon. Lady has taken the words out of my mouth. I would love to see the Government’s draft free trade agreement with India. I hope that there are fantastic manufactured goods or widgets that the British want to sell and could sell to India, but I suspect that the Indian economy is quite adept at producing widgets of its own and probably at quite a low cost. If the Indians are going to buy anything from us, they will buy services—services are about people; they are people-to-people businesses—and the Indians will naturally say, “Well, we’ll do you a deal, but it has to involve the movement of people.” All hon. Members will need to think about the downstream consequences of that and about how our constituents might respond. Such an agreement would be perfectly reasonable, but this is a much bigger question.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in drafting and moving all these new clauses. Does he remember that when the Prime Minister visited India, the No. 1 topic on the Indians’ agenda was relaxing our immigration rules? How does that square with the Prime Minister’s immigration targets and her ambitions on Brexit?
Mr Leslie
We are due imminently to see the immigration Bill—the Minister will tell us exactly when it will be introduced to Parliament—and the draft agreement that the Secretary of State for International Trade has drawn up with the Indian Government, and we will be able to make a judgment on that at that point.
Ian Murray
Before my hon. Friend moves away from India, may I draw his attention to the Scotch whisky industry? I am sure we will all partake of some of that industry’s goods during the next few weeks of the festive period. The Scotch whisky industry has flourished on the basis of free trade deals done through the EU, such as the one with Korea, but this Government are planning to walk away from those 57 EU bilateral trade agreements and try to reach free trade agreements with countries such as India, which will want to maintain its 150% tariff on Scotch whisky.
Mr Leslie
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes his point well. The idea is that we should turn a blind eye to the trading arrangements we have with our nearest neighbours—50% of our markets—in pursuit, as an alternative or substitute, of some deal with far-flung countries a lot further away, but Australia accounts for 2% or 3% of our current trade and a deal with Australia will not offset many of these problems. It is not just the 50% that we have directly with our nearest neighbours. All those free trade agreements that the European Union has worked up and signed, to which we have been a party, over the past 40 years add up to a further 14% of our trade. So going on for two thirds of our trade is tied into the customs union process—36 bilateral free trade agreements with 63 different countries. How shall we ensure that they continue the day after we exit?
Mr Leslie
I will not give way; other Members want to speak.
The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade has said, “These can be grandfathered; they can be cut and pasted and we will just sort all those out,” and junior Ministers at the Department for International Trade have said in the past, “Those countries have all agreed to roll them over.” That is not the case. Maybe a bit of dialogue has begun, but those other countries might want to take the opportunity to reopen some of those long-standing agreements—who knows? The Minister will give us the answers when he winds up the debate.
Mr Leslie
I want to conclude my remarks because others want to speak. I simply want to make a final point about why the customs union is such a crucial issue, and why I urge my hon. Friends on the Front Bench and hon. Members across the House to think about the consequences of not staying in the customs union.
If this country ends up with hard borders again, there will be big consequences. Our ports could grind to a halt. Lorries will clog up our motorways, with, potentially, vast lorry parks near the ports. The expensive, wasteful spending on bureaucratic checks will hurt our industries, and we ought to be evaluating the economic impact of industries, potentially, gradually relocating elsewhere because it is easier to do business in a different jurisdiction. Think of the jobs lost, particularly in the manufacturing sector, if we get this wrong. Bear in mind that we will not have any say on what happens on the EU side of the border after this whole process. There is no guarantee about what happens at the other end of the channel tunnel or in Calais.
The reason I have pushed new clause 13 as I have, is to do with the austerity that we risk in this country for the next decade—a decade of Brexit austerity that will potentially befall many of our constituents because of the lost revenues. Unless we stay in the single market and the customs union, we will have that austerity on our conscience, and I urge hon. Members, especially all my hon. Friends, to think very seriously. We have to make sure we stay in the customs union.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
It was a pleasure to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie). It is like a vintage wine—it improves with age as one hears it on repeated occasions, with mild variations.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Well actually, oddly enough, I intend, as previously in Committee, to attend to one of the amendments—in fact, two—rather than to the general question of whether it is a good idea to leave the EU. I want in particular to speak about amendment 400—a Government amendment now—and amendment 381, the original Government amendment to which it relates, in a sort of package.
There has been a certain amount of confusion in discussion of the amendments in public—although not, I hope, in the House—so I first want to make it quite clear what they do and can do and what they do not and cannot. The issue has often been reported as if it relates to the question of when we withdraw from the EU, which is very interesting but nothing to do with the amendments. Neither is it anything to do with the Bill, because withdrawal from the EU, as all hon. Members present know, is governed by the article 50 process, not by an Act of Parliament. If we could wave a wand and decide how we do these things through an Act of Parliament, how much easier that would be; but there is an article 50 process that is part of international law, to which we subscribe, and that is what will determine when we leave the EU.
What do the amendments do? They govern when clause 1 will become operative. Clause 1 repeals the European Communities Act 1972 and Government amendment 381 sets a date for that. That leads to a question. If the UK Government and the EU, according to the processes laid out by article 50 and by the remainder of the constitutional arrangements of the EU, come to some kind of agreement at a certain point, it would make sense to have a little more time than is allowed under the first clause of the article 50 process. Under the third clause of the article 50 process, we would have an odd situation, because there would be a slight delay in the timing of our withdrawal, where we would still, under amendment 381, be locked into abolishing the 1972 Act on a certain date, namely by 11 pm on 29 March 2019. There would therefore be an odd conflict of laws that obviously could not be allowed to persist.
Incidentally, there would then be perfectly obvious remedy: under Government amendment 400 there would be a need for emergency primary legislation to change the date. That is, of course, perfectly possible and I have no doubt the House and the other place would agree to such a measure, but it is a laborious process and it might jam up the works at just the moment when it is very important for the Government to have the flexibility to make an agreement of that sort. So, very modestly, all Government amendment 400 does is to provide for the ability of Parliament to adjust the date under those circumstances for the repeal of the European Communities Act to match the article 50 process.
Sir Oliver Heald
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and for the very careful way in which he is setting this out. I hope he would agree that this is a much more commodious and confluent way than was previously the case. It will mean that article 50 and our domestic law are in better synchronisation. If I may, I pay tribute to him and to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) for working on this amendment and for coming up with a very happy solution to a thorny problem.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, to the many right hon. and hon. Friends who signed up to the amendment and, above all, to the Government for turning it into a Government amendment.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
If the European Communities Act 1972 is abolished on 29 March 2019 and that is the legal basis for following the European Union’s rules at the moment, what does the right hon. Gentleman think will be the legal basis for following the European Union’s rules during the transition period?
Sir Oliver Letwin
That is a very interesting question, to which we will know the answer when we have seen the text of the agreements that lead to the withdrawal and implementation Bill and when Parliament accepts it. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman, but I maintain steadfastly the effort to use the Committee stage of this Bill to speak about this Bill, this clause and this amendment, and not some extraneous consideration.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I will, but it will be for the last time, because I want to bring my remarks to a close. I do not want to detain the Committee for long.
Helen Goodman
We have heard many times from Conservative Members that the date of 29 March 2019 cannot be moved because we have triggered article 50 and the process has a two-year limit. Will the right hon. Gentleman set out for the Committee what he thinks would happen in practice if the powers under amendment 400 were used by the Government?
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am surprised by the hon. Lady. I have known her a very long time and I know she is extremely assiduous and very intelligent, so she will have read article 50 and observed that it contains an express provision for agreement between the EU and in this case the UK to delay the date which would otherwise pertain. In fact, there are also rules for what is required on the EU side by way of unanimity to permit that to occur. There is no question, therefore, of the Government ever having asserted that they could not change the article 50 date; they have always said and known that it is possible to change it. The question, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) said a moment ago, is how we make sure that UK law marches in step with whatever happens under the article 50 process.
Sir Oliver Letwin
My hon. Friend is so important in these proceedings that I will give way to him, but then I really am going to stop taking interventions and finish.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I do apologise. I did not want to trouble my right hon. Friend, but the two-year timeframe under the article 50 process is a deadline, not the point at which we necessarily leave; it is the point at which we leave in the event that no deal is reached beforehand. It is perfectly possible, should the negotiations go well, for an earlier date to be agreed.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Oh, my hon. Friend is absolutely right—that is of course the way that article 50 works. My point was merely that it also provides in the event that the opposite occurs—the negotiations take even longer than anticipated, or the negotiations come to an end but ratification takes a bit longer than anticipated, which could well happen—for an agreement to be reached to extend the date, which is what would then cause the incommensurability with UK law, unless we have adequate provision on the UK side. That is what amendment 400, to which, I am pleased to say, he is a signatory, provides for.
I want to say one more thing before I sit down. I am glad—I hope that the Minister will confirm this from the Dispatch Box—that the Government have said throughout this discussion that they will bring forward an amendment to make sure that the statutory instrument that might be triggered under amendment 400 would be under the affirmative procedure, although I think that the amendment will have to be tabled on Report because of how Bill proceedings work.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
I am happy to tell the Committee that that is the case, as I shall confirm later.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am delighted by that. It is important to people on both sides of the arguments that it be something that Parliament can do, not that Ministers may simply do on their own. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), my south-western neighbour at the end of the Bench, very much agrees with that proposition, as does my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield in the middle.
Mr Grieve
I just want to thank my right hon. Friend for having intervened in this matter and found a way to resolve the issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) just pointed out, the oddity of the original amendment 381 was that it would have imposed a rather serious obstacle if, for any reason, there had been an agreement for the article 50 period to end earlier.
Sir Oliver Letwin
That is right. My right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset have always actually maintained the same point, which is that we need to keep the two sets of law in sync with one another. That is the overriding purpose of the whole Bill: to ensure that UK law matches what is happening in the international law arena and that we then import the whole of EU law into UK law for the starting point of our future.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am terribly sorry, but I am not going to take any further interventions. I am going to sit down in a second. I only want to say that I am profoundly grateful, not only to my right hon. and hon. Friends who have joined us in this amendment, but to the Government. This is exactly the way to deal with these things: find a sensible compromise that brings everyone on the Government Benches together and makes the Opposition entirely irrelevant to the discussion.
Paul Blomfield
It is, on this occasion, a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), who was at his erudite best in critiquing Government amendment 381, echoing many of the points the Opposition made on day one of the Committee stage. It was also very helpful that he spoke so clearly on the flexibility provided in the article 50 process, in contrast with the remarks he directed against my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) who made exactly that point only last week. It is good to see the right hon. Gentleman moving on.
I rise to speak in favour of amendments 43 to 45 and 349, which are tabled in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Let me, however, turn first to Government amendment 381, which revives, on this last day of the Committee stage, the issues that we debated on the first. The two solitary names on the amendment say everything about its purpose: the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), neither of whom is present. We are seeing an alliance between the Government and, on this issue, one of their most troublesome Back Benchers.
As I think the right hon. Member for West Dorset made clear, it is not as though the amendment adds anything to the withdrawal negotiations. Indeed, it hampers the process. It is just another example of the Government’s throwing red meat to the more extreme Brexiteers on their Benches. As we said on day one, the amendment is not serious legislation. It is a gimmick, and it is a reckless one—in relation not just to the flexibility on the departure date to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, but to the wider aspects of exiting. It reaches out to those who want to unpick the Prime Minister’s Florence speech and the basis for a transitional period.
Setting exit day “for all purposes” as one date means the end of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice at the point at which we leave the European Union. As we warned the Government, that would make a deal with the EU on the transitional period impossible. We also warned the Government that they could not deliver the support of the Committee of the whole House for the amendment, and that was confirmed by the tabling on Friday of amendments 399 to 405. Just as the Government have caught up with the Labour party on the need for a transitional period, by cobbling together this compromise in the face of defeat they have caught up with us on the need for flexibility on exit days for different purposes. The Solicitor General is raising his eyebrows at me. Perhaps it would be fairer to say that the Government have caught up with themselves. The Bill as originally drafted did not include amendment 381. The Government have recognised that it is nonsense, and are seeking to find a way out. We will go for the more straightforward way by seeking to vote it down.
Amendments 399 to 405 give Ministers the power to set exit day through secondary legislation. We would give that power directly to Parliament, for all the reasons that we set out last week. We will therefore support amendments 386 and 387, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) along with members of five parties, and new clause 54, tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said earlier, he tabled it helpfully to allow the Government to embed the Prime Minister’s Florence commitments in the Bill.
Let me now deal with our amendment 43 and consequential amendments 44 and 45. On Wednesday evening, Parliament sent a clear message to the Government: we will not be sidelined in the Brexit process. The passing of amendment 7 was a significant step in clawing back the excessive powers that the Government are attempting to grant themselves through the Bill, and in upholding our parliamentary democracy. As with the final deal, Parliament must have control over the length and terms of the transitional period, and our amendments would provide that. The Prime Minister has eventually recognised that she was tying her hands behind her back with her exit day amendment, but amendments 399 to 405 are not the solution. They simply loosen the legislative straitjacket that the Government unnecessarily put on themselves. The Government must respect the House and accept that Parliament, not Ministers, should set the terms and length of a transitional period.
As I said in our earlier discussion this afternoon, there is a clear majority in this House for a sensible approach to Brexit and to the transitional arrangements. That brings together business and the trade unions and many other voices outside this place, just as it brings together Members on both sides of the House.
The Prime Minister knows we are right on the transitional arrangements, as her Florence speech made clear:
“As I said in my speech at Lancaster house a period of implementation would be in our mutual interest. That is why I am proposing that there should be such a period after the UK leaves the EU…So during the implementation period access to one another’s markets should continue on current terms”.
But every time she reaches out for common sense, and tries to bring the country together and to build the deep and special partnership she talks about, the extreme Brexiteers step in, trying to unpick our commitments, and setting new red lines, whether on the Court of Justice or regulatory divergence, which they know will derail the negotiations and deliver the complete rupture they dream of. So the transitional arrangements, which are important both for the interim and in positioning us for our longer term future, must be in the hands of this Parliament.
Paul Farrelly
Does my hon. Friend agree that services are so important to our economy that if we want to negotiate something that has not been negotiated before, it is likely to take far longer than two years?
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why it is so important that we give ourselves the flexibility on exit dates and in relation to the transitional period.
Our amendment 349 seeks clarification from the Government—I am looking at the Minister as I make this point—that they do not intend to use delegated powers to create criminal offences of a seriousness that carry custodial sentences. I hope the Minister will in his remarks state that that is not their intention, and if that is the case will he indicate now that the Government will give a commitment to amend the Bill accordingly on Report?
Let me turn now to some of the other amendments currently under consideration. We support many of the other new clauses that seek reports aiding transparency and good evidence-based decision making. New clauses 31 and 33, for example, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) raise important issues for children’s welfare. New clause 44 in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) requires an independent evaluation of the impact of this legislation on the health and social care sector, which we would also support. Others, such as new clause 11 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) helpfully seek to ensure that we do not fall behind the standards and protections we currently enjoy as they develop in the EU. We would support that, as we would new clause 56 on protecting the existing rights a person in Gibraltar can exercise in the UK as a result of our common membership of the EU; we will support that new clause if pushed to a vote by the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant).
Amendments 102 and 103 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) are right in seeking to limit the use of delegated powers in Bills other than this one, past or future, to modify EU retained law. That is a vital component of keeping the scope of delegated powers in check.
On that point, we have over the past few days seen a timely reminder of why we have opposed the extent of the Henry VIII powers in this Bill. The Government might wax lyrical about wanting to preserve workers’ rights, but in reality too many Members on the Conservative Benches—although I accept not all—cannot wait to get started on dismantling them. The contempt for the working time directive we have seen over the last few days is not a revelation: 20 of the 23 members of the current Cabinet have opposed that directive. The Foreign Secretary has made no secret of his view that the key rights that the directive provides represent “back-breaking” regulation. The International Trade Secretary has described them as a “burden”. The Prime Minister went further when she damned the whole social chapter as a “burden on business”.
Mr Grieve
It is a pleasure to participate in this debate, and it was also a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) opening it. He will not be surprised to hear that I entirely share many of his views about the merits of staying in the customs union, and the lack of advantage of leaving it. However, there is a time and place for everything. The customs union and the merits or otherwise of the single market are all matters that the House will have to debate in due course. In the meantime, we will have to see what the Government come up with in the negotiations, and what they return to the House with at the end of them, but I do not intend to get bogged down in that this afternoon.
Mr Grieve
I will give way in a moment.
I made it quite clear on Second Reading that the purpose of the Bill relates to process, not outcome, and I have tried really rigorously to confine my remarks to the process issue, although the extent to which people have kept interpreting my concerns about process as an intention to sabotage our leaving the EU altogether, which I have never at any stage sought to do, is remarkable. I will now give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but I must tell him that I want to get on to the meat of this subject, rather than talking about those other matters.
Tom Brake
I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point about focusing on process rather than outcome, but does he agree that given that Cabinet Ministers are now sitting down to discuss the outcome, it would be helpful for Parliament also to use the opportunities available to us to express our views about what the outcome should be?
Mr Kenneth Clarke
My right hon. and learned Friend has been consistent all the way through our consideration of this Bill in agreeing with me on only the subjects of process, rather than substance, but I quite respect his view and always have the highest respect for his legal and political skills. Does he agree that if amendments actually went beyond the Bill, they would have been ruled to be beyond the scope of the Bill? It is entirely a voluntary decision on his part that he refuses to be drawn into the substance of Government policy, or the stance that the Government are taking on the eve of their starting the first serious negotiations on our future after we withdraw. It is a pity that he has made this self-sacrificing concession.
Mr Grieve
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend. Yes, it is a self-denying ordinance, but it was taken for what I think is a good reason, and partly because I did not wish to inflame the debate into something more general. However, despite my best endeavours and making speeches of what I thought was studied moderation, I seem to have been singularly unsuccessful, but that is merely a reflection of the fevered atmosphere in which this Committee meets.
I have to accept that I did raise the temperature a bit on amendment 381, because when it was first presented to the Committee, I expressed myself in respect of it in very strong terms indeed. I did so not because I was making some statement that I refused to contemplate the day of exit as being 29 March 2019 at 11 pm, but because I considered that to introduce that date into the Bill as a tablet of stone made absolutely no sense at all for the very reason that I sought to highlight in my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin). In actual fact, that amendment would make it harder to move the date forward if we had wish to do so at the conclusion of the negotiations, because that would require a statute. I know that statutes can be implemented quite quickly in this House, but that process would nevertheless take significantly longer than the alternative. I could not see why we were losing the sensible flexibility provided by the way in which the Bill was originally drafted.
Underlying all this, there appears to be a sort of neurosis abroad that the magical date might somehow not be reached or, if it were to be reached, might be moved back. I am afraid that I cannot fully understand that neurosis of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but it is there nevertheless. It may give them some comfort to have in the Bill this statement of the obvious. However, it is worth bearing in mind that we are leaving on 29 March 2019 as a result of the article 50 process, unless the time is extended under that process, and we are doing so as a matter of international law even if the European Communities Act 1972 were to survive for some mistaken reason, which would cause legal chaos and put us in a very bad place.
In order to try to reassure my right hon. and hon. Friends and to give out the message that this is a process Bill, I am prepared to go along with things now that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) have so sensibly and creatively come up with a solution that appears to provide what my hon. Friends want and, at the same time, removes what I consider, perhaps in my lawyerly way, to be an undesirable incoherence in the legislation.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for making so eloquently the point about the importance of process as the best defence of our liberties. Will he join me in welcoming the work that assiduous junior Ministers have done for their Secretary of State with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) in agreeing a package of amendments that I am happy to put my name to and vote for tonight, along with amendment 381? As he mentioned tidings of comfort, it seems at this Christmas moment that not since the soldiers met on no man’s land to sing “Silent Night” has peace broken out at such an opportune moment.
Mr Grieve
I am filled with my hon. Friend’s Christmas spirit, and very much wish that it may be carried through to the new year, and for many years to come. For that reason, I am prepared to support the Government on amendment 381, on the obvious condition that we have the other amendment, and with the assurance from the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), that we will get the necessary further change on Report to make the matter subject to the affirmative procedure. I fully understand why we cannot have that today—it is too late. We should have acted earlier if we wanted to get that into the Bill during Committee.
I want to put on record an argument that was made to me against this course of action: what we are doing has an impact on clause 9, as amended by my amendment 7. The intention behind amendment 7, which the House voted for, was always that the powers in the Bill for removal should not be used until after the final statute had been approved. That included the power to fix exit date. As a consequence of the amendments before us, those powers are removed from the ambit of clause 9, and therefore have a stand-alone quality that could mean that they could be invoked by making the date earlier than 29 March—so early that we would not have considered and implemented the statute approving exit. Some have expressed concern to me about that.
I have given the matter careful thought, and while I understand those concerns, they appear unrealistic. It would be extraordinary if we were in such a state of chaos that a Government—I am not sure which Government, or who would be the Ministers in government—decided to take that course of action in breach of our international obligations to our EU partners, because that is what that would involve. In truth, that would still involve getting an affirmative resolution of the House, hence the assurance that we needed from my hon. Friend the Minister, and this House would be most unlikely to give permission for such a chaotic outcome. I wanted to respond to what others, including individuals outside the House, had represented to me, but we should not lose sleep over that aspect of the matter. In truth, my amendment 7 was never aimed at exit day. It was aimed at the other powers that the Government might wish to start using before a withdrawal agreement had been approved.
I had an amendment 6, which was about multiple exit days, but that issue has been resolved, so the amendment can be safely forgotten about. I also had amendment 11, which dealt with whether retained EU law was to be treated as primary or secondary for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998. My hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench know very well that that is part and parcel of a wider issue that we have debated on many occasions. I have chucked the ball—delicately, I hope—into their court to see how they respond to some of the many anxieties expressed by Members on both sides of the House about how fundamental rights that are derived from EU law that I think most people now take for granted can be safeguarded properly. I look forward very much to hearing a little more about that on Report.
I want to bring my remarks to a close. I am personally delighted that the problem that I could see coming down the track has been so neatly averted by the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon.
Stephen Gethins
I would like to speak to new clauses 44 and 56, in my colleagues’ names. New clause 56 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) is on an issue raised with the Prime Minister today. Gibraltar voted by 96% to remain in the European Union—an even higher figure than for those who voted remain in Scotland and Northern Ireland. That vote clearly reflected the people of Gibraltar’s concern to protect the rights that they have acquired since joining the EU with the UK in 1973.
Gibraltarians need their border to be kept fluid, so that commerce can thrive and so that residents, workers and tourists can continue to pass through a border that should have only proportionate controls and reasonable checks. It is fair to say that they are not asking for anything from the UK that they have not had to date, and it is right that they should be given a firm, formally enshrined legal guarantee to add confidence for industries and commerce. The right of a person from or established in Gibraltar to provide services into the UK, where that right existed immediately before exit day as a result of the UK and Gibraltar’s common membership of the EU, should continue. There is strong cross-party support and, building on the Prime Minister’s comments earlier, I hope the Minister will touch on it in his summing up.
Patrick Grady
I had a similar experience to my hon. Friend. I delved into these documents with great excitement only to find it was clear from them all—I do not think we are allowed to quote directly, lest we be struck down by lightning—that they do not contain anything that is either commercially sensitive or sensitive to the negotiations, so why do not the Government just put them all in the public domain?
Stephen Gethins
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I agree. Having had a look at these assessments, I am not entirely sure what the fuss is about. As we undergo the biggest economic and constitutional upheaval since the end of the war, we have a flimsy report covering 39 industries, not 51, as I was told more than a year ago. The information I have seen would be pretty accessible to the public, and it strikes me that the only reason we have not seen the assessments is that this is a Government who do not know what they are doing, who have not done their homework and who are prepared to drag us and the industries into the abyss. It strikes me that this is more to do with internal Conservative party feuding and less to do with our economy.
Tom Brake
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that perhaps another explanation for all the rigmarole surrounding access to these reports is that the Government want to give the impression that they have actually done a huge amount of work? That is a Trumpian way to describe the amount of effort that has gone into producing these assessments, but, in fact, when we turned up to look at the assessments, they were nothing more than a damp squib and nothing more than could be found by googling for five minutes.
Stephen Gethins
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Huge efforts have gone into covering up these assessments and the fact that this is a flimsy job indeed. The point I was making again highlights why we need to protect our place in the single market. That is the primary concern for businesses that benefit from it, and it was not on the ballot. Vote Leave did make a number of promises, one of them being that Scotland would get power over immigration. That would help towards ensuring that Scotland could remain part of the single market. What Scottish National party Members have said is that we are still open to compromise. We have tabled new clause 45 and are clear that the Act must in no way give the UK Government a green light to drag the UK out of the single market—that was never on the ballot, and we have to be clear on that. We were promised powers over immigration and that would go a long way, if the UK does not want to take our compromise as a whole, to Scotland remaining part of the single market. We also support new clause 9, which would have the same effect.
We are about to spend £40 billion for a worse deal with the European Union, at a time when a Tory Government are cutting public services across the UK. Let me touch briefly on a second referendum. We think that people should have a right to look at the outcome of the negotiation. I have a great deal of sympathy for the Liberal Democrat calls for another referendum. However, I say to our Liberal Democrat colleagues in the spirit of friendship that the immediate challenge must be for us to work together and help the UK stay in the single market and customs union. That is the compromise we have suggested. It is not my preferred option—my preferred option would be for Scotland to remain part of the EU—but that is the nature of compromise; we all have a little bit of give and take in this process.
It should be said, however, that a referendum on the terms of the Brexit deal will be difficult to resist if the uncertainty around negotiations persists. Any second referendum must not replicate the 2016 campaign, and it is essential that Scotland’s constitutional place is protected in a second referendum. We do not want to be in circumstances where we are dragged out against our will for a second time.
Wera Hobhouse
Of course this is not going to be a second referendum. I want to clarify once and for all that it is the language of the other side to say that we want a second referendum; we want a referendum on the deal—on what is going to be negotiated. It will be a confirmation—an update—of what the people have said, because only the people can end what they have started. That can be dealt with only through a referendum.
Stephen Gethins
I have enormous sympathy for the hon. Lady’s position and what she says, but the people of Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain part of the EU and we are concerned that there would be no recognition of Scotland’s place in any subsequent deal, and we want to leave open, even at this late stage, the possibility of seeking a compromise. We all have a responsibility in this House to do that.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this would not be a second referendum? People are saying, “This isn’t what I voted for.” They voted to go out in principle. They were told they would get more money, but they are getting less money. They may get restricted market access. They have a right to vote on the terms of the deal. This is quite separate from whether they in principle wanted to go out. Surely, he should think again about this, and rather than just banking his previous result for Scotland, he should think of the UK.
Stephen Gethins
I am glad the hon. Gentleman referred to the previous result for Scotland, because one thing the Prime Minister and the Conservatives are doing is pushing up support for the EU among Scots; the latest opinion poll has us at 68%, so the figure getting higher all the time. He makes a good point, but I think we must compromise. This Government need to compromise not just with the DUP, but with the other political parties in this place. They can talk about a pan-UK approach, but that does not mean merely seeking a deal between the Conservatives, who have slipped to third place in opinion polls in Scotland, and the DUP, which, with great respect, represents only Northern Ireland.
I will gladly give way to a Minister on this next point if one can give us some information. The Secretary of State for Scotland told the House—I think, in response to points made by the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) about his unhappiness with some of the Bill, and I am glad that he made them—that the Government would table further amendments on the devolution process. I will gladly give way to Ministers if they want to give us some clarity on what the Secretary of State said. Given that this is the final day in Committee, I would happily give them that. I am not sure whether they have been speaking to the Secretary of State or whether he caught them unawares, but it is the final day and we would like some more detail. That Ministers are silent tells us that, with respect to the devolution process, the Bill and the Government’s organisation fall far short of where we should be 18 months on from the referendum.
I am glad that other Members have tabled amendments with which we agree. New clause 46 would require the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to carry out a public consultation within
“six months of the passing of this Act”
to assess the impact the exit deal on workers’ rights.
As the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) mentioned earlier, new clause 8 would maintain a role for local authorities by replicating the Committee of the Regions, the role of which is to give a voice to local areas and protect the principle of subsidiarity—something about which the UK Government could well learn from our European colleagues.
New clause 28 would maintain environmental principles, while new clause 31 deals with the promotion of the safety and welfare of children and young people after exit.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) tabled new clause 32, which addresses the fate of UK programmes that benefit from the European social fund. EU funds currently contribute to efforts to address inequalities in Scotland, with the European social fund having contributed £250 million to the Scottish economy between 2007 and 2013. Will the Minister tell us whether similar funds will be coming to Scotland after we have left the EU?
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston also tabled new clause 33, which would commit the Government to assess every year whether rates of benefits and tax credits are maintaining their value in real terms against a backdrop of rising inflation as a direct consequence of our leaving the EU.
New clause 59, on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, would allow professionals to continue to have UK qualifications recognised across the EU. That is vital for our economy.
New clause 77 is very important, as it deals with co-operation with the EU on violence against women and girls. The new clauses and amendments I have addressed underline the progress that we have made as members of the EU and the value of pooling and sharing sovereignty.
As it is day 8, I shall share this reflection. I have been absolutely astonished at times by some people’s lack of understanding of the EU and its decision-making process, at the failure at times to grasp the differences between institutions such as the European Council, the European Commission and the European Parliament and at the failure to grasp the fact that sovereignty rests with the member state and always has done.
The Bill takes away the sovereignty that we shared with our partners and with the devolved Administrations —it even takes from Parliament the sovereignty that is so dear to so many Members—and gives so many powers to the Executive. Without knowing fully what happens, we are handing back control to an Executive who will not publish details of what leaving means. Even within Parliament, we are bringing back control—to borrow a phrase—to the House of Commons and the House of Lords, which will have more say about this process than the democratically elected devolved Parliaments and Assemblies. Just think about that for one moment. We are giving the House of Lords more control over this process than democratically elected Parliaments and more powers to more unelected bureaucrats. That is absolutely shameful.
Let me conclude. The EU has been a force for good in working together on workers’ rights, climate change, education and research. What a waste to throw it all away to Brexiteers who are not even bothering to make the case for what comes next. All along, we have talked about the kind of country that we want to see in the future. Is it one that pursues isolation, economic decline and a retreat from the progress that we have made? I want to see a Scotland, and indeed a United Kingdom, where we pool and share sovereignty and are true to our European ideals that have built peace and prosperity and advanced our rights and opportunities for young people. This Government are building a Britain fit for the 1950s; we want to see a Scotland that is fit for the 2050s.
Mr Baker
I rise on this eighth day of eight to propose that clauses 14 and 15, 18 and 19 and schedules 6, 8 and 9 stand part of the Bill.
Over the course of the eight days of debate, we have had almost 500 amendments tabled and more than 30 separate Divisions. I am very happy that, in this section of the debate today, the amendments under consideration run to just 39 pages.
Mr Baker
May I make my serious point first, and then give way?
It is sometimes said of this House that it does not scrutinise legislation well and that we send Bills to the other place in a mess. On this occasion, on this historic Bill, I think that the House of Commons has shown itself equal to the task of scrutinising important constitutional legislation. With that, I will very gladly give way.
Mr Grieve
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. What I wanted to say was that, at the start, there was some disquiet over the timetable motion, and, actually, the Government responded positively on that. The evidence suggests to me that, in fact, the timetable has matched the scope of the amendments that we have had to consider, and that is greatly to the credit of the Government that that has happened, and I am very grateful to him for it.
Mr Baker
No, I wish to move on to my next point.
On this point about consensus, the Government have listened and responded to constructive challenge from all parts of the House. Earlier in the process, the Government tabled amendments to set a single exit day in the Bill, to which I will return. We tabled an amendment to provide extra information about equalities impacts and the changes being made to retained EU law under the powers in the Bill. We have announced the intention to bring forward separate primary legislation to implement the withdrawal agreement and the implementation period in due course. We published a right-by-right analysis of the charter of fundamental rights, and we have made it clear that we are willing to look again at some of the technical detail of how the Bill deals with general principles to ensure that we are taking an approach that can command the support of Parliament.
Finally on this point, the Government have listened to representations set out during debate on day six, and indeed on Second Reading, and have accepted the Procedure Committee’s amendments to establish a sifting committee. We fully recognise the role of Parliament in scrutinising the Bill and have been clear throughout that we are taking a pragmatic approach to this vital piece of legislation. Where MPs and peers can improve the Bill, we will work with them.
Stephen Gethins
The Minister is being very generous. It would be very useful to Members on the SNP Benches if, during his speech, he set out even in principle some of the amendments that were promised by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the Minister for giving way. He is generous. As a new MP, I must say that I am very surprised about how little constructive dialogue there has been. In fact, the comment that those on the Government Benches could deal with all of this without having to deal with the Opposition was alarming. We are all here to make constructive comments, to improve the Bill and to make compromises. The comments that they could deal with it all without having to listen to the Opposition or to have constructive dialogue were both alarming and disappointing.
Mr Baker
The hon. Lady reminds me of how much I miss the days of coalition on some occasions.
The clauses and schedules that we are debating in this final group contain a number of detailed, necessary and technical provisions. In many cases, they are standard provisions that one would expect to see in any Bill.
Clause 14 is a technical and standard provision that sets out important definitions of many key terms that appear throughout the Bill, such as “EU tertiary legislation” and “EU entity”, and clarifies how other references in the Bill are to be read. Clause 15 complements clause 14, setting out in one place where the key terms used throughout the Bill are defined and noting where amendments to the Interpretation Act 1978 are made under schedule 8. Together, clauses 14 and 15 will aid comprehension of the Bill.
Clause 18 provides that the Bill will apply to the whole UK. In addition, because the European Communities Act 1972 currently extends to the Crown dependencies and Gibraltar in a limited way, the repeal of that Act must similarly extend to those jurisdictions to the extent that it applies to them. The Bill also repeals three Acts that extend to Gibraltar, all of which relate to European parliamentary elections. The powers in clauses 7 and 17 can be used to make provision for Gibraltar as a consequence of these repeals. The approach in clause 18 has been agreed with the Governments of Guernsey, Jersey, the Isle of Man and Gibraltar in line with usual practice.
Mr Baker
Well, I am going return to the subject of Gibraltar at considerable length later. [Interruption.] I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to continue.
As is typical with all Bills, clause 19 sets out which parts of the Act will commence immediately at Royal Assent, and provides a power for Ministers to commence other provisions at different times by regulations. Schedule 6 is linked to clause 3, which we debated on day two in Committee. That clause converts into domestic law direct EU legislation as it operates at the moment immediately before we leave the EU. There are, however, some EU instruments that have never applied in the UK—for example, instruments in respect of the euro and measures in the area of freedom, security and justice in which the UK chose not to participate. It would obviously be nonsense to convert these measures into domestic law after we leave, so these exempt EU instruments, to which clause 3 will not apply, are described in schedule 6.
Hon. Members will know that consequential provisions are a standard part of many Acts in order to deal with the effects of the Act across the statute book. Equally, transitional provisions are a standard way in which to smooth the application of a change in the UK statute book. Schedule 8 makes detailed and technical provisions of this nature, all of which are necessary and support the smooth operation of other crucial provisions set out elsewhere in the Bill. It clarifies what will happen to ambulatory references—I will return to this topic—to EU instruments after exit day, makes consequential and necessary amendments to other Acts, and makes transitional provision in relation to the establishment of retained EU law and the exceptions to it. Finally, schedule 9 sets out additional and necessary repeals as a consequence of our exit from the EU.
Paul Farrelly
During the Minister’s course through the amendments, has he perhaps noticed new clause 54, which was tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) following the Prime Minister’s Florence speech? If he has noticed it, what does he think of it?
Mr Baker
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, but I am only just beginning to conclude my opening remarks—I am only eight minutes in. I will come to the new clause in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) a little later. I will not rush on this occasion.
I turn to amendments 399 to 405 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin); I am grateful to him for tabling them. I also pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and, if I may say so, my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who I understand has worked hard behind the scenes to create consensus for these amendments. These amendments are closely linked to amendments 6, 43, 44 and 45, which were discussed on the first day in Committee, and Government amendments 381 to 383.
The Prime Minister has made it clear that the United Kingdom will cease to be a member of the European Union on 29 March 2019 at the conclusion of the article 50 process. The Government have recognised the uncertainty that many people felt as to whether the exit day appointed by this Bill would correspond to the day that the UK leaves the EU at the end of the article 50 process, and that is why we brought forward our own amendments setting out when exit day will be. The purpose of our amendments is straightforward: we want to be clear when exit day is and, in the process, to provide as much certainty as we can to all. In the course of that, we want to align domestic legislation to the international position, as has been set out.
Amendments 399 to 405 build on and complement the Government amendments setting exit day. We have always said that we would listen to the concerns of the House, as we have done throughout the Bill’s passage. As part of that, the Government have had discussions with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, and we are grateful that he tabled his amendments. They provide the Government with the technical ability to amend the date, but only if the UK and the EU unanimously decide to change the date at which treaties cease to apply to the UK, as set out in article 50.
Only one exit day can be set for the purposes of the Bill, and any statutory instrument amending exit day will be subject to the affirmative procedure. As I said in an intervention, we will bring forward an amendment on Report to make this requirement clear on the face of the Bill.
Helen Goodman
Could the Minister set out for the whole Committee—not just the Conservative Members sitting behind him—what will happen if the legislation provided for in amendment 7, which we passed last week, is not passed? The Minister, using amendment 381—whether or not it is itself amended by amendment 400—will still have the power to set the exit date and withdraw, irrespective of what has gone on. Is that not right?
Mr Baker
The hon. Lady is trying to pre-empt some of my remarks. If she will bear with me, I will come to that.
A crucial point is that the Bill does not determine whether the UK leaves the EU; that is a matter of international law under the article 50 process. However, it is important that we have the same position in UK law that is reflected in European Union treaty law. That is why the Government have signed these amendments, and I was glad to do so.
I can assure the Committee we would use this power only in exceptional circumstances to extend the deadline for the shortest period possible, and that we cannot envisage the date being brought forward. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said many times, we and the EU are planning on the UK leaving the European Union at 11 pm on 29 March 2019.
Mr Jenkin
I apologise to the Committee for having had to be in the Liaison Committee for the last couple of hours and for missing much of the debate. I thank my hon. Friend for accepting these compromise amendments. The Government are, in fact, accepting a very significant limitation on the powers they had in the original draft of the Bill. If we are interested in the sovereignty of Parliament, we are interested in limiting the room for Government to set arbitrary dates without any controls over them whatever. That is what existed in the Bill before. There is now proper control by Parliament of the date in the Bill.
Helen Goodman
How can it be right to tell the House that the exit date is being set by the House, when the amendments give the power to the Executive to set the exit date?
Mr Baker
It is an interesting question that the hon. Lady asks, but how does she think that exit day would be set by the House? If it is not set on the face of the Bill and immovable other than by primary legislation, it must be set in secondary legislation. I would have thought that that was plain to the hon. Lady. We have done the right and pragmatic thing, which is to align UK law with the international treaty position. That enjoys wide support across a spectrum of opinion, and I am glad to support these amendments in the way I have set out.
Let me turn to the issue of the customs union, and I particularly noted what my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset said about it. The issue has been widely aired, and I do not intend to be tempted into a broader debate on trade policy. We are confident that we will negotiate a deep and special partnership with the EU, spanning a new economic relationship and a new relationship on security. Businesses and public services should only have to plan for one set of changes in the relationship between the UK and the EU, so we are seeking a time-limited implementation period during which access to one another’s markets should continue on current terms. During this implementation period, EU nationals will continue to be able to come and live and work in the UK, but there will be a registration system. The details of the implementation period are of course a matter for negotiations, and we have been clear that we will bring forward the necessary implementing legislation in due course. However, it would not be right to sign up now to membership of the customs union and the single market pending the outcome of negotiations, as new clause 52 would have us do.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Minister, and the Prime Minister for that matter, repeatedly say that businesses will only have to plan for one set of changes. Given that businesses currently benefit from being part of the single market and the customs union, how can it possibly be the case, as the Prime Minister has also said, that we are coming out of the customs union and the single market during the so-called implementation period?
Mr Baker
The hon. Lady tempts me to dilate on the details of the implementation period, which are to be negotiated, but that is not my purpose today, because it is not the purpose of this Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to deliver a functioning statute book as we leave the European Union.
With that in mind, I turn to new clauses 10 and 54 on the transitional or implementation period. Both new clauses seek to impose conditions on what form the implementation period the Government are seeking will take. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe for his new clause, which attempts to write the Prime Minister’s vision for an implementation period into statute. That would be a novel constitutional change. Nevertheless, I welcome it in the sense that it is a ringing endorsement of Government policy. New clause 10, however, differs in some key regards from our vision.
The Government cannot accept these new clauses. The Prime Minister has set out a proposal that is now subject to negotiation. We are confident of reaching that agreement, but it would not be sensible for the Government to constrain themselves domestically in any way while those negotiations continue. We are making good progress, and it is in our mutual interests to conclude a good agreement that works for everyone. We do not want to put the legislative cart before the diplomatic horse.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
In referring to the transitional or the implementation period, my hon. Friend has at various times used phrases straight out of the Florence speech, and he has accepted that the new clause in my name is identical to stated Government policy on the subject. In what way does it restrain the Government’s position to put their own policy in the Bill and ask the Prime Minister, as the new clause does, to seek to attain that which she has declared to be her objective? That is not a genuine reason for rejecting it. He is rejecting it because agreeing with the Florence speech still upsets some of our more hard-line Eurosceptics both inside and outside the Government.
Mr Baker
Of course I have read it—it is here in my hand. I have read it but I have not gone back and done his homework for him to check and mark his work.
I make two points to my right hon. and learned Friend. First, as I said, it would be a constitutional innovation to begin putting statements of policy for negotiations in legislation. That is a good reason not to accept the new clause. The second point—[Interruption.] He says that it is not a good reason. He is the Father of the House and he has occupied many of the great offices of state. I would be interested to know when, in his long and distinguished career, he accepted that principle in legislation.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
I have never previously seen members of the Government debate a clear exposition of Government policy from the moment it is first announced. That gives rise to serious doubts about exactly what the Government are going to pursue in the transition deal, and these exceptional and unprecedented circumstances are doing harm to Britain’s position. I cannot see what harm would be done by giving the approval of the whole House to the Government’s stated objectives in the Bill. The fact that it has not been done before is not an argument against it; it answers a situation that has not happened before, either.
Mr Baker
My right hon. and learned Friend has caught himself in a contradiction. In this exchange, he has rested his argument on knowing exactly what the Government’s policy is, but in his last intervention he said that he did not know what it was.
My second point concerns subsection (2) of my right hon. and learned Friend’s new clause—[Interruption.] I would just like to make this point. The subsection states:
“No Minister of the Crown shall appoint exit day if the implementation and transition period set out in subsection (1) does not feature in the withdrawal arrangements between the UK and the European Union.”
That would cause a problem if the new clause were accepted and we reached the point at which the treaties no longer applied to the United Kingdom. We would have legal chaos—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) talked about this earlier—if we had not commenced this Bill when the treaties ceased to apply. For both those reasons, we simply could not accept the new clause.
Several hon. Members rose—
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Ah! They are like spoiled children, aren’t they?
Is not another objection, if not the real objection, to the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) that it is the sort of point that should have been made in a Second Reading debate? We have two days for Report and Third Reading. That may be a stage at which the Government wish to look at these things, and it might be a time for huge innovation. Now is not the time to take Second Reading points, which could be dealt with later in the whole proceedings.
Mr Baker
I will not give way now, because I have been on my feet for 22 minutes, and there are, I think, 53 amendments and new clauses to deal with. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman a little later.
I turn to the long series of amendments that are designed, in one way or another, to oblige the Government to publish reports or assessments on specific areas or issues, some in advance of exit day. They are new clauses 31 to 33, 40 to 44, 46, 47, 71, 72, 82, 84 and 85, and amendments 85, 86 and 219 to 221. It is in no one’s interest for the Government to provide a running commentary on the wide range of analysis that they are doing until it is ready to support the parliamentary process in the established way. All the amendments and new clauses I have mentioned share one common flaw. Ministers have a specific responsibility, which Parliament has endorsed, not to release information that would expose our negotiating position. The amendments and new clauses risk doing precisely that. I commend the excellent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who is in his place. I thought that his speech was an interesting reflection of his own experience.
The risks and difficulties are easily illustrated by looking at some of the specific reports that are called for. New clause 42 asks for a report on severance payments for employees of EU agencies, but that is not a matter for the UK Government. The right to severance pay is a matter for the EU agencies, although we hope and expect that they would honour any relevant commitments to their employees.
New clause 48 calls for a strategy for the certification of UK and EU medical devices by UK bodies so that the UK can maintain a close co-operative relationship with the EU in the field of medicines regulation. That is of course our aim: we intend such a strategy to form a key part of our deep and special future partnership with the EU.
New clause 71, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), seeks to require a Minister to report before exit day on the Government’s progress in negotiating mutual market access for financial and professional services. I understand his motivations in wanting this information to be published. We are working to reach an agreement on the final deal in good time before we leave the EU in March 2019.
Mr Baker
I want to complete my argument, for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who tabled this new clause.
We are seeking an economic partnership that will be both comprehensive and ambitious. It should be of greater scope and ambition than any previous agreement so that it covers sectors crucial to our linked economies, such as financial and professional services. We are confident that the UK and the EU can reach a positive deal on our future partnership as this will to be to the mutual benefit of both the UK and the EU. We will approach the negotiations in this constructive spirit.
I want to provide reassurance to my hon. Friend on his new clause 72, which seeks to ensure that any ministerial power to charge fees in respect of inspections of imported food and animal feed is exercised in a way that ensures full cost recovery for public authorities.
Mr Baker
Before I give way to my right hon. Friend, I want to respond on the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.
I would like to persuade my hon. Friend that his new clause 72 is not necessary. First, there is already sufficient statutory provision to ensure that the cost of mandatory veterinary checks on food and animal feed, on their importation, are fully recoverable. The arrangements for setting inspection fees for imported food and animal feed vary according to the type of inspection. All imports of products of animal origin must be inspected by a port health authority at a border inspection post. For high-risk products not of animal origin, these checks are carried out by a port health authority at a designated point of entry. Broadly speaking, these checks must be satisfactorily completed before a consignment is released for free circulation.
EC regulation No. 882/2004 on official controls, together with supporting domestic legislation—for England, it takes the form of the Official Feed and Food Controls (England) Regulations 2009—provides the legal basis for charges in respect of these inspections. The Bill will convert that EC regulation into UK legislation. The nature of the charges that the port health authority can make depends on a number of factors, including the nature of the food or animal feed being imported and its point of origin.
Robert Neill
I am grateful to the Minister for going into such detail on the basis for charging. May I mention that the other purpose behind new clause 72, which is a probing amendment, is to remind the Government of the importance of seeking in our negotiating objectives—no more and no less than that—a continued form of mutual recognition, if at all possible, for checks on food and feed?
Mr Baker
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. He will know that, under the WTO foundations of the world trading system, there are arrangements for the mutual recognition of sanitary and phytosanitary checks and other matters.
The second point I should make about my hon. Friend’s new clause 72 is that, in relation to any new inspections that may be required after the UK leaves the EU, the Government are considering what controls or surveillance will be required on imported food once we have left the EU. Where Ministers decide to introduce statutory inspection fees, Parliament should have the opportunity to consider the approach to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Where port authorities undertake additional checks on food, on its importation into the UK, for which there is not a statutory charge, decisions will continue to be taken on the basis of the need to balance costs between general and local taxation. We consider that the Government must remain free to set fees and charges in a manner that reflects these considerations. I hope that this provides my hon. Friend with sufficient reassurance.
Finally, on a separate issue, my hon. Friend asked earlier in our debates whether courts would be able to consider all material in relation to retained EU law when deciding such legislation’s meaning and effect. I am happy to confirm that this is the position under the Bill. The Government will place a letter in the Library of the House setting this out in more detail, and I am putting that on the record now to enable us to do so.
Robert Neill
I am grateful for that assurance. There is just one other matter on which I hope my hon. Friend will be able to give me a like reassurance, on private contract matters.
Anna Soubry
I wonder whether the Minister could be quite clear at the Dispatch Box and give an undertaking on behalf of the Government that now we have voted—as we did last week—for amendment 7, the Government will not at any stage now bring forward any measure that in any way undermines the vote of this House on amendment 7, and that Parliament will have a meaningful vote, as we voted for last Wednesday.
Mr Baker
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I admit, I thought she was going to ask me about the matters before me. That is a matter to be considered on Report, were we to return to it. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Opposition Members were shouting me down there for a moment. Were we to return to it, it would be a matter for Report, not for today. The Government’s policy is as we set out in the written ministerial statement, and of course we are a Government—[Interruption.] No, certainly not. We are a Government who of course obey the law. Parliament has voted and the law would currently be set out as on the face of the Bill.
Mr Baker
No, I really am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman; I insist.
I turn now to amendment 102, which removes provisions that enable existing powers to amend retained direct EU legislation, and amendment 103, removing provisions that enable future powers by default to amend retained EU legislation. These amendments are linked to amendments that we have already debated on day 2 of the Committee, and I do not plan to repeat all those arguments.
Mr Baker
I will make the argument on this point. We maintain that it is absolutely right and necessary for existing domestic powers granted by Parliament in other Acts to be able to operate on retained direct EU legislation, which will become domestic law. Fettering these powers would prevent important and necessary updates being made to our law, where that is within the scope and limitations of the powers and Parliament’s will. Similarly, it is important that future delegated powers created after exit day should be able to modify retained direct EU legislation, so far as applicable. This provides important clarity on the status of retained EU law and how it will interact with these powers. Further, where it is appropriate to do so, future powers can of course still be prohibited from amending retained direct EU legislation.
Ian Murray
It is very relevant to the amendments that the Minister is currently running through, because the Prime Minister, at the Liaison Committee, has refused to fully commit to abiding by amendment 7, agreed to by this House last week. I wonder whether the Minister would like to comment on that, because if he is rowing back on that commitment he is essentially undermining many of the amendments he is running through at the moment—the one from the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) in particular.
Mr Baker
What I would say to the hon. Gentleman, and I try to say this as gently as possible and in the spirit of Christmas, is that when I listened to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield talking about certain colleagues of a Eurosceptic persuasion, I hope he will not mind me reminding the House that he gave an articulation of—I think he used the word neurosis.
Mr Baker
I do take objection—[Interruption.] I do take objection, because what we are going to do is move forward with the Bill as it stands, with the set of concessions that we have included within it, and I would ask my right hon. Friend to accept the good faith of the Government.
Mr Baker
I am really not going to any more on this point.
Amendments 11 and 380 relate to the treatment of direct EU law for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this point, which, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield said, is related to his other concerns. The amendments concern the status of retained EU law, in this case specifically the status of retained direct EU legislation under clause 3 for the purpose of challenges under the Human Rights Act 1998.
Let me be clear from the outset that all legislation brought across will of course be susceptible to challenge under the HRA. Hon. Members will, however, understand that the remedies available under the Act differ for primary and subordinate legislation. It is therefore important that the Bill is absolutely clear on this point. Paragraph 19 of schedule 8 is clear. It sets out that this converted EU law is to be treated as primary legislation for the purposes of the 1998 Act, with the result that it will be open to the courts, if that legislation is challenged, to consider whether the legislation is compatible with rights under the European convention on human rights, and, if they conclude otherwise, to make a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 of the HRA.
The amendments, by contrast, would assign the status of subordinate legislation for the purposes of HRA challenges, meaning that a successful challenge could, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield knows, result in a strike-down of the legislation. The Government considered this point very carefully before we introduced the Bill. We recognised the potential arguments that, for example, detailed and technical EU tertiary legislation is more akin to our domestic secondary legislation. We are also, of course, alive to the concerns that this law must be properly challengeable. We concluded on balance, however, that assigning primary status to converted law for these purposes was the better course for three principal reasons.
First, this law comes into our domestic statute book in a unique way, but fundamentally Parliament will have chosen to bring each and all of these pieces of legislation into our law by primary legislation, albeit indirectly through the Bill. Contrary to the position for subordinate legislation, there will have been no exercise of discretion by an individual Minister. In that sense, converted EU law is more akin to primary legislation.
Secondly, if the law could be struck down by the courts, we would risk undermining the certainty the Bill is seeking to provide. None of this legislation can be challenged in UK courts now and some of it has been on the statute book for decades. Opening it up to being struck down is an invitation to challenge law which has long been settled, and to refight the battles of the past in the hope that a different court will return a different verdict.
Mr Grieve
Of the three points the Minister has made, the latter is without doubt the one that has the greatest force. It is worth bearing in mind that it highlights the fact of the supremacy of EU law, which is being preserved for the purposes of retained EU law. That, if I may say so, is a good reason why he should listen carefully to what I said about people being able to invoke general principles of EU law in order to challenge its operation. All these matters are interconnected.
Mr Baker
I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. I know he is going to take this matter up further with my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General. I did actually just make two points, but perhaps I structured them ambiguously.
The third point is that in the event of a strike-down there would be no existing power under which fresh regulations could be brought forward, so it would be necessary to bring forward a fresh Act of Parliament or to rely on the remedial order-making power within the HRA itself. I should say that the remedial order-making power within the HRA was not designed to be the default means by which incompatible legislation is remedied or to deal with the policy changes that could be required.
The remedial order-making power may only be used if there are compelling reasons for doing so and it is targeted at removing the identified incompatibility. If wider policy change were needed following a finding of incompatibility, a fresh Act of Parliament would be the only means of doing that and we could be left with damaging holes in the statute book unless and until such an Act was passed. That is why the Government concluded that converted EU law should have the status of primary legislation in relation to the HRA, and that is why the Government will not be able to accept the two amendments.
Mr Jenkin
I wish to pick up on the important point raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). For the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister clarify that it is not the Government’s intention to set up retained EU law in UK statute in a manner that would encourage a UK court to strike down another primary statute? If that is the intention, may I suggest it might be something the Government will have to look at?
Mr Baker
My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General has just confirmed to me that we do not want that to happen. I am sure that that will be given further consideration, along with the issue of general principles that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield has raised.
Heidi Alexander
I apologise for interrupting the Minister’s stream of thought and taking him back to his response to the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), but can he rule out, from the Dispatch Box today, returning to amendment 7 on Report?
Mr Baker
I refer to the answer I gave earlier. At this point, I can tell the hon. Lady that I am not expecting to return to it, but we are reflecting on the implications of the amendment. We made a strong case for the powers at the Dispatch Box and are reflecting on it. I say to her, however, and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield that we are not expecting at this point to return to it. [Interruption.] She asks what that means. We have been in close conversation with my right hon. and learned Friend, and I feel sure that those conversations will continue, but I say to the rest of the Committee that I am going to focus on the amendments before me.
Paul Farrelly
It is indeed on this point. Some of the Minister’s right hon. and hon.—and courageous—Friends from last week have, in good faith, signed amendment 400 this evening. Given that he is refusing to guarantee that the Government will stick to the letter and the spirit of amendment 7, they might feel that they are being led up the garden path.
John Redwood
Will the Minister confirm that Parliament is going to have its way? We will have a vote on any agreement, and it will then need primary legislation—the most intense scrutiny of all—to put it through. That, surely, is a major win for those who wanted that approach. I am quite happy with that. That is what amendment 7 leaves us with. Will he confirm that there will be full parliamentary scrutiny, debate and legislation on an agreement?
Mr Baker
Yes, I will confirm that of course there will be full parliamentary scrutiny. One of the things that is bringing me great joy, particularly at Christmas, is the extent of parliamentary unity on this point of parliamentary sovereignty. One reason so many of us campaigned to leave the EU is that we wanted our voters to have a choice over who governed the UK in as many matters as conceivable.
I do not wish to revisit the arguments around amendment 7. I wish rather to conclude my consideration of the issue before us.
Mr Baker
I am not going to let the hon. Gentleman come in on this point, which we have dealt with.
I emphasise again that our approach does not immunise converted law from HRA challenges. If an incompatibility were to be found, it places the matter in the hands of Parliament to resolve, without creating a legal vacuum in the interim. This approach strikes the right balance and recognises that supremacy of Parliament. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend has wider concerns regarding the rights of challenge after exit, including, in particular, where these are based on the general principles of EU law. I am happy to repeat the commitment made by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General earlier that we are willing to look again at the technical detail of how certain legal challenges based on the general principles of EU law might work after exit. We will bring forward amendments on Report to address this, and we are happy to continue to discuss these concerns with him.
Mr Grieve
That is a very sensible approach on these matters, and I am very grateful to the Minister and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for taking it forward. As for the other matter that has floated into our discussion, and which I have studiously avoided getting drawn into, I would simply recommend that, on the whole, kicking hornets’ nests is not a very good idea.
Mr Baker
It is ironic that my right hon. and learned Friend and I should be constituency neighbours, and, if I may say so—and as we put on the record on a previous day—friends. It is also ironic that our other Buckinghamshire neighbours have swapped one rebel commander for another. But I think I should move on: I have kicked enough hornets’ nests myself for one day.
Robert Neill
I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance, particularly in the light of recent press reports of attempts by the Spanish Government to exclude Gibraltar from the transition and end-state process. It is important for the Government to make that clear commitment, subject, of course, to the existence of the proper regulatory equivalents and standards. If the Minister will give me an undertaking that that will happen with the full involvement of Gibraltar’s Government, I think that those of us who supported the amendment will be satisfied.
Ian Paisley
This is the one amendment that would probably have attracted support from the Democratic Unionists, but, because of the assurances the Minister has given—and, importantly, the assurances the Prime Minister gave even today at the Dispatch Box—we feel relieved for Gibraltar’s sake. Is the Minister essentially saying that the protections he is now affording to Gibraltar effectively mean it will not be treated in any way differently from any other part of the United Kingdom?
Mr Baker
The position is as I have set out, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if, in all the circumstances, I stick to that position. I hope that he will understand the strength of our commitment from that. We will deliver on our assurances that Gibraltar businesses will enjoy continued access to the UK market, based on the Gibraltar authorities having already agreed to maintain full regulatory alignment with the UK.
Peter Grant
I have no doubt that the people and Government of Gibraltar will be grateful for the Minister’s assurances, but the wording of this amendment intends to make sure with 100% certainty that, even inadvertently, nothing in the Bill can damage the interests of the people of Gibraltar. Can the Minister tell us with absolute certainty that if this amendment is not added to the Bill, there is nothing in the Bill that will cause that damage? Assurances, objectives and promises are good, but can he say with absolute certainty that nothing in the Bill will ever damage or prejudice the interests of the people of Gibraltar?
Mr Baker
What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that this Bill extends to Gibraltar only in the way I have set out: the Government’s policy is as I have indicated to him, and we remain steadfastly committed to the interests of Gibraltar.
I turn now to the REACH regulation, new clause 61. We will use the powers in this Bill to convert current EU chemicals law, including REACH, into domestic law. That will mean that the standards established by REACH will continue to apply in the UK. I believe that that renders new clause 61 unnecessary.
On custodial sentences and amendment 349, the scope to create criminal offences in the Bill is restricted so the powers cannot be used to create an offence punishable by a sentence of imprisonment for more than two years. It might, however, be necessary to create criminal offences in certain circumstances, for example offences related to functions that are to be transferred from EU bodies to UK bodies which would be lost without the ability to recreate offences relating to functions then held at a UK level. To lose the offence, and therefore the threat of a sanction, would remove what could be seen as important protections in our law, and for that reason we are not able to support the amendment.
I turn now to amendment 362 on the issue of ambulatory references. I hope the Committee will bear with me on the final, technical section of this speech. The amendment concerns paragraph 1 of schedule 8, which deals with the ambulatory references in our domestic law, as well as EU instruments and other documents in EU legislation that will be retained under clause 3. At present, the ambulatory cross-references update automatically when the EU instrument referred to is amended. After exit day, the Bill provides that such references will instead be read as references to the retained EU law version of the instrument, which, unless the contrary intention appears, will update when the retained instrument is modified by domestic law. This is necessary in order to prevent post-exit changes to EU law from flowing automatically into UK law. It would not be appropriate for the reference to continue to point to the EU version of the instrument after we have left the EU.
The approach set out in the Bill will be applied in relation to ambulatory references within any enactment, retained direct EU legislation, and any document relating to them. I understand that this last provision—the reference to documents and whether or not that includes contracts—has concerned my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. The Government are alive to concerns that we should not unduly disturb the operation of private contracts, or prevent parties to a contract from being able to give effect to their intentions. We are happy to explore this issue further with my hon. Friend and interested parties, to ensure that we achieve the appropriate balance between clarity and flexibility.
Robert Neill
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for their frank and helpful response in this matter. This issue was raised by the City of London Corporation and the International Regulatory Strategy Group. I thank the Minister for his assurance that he will continue to work with them, and look forward to that. I am satisfied, for these purposes, that the issue is being addressed.
Mr Baron
May I briefly take the Minister back to amendments 381 and 400? I thank him for his kind words about amendment 400, and for his work on the Bill. He will know that I did not put my name to amendment 381, but I will support amendment 400 so long as that power will be used only in extremis and for the shortest possible time. We have had an assurance on that from the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box today, and I know that those on the Government Front Bench have taken that on board, but if there is any dissension on this, it would be nice to know about it now.
Mr Baker
Perhaps my hon. Friend was not in the Chamber when I gave my assurance on this earlier. I am happy to repeat it. I can assure the House that we would use this power only in exceptional circumstances to extend the deadline for the shortest period possible, and that we cannot envisage the date being brought forward. I think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained that earlier.
Mr Baker
I did say that that was the last time I would give way, and I think it is now time for me to—[Interruption.] Yes, it is Christmas, and it is in the spirit of seasonal brevity that I would like to turn to the issue of thanks.
I should first like to thank the Committee for its diligent and well-informed scrutiny of this, the first Bill that I have piloted through Parliament. I am an engineer, not a pilot, however, so perhaps I could be said to have guided it through Parliament. It has been my pleasure to do so. I should like to thank you, Sir David, for your chairmanship, and I thank Dame Rosie, Mrs Laing, the other Sir David, Mr Hanson and Mr Streeter for theirs. It has been a pleasure to serve under all your chairmanships. I should also like to thank the Bill ministerial team, whose advice, support and guidance have been absolutely indispensable.
I should like to thank the Solicitor General, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland), the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) and of course the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). It would be wrong of me to omit the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), who unfortunately is not in his place. His occasional guidance to the entire team has been invaluable, and has always been followed.
Finally, and most importantly, I should like to thank all the officials in the Department for Exiting the European Union and beyond who have so diligently risen to the enormous task of dealing with the scrutiny of the Bill. They have guided and assisted Ministers in the preparation of their remarks and they have responded to every query, from the House and from Ministers. We could not possibly have asked for more from them, and they could not have responded more professionally or more energetically. We can be extremely proud of all of the officials who have supported the Bill, as we wish them all a merry Christmas.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir David, and it is also a pleasure to follow the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker). I pay tribute to his calmness and tolerance in taking a very difficult Bill through to this stage. I was around when the Maastricht Bill was going through Parliament, and the way in which he has handled this one is a real tribute to him.
I do not always agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), but I agreed with him when he said that the Bill was about process. I am afraid that, perhaps because we have had eight days in Committee, we have widened our debate into areas that should not necessarily have been discussed today. We have rehashed quite a lot of the debate on the referendum. For me, this is a simple Bill about repealing the European Communities Act 1972.
I welcome the fact that there is now general agreement across the House about the date. I am pleased that it will be set out in the Bill because unlike a lot of Members here, but like my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell), I do not really trust the EU. I therefore always worry that if we are not absolutely clear about what we are doing, the EU will manage to move things, because it would like to delay the process and punish us as much as possible for taking the brave decision to leave. When we look at what we are discussing, we are simply asking to leave the EU. The British people originally voted for a formal economic agreement, but for 40 years we have seen entanglement and legal procedures getting into our country, and we are now having to go through all this to leave.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)
Does my hon. Friend agree that if Parliament appeared to be dragging its feet on leaving the EU when a majority of the people decided that we should leave, the people would get frustrated with Parliament? We have to remember their wishes.
Kate Hoey
I agree. One of the good things about the Minister is that he is not a lawyer, which is perhaps why he has been able to treat this matter with quite a lot of common sense. The debate has been rather taken over by lawyers and lawyer speak, and it is pretty clear that they love things being so technical.
Paul Farrelly
I am certainly not a lawyer. Would my hon. Friend care to explain to the House why she felt unable to support amendment 7 last week? Was it perhaps because, as well as not trusting the EU, she does not trust this House?
Kate Hoey
I certainly trust this House but, to be honest, many of the people who were pushing that amendment saw it as a way of delaying things before we got into the detail of getting an agreement. I did not get called to speak during the debate on amendment 7, but I will not go back over that amendment.
Frank Field
Is it not—[Interruption.] Yes, I am sorry, but I have got in again. One of the truths that we have to bear in mind—people on the outside will remember this even if people on the inside wish to deny it—is that from very word go, according to the great Guardian record of the European experiment, the great fear was that we the British people could not be told where this journey was taking us. Those of us who wanted a date and a time—even a British time—were concerned that large numbers of people throughout our whole history of being in the European Union have never been straight with the British people about where the journey was ending.
Ian Paisley
The hon. Lady has been totally consistent year after year in opposing EU encroachment on British laws. However, there has been not a chirp recently from some of the Members who supported amendment 7. They oppose European encroachment on our sovereignty, but they were very happy to raise some feigned hope about parliamentary sovereignty.
Kate Hoey
No, I will not give way at the moment.
Look at all the different EU regulations and the ways in which the EU has encroached on our country’s rules over the years. Majority voting has meant that we have occasionally been outvoted, and we have therefore been unable to do things that we wanted to do. When we decided that we wanted to leave, it was clear that the EU felt that we had no right to make that decision, which is why it wants to delay and delay.
Kate Hoey
No, not at the moment.
My worry about amendment 7 is what the EU has done before with countries that have voted against something that they did not want. As we get nearer the end, if we do not have an agreement, it will of course be in the EU’s interests to delay if it knows that this Parliament is just waiting to allow more time, and we will therefore just be paying in more and more money. I have a problem even—
Kate Hoey
My hon. Friend may think that I am talking absolute nonsense, but 17.5 million people out there do not.
Let me get back to my reason for speaking today: I oppose new clause 13, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), and I want to explain why we must leave the customs union. I am very pleased that our Front Benchers have made no remarks about us supporting the new clause, and I certainly will vote against it tonight.
Kate Hoey
I can see. I do not need to be told what to do by my hon. Friend; I have been here quite a long time.
It is very clear that if we stay in the customs union, we cannot cut the kind of free trade deals that we want with the over 80% of the world’s economy that will be outside the EU once we have left. That is not what the British people voted for. They voted to leave for different reasons, but underlying everything for all of them was our getting back the ability to make decisions about what we want to do and who we want to trade with.
Albert Owen
Does my hon. Friend not understand the significance of the June election? The Prime Minister called the election to improve her majority, but it was reduced. That was a game changer in many ways. Many Labour Members increased their majority, including, I think, my hon. Friend.
Kate Hoey
Members who read this year’s Labour manifesto—it was very readable—will know that it was very clear that we had accepted the result, that the British people wanted to leave, and that we were going to leave the customs union and the single market. For once in my life, I am not the rebel on the Labour Benches; the rebels are sitting on my right. I genuinely cannot understand how progressive people who believe in equality, fairness and justice can support—
Kate Hoey
No, I am not giving way any more, because a lot of people want to speak.
The reality is that a customs union actually penalises countless people in some of the world’s poorest countries. It prevents them from selling their goods in Europe, but doing so would help them to develop and mechanise. After this change, we can make our own decisions about how we treat countries, particularly in the Commonwealth, where there are millions of people who have shown huge loyalty and dedication to this country over the years. We betrayed them when we joined the Common Market. Many people in this Chamber did not have a say in that, but we now have the opportunity to pay back. I think that some 80% of the tariffs paid by UK consumers on imports from outside the EU are sent to Brussels, although British shoppers are having to pay more on a range of imports. There is so much more that we could do, because the UK is the only large country in the European Union that does more trade beyond the EU than within it.
Kate Hoey
No, thank you.
We are disproportionately penalised by the common external tariff, so we are actually suffering from being part of the customs union, although it might have helped at one stage. In the future, we have to look outwards and globally. Of course, we cannot sign free trade agreements until we leave. I personally want us to be able to sign and apply them during the implementation period. Let us not forget that everything that the EU says we must do during the implementation period is up for negotiation. We have to be very clear about this: during those two years, we want to be able to go ahead and do the things that we left the European Union to do. We should not completely align ourselves with every dot and comma of EU legislation.
What has upset me most in this debate—a lot of it has come from my own party, but it has also come from the Conservative party—is the negativity about this whole issue that somehow says that we are such an unimportant, small country that leaving the European Union will destroy us for the rest of our lives and destroy our country’s economic future. That is just so wrong.
I believe that we need more optimism. During its existence, the EU has shown real contempt for national Parliaments and their political activities. It has shown real contempt for electorates. It showed real contempt by forcing the Greek Prime Minister out of his job and through its enforcement of huge, huge cuts on Ireland. The EU does not tolerate the political independence and democratic integrity of the modern European nation, and we should know that in this Parliament. When we talk of parliamentary democracy, let us not forget just how many years we have lived without true parliamentary democracy in this country.
I believe that we should be optimistic. We should not see this as some people—perhaps even some members of the Government—seem to see it: as almost a burden that we have to get through as we say, “Yes, we are leaving, and it is a terrible pity, but we are going to make it work just about.” I want us to be optimistic and to be out there saying, “This can work. This can be great.” We are a great country, so let us get on with it. I am delighted that we have got through this Committee stage.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who represents the part of London in which I live when I am down here working in the House of Commons. We do not agree on this subject. During the debates on this Bill, she has voted with the Government almost as many times as I have voted against the Government. We are going neck and neck, which has been the position between us for the very many years we have both been in this House. We have diametrically different views.
I am afraid that I do not recognise the hon. Lady’s description of the European Union. In our 45 years of membership, it has helped us to become a more significant political force in the world in looking out for our interests, and it has been one of the fundamental bases of our giving ourselves a modern, successful economy, but this is not the time for a general debate.
I speak to new clause 54, which I tabled in co-operation with the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie). The new clause has been signed by a number of Members from both the major parties in this House. As I said in an earlier intervention, compared with the debates on other things, it should be quite easy to get this amendment passed because we drafted it to be entirely consistent with stated Government policy.
New clause 54 seeks to insert the policies set out in the Prime Minister’s Florence speech into the Bill, thereby including that part of what we have so far achieved by way of clear policy, so we can proceed further with the full approval of this House. I know perfectly well that the Minister who drew the short straw of answering today’s debates would immediately turn to some interesting, original and rather obscure arguments why this new clause should not be accepted, which has been the pattern throughout our eight days in Committee.
There have been hardly any concessions of principle. When issues of great moment have been debated, it has been unusual for a Minister to be allowed to engage with that principle. What happens is that a very long brief is delivered, some of it quite essential—this is not a criticism of either the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), or other Ministers, and I do not envy the role in which they find themselves of holding the line on this Bill—in which a Minister goes into tremendous legalistic, administrative and even constitutional niceties without actually debating the subject.
We have already talked about amendment 7, which was passed against the Government. The amendment was all about whether this House should have a meaningful vote on the agreement before the Government bind themselves to it. The Minister on that occasion, the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), never joined the debate about a meaningful vote. Indeed, today’s Minister would not when he was drawn into going back into where we are on amendment 7. All kinds of bizarre arguments were produced on why it was not suitable to put this in the Bill, and the House had to assert that it is not going to allow this Government to commit themselves to things that will be of huge importance to future generations, probably affecting our political and trading position in the world for many decades to come, without their first getting approval from this House of Commons for whatever it is they want to sign up to. New clause 54 is an attempt to minimise the risk of that happening again.
Ian Paisley
I recall the Minister asking the right hon. and learned Gentleman to list, after all his 47 years’ experience in this House, one occasion when he, a former Minister, would have put into the Bill what he is suggesting the Government should have put into the Bill. He could not claw anything back from his memory banks to that effect. Surely, what this Minister has said in the arguments he has put to the right hon. and learned Gentleman has completely dismantled new clause 54.
Mr Clarke
Parliament will have an opportunity to give its assent to the Government’s approach to the transition deal, which they are on the point of trying to negotiate over the next few weeks. I have never known a Government go into an international agreement and start negotiating something towards a conclusion without giving the House the opportunity to express its views and without subjecting themselves to the judgment of the House on the objectives they are declaring.
This transition deal—I think that this is agreed on all sides—is probably going to be agreed in the next month. We are about to go away for Christmas. Everybody is hoping we will have a clearer idea of the transition or implementation deal by the end of January. As things stand, I do not think this House has ever discussed this—it has never had a debate on the subject. No motion has been put before this House to approve what the Government are seeking to do. If the Government have their way, we are simply going to discover, when they come back from the next step in the negotiations, what exactly they have signed up to.
The reason it is important that we should put down this marker is that I want to stick with what was set out in Florence, which was a Government policy position. At this moment—over the course of this week—the Cabinet is having a discussion. There is an attempt to keep this secret, but, unfortunately, leaks are coming out in all directions, and I sympathise with the Prime Minister on that. The Cabinet is debating whether everyone is prepared to be bound by the Florence speech or whether some of its members want to reopen it and start modifying it. That is why this new clause is a chance to say that if that be the case, the overwhelming majority of Members confirm and approve what was set out in the Florence speech.
I hope that we will not see the extraordinary spectacle of the fear of right-wing Eurosceptics meaning that such lengths are gone to that the Government put a three-line whip on their Ministers and all their Back Benchers to cast a vote against the Florence speech, so that some room is left for them to be able to negotiate further with the Environment Secretary, the Foreign Secretary or whoever it is wanting to reopen it again. The Foreign Secretary made a speech before the Florence speech in which he tried to undermine the Prime Minister’s position going there. When she had made the Florence speech, he wrote an article a few days later—I think that I have this the right way round—putting out a starkly different interpretation of what she had said. This House of Commons has not so far had the opportunity to express an opinion, which is what new clause 54 is about.
Mr Duncan Smith
For the most part, this is a fairly benign new clause, but I am not certain, even from listening to him now, what my right hon. and learned Friend’s concern is in subsection (2) of his new clause where it refers to subsection (1). It seems he is concerned that somehow there will not be an implementation period. Alternatively, is it just that that implementation period has never been discussed by Parliament? Is there a fear the Government will try to do the dirty on us? I do not understand why he feels he has to have this provision.
Mr Clarke
It is an attempt to rule out both. Before anybody starts resorting to talking about drafting points, which is what has happened on every point of principle we have had in the past seven days of debate, they can all be sorted out on Report. If something in the wording of the new clause raises some serious technical difficulty, the Government should table an amendment on Report to sort it out. I am sure that would face no resistance at all.
Paul Farrelly
I have been trawling back through my more recent memory banks. If I am not mistaken, before the Minister was taken to task and dismissed the new clause as a constitutional novelty, which is no argument, he was rather sympathetic to its content, so I was assuming that he might agree with it because it is, after all, in agreement with what the Prime Minister said.
Mr Clarke
I shall not go back to waxing too much about the nature of the debates we have been having. We can be clear that it is the fault not of the Ministers but of the brief they have been given to keep things going until the timetable motion comes in, at which point if all is intact, they have made it—that is their job done. Those of us who have been Ministers have probably been in that situation ourselves on various occasions. Just as in the debate about the meaningful vote when the Minister at no stage engaged in the question what sort of meaningful vote the House of Commons should have, on this occasion the Minister has not engaged in any feature of the Florence speech with which he had any reservations. The substance was not challenged by a word that he said, hence my speculating why we might see the extraordinary spectacle of the Government instructing all their Ministers to vote against a prime ministerial declaration of Government policy from which, as far as I can see, the Prime Minister has at no stage personally withdrawn.
Mr Clarke
Let me make a little more progress, or I am going to take far too long. I will try to give way later.
So far, in the complete confusion that has surrounded the consequences of the referendum for the past 18 months—I think we all agree that it has been an extraordinary situation since then—the few actual solid advances on policy have been made on only a few occasions. Indeed, the only times that the Prime Minister has set out policy clearly and been able to sign up to it—in the belief and, I think, hope that all her Government might agree to it—were the Lancaster House speech, the Florence speech and last week when she entered into the agreement on the outline of the withdrawal agreement.
I do not want to put the Lancaster House speech into the Bill, because that was the beginning of our problems. I do not know why the Prime Minister went there to interpret and declare the referendum result as meaning that we were leaving the single market and the customs union and abandoning the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. I shall come back to this later, but all our economic problems stem from that. Some people may have argued during the referendum campaign that we should leave the single market and the customs union, but I never met one and I did not read about one in the media. The leading lights of the leavers who were reported in the media—I accept that the national media reporting of the referendum debate was pretty dreadful on both sides, with a very low level of accuracy and content—and particularly the Foreign Secretary emphasised that our trading position would not be changed at all. The Prime Minister changed that in her Lancaster House speech.
The Prime Minister and the Government are free traders. I am a free trader. I keep asserting that we are free traders. The objections to the single market and the customs union that she and the Government give are nothing to do with open trade, which is quite accepted. It is said that we have to leave the single market because it is accompanied by the freedom of movement of workers. Well, as we were running the most generous version of freedom of movement in western Europe before the referendum, if that is the problem—if migration is what we really want to get out of—let us address that and not throw out the baby with the bath water by leaving the single market.
Similarly, I have never heard anybody get up and say what is wrong with the customs union in so far as it is an arrangement that gives a completely open border between ourselves and 27 other countries in Europe. What is wrong with it? Nothing. Apparently, we have to leave the customs union, so that the Secretary of State for International Trade can go away and pursue what I think is this extraordinary vision that we sometimes get given of reaching trade agreements with all these great countries throughout the world that are about to throw open their doors to us without any corresponding obligations on our part, no doubt, to compensate us for the damage that we will do to our trade with Europe. I am afraid that I do not believe that.
I wish to move to my final point, because other people are trying to get in. I have the Florence speech with me. It was a really substantial move forward. Let me just quote the bit on the transition period, which is what I am concentrating on. It says:
“So during the implementation period access to one another’s markets should continue on current terms and Britain also should continue to take part in existing security measures. And I know businesses, in particular, would welcome the certainty this would provide.
The framework for this strictly time-limited period, which can be agreed under Article 50, would be the existing structure of EU rules and regulations.”
Several times since then, the Prime Minister has been courageous enough to make it clear that it means that, during this transition period, we accept the regulatory harmony we have in the single market, we accept the absence of customs barriers in the customs union and we accept the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice to resolve disputes.
I have never understood what on earth is supposed to be wrong with the European Court of Justice except that it has the word “European” in its title. A very distinguished British judge is one of the people who is appointed to it. There is no case of any significance that we have ever lost there. The City of London and our financial services industry enjoy a passport for very important trade in the eurozone, particularly all the clearing operations that they have done. We had to go to the European Court of Justice as plaintiffs against the European Central Bank to get that passport. But, no, it is a foreign court, and it will be replaced by an international arbitration agreement of the kind that exists in every other trade agreement in the world. The ECJ is a superior system, but we will not get a trade agreement with any country anywhere of any significance, or with a developed economy, that does not have a mutually binding legal arbitration or jurisdiction of some kind, which resolves disputes under the treaty.
Mr Clarke
I will conclude if I may. I have already taken longer than I said, so please forgive me.
Let me just touch on this question: how we can get this whole debate into the grown up world and accept the reality that exists in a globalised economy. What do we mean by international trade agreements? What is beneficial to a country such as ours to give us the best base for future prosperity in the modern world? Frankly, at times, some of the debate has taken on an unreal quality.
I will not follow the hon. Member for Nottingham East, my collaborator in this new clause, because he gave a very carefully researched and very clear description of what actually is involved in trading arrangements. The first simple political point I will make is that, at the moment, we have absolutely unfettered access, by way of regulatory barriers, customs and so on, to the biggest and most open free-trade system in the world. Nowhere else has rivalled it. Mercosur failed because it did not have the institutions such as the Court or the Commission; the North American Free Trade Agreement—NAFTA—is collapsing; and the Americans have pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Everybody wants these deals, but only 28 European nation states have succeeded in getting such an open one. Of course the hon. Member for Vauxhall and others have argued strongly that we voted to leave that. Anything new that we put in by way of tariff barriers, customs barriers or regulatory barriers is bound to damage our position compared with where we are now. That is why we should minimise all those things as far as we can.
It is no good developing some fantasy that we are going to reach an agreement that puts up new barriers to trade—that we are going to get protectionist towards the rest of Europe, while being ultimate free traders towards the rest of the world—without damaging ourselves. Both sides exaggerate, which is pretty typical of most political arguments that take place in any democracy. Once people start putting mad figures on everything, they can get carried away.
Ian Murray
May I start by paying tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke)? He is one of the very few voices of sanity on the Government side of the House with regard to Brexit. When the history books are written about this damaging period for the United Kingdom, his name will be right at the top as the person who tried his very hardest to save Britain from doing damage to itself when leaving the European Union. That is what the vast majority of Members on the Opposition side of the House have been trying to achieve with their amendments to the Bill, and certainly with the amendments in the names of my hon. and right hon. Friends this evening.
May I also pay tribute to the Clerks of the House, who have marshalled this Bill incredibly well through the last eight days in Committee? The emails that have come to many of us who submitted amendments have been detailed and helpful, and great tribute goes to the Clerks. They thoroughly deserve their Christmas break, but they should rest assured that we will be back in January to work them just as hard on Report and Third Reading. So merry Christmas and thank you to the staff in the Clerks’ office of this House.
I am slightly confused by the Minister’s approach to new clauses 54 and 13—the two new clauses I would like to concentrate on this evening. That is particularly true of new clause 54, because I thought the whole point of legislation was to put Government policy on the statute book. I thought Government policy would come forward—whether in a manifesto or in a speech, as in the Florence speech—and would then be codified in legislation in order that the Government’s wishes were put into law. That seems to be the process that this Parliament has been going through for several hundred years.
For the Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and say, “Yes, this is Government policy, but we don’t put it into law” seems to be an excuse not to put it into law. I think we could all draw the same conclusion from that excuse: as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has indicated, the Cabinet does not agree on the Florence speech—it is trying to change the dynamics and the content of the Florence speech—and the Prime Minister is desperately trying to hold the extreme right wing of the Conservative party within this process and to manage her party rather than this process. Otherwise, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, there was nothing in new clause 54 that the Prime Minister did not say in her Florence speech and that should not be codified in the Bill to enable this Parliament and the country to be comfortable that the Florence speech is the direction of the Government.
Stephen Doughty
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is no coincidence, given the reluctance to put the Florence speech into statute, that the Prime Minister appears today to be rowing back on amendment 7 and that we have heard the Minister do the same from the Dispatch Box?
Ian Murray
Amendment 7 is incredibly important. That is why I was disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) did not take an intervention during her contribution. What amendment 7 did last week was to show that this Parliament can speak. It gave power to this Parliament to say that we require a piece of legislation to go through the processes in this House to make sure that this Parliament has spoken when we leave the European Union. The Minister, not unsurprisingly, sought to give assurances to many right hon. and hon. Members on amendments that they have tabled that the Government will do the right thing, but refused—absolutely refused—at the Dispatch Box, on three separate occasions, to give a commitment from the Government that they would abide by the will of this House and abide by amendment 7.
In addition to that, this afternoon the Prime Minister was asked on several occasions at the Liaison Committee to abide by amendment 7, and on all those occasions she refused to give a cast-iron guarantee that the Government will not row back on amendment 7 on Report. That is not taking back control. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall should reflect very carefully on the fact that, whether or not one agrees with the principles of amendment 7 or bringing a piece of legislation through this House to implement the deal, this Parliament has spoken and therefore the Government have a legal, moral and democratic responsibility to abide by that decision and do what this Parliament has asked them to do. To do anything other than that would not just be kicking a hornets’ nest—it would be contemptuous to the hon. Members who walked through the Lobby last week to put amendment 7 into the Bill. If the Government do decide to row back on amendment 7 on Report, that will show that their direction on this Bill, and on removing the UK from the European Union, has nothing to do with the future of this country but is to do with the future of their own party.
The reason that amendment 7 is so important is that it allows this Parliament to have a say. The reason this Parliament needs to have a say—this goes to new clause 54 and, indeed, new clause 13—is that we cannot trust a thing that Ministers say. Their statements contradict all the aspirations that they wish to achieve through this process. Indeed, Michel Barnier has said in the past 48 hours that the red lines that the Government have drawn for themselves contradict the objectives that they wish to achieve from this process. That is why we are tabling new clauses like new clause 13.
I represent a constituency where tens of thousands of jobs, and the entire Edinburgh economy, are reliant on financial services. The head negotiator from the European Union said yesterday that the red lines that the Government have drawn for themselves are completely contradictory to their aspiration to keep passporting and a unique deal for financial services. Tens of thousands of my constituents who rely on jobs or secondary jobs in financial services would look at these reports and say, “If the Government do have the aspiration to keep the financial services passporting arrangements and to keep the financial services sector in the UK healthy, then they should put that aspiration into the Bill.” That is what new clause 54 is seeking to do. If the Government do not do that, my constituents could draw the conclusion that the Government may have to throw some sectors under the bus.
I say that because nothing could be as good as the situation that we have at the moment. We have free and unfettered access for goods and services, free and unfettered access to the customs union, and free and unfettered access to the single market. The aspiration of this Government is to ensure that when we come out of this process, we have exactly the same, if not better, terms than we have at the moment. That is completely and utterly impossible, because the European Union will never agree to the same benefits of the customs union and the single market if we are dealing with it on a separately negotiated basis. That means—this goes to the arguments made by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe—that when doing individual bilateral trade deals with the US, Australia, India or wherever else, the Government will have to throw some sectors under the bus. Michel Barnier has said in the past 48 hours that the red lines that the Government have drawn and the aspirations they wish to achieve for the financial services sector are contradictory and therefore cannot happen. If the Government refuse to accept any of the amendments, do we draw the conclusion that financial services is a sector that they are willing to throw under the bus?
Ian Murray
If that is not the case for financial services—I can see the Minister shaking his head to indicate that it might not be—perhaps I can turn the Minister’s attention to the Scotch whisky industry. Is that a sector that the Government are determined to throw under the bus? What about our wonderful Aberdeen Angus beef sector? Will the country be flooded with antibiotic beef to allow us to get a deal with the US, which may be contradictory to our deal with the EU? If the Minister is saying no to all those sectors, which sectors will he throw under the bus? The Government and the Department have drawn red lines that the chief negotiator for the European Union has described as contradictory to the aspiration of keeping financial services in the passporting arrangements with the European Union.
Ian Paisley
The only red lines from the Labour party that I have read about recently are these. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has said that we must leave the single market to respect the referendum result. The shadow spokesman on Brexit, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), has said that we must leave the customs union because it would be “a disaster” to stay in it. That is the only controversy I can see here.
Ian Murray
Nobody voted to leave the single market and customs union. As the Chancellor has said, nobody voted in the European Union referendum to make themselves poorer. If the shadow Chancellor wants to walk through the Lobby with the Conservatives to take us out of the customs union and the single market, I certainly do not agree with him on that. I have been elected to represent a constituency that voted 78% remain and that is dependent on financial services, small businesses and the very healthy Scotch whisky industry. It is incumbent on me to defend my constituents’ interests from a Government who would be quite happy to throw sectors under the bus to get a trade deal from any country anywhere in the world, even though we already have 57 free trade deals that benefit all the sectors that I represent.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I do not know whether my hon. Friend meant to say that his constituents are dependent on Scotch whisky, but I take his point. At the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee this morning, I asked the Environment Secretary about the Canada-plus-plus-plus model. He said that he wanted agri-food to be part of the plus deal, and he referred to the trade agreement with Japan as something that covered agri-food. Is it not the case that, as Michel Barnier says, we will simply not be allowed to cherry-pick and insist on having a Canada-style deal that includes agri-food?
Ian Murray
That is exactly what Michel Barnier said. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union wants a Canada-plus-plus-plus deal with a special arrangement for banks, and the chief negotiator has said that that is impossible for two reasons. It is against the red lines that the Government have already drawn for themselves, so they are arguing against their own policy. Indeed, we already have special arrangements in place for free and unfettered access for all our sectors; they are called the single market and the customs union. When we have debated the matter in this Chamber on other days, I have made the point that the question of whether or not we agree with the single market and customs union is essentially irrelevant to the Bill. The Government’s negotiating position should, at the very least, keep those options on the table so that the Government can look at them and ask whether they are the way forward.
Why might we remain members of the customs union and the single market for the transition period? We would do that to allow businesses the certainty, security and stability that they require to make the changes that they need to make. When we come out of that transition period—it will not be in two years, according to Michel Barnier; it may be much sooner—we will have to have a system that is, no doubt, worse than that which we had during the transition period.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) for raising Canada-plus-plus-plus, because that is impossible to achieve with the red lines that have been drawn. Perhaps the Minister will come to the Dispatch Box—he can intervene on me, if he likes, or on any other hon. Member—and tell us which red lines the Government are willing to drop to achieve the Government’s aspiration of Canada-plus-plus-plus with a special deal for financial services.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Just as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) took evidence this morning from the Environment Secretary, the Health Committee took evidence yesterday from representatives of the pharmaceutical industry. They were completely realistic about the fact that the Government are not going to get any special sectoral deals, and that there will not be any cherry-picking. They unanimously made it clear to us that the only solution for us is to stay in the customs union and the single market, certainly for the transition and possibly—hopefully—beyond that.
Ian Murray
That is the key. We will have had 64 hours of debate in this Committee by the time we vote at 10 minutes past nine this evening. If we distil all our debates over those 64 hours, we get to the conclusion that we should stay in the single market and the customs union. I cannot understand why the Government have decided to throw that entire strategy out the window, probably for ideological reasons.
Mike Gapes
Is not the reality that all this talk of Canada or Canada-plus-plus-plus is an illusion, and that it would be far better to go for the far better deal that is Norway-plus? We should actually stay in the single market because that will be best for our economy and for our political influence in Europe.
Ian Murray
This of course brings us to the crux of the Government’s ideology, and no Government Members can ever stand up again and confidently pronounce that the Conservative party is pro-business.
The Government’s strategy and the red lines they have drawn in relation to the Bill are destroying business and are anti-business. Every sector that gives evidence to the Health Committee, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee or the International Trade Committee—and on and on—tells us that the only way to resolve these problems is by staying in the single market and the customs union. If such sectors—the people who create the jobs, employ the people and create the wealth in this country—are telling us that, we should listen to them, rather than to those on the extreme right wing of the Conservative party. They claim to be free traders, but they want to throw out 57 trade deals for some aspirational trade deals—no one can yet tell us whether anyone is even in the queue or wanting to speak to us about them—which is surely anti-trade and anti-business, and is destroying the fabric of the economy of this country.
Wera Hobhouse
Is there not a deep misunderstanding among those who say they want free trade agreements but to be outside the customs union? Creating a customs border is independent of how much we actually raise tariffs, because there will still be a border and there will still be checks. However freely or not freely we trade, creating a customs border will lead to delays, checks, regulations and so on and so forth. People say that we will have a great free trade deal, but we will still have a border, and that is what will be damaging.
Ian Murray
That intervention—I will finish on this point—gets to the crux of new clause 13, because we will have to have a border.
I will keep making in this House the same argument that the Minister and his colleagues in this House made when they stood on the same platform as me during the Scottish independence referendum. They consistently said that if the UK was split up and Scotland came out of the UK single market, there would have to be a border at Berwick. Why? Because there would be different arrangements for customs, regulatory matters, the free movement of people and goods.
How can Ministers now stand at the Dispatch Box with a straight face and say that none of this now applies either to Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland or indeed to Gibraltar? There is no answer to that question because, again, the Government’s red lines and their narrative do not fit with where they want to go on the final negotiations. We cannot have frictionless free trade while having differential arrangements on customs or regulatory alignment: it just does not work. If the Minister wants to intervene on me to tell me how it will work, rather than just using narrative and rhetoric—and anybody can understand how it will actually work—I would be happy to agree with him.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
Is it not interesting that when the public were consulted in a people’s assembly, with a representative sample of leavers and remainers, the conclusion they came to was that they wanted to remain in the single market, but to extend all the freedoms we already have to limit freedom of movement? Does my hon. Friend not agree that we need to listen more to the public and involve them more?
Ian Murray
I absolutely agree. The 34 million people who voted in the EU referendum probably voted one way or the other for 34 million different reasons, but it is incumbent on politicians to start taking a lead and to be brave about making the arguments. We should say to the country, “The EU referendum delivered a result and, yes, we will be leaving the European Union, but let’s just pause, look at the arguments being put to the country and see whether this is what people actually want.”
If we distil down all the arguments about the customs union and the single market, the only solution we can come to that does not damage this country in any way—in relation to jobs, the cost to business, or the future aspirations of students or of our children—is to stay in the best possible platform for free trade and regulatory alignment, which is the single market and the customs union. No one will forgive this Government, or anyone else who argues against that, when the first person leaves a financial services company in my constituency with their P45 in their hand. I will take no pleasure in saying “I told you so,” but the Government can pull back now, can sort out the Bill, can agree to some of these amendments in principle and come back on Report and put on the table, at the very least, a negotiation about keeping the UK in the single market and the customs union. To do anything less, with the red lines that they have drawn and the aspirations that they have, is pulling the wool over the eyes of the public, and they should be brave enough to admit it.
Mr Duncan Smith
I shall be brief because I support amendments 381 and 400, advocated by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox). I congratulate them on arriving at quite sensible arrangements. I know others want to speak, so I will not be drawn into the wider debate that the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) initiated with his new clause, and took some pleasure in pursuing—as others have done, too. A lot of today’s debate has been about rerunning the arguments around the referendum and coming to a different conclusion. People are welcome to do that as much as they like, but when they say that the British people have not been consulted, I think they were consulted, and they voted and that vote was binding, and we are now getting on with it.
I congratulate Ministers on their persistence on the Front Bench over the past eight days of debate on the Bill. I believe that they listened carefully to those with different opinions and made many, many changes. I say to many of my right hon. and hon. Friends who have disagreed with the Government over this issue on a number of occasions—and even voted against them, where necessary, as I have done in the past—that I am just a touch jealous of them. When I voted against the Government on Maastricht, I knew I did not have a hope in hell of getting anything changed. I was always told, “You can’t change any of this because we have just signed an agreement.” I am jealous because they have actually managed to get some change, so I congratulate them on achieving something that I was never able to achieve 25 years ago. None the less, I hope that tonight they do not necessarily choose to pursue that course of action with the amendments before us.
I say so because I think, in congratulating Ministers and others on signing up to the amendments, they do tidy up something that has been a concern—not just a concern felt by right hon. and hon. Friends who were in a strongly opposed position, but many others. I feel it is right to put the date of our departure in the Bill. I think it is quite right because it makes a statement of reality, which is that we are bound under article 50. The Bill, which is a process, should have the same provision in it. But we have to retain some flexibility within that. Following clause 1, which essentially says that we are repealing the European Communities Act 1972, we do not want to get into a mess where we end up having one set of dates for the repeal of that Act and another set of dates for a final conclusion of any arrangements we make with the European Union.
That conflict of law would have created a bigger problem, and I am sure we would have had to return to the matter on Third Reading, or even after the Bill came back from the other place. I therefore think that this way of doing things is neater and more flexible than the alternative, which would have been to pass a set of primary legislation to modify this Bill, as and when we reach agreements. I think that would have been a bit of a nightmare for my right hon. and hon. Friends. To that extent, I believe that this is a better way to do things.
The words in article 50 are pretty clear. I have read them on a number of occasions—I do read other things as well. Article 50 states quite clearly—it has always been clear—that the treaties shall cease to apply
“from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification…unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.”
Article 50 has always been clear that, should there be a requirement for an extension for practical reasons or whatever, it is up to the 28 countries to agree unanimously. To that extent, the amendment achieves that rather succinctly, but I stand by the fact that it was right for the Government to have been firm in wanting to put the date in the Bill. It would have been an anomaly not to have a date in the Bill and they would have had to come back at some stage to put it in. To provide that flexibility now makes it worthwhile.
Mr Duncan Smith
Excellent. It is always good to take a sedentary intervention from my hon. Friend.
I said I would be brief, so I will bring my remarks to a conclusion. I support the amendments and I congratulate those who drafted them. I want the Government to get through this as best they can. They should listen carefully where there are changes to be made but, if we have to return to this matter on Report, they will certainly have my support in making whatever changes are necessary to accommodate concerns so that we get a Bill that is reasonable, feasible and puts the power back into the House.
I would make one small point, however, to those who opened up this massive debate about what happened during the referendum and the idea that we can guess what was in people’s minds. It was said again and again, as I recall, by the then Prime Minister, by the then Chancellor, by Lord Mandelson and also by many in the vote leave campaign, that voting to leave meant leaving the customs union and the single market. Now, I understand and accept that people might not want to do that—they advance all sorts of reasons for not doing it—but it was said again and again. On the idea that the British people were too stupid to understand what they were voting for, I say that they were right in their decision and made a decision that was a lot more intelligent than people give them credit for.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
When that was said—it probably was said by one or two campaigners on the remain side during the referendum campaign—it was used as an argument against voting to leave. The reaction of leave campaigners was to dismiss it, saying it was the politics of fear, that people were being alarmist in talking about leaving the single market and that in fact our trading arrangements would remain absolutely unchanged, because the Germans had to sell us their Mercedes. That was the role it played in the referendum campaign.
Mr Duncan Smith
I always like to take an intervention from my right hon. and learned Friend. We agree on many things, but not on this, it has to be said. He will remember that, when he was Lord Chancellor, I supported him in getting through his very good and far-reaching reforms—I wish they had all been put through, but they were not, as he knows. To that extent, I have long supported him, but on this I do not fully agree with him. I think it was clear. It is no good saying that “some” people on the remain side said it. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor were the leaders of the remain campaign, certainly on the Government Benches, but also from the stand point of the country, and they were very clear on this. I do not recall anyone—I certainly did not—saying, “No, no, we’ll stay in the single market and customs union.” I have always made the point that leaving means leaving the Court of Justice, the customs union and the single market. Voters were, I believe, clear about that, but we can all debate and rerun the arguments.
Anna Soubry
I will undertake to send to my right hon. Friend a list of the various quotes from leading members of the leave campaign who told the British people, “There will be no change in our trading arrangements”, “We’ll do deals in a day and a half”, “We can be like Norway”, “We might want to be like Switzerland”, and so on and so forth. It was made very clear to the British people that the trading arrangements and economic benefits of the EU would remain the same. Does he honestly think that in his constituency of an evening in the Dog and Duck people sat there and said, “I tell you what, you know this single market, well I’m all for out of that”? Does he honestly think they really understood the issue, when there are obviously right hon. and hon. Members in this House who still do not understand what the single market and the customs union are?
Mr Duncan Smith
That may be. I do not know of the Dog and Duck, unless they have moved a new building into my constituency, but I say to my right hon. Friend that people made a decision to leave, and that argument was debated extensively: it was on television, the Prime Minister was questioned endlessly and others such as Lord Mandelson said categorically that if people voted to leave, we would be leaving these institutions.
Peter Kyle
We are debating what was said to the electorate during that period, but none of us are talking about what the electorate are thinking now. That is the most important thing. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as we enter the most crucial part of this stage of the negotiations, the Government should put far more energy into understanding what the public actually think and aspire to for our future relationship with the single market, the customs union and the EU in general and take that into account?
Mr Duncan Smith
I am all for consulting the British people. That is what we are here for as MPs, right? It is what we do when we go back to our constituencies and talk to people. The honest truth, however, is that we can consult them as much as we like, and we will get different opinions all the time, depending on the question. The biggest consultation I have ever seen took place in 2016: it was called a referendum. The difference between my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and the rest of the House is that he has been opposed to referendums throughout his political life and has never voted for them, whereas most other Members did vote for a referendum. When Members vote for a referendum, they are bound by the decisions that the British people make, and in this instance the British people asked us to leave the European Union.
Much of the debate has been about rerunning the referendum. I fully understand that some people will never be reconciled to the idea of departure or of leaving the customs union and the single market, but what we are talking about today is getting out of the European Union. It is not a question of the date, but a question of the process. We are leaving anyway. I support the Government because I believe that leaving the customs union and the single market and taking back control of our laws is exactly the right thing to do, and I do not think they should listen to the siren voices that tell them otherwise.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Temporary Chairman (Sir David Amess)
Order. The debate will finish at 9.10 pm, and there are still 17 Members wishing to speak. Interventions will shorten the time even further. I very much want to call everyone. I have no powers in this regard, but I appeal to colleagues to try to limit their speeches to five minutes so that everyone can be called. I hope we shall see a good example of that now from Mr Tom Brake.
Tom Brake
Thank you, Sir David. Your timing is perfect.
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith). It enables me to remind him of the promises that were made during the referendum about the £350 million a week that would be available to the NHS post-Brexit. I am as imbued with the good spirit of Christmas as others, Sir David, and I will therefore seek to limit my comments to the five minutes that you have specified.
A number of Members referred to what the Prime Minister said to the Liaison Committee in connection with amendment 7. I understand that she was asked no fewer than five times to confirm that she would provide a meaningful vote, by which I mean a vote that would take place on a Bill that will be amendable and would allow the debate to take place at a time when the Government could be instructed to go back and negotiate some more.
Let me briefly comment on new clauses 13 and 54. New clause 13 would ensure that we stayed in the customs union. That, I think, remains the only solution to the Ireland-Northern Ireland border issue apart from a border in the Irish Sea, which I do not think the Democratic Unionist party would support.
Tom Brake
As for new clause 54, it would be strange if Ministers did not want to support the Prime Minister’s words. I suspect that, if they did not support them in tonight’s vote, that would amount to a rebellion. We know that had the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs been here, they might have led such a rebellion, but I doubt whether junior Ministers would want to be responsible for a rebellion that would set aside what the Prime Minister said in her Florence speech.
My main purpose is to refer to amendment 120, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which amounts to a request for a vote on the deal. I am sure that, if there were time, I would give way to a great many interventions about the will of the people, but the will of the people as expressed on 23 June last year is not necessarily the will of the people as expressed today. It is because I respect the will of the people that I believe that the people should be given the chance to vote on the final deal that the Prime Minister secures. There is absolutely no doubt that the final deal will look very different from the deal that they were offered on 23 June last year.
I promise not to refer too often to the £350 million that was offered on the side of the bus, but people will remember that pledge, and it is not going to be honoured. They will also remember a pledge about a significant cut in immigration. There has, in fact, been a drop in immigration, but I think that it has happened because the UK economy has shrunk rather than for any other reason. It has certainly not happened in respect of non-EU citizens coming to the United Kingdom, because over many years the level of non-EU immigration has remained consistently high—and, of course, every Member will know that that is something of which our Government are in complete control.
Finally, there were the threats made about the 5 million people who were supposedly going to arrive in the UK as a result of our membership of the EU, and our Foreign Secretary who talked about opening the borders to Turkey and the claim that there would be marauding gangs of armed criminals out and about threatening people in our towns and villages.
I welcome the fact that the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) used conciliatory language in describing his position on the idea of having a vote on the deal, but I recommend to him, and perhaps others, that the Liberal Democrats are first adopters of this policy, with the Green party, and I hope he will develop an appetite for it—and, indeed, that some Labour Members might as well. It would require legislation, followed by a three-month election campaign, and then a vote that would have to take place before we finally leave the EU, but that is perfectly possible.
I conclude by saying that that would enable the UK population to have a vote on the deal; they would be able to express their views on whether they still want to accept now what they were offered on 23 June last year.
Anna Soubry
I rise to support new clauses 54 and 13, both of which, if put to the vote, I shall vote for.
I made it clear to the people of Broxtowe when I stood back in June that I would continue to make the case and vote for the single market, the customs union and, indeed, the positive benefits of immigration. We are on day eight of our Committee proceedings, and, goodness me, if only we had had all this quality debate—this exposition of all the arguments—before the referendum, we perhaps would have had a different result.
My constituents might not have changed their minds, but they overwhelmingly say to me now, “I didn’t know it was going to be so complicated; I didn’t know what it would be like.” I have to say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) that customers in the Nelson and Railway pub in Kimberley— a fine pub, and I will take him there one day—did not sit there talking about the customs union.
Anna Soubry
Exactly, of course they didn’t. They did not talk about the single market. They did talk about immigration, however, and they thought they pretty much did not like it, even though in Kimberley there have probably been about four immigrants over the course of about 200 years.
We have had that part of the debate, but there is a grave danger in looking at the result of the referendum and saying, “The British people have definitely said they don’t want the single market and the customs union and all the rest of it”. We are leaving the EU, so I have voted to trigger article 50—I have taken that big step against everything I have ever believed in, and I accept we are leaving the EU—but I am not going to stay silent, and I am not going to stop making the case for us to do the right thing as we leave. I gently say to those who stand up and bang on about the devilment of the single market and the customs union that that is gravely insulting to British business.
What have we seen in this peculiar debate? It has been peculiar. I endorse everything my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) have said; it must be a Nottingham thing that there is this agreement between the three of us about the merits of the customs union and the arguments made about the Florence speech and why it should be on the face of the Bill.
I also observe that the Government have not really conceded very much at all. They have accepted that there was a real problem with the Henry VIII powers and they have accepted amendments that they pretty much drafted themselves, and they now accept the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), but we must be honest about that: it was an amendment rightly put forward by him, but to solve a problem of the Government’s creation, because they lost the vote on amendment 7. It might be a very good fudge, but we must not make any mistake about it: if it had not come as an idea from the Government, it would not be before us as an amendment—I say that with no disrespect to my right hon. Friend.
The Government have not actually conceded anything at all. They have gone away and said some warm words, but I am now worried and concerned. Last week, 11 very honourable and brave people on this side of the House had to face what some of my colleagues think is just a bit of intimidation. We have seen national newspapers hurling abuse, and putting up photographs almost like “Wanted” posters. In the face of all that and of a lot of strong-arm tactics—I will not go into that here, but those responsible for them know exactly what was going on behind the scenes; let us not pretend otherwise—they voted, in some cases for the first time ever, and in others for the first time in more than 20 years of honourable and loyal service to their party, in accordance with their conscience when they voted for amendment 7.
Today, however, our Prime Minister appears to be rowing back on that, and the Minister is unable to give us an unequivocal statement at the Dispatch Box that the Government will honour amendment 7. Let me make it very clear that if there is any attempt by the Government to go back on amendment 7, the rebellion will be even greater and have even bigger consequences.
Mr Baker
I am happy to give my right hon. Friend an early Christmas present. I can give her the following assurance on behalf of the Government. The Government have accepted amendment 7. Our written ministerial statement on procedures for the approval and implementation of the EU exit agreement stands. There will be the following meaningful votes in accordance with that statement: on the withdrawal treaty, and on the terms of the future agreement. There will also be a withdrawal and implementation Bill, which the House will consider in detail, and of course all legislation is amendable.
Anna Soubry
I think that that is the unequivocal statement I am looking for. If it is, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for clearing that up. It is indeed a great Christmas present.
It is obvious that the two main parties in this place remain deeply divided, just as the country does. The irony of the situation will not be lost on future generations as they read Hansard. We have a considerable number of hon. and right hon. Members sitting on the Opposition Benches who completely agree with a considerable number of hon. and right hon. Members sitting on these Benches, yet we are prevented from building consensus and finding agreement because of the divisions within the two parties and, it has to be said, some intransigence on our two Front Benches. It is not for me to comment on the state of the Labour party, however; I will leave others to do that.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe has already identified the fact that, 18 months on, we still do not know what the Government see as their endgame. Our own Cabinet remains totally divided on this great issue—the greatest issue that we have had to wrestle with for decades. I say to my honourable and dear colleagues that there are some on these Benches who are entrenched in their ideological view about the European Union and will not move from it. They are a small group—they are the minority—but I feel as though they are running our country, and that cannot be right. Then there is another group, a big wide group of Conservative colleagues. Some of them are reluctant remainers, some are leavers-lite, and as they hear our debates and listen to the businesses that come to speak to them in their constituency offices, they are feeling uneasy and queasy. I do not say that they have to agree with me—of course they do not—but I asked them to listen to the arguments that are being advanced by those of us who speak on behalf of our constituents, notably businesses, about a deal.
We are not going to get a bespoke deal from the European Union—well, not unless we pay shed loads of money for access to this or that market—but there is something available to us. It is EFTA. It is the customs union. It is sitting there as a package. We can take it and seize it, and British business would be delighted if we did so. And then it would be done. The British people would say, “Thank God! They’ve got on and delivered Brexit”, and all would be well. We need to get on with it, so that we can then address the great domestic issues. I beg my hon. Friends to google EFTA and the customs union over the Christmas period. I urge them to understand them and to look at what Norway gets. Norway is able to determine its own agricultural and fisheries policies, for example. My hon. Friends need to know and understand these things. Then we need to come back in the new year and make a fresh start on forming that consensus that our constituents are dying to hear about, because they are fed up to the back teeth with what is going on.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is important to note the difference between EFTA and the customs union, which is mainly that EFTA countries are able to strike trade deals with third countries. For example, Iceland has a bilateral trade deal with China.
Anna Soubry
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That is the sort of detail we need. We have to understand all the different arrangements that are there that will work and suit our country, and I beg right hon. and hon. Members to look at them. The solutions are there. We are not going to get a bespoke deal, but arrangements are there on the shelf. We can grasp them, sort out Brexit, move on and do the right thing by our country and our constituents.
Mary Creagh
I begin by expressing my condolences and those of all Members to our friend and colleague Mr Deputy Speaker. He has suffered such a grievous loss, and we hold him in our hearts and prayers this Christmas season.
It is a pleasure to follow such interesting, well-informed speeches. I will discuss new clause 61 and amendment 291, which are in my name. We have heard much from the Minister today and from the Prime Minister, but my concern is that the blandishments and reassurances that we have been given actually contain more fudge than I hope to find in my Christmas stocking on Monday. As we look forward to the phase 2 negotiations, I am clear about one thing: there is no free trade agreement that we can negotiate that will be as comprehensive as the one we have with the EU now. New clause 61 recognises both that and the importance of the UK chemicals industry.
The Bill attempts to cut and paste EU law into UK law, but it cannot do that for the chemicals industry, which is vital to this country. We export almost £15 billion-worth of chemicals to the EU each year. Some 60% of all our chemicals go to the EU, and 75% of all our chemical imports come from the EU. We no longer make some basic chemicals due to that close relationship, which is really important for the pharmaceutical industry. Chemicals are our second largest export to the EU after cars, and the industry provides half a million jobs, both directly and indirectly. However, the regulatory uncertainties around Brexit—this hokey-cokey on whether we are going to be is the single market or the customs union or have a free trade deal—are sending shockwaves through the chemicals industry.
The industry is concerned that the UK will no longer participate in the EU’s regulation on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals or REACH, and new clause 61 would require us to remain in that arrangement. REACH covers over 30,000 substances and pharmaceuticals that are bought and sold in the single market. It also covers products—everything from the coating on a non-stick frying pan to flame retardants in sofas, carpets and curtains, to gases, fertilisers, plastics, speciality adhesives, rubbers, paints and dyes—and hazardous substances. It seeks to protect human health and the environment, particularly following the disastrous chemical leak in the Italian town of Seveso.
If a UK business wants to sell a chemical product into the EU or to Switzerland, South Korea or Norway, it must be registered with and authorised by the European Chemicals Agency in Helsinki. Membership of REACH is essentially a passport to the global chemicals marketplace. The Environmental Audit Committee has conducted all sorts of inquiries into the arrangement, but it cannot simply be transposed into UK law because it involves data sharing and co-operation. We do not have a domestic UK agency to carry out the same function, so the Bill will put our trade in chemicals at risk. Without an agreement to the contrary, the European Chemicals Agency has said that all UK companies’ registrations will be non-existent after exit day, which I cannot stress strongly enough. That would mean no access to the database and no legal obligation in this country to have a national helpdesk to give advice to companies. The arbitrary red lines on membership of the single market and customs union are the source of those risks, and the situation could be disastrous. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs tweeted about maximum divergence from the EU, but he is effectively putting a stake through the heart of the UK chemicals industry.
The Chemical Business Association told my Committee that 20% of its members are investigating moves out of the UK as a result of Brexit uncertainties. The Chemical Industries Association wrote to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs this month, urging the Government
“to do all it can to remain within or as close as possible”
to the EU’s rules. Its chief executive, Steve Elliott, said in his letter that leaving REACH
“would seriously bring into question 10 years of investment, as registrations and authorisations that permit access to the EU single market would suddenly become non-existent on exit day”.
That could have upstream effects on dialysis machines and solar panels, and all sorts of other industries would be affected.
Robert Neill
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir David. I start by associating myself with the condolences of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) to the right hon. Member for Chorley (Mr Hoyle) and his family. He is greatly regarded by every one of us across the Chamber, I am sure.
I pay particular tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve). I listened to his speech, as I did to pretty much all of today’s speeches, and invariably I found myself agreeing with pretty much every word he said. He has been an absolute stalwart in working to improve the Bill. As others have said, our purpose, through our amendments, has been to improve, not to obstruct. We do not want to obstruct the outcome of the referendum, but we want to ensure that the legislation does the best possible job of the important task that it must do. I hope that the Government have come to recognise that, and that we can continue forward in that spirit.
In a similar vein, it is worth endorsing the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). She is right: most people were not consumed by the minutiae of our arrangements. A fairly broadbrush debate, which was often pretty unsatisfactory and low grade, infected both sides from time to time. Frankly, the topic in hand was not done the justice it should have been done. We must now deliver on the decision, but it is pretty rich when some media commentators seem to regard the efforts of hon. Members to do their job as parliamentarians as some kind of betrayal, which is of course nonsense.
One is reminded more and more of the continuing relevance of those words of Stanley Baldwin when he got his cousin, Rudyard Kipling, to supply some lines about power without responsibility being, if I might paraphrase, the prerogative of the journalistic harlot throughout the ages. Those words are as applicable now as they were in the 1930s.
My three amendments relate to financial matters and matters linked to the City of London Corporation. I am grateful to the Minister and to the Solicitor General for their constructive approach.
Obviously I will not seek to press new clause 71 to a Division. I welcome the Government’s recognition of the centrality of the financial services sector to our economy, which is the point I want to stress. The deal we reach has to look after the interests of this jewel in the crown of the British economy. I am sure that that is the intention, but it is critical that we achieve it. To walk away without a deal would, of course, be of no value at all to the financial services sector, because WTO rules do not apply to it—it is not tariffs but regulatory burdens that would be the obstacle to our successful financial services sector.
As my constituency is that with the 16th highest number of financial and professional services workers in the country, it is my absolute duty to make sure that I am able to have a meaningful say on a deal that will affect their livelihoods and the livelihoods of their neighbours, friends and families. Thanks to the good work of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and others, I hope we are now in a position for me to have that say on their behalf. It is important we retain that say.
I was grateful for the Minister’s intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe. The truth is that the more a person kicks a hornets’ nest, the angrier they get. I take the Minister’s comments in the spirit in whey they were made, and I hope we can move forward constructively.
New clause 72 addresses another aspect of the City’s work: the question of port charges and port authorities. Again, I welcome the helpful clarification of the Government’s stance. The port of London, of course, is one of the country’s largest ports, and the City of London is the port health authority. Estimates by port health authorities indicate that there could be a minimum increase in their workload of 25%. The facilities needed to carry out checks will involve a cost not just in revenue terms but in capital terms. If we are able to secure a continuing alignment on standards—I am grateful to the Minister for quoting a number of the regulations—it would obviate those difficulties, which is in the interest of the agricultural sector both here and in the EU, and in the interest of the food retail sector because of the last-minute delivery systems that now play a full part in its way of working.
Amendment 362 addresses the interpretation of contracts, and I am grateful that the Government have said we can continue working on that. Contractual certainty is critical, because many international legal contracts are written using English law because of the high regard in which it is held. That makes our legal services sector a considerable national asset. Maintaining certainty for the sector is important to all the business that comes into the UK, and it underpins the rest of the financial sector, too. I am grateful for the Government’s recognition of that important point.
Finally, I come to new clause 56, on Gibraltar, which I signed, but which stands in the names of SNP Members and others across the House. It has had cross-party support, for which I am grateful. I declare my interest as the chair of the all-party group on Gibraltar. I welcome the Government’s statement, both from Ministers today and from the Prime Minister earlier, of their full commitment to Gibraltar. What is important for Gibraltar—the new clause was designed to probe this—is not just the issue of the predatory approach that Spain takes to Gibraltar and the border. Although that is one issue on which we must fight on Gibraltar’s behalf, we must also address its people’s real desire—this is an absolute necessity for their wellbeing—to maintain access into UK markets and, in particular, to preserve the rights that we and they currently have as common members of the EU. I welcome the fact that the Government will try to find a constructive way of taking that forward. Gibraltar has a thriving financial services sector. It has transformed its economy from a dockyard and garrison economy to one with a significant financial services base. That economy complements the City of London in a number of key sectors, including insurance. Maintaining access is crucial and to the advantage of both the UK and the Gibraltarians. I am, again, grateful to Ministers on that.
I end on this note: the vote was about leaving, not the form of the new relationship. We are talking today about the process. In terms of where we end up, the one thing that has been made clear to me by the many constituents I speak to, particularly those in financial services, manufacturing and many other areas of business, is the absolute criticality of having a proper transitional period. That is vital for the financial services in particular, but also for many other areas. A constituent of mine has a manufacturing business that feeds into a complicated supply chain across EU boundaries. He wants to have certainty about the availability of the supply chain to make his products, and it is critical that there is certainty about the City’s ability to adapt. The City does adapt, and financial services can and will adapt, but they need time to do so, given the varied and complex nature of regulations.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe hit on a fair point when she said, “Perhaps don’t start ruling out things that you don’t need to have to rule out.” Some people on the other side of the argument from me never ruled out either the customs union or the single market during the referendum campaign, but it seems that many of them seek to do so now. I would have thought that we ought to be keeping as many options open as possible, and the European Free Trade Association is one such option. I speak as a lawyer and someone who is concerned that we should have a proper dispute resolution mechanism. EFTA does have a court, which, although its jurisprudence historically tends to follow that of the ECJ, is institutionally independent. That is perhaps important for those who regard the move away from a direct jurisdiction as one of the important issues for the negotiations. EFTA is capable of ticking that box, so I simply say that we should not rule it out from the mix of the things we should look at.
In that—I hope—constructive spirit, may I wish you, Mrs Laing, and all hon. Members a happy Christmas? I might exclude from that the gentleman who sent me a card that said on the outside, “The peace and joy of God be upon you”, but said inside, after I opened it, “Judas, leave the country at once and never come back.” [Laughter.] Given that that probably is the least thing that has been said to some people, it is one thing we can laugh about. I say merry Christmas sincerely to all hon. Members. I hope that everybody has a good Christmas and that we can have a constructive new year as we take forward a great issue, on any view of the debate, for this country.
Kate Green
It is a great pleasure to follow my good friend the Chair of the Justice Committee. I had the honour of serving on that Committee when we prepared our report on Brexit’s impact on the justice system, to which the Government provided their response earlier this week. May I say to Ministers that new clause 31, which is about the best interests of children and safeguarding those interests, has a particular relevance to some of the issues that the Committee uncovered? Those relate to family law, which has not been the subject of much debate in Committee but is, none the less, an extremely complicated and important issue for the wellbeing of children. Our EU membership gives us access to institutions that protect and safeguard children as potential victims of crime.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Since the moment when Sir David Amess was in the Chair and asked hon. Members to speak for no more than five minutes or so, everyone has taken at least 10 or 11 minutes. That really says something about behaviour in the Chamber.
Sir Edward Leigh
It is a truth universally acknowledged that one’s own speeches seem short and incisive, while others’ seem long and discursive. If I speak for more than five minutes, please order me to exit, Mrs Laing.
Frankly, there has been a lot of hype about this Bill. We have had nearly 70 hours of debate on it, which is all very welcome, but there has also been a lot of hype. All this Bill does is put into our own law what was previously in EU law. It does not change how we leave the EU. Therefore, I for one welcome the spirit of compromise that seems to have broken out today. I welcome the fact that we are all going to vote, if there is a vote, for amendment 400 and for the original amendment 381 that put the date in the Bill. Perhaps we should have put the date in the Bill in the first place, because Brexit means Brexit, Brexit means that we are leaving the EU and Brexit means that we are leaving the EU on 29 March 2019. For all the hundreds of hours of debate, that is all that matters because we are obeying the instructions given to us by the British people.
I was slightly worried about amendment 400 when I was first told about it very kindly by the Whips Office over the weekend, but I listened to the Prime Minister’s assurance today that this measure would only be used to delay the exit date by a very short period, only in exceptional circumstances and only by an order subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. All that amendment 400 does is to ensure that this Bill—it will then be an Act—marches step by step in accord with our treaty obligations under article 50.
Make no mistake that, whatever amendment 7 says, it does not make much practical difference. The situation could, of course, be dealt with by simply withdrawing clause 9. The amendment prevents the Government from making preparatory orders, but it does not delay the process. I therefore welcome what the Minister has said today. He has been clear from the Dispatch Box—I say this to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who has just again repeated the question—that the Government are not seeking to subvert the will of the House of Commons as expressed last week. That is good for us leavers, as we are leavers because we believe passionately in the sovereignty of Parliament. I welcome the fact that we are having 60 hours of debate and that we will come back to debate the Bill in another week. I welcome the fact that more legislation will be needed. The more Bills, the more motions, the more affirmative orders—I welcome them all, because we cannot reverse this process.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) that, yes, there will be an implementation period. During that period, we will be law takers, not law givers. To that extent, we will be a colony of the EU. That is why it has to be a short period, and it is why—this is a firm policy of the Government and the firm view of the overwhelming majority of Conservative Members of Parliament—we will leave the single market and the customs union after that short implementation period. That does not necessarily mean that we will not be a member of a customs union or a single market, but we would not be a member of the regulatory single market, because if we were, we would not control our own borders.
I say to Members on the Government Front Bench, if they need any encouragement: I welcome the spirit of compromise today; I welcome the fact that we are going to be generous to EU citizens here and that we have made progress; and I welcome the fact that the Brexiteers are co-operating with every single compromise that the Government are prepared to make in order to take this process forward and ensure that we have a long and lasting friendship with our friends in Europe.
Helen Goodman
I would like to speak first about new clause 13, because, for my constituency, the customs union is absolutely vital. I have a lot of constituents involved in manufacturing—pharmaceuticals and the automotive industry, for example. On pharmaceuticals, I think Glaxo told the Health Committee yesterday that the cost it has already faced in making plans for how to deal with Brexit is £70 million. We keep asking Ministers for certainty, and there is none.
For farmers, this issue is also absolutely crucial. There is a big risk with the free trade agreements Conservative Members are arguing for that we get floods of cheap lamb imports coming in. That will destroy the uplands. It will destroy not just farming livelihoods but the British countryside.
On the automotive industry, my hon. Friends have spoken about the importance of having shared regulation. How do Conservative Members think the European Union will agree with them to have no tariffs if it thinks that we are going to compete on different regulatory standards? It is not going to agree that. Conservative Members need to get into the real world.
Let us look also at the scope for these new great, fantastic free trade agreements, taking New Zealand as an example. Its economy is the same size as the Greek economy. This is not some great, fabulous opportunity. All that the New Zealanders and the Australians want to do—whatever sentimentality people have about the Commonwealth—is to sell their agricultural produce into the British market.
Conservative Members were enthusiastic about the idea that they could do these deals quickly. In fact, because other parts of the world also have regional trading blocs, that is highly unlikely. Latin American countries, for example, belong to a regional trading block called Mercosur. They are going to be going at the pace of the slowest, not the fastest.
The reason why I think there is a distinction to be drawn between the customs union and the single market is the Irish border. Membership of the customs union is vital for the maintenance of the soft border, in a way that membership of the single market is not. That is because of the nature of free movement. What does free movement mean? It does not mean being able to go somewhere on holiday. It does not mean Schengen—we are not in Schengen now. Free movement means being able to have a job and to take part in the social security system elsewhere.
The way to deal with the free movement problem, which is undoubtedly the immigration problem that has been raised by our constituents on the doorsteps over the last two years, is to change the rules about who can work and who can be eligible for social security in this country; it is to stop giving out national insurance numbers like confetti, as we do at the moment. I am therefore pleased that we have had this separate moment to look at the customs union, and I hope that hon. Members will reflect more carefully on the great significance of the customs union for achieving what we want in Ireland.
I must say that I am not yet reassured by what the Minister said at the Dispatch Box about amendments 381 and 400. When amendment 7 was passed last week, there was a shift in power from the Executive to Parliament. With amendment 381, whether or not it is amended by amendment 400, we are seeing the Executive yank back control to set the exit date. What Ministers have not been able to explain to us this afternoon is what happens if the legislation under amendment 7 is not passed. They can still set the exit date.
I was going to say that Opposition Members see the Tory party as extremely unstable. We are not convinced that this Government, in their current form, will last the course. However, I could not say that nearly as fluently or as lucidly as the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) said it. She laid out the problems and the divisions far more fully than I ever could. But even if we do not look into the future, we can all be alarmed by what the Prime Minister said to the Liaison Committee this afternoon. That is why we cannot be confident in what this Government are doing, and that is why amendments 381 and 400 fatally undermine amendment 7.
Huw Merriman
It is a great pleasure to speak in the last half hour of the 64 hours of the Committee stage of the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. I am absolutely delighted to speak in support of amendment 400. I congratulate my hon. Friends on putting it forward. We now have a position akin to article 50, whereby we leave no later than two years from the trigger date. We know when that date will be, but we retain the flexibility should it be required. That shows a great compromise across the House, demonstrating to us and to the public at large that we are capable of finding a way through where we had some discord previously.
I listened intently to the points made by Opposition Members about requiring the Government to honour their commitment on amendment 7. The Government have done so. I therefore ask all those Members that the rest of the Bill that has not been amended be honoured on that basis as well. I very much hope that they have accepted that reciprocal commitment.
I have sat through eight hours in this Committee, and the key thing that strikes me is the lack of optimism and ambition that I have heard. That in no way reflects the country at large, this being the day when it has been announced that, for the very first time, the UK ranks first in the Forbes annual survey of the best countries for doing business. If Forbes had been tuning into this debate, it may well have been wondering if it had got the right country.
The reality is that the world is changing. We must of course look for trade with our European partners. The Prime Minister has set out quite clearly that we want to continue to trade with mainland Europe and to purchase the goods that we have always purchased from it, and we will continue to do so. However, let us take Africa, for example. Germany and Spain have declining populations. Africa has 1.2 billion people at present; by 2050, that will have doubled to 2.4 billion. There are trade opportunities for us to take advantage of. Remaining inside the customs union, as new clause 13 would have it, would not allow us to take advantage of those opportunities.
Huw Merriman
I will not give way because of the lack of time.
This also misses the point that we trade as part of the EU under WTO rules with a number of countries, such as the US, China, Hong Kong, Australia, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. To say that we cannot continue to trade with those countries under WTO rules when we already do so as part of the European Union misses the point.
I now come to the real point that I wish to make. During the referendum campaign, unlike many Members in this place I did not take a view. I chaired debates but I did not take any view. Instead, I listened to the arguments going on from both sides. I dare say that right hon. and hon. Members who took a view were not listening to both sides because they were so passionate about their own. I cannot remember any individual who wanted to leave the European Union arguing, “I fancy a bit of what Norway has got. I would like to leave the European Union and remain within the single market.” The customs union has also been mentioned in that context, but of course Norway is not part of the customs union. It is quite clear to most members of the public—it was certainly made clear by those on both sides of the argument—that the EU is effectively a brand. The substance of the EU is the single market and the customs union. If more people voted to leave the European Union than to remain, which was indeed the case, there is a very fair chance that those people knew what they were voting for, and certainly did not want to leave and then return through the back door, as many hon. Members have suggested.
This is the key part for me. I really believe—I put this respectfully—that many in this Chamber are seeking to re-engineer the arguments to get them on their side because they do not want to leave. Even though most of them voted to trigger article 50, so they have chosen to leave, they now want to redesign the terms. They are seeking to have the public on their side by asking, as the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) mentioned, that the public are asked what they think—as if we have a spreadsheet big enough for that. The reality is that the majority of the public have voted to leave. They now look to the Executive to lead the negotiations, and they look to Parliament to support the negotiations and provide scrutiny, as it is doing. Ultimately, they want us to get on with the job and to be optimistic and ambitious about the future of this country, rather than sitting on our hands.
Peter Grant
I am grateful for the chance to contribute to tonight’s debate. First, I will deal with new clause 56, which is in my name and those of many other hon. and right hon. Members from across the House. I am grateful to everybody who supported the new clause, which is designed to give legislative certainty to the people and businesses of Gibraltar. Having heard the Minister’s comments—a long, long time ago now—my understanding is that the Government of Gibraltar are happy that the assurances they have been given provide the certainty they are looking for. On that basis, I do not intend to press the new clause to a vote, but I want to reserve the ability to bring it back at a later stage should the position of the Government of Gibraltar change.
We have heard a lot this afternoon and tonight about the wonderful opportunities for trade that await the United Kingdom if we leave the customs union and the single market. I welcome the fact that although the Minister repeatedly said that we would be leaving the customs union and the single market, he did not say—I listened very carefully—that we had to do so. He did not say that it was impossible to remain in either or both when we leave the European Union, even though a lot of people on the Brexit side have said that. That is simply not true; it is perfectly possible to leave the European Union without leaving those two trading agreements. The Government’s decision to leave them is purely political and it was not part of the referendum, despite what some people say. It is not yet too late for the Government to accept that that is a catastrophically bad political decision and that it should be reversed, even if doing so would come at a high political cost for some.
Earlier, we heard the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) justifying the need to leave the single market because the losing side in the referendum said that we had to. I am quite happy to go through some of the things that were in the losing Conservative manifesto in Scotland about what would happen if people voted SNP. If we are going to be bound by the promises that the losing side made, the SNP is in for a bit of a field day.
I still find it astonishing that there are Labour Members looking for a complete exit from the European Union. Only today, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered a massive victory to Uber drivers and workers by ruling that Uber is a taxi business—surprise, surprise; that is what it is. The ruling has given Uber drivers massively better employment protection than they would have had without it. I cannot believe that any Labour Member would argue to remove those drivers from the protection of the European Court and leave their employment rights at the mercy of a Conservative Government, but that is what at least one Labour Member, the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), argued for just now. I know that she is very much in the minority in her party, but I am astonished that a Labour Member can express such views.
The same hon. Member commented on how much of the UK’s trade is done outside the European Union. She forgot to mention that if we include the trade that relies on trade deals that the European Union has already made with big trading nations, more than 60% of the UK’s trade effectively depends on the European Union. When we build in the trade deals that the European Union is in the process of finalising, the figure increases to 88%. In other words, in a couple of years’ time, 12% of the United Kingdom’s overseas trade will not depend on our membership of the European Union. Twelve per cent. of our trade will probably be guaranteed, but the other 88% is up for grabs. Believe me, a lot of other trading nations will be very keen to nibble away at that 88%.
I want to comment on the confusion of the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). His stamina also seems to have deserted him, although I cannot say that I blame him. He said tonight, as he has said on several occasions, that he cannot understand the contradiction between the Government’s statement that we can have free, open and easy trade across international borders, and their insistence in the run-up to the independence referendum in Scotland—where, by his own admission, he shared a platform with some people who are now on the Conservative Benches—that that would not be possible.
I can put the hon. Gentleman out of his misery. There is no inconsistency. What the Government are saying now is correct, and what they and he said in 2014 was complete and utter rubbish. There is absolutely no need, in today’s modern world, for an international border to be anything more than a line that demarcates the jurisdictions of different Parliaments, Governments and courts. That is how international borders are seen all over western Europe, and that is the kind of international border we should be seeking. It will be difficult if not impossible to maintain open borders, even the open border we want to maintain across the island of Ireland. It will be difficult to deliver what the people of Northern Ireland so desperately want to maintain if we leave the customs union and the single market.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I call Suella Fernandes.
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
Saving the best till last, perhaps.
I rise to speak in favour of amendment 400, to which I am proud to have put my name. I applaud the constructive efforts and sincere energies invested in the amendment by right hon. and hon. Members across the Brexit divide, uniting our party and working in collaboration with the Government to improve the Bill and to reflect the genuine concerns voiced during that process. I pay tribute to the Front Bench team and the civil servants, as well as all those who have contributed to enriching the passage of the Bill during the extensive opportunities we have had for scrutiny, debate and discussion.
Amendment 400 represents a very sensible and pragmatic way forward in resolving some of the concerns raised. It provides legal certainty because, by placing the exit date in the Bill, we will have confirmed the time and date when the UK will be leaving the EU in accordance with article 50. It will ensure that the operative provisions of clauses 1 to 6 apply from that date, and it avoids a potential failure in the construction of clause 3 in that, if exit day was later than 29 March 2019, the conversion of direct EU legislation might fail. That is because clause 3(1) applies to such legislation only in
“so far as operative immediately before exit day”,
but that legislation will cease to be operative when we leave the EU in accordance with article 50. It also limits ministerial discretion, which, after all, is to some extent what Brexit is about. Brexit is about restoring power to Parliament and about giving elected representatives a say. Finally, the amendment complements those two objectives by providing a degree of flexibility on the exit day. The Prime Minister confirmed earlier today that the date might be changed only in exceptional circumstances and for a short amount of extra time.
I want to comment on the Bill more generally. I think that 2017 has been an extraordinarily successful year for Brexit. The Government have triggered article 50, supported by a convincing and large majority of this House. The Prime Minister has moved us on to phase 2 of the negotiations, and we are now at the point of discussing the exciting and new opportunities for future trade. The Bill has also been very successful in its passage.
I want to emphasise the fact that we are making progress. Everybody here in this House has been entrusted with the instruction from the British people to deliver Brexit. We want a smooth and a meaningful Brexit. That is an honour and it is also a duty. The British people are watching, and the world is watching. They might not be interested in the technicalities of constitutional law, or know exactly what the common commercial policy means, but they want us to get on with the job, and to do otherwise would be a gross betrayal of that duty.
We have to talk up the opportunities. We are the sixth-largest economy in the world. We have the world’s language. We are leaders of the Commonwealth. We have a legal system emulated around the world, a parliamentary system envied by other countries, and financial services that are unrivalled. Britain will succeed after Brexit, and we have to find ways in which we can deliver Brexit, not reasons why we cannot.
Angela Smith
I wish to speak briefly, as chair of the all-party group on the chemical industries, to new clause 61, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh). I am not going to rehearse the arguments that she has already made; she gave an incredibly strong account of why we should stay within REACH. It suffices only to say that the chemicals industry does not want to see any drop in regulatory standards. It wants to stay within REACH, for obvious reasons, not least because it wants a smooth transition post-Brexit, and staying within REACH makes sense in that regard. When an industry as big and as important to our export profile as chemicals is so vociferous in its argument that it wants to stay within REACH, this House and every Member of this House should take notice and think very carefully about how they proceed on that point.
The remaining comments I want to make are on new clause 13. It really saddens me to say this, but I am very sad to see those on my own Front Bench making an argument about new clause 13 that I believe to be erroneous. Their argument tonight has been—on paper, if not on the Floor of the House—that the clause actually ties us into the customs union. Nothing could be further from the truth. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) made it absolutely clear that this clause is about making sure that the option of staying in the customs union is not taken off the table.
I shall not go into all the various arguments that have been made, because we have not got time, but I do want to ask every Member of this House, particularly my colleagues, to bear in mind the importance of not ruling out membership of the customs union. Voting for the new clause tonight will be an act of conscience that will send a powerful signal to the country and the Government that we understand the importance, potentially, of the customs union and the importance of giving the Government the strongest possible negotiating position when it comes to that regulatory alignment that we have heard so much about in recent days.
On Ireland—I will finish on this point—my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East made the case about avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland, and made the point that that is one of the key reasons why this new clause, and the potential for staying in the customs union, is so important.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. We have hardly any time left. Ireland was debated last week.
Angela Smith
The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East said that Ireland raised the point about the customs union and the hard border. That is why it is relevant to this clause. It is about trade between those two countries—the UK and the Republic. The point is that it is also about avoiding the hard border in relation to our other, very important, relationships with Ireland.
I ask every Member of this House to bear in mind the emotional and powerful speech made last week by our hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). It is really important that we remember those days when the hard border between the two countries, and the troubles, delivered so much devastation, hatred and agony to the people of Northern Ireland. On those grounds alone, I ask people to support new clause 13 tonight, and I ask Members on the Opposition Benches, including Members of my own party, to support the new clause, because to do so is in the interests of the country and in the interests particularly of our friends in Northern Ireland.
Joanna Cherry
I rise to speak to new clause 44, which is in my name and those of a number of Opposition Members, and was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins).
This very important new clause would require the Government, a year after the Bill is passed, to prepare an independent evaluation of the Act in respect of the health and social care sector across the UK, after consulting with the devolved Governments. As well as cross-party support on the Opposition Benches—I am very grateful for the support of the Labour party and others—it has the support of 57 organisations that work in the sector. It was inspired by the Camphill movement, which will be familiar to many Members. It has a base in my constituency, in Tiphereth in the Pentland hills. The movement has been inspiring people to realise the potential of those with learning and other disabilities for many years. Camphill has many bases across Scotland. I very much hope Scottish Conservative MPs who have a base in their constituency will support the new clause, because it is not about stopping Brexit or confounding the Bill but about measuring the impact of the Act on employment and funding in the health and social care sector.
I am delighted that so many organisations across the United Kingdom have lent their support to new clause 44. I say to those on the Government Front Bench that tonight there are many people across the UK watching from the 57 organisations in the health and social care sector. They were watching earlier at Prime Minister’s questions when the Prime Minister told us how much healthcare matters to her and how dear the NHS is to her. I ask them to remember that many, many EU nationals work in the health and social care sector across the UK, not just in organisations such as Camphill. I would also say that EU funding has been very important to those organisations.
I ask the Government to set party politics aside for once and support the new clause. I ask them to look at the list of 57 organisations who support it—many Government Members will have them in their constituencies—because they want to know about the impact of the Act on the health and social care sector. All the new clause asks the Government to do is commission an independent evaluation of the Act’s impact on the sector.
There are many political things I could say about the Bill, but I am not going to say them this evening. With an eye on the time, I am going to appeal to the Government’s decency—for the record, I say to the many organisations watching tonight that I am sorry I have so little time—and ask them to throw party politics aside for once. Give us something out of the Bill and support the new clause. It has cross-party support on the Opposition Benches and support across the nations of these islands.
Stephen Kinnock
I raise to support amendment 43. Hon. Members will know that this year marks the 150th anniversary of Walter Bagehot’s “The English Constitution”. At the heart of Bagehot’s masterpiece is the definition of the expressive function of this place, meaning that it is our duty as parliamentarians to express the mind of the people on all matters that come before it.
Amendments 381 and 400 are a betrayal of the expressive function of this House. They are a silent coup d’état masquerading as a technical necessity, so before we go through the Division Lobby this evening, let us reflect on what Bagehot would think of them, and of the Government’s behaviour throughout this process. The fact is that he would be appalled. He would be appalled at the attempt to sideline Parliament on the most important issue that has faced our country since the second world war, and he would be appalled by the direct assault on the expressive function of this place.
There is, however, a broader point that goes to the heart of our political culture. Bagehot always believed, and I have always agreed with him, that Britain is a land of common sense, compromise and realism, but the Brexit referendum has replaced moderation with division and realism with dogma. I say that the wild men of Brexit have been allowed to drive this debate for too long. I say that amendment 43 represents an opportunity for us in this House this evening to take back control and to return moderation, compromise, realism and pragmatism to their rightful place at the heart of our political system and culture.
Wera Hobhouse
I rise to speak to amendment 120. Since I arrived in this place in June and started taking part in the Brexit debate, one thing has intrigued me: have the Prime Minister and many other remain MPs changed their minds? We all know that the Prime Minister supported remaining in June 2016. Has she changed her mind since? This is important because she and her Government use one big argument for pressing on with Brexit: it is the will of the people. Is it? For the Government and the hard Brexiteers, the referendum result is fixed forever. The people cannot change their minds. The Prime Minister and other MPs can change their minds, but the people cannot.
As the months go by and the Government’s legitimacy for implementing their version of Brexit becomes less and less legitimate, obeying the will of the people becomes the last remaining legitimacy, but nobody bothers to find out what the will of the people is now. Indeed, the last to be asked are the people themselves. Hon. Members are right to say that Britain is a parliamentary democracy, but now we have had a referendum, there is no obvious mechanism for updating, confirming or reviewing the referendum result. The 2017 general election provided no mandate for overturning the referendum result. It is obvious that 650 MPs cannot update, confirm or review the decision taken by 33 million people, but the people themselves can, and the people themselves should be allowed to change their minds, in either direction.
There are people now who voted remain who feel that the decision has been taken and the Government should get on with it. There are others who voted leave who fear that they will be let down by politicians who have used them for their own ends. The will of the people is a mixed bag. The Government are legislating for a Brexit in the name of the people. Their problem is that they might find themselves pressing ahead without the people’s consent. Last week, Parliament voted to give itself a vote on the deal. This was a welcome step forward, but what started with the people must end with the people. The people must sign off or reject the deal. Only the people can finish what the people have started.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I rise to speak to new clause 61. CF Fertilisers owns Britain’s only two complexes still making fertilisers in this country. Its comments are simple enough. David Hopkins writes:
“Right across the country, the chemical industry has made a huge investment into REACH compliance. It is not perfect – far from it. It is however becoming an international standard, and our compliance with – and involvement in – such a regulation is essential in enabling us to continue trading effectively across border, both from an import point of view but much more significantly from an export perspective.”
Neil Hollis of BASF says:
“BASF does not take a rigid view on whether REACH is the best possible regulation for current and new chemicals, but it is established, tested and most importantly, a requirement for selling chemicals within the EU. Regardless of what model of Brexit any of us prefer, that isn’t going to change…Our supply chains, operating between ten UK manufacturing plants, and many more across Europe, require clarity that materials can be legally processed and sold, in transition, and after the UK has left the EU.”
Philip Bailey, general manager of Lucite International, reminds me of the investment that takes place in my constituency. He says:
“We have many concerns about the implications of Brexit on our ability to trade effectively and competitively within the EU, where we export 60-70% of our products.”
The Chemical Industries Association reminds us that UK companies hold 6,364 registrations covering 2,563 substances. In that respect, the UK is second only to Germany. The association says:
“The UK Government’s decision to leave the single market will have significant implications.”
On Monday I raised the issue directly with the Prime Minister after her EU summit speech. I asked whether she could offer some reassurance to the chemical companies that the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals regulation would apply after we left the EU and beyond the implementation phase. Sadly, she had no such reassurance to give, dismissing my concerns and those of the industry as just another area for negotiators to talk about. This is about so much more than that. The very future of our chemical industry is at stake. I fear that if we do not retain a system that enables our chemical companies to remain within REACH, some of the forward planning that we hear about will not be for the UK; it will be for elsewhere, and we will pay for that in terms of investment and jobs.
For Teesside, which leads the world in so many ways in chemicals, the outcome could be particularly bad. We need Ministers to spell out very specifically how the UK will ensure that our chemical companies have the business environment and associated regulations that will guarantee their future trade.
Geraint Davies
I rise to support amendment 120, which would give the people the final say.
People whom I meet in Swansea who voted in good faith to leave the EU on the basis of more money, market access and less migration, and to take control, are saying to me now, “This is not what I voted for.” They were told by the Foreign Secretary that they would have £350 million a week more for the NHS. The Financial Times has just told us that we will lose £350 million a week. The London School of Economics has told us that inflation is 1.7% higher than it would have been otherwise, at 2.7%.
The average worker is losing a week’s wages every year thanks to this decision. That is not what people voted for. They are told that they will have to pay a £40 billion divorce bill—£1,000 for every family. That is not what they voted for. In 2015, they were told by the Conservatives that we would be part of the single market, which we may not be. We are haemorrhaging jobs as various institutions relocate. That is not what people voted for. They were told that they would take back control, but it is clear from clause 9 of this shoddy Bill that Ministers are still seeking to take powers—Henry VIII powers—to change things as they think appropriate. That is not what people voted for.
There are Members who seem to assume implicitly that nothing has changed, but the latest polling by Survation shows that half the people want a referendum on the exit package and only a third do not. What is more, 51% of people want to stay in the European Union and 41% now want to leave. The facts are changing, and as Keynes said:
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
I think that we have a democratic duty to give people the final say. I predict that this Christmas, as families throughout Britain come together to talk about the issue, the leavers will be saying, “Actually, I will think again”, and the remainers will be saying, “I will stay where I am.” There has been a shift, and we need to reflect that. The great majority of politicians here know that it is bad for Britain to leave, yet they are going ahead with it although the majority of people have woken up to the fact that it is not in their interests. It is an absolute democratic disgrace that we are pushing it forward in this absurd way. My prediction is that there will be a final-say referendum at the end of next year, and that we will step back from the precipice.
Mr Leslie
This is an incredibly important Bill. New clause 13 would keep open the option for the United Kingdom to stay in the customs union, which is something I hope particularly my hon. Friends will support. We must avoid that hard border, particularly between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. We do not want our manufacturing industry to be turned upside down, given all the jobs at stake and the potential of Brexit austerity hitting our constituents for years to come. I do not want that on my conscience. We have to act now, which is why I shall press new clause 13 to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is the position of the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union now untenable? He said that he would resign if the former Deputy Prime Minister was forced out.
Have you received any indication, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the former Deputy Prime Minister will come to the House and correct the misleading statement that he made to us?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. That is simply not a point of order. We are dealing with serious business here, and it needs no further comment from me.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Tuesday 16th January 2018
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 16 January 2018 - (16 Jan 2018)
16:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 296 / Noes: 319 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 299 / Noes: 317 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:33 - The House divided: - Ayes: 297 / Noes: 320 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 317 / Noes: 297 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 297 / Noes: 321 - Question accordingly negatived.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 57, page 2, line 42, leave out clause 4.
This amendment is linked to NC19, which would aim to preserve, more comprehensively than the existing Clause 4, rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures derived from EU law and incorporated into domestic law via the European Communities Act 1972.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 4, in clause 5, page 3, line 23, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
“(4) Notwithstanding subsection (5), the Charter of Fundamental Rights continues to apply to retained EU law after exit day save as set out in subsections (5) and (5A) below and all references in the Charter to “the law of the Union” shall be deleted and replaced with “retained EU law”.
(5) The following provisions of the Charter shall not apply after exit day—
(a) the Preamble, and
(b) Title V.
(5A) Article 47 of the Charter shall apply after exit day as if it was drafted as follows—
“Right to a fair trial
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by retained EU law are violated is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law. Everyone shall have the possibility of being advised, defended and represented.
“Legal aid shall be made available to those who lack sufficient resources insofar as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice.”
(5B) With effect from exit day EU retained law, so far as it is possible to do so, must be interpreted consistently with the Charter.
(5C) With effect from exit day decisions, judgments, advisory opinions of the Court of Justice of the European Union must be taken into account when determining cases under the Charter.
(5D) With effect from exit day in relation to the rights conferred by the Charter with respect to retained EU law—
(a) section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 shall apply and the words “a Convention right” shall be replaced by “a Charter right” and all references to “primary legislation” shall be replaced by “retained EU law”,
(b) section 5 of the Human Rights Act 1998 shall apply,
(c) section 12 of the Human Rights Act 1998 shall apply and the words “the Convention right to freedom of expression” shall be replaced by “the Charter right to freedom of expression and information”, and
(d) section 13 of the Human Rights Act 1998 shall apply and the words “the Convention right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion” shall be replaced by “the Charter right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”.
(5E) With effect from exit day, any derogation or reservation made under sections 14 or 15 of the Human Rights Act 1998 shall apply to rights under the Charter in the same manner as they apply to Convention rights.
(5F) With effect from exit day sections 16 or 17 of the Human Rights Act 1998 shall apply to rights under the Charter in the same manner as they apply to Convention rights.”
This amendment would retain the Charter Rights in UK law and afford them the same level as protection as the rights in the Human Rights Act.
Amendment 7, page 3, line 23, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
This amendment would allow the Charter of Fundamental Rights to continue to apply domestically in the interpretation and application of retained EU law.
Amendment 42, in clause 6, page 3, line 36, at end insert
“other than a matter referred to in paragraph 38 of the joint report from the negotiators of the European Union and the United Kingdom Government on progress during phase 1 of the negotiations under Article 50 TEU on the United Kingdom’s orderly withdrawal from the European Union dated 8 December 2017.”
This amendment would ensure that UK Courts and Tribunals can refer matters to the CJEU as agreed between the EU/UK negotiators in December 2017.
Amendment 55, page 3, line 36, at end insert—
“(1A) So far as it is possible to do so, retained EU law must be read and given effect in a way which allows it to operate effectively.”
This amendment (linked with Amendment 56) borrows language from the Human Rights Act 1998 to require courts and tribunals to interpret retained EU law, so far as possible, in order to overcome deficiencies in the operation of retained EU law which have not been dealt with using powers under clause 7.
Amendment 43, page 3, line 37, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) A court or tribunal may regard the decisions of the European Court made on or after exit day to be persuasive”
This amendment enables UK Courts and Tribunals to consider the decisions of the European Court to be persuasive.
New clause 7—EU Protocol on animal sentience—
“The obligation on Ministers of the Crown and the devolved administrations to pay regard to the welfare requirements of animals as sentient beings when formulating law and policy, contained within the EU Protocol on animal sentience as set out in Article 13 of Title II of the Lisbon Treaty, shall be recognised and available in domestic law on and after exit day.”
This new clause transfers the EU Protocol on animal sentience set out in Article 13 of Title II of the 2009 Lisbon Treaty into UK law, so that the obligation on the Government and the devolved administrations to pay due regard to the welfare requirements of animals as sentient beings when formulating law and policy is not lost when the UK leaves the EU.
New clause 9—Saving of acquired rights: Anguilla—
“(1) Nothing in this Act is to be construed as removing, replacing, altering or prejudicing the exercise of an acquired right.
(2) Any power, howsoever expressed, contained in this Act may not be exercised if the exercise of that power is likely to or will remove, replace or alter or prejudice the exercise of an acquired right.
(3) In subsection (2) a reference to a power includes a power to make regulations.
(4) In this section an acquired right means a right that existed immediately before exit day—
(a) whereby a person from or established in Anguilla could exercise that right (either absolutely or subject to any qualification) in the United Kingdom; and
(b) whereby the right arose in the context of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union and Anguilla’s status as a territory for whose external relations the United Kingdom is responsible.
(5) Nothing in this section prevents the use of the powers conferred by this Act to the extent that acquired rights are not altered or otherwise affected to the detriment of persons enjoying such rights.”
The intention of this new clause is to mitigate the impact of Brexit on the British territory of Anguilla which is dependent on frictionless movement between Anguilla and adjacent French and Dutch possessions of St Martin/Sint Maarten that are EU territories.
New clause 13—Classification of retained EU law (No. 2)—
“(1) Any retained EU law that was a legislative act or implements a legislative act enacted under Article 289 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is deemed to be primary legislation on or after exit day.
(2) Any retained EU law that was a delegated act or implements a delegated act under Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or was an implementing act or implements an implementing act under Article 291 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is deemed to be a statutory instrument on or after exit day, unless that law is already enacted as an Act of Parliament.
(3) Any change to the preceding characterisation shall be by regulation which may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would provide greater legal certainty by classifying retained EU law as either primary or secondary legislation.
New clause 16—Consequences of leaving the European Union: equality—
“(1) This section comes into force when this Act is passed.
(2) The purpose of this section is to ensure that the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union does not diminish protection for equality in the law of the United Kingdom.
(3) All individuals are equal before the law and have the right to the equal protection and benefit of the law.
(4) All individuals have a right not to be discriminated against by any public authority on any grounds including sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation.
(5) The following provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 apply in relation to the rights conferred by subsections (3) and (4) as they apply in relation to Convention rights within the meaning of that Act—
(a) section 3 (interpretation of legislation);
(b) section 4 (declaration of incompatibility);
(c) section 5 (right of Crown to intervene);
(d) section 6 (acts of public authorities);
(e) section 7 (proceedings);
(f) section 8 (judicial remedies);
(g) section 9 (judicial acts);
(h) section 10 (power to take remedial action);
(i) section 11 (safeguard for existing human rights); and
(j) section 19 (statements of compatibility).
(6) A court or tribunal must have regard to any relevant decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in considering—
(a) the application of this section generally, and
(b) in particular, the meaning of discrimination for the purposes of this section.”
This new clause would ensure that the rights of equality presently enjoyed in accordance with EU law are enshrined in free-standing domestic law after the UK leaves the EU.
New clause 19—Saving for rights etc. under section 2(1) of the ECA (No. 2)—
“(1) Any rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures which, immediately before exit day are part of domestic law by virtue of section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972 continue on and after exit day to be recognised and available in domestic law (and to be enforced, allowed and followed accordingly).
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any rights, powers, liabilities, obligations restrictions, remedies or procedures so far as they form part of domestic law by virtue of section 3
(3) Where, following the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU, retained EU law incorrectly or incompletely gives effect to any rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies or procedures created or required by EU law in force immediately before exit day, a Minister of the Crown shall make regulations for the purpose of giving effect to such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures.
(4) This section is subject to section 5 and Schedule 1 (exceptions to savings and incorporation).”
This new clause is linked to Amendment 57 to leave out Clause 4 and aims to preserve, more comprehensively than the existing clause 4, rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures derived from EU law and incorporated into domestic law via the European Communities Act 1972. Where such rights are incorrectly or incompletely transferred, it imposes a duty to make regulations to remedy the deficiency.
Amendment 40, in schedule 8, page 54, line 6, at end insert
“to which subsection (2) of section (Classification of retained EU law (Amendment2)) applies.”
This amendment is consequential on NC13.
Amendment 41, page 54, line 44, at end insert
“to which subsection (2) of section (Classification of retained EU law (Amendment2)) applies.”
This amendment is consequential on NC13.
Government amendments 37 and 38.
Kerry McCarthy
Amendment 57, which would leave out clause 4, is linked to new clauses 19 and 21. Many of the amendments I tabled in Committee have been proposed by Greener UK, a coalition of many environmental organisations that are concerned about the possible impact of Brexit on environmental protections. They see it as one of the biggest threats: I know other people see it as an opportunity, especially when it comes to rejigging how we subsidise agriculture once we leave the common agricultural policy. The concern is what protections would remain, given the importance of our membership of the EU for everything from cleaning up water pollution and protecting biodiversity to improving recycling and reducing waste. It is hard to believe that we used to allow untreated sewage to flow into our seas before the EU’s bathing water directive forced the UK Government to make our bathing waters fit for swimming and to test for bacteria such as E. coli. In 1990, only 27% of our bathing waters met minimum mandatory standards; by 2014, 99% complied.
When the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs gave evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee’s inquiry on the natural environment after the EU referendum, she told the Committee that approximately a third of the more than 800 pieces of EU environmental legislation will be difficult to transpose into UK law. The Committee also identified a considerable governance gap, which the Government have acknowledged, and I support new clause 18, which would enshrine what the Government have said they want in relation to carrying over environmental principles and establishing a new environmental regulatory body.
My amendment addresses the substantial flaws, gaps and democratic deficit in the Bill that were not addressed in Committee, in particular to fully transpose current EU environmental legislation in all areas effectively into UK law to avoid any weakening or loss of existing environmental protection during Brexit. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been encouraging in saying that:
“We must not only maintain but enhance environmental standards as we leave the EU. And that means making sure we secure the environmental gains we have made while in the EU even as we use our new independence to aim even higher”.
Opposition Members share the same aspirations and visions, but we cannot just take his word for it. We need those promises written into the Bill and concrete measures to deliver on those aspirations. This has to last longer than he is in post.
Amendment 57 would leave out clause 4, with a view to replacing it with new clause 19 which would preserve—more comprehensively than clause 4—rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures derived from EU law. The new clause seeks only to properly realise the Government’s stated ambition for the Bill—they have repeatedly assured us of this during the process—that the same rules and laws will apply after we leave the EU as before.
In their White Paper, the Government sought to reassure us that this Bill will mean that
“the whole body of existing EU environmental law continues to have effect in UK law”.
The Prime Minister has promised:
“The same rules and laws will apply on the day after exit as on the day before”,
but that is simply not the case. As drafted, the Bill will not properly capture and convert all EU environmental law into stand-alone domestic law.
Clause 4 appears to deal with full transposition. In Committee, the then Minister of State for Courts and Justice described it as a sweeper provision that
“picks up the other obligations, rights and remedies that would currently have the force of UK law under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972.”—[Official Report, 15 November 2017; Vol. 631, c. 498.]
But it fails to do its sweeping properly, because some inexplicable and unnecessary restrictions in clause 4(l)(b) and (2)(b) mean that important aspects of environmental law will be lost. Those exceptions include rights that have not been recognised by a court before exit day. Effectively, the basic rights that everyone accepts but that have not been litigated on are at risk. Those rights have been hardwired into EU law and do not need enforcing, but once we no longer have the safety net of the EU, they could fall.
The Government’s defence of the limitations in these subsections in Committee was far from convincing. The Minister essentially argued that they were necessary because directives do not produce directly effective rights until they have been recognised as such by courts. However, if a provision in legislation creates directly effective law, it does not need a court to confirm that that is the case. If a piece of legislation creates a legal position, it does not need a judge to verify that that is the case. In fact, the Government have often not transposed certain provisions of directives on the basis that they function adequately directly from the directives without any need to transpose them into national law. That clearly demonstrates that there are parts of directives that currently form part of UK law that will be removed by subsection (2)(b).
Clause 4 does not adequately engage with failures to properly transpose EU law. An obligation should be placed on the Government to remedy incorrect and incomplete transposition. The powers to do so are contained in clause 7(2)(f), but there is a significant difference between a power to do something and a duty to use that power.
To summarise, amendment 57, in getting rid of clause 4 and replacing the linked new clause 19, seeks to rectify those errors. New clause 19 is simpler and more comprehensive than the existing clause 4. It would ensure that rights arising under EU directives are preserved and that a mechanism is in place after exit day to deal with problems arising from the incomplete or incorrect transposition of EU law before exit day.
If clause 4 is not amended, we could lose vital EU law provisions, including requirements to review and report on the adequacy and implementation of laws that are crucial to ensure the law is complied with and up to date. That includes the requirements contained in article 20 of the marine strategy framework directive, article 17 of the habitats directive and article 32 of the air quality directive. Without reported data under the latter, ClientEarth would not have been able to hold the Government to account through the courts on air pollution.
We will also lose obligations on the Government to report and send information to the European Commission, which is then able to aggregate it and use it for considering the appropriateness of laws and their implementation. On day 6 in Committee, I gave an example of how losing reporting requirements under article 10 of the birds directive could, for example, present a barrier to future investment in, and the roll-out of, marine renewable energy and other developments. The Government still have not said whether they intend these reporting requirements to disappear.
Without amendment, we will also see a loss of environmental standards and conditions. Some obligations on member states have not been transposed into UK law, such as article 9 of the water framework directive, which requires water pricing policies to provide adequate incentives for users to use water efficiently, or article 5 of the energy efficiency directive on energy performance requirements for publicly owned buildings. We have been promised a green Brexit, and we are told that leaving the EU will not threaten the health of people or nature, so why is there opposition to amending the Bill to make those promises legally binding?
Let me turn briefly to the other new clause tabled in my name. New clause 21 would ensure oversight of the transfer of functions from EU institutions to domestic institutions. It would do that by requiring the Government to establish a publicly accessible register of environmental governance functions and powers exercised by EU institutions and to make regulations that ensure that all relevant environmental powers and functions are continued. The register would allow the public to monitor and hold the Government to account on their plans for robust arrangements to be in place on exit day to deliver their ambition for a world-leading environmental justice system. The new clause also reflects strong public concern that the environmental governance gap that would arise on leaving the EU is filled as quickly as possible.
To conclude, I am simply saying that if the Government want the Bill to match their stated intentions, they need to accept these provisions.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) in respect of her provisions and to have the opportunity this afternoon to talk about the schedule of amendments in front of us, which we have to consider as a block between now and 4 pm.
The hon. Lady’s concern is about the fate of environmental law, as provided to us by the EU, once we leave, and about what provision we will make to provide it with adequate protection. However, the whole list of amendments, including those tabled by the official Opposition, goes to the issue of what happens to areas of entrenched law that have developed during our EU membership after we have gone. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench keep on repeating insistently that it is not the intention, as a result of our removal from the EU, that any of these protections should be diminished in any way at all.
It is true that one or two of my right hon. and hon. Friends have made hinting noises at various times that there are areas that they might like to alter in future, in a way that suggests a possible diminution, but in fairness to the Government, that has never been the Government’s position. Indeed, as we have spent time looking at issues such as equality law or children’s rights, the message has come back over and again that the disappearance of the charter of fundamental rights or environmental law issues, for example, will not be used as an excuse for diminishing the existing legal framework.
The difficulty—it is the one that exercised me in Committee—is that it is all very well Ministers coming to the House and making very pleasant statements that that is what they intend to do, but it must be the responsibility of this House to ask the Government how, in practice, that is to be done, when such a powerful mechanism as our EU membership is about to be removed.
That raises a second and more fundamental problem, where I have considerable sympathy with the Government. I understand why, for many in this House—I think that I count myself as one of them, as a good Conservative—the idea of entrenched rights that override the sovereign power of Parliament is something with which we are not comfortable. Indeed, the official Opposition, when in government post-1997 and when seeking to enact the Human Rights Act 1998, recognised that, in that they did not seek to provide entrenched laws; they sought to provide a mechanism through the Human Rights Act whereby rights under the European convention on human rights might be protected in a special way through declarations of incompatibility. That was not sufficient to override primary legislation of this House, but, of course, it did provide a mechanism by which it could be overridden and struck down in the case of secondary legislation. That has always been a way of doing things that has commended itself to me.
I have always accepted that one of the consequences and problems of EU membership is that it has provided entrenched laws that ultimately override by virtue of our international obligations and the direct effect of the European Court of Justice. So I can understand that there should be reluctance on the Government side of the House, as we leave the EU, to simply take this category of laws and say that we are going to give it a special status that overrides the ordinary way in which this House does its business.
If we do that, however, it raises the question of what the Government propose to do to provide, for example, at least as much protection for these categories of rights as is currently enjoyed under the Human Rights Act. One possibility—we canvassed it in Committee—was that the Government might wish to enact primary legislation to add clauses to the Human Rights Act to provide such a mechanism. Indeed, if the Government were to come up with such a proposal, I would be enthusiastic about it, and it is a matter to which we have to give careful consideration.
I am also aware that some of the rights provided in the charter, for example, clearly pertain to EU citizenship, so they are irrelevant to this country once we leave. I also accept that some of the rights may be said to have a socioeconomic aspect, which makes it debatable whether they should be categorised as rights at all. However, that still leaves a very big area indeed of matters that, as I understand it from listening to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench, Ministers acknowledge are of such importance that they are now seen as being equivalent to rights, yet they do not enjoy the protection of the convention.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the best guarantee of the fundamental rights of the British people is the will of the British people as expressed through the Parliaments they elect? That is the system I thought we all believed in. I know of no threats to these important rights coming from this Parliament. There are not people proposing that they are watered down, and there would be no majority to do so. The guarantee to the British people is that their Parliament will look after their rights.
Mr Grieve
May I gently say to my right hon. Friend that if his analysis were accurate, no statute would ever have been enacted by Parliament, at any stage in its history, providing additional protections to people’s rights over and above the common law? That must be the end point, because the whole point about the Human Rights Act was that it added to protections enjoyed under the common law and did so in a way that was compatible with this House’s sovereignty. All I am saying to Ministers is that given that, for 40 years-plus, we have been involved in an international organisation that in practice has entrenched certain rights, it must now be for Ministers to come forward with a sensible proposal as to how those rights, in so far as the Government consider that they are in fact rights, will be protected in the future.
I am afraid that I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). Nice as it is to rely upon the Executive’s good will, 21 years in this House—heaven knows, my right hon. Friend has been here far longer—persuades me that that good will is not something that we should always rely on. I am afraid that I have seen a number of instances—particularly when I was in opposition, I might add—where it did not seem very wise to do so.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) that in the end, because we are a sovereign Parliament, we are the only guarantor of our people’s rights. However, I am interested in what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) is saying about this matter, because the other danger that is lurking here is the fact that our courts may well decide that they have an obligation to maintain EU law even in the face of an Act of Parliament, and might strike down an Act of Parliament because, from reading the Bill, they see it as their obligation to retain certain principles of EU law. I like the declaration of incompatibility that my right hon. and learned Friend is suggesting as a very suitable compromise that enshrines what we have.
Mr Speaker
Order. This, if I may say so to the hon. Gentleman, is a mini-speech, with more emphasis on the speech than on the mini.
Mr Grieve
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
My hon. Friend makes a perfectly good point, which reinforces my impression that it is inadequate simply to say, “Because we are leaving we shall leave this to a later date.” I will return to that later.
We did actually, Mr Speaker, talk about this at some length in Committee. In Committee, as hon. Members may recall, I emphasised that one way out of this difficulty might be to move away from the charter and look at the general principles of EU law. We could allow them to continue to be invoked, in respect of retained EU law, which would include issues such as the laws which we have under the charter, until they were replaced. That seemed to me to be a stopgap. I emphasise that I put it forward as a stopgap—not as a long-term solution, but as a way of getting the Government off the hook of having to accept any part of the charter, because I know that one or two of my hon. Friends choke when they even mention that word. I have never shared that view—I think they should actually go and read the charter, because then they would realise it is rather a reasonable document. My suggestion provided a way forward, and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General very kindly said that he would go away and give the matter some thought, the consequence of which was Government amendments 37 and 38.
I am sorry to start this Report stage with a bit of carping, because later I shall say some very nice things about the response of my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench to some of the representations that I made to them in Committee. Some very good things indeed have been done, for which I am grateful—I will talk about those when we come to the right point—but I think that the response on this matter is, frankly, rather paltry. They have provided a mechanism by which for three months—the period in which it is possible to carry out judicial review—after the exit date it will be possible to invoke these rights, but not in a way that challenges any primary legislation. It is a minuscule change, but minuscule though it may be, it is actually a little wedge in the door, because it represents quite a major surrender or change of principle on the part of the Government towards this issue, and to that extent I am delighted to welcome it. Nevertheless, as I think the Solicitor General knows very well, the proposal is not what I was asking for. The problem is that although it starts to remedy the situation, it does not go anything like far enough, particularly when it is not linked to a wider statement from the Government about how they want to go ahead and deal with this.
I had to make a decision about whether to table a further amendment to put to the House on Report. Having rebelled—there is no other way to describe it— against the Government, because that was what I undoubtedly did on clause 9, and indeed incited some of my colleagues to join me in doing so, because I thought that clause 9 was so deficient, it is not my desire to cause further stir, in the harmonious atmosphere of early January, by doing that again if I can possibly avoid it. It crossed my mind that two things appeared to me to militate against doing it. The first is this.
I have to say to the Solicitor General that I do not think that the Bill will pass through the upper House without this issue being considered. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Brexit takes place; it has to do with the state of certainty of law in this country, which is a matter to which plenty in the other place are capable of applying their minds. I very much hope that when the Bill goes to the Lords, they will look at the amendment that the Government have tabled and understand its spirit—it is well-intentioned, so I must welcome it—but perhaps decide that it might be capable of a little bit of development. Or, indeed, they may apply their legal minds to this matter and come up with an alternative that does respect—I want to emphasise this—some of the reasons, which I understand, why the Government do not wish to entrench these laws after we have gone.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a point that gets to the heart of the purpose of the Bill, as stated by the Government: this is a technical transfer exercise—it is technically transferring the acquis communautaire into British law to facilitate Brexit. Does not the decision not to transpose the charter of fundamental rights make a mockery of that claim? Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making very valid points about some of the technical alternatives, do we not need to keep returning the Government to their stated fundamental purpose in the Bill?
Mr Grieve
The hon. Gentleman makes a totally legitimate point, especially as the Government themselves have emphasised how important these issues are to them. We are not turning the clock back to the 1950s—at least, I do not think we are—since when this country has moved on in respect of rights. The challenge to Ministers is that they have to come up with some solution to the problem. As I said, I do not want to put spanners in the works of how they do it.
Another factor influenced my decision not to table another amendment and divide the House on this matter. Realistically, although I realise that some may not like this, in leaving the European Union, we are about to embark on a lengthy period of transitional arrangements during which, in my view—I might be wrong—every jot and tittle of EU law will continue to apply to this country in every conceivable respect, except that we will no longer share in its making in the institutions of the European Union. I am afraid that I think that is where we are going; the alternative, of course, is that we are jumping off the cliff.
If that is where we are going, I accept that there is a little more time for the Government to start to reflect on how they will deal with issues of entrenched law before anybody’s remedy disappears. That is something else that influences me in not wishing to divide my own party or the House. I am always aware that quiet persuasion may be better than speeches from the Back Benches, and for those reasons, a bit more quiet persuasion might get us to where we need to be on this issue, but it will not go away.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend says that he does not wish to divide the House. However, if he had tabled an amendment and divided the House, and then that vote had been lost, it would have sent a powerful message to their lordships not to mess with the Bill and that the will of the House had been firmly expressed. There would have been an advantage in his position, if he had maintained it.
Mr Grieve
There might have been, but as a loyal member of the Conservative party over many years, I have always been of the opinion that the best way to try to influence one’s party’s policy is in the quietest way possible. As this issue has the merit of being able to succeed in that way, I shall stick to my strategy. Of course, if and when I think it necessary for me to do something else, I could, very reluctantly, be forced to do so. On this matter, however, I prefer to leave it.
I turn to a related matter about which I did table an amendment, which I do not wish to press to a vote. It goes to the other issues about the certainty of retained EU law. There is an inevitable internal incoherence about how retained EU law is being handled in the Bill. In reality, retained EU law has a primary quality, because in all likelihood most of it is supreme over our own laws. Oddly enough, that situation is going, at least in part, to be retained, but the Government have dealt with that by allowing it all to be altered through statutory instruments.
In Committee, we tried to find a way out—I tried quite hard. That is why I have tabled new clause 13, which provides a way of identifying what EU legislation is in reality primary and what is secondary. I thought that the House might be interested—if it is not, the other place might be—in how one might go about making that separation, which would then provide a sensible measure of greater certainty. At the moment, the Government’s proposal, as I understand it, is that each measure will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. That seems a rather extraordinary way in which to proceed.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
As ever, it is a genuine privilege to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), whose integrity and honesty have shone through every day we have been debating this Bill.
Mr Speaker
Order. Forgive me. Before the hon. Gentleman gets under way—I think the Minister is keen to follow—I want to say that a number of Back Benchers wish to contribute. I am very keen that they be fully heard; I do not want the debate to be dominated by the Front Benchers, who I am sure will make succinct contributions.
Paul Blomfield
I will seek to live up to that expectation, Mr Speaker; I do not intend to speak for long.
Amendment 4 addresses one of the six key tests that we set out for the Bill before we could support it. Those tests were not set out simply on Second Reading or in Committee, but 10 months ago, when the White Paper outlining the Government’s approach was first published.
The tests drew support across the House, but sadly the Government have made no significant concessions. In Committee, a meaningful vote for Parliament on the final deal was secured, of course—but against the wishes of the Government and only by decision of the House. Our five amendments at this stage address those other tests: facilitating a transitional period; protecting the devolution settlement; protecting workers’ rights; reining in the Henry VIII powers; and, in amendment 4, retaining the EU charter of fundamental rights in UK law.
The objective of amendment 4, which would retain charter rights in UK law and afford them the same level of protection as those in the Human Rights Act, has wide support on both sides of the House. It is part of a sensible and responsible approach to Brexit that respects the referendum decision but does not sacrifice jobs and the economy or rights and protections on the altar of ideology. It is a sensible approach for which I believe there is a majority across the House—one that goes well beyond those who voted for amendment 7 in Committee. It is also a consensus that I think is reflected in the other place, from which I suspect we might see the Bill return with some improvements, as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield indicated.
The Opposition support amendments 42 and 43, which would enable UK courts to continue to refer matters to the Court of Justice and to consider CJEU decision to be persuasive. As well as amendment 55, we also support new clause 13, amendments 40 and 41, on clarifying the status of retained law, and new clause 16 on enshrining equality rights, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous). We also support new clause 7 on animal sentience and new clause 9 on the acquired rights of Anguillans—an indication of the enormous complexity and range of the issues we face with Brexit. We accept that Government amendments 37 and 38 improve the Bill, but we fear that they do not go anywhere near far enough on legal challenges based on the general principles of EU law, which is why we prefer and support amendment 57, which was moved so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy).
Amendment 4 addresses the concerns we raised in Committee around the charter of fundamental rights and provides an opportunity for the Government to think again. Human rights should not be a dividing line between parties in this House, so even at this stage we hope that the Government, either here or in the Lords, might accept our approach in the amendment and perhaps even accept the amendment today and avoid the vote that we will otherwise be seeking. As we said in Committee, the charter has been critical in developing, strengthening and modernising human rights in the UK. To abandon it risks reducing protections for UK citizens and leaving a gaping hole in our statute book.
The Government claim that the Bill is about legal continuity and certainty in what will become the new category of EU retained law, but all of that EU law is interpreted through the charter, so excluding it would leave our legal system inconsistent and incoherent. To avoid defeat on this issue in Committee the former Justice Minister, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), committed to publishing a memorandum that he claimed would confirm the Government’s case that the charter was unnecessary by identifying where all of these rights could be found in EU retained law or existing domestic law.
Obviously that argument overlooked the main point of the charter, which was to bring all of these rights together in one codifying document, but as an Opposition we were willing to be helpful and awaited the memorandum with interest. We wanted to see a comprehensive document that identified not only the source of each right in the charter but—crucially—how the existing level of effective recourse would be guaranteed. The memorandum was published on 5 December, and it acknowledged that the Government envisaged all these rights being scattered back to their original sources. They are removing the material source of the rights, in the form of the charter, and leaving citizens with the formal source. Now that is a legal way of describing the problem, but I am not a lawyer. It means in effect that it will become more difficult for any UK citizen to assert their rights post-Brexit.
In their defence, the Government insisted that nothing would be lost if we dropped the charter because it created no new rights.
Paul Blomfield
I see the Solicitor General nodding. On this crucial issue, however, the Government’s cover has been blown. For this, I would like to thank the new Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) —I am sorry she is not in her place today—because in an article in The Daily Telegraph on 18 November last year she made our case clearly. She expressed her concern about the charter precisely because it provided new rights. She wrote that it went beyond the European convention on human rights by creating “extra layers of rights”, and she went on to bemoan the fact that these extra rights covered
“everything from biomedicine and eugenics to personal data and collective bargaining”.
I appreciate that her thinking on this will probably be in line with that of her new boss, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, because he relied of course on the extra rights provided by the charter when he brought his own court case against the now Prime Minister asserting his right to personal data.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. In addition to the points he has just made, the Exiting the European Union Committee heard evidence from witnesses who said that something would be lost if the charter was not transferred. Given that the whole purpose of the Bill is to take the law as it is now and make sure it is still there the day after, does he agree that the Government have thus far failed to persuade the House that the one thing that should be left out is the charter of fundamental rights?
Paul Blomfield
I agree absolutely with my right hon. Friend, and I hope even at this stage that Members across the House might join us in supporting amendment 4.
I do not often agree with the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Fareham, but I am delighted to say that in this case I do. She is right that the charter does indeed go beyond the European convention on human rights and that EU retained law will be incoherent without it. Our amendment is necessary, therefore, if we are to achieve the Government’s own stated objective of protecting the rights of UK citizens. This is a crucial issue. The chair of the Government’s own Equality and Human Rights Commission, David Isaac, has said:
“The government has promised there will be no rowing back on people’s rights after Brexit. If we lose the charter protections, that promise will be broken. It will cause legal confusion and there will be gaps in the law.”
These are serious concerns. Human rights should not be a dividing line across the House but should be seen as a British value, and I urge all Members who do not want Brexit hijacked and the rights of UK citizens diluted and reduced to support the amendment.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to speak briefly to several of the amendments in this group. In particular, I want to encourage the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) to elaborate on his rather carefully crafted new clause 13, which sets out quite a clever solution to the vexed question of EU retained law. He slightly rushed through his explanation of the new clause towards the end of his speech, but as I understand it, he is suggesting that, rather than treating as a new category of law the whole corpus of 40 years of accrued EU legislation, rights and duties that we all enjoy—or not, depending on how they apply—for the purposes of future amendment or reform of those rights and retained law, certain aspects should be treated as primary legislation and others as secondary legislation.
I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman was saying that issues that fell under article 289 should be treated as primary legislation because they were of greater import, and that if we wanted to amend them again in the future we should do so by Act of Parliament, whereas aspects of retained EU law that related to delegated instruments under article 290 should be treated as secondary legislation, and if there were future reforms of those aspects, Parliament could use the secondary procedure. It would be most helpful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could give us a little more detail about why he felt that those were the right categories to pursue.
Mr Grieve
I am certainly not going to make a mini-speech; I said what I felt was sufficient. I offer the new clause not as a perfect solution, but as an alternative to what I consider to be the rather incoherent approach that the Government have adopted. The new clause seemed to me to have some merit, especially because it includes a provision allowing the status of retained EU law to be altered by statutory instrument, so the House could be done with the process quite quickly. I thought that it was a way of trying to resolve what I saw as a practical problem. Let me emphasise that it was not intended to be a weapon with which to beat Ministers on the head. I saw it merely as a sensible way of trying to take things forward, and I present it to the Committee in that spirit. It is not perfect, but represents another way in which we might approach the issue.
Mr Leslie
This may seem a dry and technical question, but from time to time Parliament does reflect on the nature of legislation that has been passed. We all assume that it has been accrued through Acts of Parliament or through secondary legislation, but we are now importing a third category, that of retained EU law, into our legal context, and we need to know how to treat it in the future. I do not think that the Government have addressed that question adequately, which is why I think that new clause 13 is of particular interest.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
One of the perplexing aspects of Brexit is the lack of certainty. Many external advisers have come to see us, both in our capacity as constituency MPs and as people who are concerned about the economy and the legal picture and who are asking for certainty. The new clause would assist that process.
Mr Leslie
These issues are very much to do with legal clarity. They are to do with ensuring that the body of our law can operate smoothly and with stability, and that the courts can properly interpret the way in which various rights will apply in the circumstances that our individual constituents may encounter.
You were not in the Chair during the Committee stage, Mr Speaker, but you may recall that we had some discussion about aspects of the charter of fundamental rights. Amendment 4, and amendment 7 tabled by members of the Scottish National party, makes the important point that, as we heard earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), this is not a simple “copy and paste” piece of legislation. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn): it seems very peculiar that the charter has been explicitly excluded from the carrying forward of rights. Ministers say, “Do not worry: all those matters are already covered”, or “Common law can deal with them adequately”, but I do not think that such verbal assurances are good enough, and evidence given to the Exiting the European Union Committee bears that out.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)
I read what the report said about the issue of the charter of fundamental rights, and I must say that I thought it very inconclusive. I do not think that the Committee took a strong position on either side of the debate.
Mr Leslie
The Select Committee consists of Members in all parts of the House. Far be it from me to interfere with the way in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central manages—heaven knows how—to steer through a report compiled by a Committee that is not only august but enormous. Evidence was submitted, however, and I do not think that it can be swept away.
Let me remind the Committee what we are talking about when we refer to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. We are talking about rights that relate to
“dignity, the right to life, to freedom from torture, slavery, the death penalty, eugenic practices and human cloning”.
We are talking about
“freedoms, the right to liberty, personal integrity, privacy, protection of personal data”—
which will be a massive issue when it arises later in our proceedings—
“marriage, thought, religion, expression, assembly, education, work, property and asylum”.
We are talking about
“equality, the right to equality before the law, prohibition of all discrimination including on the basis of disability, age and sexual orientation, cultural, religious and linguistic diversity, the rights of children and the elderly”.
Again, some of those rights are not necessarily enshrined in primary legislation, but have accrued because of our membership of the European Union over several decades. We are talking about
“solidarity, the right to fair working conditions, protection against unjustified dismissal, and access to health care, social and housing assistance…citizens’ rights, the rights of citizens such as the right to vote in elections and to move freely, the right to good administration, to access documents and to petition Parliament”.
We are also talking about justiciable rights:
“the right to an effective remedy, a fair trial, to the presumption of innocence, the principle of legality, non-retrospectivity and double jeopardy.”
We can all point to parts of existing UK law where many of those rights may be covered adequately, but other rights—particularly those relating to children and families and to social policy—are connected very much with EU law.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
The catalogue of rights that the hon. Gentleman has just read out is impressive, without a shadow of a doubt. Will he concede, however, that throughout the glorious history of this place, Governments of all political persuasions have enshrined, in primary legislation and elsewhere, rights that include almost all of those? Indeed, in continental Europe, when many of those rights were being stripped down and attacked, this place had a fantastic track record of defending them both in the UK and in other parts of the world, spilling the blood of our young people in order to do so. How on earth can the hon. Gentleman think that we would strip them away?
Mr Leslie
No one is more proud of being a member of this fine body than I am. Parliament is a great institution: I would say that it is one of the greatest democratic institutions in the world. We are perfectly capable of dealing with many of these issues, but the hon. Gentleman unwittingly went against his own argument when he said “almost” all the rights in the charter were covered or duplicated in primary legislation. Not all of them are covered, as was made clear in some of the evidence that the Select Committee heard.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Is there not a fundamental inconsistency here? The Government’s reason for not including the charter is that those rights are covered in domestic law, so it would not add anything, but they propose to include thousands of other directives and rules, many of which we would also be unlikely to change in domestic law. The very same argument could be applied to those thousands of other rules that the Bill goes out of its way to incorporate. The Government say, “We do not want to change the labour laws; we do not want to change the environmental rules; we do not want to change the consumer rights.” However, they apply a different logic to the charter. Why does my hon. Friend think that is?
Mr Leslie
The logic of the Government is a mystery sometimes, and I wonder whether the Solicitor General actually secretly agrees that these are important rights that need to be defended and that the Government have got themselves into a bit of a pickle, possibly because they drafted this Bill before the general election and therefore before they saw some of the consequences of these things.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
Those of us who are gay, who went to school in the 1980s and who remember very well the impact of section 28 might baulk at the idea that every Government have given rights and not taken them away. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a fundamental reason why we need to share and stay within the European Union and the fundamental rights system it provides?
Mr Leslie
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That right of protection for freedoms and liberties on the grounds of sexual orientation is enshrined in the charter of fundamental rights. One of the examples given was civil partnerships where in the future pension rights might be divided but at the time when the partnerships took place certain UK laws were not in place; the charter provides protections against discrimination in a way that existing UK law does not.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making a strong point and I strongly support what he is saying and Labour Front-Bench amendment 4. I accept that many Conservative Members would strongly defend the rights in the charter and other provisions we have agreed to, but does my hon. Friend agree that the public have reason to be deeply suspicious, because they hear many Conservative Members talk about a race to the bottom in regulation, particularly in employment rights, and about wanting to scrap the Human Rights Act and pull us out of the European convention on human rights? That is why keeping such rights is so crucial.
Mr Leslie
That is right, and my hon. Friend will also remember that, before becoming Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) cited many of the rights in the charter in his own legal case against the then Home Secretary, who is now the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman took a case against her and cited many of the provisions in the charter; how strange it is that he now introduces a Bill that does not necessarily carry forward those provisions.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that the issue at hand is not whether those of us in this Chamber now might want to change the rights and protections we currently have, but the process by which those laws and rights could be changed and the ease and lack of accountability and transparency that could put them at risk in future?
Mr Leslie
I can certainly imagine cases where our constituents, feeling the need to assert some of those rights in the charter in future, find themselves falling foul of the provision in clause 5 that says, all of a sudden, that the charter of fundamental rights is not part of domestic law on or after exit day. They enjoyed those rights hitherto; where would that situation leave them?
The Government, when being sued by the tobacco companies which did not like plain packaging and thought it was against their rights of expression, cited the right to public health in the charter of fundamental rights and managed to defeat those tobacco companies. The charter of fundamental rights proved important not just for our constituents, but for the Government themselves in upholding what was a good piece of public policy at the time.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I think I played a small part in that, and the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Does he agree that all political parties are very keen to appeal to younger voters and that things such as rights really matter to young people, so it could be seen as somewhat ironic that a party that wants to get more young people to vote for it seems to be turning its back on provision for these very important rights?
Mr Leslie
I am sure that advice will have been heard in senior quarters. Indeed a vice-chair of the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), is sitting on the row in front of the right hon. Lady. He is a very senior and eminent individual now, who has great responsibility for digging the Conservative party out of quite a deep hole.
James Cleverly
I am not trying to scrape over the point I made earlier, but I am very proud of the history of this place in enacting and protecting rights whether they are in primary legislation or not. The implication of what the hon. Gentleman is saying is that, upon our departure from the EU, unless we bind the hands of Governments of the future in some way, we can no longer trust this place to enhance and protect human rights. Can he reassure me that in no way is he implying that this place will in any way in the foreseeable future row back from its commitment to extending human rights?
Mr Leslie
Who knows what will happen in terms of future majorities in this place. The hon. Gentleman is still not explaining to me why this issue of all the issues should not be carried forward into legislation. He says he is in favour of almost all or all, of the rights in the charter, but we know there are examples where problems arise.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
The Government boast about their protection of human rights, and of course they sign up to UN conventions on the protection of rights of women and children, but they do not then incorporate those rights into our domestic legislation, and because we have a dualist system in terms of international law the rights in UN conventions are not directly applicable in the UK. That is why it is so important that we retain the charter of fundamental rights, and that the Government give a commitment today that they will do so.
Mr Leslie
The hon. Lady’s legal experience speaks volumes about the issue. Simply explaining that one is in favour of these rights, having Members on the Conservative Benches say “They are all really important”, saying that in leaflets and posting them through letterboxes at elections, and having Ministers at the Dispatch Box saying, “Trust us, it’s all fine” cannot provide the solid protections that our constituents need in a court of law, whereas the charter of fundamental rights can currently do that.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
They have never been in any of my leaflets. I may be in danger of repeating myself now, but when did that ever stop anyone? The reality is that I remember sitting where the hon. Gentleman is sitting now and being told from the Dispatch Box on this side of the Chamber by his party colleague the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) that the charter would never apply in the United Kingdom and indeed that it would have no more force than a copy of The Beano.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Does not the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) make our point for us? So many on the Tory Benches disregard the importance of the charter.
Mr Leslie
I am worried. The right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) was saying to her hon. Friends, “Be careful because our constituents do care about rights.” She said in particular that younger people care about rights. They really do matter. They may not matter to them in their daily lives today, but they may matter to them or their family or relatives or the environment tomorrow. Those are all things our constituents care about.
Charlie Elphicke
The hon. Gentleman has been incredibly generous in taking interventions throughout his speech. When this matter was debated at the previous stage, we had a long discussion on the charter of fundamental rights and it was clear that it divides into three sections. One section is already covered by the Human Rights Act, another section will be meaningless when we leave Europe—it includes rights such as the right to petition the European Parliament—and there is a middle section where there are rights that we should look at carefully. The right way to deal with that is through a constitutional Bill in due course to reset our own rights settlement in this country for all citizens, not just for European law.
Mr Leslie
If that were the right way, the Government would have introduced a Bill to provide such certainty, instead of saying, “Mañana. Maybe at some point in the future we will try to close this loophole.” We have the Trade Bill now, as well as the Nuclear Safeguards Bill and a customs Bill. We are supposed to have an immigration Bill at some point, although I suspect that the Government are having a few difficulties figuring out how to bring it forward. These Bills are supposed to be the fundamental underpinnings of the copy-and-paste process that the Government are pursuing. They are supposed to be taking aspects of European Union rules and regulations and ensuring that they will still be here after March 2019, but no Bill relating to the charter of fundamental rights has been brought forward.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is right about the importance of some of these rights, but may I suggest that incorporating the charter would create complete legal confusion? Under the convention, there is purely a power to make a declaration of incompatibility. Under the charter, however, UK law can actually be trumped. The extraordinary situation could arise in which, if a prohibition against slavery were breached, the courts could merely say that it was incompatible, but if there were a breach relating to data protection, UK law could be trumped. That would create confusion and chaos, which is not what we need in this country.
Mr Leslie
Personally, I believe that Parliament does and should value the provisions of the charter of fundamental human rights. I trust our legal system to be able to reconcile textual difficulties between different Acts. I would rather operate on the precautionary principle and have those rights covered within our law than see the protections that are offered to our constituents expunged at this point, only to unwittingly discover later that the rights we used to have under the charter are no longer provided for because the Government of the day did not want to transpose them.
While talking about rights, but in a completely different context, I want to talk about new clause 7, which has been tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). It relates to animal sentience and the welfare of animals—not human rights but animal rights. If there is one issue that can be guaranteed to fill all our inboxes, it is the protection of animal rights. Our constituents really do care about this issue. The Government have already got into a tremendous pickle over this, and it would have been funny if it were not so tragic to see the Secretary of State for the Environment scrabbling around trying to pretend that, all of a sudden, the Government really cared about these matters.
Brexit will affect this area quite considerably. On the International Trade Committee, we heard evidence from various animal rights organisations and others involved in the agricultural trade sector, including the National Farmers Union and those involved with what are known as the sanitary and phytosanitary regulations relating to the import and export of animal products. There is a reason that the Americans dip their chickens in chlorine, Mr Speaker. I do not know whether you have had chlorinated chicken recently. I am not that fussy myself, but perhaps we will be invited to a tasting session at the new American embassy at some point. The reason they dip their chickens in chlorine is that the welfare standards that cover their abattoirs and the way in which their animals are looked after before slaughter are far worse than ours. Before the animals reach the consumer, they need to be cleaned up in a way that is not necessary here in the UK because we have higher welfare standards, not least by virtue of our membership of the European Union. Across all the European Union, we take a precautionary principle when it comes to this kind of regulation. We do not have to dip our chickens in chlorine, because they are already subject to certain health and safety standards.
Animal welfare issues matter in relation to trade as well. I find it perplexing when Conservative Members say that our salvation will be a trade deal with President Trump and the United States. We all know that the primary goal of the United States will be to have a treaty in respect of agriculture. If we do such a deal, the Americans will want to sell us animal products that have been produced under lower welfare and regulatory standards. That will be the deal they will seek. However, if the Secretary of State for the Environment says that we are going to have exactly the same regulatory standards as we have now, he will effectively be telling the Americans that there can be no trade deal. That would be the outcome—[Interruption.] It would certainly be a very big sticking point.
Charlie Elphicke
In Dover and Ramsgate in east Kent, we have to put up with the evil and wicked trade of live animal exports, and we have to do that because of European law. We now see an opportunity to stop that evil trade, for the sake of our communities and for animal welfare, by leaving the European Union and taking back control. Does the hon. Gentleman not welcome that?
Mr Leslie
There are ways of mending, improving and reforming animal safety standards within the European Union. We should be making the case to do that. We do not want to throw away the benefits that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents enjoy, such as being free from traffic jams—not all the time but on many occasions. If Dover has to institute all the necessary sanitary and phytosanitary checking and inspections, with all the warehousing arrangements and other obstacles and regulations that will be needed at the border because we have left the European Union, his constituents will be mightily annoyed by the bureaucracy that they will encounter.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the Government had had the political will to do this, they could have ended live animal exports by now? There are already references in the EU treaties to public morals, so they could have done it if they had had the political will to do so. Also, if the Government really want to persuade us that they care as much about animal welfare as they claim to do, why on earth would they oppose the new clause? It will simply ensure that we do not have a gap when we leave the EU and before the new Bill, if it happens, comes in?
Mr Leslie
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. In relation to specific issues relating to Brexit, the Government are finding, when the rubber hits the road, not only that there are potential problems such as the one relating to an American trade deal but that an awful lot of their constituents are saying, “Hang on a minute, what exactly are you doing about animal rights issues? Where will we be when we exit from these particular provisions?”
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend knows that we do not agree on many issues relating to the EU, but we were both elected on the same glorious day in May 1997, and he will remember that our postbags then were full of campaigns to stop the export of live animals to Europe. The reason that that did not happen was not a lack of political will. The reason that the Labour Government, the coalition Government and the Conservative Government did not change the law is that it is a fundamental part of the treaty of Rome. That gives the lie to the argument that the EU can be reformed from inside. The treaty of Rome is not going to be reformed.
Mr Leslie
Treaties are reformed every time there are adaptations to them, whether it is Maastricht, Nice or Lisbon. The body of European rules and regulations is adapted and reformed all the time. It is all part of working together in co-operation. Sometimes we get our way on particular issues; sometimes we have to continue to argue our case. That is the nature of pooling some of our rules and sharing sovereignty in some respects with our wider neighbours. That is the nature of agriculture and of the environment in which we live.
Kerry McCarthy
It is an absolute fallacy to suggest that this Government have been dying to ban live animal exports and that it is only the EU that has held them back. I think it was Germany and the Netherlands that tried in the past few years to put a limit of eight hours, transit time on live exports. The UK went along to those negotiations and argued against those proposals. This is definitely a question of political will.
Antoinette Sandbach
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but this country is a leader in animal welfare legislation, having introduced the concept of unnecessary suffering in 1915 and, in effect, the first protections for animal welfare, and we have continued that process. Indeed, this Government have reformed animal welfare and this country has high animal welfare protection standards.
Mr Leslie
We do have high animal welfare standards. I do not deny that there could always be improvements, but I want to retain what our constituents want, which is high standards. By leaving the European Union in this particular way, I worry that we will be forcing ourselves to chase after trade deals with other jurisdictions that have a totally different approach to regulation. The world effectively has three regulatory philosophies: the Chinese have a particular view of regulation; the European Union has a precautionary principle; and the Americans have a different cost-benefit analysis view of the world. If we depart from the precautionary principle ambit, that will affect agriculture, animal rights and many other issues. It would lead to wholly different and lower regulatory standards, which in some ways is the backdrop to this whole question.
Stephen Doughty
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he is being very generous. Does he recognise that people are suspicious given that, for example, the new Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes), who has just joined us in the Chamber, said that the Government were right not to copy the charter of fundamental rights into UK law because lawyers will love the extra rights that it gives? That shows the real intention behind what some Ministers want, which is to bring down the rights that have protected so many people and workers, the environment, and safety.
Mr Leslie
I congratulate the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) on her appointment, but I am very much looking forward to her speech, which will perhaps wind up one of the sections of this debate, because Parliament will want to scrutinise her views, past and present. I will conclude with that because I have taken up more than half an hour and other Members will want to contribute.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I will take Joanna Cherry next and then Mr Kenneth Clarke.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I rise to discuss amendment 7, which is in my name and those of my hon. Friends and other Members and relates to the charter of fundamental rights, and amendments 42 and 43, which are in my name, and to give support to amendment 55, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), who will be addressing it in due course. The amendments raise issues relating to the protection of fundamental rights, about which we have already had quite a degree of discussion today, and to the justiciability of those rights and their legal certainty in this country and its jurisdictions after Brexit. The amendments tabled by the Scottish National party have the support of the Law Society of Scotland, and those that relate to the charter have widespread support, including from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I am also interested in the wording of amendment 4, which was tabled by the official Opposition, and if I do not press my amendment, they can count on the SNP’s support should they press amendment 4 to a vote.
The questions raised by the amendments have all yet to be answered adequately by the Government. As the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) alluded to earlier in his erudite contribution, the Government’s approach to the detailed and widely held concerns about aspects of the Bill tends to be rather dismissive or deals with them airily and in generalities. At this stage, before the Bill goes to the other place, which is unaccountable and undemocratically elected, it is incumbent on the Government to address the questions about clauses 5 and 6 that were directed to them in Committee, rather than to continue to deal in the generalities that they have used so far.
The hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), who is no longer in his place, made a valid point earlier. When we hear constant reassurances from Government Members that this Parliament could not possibly do anything to contravene fundamental rights, we do not need to look back very far into our history, or into the lifetimes of many in this House, to see a prolonged period when the rights of gay people were denigrated by a Conservative Government through the use of section 28.
Joanna Cherry
It was not that long ago. Some of us were at school or were students at the time and fought very hard against it. Some of us still find it rather irksome to see the modern Conservative party presented as a great defender of gay rights, because we remember the years when it was not. It has seen the light since then and that is a good thing, but the contravention of human rights is something that Governments do from time to time, which is why it is necessary to have protections that go over and above the whims of the party in power.
Anna Soubry
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, because I think it needs to be put on the record that, as a Conservative, I could not be prouder of what we achieved between 2010 and 2015, when we introduced equal marriage. I also pay tribute to the fact that the leader of the Scottish Conservatives happens to be gay. We just need to move on from all this. We should not talk about the past, but look to the future. We are very proud of our history as it now is in the Conservative party.
Joanna Cherry
I am sorry that the right hon. Lady has failed to take my point, which is that this is not about what has happened over the past five years, when there has been cross-party support across the United Kingdom—apart from the Democratic Unionist party—for things such as equal marriage. I am talking about recent history and my lifetime as a gay woman. When I was at school and when I was a student, the Conservative party had a policy of completely quashing the aspirations of gay people. We were not even allowed to hear about what our lives might be like when we grew up. That is an example of why we need protections that go over and above the Government and the majority of the day.
Conservative Members do not like to hear it, but there are other similar examples from our recent history. Try telling the members of the nationalist and Catholic community in Northern Ireland in the 1960s and ’70s, whose civil liberties and human rights were routinely undermined, that they were defended by this House. They are now, and it is wonderful that we have moved on, but those rights were not protected in the past—in our lifetime—and that is why we need independent support for fundamental rights. It simply will not do for the Government to say that we can get rid of the charter and that all the rights in it will be protected in United Kingdom law, because they are not. I gave an example in Committee of where such rights were not protected—namely, the loophole in the Walker case in the Supreme Court, but we have yet to hear how the Government propose to close the loophole—and there are other examples.
The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), the Opposition spokesman, made the point that the cat was rather let out of the bag when the new Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes), wrote an article for The Daily Telegraph last year—I mentioned this in Committee—saying that it was right to get rid of the charter because it contained many rights that she would like to see the back of. I wonder whether that isolated attack on the charter, as the one bit of European law that the Government do not want to bring into UK law, is connected to their previous antipathy to the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights. We have been hearing conflicting noises from Government Members about their attitude to the ECHR and the Human Rights Act, and I would be interested to hear the Government’s long-term proposals. We have a new Justice Secretary; what is his view on the matter?
In any event, it is important for us to bear in mind that there are many voices from different parts of British society who want to keep the charter, including all the Opposition parties, the devolved Governments in Scotland and in Wales, large parts of the legal profession, significant parts of the judiciary, respected think-tanks and respected non-governmental organisations. It is time for the Government to take note of views held beyond the House and beyond their own party. This is similar to the attitude the Government take towards the views of the people of Scotland, 62% of whom voted to remain. We will debate what passes for the Government’s amendments on devolved issues later today, but the distinguished Scottish political commentator Gerry Hassan wrote in the newspaper earlier this week that:
“British politics as currently conducted cannot go on indefinitely, with the will of the people interpreted on the basis of just one June 2016 vote, but ignored in everything else…public opinion north of the border cannot be permanently ignored without profound consequences.”
Do not just take that from Mr Hassan, or indeed from the Opposition. The Conservative party’s spokesperson on constitutional affairs in Scotland, Professor Adam Tomkins, said at the weekend that
“the political price of enacting legislation without consent”—
from the Scottish Parliament—
“might be quite significant indeed.”
The wilful ignoring of the will of the Scottish people highlights a democratic deficit at the heart of the United Kingdom, which is why I and other Scottish National party Members would like to see an independent Scotland. The irony is that those who push so strongly for Brexit complain about a democratic deficit in the European Union, and many of them hold that view sincerely, but they seem not to care a jot for the democratic deficit in this Union, the United Kingdom.
Many of the amendments being considered today are about defending democracy, and it is right they should be debated and determined by this House, not by the undemocratic and unaccountable House of Lords. The House of Lords contains a significant number of able people—indeed, I look forward to hearing what they have to say about aspects of this Bill—but they are not accountable in the way that Members of this House are. We should be debating these issues, which is why it is so disgraceful that the Government have not tabled their substantive amendments on devolution. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) will speak about that in more detail later.
The SNP’s amendments, and indeed Labour’s amendment, on the charter are supported by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and many hon. Members will have had the benefit of reading the EHRC’s briefing and the opinion it commissioned from distinguished senior counsel Jason Coppel on the Government’s right-by-right analysis, which was published back in December 2017. The analysis repeats the Government’s assurance that the rights provided by the charter will not be weakened following Brexit, which we already know is not the view of the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Fareham; nor is it the view of Mr Coppel, who has produced a detailed opinion showing that the loss of the charter will result in a loss of rights in a number of ways.
As I and others said in Committee, there are gaps and, most importantly, this Bill will remove remedies that are currently available in UK law in cases of a breach of charter rights. As the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield said, there is also the very real possibility that charter rights could be repealed or overridden in UK law by the use of secondary legislation.
John Redwood
If the Scottish referendum had gone the other way, would not the hon. and learned Lady have regarded the result as completely binding on the whole United Kingdom, even though large parts of England might have voted against her view?
Joanna Cherry
I will not be drawn into a discussion about that today. I can see why the right hon. Gentleman might want to take attention away from the matter at hand, but we are not here today to debate Scottish independence. That will come later, and I very much look forward to it.
We are here today to consider the Bill. Rather than shuffling off our responsibilities to another place, we should be looking at the provisions here. The “assurance” published by the Government is not worth the paper it is written on. One of their Ministers will tell us otherwise, but, perhaps more importantly, the independent legal opinion of a senior English silk commissioned by the EHRC tells us so, and his view is widely held.
I do not intend to press amendments 42 and 43 to a vote today, as I see them as probing amendments. Amendment 43 arises from matters raised in Committee, and amendment 42 arises from the terms of the agreement reached between EU and UK negotiators in December 2017. Amendment 42 would ensure that UK courts and tribunals can refer matters to the Court of Justice of the European Union, as was agreed between negotiators in December 2017 in relation to citizens’ rights.
Mr Grieve
I agree entirely with what the hon. and learned Lady is saying, but it is my understanding, and I hope the Minister will say it again—he said it in Committee—that this will be dealt with in the other place. I am sorry that it could not be dealt with here, because that would have been rather better, but if the Government need more time, I expect them to address this issue.
Joanna Cherry
That is what I have heard, too. What I would like to hear from the Government today—this is why I tabled this probing amendment—is some indication that they recognise the gravity of the issue. This is not a political football, and it is not about stopping Brexit; it is about addressing issues of legal certainty.
As a courtesy to this House, I would like to hear some indication of how the Government propose to address the issues of legal certainty, particularly so that Members of my party, which is not represented in the other place, can have some input and give our view. Of course Scotland has a separate legal system. Clause 6(2) will apply to the High Court of Justiciary, and we need to be reassured not just on behalf of judges in the UK Supreme Court but on behalf of judges in the Supreme Courts of Scotland. I very much hope amendments 42 and 43 will draw from the Solicitor General some colourable reassurance that the Government are taking these concerns seriously and that they have them in hand, as well as some indication of the route the Government intend to go down in the other place to address these concerns.
Finally, on the charter of fundamental rights, I will wait to see what the official Opposition do, as we each have an amendment down. Given the spirit in which we have worked together on other aspects of this Bill, I am sure we can come to an agreement on that. The Scottish National party will be happy to support new clause 7, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). Many of our constituents feel strongly about the issue it raises, as do those of other MPs, and we are grateful to her for persevering with it.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
The hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) began his speech by saying that it was going to be very short but he then generously gave way to dozens of interventions from Members from all around the House and spoke for half an hour. He was expressing views with which I largely agreed, but I will try not to follow his precedent. I was not trying to catch your eye at all, Mr Speaker; I was waiting for the Solicitor General to reply to these points, as I was waiting for Ministers to reply to them in Committee, when I made speeches on one or two of them. However, I decided to make a short speech to save myself and the House from the long interventions that I am prone to make and would otherwise make on the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General.
This speech concerns the three points that have dominated throughout, where I am in great sympathy with what many people have said. First, why are the Government singling out the charter of fundamental rights to be the only piece of EU legislation that they wish to repeal? Secondly, on retained EU rights, why are those people who have existing rights of action able to get only this strange concession that for three months they might be able to pursue those rights, otherwise retrospectively they will lose them if their solicitors do not act quickly enough or they do not realise in time that they might have an action? Thirdly, and finally, we have this strange question of how in future a sovereign Parliament will amend EU law if it wishes to do so and why we have this confusion about what is, in effect, primary legislation and will require an Act of Parliament to change it, and what is secondary legislation and will require regulations. I will not repeat the arguments on any of those points at any length, because I addressed some of them in Committee and they have been well put today. But I am astonished that we have got to Report without, as yet, having had an adequate response to any of them.
I was rather doubtful about the charter of fundamental rights when it came before the House originally. I was a supporter of the treaty of Lisbon and I voted against my own party, with the then Government, quite frequently throughout those proceedings, as I thought the treaty was highly desirable. I am glad to say that when we came to power we showed not the slightest sign of wishing to undo any of it. The charter of fundamental rights was the bit I was least keen on, thinking it on the whole unnecessary, as it largely duplicated the European convention on human rights, and thinking that it was not going to make any difference; I did not use The Beano quote, but I could not see that it mattered very much and I went along with it reluctantly. I was wrong, as the charter has led to some extensions of rights in important areas. I cannot see why we should wish to halt that process. We have not yet got the Government’s proposals as to what they are going to do to fill the gap on things such as equalities law, which will emerge if we just repeal this.
The point I wish to make in a short speech is about what kind of answer I want from my hon. and learned Friend. He is genuinely a personal friend of mine. He is an extremely eloquent and valuable member of the Government. Obviously, as all lawyers do from time to time, he follows a brief, but I am sure he makes a considerable contribution to that brief and gives very valuable advice to those who seek to instruct him to temper what they would otherwise wish to do. So this is not at all aimed at him personally. But the Government’s approach throughout these unsatisfactory proceedings so far has been not to debate the main issues; we get raised with us all kinds of technical, drafting or slightly irrelevant reasons why the proposals coming from the Front Benchers on all sides cannot be accepted. So far, as far as I am aware, the Government’s case on the charter of fundamental rights is, “Well, it would not make any difference to repeal it. It hasn’t added anything. This is just unnecessary. We have singled it out, uniquely among all other EU law, simply because our tidiness of mind makes us wish to remove something that is perfectly adequately reflected in other areas.” That is not good enough.
On all three points that I have set out, the Government today, on Report, have the last chance in this House to say why they are repealing the charter, what evil it has done, what danger they think we are being protected from by its repeal and so on. I have yet to hear an example from anybody of a case where the charter of fundamental rights has been invoked in a way that anybody in this House would wish to reverse. We have not been given an example of an area of law that we have been taken into despite the bitter opposition of either the Government or this House. The advances that have been made, in some cases invoking the charter, seem to me perfectly worth while, so I hope the Solicitor General’s speech will specify those areas where the Government see that damage has been to our approach to rights and to law, and what hazards they are going to prevent us from falling into by reversing the charter.
Mr Clarke
I will give way in a second; before I finish, I will give way if people insist.
Secondly, what on earth is the advantage we gain by putting in a three-month limit? The Government have taken weeks to come back with their alleged response to the points raised on the Floor of the House on acquired legal rights, and it seems we can have a concession for three months. That is utterly ludicrous. Thirdly, what is wrong here? My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) is much more of a gentleman than I, and he is much more likely to adhere to party political loyalties. There is no more stout mainstream Conservative than me, and I would say that I am sticking to the Conservative principles that I have followed throughout my life until 18 months ago, but I do think some of these things, certainly on questions of rights, are not party issues. They usually do not have a whip applied. They are matters of conscience and cut across both sides. Going back to the future powers of this Parliament, which it must have of course, to amend retained EU law as and when the political will of the House wishes to do so, what is wrong with new clause 13 and its specification of what is primary legislation and what is secondary legislation? What alternative are the Government going to come up with, other than just saying, “The Government of the day will decide as each issues arises”? They must have a better alternative than that.
Catherine West
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that this is the sort of amendment that the other place might just take to heart and bounce back, so it might be more sensible to have that difficult pain now and get it out of the way, and the other House will not have to return it?
Mr Clarke
I hope and believe that the other place will make an enormous number of changes to this Bill. The idea that a Bill with all these Henry VIII clauses is going to have an untroubled passage through the House of Lords is an illusion. This House just lets every extension of the Henry VIII clause principle through. The Opposition of the day object like mad but then that party takes office, cites the precedents of its predecessor and defends them as the way of proceeding, and the previous Government then start denouncing them. I hope the House of Lords will throw back some of the bizarre extension of the Henry VIII principle in this Bill and some of the European things.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
I support amendment 57, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), along with several others, but I wish to speak specifically to new clause 9, which I have tabled and which is on the saving of acquired rights in Anguilla. I do not think there has been any discussion at all of Anguilla in any of the proceedings on the Bill so far.
Before Christmas, I tabled a written question to
“ask the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, whether the implementation phase of the UK leaving the EU will be the same for Anguilla as the rest of the UK; and if he will make a statement.”
On 22 December, I received the following answer:
“Both the EU and the UK have been clear that the Implementation Period will be agreed under Article 50 and be part of the Withdrawal Agreement. Both sides have also been clear that the Overseas Territories, including Anguilla, are covered by the Withdrawal Agreement and our Article 50 exit negotiations…In these negotiations, we are seeking a deal that works for the whole UK family, including Anguilla.”
So, there was no clarity there. It is not yet clear what is going to happen with respect to Anguilla.
Why is Anguilla important? We have debated at some length Gibraltar, which has around 32,000 residents. It is a British overseas territory that has been in the possession of the United Kingdom since the treaty of Utrecht in the beginnings of the 18th century. [Interruption.] Yes, indeed, it was 1713. According to the figures I have seen, Anguilla has a population of 15,263, and it has been a British possession since 1650. Just as Gibraltar has a border with an EU country—Spain—so Anguilla has a border with the EU, but with not just one but two EU countries.
Anguilla is in the north of the Leeward Islands, and 8 miles to its south is Saint Martin or, to use the Dutch, Sint Maarten. That island is part of two EU states: the northern 60% of the island has been French territory since an agreement in 1648, and since that same agreement the Kingdom of the Netherlands has possessed the southern 40% of the island. The island of Saint Martin has a complicated history that I do not intend to go into at length, but it is important to discuss its relationship with Anguilla.
Anguilla is one of five British overseas territories in the Caribbean, but it is very much more dependent on its relations with the European Union and with France and the Netherlands than any other British overseas territory. There is an international airport—Princess Juliana—on Saint Martin, but there is no international airport on Anguilla.
Mike Gapes
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could walk on water.
Anguilla is economically dependent on Saint Martin. The relationship is essential for Anguilla. The northern part of the island of Saint Martin, which has been since 2007 a French overseas collectivity, has a population of 38,286. The southern part of the island is one of the four kingdoms that make up the Netherlands, the others being Aruba, Curaçao and the Netherlands proper. France and the Netherlands have a different relationship with their overseas territories than the UK has with ours, and that has changed the dynamics. For example, in September the massive, terrible Hurricane Irma hit the Caribbean and wiped out whole communities and destroyed whole towns. President Macron flew very quickly to visit this integral part of France, where there is a tight, close relationship with the Netherlands.
This afternoon, the Foreign Affairs Committee, on which I serve, is discussing the overseas territories and the response to hurricanes. I hope to get to the Committee in time to hear a representative of the Government of Anguilla’s London office give evidence, but I cannot be in two places at the same time. I hope I will be able to speak in advance and ask questions later.
The population of Sint Maarten, the Netherlands part, is around 33,000, so the total population of the island to the south of Anguilla is around 75,000. It is much larger and much more important, so there are fundamental economic questions to be answered about what will happen when—if—the UK leaves the EU.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman will know that my colleagues in the Department for Exiting the European Union have been engaging with Britain’s overseas territories, including Anguilla, through the Joint Ministerial Council and other mechanisms. Does he agree that that is a perfectly adequate mechanism that should continue, and that that means his new clause is not necessary?
Mike Gapes
No, I do not agree that it is a perfectly adequate mechanism. The report published by the Government of Anguilla’s London office last summer, “Anguilla and Brexit: Britain’s Forgotten EU Border”, points out how we do not give sufficient attention to the needs and requirements of our overseas territories. Let me quote just one example: the position with regard to overseas development assistance. Since 2014, we have virtually stopped giving Anguilla any overseas development assistance through the Department for International Development budget, in contrast to some other overseas territories such as Montserrat and elsewhere, and yet it is receiving assistance from the European Union. There is a big concern, which I will come to later, about what will happen to the continued assistance that goes to Anguilla once we leave the EU. That assistance accounts for about 36% of the capital expenditure of the Anguillan Government. That huge amount comes as a result of assistance from the European Union, and it goes to Anguilla by virtue of UK membership of the EU, but once we stop paying into EU development assistance, does anybody think that the EU will continue to finance a British overseas territory when there is no longer any relationship between the UK and the European Union? These are very complicated questions.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for treating us to the shorter version of his speech. Does he welcome the communiqué signed by the Government and the territories, which said that the UK acknowledged
“the importance of EU funding for sustainable economic development in some Overseas Territories and committed to ensuring that these interests were fully reflected in the UK’s negotiating position”?
Does he not think that that will be of great assistance to Anguilla and other overseas territories?
Mike Gapes
No, I do not; it is just words. It is all about what will happen in the negotiations. How much money are we prepared to put in? Will there be a payment into the EU budget in order to continue EU assistance to Anguilla, which does not come directly from DFID at this time? Those are interesting and complicated questions.
Like the UK, Anguilla lies outside the Schengen area, which also does not apply to French St Martin. Under EU Council articles 349 and 355 of the Treaty of Lisbon, French St Martin is classified as an outermost region of France, while Dutch Sint Maarten, Sint Eustatius and Anguilla are classified as overseas countries and territories of the EU. In 2017, in a factsheet entitled “Outermost regions”, the European Union’s Parliament stated:
“Regardless of the great distance separating them from the European continent, the outermost regions are an integral part of the European Union, and the acquis communautaire is fully applicable in their territory. However, owing to their specific geographical location and the related difficulties, EU policies have had to be adjusted to their special situation.
The relevant measures concern, in particular, areas such as customs and trade policies, fiscal policy, free zones, agriculture and fisheries policies, and conditions for supply of raw materials and essential consumer goods.”
The outermost regions of the EU are specifically mandated by the EU and, as such, will require specific negotiation in the context of Brexit to take account of their needs. The problem that I face is that the Government have not given us any detail either in the written answer that I have secured or on any other basis as to what they will do to protect the interests of Anguilla. Unlike Gibraltar, Anguilla does not have an effective big lobbying operation, because it does not have a relationship with City financial institutions in the same way. It is very much dependent on tourism. One of its problems is that, because it does not have an international airport, flights go into St Martin, and, at present, at 10 o’clock at night, there is no means of transit from Anguilla to St Martin. Consequently, people have to stay in St Martin and not go across to Anguilla because of those difficulties in communication.
We need to be able to help Anguilla help its tourist industry, and the best way to do that would be within the framework of the European Union, but of course the referendum decision and the way that it is being implemented by the Government mean that that will not be possible. As a result, Anguilla faces some real difficulties and dilemmas: 95% of its access for tourism and other economic measures will be subject to deliberations between EU member states during the course of the Brexit negotiations. Its fuel and desalination capacity will be exposed to negotiations on whether tariffs are to be added to oil imports from the Dutch island of Sint Eustatius.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I do not want to interrupt his most eloquent speech, but does he not agree that the irony is that Anguilla reflects the position that we will find ourselves in at the edge of Europe should we leave? Indeed, it is a concern that the Government have not given any sensible or sufficient answers to his queries, and it bodes ill.
Mike Gapes
Actually, I do not agree. The UK has far bigger clout in the world than a small island with a population of just 15,000. My hon. Friend is right that we will be damaged—there is no doubt about it—by self-inflicted harm, but, as President Donald Tusk pointed out today, we can of course change our minds, and if we do so he would be delighted.
The position with regard to Anguilla is potentially one of a country with a problematic border. I have referred already to that closure at 10 o’clock at night. If, once we leave the EU, relations between the UK and France become worse than they are now, how do Ministers and Government Members think that we will be able to speak for the interests of this British overseas territory when we are not able to succeed today in getting everything that it needs? We would have less influence and no seat at the table. We would not be in the room and we would not be able to say anything to help it.
I do not wish to take too long, but there are important points about peoples whose voice has not been heard in this Chamber. Between 2012 and 2014, Anguilla did receive some UK official development assistance, but it was a very small sum, amounting to only £141 per person. Since then, there has not been such support. However, Montserrat received £14,000 per person and St Helena, which is even more remote, received £66,000 per person in ODA.
Anguilla is worried that after the UK has left—if we leave—the European Union, EU initiatives that currently occur within the overseas territories will no longer continue. Anguilla understands that ODA will be vital, but that support has steadily declined and its people are worried about the threat to the European Union funds. As part of the UK Caribbean Infrastructure Fund, a £300 million programme was announced in September 2015, in order to fund infrastructure such as roads, bridges and ports across the Caribbean, via the various banks and the Department for International Development, but Anguilla is very concerned about what will happen in the long term.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is one of a number of examples? A place such as Anguilla or an industry such as farming has no sense of certainty about how or whether the Government will replace funding that will be lost after—or if—we leave the European Union. Does he think that the Government are not being clear about the future because they have not yet worked it out, or because they fear that if people see what the situation will be after we leave the European Union, they may begin to wake up to the fact that what is on offer is very much inferior to what we have now?
Mike Gapes
I actually think, in the case of Anguilla, it is because the Government have never even thought about it. Only now are issues like this coming up to bite them. We could have had an impact assessment on Anguilla. It would be nice to know whether there was such a thing; I suspect not. The Government did not give any consideration to these issues when they triggered article 50, so they probably did not even consider that.
In “Anguilla & Brexit: Britain’s Forgotten EU Border”, which was published last summer, the Government of Anguilla call for four things. First, they want a
“Common travel area between Saint Martin and Anguilla”,
and state that
“protocol 22 of the EU Treaties…provides that the UK and another EU member state…may continue to make arrangements between themselves for the free movement of people within the CTA.”
The same model is adopted for Ireland because of the historical relationships. A common travel area would be a way to prevent an economic and social disaster for Anguilla. In practice, it would mean free movement of nationals of the French and Dutch St Martin and Sint Maarten, and Anguilla, between those islands with a
“frictionless border without the need for passport control.”
It would also allow visitors flying into St Martin from any country in the world to go to Anguilla easily as tourists.
Secondly, the Government of Anguilla call for a customs union in the region
“with European countries, territories and municipalités in the eastern Caribbean.”
There has been a lot of talk about customs unions. I do not wish to repeat the debate that we have already had, as this issue will come back, but a customs union between the European Union territories in the region, the other countries in the region and the overseas territories of the United Kingdom could be really helpful in the Caribbean. Anguilla imports oil and other essential materials that it cannot exist without. It also exports fresh produce, which is predominantly sold to St Martin. There is therefore a real need for some kind of customs relationship that avoids tariffs and barriers.
Thirdly, the Government of Anguilla call for a
“Continued relationship between the UK and EU for the purposes of international development”,
as well as,
“Continued membership of the Overseas Countries and Territories Association of the European Union of Anguilla with full access to European Development Funds and support”.
Now, that may come at a cost. Are the British Government prepared to pay that cost in the negotiations? If they do not there will, as I have already suggested, be a major impact on the Anguillan economy and future development.
Fourthly and finally, the Government of Anguilla are looking to
“Stronger ties between Anguilla and Britain”.
This country has neglected our overseas territories for far too long. We do not give them the status that overseas territories have in France or the Netherlands. There is a wider issue that is not just about Anguilla and on which the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs may well comment after we have completed our current inquiry: we need a better ongoing relationship with these small communities of 15,000 people whose association with the United Kingdom goes back to the 17th century—longer, as I pointed out at the beginning, than the association of Gibraltar with the United Kingdom.
John Redwood
I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) that the United Kingdom could strengthen her links and ties with Anguilla and could be very supportive as we go through Brexit. I trust that those on the Government Front Bench have listened carefully to what he has been saying. As far as I know, they have good will towards Anguilla. He mentioned some positive ideas about how the UK can help more and develop that relationship, which I welcome and which I suspect the Government may welcome.
I will respond briefly to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). In her remarks—we have heard this in the many SNP speeches during the debates on the Bill—she referred again to the way in which Scottish voters had a different view from UK voters as a whole on the referendum and she implied that that had great constitutional significance. I urge her to think again. I pointed out to her that, had Scotland voted to be independent in its referendum, I do not think it would have mattered at all if, in a subsequent election—I think that there would probably have been one quite quickly—a lot of people in England had voted the other way and said, “No, we’d like Scotland to stay in.”
John Redwood
If the hon. and learned Lady lets me finish my point, I will let her intervene. I would have thought that the result of the Scottish referendum was binding and, although I deeply want to keep the Union together, I would have felt that it was my duty to see the wishes of the Scottish people fully implemented because those were the terms of the referendum. She seems to be implying that it should have been otherwise.
Joanna Cherry
The right hon. Gentleman has unfortunately forgotten that the Scottish referendum was preceded by the Edinburgh agreement between the British and Scottish Governments, which said that the outcome of the referendum would be respected by both sides. I think that he is rather trying to deflect attention from the issue at hand today by harking back to this.
John Redwood
I fear that it is very relevant, and probably even more relevant to what we are going on to debate in the next group of amendments—and the hon. and learned Lady did raise it as an important part of her case on how we handle EU law. I feel that SNP Members want to recreate the European Union in every way they can by amending this Bill, which is actually about us developing a new relationship—a very positive relationship—with the EU from outside the EU. That means changing some of the legal ties that currently bind us to the EU, while the many that we do not want to change come under our control so that future votes of the British people, and Parliaments, could make a difference if they so wished. That is the very important thing that we are debating. She has to accept that just as, had the Scottish people voted to leave, we would all have accepted the verdict and got on with it, against our wishes, now that the United Kingdom’s people have voted to leave the European Union, the whole Union has to accept that democratic judgment.
Joanna Cherry
Is the right hon. Gentleman really suggesting that the outcome of the 2014 referendum means that henceforth in this Union the views of the Scottish people can be blithely ignored on all occasions? Is that his view? I am sure that Scottish voters watching the television would love to know that that is what he saying.
John Redwood
Absolutely not. Scottish voters’ views matter very much. They have a privileged constitutional position, which we are all happy with, such that in many areas Scotland makes her own decisions through her own Parliament. However, when it comes to a Union matter, I thought we all agreed that where we had a Union-wide referendum, the Union made the decision and the Union’s Parliament needs to implement the wishes expressed in the referendum. That is why Members from every party in the House of Commons, apart from her party and a few Liberal Democrats, decided, against their own judgments in many cases, that we needed to get on with it, send the article 50 letter and give this Bill a good passage. We are bound by the wishes of the British people as expressed in the referendum.
Charlie Elphicke
Does my right hon. Friend detect, as I do, a tendency in SNP Members, which reaches its pinnacle in the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), not to accept the results of any referendum held in this country? They reject the alternative vote referendum result, they will not accept and respect the Scottish referendum result, and now they are trying to countermand the European referendum result. I really think it is high time that they accepted the decisions made in referendums in this country.
John Redwood
That is extremely good advice. I find myself in a rather different position from the hon. and learned Lady. She finds herself in a position where every time there is a referendum in Scotland or the UK, she is on the losing side, whereas I have found that I am usually on the winning side. I seem to be much more in tune with the people. I agreed with the people’s judgment on grammar schools when we had a referendum on that, I agreed with their view on the voting system, I agreed with the Scottish people’s judgment on staying in the Union, and I very much agree with the United Kingdom electors’ judgment that we should leave the European Union. The people are often much more sensible than their Parliament wishes them to be, and it is great when Parliament then has to listen to the people and get on with doing the job.
The main point that I wish to make is in response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who tried to tackle the scholarship-level question that underlies our debates on this group of amendments—whether we can transfer all EU law into good British law, or, in practice, end up having to accept some European law because of the complexities involved. In my brief exchange with him by way of intervention, I pointed out that the rights of the British people have their best defence in the common sense and voting strength of the British people, that that will be reflected in their elected Parliament, and that if their elected Parliament gets out of line with the will of the United Kingdom voters, then the voters will, at the first opportunity, change the composition of the Parliament until it reflects the wishes of the United Kingdom voters on the matter of rights.
My right hon. and learned Friend countered by saying that taking my view would mean that we only ever had common law and Parliament would never need to legislate. That is a silly caricature of the true position. We all know, I think, that it is very difficult to define eternal, immortal rights. Some rights last for longer and are more important than others, but people find it very difficult to define that. Looking back over past statements of rights over the centuries, one sees that some of them now grate or are clearly very much against our view of what a right should be, whereas others may last for rather longer. Quite a lot of statements of rights have a big component related to what is topical or socially acceptable at the time. We are largely pleased that what is socially acceptable evolves, so there are many bad practices of the past that we have come to see were bad practices, and that has been reflected in new legislation. We always need to legislate to reflect changing perceptions about what is a right and which rights we should give most cognisance to.
Antoinette Sandbach
Of course, the charter is an excellent example of these rights. It incorporates rights on data protection and other issues, as has been described in the debate. Would it not make sense to incorporate it into UK law and allow it to be changed at a later date through the kind of evolution that my right hon. Friend is describing?
John Redwood
These rights have been incorporated into UK law because we have shared quite a lot of them before they were codified in the way they are codified and because, subsequent to their codification, they have helped to inform our debates about amending, improving and strengthening the law. No, I do not think it is a good idea to incorporate the charter of rights as though it had some special significance. Interestingly, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) stated that when the charter first came forward in the Lisbon treaty, he tended to the “Beano” view of it—that it was not very significant. He did not think it was a strong part of the treaty and was not very keen on it, and was therefore quite happy with the Labour Government treating it differently and exempting us from parts of it deemed inappropriate. Now, he gives it greater significance and implies that it is dreadful that we will not be incorporating it, as though it has been transformed between the date when we first considered it as part of the treaty and its current presence.
My view is that the British people and their Parliament will adopt all these good rules, and have done so, informing many of our laws. If there are other laws that need strengthening or improving, that is exactly what this Parliament is here to do, and if we are negligent in that matter, the British people and their lobby groups will make sure that our attention is drawn to whatever may be missing or could be improved. I would say to the House of Commons, let us remember what we are doing. We are taking back control. Where we need to strengthen or highlight rights by legislation, that is something that any of us can initiate, and if we can build a majority we can do it. There are many good examples of rights and laws emanating from Back Benchers or Opposition parties as well as from Governments.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield said, wrongly, that I was trusting the Executive too much. That is not usually a criticism that has been made of me. Whereas I often find myself in agreement with the people in votes in referendums, I have often found myself in disagreement with parties in this House, including my own party, on matters of some substance, and I have not usually been shy—but I hope polite—in pointing out where I have those disagreements. I therefore reject his idea that I am trusting the Executive. I said very clearly in my intervention that I was trusting the United Kingdom electorate and their successive Parliaments. If one Parliament does not please or suit, or does not do the right thing on the rights that the public want, a new Parliament will be elected that will definitely do so.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe reminded us that we have had a lot of debates about Henry VIII powers, which are relevant to this group of amendments on how much European law we incorporate. I find this argument one of the most odd brought forward by those who are nervous about Brexit. One of my main problems with our prolonged membership of the European Union was that large amounts of legislation had to go through this House unscathed, and often little remarked on or debated, because once they had been agreed around the European Union table in private, they were “good law” in Britain. If those laws were regulations, they acted directly, so we could not even comment on them. If they were directives, we had a very marginal ability to influence the way in which they were implemented, and the main points of the law went through without any debate or right to vote them down. That was the ultimate Henry VIII approach. In the case of this legislation, after extensive dialogue and discussion, we are talking about very narrow powers for Ministers to make technical adjustments and improvements. All of it is of course in the context of the right for Parliament to call anything in, debate it and vote on it.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I am interested in the issue my right hon. Friend raises about our not being able to scrutinise European law in this Chamber before it was approved over there. In other Parliaments, such as the Dutch Parliament, specialist committees scrutinised proposals before they reached the European Parliament; for example, the telecoms committee in the Dutch Parliament would scrutinise telecoms law before it got to the European Parliament. As we take our own law, would it not be helpful to use the specialist committees more on the detail?
John Redwood
We had 45 years to get that right, and I think my hon. Friend would probably agree with me that it did not happen in the way she now says she wished it had. When I was the single market Minister, I tried to do this. I brought draft proposals to the House to try to get comment before I went off to negotiate. I felt that that was the only time it was worth hearing Parliament’s view because there was still the chance of trying to change things. If Parliament agreed with me that the draft was very unsatisfactory, it was marginally helpful to be able to say to the EU, “By the way, the United Kingdom Parliament does not like this proposal”, although the EU did not take that as seriously as I would have liked it to. The truth was that we could then be outvoted, under a qualified majority voting system, and we often were if we pushed our disagreement, so the views of Parliament mattered not a jot, even if we did the decent thing and invited Parliament to comment before the draft was agreed.
As my hon. Friend must know, once a draft was agreed, if it was a regulation, that was immediately a directly acting law in the United Kingdom and this Parliament had no role whatsoever. If it was a directive—directives can be very substantial pieces of legislation—we could not practically change anything in that law. Whatever Parliament thought, it had gone through.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I sit on the European Scrutiny Committee and have done so for some time. I can confirm that, although we briefly look at all the laws coming into this country, we certainly do not have the time to scrutinise them. I can assure the House that the House does not have the time to do so either.
John Redwood
There is also the point that, if we are scrutinising that after it has happened, that is not a lot of use. That can alert Parliament and the public to problems that the new law might create, but if it has been agreed under the rules, it is law and we have to do the best we can and live with it.
Having sat through quite a few debates on the Floor of the House—in Committee, and on Second and Third Readings of Bills—while being a Member of Parliament, I do not think I have ever seen a Bill that has been so extensively debated, dissected, discussed, analysed and opposed. A huge amount of work has gone in to proposing a very large number of detailed and rather general amendments, discussing the philosophy, principles and technical matters in considerable detail.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
Before he moves on to another point, does my right hon. Friend agree that the narrowness of the Henry VIII clauses has actually been very considerably intensified by the amendments tabled on Report to clause 7(1) and 7(2)?
John Redwood
Yes, I agree. I think the Report stage may even produce some agreement between my right hon. Friend, me and our right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield that improvements have been made in that respect, with some powers for Ministers being narrowed and the House having an even bigger role. I am perfectly happy that that has happened.
The wider point I want to make is that this very extensive, forensic and thorough discussion could be a model for other legislation. It is interesting that MPs on the whole do not get as interested in other legislation as they have done in this Bill. The Lords should take into account the fact that, on this occasion, the Commons has done its work very extensively and thoroughly, and has considered a very wide range of issues in amendments. I am sure that the Lords will take that into account when it comes to have its important deliberations on this legislation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Several colleagues are now seeking to catch my eye, but I emphasise that the Minister must also have a decent amount of time in which to respond. I therefore urge colleagues to be brief in their contributions, while of course covering what is necessary.
Caroline Lucas
I rise to speak to new clause 7, which is in my name and is supported by Opposition Members. I hope to push it to a vote. The new clause would transfer article 13 of the Lisbon treaty into UK law, so that the obligation on the Government and devolved Administrations to pay due regard to the welfare requirements of animals as sentient beings when formulating law and policy is not lost when the UK leaves the EU.
You will be glad to hear that I can be brief, Mr Speaker, because there is no need to set out again the case for transferring this obligation under EU law into domestic law. In Committee, the then Justice Minister, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), rejected my similar new clause and, I would suggest, inadvertently misspoke in the House in the process by stating that the sentience obligation
“is already recognised as a matter of domestic law, primarily in the Animal Welfare Act 2006.”—[Official Report, 15 November 2017; Vol. 631, c. 499.]
That was simply incorrect, and there can be no disagreement about that because the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has since published a new draft Bill providing for the transfer into UK law of the obligation on animal sentience set out in article 13.
The Government therefore accept that they need to do what my new clause provides for, and the simplest thing would be for the Minister to accept it or, if the specific wording is considered deficient in some way, for him to bring forward a revised version as a Government amendment. As this has not yet happened—I will gladly give way to the Minister if he wants to say that the Government will accept the new clause—I can only assume he will say that the Bill is not the right legislative vehicle for the new clause: in other words, that a Bill to transfer the body of EU law into UK law is not the right legislative vehicle to transfer an important piece of EU law into UK law. To me, at least, that does not make sense.
Lady Hermon
I am very pleased to speak in support of the new clause brought forward, once again, by the hon. Lady. I am particularly pleased to see that it extends not just to Ministers in this Parliament, but to those in the devolved institutions. My one concern is that the wording could have been stronger by creating an obligation to uphold respect for animal sentience, rather than just having due regard to it.
Caroline Lucas
Yes, in theory, I agree with the hon. Lady that the wording could be stronger. I was trying to be careful to avoid an accusation of gold-plating EU legislation, so I simply looked at the wording of article 13 and tried to bring that over from EU law into UK law. If we were starting again, I certainly agree that we could make the wording stronger.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady not agree that we can do better on animal welfare than the EU currently allows us to do? For example, making foie gras is prohibited in this country, but we cannot stop its being imported from countries in the EU that make it, such as Belgium and France, because that would be against the free movement of goods. Does she not agree that the Conservatives are now putting in place tougher sentencing for animal welfare breaches, and we should focus on that, rather than looking at the past?
Caroline Lucas
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the new laws on sentencing are certainly to be welcomed, but I do not see why we need to see this as an either/or. I am trying to make sure that there is no legislative gap, because I do not have confidence—perhaps Conservative Members do—that the new Bill is likely to be on the statute books by the time that we leave the EU, if that is what happens. I want to make sure we have legislative certainty—belt and braces—by putting my new clause in the Bill.
We can have a big debate about the extent to which the EU has promoted animal welfare. I would argue that usually the reason that animal welfare has not been promoted while we have been a member of the EU is the lack of political will here, rather than that the EU itself has prevented it. I take the point about the rules of the single market, but cases can always be made for exceptions—for example, on seal fur. If enough political energy is expended in the EU, such derogations can be achieved. We could have done the same on issues such as live animals, but we chose not to. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said, the Government have a record of not supporting tighter legislation on the live animal transport trade. So I will not stand here and listen to Conservative Members pretending that their new-found detoxification strategy for the Tory party is a reflection of a long-held belief in animal welfare.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Does the hon. Lady agree that a bird in the hand—her proposal —is much better than two in the bush? It would be cruel of me to remind the House that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs made a solemn pledge to support the Foreign Secretary in his bid to be leader, but then ended up stabbing him repeatedly in the front.
Caroline Lucas
I am happy to agree with that intervention.
In case a Conservative Member is about to embarrass themselves by repeating the spectacularly stupid suggestion yesterday by the Guido Fawkes website—[Interruption.] Yes, I know that is not hard to believe. It suggested that new clause 7 would weaken animal sentience law because article 13 of the Lisbon treaty applies to only six policy areas, whereas the Secretary of State’s Bill would apply to all Government areas. Leaving aside that it is hard to imagine a Government policy relating to animal welfare that does not fall under one of those six policy areas, which are pretty broad, the point is that we have no domestic animal sentience law to weaken. We have a hastily cobbled together draft Bill that may, or may not, become a substantive Bill that reaches the statute book before 29 March 2019—or ever.
It is this Bill that will weaken our animal welfare law by failing to transfer into UK law the obligation on the Government set out in article 13 of the Lisbon treaty. As I said in reply to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), had I tabled an amendment that in some way added to or strengthened the obligations set out in article 13, Ministers would no doubt have rejected it on the grounds that I was trying to gold-plate EU law, which is not the purpose of the Bill. If new clause 7 were accepted, nothing would stop the Secretary of State’s draft Bill subsequently addressing any real or perceived weaknesses in the wording of article 13, and that would have my support. But let us not be left with a gap in the legislation. The real risk is that, because of the volume of legislation with which Whitehall and the civil service are having to grapple, a new Bill would not come forward in time to plug any gap after we leave the EU. That is why my belt-and-braces approach would make sure that we have this legislation safely included in UK law.
In the past, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) has called this solution inelegant. Yes, it is a bit inelegant, but I would rather be inelegant and effective than elegant with a big gap in the legislation. Let us stop playing political games with a draft Bill that may, or may not, get anywhere near the statute book. Let us do what the Secretary of State clearly wished to do himself as recently as July last year, when he was asked whether he wanted to include article 13 in the Bill—he said of course he did. There can be no better legislative vehicle right now to transfer article 13 of the Lisbon treaty into UK law than the Bill, which exists to transfer EU law into UK law. I therefore commend new clause 7 to the House.
I also wish to put on record my support for amendment 57 and new clause 19, tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol East. The amendment would preserve more comprehensively than clause 4, which it would replace, the rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures derived from EU law and incorporated into domestic law by the European Communities Act 1972. As the hon. Lady has already made clear, there are weaknesses in clause 4, as a result of which some provisions in EU law are at risk of being lost. She gave several examples, and I want to add one more. Unless amended, clause 4 could result in the loss from EU retained law of provisions that detail the aim and purpose of directives such as article 1 of the environmental liability directive, which includes reference to the polluter pays principle, and article 1 of the habitats directive, which specifies that the aim of the directive is to contribute towards biodiversity conservation.
New clause 19 would remove the risk of transposition gaps in retained EU law. It is simpler and more comprehensive than clause 4, and it would ensure that the rights arising from EU directives are preserved and a mechanism would be in place after exit day to deal with problems arising from the incorrect or incomplete transposition of EU law. I hope that Ministers will accept the amendment and new clause.
Anna Soubry
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), although I will not support her amendments. In fact, I will not support any amendments other than those tabled by the Government. The Bill will leave this place in much better shape than when it was first introduced, but it is still not fit for purpose, frankly. As hon. Members said on Second Reading, we need a mechanism to move all our existing law into domestic law, but the many faults in the Bill have been well rehearsed by my right hon. and learned Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). I wholly agree with them; I endorse their arguments; and I do not intend to repeat them.
Many changes are still needed, but it will be the other place that will make good some of the faults that remain in the Bill. We are not trying to abdicate the responsibility for doing so, because that is simply the way it is, and has been, sadly, for some time. Many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House share our concerns, but given the nature of the political situation they have not quite gone the extra step to defy a three-line Whip or to be seen as disloyal to their leader. Many people do not want to undermine the Prime Minister as she enters the difficult next stage of negotiations with the European Union, but it will be important, when the Bill returns to this place, that we all have the courage of our convictions and put our country’s interests at the front of all that we do. We need to get the best piece of legislation because it is so important.
There is every chance that in the next few months the sands will begin to shift as people begin to understand and appreciate that we have made an error in taking options off the table—or never putting them on in the first place—notably in the speech that was made almost a year ago, when the Prime Minister said that the single market and the customs union were coming off the table. Those red lines have not helped, and they will not help us in the forthcoming negotiations. All options need to be placed back on the table—and I mean all options. That includes the ability of the people—it must be the people—of this country to determine the future of Brexit. It must remain with them, and they must drive it. That must be taken into consideration as the Bill moves up into the Lords and then comes back here.
Finally, this place voted, as we know, for amendment 7, and the Government lost that vote. If new clause 9, which many say has now become otiose, falls or is abandoned by the Government when the Bill passes into the other place, it must be made absolutely clear that, even in that event, this place wants a meaningful vote on the final deal and in good time—not some rubber stamp or some deal or no deal, but a proper, meaningful vote. That must be determined by elected representatives and by the people and in the interests of the people—in the interests of not just my generation but my children and my grandchildren, who I hope will come—so that we do this properly, putting the people in charge and doing the best thing for our country.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I will be supporting amendment 57 and other provisions. I rise to speak to new clause 16, which is in my name. I will not be pushing it to a vote, because it is a probing provision.
The new clause seeks to ensure that there is no regression in our equality protection as we leave the EU and following the repeal of the charter of fundamental rights. That principle has already been agreed by the Government, so there should be little controversy about supporting new clause 16. Hon. Members were promised that the Government would introduce an amendment that required Ministers, on the presentation of any Brexit-related primary or secondary legislation, to make a statement before the House on whether and how it was consistent with the Equality Act 2010. While the Government may try to make out that amendment 391 covers that point, I do not believe that it properly addresses the issue of primary legislation—a point eloquently made by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve).
For that reason, I have tabled new clause 16. We cannot allow any regression in, or diminishing of, our equality protections and rights when we leave the EU. I totally disagree with hon. Members who have suggested that we should just trust the Government to get this right. The equality protections and human rights referred to in new clause 16 have been hard fought for, and we cannot allow them to be put at risk. I commend new clause 16 to the House.
Antoinette Sandbach
I rise to support the speeches made by my right hon. and learned Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). The idea that three months is sufficient protection in terms of somebody launching a legal action, while a welcome concession from the Government, does not go far enough. I urge the Government to listen to the proposal to retain the Francovich right throughout the transition period or implementation period—however it is described.
I also support the points made on the charter of fundamental rights. When the charter was brought into effect, it said that it codified existing rights—rights that UK citizens already had. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes), takes a different view. I do not really care which view is right; the fact is that we have moved on as a society, and these protections have now become important in UK law. I would very much urge the Government to consider that when approaching this matter in the Lords.
Finally, it is eminently sensible that the Government look at new clause 13, which will not be moved to a vote today. It provides a very good mechanism for distinguishing between primary and secondary legislation in terms of the appropriate protections that will apply to UK citizens. I do not want my constituents to be in a worse position in a few years’ time than they are in now when it comes to their rights, so I urge the Government to listen to the debate today—I know they have their listening ear on.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I call Stuart C. McDonald—fairly briefly. The hon. Gentleman has amendments down and must be heard, but I know he will be sensitive to the importance of the Minister having adequate time to respond to all that has been said, so I am sure that he will be on his feet for only a small number of minutes.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to speak briefly to amendments 55 and 56 and to probe one simple issue: in short, what happens if there is a failure to correct a deficiency in EU law, so that it cannot operate effectively after exit, and how can we maximise the chances that such a thing does not happen?
We have had plenty of debate on how we can restrict Government powers to correct deficiencies so that such powers cannot be used to undermine the incorporation of EU rules and so that we do not end up with some sort of watered-down or dysfunctional version of the original. However, perhaps the more realistic possibility, and just as much of a danger, is that we end up with a watered-down or dysfunctional version of EU rules not because of the inappropriate use of those powers of correction, but because of a failure to use them at all in appropriate circumstances, either by accident or design, or if various incorporated rules and regulations are simply allowed to fester away uncorrected and unable to operate effectively. So, I asked at Committee stage, “What happens if there is a citizen before a court in this country, seeking to establish rights under retained EU law when that retained EU law is actually riddled with deficiencies? Is the court supposed to try and make that work? Does the person simply lose their ability to exercise that right?”
My amendment 55 simply requires the court to interpret retained EU law—as far as possible—in such a way as to make it function effectively, borrowing shamelessly from the language of the Human Rights Act. I fully acknowledge that that in itself would not take us very far, but it is there to prompt a response from the Government. What should the court do in those circumstances? There are alternative courses of action that this Parliament could take, not just in amending clause 6 but in other parts of the Bill. We could expressly require EU law to be interpreted so as to be given effect “as if the UK were still a member state”, with further provisions about how that should be done. We could put in place a procedure to allow courts to flag up rules that they have found cannot operate effectively. We could put Ministers under an obligation or a duty to ensure that retained EU laws operate effectively; indeed, amendment 57 and new clause 19 are of that nature. Alternatively, as amendment 56 suggests, we could simply require the Government to publish a list of all the deficiencies they found in retained EU law that they are not seeking directly to rectify.
In short, the task of ensuring that we have a functioning rule book or statute book on exit day is twofold. Parliament must protect important rights, not only by preventing inappropriate use of Henry VIII powers, but by providing a means of ensuring that deficiencies are rectified where necessary, either by the Government, or by Parliament or by our courts, and I still think we have a long way to go in that regard.
The Solicitor General
I wish to speak in support of amendments 37 and 38 in the name of my colleagues in Government.
I will try and answer the question that was put to me by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who has been getting frustrated in these debates about the somewhat technical nature of ministerial responses. Well, this is a very technical Bill. Like its illustrious predecessor, the European Communities Act 1972, it is a Bill of constitutional importance; it is a framework Bill. It is not—I stress this, because it is most important—it is not a Bill that seeks to convey a policy or a particular aspect of policy that we have discussed today. It is a framework that is designed to ensure that the law that is applied up to exit is downloaded in as clear and proper a way as possible because, to be consistent with the rule of law, the law needs to be accessible, it needs to be clear and it needs to be well understood. That is the fundamental basis of my concern about today’s amendments—that in seeking to retain the charter of fundamental rights in domestic law after exit, not only do we sow potential confusion but we fundamentally misunderstand what that charter means in the first place.
Sir Oliver Letwin
The Government have introduced welcome amendments to clause 7. While my hon. and learned Friend is talking about clarity, I just want to ask him to confirm, at this early stage in his remarks, that the Government will bring forward the amendments that we were hoping for, and that I think my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and I were, if not promised, at least led to expect, when clause 6 is discussed in the other place.
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. If he had sufficient time at his disposal, he might have seen the evidence that I gave to the Constitution Committee in the other place, in which the issues in clause 6 were discussed—the interpretive provisions that he and I and others debated in Committee.
May I come back to the fundamental point about the charter? It was never intended to create new rights. It was a document that reaffirmed rights that already existed in EU law.
The Solicitor General
I will not; I am developing my argument. It was a point that was made clear, not only in the charter itself but in protocol 30, which was signed by Poland and the UK at the time of the Lisbon treaty. In addition—this is important, and this, it seems to me, having listened carefully to the debate, is not understood—the charter does not apply to member states in everything they do. Although it applies to the EU and its institutions in all areas, it binds member states only in so far as they are acting within the scope of EU law. Therefore talking about the charter in a domestic context misunderstands its purpose and point: it was not drafted in that context. I am afraid that there has, I think, been a regrettable misunderstanding about that in this debate.
Mr Grieve
I do not think I have been under any misunderstanding at all. That is why I have kept pressing the Government to leave the charter to one side but look at the general principles of EU law necessary to bring challenges to retained EU law, brought into our own domestic law, that was not enacted by this Parliament—and without which, frankly, the coherence of EU law starts to disintegrate. That is the issue. Linked to that, of course, is the other issue of protecting some of those fundamental rights, perhaps in a different way, that matter to so many on both sides of the House.
The Solicitor General
My right hon. and learned Friend and I agree about general principles, which is why the general principles that underpin the recently drafted charter remain and, of course, do apply in respect of retained EU law. His second point about the means by which individuals challenge that is, of course, a matter of ongoing debate. I shall come back to the points raised in not only his amendment, but mine as well.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
My hon. and learned Friend kindly said that he would try to answer my question. The question was: what harm has the charter of fundamental rights done and what evil is he trying to avert? It is true that, unexpectedly, new rights have been created under the charter and he is right that those rights have relevance to EU law. But the whole point of the Bill is to retain large amounts of EU law and its principles. What is the point of the change? This is policy in this Bill—it is a policy change. I fear that it is a signal to some sections of my party: the only part of the acquis communautaire that will be abolished mentions the wicked words “fundamental rights”, and that is why it is being removed.
The Solicitor General
The position that my right hon. and learned Friend took on the charter back in 2007 is the right one. As I was saying, it is in the interests of maintaining the rule of law that we maintain clarity, consistency and a clear authoritative source for those rights. My genuine concern about the importation of this particular charter into our domestic law is that we will sow confusion. That is not good for the maintenance of the rule of law, for the citizens of our country, for the future development of the law or for the position of this place vis-à-vis that development.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I entirely endorse what my hon. and learned Friend is saying, not least because of the acquis itself. Secondly, there are the adjudications under the European Court itself. Thirdly, the charter is like a legal ectoplasm: it seeps into everything. There is no way in which we would ever be able to extract ourselves from the entirety of the provisions in perpetuity.
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises a genuine concern about the impact of protocol 30. Many Opposition Members were here 10 years ago; they were anxious then to make sure that the protocol was included in the Lisbon treaty. They are now happy to resile from that position and take an entirely different view. I take great issue with that: the legal principles were the same then as now. Nothing has really changed about the potential force of the charter, so I am rather bemused to hear about that volte-face on the part of many Opposition Members.
Lady Hermon
I am grateful to the Solicitor General for giving way, particularly given that from a sedentary position earlier he described an intervention of mine as rubbish—but let us slide away from that. As he will know very well, human rights were an essential component of the Belfast agreement, and the protection of human rights was at the core of the Patten reforms of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. For the people of Northern Ireland, therefore, the protection of human rights is essential. By repealing the charter of fundamental rights—not the convention, the charter—we are sending out an extremely negative message to the people of Northern Ireland. Can he offer reassurances on that point?
The Solicitor General
I certainly can. First, we are not repealing anything. Secondly, the dog that has not barked in this debate is the European convention on human rights, which is much supported by both sides of the House, very much part of our law and a fundamental part of the underpinning of many of the human rights—
The Solicitor General
I know that the hon. and learned Lady treasures and rightly places great value on those human rights. I give way to her.
Joanna Cherry
Can the Solicitor General confirm once and for all that reports that the Prime Minister wants to run the next Tory party general election campaign on a pledge to repeal the Human Rights Act and withdraw from the convention are incorrect? [Interruption.] Conservative Members roll their eyes and make a noise. I am giving him the opportunity to confirm that that is incorrect.
The Solicitor General
May I just calm the hon. and learned Lady? [Interruption.] Well, she is making a point that is frankly not the case. We have committed to supporting our membership of the European convention throughout this Parliament, and that is a position I entirely support.
The Solicitor General
The hon. and learned Lady seems to be very focused on future referendums and the desire to rerun arguments that were held some time ago. I want to do justice to her amendments as much as to anybody else’s, and I will say this about the amendments posited by her and the Labour party: they offer different visions of how challenge might be mounted by using the charter. Amendment 4, which stands in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, deals with a situation akin to that under the Human Rights Act, whereby a declaration of incompatibility can be given, but that does not guarantee full redress for individuals seeking it under the charter. I accept that the amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Lady goes further and would retain a power in effect to strike down legislation if it is incompatible with the charter. I simply say to both of them, with the greatest of respect, that their approaches work against the core aims of the Bill. We are leaving the EU, and there has to be certainty about the process; and certainty in the law lies at the heart of everything else we have to do. That is the simple reason why we cannot accept those amendments.
I was interested in the arguments of the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) about clause 4, when she moved her amendment 57 and spoke to her new clause 19. My argument about clause 4 is simply this: indeed, as the sweeper clause—the description she adopted—it has the important function of curing any loopholes that might exist in European law when we leave the EU and deals with the question of uncertainty that I know she is extremely concerned with. I will try to reassure her. She will remember that the explanatory notes contain a helpful and non-exhaustive list of the type of directly effective rights, such as equal pay—a very important right—that are designed to be covered by this important provision in clause 4. As I have said in evidence in another place, we are simply seeking to ensure the important principle of reciprocity in the enforcement of fundamental rights such as those of equality, which she referred to, and those pertaining to the environment, for which I know she also has a great passion.
In conjunction, I can deal with the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), who succinctly and clearly made his argument on new clause 16, which deals fairly and squarely with equalities. We have already made our commitment clear that all the protections in and under the Equality Acts of 2006 and 2010 and the equivalent Northern Ireland legislation will continue to apply once we have left the EU. In Committee, we tabled an amendment which would secure transparency in that regard by requiring ministerial statements to be made about any amendments made to the Equality Act through secondary legislative powers under the Bill.
What concerns me about new clause 16 is that it would go further by creating new free-standing rights, perhaps even more than have been proposed in amendments relating to the charter. That is not the purpose of the Bill. The Bill is about maintaining the same levels of protection on the day after exit as on the day before. It is not a vehicle for substantive legislative changes such as those that have been proposed, and for that reason we cannot accept the new clause.
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) for his qualified welcome for the Government amendments. The reason for a three-month time limit analogous to that which exists in domestic judicial review is the important policy consideration that there must be a degree of certainty when it comes to ongoing litigation and dispute about EU law as we enter the post-exit era. I think there must be some resolution of that by way of a limitation period. Retaining an open-ended right of action would create more uncertainty for businesses and individuals about rights and obligations.
After we cease to be a member of the European Union, it would not be right to allow “general principles” challenges to Acts of Parliament to continue, because that is not in line with the purposes of Brexit. To put it simply, outside the context of EU law, the ability of courts to disapply Acts of Parliament on “general principles” grounds is not consistent with the way in which our domestic legal system functions. That must be at the heart of our policy considerations.
Mr Grieve
My hon. and learned Friend’s argument would make more sense if the Government had not decided to retain the principle of the supremacy of EU law in the Bill. Once they have done that, removing the mechanism of a challenge on the basis of general principles creates something that I think is rather odd. I would not have pressed the issue if the Government had adopted an alternative approach, but that was their own decision. This has, I think, highlighted some of the oddities of the way in which the matter has been approached. It may well be that they can be sorted out in the other place, but I think my hon. and learned Friend must acknowledge that they are odd.
The Solicitor General
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend is allowing me to intervene on his intervention. Let us not forget that we are dealing with the pre-exit situation. The EU acquis is being frozen, in the sense that its full effect in a pre-exit sense must be maintained so that we can maintain certainty. I agree that it is a strange and rather unusual concept, but I think it preserves that all-important certainty.
Time is short, and I want to ensure that I deal with further amendments.
The Solicitor General
I must press on, I am afraid.
The amendments tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield relating to the way in which we designate EU legislation make important contributions to the debate, but they are laden with problems. The sheer volume of what we are dealing with—well over 15,000 pieces of legislation—leads me to draw back from trying to create a convenient categorisation of retained EU law. With the greatest respect, I think it far wiser for the Government to approach each item on a case-by-case basis, not making glib assumptions and trying to downgrade EU law, but getting each particular measure right.
Amendments tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West and others deal with, again, the debate on clause 6 and the interpretation of retained EU law. I entirely understand why the amendments were tabled, because the debate is intense, but I would say to those Members, with respect, that I think less is more. The more we try to enshrine in law principles such as persuasive authority—which is in one of the amendments—the more I see the potential for judicial head-scratching and litigation of a type that I do not believe the judiciary would welcome. I have said it before and I say it again: I trust our judiciary to answer the question put before them rather than to survey like lions of the constitutional savannah and to run across the landscape. They answer the question that is put to them, and I trust them to do that and to use the discretion that quite naturally they should be given.
In relation to the new clause in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), it is clear that the Government regard animals as sentient and we of course support the sentiment behind the new clause, as we did on a previous occasion, but we could not support it then and the reasons for not supporting it have not changed. Article 13 places an obligation on the EU when developing certain policies, and on EU member states when developing and implementing those policies. That obligation, because animals are sentient beings, is to have full regard to their welfare requirements, but article 13 applies only to a limited number of EU policy areas, and frankly it also allows for practices that we would consider cruel.
Caroline Lucas
I would be interested to know what policy area the Solicitor General thinks the EU provision does not cover: what does he want to cover that the EU does not? Secondly, would it not be safer just to have this amendment in the Bill to make sure we have legal certainty, because he cannot guarantee that the Government Bill will get on to the statute book before we leave the EU?
The Solicitor General
May I reassure the hon. Lady by pointing out that there are many areas on which we have heard debates, such as on live importation? I want to make sure the new domestic law we introduce is comprehensive in a way that I know she would fully support. Cross-referencing to the obligations in article 13 —which apply only to EU policies, not to UK policies—would, if anything, create more confusion once we have left the EU.
Frankly, article 13 has not delivered and its effect on domestic law is minimal, and as my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary has said, we can do better. We have made it clear that we intend to retain, and indeed enhance, our existing standards of animal welfare once we leave. This Bill will convert the existing body of EU animal welfare law into our law and will make sure the same protections are in place in the UK and that laws still function effectively after we leave.
The purpose of this Bill is not to improve EU laws; it is about providing a functioning statute book. That is why, as the hon. Lady has acknowledged, the Government have now published draft legislation—the Animal Welfare (Sentencing and Recognition of Sentience) Bill—which sets out why we can do it better. It is a significant improvement on article 13; it will impose a clear duty on the state to have regard for animal welfare when considering all policies, rather than just the six areas in article 13.
I also say to the hon. Lady that it is open to public consultation and we have to respect the views of thousands of members of the public who will be coming forward and making—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady believes in open and public consultation and democracy, and that is why we are doing what we are doing. [Interruption.] It ill behoves the hon. Lady to assume that my party somehow lies on a lower moral plain when it comes to issues of animal welfare. We share the passion and commitment to animal welfare that she professes and I know many other Members in this House do—I look to the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) as a shining example. We want to hear from the public and their view about it, and we want to get it right in domestic legislation, which is the right place for it.
There is much I could say about the wonderful, if small, British overseas territory of Anguilla. Having visited it myself in a ministerial capacity, I was very grateful to the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) for his description. We are very conscious not only of the importance of Anguilla, its people and its economy, but the need to make sure that the concerns of the Anguillan Government are considered and the rights people have in Anguilla, which are exactly the same as those of UK nationals, are preserved after we leave the EU. We will make sure that that situation will not change.
The debate on the charter has been an important one. It has been a further stage in the way in which we have looked carefully at the Bill. The Government remain open and we are listening to all views on how we can get this right. I am sure that, as the Bill makes its way into another place, the deliberations of this House will have done much to enhance the quality not only of the Bill but of our democracy itself.
Kerry McCarthy
I thank the Minister for praising me as a shining example on animal welfare, but that does not quite make up for my disappointment that he has failed to address the issues in my amendments. I therefore seek to press amendment 57 to a vote.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Lady had 10 seconds, and she has been indulged very modestly.
Joanna Cherry
I beg to move amendment 49, page 17, line 13, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.
This amendment would ensure that Ministers can only bring forward regulations when it is necessary to do so.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 50, page 17, line 18, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.
This amendment would ensure that Ministers can only bring forward regulations when it is necessary to do so.
Government amendments 21 to 27.
Amendment 51, page 22, line 39, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.
This amendment would ensure that Ministers can only bring forward regulations when it is necessary to do so.
Amendment 52, page 22, line 43, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.
This amendment would ensure that Ministers can only bring forward regulations when it is necessary to do so.
Government amendment 28.
Amendment 53, page 25, line 12, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.
This amendment would ensure that Ministers can only bring forward regulations when it is necessary to do so.
Amendment 54, page 25, line 16, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.
This amendment would ensure that Ministers can only bring forward regulations when it is necessary to do so.
Government amendment 29.
Amendment 3, in clause 11, page 7, line 23, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
“(1) In section 29(2)(d) of the Scotland Act 1998 (no competence for Scottish Parliament to legislate incompatibly with EU law), omit “or with EU law”.
(2) In section 108A(2)(e) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (no competence for National Assembly for Wales to legislate incompatibly with EU law), omit “or with EU law”.
(3) In section 6(2)(d) of the Northern Ireland Act (no competency for the Assembly to legislate incompatibly with EU law, omit “is incompatible with EU law”.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament proposals for replacing European frameworks with UK ones.
(5) UK-wide frameworks shall be proposed if and only if they are necessary to—
(a) enable the functioning of the UK internal market,
(b) ensure compliance with international obligations,
(c) ensure the UK can negotiate, enter into and implement new trade agreements and international treaties,
(d) enable the management of common resources,
(e) administer and provide access to justice in cases with a cross-border element, or
(f) safeguard the security of the UK.
(6) Ministers of the Crown shall create UK-wide frameworks only if they have consulted with, and secured the agreement of, the affected devolved administrations.”
This amendment removes the Bill’s proposed restrictions on the ability of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly to legislate on devolved matters and creates new collaborative procedures for the creation of UK-wide frameworks for retained EU law.
Amendment 6, page 7, line 23, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
“(1) In section 29(2)(d) of the Scotland Act 1998 (no competence for Scottish Parliament to legislate incompatibly with EU law), omit “or with EU law”.
(2) In section 108A(2)(e) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (no competence for National Assembly for Wales to legislate incompatibly with EU law), omit “or with EU law”.”
This amendment would replace the Bill’s changes to the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales in consequence of EU withdrawal, by removing the restriction on legislative competence relating to EU law and ensuring that no further restriction relating to retained EU law is imposed.
Amendment 13, page 7, line 23, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
“(1) In section 29(2)(d) of the Scotland Act 1998 (no competence for Scottish Parliament to legislate incompatibly with EU law), omit “or with EU law”.
(2) In section 108A (2)(e) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (no competence for National Assembly for Wales to legislate incompatibly with EU law), omit “or with EU law”.
(3) In section 6(2)(d) of the Northern Ireland Act (no competency for the Assembly to legislate incompatibly with EU law), omit “is incompatible with EU law”.
(3A) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament proposals for replacing European frameworks with UK ones.
(3B) UK-wide frameworks will be proposed if and only if they are necessary to—
(a) enable the functioning of the UK internal market, while acknowledging policy divergence;
(b) ensure compliance with international obligations;
(c) ensure the UK can negotiate, enter into and implement new trade agreements and international treaties;
(d) enable the management of common resources;
(e) administer and provide access to justice in cases with a cross-border element; or
(f) safeguard the security of the UK.
(3C) Frameworks will respect the devolution settlements and the democratic accountability of the devolved legislatures, and will therefore—
(a) be based on established conventions and practices, including that the competence of the devolved institutions will not be adjusted without their consent;
(b) maintain, as a minimum, equivalent flexibility for tailoring policies to the specific needs of each territory as is afforded by current EU rules; and
(c) lead to a significant increase in decision-making powers for the devolved administrations.
(3D) Frameworks will ensure recognition of the economic and social linkages between Northern Ireland and Ireland by—
(a) recognising that Northern Ireland will be the only part of the UK that shares a land frontier with the EU; and
(b) adhering to the Belfast Agreement.
(3E) UK-wide frameworks will be created jointly by the sitting devolved administrations and Ministers of the Crown, with the agreement of all parties involved.”
This amendment removes the Bill’s proposed restrictions on the ability of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly to legislate on devolved matters and creates a new collaborative procedure for the creation of UK-wide frameworks for retained EU law using the principles as agreed at the Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations) on 16 October 2017.
Amendment 44, in clause 7, page 5, line 7, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.
This amendment would ensure that Ministers can only bring forward regulations under Clause 7 when it is necessary to do so.
Amendment 5, page 6, line 18, after “it”, insert—
“( ) modify the Scotland Act 1998 or the Government of Wales Act 2006,”.
This amendment would prevent the powers of a Minister of the Crown under Clause 7 of the Bill to fix problems in retained EU law from being exercised to amend the Scotland Act 1998 or the Government of Wales Act 2006.
Amendment 45, in clause 8, page 6, line 33, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.
This amendment would ensure that Ministers can only bring forward regulations when it is necessary to do so.
Amendment 46, in clause 9, page 7, line 3, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.
This amendment would ensure that Ministers can only bring forward regulations when it is necessary to do so.
Amendment 47, in clause 17, page 14, line 15, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.
This amendment would ensure that Ministers can only bring forward regulations when it is necessary to do so.
Amendment 48, page 14, line 22, leave out “appropriate” and insert “necessary”.
This amendment would ensure that Ministers can only bring forward regulations when it is necessary to do so.
Amendment 11, in clause 19, page 15, line 11, at beginning insert—
“(1) Subject to subsection (1A)”.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 12 to Clause 19 that requires legislative consent from the sitting devolved administrations before any of the provisions in this Act come into force.
Amendment 12, page 15, line 18, at end insert—
“(1A) None of the provisions in this Act may come into force until the Prime Minister is satisfied that resolutions have been passed by the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly, signifying consent to the Act unless—
(a) direct rule is in place;
(b) the devolved administration has been formally suspended; or
(c) if the devolved administration has been dissolved for reasons other than recess or an election.”
This amendment requires the Prime Minister to gain legislative consent from the sitting devolved administrations before any of the provisions in this Act come into force.
Government amendments 14 to 20, 30 to 32 and 34.
Joanna Cherry
The amendments I have tabled go to the heart of concerns that many Members have about the wide powers afforded to the Executive by clause 9, schedule 2 and other parts of the Bill in relation to secondary legislation. The purpose of my amendments is to ensure that Ministers can only bring forward regulations under clause 7 and the like when it is “necessary” to do so, rather than when it is “appropriate”. The word “appropriate” is too wide.
These issues were discussed in Committee, but—surprise, surprise—it was very difficult to get a straight answer from Ministers about why they were so wedded to the word “appropriate” and were not interested in changing it to the word “necessary”, as supported by many organisations including Justice and the Law Society of Scotland. The change would also reflect judicial concerns about the breadth of discretion that the judiciary would be given if they had to determine whether something was “appropriate” rather than “necessary”. This will be subject to judicial review because we are talking about secondary legislation. I tried in vain in Committee to get the Minister to say what was meant by “appropriate”. He referred me to the dictionary definition, but that is simply not good enough.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
It seems to me, and I am sure the hon. and learned Lady will agree, that as far as the Government are concerned, “appropriate” means, “We’ll tell you what we’re going to bring in front of you.”
Joanna Cherry
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is the gravamen of the concern. The Government are given too much discretion to decide what they consider is appropriate, rather than what is necessary for the purposes of the Bill.
I have no doubt that, later in the debate this afternoon, a Minister will rise to reassure me and others that the Government would never do anything inappropriate, but I think we know what we all think about that. And I am talking not just about this Government; all Governments, particularly when afforded too much Executive power, will seek to abuse it—that is in the nature of the Executive.
In Committee, I was rather struck by a sweeping statement by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), who said that, apparently, we all know what “appropriate” means and that the courts will know what it means. If that is so, why does the Minister not tell us what “appropriate” means in this context? Many distinguished lawyers have said that the courts will not know, and the judiciary themselves have expressed concern about the breadth of discretion given to the Government by the use of the word “appropriate” rather than the word “necessary”.
The matter has been raised by the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, which recommended that the power in clause 7
“should only be available where Ministers can show that it is necessary to make a change to the statute book”.
I have no doubt that an amendment on that will be forthcoming in the House of Lords, but as I said earlier in the debate, it is important that this democratically elected and accountable House debate these matters and that we get some colour from the Government on their position.
The issues raised by the amendment have also been referred to by the Scottish Parliament’s Finance and Constitution Committee, which has produced an interim report on the Bill and supported the recommendation. I think that I am right in saying that the report was supported by a number of Conservative Members of the Scottish Parliament, so this is not really a party political issue. I do not want us to withdraw from the EU, but I recognise the need for this legislation if we are going to do so, and this amendment seeks to circumscribe Executive power.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I can see the hon. and learned Lady’s point that, in the light of the changes that the Government have made to clause 7, it may be appropriate to change “appropriate” to “necessary” in the schedule. However, will she confirm that her amendment 49 does that for devolved authorities’ Ministers, not for the Crown, and that that comes later in the sequence of amendments?
Joanna Cherry
Yes. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It would not be very consistent if I thought that the British Executive should not get sweeping powers but the Scottish Executive should. All these arguments about curtailing Executive power apply to all Governments in these islands, not just to this Government. At the moment—my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) will address these matters later—the Scottish Government are getting precious few powers in relation to these matters, and that is a grave concern. However, others will address that later.
The Solicitor General said he had listened with care to what was said about this issue in Committee, so what will Ministers do about it? Have they spoken to the judiciary about this? Have they taken on board the judiciary’s concerns about the scope of discretion granted to them and their fear of that, given recent politically motivated attacks on the judiciary? Have Ministers taken on board the concern expressed on both sides of this House and by many organisations outwith it about the broad scope of the powers currently afforded?
As I said, I have no doubt that these concerns will be raised in the Lords, but now is the time for the Government to tell this democratically elected and accountable House what they are going to do to circumscribe the exercise of Executive power in this Bill.
Mr Jenkin
I will speak only briefly to somewhat lament the fact that we have not made more progress on this clause 11 issue. Let me explain the background. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has taken an interest in this matter. We have taken an extensive interest in the inter-institutional relations between the different Parliaments of the United Kingdom and the different Administrations of the United Kingdom, which is a very undeveloped part of our constitution. We have the legal framework, but we do not have the practices, the culture or the institutional underpinning. The debate about the legislative consent motions in relation to this legislation has shown that up to a degree.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), recently departed from the Government, who played a crucial role in making considerable advances on the question of how the legislative consent motions in support of this proposed Act of Parliament should be supported by the devolved Parliaments. It seems to me that the process has stalled somewhat, and it is unfortunate that we do not have the Government or others tabling amendments at this stage of the scrutiny of the Bill, when some of us had hoped that that would be the case. I am bound to say that it may reflect the fact that there is not yet a consensus, and it would be more important to reach a consensus on this matter than to table some amendments that do not reflect a consensus.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I totally understand the wish, perhaps, to have had more discussion or debate before bringing amendments, but is that not an argument for putting back this debate, rather than that these amendments should come up in the Lords, where not just Scotland’s governing party but all Scottish MPs cannot take part in the debate?
Dr Whitford
Even if the SNP were in the Lords, it is the representatives here who are elected, and representatives from all Scottish parties are disfranchised by the amendment’s not being moved today.
Mr Jenkin
I accept that. Whatever compromise or proposals emerge in the other place, we can either debate them, vote on them and accept them, or we can debate them, vote on them, reject them and send back our own proposals to the other place at that point, so this House will have an opportunity to debate this very fully—just as fully as on Report.
This is, ultimately, a question of trust. We need to build up trust. Whatever the future holds for our United—or disunited—Kingdom, there need to be relationships of trust between the four Parliaments of these islands, the four Administrations of these islands, to enable us to make our way in the world as effectively as possible after we have left the European Union. That trust is still somewhat lacking in those relationships, and there may be one or two who want to foment distrust for their own political reasons. That makes getting this sorted out in an amicable way more challenging, but all the more necessary.
Martin Whitfield
Is not trust based on experience, and is not the experience that we have witnessed over the past few weeks disappointing in that building of trust?
Mr Jenkin
We have come a long way since the Government first published the Bill in draft last summer, when there were very peremptory conversations with the devolved Administrations and they felt very unconsulted about the Bill that had been published. There has been quite a lot of trust building and discussion, and the meetings of the Joint Ministerial Committee, which has discussed these matters and produced joint memorandums, shows that the trust is capable of building. I do think we have gone backwards a little bit in recent weeks, but I hope that the work that my Committee is doing will help. My Committee is going to Cardiff at the beginning of February and then we will be making an official visit, following an unofficial visit late last year, to Edinburgh, to build up these relationships and these understandings between the different Parliaments and the different Administrations. I do hope that in the end we can arrive at the right destination.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I welcome the Committee Chair’s taking his Committee formally and informally to Edinburgh and I agree with what he says about trust, but I hope that he agrees with me and my party that trust would be ably demonstrated if the Government had tabled an amendment, committing to deliver all the 111 powers to the devolved Administrations.
Mr Jenkin
Trust is about what is offered to the other party. In this case, the Government have been consistently misconstrued. Given the drafting, clause 11 can be read as though the Government intended to hold on to the 111 powers for all time, withholding them from the Scottish Government, but the Government have repeatedly said that that is not the case. My Committee has also consistently said that the Government’s intention is that the devolved Administrations and Parliaments should finish with substantially more powers as a result of leaving the EU than they had before.
Lady Hermon
We have not had a functioning Assembly in Northern Ireland for a year—since January 2017. How exactly does the hon. Gentleman and his Committee expect to build up trust with the Northern Ireland Assembly? How is that going?
Mr Jenkin
It is very problematic. My Committee has repeatedly attempted to make an official visit to the Province, but that has not been regarded as expedient at this time. However, I sometimes run into the hon. Lady and I talk to other elected representatives of the Province; I hope that there is, at least within this House, trust and understanding between the democratically elected representatives on this matter. However, I invite the hon. Lady to a further conversation offline. We are continuing our inquiry and our work.
I make it clear to my party’s Front Benchers that I expect amendments to be tabled to clause 11 to clarify how long the powers should exist. Why is there not a sunset provision at the end of clause 11, so that it is seen clearly as a temporary expedient and not a final destination? Why is there not some qualification to the powers that have been retained, to show that they are for a particular purpose rather than just a blanket withholding?
As I said in Committee, it was instructive that even the work commissioned by the Scottish Parliament demonstrated that most of the powers being recovered from the EU—those with relevance to the UK single market, for example—are naturally reserved powers. We are dealing here with only a relatively small proportion, albeit on significant matters such as the environment, farming and fisheries.
This is an important test for the relationship between Whitehall and its counterparts elsewhere in the United Kingdom—and, indeed, with this Parliament, because the relationship between the Parliaments is just as undeveloped, possibly even less so, than the relationship between the Governments. The Governments have to work together, and on the island of Great Britain we have a single civil service that naturally works together. But the idea of the Parliaments of the United Kingdom working together is a completely alien concept and has not yet come into our political idiom at all.
Our Committee continues to work on the issue. I hope that we shall make some radical recommendations to help us learn from other, decentralised systems of government in other countries. This is in the DNA of their constitutions. We need to develop the same facility, so that after we leave the European Union and the powers have been devolved, the four parts of the United Kingdom work effectively and harmoniously together for the common good and the future of our country.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
The biggest scandal about clause 11 is that the UK Government know that it is completely unacceptable; they are just not brave enough to admit it. Ministers, Tory MPs and civil servants have privately—and publicly, sometimes—acknowledged how extremely ill-advised it is to remove the power of the devolved Governments over devolved areas. This UK Government committed to introducing amendments on Report to address this, but where are they? Where is the Government’s acknowledgement that they have got this wrong?
Sir Oliver Letwin
No doubt the hon. Lady will develop her argument, but will she just clarify something? It is not the case, is it, that anything is being removed from the devolved authorities? It is a question of whether things that currently reside in Brussels should be devolved rather than returned to Westminster.
Anna McMorrin
There are things that are devolved and on which we work with the EU, and we do not want those devolved areas returned centrally to the UK Government, as part of a power grab, rather than to our devolved Administrations. The Welsh Government are clearly arguing that case, and so are the Scottish Government.
Dr Whitford
Is the issue not the basic principle that when the Scottish Parliament was set up, certain powers were reserved, and if they were not specifically reserved, they were devolved? That was not originally the case in Wales, but it was later changed. This process reverses that.
Anna McMorrin
That is absolutely the case. It is the case in Scotland and is now the case in Wales. The Welsh and Scottish Governments are clearly arguing this case, and we are now on the brink of a constitutional crisis. This is an issue of trust—trust to exercise devolved powers responsibly, trust to carry out measures that represent the people of Wales and trust to provide meaningful scrutiny of legislation. Why should we in Wales trust a UK Government who are leading us, at any cost, towards such a shambolic, hard Brexit? As it stands, after Brexit, the devolved Governments will be at the mercy of Whitehall, which will have complete control over the time, place, method and future of the powers being repatriated from Brussels. Whitehall may even decide that passing them on is too much trouble, and since the devolved Administrations are given no bargaining powers under the Bill, there will be no opportunities for either Wales or Scotland to demand their return. This is called rolling back the powers of devolution, and we in Wales will not stand for it.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
Is the hon. Lady not aware that there are ongoing discussions between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations about this very subject, that there are positive signs that an agreement will be reached—if it has not already been reached—and that therefore she is scaremongering in respect of these powers?
Anna McMorrin
I am aware that discussions are taking place, but I am also aware that the UK Government promised to bring forward an amendment at this stage but have not done so. So where is that trust?
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Will the hon. Lady agree that a symbol of how seriously this is being taken by the Welsh Government and Welsh parties and in Scotland is the fact that consideration is now being given to continuity Bills to ensure that those powers are retained? In fact, my colleague Steff Lewis in the Assembly will be presenting just such a Bill tomorrow morning.
Anna McMorrin
Yes, that is exactly right, and something I am coming on to. Just today, the Welsh First Minister has said he will take steps to protect Welsh powers after Brexit if UK Ministers do not change the Bill, stating that the Prime Minister’s plan to accumulate all the powers from Brussels in London is a “fundamental assault on devolution”.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
Members from all sides have mentioned the issue of trust. Does my hon. Friend think that the Government’s attitude to the cancellation of the electrification of the line to Swansea and their promises on EU grants to Wales have helped trust between Cardiff and London?
Anna McMorrin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. How can we trust a UK Government who cannot make a decision on the tidal lagoon, who cancel electrification, who do not give us fair funding, and who do not give Wales an equal say? The Bill says just that.
The First Minister of Wales has explicitly refused consent to the Bill, and if nothing has changed by the end of January, the Welsh Government will introduce a continuity Bill to protect Welsh interests. The invitation from the Welsh Government to co-operate with the UK Government to make the Bill fit for purpose has been ignored. If the UK Government understood why devolution is one of the strengths of the UK rather than—as they seem to think—one of its weaknesses, they could have included a strategy providing for meaningful, positive scrutiny of legislation by the devolved Governments, and a smooth transition of powers from Brussels to the local, devolved Administrations who are best placed to know what is best for their own countries.
Some EU frameworks will need to be replaced by common frameworks in certain devolved areas, such as agriculture, environment and fisheries, but it is unacceptable to sideline the devolved Governments in that process. The Welsh Government have always been involved in EU negotiations, and are involved in them at the moment. I know that because, in a previous role, I have been part of those EU negotiations alongside Welsh Ministers. I know at first hand what an easy process this is, and I know that it is a process that has always worked. For example, Wales leads the way on recycling and climate change. If environmental policy is reserved to Whitehall, what is to stop the deregulation and the rolling back of our progress to abide by the messy agreements that the Government are planning with the likes of Donald Trump?
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
I share the hon. Lady’s frustration that the Government have not tabled an amendment, which I think will be well documented in the debate. Does she agree, however, that there is an opportunity for us to have a stronger United Kingdom through UK frameworks? The environmental point is very clear: pollution does not respect national or regional boundaries. We need strong nations, but we need a strong United Kingdom as well.
Anna McMorrin
We did table amendments, but the Government voted against them.
I cannot possibly accept that the UK Government will decide all new policies for all the nations of the UK on issues that are devolved, when they are also acting as the English Government. English interests are not always the same as Welsh or Scottish interests. We know all too well that English interests come first. Wales voted for a devolved Government 20 years ago. I was part of the campaign, and I was proud to see the then UK Labour Government bring that about.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
Surely the point is that we are a United Kingdom, and as we move across the United Kingdom we see a great diversity in our country. Walsall North is very different from some of the sunny areas in the south-east. I think that we need to operate collectively as a nation in these discussions.
Anna McMorrin
If the UK Government were going to work together in that way, surely they would have tabled an amendment at this stage enabling them to do just that.
We now see a more successful and more confident Wales than we saw two decades ago, but I fear that we are about to go backwards. The Tories have made it clear that when it comes to devolution, they just do not get it. Anyone who understands the basics of devolution could tell them that the Bill, in its current form, is taking us backwards. We need a Bill setting up a procedure that devolved Governments could use in order to have a say on the common UK frameworks so that they would not have to depend on Whitehall’s good will or trust, and that must be on the face of the Bill. We need a Bill that does not propose regressive restrictions on the ability of devolved Parliaments to legislate on devolved areas; this Bill is not it, and I am disappointed that this UK Government could not get their act together between Committee and Report stage and offer better amendments to salvage it.
Mr Grieve
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin). I want to raise two points, and the first of them goes to the issue around devolution and clause 11 and the lack of Government amendments. I do not share the hon. Lady’s somewhat apocalyptic view on this issue, but I certainly acknowledge that it is not desirable, because it is clearly not the Government’s intention for the process of Brexit to result in a diminution of devolved authority either in Scotland or Wales, or for that matter, in so far as Northern Ireland is going to get a viable Administration, in Northern Ireland. My view has always been, on looking at and reading the way the Bill was drafted, that we can do better than what appears in it at present. My understanding is that that is also acknowledged by the Government, although I do slightly regret that the Bill was introduced in its current form, because it seems to me that it was, to an extent, unnecessarily provocative.
However, it is worth bearing it in mind that ultimately the devolution system—I participated in the debates that set it up—had behind it the implication that the adjustments were not just a one-way ratchet, and I want to emphasise that point: the implication was that devolution might at times require adjustments that gave powers back to Westminster, just as they conferred more powers over time to both Cardiff and Edinburgh. That was clear in the course of those debates when Parliament set the original system up, and it has been repeated on a number of occasions since.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree with his colleague in the Scottish Conservative party Adam Tomkins MSP, the constitution spokesman, who said:
“Brexit must be delivered in a way that respects devolution…Looking at the substance of the 111 powers, many can safely be devolved without further ado; why aviation noise, for example, would need to come under a UK-wide framework I do not know”?
Mr Grieve
Yes, 110%; I agree entirely with those sentiments, and the remark I made earlier about it not being a one-way street in the way it is supposed to operate does not in any way detract from what Adam Tomkins had to say, and for that reason I continue to look to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench to sort this out, and I share the regret that what should have been done in this House is clearly going to come back for consideration in this House at ping-pong. That is not very satisfactory, and I gently make the point at this stage, as I am confident that there will be the necessary amendments in the Lords, that when the Bill comes back from the Lords there must be sufficient time for us to consider it in detail, because ping-pong often has remarkably little time for detailed consideration of measures. I hope very much that we can get an assurance that, in view of the important constitutional nature of this legislation, we should get that.
I said earlier that I had been rather disappointed by the Government response to a matter I raised in Committee and that we debated earlier this afternoon, but that having been said, we debated the extraordinarily broad nature of the powers conferred on the Executive in respect of clause 7 and I am pleased at the way the Government have responded to the representations I made and the amendments I tabled. In amendment 14, it is rather nice to see the Government echoing the very words that I drafted when this matter was in Committee. I have no doubt that, as drafted, the Government amendments produce a significant safeguard on the way in which the powers can be used. They do that in two ways: first, by introducing an ejusdem generis clause, which refers to something of the same nature. In referring to the deficiencies listed, they state that if there are any others, they must be of the same nature as those in the list. The second protection that is now being provided is that, if the Government wish to add to the list of deficiencies, they are going to have to do it by an affirmative resolution of this House.
I entirely accept that this does not go as far as what I was seeking to achieve when I tabled my original amendments, which was to tie the Government down rather more. However, the Government certainly made a perfectly reasonable case in the discussions that I had with them. I think that that might exhibit a certain amount of neurosis on their part—neurosis is very common, as I know from my time in government—that they might have missed something that they ought to have put into the list. The fact that they are willing to come to the House and get an affirmative order to do this provides me with considerable reassurance that this power will now be used in the manner in which it was intended.
Having said all those good things, it is worth pointing out that this and many of the other power grabs in the Bill are quite startling in their scope. It is, however, to the Government’s credit that they have been willing to listen on this. Their amendments amount to a considerable improvement, particularly when associated with the other safeguards that we have been offered in respect of triage and scrutiny. I should therefore like to express my gratitude to the Secretary of State and to the Bill team, who have suffered my presence on probably more occasions than they might have wished in discussing how this might be taken forward. This is exactly what I came into this House to do, and it is always rather nice to be able to achieve something—and, furthermore, to achieve it without having to divide the House, as that is always the weapon of last resort for the Government Back Bencher.
With that, I come back to the point at which I started. The test of this legislation will be whether, after enactment, it is seen to be working fairly when it comes into operation. I have no idea when it will come into operation. I suspect that that is still a very long time off, but that is a product of the folly of the course of action on which we are embarked. All that we can do is to try to moderate it as much as possible.
Stephen Doughty
I should like to speak to amendment 5, a cross-party amendment tabled in my name and those of other hon. Members. I should also like to indicate my strong support for the Opposition Front-Bench amendment 3. In principle, I also support many of the other amendments in this group, although not, I am sorry to say, the Government amendments, which do not go far enough towards addressing the concerns that have legitimately been raised by the devolved Administrations in particular. It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who has made some excellent points, as has my colleague and friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), who shares many of my deep concerns about this part of the legislation, which have not been addressed.
I hesitate to raise this point, but it is odd that we are discussing devolution and Brexit in this, the most important piece of legislation to face the United Kingdom and the devolved nations since the second world war, without the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland being present in the Chamber with us. I cannot see any of their junior Ministers here either. Perhaps they all have other important business to undertake. That seems rather remiss of them, given that we are considering such serious matters. I raised a point of order with you about this the other day, Mr Speaker, as did other Members. Much of the concern about this part of the Bill relates to promises and assurances that were given by the Secretary of State for Scotland, yet he is not here to account for himself. I have a great deal of respect for him, but these are serious issues that have been raised in good faith, and Ministers should be here to hear our concerns, and those of the devolved Administrations, if we are truly supposed to be bringing the United Kingdom closer together—as the Prime Minister claims to want to do—rather than pushing it apart.
Mr Jenkin
I count 10 Ministers on the Treasury Bench, so it is a little churlish to say that the Government are somehow under-represented when I can see only four members of the Opposition Front-Bench team. I think that says it all. This Government are listening hard to what the hon. Gentleman is saying even though he is being rather tedious.
Stephen Doughty
I do not normally respond negatively to the hon. Gentleman, but he fundamentally misunderstands my point. I did not say that Ministers were not here and listening; they clearly are. I can see the Minister for Africa, a Health Minister, the Skills Minister, Brexit Ministers and the Leader of the House, but where are the representatives of the Departments that are supposed to be doing the frontline discussions with the devolved Administrations? They are not here. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), a former Northern Ireland Minister, is also here, but I think she moved in the reshuffle. [Interruption.] She might be at the Cabinet Office—that is wonderful to hear—but where are the relevant Ministers? They should be listening, because what is the point of their being in their roles if they are not taking part in debates such as this?
Moving on, we had a lengthy and technical debate in Committee, and I do not want to repeat all the detailed arguments; I intend to focus on the principles that are stake. Fundamentally, this is about respect. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) spoke about trust, and it is also about trust. It is about respect for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and for democracy in a wider sense, because the powers that the legislatures of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland now have are the result of several referendums, several elections, detailed debates and consideration, and a great number of Acts. This is about respect for the devolution settlement and, ultimately, for the Union. I made an election promise to stand up for Wales alongside many of my Welsh Labour colleagues, and I wanted to raise our concerns today because they are so serious.
I have not re-tabled all the amendments that were tabled in Committee, because we have limited ability to consider them at this stage, but I live in hope that the new Cabinet Office Minister and the Government will work to address many of the concerns. However, I have no doubt that Members of the other place, where we have ex-First Ministers, distinguished former Ministers and Members who have served in devolved Administrations, will look carefully at the detailed concerns that were raised in Committee, at statements from the Scottish and Welsh Governments about the deficiencies in the Bill as it stands, and at the Government’s failure to address the issues, even in the limited set of amendments that they have tabled for consideration on Report.
I share the serious concerns about clause 11 and the lack of UK-wide frameworks and mechanisms to address many things, which reflects the wider complexity in this endeavour that we are rolling ahead with. We heard about Anguilla earlier on, and who would have thought that that would be a concern? There is so much detail in the complexity of the integration of our relationship with the European Union that the Government simply have not given enough it attention. Whether someone voted leave or remain, trying to address some of the issues is only in the country’s interests.
The White Paper of March 2017 claimed that there would be a significant increase in the decision-making power of the devolved Administrations and that former EU frameworks would be subject to decisions by democratically elected representatives of the United Kingdom. That clearly is not the case with this Bill as it stands. We have heard that there are 111 powers, but we are supposed to just take it on trust that all of them will transfer when the UK Government have repeatedly attempted to undermine the devolved Administrations. I raised that during the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016 and when discussing the Agricultural Workers Board. There is a litany of examples of when things end up in the Supreme Court or in complex disagreements, instead of being addressed in the first place.
The Secretary of State for Scotland suggested that amendments would be made at this stage, but we have not seen them. They have obviously become caught up in some shenanigans that were partly dealt with in the reshuffle. The situation is greatly disappointing, not least because the amendments that were drafted by the Welsh and Scottish Governments that were tabled as cross-party amendments by me and many other hon. Members were proposed in good faith. They were not about stopping Brexit or trying to wreck the Bill; they were serious, well meant and well intentioned and tried to address the serious concerns about the provisions in the Bill. Indeed, we know those concerns are shared by many Conservative Members. It is a shame that the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) has left his place, but he said in Committee that
“clause 11, as drafted, is not fit for purpose and must be changed. It does not need to be tweaked a little; it needs to be amended and replaced with a new version.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2017; Vol. 632, c. 731.]
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland said that these things would come back on Report. That has not happened, and now the Government are saying that it will go to the Lords. Of course, technically, the Government cannot guarantee any votes in the Lords because they do not have a majority, so this is another area where there is an element of failed trust; they simply do not have the numbers, even if they stack the Lords with a pile of the Prime Minister’s friends.
Stephen Doughty
Indeed, and it is a great concern that we have not had a proper chance to discuss the issue in this place. Given some of the constraining efforts by Government Whips and others at previous stages of this Bill, we will no doubt have constraints at ping-pong, when we consider the amendments made by the Lords. I want these issues to be substantially addressed.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Would it not be an act of good faith for the Government to accept amendment 3 today, and then to amend that amendment in the Lords?
Stephen Doughty
Amendment 3 is sensible, well meant and well thought through, and it enjoys substantial support. If the Government just accepted the amendment and moved forward, it would show good faith and we could try to resolve these issues.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North said, this Bill will not proceed with the consent of the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Government or the Welsh Assembly without substantial and urgent changes over the next few weeks, or indeed today before the Bill reaches the other place. That is well understood by people across the EU who are watching this process—indeed, I raised it on the visit to Brussels yesterday.
Stephen Kerr
The hon. Gentleman is making a good point about the legislative consent motion and the requirements that need to be in place for it to happen. The Labour amendment would not bring that about. There needs to be an agreement between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. Without that agreement, it is impossible to replace clause 11 satisfactorily to secure that LCM.
Stephen Doughty
The bottom line is that these concerns have been raised for months. They were raised by the Welsh and Scottish Governments right at the start, when the Bill was published. The UK Government have had plenty of time to resolve things, which is why there is such deep distrust and suspicion about their intent. Until they come up with something that actually addresses the concerns, we will continue to raise the issue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Doughty
I will happily take more interventions in a moment, but I want to make a little more progress.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North also briefly referred to this, but it is important that we hear exactly what the First Minister of Wales, Carwyn Jones, said in his statement today:
“The Bill as it currently stands represents a fundamental assault on devolution. It would replace current constraints on the National Assembly’s legislative competence, which will fall away…with a new set of constraints in devolved competences that would be controlled by the UK Government. We have consistently said there is no prospect of the Welsh Government recommending consent to the EU Withdrawal Bill as it is currently drafted… It is a matter of considerable regret that the Government has not, despite the undertaking of the Secretary of State for Scotland, introduced any amendment to Clause 11 which, as it stands, is wholly unacceptable to us.”
He went on to say that he is deeply concerned about the Government’s failure to accept some of the reasonable amendments tabled on a cross-party basis in Committee, and he made it clear that there will be consequences.
The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) spoke about a continuity Bill, and the First Minister made it clear today that, over the past eight months, the Welsh Government have been developing a continuity Bill that can be deployed if it becomes clear that it will not be possible to amend the EU (Withdrawal) Bill to ensure it properly reflects the devolution settlement. If amendments are not made, the Welsh Government will submit that continuity Bill to the Presiding Officer of the Welsh Assembly.
The First Minister could not be clearer, and I share his deep frustration, disappointment and concern that, despite all the warm words at different stages of the Bill—perhaps we will see a rapid turnaround from the new Minister for the Cabinet Office—these issues have not been addressed. We could have been debating the finer points today and moving on from this issue if we had ensured that we kept the constitutional framework in place.
Luke Graham
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that negotiations are two-sided? He talks about the agreement of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, so can he guarantee that if this House were to adopt the Labour amendment, the LCM would be passed in both of those?
Stephen Doughty
I think the Government should accept the series of amendments we have tabled. I am communicating the concerns of the Welsh Government and the Welsh people—indeed, of many who want to respect and maintain the devolution settlement as it is. The hon. Gentleman is asking this question now, but these amendments were put down months ago and these issues have been raised.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
This is exclusively the responsibility of the UK Government. They introduced the repeal Bill, designed clause 11 and acknowledged that there are issues for both the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, so it is up to them to fix it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this attempt to share blame with Scotland and Wales, as if somehow we are semi-responsible for this impasse, is totally disingenuous?
Anna McMorrin
Does my hon. Friend agree that this Front-Bench amendment was written alongside and in co-operation with the Welsh Government, which means they will accept what this amendment says? [Hon. Members: “The LCM?”] Yes.
Stephen Doughty
The series of issues we have raised concerns about for months has been clearly set out. These issues have been raised since the Bill was drafted. We are in the absurd situation where the Secretary of State for Scotland admits there are deficiencies in the Bill and many Conservative Members agree with that. I have no doubt that the Minister for the Cabinet Office agrees with it, although I doubt he will say so today. We all recognise there are deficiencies with it, so the question is: why have they not been resolved before we reached this stage? We were hearing a lot from the Scottish Conservative Members, whose position seemed to be somewhat different from that of their counterparts in the Scottish Parliament. The Welsh Conservatives claimed today that they are disappointed; the whole of Wales will be disappointed by their failure to stand up for Wales and their own legislature, in which they sit.
As I said, I do not want to go back into all the technical detail, so I finally wish to come to the nub of this issue: why does all this matter? Why do these issues matter? Why do these technical debates about the constitutional settlement matter? They matter because they have consequences for our Union, for the devolution settlement and for the economic operation of the markets within this United Kingdom. We are already going to be struggling to deal with the serious consequences we will face if we carry on along the Government’s hard Brexit path of, for example, leaving the customs union and the single market, with which I do not agree. Do we really want to add to that a series of complexities, challenges and problems within our own internal markets, logistics and functioning?
There are serious consequences for relationships that we know are already under strain and the subject of lively political debate in the UK. There are also economic consequences of Brexit as a whole for the devolved nations. Just this week, University of Birmingham research showed that the nations and regions of the UK are very exposed economically, with 11.7% of Welsh GDP being exposed. As I said, there are serious consequences to leaving the single market and customs union. We heard yesterday from one of Wales’s largest employers, Airbus—I draw attention to my declaration of interests—which employs a number of people in the defence and space industry next door to my constituency and many people across Wales. Its chief executive, Tom Enders, said that the “wreckage” of Trump will be easier to repair than that of Brexit, given the increased costs and the challenges for competitiveness.
The Welsh people, the Welsh Government and the Welsh Assembly need to have a proper say in where we go on this process, given the implications. As the consequences become clearer, the Welsh people, and indeed the British people, have the right to change their minds on this entire process.
Stephen Kerr
Thank you for allowing me to say a few words in this setting, Mr Speaker. I wish to make it clear that, despite whatever else I may say in this speech, I support this Bill wholeheartedly and I wish it to be a success. Uppermost in my mind when considering the Bill are the ramifications of there not being a Bill. I think about the choice the British people made to leave the EU and I respect it. We made a commitment to act on that instruction and act on it we shall—we will honour that vote. Those who choose to disregard the vote of the British people must answer to the British people. My constituency voted to remain in the EU, but I know that my constituents are democrats who expect me, as their elected Member of Parliament, to ensure that their best interests are served in the light of the outcome and that the result is upheld. Many businesses and individuals in my Stirling constituency are ready to make the best of Brexit.
Ian Murray
The hon. Gentleman is running through the start of the speech he made in Committee, during which I asked him four times to outline how he feels clause 11 is deficient and how he would like that sorted out. Would he like to take this opportunity to tell us?
Stephen Kerr
I thank the hon. Gentleman for remembering my speeches, which makes him very favourable in my sight. I shall come to clause 11, but first I wish to make it clear that the people and businesses of Stirling—the individuals who live in my constituency—want us to make the best of Brexit. All we hear from other parties, as we heard from the First Minister of Scotland yesterday, is an unmitigated diet of doom and gloom. The fact is that, as was disclosed in an esteemed social attitudes survey that was released last week, there are really no differences between the electorates in Scotland and England when it comes to what they want the Government to get on with doing. They want the best possible Brexit, and a smooth Brexit that will work for all the people of this country.
The Bill is a necessary enabling measure. No one in this House wants to put our country and British businesses through a cliff-edge Brexit. The idea that there are Members who do is often repeated, but it is just not true. We want a smooth Brexit and a working statute book at the end of it. I repeat that, and I do not apologise for repeating it.
Martin Whitfield
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the electorate do not want a deficient Bill to lead them into Brexit?
Stephen Kerr
Let me come to that—I promise that almost my next sentence will be on that. I want to make sure that the Bill and Parliament deliver what my constituents expect.
I now turn to clause 11 and the amendments to it, particularly amendment 3. Let me be absolutely clear about the clause: we must have an agreement between the UK and Scottish Governments to allow for the passage of a legislative consent motion. I am not convinced that that is a legal necessity, but it is a convention that the Government are honouring and they should be commended for that. I am therefore intensely disappointed, dissatisfied and frustrated that a deal has not been struck between Scotland’s two Governments.
In the past few days, there has been a lot of talk in the media about the claim that there is an agreement in principle between the UK and Scottish Governments. The Scottish Government’s Brexit Minister, Mike Russell, claimed on television on Sunday that such an agreement existed. Will the Minister tell us the status of the negotiations between Scotland’s two Governments? Is there an agreement in principle? Is there an agreement on the frameworks that we all agree are essential for the operation of the UK marketplace, to allow the UK to honour its international obligations and to strike trade deals?
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the need to make amendments to improve clause 11, which is almost universally accepted as deficient, is not predicated on there first being an agreement on a legislative consent motion, or the agreement with the Scottish Government to which he refers? Amendments should be taken on their merits alone.
Stephen Kerr
That is brave talk, but the facts of the matter are that Conservative Members are seeking to co-operate with the devolved Administrations so that there can be a unanimous approach to the legislative consent motion.
Dr Whitford
Does the hon. Gentleman not see that the way to achieve UK frameworks and to respect devolution would be to have all four Governments around the table as equals? We should not have this place handing things down from on high.
Stephen Kerr
I do not recognise that description of what has been going on. In fact, as lately as October, the UK Government and the devolved Administrations set out the principles by which such an agreement as I am describing would be achieved. I do believe that an agreement is necessary for us to be able to see that clause 11 is fit for purpose. It is a very important part of the passage of this Bill. We have to respect the devolved settlement, and an appropriately amended clause 11, which is subject to the negotiation and agreement of the devolved Administrations, is how to proceed.
Ian Murray
I will try for the sixth time over two debates to get the hon. Gentleman to answer this question. I ask him to please not say that he is coming on to it, when he never comes on to it. What is deficient in clause 11? What would he like to see changed in order to make it a clause that is not deficient? Does he stand by what he said in the previous debate, that he expects the Government to come forward with amendments before it goes to the other place?
Stephen Kerr
I am going to disappoint the hon. Gentleman—I will come on to that last point. What I believe should exist in clause 11 is the subject matter of the agreement that is reached between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, in terms of UK frameworks in particular. We all accept that it is necessary that there are UK frameworks.
Dr Whitford
When I was referring to having all four Governments around the table, I was talking not about negotiating clause 11, but about how to set up frameworks for fishing, food or the environment. Those things should be decided together and not just decided here.
Stephen Kerr
My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, is not in his place now, but he dealt with that matter in his speech. I must say that I find myself in complete agreement with his sentiment and that of the Committee’s recent report, which is that, since we arrived at the position we are at with devolved Government in the United Kingdom, there has been a lack of appropriate machinery for our Governments to work together. There is a lack of appropriate constitutionally agreed machinery for even Parliaments to talk to each other. That must be addressed.
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that amending clause 11 is the right thing to do, but the detail of amendment 3 would be mired in judicial review were it to be accepted. For that reason, it is the wrong route to go down.
Stephen Kerr
I completely agree. Although I could not disagree fundamentally with the wording of the amendment, it is not adequate for its purpose in terms of the withdrawal Bill and the importance of achieving the legislative consent motions that this Government have rightfully determined are the way to proceed with what is—I agree—a major constitutional rearrangement of the affairs of this country because of our exit from the European Union.
Mr Sweeney
We all accept that having those joint frameworks is a desirable and necessary thing, but we are talking about the sequence in which that should be carried out. It is not necessary for us to wait for that to happen before amending clause 11 and making it fit for purpose now. Why do we not crack on and do it today? What is stopping us?
Stephen Kerr
What is stopping us is the fact that there is no point creating an amendment which then itself has to be amended. No one is more disappointed and frustrated than I am that we do not have these amendments. I sat and listened to the Secretary of State for Scotland make the same commitment. I will come on to that as it is a serious matter for me.
Pete Wishart
It is important that the hon. Gentleman understands the sequence and how this works. The repeal Bill is something that this Government have done to Scotland. What we have identified in that repeal Bill is a devolution threat in a clause that has to be corrected. If that is not corrected, there will be no legislative consent motion. It is incumbent on the Government who introduced this Bill to sort it and bring it forward. Then we will see whether we can give a legislative consent motion. That is how it works.
Stephen Kerr
There is the soul of a nationalist. The hon. Gentleman manages to take any issue and to make it into a grotesque grievance, which does not even exist. The fact is that the Government are going to extraordinary lengths to achieve the necessary level of consensus and agreement by which clause 11 can be amended so that it is fit for purpose. I support that, but it does not take one iota away from the fact that I am intensely disappointed. I ask the Ministers again to tell us about the status of the negotiations and where we are on the agreement. If there is an agreement, no one will say any louder, “Where is the amendment that we were promised from the Government?” [Interruption.] I am saying it now; I just said it. The Government gave undertakings that the Bill would be amended at the stage before it left this place to go to the House of Lords.
Ian Murray
I am not going to ask the hon. Gentleman for the seventh time, but will he tell the House what mechanism he and his Scottish Conservative MP colleagues would have in this House if the Government do not amend the Bill in the House of Lords?
Stephen Kerr
The hon. and learned Lady, with her normal reserve, says that I do not know. The fact is that there are established processes by which the amendments that will now have to be made to the Bill in the House of Lords will come back here. Those processes were addressed by the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
I do not want my next point to be lost, especially on my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench—please do not underestimate the depth of disappointment and frustration among Scottish Conservative colleagues in the House. It does not seem appropriate for the Government to blame outside influences for the lack of an amendment. [Interruption.] SNP Members say, “Yes.” But it took until October to get an agreement to the principles by which we would proceed towards the agreement that I, and many of us here, regard as essential. Why did it take so long? Well, the fact is that the nationalist Government in Edinburgh are approaching the matter, as usual, with a wrecking mentality. They want to create a constitutional crisis that precipitates their beloved second independence referendum. The First Minister was at it again this week, talking about another independence referendum. The people of Scotland have spoken on this matter, but the SNP will not listen and its Members claim to be the democrats in this House.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman talks about trust, and about building towards agreement and compromise. Will he advise us as to how he expects that trust, agreement and compromise to come about? My understanding is that the UK Government have not shared any draft amendments to clause 11 with the Scottish Government.
Stephen Kerr
I respect the hon. Gentleman’s point of view and question on this matter. Frankly, I believe that we will proceed on the basis of the negotiations, on which I have asked Ministers to update us. Even Ministers in the hon. Gentleman’s own Government in Edinburgh talk about these matters in the most positive terms; it is not necessary to dress the issues up as a crisis and make them into some drama. We need to proceed to a point at which we can get to an agreement, which will then be the basis for an amended clause 11.
Ged Killen (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
I am just looking for some clarity. The hon. Gentleman mentions how difficult it has been to get agreement with the Scottish Government. If the Government continue to fail to get that agreement, is it the case that no amendments to clause 11 will be tabled in the other place?
Stephen Kerr
The hon. Gentleman talks about there not being any prospects of an agreement. There is every prospect of an agreement, and I am quoting the SNP Brexit Minister. There is every possibility and likelihood of an agreement. My view is that it should have been achieved before now, and that we should have had an amendment to the Bill.
Several hon. Members rose—
Stephen Kerr
I will give way just one more time because I am sure that Mr Speaker’s patience with me is going to wear thin. In fact, I will take one intervention from the Opposition and one from my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex.
Anna McMorrin
The Welsh Government and First Minister deemed it necessary to make a statement today about the lack of joined-up working with the UK Government, which is threatening a constitutional crisis; that is coming from a Labour Government in Wales. The very point is that we are on the brink of a constitutional crisis. We need an amendment. We need the Government to support Labour’s amendment 3.
Stephen Kerr
The hon. Lady is describing the attitude of the Welsh Government, which in many respects has been more hawk than dove on these matters. I have no doubt that that is for the Labour party’s political purposes in Wales, as such things are for the SNP in Scotland.
Mr Jenkin
It would be helpful if the Government gave an assurance today that in the event that there is no agreement with the Scottish or Welsh Governments, they will still amend clause 11—unilaterally, if necessary—to ensure that its effect is ameliorated as reasonably as possible. If the Scottish and Welsh Governments refuse to agree to that, it will be a problem for them and not for this Parliament.
Stephen Kerr
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that we must not be foolishly optimistic but realistic. When SNP Ministers talk as positively as they have, which is a different sound from the one that we hear from SNP Members here, then we have every reason to believe that wise heads—adult heads—will have sway and there will be an agreement.
I repeat—I do not want this not to be heard—that the Government made a clear commitment to the House on the amendments to clause 11, and I took those commitments at face value. As a Conservative Member, I never want to get to the point where I cannot take commitments given to me by right hon. and hon. Members at face value, because I hope, frankly, that they can continue to trust commitments that I might make to them. I really do want to understand why we have arrived at this point. I am afraid that there is a point of principle and accountability involved in answering these questions. What happened in the Departments in the past few weeks and months? Did they somehow lose focus? Were we not clear enough about what our expectations were?
I share with the House a concern that has resurfaced time and again since I was elected as Member for Stirling: since the devolution settlement UK Governments of all flavours have tended to devolve and forget, and that is a very dangerous practice. Again, I appeal to the Government to consider the appropriate machinery that creates the means by which our Governments work together, because that is what my constituents want. They are tired of the voices of conflict that they hear regularly in Scotland. They want us to be conciliatory. They want us to work by consensus and through collaboration.
When the devolution settlements first went through, when Labour was in power, there was a fashionable term that is still appropriate—“sofa government”. With a Labour Prime Minister in London and Labour First Ministers in Edinburgh and Cardiff, it was all very cosy, and so there was no need for any of the machinery that I am describing. In fact, one of the Scottish Labour leaders described their party in those days as the “branch office” of the party in London. By contrast, we as Unionists should believe in and work to the principles of partnership, and I believe that that is possible.
The reason behind amendments to clause 11 was to strengthen devolution and by doing so strengthen the Union. The nationalists will always create their narrative of grievance and scream “power grab” at every imagined opportunity. A strong amendment would have pulled the rug from under their squalid argument. It would have shown them up as the creators of grievance rather than giving grievance a voice, which we are hearing today.
Let me touch briefly on the rather weak amendments being offered up by the Opposition parties. The SNP amendment has no chance of passing and does nothing to address many of the concerns that Conservative Members have. The Labour amendment is well-intentioned but poorly drafted, and will only make room for legal wrangling and uncertainty. Not only that, but it shows no understanding that devolution in the UK is asymmetrical. The Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Parliaments are very different creatures, and there will undoubtedly be a need for frameworks that cover different parts of the United Kingdom and not just whole-United Kingdom frameworks.
For the good of Scotland, any powers that are returning to the UK from Brussels that are not reserved must, by definition, be devolved. I accept that UK frameworks are required. They can pragmatically solve problems, and they should do so through an equal partnership where all sides—Cardiff, Edinburgh, London and Stormont —can come together to solve problems and to share ideas. This is pragmatic partnership building. It is Unionism at its best, and even the enlightened nationalists seem to sign up for this. Everyone seems to agrees with it, so again I am left wondering why we would allow this Bill to leave this House and go to the other place without a suitable amendment.
I make no bones about it: it sticks in my craw to think that unelected Lords will make the vital amendments to this vital constitutional Bill. It is not really good enough, and as a Member of the House of Commons I hang my head to think that we have somehow dropped the ball. The Bill will leave this House unamended and in an unsatisfactory state, and we are now dependent on unelected Lords to do our job for us.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), and I can sense the torture he is putting himself through. The shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Lesley Laird), who is sitting on the Bench beside me, described his trying to come up with a reason for not voting with the Opposition on amendment 3 as “dancing around handbags”. My only advice to him is that he can be as tortured as he likes and in as much turmoil as he clearly feels, but unless he votes accordingly, the Government will never take him seriously and his pleas will go unanswered, as they have so far. He has a good hour to reflect on that and to consider what he wants to do this evening, and I hope that he decides in the end to vote with us on amendment 3.
Mr Sweeney
Does my hon. Friend not agree that the game-changing arithmetic is with the Scottish Conservative bloc of 13 MPs, and if they come together, show some gumption and stand up for the national interest, they can actually turn this around and improve clause 11 today? There is nothing stopping them: they could overturn the DUP bloc and change this if they brought forward their own amendments.
Jenny Chapman
That is exactly what I am saying to those Conservative Members. I do not want to make it more difficult by goading them too much—I will leave that to my SNP colleagues—because I understand how they must be feeling but this is an important moment this evening. If we agreed amendment 3, we would be sending a very clear signal to the Government and requiring them to come back with something in the Lords—with the support, without a doubt, of the votes of Labour peers—to amend the Bill as we ought to be amending it this evening.
I want to keep this very simple. I will speak to amendment 3 in my name and those of my Opposition colleagues. It was disappointing to have to table this amendment. It should not be necessary, because the Government, with the support of the devolved authorities, should have tabled their own amendment, but they have not done so, so here we are.
From the outset, it has been clear that one of the greatest problems with this deeply flawed Bill is that it threatens the devolution settlements that underpin our Union. The Scottish and Welsh First Ministers have described it as a naked power grab, and there is a clear danger that a major piece of constitutional legislation that amends devolution settlements will not receive the consent of the devolved Administrations, which would be a real failure for the Government.
What is the problem? As we argued in Committee, the presumption at the heart of clause 11 is that, as powers return from Brussels, they will be held in Westminster rather than being passed to the devolved Administrations. The Government say that will be temporary, but they have put no time limits on the hoarding of those powers, and there is no collaborative mechanism for the creation of UK-wide frameworks and the devolution of power. Instead, that is assumed to be in the gift of Ministers.
The problem has been recognised by Conservative Members. The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) said in Committee:
“On Second Reading, I said that I would not allow legislation to pass that undermined the Union or the devolution settlement, and that remains my position today.”
He also said that
“clause 11, as drafted, is not fit for purpose and must be changed.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2017; Vol. 632, c. 729-31.]
He was not alone. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) said that
“changes will have to be made to clause 11 as it stands”.—[Official Report, 4 December 2017; Vol. 632, c. 796.]
The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) said that the Bill must be amended and added:
“As the intergovernmental discussions progress and the Bill returns to this House, as it will, before it goes to the other place, it is very much my hope that there will be some greater detail in clause 11 to help all hon. Members to have a degree of confidence in its intent.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2017; Vol. 632, c. 803.]
Today, he said that he is deeply disappointed that that is not the case.
Conservatives in Scotland must have been pleased when it appeared that the Government had listened and promised to amend clause 11 on Report. The Secretary of State for Scotland told the House that the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire had clearly set out why clause 11 needed to be amended, and he went on to say that the Government would table amendments to clause 11 on Report. The promised amendments have not been forthcoming, and the Government now say that they will be tabled in the Lords. But as the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland has said, the lack of transparency is becoming a habit.
This is not good enough. Conservative Scottish and Welsh Members have been reasonable and given the Government a chance, but they have let them down. Now it is time to force the Government’s hand by voting for our amendment, because devolution settlements are more important than any party interest.
Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)
The EU referendum result was clear, and it was a decision by the House to put that question to the people. They gave their answer. Whichever way we voted in the referendum ourselves, we have been given instructions that must be carried out. In Scotland, as much as others might wish to portray the picture differently, more than 1 million Scots voted to leave the European Union, 600,000 of whom came from the SNP yes side.
It is inherently the case that, as we leave the European Union, those powers that it exercises on our behalf will come back to the UK and to Scotland. That has always been the golden opportunity to exercise more powers in Scotland over areas such as fishing and agriculture. That is why Members on the other side of the House should welcome that. Rather than fighting to keep those powers in Brussels, we should be fighting to take them here.
We have one opportunity to get this right. We do not get a dress rehearsal for leaving the European Union. There is one time to negotiate and get it right, and it is in nobody’s interest to see a rushed process or to get anything wrong that could damage our constitution. As the House knows, Conservative Members believe inherently in the power of our single market here in the UK.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), quoted the Scottish social attitudes survey. Some 62% of Scots in that survey think that all decisions about fishing should be taken by the Scottish Government, and 59% think that all farming decisions should be made by the Scottish Government as well. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Ross Thomson
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I know that Members can be selective, but that survey also showed that the majority of Scots want immigration to stay at the UK-wide level. It is really important that we still have UK-wide frameworks and things that are kept at the UK-wide level.
Ross Thomson
No, thank you.
The survey also shows that Scots want to leave the single market. The Scottish Government published a paper yesterday saying Scotland has to remain in the single market, but Scots want to leave the single market—the survey is very clear. So Members can be very selective in the things that we quote.
As I said, it is important that we get this right. Even the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry)—she is not in her place at the moment—said in her introductory remarks that, although she had voted to remain, it is really important that we get the Bill right. Having the Bill is important.
Conservative Members not only want but require there to be proper changes to the EU withdrawal Bill, because we want to see the Scottish Parliament grant its legislative consent, and the Lords require that as well before they make changes. It is in the interests of all Administrations, whether in Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales, that we find a way to reach agreement. Therefore, I urge in the strongest of terms that the Scottish and UK Governments work and engage positively to ensure that negotiations advance well and that that important agreement can be reached. I welcome the fact that the UK Government have been absolutely clear to date that they want a constructive and consensual approach and that nothing will be imposed on any of the devolved Administrations.
Ian Murray
The hon. Gentleman is making the same argument as the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) with regard to the negotiations being complete and the negotiations and the conclusion to them then influencing amendments in the other place. If the negotiations do not conclude by the time this Bill passes through the other place, what mechanisms do he or any of his Scottish Conservative MP colleagues have in this place to amend the Bill?
Ross Thomson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am glad that he has recognised that my colleagues and I are saying the same thing, because it is the right thing and the sensible thing, and that is why we have been consistent in our approach. I am also glad that he acknowledged the power and influence that we hold on the Conservative Benches, compared with the Labour Benches, because there are more Scottish Conservative MPs than Scottish Labour MPs.
However, we recognise that reaching agreement is in the interests of both Governments; both want to see a conclusion. Even Mike Russell himself—I have sat in the Scottish Parliament Chamber listening to his diatribes and to him railing against Brexit—wants to reach agreement with the UK Government; in fact, he said that in the Scottish Affairs Committee. Agreement is in the interests of all, and I am positive that changes will be made in the Lords and that we will get agreement, because it is not in any Government’s interests not to secure it.
Ross Thomson
Can I make a little more progress? I will take more interventions.
Looking at the amendment before us, it is clear that there is no safeguard in terms of UK-wide frameworks, which many of us agree are important when it comes to areas such as agriculture or animal and plant welfare standards. Further, and importantly, it does not secure any Joint Ministerial Committee consent, and it does not guarantee the legislative consent that is essential in the Scottish Parliament.
We may all have areas of disagreement, but it is important that we do not pre-empt things by voting for this amendment tonight and that we work constructively to ensure we can get the JMC and our national Parliaments and Assemblies on board. I do not take the characterisation made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) that we can somehow speed ahead with the process and that, fingers crossed, things will be amended and then come back. We need to be working more collaboratively and constructively with the Scottish Government.
Ross Thomson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Obviously, Government Back Benchers have not been directly involved in negotiations between the Governments, but boy, have we been meeting with our ministerial colleagues and making our position and our asks very clear, and I am sure Ministers will reiterate what those asks have been. This is important, because it is in both Governments’ interests that we reach a conclusion. I would ask the Minister, have SNP Ministers shared with you some of the negotiating aims that they are looking for? This is a two-way process.
Given the amount of work that colleagues on the Government side of the House have put into this, there is genuine disappointment and frustration that those amendments have not been tabled on Report; we are disappointed that they will have to come through from the Lords. However, as I said, we recognise that this process is very complex, and that the implications if we do not get it right are very far-reaching. So, we need to ensure that when it comes to UK-wide frameworks, we get agreement on both sides. Some powers will naturally go back to the Scottish Parliament, but some issues are best approached at a UK-wide level, and there is still no agreement between both Governments on that.
If we do agree to the amendment, we must look at what happens where there is disagreement between both Governments in future in the exercise of some of these powers. The way in which those disputes are resolved is inherently complex; it is not simple. I do not think any of those points is addressed in the amendment before us.
I shall touch on a point that was raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin). I know she is standing up for her area in the way she thinks best, but a lot of the rhetoric sounds very familiar. It is very like what many of my hon. Friends have been dealing with for a long time in Scotland, with the rise of nationalism and with the independence referendum. It is very easy to batter the UK Government in that way, but I believe it is very dangerous and divisive to do so. Maybe the hon. Lady can learn lessons from her Scottish Labour colleagues. It was as a result of that ambivalence towards the Union that Scottish Labour found itself a third party in the Scottish Parliament, and that it has again found itself a third party in Scotland since the general election. That is why there are more of us sitting on the Conservative Benches—because we believe that standing up for the Union is a good thing, not just battering all the time.
Anna McMorrin
The Labour Government in Wales are not a nationalist Government, and if the UK Government were to work co-operatively with both the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government we would not be in this situation. We need that amendment, and the behaviour of this Government means that we are heading for a constitutional crisis. I do not want that constitutional crisis, and neither the First Minister for Wales nor, I think, the First Minister for Scotland wants it.
Ross Thomson
I do not accept the hon. Lady’s characterisation of the UK Government’s behaviour. I have seen people in the UK Government acting in good faith, and in fairness, I have seen that Scottish Government Ministers usually privately act in good faith. The public dance within the media and in public is something different, and I know that the SNP have to get from where they are to where they can accept UK-wide frameworks, but I know they are on that journey. I believe that both Governments are acting in good faith.
The most interesting thing to emerge from this is that the Scottish Government and the SNP are demanding more powers; they demand that all 111 should rest with the Scottish Parliament, regardless of the effect on the UK internal market. But they never talk about outcomes from these powers. They demand more and more, but they never tell us how they want to use them. Sadly, the nationalist narrative now is to just demand more, demand more, demand more, because they want independence. It does not matter how much you try to dress it up. The First Minister herself said that independence “transcends” everything else. It does not matter how the Scottish Parliament is currently exercising its powers, but they will never be enough, because independence is always the end goal, which was why, yet again at the weekend, we heard about potential new dates this year for another referendum. That is why there are fewer SNP Members sitting in the House—people in constituencies such as mine, and Stirling, and West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, to name just a few, are absolutely fed up with that rhetoric. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling rightly said, people want our Governments to work more constructively together. They are fed up with the rhetoric, fed up with the ongoing bickering and fighting and point-scoring. They want to see both Governments working together, and both Governments have demonstrated that they can do it. Both can work together over city deals, for example, to deliver for Scotland and for regions. People get really fed up when they see “The Andrew Marr Show” on Sunday morning and yet again there is the kind of rhetoric that we have had to endure in Scotland for not just months, but years.
Dr Whitford
Did the hon. Gentleman watch the programme? The entire session was about Brexit. Andrew Marr asked the First Minister about independence—she was asked by someone else. You have just spent about five minutes talking about it, but suddenly it is the SNP banging on about it.
Ross Thomson
I was not talking about the questions asked but about the answer given. That is the broken record. The First Minister has always had the opportunity to accept the result of 2014. She never has and she never will. That is why independence transcends everything else for the SNP. It does not speak in the national interest, but only ever in the nationalist interest.
To conclude, powers will come back from Europe and will be exercised directly in Scotland by the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government Ministers. I know that the Scottish Government do not have a great track record when it comes to managing things in Scotland, so I understand their trepidation about any other powers going to the First Minister. That is no doubt why they want to keep all those powers in Brussels.
At least those of us on the Government side actually want devolution—not the kind of crazy centralisation that we have seen from the SNP. That is the hallmark of its Government and of the party here. That is why on this side we will stand up for Scotland and deliver for Scotland.
Hywel Williams
I shall return, for a moment, to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.
I rise to speak to amendments 12 and 13 and the consequential 11 in my name and those of my hon. Friends. Amendment 12 to clause 19 would require the UK Government to gain the consent of the sitting devolved Administrations before the Bill came into force. At this stage, hon. Members should not rehearse previous arguments or submit previous amendments, so following my attempted amendment on day one of Committee which also sought to require the legislative consent of the devolved Administrations, I have addressed the critical point raised by other Members about Northern Ireland.
At the time of that previous amendment, there was no Northern Ireland Assembly to grant consent to the Bill and that, unfortunately, remains the case. My amendment, therefore, sets out that consent is required from all devolved Administrations unless direct rule is in place or the Administration have been formally suspended or dissolved for reasons other than recess or an election. Across the House, many of us would like the Northern Ireland Assembly to be up and running and serving its people once again, but if that was still not the case once the Bill was enacted, the amendment would still require the consent of the other Administrations.
To echo the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), this Bill is about continuity, certainty and control. It is now clear that the convention of gaining legislative consent is flawed, as it has been held to be just that: a convention. In contrast, the devolved Administrations have come to see it as a normal and required aspect of legislative processes. It seems to me that until recently, at least in how the process worked from day to day, that was also the view of the Westminster Government, who have sought legislative consent from the nations on hundreds of occasions since devolution.
The Minister has now confirmed that his Government are seeking legislative consent for this Bill as well. Given their own consistent actions, I am mystified about why they do not wish the principle of consent to be anywhere in the Bill—unless, of course, they plan to renege on that commitment, too. If I were a cynic, I might suspect that the Government here are happy enough to request consent as long as there is no risk that it might be refused, as might happen in this case. That is the Catch 22: consent is there only when it is granted.
I also note that hon. Members, including me, have repeatedly asked Ministers what would happen were consent to be refused. In response there has consistently been—well, no response at all. One case in point will suffice. At Welsh questions on 13 December, I asked the Secretary of State for Wales:
“What recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on a legislative consent motion for the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill.”
I added:
“I have asked the Secretary of State a number of times, both orally and in writing, what would happen if the National Assembly for Wales were to withhold its consent for the withdrawal Bill, and he has gone from looking hopelessly Panglossian to being unsure, evasive and even furtive. Will he now tell the House what would happen if the National Assembly for Wales withheld its consent for the Bill?”
His answer made my case—that the Government were either clueless or evasive—for me:
“I am optimistic that our work with the Welsh Government will lead to a legislative consent motion.”—[Official Report, 13 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 381.]
That was all: hopeless optimism and no real answer. Our leaving the EU has been characterised as taking back control, but surely to deny the sitting devolved Administrations their fair say on whether the Bill should be passed goes against the three principles of the Bill that the Minister set out: to provide continuity and certainty and to take back control. Control for whom?
I turn now to amendment 13 to clause 11, which also stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends. It is clear that the Bill in its current form would weaken the devolution settlements that the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have enjoyed for 20 years. Even this Government have made it clear that clause 11 is not good enough and said that it will be amended. Our amendment seeks to guarantee that any future frameworks respect the democratic accountability of the devolved legislatures by being based on established conventions and practices that will not be adjusted without the consent of these institutions. That is the moot point: it is matter of consent.
The amendment holds that
“flexibility for tailoring policies to the specific needs”
of the nations should be allowed, as is currently enjoyed under EU rules, and—most crucially—that these frameworks would
“lead to a significant increase in decision-making powers for the devolved administrations.”
Before Christmas, the Scottish Secretary gave a strong commitment that clause 11 would be amended on Report, based on the criticisms from across the Committee of the whole House. Unsurprisingly, I suppose, the Government have U-turned on this promise and failed to table any amendments that address the concerns about devolution raised by Members from across the House. What is even more striking is that this was brought to the Government’s attention again two days before the deadline for tabling amendments, yet they failed to act. In this, they have merely confirmed my point in an earlier debate that it appears they still have not accepted that the UK is a unitary nation and that we have more than one Parliament within the British state.
The Welsh Government cannot just continue to hope that something might turn up, waiting in hope for this Tory Government to see reason, so I am glad that the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) noted that the First Minister had at last made a statement. I would also be glad if he could agree to the proposal for a continuity Bill that my friend in the Assembly, Steff Lewis, is bringing forward tomorrow. My party’s position in the long run is clear—we want the people of Wales to run their own affairs—but in the interim our sincerely held view is that we need a collaborative procedure for the creation of UK-wide frameworks to ensure good governance for the people of Wales.
Given that the Government are so determined to press ahead and remove us from the already functioning EU frameworks, these UK-wide frameworks will have a significant impact on the existing devolved settlements and therefore must be created jointly by all the sitting Governments, and not be dictated by Ministers of the Crown here. This is only the first step to ensuring that devolution is not just respected but upheld during the upheaval that the Government are creating by leaving the European single market and customs union.
Anna McMorrin
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that systems are already in place under which the Welsh and UK Governments negotiate together on EU discussions? UK Ministers are Ministers of the Crown, as are Welsh Ministers. That is already in place and just needs to continue. The amendment is necessary if it is to continue.
Hywel Williams
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It brings me to the very point I was going to make. The Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations), to which she was referring, had a very rocky start. Some hon. Members will know that it met last February and then not again until October. During that time, momentous events were taking place here. Huge changes were being made in the relationship between Wales and the EU, and in the United Kingdom’s relationship with the EU. However, the JMC, the very mechanism that was supposed to elicit the views of Welsh Ministers—and Scottish and Northern Irish Ministers, for that matter—did not meet. I am glad to say that since that suspension it seems to have recovered somewhat: the October meeting was much more positive.
Ian Murray
I am delighted to follow the hon. Members for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) and for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson), who highlighted the problem that we have had with the Government. I think that there should be an act of good faith this evening: the Government should accept amendment 3, tabled by Opposition Front Benchers, and if they want to alter it in the other place, they will be able to do so.
One of the key problems—and the hon. Members for Stirling and for Aberdeen South failed to answer this question—is that their premise for amending the Bill now is that when the negotiations are concluded between the UK and Scottish Governments through the JMC, the UK Government will take the basis of the negotiated settlement to the other place, make the appropriate amendments to the Bill, and then bring it back here. If the negotiations fall apart—and I take them in good faith, but the Scottish and UK Governments do not have a particularly good track record of cordial discussions, and it might be in one of the political interests of a political party of any colour to bring those negotiations down—there will not, according to their argument, be an amendment in the other place, and the Bill will therefore be unamended.
In that event, there would be no mechanism for the hon. Members for Stirling and for Aberdeen South, or, indeed, the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton), who raised these issues, to correct what they claim is a deficient clause. The hon. Member for Stirling said that it was not fit for purpose, and the hon. Member for Aberdeen South said that he would like amendments to be tabled on Report. The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire had previously abstained on the amendments to clause 11 because Ministers had promised him that they would table amendments. When making that promise, they never said that those amendments were dependent on the conclusions of a negotiated settlement, and the Scottish Conservative Members did not say that in their remarks to the press at that time of an emergency meeting between the 12 of them—excluding the Secretary of State for Scotland—to discuss this very issue. This has been concocted to save them embarrassment, and I feel sorry for them on that basis. Now they are saying again, in the Chamber, that they will not vote for amendment 3 because they have been promised that there will be an amendment in the House of Lords.
If that does not happen, there will be no mechanism enabling the 13 Conservative Scottish Members who said that they would fight to amend this “deficient” clause to do so. The Bill will come back unamended, we will have no powers to change it, and a “deficient”, “not fit for purpose” clause—their words, not mine—will end up on the statute book. That is not acceptable to this elected House.
I share those Members’ frustration that the unelected House will now be given the responsibility of changing the Bill, but let us look at the technicalities. The Government have no majority in the other place, so technically the other place may vote down any Government amendment. I admit that that is unlikely, but the promises that were given to the Back-Bench Scottish Conservative MPs were merely that. They have been let down already.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) said, the best option would be to vote for amendment 3 this evening to establish the principle of amending clause 11, and if alterations are required in the other place following the conclusion of agreements—or, indeed, if the Government decide that they want to spend some time concluding the amendments—they can be made there and be brought back to this place, and we can then make those changes during the ping-pong.
I cannot understand why the Government have not brought forward the promised amendments on Report. We are always asked in this place to take the Government in good faith; they said those amendments would come forward, and on that basis in Committee I withdrew amendments, as did hon. Friends, and the Back-Bench Scottish Conservative MP the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) withdrew his opposition and voted for the clause and the Bill. We did so on the basis of those promises, and they have not been delivered.
I have no faith in those promises from the Government. I have no faith that the Scottish Government and UK Government, given that they play off against each other politically all the time, will come to an agreement that can be changed in the other place, and therefore the best way to resolve the problem this evening would be for this House to come to a consensual agreement on amendment 3 in the name of my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, so we can then say that the principle of changing clause 11 is on the face of the Bill.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
I will speak to amendment 6 in my name and that of hon. Friends and colleagues. It is crucial in protecting the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. I am grateful for the cross-party support, but most of all I want to acknowledge the officials in the Welsh Assembly Government and in the Scottish Government who worked together to produce good amendments that we can support on a cross-party basis. We were able to introduce them in Committee and to reintroduce them on Report. I have absolutely no idea why the might of the UK civil service has been unable to do so for either stage. At this stage of the debate, I hoped to have the opportunity to debate the amendments promised to us by the UK Government to amend clause 11. I know that the fact that that has not happened has been a deep disappointment across the Chamber.
It is somewhat startling that amendments have been tabled that appear to be based on a presumption that clause 11 remains the same. That is why we cannot back those minor amendments. We were also told that the amendments had been tabled without consulting or agreeing with the devolved Administrations. We have heard a great deal about consultation and agreement, but I have no idea how we can strike an agreement on amendments without first seeing them; we have not even seen them. Members of the Scottish Government, and, I understand the Welsh Government, have not seen them either.
Unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) is not in his place, but on a proposal about EU nationals today from the Commission he remarked that the Government should just smile and do nothing. It would appear that the Government are taking half that advice because we are not seeing that many smiles.
We have heard a great deal from the Scottish Conservatives about their unhappiness with their own Government. I wonder whether they will join in the opposition tonight and vote for the amendments that we have tabled, or vote for Labour Front Benchers’ amendment 3, which we do not think is perfect, but it is better than what we have and we will support it. With the Scottish Conservatives and the Opposition, we have a majority in this place. That is a powerful voice that we could have here. Will the Scottish Conservatives vote with us, or will they be yet more Lobby fodder willing to prop up a failing and faltering UK Government who do not keep their promises?
Stephen Gethins
I am going to make some progress.
On 6 December, the Secretary of State for Scotland was asked by MPs across this House about the amendments to clause 11. He said:
“The answer is that it will happen on Report”—
the stage we are at now. He added:
“We have been very clear about this”—
terribly clear it would seem—
“The Committee stage is about listening and adapting to issues…we will table amendments to clause 11.”—[Official Report, 6 December 2017; Vol. 632, c. 1021.]
They have not. Now we are at the stage where this will go to the House of Lords. It is a democratic abomination that the Scottish Parliament will have less of a say, and this House consequently will have less of a say, than the House of Lords. The Scottish Conservatives seem to be embarrassed about that. I wonder whether they are joined by anybody else who is even remotely embarrassed.
Pete Wishart
As has been said, the Government do not even have a majority in the House of Lords. What does my hon. Friend feel about the newly ennobled Bishop of Chichester, who will now have a bigger say on these amendments about critical issues to do with the devolution settlement than my hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) and me?
Stephen Gethins
As usual, my hon. Friend makes a very good point.
I want to make it clear that the points I make about the House of Lords have no bearing on its Members’ personal characteristics. Rather, I am referring to the anti-democratic situation in which we find ourselves. I presume that we are now in a situation in which a Scotland Office Minister, appointed after losing an election, will debate these matters with Lords who are there by accident of birth or as a result of political patronage, and that this will happen after Third Reading. That is absolutely shameful. It should shame everyone involved. “Bring back democracy”, Vote Leave supporters cried. “Return our independence”, they cried. They also cried, “Bring back our blue passports”, even though they could have had those all along. After this, we can even have commemorative stamps. Does no one see the irony for democracy? I know that the Speaker wants me to make some progress on this—
Mr Speaker
Order. That is rather an understatement. I am looking for an opportunity for the Minister to reply to the debate, so I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be approaching his peroration ere long.
Stephen Gethins
I will. I know that the Minister wants to respond and pick up on some of the points that have been raised, but as I represent the governing party of Scotland, I would also like to make some points on where we are with this—
Mr Speaker
Order. I say with due courtesy, but absolute insistence, to the hon. Gentleman that the Minister will rise to speak no later than 6.45. That is not advice; I am telling the hon. Gentleman that that is the situation.
Stephen Gethins
I should like to thank the Speaker for his guidance on that—
Mr Speaker
Order. Sorry, that was not guidance. That is a ruling. End of subject.
Stephen Gethins
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Let me make these points. What accountability is there on the promises that were made during the EU referendum? The Secretary of State for Scotland told us that we would have a “powers bonanza”, but there has been nothing. The Environment Secretary said that we would get powers over immigration, but there has been no accountability over that. The Foreign Secretary said that there would be £350 million for the NHS, and quite remarkably, he doubled down on that last night. No shame whatever. Is it any wonder that the latest NatCen survey shows that, rather than 59% of people in Scotland thinking that the Government are handling this badly, the figure has shot up to 67%? The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) mentioned this earlier.
Let us compare that to the attitude of the Scottish Government on this. The amendments that have gone down have been drafted by their working with colleagues from across this House and across the Administrations. We published our amendments in due time. Even yesterday, the Scottish Government used the economists that they have at their disposal to publish—not keep secret—their analysis of Scotland’s place in Europe. It showed an 8.5% loss in GDP, equating to £2,500 for every person in Scotland, through losing the value of EU nationals. Leaving the single market will be devastating. On this, I make a gentle point to our Labour colleagues, many of whom have stuck out their neck on the single market. This Government are on the ropes and we could have a majority that could achieve a sensible outcome. I urge my colleagues on the Labour Benches to reconsider some of their options on this. We can stay in the single market.
In conclusion, compromises can be reached but we must see the amendments. All of this is happening even though we were told that the only way to stay in the EU was to vote no. Two thousand years ago, the first Scot in recorded history, Calgacus, was said to have told his followers about the Romans:
“They are the only people on earth to covet wealth and poverty with equal craving. They plunder, they butcher, they ravish, and call it by the…name of ‘empire’.”
As we leave the European Union, we have nothing on clause 11, nothing on the rights of EU citizens, nothing about what will happen to our trade, and nothing on the opportunities for young people. That leads me to conclude that the only plan that the Brexiteers have is to create a desert and call it Brexit.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr David Lidington)
The debate has been lively and has ranged quite widely over various aspects of the impact of this country’s withdrawal from the European Union on the devolution settlements. I therefore want to make it clear from the start that the Government’s expectation and intention are that the return of competences from the European Union will result in a very significant addition to the powers exercised in future by the devolved Administrations on the bases set out in their respective devolution statutes. However, we have to go about this complex task in the right way for the sake of individuals, families and businesses in every part of the United Kingdom, because the devolution settlements were negotiated, debated and enacted on the basis of certain competences being known to be within the power of the European Union and, on the quite reasonable assumption at the time that the devolution statutes went through this House, that that would continue to be the situation.
Mr Lidington
I will give way briefly to the hon. Lady, who has not made a speech in this debate.
Lady Hermon
May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his new job? I was absolutely delighted for him. He just mentioned that, in the absence of a Northern Ireland Assembly functioning as we would want it, he has had discussions with leaders of political parties in Northern Ireland—that is what I understood him to say—so will he list which leaders of which parties he has had discussions with?
Mr Lidington
Parties have all been briefed on the Government’s position and therefore have had the opportunity to put forward their points of view. Obviously, in the absence of a functioning Assembly and Executive in Northern Ireland, we have regular contact with the civil service authorities in Northern Ireland, which are maintaining the administration of Northern Ireland in accordance with Northern Ireland law.
Lady Hermon
I am grateful to the Minister for taking another intervention.
I am very disappointed. I sit as an independent, and I take my seat in this House. Sinn Féin Members, seven of them, are absentee MPs. I would be extremely offended if I thought for one moment that the leader of Sinn Féin in Northern Ireland—she is not elected to this House—had been consulted when I had not.
Mr Lidington
The hon. Lady and I have known each other for a long time, and having now had overall responsibility for intergovernmental relations and devolution in the United Kingdom for seven days, I am happy to undertake to make it a priority to have that conversation with her to ensure that her views are properly heard.
Government amendments 26 and 27 will replace the current requirements for devolved Ministers to seek the consent of the United Kingdom Government when exercising the correcting power in specific ways with requirements instead to consult the United Kingdom Government. That achieves the same effect as Committee amendment 169, which was proposed by the Scottish and Welsh Governments and tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). Having discussed the matter with those Administrations and having listened to the debate in Committee, we have agreed to accept that proposal, with the addition of extending the change to the power by conferring it on the Northern Ireland Executive.
The United Kingdom Government have a vital role in considering the broader consequences for other parts of the UK where devolved Ministers legislate under these powers, and we think this change is justified. It remains important that, in using the conferred power, no action is taken that inadvertently places us in breach of EU law while we are still a member state or that would prejudice or pre-empt the outcome of negotiations; but on reflection, we consider that the devolved Administrations consulting with the UK Government before legislating in these specific circumstances relating to our negotiations will provide a sufficient safeguard and will preserve the autonomy of the devolved Administrations in correcting their laws.
Mr Lidington
The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but there are a lot of amendments in this group and I want to try to do justice to them.
Government amendments 25, 28 and 29 tackle a technical but important issue by allowing the devolved Administrations to use the powers conferred on them by schedule 2 to modify directly retained EU legislation in areas where a common framework is not needed. While we work with the devolved Administrations on where frameworks are or are not needed, we are maintaining existing common approaches to provide much welcomed certainty. To aid that, direct EU legislation that currently applies uniformly across the UK will be corrected at UK level in the first instance to avoid the risk of early, unhelpful divergence in areas where it may ultimately be determined that a common approach should apply. We have listened to the views of Opposition Members, my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Scotland and Wales, the devolved Administrations and Committees in the devolved legislatures.
Given that the UK Government are committed to making swift progress on the frameworks, we agree that, where a matter is released from the clause 11 competence arrangement, the powers in the Bill should be fully available to the devolved Administrations to modify retained direct EU legislation, and we intend that that will be in the majority of areas. We and the devolved Administrations continue to make good progress in those framework discussions. We intend to agree as many areas as possible where frameworks are not needed in advance of exit day, so that those areas may transfer directly to the devolved Administrations without the need for an intervening period in which to operate the holding pattern described in the clauses.
Like my hon. Friends the Members for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham), for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) and for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson), I am disappointed that we have been unable to reach agreement with the Governments of Scotland and Wales to make amendments to clause 11 on an agreed basis. That remains the Government’s ambition. When I spoke to the Deputy First Minister of Scotland and the First Minister of Wales a few hours after being appointed to my new responsibilities last week, I emphasised that I was instructing our officials to work with theirs even more intensively to try to achieve that agreement.
The discussions so far have revealed a great deal of common ground between us. For example, we are all agreed that common UK frameworks will be required in some areas even after we have left the EU. That was also recognised in Committee and reflected a shared understanding about protecting the internal UK market, managing common resources and meeting international obligations. But this is a complex area and we need to get it right, and we do not believe that amendments 3, 6 and 13 would achieve that. It is our assessment that in only a minority of cases will we require a legislative framework, in whole or in part.
I can confirm today that the Government will shortly publish our analysis of the areas where frameworks will and will not be needed, so that we are transparent about this progress as our discussions on both clause 11 and frameworks move into greater detail. I also wish to acknowledge the co-operative approach of both the Scottish and Welsh Governments and their officials in working with us towards the right outcome. I have full confidence that we will deliver this Bill with the legislative consent of both the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.
Let me turn to the Opposition amendments. Amendment 3, from the Opposition Front-Bench team, and amendments 6 and 13, standing in the names of the hon. Members for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) and for Arfon (Hywel Williams), relate to the temporary arrangements established by clause 11, so that we might determine where and how frameworks would operate. The trouble with these amendments is that they would strip away certainty in areas where our citizens and our businesses rely on having common approaches across the UK, and they would pre-empt our framework discussions. They would risk our ending up when we leave the EU with unchecked divergence where common approaches were in place, with no guarantees of if and when they might be re-established. That is simply not good enough. I do not think it right to accept such amendments, which would inadvertently risk creating new barriers to living and doing business right across the UK, however well-intentioned they might be.
Ross Thomson
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have heard a lot of talk about respect between both Governments and that being why we should accept the amendment, but that in not securing Joint Ministerial Committee agreement and in not securing a legislative consent motion this actually shows no respect for that process and is simply a stunt?
Mr Lidington
I agree with my hon. Friend.
Let me turn to the amendments from the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), who again raised the important debate between “necessary” and “appropriate” provisions made under the Bill. Members will not be surprised to know that “necessary” is a very strict legal test. It could be interpreted by a court as “logically essential”, and where two or more choices of law to correct EU law are available to Ministers, arguably neither one is strictly necessary because there is an alternative. So Ministers need to be able to exercise discretion to choose the most appropriate course. For example, if two agencies could arguably carry out a particular function, the UK Government—or in this case the devolved Administration—must propose that which would be the most appropriate choice. That is why we have chosen the word “appropriate” and would wish to stick to that.
The Government remain of the view that the power in clause 7(1) is crucial. We do not take delegated powers lightly, and we want them to be tailored as tightly to their purpose as possible. We have therefore listened to hon. Members’ concerns about the scope of the power in clause 7(1), and in bringing forward Government amendments 14 and 15, we have built on the amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who was supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose).
We must ensure that we can correct all deficiencies that may arise from our withdrawal, but our amendments put it beyond doubt that some of the wilder speculation on how powers in the Bill would be used will not be possible, by providing an exhaustive list of the types of deficiency and taking up the constructive suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox). That is the act of a responsible Government responding to the debate we have listened to in the House. I hope that—
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 17th January 2018
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 17 January 2018 - (17 Jan 2018)
16:30 - The House divided: - Ayes: 305 / Noes: 318 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:47 - The House divided: - Ayes: 298 / Noes: 322 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:02 - The House divided: - Ayes: 301 / Noes: 320 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:18 - The House divided: - Ayes: 301 / Noes: 318 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:32 - The House divided: - Ayes: 301 / Noes: 320 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:45 - The House divided: - Ayes: 302 / Noes: 318 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 99 / Noes: 322 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:12 - The House divided: - Ayes: 302 / Noes: 321 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 295 / Noes: 322 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:13 - The House divided: - Ayes: 324 / Noes: 295 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: “The power to make regulations under subsection (1) of Clause 7 shall not apply to provisions listed in the Table. ARTICLE 157 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Equal pay for male and female workers) COUNCIL DIRECTIVE NO 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security COUNCIL DIRECTIVE NO 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employer‘s obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to the contract or employment relationship COUNCIL DIRECTIVE NO 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) COUNCIL DIRECTIVE NO 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work COUNCIL DIRECTIVE NO 94/45/EC of 22 September 1994 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees COUNCIL DIRECTIVE NO 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC COUNCIL DIRECTIVE NO 96/71/EC of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services COUNCIL DIRECTIVE NO 97/74/EC of 15 December 1997 extending, to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Directive 94/45/EC on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of undertakings for the purposes of informing and consulting employees COUNCIL DIRECTIVE NO 97/75/EC of 15 December 1997 amending and extending, to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Directive 96/34/EC on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC COUNCIL DIRECTIVE NO 97/81/EC of 15 December 1997 concerning the Framework Agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC COUNCIL DIRECTIVE NO 98/23/EC of 7 April 1998 on the extension of Directive 97/81/EC on the framework agreement on part-time work concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland COUNCIL DIRECTIVE NO 98/59/EC of 20 July 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to collective redundancies COUNCIL DIRECTIVE NO 99/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP COUNCIL DIRECTIVE NO 99/63/EC of 21 June 1999 concerning the Agreement on the organisation of working time of seafarers concluded by the European Community Ship-owners’ Association (ECSA) and the Federation of Transport Workers’ Unions in the European Union (FST) COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin COUNCIL DIRECTIVE NO 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2001/86/EC of 8 October 2001 supplementing the Statute for a European company with regard to the involvement of employees DIRECTIVE 2002/14/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 11 March 2002 establishing a general framework for informing and consulting employees in the European Community DIRECTIVE 2002/15/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 11 March 2002 on the organisation of the working time of persons performing mobile road transport activities DIRECTIVE 2003/41/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of institutions for occupational retirement provision COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2003/72/EC of 22 July 2003 supplementing the Statute for a European Cooperative Society with regard to the involvement of employees DIRECTIVE 2003/88/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 4 November 2003 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time DIRECTIVE 2005/56/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 26 October 2005 on cross-border mergers of limited liability companies DIRECTIVE 2006/54/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (recast) DIRECTIVE 2008/94 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer DIRECTIVE 2008/104/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 19 November 2008 on temporary agency work DIRECTIVE 2009/38/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 6 May 2009 on the establishment of a European Works Council or a procedure in Community-scale undertakings and Community-scale groups of companies for the purposes of informing and consulting employees COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 2010/18/EU of 8 March 2010 implementing the revised Framework Agreement on parental leave concluded by BUSINESSEUROPE, UEAPME, CEEP and ETUC DIRECTIVE 2010/41/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 7 July 2010 on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity DIRECTIVE 2014/67/EU OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 15 May 2014 on the enforcement of Directive 96/71/EC concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System (“the IMI Regulation”).”
New clause 2—Meaning of Withdrawal Agreement—
“It shall be the objective of Her Majesty’s Government to ensure that the arrangements for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU which comprise the “withdrawal agreement” specified in subsection (1) of section 14 shall include full, comprehensive and sufficient detail as if it were a legal instrument capable of acceptance and deposit as an international trade agreement at the World Trade Organisation, with detailed agreements on the following aspects of the future relationship between the United Kingdom and European Union including—
(a) geographical scope of application,
(b) regulatory cooperation,
(c) national security,
(d) cross-border trade in services,
(e) market access,
(f) tariff arrangements,
(g) tariff rate quotas on all products,
(h) customs duties on imports,
(i) duties, taxes and charges on exports,
(j) fees and charges,
(k) import and export restrictions,
(l) provisions concerning anti-dumping and countervailing measures,
(m) transparency,
(n) sanitary and phytosanitary measures,
(o) trade conditions,
(p) customs valuation,
(q) subsidies,
(r) dispute settlement and mediation,
(s) establishment of investments,
(t) non-discriminatory treatment,
(u) expropriation,
(v) enforcement of awards,
(w) mutual recognition of professional qualifications,
(x) cross-border financial services,
(y) prudential regulatory alignment,
(z) maritime transport services,
(aa) telecommunications,
(bb) electronic commerce,
(cc) competition policy,
(dd) state enterprises and monopolies,
(ee) government procurement,
(ff) intellectual property,
(gg) trade and sustainable development and the environment,
(hh) trade and labour standards and employment conditions and
(ii) taxation.”
This new clause would make it the objective of HM Government that the withdrawal agreement sought prior to exit day should include proposals setting out the full details expected of a comprehensive international trade agreement.
New clause 3—Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland—
“(1) Nothing in the provisions made under section 8 or section 9 of this Act shall authorise any regulations which—
(a) breach any of the obligations of Her Majesty’s Government made under the Belfast Agreement implemented in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (which made new provision for the government of Northern Ireland for the purpose of implementing the agreement reached at multi-party talks on Northern Ireland), or
(b) create hard border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, or
(c) undermine the full alignment of the United Kingdom with the rules of the European Union Internal Market and the Customs Union which support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the Belfast Agreement.
(2) Subsection (1)(c) shall apply unless Her Majesty’s Government, the Government of the Republic of Ireland and the European Union agree alternative specific solutions which can continue to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland, the obligations of the Belfast Agreement and the avoidance of a hard border arrangement between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.”
This new clause would ensure that the aspects of the Phase 1 agreement between the UK and the EU regarding the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland are brought into UK law.
New clause 4—Financial Settlement—
“The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall publish, within one month of Royal Assent of this Act, the full details of the methodology agreed between Her Majesty’s Government and the European Union as set out in the “Joint Report from the Negotiators on Progress During Phase 1” which was published on 8 December 2017.”
This new clause would ensure that the agreed methodology for calculating the financial settlement between the UK and the EU set out in the Joint Report from the Negotiators of 8 December 2017 are published and brought into the public domain.
New clause 5—Trade in Services—
“It shall be the objective of Her Majesty’s Government, in negotiating a withdrawal agreement, to secure the same rights, freedoms and access available to UK businesses trading in services as exists through the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union, as if section 1 of this Act were not brought into effect.”
This new clause would ensure that the negotiating objectives of Ministers would be to secure the same benefits for service sector trading businesses after exit day as are available under the existing Single Market and Customs Union arrangements by virtue of membership of the European Union.
New clause 6—Alteration to the notification under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on the European Union—
“Her Majesty’s Government shall publish a summary of the legal advice it has received in respect of the ability of the United Kingdom to extend, alter or revoke the notification, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on the European Union, of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU.”
This new clause would require Ministers to place in the public domain a summary of the legal advice they have received concerning the options available for the United Kingdom in respect of the notification made under Article 50 of the Treaty on the European Union.
New clause 10—Governance and institutional arrangements—
“(1) Before exit day a Minister of the Crown must make provision that all powers and functions relating to any right, freedom, or protection, that any person might reasonably expect to exercise, that were exercisable by EU entities or other public authorities anywhere in the United Kingdom before exit day, and which do not cease to have effect as a result of the withdrawal agreement (“relevant powers and functions”) will—
(a) continue to be carried out by an EU entity or public authority;
(b) be carried out by an appropriate existing or newly established entity or public authority in the United Kingdom; or
(c) be carried out by an appropriate international entity or public authority.
(2) For the purposes of this section, relevant powers and functions relating to the UK exercisable by an EU entity or public authority include, but are not limited to—
(a) monitoring and measuring compliance with legal requirements;
(b) reviewing and reporting on compliance with legal requirements;
(c) enforcement of legal requirements;
(d) setting standards or targets;
(e) co-ordinating action;
(f) publicising information.
(3) Responsibility for any functions or obligations arising from retained EU law for which no specific provision has been made immediately after commencement of this Act will belong to the relevant Minister until such a time as specific provision for those functions or obligations has been made.”
This new clause would ensure that substantive rights and protections cannot be removed by the “back door”, and that the institutions and agencies that protect EU derived rights and protections are replaced to a sufficient standard so those rights and protections will still be enjoyed in practice.
New clause 11—Meaningful vote on deal or no deal—
“(1) The Prime Minister must publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament an assessment of the impact on the economy of the United Kingdom, and on each nation, province or region of the United Kingdom, of any unratified agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union which sets out the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU.
(2) Any agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union which sets out the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU may not be ratified unless—
(a) subsection (1) has been complied with,
(b) the House of Lords has considered a motion relating to the unratified agreement,
(c) the House of Commons has approved the unratified agreement by resolution,
(d) the statute mentioned in section 9 (approving the final terms of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union) has been passed, and
(e) any other legislative provision to enable ratification has been passed or made.
(3) If no agreement has been reached by 31 December 2018 between the United Kingdom and the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union setting out the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU, the Prime Minister must publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament within one month an assessment of the impact on the economy of the United Kingdom, and on each nation, province or region of the United Kingdom, of leaving the EU under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union without an agreement.
(4) If no agreement has been reached by 31 January 2019 between the United Kingdom and the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union setting out the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU,
(a) a Minister of the Crown must propose a motion in the House of Lords relating to the lack of an agreement, and
(b) a Minister of the Crown must propose a motion in the House of Commons approving the intention of the United Kingdom to leave the EU under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union without a withdrawal agreement.
(5) Unless the House of Commons approves by resolution after 31 January 2019 the intention of the United Kingdom to leave the EU under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union without a withdrawal agreement, the Prime Minister must either—
(a) reach an agreement before exit day between the United Kingdom and the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union which sets out the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU, or
(b) request the European Council for an extension of negotiation under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, or
(c) rescind the notice of intention under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union to withdraw from the EU given in accordance with the European Union (Notice of Withdrawal) Act 2017 and request the European Council to accept that rescission.’
This New Clause would ensure that the Government assesses the impact of either an agreement or no deal on the UK economy and regions before a meaningful vote, and that if Parliament does not agree to the agreement or to no deal, then the Government must request a revocation or extension of Article 50.
New clause 12—Environmental protection after EU exit—
“(1) Before any exit day, the Secretary of State must publish a report detailing all EU environmental protections, powers and functions.
(2) The report pursuant to subsection (1) shall specify—
(a) all environmental legal protections which derive from EU law;
(b) the powers and functions relating to environmental protection or improvement exercised by EU institutions;
(c) the empowering provisions in EU law relating to those functions; and
(d) any loss of environmental protection, or the monitoring and enforcement of environmental protections, which may arise as a result of the UK’s exit from the EU.
(3) Before any exit day the Secretary of State must publish proposals for primary legislation (the “Draft Environmental Protection Bill”).
(4) The Draft Environmental Protection Bill must include provisions which would—
(a) ensure that the level of environmental protection provided by EU law on the day this Act receives Royal Assent is maintained or enhanced;
(b) make provision to remedy any loss of environmental protection, or the monitoring and enforcement of environmental protections, established in the report pursuant to subsection (1);
(c) create a statutory corporation (to be called “the Environmental Protection Agency”) with operational independence from Ministers of the Crown to monitor environmental targets previously set by EU law relating to environmental protection and other such environmental targets that may be set by Ministers of the Crown and international treaties to which the United Kingdom is party;
(d) require the statutory corporation in (4)(c) to report to Parliament every year on progress in meeting those targets and to make recommendations for remedial action where appropriate;
(e) allow the statutory corporation in (4)(c) to publish additional reports identifying action or omissions on the part of Ministers of the Crown that is likely to result in targets not being met; and
(f) extend to the whole of the United Kingdom.
(5) The Secretary of State must publish annual reports to Parliament on how environmental protections and the monitoring and enforcement of environmental protections have been affected by the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU.
(6) Before publishing a report pursuant to subsection (5) the Secretary of State must hold a public consultation on the effect of leaving the EU on environmental protection.
(7) The Secretary of State must publish and lay before each House of Parliament the first report pursuant to subsection (5) no later 29 March 2020 and each subsequent report must be published no later than the period of one year after the publication of the previous report.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce a report on the loss of environmental protection as a result of the UK’s exit from the EU, and to prepare an Environmental Protection Bill to make up for any loss of environmental protections, and the monitoring and enforcement of environmental protections. It would also require the Secretary of State to produce annual reports which make an assessment of the impact of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU on UK environmental protection.
New clause 14—Maintaining individual rights and protections—
“(1) When making any agreement under subsection (2), the Secretary of State shall take steps to ensure that UK citizens enjoy standards of rights and protections equivalent to those enjoyed by citizens of the EU under EU law.
(2) This section applies to—
(a) any agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU which prepares for, or implements, the UK’s withdrawal from the EU;
(b) any international trade agreement—
(i) between the UK and the EU, or
(ii) between the UK and another signatory which seeks to replicate in full or in part the provisions of an international trade agreement between the EU and the other signatory.
(3) In relation to any agreement under subsection (2), the Secretary of State will maintain the highest standards of transparency.”
This new clause creates a duty for the Government to ensure that individual rights and protections are maintained to a level equivalent to (although not necessarily the same as) those in the EU when making agreements with the EU or international trade agreements.
New clause 15—Non-regression of equality law—
“(1) Any EU withdrawal related legislation must be accompanied by a statement made by a Minister of the Crown certifying that in the Minister‘s opinion the legislation does not remove or reduce protection under or by virtue of the Equality Acts 2006 and 2010.
(2) In subsection (1) “EU withdrawal related legislation” means—
(a) any statutory instrument under this Act;
(b) any statutory instrument made by a Minister of the Crown wholly or partly in connection with the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU; and
(c) any Bill presented to Parliament by a Minister of the Crown which is wholly or partly connected to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU.”
This new clause would ensure that legislation in connection with withdrawal from the EU does not reduce protections provided by equality law.
New clause 17—Effect of losing access to EU single market and customs union—
“(1) The Prime Minister must publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament an assessment of the impact on the economy of the United Kingdom, and on each nation, province or region of the United Kingdom, of any unratified agreement (“the Agreement”) between the United Kingdom and the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union which sets out the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU.
(2) The assessment in subsection (1) must so far as practicable analyse the expected difference in outcomes between the Agreement and continued participation in the EU single market and customs union.
(3) The assessment in subsection (1) must be prepared by the Treasury and must include separate analyses from the National Audit Office, the Office of Budget Responsibility, the Government Actuary’s Department, and the finance directorates of each of the devolved Administrations of the methodology and conclusions of the Treasury assessment.
(4) A statute of the kind mentioned in section 9 (approving the final terms of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union) may not come into effect until the Prime Minister’s assessment under subsection (1) has been—
(a) debated by each House of Parliament, and
(b) approved by resolution of the House of Commons.”
This purpose of this New Clause is to ensure that the alternative of remaining in the EU single market and customs union is formally considered by Parliament on the basis of an independently validated economic assessment before any statute approving the final terms of withdrawal takes effect.
New clause 18—Consultation on environmental governance and principles—
“(1) Within one month of Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must consult on and bring forward proposals to—
(a) provide that all powers and functions relating to the environment or environmental protection that were exercisable by EU entities or other public authorities anywhere in the United Kingdom before exit day which do not cease to have effect as a result of the withdrawal agreement are fully carried out.
(b) introduce primary legislation to establish a new independent environmental regulator with the purpose of, responsibility for, and appropriate powers to oversee the implementation of, compliance with and enforcement of environmental law and principles by relevant public authorities.
(c) incorporate EU environmental principles in primary legislation as a basis for relevant decision-making by UK public bodies and public authorities.
(d) establish a process for the publication of a national environmental policy statement or statements describing how the environmental principles will be interpreted and applied.
(2) EU Environmental principles include but are not limited to—
(a) the precautionary principle;
(b) the principle that preventive action should be taken to avert environmental damage;
(c) the principle that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source;
(d) the polluter pays principle;
(e) the principle that environmental protection requirements must be integrated into the definition and implementation of policies and activities, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development;
(3) In carrying out a consultation under this section, the Government must—
(a) consult with the devolved authorities;
(b) be open to responses for at least two months; and
(c) consider the resources and legal powers that the proposed regulator under (1)(b) will need in order to properly carry out its functions.”
This new clause enshrines the Government’s stated intentions in respect of the environmental principles and the establishment of a new independent environmental regulator. It sets out the minimum standards for consultation on these matters.
New clause 20—Citizens’ Jury on Brexit Negotiations—
“(1) A citizens’ jury shall be established to enable UK citizens to be consulted on the progress of negotiations between the UK and the EU on the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, and the approach outlined in UK Government White Papers.
(2) The citizens’ jury shall in total be composed of exactly 1501 persons.
(3) Members of the citizens’ jury shall be randomly selected by means of eligibility from UK citizens on the current electoral register as registered on the date of this Act receiving royal assent, with allocation across the 9 UK Government Regions, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland weighted by population, and a stratification plan, with the aim of securing a group of people who are broadly representative demographically of the UK electorate across characteristics including whether they voted Leave or Remain.
(4) The jury will be broken down into individual sittings for each of the 9 UK Government Regions in England, as well as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
(5) The sittings will be for no more than 72 hours at a time, facilitated by independent facilitators, and if required, by electing fore-people from within their number.
(6) Membership of the jury will be subject to the same regulations and exceptions as a regular jury, but membership can be declined without penalty.
(7) The citizens’ jury will be able to require Ministerial and official representatives of the UK Government and the Devolved Administrations to give testimony to them to inform their work, and to have the power to invite other witnesses to give evidence as required.
(8) The citizens’ jury shall publish reports setting out their conclusions on the negotiations and UK Government White Papers.
(9) The first report from the citizens’ jury shall be published within two months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, and subsequent reports shall be published at intervals of no more than two months.
(10) Costs incurred by the citizens’ jury shall be met by the Exchequer.”
New clause 21—Environmental protection and improvement: continuation of powers and functions—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish and maintain a publicly accessible register of EU environmental powers and functions.
(2) The register produced pursuant to subsection (1) shall specify—
(a) the specific powers and functions relating to environmental protection or improvement exercised by EU institutions;
(b) the EU institution previously responsible for exercising those powers and functions; and
(c) the empowering provision in EU law relating to those powers and functions.
(3) The register produced pursuant to subsection (1) shall include the following functions—
(a) monitoring and measuring compliance with legal requirements;
(b) reviewing and reporting on compliance with legal requirements;
(c) enforcement of legal requirements;
(d) setting standards or targets;
(e) co-ordinating action; and
(f) publicising information including regarding compliance with environmental standards.
(4) Within one month of Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must—
(a) publish and lay before Parliament a statement identifying those powers and functions identified in the public register established under subsection (1) that will continue to be exercised by EU institutions or, alternatively, the existing or proposed new public authorities to which these powers and functions will be transferred; and
(b) make Regulations containing provisions to ensure that all relevant powers and functions relating to environmental protection or improvement exercisable by EU institutions anywhere in the United Kingdom before exit day continue on and after exit day.”
This new clause would ensure oversight of the transfer of functions from EU institutions to domestic institutions, by requiring the Government to establish a publicly accessible register of environmental governance functions and powers exercised by EU institutions, and to make regulations that ensure that all relevant environmental powers and functions are continued.
New clause 22—Dealing with deficiencies arising from withdrawal – further provisions—
“(1) This section applies where there is a deficiency in retained EU law on and after exit day in respect of which regulations have not been made under section 7.
(2) A deficiency includes, but is not limited to, retained EU law which—
(a) contains anything which has no practical application in relation to the United Kingdom or any part of it or is otherwise redundant or substantially redundant;
(b) confers functions on, or in relation to, EU entities which no longer have functions in that respect under EU law in relation to the United Kingdom or any part of it;
(c) makes provision for, or in connection with, reciprocal arrangements between—
(i) the United Kingdom or any part of it or a public authority in the United Kingdom, and
(ii) the EU, an EU entity, a member State or a public authority in a member State,
which no longer exist or are no longer appropriate.
(d) makes provision for, or in connection with, other arrangements which—
(i) involve the EU, an EU entity, a member State or a public authority in a member State, or
(ii) are otherwise dependent upon the United Kingdom’s membership of the EU,
and which no longer exist or are no longer appropriate
(e) makes provision for, or in connection with, any reciprocal or other arrangements not falling within paragraph (c) or (d) which no longer exist, or are no longer appropriate, as a result of the United Kingdom ceasing to be a party to any of the EU Treaties,
(f) does not contain any functions or restrictions which—
(i) were in an EU directive and in force immediately before exit day (including any power to make EU tertiary legislation), and
(ii) it is appropriate to retain, or
(g) contains EU references which are no longer appropriate.
(3) A deficiency within the meaning of subsection (1) includes any failure or other deficiency arising from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU together with the operation of any provision, or the interaction between any provisions, made by or under this Act, but does not include any modification of EU law which is adopted or notified, comes into force or applies only on or after exit day.
(4) Where this section applies, the retained EU law in respect of which the deficiency arises is to be interpreted in accordance with subsections (5) to (9).
(5) The retained EU law does not allow, prevent, require or otherwise apply to acts or omissions outside the United Kingdom.
(6) An EU reference is not to be treated, by reason of the UK having ceased to be a member State, as preventing or restricting the application of retained EU law within the United Kingdom or to persons or things associated with the United Kingdom.
(7) Functions conferred on the EU or an EU entity are to be treated as functions of the Secretary of State.
(8) Any provision which requires or would, apart from subsection (7), require a UK body to—
(a) consult, notify, co-operate with, or perform any other act in relation to an EU body, or
(b) take account of an EU interest,
is to be treated as empowering the UK body to do so in such manner and to such extent as it considers appropriate.
(9) In subsection (8)—
“a UK body” means the United Kingdom or a public authority in the United Kingdom;
“an EU body” means the EU, an EU entity (other than the European Court), a member State or a public authority in a member State;
“an EU interest” means an interest of an EU body or any other interest principally arising in or connected with the EU (including that of consistency between the United Kingdom and the EU);
“requires” includes reference to a pre-condition to the exercise of any power, right or function;
(10) This section ceases to have effect after the end of the period of two years beginning with exit day.”
This new clause provides a scheme for interpretation as a backstop where the transposition necessary to avoid deficiencies has not been effected by regulations made under Clause 7.
Amendment 2, in clause 7, page 5, line 6, leave out subsections (1) to (6) and insert—
“(1) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers necessary to prevent, remedy or mitigate—
(a) any failure of retained EU law to operate effectively, or
(b) any other deficiency in retained EU law,
arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU.
(2) Deficiencies in retained EU law are where the Minister considers that retained EU law—
(a) contains anything which has no practical application in relation to the United Kingdom or any part of it or is otherwise redundant or substantially redundant,
(b) confers functions on, or in relation to, EU entities which no longer have functions in that respect under EU law in relation to the United Kingdom or any part of it,
(c) makes provision for, or in connection with, reciprocal arrangements between—
(i) the United Kingdom or any part of it or a public authority in the United Kingdom, and
(ii) the EU, an EU entity, a member State or a public authority in a member State, which no longer exist or are no longer appropriate,
(d) makes provision for, or in connection with, other arrangements which—
(i) involve the EU, an EU entity, a member State or a public authority in a member State, or
(ii) are otherwise dependent upon the United Kingdom’s membership of the EU, and which no longer exist or are no longer appropriate,
(e) makes provision for, or in connection with, any reciprocal or other arrangements not falling within paragraph (c) or (d) which no longer exist, or are no longer appropriate, as a result of the United Kingdom ceasing to be a party to any of the EU Treaties,
(f) does not contain any functions or restrictions which—
(i) were in an EU directive and in force immediately before exit day (including any power to make EU tertiary legislation), and
(ii) it is appropriate to retain, or
(g) contains EU references which are no longer appropriate.
(3) But retained EU law is not deficient merely because it does not contain any modification of EU law which is adopted or notified, comes into force or only applies on or after exit day.
(4) Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament.
(5) Regulations under this section may provide for—
(a) functions of EU entities or public authorities in member States (including making an instrument of a legislative character or providing funding) to be exercisable instead by a public authority (whether or not newly established or established for the purpose) in the United Kingdom,
(b) the establishment of public authorities in the United Kingdom to carry out functions provided for by regulations under this section.
(6) Regulations to which subsection (5) apply must ensure that the functions of such EU entities or public authorities are exercised with equivalent scope, purpose and effect by public authorities in the United Kingdom.
(7) But regulations under this section may not—
(a) impose or increase taxation,
(b) make retrospective provision,
(c) create a relevant criminal offence,
(d) be made to implement the withdrawal agreement,
(e) amend, repeal or revoke the Human Rights Act 1998 or any subordinate legislation made under it,
(f) amend or repeal the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (unless the regulations are made by virtue of paragraph 13(b) of Schedule 7 to this Act or are amending or repealing paragraph 38 of Schedule 3 to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 or any provision of that Act which modifies another enactment),
(g) contain any provision the effect of which is that, in comparison with the position immediately before the exit date—
(i) any right conferred on a person by retained EU law is either removed or made less favourable,
(ii) any standard laid by retained EU law is lowered, or
(iii) any remedy, procedure or method of enforcement, in relation to any rights or standards conferred by retained EU law, is made less effective, or
(h) amend, repeal or revoke the Equality Act 2010 or any subordinate legislation made under that Act.”
This amendment restricts the Clause 7 powers so as to ensure they are only used as far is as necessary for the purposes of the Bill, that they do not abolish enforcement functions and that they do not reduce rights or protections.
Amendment 9, page 6, line 16, at end insert—
“(da) amend, repeal or revoke any retained EU law which implements a provision listed in Schedule [Exceptions for Directives etc.].”
This amendment, which is linked to NS1, would except EU Directives relating to workers’ rights from the power to make regulations to remedy deficiencies in retained EU law.
Amendment 56, page 6, line 23, at end insert—
“(6A) Within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, and every three months thereafter, a report must be laid before each House of Parliament listing—
(a) all deficiencies which Ministers of the Crown have identified would arise in retained EU law after exit day but which they do not intend to prevent, remedy or mitigate in advance using the powers under subsection (1);
(b) the reasons for each decision not to prevent, remedy or mitigate such deficiencies, and
(c) an assessment of the consequences of that decision.”
This amendment (linked with Amendment 55 provides for Parliamentary scrutiny of any decision not to use clause 7 powers to save retained EU law from being unable to operate effectively.
Amendment 59, in clause 9, page 7, line 16, at end insert—
“(5) No regulations may be made under this section until the Secretary of State has signed an agreement with the European Union guaranteeing that the United Kingdom will remain a permanent member of the EU single market and customs union.”
This amendment would mean the UK would confirm its continued membership of the single market and customs union before Ministers of the Crown carry out any actions under Clause 9 of the Bill.
Amendment 10, in clause 14, page 10, line 40, leave out from “means” to the end of line 41 and insert
“the time specified by an Act of Parliament approving the final terms of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU;”.
This amendment would require exit day to be specified in a separate bill on the terms of withdrawal.
Amendment 39, page 11, line 37, at end insert
“and the arrangements for a status quo transitional period which encompasses—
(a) a “bridging period” to allow new agreements to be reached satisfactorily between the United Kingdom and the European Union lasting as long as necessary for a full trade agreement to be ratified, and
(b) an “adaptation period” to allow the phasing in of new requirements over time to provide for the implementation of changes to new agreements in an orderly and efficient manner.”
This amendment ensures that the meaning of “withdrawal agreement” is also taken to include a detailed transitional period with two distinct aspects, firstly allowing for a “bridging period” during which new agreements are concluded and secondly allowing for an “adaptation period” to give business and other organisations a period to adjust to those new arrangements.
Amendment 1, page 11, line 40, at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (2B) applies if any “exit day” appointed in this Act is not in accordance with any transitional arrangements agreed under Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union.
(2B) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a) amend the definition of “exit day” in the relevant sections to ensure that the day and time specified are in accordance with any transitional arrangements agreed under Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union, and
(b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment.
(2C) Regulations under subsection (2B) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This amendment ensures that the Bill can facilitate transitional arrangements within the single market and customs union.
New schedule 1—Exceptions for directives etc.—
This new schedule, which is linked to Amendment 9, lists the EU Directives relating to workers’ rights which would be excepted from the power to make regulations to remedy deficiencies in retained EU law.
Government amendment 33.
Amendment 58, in schedule 7, page 48, line 7, at end insert—
“12A Any power to make regulations under this Act may not be exercised by a Minister of the Crown until 14 days after the Minister has circulated a draft of the regulations to the citizens’ jury appointed under section (Citizens’ jury on Brexit negotiations).”
The intention of this Amendment is to provide for a citizens’ jury to be consulted before regulations are made under this Act.
Government amendments 35 and 36.
Matthew Pennycook
I rise to speak to new clause 1 and amendments 2 and 1, which stand in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. As you are aware, Mr Speaker, this remaining group contains a significant number of important issues, and while I want to spend time talking to each of our three amendments, I am conscious that time is limited, so I will endeavour to keep my remarks as brief as possible.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) reminded the House yesterday, as far back as last March the Opposition set out six ways in which the Bill required improvement. The first was that it be drafted in such a way as to enable transitional arrangements after 29 March 2019 on the same basic terms as now—including being in a customs union with the EU and within the single market. The second was that the sweeping delegated powers in the Bill be circumscribed. The third was that it needed to contain clear and robust protection and enforcement mechanisms for all EU-derived rights, entitlements, protections and standards. Sadly, despite some small steps in the right direction, the Government have largely failed to respond in any meaningful way to the concerns we raised in relation to these three areas. The purpose of new clause 1 and amendments 2 and 1 is to press the Government once again to do something about each of them.
I turn first to new clause 1, the purpose of which is to ensure that retained EU law enjoys a form of enhanced protection from subordinate legislation contained in other Acts of Parliament. This is a highly technical matter but a crucial one for the rights and protections our constituents enjoy. Mr Speaker, you were not in the Chamber at the time, but hon. Members who were present will recall that the House debated clauses 2, 3 and 4 in great detail on day two of Committee, and I certainly do not intend to cover the same ground again today. As we heard again yesterday, however, there are very real problems that flow from the ambiguous and uncertain status of retained EU law—a problem to which we believe new clause 13, tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), provides a pragmatic solution, or at the very least a sensible starting point for a conversation about how the status of this new category of law could be more clearly defined.
Leaving to one side the issues relating to the status of retained EU law—issues that I have no doubt the other place will return to at some length—there is another, related concern, and that is the vulnerability of this new category of law to subordinate legislation and what that means in practical terms for the rights, entitlements, protections and standards our constituents currently enjoy. I want to be very clear as to the argument I am making at this point, because when I first did so on day two of Committee, the debate was prone to veer off on to other related but distinct issues.
The concern I am highlighting does not relate to the issue of how Parliament is to scrutinise and, where necessary, approve the hundreds of statutory instruments that will flow from clause 7, as well as clauses 8, 9 and 17. We welcomed the Government’s acceptance of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and other members of the Procedure Committee, although we still believe that they do not go far enough, particularly in relation to the new sifting committee’s inability to request that Ministers revoke and remake specific statutory instruments.
Nor does the argument that I am advancing concern how the powers contained in this Bill might be used to amend, modify or repeal retained EU law. The specific issue that I am highlighting, and what new clause 1 seeks to address, is our serious concern that the Bill as drafted leaves retained EU law vulnerable to amendment, modification or repeal by subordinate legislation contained in numerous other Acts of Parliament.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
Is it not the case that workers’ rights have no privileged status under the Bill? Once the Bill becomes an Act, those rights can be picked off by secondary legislation. If the Government wish to prevent workers from receiving proper holiday pay or to cap awards for discrimination, they will be easily able to do so.
Matthew Pennycook
That is absolutely true. The Government would be able to do that by using subordinate legislation in other Acts of Parliament. That applies not just to workers’ rights, but to other areas of law such as the environment and consumer rights. That category of law will lose its underpinnings following our departure from the EU.
Wrenched away from the enhanced protection enjoyed as a result of our EU membership, retained EU law—and we should bear in mind that that category of law might be with us for decades—will in many cases enjoy the lowest possible legislative status, and consequently the wide range of rights and protections that flow from it will be more vulnerable than they were before. The Opposition have repeatedly emphasised that Brexit must not lead to any watering down or weakening of EU-derived rights, particularly rights and standards in areas such as employment, equality, health and safety, consumers and the environment. That is why we tabled new clause 58 in Committee. Setting out the reasons why the Government were opposed to new clause 58, the Solicitor General argued that it would
“fetter powers across the statute book that Parliament has already delegated.”
Furthermore:
“Relying only on powers set out in this Bill to amend retained EU law would be insufficient”.—[Official Report, 15 November 2017; Vol. 631, c. 418.]
In keeping with the constructive approach that we have taken towards the Bill throughout this process, we have engaged seriously with the Solicitor General’s argument, and new clause 1 is the result. Like new clause 58, it seeks to give retained EU law a level of enhanced protection, thus avoiding a situation in which laws falling within the new category might enjoy the lowest possible legislative status. It also accepts the defence put forward by the Solicitor General, and provides a mechanism whereby a Minister may use regulations provided for in other Acts of Parliament to amend, repeal or modify retained EU law, but only in cases in which it is necessary to maintain or enhance rights and protections, and only after consultation. In short, it concedes that there are many instances in which the use of subordinate legislation contained in other Acts of Parliament might be necessary, but seeks to reconcile its use with a presumption of enhanced protection.
Since the referendum, Ministers have repeatedly stated that the Government do not wish to see any rights and protections diminished as a result of our departure from the EU. That is also what the public expect, but it requires a level of protection that the Bill as it stands does not provide. We hope that the Government will engage seriously with the new clause and accept it, but we intend to press it to a vote if they do not.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Is it not important for the public to be reassured about workers’ rights, given reports in the media of Cabinet discussions about scrapping the working time directive?
Matthew Pennycook
I think most of our constituents assume that the guarantees that they currently enjoy will continue. They will not know that many of these rights flow from and are underpinned by EU law, but they would expect them to be transposed in a way that would provide the same level of protection rather than the lowest possible legislative status. This is an issue to which we shall have to return, and one that the other place will no doubt tackle.
Amendment 2 seeks to further circumscribe the correcting powers contained in clause 7. Throughout this process, we have been at pains to argue that, to the extent that relatively wide delegated powers in the Bill are necessary, they should not be granted casually, and that when they are granted they should be limited whenever that is possible and practical. It is clear from their tabling of amendments 14 and 15, and consequential amendments, that the Government accept that there are shortcomings in the drafting of clause 7. We welcome the fact that the deficiencies identified in clause 7(2) will now form an exhaustive rather than an illustrative list—with the caveat, I should add, that the further deficiencies can be added at a later date. In effect, the list as drafted will be exhaustive unless Ministers subsequently decide that it is not. That is not perfect, but it does represent some progress.
Nevertheless, even with the incorporation of Government amendments 14 and 15, the correcting powers provided for which clause 7 provides are still too potent and too widely drawn. Suggestions on day six of the Committee stage that the clause ought to stipulate that the correcting power should be used only when necessary have been ignored, as have concerns that the Bill as drafted does not guarantee that the powers and functions of entities such as the European Commission and other EU agencies will continue to operate with equivalent scope, purpose and effect after exit day. Concerns that the Bill as drafted could be used for a purpose other than that which was intended— specifically, that it has the potential to diminish rights and protections—have likewise been ignored.
On day six, the Government had the chance to justify the drafting of the clause in detail and to address each of those concerns, but they did not do so adequately. They were also given an enormous menu of options, in amendments tabled by Back Benchers in all parties, whereby the powers in the clause—and, indeed, similar powers elsewhere in the Bill—might be constrained. Amendments 14 and 15 represent the totality of their response. As I have said, they are a step in the right direction. but on their own they are not enough. That is why we tabled amendment 2, which addresses comprehensively the range of flaws contained in clause 7 so that the correcting power is reasonably and proportionately circumscribed. If the Government do not indicate that they have taken those concerns on board and are prepared to act on them, we will press the amendment to a vote.
Amendment 1 seeks to ensure that the Bill can facilitate transitional arrangements after 29 March 2019 on the same basic terms as now. The Opposition have argued for some time that we need a time-limited transitional period between our exit from the EU and the future relationship that we build with our European partners. We believe that, to provide maximum certainty and stability, that transitional period should be based on the same basic terms as now. That includes our being in a customs union with the EU and in the single market, both of which will entail the continued jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice for the period that is agreed. Our view is shared widely by businesses and trade unions, but for a long time it was considered to be anathema to the Prime Minister and senior members of her Cabinet.
Melanie Onn
I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous with his time. There are many cases, such as Marshalls Clay Products Ltd v. Caulfield and Gibson v. East Riding of Yorkshire Council, in which domestic courts have reached incorrect decisions on workers’ rights. If the European Court of Justice will no longer be the adjudicator after the transitional period, what will?
Matthew Pennycook
After the transitional period, the ECJ would not be the adjudicator. That would be dealt with as a matter of retained law. My hon. Friend has reinforced a point that I made earlier. We need a level of enhanced protection and the courts need clarity on how to interpret this new category of law, because if they do not have that clarity and certainty, they will be more vulnerable.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I hope shortly to be able to make a brief speech on that very subject, dealing with the question of whether or not there should be a power for the courts to disapply Acts of Parliament in relation to the matters to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
Matthew Pennycook
I am not sure that that warranted an intervention, but I await the hon. Gentleman’s contribution with bated breath.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), does my hon. Friend agree that either the institutions and agencies that currently enforce EU rights, privileges and protections should be maintained as EU agencies, or a transitional arrangement should involve agencies and institutions that will protect people’s rights in respect of, for instance, work, the environment and consumer issues?
Matthew Pennycook
I certainly believe that, when it is appropriate and when the country will derive benefit, we should continue to participate in EU agencies. The important point, however, is that when the functions and powers of EU agencies are transferred to either an existing or a new body, the purpose, scope and effect of the rights and protections that flow from those agencies should continue. That is one of the issues that clause 7 fails to address.
Returning to my earlier train of thought, all of this was why the Prime Minister’s Florence speech of last year was so welcome. It made it clear that Government policy was to seek, semantics about implementation versus transition aside, a time-limited period in which the UK and the EU would continue to have access to one another’s markets on current terms, and with Britain continuing to take part in existing security measures.
Crucially, the Prime Minister made it clear that this bridging arrangement would take place on the basis of
“the existing structure of EU rules and regulations.”
That quite clearly implied the acceptance of the jurisdiction of the ECJ, as confirmed by the Prime Minister in an answer to the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) in the weeks following the speech, when she stated:
“that may mean that we start off with the ECJ still governing the rules we are part of”. —[Official Report, 9 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 53.]
It is also set out in black and white in the phase 1 agreement.
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
With regard to the issue of transition or implementation, as the Government call it, does my hon. Friend agree that while it is of course necessary in particular to give time for our businesses to prepare, transition or implementation is no safe harbour if this Government are determined to pursue the extreme break from our relationship with the EU which have set out with their red lines? That is no safe harbour to jumping off a cliff; it just delays it, in fact.
Matthew Pennycook
I absolutely agree; and the unpicking of, or wheeling back from, some of the progress we felt had been made in the Florence speech is one of our concerns.
The Bill before us was drafted before the Florence speech, but rather than amend the Bill to reflect the evolution of Government policy outlined by the Prime Minister in that speech, the Government chose instead to fashion a legislative straitjacket for themselves in the form of enshrining “exit day” for all purposes in the Bill as 11 pm on 29 March 2019. Let us be clear: bringing forward amendments to stipulate that exit day for all purposes of the Bill had nothing to do with leaving the EU. The article 50 notification made our departure from the EU on 29 March 2019 a legal certainty, so, for the purposes of the Bill, exit day could be left in the hands of Parliament.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman just used the phrase “legal certainty” in referring to our departure from the EU on 29 March 2019. Does that mean that he has seen legal advice that article 50 cannot be revoked? Is the Labour Front-Bench position that it is impossible, as opposed to politically inexpedient, to consider revoking article 50?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman tempts me down an avenue that has nothing to do with the point I am making, which is that it remains unclear why the Government tabled three exit day amendments to their own Bill which have sown further confusion. We do not know why they did that—whether it was driven by Tory party management considerations or some other reason. The effect of those Government amendments would have been to end the jurisdiction of the ECJ on 29 March 2019, thereby preventing agreement on a transitional period on current terms.
The Government clearly soon realised their mistake and to save face enlisted the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), who is not in his place, to table amendments to loosen the legislative straitjacket they themselves had created. But his amendments, which the Government have accepted, only provide a limited form of flexibility. Ministers may now amend the definition of exit day in clause 14 for the purposes of the Bill if the date when the treaties cease to apply to the UK is different from 29 March 2019. However, there is good reason to argue that that power might not be sufficient to facilitate transitional arrangements after 29 March 2019 on the same basic terms as now. If it is not—this might end up being the most bizarre aspect of the Bill’s curious parliamentary process—the Government will find themselves in the ludicrous position of having to amend this Bill when they bring forward the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill later this year.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I think that is a virtual certainty in any event. On the basis of the Bill that the Government have promised the House for the end of this year, it seems to me that it will be a substitute for the arrangements under the existing European Communities Act, so I think that must be what is going to happen.
Matthew Pennycook
I agree, but what I would say—and why I would urge Members to support this amendment—is that it need not require the amendment of this Bill to allow the facilitation of transitional arrangements on the same terms in addition to the provisions that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say will be needed in that further Act of Parliament.
We still believe that it should be Parliament, not Ministers, that decides exit day for the various purposes in the Bill. Our amendment 1 helpfully bolsters the position set out by the Prime Minister in the Florence speech by ensuring that this Bill can facilitate transitional arrangements on the same terms as now.
Given that this is, of course, Government policy, it is a wonder that the Government did not bring forward such an amendment themselves. They did not do so because they cannot agree on what the transition means. There can be no clearer evidence for that than the recent appointment of the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) to the Department for Exiting the European Union team, given her past form in seeking to actively undermine the policy position set out in the Florence speech by encouraging her colleagues to sign a European Research Group letter to the Prime Minister objecting to crucial aspects of it. It is ironic that those Tory MPs who voted for amendment 7 back in December are viewed by many as having betrayed the Government, while those who actively undermine stated Government policy appear to get promoted in quick succession.
Amendment 1 is simply an attempt to restore some common sense to the question of exit day for the purposes of this Bill. It would ensure that this Bill can facilitate any transitional arrangements agreed as part of the article 50 negotiations and that we avoid the ludicrous situation of potentially having to come back to amend this Bill in order to do so. It is in line with stated Government policy, and we therefore look forward to the Government not only accepting it, but welcoming it.
The Opposition have made it clear from the outset that a Bill of this kind is necessary to disentangle ourselves from the European Union’s legal structures and to ensure that we have a functioning statute book on the day we leave. But as we argued on Second Reading in September last year, this Bill is a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation. Sadly, despite the small number of welcome concessions, and the implications for the legislation of the defeat the Government suffered at the hands of amendment 7 and the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) on 12 December, it remains a fundamentally flawed Bill. Those flaws still need to be addressed either by this House today or in the other place, and on that basis I urge all hon. Members to support new clause 1 and amendments 2 and 1.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) in his place behind me, where I always welcome him. When I arrived, I inquired whether he had had a cup of coffee before today’s long proceedings, and I undertake to try to have no soporific effects on those Members who have survived to the eighth day of this Committee and Report stage.
I do not intend to follow entirely the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), although I listened to many of the points he made with considerable sympathy; I am quite sure that clause 7 will require more work when it gets to another place, and I also have considerable sympathy with what he said about the confusion now surrounding exit day and the ability to proceed to what I am sure is the obvious transition arrangement we are going to have to have for quite a long time, which will be on precisely the same terms that we have at the moment, so far as access to the market is concerned.
I will turn my attention, however, to the Bill’s impact on the economy, following from new clause 17, which is in this selection and strikes me as excellent, and several more of the same kind. In our eight days, the House has not had anything like adequate opportunities to consider this absolutely vital policy implication of what we are embarked upon as we seek to leave the EU. I do not share the view that the Bill needs to be treated in this House or the other place as a mere technical or necessary Bill of legal transition; we have the opportunity to put into the Bill some of the essential aspects of our future economic relationship and to allow the House to express a view and put into statute things that we wish, and instruct in line with our constitution, the Government of the day to follow.
There is undoubtedly going to be some economic cost to this country, regardless of the means by which we eventually leave the European Union. If we have a complete break with no deal, the implications could be very serious indeed. I am one of those who think it rather foolish to try to put precise figures on this. The Scottish National party earlier tried to make precise estimates of what would happen because a think-tank had put out a range of consequences, depending on which options were followed. It was rather reminiscent of the arguments put forward by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer when he tried to help the remain side during the referendum campaign. They were really rather fanciful figures.
Peter Grant
Clearly, any forecast or projection is going to be approximate, and I do not think that anyone is claiming that the Scottish Government’s figures are precise. But would the right hon. and learned Gentleman prefer to defend a position that was backed up by approximations and forecasts that may or may not be accurate, or would he prefer to be in the Government’s position of defending a position backed up by no impact analysis whatever?
Mr Clarke
I shall turn to that in a moment, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely. I was not making a criticism of the think-tank, which has done its best, but we all know from experience that all economic forecasting should be taken with a slight grain of salt. It is utterly beyond the capacity of either the Treasury or the most expert outside groups to predict with absolute confidence what the precise consequences will be.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Stephen Doughty
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I wonder, given that he is talking about the impact on the economy, whether he has heard the remarks by Christophe Bondy, the legal counsel to the Canadian Government during the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement negotiations. He has described Brexit as being like trying to
“blow up a bridge without bankrupting yourself”
at the same time. He has also said that the Canadian deal and our coming out of the single market and customs union are very different.
Mr Clarke
I agree with that second point strongly, and I will consider the implications of the quote.
The point I am trying to make is that, whatever the basis on which we come out, there are bound to be adverse effects on the British economy if we create new barriers between ourselves and the biggest free market in the world. No other Government would remotely contemplate moving out of such a completely open and free market and deliberately raising barriers by way of tariffs, customs processes or regulatory divergences between themselves and such a hugely valuable market. It is particularly valuable to us not only because it is a huge market but because it is on our doorstep. We have played a major part in creating this totally open trade.
If we proceed to a deal in which we withdraw, we will inevitably find ourselves, to some degree or other, taking an economic blow and probably making future generations less prosperous than they would otherwise have been. It is important that we all realise that, which is why it is a great pity that the House is not being given the information necessary to make a really informed judgment, as the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) has just said, or being allowed any opportunity to guide the Government and hold them to account for the course on which they are set on these economic and trading implications.
Sir William Cash
In his assessment, has my right hon. and learned Friend taken into account the fact that services within the European Union have never been completed under the single market? Furthermore, our deficit in the past year with the other 27 member states has gone up by another £10 billion, while our surplus in our trading with the rest of the world has grown exponentially by another £6 billion or £7 billion, so I really rather doubt his conclusions.
Mr Clarke
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s first point. For as long as I can remember, it has been the policy of Conservative Governments, some of which I have served in—indeed, it is a policy in which I have been involved from time to time—to press for the single market to be extended to cover all services. Until the referendum almost 18 months ago, we were still actively engaged in canvassing for that and trying to push it forward inside the EU. We are also making considerable progress towards a digital single market across Europe, which will be very important. The other member states are likely to go on and complete that quite soon.
Tom Brake
I want to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the assessment of impact. I think that it is important that we call it an assessment of impact rather than an impact assessment, because the Government can hide behind the formal impact assessment process. On the assessment of impact, would he like to speculate about why the Government are so adamant that Members of Parliament should not be allowed to receive this information?
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend has not given us many numbers so far, and the one he has given us is wrong. We have actually had eight days in Committee and two days on Report, and we had an extensive debate on Second Reading in which many of these larger issues were strongly reviewed. We had very detailed short-term forecasts from the Treasury of what would happen in the year or so immediately after the vote if we voted to leave. We now know they were comprehensively wrong in forecasting a recession, a big rise in unemployment and a big fall in house prices. Why were they so wrong, and what has he learned from that?
Mr Clarke
My defence is that I did not use any of those arguments in the campaigning I took part in during the referendum. The referendum campaign was somewhat taken over by the then Chancellor and the then Prime Minister, both friends of mine and people with whom I politically agree on Europe, and I would not have made the same choice of arguments. I thought at the time that they were spinning the short-term forecasts far too far and, with hindsight following the rather narrow result, they rather discredited the remain campaign. Surprisingly, I am rather in agreement with my right hon. Friend.
My right hon. Friend may not have been here in time to hear me begin by saying that all attempts to produce a precise forecast of any change in economic arrangements are fraught with peril. I would have preferred the referendum to have been fought on arguments about the benefits, in the opinion of those on my side, that membership of the EU has brought to this country in enabling us to develop a powerful political role in the world as one of the leading members of the EU, in helping the bloc to hold its own against America, China, India and the emerging powers and in the considerable economic success that we achieved for most of the 47 years of our membership. There is no doubt that the common market and then particularly the single market have made a considerable contribution to our prosperity.
That enables me to return to the point of my speech, which is the economic consequences and how the House might be enabled to hold the Government to account for the likely economic consequences—properly and cautiously anticipated—when they have a policy on the eventual outcome they are trying to negotiate and then, because it will inevitably change in the real world, when a deal is ultimately negotiated.
I would prefer us to continue in the single market and the customs union. The point has been made, including by me, so I will repeat it in only one sentence, but at no point in the referendum campaign did the leavers say that one of the advantages of leaving is that we will leave the single market and the customs union. Most of them never mentioned it, and the ones who were reported in the national media did not mention it. It was all about Turks coming here to take our jobs and about extra money for the health service. Both sides used equally foolish arguments, or at least the national media only chose to report the foolish arguments. The people I debated with in town halls did not use such nonsense.
Geraint Davies
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that we are less likely to catch up with the Germans on penetrating the Chinese market if we are out of the EU? We will have our back to the wall, facing tariffs, if we are not in the EU, and the Chinese will be able to bargain harder against a small player with few resources and little trade.
Mr Clarke
That is possible. The idea that the Germans find membership of the European Union a disadvantage in their economic performance in the modern world is, of course, a rather farcical fallacy. If we weaken our attractiveness to inward investment and if we weaken ourselves as a base for trade with the rest of Europe, we will attract less investment and less trade with the wider world, too. I entirely agree that that is a risk.
The Lancaster House speech transformed things by suddenly making the Government’s policy particularly dependent, apparently, on leaving the single market, leaving the common market and, incidentally, repudiating the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, which I will not go into because I have never been able to work out why the work of those judges, including the excellent British judges we have had on that Court, is particularly criticised. That is another matter.
I have never heard any Government Front Bencher attack the single market in itself or the customs union. When we hear speeches from Ministers about a bespoke new trade agreement, it sounds very much like an unbroken continuation of all the access we have to the rest of Europe under the single market and the customs union. The only objection to the single market, and the Prime Minister once expressed this to me at Prime Minister’s questions, is the four freedoms that go with it, including the free movement of labour. I still imagine that other countries would quite like to address the free movement of labour.
I think free movement of labour does us good—I would not want to get rid of it—but we do not need to run it in quite the lax way we have been running it for the last 20 years. The only other objection to a customs union, and I do not regard it as an adequate reason—staying in the customs union would solve the Northern Ireland and Irish Republic problem practically overnight—is that it stops the Secretary of State for International Trade going out and negotiating marvellous new trading arrangements with all sorts of places. Negotiating such arrangements would, of course, produce a hole in the common customs barrier that the customs union creates.
If anything, I am afraid the world is more protectionist than it used to be. The last great attempt by those of us who believe in a rules-based order in the global system was the Doha round, in which we tried to get the WTO rules to move on from their present rudimentary condition after what was then the triumph of the Uruguay round. The Doha round went on for years and years, and eventually it went into the sand. It was never completed to the satisfaction of anyone who agrees that there are benefits to all societies from having properly regulated and protected free trade.
I have already addressed the idea that, when we are no longer negotiating as a member of the EU, Trump’s America will be more likely than Obama’s America to throw open its doors to unfettered access to whichever goods and services we wish to send. The Brazilians are ambiguous. The EU has everything to gain from dealing with Brazil, but the difficulties are that Brazil insists on exporting food products on a grand scale and the internal economy of Brazil does not naturally lend itself to free trade. Mercosur, as a group, is almost incapable of agreeing on any common position.
I will not go on but, much though some in the present Administration would wish otherwise, I do not think India is yet ready for free trade agreements with countries such as Britain. I wish I could feel more confident it were otherwise, but I think the Lok Sabha will daunt anyone who tries to take on the various pressures in India in order to have a free trade agreement. I have been to India myself to try to get it to open up to legal services, with considerable support from a lot of Indian businesses that would like some of our countries to provide international quality services in Delhi so that they do not have to come to London to get their advice, but protectionism in every aspect of Indian society is not to be understated. We are not going to get far. I will not go on about China, as I said I would not go country by country.
This is all an absolute illusion. I would prefer to stay where we are, but apparently we are moving out. We are demanding a bespoke arrangement but, as yet, we have not been clear what that bespoke arrangement is, which is a considerable difficulty. This has been debated already and we have got some concessions, although they are not yet good enough, but when we finally reach a stage where the British Government intend to ratify a proposed deal, it is perfectly obvious to me from all our past constitutional conventions that they should come to Parliament to get its approval for that ratification. There was a key vote in 1972 when we joined the European Union. There was approval in principle of the deal that was proposed, which attracted Jenkinsite support to give the then Government a majority over their imperialist rebels, who were voting against it. But we started legislating in 1972 only when we had the approval of the House of Commons, by quite a comfortable majority, to ratify on the terms that were presented and explained. The same should happen here.
Justine Greening (Putney) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend has made a very important point. I represent a very young constituency in London. The bottom line, looking ahead, is that, if Brexit does not work for young people in our country, in the end it will not be sustainable and when they take their place here, they will seek to improve or undo what we have done and make it work for them. So we absolutely have a duty in this House to look ahead and ensure that whatever we get is sustainable and works for them.
Mr Clarke
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend on that. One extraordinary thing about the division of opinion is that I have never known it to be so much on generational lines. There are some zealot young leavers and there are one or two, like me, old fogey, very sound remainers, but otherwise the public have not usually been divided so fiercely on generational grounds. In my limited experience—I do spend a lot of time in London’s House of Commons—I would have thought places such as Richmond and Putney would underline that very heavily. My experience of young, ambitious, professional business and other people in London has been that for the first time in my life I have had complete strangers from that category walk up to me in the streets just to thank me for taking part in this campaign. [Interruption.] I see that other Members have exactly the same experience. I am sure the silent people who walk by deplore my views, but this just brings home to me how divided the nation is and, curiously, it is on generational grounds. Therefore, unless something happens, the pro-remain sentiment is likely to increase as a proportion of the country as we go on. But if we leave and are then forced by events to start going back again, I cannot think of a more chaotic situation. That is why we need the information to make a proper assessment when eventually the Government, as they will have to and are entitled to, come back to this House to present the proposed deal—not a deal they have already done and signed up to—for approval.
The Government have vast amounts of material on this subject and vast access to resources, and they have no reason for excluding the House of Commons totally. I am talking not about their negotiating position, because of course they will exclude us from that, but about the basis of the objective, independent advice they have received. That is why I thought it was wise for the House of Commons to pass the motion, which the Government allowed it to do, asking them to produce papers, after Ministers had rightly said that there were all these impact assessments and so on. I bow to the Select Committee, to which we rightly transferred responsibility for looking at that and considering the matter, but I agree with the intervention I took from the hon. Member for Glenrothes.
The Government escaped from that position by suddenly taking the most narrow interpretation of the words “impact assessment”. Apparently, civil servants, who are always capable of coming up with helpful advice, said, “Strictly speaking, Minister, in Whitehall, ‘impact assessment’ means this.” That is not quite how we set it out, so that was refused. Then this was all edited, probably with large parts of it rewritten. What we do not have is what we undoubtedly require: an impact assessment, by whatever description, using the advice that comes to the Government from the Treasury, the central Bank, the Office for Budget Responsibility and any consultants they have taken in, of the basis on which this deal is being proposed and what the best advice they can obtain about its impact is. I am astonished that we have got so far into the proceedings and the debate on our future relationships with Europe and we still do not seem to be any nearer to persuading the Government ever to divulge any of this. I do not think we should wait for the 20-year or 30-year rule before we are allowed to see on what basis the Government were proceeding. As I began by saying, I agree with new clause 17 that we should specify that proper, full information is shared by the Government with this House before they come for our approval.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
As ever, my right hon. and learned Friend is making an exceptionally important speech and doing so eloquently. As he will know, a group from the all-party group on EU relations has just been over to Brussels, where we spoke to a number of people. Many of those conversations will remain between us, as we agreed. Does he agree that it could well be argued that the Government made a mistake in rushing into saying no to the customs union and to the single market without fully understanding the implications, not just for our economy, but in terms of how this has meant that a range of options has now been taken off the table by the UK Government, when the EU has made it very clear that all options remain on the table as far as it is concerned?
Mr Clarke
My right hon. Friend and I have many friends in common. I am delighted that she went over to see Michel Barnier and others, whom I saw in slightly different company shortly before. I agree entirely with what she says, and I would add that the people she was meeting, people like Michel Barnier, are not Anglophobes. They are not just seeking to strike points off the UK. Every person of any common sense on either side of the channel knows that the minimum of disruption to trade between our countries is, for the reasons I was arguing with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) a little time ago, of mutual benefit to those countries. They are looking to negotiate a serious, grown-up agreement that preserves, so far as is possible, the benefits of our present arrangement.
It will be extremely difficult. There is no getting away from the fact that the 27 countries will all have to be in agreement with whatever the eventual deal is and will all submit to their Parliaments a vote to approve that deal, and it is going to be very difficult to get them to agree. They will not surrender the basic tenets of the EU in order to leave us all the benefits of the single market without any of the obligations. Not only will they not agree that the British taxpayer should stop paying a penny towards the costs of market access so that the taxpayers of Germany, the Netherlands and other rich countries pay more to make up for our refusal to pay our share, but they will not let us get out of all the political implications of membership of the EU simply to have solely the trading benefits.
We saw this recently with the members of the European economic area and their perfectly comfortable arrangement. The Norwegians had to go into the EEA because they had negotiated a perfectly sensible arrangement to become full members of the EU—I had many happy discussions with my then opposite number, the Norwegian Finance Minister, who was looking forward to joining the EU—but then held a referendum. They got into the same mess that we have got into, so they put quite a good alternative together, which I still find quite attractive.
The fact is that what we get will be unsatisfactory compared with complete membership of the single market and customs union. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), I do not think that anybody realised at the time quite what was involved in respect of what seemed a speech likely to be valuable politically in getting good write-ups in the right-wing press. We are now trying to get out of that and to slip back a little to get a more sensible arrangement. The House needs to know what expert advice the Government have on the implications of any deal, and new clause 17 provides a mechanism by which we can legally oblige the Government to produce it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Everybody is awake; we have been listening to the right hon. and learned Gentleman with rapt attention.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) on warming up the debate so well. In a way, Mr Speaker, I feel sorry for you in the Chair, because it is perfectly ridiculous that the programme order is such that we have to conclude our series of debates at 4.30 pm when so many issues have not been properly aired on Report. I said that during yesterday’s debate on the programme motion, and I hope that Members in the other place will bear that in mind when they consider the Bill.
I tabled amendments on six issues that I did not think had been adequately covered in Committee. Being a dutiful Member, I felt it my responsibility to table amendments to cover those issues, but I must rush through them, because otherwise I will not exactly be flavour of the month with many of my colleagues.
Mr Leslie
Don’t say “Hear, hear” in that way.
New clause 5 addresses a massive topic. It simply says, almost in the words of the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, that after we have left the EU, we should have the exact same benefits for the service industries in our country—including financial, legal and professional services—as we have now. The service sector accounts for some 80% of the British economy. During our consideration of the Bill, we have not yet really debated the implications for the service sector. It is often easier to talk about the trade in goods, because goods are tangible—they are physical, and we can imagine them crossing borders, going through ports and so forth—but in many ways we excel in our service sector, so new clause 5 would simply put into the Bill the commitment that Ministers have previously given that they would seek the exact same benefits.
Hilary Benn
Does my hon. Friend agree that on the question of services, never mind goods, this is probably going to be the first negotiation in human history in which a Government have gone into the process knowing that they will come out with a worse deal than the one currently enjoyed? The reason for that is the red lines that the Government have set for themselves. Does not that demonstrate what a profound error this has been, especially when we now know that the decisions on those red lines were taken without any assessment at all of their economic impact?
Mr Leslie
Absolutely; I could not have put it better myself. We currently have, in the shape of the single market, one of the finest free trade agreements available to any country anywhere in the world. It is frictionless and tariff-free and, of course, it offers great opportunities for those in the UK service sector to sell their services to 500 million customers. There was nothing about departing from the single market on the referendum ballot paper, so this is a ridiculous red line that the Government should not have put in place. I take this opportunity to gently ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench please not to acquiesce to the red lines. The fact that the Government have set them does not necessarily mean that they are correct. I want the Labour party to fight for permanent access to and membership of the single market, and I will not stop making that point.
New clause 2 might look a bit lengthy, but it sets out what we should hope to expect to see in the withdrawal agreement that is currently being negotiated by the Prime Minister and the European Commission. I think that a lot of people expected, having passed phase 1, that this was going to be the moment to talk about trade and the sort of deal we were going to get. That is not where we are in the negotiation. We have entered a period of talks about talks—that is simply where we are in this phase 2 arrangement. The article 50 process specifies that, after we have buttoned down a transition arrangement—I shall come to that in a minute—we can perhaps hope to get a framework for our future relationship. That could easily be a single side of A4 with very warm words saying, “Let’s all work together,” and we would then be supposed to depart on our one-way journey without knowing for sure where we were heading.
Mr Grieve
The issue of the withdrawal agreement was supposed to be resolved last December, as part of phase 1 of the negotiations. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is abundantly clear that there are massive potential pitfalls, particularly in respect of the relationship with the Irish Republic, in the translation of what appears on the face of it to have been a mutually convenient fudge into what will in fact be a binding treaty obligation?
Mr Leslie
That is absolutely right, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman neatly and helpfully moves me on to my new clause 3, which deals with the question of the Irish hard border. I think that many people read the phase 1 agreement in an optimistic light. In many ways, those words were all things to all people. The can was kicked down the road, but there will have to be a translation into some sort of legal text by the time we get to the withdrawal agreement. Heaven help us when the two sides to the negotiations have to start talking in specific terms.
The Prime Minister had a slightly different view from the Republic of Ireland of what the phase 1 agreement meant. She reported back to the House that it was simply to be restricted to the issues listed in the Belfast agreement, which does not, of course, include trade in goods, to mention just one small policy area. There are massive questions about the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. People in that area share reciprocal healthcare, as well as environmental factors such as rivers, streams and lakes. They have a shared energy market and shared fisheries, food and plant arrangements. All those are shared because of the very geography of what are two distinct countries, so trying to fudge the issue just will not work, particularly if the UK is a third party.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
Is not it essential that at some stage in these Brexit negotiations the Government legislate to protect the fundamental principles of the Good Friday agreement—the Belfast agreement? Those principles include freedom from discrimination, equality under the law and parity of esteem. They are fundamental principles—I could go on listing them, but I will not—so is it not essential that the Government protect them?
Mr Leslie
I believe that that is essential. I completely agree with the hon. Lady, which was why I took the exact words from the phase 1 agreement to create the text of new clause 3. If the Government really mean to commit to there being no hard border, they should enshrine that commitment in the Bill. That is the test for the Government—it is what they have to prove if they really believe that this was not just some mealy mouthed commitment to get them through a particular difficulty in the short term.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has spoken about the island of Ireland on many occasions during our scrutiny of the Bill. Could not this complicated issue be easily resolved, and does not the resolution lie in the customs union and the single market?
Mr Leslie
That is indeed the case, but the Prime Minister said, “Oh no, that’s a red line.” The difficulty is that Prime Ministers can get into stubborn positions. Are they going to have to back down? How do they deal with these things? It would be a measure of the Prime Minister’s status and stature were she to say, “On reflection, I have looked at this issue and it cannot be solved.” I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes), will be encouraging the Prime Minister to do that, because she has that way about her. The Prime Minister should change her mind and say, “Things have changed.”
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is obviously making some absolutely excellent points, but the crucial thing is how all this matters practically for people and businesses. I wonder whether he saw yesterday’s concerning announcement about the opening of a new ferry route between Spain and the Republic of Ireland. The port of Cork expressly said that it was doing that to avoid having to come through all the Brexit uncertainty that was being created in the United Kingdom.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Leslie
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I must make some progress, because I have to talk about new clause 4, which relates to the divorce bill—the payment or the settlement. The Prime Minister said that the amount would be somewhere between £35 billion and £39 billion. When the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Fareham, was on “Question Time”, she said that that was absolute nonsense and would never happen, but it turns out that £39 billion equates to over £700 for every adult in the UK. That is how much we are talking about. That is £700 a head for all the men and women in her constituency who voted for her and all those who did not vote. Strangely, that did not feature on the side of the red bus, and the notion of £350 million a week for the NHS has disappeared into thin air. We do not want to catch that particular bus ever again.
I am glad that the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), who chairs the Treasury Committee, has written to the Comptroller and Auditor General of the National Audit Office to ask him to examine the reasonableness of the sum. The phase 1 agreement said that a methodology had been agreed between the two sides to calculate the sum, but that has not been made available as far as I can see. I hope that the NAO will have that methodology, and that it will go through the agreement with a fine-toothed comb to find the exact figure that our constituents will end up paying.
Amendment 39 seeks to tease out what is happening on the question of transition, for which there are all sorts of metaphors. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) talked about there being no safe harbour, but the metaphor I like to give is that, if we have a cliff edge, transition is about our having a plank going a few feet out from the cliff edge: it would perhaps give us a bit of extra time, but it would not obviate the precipitousness of the fall that could affect the country—it simply defers when that will happen. The European Union side is absolutely clear that if we are going to have a transition, it will need to be on exactly the same arrangements that we have now, minus having Britain around the table with a say on the rules. That was why I tabled amendment 39. The Government have to get on with securing a transition, and the Chancellor was right to talk about it as a diminishing asset.
The arrangements had better be visible and available for businesses to see by the time we get to Easter and the March European Council meeting, because they need to know what will happen. Otherwise, quite naturally, they are going to have to make contingency plans to protect their business thereafter. I was talking to the American Chamber of Commerce to the European Union, which has come up with the sort of transition deal that it believes that many of its firms that work and invest here, employing many of our constituents, want to see. It thinks that a transition needs to have two distinct aspects. First, there needs to be a bridging period during which we can settle all the rules, finish all the negotiations, and establish the treaties and procedure. That will definitely take more than 21 months, and I saw that the chief executive of the EEF was completely scathing yesterday about how little could be achieved in the period currently envisaged. Secondly, there needs to be an adaptation period—a phasing in of the new rules. We need to start getting into exactly what the transition will involve, and that was why I tabled amendment 39.
My final point is about new clause 6, on which I will seek the views of the House if I get the opportunity. It relates to what will happen if unforeseen circumstances arise in the process. What will right hon. and hon. Members do if the Government come back with an unacceptable deal? We need to know what our options are. We have asked the Prime Minister on many occasions about the article 50 process. It is a notification process, and she sent the letter in, but when we ask whether the process can be extended, altered or revoked, she says that that is not the Government’s policy. That, of course, is not the question we are asking. We are asking whether the process can be extended. What is the legal advice? The Government have obviously taken legal advice, and I suspect that it says that the UK, if it so chose and the circumstances arose, could unilaterally revoke article 50. We would of course have to do that before exit day, because if we chose to do so after exit day, we would be looking to apply to rejoin the EU under article 49, which would mean our losing many of the benefits in our current deal. We in the House of Commons need to know the options available to us.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
On that point in particular, does my hon. Friend agree that all the new clauses and amendments are about trying to get greater openness and honesty about the pros, cons and trade-offs of the choices we face as a country? It is vital that that information is available not just to this House, but to the public. It is our job as Members of Parliament to put it before the country, because these huge decisions have big consequences, but we have had to drag the Government every step of the way towards putting such information before the country.
Mr Leslie
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It is important that our constituents know that nothing is inevitable. One parliamentary decision cannot bind a successor Parliament, because Parliament has the capability to do a number of things. Although the article 50 notice signalling the Government’s intention has been sent in, it is not a binding commitment.
Mr Leslie
It might be my intention to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I might change my mind by the time I get there. I can walk towards a Division Lobby while thinking that it is my intention to vote for a particular issue, but I might change my mind at the last minute. We are all able to change our minds. That is the nature of life, and we can all do the same in a dynamic democracy and Parliament.
Article 50 says that treaties shall cease to apply from
“the date of… the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification”,
but we will have left only after those events. Article 50 is of course silent on what happens during the two-year interim period before the agreement. We are still full members of the European Union, prior to the withdrawal agreement or the expiry of the two-year period, so it stands to reason that we should continue to act as such. The framers of article 50, who include Lord Kerr, said that a “request readmission after negotiation” clause was not necessary because that was taken as read. That is how the 1969 Vienna convention on the law of treaties operates, and it is accepted by many jurisdictions around the world. Article 68 of the Vienna convention states:
“A notification or instrument… may be revoked at any time before it takes effect.”
That is the widely understood nature of such treaties.
Sir William Cash
I just thought that I would draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. I do not think that he voted for it, but 499 other Members did, and it passed the House of Lords, so I would have thought that that would be quite a difficult problem for him to overcome.
Mr Leslie
No Parliament can bind its successor, and that Act was passed in a different Parliament. It may not be necessary for the UK to consider extending or revoking the article 50 process, but it might prove necessary. MPs and the public have a right to know that such options are available. Nothing is inevitable about this whole process. Choices and options are available to this country, and the Government should publish their legal advice and a summary of that advice. There is ample precedent for doing that. Indeed, when the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) was Attorney General, he published summaries of legal advice. The measure does not even ask for a breach of the confidentialities between client and legal adviser, but this House is entitled to a summary. We need to know and the public need to know, which I is why I want to press new clause 6 to a Division, if I get the opportunity.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
There will be a change of tone, because the speeches so far have been understandably wide ranging, and mine will be much more narrow and technically focused and also much shorter. I say by way of preface that it is both strange and regrettable that the analysis of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) was not adopted by the remain campaign, because we might have been saved a great deal of trouble if it had been. Frankly, he speaks passionately and well, and I prefer the economic analysis as to risks and/or benefits of someone who was one of the most distinguished post-war Chancellors to that of those who have not had the opportunity to hold those exalted positions and whose view of the matter sometimes seems a little more based on articles of faith than on practical experience.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
My hon. Friend gives us a salutary reminder that it is important that we make all the appropriate corrections before exit day, and the Government do want to make all of those corrections and to ensure that the law is accessible for all. I can confirm to him that Government Departments and the centre of Government are listening to industry, including the City, as part of our planning. We have put in place procedures and tools to ensure that we prioritise the most important corrections and so that nothing is missed out. On top of that, as the Bill provides for, we have put in place an urgent procedure in case of last-minute developments to which he refers.
Robert Neill
I am very grateful to the Minister for that helpful intervention. I am conscious, as I said, that the Solicitor General and other Ministers have done work on this, and that will shorten what I have to say. I hope that the Minister might meet me in due course to discuss the way in which the urgent procedure will operate so that we can get more detail. That is what I was seeking to achieve—to make sure that we have a means of dealing with something when a decision needs to be made pretty much in real time under these circumstances. That reassurance that the Government will find the means of doing that enables me to confirm that I shall not be pressing the matter. It does of course apply to situations in which, for whatever reason, something has been overlooked in the transition process, or in which something has cropped up that could not reasonably have been foreseen by means of the best endeavours. Against that background, I welcome the Minister’s clarification on that matter. I gather from his nod that he is happy to discuss the matter further with me, so I need not trouble the House any longer.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. A considerable number of Members are seeking to catch my eye, and colleagues will be conscious that these proceedings must conclude at 4.30 and that it is reasonable to allow the Minister some considerable time to respond to the points made. Therefore, a certain self-denying ordinance is required if I am to enable everybody to contribute. The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) speaks for his party from the Front Bench and, of course, must be afforded a decent opportunity, but I know that he will want to tailor his contribution to take account of the interests of others.
Peter Grant
With the consent of the House, I rise to speak to amendment 59 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and other right hon. and hon. Members, and to amendments 9 and 56 and new schedule 1.
Before I speak in more detail about amendment 59, may I commend the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) for the amendments that he submitted? What he has done is to remind us of what a complete sham this entire process has been. Almost 90% to 95% of the way through these eight hours of debate, the Government who had promised, day after day after day, to listen to the debate and to take appropriate effective action still have not corrected some of the glaring deficiencies in their own Bill, the most serious of which, perhaps, is the fact that we still do not have any statutory guarantee that the Northern Ireland peace process, the Belfast agreement and all that that implies, will be protected in law. If the Government cannot be trusted to bring forward amendments to correct such a desperate deficiency in their own legislation, how can they expect this House to trust them with the draconian and unprecedented powers to use ministerial directive to correct deficiencies in domestic legislation after we have left?
Amendment 59 seeks to ensure that the withdrawal agreement can only be implemented when we also have an agreement to remain in the EU single market and customs union. Let us be honest: everybody knows that, on a free vote of this House, there would be a substantial majority in favour of remaining in the single market and the customs union. My plea this evening will be for all of those who know that that is in the best interests of their constituents to set aside the demands of the party Whips and to go through the Lobby in support of this amendment. We can win this vote this evening if all those who know that it deserves to win are able to set aside the demands of the Whips and vote for it. We can take a decision tonight that will keep us away from the cliff edge, not just for two years but for very much longer.
I am very grateful to colleagues from the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the Green party who have signed this amendment. Although there have been no signatures from Labour Members, either from the Front Bench or the Back Benches, I appeal to all of them to support this amendment today.
Let me first deal with the question of the constitutional or democratic legitimacy of the amendment. One of the very disturbing aspects of the referendum debate, which has continued all the way through the process since then, has been the degree of hostility and open hatred that has been created against anyone who speaks, or even thinks, against the wisdom of the Government, the newspaper editor, the blogger or whoever. I have a good bad example: just a day or two ago, a group of MPs who had the temerity to go over to Europe to meet Michel Barnier were denounced as traitors—treachery with a smiling face—by one well known bloggist. Apart from the fact that such inflammatory and violent language has no place in any supposedly respectful debate, I want to remind the House of some facts of our membership of the single market—facts that I appreciate will be very uncomfortable to some Members, but that are still utterly incontrovertible.
It is a matter of fact that the people of the United Kingdom have never voted in a referendum about membership of the single market or the customs union. This House had the opportunity when the European Union Referendum Bill was on its way through Parliament. We could have decided to ask questions about the customs union and the single market, but the House and the Government chose not to. Having chosen not to ask the question, none of us—including me—has any right to decide that we know what the answer would have been.
It is a matter of fact that it is possible to be in the single market and the customs union without being a member of the European Union. Hon. Members will have different views as to whether it would be wise, appropriate or in our best interests to do so, and they have every right to debate the benefits of membership of the single market and the customs union. But anyone who insists that it cannot happen is not engaging in debate; they are engaging in fiction. We have had far too much fiction in this debate already—from both sides, it has to be said—as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) mentioned earlier. The decision to leave the single market was a unilateral political decision taken by the Prime Minister without any prior consultation with the people or with Parliament. It cannot, under any circumstances, be described as an inevitable consequence of the vote to leave the European Union.
Finally, it is a matter of fact that when the Conservative party fought on a manifesto that said it wanted to stay in the single market, it won an overall majority of seats in this place—the only time in the last 25 years that it has managed such an achievement. It is also a fact that the Conservatives lost that overall majority two years later, when they stood on a manifesto saying that they wanted to take us out of the single market. Nobody can claim that that is clear evidence of a popular democratic mandate to stay in the single market, but it certainly blows to smithereens any nonsense that there is any mandate for us to leave.
I am conscious of the need for brevity from me as well as from others, so I will not go into the full and detailed argument for staying in the single market, as that would take us from now to Brexit day, if not beyond. However, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe referred to the latest analysis produced by the Scottish Government, entitled “Scotland’s Place in Europe: People, Jobs and Investment”. I certainly accept his caveats that we cannot be sure that the forecasts and projections in it are accurate. They are certainly not intended to be precise or definitive.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I have found some media chat saying that the Scottish Government’s analysis of staying in the single market was alarmist, giving the figure of a 2.5% loss in growth. That is actually less than the figure put out by the UK Treasury for the loss of growth of just being in the single market, with no deal and the Canadian-style option far worse still.
Peter Grant
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, but I should put it on the record that I do not use Her Majesty’s Treasury figures as the touchstone for reliability or honesty; that is just a personal gripe of mine.
“Scotland’s Place in Europe: People, Jobs and Investment” is available in summary form and in all its 58-page glory. As a bonus, the back page contains the full text of the United Kingdom’s impact assessment of leaving the European Union. The one that I have is actually the Chinese version for those who understand Chinese.
Among the likely—perhaps very likely—consequences, the Fraser of Allander Institute has forecast that GDP in Scotland could fall by £8 billion over a 10-year period; that the real value of wages in the pockets of the people of Scotland could fall by 7%, including those who cannot afford to live on the wages they have just now, never mind on 7% less; and that 80,000 jobs in Scotland could be at risk. The updated document published this week indicates that the cost of leaving without a deal would be of the order of £2,300 for every citizen in Scotland. Our economic output could fall by 8.5%. That has to be the recession to end all recessions.
Exports from Scotland to the European Union currently run at £12.3 billion a year. If we add other exports that we can only carry out because we have free trade agreements as part of our EU membership, that figure increases to a fraction under £16 billion. Some 56% of Scotland’s current international exports are either to the European Union or to countries with which we already have a free trade agreement, and that could increase to somewhere close to 90% by the time we actually leave the single market and the customs union. How much of that is absolutely, unconditionally guaranteed still to be available after we leave? Right now, the answer is nil or very close to nil. That is the economic cost that we could well be subjected to if we leave the single market and the customs union.
I have not even mentioned the horrific social cost. We saw another heart-rending story today of a lady from Spain who has given 15 years’ service to the NHS, but who has given up and gone back to Spain. Somebody actually queried, “Why is that newsworthy?” Well, given the current recruitment crisis in the NHS, if even just one more well-trained professional leaves, I think it is a bit more newsworthy than somebody leaving a jungle because 250,000 people phoned Channel 4 and asked for them to be thrown out.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Since the hon. Gentleman raises public trust and legitimacy, would he acknowledge that the extension of that argument is that, were we to say to the British people that their express will in a binary choice to leave the European Union were to be frustrated through obfuscation, prevarication, delay and confusion, the trust between this House and the people would be broken in a way that would be very hard to mend, to the cost of not only everyone here, but our whole system, for a very long time indeed?
Peter Grant
For the avoidance of doubt, I will repeat what I have said in this place before: I think we have to accept the views of the people of England and Wales who have expressed a wish to leave the European Union. Unless the people of those nations give a contrary view at some future point, that view has to be respected.
Some 62% of my people voted to stay in the EU. I want to hear just a single word from this Government that indicates they are prepared to change anything in their chaotic Brexit plan to recognise the sovereign will of the people of Scotland and, indeed, the majority of people in Northern Ireland who also voted to remain. Half the member states of this Union voted to remain in the EU, and there has been no recognition whatever of that fact from the UK Government so far. They have even shown their contempt: having promised to table amendments to correct yet another deficiency in the Bill on the impact on the devolved nations, they then changed their minds and are going to leave it to the other place, where nobody is elected or has any democratic mandate to do anything.
The Government’s woeful handling of Brexit from day one demonstrates that they are so incompetent that they do not even trust themselves to know what is a state secret and what is very common knowledge. It would be wrong for this House to hand over to a competent, cohesive Government the draconian powers contained in the Bill. It would be criminally negligent to hand them over to a Government so disorganised that they could not even appoint their own party chairman without announcing the appointment of the wrong person.
While the SNP’s main purpose has been to scrutinise and seek to improve the proposal from the Government, it has to be said—it hurts me greatly to do so—that the performance of Her Majesty’s official Opposition to date has left a great deal to be desired. We are seeing signs of improvement, which I warmly welcome, on membership of the single market and the customs union. The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has very helpfully tweeted recently reminders of the six red lines that his party had set out last year. The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) referred to them earlier.
The second of those red lines is whether the deal delivers the “exact same benefits” as we currently have as members of the single market and customs union. The only way that that red line can be satisfied is if we remain in the single market and the customs union. I hope that in the intervening period since he sent that tweet, the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues have managed to persuade the Leader of the Opposition that it is time to get down off the fence and to stop doing the Tories’ work for them and time for every Labour MP in this House to go through the Lobby to vote for this amendment to keep our place in the single market.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
My hon. Friend talks about the principal Opposition party—by number, that is. Is he aware that in the past year, for five months they supported the single market, for five months they were against the single market, for two months they were uncertain, and sadly there were only two months—July and August—where they had a consistent policy without alternating every other month?
Peter Grant
As I said, I have been disappointed in the performance of the official Opposition up until now. I think we are seeing some signs of cohesion, and quite a number of speakers have been very firm in favouring the single market, as indeed we have heard across the House.
I do not want to point out mistakes that have been made in the past or score political points. There is a time and a place for that. The situation that we will face within the next couple of hours is so important and could have such devastating consequences for all our constituents that how about, just for a couple of hours, we forget the mistakes that each other has made and look at the catastrophic mistake that we may be about to make if we allow the Bill to go through without amendment 59 or something similar being passed? This may be the last chance we have to keep ourselves away from the cliff edge. I say to all those in this House, regardless of their party allegiance, who know that the single market and the customs union is where we have to be, please come through the Lobby with us tonight to vote to make sure that that happens.
Sir William Cash
The European Scrutiny Committee, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, has been holding inquiries into the fundamental constitutional implications of the Bill, including clause 5. As is now shown on its website, I have had correspondence with the Prime Minister on its behalf since December. The provisions I refer to would empower the courts, for the first time in our Westminster-based legislative history, to disapply Acts of Parliament. This is no theoretical matter. Indeed, we are advised that such disapplication is likely to apply to a whole range of enactments, including those relating to equality, terrorism, data protection and many other matters.
I raised this massive constitutional issue, as I regard it, in Committee on 14 and 21 November, including by reference to the authoritative statements made by the late Lord Chief Justice Bingham in chapter 12 of his book on the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament. Let us bear in mind that he is one of the most authoritative judges in recent generations. He says:
“We live in a society dedicated to the rule of law; in which Parliament has power, subject to limited, self-imposed restraints, to legislate as it wishes; in which Parliament may therefore legislate in a way which infringes the rule of law;”—
I repeat, “infringes the rule of law”—
“and in which the judges, consistently with their constitutional duty to administer justice according to the laws and usages of the realm, cannot fail”—
I repeat, “cannot fail”—
“to give effect to such legislation if it is clearly and unambiguously expressed.”
In that book, he publicly criticised the attitude of Baroness Hale, who is now President of the Supreme Court, and Lord Hope of Craighead for suggesting that the courts have constitutional authority as against an Act of Parliament.
Lord Bingham also specifically approved the analysis of what he described as the “magisterial” authority of Professor Goldsworthy, whom he quoted as follows:
“the principle of parliamentary sovereignty has been recognised as fundamental in this country not because the judges invented it but because it has for centuries been accepted as such by judges and others officially concerned in the operation of our constitutional system. The judges did not by themselves establish the principle and they cannot, by themselves, change it… What is at stake is the location of ultimate decision-making authority… If the judges were to repudiate the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, by refusing to allow Parliament to infringe on unwritten rights, they would be claiming that ultimate authority for themselves.”
He went on to state that they—the judges—would then be transferring the rights of Parliament to themselves as judges. He says:
“It would be a transfer of power initiated by the judges, to protect rights chosen by them, rather than one brought about democratically by parliamentary enactment or popular referendum.”
That is the basic principle.
Members of this House and the House of Lords, including former Law Lords and members of the Supreme Court, are themselves deeply concerned about—
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
Lord Neuberger, who is the former President of the Supreme Court, has also expressed concern about the perceived illegitimacy of judges overturning Acts of Parliament. Is my hon. Friend concerned that the power in clause 5 to disapply Acts of Parliament might result in a worrying politicisation of the judiciary that I would have thought would be unwelcome not only to hon. Members but to the judges themselves?
Sir William Cash
I am indeed. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who also serves on the European Scrutiny Committee. The provisions I refer to would be express provisions. Therefore, the question of principle is fundamental and will also, no doubt, be taken up in the House of Lords. Furthermore, former Law Lords and members of the Supreme Court have expressed their concerns.
The European Scrutiny Committee’s unanimous view when we met this morning was that Parliament as a whole needs a solution that confirms the principle of parliamentary sovereignty along the lines of declarations of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998, as I indicated in my correspondence with the Prime Minister, whose letter I received on 9 January. To take this forward, may I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to intervene to give me and the House an assurance that when the Bill is in the House of Lords, the Government will constructively engage with the European Scrutiny Committee, with any other Committees of both Houses and with the advice of the Attorney General and the Lord Chancellor to explore and find a proper solution to the constitutional issues I have raised in the national interest?
Mr Speaker
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I had—I will not say revelled in the expectation, but had been taking quiet satisfaction in the expectation, that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) had in fact completed his speech.
Sir William Cash
I was completing my speech by inviting the intervention that my hon. Friend is now making.
Mr Speaker
That is a moderately eccentric way in which to proceed, but we will allow a brief intervention—and a very brief response, I hope.
Mr Baker
That is why in the Bill we treat retained direct EU legislation as primary legislation for the purposes of the Human Rights Act, and why we have taken the approach we have to challenges based on the general principles. Bearing in mind what my hon. Friend has said—and, indeed, what my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) has said—and the view of the Select Committee, which he has just set out, we will of course listen carefully to him and his Committee, and the other individuals he has mentioned, as the Bill continues its passage.
Sir William Cash
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his response. May I simply say that these are issues of immense constitutional importance? My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) mentioned that yesterday and we have had debates on it in Committee, and I am most grateful for my hon. Friend’s assurance.
Tom Brake
It is always a pleasure to be in the Chamber to hear the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke). When I hear his rational, measured comments on the European Union, I wonder whether his memoirs will include a substantial chapter on how his party has been overtaken by the old guard ideologues on the fourth row and, indeed, the new, modern ideologues sitting on the Treasury Bench.
We heard from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), who is no longer in his place, that we have had adequate debating time for this Bill. As a Member who has made speeches often of only three or four minutes’ duration during the course of these eight plus two days, I would say that, while I believe people should be able to put the content of what they want to say into a concise speech, it is actually rather difficult to do that in three or four minutes on a subject of this nature. I would therefore challenge anyone who says we have had adequate time to debate this issue.
I support several amendments in this group. I support new clause 18, which would lock in the Government’s intentions to respect the environmental principles and to set up an independent environmental regulator, and new clause 21, which would provide continuity on environment powers.
I support new clause 20, which would establish a citizens’ jury. I mentioned that in an earlier debate. A citizens’ jury has already been held on this subject; it had a balance of 52% people who were leavers to 48% who were remainers. It had some really in-depth discussions on issues such as freedom of movement. Interestingly, they came to the conclusion that they were in favour of freedom of movement, albeit arguing—the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe made this point—that the Government should apply the powers they already have to deal with the issue more effectively. Indeed, if the Government had sought to engage effectively with the other EU countries on the issue, I suspect they would have been able to achieve more than has been achieved.
I support new clause 2, which sets out what should be in the withdrawal agreement, and amendment 59. I thank the SNP for co-ordinating the Opposition parties—unfortunately, minus the official Opposition—in getting support for amendment 59. One of the positive things about the Bill, and there are not many of them, is that the Opposition parties and, on occasion, Conservative Members have worked quite constructively together to try to ensure that the Bill is better than it was at the outset.
I want briefly to mention new clause 11. Again, I welcome the cross-party support that the Liberal Democrats have received, with support from Labour Back Benchers, the SNP, Plaid and the Green party. What does new clause 11 seek to do? It seeks to achieve two things. I intervened earlier on the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe when he was talking about the impact assessments. New clause 11 tries to ensure that the Government have to produce an assessment of the impact on the UK economy and each nation, province and region before we have a so-called meaningful vote. I cannot see any circumstances in which this Parliament and its Members can have a meaningful vote on an agreement or on no deal if we do not have an assessment of the impact.
I must say that departmental responses to my parliamentary questions about this have hidden behind the fact that there is something called an “Impact Assessment” to refuse to make available to Parliament an assessment of the impact. I point out to Departments that, to be grammatically correct, if I had meant the “Impact Assessment”, I would have used a capital I and a capital A, and I would then have received the impact assessments that have been done on Government Bills. However, I did not do so, and in common parlance I was entitled to expect the Government to provide an assessment of the impact, rather than to hide behind the niceties of the ways in which parliamentary Bills are dealt with.
The first purpose of new clause 11 is to force the Government to publish an assessment of the impact. Like the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe, I have serious concerns about the reasons the Government would not want to make such information available. I cannot think of any other circumstances in which we, as a Government and as a Parliament, would be about to take a decision that will have the greatest impact on the economy, our security and our diplomatic profile and stature in the world without any impact assessment provided by the Government. I and other Members have been to see the so-called sectoral analyses—they were under lock and key for no reason whatsoever—and, frankly, there was nothing of any great substance in them that could not have been obtained from going online and googling the various sectors. We need to have this information.
I hope that the Minister who responds may for once be willing, when they respond, to explain why they do not want to make this information available to Members of Parliament. The Solicitor General has heard my comment. I am not sure whether he is going to respond, but I hope he will make a point—either by responding himself, or by getting the Box to provide him with an answer that can be put on the record—of explaining why the Government do not want to share with Members of Parliament an assessment of the impact that whatever deal they come up with, or indeed no deal, will have. We need that, and I would love to have it put on the record.
The second part of new clause 11 is about ensuring that, if Parliament does not agree to the deal or does not agree to no deal, either article 50 will be extended or—frankly, this is my preferred option—article 50 will be rescinded. Members who have looked at the new clause will see that, as I have said, it has two halves. First, there is the process of securing an assessment of the impact. If an agreement is reached, an assessment of the impact must be available. Equally, if no agreement is reached, such an assessment must be available.
Secondly, the Government would have to put a motion to the House that would allow Parliament to approve the intention to leave the EU without a deal. I guess the House could do that, although I hope we would not do so. If Parliament said no to that, however, other options would kick in requiring the Government to go back, in the very limited time still available, to try to secure a deal before March 2019; to go back to the European Council and request an extension of article 50; or to rescind the notice under article 50. It would clearly be very helpful to have the legal advice that the Government have received. I and many Members believe that the legal advice would have made it very clear that article 50 can be revoked, and the only reason why the Government do not want to make that information available is that it helps their case to pretend that it cannot be revoked.
I am aware, Mr Speaker, that several Members want to speak and there is very little time left. I hope I have put succinctly the reasons not only why I support several of the amendments—if they were pushed to a vote, I would be very happy to support them—but why I intend, subject to your agreement, to press new clause 11 to a vote.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. On my reckoning, about 12 people want to speak. I advise the House that it is reasonable for the Minister to have at least 20 minutes to reply to the various points that have been made—[Interruption.] Someone chunters from a sedentary position, “No more.” The Minister should certainly be allowed 20 minutes, and Members can do the arithmetic for themselves. I am encouraged, as I call possibly the most courteous Member of the House of Commons, Mr Dominic Grieve.
Mr Grieve
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall endeavour to practise courtesy by act rather than by anything else, in being brief.
It is a pleasure again to participate in this afternoon’s debate, which is wide-ranging and has moved away from the rather narrow focus of some of the perfectly sensible amendments that have been tabled and that are designed to explore the undoubted deficiencies in the legislation; for example, the Opposition have put forward sensible proposals in new clause 1. Those are matters that we have looked at for a considerable number of days.
I wanted to focus on an issue that has arisen this afternoon and is a particular concern to me. In doing so I do not want to repeat what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said. I agree with every word he said, and there is no point in my saying it again. There is a separate angle, however, on which we might pause and reflect. New clause 17 raises the issue of whether we should have continued participation in the single market and customs union.
If we look at the Bill as drafted and at its original intention, particularly now that the pernicious effects of clause 9 have been removed, we can see that it is about the legal order of the United Kingdom after we have left with no deal at all. So an argument can be made that this legislation is perhaps not the most satisfactory place to try to bring in the single market and customs union. However, that raises an entirely legitimate issue. Ultimately, as we trundle on with the legislation it becomes more and more apparent how different it is from the Government’s intention regarding the end product that they want the country to enjoy.
The Prime Minister set out her vision in the Lancaster House and Florence speeches. As I have said before, but it is worth repeating, if she succeeded in achieving everything that she set out, there might well be broad consensus in the House, because we would lose those aspects of EU membership that we do not like and at the same time we would retain all the benefits of EU membership that we—or at least many of us, the vast majority of hon. Members—consider desirable.
The truth is that most of us—again, I suspect—in the House know that that is unlikely to be achieved. We are asking our EU partners to engage in the bending of the rules of the legal order, which is not something that can be readily obtained. We started out on this negotiation with a major fallacy: the EU can somehow be twisted around from matters of self-interest into entirely changing its nature. In fact, it is an international treaty organisation underpinned by law: that is what it is. Having visited Brussels on Monday, it was brought home to me—I already knew it—very clearly that that is indeed the nature of the entity with which we are dealing. Unless we are realistic about that we cannot hope to secure a reasonable outcome to our negotiations.
What troubles me particularly is the timing of all this. The reality is that the EU, for very good reasons, wants order. It is a legal order, and it wishes order to exist, even when countries are leaving it. The point was made to us that ultimately it would negotiate according to our red lines and, if we decide to put red lines down that make it impossible to reach the sort of agreement that the Prime Minister wants, we will not secure that agreement—it is very simple. On top of that—I would like to add this point to the one made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe—all of this is likely to come to a head at a very late stage indeed for rational judgments by the House about what is in the national interest.
Sir William Cash
In his discussions with Mr Barnier, did my right hon. and learned Friend gain any impression that the European Commission, and indeed Mr Barnier himself, had taken on board the fact that in relation to the legal order to which my right hon. and learned Friend refers—the European Union and its institutions—article 50 actually represented a radical change by giving people the right to withdraw if they wished? That changed the nature of the European Union from the day on which article 50 was passed as part of the Lisbon treaty.
Mr Grieve
I am not sure I entirely agree. I do not think that Mr Barnier has ever suggested that the United Kingdom cannot withdraw under article 50—we plainly can. Indeed, new clause 6 deals with the question of whether article 50 is revocable. I think that it almost certainly is, so it is a pertinent question for the House to ask, although it is not an easy one for the Government to answer, in fairness, as ultimately it could probably be determined only by the European Court of Justice.
I do not think that the fact that we can revoke article 50, or that article 50 has kicked in, alters the EU legal order. The EU intends to continue with the United Kingdom outside. On the question of our future relations with the European Union, we will be outsiders, and some things that we are asking for, including a special and deep relationship, are currently—and, I fear, for ever—incompatible with the nature of that legal order. We either have to be in or we will get something that is very much less than what we have set out as our request. I therefore say to my hon. Friends that these amendments are perfectly pertinent, because they raise questions that will be asked over and over again, and with greater urgency, as each week passes in the course of this dramatic year.
I will end by saying this to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). I listened very carefully to what he had to say. He is an individual of complete and clear integrity when it comes to his own views about how the United Kingdom’s constitution should work, which is one of the reasons why he has been so dramatically opposed to our EU membership—a matter on which we differ—but here he was, highlighting that in the process of taking ourselves out of the European Union, we are smashing up our domestic constitution big time—“O Brexit! What crimes are committed in your name?” It is imperative that we in this House manage the process so that we prevent the sort of mischief that he has identified, but I am afraid that, in part, it is inherent in the nature of the venture that we have taken on.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that this constitutional danger is heightened by the fact that Conservative Members from Scotland are not listening to growing concerns about our lack of membership of the single market and the customs union, and the implications for our economic future, but simply following the Government through the Lobby?
Mr Grieve
I am afraid that I disagree entirely—far from noticing any such thing, I have noticed the very reverse. My Scottish colleagues are very much alive to the constitutional implications of Brexit and have been working assiduously to address them, while not falling into the trap, as I am afraid the hon. Lady and some members of her party have, of constantly characterising what is a national constitutional debate—indeed, a crisis—in binary terms, with Scotland always appearing either as a victim or as having a halo over its head, neither of which, in the scheme of human existence, is justified.
Christine Jardine
I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman might have misunderstood what I meant, which is that the binary nature of what the Scottish Conservatives are doing is heightening the binary argument in Scotland, and indeed playing into the hands of those who seek nationalism.
Mr Grieve
I am afraid that I disagree. My Scottish colleagues have been behaving with extraordinary good sense, particularly their leader, Ruth Davidson, and my colleagues here at Westminster. Perhaps I have misunderstood some aspect of the hon. Lady’s question. Far from seeing them as supporters of crazy ideas in the context of Brexit, I think that they have consistently shown a moderate common sense in trying to understand the wider United Kingdom position and Scotland’s distinctive position, and trying to take this forward. If I may say so, they are exactly the sorts of allies I want in the course of the work that I will continue doing in this House.
I have spoken quite enough and I thank the House for its indulgence.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I rise to speak to amendment 10, which stands in my name and those of colleagues across the House. I think this follows logically from the wise words that the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) has just delivered to the House. Like him, I support new clause 17, and I also want briefly to mention new clause 1 and amendment 44.
From the start of the Bill’s passage through the House, my concern has been about how it concentrates power in the hands of a small group of Ministers. Be we liberals, communitarians, socialists or conservatives, in this House we are democrats all. It goes against all our British political traditions to concentrate power in the way the Bill still does—even after the amendments have been made—over decisions that could affect our children and grandchildren for generations to come. The referendum decided that we will leave the EU, but it did not decide how, and those decisions should not be so concentrated in the hands of a small group of Ministers, especially in a hung Parliament.
In Committee, we often went one step forward and then two back with regard to the interests of parliamentary democracy. That is why further amendments are needed today. Ministers did agree to the amendments put forward by the Procedure Committee, which will give Parliament a bit more of a say over whether the affirmative or negative procedure is used for secondary legislation, but Parliament will not be able to insist on which procedure is followed or that changes should be made in primary rather than secondary legislation. That is why new clause 1 is so important.
The Bill would still allow a small group of Ministers to take away workers’ rights and equality rights, which have been hard fought for over generations and hard won through this place, and they would be able to do so with hardly any say from Parliament. Therefore, those of us who have been part of the fight for greater equality and for workers’ rights for many years cannot just stand by while those rights are diminished. Nor should any of us, whatever our view, be part of agreeing to the wide scope of ministerial powers still embedded in clauses 7 and 9, allowing Ministers to do simply “as they consider appropriate”. Amendments 44 and 2 are important attempts to limit those powers to what is necessary, and Parliament has a responsibility to do so. I hope that those in the other place, whose job is to scrutinise the Executive and stand up for Parliament, will consider these matters very seriously when the Bill reaches them.
Parliament has agreed that there should be more democratic say over the withdrawal agreement itself. The previous amendment 7, which was agreed to in Committee against the wishes of Ministers, made it clear that we must have a meaningful vote on the withdrawal agreement. It said that that vote should apply not to a motion, but to a statute, and that we should be able to take a decision before the treaty is ratified, not after, and before implementation starts. I know that Ministers have considered rowing back on that, and I strongly warn them not to do so. They should respect the spirit of our debates and the views of this House.
Several Government amendments relating to the date on which we will leave have undermined that meaningful vote. My amendment 10 seeks to deal with the conflict between the previous amendment 7, which was passed, and the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and the Government. Those amendments on the date would bind Parliament’s hands and concentrate powers with Ministers when it comes to considering the final withdrawal agreement and as we come to the supposedly meaningful vote.
In Committee, we debated the fact that it was unwise at this stage in the negotiations to include the date in the Bill, because that could make it difficult to handle late problems in the process or to renegotiate any aspects of the agreement if we get a bad deal. It also restricts Parliament’s ability to scrutinise and call for changes, if necessary, once we see what the Government propose as the final deal. Suppose, for example, the transitional arrangements miss out something that is extremely important for our security, or for a sector of our economy. Parliament should at least have the chance to debate that and decide whether it wants to call on the Government to go back and try to negotiate a further change, or propose adjusting the timings—even for a few months—while the issues are sorted out. The Bill, as it stands, prevents us from doing so, and it could mean that Parliament is simply timed out. It would force us back to the very situation that Parliament rejected when it passed the previous amendment 7. In other words, Parliament would basically have to choose between the Executive’s deal and no deal at all. That is not a meaningful vote.
The amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for West Dorset do not help, because they allow the date to be changed, but only by Ministers—not by Parliament, even if Parliament takes a different view from the Executive. In addition, they allow the date to be changed only if an alternative date is included in the withdrawal agreement, so if Ministers agree an alternative date with the EU, they can use secondary legislation to change the date in our legislation, too. That is not on, because it will effectively give the EU Parliament more of a say than this Parliament over whether the date should be changed. That is hardly taking back control.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way in this tight debate. The negotiation before Christmas came down, in the end, to the Ireland question. Does she accept that allowing enough flexibility, as many of the amendments do, is crucial to the final, icing-on-the-cake deal?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. It is immensely important that we get these decisions right. I have proposed, in amendment 10, that the date should be settled in Parliament in the statute that provides for a meaningful vote on the withdrawal agreement. It is the obvious and logical consequence of agreeing to the previous amendment 7, which requires a vote on a statute. Let us set the date for departure in that statute, rather than in this Bill. I propose that when we get to the withdrawal agreement, we confirm the date, because the terms and timing of departure should go hand in hand. In that way, we do not concentrate all the power in Ministers’ hands.
We need to make sure that when Parliament has a meaningful vote, we have proper transparency and a debate on the decision, and that is why new clause 17 is so important. The Government have ruled out membership of the single market and the customs union. Everyone recognises that the single market issues are complex, linked as they are to questions of immigration and how we deal with future rules. That makes it even more important for Parliament and the public to be able to scrutinise the Government’s decisions on those complex issues. To do so, we need to know the facts and the impact on the economy and our constituencies.
On the customs union, the issues are more straightforward, but the need for transparency is the same. Being in the customs union is immensely important not just for Northern Ireland, but for manufacturers across the country, especially across the north and the midlands. The Prime Minister, we understand, has had special meetings with City financiers about what they need from the Brexit deal, but what about Yorkshire manufacturers in my constituency? Where is their chance to have their say on the customs arrangements that they need? Where is the opportunity for us all to see the impact of not being in the customs union, the impact of decisions about the single market, and the impact on jobs in our constituencies before, not after, we vote on the withdrawal agreement? The ramifications of these decisions are immense.
The amendments are about strengthening the power of Parliament, no matter what kind of Brexit we think is best, and no matter what our politics or party membership. The amendments are about the health and resilience of our democracy, and about us all working together to get these crucial decisions right.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I think there are still about 10 if not 11 Members seeking to catch my eye. If each Member could speak for three minutes or so, everybody would get in. If that is not possible, so be it, but Members can do the arithmetic for themselves. Perhaps we can start with a very good example from Mr Derek Thomas.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker; I will keep my comments brief. I rise to oppose new clause 2 for the following reasons. By seeking full, comprehensive and sufficiently detailed agreements on several aspects of the future relationship between Britain and the EU, it ties the hand of Government. I am not sure that that is any way to negotiate future trading agreements. Furthermore, the new clause is impractical and inconsistent with article 50, for which the vast majority of this House voted last March.
The EU (Withdrawal) Bill is intended to ensure that EU legislation is transferred into UK law to deliver for the UK a smooth exit from membership of the EU next year, which I am sure we all hope for. Future trade agreements are a separate matter, and they will determine our future trading relationships throughout the world. I commend to the House the “Britain is GREAT” campaign, which is designed to open up a host of trading opportunities once we have left the EU.
Despite the comprehensive list of priorities—a total of 35—on which those who support the new clause want detailed agreements, the issues that concern my constituency are largely ignored. I am not willing to support the new clause, but I call on the Minister to commit, at an early stage, to a strategy that incorporates the economic and social cohesion principles derived from article 174 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. That is important for regions across the UK, including the county of Cornwall, so that we can have confidence that future support will be maintained for areas with high levels of deprivation, rural and island areas, areas affected by industrial transition, and regions that suffer from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps.
Brexit offers opportunities to further reduce inequalities between communities and regional disparities in development. Cornwall and Scilly has received considerable EU funding, but not every penny has been spent as intended. The region must be given far greater power over its own destiny and prosperity, and that is what the 2015 Cornwall devolution deal was intended to achieve. Work continues on thrashing out the detail so that Cornwall and Scilly has every tool needed to create a vibrant and successful economy, where wealth is shared across our population.
I do not believe that serious thinkers in Cornwall and Scilly believe that structural funding support of the sort that has been enjoyed, such as EU regional development funds and EU structural funds, continuing indefinitely is in our best interest; nor was it anticipated that Cornwall would be in receipt of the money even if the British people had voted in June 2016 to remain in the EU. Cornwall and Scilly and other areas across the UK need investment to create the infrastructure, jobs and skills that will assist long-standing pockets of deprivation, and an environment that offers opportunities and life chances to everyone, whatever their age or ability.
Anna Soubry
I know my hon. Friend loves his part of our great country, but has he asked businesses throughout Cornwall, if they were given a choice of staying in the single market and the customs union or of leaving one or both, what they would choose? That would be helpful in determining the best sort of Brexit to benefit all his constituents.
Derek Thomas
I think I welcome that intervention. I hear what my right hon. Friend says, and it is true that, despite all the money and business support that Cornwall has received, it voted in favour of leaving the EU. What people in my constituency and across Cornwall want is us to get on with the job—to get the Bill through and then set out clearly how we intend to trade in the future.
We are asking for a level playing field, where that is possible. I welcome the creation of the shared prosperity fund, and although I do not support new clause 2, I seek an assurance from the Government that areas such as Cornwall and Scilly will enjoy special recognition, as we do now because of the challenges we face, which include deprivation and severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The pressure for brevity is growing. I call Mr Ian Murray.
Ian Murray
I will be brief, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak to new clause 17, on which I intend to test the will of the House later today. I will not repeat what the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said, but I very much appreciate his support for the new clause, as I do the comments made by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve).
I tabled the new clause simply to inject some clarity, transparency and honesty in the debate. We already have a strong baseline of what the single market and the customs union provide the UK, and new clause 17 offers a straightforward way of comparing what we have now and what the Government come back with and put on the table before the House votes on the legislation to invoke our leaving the European Union.
I also tabled the clause to prompt another discussion about the single market and the customs union. I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) to make the point that all these complicated issues—those relating to the island of Ireland are probably the most complicated—can be resolved by continuing to participate in the single market and the customs union.
My key point, on which I hope Ministers will reflect and which Michel Barnier has already stated clearly, is that the red lines that the Government have set themselves are completely and utterly incompatible with the conclusion they wish to reach. Until they are honest about that with the public and this House, we will be unable to move forward. That is part of the reason why the EU keeps demanding from the UK an explanation of the final destination—what the UK actually wants from the process. The Prime Minister’s Florence and Lancaster House speeches set out criteria that are completely and utterly undeliverable, given the red lines set. To take the customs union and the single market off the table so early as a red line was the wrong decision.
We need the Government to put to both Houses a full and independently assessed analysis comparing the impact on the UK economy of two conclusions to this debate: staying in the single market and customs union and coming out on the basis of the deal the Government propose. The Government will resist the new clause, however, not out of principle, but because they know that any negotiated deal they come back with from the EU will not be as good as the deal we have today, and that will be saying to the public that that deal will make the country poorer. For any Government, that is a dereliction of duty. They should put their money where their mouth is, support my new clause 17 and put in black and white the consequences of this country’s refusing, failing and no longer participating in the single market and customs union.
Chuka Umunna
I will be as brief as I can. I rise to speak in support of new clause 6 on the legal standing of article 50. I voted in the last Parliament to invoke article 50 because I believed it was the duty of the House to seek to deliver Brexit in the form in which it was sold to the British people, but it was conditional on it being in that form. I said that if it turned out to be materially different at the end of the process, the people would be entitled to keep an open mind on what should then happen. By that I meant they were entitled to halt the process and revoke the article 50 notification given by the Prime Minister to the President of the European Council, if that was what the people decided to do.
The core purpose of new clause 6 is to clear up this matter. On the issue of revocability—halting the process or extending article 50—Ministers have sought deliberately to pull the wool over the eyes not just of this House but of the people. They have given the misleading impression that legally we are not free to keep an open mind and that we cannot revoke article 50 if we so wish. For example, on 9 October 2017, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) asked the Prime Minister if it was possible to halt the article 50 process, she implied that it was not and said:
“The position was made clear in a case that went through the Supreme Court in relation to article 50.”—[Official Report, 9 October 2017; Vol. 629, c. 51.]
But it was not. The case she was referring to was brought by Gina Miller to stop this Government seeking to take back control for Ministers instead of for Parliament, as was intended.
The Prime Minster was pressed again on the same day by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) and each time gave a similar response. This gave a completely false impression of the reality, because what she said was not factually correct. The Supreme Court did not and has not opined on this issue in the Miller or any other case before it, though the author of article 50, the noble Lord Kerr, has made it clear that it may be revoked.
Mr Grieve
It is abundantly clear that the matter has not been determined by the Supreme Court. The Government chose in the Miller case—for understandable reasons—to put forward the proposition that it could not be revoked, and both sides asked the Court to proceed on that assumption. It did not opine on the matter.
Chuka Umunna
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right.
The Brexit Minister in the House of Lords, Lord Callanan, repeated this false claim when asked by a Conservative colleague whether he could confirm that the judgement in the Miller case had in ruled in “precise terms” on the revocability of article 50. He replied, “I can confirm that” and went on to say that the European Commission had said that once invoked, article 50 was irrevocable. He was forced 10 days later to return to the other place to come clean on the reality of the legal position, which was of course that the Supreme Court had said no such thing. Indeed, the European Commission is clear that article 50 can legally be revoked, and politically no member state has indicated that it would object to this.
Last week, the Government received legal advice from three Queen’s counsels, Jessica Simor, Marie Demetriou and Tim Ward, all of whom are on the Attorney General’s A panel of counsel and represent the United Kingdom. They have provided the Government with a published legal opinion confirming that article 50 is revocable. On the political side, the President and vice-president of the European Commission and the President of the European Council have made it clear that if this country wishes to change its mind at the end of the process, it will be free to do so. The British people deserve to know that; our constituents deserve to know it. The Government should publish that legal opinion, which is why new clause 6 must be passed.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
New clause 12, which stands in my name and those of a number of other Members, seeks to guarantee our management of environmental protection after exit day. The environment has been in the news quite a lot recently. The members of the Cabinet all had reusable coffee cups following their meeting yesterday, although I think we shall need a little bit more from the Environment Agency than bamboo cups if we are to protect our environment after Brexit. I was delighted to receive your letter today, Mr Speaker, saying that the House of Commons Commission and the Administration Committee will be looking into how Parliament can reduce its plastic usage. Last Thursday the Government published their 25 Year Environment Plan. They were very clear about what they wanted to achieve, but there was absolute silence on how that was to be done.
A third of the acquis communautaire which applies in the UK is related to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—it has brought us huge environmental improvements—and 80% of our environmental protections originated in the EU. A third of those protections cannot simply be cut and pasted. The aim of new clause 12 is to prevent us from ending up with “zombie legislation”, no longer updated or enforced, and vulnerable to being quietly dropped at the stroke of a Minister’s pen. The Environmental Audit Committee, which I chair, called for a new environmental protection Act more than a year ago, and the new clause does the same today: it calls for legislation setting up a strong environmental protection agency to monitor and enforce standards, replacing the European Commission. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs told my Committee in November that such a body would be needed. We await his proposals, but this must be done quickly.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
What my hon. Friend has said is important for another reason. Environmental protection means development, and, as she will know, that means development jobs in towns such as Coventry. There is, for example, the electric car.
Mary Creagh
Absolutely. I was thrilled to learn that the electric black cab is being made in Coventry. It is great that Carbodies has a future.
It is important to drive that great innovation, that green growth, across the country. Let us take the example of waste. Twenty years ago we sent almost half our household waste to landfill; now we recycle almost half of it because of the EU’s waste framework directive. We will have no recycling targets after 2020 unless we adopt the EU’s target of 60% by 2030. We need that new environmental protection Act to set out waste targets: that will drive the innovation that we need in reprocessing.
We need reprocessing capacity urgently. As a result of the Chinese ban on the import of contaminated UK waste, 3 million tonnes of paper and 280,000 tonnes of plastic will no longer go to China, and we will have to do something with it on this island. A hard Brexit means that we could end paying tariffs on our waste exports, so exporting our waste to faraway countries will no longer be an option. The Environmental Services Association told my Committee that the industry had invested £5 billion in new infrastructure in the past five years, and could do so again, given the right policy environment. At present, however, there is the risk of a vacuum.
We hear the same story when it comes to cleaning up our beaches. The bathing water directive ended the discharge of untreated sewage into the sea and drove investment in the replacement of lead pipes. The European Investment Bank is the largest debt investor in the UK water industry, holding 13% of gross outstanding debt. There is a risk that, if we cannot gain access to EIB capital, there could be higher borrowing costs for water companies and higher water bills for consumers.
As for air quality, the EU has set out the targets that we should meet in the ambient air quality directive. We are currently missing those targets. I have been through the 58 impact assessments, and air quality does not feature in any of them, although it is one of the most pressing market failures that we face. There is no air quality industry, which is why it is neglected. We have had our final written warning from the Commission. The danger is that when we leave the EU we will not set ourselves stringent standards. There is no agency to set those standards, no agency to monitor them, and no agency to enforce them. The Prime Minister launched the environmental plan last week. She says she wants to phase out unnecessary plastics by 2042. I can tell her now that I am not waiting until I am 75 to clear up our environment. This House needs a vote on a strong environmental protection Act, and a strong environmental protection agency to make sure we pass on a decent environment to our children and grandchildren.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Time is short so I shall make just two brief comments.
First, I support amendment 59 and thank the SNP on taking the initiative on pulling that together. The hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) made a compelling speech on the importance of remaining inside the single market and customs union, and I join him in appealing to Labour Front Benchers even at this eleventh hour to support it. As he and many other Members have said today, the Government have no mandate for the kind of extreme Brexit they are pursuing. The irony in the Labour Front-Bench position is that the NHS crisis or the inequality crisis or the housing crisis are all far harder to tackle if the UK is outside the single market and customs union.
My second point is to commend the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) on her speech on her new clause 12. I agree entirely with what she said. She says the environmental plan lacks a “how”. That is true, but, crucially, it also lacks a “when,” and a key question at the heart of my new clause 18 is about timing. The Government are in theory at least committed to bring forward this new domestic environmental regulator, which is supposed to set out the way in which environmental legislation will be enforced once Brexit happens, if it happens. I am concerned that there is nothing to guarantee that that new body will be in place by Brexit day.
We have had positive written statements. For example, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs explained in a written statement last week that the Government’s 25-year environmental plan will be underpinned by what he says is
“a comprehensive set of environmental principles”
to “ensure strong governance”. He also talks about consulting on setting up
“a world-leading environmental watchdog, an independent, statutory body, to hold Government to account for upholding environmental standards.”—[Official Report, 11 January 2018; Vol. 634, c. 12WS.]
That is all very well, but what is not addressed is the question of timing, which is why my new clause 18 is so important.
We need to make sure that there is no so-called governance gap, and there is still a very real risk that, after Brexit day but before this new body comes into place, we will have a governance gap where environmental legislation that might well have been brought across from the EU to the UK still will not be enforceable. We will still not have that replacement for the Commission and the ECJ. We will end up with what has been called zombie legislation.
This new clause 18 is vital; we must not be left with that legal gap. We need legal certainty. That is what this provision will provide, and I urge the Government to think again about supporting it.
Stephen Doughty
I shall speak to new clause 20 in my name and those of other Members, and I also want to express my support for new clauses 6, 12, 11, 1 and the other Opposition amendments and many of the other excellent proposals put forward today. I wish to make it clear, too, that although we debated amendment 5 yesterday, I do not seek to press it to a separate Division today. However, I hope that, given the debates we have had about devolution, Members in the other place look very carefully at the issues in question and whether the Government come forward with amendments to address the concerns about clause 11 and other parts of the Bill.
I am proud to have tabled new clause 20 along with other hon. Members because I am a Labour and Co-operative MP, and part of the co-operative ideal is that democracy, decision making and process are not one-off events, and nor do they only involve one group of people. As a Co-operative MP, I believe in the involvement of Members, of management, of consumers and of others who have a stake in the running of a business, enterprise or organisation, and I believe we should be looking at this Brexit process in a much more co-operative way. Indeed, that would address many of the concerns about the way it is going forward.
We are at present heading forward with a monolithic approach by the Government—a reckless hard Brexit approach that does not take into account the many other ways. The point has been clearly made that the public can change their mind and look at different options. There are many options that we could take in this process, but we are being handed one particular route forward and there is an attempt to shut down the debate on any other options that might be out there.
Thankfully, other organisations have rejected this and have been using the excellent procedure of the citizens jury to try to understand what the public think about the detail—not just the question of leave or remain—and about crucial questions such as whether we should remain in the single market or the customs union. My new clause 20 seeks to institute a citizens jury on the Brexit negotiations. It would involve a selection of citizens from across the country who are informed about the facts that we so often do not have before us. It would be able to deliberate on and discuss them in a free and fair way, and it would incorporate people who voted leave and those who voted remain, as well as people with all the shades of opinion in between.
Liz Kendall
I have been a long-standing champion of citizens juries. In fact, I wrote the first book on the citizens juries in 1992. They give people real information, choices and trade-offs, and it has been proven that people can take difficult decisions if they have that open and honest information. I warmly support my hon. Friend’s new clause.
Stephen Doughty
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I was not aware of her historical involvement in this matter. That is absolutely fantastic. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and many others have been involved in this process as well.
Before I conclude, I want to draw attention to a recent example. The citizens assembly on Brexit was organised recently by a number of universities and civil society organisations, including the constitution unit at University College London, the centre for the study of democracy at the University of Westminster, the University of Southampton, Involve and the Electoral Reform Society. That citizens jury came up with some very interesting results. It concluded that our priorities for trade policy should be minimising harm to the economy, protecting the NHS and public services, maintaining living standards, taking account of the impacts on all parts of the UK, protecting workers’ rights and avoiding a hard border with Ireland.
Those are all sensible suggestions, and that is not surprising because they come from the British people. They do not represent the one monolithic view of the way forward that the Government are presenting. The public are presenting a sensible approach to Brexit, and that is what we need more than ever at this time. We do not need to hear wild claims about what the public think. It is a shame that we sometimes do not get these debates in this House, but I am thankful that Members on both sides have been brave enough to stand up in this debate and put forward their views. We need to listen to the public on this as well.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. A lot of people still want to speak, and there is very little time for them to do so. A three-minute time limit should be quite sufficient.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I rise to speak as the vice-chair of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly and the all-party parliamentary group on Ireland and the Irish in Britain. Despite the border being one of the principal issues in the phase 1 agreement, there has been very little debate or understanding in this House about the context of the border issue with Ireland, and that is a huge problem. Phase 1 is hugely welcome. Our Prime Minister has signed up to it on behalf of the United Kingdom, and there is to be no ambiguity or rowing back from it.
On day five of these debates, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) said that she remembered exactly where she was when the Good Friday-Belfast agreement was announced. That is true for many of us. I am one of the millions of British children of Irish immigrants who grew up in the 1970s and 1980s. It was difficult. The violence and murder on the streets of Northern Ireland and Britain hung over our communities and fuelled anti-Irish sentiment here. That changed in the 1990s.
The Good Friday agreement is an exemplar across the world of dealing with long-standing conflict. The UK and Ireland are its guarantors, and our joint membership of the EU, our shared regulations and our customs union are the foundation on which it is based. The Good Friday-Belfast agreement was not just about Northern Ireland and it was not just about politics. It was about the relationship between all the people on these islands. We have more in common: until 100 years ago, we were one country. My grandparents were born in Mayo and Cavan under the auspices of this Parliament, just like me when I was born in London. Our legal and political systems are akin, which is why the Republic of Ireland is our greatest ally in the EU. For years, hundreds of weekly meetings have taken place between our officials and our politicians as part of the EU. These will cease, and the Good Friday agreement now needs to come into its own and deepen the north-south and east-west strands. The debate about the border is not about wandering cows and cameras. The absence of a border is about recognising our commonality and our mutual interest.
On the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, we are concerned that there is no longer the necessary knowledge and experience in this Chamber of the British-Irish relationship, and we have been considering how to support hon. Members to develop that understanding and to undertake greater cross-party and jurisdictional work. I hope that the House of Lords will have more debates on this issue than we have done.
In my early days as a Member, Mr Speaker, we had the privilege of hearing the noble Lord Bew speak in your rooms about Charles Stewart Parnell and the great arguments that raged in this place throughout the 19th century. We could perhaps arrange for more speakers from all communities, and we could encourage the Select Committees and the all-party parliamentary groups to share understanding across these islands and to develop those deep relationships. Most importantly, we need to build on what we have and not go back. Voices on both sides of the House are crucial to that.
Geraint Davies
This Bill is essentially about cutting and pasting the laws, protections and rights of the EU into British law, and the fundamental problems are that clause 9 gives sweeping powers to Ministers to strike out those laws, protections and rights and, quite simply, that we do not have the institutions to enforce those rights. In essence, new clauses 10 and 14 would ensure institutions are in place to enforce those individual, consumer, environmental and workers’ rights and protections.
The European Food Safety Authority, which responded to the horsemeat scandal, or similar agencies should be in place to prevent genetically modified, hormone-impregnated or antibiotic-impregnated meat, and so on, from coming from America. The European Chemicals Agency is charged with protecting us through REACH—the regulation, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals regulation—which prevents, for example, asbestos from being sold here when they can be sold in America. The European Environment Agency underpins our air quality and is taking the British Government to court. It has delivered blue flag beaches instead of low-tar beaches, and it is involved in ensuring biodiversity, etc. Euratom regulates nuclear power and research across Europe, including Britain. The European Medicines Agency ensures Britain can develop and sell drugs across Europe.
It is critical that institutions are in place to continue those processes, yet the White Paper said, for example, that protected habitats will continue without enforcement agencies after Brexit. In other words, we do not know there will be a guarantee that institutions will be in place to enforce the rights and protections we currently enjoy, which is why new clauses 10 and 14 are important.
We also know that Britain does not have the ready capacity to enforce rights and protections in the way those big institutions do. Enforcement would basically mean fining ourselves for not fulfilling air quality standards, which is meaningless.
New clause 14 essentially says that those rights and protections should also be instilled in new trade agreements, which the Government are hurtling ahead in agreeing in secret. Such rights and protections should therefore be frontloaded, so that people can be secure in the knowledge that Ministers will not sign off agreements that are perhaps in breach of domestic law and that will then be imposed by arbitration courts, whether through investor-state dispute settlements or through the investment court system.
Mr Speaker
Order. My gratitude to the hon. Gentleman is almost infinite, but I think he is concluding his peroration.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Given the shortage of time, I will confine my remarks to amendment 59.
I find it almost unbelievable that, 18 months after the referendum and six months after the Government introduced this Bill, they still have not provided or commissioned any proper economic analysis of what Brexit will mean and of the various options we have. In that information vacuum, it has fallen to others to try to fill the gap. A recent report from the Mayor of London concluded that 500,000 jobs are at risk as £50 billion will be taken out of the economy.
The Fraser of Allander Institute in Scotland, which is no friend of my party or of the Scottish Government, has concluded that Brexit puts 80,000 jobs in Scotland under threat. Just this week, a new analysis from the Scottish Government concluded that each person in Scotland could lose £2,600 if we leave the single market.
If the Government disagree with those analyses, I have to wonder why they do not publish their own. I understand that the Government are, of course, divided at the highest level—God knows they need to find agreement among themselves before they can get agreement with other countries—but that cannot be the whole explanation.
I believe the reason we have not had this analysis from the Government is that they know anything they publish will not support and provide evidence for the path they have chosen. Given that degree of denial and political myopia, it falls to this Parliament to try to save this Government from themselves. We can do that by supporting amendment 59, because the truth is that there are no good options here, only less bad ones. Clearly, the least bad option we can do is remain in the customs union and single market to protect our economy. The time has come to call a halt on what is happening and say, “This is the direction we must go in.”
As the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) mentioned, this amendment has the backing of four parties. It is almost a united Opposition amendment, but there is an absentee friend—the Labour party. I say to Labour colleagues, even at this eleventh hour, not to chastise them but to welcome them in this campaign, “Don’t just participate. Come and lead the campaign against this Government. If you do not, you compromise the future.” In a few years’ time, when the consequences are clear, prices are going up and jobs are disappearing, the Leader of the Opposition will try to accuse the Government and they will look back and say, “You didn’t stop it at the time.” So I ask Labour colleagues to come with us and back amendment 59, and let us try to save this Government from themselves.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister must be called no later than 10 past 4. Colleagues can work things out for themselves. I am not sure they will all get in.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I wish to speak to new clause 17. We have learned several things in recent weeks. First, that the red lines set by the Prime Minister will handicap us in our negotiations; secondly, that those same red lines have removed important options from the table; and, thirdly, that the Government have not felt it necessary to do comprehensive qualitative and quantitative assessments on the implications of leaving. That is extraordinary. No large business, certainly no multinational business, would leave a market and abandon its investment in that market without fully evaluating the commercial and reputational consequences, but for this Government that lack of process is somehow acceptable. What new clause 17 offers, correctly, is a framework to properly evaluate the deal and arrangements proposed by the Government, so ensuring both transparency and a full public understanding, by area, of the consequences of leaving. That is why I support new clause 17.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I would rather be speaking on whether or not we should be leaving the EU. The more I hear, the more I fear the UK is heading over a cliff and on to rocks far below. Like everyone here, however, I am speaking on the specifics of how the UK withdraws from the EU, if withdrawal is to go ahead. I support new clauses 12 and 21, and others that seek to preserve our environmental protections and legislation. I particularly support new clause 12, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) and would require the Government to report on the “loss of environmental protection” as a result of leaving the EU and to introduce a new environmental protection Bill.
The Government have kept trying to reassure Parliament and the British people that Brexit will mean that EU law will be seamlessly merged in UK law and that we do not need to worry. Not only do I not believe that to be true, but I am concerned about the Government’s lack of urgency on taking sufficient legislative action before March 2019. We are still awaiting the long-promised policy statement on environmental principles which will underpin future environmental policy making. There will then be wide consultation, but even that will not be on the actual policies; it will just
“explore the scope and content of a new statement on environmental principles.”
That suggests there is a lot of law up for grabs and no sense of urgency.
On air quality, which matters greatly to my constituents, the Government are dragging their feet. The London Mayor, Hounslow Council and many other councils are using their limited powers to improve air quality, but there is only so much they can do. The Mayor has made it very clear that the UK will not bring pollution levels into line with existing EU air quality laws without serious and urgent action by the Government. But instead of this, the Government are using taxpayers’ money to defend themselves against yet another legal challenge by ClientEarth over illegal levels of air pollution in the UK and they have launched an environment plan that is weak to say the least. Given this lack of proven commitment to bringing the UK into compliance with even one aspect of existing EU environment standards, I have little faith that Brexit will mean anything other than an undermining of many protections and improvements that the EU has brought us to date. That is why I urge this House to support many of these amendments, particularly new clauses 12 and 21, and any others that protect our environmental rights and protections, which I, my constituents and many of us hold so dear.
Chris Stephens
I hope the Government will consider workplace protections in the Bill, because many of us do not trust the Government in that regard.
Mr Speaker
Very well done. I am immensely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who was even briefer than I expected. The Minister has just under 20 minutes to reply.
Mr Baker
This has been a full and vibrant debate, with many excellent contributions and memorable moments, to which I shall try to refer at the end, if there proves to be time.
Two Members made particular requests. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who is not in her place, asked about the timing and when we would take forward our policy. I will undertake to discuss that with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs later this week.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) mentioned the shared prosperity fund. I assure him that we discussed it when I visited Cornwall and that the Government are well aware of the need in Cornwall and other areas. We will drive forward the design and implementation of that fund.
It might help the House to know that I intend to speak first to the Government amendments and, in a couple of cases, the related Opposition amendments. I will then ensure that I have dealt with the Belfast agreement, as it is so important, before working through some of the other amendments, if time allows.
Government amendment 33 builds on the exit-day amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), to whom we are grateful. This further amendment to schedule 7 makes the power to set exit day subject to the affirmative procedure, thereby fulfilling a commitment that I gave at the Dispatch Box during day eight in Committee. As the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have made clear, we have always been committed to the proper parliamentary scrutiny of our exit from the EU. In line with our promise that Parliament will be given time to debate and scrutinise the legislation that implements the final agreement that we reach with the EU, it is appropriate that Parliament scrutinises any potential change to exit day. I hope the whole House will support the amendment.
Labour’s amendment 1 would allow the Government to amend the definition of “exit day” if it were not in accordance with any transitional arrangements agreed under article 50. I understand the intention behind the amendment, but I remind the House that, after the improvements to which I have referred, the Bill now provides for changes to the exit day, as set out in article 50, to ensure that the domestic situation reflects the international position. Furthermore, Government amendment 33 will ensure that Parliament has appropriate scrutiny of any change to the date of exit by making it subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 10, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), would require exit day to be specified in a separate Bill on the terms of withdrawal. It replicates an amendment that was debated in Committee in November, since when the Bill has benefited from the amendments I mentioned and, in particular, the changes suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset. Exit day will be set out in law as 11 pm on 29 March 2019, but we will have the technical ability to amend it if the UK, the EU and, indeed—to address the right hon. Lady’s points—the European Council, decide unanimously to change the date. The right hon. Lady referred particularly to the European Parliament, but I have the text of article 50 with me and it is clear that any change would require the
“European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned”
to unanimously decide to extend the period, so I do not accept her argument about the European Parliament having more say than this Parliament.
We have always been committed to the proper parliamentary scrutiny of our exit from the EU, which is why, in line with our promise that Parliament will be given time to debate and agree the legislation that implements the final agreement that we strike with the EU, it is appropriate for Parliament to scrutinise any changes to exit day through the affirmative procedure. In the unlikely event that the power to change exit day is used, it will simply be a technical change to ensure that our domestic legislation reflects the reality of international law. It is certainly not necessary, and would be disproportionate, to make such a change via primary legislation.
The House agreed in Committee to Government amendments regarding explanatory statements and to the Procedure Committee’s amendments to establish a sifting committee. We have tabled two technical amendments, Government amendments 35 and 36, to ensure that these amendments best function alongside each other. Government amendments 35 and 36 will ensure that the requirement for a Minister of the Crown to make an explanatory statement applies before a draft instrument is laid before the House for the purposes of sifting, as well as in other cases. They will also ensure that, where an explanatory statement has been made before the House of Commons for the purposes of sifting, there is no need to make a further statement after sifting when an equivalent instrument is laid again before both Houses of Parliament after being made or as a draft affirmative instrument. That will ensure that the committee has all the necessary information at its disposal and will avoid confusing double statements when nothing has changed.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
After the sifting committee has received an explanatory statement and before it makes a sift, will the committee also have access to Ministers to question them if it cannot understand what the affirmative or negative instrument is about?
Mr Baker
I very much hope that the committee will be able to understand things through our meeting the requirements for explanatory memorandums that we have set out in the Bill, but I would of course expect Ministers to be helpful to the committee. We need to get statutory instruments through smoothly, and we would want to support the committee in reaching its decisions.
I will now jump ahead in my remarks to deal with new clause 3 and the Belfast agreement. New clause 3, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), is important, and I reiterate that the Government remain steadfast in their commitments to the Belfast agreement and its associated obligations under international law.
Mr Baker
Will the hon. Lady allow me to make my points? I think I am going to be able to satisfy her, but I will gladly give way after I have reached the particular point in which I think she will be interested.
The agreement between the UK and the EU, as set out in the joint report, must be negotiated and taken forward through the article 50 negotiations, not in this Bill. The EU set out before Christmas that negotiators now need to work on translating the commitments in the joint report into the withdrawal agreement or the framework for the future relationship. That is the task we will be engaged in over the coming months, so it would be wrong to cut across the negotiations by separately seeking to codify commitments into this Bill.
We have already committed to protecting the Belfast agreement in full through the withdrawal negotiations. The joint report sets out the Government’s and the EU’s commitment to respect the provisions in the Belfast agreement and the principle of consent. More broadly, we have said that we will introduce the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill to implement what we agree with the EU as a whole. The joint report is also clear on the Government’s commitment to protecting north-south co-operation and to our guarantee of avoiding a hard border. We have been clear that we will protect the UK internal market in all circumstances and ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland’s business to the entire United Kingdom internal market.
The detail of the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill will and must reflect the terms of the withdrawal agreement, so I reassure the House that we will include an appropriate provision in the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill upholding the agreement we reach, including the protection of the Belfast agreement, to which we committed in the joint report.
Lady Hermon
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am delighted that he has confirmed that there will be no hard border and no border down the Irish sea. What I am concerned about are the pledges about the Belfast agreement. My focus has always been on the incorporation of the fundamental principles of the Belfast agreement. When I spoke to my new clause on the fifth day in Committee, I withdrew it on the understanding that the principles of non-discrimination, equality and respect before the law would be incorporated by the Government in forthcoming legislation. Will the Minister confirm that commitment?
Mr Baker
I remember our previous conversation about the general principles, which have been widely discussed during the passage of this Bill. As I said, we are fully committed to the Belfast agreement, and the appropriate commitments will be put into the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill when it comes forward, so I hope the hon. Lady will allow me to move on at this point. Occasionally, a speech is made in this House that will never be forgotten, and one such speech was hers in Committee. I well remember the need as a young Royal Air Force officer to check under my car every time before getting in. Although I did not share in the troubles as she did, the echoes were felt where I trained in the Royal Air Force, so I assure her that I want to ensure that, by the end of the process, she is satisfied that we have upheld the Belfast agreement. [Interruption.] Did I hear a colleague ask to intervene? No.
Mr Clarke
Voices of inspiration, I trust.
My hon. Friend mentioned the withdrawal Bill several times. Am I right—to be absolutely clear—that the withdrawal Bill will come forward and be considered, and probably approved, by this House before any withdrawal agreement is ratified, that we will not be presented with a Bill to implement an agreement that is already binding on the United Kingdom, but that actually the Government will not ratify any agreements until the House of Commons has first given its support and approval?
Mr Baker
The situation is set out in detail in the written ministerial statement that we laid. Both Houses will have meaningful votes on whether to accept the agreement. It is my expectation that we would not ratify before that primary legislation has gone through.
New clause 1 was tabled by the Labour Front-Bench team. It seeks to place limitations on the use of existing and future powers to amend and modify retained EU law. It is absolutely right and necessary for existing domestic powers granted by Parliament in other Acts and any future delegated powers created after exit day to be able to operate effectively and without inappropriate fetter within UK domestic law after our departure from the EU. This includes parts of our existing domestic law which will become retained EU law after exit day, as well as retained direct EU legislation which will be converted into our domestic statute book.
The Bill’s current approach to existing and future delegated powers aims to ensure the successful operation of retained EU law within our domestic statute book beyond the time limits for the Bill’s more limited specific powers. Adopting the new clause, on the other hand, would undermine the position of certainty and have several detrimental effects that would risk creating significant confusion in the UK statute book. First, limiting the modification of retained EU law by existing and future delegated powers only to when this is necessary
“to maintain or enhance rights and protections”
could have uncertain consequences. A test of necessity would impose a high burden that may prevent powers from being used in the most appropriate and relevant way if the regulations they create are not deemed truly necessary for the protection of rights. That could mean that existing and future delegated powers would be unable to amend or modify irrelevant or unsuitable parts of the statute book, leading to ossification of parts of retained EU law within UK domestic law and creating confusion and uncertainty.
Secondly, a restriction of that nature inevitably will increase the possibility of legal challenge against any use of these delegated powers. That would create needless uncertainty for businesses and individuals and risk holes emerging within the domestic statute book. Finally, the measure would also impose significant consultation requirements on the exercise of the delegated powers, the use of which is running against the clock. I understand and support the intention to ensure that all relevant stakeholders, as well as the general public, are aware of the situation and can engage as new legislation is developed. However, the blanket approach suggested under the new clause would be excessively and needlessly onerous. It would risk delays to the implementation of important changes.
In using both existing delegated powers and those created in the future, the Government will, of course, remain bound by the rules and procedures laid out in the parent Act, as well as the accepted statutory instrument processes. I will take this moment to say that I am proud of what we have done to clause 7 to make sure that we have contained the list of deficiencies while making sure that it is amendable through the affirmative procedure.
Turning to new clause 22, I think that I satisfied my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) earlier in the debate, but he is not in the Chamber so, if the House will allow me, I will move on to new clauses 14 and 15—
Mr Baker
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, and pay tribute to him. Although I have occasionally disagreed with him, he has, of course, made a historic contribution to the passage of the Bill. I am very grateful for the way in which he has helped us to improve the legislation.
Labour’s amendment 2 would restrict the scope of the clause 7 power. Labour appears to accept the principle that the power is essential if the UK is to exit the EU with certainty, continuity, control and a working statute book, but restricting the power in the way proposed in amendment 2 would risk compromising our ability to ensure that that statute book continues to function, thereby leaving gaps in our law, and creating uncertainty and confusion for businesses and individuals.
As we have explained previously, making the list of deficiencies in clause 7(2) exhaustive and immutable would risk omitting important deficiencies, preventing us from fully correcting the statute book. To require primary legislation in such circumstances would undermine the purpose of the Bill and the usual justifications for secondary legislation: technical detail, readability, incompleteness and, crucially, the management of time. We cannot risk undermining laws on which businesses and individuals—often unknowingly—rely every day.
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set out yesterday, the word “appropriate” was chosen carefully to ensure that the Government have the discretion called for by this unique situation. The constraints that a test of necessity would impose would prevent the Government and the devolved Administrations from making the best corrections to ensure that the statute book continues to function properly. A provision of necessity would risk limiting the Government and the devolved Administrations to only the most minimal changes, regardless of whether that would leave the law deficient, create absurd outcomes, or change the outcomes that the legislation was intended to deliver. I cannot believe that any Member would want to risk leaving the statute book in such a state. I am very conscious that we are now in a position whereby either these instruments will be brought forward under the affirmative procedure or, if they are brought forward under the negative procedure, the sifting committee will have the opportunity to push us towards that affirmative procedure.
Amendment 2 and new clause 15 seek to prevent regression in the protection of rights and equalities as we leave the EU, and new clause 14 seeks to do similarly by maintaining equivalence with the EU. The UK already has strong protections for equalities and human rights as part of our domestic provisions, independent of our membership of the EU. Some of those predate or go beyond EU requirements. The Government are committed to protecting our equalities legislation as we leave the EU. As we set out in the paper that we published on equalities legislation, limited technical amendments will be needed to ensure that all relevant legislation continues to operate as intended by Parliament after exit.
Chris Stephens
Will the Minister confirm that the Government intend to keep in place the equal treatment directive, which has helped women to gain equal pay claims?
Mr Baker
My first point is that that will be incorporated into our legislation. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that we carry EU legislation into UK law. Secondly, we can only correct deficiencies that arise as a result of our withdrawal, and the hon. Gentleman will be familiar by now with the provisions of clause 7 and associated schedule 2.
To increase transparency, the Government amendments accepted by the House on 13 December will require a Minister to make a statement relating to equalities legislation and duties before laying every SI made under the principal powers in the Bill, as sought by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous). It is not for this Bill to require similar statements in other EU exit legislation. Indeed, this Bill would not be able to affect most of this legislation, including the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill and the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, which will have been introduced to the House before this Bill’s Royal Assent. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) promised in Committee, we will make equalities-related statements alongside other EU exit-related legislation, which I hope will satisfy the House.
Transparency will ensure that the House and the sifting committee established by the amendments tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) have all the information necessary to make informed and reasonable judgments in the scrutiny of the SIs that we will be making under the Bill. I hope that Labour Front Benchers will be persuaded not to press their amendments.
I turn briefly to new clause 11, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). His contribution and the presence of the hon. Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) in the Chamber reminded me of a rather fetching photograph of the hon. Member for Streatham posing with a remain campaign poster pointing out that the leave campaign had said that we would leave the single market. If any Member wishes to see that, I might tweet it later.
It would be remiss of me if I did not thank all those involved with the passage of the Bill: all right hon. and hon. Members who took time to participate; all the Clerks in the Public Bill Office who have provided invaluable support to Members of the House; and the world-class officials in DExEU and across Government who have ensured the Bill’s smooth passage.
Tom Brake
And enthusiastically.
New Clause 11
Meaningful vote on deal or no deal
“(1) The Prime Minister must publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament an assessment of the impact on the economy of the United Kingdom, and on each nation, province or region of the United Kingdom, of any unratified agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union which sets out the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU.
(2) Any agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union which sets out the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU may not be ratified unless—
(a) subsection (1) has been complied with,
(b) the House of Lords has considered a motion relating to the unratified agreement,
(c) the House of Commons has approved the unratified agreement by resolution,
(d) the statute mentioned in section 9 (approving the final terms of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union) has been passed, and
(e) any other legislative provision to enable ratification has been passed or made.
(3) If no agreement has been reached by 31 December 2018 between the United Kingdom and the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union setting out the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU, the Prime Minister must publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament within one month an assessment of the impact on the economy of the United Kingdom, and on each nation, province or region of the United Kingdom, of leaving the EU under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union without an agreement.
(4) If no agreement has been reached by 31 January 2019 between the United Kingdom and the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union setting out the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU,
(a) a Minister of the Crown must propose a motion in the House of Lords relating to the lack of an agreement, and
(b) a Minister of the Crown must propose a motion in the House of Commons approving the intention of the United Kingdom to leave the EU under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union without a withdrawal agreement.
(5) Unless the House of Commons approves by resolution after 31 January 2019 the intention of the United Kingdom to leave the EU under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union without a withdrawal agreement, the Prime Minister must either —
(a) reach an agreement before exit day between the United Kingdom and the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union which sets out the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU, or
(b) request the European Council for an extension of negotiation under Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union, or
(c) rescind the notice of intention under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union to withdraw from the EU given in accordance with the European Union (Notice of Withdrawal) Act 2017 and request the European Council to accept that rescission.”—(Tom Brake.)
This New Clause would ensure that the Government assesses the impact of either an agreement or no deal on the UK economy and regions before a meaningful vote, and that if Parliament does not agree to the agreement or to no deal, then the Government must request a revocation or extension of Article 50.
Brought up.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the leader of the Scottish National party.
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Davis)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. Taking a leaf out of the Liberal Democrat book, I do so enthusiastically.
The Bill is essential to preparing the country for the historic milestone of withdrawing from the European Union. It ensures that on day one we will have a statute book that works, with this Government delivering the smooth and orderly exit desired by people and businesses across the United Kingdom. It is a complex piece of legislation, which is unsurprising given that it seeks to put into British law the entire acquis of European law—established over 40 years or more of membership—and to do so in a few years while active negotiations are going on.
The House has spent more than 80 hours discussing the Bill’s principles and why they are necessary. We have scrutinised each clause and schedule in detail, and we have debated the merits of more than 500 amendments and new clauses. I thank the Members who took the time to table amendments, and I thank them for the spirit in which they have engaged with the debate throughout. I pay tribute to the Clerks and officials in the Public Bill Office who have provided invaluable support for Members in all parts of the House, advising on the drafting and tabling of those hundreds of amendments.
I pay special tribute to several colleagues for their individual contributions. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) for tabling amendments that will undoubtedly enhance this legislation by providing greater certainty over the timing of exit day and how secondary legislation will be scrutinised. I also pay tribute to other Conservative colleagues for their contributions throughout the debate, notably my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), my right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and my right hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith). I am grateful to them all for their hard work—[Interruption.] I have not finished yet. I am grateful to them all for their hard work in effectively scrutinising this legislation and their tireless work in representing their constituents.
I also thank Opposition Members for their contributions. We heard impassioned and eloquent contributions from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), the right hon. Members for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), and the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and for North Down (Lady Hermon) among many others, who all played—[Interruption.] I will take nominations, Mr Speaker, if you really want, but I think I just picked out the highlights; many others made fantastic contributions. In the interests of brevity and to allow others to speak, I would like the House to take as read the detailed thanks to the Front Benchers of both sides.
I said on Second Reading that I would
“welcome and encourage contributions from those who approach the task in good faith and in a spirit of collaboration.”—[Official Report, 7 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 343.]
All of us, as elected representatives, have a shared interest in making this Bill a success in the national interest. The Government have said time and again that we would listen carefully to all suggestions put forward and that, where hon. Members made a compelling case, we would respectfully consider it and act accordingly.
I hope that Members agree that in this debate we have often heard the very best of what this House is here to do. We have tabled amendments to provide extra information about equalities impacts and the changes being made to retained EU law under the powers in the Bill. We published a right-by-right analysis of the charter of fundamental rights, setting out how each substantive right found in the charter will be reflected in UK domestic law. It looks at how the right flows through retained EU law and how it is otherwise protected by existing domestic law or international law after exit.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Davis
If you forgive me, Mr Speaker, I am going to do two things I have never done before: not take interventions, which I have always taken before; and I am breaking that habit of a lifetime to allow time for the Scot Nats to put their reasoned amendment. [Interruption.] It is very much a lifetime first for me to be polite to the Scot Nats.
We have also brought forward amendments to provide greater certainty on how imminent or impending legal cases will be dealt with from the day we leave the EU. We committed to bring forward separate primary legislation in due course that would implement the withdrawal agreement, including an implementation period, and we set out the provisions for a vote on the final deal and the processes for implementing whatever is agreed. Linked to this, we respect the decision of this House to limit the power in clause 9, so that it cannot be used before primary legislation approving the terms of the withdrawal agreement has been enacted.
Perhaps most notably—and happily for me—we have listened to the concerns expressed about the scrutiny of secondary legislation. On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) shared her concerns about the process of scrutinising the 800 to 1,000 statutory instruments required under this Bill. I made it clear then that we would happily discuss the feasibility of establishing a triage process. With this in mind, the Government welcomed amendments made to the Bill proposed by the Procedure Committee to establish such a sifting Committee. I hope that all Members agree that we have approached scrutiny of this vital piece of legislation in a pragmatic way and worked collaboratively to improve the Bill.
We have also intensified our positive discussions with the devolved Administrations and legislatures to find an agreed approach to clause 11, and we intend to bring forward amendments in the other place.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr Davis
No, I will not.
We are committed to achieving legislative consent for this vital piece of legislation. We are sending an improved piece of legislation onwards to the other place and I hope that that House will acknowledge the substance and spirit of the debate and scrutiny this Bill has received thus far and that debate there will unfold in the same constructive way in which it has in our House.
The scrutiny of this vital legislation remains one of the most important tasks that we parliamentarians have had before us for some time. I believe that this House is risen to the occasion by ensuring that the Bill continues its journey throughout Parliament in a much improved form. I commend it to the House, and I believe that this is an historic occasion.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
This Bill has never been fit for purpose. It was not fit for purpose when it started its life last year, and after 64 hours in Committee and 10 hours on Report it is still not fit for purpose. We have repeatedly pointed to six serious defects in the Bill. We pointed them out when the White Paper was published 10 months ago, in March last year. We pointed them out again when the Bill was first published in July last year, and I wrote to the Secretary of State setting out those six serious defects and inviting him to address them before the debate on Second Reading. He declined to do so. We pointed them out on Second Reading in September and we pointed them out again in Committee, but we have been talking to a brick wall. The Government have not accepted any of the points that the Opposition have made. They have conceded some ground on their own side, but they have not taken seriously the propositions and arguments that we on this side have put forward. In my experience of dealing with Bills, that is unusual. They have simply robotically voted down all Opposition amendments.
Let me start with the shenanigans surrounding exit day. For purely political reasons, the Government introduced a gimmick amendment to fix exit day in the Bill at 11 o’clock on 29 March 2019 for all purposes. I have no doubt that if a vote on that amendment had been taken on day one in Committee, the Government would have suffered another loss on this Bill because it was so obviously a defective amendment. It was absurd in so many respects that it is hard to know where to start. Let me deal with clause 6(1), which states:
“A court or tribunal…is not bound by any principles laid down, or any decisions made, on or after exit day by the European Court, and…cannot refer any matter to the European Court on or after exit day.”
So clause 6(1), as amended, means that there cannot be any reference to the European Court of Justice after 29 March 2019. However, in December, the Government committed in phase 1 to allowing EU citizens to refer to that Court for another eight years after article 50. Their amendment disables that. It is inconsistent with phase 1. Moreover, we have consistently said that there will have to be transitional measures in relation to article 50, and they will have to be on the same basic terms as we have now, which means staying in the single market and the customs union and under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. So putting an amendment into the Bill that disables the European Court of Justice is inconsistent with the transitional measures.
I acknowledge that the Government have accepted—as they had to—an amendment to their own amendment, but that does not remedy the defect. All it does is tidy up the problem if there is an extension of article 50. It does not enable transitional arrangements on the same basic terms as now, which is what will be needed, and it does not enable EU citizens to exercise the rights that the Government guaranteed to them in the phase 1 agreement. So we are now in a ridiculous position.
I have pretty well given up on predictions, but it seems to me that the Government will now be bound to introduce subsequent legislation to amend this Bill before it comes into force. They will have to do that. It is one thing to pass a Bill and say that there might come a time when it has to be amended. It is another thing to pass a Bill knowing that between now and its coming into force, they will have to intercept it again to disable a provision that they are putting into the Bill. That is how absurd this has got—[Interruption.] Well, let us see whether there is an amendment to repeal this provision next time we are here. If there is not, we will lose the jurisdiction of the Court just at the time when the Government have promised EU citizens they will continue to have it.
As I made clear on Second Reading, thousands of provisions are being converted into our law, and the charter of fundamental rights is apparently the only one that cannot be converted. That is nonsense. The Government are being driven by ideology, not law.
The Government’s defence of their position is in tatters. The Secretary of State says it does not matter because the charter never added any rights, overlooking, of course, the case he brought against the then Home Secretary. His junior Minister, the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes), whom I welcome to her place, says the complete opposite. She wrote an article in The Daily Telegraph expressing her concern and objecting to the charter precisely because it does add rights. I do not think that is the only issue on which she agrees to disagree with the Secretary of State. I do not know what team meetings are like in these early days, but I would like to be a fly on the wall as they try to reconcile their irreconcilable views on how we deal with Brexit.
Of course, the truth is that some of the rights are covered elsewhere, but others are not. The exercise the Government carried out proves the point—the Government’s position is deeply unpersuasive. The whole point of the charter was to gather all the rights and protections that existed discretely in other places and put them into one document. The Government have now decided that the best strategy is to scatter them back to where they started.
When pressed forcefully by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) on the simple question why on earth the Government are doing this, the Solicitor General was driven yesterday to the answer that the sole intention is to avoid chaos. Well, that is what the charter looks like—a slim document that sets out the rights clearly—and this is the Government’s alternative: 73 pages of material telling people where to look for other sources on their rights. One is clear and the other is chaos.
The delegated powers in this Bill are far too widely drawn, and they are still subject to far too little parliamentary scrutiny. In Committee and on Report, the Government have ignored concerns that the delegated powers should be used only where necessary, that enforcement mechanisms should not be abolished by delegated powers and that rights and protections should not be taken away by delegated powers. The proposed shifting Committee—sifting Committee simply is not sufficient to scrutinise—[Interruption.] I had “shifty” on my mind when I looked up momentarily and saw the Secretary of State.
That is not the only cause for concern. Until exit, many EU-derived rights and protections are protected because of our membership of the EU. The protection falls away as we leave the EU, and that is not an idle point. The Bill leaves areas of employment law, such as the transfer of undertakings, annual leave regulations and the working time directive, vulnerable to Ministers with wide delegated powers. Those areas will no longer be protected. Our simple proposal that primary legislation should be used to alter those rights has been rebuffed at every turn.
There is a pretty united view on both sides of the House that clause 11 is defective, and Scottish Conservative Members have argued that the clause is not fit for purpose. The Government said they would table an amendment on Report, which has come and gone with no amendment. Unless the Lords puts this right, a Bill with a serious defect will be passed by Parliament. The Government might have a defence if this issue had arisen at a late stage, but this is one of the issues we raised in March 2017, and it has been raised by everyone who has read the Bill since. In 10 months, there has been no progress. The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), a Conservative, said yesterday that he is deeply “disappointed, dissatisfied and frustrated”. As he rightly said, it is not appropriate for the Government to blame outside influences for the lack of amendment on this issue. Members on both sides of the House will have to ask themselves whether they are willing to wave through a Bill that they know will weaken the devolution settlement of the devolved Administrations. On this side of the House, we are not willing to take that risk.
Let me turn to the sixth issue, which is the meaningful vote on article 50. This is the one area where change has been forced by a vote in this House. The Government of course fought that tooth and nail. To those Conservative Members who voted on that issue and pushed it, and were as a result described as “traitors” and “mutineers”, may I just say thank you? I thank them for standing up for what was right when others told them to stay sitting down. That vote was an important step forward. As we have long maintained, it is crucial to ensure this House has a say on the article 50 deal. How it will operate is still not clear, so let me put the Government on notice: we on this side of the House, and I am sure some on the other side, will be watching like hawks for any backsliding. This has been described as “a meaningful vote” and it must be meaningful. So let me be clear: if the Prime Minister thinks she can come to this House, put forward her proposed article 50 deal, lose that vote and carry on regardless or walk the UK off a cliff with no deal, she has got another think coming.
In conclusion, I thank all those who have spoken in these debates. I thank both Front-Bench teams, particularly my own, who have done so much hard work. I also thank the Clerks of the House and the Public Bill Office for the extraordinary support they have given to my team and Members from across the House. From this side of the House, may I also thank the Department for Exiting the European Union staff, who have worked so hard? They may or may not have liked the instructions they were working to—I do not know that—but they have worked very hard on all the tasks that have been given to them, and we sometimes forget the amount of work they put in. At times, this House has been at its best during the passage of this Bill, while the Government have been at their worst. They have been unwilling to listen to reason, unwilling to reflect on the obvious defects in this legislation and unwilling to ensure this Bill is fit for the incredibly important purpose it seeks to achieve. The Government have simply ploughed on. They have sidelined Parliament and made a mockery of the phrase “Take back control”. For those reasons, Labour will vote against this Bill tonight.
Sir William Cash
In brief, this Bill, with clause 1, which says that we are repealing the European Communities Act 1972, reflects the will of the people on 23 June 2016 and the will of this House, as expressed in the votes. So there are two absolutely valid reasons why this Bill must go through: it represents the will of the people outside the House; and it represents the will of the people inside the House. Therefore, I say one thing only when it goes to the House of Lords: those in the House of Lords must surely realise that they agreed to the European Union Referendum Act 2015, a sovereign Act of Parliament, which went through and enabled the question of whether we leave or remain in the European Community to be decided by the people outside. That was a transfer of power deliberately taken by this House and it must be carried through.
That is all I need to say, other than that for 33 years it has been my privilege to try to fight for this proposal and I am deeply grateful to all the people in the House who have agreed to it and to those who have exercised their democratic right to oppose those views.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House regrets the non-appearance of any Government amendments to Clause 11 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill despite the announcement by the Secretary of State for Scotland that the Government intended to table them for Report Stage and declines to give a Third Reading to the Bill because it is not fit for purpose as it undermines the fundamental principles of the Scotland Act 1998 by reserving to the UK Parliament powers that would otherwise be devolved to the Scottish Parliament on the UK leaving the European Union.”
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the way you have made sure that these proceedings have been conducted in an admirable manner over the past few weeks, and I thank all those who have contributed. I have to thank the Secretary of State for the courteous way he has always behaved in his dealings with us in this Chamber and of course elsewhere—we do not take that for granted.
It grieves me to have to move the SNP’s reasoned amendment that would decline the Bill a Third Reading because I would like to be in a situation in which we were not doing so. Over the past five months, we have seen the Government ducking and diving any responsibility for the legal and constitutional make-up of the UK by railroading through Parliament a car-crash plan to leave the EU.
The Secretary of State for Scotland should be ashamed of himself. First, he promised the people of Scotland that the Bill would result in a powers bonanza; then he slapped us with clause 11—the now famous power-grab element of the legislation—the extent of which is not only staggering but an absolute constitutional outrage. Even the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton), who is in his place, has been clear, noting in this House that
“clause 11…is not fit for purpose”.—[Official Report, 4 December 2017; Vol. 632, c. 731.]
In 1997, the people of Scotland voted for the reconvening of the Scottish Parliament. Clause 11 represents a massive power grab that undermines the very principles on which the Scottish Parliament was established. The Scottish Government have published a list of 111 powers that are at risk from the clause, and just last week the Scottish Parliament’s Finance and Constitution Committee agreed unanimously not to recommend that the Scottish Parliament give legislative consent to the Bill. The Committee found clause 11 to be incompatible with devolution.
The Secretary of State for Scotland himself admitted that the Bill needed to be amended, which brings me to the latest insult that the Government have afforded to all the people of Scotland. In December, the Secretary of State promised that the Government would table amendments to clause 11 on Report. Report has obviously passed and not one single promised Government amendment was tabled to clause 11. Statements and promises made at the Dispatch Box cannot be sidestepped or ignored. The failure to deliver on commitments made at the Dispatch Box undermines the integrity of political office and undermines our democracy, never mind the democratic rights of the devolved institutions that we are seeking to protect. I am not talking about some abstract principle; I am talking about the rights hard won and delivered with, for example, the passing of the Scotland Act 1998, which brought in devolution. It is an insult to the people of Scotland, who are growing weary of a Conservative Government who promise everything and deliver nothing.
Last night, we saw the Scottish Tories traipse through the Lobby under the command of their London leader. They are just Lobby fodder here. How will they explain themselves to their branch manager in Holyrood? The Bill will carry on to the House of Lords. It is almost as if the Government are now acting as the independence movement for Scotland. The arrogance of those who think that the introduction of amendments on the legislative competence of the democratically elected Scottish Parliament can be implemented by unelected peers is an affront to democracy.
I echo some of the fundamental concerns about other parts of the Bill that only compound our opposition to it. There have been some dignified and honourable speeches from Members during the Bill’s journey so far, but the Government’s approach to the Bill and their attitude in respect of clause 11 is simply not good enough. A wise man once said that having a majority of seats did not mean having a monopoly on wisdom. I call on the Prime Minister to heed that advice. The Bill needs to be changed fundamentally, and the Government need to adopt a new approach fast, or they will trigger a constitutional crisis of their own making.
Conservatives should remember that their standing in face of demands for the re-establishment of the Scottish Parliament contributed to the wipeout of Conservative MPs from Scotland in 1997. What happened yesterday was a failure of the Government and Scottish Tory MPs to defend our national interests and those of their own constituents. History is repeating itself. What are the Scottish Tories here for? Will they join us in standing up for Scotland’s interests? Tonight, by supporting our reasoned amendment, Parliament has the opportunity to remove itself from encroaching on the devolution settlement. Members of this House have the opportunity to protect the constitutional rights of devolved Administrations. We cannot allow the responsibility for digging the Government out of their task in this House to be taken by the House of Lords.
In conclusion—[Interruption.] The Tories can cheer, but the fact remains that the people of Scotland will be watching and will be aware of the fact that the Scottish Parliament has been stripped of its rights. In declining a Third Reading this evening, we send a clear signal to the Government that this House cannot allow the commitments made and broken to pass. It is the last chance for Scottish Tory MPs to join us and to stand up for the devolved settlement. It is for the people of Scotland to determine their constitutional future. We cannot pass that power to the unelected House of Lords. The irony that the Lords, not the Commons, has the responsibility for protecting Scotland’s interests will not be lost on people. I say to the Scottish Tory MPs that they should join us in the Lobby tonight or ultimately pay the price. Scotland is watching.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The shadow Secretary of State said that this Bill is not fit for purpose, and I agree with him. It is not fit for purpose for staying in the EU, but it is fit for purpose for implementing the greatest festival of democracy that this country has ever known. In June 2016, 17 million of our citizens voted to leave the EU, and all this Government are doing is implementing that decision in a positive way that will ensure that we are generous to all the EU citizens who live here, generous in terms of the EU budget and, in this Bill, generous in taking all EU laws and directives into our law.
In Zurich in 1946, Winston Churchill outlined his vision for Europe, but he made it clear that we should not be part of that united Europe. In 1972, plagued with self-doubt, we joined the European Union. Tonight—this historic moment—we plough a new historic course to create a world fit for free trade. Vote for the Third Reading.
Hilary Benn
This Bill is necessary but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) so eloquently pointed out, deeply flawed. Despite the changes that have been made, it remains deeply flawed, and their lordships will have a lot of work to do as it passes down the corridor. I welcome the Government’s move to accept the need for primary legislation to implement the withdrawal agreement, but the task now for the House as we watch the Bill depart is to think about the future.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) talked about a vision, but let us tell each other the truth. At the moment, we have no idea what is going to go into the withdrawal agreement, partly because it has not yet been negotiated, but mainly because the Cabinet is yet to decide what it wishes to ask for, and the House should be really rather anxious about the position that we find ourselves in. The referendum result was 19 months ago, but there are only nine months to go until the negotiations are meant to end, and the discussions on our future trading arrangements may not begin until March. The House will be very concerned about that position.
The truth is that the Government cannot reach agreement. The truth is that they are probably the first Government in history to go into negotiations knowing that they will almost certainly end up with a worse deal than we currently have because of the red lines that they have chosen to put in place, and knowing that it will not therefore be possible to honour the promise that has been made to the people of Northern Ireland and indeed of the Republic about an open border. Therefore, if I have one plea, as we see this Bill depart for now, it is that the Government will, very quickly, do their job and set out for this House and for the British people what it is that they are seeking, because when we come to that meaningful vote, believe you me, this House will ensure that it is meaningful when it comes to decisions about our future.
Anna Soubry
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) will go down in the history books as one of the great parliamentarians, as he has shown great courage and leadership in making what he rightly described a monstrosity certainly more palatable. That is why I and no doubt many others will now vote for this Bill on Third Reading. It delivers what it sets out to do, which is this transposing of law, and that is right, but it is by no means perfect and we have yet to discuss the big issues that divide our nation.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice on how to inform the House of some breaking news coming out of the Welsh national Parliament. Assembly Members have unanimously supported the introduction of a Welsh continuity Bill to put a halt to the Westminster power grab. So great is the constitutional encroachment of the Westminster Government that this Bill to support Welsh democracy is supported by not only Plaid Cymru, but the Welsh Conservative party and the UK Independence party. This is of great constitutional significance, with implications for the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which has just received its Third Reading.
Mr Speaker
Whether it is a matter of great constitutional significance is not for me to say. It is, however, not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Lady inquires how she can achieve her objective, and the answer is that she has done so—it is on the record.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Thursday 18th January 2018
(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 17 January 2018 - (17 Jan 2018)
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 31st January 2018
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Excel spreadsheet of New Clauses and Amendments considered at Report Stage (VND.OPENXMLFORMATS-OFFICEDOCUMENT.SPREADSHEETML.SHEET, 15KB) - (29 Jan 2018)
Lord Adonis
At end to insert “but that this House regrets that the bill makes no provision for the opinion of the people to be secured on the terms on which Her Majesty’s Government propose that the United Kingdom withdraw from the European Union”.
Relevant document: 9th Report from the Constitution Committee
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I begin today’s debate following on from my noble friend Lady Morris of Bolton. I agree with her that we must push ahead with this Bill and give it a Second Reading. Preserving existing EU law as it currently applies to the UK is essential in providing continuity and legal certainty on the day of, and in the days after, exit. This does not mean that I am totally without concerns about the Bill as it currently stands, but it will be up to noble Lords to engage in discussions in Committee and during the following stages of the Bill.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Leader of the House for restating the Government’s proposal to create a sifting committee or committees. Perhaps in winding up the debate the Minister will be able to update us on this matter. Could he also give us more details as to the timetable envisaged? I believe that we have a very tight timetable, not only for primary legislation but for the handling of negative instruments and for the necessary robust scrutiny by the various committees. Is the Minister able to tell us exactly what proportion of the 800-plus—some say 1,000-plus—statutory instruments that it will be necessary to lay will follow the negative procedure and how many might follow the affirmative procedure? I am not clear on that point. Can he also comment on the safeguards that will ensure that these are made by the dates laid down in law?
My concerns with this Bill fall mainly in three parts: first, the role of Parliament and the Henry VIII powers in the Bill as it currently stands; secondly, devolution; and, thirdly, the timetable for and the importance of proper scrutiny. My noble friend Lord Hill described the Bill as boring, but I do not agree. For me, this is probably one of the most important Bills we shall be dealing with for a long time. It is an opportunity to ensure that we have the right—I was going to say “appropriate”, but after yesterday’s discussion on that word, I will say “right”—clauses and detail when the Bill leaves this House. My right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith said that he supported the principle of the Bill and the need for it, but recognised that,
“in Committee there will be need to review how some of those checks and balances are introduced, and I hope that is done properly and powerfully”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/9/17; col. 378.]
I can think of no better Chamber to do that, and I look forward to noble Lords taking part in it.
Many noble Lords know my interest in agriculture, the countryside and the environment. A high proportion of the necessary legislative changes fall within the agriculture and environment arena, for which Defra has responsibility. I particularly welcome the Government’s recognition of the importance of maintaining standards of animal welfare and for bringing forward the draft animal welfare and recognition of sentience Bill. I know too that there is to be a consultation on fishing and fish stocks. Crucially, this must directly consult with the devolved Administrations.
An agriculture Bill is proposed, as is the creation of a stand-alone, non-government statutory body to oversee, scrutinise and hold the Government to account. I do not share the gloom of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, but I know that this new body needs to be robust if it is to succeed in protecting the environment for future generations. Yesterday, in his contribution the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, spoke about the need to preserve the things that affect us all: air quality, fresh water, habitats and tackling pollution. All of these are currently EU based, so it is crucial that this new body is in place in time before we exit the EU.
Many noble Lords have made excellent contributions to this debate, expressing many different views, but I hope all of us believe that we must move this Bill forward whatever our views are, whether we were for leaving or remaining within the EU. There is a great urgency in getting this Bill on the legislative path. Whatever our views, we must join together and make sure that this important Bill is on the statute book sooner rather than later.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, said yesterday: this Bill is a dagger to my heart. I am overcome by three emotions. The first is a sense of shame, which I feel many Members in this House must share, that over decades our political leadership failed to make the case for Europe. The referendum should never have been called, and the leave vote should never have won.
The second is a personal sadness. I am proud to represent on Cumbria County Council a town called Wigton. Its most famous son is my noble friend Lord Bragg, who has just been awarded the companion of honour. Wigton voted strongly to leave. I love my leave constituents—I really do. Yes, they voted to take back control. They are no fans of EU remoteness or bureaucracy, and nor am I. But their revolt was against an economy that is grossly out of balance, a world of work that no longer offers self-respect and a lack of opportunity that means that more than half their children leave their home area after school and never come back. Their grievances have, for too long, been allowed to fester. The seeds of anti-immigration populism were sown for the unscrupulous to exploit. Where now is the modern regional policy, the New Deal for the north and Midlands, the Marshall plan for the left behind that England needs? It is nowhere under this Government. They are suffocated by a pursuit of Brexit that can only make Wigton’s problems worse.
My third emotion is a determination that the bunch of scoundrels who propagated their Brexit lies are not going to get away with it. As a citizen and Labour activist, I will fight Brexit to the last. Yet as a Member of this House I understand our role. Yes, I will work for amendments to this Bill that soften the impact of Brexit, safeguard essential rights, weaken the extraordinary powers the Bill grants to the Executive to override the legislature, protect our devolution settlement and give Parliament a meaningful vote on no deal as well as any deal.
But does this response to a highly technical Bill measure up to the scale of events and our constitutional responsibilities? This clueless Government are pursuing a “I haven’t got a clue” Brexit. The only basis on which the Prime Minister can unite her party is pursuing a Brexit that knows not where it leads. In December, to keep the Irish quiet, the Prime Minister signed up to full alignment. Last week, to hang on to her job, she attacked her Chancellor for having the temerity to suggest that Brexit would lead only to very modest changes. In Brussels, the Prime Minister pleads with our EU partners for a deep and special partnership. Back home, she assures the Brexiteers it will be deep only for as long as they want it to be, and Britain will have the freedom to diverge whenever it wants—in Michael Gove’s case, probably before the ink is dry on the treaty. Is it deep and special? I call it shallow and perfidious, and as a negotiating strategy it is a totally unrealistic fantasy.
What has been striking about this debate so far is the lack of any positive vision for Brexit. How can Britain proceed with the most momentous decision on its future since the Second World War when no one is seemingly capable of explaining what our Brexit future will be? “Ah,” people say, “the people have decided, and the will of the people must be obeyed”. This is, frankly, thin gruel. In a democracy, the public are entitled to change their mind, and the rest of Europe keeps telling us that Article 50 can be reversed at any time. The leave option that seemed so simple when people voted in June 2016 is now so complex, and the only question before us is how big the Brexit damage will be.
The job of Parliament is to challenge the vacuum into which at present the Government are leading us. How can we make a real difference? The first way is to press the Commons relentlessly to vote to stay in the single market and customs union—better to be a rule-taker of European laws that have a progressive European vocation at their heart than a theoretically sovereign rule-maker that in practice will be driven to use its new freedoms only to break free of decent European standards in pursuit of some deregulated mid-Atlantic tax haven. I say to Jacob Rees-Mogg that what he derides as a vassal state would be a failed state.
Secondly, if we cannot win the single market, let us help bring on the storm—which the noble Lord, Lord Patten, talked about in his brilliant speech—that could reverse Brexit by forcing a general election or another referendum. I agree so much with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in his magnificent defence of representative democracy, but if it comes to it and a referendum is the only way of reversing this historic mistake, we must accept it and, indeed, advocate it.
In conclusion, this brings me to Labour. Europe is in a category of its own in terms of its impact on future generations. It transcends any party manifesto or Whip, I say to my noble friend. I do not want to be a rebel; I want our party to lead, to seize this opportunity to demonstrate that, in contrast to this wretched Government, we can live up to our national responsibilities and our internationalist heritage. I say to my colleagues on these Benches: let us do our bit to make it happen.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the powerful contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, every word of which I agree with. I fear that my contribution will be more like “Just a Minute”—there is no hesitation but definitely quite a lot of repetition and a certain amount of deviation.
I would like to believe the Government when they say that everything will be all right, everything will be transferred into UK law, the Government will maintain our environmental standards, I need not worry about the precautionary principle and it is not a problem if retained law is not quite the same. Of course, with the best of intentions all the EU directives that have kept us on the straight and narrow will still be underpinned. Of course, Ministers will not under any circumstances misuse statutory instruments. I would love to believe the Government. I almost believe that they have good intentions, but you know what they say: “The path to hell is paved with good intentions”. Good intentions are not adequate. The Government could give no assurances of good intentions that would satisfy me. The law, the face of the Bill, is the only place where doubts, concerns and worries can be laid to rest.
There is a governance gap in environmental standards. While the Government can say that standards will be maintained, where is the equivalent legal last resort to replace the force of the ECJ? Judicial review is not an answer. Fear of infraction concentrated ministerial minds on meeting legal obligations, but there is no enforcement in the Bill or even reporting obligations. We cannot and must not have a diminution of environmental rights. Without the protection of primary legislation, we cannot accept words alone. It is no wonder that so many Members of the other House expressed so much concern over the Bill giving Ministers the power to change primary legislation with a test that is as flimsy as whether Ministers think it appropriate. There has to be a legal test as to whether it is necessary, at the very least.
One of the key principles under EU law has been the precautionary principle, which forces those whose actions might harm the environment to prove in law to the contrary. The Bill rules this out. It also rules out the polluter pays principle. These are protections that have stood us in good stead. The precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle have kept us on the straight and narrow. They have forced us in the right direction, but they are explicitly ruled out in Schedule 1, so where are those protections to come from in future? The Government continually reiterate that there will be legal continuity, but that is not in fact the case. The Government must enshrine EU environmental principles in domestic law.
Alongside the principles, there is also a need to carry across provisions from EU directives that are not transposed into UK law. Some parts of EU law did not need transposition while we were a member state, but they need it now. We have to have the ability—nay, we have the obligation—to put right any deficiency in terms of failure to transpose EU law: it must be a duty and not simply a power. If Brexit comes to pass—and I still hang on to my “if”—we must be sure that laws that are currently EU regulations and laws that implement EU directives are transposed into UK law with the same force and intent as when we were a member state. On Report in the other place, there was cross-party support for new Clause 13 on the certainty of retained EU law.
The Government are trying to assuage the many concerns that we have in this regard by proposing that each measure will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. That gives no comfort to those of us who suspect that the Government wish to find a way of moving away from these strictures. As energy and climate change spokesperson, I have huge concerns about a whole range of threats in that regard related to our departure from the EU.
I want to touch on our membership of the internal energy market. If we continue to participate—and of course we must—we will be obliged to comply with the relevant EU legislation. We need to continue to be as influential over EU energy post Brexit if we are to ensure that energy trading works to the benefit of UK consumers. The Government claim that they want to hold consumer energy bills down, so this is vital. Unless we adopt the energy acquis, we will not be able to maintain membership of the relevant bodies. Without proper management, this could lead to higher energy prices and energy supply shortages.
There is still no certainty about our continued membership of the internal energy market. If we leave it, what will happen if we have a gas security incident? Currently, there is an obligation on all members to meet the essential energy needs of any member state before the non-essential needs of their own. That is there to prevent a country from having a total power failure. If we leave the energy market and we have an issue with our gas supply, member states will no longer have an obligation to help us. We will be at the back of the queue and I do not think that Europe will be very kind to us.
Equally, with interconnectors, we could, if things get bad, be unable to export gas to the continent. Northern Ireland and Ireland have a single energy market and have interconnectors between them and the UK mainland. As Ireland will remain a member of the energy market and will obviously want to go on trading energy with mainland Europe, it will have to pass through the UK, a non-member.
There is no economic upside to Brexit in the case of energy—or actually anything—only possible downsides, and the positive pan-European climate efforts about which we have all been so enthusiastic and which are so necessary to our commitments to the Paris Agreement and our own Climate Change Act may be undermined.
Baroness Boothroyd (CB)
My Lords, I admit at the outset that the referendum result was a very bad, sad day for me, but that is democracy for you and I am not reneging on it. I wrote an article during the campaign for a national newspaper urging my side of the argument to campaign with greater passion and vigour, but it had little effect and we lost. It is not the first time that I have been on the losing side.
So I am all the more bemused now to find that it is the winning side that is blowing a fuse because of the confusion that its victory has created—confusion inside government, in industry and commerce, in the City of London, in the European Union and across the wider world. I do not recall a comparable crisis of such prolonged intensity and danger to the national interest and the country’s future as a United Kingdom.
Regardless of how we voted in the referendum or what we think of the Government’s squabbling factions now, the duty of your Lordships’ House is very clear. That, I submit, is to assert our rights to scrutinise, amend and, if needs be, to reject unacceptable parts of this Bill and to use the entire arsenal of our powers and prerogatives to limit the damage that threatens the sovereignty of Parliament and the national interest. Let us put aside partisan allegiances on this issue. Nothing less than the nation’s future is now at stake and that is surely more important than veiled threats to the leadership of a divided party and a possible change of government that would start the process all over again. This is no time for self-indulgence.
If this House can help the Government to contribute some sense to this important Bill, it should do so. The report from the Constitution Committee shows what needs to be done. Similarly, if some of the arguments tabled by opposition parties or independent groups improve the legislation, we should give them a proper, fair hearing.
In my book, parliamentary democracy has always meant that parties that win elections or referendums do not take all the spoils of victory. They may call the tune, but they are not in the divine position of writing every note of the score. In a democracy, winners do not take all. In my experience, reflection and well-considered second thoughts oil the wheels of a liberal state and a free society.
Accusations by ill-informed pundits—mainly in the media—against this House and our alleged irrelevance belie the facts. If Parliament does its job in making this Bill and the legislation that follows in the coming months fit for purpose, I see no reason for a second referendum, but we must end the pretence that the referendum was the last word on Britain’s future in Europe. We are no longer debating a slogan on the side of a bus; that is long gone. Legally and constitutionally, this Bill must be made copper-bottomed, iron-clad and storm-proof before our statutes can revert to their made-in-UK format and we can examine the decades of made-in-Brussels directives. I believe that the Constitution Committee of this House has shown the way. Its findings should not be ignored.
Unless the Bill is made fit for purpose, the Prime Minister’s call for frictionless access to the European market, on which our economy depends and which future generations seek to enjoy, will remain a pipe dream and we, as parliamentarians, will have failed in our duty.
Viscount Astor (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the powerful speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. In preparing for this debate, I looked up the Hansard debates on joining the European Union in 1972. Two things stood out. First, how few Members of this House spoke then—19, as opposed to 190 today. Secondly, how the warnings from Lord George-Brown, then dismissed as scaremongering, seem to have come true. I am not entirely sure what lessons we must learn from those debates except, perhaps, one. Whatever one says in this House will probably turn out to be true at some point, even if it takes 45 years.
I spoke in this House and campaigned in the referendum in favour of staying in the European Union. We lost the argument. The British people wanted their sovereignty back. We addressed lots of economic arguments and offered a good deal, with substantial reforms, to stay in. It was difficult, if not almost impossible, to explain. We did not deal with the basic concerns about sovereignty—the control which the British people wanted returned from the unelected in Brussels to their elected representatives here in Westminster.
I want to take issue with those who say that the British people did not understand what they were voting for. I think they did; they had a greater understanding than some of their elected representatives. Some were surprised by the result but, after all, the referendum result just reflected the view of a majority of the British people which has been growing for the last decade.
I have never been elected, but I have campaigned in every general election since 1974. I cannot think of a general election result when we won but did not deserve to win, or when we lost but did not deserve to lose. When it comes to politics, the British people usually get it right. As we know from Ken Clarke, you do not have to have read every detail of the EU treaty to be either for or against.
We have 10 days in Committee, as well as Report and Third Reading, where there will be plenty of opportunity for this House to act as it should. If necessary it can revise, or ask the Commons to think again, but not wreck nor block this Bill. There are those who want to destroy the Bill and force a constitutional impasse that might result in the Bill being lost. That would be a disaster for this House. Their outcome, of course, is Brexit denied, but the result would be a constitutional uproar, which would lead either to the reform of this House or, probably, to the abolition of a second Chamber.
I want this Government to get the best deal they can for our future relationship with the EU. Our future is not bleak; it may be different, but we will continue to trade with Europe and with the rest of the world. My noble friend Lord Hill of Oareford was absolutely right when he said yesterday that,
“we must surely place a greater priority on being able to shape our own future than on preserving the status quo”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1389.]
Staying in the single market and the customs union for ever would be the worst of both worlds: we would be unable to influence the rules of the single market and unable to negotiate our own free trade agreements. Of course, there are still difficult issues to be dealt with, including Northern Ireland and our relationships with the other devolved Administrations, and, not least, the Henry VIII powers in the Bill.
The process of leaving the European Union is one of unprecedented scale and complexity. As well as giving effect to the will of the people to take back control of our laws, the Government must be able to deliver Brexit while ensuring certainty for people and for businesses. As many noble Lords have said during the debate, we need more clarity from the Government on how they see our future outside the European Union. A chaotic Brexit, without a solid legal foundation, would not be in the national interest. The Government need to be able to adapt the laws we are repatriating to the new situation of being outside the European Union.
While I understand the concerns raised about the scope of the Henry VIII powers, I am concerned that Parliament will not have the time it would need to make all those changes before we leave. I agree, however, that Henry VIII powers should, if possible, be brought in by the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. Perhaps we should not be afraid in this House of rejecting affirmative instruments if we feel they are wrong and that we should ask the other place to think again.
The Government have chosen an extraordinary approach, but these are extraordinary times. We all have the right to hold different views, to argue our case and to persuade others to change their mind, but we should not thwart the will of the people as expressed in the referendum and in the recent general election. It is worth reminding those who complain about the referendum that it was a manifesto commitment by the party that won the subsequent general election, and it was then passed in the House of Commons by a vote of 554 for and only 53 against—a majority by all the main parties except the Scots nats.
This Bill is not about the terms of our exit but about the mechanism of how it will happen. We should not be distracted by debates on the merits or detriments of leaving the European Union. The Government themselves have made a commitment to ensure that Parliament will have the opportunity to consider the deal and approve what they have negotiated. We do not need another referendum, and this Bill is not the place for a referendum clause. As my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom pointed out, if there were to be a referendum, no one could agree when it would happen or what the question would be. But we do need parliamentary scrutiny, and that started yesterday in this House. Therefore, I welcome the Bill and look forward to the subsequent stages of Committee, Report and Third Reading.
Lord Radice (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, on his speech. I particularly noted his warning about the dangers of a chaotic Brexit, to which I will return in a few moments. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Liddle and the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, on their magnificent speeches.
I have not spoken on Europe since the immediate post-referendum debate. Some noble Lords may think that a very good thing, but, to other colleagues, I would like to explain the reason. It certainly has not been a question of my changing my mind on Europe.
My personal Damascus came when I was 18. It was 10 years after the end of the war, in the summer of 1955. I was between leaving school and my national service, and I set out to bicycle from Rotterdam to Rome—I admit that I took one or two trains. As the Foreign Ministers of the six prepared for the momentous Messina Conference, which launched the common market, I mostly pedalled along the roads and lanes of northern Europe. At night I stayed at youth hostels, where I discussed with my continental contemporaries hopes of building a new and better Europe in which war would be ended for ever and prosperity for all would be assured. It became clear to me that not only was it right that Europeans, or continentals, should unite together, but Britain should not stand aside from such a constructive and imaginative project. I still strongly believe that a medium-sized European power such as Britain should join with its neighbours for the good of its own citizens and of our continental friends.
Turning to the present and the referendum, even though it was a narrow victory for the leavers and it has divided the country almost in half, all the same I accept the result, if with a very heavy heart. I also thought that the Cabinet and the Prime Minister ought to be given a chance to negotiate our departure, which I suspected would be extremely complex. But even I, a dyed-in-the-wool pro-European, did not think the Government would make such an awful mess of things. The first phase has taken far too long—so much so that we now face the pressure of what Mr Barnier calls the ticking clock; you can almost hear it now.
One might have hoped that things would get better from now on, but I am afraid that has not been the case. One problem is that the Prime Minister has made a whole lot of unfortunate soundbites designed not to help the negotiations, but to appease the Eurosceptics. “Brexit means Brexit”—she clearly thought that that was a clever remark to make. On the contrary, it is deeply confusing and ambivalent. What kind Brexit does she mean: a hard or a soft one? Then there was, “No deal is better than a bad deal”. The Select Committee has dealt with that, pointing out that a bad deal would be a disaster for the whole country. Then there is, “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”. That is a fine sort of thing to encourage one’s negotiating partner.
The worst mistake of all is that the Government have announced their red lines without deciding on their objectives. The truth, as we all know, is that the Cabinet is deeply divided between the “Get out whatever the cost” group and those who think that the UK’s economic future should be taken into account. Sadly, the Prime Minister has so far proved undecided, if that is the right word, between those two factions.
There are many speakers who are far more expert than me on the legal and other parts of the Bill and the need to improve it, including the very excellent chairman of the Select Committee on the Constitution. During the passage of the Bill I will concentrate on Clauses 9 and 14, because these need strengthening to give the essential strength to Parliament to make its role meaningful in deciding whether the Government have achieved a successful outcome to the negotiations—in my view, that is key to the Bill—one that takes into account the economic and strategic interests of this great nation of ours.
My final point is a more comforting one in what I believe is a sad situation. Both the referendum and the more recent general election have made me draw the conclusion that if our generation lets the country down, the next generation—that of our children and our grandchildren—will not stand for a botched result that divides this country artificially from its natural partners. I hope it does not happen.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Radice, as it is to act as warm-up man for the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.
I refer the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, to the excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, in which he explained very clearly why many of us cannot follow her advice simply to get the Bill through as a technical Bill. The problem we have had right from the start—from the consultative referendum, to the Article 50 vote to this vote—is that as soon as the vote is over the Government put on the ratchet and say, “Well, you can’t go back now; we had a 500 majority for this”. Parliament must continue to keep its eye on what is happening and make decisions that are relevant.
Just over a week ago, Juliet Samuel wrote in the Daily Telegraph:
“This year, the Government has to conduct one of the most difficult negotiations in our history. It is not up to the job”.
Nothing that has happened in the last 10 days has weakened the strength of that criticism, and many of the speeches from the Conservative Benches yesterday reflected that unease. We have a deeply flawed Bill presented by a dysfunctional and leaderless Government. Any attempt at leadership by the Prime Minister, and there is a tug on the choke chain by the hard-line Brexiteers in her Cabinet and her party to drag her back from anything that does not fit with their ideological obsessions. Then, we have the absurd spectacle of those twin titans, Sir Bill Cash and Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, delivering their warnings from the Back Benches and the TV studios, while that amiable chancer, David Davis, busks his way through meeting after meeting with the laconic assurance that it will be all right on the night. Meanwhile the Cabinet plots, jostles and manoeuvres for position like players in a TV soap opera. It would be farcical if it were not the future of our country at stake while the Conservative Party plays out its own tragicomic version of “Game of Thrones”.
Such a situation puts a heavy responsibility on this House to amend the Bill before us. We must address its flaws and propose remedies, as the mantra of “Brexit means Brexit” becomes ever more trite and meaningless. The first responsibility of this House is to defend our constitutional settlement against what the late Viscount Hailsham described as an elective dictatorship.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, reminded us yesterday, it is one of the deepest ironies that a Brexit campaign that promised a return of sovereignty to this Parliament ends in the biggest switch of power from the Legislature to the Executive that we have seen in modern times. I am in no doubt that the House of Lords has not only the right but the duty to resist such a power grab. To do otherwise would have long-term consequences for the powers and authority of this Parliament that go far beyond the immediate issue of Brexit. I ask noble Lords to read the magnificent speech just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. In passing, I note that when she describes our objective as to make the Bill “copper-bottomed, iron-clad and storm-proof”, that description also applies to the noble Baroness. I will get my ears boxed for that when we are outside.
On the economic consequences, I have never seen Brexit in Captain Oates terms: Britain leaving the European tent to inevitably perish as we try to go it alone. We will be poorer than we would otherwise be—even the Government’s own assessments tell us that—but we will get by. We will be able to earn a crust. However, I see no evidence at all that “global Britain” will find better deals free from the supposed encumbrances of our membership of a 500 million-plus single market. I wish the Prime Minister every success on her visit to China and in her desire to drive up our trade with that country. I shall give her a benchmark to aim for: let us try to reach the level of German trade with China, which is four times our own—and all from the security of that single market.
As we have heard time and again during this debate, the clock is ticking while every sector of the economy cries out for clarity and certainty. The Prime Minister and her Cabinet have to make clear the terms of our departure that they are seeking. When we know where we are going and how we intend to get there, it defies logic that a decision taken nearly two years ago without the facts should be the last word on a decision that will set the course for our country for decades to come. Both Parliament and the people must be consulted on this endgame. Without a vote on the reality of Brexit, we will be left with a raw and open wound, not least among the millions of young people who did not vote for Brexit yet will have to live with the consequences. To tell them that their ship has sailed is a cynical betrayal of the hopes and aspirations of a generation.
There is always an element of doubt about speaking in a debate with so many speakers. I do so for two reasons. The first is my three children, all in their 20s and all proud citizens of Europe. I want to be able to look them in the eye and say, “I did everything that I could to avoid this disaster”. The second is that I want to put on record my pride in a European project that has set an example to the world of how old enmities can be buried and a new era of peace and prosperity can be delivered and underpinned by civil liberties, human rights and the rule of law.
Yesterday I was much moved by the reminder from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, of the realities for his family at the end of the Second World War. I always recall the famous Zec cartoon of the battle-weary Tommy holding a victory wreath on Victory in Europe Day with the caption, “Here you are! Don’t lose it again!”. I believe profoundly that we are in the process of losing influence in creating a better Britain, a better Europe and a better world that was passed on to us by the generation who came back from the Second World War—the Heaths, the Whitelaws, the Healeys, the Callaghans. They came back saying, “Never again”. I think we are throwing away a great deal. Until that deal is finalised, I will fight it.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, that was not a warm-up act; it was a very moving and powerful speech, and I echo much of what the noble Lord said. I too felt obliged to speak today for similar reasons. I have two sons who are much older than his children—they are in their late 40s—but they were passionately in favour of staying in, while my two elder grandchildren, undergraduates now, were totally bereft.
I do not like this Bill and I did not want it, but it is before us. I hope there will not be a Division on it this evening. I also hope the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who moved his amendment yesterday with great passion and force, will not test the opinion of the House tonight. His own Front Bench have made it plain that they could not support him, and the result could be misinterpreted because he would not get the votes that he might otherwise obtain. That is not to say that I would vote for a second referendum—I find it very difficult to think of that—but I just make the point.
The Bill must pass, but the Act that it becomes and that emerges from your Lordships’ House must be an assertion of parliamentary democracy and not an abdication of it. The Bill needs significant amendment, as our own Constitution Committee so graphically and splendidly demonstrated.
I am one of those who believes that referendums are inimical to parliamentary democracy, but they are part of our system now and we have had a number of them. But we must also recognise that we are where we are, and I was on the losing side. As a loser, I must try to be gracious. But those who won should try to be magnanimous. They should recognise that their margin of victory is no cause for triumphalism. They should consider our union—the United Kingdom. They should consider that in Scotland, Northern Ireland and London significant majorities voted to remain. I hope that during the passage of this Bill we will hear from Ministers on our Front Bench a clearly articulated sense of direction and destination.
Before I was turfed off the EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee for having the temerity to vote against the Government on amendments almost a year ago, I heard witness after witness come to our committee to indicate that the success of negotiations would be judged by how close the agreement in question came to replicating what was being replaced. That is a bit odd, is it not? That is why I am one of those who feel that it was not a good negotiating ploy, before the negotiations even started, to draw red lines that outlawed certain important things, such as contemplating membership of the customs union. As a true Conservative, I was brought up to believe that one should advocate change only if one is convinced that the latter state would be better than the first.
Yesterday, I sat in this Chamber for almost the whole debate and I listened to 67 very interesting speeches. Much was made by the Leavers about the predictions of what might happen straight after a vote to leave. But as I tried to indicate to my eloquent and alliterative noble friend Lord Ridley, we are still in the European Union. Predictions that we read about today are the ones we should perhaps view a little more carefully.
It was a bad campaign. There was hyperbole on one side and mendacity on the other. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds indicated in a fine speech yesterday, there was too much emphasis on economics. There was no vision. I hope that he does not have the modern prelates’ aversion to the King James Bible, but I thought that he might have said:
“Without vision, the people perish”.
The visionary element was lacking. Of course, vision and nostalgia are very different things. Brexit is not about recreating a country that exists only in the imagination. We are at a crossroads without a compass and with squabbling back-seat drivers. It is important that the Government indicate what they see as the preferred outcome. The Prime Minister must not be cowed and prevented from making speeches by some of her squabbling Cabinet colleagues.
We can all recognise what we are, whether we come from England, Scotland, Ireland or Wales. I always say that my identity is English, my nationality is British but my civilisation is European, and I am immensely proud of that. I hope that when we come to the end of negotiations, after this Bill is long on the statute book, there will be a coming together, because I fear an implosion within my own party. I am sorry he is not here at the moment, but my oldest, longest friend in politics—and a very dear friend he is too—is my noble friend Lord Lamont of Lerwick. He has a reputation for singing in the bath. I cannot challenge him on that, but I hope that when the dust has settled, he and I can sing in unison—it will not be a pretty sound but it might be an agreeable conclusion—the song he made so famous, “Je ne regrette rien”.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. When I saw where I was placed in the order, I was confident that I would be following a speech that contained a robust defence of parliamentary democracy. My noble friend Lord Foulkes reminded me that he once described the noble Lord as being a man who was made for this place. Having watched the noble Lord here and in the other place and having been privileged to hear him speak, my observation is that he thinks that this place was made for him.
Only yesterday, we witnessed another indefensible and probably ultimately futile attempt by the Government to deny Parliament access to the information that it needs to hold them properly to account and simply to do its job. We all already know what the economic analyses of the consequences of the only feasible Brexit deals say and few of us are at all surprised. The Government will not be able to defend their position against the will of the majority in the other place for long. Eventually these documents will be published—although they already are.
For months now, every time that they have been faced with a reasonable request for explanation or clarification of the Government’s Brexit objectives, Ministers or government spokespeople have refused to give an answer, because apparently that would somehow undermine the Government’s negotiating position. I have been bemused and questioning of my own substantial negotiating experience and instinctive belief that there is no such negotiating advantage to be had. I feared that I might be alone in thinking this, because it never seemed to be challenged. That was until yesterday, when the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in a few sentences exposed that the emperor has no clothes—the fallacy of that argument—to the amusement of many Members.
Throughout the negotiations, the EU 27 have clearly shown their collective hand—we are told that a decision was made in two minutes the other day—and because of that have maintained a position of dominance over the UK in the negotiations. As has become obvious, the truth is—there are many ways of explaining this—that a deeply divided party in government simply cannot answer these important questions because they have been unable to formulate a clear, common position. If you want specific evidence of that, Mrs Merkel revealed in a recent informal press conference, to the amusement of everyone, that every time she meets the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister asks her to formulate that position for us, saying, “Make me an offer”. No wonder we are in such a desperate state.
I am content to adopt the opening words of many noble Lords that this Bill is necessary. While it is complex, difficult to interpret and lacking in clarity, it is necessary that we have a Bill of this nature for exactly the reasons set out in the opening speech from the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. The Bill should never have come to this House in this state, but it is clear from the debate so far that the problems with it cannot be addressed other than by the most detailed and robust scrutiny and significant amendment and, to get to that point, the Bill requires a Second Reading.
I also agree that, when we see the terms of the final agreement, a concluding democratic process is required. My noble friend Lord Adonis argues that that should be a further referendum. I, too, should like to see a further referendum but, for reasons others have expanded on, I am able, and I thank the noble Lord for this, to adopt the position of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who, in agreeing with my noble friends Lady Smith and Lord Mandelson, accepted that this Bill is not the appropriate vehicle to require a further referendum—by the way, I fear the interpretation of any failed vote that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, described—while undertaking to support any amendments that propose a further referendum among the options if Parliament is given a meaningful vote after the conclusion of the negotiations.
As a relevant aside, what is “a meaningful vote”? The proposed withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill may provide a vote on the agreement but, given Article 50, can it be meaningful? If Parliament likes the deal and votes for it, the deal is implemented and the UK leaves. If Parliament does not like the deal and votes against it, Article 50 operates and on 29 March, two years after the notification of our intention to leave, unless there is an agreed extension, the treaties cease to apply and the UK leaves. Does a meaningful vote depend on the flexibility or the reversibility of Article 50? Perhaps the Minister will address that point in winding up. If that is the Government’s position, we should know.
I am sure that by now the Minister is clear about the issues that will be demanding his attention in the later stages of our deliberations. Paramount among them is the imperative that there must never, ever be a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. To achieve that, Northern Ireland and the Republic must be in the same customs union. The stakes could not be higher. I trust that the Minister will address this issue and make clear that that will never happen.
In the limited time available, I want to engage just one aspect of an issue that has already been discussed at some length: the devolution provisions. The political deficiencies of these provisions were accurately highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, who said that they would be a recruiting sergeant for those in Scotland who seek to advance their independence agenda by blaming London for everything. At a time when the Scottish electorate are minded to make the nationalists accountable for their failures, this is an unnecessary and self-inflicted wound. The constitutional and legal deficiencies were exposed forensically in an important contribution by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. In her opening speech, the Leader of the House promised that the Government would publish an analysis shortly to show the specific policy areas where EU law intersects with devolved competence and where the Government will require a UK-wide legislative framework. In addition, she reiterated the Government’s commitment to bring forward amendments to Clause 11.
In an earlier debate in this House on these issues, my noble friend Lord McConnell proposed a practical solution to this problem based on good faith negotiations. Negotiations are apparently ongoing, but the poker game continues. Yesterday, in a meeting with Michael Clancy, the Law Society of Scotland’s law reform director, he told me that he had analysed, over three months, the 111 powers in the list prepared by the Government to inform discussion between the Scottish and UK Governments about where it may be necessary to agree common frameworks. This list must exist. If it does, will the Minister undertake to let us see it before we debate these issues? It is the secret to a practical solution to this problem.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, it is intimidating, frankly, to hear the breadth of experience that has been brought to this debate, but I will do my best to speak from my much narrower experience. I spent the last couple of weeks heavily engaged in the anti-money laundering part of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill. That has very much shaped my whole approach to this Bill, because the premise of that anti-money laundering part was the powers that currently go through a democratic process at European level: the fourth anti-money laundering directive was subject to consultation, scrutiny, debates within the European Parliament and votes in Council. The whole thrust of that Bill was that those powers should be repatriated to the UK, transferred not to this Parliament to treat in a similar democratic manner with primary legislation but directly to Ministers to make their decisions and enact them simply through regulation. That was an extraordinary shift.
This House negotiated with the Government. There were people anxious about the issue, led by the Law Lords—or rather our specialists in constitutional law, such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—but it was much broader than that. The Government made significant amendments, but it took two votes in this House to take out of that Bill the clauses that gave Ministers the power to create criminal offences and sentences—in one part of the Bill with imprisonment for up to 10 years, in the other with imprisonment for up to two years—by regulation alone.
I do not know how the Government will deal with those issues when that Bill goes to the other place, but when we read the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and we hear the Government say that they will use their Henry VIII powers in very narrow ways, largely for technicalities, we recognise exactly the language that we heard during the debates on the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill, which in practice, in the eyes of almost everyone in this House, had a dramatically wide scope. In the case of that Bill, and I think this is illustrative, it was not just to achieve some immediate transposition of powers from Europe to the UK; the new system for exercising powers over anti-money laundering policy and frameworks was to be in perpetuity.
You can imagine that I take very seriously that part of Clause 9 in which the Government seek powers to change any piece of primary legislation, including the EU withdrawal Bill itself, and any of the limitations and constraints within it. It is with that hat on and with that concern that I will come to the Committee stage. I will be fighting particularly the Henry VIII powers to levy taxes, fees and charges, but I am sure that this House will tackle the issue far more broadly and recognise the significance of doing so.
In her opening speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, talked about the importance of giving certainty. Who could disagree with that? It is critical. To me, though, certainty would mean that we knew what the Government’s plans were for the outcome of Brexit. The financial services sector, with which I am extensively engaged, has been denied even a position paper to outline what the Government’s preferred end position would be and to provide some sort of structure. That industry is part of the backbone of our economy.
We understand that there will be a transition period, largely a standstill, and that is welcome, but it is vital that individuals and businesses know now what it is meant to be a transition to. I talked last week to an inshore fisherman in Northern Ireland. He has to decide now whether to sell his boat because, following Brexit, all the good inshore fishing territories will be in southern Ireland and, if he does not sell his boat now, in a year or two it may be worth nothing. I talked to an architect, who told me that a Dutch client would like to engage him in a long-term development in the Netherlands. Will his qualifications be recognised? Will he be able to deliver his services from a UK base? He does not know, but he must decide now. A US company is seeking to do a five-year interest rate swap that it would normally clear through the London Clearing House, but will that be a valid swap in five years’ time or will the CCP with LCH be an unauthorised body, and will the company be in significant trouble with the regulatory authorities in the US? These are real decisions. Little companies, individuals and big companies alike have to be able to make decisions and act on contingency plans. For that, they must have clarity from the Government.
I realise that in a politically riven Government fudge is seen to have a great advantage, but we are at the point where that can be sustained no longer. I hope that the Government will see that certainty should apply not just to the measures in the Bill but to those broader issues as well. We must take the opportunity to use the Bill to make sure that people will be able to look at that final deal. The possible impacts on individuals, companies and people’s daily lives are across such a broad spectrum that surely, in a democracy, the people should have the final say.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, en principe I am against repealing the 1972 Act. I have a personal reason for this. My father was the 1960s equivalent of a UKIP leader. He campaigned against Europe and it irritates me that he has somehow posthumously won by means of an advisory referendum—referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins—that not did not even express the will of the majority of registered voters.
Apart from that—I will get over it—I am unashamedly European. I have lived and worked in Europe and my degree was in European languages. I have Italian in-laws. I want to preserve peace in Europe. I support enlargement of Europe. I refuse to go into choppy, uncharted waters with a salt-caked smoke stack. I do not think that the Government have got it right.
However, I am also an independent. I sympathise with the Lib Dems, but I also understand some of the fears of Brexiteers about regulation, the eurozone, closer union and immigration. Those are genuine fears. But I would prefer that these vast issues were tackled inside Europe in some form or other. As the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and others made clear, this major decision is all about one party and not about the whole country. I see Brexit as a costly and desperate scramble to retain all of the undoubted advantages of the EU without having to sit around the table talking about them. Monsieur Macron was right: we are having our cake and eating it, but we are also getting bad indigestion.
The country now divides into three: the Remainers, the Brexiteers and those, like me, who are still asking, “How do we get out of this mess?”. The human cost of Brexit is undeniable: just look at the loss of NHS staff besides all the forecast effects on education, culture and the economy. But there may yet be a way out, short of complete withdrawal and without a second referendum.
Few of us want to sabotage the Bill. It is a necessary Bill and the debate is not about the Government’s plans—since on many things they have no plans. We must, and I am sure that we will, vote to retain all of our current EU-derived legislation. But along the way a few things stand out so starkly that they have to be mentioned, and they have been. We still do not know where we are going. Worse than that, on some issues we are going into a chasm or void—words used by the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, last week. But he also quoted Burns:
“Oh let us not, like snarling curs,
In wrangling be divided”.
The darkest hole is in the sea between Ireland and the United Kingdom, something equivalent to the Corryvrechan. The Government’s position on the border issue is muddy because they are trying to reconcile the irreconcilable between the Irish and Northern Irish positions. I urge the Government to show their hand soon and to be guided, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, said, by the Belfast principles, since as my noble friend Lord Eames and others said last week, they cannot leave the people in such uncertainty.
The people of Gibraltar share some of the uncertainty felt in Northern Ireland. How could the Government get so close to the cliff edge as to cause anxiety and even worse, if the people of Gibraltar are not given proper guarantees? Then, there is devolution. Last week’s debate showed clearly that the devolved Administrations were not properly consulted and that amendments in the Commons were never discussed. There are still many UK issues to resolve in the UK before we go back to the EU negotiating table.
Constitutional experts are still worried about the exceptional use of delegated powers and whether the Government should assign a single status to retained EU direct legislation. My noble friend Lord Kakkar showed how much damage there will be to science from any uncertainties that continue through the transition. Children’s charities and lawyers are concerned about the exclusion of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Other people are in considerable doubt about future references to rulings of the ECJ. The Greens and many others say that environmental law is not being fully translated into UK law. We heard about that from the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone. I shall be supporting amendments on all these issues unless the Government put down their own to meet these concerns.
I feel confident that this Parliament will now have a say on the final deal although, if it rejects the deal, there will have to be further renegotiation. The EU knows this and would like us to remain in Europe. I believe it is not impossible that, in the event of rejection, we shall have the opportunity to remain as a member under Article 50, but on new terms. If not, then the Government will have to look for some intermediate status, alongside the single market. No one seems able to forecast what that might be or even whether such a status exists.
In short, we have got ourselves into a mess. I doubt if any party, or any organisation outside Brussels, can pull us out of it but I hope and am confident that this debate will have made a contribution.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak in what has been described as a historic debate on a technical Bill. In the time I have, I will constrain myself to addressing just a few points.
The first concerns the referendum vote. I noted with interest the passage of the Bill in the other place and the remarks by the shadow Brexit Secretary, repeating demands for a meaningful vote on the Brexit deal. I simply draw attention to the meaningful vote we had already in June 2016. It is now the job of Parliament to scrutinise, not to oppose this necessary legislation. Whether one voted to leave or remain, reconciling the result with a position that leaves the UK not in control of its borders, courts and fiscal contributions to the EU would feel very jarring. This applies as much to Parliament seeking to thwart Brexit by voting down the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, as it does to those siren voices now calling for a second referendum. As my noble friend Lord Astor said, the people have spoken and it is the job of this House and the other place to make it work as smoothly as possible. If the shadow Brexit Secretary wishes to continue his search for meaning, then he should look no further than improving this Bill.
I commend some of what the chairman of the Brexit committee has to say, particularly as he reminds us that this legislation is necessary. We must pay heed to the Constitution Committee, which describes the Bill as deeply flawed. We must seek to improve it to the committee’s satisfaction where we can.
As this is a technical Bill, I offer some technical observations. In the other place, MPs raised the uncomfortable question of pre-exit disputes, many of which arose several years ago and which may now not go to the ECJ. In my opinion, they clearly ought to, as they arose under the old regime. The Francovich principle, which has been raised in this House before, has been removed from the Bill. I hope my noble friend the Minister will reconsider this. I am aware of instances where it would lead to a very unfair result and deprive genuine claimants of going to the EU court. I am happy to brief the Minister on this if required.
I turn to a particular area of interest of mine—financial services. In the other place much of the debate was about the use, or overuse, of delegated powers—the so-called Henry VIII clause. I must take issue with much of what was said. Lamenting the use of delegated powers is a common tool in all opposition toolboxes. When they have run out of points of principle, they resort to points of process. Leaving that aside, much of the criticism was largely fallacious. As the EU committee set out, in financial services in particular, EU laws follow the Lamfalussy framework. Reading the debate in the other place, it is almost as if many want even the lowest level of content included in UK primary legislation. Yet, as the Investment Association has pointed out, in financial services, at least, much of EU law is better handled here by the regulator, not to circumvent democracy but for reasons of efficacy and practicality. It is simply about appropriate levels of detail. As the renowned EU legal expert Simon Gleeson pointed out to the EU Committee,
“the Bill will perpetuate one of the main defects of the current EU position, namely that too much detail is in legislation and is difficult to update”.
There may well be much to be improved in this Bill, but cramming it full of regulatory issues better handled in secondary legislation and regulatory guidance and enforcement should not be part of that process.
I add my voice to those who have warned against a second referendum. I appreciate that its advocates are saying “not now” but they are pushing us down a very dangerous road. If the EU detected that there would be a second referendum, can your Lordships imagine its negotiating position? It would make an agreement that much harder. Is that the agenda of those calling for a second referendum? I hope not, and that those who might be talking down our negotiating position recognise that. There is no real prospect of holding a referendum without causing huge anguish and pain all over again between friends, parties and even families up and down the country in what would inevitably be a difficult campaign full of bias and hate. As Brenda of Bristol famously said: “What? Not another one!”.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, there is much in the Bill that merits deep and extensive scrutiny, but at this stage I simply want to signal alarm at the treatment of human rights. “Human rights” is a legal term for what we might otherwise think of as respect for individuals and recognition of their human dignity. We have acknowledged its importance in devising the powers of the state since our earliest times, and we have pursued it more or less consistently in our long participation in international and European law-making.
So it is disturbing to see that, despite valiant efforts in the other place on all sides to retain the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the Government have insisted that it be discarded from our law. It is true that when the Labour Government, in the person of my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith, negotiated this important instrument, it did not at that time confer any new rights. What it did was codify existing fights and provide for actual remedies against breaches. Our Human Rights Act provides only for a declaration of incompatibility if our law breaches the European Convention on Human Rights. Under the charter, damages may be awarded. How much more useful is this to the wronged citizen than a declaration, even if eventually, that results in a change in the law? What are the Government going to do to put this right?
At least as important is the development of the usefulness of the charter since we helped to bring it into being. There are too many areas where the charter now goes beyond the convention, and thus our own Human Rights Act, to enumerate in the time available. The free-standing right to equality, a right to vocational education and some of the protections for children are among the most telling. Case law has brought new safeguards in respect of data protection, for instance, including the basis for the right to be forgotten. These too would be lost under the Bill. There are also general principles under the charter which we would lose as a basis for challenging injustice under retained EU law, such as proportionality—unless, the Government now say, the challenge was brought within three months of exit, which is surely a paltry concession.
We should also be very concerned about the vulnerability of our rights to the regulation-making power in the Bill. Is it not manifestly unjust and unparliamentary to subject fundamental rights to secondary legislation? How can we accept the prospect of a Government easily dismantling the enhanced protection given to the environment, consumers, health and safety and the rights of workers not to be exploited? We need a strengthened scrutiny procedure beyond the Government’s new add-on of an EU SI Committee, and stronger than the concession of declarations concerning equality.
It is notable that the Government’s impact statement omits any consideration of the impact of the diminution of rights and redress for their breach that follows from discarding the charter and from the use of secondary legislation. Will the Minister commission a fresh study to remedy this deficiency? Of course, if we had a written constitution many of these fears could be allayed. The Supreme Court would then have a basis to put a stop to any future legislation curtailing the freedoms we have achieved, for instance in equality and working conditions. This is quite apart from the other advantage that it would be taught in schools so that all citizens and, for that matter, would-be citizens could know exactly what our values concerning justice, rights and responsibilities meant for them.
The Government have recognised the anxiety expressed on all sides about their treatment of human rights in this Bill in their Right by Right Analysis. I welcome the undertaking to,
“look again at some of the technical detail about how the Bill deals with the general principles of EU law … and how some challenges based on the general principles might continue after exit”.
This confirms, however, that all the charter rights will not be carried over after Brexit. That is what we need to fight for.
Finally, there are many amendments we ought to discuss in Committee. I hope that among them will be a provision that the Charter of Fundamental Rights will still apply to EU-derived law and that the right to damages which result from the Government breaching EU law will be protected. If the Government set their face against entrenched law, this could be done through adding provisions to the Human Rights Act 1998.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, like many other noble Lords I am disappointed that the EU withdrawal Bill has come to this House almost unamended by the House of Commons and that the legislative attempts to retain and even increase the power of the Executive, which will affect Wales so significantly, have shamefully failed to be successfully challenged by Members in the other place.
The inclusion of Clause 11 in this Bill by the Government was surely a case of imperial arrogance—or incompetence. Having listened to the Minister say at the end of last Thursday’s devolution debate that the Government were working on, but struggling to find, the correct wording for their amendments, I suspect the latter is nearer the mark. I look forward to seeing these amendments in Committee and taking part in the debates that will follow.
The Prime Minister’s decision to announce, so soon after the referendum and so early in the withdrawal process, that we would also be leaving the single market and customs union was, in my view, a mistake—a red line that will have a real impact on Wales. The rejection in the other place of the amendments to include them in the Bill is disappointing. If a similar amendment is proposed in Committee, I will support it.
Noble Lords already understand the advantages of the single market and customs union to Wales. We trade with our nearest neighbours. We have access to a market of 500 million people. That trade is tariff free and the market accepts over two-thirds of our exports. Its importance to the Welsh economy has been recognised by the Welsh Labour Government, who have called for “free and unfettered access” to both the single market and customs union, a call that unfortunately seems to be unheeded by the Labour leadership in Westminster. I wish the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, every bit of luck in trying to persuade his colleagues.
The much maligned—by those who support Brexit—free movement of people and goods has been a boon to companies such as Airbus, which employs 7,000 people in Broughton in north-east Wales. A new customs bureaucracy and reduced employee mobility could damage long-term investment there and accelerate a shift to Asia where China, according to representatives of the company, is already,
“knocking at the door as a result of the situation that we’re in in this country”.
Our situation is characterised by a deep uncertainty about the future direction of the UK which is fuelled almost daily by the contradictory and confusing messages coming from around the Cabinet table. Farmers seek certainty that they will not be priced out of their European markets and that the funding that they need to plan for their farms’ future will be available. Manufacturers need confidence to invest to grow their businesses, and communities are beginning to understand and lament the end of structural funding.
Workers in Holyhead on Anglesey would be grateful for certainty on the question of the Irish border. The fact that talks with Michel Barnier have moved onto the second phase has fooled none of us; the fudge over the border seems to have been a charitable device by Mr Barnier’s team to give the Prime Minister some credibility. This most difficult question seems to have been placed in the “too mind-blowing for now” box and shelved.
Our place in Europe and our place within the single market and customs union have led to Holyhead developing into the large port that it is today. However, the recent announcement that from April, Brittany Ferries will be running a ferry service for cars and freight from Cork directly to the north of Spain, so “avoiding the land bridge” between Ireland and Europe, rings alarms in North Wales. Potential job losses in one of the poorest areas of the UK will be devastating.
Finally, on a personal note, I want to say a few words about the referendum result and introduce some facts and figures about the influence of identity on people’s voting choices in that referendum. It has been claimed, in one national newspaper in particular, that the vote to leave the EU was an English national revolt achieved with the acquiescence of the Welsh. Research carried out by the British electoral survey points to another possible scenario.
To begin with, an important factor to note is that about one-third of the population of Wales were born in England. The survey data shows that 60% of those living in Wales who identified as both strongly English and strongly British voted to leave. On the other hand, of those who felt strongly Welsh but not strongly British 71% voted to remain. Of those fluent Welsh speakers who strongly identified as Welsh, not British, a massive 84% voted to remain. So as a Welsh-speaking, strongly Welsh-identifying Member of your Lordships’ House, I make the gentle request that in future these factors are taken into consideration when apportioning blame or even credit for Brexit. The Leave vote may have been won with the help of the majority of those who live in Wales, but certainly not with the aid or acquiescence of the majority of the Welsh.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, it is humbling to speak in this debate after so many excellent speeches. I want to focus on a somewhat different issue from those raised by most people here, the issue of Russian interference in the Brexit referendum campaign, and to reinforce the argument for a meaningful vote or votes in Parliament. The Dominic Grieve amendment is indeed a valuable start and it must not be lost, but it is essential that there are additional amendments to ensure that parliamentary sovereignty really rules in this process. Clearly, Parliament cannot seek to interfere with the referendum result unless the British people can put the misinformation behind them and come to understand, as they are beginning to, the reality of the risks to their jobs and standard of living presented by Brexit.
I will talk about Russian involvement in the Brexit referendum campaign as someone who lived in Moscow and worked within a Russian ministry—funded, I should say, by the British Government; I do not want people to get the idea that I am some sort of Russian spy. During my three-year period in Moscow I developed a deep affection and respect for the Russian people with whom I lived and worked. I am not anti-Russian. At the same time, we should not be naive about interference by other countries in our precious democratic processes. Governments need to take steps to protect the British people from those influences in the future. Whatever Government we have in place, it is vital that work is done to interfere with this process. What is the point of another referendum, or an election, if Russia may determine the outcome?
We know that Russia has put massive resources into developing social media infiltration tools. As your Lordships know, my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox is on the Twitter board and knows a thing or two about these matters. She is aware of such Russian investments. Russia would make these investments only in order to use the tools against the West. Of course, Brexit will damage Britain and the rest of Europe: it is a pretty brilliant stroke by Mr Putin. We know for a fact that in the Trump presidential campaign, 126 million Americans received personally tailored Facebook fake news. Someone closely involved in the digital economy—not my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox—takes the view that it is almost certain that Russia used similar social media methods to influence the result of the Brexit campaign. This is, however, very difficult to prove. When I contacted the Electoral Commission last summer, it was investigating Russian involvement in the Brexit referendum. At that time I was told by an investigator working closely with the FBI that Russian money funded the Brexit campaign—not totally, but substantially—and that it was the link between the Brexit and Trump campaigns. In fact, I have been told rather more than I feel able to say today.
Suffice it to say that already, more people are against Brexit than support it, as other noble Lords have said. If sufficient information comes to light about Russian distribution through Facebook of misinformation tailored to local communities during our referendum, we can expect that a growing number of the British people will want Parliament to intervene. There is a risk that this information may not come to light in time for 2018. For a start, Facebook is a closed dataset. As your Lordships will know, the information on a Facebook page is available only to “friends” of the user. Also, Facebook has 2 billion monthly users; imagine the task of going through that material, albeit electronically, to find the information. It may, therefore, not be possible for Facebook to get hold of the information in time. It has, however, employed thousands of staff to do just this job. The question is whether they can find out what happened and, if so, when.
I have two questions for the Minister; one that I hope he or she can answer, but the other may be more difficult. First, is the Minister aware whether or not MI6 is investigating Russian involvement in the Brexit campaign using social media infiltration tools and funding? Secondly, has MI6 commissioned work to develop tools to combat the Russian equipment to prevent interference in our referenda and elections in future? The British people and Parliament need this information.
As well as amendments on a meaningful vote for Parliament, I will want to support amendments that relate to the charter of human rights. However, I cannot overemphasise the importance of parliamentary sovereignty and meaningful votes for Parliament.
Lord Spicer (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. I remember well partnering her late husband in tennis in West Virginia when we played against the American Senate. He was, certainly in private, a very charming man. I also agree with her about the dangers of Russia, but I am not going to talk about that now.
It is clear from this debate that your Lordships’ House is not exactly rabidly Eurosceptic. I am, though, and perhaps I owe the House some explanation of that. I start with what has become the customary homage to the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds. He is of course right that economics is not the only matter affecting this debate, although they are not completely unimportant or irrelevant. When you are dealing with a protectionist trade bloc, which the European Union is, it is bound to have ultimately a negative effect on your trade and economy. There is certainly a read-across there.
Much more important, and the reason why I think we should get out of the European Union, is democracy. The European Union is undemocratic for two reasons. It does not have a mechanism for true democracy, which requires a direct relationship between the electorate and the Government. The electorate chooses a party, preferably in private, and votes it in. There is such a connection between the electorate and the Government that the electors, having elected their Government, are willing to pay allegiance to them. There is a synergy about the whole thing. In Europe, the matter is aggravated by the fact that the laws are made on the whole by the European court, which is undemocratic and relies on the acquis communautaire for its inspiration. The acquis is quite clear that it requires the court to make judgments in one direction, towards a federal state of Europe, that is irreversible.
Some people say that this process can be reformed. In the foreseeable future at least, that is highly unlikely. Take, for example, Britain. If we were to go back into the European Union, it is absolutely unimaginable that the court would not insist that sterling would be joined to the single currency, and quite rightly so. You cannot have a single market for ever without a single currency. That would be the loss of Britain’s freedom, which is involved in the sovereignty of Parliament and in no one Parliament binding another. That would just go. The trend in that case would be anti-democratic so far as this country is concerned.
I would like to refer to a speech made yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Winston. It is something that has troubled me quite a lot about the attack that is made on people who think, like I do, that the nation state is the best unit of democracy. I will read one paragraph from it. He said that,
“Andrea Sella talks about a maternal ancestor. He is not Jewish but his ancestor was. Apparently she called him early in the morning when the result of the referendum became clear. She said, her voice choking with emotion:
‘How can these people forget so soon where nationalism leads you?’”—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1521.]
The innuendo is clear. I could turn the whole thing on its head and say that World War II, for instance, was brought to a halt and peace was established by the nation state against the pan-European movement led by Germany. That absolutely turns on its head an argument that is constantly used against people such as myself and Eurosceptics, and quite wrongly so.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)
My Lords, in common with just under 70% of those who voted in the area from which I come, in the referendum I voted to leave the EU. It appeared to me, for many of the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Spicer, has just given, that political power had moved into the hands of an unelected, over-regulatory bureaucracy, which was out of political control and had no willingness or ability to reform. Further, it was heading in the direction of a single state for which it has no mandate and, in this country at least, very little support. I therefore support the Bill. But I am acutely aware that the referendum divided members of the same political parties, close friends and, as I know personally, family members, some of whom cannot or will not accept the result, like some Members of this House.
I have either listened to or read every speech that has been made in this debate so far, and I have heard powerful speeches from noble Lords with far greater knowledge and experience of the EU and its workings of government, law, finance and industry than I have. I have heard powerful speeches from powerful people. But, for me, louder than all of their arguments is the voice of Colonel Rainsborough, one of the Levellers, speaking for one man, one vote, in 1647. He said:
“the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he”.
How often have I listened in this House to noble Lords speaking of the need to encourage people to register and vote. The usual response from those who do not is, “My vote doesn’t count”, and they are usually right, especially in constituencies with large majorities. In the referendum, every vote did count. People voted in all-time record numbers. They were told, among others by the Prime Minister of the day, that that vote was a binding one and that it would be acted on. So, for me, the Bill is about giving effect to democracy. Being in Berlin recently made me reflect, as other noble Lords have during the course of this debate, on the political history of the last world war. When the governing elite stop listening to the people, the people are drawn to and eventually turn to extremism. That is a lesson that we must not forget.
The Bill, passed by the elected House is, as most noble Lords have said, far from perfect. The law-making powers of Ministers need to be defined and restricted on the face of the Bill. There needs to be clarification of the status of EU legislation to create legal certainty, and there needs to be much clearer devolution of powers to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. I will support the amendments that seek to improve the Bill, but not those designed to put a spanner in the works. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, will not press his amendment. We always knew that the negotiations for our exit would be difficult. Without our contribution to the budget, the EU is insolvent and there are other member states with at least very strong reservations about membership. The Commission was always going to make life difficult, even at its own expense, and I am afraid it is further encouraged by those who tell them, hopefully, that Brexit may not happen.
I think that we can all agree that the biggest threat to our economy is uncertainty and to be plunged once again into another divisive contest of a second referendum, with all the acrimonious campaigning again, would be bad for our economy, our national unity, and democracy. As I recall, we had a general election only a short time ago. The party that campaigned to stay in was as good as annihilated, except of course in this House. My party, which did a great deal better than expected, campaigned on a manifesto to leave both the single market and the customs union and, I am glad to say, no repeat referendum. I am particularly grateful for the restrained and reasonable way in which my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon opened on behalf of these Benches. The prevailing message that I get from people who voted on both sides of the referendum from outside this House is, “Just get on with it”. Let us do just that.
Lord Stevens of Ludgate (UKIP)
My Lords, I am grateful that I have not yet been annihilated. It is disappointing that those who lost in the referendum are still demanding another one. It does not help for a government Minister to describe certain Eurosceptics as “swivel-eyed”. I had hoped that we had got past that level of debate.
In a high turnout, the people voted to leave by a majority of 1.5 million—huge in electoral terms. In the last election, if 40,000 voters in the most marginal Labour seats had, instead of voting Labour, voted for the runner-up, Labour would have lost 40 seats. It was that close. Let us suppose that the leavers were to lose another referendum—unlikely, in my view—then we would have every right to demand a further, deciding referendum. Let us respect the people’s wishes. We are not the EU, which asks members to vote again when it does not like the result.
We cannot argue that the remainers did not fire every barrel, from Mr Cameron’s “World War Three” to Mr Obama’s “back of the queue”. He was sadly so ill informed that he did not know that there was a queue of one—the EU. President Hollande, Madame Lagarde and every other leader you can think of all warned of economic disaster. Even the poor old CBI, which opposed the ERM, was in favour of joining the euro and is partly financed by the EU, is still at it. The Bank of England has got it wrong yet again. The governor is still muttering that the GNP would be 1% higher if there had been no vote to leave. How on earth he works that out is quite beyond me. As for the latest leaked economic forecast, it must have been leaked by remainers. In 2005, UK trade with the EU was 55% of the total. It is now 45%. If present trends continue, it will be 35% in 10 years’ time, or 10% of GDP. Are these forecasters seriously suggesting that EU trade would halve if their 5% reduction in GDP occurs if we choose the EFTA route? It is simply not realistic.
The case for remaining was set out. The Government even spent £9 million of our money doing just that. Everything we have seen since the referendum has justified our decision. There is general dissatisfaction throughout the EU with the present arrangements. Incentives are given to big businesses to locate in Luxembourg, contrary to the rules. Then there is the situation in Poland; no stable government in Germany; upcoming elections in Italy; the state of the European banking system; and even President Macron says that the French—how wise—might vote to leave if given a referendum.
Quite why the EU is so desperate for our cash, I do not know. With a budget of some €150 billion, surely it can be cut by 10% or 15%? One has to ask how the proposed sum we are thinking of paying the EU is arrived at. Yes, we should pay for commitments entered into when we are a member, but why should we pay for access? Surely it should be paying us. It has the trade surplus, not the UK.
I am somewhat nervous about how the Government will use the so-called Henry VIII powers. For many years, we have had to accept all regulations and laws from Brussels with no possibility of rejection. I hope we can trust our Government more than the unelected bureaucrats in the EU. As was mentioned yesterday, let us be careful of having a Corbyn Government.
I wish our negotiators well, but the signs are not auspicious. We are allowing the EU to dictate the agenda. Normally, an agenda is agreed between the parties. One gets the impression that we are going into these meetings with no clear objective other than to listen to the other side and to try to compromise. Negotiations are better if both sides feel that they have won the argument. So far, we have been the givers. We need to get back our territorial waters and our ability to do trade deals, spend our own money and make our own laws, and we need to keep Gibraltar and keep an open border in Ireland. However, how one can get 27 countries, all with their own agendas, to agree to this I do not know, unless we give a lot away. We must adopt a harder line in the negotiations. The EU has much more to lose than we do. We have the world to expand into.
Any implementation period must be as short as possible. Two years is more than enough; otherwise, it will be dragged out for ever. We must not be subject to any more EU laws or regulations during this period. Financial services should be included in any deal if possible, but let us not panic if they are not. We are the world’s financial centre, and the EU business through us is a small percentage and not that critical. Already many of those threatening to move staff away are scaling down their estimates—Deutsche Bank, for example—and the governor of the Bank of France has stated that the numbers leaving are exaggerated. Even the chief executive of Barclays is telling us to be prepared to sacrifice access to the single European market after Brexit if it means gaining control of our own financial rules.
The more that we argue here, the weaker we make the Government’s negotiating position. Should we not be implementing the people’s vote, unelected as we are, pulling together and presenting a united front? By all means improve the Bill before us, but let us not frustrate it.
Viscount Bridgeman (Con)
My Lords, I think plenty of your Lordships will share the view that the one country we would not wish to be disadvantaged as a result of Brexit is Ireland. However, Ireland is already suffering: beef exports have fallen as a result of the collapse of sterling. Sadly, it is Ireland that is most likely to suffer in the coming negotiations.
Had there been no progress with Ireland and Northern Ireland, we could well not be having this debate at all, or at least in this context. Noble Lords will appreciate that in the early stages of the negotiations last year the EU adopted an inflexible approach: no deal between individual members and the UK. It was described dismissively by Charles Moore in the Daily Telegraph as Euro-theology. Talks were indeed in danger of stalling and stage two was in danger. With the determination on all sides to have a soft border, how could regulatory bodies be shared with the EU on the one hand while Northern Ireland was placed apart from the rest of the UK on the other? This has been stated by many speakers but I refer particularly to the speech yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes.
Thanks to the constructive efforts by UK, Ireland and Northern Ireland officials and the Barnier team, a form of words was agreed that I suggest is a drafting masterpiece. I am going to take the opportunity of reading it:
“In the absence of agreed solutions, as set out in the previous paragraph, the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless, consistent with the 1998 Agreement, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland. In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland’s businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market”.
If it is not entirely clear, perhaps that is intended. Naturally, the type of confectionery beginning with “f” shall not pass my lips; I would call it constructive vagueness.
The Prime Minister and the Taoiseach have both made statesmanlike speeches, the Taoiseach in particular emphasising the bonds between the two countries. It has become known as the 8 December agreement and my right honourable friend Karen Bradley, the new Secretary of State, called it pragmatic, which is a very good description. I take this opportunity to wish James Brokenshire a speedy return to health; he has contributed so much to this early debate. So the logjam has been broken and we can move to stage two.
I am a member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, formed as a meeting group for Back-Benchers of both jurisdictions, and we have come a long way since the troubled times of the 1990s. Now it is a constructive and friendly group where we can agree to differ on Brexit, with frankness, without rancour or confrontation. It is particularly important at this time, when there is no devolved Administration in Northern Ireland. But I must emphasise that, with all the friendliness and mutual understanding in this group, Ireland is totally committed to the European Union. In the United Kingdom’s future dealings with Ireland over Brexit, friendly and constructive though we hope they will be, it is vital that this is borne in mind.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I greatly regret the fact that we are debating this Bill, as I believe that we should remain as a member of the European Union. I did not think it was right to have a referendum about an issue of such complexity. Indeed, in a parliamentary democracy most referenda are inappropriate.
For many years we sought to be a member of the EEC, as it then was. Having joined, it brought us many benefits, the greatest of which has been our membership of the single market. Our economy has flourished so that we have enjoyed higher growth than before and a strong position relative to other OECD countries. The decision to leave the EU is already jeopardising this, as the Governor of the Bank of England and many others have made clear. Yet a former senior Minister who supports Brexit was heard on the “Today” programme yesterday in denial about Government projections of an economic downturn under each of the three models of possible outcomes. What he said was shockingly misleading. I hope that when the Minister replies he will confirm that impact assessments will be made available to Parliament. I hope too that there will be no more disgraceful attacks on civil servants like the one we heard in another place from the Minister in the Brexit department. If these go on we will have to start a defence league for officials.
It is not only because of the economic consequences of leaving the EU that the UK would be better off inside than outside. There are many advantages in being part of a political bloc whose members share our commitment to the rule of law, democratic institutions, freedom of speech and human rights. In a troubled world where there are powerful countries that respect none of these, there is great benefit in working together in Europe to secure peace and justice in the world. We should not forget the views of young people: they voted overwhelmingly in favour of remaining in the EU. They are now puzzled about what constitutes government policy. This is hardly surprising since the Government themselves have no vision or clarity about where they are going. Above all, young people fear a hard Brexit and that we are abandoning the values of tolerance and openness that they hold dear. Old people, who voted in large numbers to leave, have most of their lives behind them. Young people have most of their lives before them: we must not let them down. To pass the Bill unamended would let them down.
We must ensure the sovereignty of Parliament and prevent a constitutional outrage. The House can play a crucial role in protecting our constitution by seeking to prevent an over-powerful Executive bypassing proper parliamentary scrutiny. Legal expertise in amending the Bill’s Henry VIII clauses will be invaluable. The Government’s decision not to convert the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights into UK law means the protection of human rights will be weakened. More than 20 human rights organisations, including the Equality and Human Rights Commission, recently published a letter stating that losing the charter creates a human rights hole. The protection of the charter should be retained. Without it, there are risks to employment rights, consumer protection, the protection of the environment and the rights of children.
I also want to comment on the absurd decision, forced by the hard Brexit faction in the Government and the Conservative Party, to have a precise date for leaving the EU next March. This comes before many of the vital decisions that need to be made about the consequences of Brexit have been properly discussed and negotiated. I hope the Government will think again and consider leaving only after the transitional period, rather than before it.
The calamitous decision to leave the EU has distorted the work of Whitehall and Westminster, leaving insufficient time to address many urgent issues where change and reform are needed, whether in health and social care, education, housing and the environment, or the reduction of poverty. Moreover, this displacement of effort is magnified by the loss of many benefits brought to us in all these policy areas by our membership of the European Union. Leaving will make it exceedingly difficult to retain many—if not any—of these benefits. However, I end by saying that our greatest priority must be to fight against a hard Brexit and the horrors of renegotiating all our trade agreements. We must stay in the single market and the customs union for the sake of the Good Friday agreement, and above all for the sake of the prosperity of our nation.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, even if I was not a culturally pro-European Londoner who considers that Brexit will damage the future of my children and grandchildren, I would regard the Bill as seriously flawed. I accept totally that EU withdrawal requires legislation that ensures legal certainty and continuity the day after we exit. My problem with the Bill is not its purpose but its cack-handed approach to executing that purpose, as the Constitution Committee has forensically exposed.
The Bill neither achieves legal certainty nor upholds the sovereignty of the UK Parliament. Indeed, in its present form it diminishes that sovereignty. The Government have chosen to ignore the warning they were given last September by the Constitution Committee about the unsatisfactory nature of the Bill’s approach, when in an interim report it said:
“The executive powers conferred by the Bill are unprecedented and extraordinary and raise fundamental constitutional questions about the separation of powers between Parliament and Government”.
The Government simply did not deal with these matters during the passage of the Bill in the Commons, despite the valiant efforts of a former Conservative Attorney-General and others. The Bill remains a constitutional mess despite all the discussions in the Commons recorded in the pages of Hansard, which are now said to exceed the length of War and Peace. Yet a dozen or so crisp paragraphs in the Constitution Committee’s Report—paragraphs 40 to 52—explain the fundamental flaw at the heart of this Bill: the failure to attribute a single legal status to all retained EU law. It is that failure that produces many of the ambiguities and confusions and the convoluted legal drafting running through the Bill.
But that flaw is not the only problem. If we leave this confused and confusing Bill in anything like its present state it represents a clear and present danger to parliamentary sovereignty, to the entrenched rights and protections that UK citizens have under the existing blend of EU and UK law, and to the devolution settlements with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as so many speakers have identified. Clause 6 creates obscurity and uncertainty around how the courts are to use EU case law after Brexit. The Bill casually dumps the European Charter of Fundamental Rights with no clear justification, as the Constitution Committee points out. The scrutiny arrangements for delegated powers remain inadequate, without a proper role for this House. As others, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Hain, have made clear, the Good Friday agreement remains in jeopardy from the Government’s fantasy that you can have a frictionless border in Ireland without a common customs union.
Fortunately, the Constitution Committee’s report provides analysis and solutions. Paragraph 52 proposes a straightforward solution to the fundamental flaw, namely that the legal status that should be applied to all retained direct EU law for all purposes should be the status of domestic primary legislation. This approach would secure legal certainty and continuity post Brexit, remove swathes of Henry VIII provisions and simplify the Bill significantly. The report’s summary of conclusions and recommendations are, I suggest, 65 paragraphs of good sense that the Government would be wise to embrace. But will they?
During the passage in this House of what became the ill-conceived Health and Social Care Act 2012, David Cameron paused the Bill to try to sort out the mess that the Government had got themselves into. This Government would do well to consider doing something similar with this Bill, drawing on the Constitution Committee’s report and using all-party talks. Perhaps the Minister could indicate whether the Government have any appetite for such an approach. If, however, they choose to dig in for minimal change, it will fall to this House to tackle robustly the many constitutional problems posed by this Bill. We should not be deterred from doing so by any internal or external threats and rants about thwarting Brexit or the will of the Commons. After all, many Members of the House of Commons expect and want this House, with its knowledge and expertise, to sort out the Bill’s defects. It is in the national interest that we do so.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, sport and sport-related activity contribute some £20 billion of GVA and 400,000 full-time equivalent jobs. It therefore makes a greater contribution than such sectors as the sale and repair of motor vehicles and accounting. Yet a great deal of the sports policy framework under which the EU operates is based on a global lex sportiva, to which sport has to have due regard. This requires agreement with international and national federations that govern the rules of sport and approve government-to-sport relationships. The proposal to move existing legislation from the European Union into the framework of this Bill will be fraught with difficulty because it does not take into account lex sportiva or the international and national federations.
Let me give noble Lords some examples. Take the Kolpak rule, the loss of which would mean that players from countries which have an associate trade agreement with the EU would no longer have the same rights as UK players. Currently, the Kolpak rule applies to those players who hold an EU passport, who are married to an EU or EEA national, or who come under the Kolpak ruling. These players are not currently classified as foreign, and that is recognised in the quota system used by professional sports in the United Kingdom. Governing bodies such as the RFU, which has the responsibility for issuing endorsements to rugby union players outside the EU and EEA, have stated that they cannot even look at their regulations regarding overseas players until the terms of Brexit have been confirmed. This causes uncertainty for clubs signing multiyear contracts, and currently affects 72 eligible players. Another example is the Cotonou agreement, a treaty between the EU and a group of states including South Africa, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga, whose rugby players could, at present, play for a British-based team and not count towards the foreign player quota.
Without membership of the EU, the Kolpak rule goes. Saracens, which has 14 such players, could be particularly hard hit. Cricket, through the ECB, has also said that it is waiting to hear from the Home Office. Have the Government reached agreement with the relevant governing bodies of sport as well as with the EU? Uncertainty destabilises the market. Cricketers are working under the assumption that any deal signed before the end of 2017 will not be affected by Brexit, but will they?
Article 19 of the FIFA regulations on the status and transfer of players internationally is currently limited by FIFA to those over the age of 18. However, there is an exception within the territory of the European Union for players aged between 16 and 18. Post Brexit, this exemption would no longer be available for British clubs. We have 70 players in this category and who would be ineligible, thus denying us an important pipeline of young talent and putting us at a disadvantage to European clubs. Yet as part of lex sportiva, it is FIFA and the EU that must decide. What discussions have the Government had with FIFA to secure the continuation of the exemption, the loss of which would hit the lower-league clubs particularly hard?
Will the Government clarify the impact of EU state aid legislation, which prohibits member states from favouring one market participant over another? Do the Government intend to transfer these restrictions into UK law or, as I hope, allow for new rules to open up the potential for public bodies to subsidise stadium developments and other major sporting infrastructure projects? That would be far reaching.
Finally, given that the free movement directive would no longer apply and migration of EU nationals would become subject to UK law, do the Government intend to subject the same rules that currently apply to individuals outside the EU and the EEA to football clubs throughout the United Kingdom? If so, 332 players would not meet the current requirements that non-EU and non-EEA players must meet. Will every athlete with current citizenship in one of the EU or EEA membership states require a work permit? The Chancellor, Philip Hammond—whose view on Brexit, incidentally, I totally endorse—stated that there was no likelihood that new immigration controls would apply to highly skilled and highly paid workers. Will the Minister confirm that all professional footballers, including in the lower leagues, would fit into that category? Will the Government confirm that post Brexit the Bosman ruling will no longer apply in the United Kingdom?
The consequences for professional sport flow through to the amateur ranks. The House has an excellent record of influencing sports policy. Only yesterday—and I thank them—the Government had clearly listened to the close vote on the future role of the UK anti-doping agency during the GDPR votes shortly before Christmas, giving UKAD a welcome extra £6 million over two years and promising to revise its powers by September. Delegated powers to modify retained EU law—not just to correct it, but to make substantial new provisions and remedy changes to our international obligations—will be urgently required if we are to protect the competitive position and the future success of the sports sector in this country, which I believe is critical.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, since the referendum this nation has been on a rather incredible journey. Our learning curve has been huge; at least for most of us in Parliament, certainly for me. There are ideologues who do not want to listen to the fine detail about anything, but there cannot be many of us who have not discovered through debate, conversation or the media that the strata of connections and collaborations between the nations of Europe run very deep and to the benefit of us all.
I find myself repeating, “if only”. If only the national debate before the referendum had been as rich in information. If only people had known just how much poorer this rupture will make them and their children. If only they had seen how it would diminish us as a nation and reduce our power in the world. If only people had known about the damage to our constitution that the referendum would unleash, with all the talk of “the will of the people”, forgetting that we live in a representative democracy and that that will is expressed through having representatives in Parliament, precisely because they immerse themselves in the complexity of issues.
If only there had been a proper debate about cross-border trading always requiring an overarching international court of some kind. All the bluster about wanting our own courts to decide everything that affects us did not deal with the fact that if you trade with Poland the Poles are not going to settle for a UK court deciding the outcome of a dispute. The World Trade Organization, out there in the great blue yonder to which Brexiteers aspire, also has its own court to deal with disputes. Norway and its little grouping in their semi-detached relationship with Europe had to invent the EFTA Court for precisely that reason.
If only people had been truly informed about the high level of medical and scientific advances—the creation of medicines and cancer remedies—that are made because of experts working closely together. There are the benefits to our universities in advancing knowledge and understanding. Defence and security collaborations prevent conflict and crime. There is consumer protection. There is the risk now to peace in Ireland. Was it ever fully explained that the customs union was key to a borderless Ireland?
If only we had not had a slanging match but instead had grown to understand the extent and benefits of the financial and trading relationships that flowed from our membership. If only we had spoken softly about how important it is to work with our closest neighbours because it stops wars and that together we can keep a check on the rise of extremism. With neighbours, there are inevitably aspects of the connection that grate on us and which we would like to change, but that should never be the reason for pulling up the drawbridge.
I am a lawyer, and because of the nature of my practice I am all too aware of the incredible advantages of Europe, Eurojust and a European arrest warrant. The underbelly of markets is black markets, and today they cross borders. We have trafficking in drugs, arms, fissile material, body parts, human eggs, babies, and women and children for sex and domestic servitude. You cannot deal with that kind of crime without close collaboration and developed mechanisms, and these require reciprocity and a level of legal harmony.
A few weeks ago, the House of Lords European Union sub-committee on justice issues, which I chair, heard from a very distinguished judge on the EFTA Court. He had been its president for 12 years and had sat on it for years beforehand. I asked him whether we could be part of the Euro-warrant system—EFTA is not part of that system—without the European Court of Justice. His answer was no.
So how are we going to collaborate on all these issues of crime? Legal processes affecting families, individuals and businesses are reliant on essential regulations that have been very successful and to whose creation we have been party: Brussels 1, Brussels 2 and the maintenance regulation. A woman married to an Italian can go to her local court and get an order if he shoves off back to Italy and is not paying maintenance for his children. A company that suddenly has a default from its trading partner in Poland can go to a court in Middlesbrough and get an order that will be effective over there. That is done because of mutuality, and it is reciprocal. I fear that bringing law in here, nailing it down and saying, “We are introducing it”, does not deal with that reciprocity. We are going to have to have 27 separate relationships in order to make it happen.
The Henry VIII powers still have not been adequately constrained in the amendments that passed in the Commons, and I am very concerned about what the implications will be for the rights of individuals in this country. We have been given an account that employment rights will not be eroded. I am afraid I do not have much confidence in those promises because we know that a section of the Conservative Party is very keen to deregulate and remove employment protections around the working time directive, the agency work directive, pregnancy protections and so on. Across the whole of Europe there is a European protection order to deal with violence against women and girls. Did your Lordships know that? Of course not; most people do not.
What about the promise of meaningful debate at the end of all this? There has to be a clarification about the options that will be available, because one of the options has to be to remain. I hope the amendments will nail down some of these problems. I am most concerned about the excision of the Charter of Fundamental Rights from the Bill. That should set alarm bells ringing because it is telling us that rights are not a high priority for this Government.
It is hard for people to change their minds, but with more complete information people do so. We do it in our daily lives. I will deeply regret it if we do not put information clearly in front of people. I am not going to settle for a bad deal, and if that means a second referendum then noble Lords can count on me being behind it.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
I heartily endorse everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said about the reciprocity of the law across Europe, particularly in the field of crime and the pursuit of criminals, but I wish to focus on the devolution provisions in the Bill.
Clause 11 is agreed on all sides to be defective and in need of amendment. The Government promised to bring forward an amendment on Report in the Commons but failed. I think we all assumed that negotiations were going on backstage with the devolved Administrations, but that was not the case. We were told in a meeting on Monday with Mark Drakeford of the Welsh Government and Michael Russell of the Scottish Government, in the presence of the relevant government Ministers, that they had not been consulted on the proposed amendment to Clause 11 at all. We do not want to be presented at some stage in Committee with a government amendment that has been drafted without even consultation with, let alone the agreement of, Cardiff and Edinburgh. What would we do with it? The whole point of the exception taken to Clause 11 is the lack of consultation and the evident incomprehension of the principles of devolution by Ministers. Both Cardiff and Edinburgh, with the full support of every elected member of every political party, rightly conclude that, as currently drafted, Clause 11 and Schedules 2 and 3 put all the cards in the hands of Westminster.
The proposal in the Bill is that the UK Government will dictate, with no requirement for consultation or agreement, how the powers repatriated under retained EU law should or should not be parcelled out to Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast, even in areas of policy where the devolved Administrations have full and exclusive competence. Not only that, but UK Ministers are given power to alter not merely the Scotland Act and the Government of Wales Act but the existing legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly—and by ministerial decree, through statutory instruments and Orders in Council. Welsh and Scottish Ministers have no such powers.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, described the architecture of the Bill as misguided and ill-informed, and my noble friend Lord Newby described the Government’s approach as a combination of arrogance and incompetence. Nowhere are these descriptions truer than in this mishmash of the devolution settlements.
The powers repatriated from Brussels will include funding and policy-making in many fields. For example, take the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund. Brussels has parcelled these out across 28 member states on the basis of need. In the 2014-20 European budget, Wales benefits by over £2 billion. With matched funding, a total investment of £3 billion is available to the Welsh Government to support people into work and training, on youth employment, research and innovation, business competitiveness, renewable energy and energy efficiency, and connectivity and urban development. All these are fully devolved competences for the Welsh Government.
But the much-criticised and hoary old Barnett formula, which is the current Westminster vehicle for funding Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast from UK government sources, is divided not on the basis of need but on a simple population headcount. Under the provisions of the Bill, there would be nothing to prevent Ministers, by statutory instrument and without the consent of the devolved Administrations, departing from the Brussels basis of need to the Barnett model of population count. English politics and English interests are bound to be engaged in funding decisions. After all, in the policy areas devolved to the devolved Administrations, Westminster and its Ministers act as an English Parliament. English interests are going to intrude.
All are agreed that there will be a need for new UK frameworks, but the Bill hands all the power to UK government Ministers. They will be able to dictate to the suppliant and powerless devolved Administrations whatever frameworks they think “appropriate” in whatever fields they choose.
The Bill cannot be chuckled through this House as David Davis is trying to chuckle his way through European negotiations. Someone in this Government has to take a grip, to make decisions and determine both a destination and a course to get there.
Step 1: the devolution proposals in the Bill have already failed the test and there is no time while the Bill is in this House to go through with it. They should be extracted from the Bill forthwith. Clause 11, Schedules 2 and 3 and any other related provisions should be taken out of the Bill.
Step 2: the Government should demand from their DUP supporters that in return for the £1 billion bung they have been given, they should make the compromises necessary to revive the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive. If Paisley could sit down with McGuinness, the current DUP leadership owes it to their countrymen to do the same.
Step 3: the Government should negotiate with the devolved Administrations on the basis of parity of esteem and respect for the devolution principles. They should agree the areas for the new frameworks that will be required.
Step 4: they should bring forward a new Bill on an agreed basis, with legislative consent orders ready to go. These current provisions are not fit for purpose.
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, many Peers here and many Members in the other place have referred to this as a technical Bill. In its current state, it is anything but a technical Bill, because it has serious implications for our constitution and for our system of democracy. We should recognise this.
Since the referendum, we have heard a great deal of the need to respect the democratic mandate which the result provided. The people voted, albeit by a narrow majority, to leave the EU, and it must therefore be right that their decision is implemented. This is a moment for us to reflect on and respect the foundations on which our democratic system has been built, not to ignore them. For example, our system has within it a series of checks and balances which ensure that political leaders, once elected, cannot do as they wish without challenge, or without the need to transparently justify their actions and to be accountable in the long term. These checks and balances are never more important than when a policy is controversial or is the subject of the kind of passionate feelings that many politicians demonstrate for Brexit.
Theses checks mean that departmental accounting officers have the right to seek directions; that this House has the right to scrutinise and challenge; that the National Audit Office, which I chair, has the right not just to audit public bodies but to investigate and report on value for money and propriety; and, of course, that the judiciary has the responsibility to judge whether or not the law is being respected. These checks are not, as some seem to believe, irritating evidence of a determination to undermine democracy, but central tenets of our democratic model. We should treat them as such, cherishing and embracing them, because true democracy recognises that the best decisions derive from an exchange of opinion. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said yesterday, some decisions are too important to be left to those who have no doubt.
As many Peers have said, our particular democracy has also placed limitations on the power of the Executive to make substantive changes to law by way of secondary legislation. However, the Bill before us specifically gives Ministers the right, via the correcting powers in Clauses 7, 8 and 9, to amend primary legislation by statutory instrument. For example, Clause 7 sets out the powers for Ministers using secondary legislation to amend or undo any EU laws they claim are not operating effectively or are suffering from any other deficiency arising from the withdrawal. The vagueness of these definitions gives Ministers unprecedented discretion, which strikes at the heart of our democracy.
Many people who voted for Brexit did so because they felt ignored and that they had lost control of their destinies. They did not vote for Brexit in order to give Ministers unbridled powers to take away their fundamental rights. The Government belatedly seem prepared to make concessions on this issue, but I am by no means yet convinced that these go far enough. The way in which these concessions have been offered—with apparent reluctance and so late in the day—does little to reassure me that the importance of this issue for the sovereignty of Parliament has been understood. This view was reinforced earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.
Our particular democracy is also defined by the way in which we provide access to fundamental human rights—the right to education; the right of older people to lead lives of dignity and independence; the right to protect personal data; and the right to conscientiously object. But by excluding the European Charter of Fundamental Rights from retained EU law, the Government have called into question our commitment to those rights. They have created confusion at the very time when clarity is needed and they have diluted the domestic protection available to those who feel that they have been denied access. Our determination to create a society that recognises and values these fundamental rights, and that genuinely strives to turn the aspirations into reality, is what has given our democracy its meaning and purpose. We should never dilute our commitment to those rights or even give the impression that we are doing so.
Our future is not just about whether we remain part of the EU, as some seem to believe. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds said yesterday in what I thought was a wonderful speech, we need to ask ourselves what sort of Britain we want to inhabit. Who do we think we are? What do we live for and what are we prepared to die for? For me, and I suspect for many others in this House, the answer lies in the democratic system we have built down the years and in the fundamental human rights that many of us have sought to enhance and protect during our lives. The withdrawal process must never be achieved at the expense of those core values. There is not now, and I hope that there never will be, a mandate for that. We in this House need to have the courage to amend and improve this flawed Bill, not to frustrate democracy, but to protect it.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, that is a difficult speech to follow. It was powerful. I am very glad that the noble Lord concentrated on what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds said yesterday, because that was a very challenging intervention as well. He talked about the issue of who we are, what kind of Britain we want to be and what kind of world we want to try to play our part in creating. I will add only one other issue alongside those. For me, it is an absolutely inescapable truth that from the moment we are born we are locked into an interdependent global community. The way we shall be judged by history is by the success we make of finding ways to meet that reality and to build institutions and methods of intergovernmental co-operation that enable us to face it. Climate change is a great example; security is another.
We have heard a great deal about the importance of the constitution. It is quite clear from this debate, if in no other way, that referenda and representative parliamentary democracy are not easy companions. I have always held that we in Parliament are the practitioners as well as the representatives, but that the constitution belongs to the people. From my experience of what we have been through in recent years I have come to the conclusion that the rare case for constitutional change to be proposed is in the context of a general election. That is a way to bring the whole system together, but we seem to have been busy building dual systems and then telling Parliament that its function is to deliver what comes through a referendum. That makes a nonsense of the concept of dynamic representative democracy. That is why the debate, discussion and search that goes on in processing the Bill—not the Bill itself; we have heard too much about how the Bill is important—is vital to our parliamentary heritage. It really will not do for Ministers to keep lecturing us on how our job is simply to get it through. It is not. It is to make sure that what it is doing is compatible with everything that this country has stood for.
Human rights are, of course, central to that. I have the joy—I think that is the right word to use—of serving on the EU Justice Sub-Committee, which my noble friend Lady Kennedy chairs. She spoke very powerfully about those issues today.
There are two issues that I would take above all others. The first is that the concept of citizenship matters deeply. By our referendum, we have removed European citizenship from countless numbers of people who thought they were enjoying what citizenship meant. That is a very grave thing to have happened. Therefore, one of the things that we must do in our deliberations in this House is make absolutely certain, if it can be done, that we have arrangements in place that will meet the challenge of restoring the rights that people thought they had.
The other issue is the European court. I have been horrified and dismayed in the work of the justice committee to hear and see more and more evidence of the gap between myths, rhetoric and populism on one side and reality on the other. Almost without exception, witness after witness to whom we have listened has said how indispensable the European court is. Over and again we have been given examples of the key part played by British lawyers in developing and strengthening European law—it is a tragedy that the British people do not understand this and have not been led to understand it. We are living in an interdependent world and we wanted to be part of an interdependent Europe. That required strong law in Europe and the British have been playing a huge part in that, so what are we doing walking away from it?
Whatever happens on the Bill, and I hope we will have some very demanding and searching debates, I hope we remember—to come back to the intervention yesterday by the right reverend Prelate—that we cannot escape from being members of an interdependent world. Our children and grandchildren will ask what we did towards devising the policies and arrangements to meet the challenges of an interdependent world or whether we walked away in the opposite direction with a preoccupation with what was immediately popular.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is right to comment and demand that citizenship is vital. I say that with some feeling because my grandparents came from Germany in 1913. They were about to get British citizenship but they did not achieve it. They were sent back to Germany but, thankfully, reappeared after the First World War, so I guess a quarter of my blood is German.
I have been pro-European all my political life. I joined the Young European Managers’ Association, along with my noble friends Lord Wakeham and Lord Vinson. We campaigned as young professionals to encourage the country to join Europe, and of course success was achieved. Just after that success, we had the 1974 election.
I campaigned in that election in Northampton, a marginal seat that had been Labour all its life, where I won by the princely majority of 179, thanks, I think, to the Europeans in that constituency who supported me. When I got to Parliament it was in the period when we had dual-mandate Members of the European Parliament; in other words, they were elected to our Parliament and also sat in the European Parliament. Then we had elected MEPs. Somehow, somewhere in that period, from 1974 through the years, there was the beginning of disillusionment. Then we had the 1997 election. I had been in the seat 23 years, in a marginal seat, and I had a Referendum Party candidate purposely put up against me. At that point I was Chairman of Ways and Means and not able to campaign very much and I lost by a few hundred. So Europe has been very important to me.
If you sit in a marginal seat you have to learn to listen. In this case I suggest to your Lordships that we now have to listen and accept the practicality of what has happened in the referendum. I voted to remain—that does not surprise anybody—but I do now listen deeply to industry, commerce, trade and, above all, the City, to ensure that we look after their interests. We have to accommodate both what the majority of people wanted and these key dimensions of our society. I do not need to explain the Bill to anybody here, but as I understand it we are transferring European law into UK law. I am not a lawyer, but it needs to be done in a stable and orderly way.
I had the privilege of handling the Maastricht Bill in the other place. I had a good team that worked with me and the first decision we took was to call in all the sides that had strong views about Maastricht, listen to them and decide what could be agreed before it got on to the Floor of the House and what could not be agreed. One of the problems, I suggest to your Lordships, is that we do not have a similar procedure here. We have a very good Constitution Committee, no doubt, but I believe, having read its report, that it leaves an area of confusion. Certainly, not all of its proposals are terribly practical. That is where we come to the problem of Henry VIII clauses. I do not think it is practical to have all these challenges in primary legislation: it is just not practical and if it is not practical, we need to ensure that there are safeguards. That, I believe, is vital.
There are three large areas of discussion. Should the Executive have power to accept the final deal without Parliament having a vote or, indeed, the people having another vote, or should there be further votes for Parliament en route? We must recognise that any Government has to govern and give the leadership that we, the people, want. I share the view that it is a great pity that the Cabinet today seems to be riven by various factions: that is not what I want to see in my Government. Secondly, everybody that has contributed has made it clear that this is all about the future of our nation. I, for one, am not in favour of a second referendum.
The challenge, though, is not just a constitutional one. We have to accommodate trade, industry, commerce and the City because they are so vital to our economy, to employment and to standards of living. There are trade deals out there. I know quite a lot about Asia. I have visited many parts of Asia, both as an executive and as a politician. Frankly, it is not good enough at the moment to be appointing MPs as trade envoys. That is second-hand. We need experienced negotiators out there with specific experience of those markets to produce future trade deals that will enable us, a single country, to trade extensively and successfully.
I finish with two quick points. I want to say on the record thank you to those who are doing the negotiating for us. To all those civil servants and politicians, I say a big thank you. At this point, frankly, our nation wants inspirational leadership and a goal that we can all sign up to. This is a time for a united Cabinet to decide what we really want, what we think we can get from Europe and what we can offer in return—not just in EU terms, but to defence, culture and so on. Do this, and the country will respond.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, the Bill before us is a dog’s breakfast. In my view, it is inevitably so, for the reasons touched on only a few minutes ago, first by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and then by my noble friend Lord Judd; namely, it was obliged to spatchcock parliamentary sovereignty and procedure with plebiscitary democracy. As my noble friend Lord Judd said, the two do not fit. That is why there are several examples of where we are struggling, such as the Henry VIII powers and the interface with the devolved Administrations.
There is, however, one novel feature in the Bill, which came in a late amendment in the House of Commons that was, I think, carried by four votes: Clause 9 provides that Parliament shall consider the outcome of the negotiations. I wish to develop a point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, concerning whether there needs to be a mandate at the start or at the finish. As a TUC official for many years—the TUC is accountable in innumerable ways—it strikes me that one does not go into a negotiation without first determining some basics about what one wishes to achieve; in other words, the remit or the mandate. If you do not have a mandate, the union executive will, when you get back, say that you did not achieve what you were asked to do. So, first of all, you have to define something about your priorities and, secondly, you have to make them less than extravagant or else you will come back looking foolish. HMG have done none of that.
We saw an example of that at Lancaster House. Not only was that speech not a parliamentary presentation, it was simply a glorified press conference, where the fourth estate replaced Parliament. It is not just that it was not adopted and ratified by Parliament; it was not even put to Parliament—I do not think any parliamentarians were invited. What was said at Lancaster House was certainly not a road map that Monsieur Barnier or anyone else across the channel finds helpful at all to the negotiations.
Taking my trade union analogy one stage further, I want to talk about a parliamentary mandate, which we need to include. That will be the essence of an amendment on the remit—namely, having a mandate at the outset of the negotiation and not just a vote at the end—which will complement the Commons amendment. Some of us hope to table that amendment with the Public Bill Office tomorrow, and later we will put some flesh on its bones. Whether this is helpful to the Government depends on whether Boris Johnson and Philip Hammond can be joined at the waist like Siamese twins—we will have to wait for the results of that little exercise.
When it comes to the negotiations, something is very clear. If you look around at all the think tanks within two or three miles of here, you will find they all acknowledge that there are five options. The first is full divorce; the second is free trade with no express alignment and some trade-offs; the third is pick-and-mix on free trade with greater alignment in particular areas; the fourth is associate membership, which roughly means the EEA—I will come back to that; and the fifth is adjusted membership, with EU law directly applicable. I think we will probably come down on number four, but I thought I would simply set out the menu.
The last three of those options involve free movement, give or take specific tests of different types that can be defined. Number four would tie in with a deal done on the island of Ireland. I noticed the other day that the EU Council is now insisting in public that the 8 December agreement is signed and sealed before the totality of negotiation is set in motion. Perhaps the Minister could confirm in his reply that that is the position.
There is no point in disguising the fact that I am for the European Economic Area, which is the only option outside the EU that enables us to retain participation in the single market, the four freedoms and so forth. However, that means something like a beefed-up co-ordinating committee within the EEA twin-pillar structure between the two sets of Councils of Ministers.
In my concluding sentence, I want to say a word about workers’ rights and the TUC. Frances O’Grady made the point the other day that, if we are not careful, the Bill could open Pandora’s box and that workers’ rights are at risk. If we are talking about workers’ disillusionment with the whole of this exercise, then it is very important that we get a guarantee that that cannot happen.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Hansard Society, whose briefing has been very helpful in considering the Bill, as has the excellent report from the Constitution Committee. I very much look forward to seeing the imminent report of the DPRR Committee later this week. The Bill represents a massive transfer of authority away from Parliament to the Executive, and such a transfer requires proper constraint via proper parliamentary scrutiny. The question is how Parliament might best secure reasonable oversight and scrutiny of this flood of delegated legislation without frustrating the purpose of the Bill.
Previously, Parliament has insisted that a strengthened scrutiny procedure be inserted into Bills that grant Ministers wide delegated powers: the super-affirmative procedure in the case of LROs; the enhanced affirmative procedure in the case of the Public Bodies Act. There is no such procedure in the Bill, and that is a very serious defect. The Bill adds a novel procedural element to the SI process. It sets up in the Commons a sifting committee to examine all negative SIs, and it will have the power to recommend an upgrade to the affirmative procedure. It can only recommend, though, and that is not sufficient; the committee should be able to require an upgrade. We will want to address this as the Bill proceeds. The Bill contains nothing about how the sifting committee is to arrive at its decisions, and we will want to make good that lack. The Bill proposes a sifting committee only in the Commons. I was glad to hear the noble Baroness the Leader of the House promise to correct that and deliver an equivalent for this House. If a sifting committee in either House decided to upgrade an SI, that should be binding upon the Minister.
I think it is generally acknowledged that Commons scrutiny of SIs leaves much to be desired, but that scrutiny process is left unchanged by the Bill. Sifting is not scrutiny. As usual, detailed and thorough scrutiny will take place in our House, where existing procedures require us to say yes or no—we cannot amend. We will of course be reluctant to invite more visits from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, by exercising frequently, or at all, what may be called the nuclear option. But we should not allow unsatisfactory SIs to grant unsatisfactory powers to the Executive. It would be better to introduce a new power to return an SI to the Commons for reconsideration—a proposal recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, in his report.
It is not just the scrutiny procedures in the Bill that are inadequate, but their scope as well. For example, SIs generated by Clause 17 are not subject to the sifting mechanism, and they should be. There is also the Solicitor-General’s declared intention to use SIs deriving from existing non-Brexit-related Acts to make changes to retained EU law. These SIs need to be brought within the strengthened SI procedures in this Bill. There will be SIs generated by other Brexit Bills. We want all of them to be scrutinised as though they were generated by this Bill. For example, Clause 2 of the Trade Bill contains a negative procedure power to amend retained EU law where that law has the status of primary legislation. The safeguards in the EU withdrawal Bill are absent from the Trade Bill. We will want to change that.
We will also want to look at the urgency provisions in this Bill. As things stand, there are no constraints on the exercise of the “urgent case” power in Schedule 7. Under this power, Ministers can lay a made affirmative instrument which will remain in force unless annulled within a month. We understand why the urgent case power may be needed, but we will also want to understand why in each case. We will require the Minister to explain and justify the use of the urgency power. We will also need to provide safeguards on the use of this power, including defining limits on its use and perhaps involving the sifting committees.
The Bill at least contains sunset provisions. These are for the SIs themselves, not for whatever is enacted via them. It would be impractical to impose a sunset provision on these enactments, but that does not mean that they should not be reviewed. For primary legislation, the Government have to produce a report for Parliament within three to five years of royal assent. We see the case for a similar provision for legislation enacted by withdrawal-related SIs.
This Bill grants Ministers exceptional powers but does not provide for effective scrutiny. That is very dangerous for the quality of the legislation and for the authority of Parliament. I hope we will be able to reduce these dangers as the Bill progresses.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and so many other colleagues across the House in this monumentally important debate. I have always been proud to be British and believe the UK’s amazing achievements have been magnified by being a gateway to the rest of Europe. Free markets across the Channel and our integrated industrial operations have enhanced our performance on the global stage. One-fifth of the UK supply chain is located inside the EU. I firmly believe our multicultural diversity has made Britain a vibrant beacon of tolerance, decency and mutual respect, harnessing home-grown and overseas expertise to the benefit of ourselves and the wider world. We must not throw this away.
Churchill spoke in his 1951 speech of the disadvantages and even dangers to us in standing aloof. He understood the perils of obsession with national sovereignty. It is a troubling sign of our times that anyone suggesting amending this Bill may be accused of wanting to frustrate the will of the people. That is nonsense. Parliament has respected the result of the referendum. It has triggered Article 50—albeit perhaps before we were ready—and is now trying to negotiate a good outcome for the whole United Kingdom from a new UK-EU relationship.
This Bill is supposed to be about providing certainty for the future and, most particularly, about our constitutional arrangements and legal framework after we transfer all EU-derived law into UK law as a result of Parliament’s respect for the 2016 referendum vote to leave the EU.
Some key issues of concern with the Bill have already been brilliantly exposed by previous speakers. It is our duty to scrutinise the legislation before us, which raises fundamental issues that go to the heart of our constitutional framework and parliamentary sovereignty. I do hope that my noble friend will listen carefully and relay these concerns back to his department, so that they can be addressed in government amendments.
First, on the Henry VIII powers, this House cannot rubber stamp giving authority to the Executive that would normally be the role of Parliament as a whole. The amendments to Clause 7 introduced in the other place are insufficient to prevent parliamentary democracy being subverted by Ministers. As my noble friend Lord Balfe rightly said, how would we on these Benches—or indeed many on the Benches opposite—feel about handing such sweeping powers to Jeremy Corbyn? We must not allow the Bill to water down hard-won rights, for women, workers, the disabled and minorities that people in this country have relied on.
I share the concerns expressed by so many noble Lords about Northern Ireland. The Government have promised a frictionless border, but have not actually come up with concrete proposals on how this will work. Paragraph 49 of the 8 December agreement promises regulatory alignment if no other way of protecting existing border freedoms can be found. That must mean staying in the customs union, single market and the EEA, with EFTA-style arrangements. There is no other way. Yet the Government, apart perhaps from my right honourable friend the Chancellor, have tried to skirt over such fundamental issues with soundbites.
Ideological fixations or fantasies must not undermine the Good Friday agreement that has brought peace to Northern Ireland. The British people did not vote to break up the United Kingdom. In the words of Abraham Lincoln:
“You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today”.
That brings me to one of the Bill’s most serious flaws. Parliament, not Ministers, must have a meaningful vote on the terms of our withdrawal. The Government have offered a vote on a potentially very damaging deal, and the potentially even more damaging no deal. That is a meaningless, not meaningful vote. Why is it so important? Because we need to respect the will of the people. This is not about undermining our democracy; it is about upholding it.
Many noble Lords have insisted that democracy requires that the 2016 vote is sacrosanct. They say that this is the will of the British people. They insist that those who voted to leave knew what they were voting for. Indeed they did. They voted to be better off; to have the exact same benefits as we have in the EU single market and customs union; for an extra £350 million a week that could go to the NHS; for easily agreed new free trade deals; for no change to the Northern Ireland border—and for having our cake and eating it. I could go on, but which of these elements promoted to the British people by the Leave campaign is being achieved? So far, it seems, not one.
If these promises cannot be delivered, what should a democracy do? Triggering Article 50 has respected the democratic vote of 2016. But we are now in 2018 and things may have changed. Democracy does not happen at only one moment in time. This is about the ordinary people of this country who are trusting us to look after their future. The Bill needs to allow flexibility to cater for alternative scenarios that reflect new realities.
That brings me, finally, to the Bill’s provisions for a so-called transition or implementation period. How has Parliament allowed itself to be enticed into this trap? We keep hearing about wanting to “take back control”. I say to noble Lords on all sides of the House who are sanguine about the direction of travel so far: please, open your eyes. Transition is the opposite of taking back control. It is about losing control. Once we are in a transition, we are trapped, with no way back. Our only ammunition may be a suicide bomb. We have surrendered our future and entered the unknown.
If what the British people were promised turns out to be fantasy—nearly one year on from triggering Article 50, we are still unsure what lies ahead—we cannot rely on meaningless slogans such as “Brexit means Brexit”, and referring to “deep and special” partnerships. We cannot hand the Executive a form with plenty of headings and no detail, and just leave them to fill in the blanks. We must have a better idea of where we are heading. Without a realistic vision of the future we want—one that is achievable—we must not continue on the current path without any alternatives. Perhaps an extension, as suggested by my honourable friend Mr Rees-Mogg, would be more honest, rather than a transition with no say over the rules. There are signs that the EU might agree to this. My honourable friend has also pointed out that entering such a transition would be the first time since 1066 that our laws could be made without our having a say. Does that not mean that Europe has not been a dictatorship? We have had, and still have, the freedom to make our own rules and laws inside the EU.
The necessary changes to the Bill need to be passed. That is not about undermining the will of the people; it is about upholding democracy.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, who has always been a steadfast pro-European. I refer noble Lords to my entry in the register of interests as a former MEP.
So, Brexit—how do we think it is going? No unparliamentary language, please, from my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock in answering that question. According to the Government’s own economic impact report this week, we have to hold up our hands as the political establishment in this country and admit that we have probably scuppered people’s economic prospects for the next 15 to 20 years. This Bill, which our own Constitution Committee described as “constitutionally unacceptable”, comes to us at a time of unique instability in modern British politics. Half of Ministers and Conservative MPs want what my noble friend Lady Smith, the Leader of the Opposition, called a “buccaneering Brexit” that hauls us out into the mid-Atlantic, as far away from Europe as possible, and they want it to happen now, today, and with no transition. The other half, the Hammond half, want to shadow the economic and trade benefits of the European Union as closely as possible. My own party is not exactly free from criticism either. How can we answer Mr Barnier’s question—what does Britain want?—when we do not know ourselves?
The Trade Secretary, meanwhile, fresh from the Derek Trotter school of international trade negotiations —its strapline being, “This time next year we’ll all be millionaires”—is touring the globe to drum up trade with deals that “could”, “might”, “possibly”, “maybe”, “sometime in the future”, come to fruition. On top of that we hear the business chorus, the cacophony coming from Davos, demanding certainty—a certainty, of course, that an embattled Prime Minister just cannot give.
Meanwhile, the money men and women in the City of London are packing their bags and will probably head for Frankfurt, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, suggested yesterday in his quite powerful speech. They have promises to keep, and miles to go before we sleepwalk out of the European Union—with apologies to Robert Frost. British businesses and their workforces cannot wait for the Government to decide what they want: equivalence or passporting; customs union-lite or not at all; regulatory alignment or compatibility; transition or implementation or maybe both. Then, of course, we have what 19th-century Peers in your Lordships’ House used to call “the Irish question”. Here I declare my Irish nationality. The new Irish question is of course: “How can you have virtually no border with the Republic of Ireland, an EU member state, and not be in the customs union and the single market?”. Paragraph 49 of the 8 December agreement, which supposedly answers this question, is written so ambiguously that Malcolm Tucker from “The Thick of It” would have been proud.
The purpose of the Bill before us is, as we know, to provide a functioning statute book on the day after we leave the European Union. But this Bill is not just a procedural device: it is not a cut-and-paste, drag-and-drop, pull-across-and-slap-it-down technical exercise to convert EU law as it stands at the moment of exit into domestic law. It is, in the words of our own House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, a Bill that,
“contains unacceptably wide Henry VIII powers”,
or, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said in his excellent speech yesterday, “Oliver Cromwell” powers.
Chris Bryant MP suggested at Second Reading in another place that in the history of the 20th century, and I understand that he looked into this, no Bill ever attempted to do this, even in times of war or civil emergency. The Fawcett Society said in its briefing to us that, notwithstanding the gains from the equality Bill in the other place, it fears Ministers’ excessive powers to be able to amend and repeal all manner of employment and equalities legislation through this Bill. It should never be forgotten that our EU membership has brought enormous protection to the women of this country—their working rights, family rights and equal rights—much of it to do with the legal underpinning from the European Union.
Our EU membership has brought great protections that now seem to be at risk, because those rights do not continue under the Bill with the enhanced status that the legal underpinning from the European Union has given them for the last 40-odd years. They survive in the Bill only in delegated form, as do the equally important environmental and consumer rights that the British people take for granted as part of a safe, civilised life. The Government can expect no let-up in our efforts to make this Bill somehow, against all odds, work in the interests of the British people as we leave Europe, but leaving Europe is an act of extraordinary political self-harm for which our grandchildren and their children will not forgive us.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and indeed a panoply of excellent speakers over the past two days. It is a well-worn opening sentence of after-dinner speakers to say: “As Henry VIII said to his wives, I shall not be keeping you long”. I hope indeed that I will not be keeping your Lordships for long but, more to the point, as the 129th speaker in this debate, I will only focus on the Henry VIII powers in the Bill.
Like many others, I have serious concerns about the powers being taken by Ministers. I have seen forecasts that more than 1,100 SIs could be used in this process. In my field, which is the environment and our countryside, some 80% of our laws are shaped by, and in some instances controlled by, Brussels, so our countryside and environment, more than any other aspect of our lives, could be gravely affected by Clauses 7 and 9. It is to be hoped that some of the necessary changes to that body of EU controls, judgments and laws concerning the environment can be dealt with in the four Defra Bills that should come before us before Brexit on animal welfare, fisheries, agriculture and, most importantly, environmental protection.
In this way, we can deal properly with many of the issues involved on the Floor of the House, but we must get it right. Post Brexit, we must create a new “brand UK” that exudes quality in every aspect of our lives—our beaches, habitats, rivers, air, soil and, indeed, the rights of our workers and of our children. There must be no opportunity for the Executive to water down this quality agenda. We must think long term and not rely only on the promises of the current Executive. As sure as eggs is eggs, they will change, and who knows what we will get in their place—of whatever party.
I believe that a democracy is only as safe as its institutions are strong. Having Ministers able to bypass our institutions and processes is not a good sign. The unprecedented powers granted to Ministers could be dangerous.
I am extremely dubious about the current sifting arrangements proposed by the Leader of the House yesterday. One committee for the Commons; another for the Lords—what a waste of everyone’s time. What happens if they disagree? How can any such committee, of whichever House, contain all the necessary expertise in the various fields involved—fields as diverse as the licensing of drugs; changes to scientific research, employment law or the Equality Act; alterations to the birds and habitats directives vis-à-vis raptors, squirrels or seabirds, or changes to our nuclear industry? Et cetera, et cetera. How will one group of Peers know whether every SI involved is a mere technical adjustment or is instead—surreptitiously or inadvertently—a complete game-changer?
Then there is the likely number of SIs—supposedly more than 1,100. How can one group of Peers or MPs deal with them all? SIs will be flying at them like snowflakes on to a car at night. You focus on one which immediately melts on the windscreen. Meanwhile, another 50 have flown in unnoticed. You are driving your institutional car into the black of night and probably into a snowdrift. This is not good enough. In my humble view, what is needed in the Bill, as well as changing the word “appropriate” to “necessary”, is a scrutiny committee with the power to appoint expert sub-committees—like our EU Sub-Committees, but made up of Members of both Houses. The committee should have the power to propose that some negative instruments become positive and even recommend, in a few rare cases, that primary legislation is required. Because time is likely to be of the essence in this process—hence the need to use secondary legislation—I suggest that they should be able to recommend that such and such an SI should have a sunset clause. I have checked with the clerks, who tell me that this is entirely possible. This way, before the sun sets, as it were, there can be time—in certain crucial areas—for primary legislation to be properly debated in both Houses.
We need to aim for the very best of Britain in our new independence. We all know that Governments cut corners and we must ensure that, for our environment at least, in the Bill this is made too difficult to contemplate.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, in a debate full of marvellous speeches, I apologise in advance that mine is going to be boring. It is possible to be boring and very important at the same time—I know: I used to work in the Treasury. I am going to look at a specific area but, by the end, this may be a lens through which we can look at the Bill as a whole.
I want to look at family law and the law affecting families with kids. In doing so, I have been grateful for some wise and thoughtful briefing from various quarters, including the Children’s Society and the Brexit family law group. Family law has a major international dimension. There are about 140,000 international divorces and 1,800 cases of child abduction within the EU every year. The matters at stake cover divorce and maintenance, child contact and child protection, child abduction and the protection of victims of domestic violence and harassment.
Brexit and the way this Bill is crafted pose some real problems for this area. By importing EU family provisions into our law, this Bill does not change substantive law, but it maintains our obligations without any guarantee of the reciprocity necessary to make them work. The result is that the Bill shunts us into a one-way street where the UK is obliged to apply the current provisions, but the EU 27 will not have to do the same for us because we will have left.
Although there is no effect on our substantive law, EU family provisions affect our lives in various ways. Imagine a German man, Andreas, married to an English woman, Jane, living in Germany with their son, Thomas. They are affected in various ways. First, there is jurisdiction. Imagine that Andreas and Jane separate and Jane comes back to England and petitions for divorce in Birmingham, while Andreas petitions in Berlin. Thankfully, there is a mechanism to decide which court takes precedence, avoiding expensive parallel proceedings.
Secondly, there is enforcement. If Jane gets an order from an English court for maintenance and Andreas will not pay up, Jane can enforce the English order by applying directly to the court in Germany using her English court paperwork, or via the central authorities. If Jane also has a contact order from an English court when Andreas fails to return Thomas after a summer visit, the EU family law provisions provide enhanced and quicker mechanisms to get him back. England also gets the final say if, for any reason, Germany will not return Thomas. If Andreas then gets cross and starts harassing Jane, she can get an injunction against him in England which is automatically enforceable in Germany.
Thirdly, there is co-operation. The stress means Jane starts neglecting Thomas and a neighbour gets worried and alerts social services, at which point Jane disappears to Ireland. Fortunately, the rules on co-operation mean the two countries can readily share information.
What will happen to this admittedly rather unhappy family post Brexit? We will lose the rules that stop parallel divorce proceedings, so with Andreas and Jane both petitioning for divorce, if Andreas files first in Germany, under this Bill we have to stop proceedings here. But if Jane files first, Germany does not have to stop its proceedings. We could end up with simultaneous cases running in Birmingham and Berlin at vast expense, reaching contradictory decisions on maintenance and contact with no certainty about enforcement. Jane loses the enhanced provisions that would ensure the speedy return of Thomas if his dad keeps him in Germany, and our courts lose their final say but would have to respect it the other way round. Jane would have no ability to enforce any domestic violence injunction in Germany. She would have to raise separate litigation there, by herself if she cannot afford lawyers.
On the rare occasions this has even been touched on, Ministers like to say that there are alternatives. They cannot point to common law as here we are talking procedural not substantive law. They might cite existing conventions but there is no guarantee that they will apply. There is nothing in place of the domestic violence protection measures. There are no practical alternatives on divorce. With regard to maintenance and children cases, the relevant Hague conventions offer much weaker protection and narrower provision than we have now.
In short, our citizens would be disadvantaged by lesser provisions. We would have to apply the EU provisions in our law while the EU 27 would have to give our citizens only the secondary protection under the Hague conventions, if they are applicable at all. The Bill will create confusion as to which laws apply and when. Families will not know whether or when their orders can be enforced and disputes will be slower and more expensive.
What are the alternatives to the options in this Bill? There are not many. The first is to retain full reciprocity. That would almost certainly mean being bound by the CJEU and its decisions, which Ministers currently reject. It is worth noting that unlike in other areas of law, here the CJEU is dealing only with procedural questions, not with substantive law. Every EU state keeps its own family law. The court can rule on questions of interpretation of laws, such as which country decides a case or the wording of enforcement orders. It does not change the law by which a country decides who gets divorced, what maintenance will be granted or how much contact there will be.
Secondly, we could seek a bespoke arrangement. We could try to make a deal with the EU for a new framework for family law co-operation. That would be slow and difficult and certainly not possible by 2019. Even if we end up with no deal and even if we can get rid of the asymmetry, there is still no guarantee that the Hague conventions would apply, leaving us with an unacceptable void.
I am very worried that Ministers appear to have given no attention to what they will do about this area. I have heard not a single thing telling us what they will do. By the time we get to Committee—where I intend to return to this—I very much hope that the Government are in a better position.
I have a final word on children. Children’s charities are deeply concerned about whether our law will be sufficiently robust and comprehensive to protect vulnerable children post Brexit. For example, not all the provisions of the EU anti-trafficking directive 2011 were brought into domestic law, which will leave real gaps in safeguards, for example for unaccompanied minors.
It is not just trafficking. Noble Lords may remember the awful case of Northern Irish teenager Ronan Hughes—just one example of the international nature of many crimes against children. He killed himself when images he was lured into sharing online were sent to his friends when he would not pay a ransom. Last year his blackmailer was finally put away thanks to Europol.
These issues do not make headlines, but perhaps they should. Whatever the high politics of Brexit, children in the UK deserve protection and our citizens should be able to enforce our family law in Berlin as well as in Birmingham. That is what is at stake. I very much hope that the Minister will attend to it.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, that was a speech of concentrated expertise, which I certainly will not try to follow. For those of us who seek to be in the reasonable middle of this very polarised debate, and who anyway believe we should have fought for serious and fundamental EU reform before rushing into bilateral negotiations of any kind, space is rather tight, narrow and limited. It is difficult to decide which side is the more unappetising: the extreme Europhiles who believe, in rather a quaint, old-fashioned way, that it is the UK’s destiny to remain totally tied into the obviously outdated EU integrationist model, fed by daily doses of gloom from the Financial Times, or the extreme Brexiteers in their nirvana of taking control and sovereign independence, regardless of the world’s colossal and growing interdependence and connectivity and their “dancing on a head of a pin” arguments about hard and soft Brexit.
What seems not to be very well understood is that the Bill is part of a vast and elaborate process, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said yesterday. It is one course in the long menu of taking powers back from the EU Commission after all these years, handing them first to the Government and then back to Parliament and the people. We are trying to transfer four decades of law, influenced by its Roman and Napoleonic code antecedents, into common law, the law of Britain and the Commonwealth. We are taking it, so to speak, from Napoleon via Henry VIII—neither of them exactly models of democracy—as much as we can to Parliament and the people.
I do not fully understand how the legal experts, whose voices we have heard, imagine that this colossal enterprise can all be done in one Bill plus a sheaf of amendments. I do not understand their ambition. This is going to be a task and a continuing struggle for years to come; in fact, in the age of popular empowerment it may well intensify. We will certainly need the sort of new instruments that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, was talking about a few minutes ago. Yet we seem to hear impatient voices, and even some constitutional experts, calling for every course in the menu to be served and devoured at once—for every stage to be done and sorted.
We always want to see, and will have to fight for, a better balance of powers between the Executive and Parliament. However, as some in this House will remember, it took 20 years to get into the old EU—the European Community, as it was—and, frankly, it is bound to take quite a few years to disengage and correct the balance again. Meanwhile, we have a great army of lawyers, judges, academics and, I am afraid, some of your Lordships all calling for more legal certainty and more clarity for judges. Of course they would say that. We all want certainty, but a bit of patience would be welcome all round, as well as a little more reading of the works of Karl Popper. I would like to hear the word “gradual” coming from the legal authorities a bit more often. What is the phrase? “A broadening down from precedent to precedent”—is that not the tradition on which we have been educated over hundreds of years? Businessmen are always calling for more certainty but I have to say that there has always been uncertainty and always will be. The judges will just have to do their best, as I am sure they always do.
As for the idea that we transfer back into British law the whole EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, memories seem to be pitifully short here. Do your Lordships not recall how, in our long debates on the Lisbon treaty, we showed up clearly all of the charter’s inadequacies? I can remember a decade ago standing at the Dispatch Box night after night trying—and obviously failing—to explain some of the sillinesses in this overloaded document, which is far inferior to our own protection of rights and our own commitments to the human rights of the citizens of this nation. Excitable legal experts seem to have forgotten all of that.
The case for the old 20th century EU integrated bloc idea grows weaker every day and the case for a new, more flexible and intelligent kind of European co-operation and co-ordination, in the completely transformed digital and big data age we are now in, grows stronger. Nothing is static. Patterns and networks of trade are being revolutionised even while we speak. The Bill is just one stage in preparing us for these totally transformed conditions and the sooner that we allow it through, modestly improved, the better for all.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 31st January 2018
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Excel spreadsheet of New Clauses and Amendments considered at Report Stage (VND.OPENXMLFORMATS-OFFICEDOCUMENT.SPREADSHEETML.SHEET, 15KB) - (29 Jan 2018)
Lord Hague of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I was going to say it was a pleasure to open this debate again, but I hope my noble friend Lord Bates, who has given 20 years of strong public service, will resume his place on the Front Bench.
I am the 132nd speaker in this debate. I declare my relevant interests as the chair of a think tank that receives EU grants, and as an adviser to businesses on international affairs. It is my ambition in the next six minutes to make two fresh arguments about the Bill. I am not sure if it is possible to do so at this stage, but each arises from the two areas of broad consensus—reluctant consensus—that exist in this debate. The first is that so many agree, however reluctantly, that it is necessary to pass a Bill that provides for withdrawing from the EU and the continuity and amendment of law, and that such a Bill should have its Second Reading. The other is that the Bill has not arrived in this House in a perfect, finished form, as Ministers themselves are ready to admit, and are quite right to do so.
On the first point, it has always been my position, as someone who voted to remain, that the best posture after the disappointment of the referendum, is for the Government, Parliament and country to make a success of it, or limit the damage, depending on your point of view. That therefore brings me into immediate conflict with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who is in his place and for whom I have enormous respect. He made a speech that could have been—and maybe was—delivered in the referendum campaign, putting the democratic argument for another referendum. Of course, there is always a democratic argument for another say about a controversial matter, but that has to be weighed against the democratic force of the argument that people were told in June 2016 by all sides that their vote would be decisive. They turned out in numbers unusual even for a general election. More people voted to leave the European Union than have ever voted for any Government in the history of the United Kingdom.
Therefore, we have to subject the case for another referendum at the conclusion of negotiations to a critical test and think of the consequences. What would happen if the people of the country, having voted with that democratic force to leave the EU, then voted not to approve an agreement on how to leave the European Union? Would it mean that we would leave anyway with no deal under Article 50 or would it mean that the Government would have to go back and negotiate another deal? Would there not then be a very valid case to put that to, yes, another referendum—a third referendum—or would such a referendum cancel the result of the earlier referendum? Would there then not be an overwhelming case for people to campaign to reinstate the result of the June 2016 referendum? They would have a lot of justification in fighting such a campaign.
I cannot believe that it is in the national interest to get on to such a referendum merry-go-round, whatever point of view we fought for in the referendum campaign. We could have made a success of the United Kingdom in the European Union and we can make a success, with some cost and upheaval, of being outside the European Union, but we cannot possibly make a success of being in a national state of bewilderment about when we are going to have another referendum and which direction we are going in.
Therefore, I believe that the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, put—very well, of course—must be weighed against consideration of the risks involved in putting forward such a proposition and of the extra difficulty that would be placed on negotiating an agreement to leave if another referendum were to be held. Article 50 is not designed for a change of the decision towards the end of the process, and it would plunge the country into a long and bitter dispute and division greater than anything we have seen so far.
My second point relates to the unfinished nature of the Bill. Here, I have my only note of criticism of my colleagues in Her Majesty’s Government, who I think are doing a good job in trying to implement the referendum outcome. In December, they achieved an entirely reasonable agreement at the interim stage in very difficult circumstances. However, straight after the referendum some of us argued for—shall I say?—a warmer embrace of parliamentary scrutiny than the Government have sometimes shown, including a vote on Article 50 at an early stage. Had they done so, they would not have ended up being overruled in the Supreme Court. Therefore, I hope that it will be possible to maintain a new enthusiasm for that scrutiny, as shown in amendments made in the other place.
In my determination to come up with a fresh point, I wish to add to the list of reasonable points that have been made about the legislation. Clause 9 now states, against the Government’s objections, that regulations made for implementing the withdrawal agreement must be,
“subject to the prior enactment of a statute … approving the final terms of withdrawal”.
However, 10 lines later it says:
“No regulations may be made … after exit day”.
Given the tendency of EU regulations to go over the time allotted and for parliamentary proceedings to fill the time allotted, the gap between those two events might be measured in days. Therefore that is another piece of legislation, along with others that have been mentioned in this debate, to which further thought should be given. So I hope Ministers will continue the robust implementation of the outcome of the referendum, will set forth the arguments against a referendum merry-go-round that might never end and is not in the national interest, and will embrace the parliamentary scrutiny and sovereignty that was surely meant to be one of the upsides of leaving the European Union in the first place.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, we need a Bill to maintain within law the protections and the continuity that we have. The decision to leave the European Union having been made—whatever one thinks of it—the consequence will be that many laws on which we presently depend will fall away unless steps are taken to keep them in place. But that does not mean just any Bill. This legislation is so serious and so important—for ourselves, for our citizens, for our children—that we have to get it right, and getting a complicated and important piece of legislation right is one of the things that this House does particularly well. We need to make it fit for purpose, as my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon said, or—in the rather more graphic terms of the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd—copper-bottomed, ironclad and storm-proof. She is absolutely right, because when the Bill becomes an Act it will have to withstand many storms from citizens hoping that it still delivers protections for their rights, and we must not disappoint them; and from lawyers, and I speak as one, hoping to thwart them or to provide even more.
I have never before heard a debate in which so many Lords from all parties and from none have criticised a Bill for its technical deficiencies, its assault on our constitution, its assault on parliamentary sovereignty, its extraordinary switch of power to Ministers, the jeopardy it creates to our devolution settlement and the legal uncertainty it creates, not to mention the risk it poses to the peace in Ireland and the Good Friday agreement. Whatever the differences on other matters—leave or remain, a second referendum or not—there seems to be a wide measure of agreement that the Bill, as it stands, does not do what is required to make it fit for purpose. Wanting to make it fit for purpose is not putting a spanner in the works. It is not frustrating the Bill or the people’s will. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, was right to make that point. So there will be many amendments that we will have to consider, such as dropping the word “appropriate” in many places for something much tighter. I hope the Government heard the powerful challenge to it from the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton—who as a former Cabinet Secretary and, indeed, Permanent Secretary of the most legislating department of all, the Home Office, knows a thing or two about legislation—and his comments on what Ministers might do and delegated powers. Indeed, I hope they heard the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, with his experience in local and central government.
It has been a privilege to hear so many excellent speeches and outstanding contributions, such as those from the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Patten of Barnes, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, not to mention those from this side, such as the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Judd—as well as some unforgettable images, such as the gangplank into thin air of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges; the nervous maiden aunts of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, settling down to a Quentin Tarantino movie; or the rather worrying image conjured up by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, of somebody—and I am not quite sure how many people—getting into a bath to sing. But to make this Bill fit for purpose requires in my mind at least three objectives: to make sure there is legal certainty after the Bill is passed; to ensure that protections for the people, workers and women of this country, and everyone else, are not diminished—I pay tribute here to my noble friend Lady Crawley for rightly pointing out how European law has protected women; and, thirdly, to do so in a way which maintains the critical elements of our constitution, including devolution and, above all, the sovereignty of Parliament.
The damage this Bill will do to our constitution, if not significantly amended, has been powerfully described by a number of noble Lords and in the brilliant report of our Constitution Committee. They are right to say that this Bill, as it stands, is constitutionally unacceptable, including the largest transfer of power, as the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, said. They are right to say that it risks undermining legal certainty in a number of ways.
I want to say, in the short time I have, a word or two about the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. I declare an interest in that I was, as many Members of the House will know, the representative of the Prime Minister—in fact, the United Kingdom Government representative—in the negotiation of the charter, so I had a very close involvement in its drafting. A number of other Members of your Lordships’ House were also involved. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, was a representative of the House with my noble friend Lady Howells of St Davids as his alternate. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, was a Member of the European Parliament delegation, while the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, was at the time an alternate Member representing the House of Commons. I mention those noble Lords not to share with them any of the criticisms that have been made of the charter, but to illustrate something that is not often recalled about it. It was drawn up by a wide body representing Parliaments, the European Union institutions and Governments.
I need also to declare that I have spoken and written many times on the charter because of my close involvement with its drafting. I have no doubt that during the coming debates, some of what I said or have written will be pushed back to me, because it is the case that we in the United Kingdom were anxious to avoid confusion with other rights, in particular the European Convention on Human Rights, and so emphasised the limited role of the charter. But that was then and a lot has happened since. The charter has been relied on in national and supranational courts, it has been talked about a great deal, and in Committee we will have to look at some of this. We need to remember that the rights in the charter do not derive only from the ECHR, as is sometimes thought, but from a number of sources, including EU law as well as general principles of law which have no other individual legislative base. It also adds important remedies which do not otherwise exist.
That brings me to a point made by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, my noble friends Lady Whitaker and Lady Blackstone, and by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. Why are the Government so determined that the one element of protection that will not be kept in place after the Bill has been passed is the Charter of Fundamental Rights? They say that there is no need because all the rights are protected in any event. If that is so, what is the harm in keeping it in place? If it is not the case and removing the charter will come, as many people believe, to diminish the protections they currently have, that would be a bad turn. In fact there are a number of good reasons why we need to keep the charter—reasons enumerated by, for example, the Joint Committee on Human Rights in the commentary in its report, Legislative Scrutiny: The EU (Withdrawal) Bill: A Right by Right Analysis. I respectfully commend that to noble Lords. Six powerful reasons are given why we need to keep the charter.
According to the Guardian, one of the new Brexit Ministers, Suella Fernandes, has said that exiting the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights would “avoid” extra protections. If that is what is happening, that is not maintaining the protections which currently exist in this country. Even if it were right that the protections add nothing, why remove them? It will mean that the rights in the charter from which we and our fellow citizens should benefit will be less accessible and less visible. That is because making rights visible and accessible was one of the key purposes of the charter. It would be mean-spirited to remove it. To make a change in this Bill to reduce the visibility and accessibility of rights, even if eventually they can all be found somewhere else is—I say it again—mean-spirited. Having and celebrating rights, not hiding them but being proud of them, is the mark of a good, decent culture. That is the sort of culture and country in which I want my children and grandchildren to grow up.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Lord, Lord Hague of Richmond. Although I do not agree with the picture he painted of the multiple referendum scenario, I am inclined to think that we would all be better off if the Prime Minister had persuaded him to return to the Foreign Office.
Lord Beith
The purpose of this Bill is to provide the legal mechanism to ensure that if we leave the European Union, we do so without leaving a huge hole in our law. However, we are having to consider it when we have no idea of what our future relationship with the rest of Europe will be and we have a Cabinet that cannot agree on what that relationship should be. Moreover, the Bill as drafted is incapable of carrying out its purpose without leaving a mess of legal uncertainty for the courts to sort out, without giving sweeping powers to Ministers, without undermining the sovereignty of Parliament and without undermining the devolution settlement, the Good Friday agreement and the future integrity of the United Kingdom. All that is in addition to the damage that Brexit will do to the UK economy and to European common endeavour on issues such as security, judicial co-operation and the environment. That is also in addition to the damage that leaving the customs union and the single market will do to my own region, the north-east of England, with its strengths in the motor industry, train building, pharmaceuticals, agriculture and its universities.
As this process staggers on, the demand for the eventual terms to be put to the British people will grow. In the meantime, however, let us get the Bill right; let us try to make sure that it does not further embed undemocratic practices, ambiguous laws and overcentralised government.
My priorities for the task are those of the Constitution Committee, on which I have the honour to serve in the company of some of the most expert and diligent Members of this House. There is a very convenient set of potted biographies of us all in Monday’s Daily Mail, in which we are named not as “enemies of the people” but as “The peers trying to slam the brakes on Brexit”. In this task, however, that is not what we are doing: we are trying to fix the steering and get the Bill through its MOT test.
We should first be getting the task of the courts manageable and the sovereignty of Parliament clearer by treating retained European law as primary legislation. Why a Brexit Government want to confuse the issue by retaining the concept of the supremacy of EU law in the Bill puzzles me.
Secondly, we must secure effective parliamentary control over the mass of delegated legislation which will flow from this Bill, by more narrowly defining its scope and by giving the House the power to determine, not merely to advise on, what level of scrutiny it requires. This is not just about Henry VIII powers. It extends to other statutory instruments, which can, for instance, set up new public bodies. Such an instrument would not be open to amendment, so the House could be presented with a new health or environment regulator and be unable to insist that it was more independent or had a better defined remit.
My third objective is to see that Clause 11 is amended so that it conforms to the devolution settlement. As drafted, the Bill allows the UK Government to hold on to powers which should be passing directly to the devolved Governments. There may indeed be a need for common frameworks in some fields, but as it stands these would not be discussed on an equal basis. UK Ministers could say, “We will devolve the powers, but only if you accept our view on what the common framework should include”. The power of UK Ministers to change the content of legislation previously enacted by devolved Parliaments is an offence against the principles of devolution. I have no idea why Ministers have not so far delivered on their promise to amend this clause, but we need to see whether what they propose is adequate and whether they have got the message that this House has delivered loud and clear.
Finally, I remain puzzled—or should I say mistrustful —about the position of Brexit hardliners. They say that they want to bring power back to this Parliament—this sovereign Parliament. This sovereign Parliament, however, is entitled to insist that Brexit, if it happens, does not become an accretion of power by Ministers without adequate parliamentary control. Furthermore, this sovereign Parliament is entitled, if it chooses, to insist that if we do leave the European Union we nevertheless seek to remain in the customs union and the single market, for the sake of British business and British jobs. Moreover, this sovereign Parliament, once the terms of any British exit are known and the reality of it becomes clear, is entitled—if it wants to—to seek the opinion of the British people as to whether this is what they want.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for allowing me to go before the end of the debate, which allows me to participate in this really important discussion. This is a vast area, so I have chosen to confine my comments to the implications of this Bill for Britain’s 12 million disabled people.
Disabled people in Britain have benefited from some of the best equality and human rights legislation in the world. Indeed, Britain is a world leader. A significant part of that is grounded in EU law, and the EU has been at the forefront of measures to enhance accessibility for disabled people, such as special assistance at airports, web accessibility, accessible goods and services and manufactured goods.
Disabled people are right to be concerned that those benefits should not be lost or watered down when the UK leaves the EU, as countless organisations, such as Scope, Disability Rights UK, Mencap and others have impressed on me. They have fought very hard to gain some measure of equality, and there are still too many instances of human rights violations against disabled people in Britain in the 21st century.
As so many noble Lords do, I too have deep concerns about the sweeping powers the Bill gives Ministers to amend or repeal legislation, with inadequate safeguards and scrutiny by Parliament. The Government have said that delegated powers will not be used to make significant policy changes and that equality rights protections will be maintained. But this is not reflected in the Bill so far and it needs an explicit commitment to non-regression. I strongly caution against measures which allow delegated powers to change any equality or human rights laws. Having been personally involved in developing advice, information and detail on disability equality laws in this country for decades, I would be extremely alarmed if they could be changed other than by primary legislation. When delegated powers are used in other cases, the Minister should specifically confirm that they will not affect equality or human rights.
My second concern is, I am afraid, one which many others have: with the exclusion of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Government claim it adds nothing that is not covered elsewhere but an independent QC, instructed by the EHRC, has said that its exclusion would lead to a “significant weakening” of human rights protection in the UK. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has just published its report, as others have also said, commenting on the Government’s analysis of the charter’s provisions. It shows all too clearly that exclusion of the charter will result in legal uncertainty, which is likely to undermine human rights protection.
The charter contains some rights that are not replicated elsewhere, such as Article 26, which helps give effect to disabled people’s independence and participation in community life. It helps me to speak in this debate. Many charter rights, which are based on general principles of EU law, will no longer be enforceable: for instance, Article 1 on “Human dignity”. I find this deeply worrying. The charter has helped to interpret how the principles of EU law operate. It provides a really important framework for protecting equality, fairness and human dignity, which I believe will be weakened if it is excluded. Given that the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is still not incorporated into UK law, this is no time to risk erosion of our rights. Excluding the charter is not only about the loss of rights. Victims of abuses have stronger remedies under the charter than under the Human Rights Act. At best the demise of the charter will create uncertainty and confusion, contrary to the Bill’s intention. It must be retained.
Equality and rights for everyone are of paramount importance to building a fair and just society—a society that works for all. I intend to do my utmost to help the Government ensure that these essential rights are not lost under the Bill, and I will support amendments to achieve that aim.
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)
My Lords, I do not intend to detain your Lordships very long by my remarks. Like many others in your Lordships’ House, I voted to remain. One of my key reasons for doing so was my fear that any leave vote would undermine the integrity of our United Kingdom. I should have had more faith in my fellow Scots because, more than a year on, it is now clear that the union has not been undermined in Scotland by the vote of the United Kingdom to leave the EU but that, in fact, the entire United Kingdom will leave the EU next year.
My issue is how this Bill can be improved in respect of Clause 11 and the devolution settlement in our United Kingdom. I can fully understand why, in Clause 11, there was an intention when the Bill was drafted to ensure the integrity of the single UK market, which is so important for our whole United Kingdom and especially for Scotland. For Scotland, it is four times larger than the EU market, something that is often underestimated. As my noble friend the Leader of the House said yesterday, maintaining that UK market is absolutely essential to the future of the United Kingdom.
However, it is clear that perception is reality. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, said in last week’s debate on Brexit and devolution, there is a clear perception that the devolution settlement is being undermined by the current Clause 11, which the Government have thankfully committed to seeing righted through amendment. It is very important, as we move through the stages of the Bill, that we ensure that any such amendment is one agreed by all three Governments: Her Majesty’s Government, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government as well. It is clearly disappointing that there is not currently a Northern Ireland Executive to support and work on that amendment because, at the moment, Clause 11 undermines our constitutional settlement. As the Constitution Committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, has made clear, this is a very important and fundamental weakness in the Bill that we must address.
As I said last week in the Brexit and devolution debate, we have an opportunity through Brexit to strengthen our United Kingdom by demonstrating that Her Majesty’s Government recognise and fully support the devolution settlement and that the devolved Administrations are fully involved in the Brexit negotiations and process as we go on. It is important that we give a clear signal that that is going to happen by seeking and securing agreement between all parties involved on this fundamental amendment. We have an opportunity to do so: I know that Her Majesty’s Government are working very hard to do this. I was also very encouraged by the briefing for Peers from the Scottish and Welsh Governments, which showed that they were fully engaged and optimistic about the outcome’s framework agreements between themselves and the UK Government. This withdrawal Bill—with the necessary amendment—offers us an opportunity as a House and as a Government to ensure that people understand that the devolution settlement is safe in a Brexit UK, and that the devolved Governments will be fully involved in the process of leaving the EU.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, one thing on which we are all agreed is that this is a hugely important and necessary Bill if we are to avoid any kind of legal cliff edge. For me, it possesses a very important characteristic that is sadly all too rare in most of the legislation that comes before this House. The test that it passes is that, for all its complexity and weaknesses, it is crystal clear in its central purpose and objective. It is designed to ensure that this Parliament, of which we are privileged to be Members, will restore to itself the full authority to make the laws which the British public are obliged to observe. If the people do not like the laws passed by MPs, then they can remove them in a general election. That is at the heart of our parliamentary system: a Government accountable to the people through a directly elected House of Commons. For me, the sovereignty of Parliament is a golden principle which was severely compromised by the European Communities Act and about which we have been careless for far too long.
Surprisingly, I found myself agreeing very much with the noble Lord, Lord Beith, in his view that parliamentary sovereignty in the passage of this legislation towards our exiting is very important indeed. I welcome the many people who are expressing the need to see that that is involved in all stages of the process. I have to say that it is some contrast to the fact that many of these people are strong supporters of the European Communities Act, which was about removing or diminishing parliamentary sovereignty in this country. I welcome this Bill, which removes legislative powers from the EU institutions, where Bills are passed by people over whom we have little control and who we cannot remove, and brings them back to the British Parliament which is democratically accountable to the British people. As they say these days, “What’s not to like about that?”
There are many who say, and I have heard it many times, that the Bill is restoring powers not to Parliament but to Ministers, and I agree with much of that. There will be important discussions on Henry VIII powers and various forms of delegated legislation and the like, but what I find weak about the power grab argument is that it implies that Parliament—the House of Commons—is powerless in respect of Ministers. Ministers are answerable day in, day out to MPs. Ministers’ reputations, often their careers, are made and broken in Parliament. Most important of all, if the House of Commons does not like the way that Ministers are running the country, it can defeat them all in a vote of no confidence in the Government and let the people decide, as happened in 1979. I know because, like many other noble Lords, I was there.
The Bill arrives in our House as part of a process which began with the referendum result and the 17.4 million people, a record poll, who voted to leave the EU. That falls off the tongue as a glib phrase, but we should reflect for a moment on the significance of that vote. Leave votes were cast despite advice coming from virtually everyone in authority—let us call them “the great and the good”—telling people to vote remain: the Tory Government, the Labour Opposition, virtually all the other political parties—the Liberal Democrats, the SNP, the Green Party and the Welsh nationalists—the captains of industry, trade union leaders, the universities, the IMF, the Bank of England and leaders of sundry countries throughout the world. Yet despite all this warning of the perils of voting leave, amazingly, astonishingly, the people said, “Thanks very much for your advice, which we usually dutifully follow, but this time no thanks”.
There is no polite or popular way for me to say this, but there is an elephant in this room. It is the colossal mismatch between the balance of opinion here, judging by the contributions in debates over the months, and the balance of opinion in the country at large. When I go home at weekends, people do not say, “I made a dreadful mistake, I voted leave”; they say, “Why aren’t you getting on with it?” Given that the most often quoted reason for leave voters voting the way they did was that they were not being listened to in Parliament, let us not confirm that impression, particularly not in an unelected House, by appearing to delay or, at worst, block Brexit. Above all, let us avoid saying to 17.4 million voters, as some speeches have seemed to, that we know what is good for them better than they know themselves.
Since the referendum we have had a general election in which nearly 85% of the electorate voted for parties committed to leaving the European Union. My party manifesto stated clearly:
“Labour accepts the referendum result”,
and:
“We will build a close co-operative future relationship with the EU, not as members but as partners”.
The Conservative manifesto stated:
“Following the historic referendum on 23rd June 2016, the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union”.
Parties which were most hostile to us leaving the EU, notably the Liberal Democrats, the SNP and the Greens, all lost vote share. The Liberal Democrats, who have been quite clear that they want the referendum result reversed, who voted against the implementation of Article 50 and who called for a second referendum to cancel out the first, saw their vote share drop from 7.9% to 7.4% or, to put it another way, the party which inaugurated its general election campaign by aiming and claiming to be the party of the 48% concluded its campaign as the party of the 7.4%.
In conclusion, our responsibility in respect of the Bill is clear. It is to examine the Bill in detail, as we always do; to ensure that it is fit for purpose; and in so doing, to respect the referendum, which we established in this House, and its result, which it is now our duty to implement.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. He is an accomplished parliamentarian who has the benefit of consistency. The line that he has just been peddling, with which I profoundly disagree politically, has been held by him consistently since 1972, which is quite a claim to fame.
However, there was a glimmer of hope in the remarks he made, as he said that he agreed with some of the things that my noble friend Lord Beith said. I think that the House will look to him and all his political stagecraft and experience to make sure that scrutiny procedures are maintained, because we will need all the help we can get to make sure that the Government do not just give Ministers blank cheques.
The standout moment for me yesterday was when the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, said, tellingly, that keeping every option open was no option at all. That is the message that I hope this debate will carry to the Government, because it crystallises the problem politically as I see it. The standout moment for today, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, referred to, is the graphic image from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, of two noble Lords in a bath singing “Je ne regrette rien”. I apologise to the noble Lord, but I have to say this, because it is true. A mental image appeared in my brain of the noble Lords, Lord Lamont and Lord Cormack, in a hot tub singing it. That is an Instagram image to kill for. This is meant with due respect to both noble Lords.
This has been a very constructive debate—and worth listening to, because the points have all been apposite. It is not yet boring, although that might be different by 9.30 pm. I hope the Government have clearly understood that there is no attempt on anybody’s part to wreck the Bill. There was never any attempt to do that, and no appetite for it on any side. If there was, I would know about it—and there is not. I can tell the Minister with some authority that he need have no fears about the Bill not getting a Second Reading. However, in a political context, the Government are clearly the author of their own misfortune. As the noble Lord, Lord Radice, and some other colleagues have said, self-imposed red lines and deadlines with no end game in sight are a recipe for incoherence and incompetence—which is the position that we are in at the moment.
We are all anxious to burnish our credentials. I arrived in the precincts of the Palace of Westminster in 1971, and one of the first acts I witnessed was the Liberal parliamentary party of its day assisting the then Prime Minister, Edward Heath, as he took the country into the EEC. Among other things, that means that I am actually older than I look, which is a cross I have to bear. I have been here for 47 years one way or another, in different roles. I was my party’s Chief Whip in the Maastricht debate. Then there was a defined treaty, in plain sight and in hard copy. People knew what they were arguing about, and it was still difficult. There were no deadlines—but, again, the Liberal Democrats came to the rescue. I learned more new bad language in the Conservative Whips’ Office during the Maastricht debate than I ever had in any earlier parts of my life. It was all quite tense, but John Major won because we helped him.
Recently during the coalition we helped David Cameron by co-authoring a Bill which put a lock on the ceding of any further powers to Brussels, subject to a referendum. I do not usually say this, but the Liberal Democrat parliamentary group in the House of Lords deserves some credit for 47 years of solid, unwavering support—some might even say strong and stable support—for the position that the United Kingdom should stay at the heart of Europe.
I am a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and, for me, the battle lines will be drawn on the content of Clause 7, Schedule 7 and, to a lesser extent, Clause 11. I pay tribute to yesterday’s magnificent short speech from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead on Clause 11, and I, too, will be speaking about it, for obvious reasons.
Cross-Bench votes—not just voices—are very important. I know that there are sometimes challenges among our Cross-Bench colleagues, but they are non-aligned and have a special value in this debate. They are excellent contributors to the scrutiny process and if they do not hold their end up and give their support we may lose votes—so I hope they will think about that really carefully.
The Leader of the House made some helpful comments at the beginning of the debate about how she was going to bring forward some new proposals in March. The new system has to be operational by April or May and that is too tight a timetable for this to be done sensibly. The Constitution Committee’s ninth report has done the House a signal service, and the battleground it maps out is the one on which I will seek to attack Clause 7 and Schedule 7. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee needs further and better particulars and basic things like early access to drafts—if that is possible, it would help. We also need to smooth out the peaks and the troughs in the flow of the delegated legislation we consider, and resources to staff up the committees. I hope that these will be put in place meaningfully, otherwise the quality of the scrutiny—because of the volume of legislation—is bound to suffer, and that is not in our interests.
I also hope that the usual channels will start to look again at the Cunningham doctrine, which colleagues may remember suggests that in very limited circumstances the possibility exists for this House to reject statutory instruments. If the Government do not get this Bill right, Members such as I will be driven to thinking in these terms. We do not want that, so I hope that the Government will get on with this and make sure that the Bill is amended—particularly Clause 7 and Schedule 7 —in a way that guarantees a scrutiny role for this House, because that is what we are here to do.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, to which I hope we are going to give an unopposed Second Reading tonight, is a pretty different animal to the one tabled some six or more months ago. It has been amended, against the will of the Government, to provide for a meaningful statutory process before any deal is approved by Parliament—a provision originally put forward by your Lordships’ House last March in the context of the Article 50 Bill. That is very welcome. The Government have also brought forward amendments on the handling of Henry VIII powers, which, while they certainly need further improvement and strengthening, at least show that the Government are aware that the original approach was excessively tilted towards the Executive. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House made a good move when she said that she was listening and would probably bring forward further amendments soon.
But this Bill remains, I fear, a serious case of putting the cart before the horse. We are, in fact, being asked to legislate before we know the outcome of the negotiations in Brussels with respect to the divorce settlement, the transition or standstill phase and the framework for a new partnership, all of which will alter—and probably in many cases override—much of what is in this Bill. Moreover, the Bill stands in the heavy shadow of a further piece of primary legislation, the implementation Bill, which will need to complete its course through Parliament before we leave, because it will need to give effect in our domestic law to any provisions to which we have agreed in the negotiations in Brussels. That implementation Bill had not even been thought of at the time when this withdrawal Bill was originally tabled, when it was then called the great repeal Bill. That is a bit of a sign of the Government’s remarkably haphazard and rather chaotic approach to Brexit.
Nevertheless, for all its defects, this Bill is clearly a necessity. The gaps in our statute book need to be plugged if, and when, we actually leave. That is why it is right to give the Bill a Second Reading. However deeply those like myself believe that leaving the European Union is a fundamental error of judgment, which will be damaging to our economy and to our influence in the world, we are absolutely required to put this Bill on the statute book without undue delay.
The Minister who will reply to this debate is particularly fond of dwelling on the democratic legitimacy of the June 2016 referendum vote and of the whole Brexit process. I have no intention of beginning a debate here today about the relative merits of plebiscitary and representative parliamentary democracy, but I would just say that people who live in glass houses should be a bit careful about throwing stones. The Minister’s presence at the Dispatch Box is largely due to the support in the other place for the Government’s Brexit policies by the 10 Members of the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland, but that party has no democratic legitimacy as far as Brexit is concerned at all, because the people of Northern Ireland voted to remain.
I shall mention just one or two of the matters that will certainly need more careful scrutiny. The first of these is the provision that would have the effect of extinguishing the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in this country on the day we leave. Whatever one’s views of the Government’s rather mindless demonisation of the European Court of Justice—and, in my view, it is both mystifying and self-defeating—the Government have already conceded the point in Brussels, since individuals will be able to take their cases on status issues and have them referred to the European Court of Justice for the next eight years after we leave. The standstill, transitional arrangements, which are currently under negotiation, are inevitably going to drive an even larger coach and horses across that red line. So why on earth should we be marched up to the top of the hill to eliminate the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice on the day we leave, only to be marched back down again in the implementation Bill?
Then there is the whole business of the exclusion from the scope of this Bill of just one piece of many thousands of pages of the acquis communautaire, the Charter of Fundamental Rights. How on earth can that be justified? The fundamental rights enshrined in the EU charter and the Council of Europe convention are values that we need to uphold, whether we are inside or outside the European Union. They surely need to be part of the new partnership, for example, which the Prime Minister, rightly in my view, is trying to negotiate as her ultimate objective.
Committee stage debates are all too often in this House treated as Second Reading debates, but I shall try to avoid falling into the opposite trap—so I shall stop talking about specifics. The complexity of the overall package of legislative instruments, not just in this Bill but in the others that will follow it, is pretty daunting. It is a reminder of the extent to which our economy has become integrated with that of our European neighbours over the past 40 years. It is shameful that those who campaigned to take us out of the European Union were so unaware of that or, if they were aware of it, were so unwilling to share that with the voters. I think that the voters are now becoming aware of what is in store for them; the chickens are coming home to roost, and it is going to be a pretty painful experience.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. He and I co-operated as closely as we could on the original attempt to keep us in the European Union. Today, however, we are faced with leaving the European Union and I make no comment on that except to accept it as a fact and to refrain from any prophecy as to what will happen next.
The Constitution Committee of this House has done a very good job, and most of the amendments it proposed would improve the Bill. I just want to mention one or two general points raised by these amendments. The Bill is to bring into the United Kingdom’s statute book legislation passed by Europe but not presently on the statute book. It also provides that this legislation would have priority or supremacy over UK legislation in the same area. This problem is one that the Constitution Committee has solved with great elegance. First, it has said that the direct EU legislation should be treated as primary legislation; that is, as legislation passed by Parliament not under the authority of Parliament. Secondly, it should be deemed to have a date of our leaving date. Because of our system, that will automatically give it priority over any Act with which it conflicts and which preceded it. I regard this as an extremely clever—indeed, wise—suggestion for dealing with this matter. The Government had thought to have a case-by-case decision about this, but I think this is much better and I commend it to the Government strongly.
The second point relates to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and to references by our courts to that court. The idea of the statutory reference is being swept away, but that still leaves the question of whether our courts should have regard to decisions of the European court. My experience, such as it is, of this is that our courts are free to look at any court decision they want—from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States, or even Scotland. They are absolutely free to do that. Originally, I was therefore rather minded that this should continue as far as the European Court of Justice is concerned. If something helpful was said in that court, there is no reason why our courts should not take that into account. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, as President of the Supreme Court, pointed out that such was the political heat of that sort of suggestion, it would be very unwise to subject judges to that kind of conflict. Therefore, it would be right for Parliament to take responsibility for saying when they could refer to the European Court of Justice. The Constitution Committee has recommended a very sensible way of dealing with that: where a court here, considering a piece of pre-Brexit legislation from Europe, finds that the European Court of Justice has later made a decision relevant to that sort of case, it is entitled to turn to it.
My final point relates to the devolution settlement. I regard this as absolutely fundamental but also as extremely difficult, because there are various levels of power in Europe that may be in, for example, the area of fisheries. First of all, there are international powers in relation to that. Our current international relationships in relation to fisheries are with the European Union. If that power is returned here, it should belong to the state of the United Kingdom. On the other hand, detailed provisions about what happens to fisheries are made at a more local level, under the present devolution settlement. Therefore, there is a problem with how this should be done, which I regard as very much a matter for negotiation between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Governments—where they exist—of the devolved Administrations. I very strongly support the view that it would be most unfortunate if Northern Ireland continued without an Administration. I hope that will not continue and that the new Secretary of State—I am saddened by the health difficulties of the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—will, perhaps with the Prime Minister’s help, be able to restore the Administration. Anyhow, it is a matter for negotiation between the devolved legislatures—the Ministers of the devolved Governments —and the Government of the United Kingdom. I certainly hope and believe that the best solution to the Clause 11 amendment is for the Government to come forward with an amendment agreed by those parties. I have great confidence that they all seek a solution to what I regard as a very difficult problem. I hope they will succeed. If they do, I am sure it will be with the greatest pleasure that we will give effect to that agreement.
The last point I want to make—just after the last one, as it were—is that the European Charter of Fundamental Rights is a big subject. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said a good deal about that. I will not take time on it now, since my time is up anyway.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I could not agree with him more on what he said about the Constitution Committee. It has done a lot of the Government’s thinking for them. I hope that the Minister may be inclined to bring forward his own amendments on that basis.
Like so many noble Lords, I deeply regret the necessity of this Bill, but I feel we have no choice but to do what only we in this House can do. I believe we are engaged in an historic act of self-harm, but by amending the Bill we may be able to mitigate some damage and make the future a little more predictable. We are awash in a sea of legal and political uncertainties, about which many noble Lords have already spoken brilliantly. They make a nonsense of the constant mantra we hear from the Government about the need for certainty and control. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, who is not in his place, made a most powerful speech yesterday when he spoke about the “normalisation of lies”, to which I would add the normalisation of delusion. The greatest delusion of all is that, after a year characterised by denial and bluster, the Government can magically achieve a deal that has never been on offer that will enable us to retain all the benefits of being in the EU with none of the obligations. We need to get rid of the culture of infantilisation—the fear of reality—that has so reduced the debate we should have had on Brexit.
We have an opportunity to reassert the constitutional balances of power that are so dislodged by Clauses 7 to 9 and 17. They give unprecedented delegated powers to Ministers and Whitehall—justified, as they always would have been, by the need for speed and flexibility. The transposition of EU law into UK law presents unique challenges but does not require draconian powers never before seen in peacetime. These clauses are, frankly, opportunistic. The first task is obviously to take control back from Ministers and put it back into the hands of Parliament, where it belongs.
The second task, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and many others in this House have alluded, is to prevent the constitutional car crash that is heading towards the United Kingdom in the potential failure of the devolution settlement and the deferred model. The challenge is technically complicated but politically extremely simple. If Clause 11 is not amended, the constitutional equalities will disappear as the devolved Governments are locked down, subject to a new set of restrictions and required to wait for their partial release while Westminster and Whitehall fix up the post-Brexit world.
After seven months in which little urgency has been shown, little regard for consultation with the devolved Administrations and no sniff of amendments, can the Minister give a guarantee that the amendments to Clause 11, which are badly needed, will be presented before we debate it in Committee and after consultation with the devolved Administrations? That is the least that they could expect.
The third task is, of course, to ensure that Parliament has the decisive vote, not just simply on the terms of exit but including on the real possibility of no deal, on the nature of the transition and on the framework of our future relationships.
The parties in the other place have shown us how to proceed by example. They made common cause to win a number of very welcome concessions around scrutiny and the notion of deficiency in retained law. I know that we can work together across this House to build on that to ensure not least that Ministers do not have the carte blanche to decide on the use of regulations to prevent, remedy or mitigate the failure of, or deficiency in, the retained law as they see appropriate—for which read “desirable”. Those powers are as wide as the definitions are boundless. Rather, as my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith said so powerfully, Ministers should be required to justify this as of necessity to achieve the limited object in question. This is not just a constitutional point; it goes to the heart of what our country will look and feel like after Brexit. The way those powers are used brings the possibility of greater risk, lower standards and the loss of opportunities. Anyone who is concerned about the fate of public and health services, the science base, the safety of the environment, the prospects of our children, and whether our inequalities continue to grow or shrink has a huge amount to lose by the winning or losing of that debate.
The Government constantly ask us to trust them not only to know what they are doing—I will be glad to park that—but to use their powers to change laws that they do not like. No Government could be trusted with these powers; they are irresistible. Time and again this Government have tried to take more power and diminish scrutiny. Remember our battles over the then Public Bodies Bill and the then Deregulation Bill; and the creeping use of secondary legislation to make policy and not merely correct technical errors? We should add that to a whole year spent trying to exclude Parliament, even in the courts, from having a say in the decision to leave, and a toxic obsession with secrecy that has kept under wraps any evidence of impacts which might inform, let alone change, public opinion. We end up with a Government who do not trust the people with evidence, let alone truth, and who have, I believe, forfeited the right to be trusted themselves.
We are already being bullied and we will go on being bullied, but the enemies of the people are those for whom all evidence is rubbish and all argument treason. I am sure that, just as has been done in the other place, we can work together in this House not just to make this Bill constitutionally acceptable but to restore trust in the democratic and parliamentary process itself. I believe that will be possible because, no matter where we stand on Europe, we all stand together in defence of parliamentary sovereignty.
Lord Lipsey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my erstwhile political friend but I hope still personal friend the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. Of the cornucopia of questions that have come up so far in this debate I will to address only one: namely, does the result of the referendum in June 2016 effectively compel Parliament to agree to Brexit, of which this Bill is part?
I express no view as to whether Brexit is a good thing or a bad thing, for the simple reason that, perhaps uniquely in this House, I hold no strong view. Of those eligible to vote in 2016, 37% said yes. That is 51.9% yes on a 72.2% turnout. Given the flaws in the electoral register and the exclusion of 16 to 18 year-olds from the poll, it must be doubtful if even a third of those who should have had a say voted to exit. But never mind—one is enough in an election, and it seems moany to question whether, in light of the result, the Government have a right to pursue Brexit. They do.
But we have a sovereign Parliament. Indeed, the sovereignty of Parliament was the absolute core of their argument for getting out of the European Union. It trumped by far silly scrawlings on buses about national health spending. To restore sovereignty from Brussels’s depredations is why we are leaving. To argue, on the one hand, that the sovereignty of Parliament is the supreme virtue and then, on the other, that sovereignty should not apply in this one case is surely a paradox too far.
Let us be clear. Parliament under our constitution is entitled to overrule the referendum result if that, in the considered opinion of its Members, is the right thing to do. No Parliament can bind its successor, and no election result remains the result for ever. In this case there is a clear and important difference, I think, between the remain side and the leave side in the referendum. The remain side was for remaining on the terms renegotiated by David Cameron. The leave side was for—what? Soft or hard? Single market or not? Customs union or not? Irish border or not? What movement of labour? There are as many answers as there are Brexiteers, as the current debate in the Cabinet illustrates.
Following the negotiation, there will be a single alternative to membership. Some who were remainers might then say, “Well, that is a good result. I think I should have voted leave after all”. Some who were Brexiteers might say, “That’s not what I really voted for. I want another go. I don’t like this”. It is between remain and that single alternative that the choice will then lie, and the sovereign Parliament, as I think the Government have now conceded, must ultimately make that choice.
I am very sympathetic to the view of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that it would be best if we made the choice ourselves, with a strong eye, of course, to public opinion but also bringing to the question the epistocratic virtues of our parliamentary democracy. That is not practicable. Having asked the people once, and having said wrongly that we would abide by their verdict, we cannot, without damaging national unity in the long term, simply overrule them.
The only answer, therefore, is a second referendum, where the terms are known. Judging by the poll in the Guardian this week, it is a choice which the people of this country would by a substantial majority welcome. Let us hope it would be the referendum to end all referendums.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I want to make clear my overall support for this Bill and its purpose. Technically, it seeks to sever our links with the European Union by removing the supremacy of European law and the competence of the European Court and its interpretation of that law. I support that aim. I do support Brexit.
I do not support a second referendum. It seems odd to me that those who objected to the first referendum on the grounds that it offended the principle of parliamentary democracy—in fact, I think yesterday it was called a sin against parliamentary democracy—now argue that it is an appropriate way to allow the electorate to express a view.
For a while, I—like, I suspect, others in this House—was conflicted on how to vote in the European referendum. For me it was a heart and mind decision, and of course they were not entirely in agreement. I could see that there were risks involved in exiting the EU. It was the status quo, and therefore there would be costs associated with the change and disruption to our governance—as we will probably see here over the next few weeks. There was the potential effect on economic trade. The European Union, including its currency, has not been an economic miracle. In fact, it has enhanced bureaucracy and reduced free enterprise. The European procurement process alone is a disincentive to innovation. In the Metropolitan Police, where I served, the dreaded words “EU procurement in public service” usually means 18 months of little progress. The contradiction is that it takes longer to make a worse decision than in commerce.
The Union is said to have better protected human rights against the infringements of the state. However, the more intrusive the European Union became, the more that protection was needed from a Commission, Parliament and Council of Ministers that lacked democratic accountability.
Concerns have been expressed about our future security, but our security is built on a strong military, intelligence and policing infrastructure. However, I argue that maintaining all these does not require the UK to be a member of the EU. In defence, our military strength depends on our own investments and innovation, together with those of our allies. Our major military bulwark is NATO. It does not rely on Europe but it does rely on America.
In the sphere of intelligence, our intelligence effectiveness is built on our partnership with the “Five Eyes” intelligence community of America, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the UK—yet they are not in Europe. No country in the world shares all its intelligence and sources with any other country. Europe does not have an intelligence hub where the French tell the UK and Germany tells Holland everything they know about each other—it is not in their national interest to do so. The reports that the US had listened to the German Chancellor’s telephone can have surprised no one. However, we have been very effective at bilateral sharing of information on terrorism. Does anyone seriously suggest that on leaving Europe we would not share information about attacks on Paris or Brussels, should we have it?
On policing, we have been effective at sharing criminal intelligence, wanted lists and extradition warrants through Europol, which is not an enforcement agency. We have also co-ordinated enforcement through Eurojust and MLATs, which have enabled efficient investigations. However, our European experience has not been perfect. When we voted to leave Europe we were still not a member of Prüm, the European database of DNA, fingerprints and facial images that is shared across Europe. The European extradition warrant was efficient and consistent across Europe, but it required a sufficiency of evidence to charge in the requesting country before such a warrant could be issued. This meant that, on return to this country, the suspect could not be interviewed and had to be charged immediately. This is a high bar which interrupted some very good investigations.
The benefits of Europol are enjoyed by Norway, which is not a member of the European Union—so why not the UK? There is great mutual benefit to Europe and the UK in not providing a safe haven to criminals from each set of countries. No one wishes to see French rapists roaming free in the UK, and I am sure that this will be one of the issues to be resolved in the present negotiations, with new extradition agreements based on the existing model.
I resolved my heart and mind dilemma by realising that what mattered most of all was sovereignty. In fact, the Bill might better have been called the “Sovereignty Bill”. The ability to influence the Parliament of which we are Members is a democratic principle that our people have fought and died for in the past. I could have disavowed that principle if I had been convinced unequivocally that we would suffer disastrous economic damage, but for me that was not proved.
I understand why people feel so passionately about being part of Europe. However, it appears to be changing from a common market to a federation. It has declared in its treaties an intention to become closer, and its leaders have declared in speeches and policies an intention to become a federation. Ironically, I believe that federations have been shown around the world to be a force for good, and rarely fail. It may even save the UK constitution one day. But they must be argued for openly and transparently to allow for the separation of powers, the rule of law, and checks and balances to be agreed.
The majority of speeches in this House supporting remain have highlighted the risks of change as we implement the new order. However, there is no no-risk option on the table. An unreformed EU from which we were diverging would be a significant threat to our future. Even under the threat of Brexit, EU leaders resisted the narrow proposals for change put forward by our then Prime Minister, David Cameron.
Finally, in terms of our own role, I really believe that we need to be careful in how we exercise our significant power in coming days. Political elites believing that they can discreetly manage constitutional change among themselves will rarely succeed. People are not fools and their representatives are not kings. We would do well to listen to their voice in the referendum and implement its result as best we can. The alternative for our constitutional democracy is, I believe, too unfortunate to consider.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, with so much already having been said, I shall limit myself to addressing the concern expressed by some of your Lordships about Henry VIII powers and statutory instruments.
There have been squeals of dismay from remainers, who claim that the use of these powers is an erosion of parliamentary sovereignty. I am bewildered by this sudden concern for parliamentary sovereignty. Being part of the European Union means that very sovereignty has already been surrendered, with our Parliament being subservient to an outside body. Regaining parliamentary sovereignty and independence is one of the main arguments for leaving the European Union.
It is not correct to say that Parliament will be bypassed by the use of secondary legislation. Change by statutory instrument is a parliamentary process. As such, Parliament, if it so wishes, can reject a statutory instrument. There is the further safeguard of a two-year sunset clause. There will also be a sifting committee in the Commons, with the ability to change a negative statutory instrument into an affirmative one. This underlines the ability of Parliament to call Ministers to account.
During the last 40 years, 8,000 pieces of law were passed using secondary legislation. Did any of today’s complainers about the use of secondary legislation complain then? What is even more astounding and shocking is that 12,000 pieces of European Union legislation were introduced into this country without parliamentary involvement, including such items as forbidding drinks manufacturers saying that drinking water cures dehydration. That might have raised the odd eyebrow had it been put before parliamentarians.
How can it be argued that the Bill erodes parliamentary supremacy when we lost it over 40 years ago? Leaving the European Union means regaining parliamentary independence. Only in the world of Alice in Wonderland could there be comprehension of the upside-down thinking where those complaining about an erosion of the power of Parliament are the very people trying hard to prevent sovereignty returning to Westminster.
It cannot be preferable to have laws made by an unelected European Union bureaucracy rather than our own Parliament. I join the many other noble Lords who have expressed this in hoping that we, in this House, are not so blinkered as to ignore the principle that this unelected Chamber should not oppose the express wishes of the electorate. These were clearly demonstrated in the referendum and in the last election, when both main parties included leaving the European Union in their manifestos.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, having stood on Hove beach with a cross-party group of MPs and campaigners in May 2016 to highlight the dangers to the environment of a leave vote in the referendum, sadly I find it necessary this afternoon to continue the argument I made then. Despite the Government’s rhetoric on the environment, there is a great deal more that this Bill will need to do to make those promises a reality. It is pertinent that that very beach was one that helped to earn the UK the nickname “the dirty man of Europe” when it joined the EU in 1970. Fast forward to 2018 and the beach is now one of 97% of UK bathing waters which have passed the EU quality test, thanks in no small part to the strict standards put in place at EU level.
We have to ask ourselves why, over the years, we have had to rely on EU directives to clean up our water, our waste, our air and our soil, and why we have had to rely on the 527 EU regulations that set standards for the environment and health protection, not to mention the 922 affecting agriculture and the 1,122 shaping a sustainable fishing policy. These have all played their part in transforming our environment, with the result that something like 80% of UK environmental legislation is derived from the EU. Therefore, it is no wonder that environmental and animal charities are concerned about what the future holds, and why we are keen to pin down the detail of the legislative transfer to UK law.
So we have to be concerned when, in the Commons, the Government voted against amendments that would have entrenched all the EU regulations in UK law, free from ministerial interference via their Henry VIII powers. Equally, their rejection of the precautionary principle and the “polluter pays” principle in managing our natural assets showed a disregard for the fundamental protections that have made the EU a global environmental leader. As we know, they rejected the animal sentience amendments, which have now been superseded by a separate draft Bill. Many would argue that that would have been completely unnecessary if only the Government had heeded our advice in the first place.
The Government would have us believe that they are now converted to the cause and that the environment is safe in their hands. Forgive us for being rather sceptical, because evidence is in rather short supply. Although of course we are pleased to have seen Michael Gove carrying his reusable coffee cup, I would rather have seen him wielding a comprehensive list of amendments guaranteeing that the environmental protections will be at least as good as those delivered by the EU in the past. So we will be supporting amendments that address that deficit.
In the debate yesterday it was argued that we now have three categories of legislation: primary, secondary and EU retained. I would add a fourth: the environmental principles currently set out in the introduction to EU law but not due to be transposed. For example, I have already referred to the precautionary principle, which is crucial in its application to pesticides. As we know, bee species and other pollinators are in decline, and evidence mounts that neonicotinoids are to blame. We need to heed the scientific advice and take urgent steps to protect our ecosystems before the damage becomes irreversible. Similarly, the “polluter pays” principle has been crucial in cleaning up our water supply, with water companies given large fines for polluting rivers and killing fish. This principle is an important deterrent for those who would otherwise be cavalier about their impact on the environment and put profit before people.
We will also be seeking guarantees regarding our continued involvement in the European institutions which have provided effective monitoring and enforcement of environmental standards. Organisations such as the European Food Safety Authority have been crucial in clamping down on misleading labelling and tackling salmonella and the horsemeat scandal. Another example is the REACH chemical regulation, which sets safety standards for trading and usage across the EU and stops toxic dumping.
Finally, and crucially, we will want to ensure that any new UK green watchdog is up and running by exit day, is placed on a statutory footing, is truly independent, and has the powers to fine Ministers when environmental rules are broken.
Organisations such as ClientEarth, which act on behalf of citizens, have been able to tackle illegal air pollution because they can take government to court. We have to ensure that access to justice, without prohibitive cost, remains in the new legislative framework. The Government have said that they are consulting on the composition of this new body but, like many other outstanding issues, it is vital that this is resolved and brought into legislation before exit day.
Many other environmental challenges arising from Brexit are not covered by this withdrawal Bill. We await details of the agriculture Bill, the fisheries Bill and even a separate environment Bill. It will be a real challenge to meet the timescales to deliver these before exit day and we need to be clear on what will happen if that deadline is not met. Therefore, we will seek guarantees that, on exit day, the whole package of environmental reforms is underpinned by the same protective principles that have provided such effective protection throughout our membership of the EU.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and to hear about the environmental protections she is concerned to protect. There have been very many eloquent speeches, and insightful remarks over the last couple of days. Many see the Bill as a technical process: a legal pathway, albeit complex and fraught with constitutional threats and dilemmas. But, to many, it is as much about the country we want to be, the values we hold, the beliefs we fight for and, not least, the people we serve. Omitting the European Charter of Fundamental Rights is seen by many as not preserving the rights of the people we serve and rejecting the values of fairness, justice and freedom. The provisions of the charter are wide-reaching: dignity, the right to life, right to care and rights of the elderly; freedoms, including freedom of thought, conscience and religion; equality, non-discrimination on race, religion and sexual orientation; rights of minorities; solidarity, employment rights, rights of association; and citizens’ rights and justice rights—rights to representation and advice.
The charter, as other noble Lords have said, also offers remedies when human rights are violated which are not available if the charter is to be excluded from the Bill. The Government’s explanation is that the substantive rights included in the charter are protected in different places in EU and UK law. However, legal opinion published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission is that failure to preserve relevant parts of the charter after Brexit will lead to the weakening of the current system of human rights protection in the UK.
In its recently published report that many Members have referred to, the Constitution Committee said:
“If, as the Government suggest, the Charter of Fundamental Rights adds nothing to the content of EU law … we do not understand why an exception needs to be made for it”.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights says that,
“the exclusion of the charter from domestic law results in a complex human rights landscape which is uncertain. Legal uncertainty is likely to undermine … rights”.
All of this should set alarm bells ringing for the future of human rights. For example, the National Union of Students is greatly concerned with any negative implications that removing the charter could have on students and on citizens across the country. Article 14 of the charter gives the right to an education for every individual, including “vocational and continued training”. With the removal of the charter there is a worry that new wording may mean that this no longer applies in the UK. Furthermore, the charter includes a number of vital protections for the most marginalised students, particularly LGBT, women, disabled and black students, who typically face barriers to engaging and succeeding in education.
Following the referendum, we saw a huge increase in hate crimes, with some parts of the country suffering more than a 50% increase in racial and religious persecution. There were also large increases in the persecution of people with disabilities and those in the LGBT community. We really need to ask how any diminution of human rights can be acceptable in the light of this. Yesterday evening I was struck by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman. He asked who will suffer if all of this goes wrong. Who will be blamed? Who will be scapegoated? That is what we need to ask ourselves. The exclusion of the charter sends a powerful message that the poorest and most vulnerable citizens can expect things to change for the worse, certainly as far as the protection of their rights is concerned.
If ever there was a time that human rights needed full protection under the law, it is now, particularly in light of the cuts in local services. Minimal support is now being provided for the most vulnerable. Refuges for victims of violence are in crisis, advice on debt has been drastically cut, and the number of homeless and rough sleepers is soaring. All in all, the services that support basic rights are struggling for existence. The Government have pledged to scrap the Human Rights Act and replace it with a less robust British Bill of Rights and have been consistently sceptical about and resistant to attempts to extend human rights, so any weakening in this Bill of the legal framework to enforce human rights must be opposed and the charter needs to be incorporated with the rest of European law. We must not permit the weakening of human rights through the back door, rather we must retain the charter and its protections against violations of human rights. This is all the more important as the country faces a time of massive and unpredictable change.
I hope that this is not a matter of too much difference between Members of parties or of no party and I hope, given that many noble Lords have spoken about this issue, that we can work across the House to make sure that these values are upheld and the charter is retained in the treaty.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster (CB)
My Lords, my views on Brexit have not changed since our debate on 5 July 2016, after the referendum. I cannot rid myself of the feeling that we are making a great mistake for which our children and our children’s children will pay the price. In preparation for this debate I have been rereading what I said in July 2016 and I wondered whether simply to repeat it today. It would have been interesting to see whether anybody noticed.
In short, I remain of the view that while we have been members of the European Union we have fared better and the country has been more prosperous at home, although there is room for improvement in the distribution of the benefits of that prosperity. Our country has been stronger in its standing and influence in international affairs. That would continue to be the case if we remained in the European Union, but it will not if we do not. I cannot simply dismiss and ignore all the analyses and forecasts which support this view. I do not have much confidence in sunny uplands. We live in a global and competitive world, and we should be favouring multilateral institutions and solutions, not pursuing unilateral, nationalist courses where we isolate ourselves. I fear too that leaving the European Union will prove to be a threat to the integrity of the United Kingdom as well as to the peace process in Northern Ireland and our relations with the Republic of Ireland.
When we come to consider the final proposals on Brexit, we shall need to consider how far the mandate of the referendum in 2016 still has authority. The campaign that led up to it was full of half-truths and fake information, and we now have much clearer knowledge and better information about the probable costs and consequences of leaving the EU than we had in June 2016. That, however, is not the issue for debate today. This Bill is about process, not policy: it is about how, not whether, we set about leaving the European Union. We shall have to come back to the existential decision of policy when we come to approve the deal that the Government will have negotiated with the European Union.
As this debate is showing, there will be plenty of important and difficult issues to be considered in Committee and on Report. I will concentrate on the proliferation of secondary legislation. For years, we have become accustomed to being asked to consider very large Bills, some with 200 or more clauses. It is impossible for Parliament, particularly the House of Commons, to give these mammoth Bills the scrutiny they deserve and that it is our constitutional duty to provide. Many of them contain many proposals for authorising the preparation by government of statutory instruments that convey delegated legislative powers to Ministers, with no opportunities for Parliament to amend them. Some of these instruments contain powers—the so-called Henry VIII powers—to vary or amend primary legislation. I suspect that we should call them the Cromwell powers, really, because Thomas Cromwell started it and it was gleefully taken up by Oliver Cromwell.
The steadily increasing resort to these statutory instruments has led to the steady creep of legislative powers being transferred from Parliament to the Executive. There are now several thousand new statutory instruments every year. Some of them do not require parliamentary approval at all. Many pass without being scrutinised by Parliament. Only some require parliamentary approval before they come into force, and then Parliament can only approve or reject them: it cannot amend them.
Section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 provided for the incorporation of EU legislation into British law, much of it by statutory instrument. The Bill goes further than that, in that it would allow the Executive not only to confirm the incorporation of European law into British law by statutory instrument, but to vary it in doing so. This implies a large extension of the Executive’s power to make law without adequate parliamentary authority.
As a former civil servant I can understand the Executive thinking that Parliament has neither the capacity nor the resources to scrutinise all these statutory instruments meaningfully. As a parliamentarian now, I think that we have to consider very carefully whether, and if so, how, these instruments can be made subject to more effective parliamentary scrutiny and approval.
If we are to leave the European Union, this Bill is necessary to provide for the process of doing so. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, I hope that it will be passed. It is an important Bill, to which we should give a Second Reading today. It will require—as we have seen in this debate—long and detailed examination in Committee and on Report. It also demonstrates some of the consequences which will follow the decision to leave the European Union, a decision which we shall have to review when we have agreement on the terms of our leaving and the conditions, costs and consequences of leaving are clearly established.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
My Lords, there have been some excellent speeches from both sides of the House and on both sides of the issue. To be fair, as the 148th speaker I think that there is probably little I can add to today’s debate and that the best I can do as a contribution is to give your Lordships a gift. Do not worry—you will not have to put it on a form, as the gift will purely be of time. Please enjoy the six minutes that I am going to give back to your lives.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I am particularly pleased to follow the previous speaker. Perhaps that six minutes should be in my entry in the register of interests.
It has, for many reasons, been with mixed emotions that I have sat through this debate. One reason is that I wish the debate was not taking place. I wish that we were not preparing to leave the European Union, and not leaving on the whims, prejudices, and architecture of the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative Party, aided and abetted by the right-wing press. But politics is not about wishing; it is about having the courage to take difficult decisions—not necessarily to follow public opinion, but to lead and fashion it, to challenge it and to offer other options. I believe that politics is about having the courage to be unpopular and to do what is in the long-term interests of your country. It is to put country before party or personal advancement.
Yet, sadly, the debate has barely moved on. The lack of knowledge about how the EU functions, and the role of member state Governments within it, is as shocking as it is depressing. Some would have us believe that Governments are dragged against their will into the European Union and the Council of Ministers, where they make their democratic decisions. Neither is there understanding of the role and duties of the European Commission, given to it by the treaties, or the directly elected European Parliament, in which I proudly served for 15 years. This is either ignorance or, perhaps, wilful misrepresentation.
The EU was born out of the ashes of the Second World War: the ashes of people’s hopes and dreams, and yes, the ashes from crematoria that were dotted across Europe. A group of countries came together to ensure that history would not repeat itself—that we would never turn away again. It is a European Union that has at its root and core fundamental human rights and freedoms that are non-negotiable, even on accession into it. It is a union of countries and peoples joined by common principles and a united purpose: never to look away again and allow countries or peoples to be scapegoated or sacrificed. It is this European Union that we now turn away from, as we seek isolation while fooling ourselves and our citizens that it makes us stronger.
I say to my own Front Bench in another place that out of the European Union was constructed the single market, which has equality and fairness at its root and core, and that we should maintain our membership of that single market. But we are where we are. The country is divided and people feel left out, isolated and unwanted. EU citizens living here feel under threat, their futures and their children’s futures insecure in a country that they thought they could call home and where they could play by the same rules, abide by the same laws, and remain safe and welcome. How shamefully we have treated them and our citizens who live in other parts of the European Union.
Where once we served as a beacon of hope, fairness and decency, we are now viewed in a very different light. The glow has gone and this sceptred isle fumes with a narrow nationalism, promoted and stoked by the right-wing press—particularly the Daily Mail, with its threats and attacks upon any who dare in a democracy to think or vote other than the way that the Daily Mail or the Daily Telegraph believe that we should. Is it traitorous to pursue what you believe to be in the best interests of your country? Or is it traitorous to abandon your principles and your country, and surrender to threats from those who wield power without responsibility or accountability? Where is parliamentary sovereignty, when attacks are heaped on parliamentarians for exercising their democratic rights in Parliament? We live in strange times.
Many noble and learned Lords have spoken of the deficiencies in the Bill. Organisations such as Liberty, Amnesty, the Fawcett Society and so many more have given their recommendations and shared their concerns, especially around the issues of equalities, human rights and the dilution of democracy. I share their views. In the debate in my name in your Lordships’ House on 12 December, I posed questions to the Minister on human rights post Brexit. I was not reassured by the replies, either during the debate or in subsequent correspondence.
I want now to refer particularly to the recommendations that came from the Equality and Human Rights Commission. On the withdrawal Bill, it advises that we retain the UK’s equality and human rights legal framework as we leave the EU by including within the Bill the following. First, we should rule out the use of delegated powers to reduce equality and human rights protections. Secondly, we should include a principle of non-regression of equality and human rights law. Thirdly, we should retain the protections of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Fourthly, we should introduce a domestic right to equality. Fifthly, we should ensure that the United Kingdom keeps pace with developments in equality and human rights law by ensuring that our courts have regard to relevant EU case law after exit day.
In light of the Bill's twin aims of ensuring legal certainty and continuity, removing the charter and the right of action based on the general principles is wholly inappropriate. The charter secures important rights, as others have said: education, protection of the elderly, and equality rights—including, I say as a gay man, LGBT rights—which could be seriously undermined, as well as the principle of non-discrimination. The Bill must be improved, especially with regard to the charter and the equalities that currently exist. If the Government’s intentions are honourable then they should put the protections I have outlined on the face of the Bill, and not in worthless reassurances or in a committee which, to quote a Minister in correspondence, is merely advisory. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, spoke earlier about ambitions. My ambition is simple: the protection of rights that have been fought for across generations—and fought against—and which define a civilised country.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, I suspect that I am not alone in your Lordships’ House in having spent the last year being asked what I was going to do about Brexit. People who would be described as leavers have been asking why we are not getting on with it; remainers like me have been asking what I am going to do to stop it. With more than 180 speakers—as the noble Lord, Lord Porter of Spalding, has indicated—it is probably the case that everything has already been said. Unfortunately for noble Lords, however, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Porter, I still want to say it.
Of course, this is not an Act of Parliament to determine whether we leave the EU. Article 50 notice has already been given. However, this is probably the first opportunity that this House has had to try to influence negotiations: in my case, I hope, away from a disastrous hard Brexit. From the remain side, we clearly know what business wants. Banks and financial services companies want their ability to sell their services across Europe to remain unchanged.
I speak for the Liberal Democrats on manufacturing. It is also clear what the overwhelming majority of manufacturing companies want. First, they want a continuation of tariff-free access to Europe. It has been suggested that this is less necessary in the light of the drop in sterling against the euro. While it is true that the drop in the exchange rate, together with the uplift in world trade, has given a boost to our export sales in Europe, it is not the whole story. As noble Lords will be aware, many manufacturing companies import their components from the European Union, so the drop in currency has increased their costs. As yesterday’s figures from the car manufacturers demonstrate, there has been a significant drop in investment in the motor car industry since the referendum. What is clear to those of us on this side of the argument is that the so-called hard Brexit, with us moving to WTO rules, would be a disaster for our manufacturing industry.
Secondly, manufacturers want frictionless borders. Clearly, this is an essential requirement in Ireland, but it is also critical for the many manufacturing companies that employ just-in-time systems for the use of imported components, where pieces of equipment often pass several times across the border with Europe. Any system that involves hold-ups at the border would be disastrous, and industry has no real confidence that any proposed electronic border provisions would work. As we know, the introduction of IT systems by all Governments is not good.
Thirdly, manufacturers want continued immigration from Europe. Other speakers have mentioned the need for nurses, carers and workers in the leisure industry, but industry requires a continuous input of skilled workers. As my noble friend Lord Stunell would say, the construction industry will collapse without skilled workers continuing to come from Europe and there will be no chance of the Government meeting their housing targets. The so-called tech cities springing up throughout Britain require the continued import of skilled workers from Europe. The Government will say that we will soon develop our own skills base, but there is no chance that it will happen on any reasonable timescale. In any event, some skills are no longer taught in the United Kingdom. For example, many engineering SMEs need analogue engineers, but we now teach only digital engineering in our universities.
Fourthly, there must be certainty about how regulatory agencies will continue or be replaced. There are myriad European agencies whose regulations exporters will still have to comply with. Will we be setting up our own agencies at huge cost or will we retain general compliance with European regulations? The standard answer from the Government is of course that we anticipate agreeing continued arrangements, but will Europe agree?
Clearly amendments will be tabled in Committee from across the House to reflect the wishes of business that I have just expressed. Manufacturing industry would certainly support an amendment that said we should stay in the single market and the customs union. I will support an amendment to provide for a further referendum on the terms of any deal, for which a number of noble Lords have indicated their support. As noble Lords have indicated, the ICM poll for the Guardian last week showed that well over 60% of the public now want a further referendum on the terms of leaving. It was noticeable that the only age group against the idea of this referendum is the retired—that is, people who no longer play a role in the business life of the country and have the smallest stake in our future. I hope the Government will now agree to give the electorate what they clearly want.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I voted remain in the referendum not for any great love of the European Union and its institutions but for the reason described by my noble friend Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: our future is about being connected with others in this very connected world and we will be stronger for it. Indeed, I recall the Select Committee on soft power’s report, which described the positive future for the UK as the best networked country in the world. In many ways, we could be the best connected country in the world and that would be a strong place for us to be, so it is sad to see that we are stepping back from the European Union and Europe at the same time as we seem to be stepping back from other areas of our international role, including international development. We are doing it just at the point when, it seems to me, the people we have been aiding and working with in low and middle-income countries are beginning to gain some political power that may help us in future.
Like other people who voted remain, I wish to move on, and the aim is to get the best deal we can in every sector in the negotiations that are under way to ensure that we can have as positive a result from Brexit as possible. Like other noble Lords, I have interests in some specific areas that need to be given detailed scrutiny. In my area of health, I have a number of concerns, some of which have already been mentioned. I shall list a few. There is the big question of securing continuity of staffing for health and social care, research and the scientific community. This is the greatest vulnerability facing the health system in this country and one that we need to make sure is protected. In addition, there is access to research funds and to research collaborations with our partners in Europe, which are so important. There is reciprocal healthcare between ourselves and our fellow citizens of Europe, as we now are. We need to understand how all these issues are affected by the provisions of the Bill in detail and in practical terms. I am sure we will come to that.
One specific area is the importance of public health safeguards and provisions. Before going further, I note that I am indebted for advice on this matter to the Faculty of Public Health—I declare an interest as an honorary fellow. Public health in the broadest sense encompasses everything from pollution to health services: everything that affects the health of the population. It is vital to our health and well-being, critical for the sustainability of the NHS and social care, and will of course contribute to the long-term productivity and prosperity of our nation, not least by ensuring that we have a healthy workforce but also by ensuring that we are able to compete on a global stage by providing the support for the country’s vital biomedical and life sciences sector, which will be so important in the future. It is good to see that the Government are supporting this sector in a positive way.
As we all know, diseases know no boundaries, and I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Health has outlined his commitment that the Government will aim to maintain UK participation in European co-operation on areas such as disease prevention and public health. Although this assurance is welcome, we will need more specific commitments. I hope the Minister will offer reassurance to the public and professionals that the Bill will “do no harm” to the public’s health and that no provision introduced as a result of it will widen inequalities or increase pressure on the NHS and social care. This is important, and I believe other noble Lords will table an amendment to the Bill seeking a commitment to maintain a high level of protection for public health through all their legislation. Providing this reassurance in the Bill would be consistent with the Government’s intention to provide certainty and with their commitment to improve the population’s health.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, in particular as a partner in the global commercial law firm DAC Beachcroft and as chair of the British Insurance Brokers’ Association.
As we all know, the purpose of a debate at Second Reading is to discuss the principles underlying a piece of proposed legislation. Rarely in my experience as a parliamentarian has it been more important for us to be clear in our minds about what a Bill is and what a Bill is not. This Bill is not designed to initiate Brexit, as my noble friend Lord Ridley so forcefully pointed out yesterday. It is a vehicle for dealing with the consequences of Brexit, and for maximising the opportunities we derive, while minimising the risks and potential collateral damage. As my noble friend Lord Hill of Oareford said:
“In some ways, it is quite a boring Bill”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1388.]
But as my noble friend the Leader of the House stressed at the start of this debate:
“It is vital to a smooth and orderly exit from the EU… to honour the referendum result”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1373.]
In the absence of the Bill, legal rights would inevitably be affected overnight, in a disorderly fashion, which would critically undermine the rule of law and almost certainly overwhelm our courts. Of course, much so-called EU law does not need the assistance of the Bill to remain in force. It has been passed in primary or secondary domestic legislation and does not, or does not exclusively, derive force from the EU treaties or the European Communities Act 1972.
I commend to the House last week’s report by the Constitution Committee, of which I have the privilege to be a member, and welcome the comments that have been made at various stages of this lengthy debate about our recommendations. In contrast to the hyperbole attendant on the release of our report, the possibly less exciting reality is that it provides helpful and positive suggestions to ensure the Bill does the job for which it is intended: helping to ensure Brexit can be made as smooth and painless as possible. It also potentially creates the basis for a consensus on how to make the best of Brexit. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde was right to advise:
“If the Bill is to be amended, then let it be done with co-operation and consultation between Back-Benchers and Ministers”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1408.]
Such a consensus would greatly enhance our negotiating position.
In dealing with retained EU law, this Bill is necessarily origin-focused and content blind, which could have arbitrary, unforeseeable and, sometimes, undesirable effects. There must be a significant body of EU-derived law which the UK would have adopted in any event, in the same or very similar form. Obvious examples that have been mentioned are to be found in the equalities field and financial services regulation. The practical need for at least some so-called retained EU law post-Brexit does not, of itself, justify creating an executive correction power, still less prescribe the precise scope or form of any such power. We must ensure that any correction power is compatible with the vital principle that the Executive must be genuinely accountable to the legislature.
Many fear that one unintended consequence of Brexit could be the emasculation of the UK financial services sector. It is vital that the UK, in negotiating a new free trade agreement with the EU, ensures the unbroken maintenance of mutual market access for financial services, ensuring continuity of cover and protection. A suitable transition period will be vital, and so too will mutual recognition of prudential regulatory regimes. Both motor and travel insurance require special attention too. I hope we shall maintain a free circulation zone without reintroducing an onerous green card requirement. Like the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, I also very much hope this Bill will help enable the UK to maintain a reciprocal emergency health agreement with our friends in the European Union.
This Bill is but one part of a testing and complex process—a vital part, but one of many. The road ahead is uncertain and it will be challenging to us all. I believe, however, that our debates here in the next few weeks will show this House at its serious, erudite and constructive best.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Hague of Richmond, who brought two new items to the debate, I do not anticipate that I will add anything new. There have been some outstanding contributions and I particularly commend the outstanding speech from my noble friend that we have just heard.
Yesterday I was particularly moved by two speeches. The first was the speech from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds. We have heard much in these debates about the will of the people, and it behoves us to listen to what he said about trying to know and follow the will of God, rather than focusing so much on humanity. He suggested that we should know what Brexit is about, where it is taking us, what kind of society we are seeking and how to get out of this confused and divided country in which we now find ourselves. He gave us much food for thought and I am most grateful for what he had to say. I, too, originate from the north—I come from Wakefield, which is part of the right reverend Prelate’s diocese. I was born working class in a council house, and now, a bit like the noble Lord who will be replying, I am living down in London after quite a journey.
The Brexit vote laid bare divisions in society which many of us had not fully appreciated. In Wakefield, 66.3% of the people who voted opted to leave the European Union—similar demographics to the people who voted elsewhere for Brexit. Some of the strongest support for Brexit was in struggling areas, where average incomes, and average education and skills levels, are low and there are few opportunities to get ahead. Working class communities in Britain have been left behind by rapid economic change, and feel cut adrift from the mainstream and marginalised in many places. Their types of opportunities and life experiences contrast sharply with those in areas that are filled with more affluent, highly educated and diverse populations, as we find here in London, which gave some of the strongest support to remaining in the EU.
People move to cities such as London, as I did, to get jobs and leave communities behind; they are involved in a brain drain, which increasingly creates further inequalities in those communities. Those communities also have health inequalities. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, talked about the necessity of maintaining equality of standards of health, and further improving it. My fear is that Brexit, if anything, will undermine the standards that we presently have and make matters worse. I hear, too, that we have a deal with the Americans, and that the one thing they are particularly waiting to do is to move into the NHS and get their hands on many of the operations there—which in turn is not likely to improve the lives of the disadvantaged of whom I speak.
The reality is that these communities will probably be the worst hit by the economic consequences of Brexit if we end up with a bad deal or, even worse, no deal at all. I would like the Minister to say what he thinks the future looks like in the area from whence he comes—whether it is going to look better than it has been in the past, and when it is likely to look better as a consequence of Brexit, which he so strongly supports.
The other speech that hit me very strongly indeed, and I believe is in the newspapers, too, was that of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley. He had previously been involved in government negotiations and yesterday he strikingly described the dangers to the country of drift, indecision and weak leadership. He reminded the House that there are choices and that early decisions need to be made on them, that time is running out and that, without clarity on direction in the negotiations and within government, there is a risk that the UK might crash out of the EU with a very poor deal or no deal. When we listened to the debate a couple of weeks ago, so many contributors from the opposite Benches actually favoured that prospect. I believe that that is of great concern to those who are worried about inequalities and divisions in the country. It would be a disastrous outcome for us. We need to be as close as we can to being in Europe—or, as some might prefer, in Europe.
A bad deal would bear down very heavily indeed on the disadvantaged areas around the country, and it is time that the Government prepared themselves for giving an explanation to those parts of the country which voted leave of just what the consequences might be if we found ourselves in such a position. That is a question that I put to the Minister a couple of weeks ago during Oral Questions. A bad deal or no deal cannot simply be accepted by us. We have to have a look at how we would handle it, and I believe that we are moving bit by bit towards trying to find a mechanism whereby the people will have another say. It may be in another referendum—and that leads me to the third speaker who greatly influenced me yesterday, my noble friend Lord Adonis. If he pushes his amendment to a vote, I shall support it, even though it is in conflict with what my noble friends on the Front Bench want.
Another alternative course is that we may find ourselves, with all the divisions in the Government, moving towards a general election. If that is the case, this will again provide the opportunity for the people to have a second view on whether the terms for coming out of Europe are acceptable—or, in turn, whether they wish to remain in Europe.
So there is nothing new from me today, just an expression of worries—increasing worries since I last spoke on the European issue because matters have got worse, not better. The country has become diminished and looks worse in the eyes of others. For those who are thinking and worried about it, it looks worse from inside, too. I hope that we can get back on track and find a way through, and we must ensure that the people are involved in whatever the final outturn is.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I deem it appropriate that I am speaking in the presence of my noble friend Lord Pannick and noble and learned friends Lord Judge and Lord Hope, because I am going to confine myself to Clause 5(4) and (5), which state that the European Charter of Fundamental Rights is not a part of domestic law on or after exit day.
The charter is a novelty, which has only been seen to apply directly in this country since 2013, as the UK, under Prime Minister Blair, signed up to Protocol 30 —an opt out. This opt out was ignored by the European Court of Justice, a warning of things to come. It started as a political declaration designed to give common values to the states of the EU and build a platform for more integration. It morphed into a document with legal status, as explained by the House of Commons European Security Committee report in 2014, The application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in the UK: a State of Confusion. It recommended primary legislation to disapply the charter from the UK by way of an amendment to the European Communities Act 1972. When one reads the Commons report, explaining how the charter would broaden the ambit of EU law, its uncertain distinction between rights and principles, the hazy scope of its application and the effect of having parallel rights in the charter and the European Convention on Human Rights, it becomes clear in the end that the inclusion of the charter after Brexit would cause more confusion and less certainty for business, impinge on the sovereignty of Parliament in an unprecedented way, and could open the door to eternal subjection to the ECJ and EU legal supremacy. Maybe that is what the movers of amendments to keep the charter in place intend.
The charter was also intended to protect the citizen against overmighty EU institutions, not necessarily against his or her own state, for states have their own democratically enacted rights laws. This was explained by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, in his evidence to the aforementioned committee. The then Lord Chancellor, Mr Kenneth Clarke, was equally dismissive in his evidence to European Sub-Committee B in 2011, when he said,
“the charter … is of more political and public presentation … than it is of deep significance, because it does not actually change anything”.
It is odd that those who are now so determined to preserve it were once so clear-sighted about its insignificance. Yes, it has changed, but it has changed for the worse.
The charter is insignificant in another way, too. What a failure it has been in upholding—let alone extending—democracy and freedom in great swathes of Europe. Poland is undermining human rights and the rule of law. The latest Freedom House report slates many EU states for turning back from civil liberties and political rights. In Hungary, Austria, Croatia, Romania and other European states, judicial corruption, intolerance, xenophobia, racism, domestic violence and crime are on the rise. Extreme right-wing parties are on the march in Germany and Greece, and France has extended its state of emergency for the fifth time. So much for the efficacy of the charter. And it has happened on our watch.
This debate should be about our values. The EU puts a price on everything, but I do not discern its values. We have heard in this House that the Government do not know their destination. But what is the EU destination, save “more Europe” on the sat-nav and taking every road to the extreme right? No positive case could have been made for it during the referendum, because its failures in, inter alia, the euro and management of migrants demonstrate its lack of political virtue.
The most radical and dangerous element of retaining the charter is that it would uniquely give judges the power to disapply Acts of Parliament, not just declare them incompatible with human rights law, as is their remit under our Human Rights Act. If the charter is not removed from our law, our courts will be invited to limit or ignore existing law or EU incorporated law by reference to the list of rights—many of them vague, many of them simply aspirational, such as the independence of the elderly. I am pleased to note that my noble and learned friend Lord Brown supported this view.
We ought to be proud of our commitment to and long history of human rights and the rule of law in this country. Lord Reed explained in his famous judgment in the UNISON case in 2017 that the rule of law means that this Parliament makes our laws, its members are chosen and accountable to the people, and the courts enforce those laws. Brexit means that we return to that position and to our leadership in human rights.
We should ask ourselves whether each one of us feels that his or her rights are better protected by European law or by the Supreme Court. The core of the argument against inclusion of the charter is that it would bring into our law a set of rights and principles not enacted by Parliament—not subject to the usual debate and testing of public opinion—and its scope and meaning would change as it was interpreted by the European courts after Brexit, so we would be bound for all time by a set of norms over which we had no control and no part in shaping—a charter designed for an institution we had left. Those who are so determined to uphold parliamentary scrutiny by limiting Henry VIII powers ought also to appreciate that the inclusion of the charter keeps that king’s approach for ever.
Lord Inglewood (Con)
My Lords, unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who I am delighted to follow, I will be general with my comments, although I hope that my arguments will be focused.
Now that Article 50 has been served in response to the outcome of the referendum, we are thereby tearing up our agreement with the other EU member states. As a result, both sides are looking beyond Brexit—through exit, to the world beyond. Naturally, everyone is trying to secure advantage for themselves. No matter what we do next, be it wise or foolish, it is always better to try to do things sensibly. I entirely agree with those who argue that the right starting point is to aim to parachute the acquis into the post-Brexit UK legal system—into which it will morph—and that that has to be done seamlessly but at the same time entirely in line with our constitutional settlement and traditions. It sounds easy, but it is not, as the Select Committee on the Constitution so helpfully pointed out in its serious strictures about the Bill. Parliament must handle these matters in accordance with the customary democratic practices of this country. There is simply no scope for exceptions. I do not want to comment further in any detail at this stage; much has already been said, and a great deal more will be, in Committee and on Report and I will be inclined to support a number of amendments.
We all know this is happening in the midst of political turmoil. In a more aggressive age or country, I dare say there might be civil war or violence on the streets. Society is split down the middle. When all this is over, the nation will need to coalesce again. In the meantime, there are real worries among all categories of opinion. It seems to me that the manner of the future of the conduct of public business may be of equal importance as its substance, because the eventual outcome must be seen as legitimate, not least by those who disagree with its merits. Rules of procedure, which sometimes seem—and in reality often are—pedantic and dull, are put in place not least to protect the weak and minorities. If they are ignored or rolled over roughshod, longer term discontent is embedded, to the disadvantage of these groups.
Ironically, it only occurred to me during this debate, because it was a point made by others, that if the European Communities Act is a kind of Henry VIII clause writ large, then so, perhaps, is the referendum Act. In both cases, Parliament remains the guardian of the constitution, the process and its outcomes.
One of the characteristics of the referendum on whether we should leave the European Union was that it was a binary choice. Leaving the EU may be a binary choice, but the consequential negotiation of a deep and special relationship is not. The two are intimately and irrevocably connected despite being clearly distinct. At the time of the referendum, advocates of leaving were—and still are—irreconcilably divided about what comes next. It seems to me that what happens next is, by any constitutional analysis, a matter for a sovereign Parliament, which must not loosen its control over how things may develop. I have no idea at all what will happen, but I suspect that anybody who says they do is deluding themselves or trying to delude others.
As I said, Parliament is sovereign in this country. It must impose its control over the politics of what happens next; it must be unshackled in doing so and be allowed and enabled to decide how matters move forward in whatever way it deems best at the time those decisions must be taken. That seems to be the only acceptable and meaningful effect of the words “meaningful vote”. That, however you look at it, is called taking back control.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, we are in the final straight and much has been said already. Inevitably, our debate today and yesterday has not been strictly limited to the terms of the Bill, which has been described—correctly—as a technical process Bill, necessary to ensure a smooth and orderly transition out of the EU. I entirely accept the need for such a Bill, but it was not supposed to cause a rerun of the referendum debates, nor the Article 50 process. However, that debate has proved irresistible to some, including me.
Like many Members of your Lordships’ House, I voted remain in the referendum. I did this for a variety of reasons: most authoritative economic forecasts predicted higher growth if we stayed—a matter seemingly confirmed currently if press reports are to be believed—but principally because I am comfortable with the deep and special relationship that exists at the moment between the UK and other member states. It is a relationship where we work together to improve the economic, social, cultural and environmental well-being of some 740 million people—a relationship that, by and large, has fostered peace and prosperity.
I have not changed my mind since June 2016 and I have looked on with sadness and increasing anger as we stumble through the consequences of the decision to withdraw, undermining our standing in Europe and the world, with Ministers squabbling—making a nonsense of strong and stable government—and the internal wrangling of the Conservative Party failing to offer a vision for what they see as a post-Brexit world. With the benefit of hindsight, I consider that the referendum was an inappropriate mechanism to determine such a complex issue as our future relationship with the EU—certainly without thresholds and detailed impact assessments. Neither remainers nor Brexiteers could seriously have predicted the full range of consequences from and the complexity of leaving. I certainly did not.
Although we can lay this fateful approach at the feet of David Cameron, do we not bear some collective responsibility for not bringing greater challenge to this process? But we are where we are. A referendum was the decision mechanism offered to the voters and they are entitled to see it respected. However, this should not preclude them from having a chance for second thoughts when they have the detail of the negotiation outcome. How and when that second chance should be available, for how long we can assume Article 50 can be reversed, and whether the second chance should be by way of a further referendum or a general election will not be settled by this Bill. But either deserves at least consideration.
I support the approach to this Bill, which my party has argued should be an enabling measure and which should reinforce the Prime Minister’s commitment to hold a vote in Parliament before the European Parliament considers the agreement. I also support it seeking a temporary extension to participation in the single market and customs union on current terms—indeed, the longer, the better. Further, for myself, I hope that somewhere along the line we may find a way to offer the British public an opportunity to determine whether they wish to change their mind and remain in the EU, or at least the single market and the customs union.
So far as the Bill is concerned, as others have said, it is complex and dense and unconstitutional in parts. We should be grateful to the Select Committee on the Constitution for its formidable analysis which will better enable us to carry out our role to scrutinise and revise.
On points of detail, other noble Lords have already expressed concerns over what the future may hold for workers’ rights. In Committee, I propose in particular to pursue related matters of health and safety and enhanced protection for EU-derived rights. It is true that most EU-derived health and safety laws are already transposed and will therefore be retained, although the REACH provisions will need an equivalent UK version. But the change in the status of the health and safety provisions is that under these proposed arrangements they can in future be changed just by secondary legislation. Currently, they are underpinned by the European Communities Act 1972.
We can be proud of our health and safety record. As our briefing from the TUC records, EU standards have led to the introduction of broad duties on employers to evaluate, avoid and reduce workplace risk. EU directives have also led to safeguards in high-risk sectors such as construction. The health and safety system in the UK has been separately reviewed and broadly supported by a number of reports: the review of the noble Lord, Lord Young, Professor Löfstedt’s review and the HSE’s triennial review. We should acknowledge that the Government are on record as committing the UK to continue to guarantee health and safety regulations but, of course, we do not know who will be pulling the strings in the future. We do know from prior experience that some in the Conservative hierarchy have a deep antipathy to aspects of health and safety. We must keep a watchful eye on this and seek enhanced protections.
I conclude with a final observation. The project to withdraw from the EU and untangling more than 40 years of shared history is engaging a substantial national effort. Apparently, the brightest and best of the Civil Service are engaged on it, cross-government activity is enhanced, new legislation is kept to a minimum, the routine business of government is pushed to one side, parliamentary time is almost unlimited and, as we have seen over the last couple of days, record numbers of Peers are participating in our debates. This is as it should be in my view, but why on earth can we never seem to manage the same national effort and focus when we are dealing with the desperate needs of the homeless and the poor in our country?
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, in opening what many of us believe to be the most important debate in any of our lifetimes, the Lord Privy Seal the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, spoke of this Bill as ensuring that,
“we have a functioning statute book on the day we leave. It is about providing certainty and continuity for people and businesses. It is about ensuring that people’s rights are upheld and legal protections are maintained”.
She went on to say that,
“as far as practical, the same laws will apply the day after exit as the day before”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1373.]
I want to talk about a group of people living in our country—namely, children—and about people not yet born. If the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, are to mean anything, we must ensure that laws are also in place to protect the rights of the child the day after exit—children’s rights. Much of the hype about what withdrawing from the European Union will mean for the United Kingdom is about taking back control of our future. A critical part of our future depends on our children, who will have to live with the consequences of our actions.
While a large number of us in this place are not supporters of withdrawing from the European Union—if, indeed, we do take that final step—we must, and would surely want to, protect and enhance the rights of every single child. Currently, three mechanisms operate together to ensure that children’s rights are protected: the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Domestically, as far as I understand it, no explicit commitment to children’s rights exists at government level. While the Human Rights Act 1998 offers some protection for our children’s political and civil rights, its provisions do not reflect the full scope of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. It was so important that the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, talked about the rights of the child in yesterday’s debate. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds spoke of the Brexit debate being clothed in purely economic terms, as set out on the now infamous battle bus with its livery of £350 million. We have also heard much before and after the referendum about the need to protect borders, trade and British values. But, as a country, the UK must also protect children and their rights.
Young people very much regard themselves as European. As a matter of fact, 71% of 18 to 24 year- olds voted to stay in the EU. That is perhaps why the Government were reluctant to give the right to vote to 16 to 17 year-olds. Under the Erasmus programme, thousands of EU students annually go to study in another European country for up to a year funded by the EU. In 2015, for example, 30,000 young people came to study in Britain and 40,000 Britons travelled to learn in other European countries. Although we are in the programme until 2020, what happens after that date is anybody’s guess.
Of course, young people in Northern Island will be able to study, work and play in Europe unrestricted after Brexit by virtue of the Good Friday peace agreement, which allows them all to have dual nationality. Do noble Lords remember the high drama over the frictionless Irish border issue, with the Prime Minister flying to Brussels early in the morning, having secured a fudge—sorry, agreement—from the DUP, the same DUP which wants Northern Ireland to be treated in exactly the same way as the rest of the UK? How does that work, when Northern Irish residents will be able to travel to the rest of Europe unhindered, while citizens in England, Scotland and Wales will not be afforded the same rights? Perhaps the Minister, who avoided the question asked by my noble friend Lady Walmsley the other day, might answer that directly at the end of this debate.
I end where I started. I very much hope that the Minister will agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, who said in yesterday’s debate:
“We should expect from Ministers a commitment to have due regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and this should be incorporated in law”—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1438.]
that is, UK law.
Lord Dykes (CB)
My Lords, I hope that I will not annoy any Members by deliberately putting myself out of order, particularly with the Treasury Front Bench, but I hope that the unusual incident at Question Time will none the less result in the noble Lord, Lord Bates, reconsidering his decision and remaining on the Front Bench. Apart from his invaluable merits, he is such a rare example of a popular Conservative Minister. Therefore, it is even more important for him to be retained on the Front Bench. I should not have made those remarks and apologise for having done so.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, very much for placing an emphasis on children—that is the first time that has occurred in this debate—rather than on the 16 and 17 year-olds who we always think about. It is such an important issue for the future of this country.
The issue we are discussing is not just a nightmare, it is the greatest tragedy to have faced our country in the whole post-war period. The Bill itself is yet another detailed reminder of the great tragedy unfolding before our very eyes. Like Ian McEwan, I find it hard to believe that we are not dreaming a nightmare—that it is not happening. But it is happening before our very eyes. While I defer to the huge assemblage of constitutional and procedural experts in our House, who I hope will guide us into safer territory on this truly miserable, but unfortunately necessary, Bill, I have no enthusiasm even for seeing its passage sustained and returned to the Commons, for it is part and parcel of the incompetent and selfish Government we have to endure for at least a bit longer, alas, under our clumsy system, where defiance of wisdom and common sense is now the daily government routine.
Our colleagues in other EU countries cannot believe that this is happening either. They think we have gone mad, and after the PM’s catastrophic blunder with “Brexit means Brexit,” for which she still has to ask forgiveness, the Government have no authority whatsoever for pursuing this insane course of action simply because she is scared to death of Boris Johnson and even—would you believe?—Jacob Rees-Mogg. She might have had a mandate before the last election, but the 8 June 2017 election result killed that stone dead. Above all, the Government’s main sin has been to ignore the needs and wishes of our precious younger generation, all for keeping a reactionary minority in their own parliamentary party in unstable nagging for a new order which is 100 years out of date. What a total, utter shambles.
The PM now goes off to China to avoid scrutiny at a bad time, when sensitive documents have been falsified and concealed, but more and more people in Britain now, at long last, realise that the whole farce is coming to a head in certain, painful inevitability. Meanwhile crushing, pressing domestic problems are ignored: a huge housing crisis, a crisis of poverty and inequality, a crisis of rough sleeping in unprecedented numbers, a crisis in our National Health Service—all ignored by this Prime Minister obsessed with only one subject, Brexit. This will be revealed when the trade part of negotiations resume after the European Council takes place in March.
In my recent PQ on trade deals to the Minister on the Front Bench, I asked if the exercise in total insanity of having to negotiate now up to 70 new agreements with countries which already have agreements with the EU will take place after 19 March. The answer was confirmed: “Yes, that is what will happen”. Indeed, it is not hard to imagine that the talks will eventually just peter out. It is actually possible that that will happen. In his excellent speech yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, reminded us chillingly that 19 months had already elapsed since the PM took over, and that only 13 months remained to the target date.
There is no need at all for the exasperated EU negotiator and his colleagues in the EC and the Council to seek to help us out of a crisis of our own creation, thanks to the handiwork of the most maladroit Prime Minister in the whole of post-war history. Meanwhile, the long-suffering British people are enduring the derision of the rest of the world, with the dodgy exception of the worst President in US history. Eyebrows are still raised here and in the EU about the artificial and pork-barrel opportunism of the immoral agreement, after a £1 billion bribe of taxpayers’ money, to the Northern Ireland DUP, an unsavoury bunch of extreme right-wing Protestant enforcers, led by an equally questionable First Minister.
I live in France as well, and in countries like that with a sensible framework for good governance and a written constitution, such a deal would probably have been deemed out of order by the council of state and maybe even the constitutional court.
Lord Dykes
I do not really want to give way, if my noble friend will forgive me, because of time. It would be unfair. I am concluding my remarks now. Oh, I give way.
Lord Cormack
Well, he is an old friend, but I just want to know where he picked up his very moderate vocabulary.
Lord Dykes
It is a circumstance of the urgency and the emergency in this country of this great and unfolding tragedy.
I appeal today, therefore, to the cowed bunch of pro-EU Tory MPs, for whom I have great respect, to find the strength to put country before party and save Britain, especially for the younger generation of our citizens, who are also citizens of the EU under Maastricht. They and others too, who are older, deserve better. They understand, like all the other member states, that individual sovereignty within the Union goes hand in hand with collective sovereignty. They are proud of the collective power that this gives each member state. Even small member states are proud of that combination of national and group sovereignty.
There is still time to reverse this utter madness. The Lords needs today to send out the crucial message of modernity and the future together. I came into politics as a humble helper of Edward Heath, who bravely took us into membership with the critical help of 68 Labour and other MPs. I pray that this time, too, the Labour Party from now on, led by Jeremy Corbyn and others, will rise to the occasion to save Britain when the time comes.
Lord Dunlop (Con)
My Lords, I should start by confessing my membership of the Constitution Committee. I say “confess” because, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, mentioned, Monday’s Daily Mail took the committee to task to some degree, describing it as a committee filled with “Remoaners”. As noble Lords may imagine, this came as something of a shock to me. I had not before realised this until I read it in the Daily Mail—and I must say that it has shaken my faith in the Daily Mail as a paper of record.
This debate has been conducted in a generally constructive way. That is the spirit in which the Constitution Committee approached its task. Our report proposes,
“a number of practical measures to address the flaws in this Bill without jeopardising the achievement of its objectives”.
No matter how you voted in the referendum, “taking back control” is a powerful idea, so we should use this moment to strengthen our democracy and the sovereignty of this Parliament. Our report, I think, points the way. For example, it recommends that the Bill clarify—as the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Norton, explained yesterday, and to which my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern gave his benediction today—the status of retained EU law as primary legislation replacing what the report describes as,
“the ill-fitting ‘supremacy principle’—a European legal concept”,
with the UK domestic principle of the primacy of the most recent Act of this Parliament. Where we can safely replace in this Bill the risk of confusion with greater clarity and European legal concepts with British ones, we should do so.
I will focus the rest of my remarks on the Bill’s devolution implications, which many other noble Lords have touched on. Like every unionist I want to ensure that, as we leave the EU, we do not inadvertently jeopardise our union of four home nations. Indeed, handled carefully and sensitively, the process of exiting the EU can strengthen intergovernmental relations within the UK and give our union a renewed sense of purpose.
In the case of Scotland, it is notable that, contrary to expectations, not least of the SNP Government, Scottish opinion has, if anything, swung against Scottish independence as the exit process has continued. The Bill confers on the devolved Administrations powers parallel to those of UK Ministers to correct deficiencies in devolved areas. Clause 11, however, amends the devolution statutes to restrict competence in relation to retained EU law.
Clause 11 has been criticised as a UK Government power grab and as offending a fundamental principle of devolution, where what is not explicitly reserved by the UK Parliament is devolved, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, noted yesterday. The Government have explained Clause 11 as being transitional, to provide an orderly process for agreeing with the devolved Administrations where powers repatriated from Brussels are best exercised and what common UK frameworks are needed, and to do so in a way that both respects devolution and protects the integrity of the UK single market—a market which, in the case of Scotland, accounts for 63% of its trade.
As a former Minister with some recent involvement in these matters, I accept that I am perhaps more inclined than others to accept the Government’s assurances at face value. Certainly, the UK Government’s recent devolution record is not the behaviour of power-hungry centrists—quite the opposite. However, I also accept, like many others on all sides of the House, that Clause 11 needs amending. As one of the witnesses who gave evidence to the Constitution Committee put it,
“Clause 11 stacks the cards in favour of the centre”.
Clause 11 unamended would mean that if common frameworks cannot be agreed, the default will be that power remains at Westminster, and what is intended to be transitional will become permanent. We need a clause that is more balanced and which gives the UK Government and the devolved Administrations similar incentives to reach agreement. So I welcome the Government’s commitment to amend Clause 11, and to do so with the support of the devolved Administrations.
But in considering Clause 11, I hope the House will bear in mind two things. First, the 1998 devolution settlements were drawn up on the assumption of EU membership. As such, devolved Administrations are already constrained within their areas of competence. They cannot make law that is incompatible with EU law. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, noted in a debate last Thursday, removal of this constraint will leave a void, providing, as he put it,
“a wonderful opportunity to create something new”,—[Official Report, 25/1/18; col. 1102.]
in place of it. I agree very much with what he said. The need to replace the void should be interpreted not as rowing back on devolution but as a sensible step to ensure that the UK continues to work effectively as a whole outside the EU.
Secondly, just as we should avoid stacking the cards in favour of the centre, so we should also avoid stacking the cards in the opposite direction. If absence of agreement means that all powers flow, come what may, to the devolved Administrations, their incentive to reach consensus going forward will be weaker. Moreover, I do not believe that one part of the UK should have an effective veto over essential measures to protect the interests of the UK as a whole—interests that this Parliament exists to uphold.
I conclude on an optimistic note. The devolved Administrations accept that common UK frameworks are needed, and the UK Government recognise the importance of obtaining their legislative consent for the Bill. That is a good foundation on which to build agreement. I hope that it can be built quickly; I believe it can.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a remainer and I will focus on the deficiencies of the withdrawal Bill in respect of environmental issues and how they must be addressed. But, to be honest, it grieves me considerably that we are going to spend months of effort simply to ensure that we get back to where we started on EU legislation—all this just to keep the laws we worked hard to shape and develop in the past 40 years. It reminds me of that bit in Winnie the Pooh where Pooh and Piglet wander round in circles, lost in the woods, before they finally come back to exactly the same point. Pooh says—as only he can:
“I’m not lost for I know where I am. But however, where I am may be lost”.
This could be a good motto for the Government in their dealings with Brexit.
Proponents of Brexit will of course say that the benefit is taking back control of legislation. But the reality is that, with every trade deal we strike in the post-Brexit world, we will be agreeing to surrender some sovereignty over standards of many kinds. That is the nature of collaborative international agreements.
So the people have spoken—well, just over half of them have—and they may well speak again. In the meantime, the task in hand with the Bill is to bring safely across into UK law the 80% of our legislation on the environment that is European. We have taken a major role in the past in developing these laws within Europe and shaping them over the last 40 years, and they have considerably raised environmental standards so that people can enjoy cleaner beaches, cleaner air and water, better safeguarding from chemical hazards, and improved protection for wildlife and habitats. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House says that the Bill is simply technical and transfers all that effectively—but it does not. It will need considerable amendment.
On environmental legislation, the Bill fails to transfer across important environmental principles that have informed policy, law and judgments over the years. That includes principles such as “the polluter pays”, the precautionary principle and the principle that environmental damage should be rectified at source. The Government have indicated that they will come out with a new policy statement on these principles. But policy statements do not have the force of law, as is currently the case.
Then there is the status of this law when it has been transferred over. I much commend the position taken by the Constitution Committee that the retained law should be regarded as primary legislation. This law was originally agreed by a high-level democratic process and must not be able to be changed at the whim of a Minister by secondary legislation at any time in the future.
The Bill also fails to provide common frameworks, as the noble Lord said, to enable England and the devolved Administrations to work together on environmental standards which will underpin future international trade and future internal co-operation. Strangely, the environment does not recognise national boundaries. Most importantly, however, the Bill fails to provide a substitute for the powers to hold government and public bodies to account for failing to meet environmental standards, which the current EU monitoring, reporting and infraction processes provide. Nor does it transfer across access to environmental justice for citizens.
In the 25-year environment plan the Government have undertaken to consult on a new, independent body to hold government to account on environmental performance. Can the Minister assure us that this consultation will take place before the final passage of the Bill and that it will clarify the roles, powers and sanctions that the new body will have so that we can all judge whether it will be sufficiently independent and effective to take the place of the European provisions? Can he also assure us that the new body will be up and running before the demise of the European Court of Justice’s provenance so as to leave no gap into which environmental remedies can fall?
So a lot of amendments to the Bill will be required. We will have hours and hours of happy fun in the woods. However, even once the Bill has passed, more than 800 environmental provisions will have to be amended by statutory instrument to remain operable. The Government tell us that these will be minor tweaks, but we cannot judge whether they are really just tweaks, inadvertent changes or—dare I say it?—deliberate, more substantial changes. Personally, I believe in the cock-up theory of history and therefore that they may be inadvertent, but we could all help to keep the Government honest on these if they were published, open and consulted on before the final passage of the Bill—otherwise we are buying a pig in a poke.
It breaks my heart that Brexit is happening and that therefore we need the Bill. But we do need it and it needs to be much amended if precious environmental law is to come safely across—simply, alas, to maintain standards where they already are. I therefore encourage Pooh, Piglet and perhaps even Eeyore to come back into the woods.
Lord Lupton (Con)
My Lords, we are in the twilight zone of this long debate. I am speaker No. 161, and I have been positioned as the filling in a rich Young-Judge sandwich of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I will direct my comments to three general points, the first of which is referenda.
I have no doubt that referenda sit very uneasily with our long-established system of parliamentary democracy, which for many years appears to have worked in the least bad way you can expect government to work. I have no desire to see referenda on extremely complex decisions become the norm, and I believe that a referendum on the terms of our exit from the EU—which would give a second bite of the cherry to a minority who did not like the result they got in 2016—would weaken our constitution. I say that as somebody who both voted and campaigned to remain in the EU. My noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom, in an enthusiastic speech yesterday which included a confession of possible future civil disobedience, raised some practical and strong objections to the details of when, what and how any referendum would be conducted. My objection is more fundamental, and I can do no better than to refer to the impassioned, tub-thumping words of my noble friend Lord Patten yesterday when he spoke so eloquently against referenda. This was echoed today by my noble friend Lord Hague.
Secondly, coming from the world of business and commerce, I find it perplexing to read demands for the democratically elected Government’s detailed negotiating position to be published. What an absurd notion, and how damaging to the nation’s interests such a demand is. The electorate usually shows itself to be more discerning than we parliamentarians, colourfully described by my noble friend Lord Ridley yesterday as, “popinjays” and “panjandrums”. The electorate will see through any theoretical or intellectualised argument to the contrary, since the truth is so obvious
Poker players—or bridge players if you prefer something more genteel—do not disclose their hands until the bidding is done, and nor should our Government in the Brexit negotiations. Yes, it is reasonable to expect the Government to define the broad parameters of the negotiation, but this notion that we must receive a blow-by-blow account of the detailed talks is for the birds. I think, however, we can expect the Government to comfort us that they know, when entering the room, whether they are about to play bridge or poker.
Finally, I find it interesting that we are now in a world where spokespersons from both sides of the Brexit debate demand this and that from our political leaders in the certain knowledge that their demands are unachievable. I caution all sides, in the national interest, to exercise some responsibility in their public posturing. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds said so eloquently yesterday, politicians should engage in respectful discussions and be less tribal—sentiments also expressed by my noble friends Lord Strathclyde and Lord Hunt of Wirral today.
We have to accept that each member of the EU 27 has its own agenda for the discussions, and we need an understanding of those agendas to be able to negotiate a practicable solution. Take Germany as an example. In 2017 Germany is estimated to have enjoyed a substantial budget surplus of some €28 billion—an enviable position—and in the 11 months to November 2017, a trade surplus of a staggering €225 billion. Meanwhile—this number is difficult to extract from the public documentation—it is believed that Germany has lent over €500 billion to the European Central Bank, and the ECB has lent €590 billion to Spain, Italy and Portugal. Notably, this number does not include Greece. You could argue, therefore, that Germany has a huge interest in discouraging other possibly wavering nations from leaving the EU, and in maintaining the stability of Europe—especially the eurozone—as it is effectively propping up a relatively weak currency with loans to the struggling south, funnelled through the ECB to spread its credit risk. No wonder then that many believe that even the main German industrial lobbies support taking a relatively hard line with the UK, reasoning that the sanctity of the single market is more important than losing some BMW or Mercedes car sales to the UK.
This is absolutely not the time to play partisan politics; this is a time to show statesmanship and work towards an achievable result that works best for the nation, and which complies with the result of a referendum that this House and the other place approved in 2015. However naive it sounds in today’s Alice in Wonderland political environment, what I ask for—and believe the nation should, and does, expect—is that we find a common purpose around which the national interest can coalesce. I very much hope that our debates on the Bill over next few weeks will seek to do that.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, without this Bill exit day will be an Armageddon of legal chaos. Governments, public authorities and every single citizen will be in a complete mess; he or she will simply not know where they stand. I welcome the Bill. The result, of course, will be that parliamentary sovereignty will be restored. Parliament will no longer be subject to the supremacy of European law. The Bill itself speaks about this, but I do not understand why. It is a concept known in Europe, not a concept known in this country. When we leave Europe, the concept of European supremacy will simply be ridiculous.
This means that all the laws sent to us by Europe for the last 40 years or so will have legal force, not because they come from Europe but because, and only because, our Parliament has in effect re-enacted them for as long as it wishes them to stay in place and made them part of our constitutional arrangements. That, indeed, is parliamentary sovereignty. The summary, in the end, is this: the supremacy of European law will be at an end and the ultimate law-making power will have returned home.
This Bill duly honours the result of the referendum. I shall not spend time arguing the merits or demerits of the decisions that have been made by this country—we have heard quite a lot of them. I just want to draw attention to this: a little scrutiny reveals the flaws in this Bill, and we must rectify them. The Constitution Committee has identified a whole series of problems with it, and I shall not repeat them. I want to make a much broader point arising from the Constitution Committee’s report, but also from any reading of this Bill. Looking at the Bill as a whole, with the excitement of sovereignty returning home, I ask rhetorically: does the Bill as presently drafted, simultaneously serve to reduce sovereignty, not in constitutional theory, but in constitutional practice?
For the last 40 years parliamentary authority over the Executive has steadily diminished. It is no good fooling ourselves: that is what has been happening whichever party has been in power, and even in the time of a coalition. Perhaps this is because, under our obligations under the European Communities Act 1972, we had to accept laws. Perhaps it is because time is shorter than it was. However it has occurred, Parliament has acquiesced and perhaps been blind to the problem. Regulation-making powers have been strewn around Ministers like confetti at a happy wedding. Not a single Bill comes before this House in which there are not regulation-making powers. The last Bill we looked at, the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill, was nothing but regulation-making powers. There was nothing in it except for regulations or regulation-making powers.
I take these figures from The Devil is in the Detail, a marvellous book by the Hansard Society. Do we appreciate that every year 12,000 pages—12,000 small-typed pages—of laws are made by regulation? I wonder who reads them all—nobody. That is the result of vesting power in the Executive. So if parliamentary sovereignty is to mean what it says, law-making by Ministers should be reduced. We should look very closely when we decide that we are going to give these law-making powers.
This Bill as drafted, undoubtedly enhances ministerial law-making. In theory, that is all fine—there is parliamentary scrutiny. In the Commons, the Government accepted an amendment saying that there would be a sifting committee, and the Leader of the House suggested that she would have the same arrangement here. That is fine—till when? Do your Lordships realise what the sifting committee’s power actually is? It is the power to require an affirmative rather than a negative resolution procedure.
Again, I am taking my figures from the book that I have recommended, and I do recommend it—the summary is very easy. The whole book is pretty well written but when noble Lords have read the summary, they will not need to go much further. It tells us that since 1950 170,000 statutory instruments have been made. Of those, 17 have been rejected—that is, 0.01%. That has happened in the Commons 11 times, the last occasion being 1979. In this House, it has happened six times. On the last occasion, we were nearly drummed out of existence for having the nerve to take on the Government over one of their regulations, which was to do with the £4.5 billion arising from tax credits. Incidentally, I hope everybody realises that Mr Osborne was using powers given to him by a Labour Government. That is the problem.
My time is nearly up. When we come to look at the Bill, can we please examine whether it gives more powers to the Minister than he or she should ever have and whether we should control the Executive better than we do? If we do not do that now with this Bill, we will never ever recover the opportunity to do so again.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, I want to follow the line of argument developed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. In fact, a number of speakers in this debate have called for a meaningful role for Parliament in the Brexit process. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hague, was characteristically eloquent on this subject, and tonight I want to address the role of Parliament in the withdrawal process.
At the moment, Clause 9 gives Parliament one meaningful vote on any deal at the end of the talks. That is fine and I congratulate those who promoted it, but some of us suspect that the context for such a vote will be “vote for the deal or face the cliff edge”. There will not be too many other options around at that time. That will be being said not just by our government negotiators but by EU 27 Governments as well.
My key point in this debate is: what about a say and a vote for Parliament at an earlier stage, specifically on the mandate that the Government should follow in the talks about the future of UK-EU relations? At the moment, we have the Prime Minister’s red lines in the Lancaster House press conference speech. She rules out membership of the single market and the customs union and a continuing role for the ECJ. We had warmer words from her in her Florence speech and we have had a mixture of incompatible objectives and wishful thinking from individual Ministers, but none of that carries the authority of Parliament at this stage.
The EU, on the other hand, is currently developing clear mandates on the transitional arrangements, as we saw earlier this week, and in March it will develop one on the future relationship with the UK. But when do the UK Parliament—especially the other place, to which I certainly cede superiority in this matter—and the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies, which will also need to be engaged, get to debate the UK’s approach and give the government negotiators a clearer mandate than they have at the moment? Sure, we will get to commentate in our own committees and in various debates in this House, but we will not play a central role in the process, and that is not good enough.
As many people have said, the Cabinet is in a muddle over how to take this forward, yet Parliament is exerting no pressure on it to get its act together and come up with coherent and practicable positions for negotiating with the EU. As an old trade union negotiator, I am, like the noble Lord, Lord Lupton, all for giving flexibility to negotiators, certainly once the talks start, but starting the talks without clear, practicable objectives is inviting disaster. We need to know whether we are playing bridge or poker when we go into these talks.
At this crucial stage in our island’s story, to progress these negotiations without a parliamentary mandate is careless and undemocratic. It is the opposite of taking back control. It certainly repeats many of the earlier mistakes to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, referred in terms of the relationship between Parliament and the Executive.
Therefore, we need to amend the Bill to provide for a second meaningful vote in Parliament—this time on the mandate for the talks about the future relationship. This, if adopted, would force the Government, and others, to take a position before setting off to see Monsieur Barnier. It is time for Parliament to exert some control over the withdrawal process, and in due course there will be an amendment drawing on all corners of the House to this effect. My preference—I will be frank and lay my cards face up on the table—is for a mandate that prioritises jobs, rights and trade, as called for in an excellent briefing from the TUC, which I commend to all noble Lords.
I have always been comfortable with the shared sovereignty concept of the EU. I have never found it restrictive; the EU has given us extra scope, extra reach and extra power. It has not restricted anything at all in just about every single case. However, I accept that if Parliament votes on a mandate, the vote might go the other way. To some extent, that would settle the direction of travel, because that direction is not settled at the moment. I will be looking for support from all sides of the House for an amendment along those lines to be moved in Committee and on Report, making that crucial point and returning power to Parliament—which I think was one of the objectives of the leave argument in the referendum.
Lord O'Donnell (CB)
My Lords, this Bill started life as an oxymoron—let us be honest. The great repeal Bill repeals some EU law but transposes it back into UK legislation, and what we have heard today has made it clear that it is not that great either. As many have already pointed out, it has numerous technical and constitutional defects. As a former head of the Treasury, I salivate at the prospect of raising tax via statutory instruments, but that is probably best avoided, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, pointed out.
The Constitution Committee’s points seem broadly sensible and I hope that the Government can accept them. The treatment of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the Bill leaves me very puzzled. It is indefensible. I assume that we will be coming up with a new version of Clause 11 and that that will be cleared with the devolved authorities; otherwise, we will be completely stuck on that.
The Bill’s origin dates back to then Prime Minister Cameron’s decision to hold a referendum, which, in my opinion and to misquote him, was a disaster, not a mistake. I am a believer in parliamentary democracy, not government by referendum. However, given where we are now, the only question, to which I will return, is whether two wrongs would make a right. Today, I want to make some points in my role as a former Cabinet Secretary and head of the Civil Service, and in other roles as an economist. I declare various economic affiliations as listed in the register of interests.
I admire, but do not envy, my successor, who is trying to implement the Government’s policy on Brexit, whatever that is. Although there has been an inevitable and much-needed increase in the number of civil servants working on Brexit, Civil Service numbers overall continue to fall as efficiency improvements are delivered. But Brexit is inevitably squeezing out almost everything else.
Despite these challenges, morale in the Civil Service, as measured by the annual engagement surveys—and I like evidence—is at an all-time high. So it is particularly disappointing—I was very grateful to hear the support expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone—to see a divided Cabinet resorting to attacking the civil servants who simply want to implement whatever policy Cabinet finally decides upon. The progress made to date and the fact that we have successfully moved on to the next stage of talks is witness to the hard work that is going on behind the scenes. Civil servants across a range of departments are delivering detailed analysis. Businesses, trade unions—as the noble Lord, Lord Monks pointed out—and think tanks have provided their input. The bickering and blaming of civil servants needs to stop. Cabinet needs to formulate a policy for the next crucial stage. The EU 27, and we should learn from them, have been strengthened by having a clear, public negotiating position—we need one as well.
For the next stage, I would say, now is the time for experts. We need Ministers to stay in post for long enough to master their briefs. Listening to the noble Lords, Lord Hill and Lord Bridges, makes me realise how much expertise has been lost. Cabinet should abide by the principle—that very old principle—of collective responsibility. By all means argue in private, but please present a united front in negotiations.
On the economic aspects, I hope that Ministers and civil servants will study the wealth of analyses that is now being undertaken by a number of groups, such as the Trade Knowledge Exchange, which I am involved in, which are all committed to helping us get the best deal possible. Their analysis highlights that the benefits of a good trade deal with the EU are worth far more than the amounts discussed in the first stage talks and, I would argue, far more than deals with third countries. As Pascal Lamy, the former head of the WTO, has pointed out, the big costs in trade terms come from regulatory divergence. Yet the ability to diverge from EU rules is regarded as a big benefit by some. It is also true that trade deals with third countries will require similar regulations. Such deals will be governed by what I would call the tug of regulatory gravity, meaning that the bigger partners, such as the US, China or India, have the biggest say in determining the rules.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds reminded us that there is more to a good life than just prosperity. It is very interesting that those parts of the country with the greatest inequality in self-reported levels of well-being were the areas where the leave vote was strongest, and we should really analyse why this vote took place. We do not have the time to go into that here, but it is a very important point.
Jobs matter for well-being and the recently leaked document on various scenarios backs up most of the public research that has been available for months. It is not new; it has been around for a long time. It has shown that growth will be significantly lower outside the EU than it would otherwise have been. I know counterfactuals do not make for slick soundbites, but the time for those has gone, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has said. Fortunately, the world is going through a period of strong growth, including in our number one trading partner, the EU, so our headline growth figures will not look bad—unless, of course, you compare them with the rest of the world. Lower growth means lower tax revenue and lower public spending, and that has implications for the NHS.
So, assuming this Bill is amended sensibly, I will hold my nose and join my esteemed predecessors, including the noble Lords, Lord Butler, Lord Armstrong and Lord Wilson, who have spoken in this debate, in supporting it. By the autumn we should know more about the kind of deal that is on offer. The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, gave us that brilliant analogy last night. Will it be more “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre” or “Reservoir Dogs”? We do not know yet.
For me, the issue of how Northern Ireland is treated will be a determining factor. I have absolutely no idea how you reconcile regulatory alignment and no hard border with leaving the single market and the customs union. Whatever is decided, peace must be preserved. When we have all the details of that proposed deal—in the autumn I hope, but I am not really expecting that—then, and only then, should Parliament consider whether the result of the negotiations is so far away from what was promised that the people should be consulted again. But this time we must give the people a clear choice between the terms on which we should remain and leave so that they know exactly what the terms are in both cases.
To conclude, this is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, pointed out, an essential Bill—there is chaos without it. But this House can improve it substantially. That will take time, which is running out for the Government, the country and me, so I will sit down.
Lord Saatchi (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord. I would like to dedicate my speech, if this is within the conventions of your Lordships’ House, to another Member of the House—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds—for exactly the same reason as the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, mentioned him. The right reverend Prelate reminded us that there is more to life than trade deals and that human beings possess the power of imagination, and can conjure up in their minds a vision of a better world and a better life.
So far in this debate, we have certainly been presented with many nightmare scenarios. So now, as we approach the end, perhaps I may paint your Lordships a picture, if you will allow me, of the dream scenario: a happy ending to the story.
So I bring your Lordships joyous news. It is a photo opportunity to be shared in social media and across all TVs, all platforms, all devices all over the world. It immediately goes viral and is downloaded 1.2 billion times in 43 seconds—a global media sensation. There are three people in the picture: German Chancellor Merkel, French President Macron and, standing between them and slightly in front of them, British Prime Minister Theresa May. The backdrop is the Eiffel Tower in Paris. Chancellor Merkel speaks first. She says: “Today, every citizen of Europe gives thanks to British Prime Minister May for this historic agreement, signed by us, which guarantees the peace, prosperity and security of all the people of Europe”. A spectacular fireworks display then illuminates the Eiffel Tower and the whole of the sky above Paris is dazzling red, white and blue.
The Prime Minister comes home in a special plane of the Queen’s Flight. She is driven to Buckingham Palace to inform Her Majesty the Queen of her progress. Returning to Downing Street through crowd-lined streets under a pale May sun, the Prime Minister speaks—a lone figure, standing at the now familiar lectern outside the door of No. 10. She announces: “We are no longer a member of the European Union. We are now a partner of the European Union”. The crowd roars its approval as she reports: “All our red lines have been achieved. We are no longer a member of the single market. We are now a member of the single platform. We are no longer a member of the customs union. We are now a member of the customs group. We are no longer under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. We will not ‘take account of or have regard to’ the decisions of the ECJ. We will only have ‘due regard’ to its rulings, and we will no longer submit to free movement of persons. We will now only accept free movement of workers”.
Turning from the world’s cameras to speak directly to the British people, she says: “I have carried out the task you gave me. I have delivered the will of the British people. I now await your further instructions”. As she turns to enter No. 10, some reporters shout out: “Prime Minister, Prime Minister! Nothing has changed!”. But their voices are drowned out by the spontaneous burst into singing of the citizens outside the gates of No. 10 as the sound reverberates along Whitehall: “For she’s a jolly good fellow and so say all of us!”.
She is voted one of the greatest Prime Ministers of all time, and a grateful nation erects a bronze statue of her in Parliament Square.
In the years that followed, the Prime Minister provided the British people, free at last, with an inspiring vision and sense of purpose. She saw that the most effective political statement of our time was, “I have a dream”. She had a dream too, and she made it come true: an “end state” where Britain takes its rightful place as the national leader of Europe. How did she do it? Every day she noted the statue of General Slim opposite Downing Street and remembered his lesson about the power of words to change the world. As he said:
“You cannot win a war unless your troops believe they are fighting for a noble object”.
She carefully studied how Germany had risen from ashes to ascendancy, dust to dominance, by changing just one word: “democracy”. As so many noble Lords know much better than I, in the original European Coal and Steel Community made up of six countries, democracy meant one country, one vote. German diplomats brilliantly changed it to one citizen, one vote, which is much more democratic. The moves that followed—reunification of the biggest population in Europe; the treaty of Nice, so that Germany outvoted Britain for the first time; and the treaty of Lisbon, so that the majority required to change EU law was reduced—were three simple steps to effective control of Europe. The Prime Minister thought, “They did it. Why can’t we?”. She saw the opportunity. Britain would soon have the largest working-age population in Europe, and according to the most recent estimates, faster economic growth than Germany for the next 20 years.
So the Prime Minister called the Foreign Secretary to No. 10 and asked to see the Foreign Office plan for Britain as the leading nation of Europe. She was told, “Britain at the head of Europe? It’s impossible. Pie in the sky. Head in the clouds. We must keep our feet on the ground”. But she thought that that would not do. She resolved to mobilise the English language and send it into battle; we know that. The Prime Minister understood that this would be the work of a generation or even two generations, as it was for Germany, but she recognised that the movie we are in—further to the choices made by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane—is not “The Great Escape”. The film needs a better title—“The Promised Land”—and a new script written by a fresh team of screenwriters. The Prime Minister held fast to her dream because she knew that a map of the world which does not include Utopia is not worth looking at.
Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, on this very day, 31 January, in 1606, Guy Fawkes was executed following the failed Gunpowder Plot—but it is vital that this Bill does not also expire. The Bill must be passed into law to allow Her Majesty’s Government to implement the will of the people in the referendum result and to respect the judgment of the Supreme Court.
A recent Thomson Reuters report identified 52,741 pieces of legislation that have been passed in Parliament since 1990, many of which came from Europe. Transferring European law into British law is the quickest way to ensure continuity, and of course that is the purpose of the Bill. So I see the rationale for the so-called Henry VIII clauses allowing Ministers to streamline the procedures, but I put it to the Minister that these powers should be limited to technical issues only and that there should be a sunset clause. But in so doing, surely we have to learn from the past. Such a complexity of constitutional laws may not have served Britain well. Let us not forget that, after 40 days and 40 nights on Mount Sinai, in the presence of Almighty God, the prophet Moses finally emerged with only 10 commandments to help humanity. If God had given Moses 52,741 laws, I suspect that he would have needed more than two tablets.
I spent some years as a barrister in what was known as “Rumpole of the Bailey’s chambers”. I stress that I am in favour of this Bill and I want it to pass, but there are some matters that I would ask the Minister to comment on when he winds up. There is concern that the Bill as drafted fails to fully assign a legal status to retained EU law. Will he also address the concern that Ministers are due to determine legal status only on a case-by-case basis, considering the fundamental nature of such a power?
The Bill seeks also not to retain the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Will the Minister address concerns that this may lead to a rather scattered landscape of rights, resulting in less protection for people? I am sure that all of these matters can be resolved, but I ask him to consider them.
Much has been said about Clause 11 on devolution, and I urge the Government to rethink it. Can the Minister also assure your Lordships that the House of Lords will play an equal role in scrutinising any secondary legislation, as I believe was promised by the Leader of the House of Lords in evidence to the Constitution Committee on 13 December? Might that even be written into the Bill?
This is an exciting time for our nation. No longer will we be shackled by the EU single market or burdened by paying huge sums into the EU budget. Britain will become a truly global trading nation, making trade agreements all around the world. On this very day the Prime Minister is in China with many of our businessmen, hoping to make trade agreements with the enormous Chinese trading bloc.
Much has also been said about the nature of this country post Brexit, and this is where I will refer to the Commonwealth family. My father came to Britain from Jamaica in the 1940s to do perhaps the most noble job known to mankind—to play cricket for Warwickshire. Although he was born and raised in Jamaica, he felt that he was coming home because he was part of the Commonwealth family. Let us remember that that family comprises 52 nations with one-third of the world’s population. It has an immensely rich and enduring history and culture, with English as a common language, as well as great admiration for our sovereign. The timing of the Bill is excellent since Britain is due to host the next Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in just a few weeks’ time.
This Bill is not a leap into the dark. When fear knocks at the door, we must answer it with faith. It is illuminating that throughout the Bible there is a clear theme of one empire after another eventually overreaching itself and gradually collapsing. In the Old Testament it was the Egyptian empire, followed by the Assyrian empire, the Babylonian empire and finally the Persian empire. They all collapsed. In the New Testament were the powerful rulers of the Roman empire such as Nero—but they all eventually fell. So the Bible and history demonstrate how national sovereignty always proves more durable than the politics of imposed empire.
For 10 years I was vice-president of the British Board of Film Classification. Currently there is a British film which will probably win several Oscars for the British film industry. It is called “The Darkest Hour” and it is about the Second World War. We are privileged to be part of the most important season in British history since 1945. As we engage with our European counterparts, we must revive the winning spirit of Sir Winston Churchill. In the film, Churchill declares that, “You cannot reason with a tiger when your head is in its mouth”.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, it is hard to follow the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, and it is hard to follow Warwickshire cricket. I was going to say that the speech which has made the most impact on me so far in the debate was that of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, yesterday. He spoke of the need for us to decide what kind of country we want, because only when we know what we want to be will we know what relationship with Europe is right for us. Not for the first time, he called on the Government to be,
“honest with themselves and the public about the choices we face. Then, the Prime Minister and her Cabinet must make those choices … to govern is to choose. As we face the biggest challenge this country has faced since the Second World War, keeping every option open is no longer an option”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1423.]
I could not agree more. I could not put it better. I am very uneasy about the silence of the sphinx. I am very uneasy when I see free-market wolves in cuddly sheep’s clothing promising undiminished farm support. I am very uneasy about fierce critics of the working time regulations promising that there will be no change to labour rights, employment rights, social rights and equality rights, and that we do not need to worry about giving Ministers the power to make changes to such rights by statutory instrument.
More generally, the Government need to come clean on whether taking back control means a bonfire of controls, and whether we are going to change our socioeconomic model, as in autumn 2015 the Chancellor said we might have to do. We need to know for two reasons. First, the Bill asks us to give them the matches to light the bonfire if they want to. Secondly, our partners across the Channel need to know. They will decide what access we can have to their markets depending on how far we will stick to the model of how their economies—most western European economies—work.
It will not do any longer just to say that we want something deep, special, unique and bespoke: we have to define what it is. It is not enough to say—as we said, far too soon—what we do not want. Mrs Merkel is quite right: we have now to say what we do want. When the 27 say that the British red lines mean that the British can have no more than a “Canadian” deal, we must stop putting our fingers in our ears and chanting “la la la—I can’t hear you”. It is their call: they will say what deal we will get. There are red lines, but it is their call. Getting a Cabinet to agree and stick to a line is always difficult, but that is the job. A sphinx- like silence will not do any more.
Of course we must pass this Bill, for all the reasons mentioned by so many noble Lords. If in the end we leave the EU, EU law has to be instantly repatriated to ensure legal continuity. We must, therefore, pass the Bill, and I am confident that we will improve it. I would like to see improvements in four areas.
The first is the area that the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, among others, drew attention to: I do not see any need for such a massive transfer of power from legislature to Executive, and on that I very much agree with the warning from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. For me, the lightbulb moment was spotting Clause 9(2), where Ministers take the power to change—by delegated regulation—this Act. So we spend the next three months working day and night to improve the Bill and when it is on the statute book the Minister, with a flick of his pen, can cross out our work. That cannot be right. In the words of the Constitution Committee, it gives Ministers,
“far greater latitude than is constitutionally acceptable”.
Secondly, as a Scotsman I of course listened very carefully to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope, Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Mackay, and it seems to me that they are right: there is no need to attack and overturn the central principle of the devolution settlement—and there will be a huge price to be paid if we do. I do not understand the sphinx-like disdain for consultation with the devolved Administrations. It is exactly a year since the Prime Minister last met her devolved Administration colleagues in the JMC, the top-level committee set up for consultation with the devolved Administrations—a whole year. That cannot be right. I very much hope that the Minister will bring forward an agreed amendment to Clause 11 very soon, but we may need to nudge the process a bit and perhaps also make sure that the Belfast principles, as set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, cannot be undercut by powers taken in this Bill.
Thirdly, like the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I have difficulty understanding the link between this Bill and the stand-still transition period that, it seems, we want. The 27 reminded us in the mandate that they agreed on Monday that in the transition period the ECJ’s jurisdiction will rule. The Prime Minister acknowledged that in her Florence speech. Why, therefore, does the Bill strike out the ECJ’s jurisdiction? We will only have to put it back again if we get a transition period.
Lastly, I am uneasy that Ministers may try to duck out of the meaningful vote that we have been promised when the outcome of the negotiations is clear. Suppose that there is no deal. Suppose also that by then we have a different Prime Minister—the sphinx sits on shifting sands. Suppose that we have a Prime Minister who believes that Brussels should whistle for the money. Suppose that the negotiations break down. Will we get the meaningful vote to ensure that Parliament cannot be bypassed? This Bill has to guarantee that in all circumstances the moment of truth will definitely come—and come at a time when we still have the options of extending withdrawal negotiations, taking back the Article 50 notification letter or consulting the country about doing so.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, as I seem to have done for the past 20 years. I refer to my current interests on the register.
In 1972, during Second Reading on the then European Communities Bill in the other place, Sir Geoffrey Rippon said:
“I believe that we shall walk tall into Europe on 1st January 1973. We shall take our rightful place in the counsels of Europe. We shall compete and we shall contribute”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/72; col. 1984.]
In leaving the European Union, we shall undoubtedly diminish our standing and influence in the world. It was Europe that brought me into politics. I was born of a Danish mother and Scottish father. Denmark was occupied during the Second World War, severely restricting the freedoms and liberty my mother could enjoy while growing up with occupying troops and tanks on the streets of Copenhagen.
I fervently believe that bringing our trading relations closer together across Europe, as our membership of the European Union has facilitated, has made the prospect of future conflicts in Europe much less likely. With the collapse of the Berlin Wall—I was there in November 1989, a day I shall remember all my life—we have seen an influx of countries and peoples from the former Soviet bloc, strengthening our defence against a potential foe. That same year, 1973, when we joined the European Union, I left Harrogate Ladies’ College to embark on my legal studies at Edinburgh University. I had high hopes of following a career in the European Community as it then was, and I did. I undertook a “stage”—an internship—in the Commission. I worked for the Conservatives in the European Parliament. I practised European law and I then became a Member of the European Parliament.
My overwhelming feeling in debating this Bill is one of sadness at the fact that many of the opportunities that I had in my 20s and 30s will not be available to future generations—namely, the right to live, study and work in another EU country.
I will set out why, in my view, the Bill is defective. In transposing into UK law those instruments such as regulations and decisions—instruments other than EU directives—the Bill seeks to introduce a new category of retained direct EU law, whose status seems far from clear, as was put most eloquently by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and other noble Lords. The provisions of the Bill lack clarity and legal certainty, and if I was a law student today I would find it impossible to understand its provisions. They do not entirely reflect the well-established principles of direct effect and direct applicability, and the relationship between the supremacy of EU law and retained EU law is simply not clear.
The Bill is further flawed by the huge power given to the Executive to pass secondary legislation through so-called Henry VIII clauses. While there is agreement across Parliament that new procedures are needed to ensure proper scrutiny—to hold the Government to account—I query whether new committees are required or this is best dealt with by beefed-up versions of the existing committees on delegated legislation.
If there is one unique contribution I can bring to the debate today, it is this: I argue—and have long argued in the other place and here—that there should be the opportunity to amend the content of those draft statutory instruments which come before both Houses, not just to vote for or against them. This is especially relevant as the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill states that these laws, once transposed, can then be further revised and amended by Parliament post Brexit. But this would be a new power: a power to amend not just the title but the actual content of each and every statutory instrument. Clauses 2 to 9 are therefore ripe for amendment. I have a word of caution for my noble friends Lord Astor and Lord Ridley, and fervent readers of the Daily Mail: those of us who wish to improve the Bill stand prepared to perform our statutory and parliamentary duty of making it better.
We are faced with inconvenient truths: the UK simply cannot replicate the free trade agreements with the 70-plus countries with which the EU has a formal trade agreement, including Commonwealth countries. Although there are countries such as Vietnam outside these arrangements, in effect the potential market is very small compared to the existing single market of 505 million consumers. It surprises me that the Government took the key tools in their negotiating pack off the table even before negotiations began—namely, our membership of the single market and customs union. Considering the remaining options available, applying to join the European Free Trade Association would seem the next best thing to membership of the EU; and leaving with no deal, on World Trade Organization most-favoured nation terms, the worst. Being in EFTA would minimise the potential economic damage, solve the question of the Irish border and maintain our sovereignty. Were we to be outside the single market and EFTA, a dispute resolution mechanism must be agreed in regard to cross-border issues involving British goods entering the EU post Brexit.
In terms of agriculture and the environment, I believe that the common agricultural policy has made the EU supply chain more sustainable and kept prices stable. Since the referendum and the collapse in the value of the pound, food prices have risen sharply. The higher environmental standards have turned Britain from the dirty man of Europe to the clean and green land that we are.
I am proud that our history, cultures and destinies are shared with our European partners. The question today is what exactly the nature of our deep and special relationship, going forward, will be and whether that will be in the best interests of this place, of our country, of the British people, of British business and, especially, of the younger generation.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)
I welcome this Second Reading to consider the continuing role of the UK Parliament in the future of Europe although, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, the devolved parliaments are also a vital element. Having visited and collaborated with friends and scientific colleagues in countries all over the world, it became ever clearer to me that as the EU has welcomed new member countries and led the world in living standards, science and culture, it has become the greatest union of countries and confederations in the world—and that our small country off the north-west of Europe has been incredibly fortunate to be a leading country in that Union, as well as being a member of the looser network of the Commonwealth.
I suppose that all organisations need reviewing from time to time so, in the light of this general philosophy, it was perhaps reasonable for our Parliament, led by Prime Minister Cameron, to announce in 2013 a review of the terms of the UK’s membership of the EU. This led to the in/out referendum in 2016 that resulted in 52% of voters recommending that the UK should leave the EU. But extraordinarily, following the decision in the referendum, our Parliament did not then insist on moving a Bill to establish the legal framework and government policies for leaving the EU. It took the Supreme Court to tell Parliament to take charge of every aspect of leaving the EU and establishing procedures for the UK to work with the EU. Most importantly, these procedures must be relevant in helping people to move and work across Europe.
The woolly and uncertain government statements about wishing to work with the EU in future have not been enough so now, as other noble Lords have explained, we have hundreds of legal measures in this Bill. The Government apparently want to avoid these procedures and just control the leaving process by autocratic Henry VIII measures, as other noble Lords have emphasised. There is now much to be done to establish myriad measures to ensure that Brexit operates smoothly and openly for the thousands of organisations and millions of people who will be affected. But it has become progressively clear that the terms and conditions for the UK to function in relation to the EU will be quite onerous.
As a scientist, I have had many conversations during the past year with researchers, industry and government agencies. We have already seen the departure of important EU science centres that are in the UK and the movement of leading scientists away from the UK. Many European projects will certainly go ahead with significant UK participation, including Euratom, which will be debated in the House of Lords next month. But the UK may no longer take the leading position and UK industry may lose contracts in these new arrangements.
Other centres which the UK takes a lead on include the European Space Agency and the European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forecasts—a major centre here at Reading which, if I may say so, leads to such extraordinarily improved weather forecasts that in the United States they now talk about the European weather. There is currently also funding from the European Commission for these organisations. The tricky and important question, which is not well understood, is whether the UK will make special financial contributions in place of the funding that comes from the European Commission. If not, we will find that many of the guiding strategies and actions of these European agencies in which we are involved will no longer have a UK lead. Norway and Switzerland see this at present; they participate but do not have the leadership role.
The facilities in the UK may also not continue, which would greatly affect UK science, technology and universities. Perhaps even more important is how high-tech manufacturing industry will grow when it no longer receives development funding from the European Commission. These companies are well distributed across the UK, more so perhaps than financial organisations, and many of them work with UK universities. Some of them are already discussing moving some of their operations on to the continent. This is extremely serious for many important industrial communities in the UK. The companies will do this to participate in the most exciting future projects with EU funding.
As we look forward to the next decade, Parliament and the young voters who will then become the majority will realise that there will be progressive disadvantages in the UK’s quasi-independence from the EU. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Mandelson put it, plans may emerge eventually for a second opportunity for UK voters to express their opinions about the possibility of the UK rejoining the EU politically, which might be an element in the interesting play that we heard of from the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow so many excellent speeches on this historic Bill, but it is a Bill that I nevertheless wholeheartedly wish was not before us. But it is, and it is our duty to play our part in ensuring that withdrawal from the EU is as orderly as possible.
I agree with most noble Lords that the Bill is flawed. I have reservations about several aspects, including on the scope of ministerial power and the appropriateness of empowering the Executive to such a degree, particularly in the light of devolution. Moreover, I share some concerns about the level of parliamentary scrutiny needed, and at what level. Speaking as chair of this House’s EU Sub- Committee on Financial Affairs, I will seek clarification from the Government as to how they envisage different levels of EU law and regulatory guidance being implemented in the UK. In this area, detailed parliamentary scrutiny may or may not be appropriate, depending on the level of decision we seek to transpose in our quest for regulatory alignment—something that we should surely seek to do where it is appropriate.
However, it is the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Adonis that I wish to address. I think of him as my noble friend because some 25 years ago, I delivered leaflets on his behalf when he was a candidate for the Liberal Democrats, so we go back a long time. I have enormous respect for him as a historian, a senior Member of this House and a thought leader on many of the thorniest issues that our country faces. I admire the passion with which he has engaged his campaign for a third referendum, but I wonder to what extent he has reflected on developments on the other side of the English Channel.
For the EU, while Brexit may have been a distraction, it is continuing a business-as-usual model, which is why we have seen such unity. Its priority is rightly to secure the financial stability of the eurozone, and work is continuing apace in that regard. The completion of the eurozone project, the banking union and the capital markets union has significant implications for the UK’s financial services sector. Moreover, ambitions for an EU Finance Minister and a eurozone monetary fund, and Mr Macron’s vision for a separate eurozone parliamentary caucus, present different challenges for our sovereignty and clout in the EU were we to remain.
The EU budget is also undergoing change. The High Level Group on Own Resources, led by Mr Mario Monti, to whom my committee spoke during his deliberations, has now reported. Among its recommendations are new ways to raise direct EU resources, such as a:
“Reformed VAT-own resource … corporate income tax-based own resource, financial transaction tax or other financial activities’ tax”.
It suggested measures relating to the energy union, and to environment, climate and transport policies, including a CO2 levy, proceeds from the European emission trade system, and an electricity tax, a motor fuel levy and other measures. I set this scene just to remind ourselves that the EU we think we might stay in will not be the EU we were in prior to 23 June 2016. Crucially, the important decisions on the budget, the future of rebates, the future of the eurozone and changes to parliamentary accountability are taking place now and will do so in the period before mid- 2019, when a new Commission and Parliament will commence. Therefore, leaving aside the question of whether we should have another referendum, to which I am opposed, I argue that the opportunity for one is now behind us.
If I correctly understand the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, he seeks a referendum on the terms of the withdrawal agreement. I have two principal thoughts regarding that, as other noble Lords have also supported the view that we need a referendum on the withdrawal agreement. The first is that, if the withdrawal agreement is negotiated by October or November this year—as we have been told by Mr David Davis—the referendum presumably would be after that option is agreed or rejected by both Houses of Parliament, or rejected or agreed by the Commons, which has supremacy. In effect, therefore, the decision to hold a referendum will be legislated for in late 2018 or early 2019, with a referendum impossible till late spring 2019. The Electoral Commission requires six months from a decision till polling day. On that time line, the proposed referendum will be held after we have legally left, or are in transition under a different status, and we would have to reapply to join the EU.
If so, even if the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, then secures a yes vote—and I am pleased to see him back in his place now—we will almost certainly re-enter on different terms than those that pertained before 29 March, 2016, when we triggered Article 50. The UK rebate, the Schengen opt-out, the 35 or so JHA opt-outs and opt-ins, and, most importantly, the hard-fought renegotiation will all be off the table. The only other basis for us to remain in during the referendum period in 2020 would be if we did not withdraw and negotiated an extension to the Article 50 period, as permissible under Article 50. This would prevent the UK from striking any trade deals during the extended period, which is material.
While this is a possibility, we would only prolong uncertainty, and the change in Europe that I have described in 2019 would surely mean that there would be no final decision on the UK’s status for a further two, three or four years. All this while, businesses will have made decisions to relocate, investment will have fallen further and legal uncertainty will have been prolonged even further. The result would be a prolonged period of drip-drip decisions being made by businesses and institutions, which could only achieve a very diminished result for the UK, whether it were in or out. On that basis, I have come to the conclusion that we have to do the best that we can with withdrawal. I will expend my energy in making it a success to whatever extent I can, starting with this Bill.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, many have spoken in the context of the tripartite relationship between the Executive, Parliament and the judiciary, of the balance to be struck in this Bill between Parliament and the Executive, and, of course, of the flawed nature of this Bill. I wish to speak solely in relation to the position of the judiciary as affected by this Bill and of maintaining its independence. Noble Lords may at once think that it is quite unnecessary for me to speak about the independence of the judiciary in this context, but it has become clear, not only from what has happened in this country but also from what has happened elsewhere, that the independence of the judiciary depends to a material extent on the legislature and the Executive doing what they can to keep the judges out of political decisions and the judges, of course, doing what they can to keep themselves out of such decisions.
The present draft of Clause 6 requires the judges within the United Kingdom to make decisions that could well be, or certainly be seen to be, political in nature. It is essential that Clause 6 be amended to that effect. This is not the time to develop the arguments, for in any event, they are set out in the excellent—or perhaps I should say, to echo the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith—brilliant report of the Constitution Committee. There is a solution suggested; it needs discussion, and I hope that by the time the Bill comes back to this House, there is a properly thought-through amendment to that clause.
Although it is Clause 6 that directly affects the position of the judiciary in our constitution, it is important also to appreciate the potential effects on the judiciary and its independence of the present clause on devolution—Clause 11—and of Clauses 7 to 9. Those clauses have been referred to by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope as the Cromwellian clauses. I prefer the title Henry VIII. That is not merely because of loyalty to my predecessor, my noble and learned friend Lord Judge, who has done so much under that name to describe the real problems in the extensive use of those clauses and the dilution of parliamentary sovereignty that has resulted, but also because it was Henry VIII who abolished the separate laws of Wales.
It is clear from legal developments in the past decades that recourse to the courts will be used in any attempt to seek resolution of issues that have not been subject to decision by Parliament. That is a good enough reason in itself for decisions to be taken here. There is, as is well known, a ready route to challenge legislative powers exercised by Ministers, but probably not so well appreciated, to review issues in the devolution legislation which are not contained in well-thought-through—I underline those words—and clear provisions. The Welsh devolution cases are a pointer to the problems that can occur.
I have sympathy for the Government and their highly professional legal service when they have to bring about changes to a vast volume of legislation faced with the pressure of time and the uncertainty caused by the absence of agreement with the European Union. In those circumstances, I very much hope that this House and the Government will be prepared to explore alternatives in the legislative process, which have been mentioned by many noble Lords, and the use of expert bodies, such as the Law Commission, to assist by their advice in the process of scrutiny, which is difficult, and avoid unintended consequences.
It is the position of the judiciary that I wish to emphasise. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, forcefully pointed out that these issues are a matter of real concern to the judiciary as they affect it. So far, the judiciary has been one of the institutions that has remained largely unaffected by the issues relating to Brexit. However, the events of November 2016 arising out of the first decision in the Article 50 case, in which I participated, demonstrated the importance of the role of the judiciary in our constitution and social order, the relative fragility of its independence and the necessity of Parliament doing, as it did then, all it can to safeguard the independence and position of the judiciary.
There is a further factor which until recently may have been overlooked: the significant contribution our legal system makes to our economic prosperity. We should not ignore the fact that the events of November 2016 were publicised worldwide and commented on. I therefore hope that Parliament will do what it can so that the judiciary’s independence and reputation are not put in issue again.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, I remember the enthusiasm with which I voted for the 1972 Act and how I campaigned vigorously in the 1976 referendum on the Common Market. In the succeeding 40 years I moved the other way and I voted leave. I remember the Third Reading of the 1972 Bill. The debate was mainly about Commonwealth trade, not the great issues of Europe and all the rest of it. It was about Australian lamb and New Zealand butter. There were two Back-Benchers in that debate who forecast that if we were to join the Common Market there would be a substantial and irreversible transfer of sovereignty and power. They were Michael Foot and Enoch Powell. Over the following 30 years, their forecasts were correct: there was a substantial transfer of sovereignty.
Later in my political career I was involved in one such case. I was Home Secretary during the Maastricht negotiations and I was very keen to ensure that the responsibility of the Home Office for immigration, prisons and the criminal justice system should remain under British control. I had assurances from Douglas Hurd and John Major, given in great good faith, that that would happen. They had agreed with Europe that those issues should be put into a separate pillar. There were going to be three pillars. One would cover all the issues of the Home Office and they would be reserved to nation states. The night before the treaty was signed, I was rung up again and that pledge was reconfirmed. In all fairness, the European authority did set up a separate pillar, but it disappeared within 15 years. One should not be surprised at that because the very powerful institutions that the European Community had established, particularly the Commission, were not really interested in dispersing power from the centre. They believed in centripetal policies drawing powers into the centre. They were not very concerned about the periphery. Analysis of the British referendum shows that the periphery of the forgotten, the overlooked and the not-asked voted against the centralising powers of Europe.
When, as Home Secretary, I met the other Ministers of Justice, we were supposed to form a committee to be a check on the Commission because the Commission was always there. The trouble with the other Ministers was that they kept disappearing. Some were promoted, some were sacked and some were arrested. They were not about and they were not an effective control. They would always chide me on not being a good European. They were the last lot to do that because the Italian Minister went to jail for a huge financial fraud in Naples, the Irish Minister of Justice was sacked for fiddling his election expenses and the Spanish Minister for Justice won the booby prize as he went to jail for murder.
I voted leave for political reasons. I found that our institutions, such as the House of Commons, the courts and the judicial system, were much closer to the British electorate than their European counterparts. When qualified majority voting was introduced, our position at the table in negotiation was reduced very significantly. We lost far more votes than we won, so our position was diminished.
The decision to leave has been taken and I think it will not be changed. Jeremy Corbyn will not support a second referendum, and he is wise not to do that. I would not. I believe it is quite possible that in a second referendum the leave vote would go up, not down, because the way we have been treated by Europe over the past 18 months has been a pretty humiliating experience. Mr Barnier acts rather like a headmaster with a reluctant pupil. Parliamentary democracy should now prevail over plebiscitary democracy. Those who still want to be in the European Union, or to rejoin it if we leave, would be joining a very different body because already the centralising power has increased. Macron, Schulz and the former Italian Prime Minister want one fiscal policy and one Fiscal Minister, and if a Fiscal Minister is appointed one day, our Chancellor of the Exchequer would have to bow to him.
Before I sit down, I shall say something about the political situation and the position of the Prime Minister. I cannot recall any Prime Minister being subject to such vicious attacks, scornful dismissals, offensive vituperation and personally wounding comments on an almost daily basis. She is held in contempt by many people. She is not alone in that. Our last three Prime Ministers—Blair, Brown and Cameron—are also held in contempt, some of them in utter contempt. It seems to go with the job. The Prime Minister has been written off a hundred times yet could she form a Government? Yes. Could she get a Queen’s Speech? Yes. Could she get Article 50 through? Yes. Could she survive the Tory party conference? Yes. Could she restart the stalled negotiations before Christmas? Yes. These are not inconsiderable achievements. They are quite considerable. Faced with this avalanche of disdain, many people would have resigned, and she had an easy exit through her illness, but she has stayed on the bridge, I think from a sense of duty—that may be something to do with being a vicar’s daughter—to ensure that the electoral decision in the referendum, the largest democratic engagement ever in our history, is implemented.
She is the only Tory leader capable of carrying through the Government over the next year. The Conservatives are split, and the Labour Party is split. The Liberal Democrats are not split, yet gained no electoral advantage at all. Perhaps they have missed something. The Prime Minister has set herself one very simple target, namely that Britain will leave the European Union on 29 March next year, an act that for the last 50 years was not thought possible. That will be her moment of history, just as Ted Heath’s moment of history was joining the Common Market. It will be a major turning point in our history that will determine the path that our country will take. I know that some Conservative Eurosceptic MPs want to have all the freedoms on 29 March. I say to them, because we share some agreement, that they should perhaps remember the words of Oliver Goldsmith in the 18th century. They should not be,
“too fond of the right to pursue the expedient”.
It is not often in our history that our two Houses have to make a momentous decision, and that decision should be a parliamentary one, not a referendum one. It will affect which path exactly is to be taken. We have been doing this as an institution for more than 700 years. We have to decide which path to take. We have great sense of history in this House, and I think we recognise that the European Union is a form of empire. In the great roll call of history, it is the empires that collapse and disappear, and it is the nation states that survive.
Lord Alli (Lab)
My Lords, when the Leader of the House opened this debate, she implied that this was a narrow and technical Bill and made it sound like she thought the House was in danger of overestimating the importance of the Bill. However, as we have the largest number of speakers in a Second Reading debate in our history—169 speakers so far and 20 more to come—I suggest to the noble Baroness that we in this House believe this is one of the most important Bills the House will consider for some time.
Almost every speaker I have listened to has been united in agreeing that this Bill is badly put together and will need substantial amendment. Despite the plaudits of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, for the Prime Minister, I believe the Prime Minister and the Cabinet should hold their heads in shame for delivering up a Bill in such bad shape and for trying to intimidate this House and the other place out of amending it. It is pathetic to do so.
I am not without sympathy for the Government’s Front Bench in this House. Those on it will have to put forward arguments in Committee that almost no one, including them, believes credible. They will be asked to get powers that no one in their right minds would give to individuals and will be asked to attack anyone who wants answers on what the Government intend to do post Brexit as potential saboteurs of the Bill.
The Government have continually tried to bypass Parliament and parliamentary scrutiny in this process. We have a role, alongside the House of Commons, to ensure they do not do that. We see with the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill their attempt to insert any discussion of the customs union into that Bill. Here is the sneaky bit: they are then going to try to designate it a finance Bill, to avoid the scrutiny of this House. Can the Minister reassure us, at the end of this debate, that no such ploy will be used?
A flawed process and a flawed negotiation were inevitably going to lead to a flawed Bill. We have a duty to amend it, and to deal with some of the issues raised by the Select Committee on the Constitution and highlighted by my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton, the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, to name a few: the relationship between Parliament and government, including the broad range of dangerous delegated powers the Bill would like to take; Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales; the customs union and the single market; and the issues of disability as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton. A host of other issues have also been raised by noble Lords.
We have a duty to ensure that the House of Commons can revisit some of these issues, which it may not have had time or information to fully consider in its deliberations. We have always challenged the wisdom that once a decision is taken by the democratically elected House of Commons, it is somehow sacrosanct and cannot be changed or challenged. We are the place that says, “We know you took a decision, and we understand the democratic legitimacy of taking it, but we believe you should reflect on it and think again”. Some of that wisdom may be needed by the House of Commons when it comes to the referendum. It should be confident that a referendum is not sacred and sacrosanct but can be changed, and that people can be asked to think again. The public are not stupid: they understand that events change and that it may be necessary to consult them again if, and only if, the circumstances warrant it.
The question is: who decides what circumstances warrant it? For me, that is a matter for the House of Commons and not for your Lordships’ House. What we have to ensure is that this Bill does not block the House of Commons from exercising its judgment on whether that is necessary or not. We have to build flexibility into the Bill for the House of Commons, to allow it to do its job.
I end with a quote, from 19 November 2012, in a speech about Europe:
“If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy”.
The author and speaker of those words was David Davis, Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. I hope he still believes them to be true, but then again I respect his right to change his mind.
Lord Trevethin and Oaksey (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. As he said, more or less everyone agrees that the Bill in its present state requires substantial improvement. The objective must be maximum clarity, to take a phrase from the Constitution Committee’s very powerful report, and minimum legal uncertainty. I think that is the right phrase, as legal certainty is just not achievable here. UK judges will be grappling with issues thrown up by this Bill and related legislation for many years. Your Lordships’ duty, it seems to me, is to make their job manageable. Personal views about the merits or demerits of Brexit seem to be largely irrelevant to the performance of that duty.
It is a bit late in the day for legal stuff, so I apologise, but I want to say something about the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which I think is likely to take up a bit of time as the Bill goes through the House. On this point, the Government are probably right to exclude the charter from the body of EU law which is to pass into post-Brexit UK law. I agree with what has been said about that by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, but will add a few observations of my own.
The Government seek to justify the exclusion of the charter on the ground that it adds nothing to existing rights, and therefore its exclusion is of no consequence. This is most unpersuasive, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, has said, because it invites the response, “Why bother to exclude it then?”. It is also incorrect as a matter of law. The retention of the charter as part of UK law would, in fact, make some difference. I recognise that it would provide litigants with a few additional arguments, but it would also lead to considerable legal uncertainty. In particular, it would lead to unnecessary complications regarding its interaction with the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which, as the House knows, is a very similar foundational document.
The convention was drafted in 1949. As is well known, a large part of it was brought into domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998. Some parts were left out, advisedly. That Act was very carefully drafted, under no pressure of time—unlike this Bill—and struck a balance between the protection of human rights and the constitutional principle of the sovereignty of Parliament. It achieved that by means of the Section 3 obligation to construe legislation in a way that is compatible with human rights, and by means of the Section 4 power to make a declaration that primary legislation is incompatible with a convention right. It does not give the court a power to strike down legislation on the basis of such incompatibility. Almost every practising lawyer and judge would agree that the Human Rights Act and the convention behind it have worked very well. The scope of the Section 3 presumption has been defined in the case law, and Governments have respected declarations of incompatibility.
The charter was drawn up in 2001, but had no legal force until the Lisbon treaty of 2009, which provided that it,
“shall have the same legal value as the Treaties”.
The UK and Poland negotiated what they thought was an opt-out—at least that is what the politicians said—but in December 2011, the CJEU said that in fact it was a document whose purpose was to remind the British and the Poles that they had opted in. At this point, it began to dawn on UK litigants and their lawyers that the charter could be invoked. It is a pleasing irony that one of the first litigants who took the road to Luxembourg was David Davis, who was then on the Back Benches. The point of reciting this history is that throughout the period from 1998 to around summer 2016, so far as I can tell, almost no one said, “Look, hang on—the convention isn’t working. The Human Rights Act isn’t working. We need more. We need the charter”. No one was saying that. What has changed? I am not sure.
The charter differs from the convention in two important general respects. First, its scope is limited by Article 51 to the actions of member states,
“when they are implementing Union law”.
The precise scope and meaning of that phrase is debatable. In any event, no such limitation applies to convention rights, so the scope of the convention is broader than that of the charter. On the other hand, the powers of the domestic court pursuant to the charter go well beyond any power conferred by the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to the convention. If legislation is incompatible with charter rights, the court must disapply it. If legislation is incompatible with convention rights—which will often be identical—the court cannot disapply it but may grant a declaration of incompatibility.
These distinctions can have odd results. In the Benkharbouche case decided a few months ago by the Supreme Court, employees at the Sudanese and Libyan embassies made various claims which were, on the face of things, barred by the State Immunity Act. The Supreme Court held that the Act was incompatible with both Article 6 of the convention and Article 47 of the charter—which resembles the former but is not quite the same. Some of the claims were EU claims within the charter, some were not, but they were all claims about working conditions and pay. The Supreme Court found that the EU claims within the charter could proceed since the Act had to be disapplied, but the latter could not. It was a strange and, noble Lords may think, unprincipled outcome.
Is there harmonious co-operation between the ECHR in Strasbourg and the CJEU in Luxembourg? One might have thought that there would be, given that Article 6(3) of the Lisbon treaty provides that the EU should itself accede to the convention—and if there were such harmonious co-operation, the potential for conflict and legal uncertainty would be much reduced. But there is not. In December 2014, I think to general surprise, the CJEU issued an opinion which explained why accession to the convention by the EU was not permissible. It is an interesting document that can be summarised, not unfairly, in one sentence: “The continent is not big enough for two supreme courts”—delivered in the manner of the film that the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, took his maiden aunts to.
The problematic nature of the relationship between the charter and the convention—and between Luxembourg and Strasbourg—is illustrated by the proceedings I mentioned brought by Mr Davis in relation to data retention legislation. Mr Davis relied on Article 8 of the charter and the Digital Rights Ireland case in the CJEU. In that case, the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal expressed perplexity and concern that the CJEU had not dealt with a competing and diverging sequence of cases in the Strasbourg court. So the Court of Appeal made a reference to the CJEU and said, “Help us, please—tell us what you mean. Do you mean to expand the charter beyond the convention?”. The CJEU’s response, which came about a year ago, was imperious. It said, in what is again not an entirely unfair paraphrase: “The convention is not an EU text. The charter can reach parts which other conventions cannot, so the UK court’s request for clarification is inadmissible. We are telling you nothing more”.
Allowing human rights law to flow from two separate and, frankly, warring sources is a recipe for legal chaos. The convention works well, and the common law’s protection of human rights is alive and kicking, as the Supreme Court’s judgment in the UNISON case showed. A proliferation of foundational texts is unnecessary and damaging. We do not have time to waste in Committee, and for my part, I think the charter can safely be left in Luxembourg.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I respect and support the principle of the Bill as a key piece of legislation which will repeal the European Communities Act 1972 but, at the same time, copy EU laws on to the UK statute book to ensure a smooth transition. At this stage, I am not going to rehearse the problems that many other noble Lords have identified with the Henry VIII powers, which are equivalent to the Statute of Proclamations of 1539, contained in Clauses 7 to 9 and Clause 17. Nor am I going to go into detail about my concerns with Clause 11 and the effect of the Bill on the devolved Administrations. I will only point out—as many other noble Lords have done—the criticism in the cross-party Constitution Committee’s recent report on these clauses, as well as the Hansard Society’s concerns.
I will instead focus on the Bill’s proposed use of legislation via statutory instruments, as has already been analysed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. As many noble Lords have stated, between 800 and 1,200 separate items will be made in this way, according to MPs in the other place. I welcome the sifting committee that has been proposed by the other place, but it needs to go further. At the moment, the Bill’s proposed way for parliamentary discussion of these items will be the automatic negative procedure. In this House, such items are put on the Order Paper and there are 40 days to pray against them—if this happens, they are then discussed on the Floor of the House. Of course, if noble Lords do not read the House’s business papers in detail every day, they will be blissfully unaware that secondary legislation is sailing through by default—especially on an Order Paper such as today’s, on which noble Lords may not have got as far as page 18. No negative procedure statutory instruments have been turned down in the other place for 38 years, and only 17 have been turned down since 1950 according to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge.
If, on the other hand, the proposed statutory instruments are to be discussed by way of an affirmative procedure, they will automatically be taken on the Floor of the House. This is much more satisfactory. To support my argument, I pray in aid the recent report of our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Summary point 5 states:
“In the absence of a convincing explanation to the contrary, the affirmative procedure should apply to Henry VIII powers under clauses 7 to 9 and 17 that allow Acts of Parliament to be amended or repealed”.
In summary point 6, the report continues:
“Ministers should not have an unfettered choice to apply the negative or the affirmative procedure for statutory instruments under those clauses”.
As an alternative, the committee proposed a sifting mechanism and that all instruments should be laid in draft before Parliament, and that either the affirmative or negative procedure should be proposed. It recommends that where the Minister proposes an affirmative procedure it should apply, but suggests a different process where the Minister proposes a negative procedure. It states:
“a parliamentary committee has 10 sitting days in which to recommend the affirmative procedure instead. If no such recommendation is made, the negative procedure applies”.
Finally, the committee believes:
“Where the committee recommends the affirmative procedure, it applies unless the relevant House rejects the committee’s recommendation within a further period of five sitting days”.
Continuing in the same area, I highlight two more changes recommended by our Delegated Powers Committee. Summary point 3 says:
“Regulations under clause 14 stipulating exit day(s) should be subject to the affirmative procedure”.
At the moment, exit days means such days as a Minister of the Crown shall appoint. This would be solely in the power of the Minister. Thus anyone passing this Bill must be prepared to be a spectator to what the transitional measures will be and how they will operate. This is not satisfactory. As an aside, my personal preference would be to stay in the single market and customs union at least for the transitional period.
The committee also criticises Schedule 4 with regard to taxation. The report says:
“All regulations made under Schedule 4 which introduce or increase fees should be subject to the affirmative procedure”.
I agree.
I do not have the time to go into the Delegated Powers Committee’s concerns on sub-delegation powers leading to tertiary legislation, as set out in the UCL and Bingham Centre briefing on the Bill.
Like others, I ask the Minister whether he will put down amendments to satisfy the concerns of our Constitution and Delegated Powers committees. I feel that these are really necessary to make this a better Bill. Could he also answer my and many other noble Lords’ concerns on the devolved Administrations issue?
Lord Cavendish of Furness (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend. I am consoled in the thought that I am not alone in living a life of blissful ignorance. Although it may seem like a century ago, I refer back to the beginning of this debate and thank and congratulate my noble friend the Leader of the House for and on her clear, authoritative and altogether excellent speech. Again, it is a distant memory, but I thought that the speech of the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition had some very interesting and constructive ideas as to how the Bill could be improved, and the House is indebted to her for the tone and content of her opening speech.
Having listened to many hours of debate and read Hansard extensively, I am in no doubt that I am in a minority in your Lordships’ House in believing that we should leave the European Union, and even more in a minority in thinking that no deal is better than a bad deal. In fact, I find myself saddened, not that some speakers disagree with me, but that they appear to think that a bad deal is acceptable. I do not see it that way.
Speakers have fallen into distinct groups, and I belong to the smallest. The second group is represented by the majority of the party opposite, and others, who accept that a Bill is needed and whose opposition will have regard to the constitution and conventions of your Lordships’ House. If I am right about this, we have a lot to be grateful for. Then there are the Liberal Democrats, whose was the only party at the last election that wanted by one means or another to reverse the referendum—and look what happened to their vote. They are quite unabashed, rather admirably so, I suppose, by their numbers being so grossly disproportionate to their representation in the country. They lecture the rest of us on the merits of democracy and then threaten to defy the will of the people, manifesto commitments and votes in the other place. I sometimes wonder whether they place less value on your Lordships’ House than many of the rest of us.
Finally, there is the group that appears to be gathering under the flag of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, which quite simply wants to ignore the referendum result, as I see it, and sabotage the Brexit process. I have a copy of the noble Lord’s resignation letter here. It is a very long-winded, petulant and self-serving document. I keep a copy on my desktop so that I can show it to my grandchildren as a masterclass as to how not to resign and keep some vestige of dignity. He characterises those who voted for Brexit as “populist” and undergoing a,
“nationalist spasm worthy of Donald Trump”.
So he joins fellow aspiring wreckers who insult us leavers as being stupid, ignorant, bigoted, racist or simply, as the mealy mouthed Mr Tony Blair would have it, having “imperfect knowledge”. The noble Lord describes the Bill rather mysteriously as the,
“worst legislation in my lifetime”,
and promises to oppose it relentlessly, and so he begins to do today—or did yesterday.
Perhaps he will be joined by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who last week foretold gleefully that Britain could be made to come to heel. Apparently, he enjoyed the prospect of our country being humiliated so much that he actually said it twice. His tone today was, happily, rather more moderate. Having spoken to other retired mandarins, and I know a few, I am left wondering whether it is legacy that these people worry about. If so, this is a dangerous trend. Surely all of us who have seen policies to which we have devoted time and effort be changed have to live with that without throwing the toys out of the bath.
As has been pointed out, there is something surreal about remainers from all parts of the House affecting to be concerned about parliamentary scrutiny, when you consider that membership of the EU has, over the last 40 years, eroded to vanishing point such scrutiny. That has been raised by others. Since they want to enshrine in perpetuity this grotesque state of affairs, their virtue-signalling pretence at outrage rings pretty hollow.
Time does not allow me to talk of trade beyond saying I have worked in the SME sector for most of my working life, and my personal interests appear in the register. Brexit will indeed mean change, but who is afraid of that? It has been a feature of my life every day for the last 40 years or so. Of course, fat corporatists and their CBI mouthpiece tell you otherwise, because they want to go on buying favours from Brussels so as to disadvantage their smaller competitors.
What has attracted rather little attention is the fact that, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said yesterday, the EU institutions appear to have no appetite for change. This is what seems to embed our position. They continue on the fateful road towards a federal European state; they want to hobble the City, which by my calculation produces revenues enough to pay for the NHS. The EU has become a brutal and amoral protectionist fortress, devoid of humanity, and inflicting pain and suffering on the poorest, not only in the developing world but also among our own EU citizens.
Again to draw attention to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, we can all find lovely quotes from Burke, I think for almost any occasion, but perhaps he might like this one:
“Free trade is not based on utility but on justice”.
The EU wants armies and harmonised taxation regimes, and it wants oversight of national budgets—there is very little that it does not want to control. It is simply beyond me to understand what is attractive about this construct, which is doomed anyway through its total want of accountability.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds quite early in the debate asked,
“what sort of Britain, or indeed Europe, do we want to inhabit?”.[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1386.]
His close proximity to me should not make him worry, but I am not confident that he will be entirely happy with my answer to his question. He is right to point out that the question is not solely about economic issues. Of course no one voted to be poorer, and no one will be. Having campaigned daily for a Brexit outcome, it was perfectly clear to me that people put other things ahead of economic concerns. People understood, in ways that the metropolitan elite did not, and will not give them credit for, that this country’s historic embracing of the rule of law is the foundation of freedom.
Since the dawn of time, far earlier than the Magna Carta, in these soggy islands—places of such beauty and enduring romance—it was established that we would be governed by consent and not by diktat. The settlement has at intervals been challenged by the Norman invasion, by the Stuarts and, dare I say it, by families like my own, who from time to time got out of control and had to be reined in. These same people I met on the campaign trail also understood why their parents and grandparents suffered and gave their lives so that we, their successors, could enjoy the golden benefits of the rule of law and breathe the sweet air of freedom. I have inherited their passion and, in consequence, ask for this Bill to be given safe passage.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, if the Whips arranged the speaking order for tonight’s debate in order that I might be provoked into responding to some of the more outlandish comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, I am afraid that I shall disappoint them and try to stick to my script. I might be in a minority in your Lordships’ House in that I was not old enough to vote in the 1970s European referendum, so I cannot start my speech by saying how I voted back then—but I can start by saying that my whole adult life I have always believed strongly in the European Union and its predecessors. I would probably go further than most Members of your Lordships’ House by saying that I believe strongly in the concept of shared sovereignty at the European level. I believe it is consistent with a belief in shared sovereignty between the four nations of the United Kingdom. I do not see any discrepancy between a belief that that works in the UK and a belief that it works in the European Union as well.
I voted remain. I was dismayed by the campaign that promoted that cause—but I did vote remain. However, I accept the result, and it would be very wrong if this unelected House chose to try in any way to obstruct the will of the people as expressed in June 2016. I shall not support moves designed to do that.
I also wish we had more opportunity now—a year from exit day—for discussion of the immediate implications of the Brexit vote. This is not the time or the place to debate the future of, for example, our development aid relationship with the European Union, or the nature of those trading relationships that should, in my view, be based as much on fair trade as free trade. But it is the time and place to discuss this Bill. I will highlight two points of particular concern to me.
First, there have been many fabulous contributions from noble Lords across the House over these two days about fundamental rights, highlighting in particular employment rights and so on, but I raise the issue of children’s rights. If the issue of consistency of rights and consistency of application of European law in UK law is not handled correctly, if we do not couple that with an appropriate approach to the consistency of the justice mechanisms that exist across Europe just now to protect children, and if we do not take an appropriate approach in the forthcoming immigration Bill to child migrants, it will be the most vulnerable children who fall through the net that is created. We need to be very aware of that. There are many interests that will be promoted in your Lordships’ House in the coming weeks—employment rights and other rights mentioned in the charter—but issues around children’s rights could lead to the worst impact falling on the most vulnerable. We need to be very careful to protect the consistency and application of rights in relation to children in our forthcoming debates.
My second point relates to devolution. While I am sure that there are faults on both sides—I think the Scottish Government need to be a bit more practical and positive in their approach to this issue, as do the UK Government—I cannot believe the situation that the UK Government have got themselves into over devolved responsibilities. The initial devolution settlement was based not just on 20 years of debate, national consensus and a settled will, but on a rigorous application of political and intellectual thought to make sure that the settlement created in 1999 would stand the test of time. Through all the ups and downs of politics in the last 18 or 19 years, the legal responsibilities of the devolved Administrations have very rarely been subject to a successful challenge. That rigour, applied particularly by my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine but also by other colleagues in the Cabinet back in 1997 and 1998, has stood the test of time. To try to overturn that in any way at the moment is either really incompetent or very sleekit indeed. The Government need to respond to this, not by springing amendments on your Lordships’ House at the last minute, but through proper, open and transparent discussion that raises the common frameworks and perhaps, at times, common legislation required at the UK level in some of these areas, but which is firm and clear that, where responsibilities were devolved in 1999 or subsequently, they will continue to be devolved after 2019.
It is a matter of real regret that the Government have not used this opportunity to try to refresh or regenerate the Government of the United Kingdom. If we are to take back control—however much some of us regret the decision and the implications for our interdependent world of this move back towards the nation state—we should do so on the basis that we reinvigorate our democracy at the same time. There is an opportunity here to change the relationship between the UK Government and the three devolved Governments of the United Kingdom. It is not yet too late to take that opportunity, either in the next 12 months or in the two-year transition period, for a combination of common frameworks, with Ministers sharing decision-making at a UK level between the devolved Governments and the UK Government on an equal, respectful basis in certain areas, and for the further devolution of powers to allow the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to have full control where that is appropriate. The opportunity still exists and the Government should take it.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, as several noble Lords have mentioned, and as the Constitution Committee report said, lessons can be learned from the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill. That is a sectoral Brexit Bill, not saving legislation and not aimed at policy change. It was explained, variously, as a technical bill, as dealing with deficiencies and as not changing policy—just the same vocabulary used to describe the withdrawal Bill and operations within it.
I will elaborate more fully on some of the lessons. First, all creation of new criminal offences by regulation was taken out, not just those over the threshold defined as “relevant” in the withdrawal Bill, which means sentences greater than two years. When voting on this constitutional point for the second time, there was a massive vote to remove from the anti-money laundering part, where sentences were indeed limited to two years, any new criminal offences. If anything, the case is clearer for the withdrawal Bill: why should “saving” legislation create any new offences?
Secondly, in the anti-money laundering part of that Bill, it was frightening to compare the unlimited, policy-free, mechanistic list of delegated powers with the far richer policy context and predictability of the EU money laundering directive that it replaced as the source legislation. Until amended, this proposed primary legislation gave absolutely no substantive foundation against which to test future secondary regulation. It was without constraints or policy now, empowerment for total policy change by regulation later. I call that a constitutional-level policy change. We have a similar wolf in sheep’s clothing prowling parts of the withdrawal Bill.
Thirdly, with its amendments, the anti-money laundering part is much improved. Nevertheless, businesses are in a more uncertain place because the Bill is no longer set in the richer EU format. Uncertainty is not a good direction of travel for our home-made laws and we should not be inured to it—we can do something about it.
The good news is that the withdrawal Bill aims, so we are told, to save policy context—the idea is right. The bad news is that the legal status is confused; it certainly cannot be case-by-case at ministerial convenience. There are “panic button” clauses giving delegated powers without objective definition and stretchy schedules that expand, sometimes for ever, what you thought had been limited in clauses. The Explanatory Notes say the law is not deficient merely because a Minister considers that EU law was flawed. Such clarification must surely be in the Bill; so must objective qualification of the much overused “appropriate”—that is definitely an alpha wolf, not a sheep.
Businesses have been promised policy continuity. So, in considering amendments around status, legal clarity and interpretation, my test is that, however legislation is saved, it should not mean sacrificing policy. Policy continuity means keeping all relevant factors to assist interpretation or challenge; keeping them after modification, because that has been stated as being only to clean up language; and keeping them for EU-derived legislation, such as directives, under Clause 2. Just as Ministers quote rules and precedents to justify their words in legislation, similar happens when negotiating directives. A great deal is contained in recitals, which are relevant for interpretation by the EU court and regulatory authorities, even though they are not transposed and their content is needed.
In that context, my final point is to ask how EU constraints on delegation of power will be retained. My goodness, we need to get some constraints from somewhere. This has relevance to financial services, where the European supervisory authorities are bound by the Meroni principle. Will the FCA and the PRA be so bound when taking over—and if not, why not? At present, it is the EU that implements international standards, such as Basel rules, via co-decision and providing policy guidance for tertiary legislation. Where will the implementation and policy guidance come from in future against which to measure secondary and tertiary legislation? Will this Parliament have any role, or will the UK be run by delegation and deference—delegation to regulators and deference to the same regulators sitting in international regulatory bodies? Will this Parliament be given comparable time and opportunity for consultation and scrutiny of regulatory proposals? I say to the noble Lord opposite that I should like an opportunity to do here one fraction of what I did in the European Parliament.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
Before coming to the Bill itself, I must say something very briefly about where I come from in relation to it.
The overriding reality of our time is globalisation—the ability not only to move goods and manufacturing around the world and communicate across the globe in an instant, but to shift money at the press of a button. This is a world in which multinational corporations have unprecedented leverage and an international financial elite has extraordinary influence. In the past, a sovereign state could to some extent control the power of capital in the interests of the country as a whole. In a globalised world it is simply not possible for one nation on its own to do this. It is only through close co-operation with other countries and building shared institutions that we can build the kind of society we all want.
In his thoughtful and sombre speech, the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Oareford, said:
“Europe is already moving in directions that we have traditionally resisted”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1389.]
In particular, he mentioned more screening of overseas investments. For some of us, that is one of the reasons why, in a globalised world, the European Union is of such crucial importance. However, the Bill is about much more than that. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, stressed, what about defence and security? What about the essential co-operation necessary in the struggle against terrorism, international crime and cyberattacks? For many of us, this issue is about a great deal more than markets. The European Union is not a guarantee of close co-operation in these areas, but it makes it much more likely. When will we hear about these issues and how they will be achieved if we leave the Union?
Closely linked with the concept of co-operation is the notion of drawing on a larger perspective and a wider wisdom. This country is not the sole repository of wisdom. Here, I turn to the Bill before us, and in particular to the fact that in the transfer of European law into UK law there is no mention of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Government have repeated their claim that all the rights safeguarded by the charter are in fact contained in individual laws and that it is not therefore necessary to include it. However, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has done a detailed clause-by-clause analysis of the issue and shown that this is simply not the case. It points out:
“Firstly, some of the rights will inevitably be lost as they derive from membership of the EU … Secondly, Charter rights which are based wholly or largely on ‘general principles of EU law’ will no longer confer an enforceable right. This means a loss of enforceable rights such as Article 1 (human dignity) … Thirdly, a number of the Charter rights derive from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) which are incorporated into domestic law by virtue of the Human Rights Act … Whilst these rights will continue to exist and confer an enforceable right on individuals, the standing is narrower and the remedies are weaker under the HRA compared to the Charter … Fourthly, some of the Charter rights may be reflected in domestic statutes, but may not be as comprehensive as the Charter … for example, the rights to data protection in the Data Protection Bill … Fifthly, some of the Charter rights that are based on EU treaties may be retained by virtue of Clause 4 of the Bill if they are directly effective, but it is not always clear whether these provisions are directly effective. The Government itself appears unsure … Sixthly, some of the Charter rights are based wholly or in part on provisions of the ECHR or other international treaties that have not been incorporated into domestic law, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child”.
Liberty and Amnesty International agree with this analysis. They point out, for example, an issue that is of interest to some of us in your Lordships’ House: that Article 25, on the rights of the elderly and the right of older people to lead a life of dignity and independence and participate in social and cultural life, will be lost. This right is unique and has no equivalent under the ECHR or any justiciable international treaty or convention to which the UK is a party.
I was a Member of your Lordships’ House when the ECHR was incorporated into UK law. I cannot help wondering if the opposition to this that came from some quarters at that time has become refocused to exclude the Charter of Fundamental Rights from this transfer of European Law. I believe that we need it. It acts as a benchmark—an interpretive principle in the light of which human rights as a whole have to be seen and understood. Without it, as the JCR has shown, we are losing rights and remedies that we now enjoy. As the right honourable Kenneth Clarke questioned in the other place, why has the charter been singled out,
“uniquely among all other … law”,
not to be saved in domestic law? He asked,
“what evil it has done, what danger they think we are being protected from by its repeal”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/1/18; col. 759.]
That question has yet to be answered.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble and right reverend Lord with his customary thoughtful speech. I must admit that I agreed with some of it, but not as much as I agreed with the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Grocott and Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech.
Some noble Lords have suggested that people voted to leave the EU but did not vote to leave the customs union or the single market. I am sorry but that is nonsense. The government-funded propaganda leaflet, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the whole remain machine and the global elite stressed over and over again that a vote to leave would mean leaving the single market and customs union, with all the dire consequences that would entail. Of course, the Treasury in its May 2016 dodgy dossier also said that there would be an immediate loss of 500,000 jobs and the economy would crash into recession.
As John Longworth, writing in the paper on Monday, said, either the Treasury economic experts got their model hopelessly wrong or they were deliberately lying. I thought at the time that it was just sloppy modelling for them to be so wrong by as much as 400%. Now it seems the Treasury is at it again with the leaked Project Fear forecasts. I admire its astonishing accuracy. It forecasts a 0.3% reduction in growth every year for the next 15 years. That is amazingly accurate considering that over the last 12 months it has been 400% out. Producing that dodgy dossier once may have been a mistake but its latest leaked analysis by the same discredited economists is clearly a deliberate attempt to foist more ludicrous forecasts on the British public. I find it a very sad day when reports by Her Majesty’s Treasury have less credibility than the Zinoviev letter.
We have this Bill before us because the electorate wanted back control of our money, laws and trade policy, and they knew that by voting leave we would leave the single market and the customs union. When the Bill goes into Committee, I understand that there will be amendments seeking to ensure that no British Government can diverge from EU rules and regulations, and that is what I want to concentrate on. I believe that is foolish and it shows little faith in our Parliament, which will once again be free to properly hold the Government to account. The whole point of Brexit is to give the UK Government and Parliament the right to make our own laws and diverge from EU bureaucracy, bad law, Luddite regulations and the concept of a socialist Europe, which is making us more and more uncompetitive in comparison to the Far East and the USA. I do not want us stuck at the bottom of the regulatory scrapheap making analogue laws for a digital world. We are a great country and we need the freedom to make better regulations.
I ask noble Lords to cast their minds back to Monday of this week, when we debated the 25-year environment plan. What an inspiring document that is—inspiring because it shows how much better our land and marine environment will be when we do not have EU law destroying our fishing stocks, damaging our wildlife and ruining our soil. We can get rid of the wicked CAP, which the EU still boasts is a marvellous achievement. We can ban any plastic products we like without having to wait for EU approval. We can restore our fish stocks. We can impose proper biosecurity regimes to stop our plants and trees being decimated by imported diseases we are currently unable to stop because of the free movement of goods. And of prime importance, we can impose our own much higher animal welfare standards to replace the cruelty of live animal exports, which the EU happily endorses.
We will have the freedom to set our own VAT rates on any products we choose. German car companies paid out billions to US consumers within months of the diesel car scandal breaking. Not one single EU consumer has had a penny compensation because of the cosy, corrupt cartel between EU policymakers and German car firms. I would hope that an independent UK could impose our own air quality standards and ban dangerous polluting vehicles.
On financial regulations, there are those who say that we must not do a Singapore and have a race to the bottom. I agree entirely: we must not race to the bottom, but Singapore has a GDP per capita of $53,000 and ours is $40,000. The cost of living in Singapore is 14% cheaper than London. It is the third in the world for life expectancy and we are the 20th. If that is the bottom, I want to race to it as soon as possible. Singapore has risen to be one of the most successful economies in the world, with an exceptionally high quality of life, because its people embrace free trade and cutting regulation.
When we read yesterday about the head of the London Philharmonic Orchestra, who is a remain supporter, complaining about onerous EU red tape and looking for opportunities outside Europe, we got a snapshot in that tiny area of the dead hand of EU regulation holding back not just our productive industries but our creative ones also.
I have just rushed through a few examples, but in every sector of our economic and public life we are being constrained by poor, bad EU regulation. As the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Oareford, said yesterday, we will need the freedom to move very quickly to regulate for technological change, which the Luddite EU cannot do. We will need the freedom to regulate quickly on artificial intelligence, genetic modification, innovative medicines and treatments to name but three. We need better regulation. We need British regulation. We need this withdrawal Bill, with some technical amendments, passed as soon as possible.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, that was quite a contribution from the noble Lord. I must say, when I hear Singapore promoted as the vision that we should aim for, I think it gives the lie to where we are going if this Government continue: a country where deregulation abounds and protections are limited. That is where some noble Lords in your Lordships’ Chamber wish to take us.
I will make three points but, first, I must comment on the remarkable speech by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds. He challenged us to show good ways of disagreeing well. I think, on the whole, we have met that challenge.
My first point concerns the appropriateness of this House’s making changes to the Bill before us. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House described it as a technical measure, but, of course, it is much more than that. Why else would she implicitly warn the House not to thwart the will of the people expressed through the referendum? Why else would the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, suggest we are on the brink of disaster, repeating the error made by your Lordships’ House more than 100 years ago in rejecting Lloyd George’s budget? Even the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, felt the need to warn us off using our extensive powers.
I am mindful of convention. I know of no threat to the progress of this Bill. Of course it will pass but, equally, we have every right to make substantive changes to the Bill and to send it back to the Commons to allow them to think again. I hope we do. I hope we will ensure a meaningful role for Parliament at the end of the negotiations; that we will make sure that delegated powers cannot weaken environmental, consumer, health and work protections; that the devolution settlement will be respected and the charter of fundamental human rights retained as part of UK law; and that membership of the single market and customs union will continue.
I come now to the negotiations, because we cannot look at the Bill without looking at the negotiations. The Minister ducked this at Oral Questions today. He has another chance. Whatever else he does in responding to this debate, I hope he will spell out what the Government are seeking in negotiations with the EU. What a sorry state those negotiations are in. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, put his finger on it yesterday: how can you possibly negotiate effectively with the EU when you will not declare what you want? The noble Lord, Lord Baker, valiantly defended the Prime Minister this evening, but it was she who laid down the red lines right at the beginning that have so constrained the negotiation. Subsequently she has given us no vision and made no attempt to reach out to the 48% who did not vote to leave. Not one effort has she made to speak to the nation as a whole; she has given us no strategy and precious little hope. Whatever her virtues, she is simply not leading at a time when the country is crying out for leadership and to be brought together.
As the chairman of the Commons Brexit Select Committee put it this week, after 19 months no one is any the wiser as to what the Government want from the Brexit negotiations. The Cabinet has not reviewed, evaluated or decided on the desired outcome. The gap between Mr Hammond’s aim of a modest change in the UK’s relationship with the EU and Mr Rees-Mogg’s assertion that close association with the EU is unacceptable is utterly unbridgeable.
That of course brings me to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Adonis. I know some noble Lords feel it is premature. My noble friend Lady Smith, the Leader of the Opposition, was clear on that point, and we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, about some practical issues concerned with the second referendum. If, however, the terms of the deal in the end are seen by many as unacceptable, surely we should not close the prospect of the public’s having a final say.
If the rush to trade agreements with third countries is detrimental to our environmental health and food protection, if we cannot achieve a frictionless border for Northern Ireland satisfactorily outside the customs union or the single market, if the economy looks very risky in terms of our trade with the EU in the future, or the dawning reality finally breaks that there is no middle way—or, as the noble Lord, Lord Hill, said yesterday, that you cannot have your cake and eat it—it seems to me, though I am no expert, that it is becoming clearer and clearer that there we face only two options. One is a hard Brexit, on WTO rules, with high tariffs, huge economic risks and a desperate attempt to agree free trade agreements with the US and other powerful countries, where, as a middle-ranking economic power, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, we will be subject to their extraterritorial reach. Alternatively, we could have some kind of close alignment with the EU, but on EU terms and rules, with little or no influence on those rules, which may well change over time to the UK’s detriment. Neither of those options appears very palatable to me. I certainly say to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra: none of that was available at the time of the referendum. The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, said that the referendum was full of half-truths, or at least, as he might have said, the protagonists were economical with the truth. But at some point, the consequences will become very clear. Surely we as a country deserve some say in the outcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Hague, attempted to frighten us this afternoon with the nightmare of a referendum merry-go-round. But what if the voting had gone the other way in the referendum? Does anyone think that passionate Brexiteers would have shut up shop and walked away quietly into the night? As Vernon Bogdanor argued this week:
“If the country is willing to pay the price, a referendum would legitimise Brexit in the only way possible. If it is not, the people have a perfect right to change their mind”.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—I will finish here—said that the Lords is at its best when opposing the Government but on the side of the people. I thought we were doing that when we challenged Mr Osborne’s working family tax credit cuts, but the noble Lord did not quite take that view then. In the end, surely we have to do what is right. To give the public a chance to decide on the terms of the deal is not anti-democratic. They should be given that right.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, we are coming towards the end of a passionate two days of debate, during which the noble Lord, Lord Butler, suggested that Clause 1 struck a dagger to his soul. I have always thought that the soul is a little more intangible, so a dagger to my heart would be somewhere closer to what I feel—and where the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, started off this morning.
We have heard some hyperbole and passion on both sides of the Chamber. We heard the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and the noble Lords, Lord Dobbs and Lord Cavendish of Furness, suggest that somehow there may be Members of your Lordships’ House who are seeking to wreck the Bill or derail it, and who will cause untold damage to your Lordships’ House because we are not taking the 2016 vote or the elected Chamber seriously. With the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who has obviously spoken for himself, I do not believe that anyone in your Lordships’ House is seeking to wreck this piece of legislation.
My noble friend Lord Newby in his opening speech yesterday pointed out that,
“we on these Benches have no intention of derailing it or unnecessarily spinning out debate”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1382.]
The vote in 2016 was to leave the European Union. The EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act triggered the legislation necessary for that. This piece of legislation is obviously required to ensure that on the day the United Kingdom leaves the European Union there is a full statute book in place. So far, so good, so necessary. But it is not necessarily a good piece of legislation, and we have heard from right across your Lordships’ House that perhaps amendment is necessary.
We also heard Members of your Lordships’ House talking about 1972 and voting passionately to join the Common Market. We heard one Member say that they were not quite old enough to vote in the 1975 referendum. I do not remember life before we joined the Common Market. Therefore I will look back not to 1972 or 1975 but just five short years—or at least I would have said they were short years, but the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley, pointed out that Brexit years appear to be rather like dog years. In January 2013, the then Prime Minister gave his Bloomberg speech in which he promised reform, renegotiation and a referendum. Why? Was the country divided over Europe? Were people clamouring for a referendum? No. Most ordinary citizens were not saying that the European Union and membership of it were at the top of their list—but the Back-Bench Conservative MPs were. The Prime Minister was throwing a bone to his Back-Benchers; he played a gamble and he lost it. He offered a referendum and said that he would campaign heart and soul to remain—the soul comes in again—and, obviously, he lost that gamble.
After the Conservative Party won the election of 2015, perhaps unexpectedly, we ended up with a piece of legislation that allowed the referendum. Some Members of your Lordships’ House spent day after day, hour after hour debating the EU Referendum Bill—rather fewer than are here talking about the legislation that will ensure we have a full statute book on the day we leave the EU.
One of the things that those of us who were debating the EU Referendum Bill did was listen to the other side. Some of us spent so long listening to the leave side that we could have stood in for them in a debate and been able to rehearse all their arguments for them. Indeed, if the Prime Minister had listened to the leavers, he would have understood that a piece of propaganda—as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, called it—would have gone down extremely badly with the leave campaign and that an intervention from a foreign leader would have gone down really badly. But the former Prime Minister did not listen, and the cost of that was a failed referendum and the decision to leave the European Union.
So this piece of legislation is necessary, and no one is going to seek to avoid the legislation entirely—even if many of us hope that the will of the people could lead to an uprising to say, “Give us another referendum, let us free ourselves from Brexit”. In the absence of that, we need this piece of legislation—but it needs amending. It needs amending in terms of the powers of the devolved Administrations—the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said yesterday that power would be returned to London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast—but this piece of legislation does not do that.
If noble Lords think that this is merely a Liberal Democrat saying that, I suggest that they look at Hansard from last week’s debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McInnes of Kilwinning, about the role of devolved Administrations, in which the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, said that the legislation for Clause 11 needed amendment. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government will bring forward amendments in that area? If not, he can certainly expect several amendments to be brought forward—and the same is true of many aspects of the legislation.
In opening the debate a mere 36 hours ago, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House suggested that the Government were going to be in “listening mode”. The noble Lord, Lord Dykes, suggested earlier that the noble Lord, Lord Bates, had been one of the few Conservative Ministers who was popular. Could I suggest to the Minister that he and the Government Front Bench might court some popularity if they do as the noble Baroness the Leader of the House suggested and listen to members of your Lordships’ House, and to amendments brought forward in good faith, to ensure that the legislation is better and returns power to this sovereign Parliament instead of being an Executive power grab. There is an opportunity for us to make this legislation much better, and I hope that the Government will listen.
Lord Palmer (CB)
My Lords, when I asked the Government Whips’ Office if I could speak late today, it never crossed my mind that I would be followed by four such very distinguished speakers, who have now filled the Chamber with those waiting to hear their pearls of wisdom—therefore my plan has totally backfired. When I saw such a long and distinguished list of speakers, I hesitated to put my name down, but since then the list has trebled.
I am speaking today because I lived and worked in Brussels for a year, and also in Wallonia for three years. On my return to Scotland, I was appointed the Scottish representative of the European Landowners’ Organisation, and had the occasion to address the European Parliament in Strasbourg. There I first met my childhood hero, Lord Plumb, when he was president of the European Parliament. It is particularly sad that he is now retired from the House, as he would have made so many useful contributions as we face this long and complicated Bill. As other noble Lords have said, this is probably the most important legislation that any of us have had to debate in our lifetime, let alone our children’s, or indeed, in my case, my grandchildren’s lifetimes.
The fact that Brussels decamps once a month and goes to Strasbourg is a complete scandal. That decamp costs a mere €114 million. Nor must it be forgotten how much time it takes to close down one operation and restart the whole thing, particularly from the staffing aspect and their downtime. I have also done several stints on what was then European Union Sub-Committee D, which in those days covered agriculture and the environment, and I served under three distinguished chairmen. We made several trips to Brussels —although to not much avail, if I am completely honest.
We really are in the most terrible muddle and mess. Every day a different worm pops out of the can and only goes to emphasise the hiatus that the United Kingdom is in. The mind really does boggle as to how things will eventually turn out—and indeed, more frighteningly, when. It is the dreadful uncertainty that is terribly worrying to businesses and institutions across the board, as my noble kinsman Lord Hunt of Chesterton mentioned in his strong contribution earlier today.
Having been involved in the food business all my walking life, I know that food today is incredibly cheap. Forty years ago, 47% of the weekly wage went on food, but today it is in single figures. I remember that 25 years ago during harvest the telephone rang non-stop at lunchtime, with merchants offering me £165 a tonne for good-quality, low-nitrogen malting barley. Oh to be offered that today, especially when one realises what a huge increase in wages and all other farm inputs there has been in those 25 years. If European Commissioners, officials and staff earned the same today as they did 25 years ago, I am not altogether sure that we would have a European Union at all. I declare an interest as I receive a single farm payment, which keeps me roughly sane and solvent.
During my time in Belgium I saw at first hand the gravy train that pulls along the Commissioners, who are unelected and unaccountable to anyone or anything. If they are British, they retire on a nearly six-figure pension and a seat in your Lordships’ House. Currently we have seven ex-Commissioners. In no way do I blame them, but the system really is crazy.
If two countries within the United Kingdom cannot agree on a policy, how on earth can 27 countries do so? And how can you make laws that affect the Greek islands and the Outer Hebrides? Surely it is nothing short of farcical. I believe strongly that the United Kingdom ought to have remained within the European Union and fought long and hard to disband this corrupt and expensive organisation altogether.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, that is rather like suggesting that one ought to remain inside a burning house in the hope of putting out the fire. I am not sure that I follow the logic of the noble Lord’s argument.
I am in a minority in this House with my views on Brexit—I have noticed that. I am very proud of the way that we in the House of Lords have conducted ourselves over the last 36 hours. I read in the newspapers that we were going to reverse the decisions of the House of Commons and wreck the Bill but, instead, we have had a typically incisive debate. We should be particularly proud of the report produced by the Constitution Committee.
I do not know where I come in the speakers list— 194th or something like that—but I thought that I needed to find something new to say, so I would like to tell the House that there is a blue moon tonight. For those who do not know what a blue moon is, it is not a reference to the Tory party; it is a reference to the fact that there has been a full moon twice in the same calendar month—a very rare thing.
When I got an email from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—who I hold in very high regard—asking me to support an amendment that we should spend four days on Second Reading, which would mean that we would now be only halfway through, I thought that perhaps the lunar effect was having an effect upon him. Then, when I read that he wanted to suggest that we have a second referendum, I just reflected that we voted on this last year in this House and voted with a majority of more than 200 against that, so I admire his courage and his consistency.
The best speech of many speeches, I think by far, was the one given from the Cross Benches by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. He set it out absolutely clearly, and I feel guilty that I took the advice from the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House and went through the Lobby the other evening, adding to the burden of these Henry VIII clauses. I am impressed that perhaps this is an opportunity for us to take a stand while looking at this Bill. But I have to say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, disappointed me. He actually compared this Bill to Cromwell. He suggested that it was Cromwellian that we were taking powers away from Parliament in the way that Cromwell had done.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
In which case I withdraw entirely my criticism. But some people drew the parallel between taking powers away from Parliament and this Bill, whereas actually, if there is a historical parallel, it is the Restoration, because it is returning powers that were given away in the 1972 Act, which this Bill will repeal. Some 20,000 EU laws were brought into British law over which Parliament had no say whatever. So I take with a pinch of salt those who suggest that this is a terrible Bill because it is denying Parliament the ability to decide matters. It is returning to Parliament the ability, once this Bill is passed and we are out of the European Union, to alter the Bills as we see fit.
I voted to join the European Community, and in my youth—I have to confess—I was once a member of the Young European Federalists—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
But I grew out of it.
We are keen on Edmund Burke quotes. The one I would suggest the House might look at is this one:
“The people never gave up their liberties but under some delusion”.
I was under a delusion that the Common Market would be a free trade area. Instead, it has turned into a European Union which has been a tyranny for many of the countries of Europe. The noble Lord looks quizzical. Go to Greece and see what the European Union has done to the people in Greece.
Lord Newby (LD)
Could the noble Lord inform the House what proportion of the Greek population wishes to remain in the European Union?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I have no idea what the proportion is, but if the noble Lord is suggesting that they have a referendum then I think he has enough on his plate with trying to persuade the British people that they should have another referendum. This Bill is a major first start in a process which is about taking back control, making our own laws, and being able to police our own borders and spend our own money.
On the devolution issue, as far as Scotland is concerned, because I have nothing to say about Wales, I have to say that it is absolutely hilarious to watch members of the SNP say that there is a major constitutional crisis because they might not have the powers over agriculture, fisheries and other matters which are exercised in Brussels while at the same time arguing vehemently that Brussels should continue to exercise those powers. It is this Government who are going to create the opportunity for those powers to be exercised in the Scottish Parliament. Many noble Lords have made speeches saying that the Bill is defective because there is no amendment to achieve that purpose. It does not require an amendment; it requires people to sit down in a constructive manner to talk about the arrangements that need to be in place in order to ensure that the various nations of the United Kingdom work together. What the SNP is doing is once again turning everything into a constitutional crisis in its efforts to break up the United Kingdom. We should not give it any quarter on that matter, a point which was made very effectively by my noble friend Lord Dunlop.
This Bill is not a vote to leave or remain, it is not a vote on future policy, it is not a vote on whether we have a free trade agreement and it is not a vote on the devolution of EU policy. Let us just think of the volume of legislation that would be required if we did not have some Henry VIII clauses. I looked at the Open Europe 2005 estimate of EU law passed since 1957 and it amounted to 666,879 pages. I have worked out that if Parliament sat for 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and we did that for a year, we would be able to look at each page for 47 seconds. The practical reality is that we need a Bill of this kind to deliver what the people voted for in the referendum. There are people in the Scottish Parliament who say that they will refuse legislative consent. I wish them well if they are going to try to go through all that legislation and legislate for themselves.
I appreciate that I am running out of time, but leaving aside Thomas Cromwell, perhaps I may give a quote from Oliver Cromwell to those in the House who are so firm in their opposition to responding to what the people voted for:
“I beseech you … Think it possible you may be mistaken”.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, I have never heard the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, quote someone as left as Cromwell before. In my darkest moments during the referendum I would try to persuade myself that at least one of the benefits was the increasing awareness, familiarity with and affection for their European colleagues that would be engendered in the British people through the discussion. I was prompted in that by an incident that took place 25 years earlier during the 1992 general election, in which I was a candidate. A week before the election it looked as though Labour was going to storm to victory, but in the days leading up to election day our votes, according to the opinion polls, decreased. I was walking through Bellshill in my constituency when a chap came up and said to me, “John, how do you think it’s going?” I replied, “Well, to be truthful, I’m a bit worried about the polls”, at which he said, “Don’t worry about the Poles. Some of us have lived here all our lives and we’ll be voting for you”.
I am not sure that the referendum debate had the desired effect, but in the midst of it, because of the commonplace now of declaring our positions, I have to say that I was anguished at times. I was not decisive on one side or the other. I did not gravitate towards Europhiles or Europhobes. I was what was called a reluctant remainer. I can tell the House that, having watched the course of the negotiations, I have changed my opinion. I am no longer reluctant; I am now a very strong remainer. That is because I believe that we are heading towards a disaster—a halfway house. I think it was my noble friend Lord Hunt who asked earlier why the Government do not outline their objectives. I will tell you why. It is partly because it is a bad negotiating ploy and partly because it would split the governing party. By renaming some of the objectives they are hoping—I believe, and we will see it in a year or two—to get to a position where in all but name we remain in the customs union and the single market.
I say in all fraternity to my colleagues on the Government Benches: all they have to do is look at the Irish border question. It has been mentioned several times, for very good reasons and very emotionally. I, too, feel a degree of emotion but I want to look at it very simply. We all know about the border: 300 miles, more than 200 crossings, 30,000 people a day crossing for work alone and 400,000 commercial vehicles a month. The Government have said, “We pledge to plug that gap, but there will be no hard border”. So they contrive to do it by two promises. It is the implication of putting them together that the Government Benches should examine closely every day.
First, they promised in the framework agreement that there would be “complete regulatory alignment” between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Secondly, they publicly responded to the DUP—whom I do not blame—that there would be complete regulatory alignment between the British mainland and Northern Ireland. Let us follow the daisy chain of logic in this. It does not take a genius: my heavens, Jacob Rees-Mogg worked it out. If the British mainland is aligned with regulations in Northern Ireland, which is aligned with regulations in the Republic of Ireland, which is aligned with the rest of Europe—Ireland remains an EU member, noble Lords may remember—then Britain must be aligned with the rest of Europe. The only way to do that is by remaining in the customs union or in the single market. You cannot square the circle in any other way. That is why, within 24 hours of making the declaration, David Davis went on television to row back, saying “We didn’t really mean it”. By the way, David Davis does not think that anyone in Europe watches British television. He guaranteed that it would be written in blood legally when we get to that discussion.
I mention that because it is symptomatic of all the other discussions that are going on. We will end up in the worst of all worlds, because there is a difference between Ireland and Britain in that scenario: Ireland and Europe are making the decisions on the regulations, while Northern Ireland and Britain will be taking them. It is a classic example of the change in our status: everywhere we are free and yet in shackles. We will be shackled by regulations that we have no power to manufacture in the first place.
We all know the phrase, “power without responsibility”. This Government are contriving to give the United Kingdom responsibility without power. We will be, as near as you can get in the trade arena, a vassal state. This Bill can do nothing about that. But there are three things that we can do in the Bill that can shape the ability of the House of Commons to do it. The first is to make absolutely sure that the House of Commons has the ability not just to reject or accept but to shape, compromise, amend and exert the very sovereignty which, it is claimed, we are withdrawing from Europe to accomplish.
Secondly, we must involve the devolved Governments of the United Kingdom in that decision. Thirdly, we must not preclude the chance of going back to the people. I am not asking for a vote. I am not saying that that will be necessary. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, who said last night that we have got into this mess via a referendum. I do not believe that we can get out of it by precluding the legitimacy of another referendum. There is no constitutional reason why we should not do it. Those three elements will greatly assist the elected Chamber in this Parliament to accomplish what is necessary.
Those elements, I remind the House, do not undermine our parliamentary sovereignty. The first represents the exercise of parliamentary sovereignty by enabling the Commons; the second will involve all the democratically elected organisations and institutions in this country; and the third, in the last instance, will give the people of this country the chance when there are new facts and information—new attitudes and explanations—to exercise their ultimate sovereignty. That is what this House can do, and if it does it, it will do a service to the country.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow two noble Lords from Scotland—the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Reid. I warm more to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Reid, at the end of his speech, which point a way forward. We have also heard a number of valuable contributions from Wales in the debate. In this long debate the most poignant moment for me, as for the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, was the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell. He said:
“Clause 1 of the Bill … strikes a dagger to my soul”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1411.]
That touched a nerve for many of us and I often wonder, as did the noble Lord, Lord McNally, how I should look into the eyes of my grandchildren when they ask, “How could we have allowed the tragedy of Brexit to occur?”.
There is some merit in coming 186th on the list if one is a Plaid Cymru Peer. There is just the possibility of a few things not having been said, so perhaps I may put forward Plaid’s viewpoint on some of these matters. We regard Brexit as a political disaster for both Wales and the United Kingdom but as democrats we accept that the voters of Wales, for diverse reasons, chose to leave the EU. While there may be a mandate to leave the EU, there is no mandate whatever for any specific new relationship with Europe or the world. So while I accept that the Bill should have a Second Reading I reserve judgment on its Third Reading, depending on how it is amended between now and then.
I accept the need for continuity legislation to avoid uncertainty about the fundamental rights of citizens, employees and consumers; and what trade rules apply when Britain leaves the EU. As all existing EU regulations will automatically carry over on 30 March next year, the Bill in fact accommodates an ongoing relationship with the customs union as a possibility. The Prime Minister, in her Lancaster House and Florence speeches, spelled out four considerations to which several noble Lords have drawn attention. What was spelled out is, first, that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed; secondly, that the Government are hell-bent on quitting the EU on 29 March next year, deal or no deal; thirdly, that no deal is better than a bad deal, however defined; and the fourth consideration is the irrevocability of Article 50 and a precise exit time, regardless of negotiations and whether Parliament has had time to approve any last-minute deal. If there is no deal because of last- minute complications, chaos would reign. We must consider the Bill’s robustness for such circumstances.
Other legislation may deal with the transition period or what practical difficulties might arise, although there are also implications for this Bill. The real dangers arise from giving Ministers Henry VIII-type powers. If the Bill goes through in its present form, can we adjust our order-making procedures to allow both Chambers to amend statutory instruments, and have the devolved Administrations agreed how they would handle these matters?
In that context, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, observed, Clause 11 is wholly unsatisfactory. Political parties in all three devolved territories have stated that it is not acceptable. The Government recognised this during Commons debates but failed to bring forward amendments on Report. Why was there the delay? Clearly, there must be mechanisms to avoid market distortion within the UK unitary market. Some have proposed a statutory UK council of Ministers. If that were to transpire it must be a council of equals, not a consultative fig-leaf. The lack of progress on this matter is causing immense frustration in Cardiff, as in Edinburgh. It is feared there that the UK Government are using Brexit to roll back areas of devolved responsibility. Two weeks ago, the National Assembly in Cardiff voted unanimously for Wales to have its own continuity Bill, so that all powers returning from Brussels which relate to devolved matters will automatically transfer to devolved competence. Every party, including the Conservatives and even UKIP, supported that resolution.
Another question is how the final deal will be ratified. Both Houses of Parliament and the devolved Assemblies should be required to ratify it. It is essential that the deal includes some new type of relationship that allows ongoing trade between the UK and the European mainland, particularly for manufacturers and agricultural products.
An EEA-type customs union relationship might be an acceptable compromise. It would probably resolve the difficulties in respect of Gibraltar as well as Ireland, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hain, spoke so forcefully yesterday. If, however, by the Government’s self-imposed deadline, negotiations fail to reach a deal and we look over that horrible cliff edge, the consequences will be devastating. In those circumstances, the people must surely be asked if that is really what they voted for in June 2016. The people have the right to change their mind. They should have the final word on any hard Brexit, by way of a confirmatory referendum. If the voters then rush over that cliff edge, so be it; but if, in that new dawn of stark reality, they decide, “No, that’s not what we want”, then their judgment should be respected and we should step back from this whole sorry saga.
I shall not vote against Second Reading, but I shall put down amendments to give MPs a chance to think again and, even more importantly, as the noble Lord, Lord Reid, said, to give a hook for the other Chamber to address these issues. I only hope that the other place will, by then, have found the courage to make a stand and be counted on such momentous decisions.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, as it always is. It is also a pleasure to follow 185 other speakers; but I do not envy the Minister who has the job of summing up the debate.
Reference has been made several times to the Third Reading of the European Communities Bill in 1972. I have to confess that I, too, was another person who participated in that debate. My noble friend Lord Baker referred to the speeches by Michael Foot and Enoch Powell. He did not refer to my maiden speech, illustrating what the writer Mackworth Praed meant when he referred to,
“a maiden speech,
Which all men praise, but none remember”.
If I have a dagger to my heart, it is the opposite to that of the noble Lord, Lord Butler. The dagger to my heart is that I strongly supported our joining the European Community at that time. Quite why I and others over subsequent years developed increasing doubts about the European Union is illustrated by the Bill before the House, because it incorporates both visibly and when you dig into the Bill such a huge amount of EU law covering all sorts of things, from zoos to human rights, beaches, canals, immigration, extradition, foreign policy mechanisms, policy in north Africa and overseas aid. At the time of the 1972 debates, we were assured by the Law Officers that the supremacy of EU law was confined “essentially to economic matters”. Those were assurances that were repeated both by the Prime Minister in 1972—Ted Heath—and by Harold Wilson in 1975 at the time of the other referendum. Some 12,000 pieces of legislation later, and after Nice, Maastricht, Amsterdam and Lisbon, we can clearly see why many people like myself think they were mistaken to believe the assurances that we were given.
We had at the opening of this debate excellent speeches from the Leader of the Opposition the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, from the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. It was particularly excellent that they made it quite clear that they did not intend to obstruct this Bill and that they approached it in a constructive spirit. I totally agree with all three of them that there is great need and scope to amend this Bill in certain crucial areas.
A lot of concern has been focused on the so-called Henry VIII clauses and the number of statutory instruments that will flow from this Bill. This is, of course, the mirror image of the problem that we had when we joined the European Economic Community in 1972. Section 2(2) of the 1972 Act allowed EU law to have legal effect in the UK by delegated legislation. Some of that delegated legislation was by Order in Council and directives that totally bypassed Parliament. However inadequate the procedures that we are examining tonight are, they were even more inadequate in 1972. None the less I do not dispute for one minute that it is quite right that this House should seek to strengthen the safeguards, although some wild things were said in the House of Commons such as that this Bill could be used to alter the composition of the House of Lords or to postpone the date of the next election. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, made a powerful speech. He referred to the powers of the House of Commons. Statutory instruments are not government by fiat; they are a parliamentary procedure. If you object to something, turn up and vote against it. As has been said in this debate, it is not easy to see an alternative to the use of statutory instruments. Given the huge volume of legislation, it would be quite impractical to incorporate it all by primary legislation.
These are serious issues, but some of the speeches that we have had, although serious, were not really about the merits of the Bill but criticised the Government’s tactics in the negotiations as a means of getting a second referendum on to the agenda and into the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, who I see in his place, was rather flirtatious—rather triangulating—about this question. He said he had been of the opinion that the referendum ought to be binding but it was no longer axiomatic. As Clemenceau once said to Lloyd George after an ambiguous speech: “Pour ou contre? Oui ou non?”. We all know which way, in the end, the noble Lord is going to go on that question.
The Opposition present the phrase “the single market”, which they parrot all the time, as though by finding a phrase they had found a policy. They never go beyond the phrase to explain why a free trade agreement would be worse than membership of the single market. We know that if you export into another market without being a member of the single market you have to observe the rules, just as many countries do—many countries that have increased their exports to the single market more than we have, faster and to a larger extent. The noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, referred to the customs union. I wondered whether it was the same distinguished noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, the Commissioner who used to preach the virtues of free trade—that it was a spur to productivity and helpful to consumers—as he was defending without further argument, just by the phrase, a customs union that imposes very high tariffs on food and goods, including textiles and clothing, from poorer countries. I found that very difficult to comprehend.
I regret that this country has been so divided after this referendum and that some people have been so upset by the result, but that is no excuse for caricaturing Brexit as some dangerous extreme nationalism. Brexit is not a rejection of the values that we share with Europe, those values being human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Some Liberal Democrats were cynical and dismissive of the Prime Minister’s call for a special deep partnership with the European Union and called it just rhetoric, but why should we not have outside the framework of the EU co-operation between universities and in science and technology just as Switzerland does. Is Switzerland any less European by being outside the European Union? No, it is not.
Yes, Brexit is about self-government, sovereignty and making our own laws through our own Parliament rather than through a Parliament in which we have only 15% of the share of the votes. Millions of people voted for this because they believe in the nation state and that the nation state and democracy are two sides of the same coin. That is what people voted for and this Bill is necessary to facilitate that. It requires amendment and improvement but it should be given, expeditiously, a Second Reading.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I was going to start by saying that the image I cannot get out of my head from these two days of debate is that of the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Lamont, sitting in the bath singing “Je ne regrette rien”, but then my noble friend Lord Kirkwood pinched my line—he will be hearing from my lawyers, although I cannot afford any of the quality in this House.
Like many noble Lords, we on the Lib Dem Benches hugely regret Brexit. We fully understand the lack of belief that the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, expressed in the “sunny uplands”. My noble friend Lady Humphreys impressed on us forcefully the harm that pulling out of the single market and customs union would do to Wales, as did the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. My noble friend Lord Razzall said the same about business across the UK. So far, so Brexit. Had you asked me last spring what was the topic of the inappropriately named great repeal Bill—which as my noble friend Lord Newby pointed out early in the debate was neither great nor repealing—I would have retorted, in a nod to Bill Clinton, “It’s about Brexit, stupid”. I am older and wiser now: the context of the Bill might be Brexit, but the content is about nothing less than the constitutional and legal integrity of this country. As the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, said, that is what we must concentrate on.
I am afraid that the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, was wrong when she said in her speech last night that “no one ever said” that Brexit would be “easy”. I found a list of 11 such culprits, among them no lesser luminaries than Liam Fox, John Redwood and Michael Gove. Another favourite adjective is “simple”. Brexit Secretary David Davis breezily said:
“It’s very simple. At the moment we leave, Britain must be back in control. And that means EU law must cease to apply. To ensure continuity, we will take a simple approach”.
It is all going to be a piece of cake—maybe even a piece of Boris Johnson’s cake, the type you can have while also eating it. But as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said, that gives you indigestion.
Besides ease and simplicity, the other assurances we were given about the nature of the Brexit process were of certainty and clarity. In her foreword to the White Paper last March, the Prime Minister said the Government’s first objective is to provide,
“as much certainty as possible as we move through the process”.
She referred to the Bill as an essential part of the plan for clarity and reassurance. That is not what the Government are delivering, and my noble friend Lady Kramer deplored the instability being created for businesses and individuals. The problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said, is that they cannot even tell us where they want to go. This is, suggested the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, because of too many back-seat drivers. For goodness’ sake, choose the destination, demanded the noble Lord, Lord Bridges.
The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, reproached those he feared were talking down our negotiating position—but I think he needs to find the mote in his own Government’s eye. Because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, sagely observed, it is the side that is supposedly winning that is blowing a fuse. It says everything about our current, sorry situation that although the EU can secure consensus among 27 countries, the British Cabinet cannot achieve consensus among 27 Ministers.
The task of scrutinising and reforming the Bill is huge. We are fortunate to have had the pioneering contribution in debates in the other place, and since, of the former Attorney-General Dominic Grieve. We must pick up the baton. We are aided in that task by superb briefings from experts from many organisations, and now by the hugely valuable report from the Constitution Committee, which warns us of “uncharted territory” and,
“a legal undertaking of a type and scale that is unique and unprecedented”.
It also says, as many have quoted, that the Bill is,
“fundamentally flawed from a constitutional perspective in multiple ways”,
and,
“as drafted is constitutionally unacceptable”.
It is certainly not a boring Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Hill, feared.
The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, warned that there must be no attempt,
“to make a constitutional Horlicks of this Bill”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1395.]
Well, that is already the case. We will have to smooth out the lumps with some very rigorous stirring.
It is extraordinary, considering the rhetoric about regaining sovereignty, that the first defect we will have to deal with is that Ministers rather than Parliament are taking back control. As the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, who as we all know is a little bit expert on these matters, said,
“if the Bill before us is enacted without significant amendment, it will represent the largest single peacetime transfer of power from Parliament to the Executive”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1490.]
Apparently, these are not Henry VIII but Cromwellian powers—though whether Thomas or Oliver of that ilk, I will not adjudicate. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, warned strongly in this debate, just as he did on the “Today” programme yesterday, when he even managed to subdue John Humphrys:
“We need to wake up to this”.
Perhaps this Bill can be the catalyst for a wholesale reform and improvement in the processing of secondary legislation, as several noble Lords proposed. After all, as my noble friend Lord Sharkey commented: “Sifting is not scrutiny”. The second challenge is to sort out how, in the words of the Constitution Committee,
“the Bill risks fundamentally undermining legal certainty in a number of ways”.
That is quite a contrast to the certainty that the Prime Minister promised. This is because of lack of clarity about the creation, status and interpretation of retained EU law and how it can be challenged.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, my noble friend Lord Beith and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Judge, highlighted the anomaly of preserving the supremacy of EU law post exit, while the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, warned about undermining the independence of judges. The committee’s suggestion, to give all retained law the status of primary legislation, is one we will no doubt want to examine very carefully.
Many noble Lords have rightly opposed the proposed exclusion of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, as do we on these Benches. The charter is the key to unlocking the meaning of EU law and it makes no sense to exclude it when that law is itself being kept. Why, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee asked, is it,
“singled out as the exception to … continuity”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1410.]
The noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, was similarly baffled by its exclusion. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, recalled that the charter adds not only rights absent from the European Convention on Human Rights but also remedies. The noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition reminded us that David Davis had himself taken a case based on the charter to the ECJ, so it is rather hypocritical of him to deny this legal remedy to others.
The great worry articulated by many noble Lords and noble Baronesses, and which we on these Benches share, is that the legal framework of rights and protections built up over the last 45 years will be at risk—including those relating to inequalities and human rights, employment, the environment and public health, and other fields. The noble Lords, Lord Cashman and Lord Triesman, fear the risk of scapegoating and reminded us of the vow “never again”, and the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, fears the loss of disability rights. Despite the Government’s assurances, the freelance comments from some Ministers looking forward to slashing red tape have not allayed those fears.
I am grateful for the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and will be perusing it with care. In addition, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said in respect of criminal measures like the European arrest warrant, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, said in respect of family law, it is impossible for the UK to unilaterally deliver reciprocal arrangements. I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that the Metropolitan Police are very keen to stay in Europol and to have access to EU databases
Many noble Lords spoke of the threat to the devolution settlements. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, was astonished at the Government’s failure to respect them and said their changes were naive and very damaging. My noble friend Lord Purvis and my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness raised similar fears, while my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford thought that the best thing to do would be to remove the devolution provisions from the Bill and start again.
In addition, there is particular concern about the effect of Brexit on the peace in Northern Ireland and the all-Ireland integrated economy that has flowed from the Good Friday agreement. Many noble Lords, among them former Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, expressed this concern, which we fervently share.
In our consideration of this Bill, we will want to pay some attention to the lack of clarity about what happens next autumn. Parliament and the people need to keep control of the country’s future through a meaningful vote in Westminster and a final say for voters, in which they have the option to choose an exit from Brexit. A transitional agreement and a long-term agreement will mean a lot of rewriting of the Bill, but we cannot yet see how. Many noble Lords supported the option of a final say for citizens and that this should be an option after a meaningful vote in Parliament. Indeed, David Davis and Jacob Rees-Mogg have in the past supported such a two-step process, with a confirmatory further referendum once the facts are known.
In conclusion, we on these Benches believe that Brexit would be a disaster for this country, not only economically but socially and environmentally. This Bill threatens to ravage the constitutional and legal fabric of the UK and its parts. We have our work cut out. We will need the input not only of the Brexit anoraks, among whose number I proudly count myself, but of every single legally and constitutionally informed brain, many of whom have spoken impressively in the last 36 hours.
The sniping directed at this House for daring to subject this Bill to forensic scrutiny is far off the mark. Far from being seen as sabotage, I believe there will be some gratitude for our efforts in making this Bill fit for purpose in all but the most ideologically blinkered circles. As my noble friend Lord Beith said, we are just trying to fix the steering wheel and get the Bill through its MOT.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, this has been the most extraordinary debate, has it not? We have heard from former judges, Permanent Secretaries, EU Commissioners, MEPs, Cabinet and Brexit Ministers, and former Speakers, Leaders and Chief Whips of your Lordships’ House. We have heard from former ambassadors, negotiators, Attorneys-General, high commissioners and governors, party leaders, Chiefs of Defence, trade unionists, farmers, a police commissioner, a Clerk of the Commons and a Lord Chancellor—to say nothing of current lawyers, Bishops, academics and medics. It is a reminder to our detractors that what this House brings to our democracy is not final decision-making but the wisdom of years of experience and public service devoted to the future of our nation and the interests of citizens. Decry their expertise, and the Government risk losing both credibility and help.
Hearing virtually all 188 speeches has been a privilege, as well as quite a bit of fun, with the call for help from the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, from “Hope, Judge and Pannick”; the discomfort of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, at his father’s posthumous victory over him in the referendum outcome; the salivation of the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, at the thought of raising tax by secondary instruments; and the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, to three imaginary aunts to see “Reservoir Dogs” or “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, conjuring up images of the nights of relaxation spent by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, when released from the Chamber. But there was also some solemnity. Few will forget the words of the aunt of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, his only family member to have survived the war in Nazi Germany, who said that it was mad,
“to begin to take apart the structure that we put in place to prevent this happening again”.—[Official Report, 30/10/17; col. 1427.]
That was a poignant reminder of what the EU is all about, as my noble friend Lord Radice recalled from his 1955 bike trip across Europe. Perhaps that is why Clause 1 is like a dagger to the soul of the noble Lord, Lord Butler.
Meanwhile, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds invoked Martin Luther King with:
“If we do not know what we … die for, we have no idea what we … live for”,
then asked:
“Once we have done Brexit, then what? What was it for? Who do we think we are?”.
He stressed that the answer should be about human flourishing and a common good. He also lamented the atmosphere around Brexit, where arguments that are inconvenient are ridiculed, and where there has been a,
“normalisation of lies and … demonising of people who … venture to hold a contrary view”,—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1386-87.]
with an “undisguised language” of suspicion, denigration and vilification. As he said, our media have not helped. I also challenge our country’s so-called leaders to get a grip on this.
With only the rare exception, these near-200 speeches have all said that we are not questioning that we will leave the EU and that, to do so, we must have everything ready in time. But the Bill is not yet—in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hague—in its “perfect, finished form”, able to bring EU law into our legislation. It fails to give Parliament its rightful say. We need, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, an assertion not an abdication of parliamentary democracy.
As the Constitution Committee said:
“The Bill as drafted is constitutionally unacceptable”.
In seeking to meet the “essential” but “unprecedented” task of converting EU law into domestic law, it risks “fundamentally undermining legal certainty”, causing,
“constitutionally problematic uncertainties and ambiguities”.
Furthermore, the Bill,
“represents a challenge for the relationship between Parliament and the Executive”,
and grants Ministers “overly-broad powers” and,
“greater latitude than is constitutionally acceptable”.
To quote the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds—I am sorry, he is popular today—again,
“if ‘taking back control’ by Parliament is to mean anything, it must mean refraining from bypassing the essential scrutiny that Parliament is … required to provide. Hard parliamentary scrutiny might be inconvenient … but the … consequences of granting Ministers unprecedented powers … must be considered, as they will … change our assumptions about democracy”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; cols. 1386-87.]
The Minister would be well advised to heed such words. The noble Lord, Lord Bridges, warned that such powers might become the mother of all Henrys, referring, I gather, to Elizabeth of York.
Much has been said, so I will touch on just five areas. First, despite the Government saying that they would bring over all current rights and protections, the Bill in fact specifically excludes the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as covered by my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith. It also fails to guarantee that protections cannot later be weakened by secondary legislation. We will work to give the retained law the solidarity of primary legislation. Secondly, it fails to respect the devolution settlements, grabbing back to Westminster non-reserved areas that reside in Cardiff, Edinburgh or Belfast. Thirdly, still on power grabs, it takes to Ministers, rather than Parliament, swathes of decisions relating to the returning law, while creating legal uncertainty. Fourthly, there remain big questions as to whether the future of the Good Friday agreement has been factored into the Government’s thinking. Fifthly, it would be for Ministers alone—not Parliament —to decide on the withdrawal deal, on any transition accord and on the framework for our future relations with the EU. That is not acceptable.
Just as, with Article 50, a court decided that it should be for Parliament, not the Crown prerogative, to take that momentous step, so it must be Parliament—not No. 10—that takes these enormous decisions that will impact across the nation on our future trading, security, and every other relationship with the EU 27. This is also why I cannot support the amendment from my noble friend Lord Adonis.
We need to amend the Bill to give Parliament the say on these complicated, vital issues—Parliament, where Ministers can be challenged, as the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, said, where the implications of the deal can be examined and debated, and where decision-makers are then accountable for their deeds. Perhaps at that stage the elected House of Commons might judge that it needs a people’s mandate, but that is for them, then.
For the moment, our role is to question the Government’s negotiating strategy—assuming they have one—and examine the secret evidence on which it is based, though as the Times says,
“voters have the right to see what is being done in their name”.
We therefore welcome the decision of the Commons earlier today to require the Government to hand over their impact assessment to the Exiting the EU Committee. Can the Minister confirm that this House’s EU Committee will receive the document on the same terms? Once more people have read it, perhaps many will side with the Justice Minister, Philip Lee, who says that if the figures are right, there is a “serious question” over whether a Government could legitimately lead a country along a path that the evidence and rational considerations indicate would be damaging. In the words of my noble friend Lord Liddle, the thrust of our argument is that we must challenge the vacuum left by this hapless Government and that Parliament must be placed centre stage in the coming negotiations and approvals. Just as the European Parliament has a vote on the deal, so must our Parliament, including on any proposal for the Government to walk away without a deal.
Recently, we have heard a new word—BINO, or Brexit in name only—which the lifelong Brexiteers so fear. I do not know about that. I do not know how long the transition should be or on what terms, or exactly what arrangement would best protect our jobs, health and social services, children’s and citizens’ rights and the future of our grandchildren—and yes, I have a six day-old grandson. So, for Ilyas’s future, this is important to me. Although I do not know the answers to all that, I know that those judgments must not be made simply by a Prime Minister to protect herself from dissidents in her own party, but by Parliament in the interests of the country.
So, as the Minister rises to respond, I ask him: to guarantee that these wider, national interests will guide the hands of negotiators; to listen to the calls from across this House to amend the Bill to restore powers to Westminster, not No. 10, and provide legal certainty for the courts; to ensure that the Government will preserve both the Good Friday agreement and the devolution settlements; to work with noble Lords in Committee to safeguard the consumer, environmental and employment rights from any change without primary legislation; perhaps to respond to the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Warner, to pause the Bill while the Government make the necessary amendments; and, above all, to defend the right—no, the duty—of this House to advise him and the Commons on the detail of the Bill. That is not much to ask.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the nature of the debate that has taken place over the past two days has shown the value of the expertise that this House brings to the legislative process. I totally agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on this.
The legislation we have been debating is of great consequence for the country and is key to delivering a functioning statute book on 29 March 2019. It is therefore not only politically and constitutionally significant but practically essential, as many noble Lords have acknowledged. It is in recognition of the essential nature of the Bill that I want to emphasise my gratitude to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. The sheer number of noble Lords who took the time to attend and participate in the debate is a tribute to this House. Peers have excelled in their contributions, which have been—mostly—constructive and wholly befitting to the role of this House as a scrutinising Chamber.
I am sure noble Lords will understand that the late hour and time do not allow me to respond to each speaker individually—I am sure that noble Lords will be delighted to know that. However, it is clear that this debate has benefited from the extensive personal knowledge and professional experience in this place. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, set out in her opening address, this Bill presents an opportunity for the Government to avail themselves of the genuine expertise on offer in this place.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has tabled an amendment, to which I will respond shortly. I should like to acknowledge at the outset the frustration and regret which many of your Lordships have expressed in this debate over the outcome of the referendum. But we are not here today to revisit the question of having a referendum, or to examine the reasons why people voted the way that they did. The withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, which will come before Parliament, will be the opportunity to debate and scrutinise the domestic legislation implementing the final agreement we strike with the EU. Therefore, again in the interests of time, I will not address all those points today. Before I come to the noble Lord’s Motion, I will address the contributions made by other noble Lords on the subject of this Bill over the last two days. I will attempt to cover the main points but will also place a letter in the Library answering questions about the Bill that I have not covered in my answer.
There has been much discussion of the delegated powers within this Bill. I pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Newby, Lord Lisvane, Lord Strathclyde, Lord Bridges and Lord Tugendhat, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, the noble Baronesses, Lady Mallalieu and Lady Taylor, and many others who have spoken eloquently on this issue. I hope that noble Lords will agree that the power to correct deficiencies in retained EU law arising in consequence of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU is essential to achieving the core purposes of this Bill: to ensure that our statute book continues to function on exit, providing certainty and continuity for both businesses and individuals. The Government do not propose delegated powers lightly. We are committed to avoiding the twin spectres of permissions to do too much and permissions to do too little. The power is broad but limited and is, crucially, a time-limited solution to a unique problem. We want to strike the right balance between scrutiny and speed, and to ensure that the Government can complete this exceptional task in time for exit while tailoring the powers as tightly to their purpose as possible. It is important that there is no slack in a power of the exceptional type needed here. The Government do not ask noble Lords to accept on trust how they will be used. The correcting power was already adjusted in the other place to limit the scope and put the Government’s policy even more firmly in the heart of the power.
I have heard the concerns raised in this House. Be in no doubt that the Government are in listening mode and are willing to consider constructive suggestions for change. Many noble Lords have already made useful suggestions, including the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, my noble friend Lord Hodgson, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and many others, and I am confident that there will be further helpful suggestions to come in Committee.
I now come to the scrutiny procedures for the secondary legislation which will be made using the powers in the Bill. I of course recognise that the House has a strong record of scrutiny of secondary legislation under the auspices of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The Government have always wanted to ensure that there is sufficient scrutiny of the secondary legislation to come. While major policy change is for other Bills, the Government introduced this Bill with triggers for the affirmative procedure on all the key powers. There will be many SIs under the Bill which contain small and technical amendments which will not substantially change how the law operates for firms or individuals in practice. The affirmative procedure would be disproportionate in those cases.
To provide greater clarity on this point, the Government have published draft SIs to show the types of legislative changes that would be made under each procedure. We have always said that we would listen to Members of both Houses in the passage of this Bill. In that vein, the Government were pleased to accept the recommendation of the Procedure Committee in the other place. Those amendments ensured that Ministers must submit SIs that they are proposing to make under the negative procedure under the three principal powers in the Bill—Clauses 7, 8 and 9—to a sifting committee, which will consider the appropriateness of the procedure.
I know that noble Lords will want to ensure that the expertise of this House is properly brought to bear on secondary legislation. I share this view. As my noble friend the Leader of the House set out yesterday, we will bring forward proposals in due course following appropriate consultations.
I will briefly address the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Wilson of Dinton, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Howell and Lord Storey, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady D’Souza, and many others regarding the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The UK has a proud tradition of respecting human rights. Leaving the EU does not and will not change this commitment. This includes children’s rights, which will of course continue to be protected under the Children Act 1989 and through our remaining party to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I hope that this reassurance will aid the noble Lords, Lord Russell, Lord McConnell and Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and I thank them for raising this important issue.
The Government have been unequivocal about this. Our intention has always been that, in itself, not incorporating the charter should not result in a significant loss of substantive rights. This is because the charter only reaffirmed the rights which were already protected under EU law, which will now be brought into UK law by this Bill. It is not, and never was, the source of those rights. The Government have also published a non-exhaustive memorandum setting out for each provision of the charter where the underlying rights will continue to exist as part of retained EU law or domestic law or the common law, but the simple fact is that leaving the EU will inevitably result in a change to the current arrangements. Therefore, it just does not make sense to retain the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The clue is in the title; the charter applies to EU institutions and member states, but it applies to member states only when they are acting within the scope of EU law. We will not be a member state, nor will we be acting within the scope of EU law once we leave the EU. As such, the charter itself will not be converted into UK law, and I agree with the remarks made on the subject earlier in the debate by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech.
We have heard several contributions concerning the interpretation of retained EU law in Clause 6. This is not surprising, given the exemplary legal minds in this House, and I will endeavour here to speak to the concerns raised by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Judge, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and Lord Falconer, and the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar.
I also extend my thanks to the Constitution Committee for its report, which many noble Lords have made reference to in this debate. This is a long and detailed report, and the Government will consider it carefully. From the beginning we have been committed to working collaboratively with parliamentarians to improve the Bill wherever possible.
The Government have heard the concerns raised in relation to whether and to what extent our UK domestic courts and tribunals should have regard to post-exit decisions made by the Court of Justice of the European Union, or to anything done by the EU and its other entities, when interpreting retained EU law. The UK is leaving the EU. This will end the direct jurisdiction of the CJEU. For our courts to remain bound to the future case law of the CJEU would be to undermine the clear position and ignore the reality of our withdrawal. It would also limit the discretion and independence of our courts, whose judicial authority we had sought to return.
We have a world-renowned judiciary, many of whose former members, I am pleased to say, are now in this House, and the Bill’s position in Clause 6(2) reflects the Government’s confidence in the judiciary’s independence and expertise. With this in mind, I emphasise that Clause 6(2) is intended to reflect in statute our strong belief that the courts are best placed to determine the right approach to questions of interpretation concerning retained EU law.
Clause 6 therefore provides that our domestic courts are not bound by post-exit decisions made by that court, as well as anything done by an EU entity or the EU itself, on or after exit day. The courts, however, may take such things into account if they consider it appropriate to do so.
We believe this provides a clear and certain position for our courts following our departure from the EU. Again, however, the Government have heard the concerns raised in this House over the last two days, and from other sources previously. I know that my noble and learned friend Lord Keen is eager to engage with your Lordships on these provisions over the coming months.
Lord Callanan
He told me to say that. The wealth of expertise and experience in this House is ideally suited to the task of considering and agreeing an approach which can command the broadest possible confidence. I hope that this leaves your Lordships in no doubt as to how seriously we take these questions, and I hope that we can continue to engage constructively throughout.
I know that devolution, perhaps more than any other issue, has featured in your Lordships’ contributions over the past two days. I pay particular tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for his constructive remarks, of which I have taken careful note. I also thank my noble friends Lord Dunlop and Lord McInnes, the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, and many other noble Lords for their contributions.
Our priority is to ensure that our withdrawal from the EU is as smooth and orderly as possible for the whole of the UK. The Government remain committed to the devolution settlements. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, that this presents an opportunity—which the Government have seized—for sincere and mature co-operation to find consensus. The Scottish and Welsh Governments agree that there are areas where common frameworks are necessary. The Government agree that in areas where they are not necessary, those powers should and will be a devolved responsibility. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, that after we leave the EU they will continue to be able to do anything that is now within the competence of the devolved Administrations. There will of course be a need for common frameworks in some areas, as the noble Lord recognised, but the outcome of the UK leaving the EU means that more decision-making powers will be with the devolved Administrations.
As your Lordships are aware, we have made a commitment to bring forward changes to Clause 11, and this commitment remains absolute. We are engaging in intensive discussions with the Scottish and Welsh Governments on what those amendments will look like, and we are making good progress towards the right outcome. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will travel to Edinburgh and Cardiff this week to further discuss our proposed amendments to Clause 11, which I hope will reassure the noble Lady, Baroness Finlay, and others, on her point about proper consultation with the devolved Administrations. Any such amendments to Clause 11 will of course need to speak to the concerns of the Scottish and Welsh Governments, while ensuring maximum certainty once we have left the EU. In the absence of a Northern Ireland Executive, we are working closely with the Northern Ireland Civil Service, and we are doing all we can to restore devolved government to Stormont.
Closely linked to these discussions is the work being carried out on future frameworks, guided by the principles agreed with the Scottish and Welsh Governments at the Joint Ministerial Committee. We will publish our analysis of where we expect there to be a need for legislative frameworks in whole or in part, for informal arrangements, and where we expect that no additional cross-UK mechanisms are required.
I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Luce, Lord Hoyle, Lord Kilclooney and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for their remarks concerning Gibraltar. The Government are clear that Gibraltar is covered by our exit negotiations, and we have committed to fully involve it as we exit the EU. We will negotiate as one United Kingdom and will leave as one United Kingdom.
I turn to the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for another referendum to be held. On this point, let me be completely clear. The result of the referendum held on 23 June 2016 saw a clear majority of people vote to leave the European Union. On this subject, as on so many others, I can do no better than to advise noble Lords to look at the comments of my noble friend Lord Hague, who wisely said that it cannot be in the national interest to participate in a referendum merry-go-round. In the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act this Parliament overwhelmingly confirmed the result of the referendum by voting with clear and convincing majorities for that legislation. In the general election last year, both parties campaigned to take us out of the EU, as my noble friend Lady Pidding reminded us yesterday. Only last weekend I watched the leader of the Labour Party say that “that ship has sailed” and confirm that, “We are not asking for a second referendum”. You cannot go back to the people time and again in the vain hope that eventually they will give you the result that you wanted.
The British people can trust the Government to honour the referendum result. This does not mean that the process will be without scrutiny, and of course we will consult Parliament further. There will be a vote in both Houses on the final agreement reached with the EU. Then there will be a withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill that will give Parliament further time to debate and scrutinise the domestic legislation implementing the final agreement that we strike.
Any commitment to a second referendum would actively undermine our ongoing negotiating position. As the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union noted:
“The consequence of putting a second referendum at the end of the negotiation is to invite every single member of the European Union who does not want us to leave to propose the worst possible deal, in the hope that we will change our mind”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/1/17; col 176.]
This point was reinforced by many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley. We are not going to do that. We are seeking to get the best deal for the UK and we intend to negotiate under the best possible conditions. To do otherwise would be irresponsible in the extreme.
This debate has served to highlight the weight of the matter at hand and the importance of this House’s scrutiny. I look forward to the forthcoming Committee stage where we can enter into proper scrutiny and debate on the issues that have been raised over the past two days. I echo the words of noble Lords who have spoken of our constitutional duty to scrutinise this historic legislation. This place benefits from a wealth of experience and expertise, and I am confident that your Lordships will bring this to bear over the coming months.
Amidst some of the more colourful and entertaining rhetoric, metaphor and simile, a recurring theme has emerged in this debate: the Bill is necessary, the Bill is not perfect, and the Bill should be improved and strengthened but not obstructed. There was a visible and tangible consensus around these sentiments.
The people have spoken and this Government now have a duty to deliver a smooth exit. We owe this not only to those who voted to leave but to those who voted to remain. Regardless of how people voted, it is in the collective national interest to have a functioning statute book on the day we leave. This Bill delivers that by providing certainty and stability to businesses, consumers and citizens across the United Kingdom and I commend it to the House.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I think it was someone other than Burke who said that on all great matters there was more to be said, but I do not think it necessarily needs to be said at 10.18 in the evening after 190 speakers and two days of debate.
These matters will be much debated over the coming months. I expect that the debate on the referendum and the case for the referendum will gather pace over that period, and I was very keen to put down a marker. We have not heard the last of these great national debates. We hope, like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, that they can be conducted in a civilised way. We are very mindful of the fact that the first thing Oliver Cromwell did when he took absolute power was to abolish the House of Lords as dangerous and useless. We intend to ensure that we are not dangerous and that we are very useful. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 21st February 2018
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 79-I(b) Amendments for Committee (PDF, 60KB) - (21 Feb 2018)
Lord Wigley
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, as well as moving Amendment 1 in my name, I shall refer to the other amendments that have been coupled with it for this debate. I declare some relevant interests, in that I own six acres of land that are rented out for agricultural purposes, and I receive a pension from two international manufacturing companies for which I worked, Mars and Hoover, both of which have major trading activities both in the UK and in continental Europe.
I should also make it clear that, while at later stages I shall certainly address those issues of particular relevance to Wales and the devolved regimes, I shall for the most part address issues that are of common concern across the United Kingdom. That is where I am coming from on the amendments before us now.
In tabling these amendments, it is categorically not my intention either to delay or to derail this Bill. I accept—yes, reluctantly—that the UK will be leaving the European Union and that it would be totally inappropriate for this unelected House to overturn the decision taken by the referendum. Neither is it the role of this House to overrule decisions taken by elected MPs in the House of Commons. We have no mandate to do so. It is, however, both our right and our duty to clarify the Bill, make it more workable, iron out the inconsistencies and ensure that, in its impact on citizens and businesses in every part of the UK, it is both even-handed and transparent.
Having said this, I do not accept the proposition that, if we leave the EU, we must per se also leave both the single market and the customs union. That is just not true. While my side of the Brexit debate is to accept that the UK voted to leave the EU, that vote in no way explicitly or implicitly requires us to break our economic ties. Some people who supported Brexit said that they had voted in 1975 to join the Common Market and that, if it were still just the Common Market, they would still support it. Retaining our single market and customs union links goes at least a little way to meeting those aspirations.
Many of the problems associated with the Brexit process have emerged only gradually, as those affected by it come to realise the full implications. As the Bill worked its tortuous path through the Commons, only slowly did its full impact become appreciated. This was not helped by the unwillingness of the Government to indicate where exactly they are heading. Had MPs been fully aware of the Government’s objectives, they might well have come to different decisions on key parts of the Bill such as this.
It is our responsibility to pass amendments to this Bill that will give MPs an opportunity to address such matters in the light of developments in the negotiating process and give due regard to the Government’s objectives, which may even now be only partially understood. This is particularly relevant when one considers the finality of this Bill. Unlike other legislation, if MPs get it wrong, they cannot return next year with an amendment Bill. With Brexit, once the die is cast, it heralds a permanent, irreversible change. We have to help MPs to get it right by giving them the appropriate opportunities to think again.
Amendment 1 is a paving amendment for Amendments 6 and 7. I introduce it at the very beginning of this Bill for a deliberate reason: to flag up that the implementation of Clause 1—the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972—cannot take place in a vacuum. There are considerations and provisions that must be addressed before the 1972 Act can be rescinded. There are no doubt Members of this Chamber who take the absolutist view of these matters that, irrespective of the consequences and regardless of the impact that such a decision may have on individuals, families, regions, industries, businesses and interests, the referendum must be seen in black and white terms and that, consequently, Clause 1 must stand unamended even if the rest of the Bill were to be jettisoned in its entirety. That is not the view I take; nor do I believe it is the view of the vast majority in this Chamber or in the other place.
Amendment 6 goes to the heart of the misgivings felt by industry and commerce across these islands. The Government have made it clear both that they are hell-bent on leaving the single market, which is important to so many industries and businesses across the land, and that their intention is not to maintain membership of the customs union, which could maintain at least some of the trade arrangements that currently exist. Industry after industry and service sector after service sector have begged the Government to rethink their stance on these matters. They point out the devastating effects that trade barriers would have on their businesses.
The EEF told me yesterday of its concerns: 84% of its members export to the European Union and any tariff would have a serious effect on their competitiveness. UK manufacturers form critical parts of complex EU supply networks. Any sudden changes at borders could, it asserts, have a dramatic impact on operations, costs, profitability and even viability. It calls for any new arrangements to include: zero-tariff rates; agreed rules of origin; a common approach to warehousing systems; the facilitation of the movement of goods under customs transit; and seamless customs administration. Those are the types of issues which must be resolved before we press the button to eject ourselves from the present customs union, which in fact answers these concerns. Of course, if we remain in the customs union, even if we give up our EU membership, those problems will be overcome.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, I support these amendments, and in particular Amendment 5. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is a buttressing and an endorsement of the Sewel convention. As the House will recollect, the convention refers to the devolved authorities in this context: that the mother Parliament will not legislate in any way that is contrary to the will of the devolved authorities save in the most exceptional circumstances. The Westminster Parliament could not have gone any further at all without abrogating—
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
I think that the noble Lord is addressing Amendment 5, which is not in this group—and I shall no doubt be following in his footsteps when we do get to that amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 136, which is in my name alone. Clause 1 is the crux of the Bill. It calls for the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 but is silent on the question of our membership of the European Economic Area and what the status of our membership of the EEA will be on leaving the European Union—or indeed what the status of instruments or amendments agreed under the European Economic Area will be, either as we leave at 11 pm on 29 March 2019 or in the future if we are in a position to negotiate remaining in the European Economic Area.
I will speak to a number of issues that flow from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, about leaving the customs union. The Prime Minister has been quite clear about wishing to leave the single market and the customs union. However, at no stage has anyone in the Government explained to the great British public or indeed to Parliament what leaving the customs union will mean or what the consequences will be of negotiating a free trade area either with our existing European Union partners or with third countries. The first point to make is that we immediately become a third country at 11.01 pm on 29 March 2019.
I forgot to mention my interests as listed in the register. I am a non-practising Scottish advocate; I practised for a short time—for two and a half or three years—as a European lawyer in Brussels; and I was a Member of the European Parliament for 10 years and a Member of the other place for 18 years, so I will indeed be in receipt of a European pension.
I should like to consider the position of perishable goods. An example that is very much in the news at the moment is medical isotopes, but I am more familiar with the free movement of perishable foodstuffs from the time that I was a Member of the European Parliament, particularly between 1989, when I was elected, and 1992, when the United Kingdom joined the European Union single market. In leaving the customs union, we face the consequences of leaving the customs union. At Prime Minister’s Questions today, the Prime Minister repeated that we want to take back control of our own borders.
There is a conundrum here. I support enthusiastically what the Government and the Environment Secretary, Michael Gove, are trying to do—we are trying to increase the high standards of animal welfare that we already enjoy and to raise the standards of animal health, the safety of animal production and animal hygiene. However, particularly on the border between Northern Ireland the Republic of Ireland, there will have to be physical checks of animals and presumably of foodstuffs. I remember that as a newly elected MEP I got panic phone calls from companies in Essex, where I had been elected. People phoned or emailed and asked what I, as the local MEP, was going to do to move these goods along as they were time-barred. At the moment we seem to be going along on a wing and a prayer, hoping that everything will be all right on the night. I would like to hear from the Minister, when he responds on this group of amendments, what thought has been given to exactly what controls will be expected, particularly on the movement of perishable goods and the movement of animals, at borders such as the one between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
I am also looking particularly at the fact that we are seeking to arrange new free trade agreements with countries such as Brazil and Argentina. It is no secret that they raise and rear their animals, and produce other products, to a standard that is considerably inferior to those in this country. I know that there is great concern in the Food Standards Agency about whether we will have time to put all the provisions in place governing how these imports will be considered.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
The noble Baroness is herself a distinguished lawyer, and she has raised one of the critical issues that we shall have to address in our debates: whether our membership of the European Economic Area automatically lapses by virtue of our leaving the European Union, or whether leaving it would require a separate Act on our part. As she said, she was a Member of the European Parliament for many years, and has practised law in Brussels, so will she give the Committee the benefit of her advice on whether she believes that our EEA membership will lapse automatically on leaving the EU or whether it would require a separate and explicit Act of Parliament, and therefore a vote in Parliament, to leave it?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I am grateful to the noble Lord, but he places too great an emphasis on my legal abilities. I prefaced my remarks by saying that I am not an EU practising lawyer—although we do have a number of EU practising lawyers in this place. I would argue that no, our membership of the EEA will not explicitly lapse when we leave the European Union. This is a conundrum in which we find ourselves—or it could be the saving of us.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 6, one of the earlier amendments in the group. It would simply require that a report be laid before Parliament,
“outlining the effect of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the single market and customs union on the United Kingdom’s economy”.
This is a starter for 10 for the Minister, which he should be able to agree to—because such an analysis already exists. The EU Exit Analysis—Cross Whitehall Briefing explicitly does what the amendment requires. This analysis is not desperately long—only about 30 pages —but it would undoubtedly help Parliament if it were made more widely available. It is, of course, possible for Members of the other place or of your Lordships’ House to see the document, if they go through a rather demeaning procedure and go to a curtained room— curtained, I was told by the civil servant who was invigilating me, because the document is so secret that the light of day, far less outside scrutiny, cannot be brought to bear on it.
I wrote to the Minister asking whether it would be possible for the Government to make the document public on two grounds. First, the document already is public, because Laura Kuenssberg has got it and has tweeted about it. Secondly, the argument for keeping it secret advanced by the Government—namely that if it were public it would undermine our negotiating position—is clearly false; it is a factual economic analysis and one that has been widely replicated by other think tanks and economic forecasters. I am very grateful to the Minister for the reply he sent me on 20 February. However, I was rather disappointed that he repeated the point that it was impossible for the Government to make this public because of their obligation to ensure security of negotiation-sensitive material. Most assuredly, this document is not that. He also said that it could not be published because it did not represent the Government’s view and that publishing it would likely be misleading to the general public.
Let me remind the House what the general public would discover if they had the opportunity to read this document. It sets out three scenarios, one of which is too appalling, I am sure, for the faint-hearted to contemplate—including, possibly, the maiden aunts of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. It says that if we exited on WTO terms, in 15 years’ time the economy of the north-east would have fallen by 16% below that than would otherwise be the case. You do not need to be of a sensitive nature to be somewhat frightened by such a prospect. It shows that if we had the sort of deal that Canada is negotiating, the economy of the country as a whole would fall by almost 5% and in the north-east by 11%. It states that if we had the Norwegian model, which is the closest model that anybody has contemplated, we would still see a fall in GDP of 1.6% and of 3.5% in the north-east.
There are those in another place who say that this analysis is far too pessimistic and who have castigated civil servants for deliberately including unrealistic assumptions in it. There is one very narrow respect in which I agree with the suggestion that some of the assumptions are questionable: they are far too optimistic. The analysis assumes that the UK will, over this period, have entered free trade arrangements with the US, China, India, the TPP, the Gulf Cooperation Council, ASEAN, Australia and New Zealand. There is not a single soul who knows anything about trade negotiations who believes that that is possible. In that respect this analysis is too optimistic.
If this document were published, it would at least allow people to see the likely range of consequences and to discuss them. They would also discover that in a Canada-type arrangement, which is nearest to what the Government’s centre of gravity seems to be:
“There are over 550 individual restrictions on the services trade”.
That is a quote from the document, which means fewer jobs across the board in the services trade, not here, there and in odd little places, but across the entire board. So is it surprising that the Government do not want to publish this document? Will it be surprising if the Minister, when he replies to this debate, says that they do not intend to do so? I suspect that it will not, but I hope that he will follow the advice of his colleague in another place, the former deputy Prime Minister, Damian Green, who only two days ago said:
“If analysis is being produced then publish it”.
I agree: he should.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, to take up the theme of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, yesterday I went to 100 Parliament Street to read the EU exit analysis papers to which he referred. I will not break the rules by revealing, even though some of it has been leaked, what was written in them. It is a bit of an otherworldly, Kafkaesque environment. I was there with two retired Supreme Court judges and watched by very courteous young civil servants who ensured that we placed our mobile telephones on a desk in the corner of the room. But we were allowed to take our notebooks and pens with us so I have some notes that ensure that what I say is correct.
For those noble Lords who, like myself, have a maths education does that not go beyond ordinary-level additional maths, I recommend before you turn up that you look up the term “computable general equilibrium” or CGE modelling as it is known. It is a form of prediction that may be marginally less ignorant than any other form of prediction of the economy.
As a criminal lawyer who has been in practice for the best part of 50 years, I have seen quite a lot of suicide notes. I have seen real suicide notes and fake suicide notes. This was most certainly not a fake suicide note; it is most certainly a real suicide note. I read it with enormous concern. I am absolutely astonished, and indeed rather insulted, that Her Majesty’s Government do not regard the documents—30 pages of slides, effectively—as essentially disclosable in the public interest. Every member of the public should have the opportunity to read them to understand what I mean by a suicide note.
It is very pleasant over there, if a little dark in a tiled basement. There are beautiful Victorian brick tiles on the walls. It is an architectural gem, so it is a pleasure architecturally. Noble Lords should just go there and read that document because I do not think we are well informed unless we do.
Having said that, I turn briefly to another subject that, because of time, was deliberately not mentioned other than in passing by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, in his eloquent opening of this debate. That is the internal border within Ireland. This is in the context of the customs union. I was Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation for nine and a half years until February 2011 and I have been carefully following the events and politics in Northern Ireland as a fascinated and interested observer since then. The Good Friday agreement was a remarkable document and has had stunning effects. It has brought together, in a democratic forum, people who used to kill each other. It has meant that people who used to behave in that way have been prepared to put aside their very strongly felt traditions—in many respects, hereditary, visceral traditions. It has led to the economies of both Northern Ireland and Ireland improving considerably. Above all, it has led to the saving of life.
We are not talking just about the saving of life in Northern Ireland. There are some residual terrorists who are still trying to kill people and occasionally succeed, but the numbers have been reduced dramatically. It affects all of us. Let us not forget the plaque above the doorway of the other place recording the murder of a very distinguished Member of that House as he drove out of the House of Commons car park, which some noble Lords also use to their advantage. Let us not forget that soldiers—British soldiers including some from Northern Ireland and indeed from the Republic—died as a result of bombings in London because of that dispute.
There is absolutely no way in which intelligent people could sit down to discuss customs union, be they UK politicians or EU negotiators, without the determination that the one thing which cannot be negotiated away is the liberty of the citizens of Ireland to pass in and out of Northern Ireland and the citizens of Northern Ireland to do the same vice versa. If by the time we get to the Report stage, either by a special provision in the negotiations or by a new treaty, the future of the Northern Ireland border as close to its current state is not guaranteed, I will be voting for amendments of this kind and I would expect a responsible Parliament to do the same.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I begin with an apology to your Lordships’ House. Because of professional engagements I was unable to be present for the opening speeches of the debate at Second Reading, but I have been able to reassure my Front Bench, and most particularly the Whips, that they can be certain of my presence throughout the Committee and Report stages.
I should like to speak briefly on those amendments, particularly Amendments 6 and 7, that deal with the customs union and the single market. I wish to express my deeply held view that we need to remain members of the single market and the customs union, or something very like them. That is absolutely essential if we are to retain our national prosperity. I agree precisely with what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said on this subject, and all the analyses thus far bear that out. Indeed, we are seeing current prejudice being caused in terms of reduced investment, reduced growth and reduced spending. You do not have to look into a crystal ball; it is happening now.
Perhaps I may also say—with some regret, because I am talking about colleagues of mine in the other place—that those who have criticised the analysis produced by civil servants have in my view brought discredit upon themselves. As a Minister, I worked with officials for more than 10 years. I never knew or encountered a conspiracy to frustrate the policy of Ministers. I believe profoundly that those analyses were made in good faith and broadly speaking are correct. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that they should be published. They may not be right to the nearest decimal point, but I am certain that they correctly identify the direction of travel. I have never thought that Brexit was a car crash, but I do believe it takes the form of a seriously deflating tyre and will cause the same kind of trouble.
Turning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on Northern Ireland, I wholly agree with him and, if need be, I shall be voting accordingly in the same Lobby as him. We have talked about and agreed to a frictionless border between the Republic and the Province. I do not see how that can be achieved other than by the customs union or something very like it. Those who talk about technology are, I think, talking rubbish. I know of no technology that would achieve that purpose, and if there was such technology, I do not believe it would be affordable by a whole range of smaller businesses.
Incidentally, although it is to digress a little, I think that one of the surprising consequences of Brexit is that we will be asked to consider identity cards for British citizens. Once we have a frictionless border in Northern Ireland and once we have migration—as will happen—how can we operate our immigration controls without identity cards? That will be a very considerable consequence.
I want to make one final point, which echoes one made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. Nothing was said in the referendum that obliges this House or Parliament in general to do something that is deeply prejudicial to our national interest. Nor, indeed, is that the consequence of the general election, which was not, in all conscience, a great triumph for the Conservative Party. From time to time, one has to put one’s assessment of the national interest before any other consideration, most particularly before one’s assessment of one’s party interests. That happens at various times in one’s career. It happened early in my father’s career, 18 months after the Oxford by-election, when he was compelled to vote against Chamberlain. He was much criticised then. It happened at the end of my career in the House of Commons with regard to the second Iraq war, which I deeply deplored. I helped to craft the anti-war Motion and acted as a Teller to make sure that Motion was voted on. Both of us were criticised at the time, but I am bound to say that those criticisms have not survived the historical experiences that we have all seen.
Lord Robathan (Con)
I agree with my noble friend entirely about putting the country before party. He mentioned that nobody had said that we must leave the customs union and single market, but I recall very well that David Cameron—who I rate enormously—George Osborne and Michael Gove, from different sides, said that we must leave not only the single market but the customs union if we voted to leave.
Viscount Hailsham
It is the business of Parliament to form a judgment. We will come to other debates fairly soon—in the next group of amendments—that intend to give Parliament the decisive say. That is our function and we must not shelter behind constitutional niceties in order to refrain from doing our duty. I will certainly do whatever I can to ensure that we remain as close as possible to the customs union—and if I could, I would also frustrate the policy of Brexit.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to address Amendments 152, 197 and 206, on the matter of the customs union. Before I do so, perhaps I might be permitted to say a word of admiration about and pay tribute to the people outside this building—many of them waving British as well as EU flags—who have been there for several months, hoping to impress on us the importance of the case. We in this House—from the comfort of these Benches—should not be tempted in any way to neglect or slight efforts made by our citizens to bring their concerns to our attention. I have been most impressed by them. I have often spoken with them; one young lady, on a very modest salary, told me that she paid quite a lot of money on a fare from Manchester and was sleeping on a friend’s floor in order to stand for 12 hours outside this House. Her account was very typical. I counted more than 140 people one evening, when the temperature was getting very close to zero. I believe that sort of dedication and selfless concern for the future of the country is most impressive.
I am well aware that many of my colleagues in the House have come to this debate in the belief that they are carrying out an instruction from a referendum. I reject entirely that concept, which clearly contradicts the idea of a sovereign Parliament. By definition, if a body is sovereign, it cannot receive instructions from anyone. That is a matter of definition; it is what philosophers call an analytic truth. Even more absurd would be the idea that we could take instruction from a referendum in a previous Parliament. Heaven knows what Parliament would be subject to after a certain period in which we adopted that proposal. One can easily see to what ridiculous results that would lead. It would also make a nonsense of the fundamental principle of our constitution that no Parliament can commit its successor, and if you abandon the concept of parliamentary sovereignty and the belief that goes with it that no Parliament can commit its successor and therefore every Parliament after a general election can open a new page, there will be very little left of our constitution that people who take that line will still believe in.
Lord Cavendish of Furness (Con)
Would it not be true to say that the sovereign Parliament gave the people the decision through the referendum?
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, as I have explained, I do not accept that we are in any way under instruction from anybody. I have heard the word “instruction” and it deeply shocks me. As a matter of fact, I heard it from the then Leader of the House in the days following the referendum. For the reasons that I have already set out and I do not need to repeat, that is a pernicious doctrine that is extremely dangerous in its constitutional ramifications and should be rejected.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I will not give way for the moment; I would like to make a bit of progress.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that even if you were to believe that we are under some kind of instruction relating to Brexit it certainly could not apply to the issue of our remaining in the customs union or the single market. I do not remember that issue being mentioned at all in the referendum, certainly on the customs union. As we all know, there was nothing on the ballot paper about it. The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, intervened to say that he remembered some mention of it by certain people during the campaign. I would be very interested if he could put on record the particular dates, times and places where those comments were made, because I reckon I was pretty alert to what was being said during that campaign, in which I took an active part. I never heard the issue of our remaining in the customs union being dealt with at all, let alone seriously analysed and considered. I do not think that the British people had any chance on that occasion to express a preference one way or the other on that matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, that is a matter of practical fact. Parliament must be sovereign and must take what will be a very important decision.
We all know the potential damage that this country will suffer from Brexit. A lot of it will be from our leaving the single market. Admittedly, some of that damage can be mitigated by our signing a free trade agreement with the EU, but that will not cover financial services, which is such an important part of the country’s economy. There will be great damage from our leaving the EU, even if we are able to sign such a free trade agreement.
On the issue of the customs union, an enormous range of businesses, sectors and companies see this as an existential threat to their continued survival in this country. That goes across all kinds of people, from automotive to aerospace, pharmaceuticals, the nuclear industry and the airline industry. Noble Lords are familiar with the arguments and the very depressing projections made by people from those industries about the costs that they would incur if we leave the customs union.
What is extraordinary is that we have not really heard any of the benefits. It is extraordinary that you can make a proposal for something involving undoubted costs—we can all disagree about the costs and what their extent might be, but we cannot possibly disagree with what sign is on the variable in the equation: it is a negative. The idea that we should incur costs and risks without really knowing what the potential countervailing benefit is seems extraordinarily perverse. No business would manage itself on that basis.
When you press the Government they say, “We need to leave the customs union because that enables us to sign customs agreements or free trade agreements with other countries outside the EU and outside those countries which have themselves free trade agreements with the EU at the present time”. When you actually look at the prospect of doing that you see that it is a mirage; it does not exist at all. Let us take the United States, which spent eight or nine years failing to negotiate the TTIP with the European Union, as the Committee knows very well. Those negotiations broke down partly because of disagreement about the investment guarantees that the Americans were demanding and partly because of the demands being made by the Americans about access for their agricultural products to the single market. Anybody who knows anything about America knows perfectly well that it is inconceivable that an American Administration, let alone a Republican Administration backed by so many Senators and Congressmen from the prairie states and farm states, would ever ratify a free trade agreement with anybody that did not include agricultural products. If it includes agricultural products, of course it includes hormone-impregnated and antibiotic-impregnated beef and chlorinated chicken. Are the British people any more likely than their continental partners and neighbours to accept such products on the market? Would they accept the very appalling animal welfare standards which the Americans have? They have virtually zero grazing for well over 90%, if not very close to 100%, of their cattle at the present time. The idea that you can go through Texas and see lots of longhorn being herded by cowboys as you could 100 years ago is wrong: you will not see a single Texas Longhorn now out in the open air. Those problems will remain and in practice I believe they will be insuperable for us, just as they have been for the rest of the European Union.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate but since it seems that no one else is going to speak up for the option of leaving the customs union, I thought that in the interests of attempted balance, at least, I should make a brief contribution.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, spoke with great passion—not, to me, entirely persuasively—and his sincerity was palpable. But some of the phrases he used do not really correspond with the reality of the situation as I see it. He talked about breaking our ties. It is not the Government’s intention that we should break our economic ties with the single market. He talked about this being an absolutist solution. No one is pursuing something out of dogma. We are trying to make an assessment of what we think is in the best interests of the country. I agree with the words that my noble friend Lord Hailsham used: we ought to be considering what is in the national interest. Noble Lords opposite may find it difficult to believe but that is actually what the Government are trying to do and what people on this side of the Committee are trying to do: come to a set of arrangements, once this decision has been made, that will maximise the welfare and interests of the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, was not comparing leaving the customs union with what the Government are trying to achieve. The Government are trying to achieve a free trade agreement with Europe. That is what you ought to compare the customs union with. In what respect would having a free trade agreement leave the country worse off than it is now? He was talking about a customs union. He did not make it clear but he said he was not disputing the decision to leave so he must have been talking about a customs union while being outside the EU. That is very different from being inside the customs union as a member of the EU. That is putting yourself precisely in the position of Turkey, which is inside the customs union and suffers all sorts of disadvantages, as I shall try to demonstrate.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
Perhaps I could make a suggestion to the noble Lord. If he were to go to 100 Parliament Street and sit and read the assessment, he would indeed see the comparison between being in a customs union and being in a free trade agreement. If he were to look at Hansard again and read about the damage to the economy that my noble friend Lord Newby described, he would find a great deal of that detail which explains that the free trade agreement route still leaves an unbelievably damaged country, in every region, especially the north-east, and in virtually every single industry sector.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
There are calculations that say that. No doubt when the noble Baroness comes to make her speech, she will give arguments. I am not going to be persuaded by just a piece of paper with a statistic.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
Noble Lords jeer but are they really going to say that a piece of paper with a statistic somehow analyses the problem? I put it to the noble Baroness that if you have a free trade agreement you have access to the market. What is the disadvantage? The disadvantage, which I will come to, is that you have to trade against that the inconvenience of rules of origin. That is what it comes down to: balancing the advantages of free trade against the costs of rules of origin.
Nobody has said that there are any advantages to leaving the customs union and I would like to make a few points. First, obviously, the customs union that we are members of—on certain goods, not all—has quite high tariffs on goods that particularly affect the lower paid, especially food, clothing and footwear. That is not an inconsiderable factor. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, being inside the customs union would make it impossible for us to sign free trade agreements with other countries. He was pooh-poohing that and thinks we will not be able to do it. But I put it to him if he looks at the record of quite small countries such as Singapore or Chile or a medium-sized country such as Korea, he will find that when you add up the GDP of the countries they have signed free trade agreements with, it is very much in excess of the added-up GDP of the countries that the EU has signed free trade agreements with. That is to say: these small countries, precisely because they negotiate on their own and do not have to take into account the arguments of 27 other partners, have been very effective at signing free trade agreements. Switzerland, for example, has a free trade agreement with China but the noble Lord thinks it will be impossible for us to have one with it.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I assume this is not a point of order but a point of information.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I am grateful to the noble Lord and would like to give a point of information to him. We already have a free trade agreement with South Korea, as a result of our membership of the European Union. Our leaving the European Union would result in our losing our free trade agreement with South Korea.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I do not know whether the noble Lord misheard me, whether I misspoke or whether he misunderstood. I was not talking about having a free trade agreement with Korea but about the free trade agreements that Korea has signed with other countries across the globe.
Another point about a customs union is that it is not just a question of collecting tariffs. A lot of regulations go with it and there is a vast range of non-tariff controls on goods—you obviously have to have definitions. We would not be able to divert from these at all if we remain members of a customs union, or even to depart from them in our own domestic market. If we did that, the goods that were allowed in which had circulated in the other countries of the customs union would be in contravention of them. Again, I put it that there are some advantages which have to be put into the balance of the argument for leaving the customs union.
One mystery about this amendment is that if you are in the customs union, there is the collection of the tariff revenue where the individual countries are allowed to retain only 20% of the revenue. The rest of it goes to the EU, so would we be outside the EU and paying 80% of the revenue on the external tariff to the EU? That does not seem to make a lot of sense.
It is also possible to be outside the customs union and to have a free trade agreement with the EU. That is precisely what Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein do but of course, to come to the noble Baroness’s point, if that is regarded as a cost you have to offset against it the fact that you have rules of origin. People have pooh-poohed the technology argument but is that really going to be such an insurmountable thing to do? Switzerland exports per capita five times as much to the EU as we do, and it has to operate rules of origin on many sectors when it sells goods to the EU. That does not seem to have had any inhibiting effect.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I would like to make a little more progress, as this is taking rather a long time. The rules of origin are one of the points for consideration. I know that a lot of British industry is worried about this but I noticed what Mr Azevedo, the Secretary-General of the World Trade Organization, said in a newspaper interview that he gave the other day. He pointed out that a large part of Britain’s trade, because we have a bigger percentage of trade with the rest of the world than some other European countries, already has to observe these requirements of documentation and rules of origin. He did not see that there would be a big problem in switching the rest of our trade to a similar regime.
I have also met representatives of some of the companies that run ports in this country, some of which operate on a WTO basis and some of which obviously operate on an EU basis. But when I talked to the management—I do not want to name them because they would not want to be too involved in political controversy—I was told that they did not see a huge difficulty in moving from one administrative system to another. Whether people agree with that or not, I put it to your Lordships that that is what the argument is all about: a trade-off between that and a free trade agreement with access to the market. It is not clear that the advantage is all one way.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
Does my noble friend not agree with me and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on animal hygiene? Given the high levels that the Secretary of State has insisted our farmers will meet on leaving the European Union, how can we physically check the animals coming into this country when we leave if we have no customs controls at UK borders? It cannot be done by technology.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
Even in Northern Ireland, we have some checks already. There will have to be checks, as there are checks throughout the European Union. I would be in favour of checks, but this is not an overwhelming argument against leaving a customs union.
I have one final point on the customs union. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, seemed to be advocating being inside the customs union but outside the EU. That is the consequence of the amendment. That really gives us the worst of all worlds. Consider the position of Turkey. It has to agree to whatever free trade agreements the rest of the EU signs up to and has to have goods under those agreements circulating within its economy, even if it is totally opposed to that, because it has no say in negotiating free trade agreements between—
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I would like to finish a sentence without being interrupted. The EU negotiates free trade agreements but does not take into account what Turkey wants, and Turkey has no say. I will give way one last time; then I will make one other point about the single market; and then, the House will be relieved to know, I shall shut up.
Lord Adonis
The noble Lord referred to Turkey twice. On the first occasion when he referred to Turkey he said that there were all kinds of disadvantages in its customs arrangements with the EU from being in the customs union but not being free to strike trade deals beyond that. Why therefore does he think that Turkey has willingly and freely stayed a member of the customs union?
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
As the noble Lord knows very well, Turkey aspires—that aspiration may now be fading—to join the European Union, so being in the customs union was for many a halfway house to joining the EU, just as for noble Lords who tabled this amendment it is a halfway house to rejoining the EU. That is what their amendment is really about.
Lastly and briefly on the single market, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, was exhorting us all to go to the Treasury, look at the papers, draw the curtains and see the forecasts that have been made. Of course those documents should be taken into account, but there are many other studies made outside Whitehall that take a very different view. I refer him to the research by the academic Michael Burrage, who was at the LSE and at Harvard. He has done an in-depth analysis, which is published on the Civitas website, of the effect of the single market on the British economy and British exports. He has come to the conclusion that there is no correlation between the single market and the growth of trade between the UK and the EU.
Furthermore, he has pointed out something that people have acknowledged in these debates before—namely, that many non-members of the single market, countries outside the continent of Europe, have increased their exports to the single market much faster than Britain has increased its exports to the single market. So the idea that this great liberalising force has had a huge impact on the British economy is absolutely not proven. I make these points simply because the debate so far has been very unbalanced and, as my noble friend Lord Hailsham said, we ought to be considering, in a sober, balanced way, what is in the interests of our own economy now that the decision has irrevocably been made.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
On the customs union, as a pro-European in his youth, the noble Lord will be aware that the customs union was one of the founding acts when the European communities were established. I understand why Eurosceptics might make a lot of arguments that the European Union has become much more federal and political than the economic basis on which it started. But what, given the arguments that the noble Lord made so powerfully in the early 1970s in favour of membership of the customs union, now prevents us staying in the customs union on leaving the EU?
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I am sure the noble Lord is not intentionally misleading the House when he talks about the arguments that I made so compellingly and eloquently in the 1970s. If he has been studying my maiden speech in the House of Commons, I shall be astonished. The reason why I supported the customs union in the 1960s was that we then lived in a world of very high tariffs, and the EEC was a liberalising influence in the 1950s and 1960s. It was only after the American Administration started cutting tariffs in the mid-1960s that the relevance of the EEC in tariff negotiations became much less significant.
Since the noble Lord wanted me to get my feet again, I will say that my attitude towards the customs union is very different from his. I remember a debate in which he spoke about not being in the single market. He explained how he had been to a German car manufacturer which had explained to him—I could not believe my ears—how Germany was manipulating car standards in order to keep out goods from other countries. The noble Lord thought that was admirable and we were very stupid not to be part of this racket. Well, I do not want to be part of it.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, I am supporting and have added my name to Amendment 206 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith. It is also supported by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the noble Lord, Lord Alli. The amendment is simple but necessary and goes to the heart of Parliament’s consideration of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. It says:
“It is a negotiating objective of the Government to ensure that the withdrawal agreement provides for the United Kingdom’s continued participation in a customs union with the EU”.
In today’s economy, business is integrated worldwide, transactions are global, goods and services cross national borders every minute of the day, our greatest customers are our nearest markets, and we know that half our trade is with the other 27 countries of the EU. A lot has been made of Canada having signed a free trade agreement with the EU, CETA, which took eight years. However, the comparisons made with our situation do not apply, because what people do not understand is that the EU makes up less than 10% of Canada’s trade. Who is Canada’s biggest trading partner by far? The United States, which is next door.
It is not just the finished goods that are sold to these markets; the components and ingredients of goods, food and of course drink can flow through as imports and exports. I was speaking in Dublin a week before last for the Irish Food Board, Bord Bia. There the example was given of Bailey’s Irish Cream, which is made in Ireland, sent across the open border into Northern Ireland and packaged there, brought back into Ireland and exported from there around the world. In this European marketplace, we have stopped referring to these exchanges as “imports and exports” because the transmission of goods is so frictionless and continuous that we now just talk about “arrivals and dispatches”. This really matters to business—I speak as someone who has been in business for a long time and started my own business—and to the people employed by these businesses, and it is the customs union that makes it a reality.
I think we take a lot of that for granted today, but this choice, this virtually instant array of products, was not always available to customers and entrepreneurs. We have to remind ourselves that this degree of tariff-free, seamless trade has arisen not by accident but by careful design and the sharing of decision-making on trade policy. We dismiss these benefits of a customs union with the EU at our peril.
I invite noble Lords to picture for a moment the 2.5 million lorries passing through Dover each year and how our ports will cope if, in a year’s time, the continuous throughput of traffic is no longer. A programme on Radio 4 today illustrated this on both sides. If goods need inspecting at ports for exit and entry, revenue collecting, labels and licences checking, sanitary conditions measuring, quota weighing and duties paying, all this can take a long time and clog up the arteries of our economy. If these delays and blockages occur, not only will we need to contend with frustrated truck drivers and motorway congestion, companies with a just-in-time business model—we heard examples from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley—will need completely to rethink their practices, and their investors and customers will pay the price.
The EU has obtained more than 50 trade deals with countries across the world. This represents approaching 20% of our trade and will lapse in 2019 on our exit from the European Union. We need to remain party to those existing FTAs, and this amendment is the best way to ensure that. At the moment, 50% of our trade exists with the European Union. If you add approaching 20% of our trade through the European Union, we have a total of almost 70% with and through the European Union at the moment. We as a country are thinking of throwing that away to go after the 30%. Within the 30% is the United States of America, at 18%.
I am a great fan of the Commonwealth. We have CHOGM coming up here in April. I would love this country to do more trade with the Commonwealth and have been speaking about that during the 11 years that I have been a Member of this House. But let us get real. The Commonwealth makes up less than 10% of Britain’s trade; 70% is with and through the European Union. We can drive a better deal for Britain by applying the strength of the whole of Europe, rivalling any other world power.
So often, we hear this talk of going global and that we are going to do trade deals with countries such as India. India would love to do a free trade deal with the UK, but the reality is that India has only nine bilateral free trade agreements with any countries in the world, not one of them a western country. If you speak to the Indian high commissioner over here, he says that India is very happy to do a free trade deal but, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said earlier, it is not just about goods and tariffs; it is about movement of people. The commissioner says: “What about international students? What about our IT workers coming here? What about the fact that the Chinese get two-year multiple-entry visas for business and tourists at £85 and we Indians have to pay £350? What about that? Then let’s talk about free trade deals”.
David Davis mentioned dystopian. To me, the Brexiteers are living in a utopian world. We can drive a much better deal for Britain by applying the strength of the whole of Europe, rivalling any other world power. There is no either/or choice between trading with the European Union and trading with the rest of the world; we need to do both successfully, just as the Germans manage to do within the customs union.
I have heard from the horse’s mouth where India is concerned. It is very clear: an EU-India free trade agreement is far more important to India than a UK-India free trade agreement. It is simple: 500 million people or 65 million people; there is no comparison. Let us get real.
Then we have talk that, the moment we leave, we will just roll over these 50-plus free trade agreements that the EU has and do UK free trade deals with those countries straightaway—again, utopian dream land. Already, countries such as South Korea have said, “Hang on! We have to renegotiate that. We did a free trade deal with the EU on the basis of 500 million people and the world’s biggest free market. You want us to treat you in the same way with 65 million people? Forget it. Let’s renegotiate”.
Lord Patten of Barnes (Con)
Does the noble Lord recall that we made very good progress in the European Union in trying to negotiate a free trade agreement with India? It was actually slowed down—indeed, blocked—by the United Kingdom.
Lord Bilimoria
Well, we have worked for a long time to do a free trade deal with India, and it is in the offing. The Canadian one took eight years. Let us again be absolutely realistic about this.
The majority in the Commons are for staying in the customs union because of the fear of the extra costs. We know about the BuzzFeed leaked reports that found that Britain would be financially worse of outside the EU under any model or any of the scenarios. Hilary Benn, the chair of the parliamentary Brexit committee, has said that the government’s decision to make leaving the customs union its policy without first assessing the impact of doing so is, in his words, “extraordinary”.
The CBI, which represents 190,000 businesses which employ 7 million people, has said very clearly that customs union membership would,
“resolve the question of how to keep an open border between Ireland and the UK”,
which, as noble Lords have heard, is so important for maintaining the peace. We should not jeopardise the Good Friday agreement for anything. We have to get our priorities right as a country.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak in greater length on the second group but I want to touch on just a few points, if I may, to support Amendments 162 and 197, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I begin by saying how much I agreed with the speech of the noble Lord who has just spoken and also the speeches of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I agreed with every word of them, and the best way those two noble Lords can express their passion about Northern Ireland and the dangers of having anything other than the same customs union and single market either side of the border is to support Amendment 198, which I hope, at least on Report, will be put to the vote.
The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, spoke with great eloquence. The problem is that he does not agree with his Government’s policy. The Government signed up in December to an agreement with the European Council for regulatory alignment. That is not what the noble Lord is arguing for. This brings me to Amendment 197, which does not say that we will be in the single market and customs union but that we will have,
“the same rights, freedoms and access”
as exist now. I thought that this was the policy of the Government: to leave but to have exactly the same opportunities for businesses as we have now. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, explained, it is of great concern to the Welsh Government, who I am close to. It is the same concern of the London governing authority, expressed through the mayor, and I am sure—since it voted to remain—it would be the same view of the Northern Ireland Government, if they were functioning.
Publishing impact assessments is the least that the Government can agree to. I ask the Minister, in responding to this debate, to explain why they are so afraid of publishing impact assessments for Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and, for that matter, England. Why are they afraid of doing that? What is wrong with doing that? Can the Minister also say why he does not accept Amendment 197, when I thought that was what his Government were arguing for? Or are the Government reneging on what they signed up to in December, despite the fact that it was a solemn decision between the European Union and the United Kingdom?
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Newby and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, spoke of Kafka in the basement, but I was struck by another, more bizarre allusion earlier this week when the Brexit Secretary ruled out the “Mad Max” scenario post Brexit—I was not aware that the “Mad Max” scenario was on the table. I was concerned about whether he had actually seen the post-apocalyptic, low-budget film packed with ridiculous contraptions and strange fashion. Then, today, the European Research Group issued its ultimatum and it became clear how appropriate the Secretary of State’s imagery was. He clearly has seen not just the original “Mad Max” film but the sequels as well. We are living in a world where so many things are said that clearly cannot be true. We are living in a fantasy world, and we have heard some of those fantasies today.
In speaking to Amendment 89, I declare my interests as set out in the Members’ register, which of late have focused primarily around the aerospace and automotive industries. Last night, along with other Members of your Lordships’ House, I attended the Engineering Employers’ Federation annual dinner, which followed its extremely successful conference. The EEF was celebrating arguably the best year for manufacturers for at least a decade. This is not a justification of Brexit; it is a repudiation of it. The single market, the customs union, the free movement of people and many other facets of the European Union helped to facilitate this highly impressive performance, built on the back of increased trade not only with a burgeoning European economy but with non-European countries. This trade increased while we were still in the customs union. Increased trade with China, albeit from a low base, was achieved while we were still in that iniquitous thing, the single market. We achieved growth with both our European partners and partners in the rest of the world.
To be clear—I know that all noble Lords know this—the single market ensures that UK companies can trade with any of the 27 European Union countries without restrictions and arbitrary barriers. It is a question not just of tariffs, of course, but of regulations and standards and what the Government term “friction”. One of the most damaging things that the Government did from the outset was to rule out membership of the single market and the customs union post Brexit. We see the issues that that has caused, particularly in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has talked very eloquently about that issue but I shall address the business and industrial implications. The industrial fallout is extremely daunting. We heard evidence of that last night at the EEF dinner. Many companies are only just starting to realise the complexity and friction that will be introduced into their daily business dealings. Many more have yet to comprehend this. Certainly what this means for smaller SMEs is still beginning to dawn on them.
Amendment 89 is focused on the single market. As noble Lords can tell, I think the UK should remain in the single market permanently. However, in case that upsets your Lordships too much and they are reluctant to support Amendment 89, I should emphasise that that is not the point of that amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, eloquently said, Amendment 89 is specific in seeking to ensure that the Government cannot use their regulation-making powers in a way that would lead the UK to diverge from the single market. Such divergence would introduce friction between the UK and the 27 in regulation and standards that would harm the very supply chains that manufacturers gathered to celebrate last night. Remaining in the single market would be the most desirable outcome. I hope that the Government will eventually see sense and realise that it is in the UK’s economic interests to stay in the single market and the customs union, as was eloquently expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. However, I trust that your Lordships will recognise that Amendment 89 has a much less ambitious aim than that and will see it essentially as a prudent way of ensuring that we do not increase friction in our trade with the EU.
Your Lordships will be interested to hear that last night the Secretary of State for BEIS, who addressed the more than 1,000 manufacturers from all over the United Kingdom present at the dinner, said that we are going to remain in the single market and the customs union throughout the transition and that nothing will change. Essentially, that means that nothing will change for three years from now. I have heard other messages from other members of the Government, so it would be useful if the Minister could take this opportunity to confirm that that is the settled view of Her Majesty’s Government. That being the case, I am sure that Her Majesty’s Government will have fewer qualms about supporting Amendment 89, because surely Ministers will not seek to erode those barriers to frictionless trade.
In short, it is important that nothing in the Bill hinders the operation of the frictionless, tariff-free trade arrangements in goods and services that we currently enjoy. Amendment 89 seeks to achieve this, and I hope that the Government will realise that and support this sensible addition to the Bill.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I had intended to intervene after an hour to don a Wigan shirt against the Manchester City team arrayed in this Chamber. But then my noble friend Lord Lamont rose and scored the goal in a very interesting speech, which went to the core of the matter. I apologise, like my noble friend Lord Hailsham, for having been unable to be present at Second Reading, but I assure your Lordships that I intend to be present for however many days it takes to achieve what my noble friend said he would wish to frustrate, with the result that Brexit will go through as the British people requested.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, took exception to the word “instruction”. As a democrat, I am not quite sure from whom our Parliament should take its instructions except from the British people. I quote the noble Lord, Lord Ashdown, who said after the referendum that,
“when the British people have spoken, you do what they command”.
What powerful words and instruction. Another gentleman said—
Lord True
I have only just begun. I will give way later to the noble Lord. If I may continue this section of my remarks, I would like to do so. There were many interventions on my noble friend Lord Lamont, who spoke for the Wigan team, but there have not been so many interventions on the Manchester City team.
Lord True
I will give way to the noble Lord later if he is kind and polite and stops interrupting. I will put on the record what another gentleman said:
“There are people in the party who don’t accept the outcome, who feel incredibly angry and feel it’s reversible, that somehow we can undo it. The public have voted and I do think it’s seriously disrespectful and politically utterly counterproductive to say ‘Sorry guys, you’ve got it wrong, we’re going to try again’, I don’t think we can do that”.
That was Vince Cable, since elected leader of the Liberal Democrat party. I hope that he will stand by those words as leader.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
For those of us who sat through nearly 180 speeches at Second Reading, it is rather galling, when we are dealing with amendments, to hear people who could not make it give Second Reading speeches. If the noble Lord was a Member in another place, he would be drawn to order by the Speaker. Can he not bring himself to order and address the amendment?
Lord True
I was honouring an engagement. It was not a social engagement: I was teaching medieval Greek culture on a university course in Italy, which I hope disqualifies me from being either a Little Englander or stupid, as some Brexit people have been described. I am not making a Second Reading speech but I was going to say that I rather thought that we were hearing a Second Reading debate again. Like everybody else, I read the debate. Looking at the groupings list for today, every one of the lead amendments seeks either to reverse Brexit or to delay its implementation. They are not about implementation or about progressing the matter but about obfuscation and delaying matters. I believe that there is a very important question that we need to address on the customs union.
Lord True
If I may, I will continue. The noble Lord has asked me not to talk too much. Let us have a debate on the customs union—a specific debate, not on a wide-ranging group. Let us hear the arguments. Maybe we will hear what the Labour Party’s policy is. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, says that it is one thing and other people say it is another. We will then have a short debate, or maybe a long debate, and we will take a decision on the matter. That is the way to proceed. However, in a debate that has already lasted an hour and three-quarters, we have heard about ID cards, chickens, Ireland, animals and all sorts of things, and we are not even going to have a vote on the matter. We have nine other groups to go through. We are repeating the Second Reading but it is not me who is doing that; it is many of your Lordships.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who made an interesting and impressive speech raising important points, should decide on Report which of those elements he wishes to put to a vote and we will then decide. For now, we ought to get on. This Bill has gone through the elected Chamber and it comes to us from there. That elected Chamber is entirely satisfied with it.
Lord True
It passed the parliamentary rules. If a Bill goes through the other Chamber, it must be construed to have been approved by that Chamber. That is our constitutional arrangement. I beg to remind noble Lords that Manchester City is not the most popular football team in this country.
Lord Taverne (LD)
My Lords, if these amendments were adopted by the Government, it is possible that there would be a successful negotiation. Let us look at the possibilities of a successful negotiation, which it is generally assumed there will be.
First, the Government have to make up their mind what their aims are. Having renounced the idea of staying in the single market or the customs union, it seems that they are aiming for a new kind of customs union and for access to the single market under a special kind of bespoke single market. The idea of having a new kind of frictionless customs union without being a member of the single market is wholly unrealistic. Nobody outside Britain regards the arrangements suggested by the Government as in any way credible, and the idea of a bespoke single market arrangement has been rejected by one European leader after another. Therefore, why is it assumed that when the Government come forward with their offer, it will be a serious basis for negotiation? At that stage, the negotiations may well break down.
Next, it is assumed that there will be a transition agreement. The Government envisage a period in which there will be an agreement on the framework and we will work out the details. During this period, which they say will last for two years and will include an implementation period, we will continue with the status quo. Maintaining the status quo, with acceptance of membership of the customs union and the single market, of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and of a continuation of our making contributions, has been described—fairly accurately, I think—by both the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg as meaning that this country will become a “vassal state”. I do not think it can be assumed that there will be automatic agreement by the EU 27—the Commissioners’ negotiators—to this kind of transition agreement. There must surely also be a question as to whether the Conservative Party itself will accept it. And if there is no transition agreement, there will be no deal.
Most importantly, the trade negotiations were allowed to continue because there was an agreement in December about the Northern Ireland border, and alignment of regulations between the UK and Ireland. It was a fudge, which had a completely different meaning to Dublin and to the British Government. To Dublin it meant that Britain would stay within the customs union, and to the British Government it was a way of getting the trade negotiations going and preventing a breakdown at that stage. It is clear that the Government’s frictionless border is not going to be a working proposition—and it seems to me that the negotiation over the Irish border will itself be a breaking point. If there is a breaking point then, of course that means no deal.
My noble friend Lord Newby was wrong when he said that on the whole people had been too optimistic. I think he was being too optimistic, because he assumed that there would be an agreement. All the signs are that we have very good reason to suppose that there will be no deal. If there is no deal the whole economic position will look entirely different—and unless some of these amendments are passed, the odds are that there will be no deal.
Lord Robathan
My Lords, in 1997, I—together with other Members of this House, including, I recall, the noble Lord, Lord Davies—was returned as a Conservative MP to the House of Commons. I quickly learned what it was like to be in a minority. I fear that I also find myself in a minority in this House today. I may be in a minority in this House, but it comforts me to know that outside this House I am not in a minority.
However, I think I am in a majority in this House when I say that I am not in favour of referendums. I think they are a terrible idea: look where they have led us. But whatever we think, we have had one. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, talked about misleading the British people. I shall be brief about this, he will be pleased to know, because that is where we should start, and finish. During the referendum campaign the Prime Minister at the time, and also George Osborne and Michael Gove, specifically said that we would have to leave the single market. People may not have paid attention, but that is neither here nor there. I think that we will also find that they said we would have to leave the customs union. But people were not very interested.
As regards the customs union, may I draw attention to the fact that the Conservative Party general election manifesto said that we would leave the single market and the customs union?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Does the noble Lord recall Mr Boris Johnson’s riposte to the Prime Minister? He said, “Nobody is even talking about leaving the single market”?
Lord Robathan
The noble Lord has a much better memory than me: no, I do not. But then I do not agree with everything people on my side say—or, indeed, people on the other side. On the Labour Party general election manifesto, perhaps someone on the Labour side can illuminate me. I do not know what it said, but I am pretty sure it was talking about leaving the single market—and what about the customs union?
This is where we stray in talking about misleading the British people. They are the people who have the say here, not people like ourselves, sitting round in this House, who are not elected—and in some cases have never been elected. We have heard about the curtain in 100 Parliament Street and all that sort of thing. Economic predictions are all well and good—and may, of course, be right. There is one out today by the Institute of Economic Affairs, which takes an entirely contrary view—and my noble friend Lord Lamont mentioned the Civitas review. Who knows, in 10 years’ time we may say, “Gosh, they were all wrong”. However, let us not put too much faith in one review. I am not criticising civil servants, but that applies especially when the people writing these things are the same people who wrote that we would have a recession, half a million people unemployed, an emergency Budget and so on, if we voted to leave the EU—not if we left, but if we even voted to leave.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
Does the noble Lord accept that the analysis he has just been talking about was a cross-government analysis? I have with me the notes that I took in my little red book. It was on the first floor when I went over there to read it; it has now gone into the basement. I should imagine noble Lords will need to be quick, before it is buried altogether. Does the noble Lord agree that this analysis was put together across government departments by neutral civil servants and not by think tanks with certain axes to grind?
Lord Robathan
Of course it was put together by civil servants. I have worked with civil servants and I rate them: let me say now that I think they are good people working to the best of their ability in the service of this country. But that does not mean that they are always right. I am a bit worried that, by the time I get round to going to look at this document, it might have been flushed down the sewer.
I turn briefly to Northern Ireland. I see at least one Peer here with much greater knowledge on this than me, but when I worked in the NIO four years ago, we had a lot of issues around the smuggling of cattle and diesel across the border. There are customs officials on the Irish border, as noble Lords should know, but animals were smuggled back and forth because of the various subsidies, and diesel was smuggled, particularly from the south, because the duties were different. So let us not say that everything is perfect now, because it ain’t. I believe it is not beyond the wit of man that we can come to some decent arrangement with the Irish Government and use that border.
Lastly—
Lord Adonis
Will the noble Lord tell us whether he agrees with those Conservatives who, in the past week, have said that it would be a good idea to end the Good Friday agreement?
Lord Robathan
That is slightly off the current debate, but no, I do not. I think that the Good Friday agreement has achieved a great deal. However, as in all agreements, sometimes things have to move on—not be changed necessarily, but move on. The reason for those people saying that there should be an end to the Northern Ireland agreement is the failure to get together a devolved Government; it was nothing to do with Brexit.
Lord Robathan
This is nothing to do with what we are speaking about. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Hain, was involved with the Northern Ireland agreement, but some people in this House were, and a great deal of time was taken to get it together. But as life changes, so sometimes we need to adjust or amend things. I think that that is what the noble Lord is trying to do today.
My last point is on the national interest, which has been mentioned. I find it quite embarrassing and demeaning when it is suggested that those of us who believe that our national interest is better outside the European Union are in some way unpatriotic. I say, “I’m all right Jack”: I voted for the future of my country, not for my own future. I voted in the national interest and I hope that everybody in this House can agree that the national interest is what we should all be talking about.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I intervene at this stage because it is important noble Lords know that the European Union Select Committee of this House received evidence from the customs officials who deal with the Norway border and with the Swiss border. We also took evidence on the policing of the Norway border and the Swiss border, to hear just how frictionless it is possible to be and whether technology is on the horizon that could enable us to have what we currently have in Ireland existing into the future without the customs union and the single market. I have to tell the House that the idea that technology is going to solve the problem is absolutely pie in the sky. Of course technology can be used in many positive ways when dealing with vehicles crossing borders; for example, containers can notify in advance the authorities as to what they are carrying and so on. There are methods for that. But you still have to have—even if it is mobile units—the possibility of stopping and searching and testing. Let us be realistic about this. Please do not imagine that there is some magical, technological method to solve the risks that we run in removing the arrangements that have created the current frictionless border.
It shocks me that people have such short memories. I do not have a short memory about the effects of the Troubles. I took part in many of the most serious trials involving the Troubles in Ireland and the way that they impacted on life here in our own cities in mainland Britain. I was involved in the Brighton bombing trial; I was involved in the Balcombe Street siege; I was involved in the Guildford Four appeal. I did many of those cases and I can tell you of the pain they caused for the victims of those acts of violence and the ways that people were affected by and lived in fear because of them. We have very short memories if we do not recall that.
If we are really concerned about the great achievement of getting through that peace treaty and peace process, and about not it putting it at risk, we would not be so cavalier about what is provided by a customs union and why it is so important. Sustaining it into the future must be one of the things we seek to do.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Can the noble Baroness tell the House what happened before the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom joined the EU? At that stage there was a seamless border between two separate countries.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
Is the noble Lord at all aware of the number of times there were bombings of customs posts? Is he aware of the number of times there were attacks on those who policed the border? Do we really want to revisit that past? It seems that many do.
Lord Patten of Barnes
Can I ask the noble Baroness a couple of questions about the border? Does she think it is an extraordinary coincidence that the principal advocates of forgetting about the Good Friday agreement happen to be some of the most prominent Brexiteers in the party of which I am a member? As I say, that might be just a coincidence. Does she think that there is any imaginable technology in Silicon Valley that could provide frictionless controls in, say, Fermanagh or south Tyrone or south Armagh? I think it would be an act of laureate-winning genius to discover that. Does she also agree that the Good Friday agreement is part of an international treaty between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland? Who in the rest of the world will believe that they can have a treaty with us if we do not keep our word about that?
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
I could not agree more with the underlying sentiments that have just been expressed by the noble Lord. I have said it in this House before: unfortunately, many of those advocates of Brexit are the very same people who do not believe in international law and treaties; who do not support human rights internationally and their protection; who do not want us to be part of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is an important protection for citizens in this country; and who have reservations about what the peace process in Northern Ireland brought about. I regret that there are those common factors, and it is something that is worth our reflecting on.
Lord Hain
The answer to the noble Lord’s question is that we joined the European Union at the same time as Ireland. We were, therefore, in the same situation together outside it, and we have been in the same situation together inside it for over 40 years. What we are doing, for the first time since the historic situation of the common travel area and all the rest of it, is putting ourselves outside it and in a very different place. That is why the problem has arisen.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
I should explain that the European Union Select Committee has just been in Brussels—in fact, we returned this afternoon. It always comes as a surprise to so many in this House to know that law that was made in Europe, and all the things we are talking about that emanated from Europe, was not thrust upon us. Many of those regulations and much of that law were created by British lawyers, politicians and representatives collaborating with people across Europe and with our Irish colleagues to make a fabric that makes trade and many other things work. The idea that we are in many ways rending that apart is a source of great regret and we are putting at risk the peace that we have created across Ireland.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
Before the noble Baroness finally finishes, is there not a slightly troubling aspect to this? I take the point that we have an international treaty that we must keep, but there is a slight feeling that the threat of terrorism in Ireland is overruling all other considerations. It could be seen as strongly influencing our arrangements with Europe.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
It is the very opposite. It is the fact that peace has been secured. That is one of the great achievements of our being in Europe and working so closely with our European neighbours. It is the product of collaboration. This is not about the potential threat of terrorism, but about a celebration of the fact that we have achieved peace and a recognition of one of the mechanisms that has helped to secure that.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, I wonder whether it might not be an idea to hear from the Minister at this stage. I have been watching the debate and it is clear that we are covering a lot of ground that we will cover in Committee. We are in Committee now and not at Second Reading. It would be appropriate if we heard from the Minister.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord should intervene to cut short this debate. There are many amendments that have not yet been spoken to and my noble friend on the Front Bench has not had a chance to speak. Many other noble Lords seek to speak, too. The Minister should speak at the end of the debate after noble Lords who wish to speak have had a chance to do so. These are the most important issues that will face this country over the next generation and I do not think that we should be told by the Government Chief Whip that we have been speaking for too long.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 89 to which I had the privilege of adding my name. I want to draw the House’s attention to that amendment because it addresses a constitutional issue. We are back to the issue of Henry VIII powers. This is to prevent the Government using Henry VIII powers in statutory instruments in order to drive through a separation from the customs union and from the single market rather than bringing those issues directly to this House for its decision. That is exceedingly important.
In supporting that argument, I want to underscore the importance of the customs union and the single market in response to the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. He said that without the customs union we can achieve what we need through a free trade agreement. What he did not say is that free trade agreements do not include services—or do so only at the margin. Our economy is an 80% service economy and a free trade agreement along the pattern and lines of other free trade agreements across the globe would leave us without the ability to sell our services freely as we do today across the European Union. Now the single market in services is not yet complete, but it is fairly close to completion and there is a great deal of opportunity.
The Government turn and occasionally say that there will be a mechanism to do this called mutual recognition. But within this House there are Members who will remember in the early days of Thatcher the development of the single market. This country thought that the route to be able to open up the single market and access across Europe was mutual recognition. But it was not effective, which explains the move towards regulation and harmonisation that currently overwhelmingly underpin our trade with the EU.
The EU has been very clear that it cannot see a way forward along the lines of mutual recognition except in fairly narrow terms. We have an example that the Government often cite with Switzerland where there is in effect mutual recognition through an equivalency agreement. But in December, when that agreement needed to be extended to provide for MiFID II, the EU would agree only to a one-year arrangement because it needed to be underpinned by a great extension of institutional arrangements to deal with disputes and a whole range of other issues.
Lord Green of Deddington
Perhaps I may make a brief point. The noble Baroness is absolutely right about India. What is missing from this discussion, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, referred to it, is that in the future we will be able to substantially reduce migration from the European Union, much of which is low paid and therefore of less value, and that will give us some leeway when talking to countries such as India.
Baroness Kramer
The answer that I give to the noble Lord, Lord Green, is one that would be given by many people in this House. To reduce immigration to the tens of thousands means not only drastically and dramatically reducing European migration; it means drastically and dramatically reducing migration from elsewhere in the world. That is the reality that our employers in the various industry sectors face.
I will tell the noble Lord one more thing if we are talking about inconsistencies. Let me go back to the point I made to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, about going to 100 Parliament Street, which I recognise. I will attempt to ensure that I do not breach the confidential content of the papers, but in the various scenarios, every one of which is frankly quite scary, there is a discussion about potential mitigations. Without breaching confidentiality I cannot define those mitigations—as I say, noble Lords should read the papers for themselves—but if one were to follow them, the speech that Michael Gove gave to the National Farmers Union is in absolute and complete contradiction to the mitigations. The speech given by David Davis about rising to higher standards is in complete contrast to the identified mitigations. The speeches or the comments that Theresa May has made about not weakening the rights of the workforce of the UK are completely contradicted. That is one of the reasons I recommend that people from this House should read the papers because all the contradictions in the statements being made are finally pulled together.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, at this stage of the debate and with the indulgence of the Committee, I wish to return to the debate on Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I thank him for his eloquent introduction to the debate.
The amendment calls on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report outlining the effect of the UK’s withdrawal from the single market and customs union on the UK economy. That the Government have tossed away the UK’s commitment to the single market and customs union without seeking an impact assessment or providing evidence for this has to be a cause of real concern. There can be no doubt that membership of the EU single market and customs union has been of benefit to Wales. If the noble Lord, Lord True, will allow me, I wish to refer to my Second Reading speech in which I pointed out that it has given us tariff-free access to a market of 500 million people, it takes more than two-thirds of our exports and the freedom of movement for citizens and goods has led to the success of many of our industries.
The creation of a single market was at the UK’s insistence. We helped to create it, we have benefited from it and, until recently, we have wholeheartedly supported it. The Government’s position on the single market and customs union is confusing, to say the least. They appear to want all the advantages of both while rejecting the institutions themselves. I have to say that I find the attitude of the Government and of the hard Brexit supporters to be almost anarchic. There is a certain gung-ho, jingoistic element to their desire to crash out of the EU, the single market and the customs union with no parachute or safety harness to protect the country—straight into the arms of the WTO.
Those who advocate the WTO option have, according to experts, made a basic but fatal mistake. Their obsession with tariffs has blinded them to the difficulties presented by non-tariff barriers such as border checks, visual inspections and physical testing. Industries that now rely on integrated supply chains working to a “just in time” regime could find that their systems start to snarl up and eventually grind to a halt.
We would be turning the clock back to the world of 1988, the year that Margaret Thatcher made her speech opening the single market campaign. It makes for interesting reading:
“We recognised that if Europe was going to be more than a slogan then we must get the basics right. That meant action. Action to get rid of the barriers. Action to make it possible for insurance companies to do business throughout the Community. Action to let people practise their trades and professions freely throughout the Community. Action to remove the customs barriers and formalities so that goods can circulate freely and without time-consuming delays. Action to make sure that any company could sell its goods and services without let or hindrance. Action to secure free movement of capital throughout the Community. All this is what Europe is now committed to do”.
All this we have succeeded in doing, so what has changed? It seems that the advantages we have gained by being members of this massive free trading bloc have been sacrificed on the altars of two perceived problems: lack of control of immigration and loss of sovereignty. But in reality, the Government have failed to control immigration from outside the EU, which they have always had the power to do. They have also failed to use the powers available under EU guidelines to control immigration from within the EU, and they have failed to admit to the benefits to this country that have come in the wake of immigration over the years. The Government have themselves admitted that there was never a loss of sovereignty. Along with 27 other nations, we pooled our sovereignty to come to common decisions on policies.
In throwing away all the benefits of the single market and customs union without providing the evidence to support their case, the Government are adding to the sense of injustice felt by many and to the concerns that this decision has been based on politics and preconceived views rather than what this amendment calls for, which is what is proven to be beneficial to the people of Wales and the UK.
Lord Cavendish of Furness
I declare my interest as in the register: I am a businessman. I would love to lock horns with the likes of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria—he is not in his place—and other speakers who appear to have been overinfluenced by the briefings of the EU-funded CBI and similar organisations. Noble Lords laugh, but they do not deny it.
I am not a sponsor of one of the amendments. Having listened to the Second Reading debate, I am saddened by this group of amendments. I felt—and said so at the time—that the sense of the House was that the Bill would be improved, and examined with a view to improving it, whereas it seems that nearly all these amendments seek to obstruct, delay or simply wreck the Bill. I am afraid I cannot accept the assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who said otherwise. I look at the Marshalled List and all these amendments seem to be wrecking ones.
I know that any suggestion of threatening our future causes resentment in your Lordships’ House, but I want to refer to a quotation from Committee in the House of Commons:
“I think their Lordships should know that if they try to wreck the Bill, many of us will push the nuclear button”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/11/17; col. 197.]
Those words come from the very well-respected right honourable Member for Birkenhead, Mr Frank Field.
Lord Cavendish of Furness
Is he not respected by the Labour Party? I thought he was. He went on to warn that we would be sounding our own “death knell”. That is probably good news to the Liberal Democrats; they have made no secret of the fact that they would like the House of Lords to be abolished, and therefore take licence with this institution.
Lord Newby
That is simply untrue. The position of these Benches has been that the House of Lords has a very valuable role to play. At the time, we sought the support of the Conservative Members of the coalition to reform the membership of your Lordships’ House on a democratic basis. That is a very different proposition to seeking to abolish it.
Lord Cavendish of Furness
The noble Lord did not see behind him, but there were some signs of affirmation there when I said that they were sympathetic. I think he needs rather more careful whipping on that Bench.
The timescales are important. This reason has not been mentioned. Article 50 determines the date—we will come to this later—by which those who are responsible for negotiation have to reach agreement or fail to reach an agreement. Therefore, it is completely absurd to try to add a flexible date.
The Bill is not the narrow economic interest it has been portrayed to be. Many of the minutiae covered by the amendments are important, but they are not what the Bill is about. The Bill takes us out of the European Union on 29 March next year, at the behest of the majority of people in this country. It is about what people thought about their identity, their community’s identity, their country’s identity and their country’s place in the world. Given the way that the Welsh voted, it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, does not take into account what his countrymen feel in this respect.
Lord Wigley
If the noble Lord had listened to the speech I made, he would know that I accept the fact that there has been a vote to leave the European Union, but there was no vote in Wales or elsewhere to leave the customs union and the single market.
Lord Cavendish of Furness
That has been thoroughly debated. I think people did understand; certainly, people in Cumbria understood, even if the Welsh did not.
As for the power grab, it is just the opposite. Never again will Ministers be able to offer the excuse that their course of action has been followed at the behest of the European Court of Justice or the European Community. We ought to be extremely cautious about how we treat the amendments and reject them.
Baroness McDonagh (Lab)
I am prepared to lock horns with the noble Lord on Amendment 206, which I support. I have some quotes of my own.
In October last year, the Secretary of State for International Trade said,
“believe me we’ll have up to 40”,
free trade agreements,
“ready for one second after midnight in March 2019”.
In July 2016, the now Secretary of State for Exiting the EU wrote:
“I would expect the new Prime Minister on September 9th to immediately trigger a large round of global trade deals with all our most favoured trade partners … So within two years … we can negotiate a free trade area massively larger than the EU”.
He goes on to say that,
“the new trade agreements will come into force at the point of exit from the EU, but they will be fully negotiated and therefore understood in detail well before then”.
Does the Minister agree with his Secretaries of State? Can he tell us how many trade deals the Government expect to be in place one second after midnight on 29 March 2019? Does he understand that the reality of what is happening, and the lack of progress, is driving an increasing number of voices to want to remain in the customs union—particularly those who voted to come out of the EU?
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 6, 7, 162, 197 and others, regarding protecting our position in the single market, customs union and European Economic Area, on the free and frictionless trade for goods and services with our closest partners, and on the integrated supply chains and free trade agreements with 60 other countries, which make up 70% of our trade. I echo the brilliant and inspiring contributions from my noble friends Lord Carlile and Lord Hailsham, the remarks from the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Bilimoria, and the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, with respect to Amendment 89.
The idea of losing our current free and frictionless trade and free trade agreements with other countries seems like industrial vandalism. That is not what the British people voted for. My noble friend Lord True and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, talked about the instructions of the referendum result. We have listened to and respected the result by triggering Article 50. That was the decision made by the British people. However, we are not saying tonight that the British people got it wrong. The leave campaign got it wrong, and those pressing to leave the single market, customs union or European Economic Area got it wrong. They seemed to believe that we could have our cake and eat it. That is what people voted for; but now, in trying to find a way forward after triggering Article 50, we are discovering that far from eating cake, or having it, we may have to settle for bread—and not a loaf, but a slice. I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and support Amendment 197, which calls for the same rights, freedoms and access as now. Surely that is the least that British people who voted to leave would have expected. Leaving the single market, customs union or European Economic Area was not on the ballot paper. The leave campaign specifically ruled out leaving the single market on many occasions. It was the remain campaign that talked about it, and clearly those who voted leave did not take the remain campaign’s warnings seriously.
What did leave voters vote for? The leave campaign promised them wonderful new trade deals in addition to existing ones. We are about to lose the deals that we currently have outside the EU. The very best we can get from those is the same terms we currently have. Already some of those countries are saying that they will give us worse terms if we try to negotiate separately, as we must do. Leave voters wanted and were promised much more money for the NHS. The OBR has already estimated that, far from having £350 million a week more for the NHS, we will have about £300 million less per week. We are losing money.
The campaign promised no change to the border in Northern Ireland, yet we hear about possible changes to the Good Friday agreement. This cannot happen. We must stay in the single market, the customs union and the EEA to preserve UK jobs. My noble friend Lord Robathan talked about misleading the British people. It is the leave campaign that is misleading the British people.
Lord Robathan
I am awfully sorry, but I hope my noble friend has read the Conservative manifesto, which, in only June last year, received a staggering number of votes.
Baroness Altmann
My noble friend Lord Lamont and others have said that other countries manage without being in the EU, but their economies have not spent 40 years integrating and intertwining their industries and economies with the EU. The only country trading on WTO terms is Mauritania.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
Could my noble friend tell me which country is more integrated with the EU: Switzerland or Britain?
Baroness Altmann
The industrial success of the British economy is based on the integrated supply chains. The jobs in Sunderland and across the automobile industry, as an example, and the biotech industry and pharma industry depend upon those integrations. The foreign companies that own those operations will be unable to compete if we do not have the same kind of access that we have now.
The Government’s evidence, which is being hidden from the public, shows that Brexit will be a huge cost, the size of which depends on the hardness of the Brexit. I urge colleagues on these Benches and across the House to wake up to the reality that we face and to at least support these amendments to stay in the customs union, the single market, the EEA or equivalent.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I have three amendments in this group, Amendments 4, 152 and 225, but I broadly support all the other amendments that have been discussed.
The most disturbing and alarming thing that has happened in respect of the Brexit process in the recent past has been the collapse of the power-sharing talks in Northern Ireland last week and the response of the DUP leadership and some prominent members of the Conservative Party, including a Conservative former Northern Ireland Secretary, since that collapse, who have said that they believe that the time may have come to end the Northern Ireland agreement, including a tweet from the said former Northern Ireland Secretary, Owen Paterson, saying that he thought that the Northern Ireland agreement had now served its purpose. I do not think I have heard more irresponsible words from a former Cabinet Minister in the recent past than those. As the noble Lord, Lord Patten, said, I do not think it is a coincidence that the people who are calling for an end to the Northern Ireland agreements, with all the potentially calamitous consequences for the people of Northern Ireland as well as the rest of us in the United Kingdom, are also almost to a man and woman ardent Brexiteers.
I know that the Prime Minister shares our concern, because in the Florence speech she said that,
“we and the EU have committed to protecting the Belfast Agreement and the Common Travel Area and, looking ahead, we have both stated explicitly that we will not accept any … infrastructure at the border. We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland—and indeed to everyone on the island of Ireland—to see through these commitments”.
I believe that we too in this House owe it to the people of Northern Ireland to see through those commitments. When I heard Mr Daniel Hannan say that he believed that the Good Friday agreement was a consequence and not a cause of peace in Northern Ireland, I could not think of any statement that is playing with fire more dangerously from a responsible official. He is a Member of the European Parliament.
Lord Judd (Lab)
Would my noble friend not agree that perhaps the most irresponsible aspect of the remarks that have been made in this debate on Ireland is that painstaking work has gone on for a number of years now in building trust between two communities, with those communities beginning to establish a tradition of working together?
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I could not agree more with my noble friend, nor with all those other noble Lords who have responsibility for Northern Ireland, or have held it in the past, including the noble Lord, Lord Patten, my noble friends Lord Hain and Lady Kennedy, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, not least in his role as reviewer of terrorism legislation. Everyone who has been engaged in this sees the continuing value of the Northern Ireland agreement. It is a solemn undertaking on the part of the United Kingdom. It is an international treaty. Playing fast and loose with peace in Northern Ireland in the cause of Brexit is utterly reprehensible.
We are looking forward to the Minister’s reply. I know that he has a mountain of amendments to reply to, but I am afraid that is the fault of the people whose responsibility it is to group them, who seem to want to group almost everything in the Bill into one group. I hope that when he replies he will begin by saying from the Dispatch Box that the Government remain committed to the Good Friday agreement, that they wish to see the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland, and that the Government will use every endeavour to do that and to ensure, as the Prime Minister also said in solemn undertakings at the end of last year, that all of the commitments that the Government of the United Kingdom reach in respect of Brexit will fully honour the Good Friday agreement. I take the amendments that we will discuss later, which my noble friend Lord Hain and others have tabled, which would enshrine a commitment to abide by the Good Friday agreement in the text of the Bill, to be immensely important to our consideration of the Bill, particularly in the light of comments made in the last week.
My amendments focus on two particular areas where I seek the Minister’s guidance, because we have many long debates to come, and we need to establish a good evidence base as we do so. I take to heart the words of the Minister for Exiting the European Union, Mr Baker, when the House of Commons was considering the Bill—I was glad to see him at the Bar earlier—and he said:
“The Government have always been clear that the purpose of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is to ensure that the UK exits the EU with certainty, continuity and control”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/11/17; col. 206.]
We can have certainty, continuity and control only if we know what will happen as a consequence of enacting the Bill.
Therefore, there are two areas that I particularly wish to probe the Minister on. The first is the extremely important issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, about the status of the European Economic Area and our membership of it. There is a debate that will range far and wide across our consideration of this Bill and future Bills as to what is the right status for the United Kingdom if and when we leave the European Union: whether we should be in the EEA, or in the customs union but not the single market, or in the single market but not the customs union; whether we should have bespoke trade arrangements, or whether we should belong to a customs union but not the customs union. The Schleswig-Holstein question was positively simple in comparison with the options and complexity of the options on offer but for our role as legislators, it is crucial that we understand the consequences of decisions that we take in respect of the Bill when we enact it. In many crucial areas—having read, as many other noble Lords will have done, all the debates in the House of Commons on the Bill—it is still unclear what will be the legal position in key respects after the enactment of the Bill.
The issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is of acute concern in this respect. The question that I hope the Minister will address himself to is: what is the procedure under which the United Kingdom will leave the European Economic Area if and when we leave the European Union? The noble Lord, Lord Owen, who I am sorry to say is not in his place this afternoon, has written, with help from serious lawyers—including, I think, one or two in this House—a very long and learned paper on precisely this issue. It says that there are two very different views as to what the position is, partly because the EEA agreement is itself ambiguous about the nature of the relationship between the European Union and the European Economic Area.
The European Union is itself a contracting party to the EEA agreement and on one reading—I am now going into areas where, seeing so many lawyers around me, I am waiting for them to leap in at any moment, but the definitive view from the Government is going to be important here—it is therefore not possible for those states which leave the European Union to remain a party to the EEA agreement. On another reading of the treaty, Her Majesty the Queen is the signatory to the treaty independently of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union, and we would therefore continue to be members of the EEA when we leave the European Union. As a layman in these matters, this looks to me to be an issue of huge consequence. When and if we leave the European Union on 29 March next year, do we or do we not continue as a member of the EEA simply by virtue of leaving the European Union? If we do not leave the EEA, what is the procedure under which we do leave the EEA? Does it require a vote, does it require legislation, or are the Government proposing that it should be done by the royal prerogative? These are big issues and I hope the Minister can address himself to them, because they will have a significant bearing on amendments we raise later in Committee and on Report.
The second issue concerning withdrawal from the European Union, which is what the half of the Bill that we are substantially debating at the moment is about, is whether it is necessary to withdraw from the entirety of the European Communities Act 1972, or whether it is in fact legally possible—or what would be the consequences of deciding—to withdraw from some parts but not from others. This is an issue of such importance because of the customs arrangements enshrined in Part 2, Section 5 of the 1972 Act, which sets out all the arrangements under which the United Kingdom agrees to abide by customs rules set by the European Union. That is, as I read it, a large part but not the entirety of our membership of the customs union.
The question that was raised in the House of Commons but not properly debated, and that looks to me to be of significance to our debates going forward, is about not disapplying the customs clauses of the 1972 Act— Part 2, Section 5, and the appropriate schedules. If they remained in force and we repealed the rest of the Act but not those—by virtue of that fact, subject of course to an agreement with the European Union itself, we would remain in the customs union. Again, in terms of the legal means by which we might secure the objective which many noble Lords wish to see, continuing membership of the customs union and single market, that is a point of great significance.
Finally, in terms of the objectives we are seeking to achieve, in her Lancaster House speech, the second of the two significant speeches she has given on government policy in respect of Brexit, the Prime Minister, addressing our European partners, said:
“The decision to leave the EU represents no desire to become more distant to you, our friends and neighbours … We do not want to turn the clock back to the days when Europe was less peaceful, less secure and less able to trade freely”.
In my view it is impossible to see how we can have a Europe which maintains peace unless we start with peace within our own borders, which must mean peace guaranteed in Northern Ireland, hence the centrality of the Good Friday agreement to our consideration of the Bill. When it comes to,
“less able to trade freely”,
I take that to mean not entering into any trade arrangements which are less advantageous for this country and involve any more border controls than currently apply. I look forward to the Minister explaining to the Committee how leaving the customs union and the single market can make it easier for us to trade than the extremely advantageous arrangement we currently have as a member of the European Union.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I cannot match the dazzling intellectual exposition of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, but I completely endorse his remarks on the Good Friday agreement. We need to stay in the single market and the customs union and to preserve the integrated economy and the peace and political enjoyment of the Good Friday agreement is one of the best arguments for doing so. I shall speak to Amendment 203 in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham, who sadly feels that there is not time for her to speak. I shall also speak more generally on this group and second the remarks of noble friends who have spoken on it.
Amendment 203 requires a specific parliamentary vote on whether to leave the EEA. This would perhaps both remove any legal doubt about whether the Article 50 notification made that decision—I will slightly sidestep that issue—and be an explicit political decision in itself. Therefore I advocate the merits of Amendment 203.
We are in the dark about the future. The Cabinet is meeting again tomorrow at Chequers and we are all very hopeful that some white smoke will emerge from that meeting. As many noble Lords have said this afternoon, the implications of leaving the single market and the customs union are serious. Indeed, it has been described by my former noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew as a “suicide note”—hence the need to have a specific vote on whether to leave the EEA, which would be a safeguard, at least against sudden death.
We learn from the Financial Times, in advance of having anything explained to us in the open by the Government, that the buzzword for the trade relationship that the Government will be aiming for is “managed divergence”. Apparently:
“Under this approach, economic activity between the UK and the EU would be divided into three baskets: complete alignment, where the UK would follow EU rules”—
presumably to at least encompass the famous paragraph 49 of the phase 1 agreement—
“‘managed mutual recognition’, where both would agree to common objectives but each would choose its own rules; and a third basket where the UK can abandon EU regulations and do whatever it wants”.
That sounds incredibly complicated for citizens and business, as against the simplicity of full membership of the single market and the customs union. This commentator says:
“The beauty of this approach is that it unites the cabinet”.
This is possibly because it has three variations. However, it does not have one single theme.
Of course, we have heard all variants, not least this past week. We had the speech from the Foreign Secretary and the letter from the European Research Group—I am not sure that it does a lot of research but it writes a lot of letters. It wants “full regulatory autonomy”. I hope that I will not embarrass the Minister if I quote him when he was in the European Parliament. He said in 2012:
“Surely one of the best ways for the EU to speed up growth is to scrap the employment and social affairs directorate in the Commission, repatriate its responsibilities to national governments, then we could scrap the working time directive, the agency workers’ directive, the pregnant workers’ directive, and all of the other barriers to actually employing people if we really want to create jobs in Europe”.
We will discuss on other days the maintenance of employment and other rights, but it is illustrative of the problem that we have that there is such an array of opinion within the Government. The advantage of having a parliamentary vote in the context of the implementation of the withdrawal agreement would be that it would allow Parliament to have the backstop of saying, “Actually, we want to stay in the EEA”.
Baroness Ludford
As many of the noble Lord’s soulmates often say, it would actually be a third referendum—so you pays your money and takes your choice. But it would be quite different because it would be in the knowledge of the actual detail of what Brexit entails, which people did not have in 2016.
Lord Robathan
The noble Baroness talked about patronising the British people. I think that all politicians are capable of being patronising, but does she not think that we should accept that the British people are sensible and clever enough to work out what they voted for in 2016?
Baroness Ludford
Actually, there is growing support in the opinion polls for people taking control themselves. I think it was the noble Lord himself who talked about how it is the people who decide, not us—and especially not us in this unelected House. I totally agree with him that it is the people who are now showing through opinion polls that they want to take control of the decision on what should happen to this country and on whether to give a verdict on the Brexit deal.
This has been an extremely valuable debate on the crucial decisions about the single market and the customs union. My last remark will be to mention, as my noble friends did, that being in the EU has not stopped other EU countries, such as Germany, exporting many more times the value of British exports to countries such as India. In fact, Germany is India’s top trade partner in the EU and its sixth biggest overall, and the UK is only India’s 18th-biggest trade partner. Even Belgium has a trade surplus with India, unlike the UK. So being in the EU has certainly not prevented other EU countries making a greater success of trade with India than we have. It is the problem of visas that has prevented a deepening of the trade relationship with India.
I cannot resist mentioning that the noble Lord, Lord Marland, who I understand is the Government’s trade envoy to the Commonwealth, was quoted recently as saying that it would be easy to do trade deals with Commonwealth countries such as Singapore, Malta and Cyprus. Malta and Cyprus of course are in the EU and are not free to do individual trade deals—so good luck with that.
To conclude, I give my full support to the amendments in this group which, one way or another, seek to keep us in the single market and the customs union, which is vital not only to the integrity of the United Kingdom, particularly on the intra-Irish border, but to the economic future of this country.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a valuable and, indeed, an enjoyable debate, but it is particularly important for two major reasons. The Bill is not about whether or not we leave but about how we leave, and there are two important aspects of why we have debated and heard these views today that we should not forget.
One is that Article 50—and its author is here, as always—by which we are leaving, requires that we have the framework for our future relationship with the European Union. That is what all these amendments are about. But the second reason we have to discuss that today is because the Government have absolutely failed to tell us what their vision for that framework is. That is why we are doing this now and why these amendments are key. Indeed, as has just been mentioned, it is only tomorrow that the Prime Minister will finally lock her little brood into Chequers for what the Financial Times today described as “Mission Impossible”, to thrash out some sort of consensus about the future of our country. Meanwhile, both in the UK and among our partners in the EU 27, there is a complete lack of clarity about the direction of travel. We need to know, as my noble friend Lord Adonis said, what is going to happen as we go into the negotiations.
What I have found rather strange is that, instead of the Prime Minister bringing her brood together earlier after the referendum 20 months ago, as we have just been reminded, she sent out her little chicks, and, indeed, a Fox, to make speeches far and wide—in fact, almost everywhere other than in Parliament—on their competing visions of what that post-Brexit future will look like. They are mostly doing that without a proper dialogue with consumers, with trade unions, with industry or with farmers. I will not have been the only one listening to “Farming Today” this morning to hear the responses to Michael Gove in Birmingham yesterday, when NFU members—not, incidentally, members of the Labour Party—lined up to say: “Where’s the beef”? They had heard his speech; they still did not know what was going on and wanted to know where this Government are taking us. They do not know whether they can sell their meat tariff and quota free in 13 months’ time. The fishermen in Newlyn have also been given little detail about their future and are beginning to worry about that, too.
Critical to this is the big issue: do we want tariff and barrier-free trade with the EU? Do we want no customs posts, particularly but not solely in Northern Ireland, no checks at borders and smooth, duty-free transit? The ports of Dover, Holyhead and Fishguard would like to know the answer to that, but so indeed would Calais and Rotterdam. But checks and paperwork will be avoided only if we produce and sell according to the same regulations, and if our internal systems of checks on food and manufactured goods are recognised and respected by the importing countries. Frankly, that means regulatory alignment. If that is not what the Government envisage, they must decide pretty quickly so that the plans, buildings, documentation, computer systems and, yes, the personnel can be put in place.
The big political question facing us is one that the Prime Minister seems not to dare ask those chicks: “Do we want to maintain our current, pan-EU high standards?” The Fox seems to think not. Reliable sources in his department—and I mean reliable sources—suggest that they hope trade deals with third countries will become materially easier when there is “less pressure”, in their words, to stick to the high levels of regulations required by the customs union and the single market, and easier because the so-called political factors, which I gather is departmental code for having less respect for human rights, would be “less of a problem”. Furthermore, the secret documents in Room 100 that have been referred to—I also saw them on the first floor—were, incidentally, reported in the Independent, so I am not giving any secrets away. My quotes are from that paper, which describe areas being explored where “maximising regulatory opportunities” are possible. It cited particularly what, as we have heard, was said by the Minister in an earlier life about the opportunity of ending the working time directive.
However, that is not what we heard from the Chancellor at Davos, nor what we heard from Austria yesterday when the Brexit Secretary stressed his support for,
“the principle of fair competition”,
which I would argue implies no lowering of standards to gain competitive advantage. Mr Davis said that the UK and EU should be able,
“to trust each other’s regulations and the institutions that enforce them … Such mutual recognition will naturally require close, even-handed cooperation between these authorities and a common set of principles”.
So the Viennese version is that standards and regulations are the building blocks of free trade. This is of course in contrast to the Foreign Secretary, who asserted:
“The great thing about EU regulation is that it is not primarily there for business convenience, it is not primarily there to create opportunities for companies to trade freely across frontiers, it is primarily there to create a united EU”.
There was not quite the same line coming out of Vienna.
We have also read—perhaps the Minister could confirm this when he comes to reply—that British and American conservative groups, including the Initiative for Free Trade founded by Daniel Hannan MEP, who I gather is his friend, are working on an “ideal trade agreement” that would allow the import of US meats such as chlorinated chicken and hormone-raised beef, along with drugs and chemicals currently banned in Britain. Is that the vision that they want?
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, it is a great honour to contribute to the first day in Committee on this historic Bill. Let me say at the outset that I look forward to working constructively with colleagues from across the Chamber throughout the course of Committee to scrutinise and improve this vital Bill in the national interest.
Clause 1 is the shortest of all in the Bill—you would not believe it from the debate—but it could scarcely be more important. This debate has shown the House at its passionate best, but it was not really about Clause 1 at all. I think all noble Lords recognise that, when we leave the EU, we need to repeal the European Communities Act. So we have had a fascinating debate on the UK’s potential ongoing membership of or future relationship with the single market, the customs union, the EEA and EFTA. These are of course issues of profound importance and I understand that noble Lords have strong views on them, but everybody really knows that they are not matters which the Bill is designed to address.
However, I will happily rehearse the Government’s position once again. What this Government seek is a bold and ambitious economic partnership that is of greater scope and ambition than any such existing agreement. We have listened to EU leaders and we understand and respect the position that the four freedoms of the single market are indivisible, and that there can be no cherry picking. For that reason, we do not seek membership of the single market after we leave the EU, and nor do we seek membership of the customs union. By leaving the customs union and establishing a new and ambitious customs arrangement with the EU, we will be able to forge new trade relationships with our partners around the world and maintain as frictionless trade as possible in goods between the UK and the EU, providing a positive and powerful voice for free trade in the world.
Of course, I am talking about our future relationship with the EU. To answer the question which I think came from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, we also seek an implementation period which, we have been very clear, will be based on the existing structure of EU rules and regulations—but during which the UK will be outside the EU.
Let me take this early opportunity to draw the attention of noble Lords to our publication today of our proposed draft legal text for the section of the withdrawal agreement in relation to the implementation period. We have published this in part to facilitate parliamentary scrutiny. It is right, too, that the British public should be able to see our position. The details of that implementation period would be implemented in domestic law through separate primary legislation, after we have reached agreement with the EU and after these Houses of Parliament have voted on that agreement.
In the meantime, a number of amendments in this group seek to mandate our continued membership of one or both of the single market or customs union, presumably in perpetuity. But put simply, this is not something the UK Government could deliver unilaterally, even if we were so minded. The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, get around that by proposing maintaining the same rights, freedoms and access within the UK that we have currently, which in practice means staying in the single market in all but name but without any reciprocal guarantees from the EU. That would be the worst of all possible worlds.
Other amendments seek to mandate the Government to take a particular negotiating position or to pursue particular objectives. Leaving aside what I have said about those not being our objectives, the amendments raise constitutional questions about the role of these Houses of Parliament and they raise practical questions too. Who is to say whether the Government have truly made these things their negotiating objectives? How would they be judged? Would we see the courts ruling on the conduct of the negotiations, and what would be the consequences if they did so? I recognise the noble intention behind these amendments, but I do not think we can contemplate making them, especially when the repeal of the ECA or the exercise of crucial delegated powers becomes contingent on them. That is a recipe for undermining the essential certainty that this Bill is designed to create.
Other amendments call merely for reports to be published on certain things. In response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, we have confirmed that when we bring forward the vote on the final deal we will ensure that this House is presented with the appropriate analysis the Government have done to make an informed decision, and we will take such steps as we can to facilitate scrutiny in the interim. But the particular reports and timetables suggested are arbitrary and may not in fact serve Parliament well.
The Government intend to secure a new partnership with the EU. We will legislate in accordance with that and nothing in this Bill threatens that. This Bill is designed only to prepare our statute book; it is agnostic as to the outcome of the negotiations and rules nothing in or out. We will legislate for the agreement reached with the EU in due course.
Finally, let me say something about the EEA and the amendments tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, concerning the EEA. Amendment 152, for example, seeks to make continued membership of the EEA one of the UK’s negotiating objectives, while Amendments 193 and 203 require a parliamentary vote on withdrawal from the EEA before making regulations under the power in Clause 9. Amendment 225 seeks to prevent notification of the UK’s withdrawal from the EEA agreement. On that specifically, our legal position remains unchanged. Article 127 does not need to be triggered for the agreement to cease to have effect.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh also asked about the EEA. In the absence of any further action, the European Economic Area agreement will no longer operate in respect of the UK when we leave the EU. However, as the Secretary of State has said, our existing international agreements should continue to apply during the proposed time-limited implementation period.
Lord Adonis
Will the Government publish the legal advice they have had in respect of that proposed procedure on withdrawal from the EEA?
Lord Callanan
We are not going to publish confidential legal advice. That has been the position of previous Governments, and it is the position of this Government. Our aim is to ensure continuity with international partners
Lord Callanan
No, I have given way to the noble Lord once. I have answered his question. I have referred to his points. If he will forgive me, I will make some progress.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
If I can have silence, may I address the Chamber? It is important that this debate proceeds, even at this terminal stage of the first group of amendments, in a courteous manner. The Minister has been accommodating in taking interventions. He needs—
Baroness Goldie
I think the Minister can use his own discretion about what he considers appropriate. I do not think noble Lords would disagree for one moment that we have had a very extensive debate on the first group.
Lord Adonis
If I may say so, the Minister has limited experience of this House. He may not be aware that in Committee it is reasonable for him to take interventions on points raised in the debate which have not been properly clarified by his reply. He is not allowed simply to come to that Dispatch Box, read out the brief he has been given and not respond to the debate. That is not acceptable practice in your Lordships’ House.
Lord Callanan
I responded to the noble Lord’s question about the legal advice and to the other points that have been raised. I will respond further in my forthcoming remarks.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My noble friend has been most gracious in replying to one part of my question, but not the other part about the status of regulations. He has now accepted that we will remain in the EEA for the duration of the implementation period. The precise content of my amendment relates to regulations passed and decisions agreed by the EEA before the end of the implementation period. What will the status of those regulations be?
Lord Callanan
I understand that the regulations of the EEA will continue during the implementation period. For the period after the implementation period we will seek to negotiate an ongoing relationship with the other three member states of the EEA. Our aim is to ensure continuity with international partners and the EU during the implementation phase and certainty for businesses and individuals. This approach will mean that we seek the continued application of the EEA agreement for the time-limited implementation period to ensure continuity in crucial elements of our trading and non-trading relationship with those three EEA states. Participation in the EEA agreement beyond the implementation period would not work for the UK. It would not deliver on the British people’s desire to have more direct control over decisions that affect their daily lives and it would mean accepting free movement of people. As I have said to my noble friend, once the implementation period ends we will no longer participate in the EEA agreement. We will instead seek to put in place new arrangements to maintain our relationships with those three countries: Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. I hope I have made the Government’s position clear, and I hope as a result the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
There were a number of other questions, such as the one I raised on regulations, that are absolutely pertinent to the Bill. We will come later to how the regulations will be brought over and put into our law, and we will have debates on that on days three, four and five, I think. The question I asked the Minister specifically is: does he know about the work being done by Conservatives, along with Americans, to change regulations to assist a different form of trade? This is relevant to this Bill because we will be coming on to how we secure those regulations and their status in our law. I think the Minister’s understanding of those discussions is relevant today.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, there is a huge amount of work being done by various economists, lobby groups, institutions and think tanks on regulation and various agreements. I am not aware of the specific work the noble Baroness talks about. Of course I know some of the individuals she mentioned—they are good friends of mine—but I am not aware of all that work. Now she has mentioned it, I will go away and have a look at it. I am sure it is very good, but I cannot comment until I have seen it.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
The Minister puzzled me slightly just then by saying that once the implementation phase—that piece of Orwellian language —is complete, the object will be to negotiate with the EEA partners of Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein to preserve our present relationship, but that includes free movement.
Lord Callanan
With great respect to the noble Lord, I do not think I said that we would preserve the present relationship. We will want to establish a new relationship with those states. We have always had close and friendly relationships with them. Ultimately that will be a matter for the negotiations.
Baroness McDonagh
I do not feel that any of my questions were addressed. I apologise to the Committee, but I have to say to the Minister that he has not addressed whether he agrees with the estimate of the Secretaries of State about progress on trade deals. This is paramount information to understand what needs to happen in terms of customs union, single market and so on. I wonder whether my questions can be addressed.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I thought we were here to discuss the Bill. We have spent three hours and 20 minutes debating so far, and I have listened very carefully to what everyone has said. I have sought to answer a lot of the questions where they were relevant to the contents of the Bill. The clause that we are debating repeals the European Communities Act. I understand that many Members want to raise concerns about the referendum, whether they thought the campaign was right or not and whether various people said various things or not, but I really do not think they are that relevant to the clause of the Bill that we are debating.
Baroness McDonagh
I apologise; I will make another attempt because I do not feel that I am making my questions understood. My questions are based on Amendments 191 and 206, and the purpose of the amendments is to seek answers so that we know whether we need to press them to a vote. My question is very clear: how is progress going? Does the Minister believe that the estimates given by the two Secretaries of State in the other place can be relied upon, and how are we getting on in terms of progress on the trade deal? This is paramount to understand what needs to go in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, and those amendments are before the House.
Lord Callanan
I am sure that the statements made by the Secretaries of State in the other place are true and valid and that they will be endeavouring to fulfil them. There will be further legislation, as we have said, on the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill when we have sought and obtained agreement with the EU, and I am sure that further international trade Bills will follow in due course as well. However, that is not the subject of this legislation, as the noble Baroness well knows.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister was on his feet for just 12 minutes dealing with a debate that had taken over three hours. There are four sets of amendments here that deal with delegated powers. He has not addressed that issue at all in this debate but it is very much the focus of those amendments. That is a pretty shabby performance, actually, and this House is entitled to be extremely dissatisfied with the response that we have had. Further, we have had a big debate about the single market and the customs union but the Minister dismissed that in his opening comments. He said the Government were preparing themselves for a customs union-lite type of arrangement but failed to set out any details of what that might look like. This House deserves better explanations to its amendments than that, and I hope this does not give rise to an equally shabby performance on all the other amendments that we have to consider; there are over 300 of them.
Lord Callanan
I realise that. I apologise if the noble Lord is disappointed but I was trying to address what is actually in the Bill. As I said, further legislation will follow. We have spent three and a half hours so far debating one grouping of amendments, and we have eight further groupings to get through this evening on the timetable agreed by all the usual sources.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I am sorry to say this, but the amendments were taken by the Public Bill Office as being in scope. They are therefore relevant to the House.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, before the Minister finishes after the very short intervention that he has just made, I point out that he did not respond at all to the points made by noble Lords from around the Chamber about the Good Friday agreement. Would he give the view of the Government, since it appears to be in question at the moment, about the future of the agreement and whether he agrees with the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who said it had now served its purpose?
Lord Callanan
I am happy to clarify for the noble Lord that we remain completely committed to the Good Friday agreement.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My noble friend has been accused of not being very experienced. I point out to those Members opposite that we are in Committee but we have had three and a half hours of Second Reading speeches, not speeches on the amendments.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, since we have come to the end of this interesting debate, as the mover of the first amendment I thank everyone who has taken part in it. I have no doubt at all that the points that have been raised are relevant to the Bill, otherwise they would not have been accepted, and that the arguments in relation to those amendments are therefore equally pertinent and we are all entitled to have the Government’s response if they have one.
One thing that has come through loud and clear from the Minister’s statement is the fact that he regards this, yes, as a debate about the single market and the customs union rather than about the contents of Clause 1. Well, if it was mainly a debate about the customs union and the single market, as it was, the message that has come from this House is loud and clear: four out of five of those who have taken part in the debate want to see the countries of these islands remain part of the customs union and the single market. If the Government are not going to face up to that, we shall undoubtedly come back on Report with an amendment that can get support across this House, and the Government will then have to defend their case in another place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Adonis
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 3, which would leave out “on exit day” and insert,
“on a date to be determined in the Act of Parliament enacted for the purposes of section 9(1) of this Act”.
The first and crucial significance of the Bill is the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, and a critical issue that noble Lords will wish to address themselves to is the date on which that happens. The provisions in the Bill in respect of that date are not straightforward. Clause 1 provides that the European Communities Act 1972 will be repealed “on exit day”. Clause 14(1) defines exit day as,
“29 March 2019 at 11.00 p.m.”,
but Clause 14(4) provides that,
“A Minister of the Crown may by regulations … amend the definition of ‘exit day’ in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom”.
So exit day is set, but there is a provision for the Government to amend the date. However, my reading of subsection (4) is that a Minister of the Crown may only substitute one date with another date. He cannot suspend the operation of the Act entirely even if there is no agreement and it is in fact the intention of Her Majesty’s Government not to proceed with leaving the EU.
My first question to the Minister is: what is the Government’s understanding of the scope of Clause 14(4)? Is it only possible to substitute 29 March 2019 with another precise date under regulations or is it possible for the Government, by the exercise of the powers under Clause 14(4), to suspend the operation of the Act either indefinitely or in perpetuity? Secondly, in respect of the procedure under Clause 14(4), if the Government wish to change the date of 29 March 2019, what would that procedure be? I would be grateful if he could set it out so that we had it clearly established in Hansard, because I think it is an issue to which the House will wish to return in due course. The procedure for amending the exit date could be of crucial importance if the withdrawal agreement that the Prime Minister presents later this year or early next year leads, either by her intention or by a decision of Parliament, to a desire to extend the Article 50 period and apply for an extension beyond the end of March 2019.
I have those two specific questions for the Minister, but I wish to make a general point for this debate, about the concept of the exit day and the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. It is clearly the case that Parliament needs to make provision for the substitution of the 12,000 regulations which have currently been made under the European Communities Act 1972, and there must be a procedure for those to be enshrined in United Kingdom law. There obviously needs to be a functioning statute book on 29 March 2019, or whenever the country leaves the European Union, and therefore there need to be procedures in place for that statute book to be fully in place by the end of March. We will have many debates in due course about what that procedure will be, how far it can be done by the Government making regulations and orders, how far it requires parliamentary consent and what the parliamentary procedure should be—all the issues which your Lordships will be familiar with under the broad heading of Henry VIII powers. We will have long debates on that question.
However, I do not think it reasonable for Parliament at this stage to give the Government a near-unilateral power to set the date of leaving the European Union when it is still not clear that it is the will of Parliament that we should leave the European Union. We have not seen the withdrawal agreement that the Prime Minister will negotiate or undergone the new procedure instituted by the amendments passed in the House of Commons, which will need to be followed before the withdrawal agreement is ratified by Parliament. As Parliament will itself make the decision on whether we leave when it can fully consider the terms which the Government have negotiated for leaving, it seems to me that the appropriate time to set the date under the Bill for repealing the European Communities Act 1972 is when Parliament agrees or does not agree to the withdrawal agreement that the Prime Minister has negotiated. To do it in advance in this Bill is a classic legislative case of putting the cart before the horse. The right time to set the date on which the European Communities Act will be repealed is surely when Parliament actually takes the decision and sets the date when it intends the treaty of withdrawal to take effect.
This is significant is because otherwise the danger is that we get into a convoluted and potentially destructive process in terms of relations between Parliament and the Government concerning the operation of the Bill when enacted with the withdrawal agreement. At the moment, the Bill stipulates that the European Communities Act 1972 will cease to have effect on 29 March 2019 or on some other date that a Minister may set. That process is set out in the Bill, but there will then be a withdrawal agreement that will set out the date, to be agreed by Parliament, when the treaties replacing our current European Union commitments will take effect. It seems to me and, I think, to other noble Lords much more straightforward, simpler, less confusing and possibly more conducive to harmony between Parliament and the Government for the decision on the date of the repeal of the European Communities Act to be taken at the same time as Parliament takes its decision on the treaties which will replace it.
These are probing amendments seeking the Minister’s guidance on the scope of Clause 14 (4), but I also wish to start a debate in Committee, which I think will probably continue into Report, on whether this is the appropriate piece of legislation for setting the date of departure from the European Union in respect of the repeal of the European Communities Act independently of Parliament reaching a decision on the withdrawal treaty. I beg to move.
Lord Hain
My Lords, having added my name to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Adonis, I want to explain that they are designed to give back to Parliament control of when the European Communities Act 1972 is repealed and to strengthen the effect of the amended Clause 9(1), which was designed to give Parliament a meaningful vote on the final terms of withdrawal and which required that a new statute be put in place before any regulations are made to implement the withdrawal agreement.
I do not need to remind your Lordships’ House that what is at stake is more than a matter of process or procedure. It is ultimately about whether either Parliament or a group of hard Brexiteers who are trying to manipulate the Government will decide the future of the people of this country. What is at stake is people’s jobs and standards of living, which depend on our trading relationships; the protection of labour rights and environmental standards; the alliances on which Britain’s future security depends; and the future of the Good Friday agreement, which has brought peace and stability to the island of Ireland for generations to come but is itself now under attack from assorted Brextremists—including, astonishingly and recklessly, a former Secretary of State, Owen Paterson, who should know a great deal better. It is reckless and downright dangerous to put Brexit dogma before peace and stability on the island of Ireland.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, the noble Lord concluded his remarks by saying, effectively, that it should be Parliament that decides the terms. I am wholeheartedly in favour of that. It is an essential part of representative democracy, by which I mean that Parliament, at the end of the day, should be in a position to determine whether the terms that have been negotiated are acceptable, whether the absence of terms is acceptable, whether no deal is acceptable or whether we should remain in the European Union. It is Parliament, not the Executive, that should make that decision.
The amendments that have been tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Hain—it is remarkable that I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, having been in disagreement with him for, I suppose, 25 years or so—are absolutely right. Give Parliament the power to determine the exit date and you greatly reinforce the control that Parliament has as to the outcome.
Lord Triesman (Lab)
My Lords, I want to make clear my unequivocal support for the last three speeches. The critical issue that my noble friend Lord Adonis raised on the interplay between the various clauses that deal with the timing and the possibilities of how that could go wrong and the points made by my noble friend Lord Hain and also the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, on the sovereignty of Parliament seem to me to be right at the very heart of what the whole process in this House is about. It is either about us assuming the responsibilities that we are supposed to have and display, or it is about giving Ministers what they have plainly wanted throughout, which is the ability to take decisions irrespective of what Parliament might wish. I hope that Ministers will not be tedious enough to get up and deny that this is what they have been trying to do. At every key stage of this process, whether in front of the Supreme Court or elsewhere, it has been essential to force out of the Government an understanding of the role of Parliament and that Parliament will not be set aside.
Like everybody else, I have of course thought hard about why anybody would put a hard date into a clause of a Bill of this kind. Why would you do it? The answer is that it is a party management issue—and only a party management issue. I am sure that many noble Lords on the Government’s side of the House will recognise that there are costs and disadvantages alongside what they might regard as advantages in taking the steps that they have taken. But the advantage they perceive—which seems to outweigh everything else—is that they can say with conviction to the people who are determined that we leave, crash out, or go any which way out of the European Union that they have set a hard date and have in some sense given certainty by virtue of that. I believe—and I think in this debate the House overall is likely to believe—that the complexities with which this country and this Parliament are faced in trying to deal with this absolutely massive constitutional, economic, security and every other kind of issue means that the setting of a hard date is about as arbitrary a thing as you could conceivably do in the circumstances.
In his response to the last debate, which I regret I found very limited, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said of a number of the amendments that they required reports to be made and the dates for many of those reports were arbitrary. There could scarcely be a more arbitrary date than this date, when almost nothing has been learned so far about the Government’s intentions and when there is absolutely no certainty that we will learn any more about those intentions. The fact is that setting a date makes it more or less impossible to conceive of all the different elements being drawn together with sufficient coherence for any of us to exercise that final act of parliamentary authority that we have all been promised.
I recall just three, four or perhaps five weeks ago, the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, spoke on industrial strategy. He made the telling point that, whenever we deal with people from other countries who have strong industrial strategies, strong industrial histories and a great deal of success in all those, we go about it believing that our native wit and wisdom is so superior to all of them that we can constantly get exactly what we want from them and they will never have a presentable argument to put to us. The noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, quite rightly said that if you look at the countries where we tend to take that view—Germany, Japan, China now and the United States—you come across people who are extremely competent at developing industries and strategies, who have views and will argue for those views and who may very well prevail. In this discussion about what future trade will be like, those arguments will be displayed with great ability and, I have no doubt, will not be the pushover that many on the Government Benches seem to think they will be.
I suspect that one argument that will be made about having a hard date is that it focuses negotiation and is a means of drawing a negotiation to some sort of conclusion. I have said before in your Lordships’ House—and I do not say it to cause offence—that my experience is that, by and large, politicians are not the best negotiators that you ever come across. Many of us have spent parts of our lives as trade union negotiators or general secretaries of trade unions, have done negotiation in government, in the Foreign Office—in my case—and so on or have spent a great deal of their lives negotiating in business and in industry. I say without any doubt in my mind that if I wanted to make my life more difficult in any negotiation, I would say, “Here is the deadline”, and let everybody else stretch me out across the rack that I had made for myself, because that would be the easiest thing that they could conceivably do—and they will do it. If you are in a position of enormous strength, I guess you could say, “Well, we have set a date, we are going to push everybody else along”. But if you are not in a position of enormous strength and if, peradventure, you are in a position of enormous weakness, everybody else will take the maximum possible advantage and they will succeed.
I have heard some of the comments made by others who have business experience, and I draw attention to my entries in the register as well. In business, I have never once seen the weaker party in a negotiation have any advantage out of a fixed deadline. If we ever needed to learn that in spades, we would look at what is happening in Northern Ireland now and the constant setting of deadlines—which has happened in the past—only to find that the people of violence, or the people who have been prepared to allow people of violence to push the envelope further, have always been those who took the greatest advantage of it and made it more or less impossible for anybody else to make real progress.
I hope that we will not trap ourselves in that way. These amendments give us a means of not trapping us in that way, and I urge all noble Lords to give us the best chance we can have, rather than the worst.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, I do not wish to emulate either the forensic skill or the eloquence of those who have already contributed to the debate but rather ask the Minister a very specific question. He will be aware that in Clause 14—the interpretation clause—there is a specific reference to exit day, which is spelled out in subsection (4):
“A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—
(a) amend the definition of ‘exit day’ in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and
(b) amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, that is secondary legislation. The Minister will be only too well aware that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, on which I serve on behalf of your Lordships’ House, is already very critical of the number of powers that Ministers are taking under this Bill, not least because it sets a precedent for powers that will be expected by Ministers under subsequent Bills in the series that relate to Brexit. Therefore, it is important for your Lordships’ House to be told very clearly at this stage by what process the Government intend to put that secondary legislation before the two Houses of Parliament. Will it be by the negative resolution, the affirmative resolution or, indeed, the super-affirmative resolution, as that completely changes the way in which Parliament will be able to exert its control, as noble Lords have suggested? If the process is to be undertaken by negative resolution, that is very limited and the powers of the two Houses of Parliament would be so undermined as to be laughable. If it is to be done by the affirmative resolution, there is more opportunity for discussion and either House can decide what should be done in those circumstances. However, I suspect we will be told that this has to be done with such speed that it will have to be done by an accelerated process, which will inevitably mean that there is no proper opportunity for either House to decide whether we agree with this process.
The super-affirmative process may well be selected. The Minister may be better informed than most Ministers on the Government Front Bench but I defy him to spell out to the House this evening which of these options will be put in place. This is of critical importance. We should not just sweep away this opportunity to take this decision. As all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate have said, it is an extremely important one which will colour the views of your Lordships’ House when we look at some of the other powers that Ministers seek to take under the Bill. Again, I refer to the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. If we really are taking back control, here is an early opportunity for the Government to show who exactly is taking back control.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
My Lords, I am somewhat confused by this debate because it has been suggested that the Government have taken a hard line in saying that a decision should be reached on our future relationship with the EU by 29 March next year. It is not the Government’s date; it is the Article 50 date as drafted—as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, acknowledged —by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, one afternoon in his garden in Brussels, when he decided that it should be two years from the moment when Article 50 was moved. Therefore, it is not our date, it is the EU’s date, or, more precisely, the date of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I do not quite know why we are now saying that somehow this is the Government taking a hard line. When the House of Commons voted by an overwhelming majority to move Article 50, surely that was on the understanding that the negotiations would be completed in two years from when it was moved. Therefore, we now seem to want to go against the other place and tell it that it has decided on the wrong date.
On top of that, the EU has made it clear that it wants the negotiations to be completed not by 29 March 2019 but by October or November this year, so it is bringing the date forward. I do not accept the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, on deadlines. Perhaps he found deadlines inconvenient when he was a trade union negotiator, but it strikes me that they are the only thing which works when you are negotiating with the EU, and that everything seems to be decided at the last minute. It is important that we keep to 29 March next year and I would be very unhappy if that were changed.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, we have heard some excellent speeches on these amendments. I particularly commend the brilliant analysis of my noble friend Lord Hain and the very penetrating questions asked by him and my noble friend Lord Triesman. I hope that those questions receive a serious response from the Government at the end of the debate on this group of amendments, and that they receive the clear and authoritative answers which Parliament deserves.
I wish to speak briefly about the transition or implementation phase, however you want to describe it, which emerges very much from the issues addressed by these two amendments. I am deeply worried about the way these negotiations are going. The Government seem very muddled in their own mind and have a completely false appreciation of the situation they confront. I will explain why I think those two provisions apply in a moment. There are surely just three logical possibilities. One is that we do not have a transition phase at all and go straight from the present regime of full membership of the EU to some future but permanent post-Brexit arrangement. Another possibility is that we have a special so-called bespoke intermediate regime between full membership of the Union and whatever ensues on a long-term basis in our relations with the EU. The third possibility is what we have by way of a transition period—namely, that we continue with the present regime until after agreement has been reached on the future regime and continue with it for some time—I hope at least a year or two—to give businesses the maximum amount of time to adapt to what they will know at that point is the new regime that is coming.
The first of those possibilities—that we have no transition at all—is rightly regarded, I think on both sides of the House and certainly throughout commerce and industry, as a disastrous prospect which would involve immense risks and costs for our businesses, quite unnecessarily so if a suitable alternative is available. I think there is general agreement on that. I would hope there would be agreement that the sensible thing to do is to choose the third option and continue with the present regime for some years after full detailed agreement is reached on its successor, so there is time for adaptation by everybody concerned. That seems to me thoroughly sensible. Unfortunately, I am told that that has been vetoed by the Eurosceptics in the Tory party. We know that Mrs May is very much under the heel of Mr Johnson and Mr Gove and is terrified that someone is going to send 41, 47 or 48 letters to Sir Graham Brady, and does not know how many have already been written. In these circumstances, she cannot move on that. She cannot accept that because, apparently, the Eurosceptics think that is an extension of our membership of the EU and they do not like it on symbolic grounds. I may misunderstand the situation but I am told on good authority that that is the position, so what might seem the most rational and sensible answer to this problem, which would certainly get strong approval from both sides of this House, is excluded for party-political reasons.
Therefore, we confront what appears to be the Government’s preference at the moment, which is the second possibility: the bespoke regime. I say that the Government are in contradiction with themselves, which they certainly are, because while that arrangement is supposed to reduce risks for business and industry, it actually doubles them. It has already been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Hain that under those circumstances there would be two future regimes for business to go through. There would be two thresholds into that new regime rather than one or two cliff edges in that context, to use that cliché which everybody seems to be so fond of at present. That is a serious matter: a Government who are in contradiction with themselves.
The second problem I have is that the Government clearly seem to have misunderstood the position of their counterparties in these negotiations and, once again, to have been quite excessively euphoric about the impact of any proposals that they would make on their negotiating partners. In short, they are overreaching themselves. That is of course again a worrying situation when you go into any kind of negotiation. I say that because it is inconceivable that our continental partners would agree to have some bespoke intermediate regime; it would be quite extraordinary if they did. It would mean that any member of the European Union could issue notice under Article 50 and immediately negotiate some special bespoke arrangement, maximising, presumably, its own benefits and minimising its own costs at the expense of other members of the Union, quite contrary to the whole purposes of the Union. Therefore I cannot believe that very intelligent and competent people, which the European Commission and leaders of our partner nations certainly are, would go down that road for a moment. That leaves a strong possibility that the Government will find that they have a rough time ahead of them.
I suppose that you can go into a negotiation with a self-contradictory proposal, although that is rather a handicap and not a good augury for the success of the outcome, and you can go into a negotiation making a fundamental misjudgment about the objective situation in which you find yourself. However, to do both is clearly to be at a considerable handicap. I fear that these negotiations will not result at all in a favourable outcome in this country and that there will be a lot of gnashing of teeth, shedding of tears and, no doubt, shouting and imprecations of all kinds. The Government will no doubt say that it is all very unfair, everyone is being beastly to them and that it is not their fault, and there will be a mixture of paranoid self-pity and nationalist demagoguery, which the Tory party seems, sadly, very often to fall victim to. That will be a sad day if it happens to this country. I hope that it can be avoided, that my analysis is wrong and that the Minister will explain to me exactly why it is wrong.
Lord True
My Lords, the noble Lord opposite who just spoke constantly makes disparaging references to members of the Conservative Party. I suggest that he might have been better informed about what happens inside the Conservative Party if he had remained a member. I do not consider him a great authority on the subject.
I would also like to deal with a canard which I find offensive and which I hope will not colour the next 10 days of debate. This is this business about people who favour Brexit wanting to repudiate the Good Friday agreement. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, spoke with great passion on the subject, and I agreed with a great deal of what she said, certainly in the emotional content. She referred also to the cases she had taken which involved people in the Brighton case. Some of us were at Brighton on that day and many of us have lived with the consequences of the terrible events that took place and are passionately attached to the peace process and what happened in Northern Ireland. I am very proud that I served under a Prime Minister who had the courage to start the process that led to the peace agreement, Mr John Major. This false syllogism—it is the worst kind—which says, “Somebody who favours Brexit said that we might move away from the Good Friday agreement; therefore, every Conservative who favours Brexit is against the Good Friday agreement” is one that I find evil and offensive, and I hope it will be dropped. Those who express that view can answer for it, but I do not share it and I do not think that many on this side do.
Those are general points; the noble Lord, Lord Davies, took the debate a little wider, but I thought that, admirably, this debate had focused on a precise subject, which was raised clearly and forensically by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and by the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Triesman, which is how we deal with this question of a date. The problem of the date is that exit day for the purpose of the Bill—it is in the Bill, although I note that there are now amendments to these clauses—is mentioned in Clauses 2(1) and 3(2)(a), which define laws which are retained as those which are in effect “immediately before exit day”. If exit day were not on the same day as the Article 50 date, as my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom said, there would potentially be confusion. You would have a position where the UK had left the European Union but it was not clear what would happen with regard to retained law. This would create the very kind of uncertainty that noble Lords opposite say they wish to avoid. Therefore those two things have to march in parallel.
Here we come to the crux of the real argument behind these amendments and suggestions, which is that we should not leave so quickly as 29 March 2019; we should delay the matter; we should delay the implementation and extend the Article 50 period. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said in one of our recent debates, we might want to be members again and might come back to reapply. In the first place, as has been pointed out in this debate, those things would require unanimity on the other side, and in the second place it would require legislation in this House and an Act of Parliament, as the Gina Miller case suggested. The reality is that we would have an Act of Parliament if we were taking the thing further down; we are already having an Act of Parliament on the withdrawal agreement. The two things have to march in parallel. At the moment that date is set, accepted and understood in this Parliament and across Europe as 29 March 2019.
This is an Act of Parliament, so if Parliament wanted to define a date—we may not like the date of 29 March 2019, but it is the one in the process that has been set in motion—it would be legitimate. I do not particularly care for the amendment that was put in in the House of Commons—at the last minute in Committee, as someone pointed out—to give a power to the Secretary of State, but that is what the House of Commons has sent us. If that needs to be dealt with, deal with that question directly: ask the House of Lords. But do not decouple the date in the law from the date that is working in Article 50. That would create uncertainty and difficulty. It does not require a further Act of Parliament to set the exit day because this is an Act of Parliament; the Bill has already been approved by the other place and it is already there—we can just do it.
However, of course that is not the course that is being taken, because both these amendments seek to strike out the phrase “on exit day”. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has got out his dandelion clock—you used to blow on it when you wondered whether you would ever have a girlfriend, when you first came to be aware of those things. “This year, next year, sometime, never”, was it not? Many of the British people rather thought in 2016 that it might be this year. It has now been two years; many people in this House would agree that we have not got that far in two years, which is a bit disappointing, but it will not be this year. At least the Bill says that it will be next year: 29 March 2019. But along comes the noble Lord, Lord, Adonis, and—next year? No. It is now sometime. His amendment gives the impression that it will be on a date to be determined sometime, but we know that he means “never”. I know, the House knows, and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, knows, that he would never vote for any exit day to be voted for by this Parliament.
Therefore we should not support a dandelion clock amendment. If we want to deal with the Secretary of State issue, that is a separate debate, but let us not create new and unnecessary uncertainty by removing the date and uncoupling the exit day and the Article 50 day.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I should like to respond briefly to what the noble Lord, Lord True, has said. He refers to the Article 50 date. Without deciding where we wanted to go, we chose to send in an Article 50 declaration on 29 March. That meant that we chose when the clock would start ticking. That is my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton—like Nelson, I cannot resist provocation from a Hamilton. However, there is not a single Article 50 date. There is provision in the article for the possibility of an extension and there is also provision for the exit date to be after the two-year period. If you read the article carefully, you will see that you are out after two years or when the withdrawal agreement comes into effect, so there is the possibility of a post-dated cheque.
In my view, the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, is exactly right. Flexibility in negotiation is extremely important. Giving yourself deadlines is crazy, as is surrounding yourself with red lines. The reading of Article 50 by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, is, in my humble view, completely correct. However, the big point in this debate is not that; it is the question of who takes back control. Who decides? Is it the Executive or the legislature? So the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, is extremely important.
I end by saying that I warmly welcome what the noble Lord, Lord True, said about the Good Friday agreement and the Belfast treaty of 1998, and in particular what he said about Prime Minister Major. To someone like me who was an observer at the time, it is completely correct. I remember when the leader of the Opposition, Mr Blair, went to Washington when I was the ambassador there. He was asked about Northern Ireland and what he would do if he became Prime Minister. His reply at my dinner table to assorted Senators and the Vice-President was that he would try to do exactly what John Major had tried to do and he would be very pleased if he could do it half as well. It is very good to hear that the solid voice of the Conservative Party is not that of the Patersons and Hannans but is in favour of retaining all the good work done by the Conservative Government and then by Mr Blair’s Government in that astonishing first year.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
If the House of Commons voted by an overwhelming majority to move Article 50, surely that was done on the understanding that the negotiations would be completed in two years. If the date was to be changed, surely that would need a vote in the other place.
Lord Elton (Con)
Perhaps I may ask a question for elucidation—I may have missed something. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and others have spoken as though Parliament is not to be consulted by the Minister making the order. However, paragraph 10 of Schedule 7 states:
“A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 14(4) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament”.
It may not be sufficient scrutiny, but there is scrutiny—Parliament is not being completely bypassed.
Lord Patten of Barnes
I would like to offer an addendum to what the noble Lord has said. In a way, it is a response to my noble friend Lord True. All those who feel as passionately as he and I clearly do about the Good Friday agreement—I think that it would be slightly unsavoury to try to compare who did what about that agreement, and I am glad to see that my noble friend agrees with that—can later support the amendment to the Bill which will write the Good Friday agreement on to the face of the Bill. I look forward to having the support of my noble friends Lord True and Lord Hamilton and others when that amendment comes before the House. Perhaps even some of the duty Privy Council Brexiteers on their Bench down there will be able to support it too.
Lord Adonis
Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Kerr—the supreme oracle on Article 50—a question which, again, I think will be important for our deliberations later on. An extension of the Article 50 period requires unanimity in the Council. However, if Her Majesty’s Government wished to extend Article 50 for the purposes of holding a referendum, or conceivably for a parliamentary vote, thus completing our established constitutional procedures, would the Council recognise that automatically because it recognises the domestic procedures of member states when it comes to the ratification of agreements?
Lord Liddle
I would like to follow that up with a relevant question to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I agree with all the excellent speeches in favour of this amendment. To me, the politics of the amendment is the question of whether, when exit day is discussed, Parliament knows what it is exiting to. That is the question. If Parliament does not know what it is exiting to, surely the logic is that the date should be extended until it does.
Along with my noble friend Lady Kennedy, I have recently been on Select Committee visits to Brussels, and she can confirm that there is much uncertainty about what information will be available to Parliament in the autumn of this year. If things go well, we might have a withdrawal agreement and a transition period, but the only thing on the future relationship that we will have is a political declaration. There is no question at all of there being a trade agreement when Parliament votes; it will be a political declaration. The European people to whom we talked said that they wanted that to be clear and precise. However, at the same time, people said to us, “We think that possibly your Government might quite like to get away with a fudge”. Why should Parliament be put in the position of taking this crucial decision when all the British Government are offering is a fudge?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
To respond simply to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, it would be a political issue, not a legal or a treaty issue. My view has only the same weight as anybody else’s, but I would say that if one sought an extension in order to carry on a negotiation, it would be very doubtful that one would get it. However, if one sought an extension because Parliament had decided that the terms of the deal available were such that they should be put to the country at large in a second referendum, I am convinced that that request for an extension would be granted.
Lord True
It is very interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has added a fifth element to the dandelion clock: this year, next year, sometime, never, and a second referendum. The idea of a second referendum is spreading across the Committee. However, returning to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made, I was taken up for using a phrase as a lay man, just as my physics teacher used to take me up for not really understanding “light”. When I talk about an Article 50 date, it is the date that flows as a consequence of the article and the decision that Parliament has taken by an overwhelming majority, as my noble friend Lord Hamilton said. The date of 29 March is the date that everybody, from Monsieur Barnier to everyone else, is working to. Therefore, in lay man’s terms, that is what I mean by the date which would have to be changed, and I submit it would have to be changed in tandem. That is why I oppose moving “exit day” and the date out of the Bill.
Baroness Ludford
My Lords, this issue is linked to those under Clauses 9 and 14 about the withdrawal agreement and the exit day in that context. No doubt we will come back to some of these issues, because they are all interlinked and it is quite difficult to get a holistic view. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, is quite right: one key issue is what we are going to be exiting to. Flexibility is one thing but an excess of uncertainty is another—particularly, as my noble friend Lord Tyler said, when it is coupled with ministerial discretion.
We have the exit date, we have the date when the treaties cease to apply, and we can add on the layer of what is going to be in the transition terms—I have not had time to read the Government’s proposal today. We also have the question about whether Article 50 might be extended, and the question of whether Parliament might want to put the deal to the citizens for a final say. There is also the question of the post-dated cheque. So, all in all, they went all round the houses in the other place—no fixed date, then an attempt to fix it, then a date movable by Ministers. In all this brew, the amendments raise a very reasonable point about Parliament being in the driving seat—something that has been the theme of so many of our debates in the last year and a half.
We have no idea exactly what being subject to EU law, or even respecting the remit of the ECJ, whatever that will turn out to mean, during transition and even in the longer term—because that was the implication of the Prime Minister’s speech on Saturday—means. That sits uncomfortably with the Bill as a whole, and especially with the specification of exit day. We are being asked to fall into a black hole and trust Ministers to get it right—which on current experience is not a very wise thing to do.
The amendments have been described as probing, but answers from the Government—I am sure that the Minister is about to give very precise answers—will be very helpful to our understanding of how the jigsaw will fit together. At the moment it all looks far too uncertain for anyone to be comfortable.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My first question to the Minister is: why did the Government slot in the calendar date at Committee stage, when that was never foreseen in the original Bill? Was it for some good legislative reason, or was it, as my noble friend Lord Hain suggested, to satisfy a certain hard Brexit group of MPs sitting on the Prime Minister’s shoulder, rather like the 60 who have been writing her helpful letters today? It certainly looks as if this was more to do with party management, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, than being in the national interest, which we have been advised should control everything we do.
Secondly, I ask the Minister to comment on the point discussed a few moments ago—the exact wording of Article 50. The Bill as it stands would allow the date specified to be extended in exceptional circumstances, but this probably deals only with the possibility of an extension to Article 50, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has said, provides:
“The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question”—
that is us—
“from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification … unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.”
The date could be amended in accordance with what is in the withdrawal agreement. We indeed might come to an agreement that, for some other reason, chooses an earlier or a later date. Or we might want to amend the date if the withdrawal agreement were not finalised. On the evidence of negotiations so far, it is quite unlikely that this divided Government, seeking to negotiate something which, I have to say in all fairness to them, has never been undertaken before, will keep to their timetable. They should therefore want the flexibility.
There is another issue. Even if we had a deal, what would happen if the European Parliament voted it down? I understand that that vote could be as late as one year from now; it could be as late as February 2019. And the European Parliament has the right to vote any deal down. Guy Verhofstadt told Andrew Marr at the weekend that a thumbs down from the European Parliament meant exit with no deal. So if in a year’s time the Parliament were to vote a deal down, I assume that we would be out a month later, on WTO terms with no transition deal, which would also mean no safeguards for EU citizens—either ours living in EU countries or theirs living here. I do not think that the European Parliament would do that, but my judgment is that if it did, the 27—or indeed the 28, with our Government as well—would speedily get themselves into a room and row back from that. I cannot imagine that we, or they, would want to be in that position. Again, that would mean a change in the date, so the flexibility needs to be there.
Lord Callanan
I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness, but we will be having a number of Brexit Bills, not least of which will be the withdrawal agreement and the implementation Bill, once we have reached agreement. I shall endeavour to respond to all the questions that I have been asked.
Repealing the European Communities Act is an important step to ensure that there is maximum clarity on the law that will apply in the UK after we leave the EU. I cannot see the sense in needing a separate Act to repeal the European Communities Act. This repeal in Clause 1 is front and centre of the Bill; indeed, this Bill was originally called the great repeal Bill. To prevent this Bill from repealing the European Communities Act would undermine perhaps the most important part of it.
I suspect that I have read the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, correctly when I say that he would prefer the European Communities Act to be repealed in the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill that was announced by the Secretary of State in November. That Bill would then deal with the implementation period and our relationship to EU law during that period. This may be founded on the misconception that, if Parliament does not repeal the European Communities Act and appoint an exit day, that will somehow prevent the UK exiting the EU. If that is the case, I am sorry that I have to disappoint the noble Lord: our leaving the EU is a matter of international law, and we are leaving no matter what is or is not done to the European Communities Act.
I will address the noble Lord’s question about exit day and procedure. What will become Section 14(4)—currently Clause 14(4)—could be used to change the exit day in the Bill only if the Article 50 period were to be extended; it could not be used to prevent us leaving the EU. That is a matter of international rather than domestic law. The exercise of Section 14(4) to alter the exit day in domestic law in accordance with Article 50 would be subject—in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler—to the affirmative procedure in both Houses. I will give more detail on that in a minute. We do not expect to use this power and we are leaving the EU on 29 March 2019.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, asked further questions about our exit day and the amendment. In the other place we tabled an amendment which set exit day in order to provide certainty and clarity, and we accepted further amendments on the issue, again to provide further clarity. The amendments set the exit day in the Bill as 11 pm on 29 March 2019, while retaining the technical ability to amend the date at a later stage. As I said, that can happen only if the European Council—including the UK, of course—unanimously decides to change the date on which the treaties cease to apply to the UK, as set out in the famous Article 50. We do not intend this to happen.
I will give the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, more detail on his point. Any change to exit day in domestic law under the power of what will become Section 14(4) will be by the affirmative procedure, guaranteeing a vote in both Houses. The affirmative procedure in this instance is provided for in paragraph 10 of Schedule 7.
Providing for the date of the repeal of the 1972 Act in the Bill that implements our withdrawal agreement might seem tidy in certain scenarios, but it would put the legislative cart before the diplomatic horse in what I feel would be quite a dangerous way. Both the withdrawal agreement and the implementation period are, of course, still matters for negotiation. This Bill, being agnostic on the negotiations, is designed to prepare the statute book for our withdrawal. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that there will be additional legislation to implement our withdrawal agreement. As I said a moment ago, this Bill is designed to implement the clearly expressed will of the British people to leave the EU, and therefore the date of repeal is set at the point that the UK will fall out of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
There are many demands on parliamentary time, as we know to our cost, and this is the Bill that will prepare our statute book for exit. The amendment would force the date of repeal into the agenda of another Bill. This is the right time and place for the debate on the repeal of the ECA, and the debate should incorporate all the additional context and provisions necessary for a smooth exit. Indeed, if we did not reach an agreement and the second of the noble Lord’s amendments were agreed, we would be in a state almost of paradox. To repeal the ECA, the Government would be compelled to enact a statute for the purposes of Clause 9(1) of the Bill— a clause which itself is predicated on the existence of a withdrawal agreement. So we would be forced to enact a statute enabling us to approve the final terms of the withdrawal agreement and set the date of the repeal of the European Communities Act without such a withdrawal agreement existing. That is too much of a logical conundrum to ask any Bill to bear, and not an acceptable way to go about legislating.
Clause 1 will provide certainty to businesses and individuals that the European Communities Act will be repealed on exit day. Any attempt to change this while negotiations are ongoing would lead only to a lack of clarity on the law that will apply in the UK after we leave the EU. This would run counter to the primary aim of the Bill, so I hope that the noble Lord will be willing to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Tyler
I am grateful to the Minister for seeking to clarify the point about process, and I take on board what he said about paragraph 10 of Schedule 7. But will he give an absolute undertaking to the Committee that there will be no attempt to accelerate the process? I think he would accept that, if the Minister in this case were seeking to do something at speed, for expediency’s sake—surely that would be the only circumstance in which it would be necessary to change the date—it would be extremely difficult to give both Houses of Parliament advance notice and the usual time for consultation. Is the Minister giving us an absolute undertaking that the normal process and timescale will apply and that there will be no attempt to accelerate the process?
Lord Callanan
Yes, I am giving the noble Lord an assurance that the normal timescale of the affirmative procedure for statutory instruments would apply in this case.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister and to all noble Lords who have spoken. We will need to study the Minister’s statements with care before we decide what course to take on Report.
If I may, I will echo the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Patten, about the Good Friday agreement. I fully recognise the huge contribution made by many noble Lords on all sides of the House in negotiating and taking forward the Good Friday agreement. I was very reassured indeed to hear from the noble Lord, Lord True, who from my experience of him in this House I take to be on the right of the Conservative Party, that not all of those on the right of the Conservative Party are turning against the Good Friday agreement. I take that to be a commendable statement, and hope that he manages to persuade his colleagues, including former Ministers, who are starting to call for an end to the Good Friday agreement that that is not an appropriate course. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 21st February 2018
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 79-I(b) Amendments for Committee (PDF, 60KB) - (21 Feb 2018)
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
“( ) Regulations under section 19(2) bringing into force subsection (1) may not be made until the Prime Minister is satisfied that resolutions have been passed by the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly signifying consent to the commencement of subsection (1).”
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to move Amendment 5. I pay particular credit to my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, who, having thought that we were going to deal with this earlier on—as indeed many of us did—has managed to stay with us right through to this late hour. I think that that indicates his enthusiasm and commitment, for which he deserves credit.
Amendment 5, generally designed to provide consent by the devolved Administrations, would prevent the European Communities Act 1972 from being repealed until legislative consent has been obtained from the devolved Administrations. Effectively, it would give a veto to the devolved Administrations. One or two of my more unionist colleagues have been having a go at me and saying that this goes too far, and no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—I was going to say my noble friend—might come in and say that. I am arguing this for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, which I hope, by the time we get to this, will be back up and working again as effectively as it has in the past and providing an effective voice for Northern Ireland.
I recall when devolution was introduced. I was in the Department for International Development at the time. I know the Minister is a bit younger than me and may not remember all the details—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Yes, he is a good bit younger than me, Steve—sorry, I mean my noble friend. He may not remember this, but Whitehall mandarins and Ministers did not like the idea of devolution. They were losing power from their central departments in Whitehall and opposed it. However, we had strong and effective Labour Ministers, particularly Donald Dewar, my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine and others, who made sure that real powers were devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Whitehall mandarins and Ministers still do not understand devolution. They have not come to terms with the new reality that there is not just one Parliament in the United Kingdom but four and that the others must at the very least be consulted on matters that affect them.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Could the noble Lord indicate whether he thinks that, if the House were to pass his amendment, that would make it easier or more difficult to reach an agreement?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
It would have no great effect either way, to be honest. I would like to think that it would have a greater effect on getting an agreement, but I do not think that it will. Other factors will have greater sway. However, no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will have an opportunity to make his usual spirited contribution to the debate.
It is a running sore that these government amendments to Clause 11 have not been tabled. I say to the Minister that we in this House—I hope that the whole House will agree with me on this; I certainly know that the Official Opposition agree with it—should not debate Clause 11 not just until the amendments have been tabled but until the amendments that have been tabled have been considered by the devolved Administrations. It would be entirely wrong for us to discuss Clause 11 without having the views of the devolved Administrations about the amendments that the Government will table. I hope that we will get an assurance from the Minister that we will not have a debate in Committee on the amendments until they have been considered by the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Irish Assembly, if it is up and running by then.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
As it happens, I have an amendment directed to Clause 11. I would have thought that there was an advantage in debating in Committee so that we can at least engage with the Minister and explain the points that lie behind the amendment. Otherwise, if the amendment is simply not pursued in Committee, we cannot come back to it until Report. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me if in due course I move my amendment, which is intended to be helpful. At the end of the day, I hope that the amendment that the noble Lord is pursuing today will become completely academic because the differences between the devolved institutions and Westminster will be resolved. That surely must be the aim, not to keep this sense of tension until the Bill is passed.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I have great respect for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and he is right on this. I will now rethink what I just said. As long as we have not deliberated finally on Report, we need on Report to have the result of the deliberations and the views of the devolved Parliament and Assemblies. The noble and learned Lord has made a good point, which I accept, and I hope that he is right that it will make my amendment ultimately redundant. No one would be happier than me if that were the case. The Sewel convention is that the UK Parliament will not normally legislate—
Lord Warner (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord in full flow, but I want to make an intervention that I hope will be helpful in reconciling his position with that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. There is a precedent for pausing legislation. During the Committee stage of the Health and Social Care Bill, which became the Health and Social Care Act 2012, there were problems with making progress and the legislation was paused. I do not know whether that idea appeals to the noble Lord, but it occurs to me that, when we get to Clause 11 and if there has been no action from the Government, it might be possible to pause consideration in Committee at that point to give the Government sufficient time to come forward with their amendments, having agreed them with the devolved Administrations. I do not know whether he finds that a helpful intervention.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I was not in full flow; in fact, I was near the end, noble Lords will be pleased to hear. That is another helpful suggestion. It shows the advantage of debates in this place—we come up with helpful suggestions. I can only say that I wish that Ministers were as ready to accept helpful suggestions as I am, because this place would work a lot better if they were. To be fair, the Minister of State for Scotland was helpful when we discussed the British Transport Police. He came to this House and said that he would take the matter away and look at it further. One good thing is that yesterday the Scottish Government announced a delay in the implementation of British Transport Police integration. That says a lot for the wisdom of this House; it says a lot for the positive intervention of the Minister; and it indicates that, if we put some pressure on the Scottish Parliament, we can influence it. However, it should also be able to influence us.
As I said, under the Sewel convention, the UK Parliament will not normally legislate without the consent of the Scottish Parliament, although it depends what you mean by “normally”. However, this issue is so material to the work of the Scottish Parliament and indeed the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly that this is one area on which we should not legislate without their consent. I beg to move.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I well remember the debate on the latest Scotland Act. I think that it was Clause 2 that enshrined the so-called Sewel convention. I remember arguing very vigorously that a convention was a convention and it was a mistake to try to incorporate a convention into statute. The then hapless Minister, reading from his brief, explained that “normally” meant that it would not be a problem. Some of us argued from different points of view that the word “normally” was rather vague and that its meaning could end up being discussed in the courts. We were given assurances that “normally” meant “normally”, but to argue that it is “normal” for the Sewel convention to apply to our repealing of the 1972 Act is stretching the meaning of the word.
I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and I feel very sorry about the position that his party now finds itself in in Scotland. It started off with the slogan that devolution would kill nationalism stone dead, but some of us on this side of the House argued that it would not; it would result in the nationalists getting power in Scotland and using their position in the Scottish Parliament at every opportunity to break the United Kingdom. Fortunately, there is a bit of a backlash in Scotland to the advantage of the Conservatives and unionists. I say to the noble Lord that this is not a unionist amendment; it is an extremely unwise amendment. It gives a veto to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly on United Kingdom matters. The noble Lord said that there are four parliaments in the UK. Yes, there are four bodies in the UK, but there is only one United Kingdom Parliament, and that is this Parliament. It is for this Parliament to implement the results of the referendum. The notion that the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly would be able to stop in its tracks the delivery of leaving the European Union, following the biggest vote in our history, is utterly absurd and ridiculous.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
May I ask the noble Lord to cast his mind back to 26 January 2012, when I moved a Motion that the Scotland Bill be considered in Committee, and he moved an amendment that the House,
“declines to consider the Bill in Committee until Her Majesty’s Government have laid before Parliament a report on the results of the consultation they launched on 11 January on Scotland’s constitutional future and until the Scottish Parliament has passed a further Legislative Consent Motion in respect of the Bill”?—[Official Report, 26/1/12; col. 1161.]
He was going to deny a Committee stage on a Bill that contained measures supported in the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour manifestos at the preceding general election. This amendment would still allow the Bill to go forward and become an Act. How does he describe his apparent lack of consistency?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I think I was behaving exactly like the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I was using the procedures of the House to make an argument against what I thought at the time was a very bad Bill—and which only this week has meant that people like me are now the highest taxpayers in the United Kingdom, as we predicted would happen. If I may say so to the noble and learned Lord, his point is completely irrelevant to the amendment before us.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, talks about tensions being created in Edinburgh between this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. There will always be tensions between this United Kingdom Parliament and the Scottish Parliament, as long as it is run by people who wish to destroy the United Kingdom. That is what they are about: using their powers to break the United Kingdom. The notion that we should move in a direction and get ourselves into a position where we need lots of legislative consent Motions simply provides more opportunities for everything to be turned into a constitutional crisis, which is the nature of the SNP. We will come to that later in our consideration of the Bill.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Does my noble friend think that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, was briefed by the Scottish National Party before he tabled this amendment?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
That is highly unlikely, although I am sure that it would welcome this amendment.
The key point, surely, is to be able to retain a single market in the United Kingdom. No one is suggesting not devolving powers as appropriate to the various parliaments and assemblies that make up the United Kingdom, but it has to be done in a way that preserves the single market. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, asked why we should not have different rules on pesticides. Noble Lords could ask a farmer who has one half of his farm in Scotland and the other half in England whether it would be a problem to spray certain pesticides in some fields and others in others. It is surely sensible in a single market to have a common view on matters such as that. Or let us take an issue that the Scottish nationalists have been keen on, such as fishing. Some of the Scottish Government would quite like to say that all fish caught in Scottish waters should be landed at Scottish ports. How would that go down with fishermen in the north-east of England or elsewhere who had caught fish in northern waters? How would we enforce proper fishing conservation and other policy other than by international treaty? Treaties are made by countries and so far we have one country, which is the United Kingdom.
There are all kinds of issues that need to be sorted out and the way that they are sorted out is by people sitting down and coming to sensible conclusions, not by putting in the Bill an amendment of this kind, which does not actually strengthen the devolution settlement but undermines it because it gives grist to the mill to those who would destroy the United Kingdom. My advice to the noble Lord is to withdraw his amendment. When we come to discuss the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and others, we can perhaps address this issue more fully.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
I wonder if I might add a Welsh dimension. The Joint Ministerial Committee did not meet from February last year until October. During that time, the department was beavering away producing the Bill without any consultation with the Welsh and Scottish Administrations about how the devolution of powers from Brussels would take place. Then we had a model produced in the Bill which even the Government rejected. They told us that they would bring forward an amendment to the Bill before Report in the House of Commons. That did not happen, so they continued to beaver away on their amendment. I do not know whether there have been any discussions since, but certainly up until the week before last, Welsh and Scottish Ministers were saying that they had not been consulted about the package that would now be put forward—no consultation. I gather that tomorrow the Joint Ministerial Committee will meet in Edinburgh, and no doubt the Government will produce an amendment and tell the Committee to accept an amendment on which there has been no consultation or discussion.
At Second Reading, I suggested that the whole devolution area should be taken out of this Bill altogether. There should be agreement between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government, and they should bring back a Bill that would encapsulate that agreement. It would go through both Houses without any difficulty. That would be proper consultation and the proper way to make law. We will come to something like that when we discuss Clause 11, because I have given notice of my intention to oppose the question that it stand part of this Bill. If by the time we get there, which no doubt will be in some weeks’ time, there is still no agreement because we have no idea what the reaction of the Scottish and Welsh Administrations will be to what is put on the plate for them tomorrow, then the only thing that this House can do is to take out the devolution principles and proposals in this Bill and bring them back when they have been agreed. There is plenty of time—a month, two or three months, however long it will take—for that process to happen.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I wonder whether the noble Lord could help me, and perhaps help the Government, and suggest what an amendment to this Bill might actually say that would meet his requirements?
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I am not suggesting an amendment; I am suggesting that we take out Clause 11. The amendment being moved by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, today is born of frustration; you can see the frustration that is coming from him. Obviously the opposition to his amendment will say, “We can’t have this. We can’t give Nicola Sturgeon or Carwyn Jones a veto on legislation of the UK Parliament”. I understand that. The frustration behind the amendment should put pressure on the Government to get to grips with this issue. Earlier. my noble friend Lady Humphreys was quoting Mrs Thatcher on the single market. Noble Lords will recall that Mrs Thatcher said that there must be action on this and action on that, but with this Government there is no action. Nothing is happening and no decisions are being made with which we can get a grip.
This is one very important decision and it requires agreement from the devolved Administrations. Why is that? It is because if all the powers come from Brussels to Westminster and are then parcelled out as Westminster thinks fit, it gives incredible power to Ministers, particularly if it is done by means of secondary legislation. That gives them enormous power drastically to alter the devolution settlement. I mentioned at Second Reading that the grants which come to Wales—a lot of money comes to Wales—are sent because of need. That is the criterion that governs the distribution of funds for agriculture and for deprived areas. We are used to operating a Barnett formula in devolution terms and there would be nothing to prevent a Westminster Government with all these powers from Brussels from saying, “I think we will go back to the dear old Barnett formula. We will not look at the needs of the nations of this country; we will look simply at the population and distribute money in accordance with the way we have done it up to now”. That is the sort of thing that could happen. I am not saying it will, but it could, and it would create resentment and concern for the people of Scotland, of Wales and no doubt of Northern Ireland as well. That is the issue which has to be tackled.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, my understanding is that about a fortnight ago an undertaking was given in the House of Commons to the effect that this matter would be visited and that a suitable amendment would be made to enable consent Motions to be passed by both devolved Parliaments in this matter. It seems to me a matter of a strict undertaking. I do not know whether the Government are in a position to say how soon that undertaking will be brought into force.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for moving Amendment 5. I had intended to add my name to it, but then I started to look at the Northern Ireland dimension and how that could be covered. I therefore want particularly to speak to my Amendment 356, which is linked with Amendment 5 and which tries to deal with the unfortunate situation in Northern Ireland. I shall be brief because noble Lords have probably heard enough of my voice today.
At a time when the devolved Governments feel that they are facing what they call, rightly or wrongly, a power grab, surely it is important that the UK Government should carry those Administrations with them in such a major project as this. I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said. As always, he was totally consistent, but he must accept that there is a conflict between the perception of a legislative consent mechanism at Westminster—which tends to regard it as a convention, as I said—and the understanding that has developed among the devolved bodies, which see it more as the norm and a mechanism required as part of the legislative process. I understand the noble Lord when he says that there may be parts of the legislative process without it, because of their international connotations et cetera, but when there is an impact, as has been mentioned in certain cases, on the powers coming back from Brussels and going to wherever they go to—Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast—then there clearly needs to be a mechanism to sort that out. That is not just at this point in time; that mechanism needs to be ongoing for the future, because I entirely accept that there is a UK single market and that there must be some rules for it.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I note what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said in response to my intervention. On the occasion to which I referred, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, actually supported him in trying to stop the Bill going forward to Committee stage.
I think that what my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford said about the sheer frustration that lies behind the amendment—and what the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said about the lack of conversation—is absolutely true. That has coloured the background to these discussions. It is worth reminding ourselves about the root of some of this frustration. I think it was in October 2016 when, in a plenary session chaired by the Prime Minister, the Joint Ministerial Committee established the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations, with the following terms of reference:
“Working together in EU Negotiations … Through the JMC(EN) the governments will work collaboratively to: discuss each government’s requirements of the future relationship with the EU; seek to agree a UK approach to, and objectives for, Article 50 negotiations; and … provide oversight of negotiations with the EU, to ensure, as far as possible, that outcomes agreed by all four governments are secured from these negotiations; and, discuss issues stemming from the negotiation process which may impact upon or have consequences for the UK Government, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government or the Northern Ireland Executive”.
The fact that, tomorrow, the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations will meet for the second time in 12 months suggests that these terms of reference, agreed by the three devolved Administrations and the United Kingdom Government, have been more honoured in the breach than they have been in the actual implementation. That is at the source of much of the frustration that we have heard expressed. One hears it: when he was replying to the debate initiated on 25 January, the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank, said:
“The important thing is to stress that it is not for want of effort on our part”—
that is, the United Kingdom Government’s part—
“to secure a form of words that would allow the two devolved Administrations and the UK Government to reach a consensus on that point”.—[Official Report, 25/1/18; col. 1128.]
Yet, if you go to the devolved Administrations, they will say that they have had no communication. There is a lack of communication and there seems to be a complete mismatch with what has been said to us.
It would be interesting if the Minister could tell us yet whether the actual wording of any possible amendment to Clause 11—the Secretary of State for Scotland has accepted that Clause 11 has to be amended; he said that it would be done on Report in the House of Commons, but it was not—has been discussed at ministerial level between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations. If so, when was that discussed? When the Scottish and Welsh Governments addressed a briefing of Peers in late January they indicated that there had been no exchange of wording.
What is even more frustrating is that it does not seem that the parties are terribly far apart. In September last year, the Scottish Government acknowledged in their legislative consent memorandum that there were areas in which there would have to be common UK frameworks. The communiqué issued after the last Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations in October also set out the areas in which UK common frameworks were necessary and desirable. Both sides have agreed that that has to be done. Why in the world is more progress not being made, or at least why are we not able to see what progress, if any, is being made?
Perhaps the biggest problem here is the fact that it is done behind closed doors. If there were more transparency, we would see who was playing to the gallery and who was trying genuinely to seek a resolution to these matters. There are issues, such as agriculture, fisheries and the environment, where everybody acknowledges that there will have to be some kind of common framework. Let us identify what progress has been made.
We were told this week in newspaper reports that the United Kingdom Government have done a complete reversal. They now say that they will bring forward an amendment that will devolve everything back to the devolved Administrations, but, as it said in the Times report from yesterday,
“UK ministers are also adamant they would need to retain a veto over the use of some of these powers until ‘common frameworks’ are agreed”.
Again, in terms of public relations, it is like saying, “Here’s one hand; we’ll take away with the other”. What is the position? If we are to have to make decisions when we come to debate Clause 11, it is important that we know what the relationship is and what each side in these negotiations is saying.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble and learned Lord is very clever and experienced at negotiations with different political parties in government. Perhaps I am too stupid, but I cannot think of a way—and I agree with a lot of what he said—to word an amendment that would deliver the result that he suggests is needed. Can he help me? What would an amendment actually say that ensured that there was the kind of continuing co-operation that is needed?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, there is certainly one attached to Clause 11 that has my name on it, as well as the names of a number of other noble Lords. He will find that Amendment 303 sets out a basis for having common frameworks. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has one in very similar terms, Amendment 304, which certainly provides a basis for moving forward. We are in opposition. The onus is on the Government to come forward with this. Let us not kid ourselves. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, makes a fair point, but it is the Secretary of State for Scotland who promised amendments on Report in the House of Commons. He has made the commitment to amendments, so the onus is not on the Opposition to come forward with these amendments but on the Government.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will tell us what the colour of the Government’s amendments will be. In the European Union negotiations, TF50 sets out where each of the parties is and gives us great transparency—where there is disagreement and where there are things that have to be clarified. This whole exercise would benefit from far greater transparency so that we can see what progress is or is not being made, who is holding things up and who is genuinely seeking to make progress. I appeal to the Minister to make a commitment when he replies that, following tomorrow’s JMC on the European negotiations, that transparency will become a reality.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I hope that an Englishman, albeit one with a Scottish name, may be allowed to add something to this debate, because it is depressing for someone who lives in the north of England to hear a debate about how much of a privileged relationship the devolved Administrations should have with the United Kingdom Government, when the north of England is likely to suffer very much from leaving the European Union in terms of the loss of European development funds, and at the moment lacks any sort of forum for negotiation or consultation with the very centralised government of England in order to make its case. I am very conscious that the poorer parts of northern England were among those that voted most heavily to leave and that recent studies have suggested that they are also the regions that are likely to lose most from Brexit.
Amendment 227, when we come to it, addresses the question of how far a new mechanism will be needed for the central government in London to consult with English local authorities. My understanding is that the Local Government Association has been in conversation with the Government on that and that the Government have not yet come to an agreed view. I just wish to give notice that this is a very important point, politically and constitutionally, and when we come to it I hope that it will be given sufficient weight.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a shorter debate than the previous one and I will try to honour the Minister’s strictures earlier in the evening and limit my remarks to the Bill and to the issue before us, rather than wander into a premature debate on Clause 11 at this stage. At Second Reading, right at the beginning, while our attention was still good, the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, who introduced the debate, said that it was to be guided by two key principles, the first being the need for a functioning statute book on exit. I pause there to suggest that what I hear from Cardiff and Edinburgh is that there the devolved Governments too want a functioning statute book the day after exit, which is why we need some resolution of these matters, difficult as they may be. Secondly, she said there were to be,
“no new barriers to living in and doing business across the UK”.
We have no difficulty there. She went on to say:
“We will shortly be publishing our initial framework analysis”.
If the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has difficulty with the word “normal”, I promise him that I have difficulty with the word “shortly”, especially since, on 30 January, “shortly” suggested to me that we would have something before us now, but we have not. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, perhaps the amendment is born of frustration. All that time that went by without any consultation at all which could have produced something that we could be looking at, leads us to want to put in a caveat that if what has been promised does not materialise, it is serious enough for us to feel that we have to offer something quite drastic to shake people to their senses. It is in that spirit, I think especially at Second Reading, that we must look at this amendment.
The noble Baroness said:
“Noble Lords will be aware of the Government’s commitment to bring forward amendments to Clause 11”.
Those are her words, not mine. She said:
“This is a complex area”—
she would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—
“that we need to get right, and I hope these amendments will put us on the best possible footing to achieve legislative consent”—
her words, which we echo, of course, in the amendment we are looking at—
“which remains our overarching objective”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; cols. 1374-75.]
When my noble friend Lady Smith rose to reply to that opening speech, she agreed with those objectives without hesitation and promised that from these Benches we would want to co-operate with the Bill in order to get those agreements in place in time. But where are the amendments? How can we proceed? When will promises be fulfilled? Is it not frustrating—and it is at several stages that I have found this to be happening—that here we are, at this hour of the night, debating this matter, when tomorrow the Joint Ministerial Committee will be meeting? Would it not be lovely if it had met yesterday and then perhaps we could have withdrawn the amendment? But it must stay there until we have a bit more satisfaction than we do.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, for his comments and I agree that this matter is totally within the scope of the Bill. I will do what I can to satisfy his requests, but I will probably not be able to satisfy all Members of the House. I understand the frustration on this, but let me take the Committee through our position and where we hope to be when the Committee gets to discuss Clause 11.
We have sought legislative consent from the Scottish and Welsh Governments, and it remains our priority to make a positive case in favour of that legislative consent for this important legislation. That is why we committed to work with the devolved Administrations to find a way forward on Clause 11, and to bring forward an amendment in this House. We will debate Clause 11 fully in Committee, and we will table government amendments before then for noble Lords to consider. Although, without an Executive, there is no way to seek legislative consent in Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is working hard to restore devolved government there as soon as possible. We are committed to working to ensure that Northern Irish interests are represented in the meantime. We have explicitly recognised the role of the Sewel convention in the Wales Act 2017 and the Scotland Act 2016. We also have a strong track record on devolution. I make it clear to noble Lords that we are committed to the devolution settlements and the conventions that have been established.
But these amendments go further than Sewel; as my noble friend Lord Forsyth pointed out, they would prevent this Parliament exercising its sovereignty. They would require this Parliament to seek consent to legislate in some cases that are not within devolved responsibility and do not affect devolved competence. We believe in the importance of this Bill, which is in the interests of the whole of the UK, and will work to deliver it together with the devolved institutions. But it is also not right that one part of the United Kingdom can hold a veto over the decision taken, in the referendum, by the whole of the United Kingdom and risk the certainty this Government are committed to providing.
Let me address directly some of the points that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, asked about progress on Clause 11 and the Joint Ministerial Committee. The Scottish and Welsh Governments asked us to work with them to amend Clause 11, and that is exactly what we have been doing. Officials have worked extensively on proposals and Ministers discussed these in their recent bilaterals in February. We have preserved the space to engage in meaningful discussion and sought to reach agreement with the devolved Administrations. We have not yet tabled an amendment precisely because those discussions still continue. Our proposed amendment will be discussed, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, at the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations tomorrow.
In response to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, but also by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, we are fully committed to the JMC process as well as to increasing our bilateral engagement between meetings to strengthen relations. Since the referendum, we have had six JMC meetings and, as I have already mentioned, it will meet again tomorrow. In addition, officials are meeting weekly in order to try to take forward the proposals.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The Minister said there have been six meetings since the referendum. Given that at the first meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations the communiqué said that they would meet on a monthly basis and that was in November 2016, by my calculation there have been several more months than six since then. Can the Minister tell us how many official meetings took place between February and October 2017?
Lord Callanan
I do not have information about how many official meetings have taken place. I understand that officials are meeting extensively. They are in regular contact. I am told by my officials that contact with officials in the Scottish and Welsh Governments and discussions are extremely positive. That is not the same as getting political agreement, but we are endeavouring to do that. Proposals have been tabled, after extensive discussion, for the meeting tomorrow. We hope there will be agreement. I obviously cannot guarantee that, but we hope there will be. We remain committed to obtaining legislative consent Motions if possible, and we will continue that dialogue in an effort to do that. That is the responsible way to proceed, but I totally understand the frustration expressed from all parts of the Committee that we do not yet have that agreement. We want to get that agreement. We are endeavouring to get that agreement. We will do our best to get it, but we will table amendments for this Committee to consider before we get to Clause 11.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Given the difficulties, which are understood, of getting agreement to one legislative consent Motion, can the Minister give us an assurance that whatever amendments he tables will not require us to have legislative consent to even more Motions?
Lord Callanan
I am not quite sure I understand that point. I do not think we can give that assurance at the moment. I will have to have a separate discussion with my noble friend on that point.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
What happens if there is no agreement tomorrow? Will the Government’s amendment, the one that they are putting to the Joint Ministerial Committee tomorrow, be published so that we can look at it and so that informed opinion throughout the country, throughout Wales, throughout Scotland, can look at it and comment on it and so that we can see where the problem is? At the moment, it is all obscure. As my noble and learned friend said, there is no transparency whatever in this process. What happens if there is no agreement tomorrow?
Lord Callanan
As I said, we will be bringing forward the amendment at the same time that Members of this House have an opportunity to view it. The public at large will be able to comment on it and discuss it, and I am sure there will be extensive comment on it in the media at that time. The reason we have not published so far is that we want to preserve space for discussion and to try to have the discussions with our colleagues in Scotland and Wales and with officials in Northern Ireland in as confidential an atmosphere as possible. The discussions are positive and are proceeding apace. I cannot guarantee that there will be agreement, but we want that agreement and are working to it. We have compromised on many aspects. As soon as we are able to, we will share it with this House. We will definitely be producing an amendment before Committee. I totally understand noble Lords’ frustrations, but we are endeavouring to produce a solution to this difficult issue as quickly as possible.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
In order that the Joint Ministerial Committee should enjoy its full status, does the Minister accept that it would be desirable if minutes were kept of its meetings, if an agenda were to be published and if it were indeed to agree to meet at least monthly?
Lord Callanan
I understand the noble Lord’s question. I am not a member of the committee; it is handled not by my department but by the Cabinet Office. I will write to the noble Lord giving him details of what agendas are published and whether they are shared with other departments. I do not know the exact format, but I will contact him with it.
With those assurances in mind—limited assurances, I fully accept—I would be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, agreed to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, this has been a valuable debate—up until the reply. I have been in this House now for 13 years but I have never heard such an inadequate reply to a debate, and I have heard some pretty inadequate ones. I warn the Minister, my colleagues are outside now.
I was very grateful to my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, bringing his eloquence and erudition that we normally hear on “Thought for the Day” to the Labour Front Bench, where it goes down equally well. The only thing I am having difficulty with is picturing Mike Russell in short trousers, but I will try to put that out of my mind.
To return to the Minister’s reply, I am glad the Government Chief Whip is here. I ask him: why do we have a Minister, who is a nice enough man, replying when he does not know any of the answers? On three occasions he turned to the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, to get briefing. The noble Lord, Lord Duncan, is perfectly able to deal with this matter; he should be up at the Dispatch Box dealing with it. He knows what is happening; he is working at it on a day-to-day basis. He could have dealt with all the questions, as he has on previous debates. Even the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, would have done better than the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. [Laughter.] As we know, we are always obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his contributions to this House.
I say to the Government Chief Whip: please think about this. I know he does not always listen to me, but when we get to Clause 11 it would be much better to put a Minister up to reply who knows what is going on, sits in on these meetings and deals with this matter on a day-to-day basis. I hope it is a case of horses for courses. The Minister could not answer the question from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace. He could not even answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. That is unusual—actually, no, it is not unusual on that side.
The debate has been very valuable for positive suggestions about the procedures to deal with this issue, and we have had some information about the amendments coming forward and how we deal with them. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and others for their suggestions. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, rightly identified, this amendment is born out of frustration. I share the frustration of the devolved Parliament. We saw it when they came down to give a very good briefing to Peers, and this amendment was born out of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, paid me the greatest tribute that he has ever paid me: he likened me to himself. I must say that I was flattered. He understood what I am up to, and I know what he is up to. I know he is a real, committed Brexiteer and he knows I am not. I say to him that we would not have had all this debate about powers being transferred back from Brussels, and we need not have them if we stay in the EU. We can let the EU get on with doing what it is doing well on the environment, health and safety and a whole range of other things. That is what we are aiming for.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Does the noble Lord not realise how absurd he looks, arguing that if these powers remained in Brussels then he would not have to make the case for Scotland having those powers to exercise domestically? We on this side want that, but done in such a way that we retain the single market. He has just admitted that he is using this as an argument to try to turn people against what the people of this country voted for and is not actually interested in those powers being exercised in Wales, Scotland and elsewhere by the assemblies and parliaments.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
If they are going to be transferred back to the UK, then I am; that is obviously the case. But it would be far easier to leave them where they are. That would be far better and more sensible, and would have more logic to it. Still, that is an argument for another day. I look forward to the debates when we come to the amendments to Clause 11, but I hope we will have Ministers who can answer the questions that are asked. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“( ) Regulations bringing into force subsection (1) may not be made until the Secretary of State has set out a strategy for seeking to remain a member of (or maintain equivalent participatory relations with) Euratom, in order to provide continuity with current arrangements for ensuring an effective nuclear safeguards regime and a secure and consistent supply of radioisotopes for a range of applications in medicine.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
Follow that, my Lords. If the theme of my noble friend’s previous debate was frustration, the word on my mind is bewilderment. On the first group of amendments, which we spent many happy hours discussing, there was considerable debate about whether the public, in voting to leave the EU, were aware that the Government would interpret that as a decision also to leave the single market and customs union.
Whatever noble Lords’ view on that is, I doubt very much that anyone who voted in that referendum understood that one of the most perverse outcomes of the Government’s approach to negotiation would be summarily to announce that the UK was leaving Euratom. This body has enjoyed an excellent track record over many decades. It was established by the European Coal and Steel Community as far back as 1957, around the time of the first civilian nuclear reactors. It has provided secure access to nuclear materials and technology for peaceful purposes. It has provided research, including co-ordinating funding for world-leading nuclear fusion research, much of which takes place in the UK at Culham. It safeguards nuclear material to ensure that it is being used for civil purposes, in line with our non-proliferation responsibilities. It facilitates free and frictionless trade in nuclear goods, services and people, including regulating the supply of isotopes used in nuclear medicine.
Why is the UK leaving Euratom? This was formally outlined in the Explanatory Notes to the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, but the reasons for leaving have not been specified. The most likely speculation is because it sits under the jurisdiction of the ECJ, although the ECJ has never, as far as I know, been called on to make any pronouncements in relation to Euratom.
What are the consequences of leaving? I would identify four, and refer noble Lords to the work of the Institute for Government. First, we will have more difficulty ensuring a long-term supply of nuclear fuel to the UK. Secondly, we risk an immediate shortage of medical isotopes. Thirdly, we may no longer enjoy access to research facilities and funding. Finally, the UK will have to establish its own regulator with regard to nuclear proliferation, which will be both costly and challenging.
Let me pick up just two points there: first, interruptions to the supply of medical isotopes. Leaving Euratom risks breaking a series of time-sensitive supply chains which supply isotopes used in nuclear medicine. This is causing a lot of concern to people in the health service. Currently, Euratom facilitates free trade of nuclear material across the EU. This gives a secure and consistent supply. It is used extensively in diagnosing particular diseases and in the relief of pain, particularly in palliative care, and biopic analysis in clinical pathology.
The UK does not have any reactors capable of producing these isotopes, and they decay rapidly, often within a matter of hours or days, so we rely on a continuous supply from reactors in France, Germany and the Netherlands. History suggests that crises in supply can occur. It happened last in 2008-10. That meant that hospitals across Europe had to delay or cancel hundreds of thousands of medical tests. In response, Euratom’s supply agency was given a more prominent role in overseeing the supply chains and ensuring that the crisis did not occur again. Without the support of Euratom, the UK may find it harder to guarantee a supply of these materials to hospitals.
Pressed on this in the Second Reading of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, which is a parallel piece of legislation that your Lordships are debating at the moment, and which will have its first day in Committee—oh, joy—tomorrow morning, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who it is good to see in his place, said that,
“changes to our customs arrangements after our withdrawal from the European Union could ... affect the timely supply of medical radioisotopes”,
that the Government were working to minimise that risk and that he was confident that,
“a future customs arrangement with the European Union that ensures cross-border trade in this area is as frictionless as possible”.—[Official Report, 7/2/2018; cols. 2026-27.]
I think anyone who has heard this afternoon’s debate would question the noble Lord’s optimism. He is an eternal optimist, I know, but the reality is that, given the current state of negotiations, and the failure of the Government even to reach an agreement among themselves on what negotiation outcomes should be, this is a very risky prospect indeed.
The final point I want to make is that the Nuclear Safeguards Bill essentially enables the Office for Nuclear Regulation, one of our very own regulators, to take over Euratom’s vital non-proliferation nuclear safeguarding responsibilities. However, because Euratom is doing such a good job, the Government want us to leave Euratom but to remain in total alignment with the standards set by Euratom, even though we are no longer a member. You could not make it up if you tried. But more than that, having said that they want to stick to Euratom standards, they cannot do it because of the precipitate date of March 2019, by which time the ONR has no chance whatever of recruiting enough inspectors to meet those Euratom standards. So what they have decided is that we will not be able to accord to Euratom standards; we are going to accord to the standards set by the International Atomic Energy Agency. According to evidence given by the ONR to the Public Bill Committee on the Nuclear Safeguards Bill a few weeks ago, that means that there is a lower standard and less frequency of inspections.
Everyone agrees that Euratom is a good agency and that its standards are high—higher than overall international standards. The Government themselves say that they want to stick to Euratom standards, although we cannot have any influence over them in future, but we cannot do that in 2019 so we will have to live with lower standards until we can actually recruit the number of inspectors that we need. That is plain daft. It is quite clear that we should stay in Euratom. If we cannot do it, we should make sure statutorily that we are as aligned as we possibly can be.
All of us noted Mrs May’s comments on the European arrest warrant recently, where she accepted that there was a role for the ECJ. What I say to the Government is that Euratom works really well and that, for the sake of a theoretical involvement of ECJ, surely even at this late moment, it is time to accept that the wrong decision has been made and that it would be much better if we stayed within Euratom. I beg to move.
Lord Broers (CB)
My Lords, I will be very brief. I did not speak at Second Reading because I thought that the decision to leave Euratom was tied irrevocably by law to our withdrawal from the European Union. I discovered, while participating at Second Reading of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill—as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has mentioned—that it was in fact a political decision. I still do not know who made the decision but I regard it as a very serious and damaging mistake, and that is why I wish to support this group of amendments. We should do everything we can to avoid the disastrous consequences of leaving Euratom.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I rise as a co-signatory of Amendment 8, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I do not want to repeat all that he has said; I want to talk about this from the point of view of the industry. The industry’s legal opinion is that leaving the EU did not require the UK to leave Euratom. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has set out all the conflicting arguments that the Government have had over their attitude to the ECJ. I will not go over those this evening, though I will not be able to resist the temptation tomorrow morning to go over them again with the Minister.
The fundamental point that I wish to make is that the Government have set out on this reckless course without taking the nuclear industry with them and without allowing sufficient time to put an alternative nuclear safeguards regime in place. I want to quote a few extracts from the excellent briefing provided by EDF, which after all provides 20% of the electricity generated in this country and is the Government’s preferred contractor for delivering new nuclear power stations, including Hinkley Point C. My first quote from the briefing is:
“The best thing for the UK nuclear industry would be for the UK to remain within Euratom. However, if the UK exits Euratom, new arrangements must be in place before existing arrangements are terminated, and there must be a smooth and orderly transition to the new arrangements”.
I have to say, from the Second Reading debate, you would not have been very confident about some of that.
My second quote is:
“It is absolutely essential that following the UK’s exit from Euratom and its EU wide safeguards regime, the nuclear sector in the UK is covered by a UK Safeguards regime. There can be no gap in coverage – the new regime must be ready for deployment on exit day, having already been reviewed and accredited by the IAEA, to ensure the UK can continue to fulfil its international obligations for nuclear non-proliferation”.
It has just about a year to achieve that.
My third quote is:
“An IAEA accredited nuclear Safeguards regime is a ‘must have’ – it is a pre-requisite for the movement of nuclear materials (including fuel) and for the agreement of NCAs”—
nuclear co-operation agreements with other countries outside the EU, such as the US, Japan, Canada and Australia. You would have to be one of life’s great optimists to have listened to the debate so far on the Nuclear Safeguards Bill and be confident that all those objectives set out by EDF will be achieved.
My final point is that, on the evidence so far provided by the Government, it is almost a racing certainty that by 29 March 2019 the UK will not have in place a nuclear safeguards regime equivalent to that provided by Euratom. Perhaps more worryingly, there is no published plan with clear milestones showing how the UK will have in place by exit day a nuclear safeguards regime accredited by the International Atomic Energy Agency. This is absolutely essential, as EDF has made plain, if the UK is to have nuclear co-operation agreements with a wide range of other countries, as it has said. These agreements are absolutely essential for nuclear trade with these other countries once we leave Euratom. The agreements have to be reached in time for them to be ratified by the political and governmental processes in the various countries. In the case of the US, they have to be ratified by Congress and even, I am told, be approved by the White House—there is a thought for noble Lords.
We are travelling very dangerously in this area, not least because of the timescales that the Government have allowed for putting in place alternative arrangements to Euratom membership. I suggest that we have a duty to make amendments to the Bill and to the Nuclear Safeguards Bill to give the Government a chance to pause and think more carefully about what they are doing. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is the very least we should do in the Bill. I suspect that we may well need something stronger on Report which reflects the outcomes of our consideration of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, this issue is not quite as simple as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, claimed. I too was present at the briefing referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, given by the Nuclear Industry Association and EDF, which was very valuable.
The issue is not as simple as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said—namely, that Euratom is the most marvellous institution and we have to remain a member of it or continue to apply standards equivalent to those which have been developed by it. I recall that EDF explained that the international standards are set by the IAEA, and that it is absolutely necessary that before exit, other than by virtue of a transition or implementation period, which of course applies more generally to the EU, in order to exit from Euratom and continue to be able to trade in nuclear equipment and fuel, we need an IAEA-accredited—not Euratom—safeguards regime. We need nuclear co-operation agreements with four countries: the United States, Canada, Australia and Japan, a nuclear agreement with the European Union and an export licence regime. Euratom’s nuclear safeguards regime concentrates heavily on verifications, whereas the IAEA places more emphasis on process, operations and compliance with international standards.
The noble Lord referred to isotopes. It is essential to ensure a secure and consistent supply of radioisotopes. Molybdenum-99, for example, has a half-life of 66 hours, similar to human organs, and therefore cannot afford to be delayed by customs at ports and airports. There can be no delay at all. We obtain about 60% of our radioisotopes for medical use from the EU, to which the noble Lord referred, but we obtain 40% of our isotopes from non-EU countries, principally South Africa, which the noble Lord did not refer to. I understand that the procedures for importing both those from the EU, which come through the Channel Tunnel without, obviously, any customs procedure, and those from South Africa, which come through Heathrow under a fast-track procedure, are virtually identical; there is no significant difference at all. Our membership of Euratom does not in any significant way influence our access to the world market in isotopes. Therefore, our leaving the EU does not make much difference to how we get in our medical isotopes.
However, we need to have this IAEA-accredited regime, and, obviously, there is not enough time for the four essential nuclear partners to get NCAs through their Parliaments before March next year. But given that the Government have committed to an implementation period, we should be able to agree with Euratom that we remain a member of that organisation and therefore we will be able to continue to operate under its standards for that period.
Lord Warner
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount’s flow, but does he remember that the Government voted down in the Commons an amendment which would have given him more time for a transition period on this issue? So the Government have turned their face away from allowing more time to a transition period to get things right. Whether one believes that the Government have taken the right course or not, they have committed themselves to do all this by 11 pm on 29 March next year. Does the noble Viscount accept that that is an impossible objective because at the moment the Government have not agreed to a transition period for the subject area?
Viscount Trenchard
I am not familiar with the amendment which was voted down in the Commons. I believe it is perfectly possible for the UK to develop its own IAEA-accredited safeguards regime within the next few months, and I understand that a lot of work is being done on that already. I understand that Euratom’s treaties are mixed up with the EU treaties; therefore, is it not natural that, if there is an implementation period for putting into practice what comes afterward with the EU, the same will apply for Euratom?
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I am also a signatory to this amendment, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for having brought it before the House today. There is another explanation about why this has happened. Soon after the referendum, I submitted a Written Question to the Government to ask whether it was intending to leave Euratom. The answer I got back, after a little bit of foreplay, was that the people of Britain voted to come out of the European Union. It was quite clear that the Government did not realise that Euratom was not part of the European Union. They had not even thought about it. That is the answer that came back. I had to go back and ask the question again, at which point the Government answered that they were still thinking about it. Indeed, during ministerial conversations, there was a full admission that we should be able to remain part of the Euratom organisation. However, at that point it was legally impossible, for some reason which I do not understand at all. Euratom has its own separate Article 50 system, Article 106a; it is an entirely separate treaty, which did not come together during the Maastricht process when the other treaties came together, partly because there was a concern that Austria and Germany, which were anti-nuclear nations at that time—Austria still very much is—would not agree for that treaty to be integrated into the rest of the system.
I think that the Government agree that it is a good organisation. Coming out of it will certainly cost taxpayers a lot more money in terms of safeguarding and, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said, we have a real problem regarding the timescale. As I understand it, it is the Government who are saying that they want Euratom standards. That is their position; it is not ours. It is one that I agree with but the Government’s position is that we need Euratom standards, not purely International Atomic Energy Agency standards. We have a very difficult timetable here.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I agree entirely with what has been said already by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Warner and Lord Teverson, so I shall try to reduce the length of my remarks. I am puzzled about why we are here, and why we are here today at all. As to why we are here, we do not have to leave Euratom when we leave the European Union. There is absolutely no evidence that Euratom has performed other than well. It may well be that the Court of Justice of the European Union is the shibboleth, because it is related to Euratom and has jurisdiction over it, and our Government feel that because there is that connection our membership can be no more. But there are no cases about Euratom in the European Court of Justice, so Euratom has operated incredibly well.
I am puzzled as to why we are here today because there is another Bill before Parliament, the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, and, as has already been said, the first Committee day on it is tomorrow. I had assumed that we would be able to debate these issues as part of that Bill. After a three or four-day negotiation with the Public Bill Office I had to accept that that was not the case—so here we are today discussing Euratom, but not in the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, which deals with the nuclear safeguards relating to the products dealt with by Euratom. Alice could not have invented this situation.
I drafted Amendment 221, which is part of this group. There is nothing particular about the new clause in that amendment; it tries to do the same as all the other amendments and new clauses now being debated. It is clear that medical nuclear and radionuclear devices and products are extremely important. They save lives. For example, in University College Hospital and the Royal Free Hospital in London—I cite them because I have witnessed the process in those hospitals—every day of the week consideration is given to using these products to save the lives of patients suffering from cancer. All the arrangements for bringing those products into the United Kingdom are carried out under the umbrella of Euratom. It was not absolutely necessary for that to be done under the umbrella of Euratom, but it is what has happened. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned the European Observatory on the Supply of Medical Radioisotopes. That is the umbrella organisation that supervises all these arrangements.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, has been extremely helpful. As I have said in other debates, I am the patron of the Society for Radiological Protection, which contains more than 2,000 professionals who are engaged in various activities, including the use and safety of radioisotopes in the health service. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, as Minister, has answered many questions and had the courtesy to see the two senior members of the Society for Radiological Protection last week. He very kindly produced for me a list of questions with the Government’s original commentary and their additional commentary. It contains some gems, such as:
“We agree that continued engagement with ICRP”—
that is the International Commission on Radiological Protection—
“and IAEA will be important following UK exit from the EU and EURATOM”.
The trouble is that nothing has been done to ensure that that importance is translated into a process. The Government have said in one of these answers that they,
“will seek to maintain close and effective cooperation with Euratom on nuclear safety. This should include future discussions concerning development of Article 34 policy and cooperative structures”.
Well, hope springs eternal. Nothing has been done about that. I was told that,
“the Government is committed to ensuring that the UK regulatory regime covering radiation safety remains effective post-exit and can be updated in the future, including to take account of international best practice”.
Amen to that. Indeed, the Government are, “considering available options”—this year, next year. This is the flavour of the responses.
Then we have:
“The UK Government is seeking a bold and ambitious Economic Partnership with the EU that is of greater scope and ambition than any such existing agreement”.
It is Euratom plus, plus. The document continues:
“We want to have the greatest possible tariff- and barrier-free trade with our European neighbours”.
Noble Lords could have fooled me after the earlier debates this evening. It continues:
“The Government’s ambition is to maintain as many of these benefits as possible through a close and effective association with Euratom in the future”.
I mark that tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. So the document goes on.
“The Government is seeking a bold and ambitious Economic Partnership with the EU that is of greater scope and ambition than any such existing agreement. We want to have the greatest possible tariff- and barrier-free trade with our European neighbours”.
I mark that as to boldly go where none has been before. There is only a little more, but it is instructive. This is about standards:
“HMG are working with BSI to ensure that our future relationship with the European Standards Organisations continues to support a productive, open and competitive business environment in the UK and for the continued benefit of UK patients”.
I mark that as “where angels fear to tread”. Finally:
“There will be regulatory systems in place for both medicines and medical devices after the UK has left the EU”.
Then we come to the important part:
“The future arrangements are a matter for the negotiations and it would not be appropriate to prejudge the outcome”.
That sounds a little bit like those kids’ films I used to see on Saturday mornings which ended with the words, “That’s all, folks”, but no real conclusion.
What has happened is that, despite the great attempts at co-operation by Ministers, we have absolutely no system in place, in draft or even in vision for the efficient importation and export of radiopharmaceutical products. We should not allow this legislation to go forward unless we know what plans the Government have, and unless we know that those plans have been discussed, negotiated and are the subject of agreement. Otherwise, there is only one option: let us stay in Euratom, which works very well.
Lord Adonis
Could the noble Lord address the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, about the notice of withdrawal under Article 106a? As a distinguished lawyer, is he of the opinion that Her Majesty’s Government could withdraw that notice unilaterally, which could be an issue of some moment if the Minister who is open to persuasive arguments were to form the view that the right course for the Government now is simply to withdraw the notice of withdrawal and seek to stay in Euratom?
Lord Carlile of Berriew
If I could be allowed an ad majorem argument, I would recommend to noble Lords an article written on the Monckton Chambers website by the distinguished competition lawyer, George Peretz QC, which—as I understand it because I am not an expert on European law—provides the answer yes to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I have two amendments which are grouped with Amendment 8. I am afraid that they probably should not have been included, but like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and my noble friend Lord Liddle, I was in Brussels today and did not have a chance to argue the groupings, so I am afraid that noble Lords are going to have to hear me speak on this issue tonight. My Amendment 114 makes a rather important cross-reference to Euratom.
The amendment seeks essentially to add a clause to the Bill after Clause 7, with an accompanying schedule. Before we understand what is happening to our whole regulatory system and therefore pass this Bill, and certainly before we leave the European Union, we need to know from the Government what their view is on future relationships with the EU executive agencies. The schedule lists those agencies which include two Euratom agencies. It lists the supply agency to which the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, referred. Its observatory plays a key role in dealing with supply chains of extraordinarily sensitive and potentially dangerous material. It lists also the Fusion for Energy agency which deals with some of the aspects to which the noble Lord, Lord Broers, referred in terms of the development of fusion as a new source of energy and the high-level, European-wide research programme at Culham and elsewhere. They are very important agencies. At this point we do not know what future UK participation, arrangements, observer status or links with those agencies are going to be.
In addition to those two Euratom agencies, there are 34 executive agencies of the European Union. I have noticed the time and I will therefore not go through the role and remit of them all, as well as the importance of knowing where we are, but they include a number of agencies of great importance to the lives of our citizens, to our industry and to our environment. There are agencies which deal with safety at work, food safety, environmental safety generally, and of course there is the EU Medicines Agency, which regrettably is moving away from Britain, dealing with medical safety. There is a whole range dealing with police and judicial procedures.
These agencies are not law-making bodies, but they are operationally very important to the sectors to which they apply. The UK has engaged very effectively with most of those agencies, to the benefit of our citizens, industries, sciences and judicial system. I have asked a number of Written Questions as to what the future arrangements are, with the standard reply being: “This will all be sorted out in the negotiations”. However, the negotiations are going on at the same time as we are dealing with the Bill. We need to know, in relation to the Bill, how those agencies will interact with the regulations newly transposed into UK law and the way in which we operate in those industries and systems.
My visit to Brussels in the last couple of days has underlined the urgency of the situation of knowing where we are with such agencies. For the first time, I carefully read the EU’s proposition on how we deal with transition periods. That document says that the UK will not only no longer participate in the institutions of the European Union but also,
“no longer participate in … the decision-making or the governance of the Union bodies, offices and agencies”.
In other words, in approximately one year and 34 days, we will no longer participate in any of these vital agencies. It is possible, if the Government put their mind to it, to establish in that period new relationships. In some of these agencies, non-EU bodies are either observers or participants. At the moment, we have not a clue how the Government are approaching the future in all of these important areas. It is an urgent decision that we cannot delay until the end of the transition period, because unless the Government persuade the EU otherwise in the next few weeks and months, from the date of exit we will no longer participate. This will change the way in which we operate in a range of safety, environmental, scientific, judicial and police areas—including security and defence.
That issue arises for a whole number of areas well beyond Euratom. On Euratom, I agree very much with what virtually everybody else has said: it is unnecessary to come out of Euratom. It is still possible to distinguish our approach to Euratom and effectively rescind our resignation from it without changing our position on the EU. Indeed, all the arguments—from industry, science and environmentalists—indicate that we should do that. At the same time, I urge your Lordships, and the Government in particular, that before we get very far in the process on the Bill, we should get a clear indication, not only on the Euratom agencies, but on the rest of the agencies set out in Amendment 263 proposing a new schedule, so that we will know, well in advance of leaving the European Union and its agencies and well in advance of the beginning of the transition period, quite how we will operate with them in future. I ask the Minister to take seriously the list I have given him and, perhaps in writing or on Report, to indicate to us how the Government intend to deal with this very important tissue.
The Earl of Selborne (Con)
My Lords, I think it is important on these Benches to put in a word of support for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. We all recognise that Euratom is a good brand; no one, on any side, is disputing that Euratom has achieved what a good brand should do. It has given confidence to the British and European public on a matter of critical importance, not least in handling medical isotopes with a very short half-life.
It is quite clear to my mind that if we leave for reasons that are obscure to me but probably are concerned only with the notional theory that the European Court of Justice might be able to exert some malign influence on Euratom—that seems to be the only reason that has ever been advanced as to why we should leave Euratom—then that plays second order to how we ensure, in the words of the amendment, which I very much support, that we “maintain equivalent participatory relations” with Euratom. It is essential that we continue to command the confidence of the users of isotopes and other nuclear material and of practitioners. It is not clear to me that the regulation we will have to put in place will be ready in time. In fact, I am absolutely certain that it cannot be. The amendment is a very sensible and modest proposal that I fully support.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I support what the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said, and the other speakers who called for the Government to reconsider this question. I speak as a member of Cumbria County Council. Cumbria is very excited by the prospect of nuclear renaissance in this country, but how we are proposing to achieve it is interesting. First, to build a new nuclear power station we hand it over to the French. We are reliant on French leadership at Hinkley Point. Is it not paradoxical that we are not building up a native British industry, but saying to the French, “Please come and we’ll pay you lots of money to do it”, while at the same time saying that, for purely ideological reasons, we will not have anything to do with Euratom? The Government’s policy is contradictory.
Secondly, the Government put nuclear revival as one of the priorities for their industrial strategy. That is one of the things highlighted in the Industrial Strategy White Paper. That requires investment in science and the kind of European co-operation in science that we have seen so successfully with JET and nuclear fusion. Yet what do they want to do for ideological reasons on the other Benches? They want to throw spanners in the works of that co-operation by withdrawing from Euratom. What conceivable sense does this make?
Will the Minister produce a clear statement of reasons as to why this policy is being pursued? What are the reasons for it? Secondly, within what timescale are the many problems that withdrawal from Euratom will cause be addressed and by whom? Do the Government not have a duty to do that? Thirdly, what will the cost be of having our own separate national arrangements? The Government ought to know that by now. This issue was first raised in this House on the Article 50 Bill. What has happened in the succeeding months? What have the Government actually done since then to address these concerns?
Finally, I will make a point about the handling of the Bill in the House. I see this as an extremely important issue of national importance and we are debating it after 11 o’clock at night. Does that make sense? Is that not the duty that we owe people—to provide proper scrutiny? Should we not be allowing proper time for this debate? This is an example of an issue that should have been debated in prime time in this House. It should have been the subject of a vote in Committee. Because of the hour that is clearly not possible, but the fact is that we have failed in our duty to the people on this question.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I support these amendments and echo the words of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Warner, Lord Teverson and Lord Carlile, from these Benches. This has nothing to do with the referendum: this is not the will of the people. We do not legally need to leave Euratom, as we have heard so many times this evening, if we leave the EU. It is not as though we asked the British people, “Do you want to leave Euratom; do you want to spend millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to put ourselves back in precisely the position we are now, we hope; to basically reinvent the wheel; to incur huge costs and take huge risks in undermining our world-leading position in nuclear research?”
We may not be able to do this in time: we may not be able to find enough skilled people. Indeed, when we spoke with figures in the nuclear industry a few months ago, they informed us that the first they heard of the Government having decided to leave Euratom was when they read the announcement: there was no consultation with the industry on an issue of such monumental importance. What is the cost and what benefit will be achieved for incurring those costs? I urge my noble friend the Minister to relay to his department the tone of the House—that many of us on these Benches would welcome an admission that this decision is unnecessary. It risks our energy security, safety and public health and we do not need to take this risk. Let us withdraw our notification to leave Euratom.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Liddle I live in Cumbria and these issues are central for the people of Cumbria. In the wider context of all these things we are discussing, we are not expressly taking the point that it is not just in our political lifetime that the consequences will be felt. That is the gravity of the situation. The implications could reach for hundreds or thousands of years ahead. It is impossible to overstress the significance of the issues with which we are dealing. My noble friend was absolutely right to talk about the irresponsibility of discussing them at this time of night instead of at prime time in the parliamentary timetable. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves: how on earth can we convince people that we are properly scrutinising if we are pushing things through late at night?
In his amendments, with which I am associated, my noble friend Lord Whitty is bringing out very clearly yet again the cavalier, ill-prepared position of the Government as we race towards the conclusion of the negotiations. We have had reference to it in various discussions today. How on earth can all the points that have been raised by my noble friend’s amendments be met in the time available?
There is another crucial point. As my noble friend Lord Liddle said, we will be going ahead with our next generation of nuclear energy only with expertise from abroad. Can the Minister explain to us, very specifically, how we will have the people qualified to undertake inspections of the standard of Euratom if we have not got that kind of expertise available within British society for the development of our next phase of nuclear energy? How can we be lacking in that when it comes to the task itself and then say we can somehow inspect the task? Where are these people with the right qualifications going to come from? We need specific reassurances from the Government on that point.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, there are 101 reasons why people voted for or against leaving the European Union. As the great Lord Salisbury, the last Prime Minister to serve in this House, famously said after a general election, the problem is:
“When the great oracle speaks, we are never quite certain what the great oracle said”.
However, I have not yet met a single person in any walk of life anywhere who told me that they voted to leave the European Union so that they could leave Euratom. Indeed, I imagine that there were not many people outside the confines of your Lordships’ House and the nuclear industry who were even aware that there was this organisation called Euratom, where the final court of appeal was—wait for it—the European Court of Justice.
There is always a problem about loss of face. I have sat on that Bench, too. I know that Ministers do not like having to change their mind. But I do not think the Minister will have any problem with any loss of face with anyone, including those who have been so keen to see that we leave the European Union because of the instruction from the British people, if he were to announce that the Government intend to withdraw the notice under Article 106a of the Euratom treaty and put this complete nonsense behind them. I do not mind what hour of the night he announces it. I would be perfectly happy for him to announce it at 2.30 am if that ensures that it gets less coverage.
The Minister will have noticed that there has been no support at all from behind him. The noble Earl, who is not given to criticising the Government, made a devastating speech. Although the noble Viscount said that he thought the consequences might not be as bad as people had said, I did not detect him saying there would be any positive advantages from leaving Euratom. The noble Baroness gave an equally devastating speech.
Viscount Trenchard
I certainly said that Euratom was not the marvellous organisation that it is made out to be. I actually think it would be very good if we can find a way to continue the current arrangements until such time as we put in place the necessary independent arrangements with IAEA accreditation. But I did not say that I thought Euratom was marvellous. I know of one senior officer in the nuclear industry who thinks we should remain in the EU but leave Euratom.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, it is not part of the human condition to think that institutions are marvellous. They can always be improved. But I did not take the noble Viscount’s clarification to be raising the banner for abolishing Euratom because there were going to be such great advantages to the public from us—in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, to the House a few weeks ago—walking the “gangplank into thin air”.
However, I have a specific question for the Minister. Can he confirm to the Committee that Her Majesty’s Government can withdraw the notice of withdrawal from Euratom under Article 106a of the Euratom treaty and that they can do that unilaterally? As he knows, I am slightly persistent in these matters. I always thought that part of the argument from those who were in favour of Brexit was that we were going to restore the sovereignty of Parliament. It is not too much to expect that Parliament should be able to see and study the legal advice on which Ministers make decisions. I ask him yet again whether he will make available to the House before Report the legal advice which his department has on the legal basis on which the Government can act in withdrawing the notice of withdrawal under Article 106a of the Euratom treaty.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, once again I thank noble Lords for an excellent debate on this important issue. I will respond to the point raised by most people who spoke—certainly the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Warner, Lord Teverson, Lord Carlile, Lord Liddle and Lord Adonis—about the reasons for leaving Euratom.
The Euratom treaty is legally distinct from the European Union treaty but it has the same membership, which includes all 28 member states, and makes use of the same institutions. There are no precedents for a non-European Union member state being a member of Euratom.
Noble Lords will recall that the decision to leave Euratom formed part of both Houses’ consideration of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, which is now of course an Act. Noble Lords spoke at that time about the unique nature of the relationship between the separate treaties of the European Union and Euratom. As the European Union and Euratom are uniquely legally joined, when we formally notified our intention to leave the European Union we also commenced the process for leaving Euratom.
Lord Liddle
The Minister mentioned that it was a parallel European institution. Before we gave that notice, did we actually ask other members whether we could remain in Euratom as a non-EU member?
Lord Callanan
It is not a matter of getting a political opinion on this. It is the legal position, as I have set out. When we formally notified our intention to leave—
Lord Liddle
When you say it is the legal position, what is the evidence for that? Can we have a look at that legal position? What you are saying as the Minister is that a decision was taken on advice that you are not prepared to show us, with no consultation with our partners, for no good reason.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will remember that we address the House and not individuals. It avoids getting very angry with each other individually and it is much better to address your Lordships collectively.
Lord Warner
Before the Minister resumes, can I pursue this issue? The industry is very clear in its legal views, which it is prepared to put in the public arena, that we do not have to leave Euratom if we leave the EU. Have the Government discussed that issue with the industry and what the reasons are for its difference of legal view from the Government’s legal view?
Lord Callanan
My Lords, there has been extensive discussion and liaison between ourselves and industry. I will come on to discuss that shortly but we remain of the opinion, as I said, that when we formally notified our intention to leave the European Union we also commenced the process for leaving Euratom. Having said that, we are determined to continue to have a constructive, collaborative relationship with Euratom. The UK is a great supporter of Euratom and will continue to be so. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for his efforts to help me save face—even at 2.30 am—but I regret that I will not be able to give him what he requires this evening.
Let me go on to discuss the details of Euratom and our other plans. I will go into it in some detail, if that is okay with noble Lords, despite the late hour. As the Government have made clear, the UK’s future relationship with EU agencies, including those under the Euratom treaty, is a matter for negotiations. I will come on to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, later. Requiring the Government to publish a report in advance of negotiations concluding would be neither helpful to Parliament nor in the national interest. As soon as negotiations have concluded, the Government have committed to hold a vote on the final deal in Parliament. This vote will cover both the withdrawal agreement and the terms of our future relationship, and provide Parliament with the opportunity to scrutinise the outcome of negotiations at the appropriate juncture.
In the interests of transparency and providing as much certainty as possible, we took steps during the Commons passage of this Bill and the Nuclear Safeguards Bill to set out our strategy in a Written Statement on 11 January. That Statement made it absolutely clear that the UK will seek a close and effective association with Euratom in the future, and that we are putting in place all measures to ensure that the UK can operate as an independent and responsible nuclear state from day one. This is vital to ensure continuity for industry, whatever the outcome of the negotiations. As noble Lords will be fully aware, the nature of our future relationship with Euratom is part of the next phase of negotiations that has yet to start.
The Statement set out the principles on which our strategy is based: to aim for continuity with current relevant Euratom arrangements; to ensure that the UK maintains its leading role in European nuclear research; and to ensure that the nuclear industry in the UK has the necessary skilled workforce. We will be seeking a close association with Euratom’s research and training programme, including the Joint European Torus and the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor projects. We will also seek continuity of trade arrangements to ensure that the nuclear industry can continue to trade across EU borders. Finally, we will seek to maintain close and effective co-operation with Euratom on nuclear safety.
While we have made clear that we will indeed be seeking such an association, it is also essential that we have our own safeguards regime ready to come into place when Euratom arrangements no longer apply in the UK, whatever the outcome of the next phase of EU negotiations on our future relationship. It may be helpful to explain the meaning of nuclear safeguards to inform our discussion of this important but rather technical issue. Nuclear safeguards are non-proliferation reporting and verification processes which states use to demonstrate to the international community that civil nuclear material is not diverted into military or weapons programmes. The UK applies nuclear safeguards because it is a responsible nuclear power. Nuclear safeguards are different from nuclear safety and nuclear security. Civil nuclear safeguards reporting, by assuring the international community about the proper use of certain nuclear materials, underpins international civil nuclear trade.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I am grateful to the Minister for the explanation that he has given on the issue of medical isotopes. Can he give us one further piece of information? How many meetings have actually taken place so far in an attempt to negotiate with the EU the continuity of the system of importing and exporting medical isotopes from the UK and from the EU?
Lord Callanan
I am afraid I do not have those figures to hand. I cannot tell him how many meetings there have been.
Lord Callanan
I can say that there has been extensive dialogue and discussion with both our EU partners and international partners at official and ministerial level. I can write to him with the exact number, which I can discover.
Lord Warner
Could the Minister respond to a question before he moves on to the important amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty? I stopped believing in Father Christmas and in the tooth fairy some years ago. Can he explain why he thinks there will be a warm working relationship between Euratom and a country that has abruptly and unilaterally withdrawn one-quarter of its budget?
Lord Callanan
I am sorry that the noble Lord no longer believes in Father Christmas. I think there will be a warm relationship for the same reason that we will have a good trading relationship with the EU: because it is manifestly in the interests of both sides to do that.
The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, would require the Government to publish a report on how we will engage with a number of EU and Euratom agencies before negotiations had concluded. We believe this would be neither helpful to Parliament nor in the national interest. I can tell him that as soon as negotiations have concluded, we are committed to holding a vote on the final deal in Parliament, and this vote will cover both the withdrawal agreement and the terms of our future relationship, including of course our relationship with various EU agencies.
I hope that I have addressed noble Lords’ concerns expressed through the amendments and that the noble Lord will therefore feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, with respect, the Minister has not answered either of the two questions I put to him. He has not answered the question whether or not the Government are of the opinion that they can withdraw the notice of withdrawal under Article 106a of the Euratom treaty, and he has not told me whether or not the Government will publish or make available to the House in some abbreviated form the legal advice they have on this matter.
Lord Callanan
I can tell him that we are not going to withdraw our notification.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, with respect, that is not the question I asked him. I asked him what is the Government’s legal advice on their power to withdraw, which is a very different question.
Lord Callanan
I have given the noble Lord the answer he is going to get on that subject.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, with respect, that is not a good enough answer. When we return to this at Report, I fear that that it will simply be grist to the mill for all those noble Lords who feel that this is a colossal error that the Government will not even tell the House what power they possess to rectify the error which they have already committed.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, even at this late hour, we have had a good go at the issue. Seeing so many noble Lords here taking such an interest, I invite them to join us tomorrow morning, when we come to debate the Nuclear Safeguards Bill. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.
I thank the Minister for his lengthy response, but the reasons he gave for leaving Euratom are simply not credible. He said that we have two distinct treaties. As far as I can see, the only substantive reason he gave why we could not remain a member of Euratom is that all the other members are members of the EU. Presumably the Government’s view is that if we continue to be a member of Euratom with members of the EU, we would in some way be contaminated by having to sit round the table with the countries with which, according to the Q&A which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has obtained, we wish to have a very close and fruitful relationship in future. We will see.
The Government’s position is inane. They have decided that we are going to leave Euratom, but we must maintain the same standards as Euratom and keep a close and warm relationship with the agency. The problem that we face, which is very serious indeed, is the issue of confidence, as the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said.
I am a passionate believer in the contribution that nuclear energy can make to this country. We were the first country to develop civil nuclear energy. We completely screwed it up. We failed to take advantage of that lead. We have made foolish decisions on nuclear two or three times since then. My fear is that this will come to be seen as another very foolish decision, putting at risk this industry, which we have a chance—even given that we are relying on the French and on Chinese finance to do it—to restart with new nuclear, develop a supply chain and use the incredible skills we still have in nuclear engineering. The risk is that by doing what the Government are doing, alongside some of the financial uncertainties, we will put at risk the development of new nuclear. That would be an absolute tragedy.
The Minister basically says that all will be well, everything will be done to ensure continuity and, essentially, we can maintain the same processes and standards as we have had in the past. But the problem is—and it is why the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, suggested earlier that we need to remain a member of Euratom, at least in the interim—that the ONR, in which I have a great deal of confidence, has clearly stated publicly to the Commons Bill Committee that there is no way that it can recruit and train the number of inspectors that it needs to be able to maintain Euratom standards by March 2019. Alongside that, with the amount of work that would have to be done in negotiating new treaties and understandings with a series of countries, there is simply not the capacity to do it. We are greatly at risk in terms of public confidence in nuclear safeguards, which in turn undermines public confidence in the development of new nuclear.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. We really have to come back to this as a substantive issue on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 26th February 2018
(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 79-II(a) Amendments for Committee, supplementary to the second marshalled list (PDF, 68KB) - (23 Feb 2018)
Baroness Thornton
“( ) Regulations bringing into force subsection (1) may not be made until the Secretary of State has set out a strategy for seeking to ensure that any citizen of the United Kingdom or of an EU country, who requires health care in a different country of the EU or in the United Kingdom, will be treated as if they live in the country in which they require treatment, with the home country reimbursing the country where care was provided.”
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 9 and speak to Amendment 11 in my name on the Marshalled List. Even since Committee stage began in your Lordships’ House last Wednesday, the Brexit world has shifted again and is doing so even today. The Prime Minister has had her summit at Chequers and my own leader is posing a serious challenge to the Government. We have to wonder how many millions are following the detail of hard Brexit; soft Brexit; tariff-free access; managed divergence or even ambitious managed divergence; hard and soft borders; regulatory alignment; cake philosophy, which is something to do with cherry-picking and having your cake and eating it; the three baskets theory, which I understand is a bit like the cake philosophy, only it is three choices; transition or implementation; and, finally, a bespoke economic partnership.
The media is full of it. The Westminster bubble and the chatterati—from which I do not exclude myself—talk of little else. That is because it is important to our nation’s future and our prosperity, or otherwise. However, I will propose one amendment, and speak to another, on matters which do not at present feature in the headlines or in the huge and momentous agenda being discussed in your Lordships’ House, but which do affect millions of citizens in the UK and the EU, including every Member of this House. These amendments affect all who work and travel in Europe; who buy medicines and take for granted the supply and availability of the most up-to-date, clinically approved remedies.
Like millions of UK citizens, I have been on holiday and travelled all over the EU. Most often, my summer holidays have been in France with my children. Every year while my children were growing up we had at least one ear infection, sometimes a dose of tonsillitis and, one memorable year, an adult with Bell’s palsy. The wonderful Dr Duterte in Brantôme came to know us quite well over 25 years. My son lived in Brussels for five years and, although mostly healthy, he and we thankfully did not need to worry ourselves about his access to healthcare. An important part of a stress-free holiday with a mother with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease was knowing, with confidence, that the oxygen supply would be waiting in the house—free, like in the UK. I tell these everyday stories precisely because they are so ordinary. It is the experience of millions of us: the package holidays; the weekends; the hen parties in Barcelona; the stag dos in Amsterdam and elsewhere; the conferences in all sorts of places. We and our fellow citizens are accustomed to travelling with ease and confidence. The ease with which people can do what they are used to doing is a matter which will colour how they judge whether Brexit is succeeding and whether it has been worth while.
Amendment 9 concerns the EU reciprocal healthcare arrangements which allow citizens of EU and EEA nations, as well as Switzerland, to access health and social care services while in any other of these nations, on the same basis as a resident of that nation would at no or low cost. The schemes include the EHIC, the European healthcare insurance card, which provides access to state-provided healthcare for short-term visitors; and the SI scheme, which, for example, allows ongoing access to health services for people working abroad and social care services for individuals such as pensioners living abroad. This is important for workers, students, the retired and holidaymakers, and, as I said, it affects millions of us.
Post Brexit, the UK could lose access to these arrangements, depending on the final outcome of ongoing negotiations between the EU and the UK Government. So far, the two parties have agreed that UK pensioners already living in the EU will be able to use the SI and EHIC schemes post Brexit, but no deal has been reached on wider access to them. Losing access to these arrangements would have a significant impact in a number of areas. This is one area where some progress seems to have been made but, as with many other matters, there is some uncertainty about what will happen after Brexit. The latest joint EU-UK document on the Brexit talks in November said that citizens who live in another EU country on the day that the UK leaves will still be eligible for the same healthcare as citizens and will still be able to use the EHIC scheme when visiting another EU country. This includes citizens who work or study in another country or are retired there. However, agreement has not been reached on whether the EHIC would be available to those who travel to, or go and live in, another EU country after the UK has left the bloc. It would seem that the EU wants discussions on that to be included in the negotiations on the future relationship between the UK and the EU, which will come only after sufficient progress has been made on the divorce issues.
Our amendment seeks to prioritise the negotiation of continued access to existing EU reciprocal healthcare schemes, or the creation of comparable alternatives. We need to fully assess the impact which loss of access to the schemes might have on patients and health services. For the UK, this approach would ensure continuity of care for its citizens living abroad and ease of access for UK citizens visiting the EU or EEA and avoid increased demand on and costs for the NHS.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendment on reciprocal health arrangements in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to which I have added my name. I cannot imagine what it must be like to go on holiday to the EU without packing my passport with my EHIC tucked in the middle for security and assurance. I think that I was luckier than the noble Baroness: my children managed to stay well throughout all their holidays.
I am also happy to support Amendment 353 in the name of my noble friend Lord Stephen, Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, concerning medicines and medical devices, and Amendment 205 on the EHIC.
I have Amendment 101 in this group, which is about over-the-counter medicines and devices—all the household names which we have grown up with and which could well be under threat if regulation is not sorted out well in advance of our departure from the EU, should that happen. The intention behind the amendment is to ensure that, on leaving the EU, the UK does not deviate from the existing rules for the regulation and licensing of over-the-counter medicines, medical devices and food supplements. These products are subject to the highest-quality standards and regulations, which the UK, as part of the EU, has helped to deliver over the last 40 years. They ensure that the healthcare products we use are appropriately safe and effective. This amendment seeks to ensure harmonisation and continued collaboration between EU and UK regulators with regard to consumer healthcare products, including hay fever tablets, cold and flu treatments and painkillers—the everyday items that we buy over the counter from our pharmacies and local supermarkets in taking care of our health and well-being to ensure that we continue with our day-to-day activities.
Throughout the manufacture and distribution process, consumer healthcare products face multiple checks and tests by highly skilled, qualified persons in various licensed facilities. They can cross multiple EU country borders throughout this process, yet, due to EU-wide collaboration on regulation, this is a seamless and streamlined process. Leaving the EU puts this process at risk. The UK imports an estimated £1.5 billion-worth of consumer healthcare products from the EU each year. Without harmonised regulatory standards within the EU and without agreeing to mutually recognised inspections and testing after Brexit, we risk having medicines held up at the border while they await retesting for release in the UK. Companies will have to set up new facilities to accommodate this, resulting in duplication, delays and disruption in the supply of basic healthcare products to UK shelves.
Without sufficient assurances that there will be no divergence from existing rules for the licensing and regulation of over-the-counter medicines, medical devices and food supplements, manufacturers will not have the certainty and stability to take action to guarantee the supply chain of these products. Companies have to take these actions now for products that are due to be on our shelves in two years’ time so that there is no delay. Amendment 101 would prevent the Government deviating from these existing trusted regulations and standards. It would lay the necessary legislative groundwork for the regulatory harmonisation required ultimately to put in place the mutual recognition agreements that will guarantee that, post Brexit, we can still access the same consumer medicines, medical devices and food supplements as we can today.
The Government recently launched a campaign to drive more people to their local pharmacy to access self-care for minor ailments and self-treatable conditions. At a time of historically low rates of growth in NHS funding and annual cuts to public health and community pharmacy budgets, it is absolutely vital that public access to healthcare in the UK is not put at risk.
Will the Minister therefore commit to three things? First, will he commit to pursue regulatory harmonisation and mutual recognition agreements, not only for medicines but for medical devices and food supplements, as an objective of the phase 2 negotiations? Secondly, in the event of no deal, will he commit to ensure that UK regulators unilaterally recognise any decisions taken by EU regulators for the foreseeable future? Finally, in the event that there is regulatory divergence following withdrawal, will he commit to ensure that the industry is fully consulted on the period of time it will be given to adjust to the new arrangements, given that the sector body estimates that at least five years will be required to achieve all this? Then, and only then, will there be an assurance that, once the UK has left the EU, there will be no fewer consumer healthcare products on UK shelves and they will be no less safe than they are today.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I will address Amendment 11, to which I have added my name. There are a large number of partnership agreements concerning medicines and clinical devices between the UK and Europe, and they are both formal and informal. They are important to our economy, as well as to the health and well-being of our citizens. Amendment 11 seeks to avoid these being ruptured. One of the most important of these international collaborations is of course the European Medicines Agency—the EMA—which provides and co-ordinates licensing, expertise and support for medicines and medical devices throughout the EU. For any pharmaceutical company seeking to license its product across Europe, the EMA is the body through which this is achieved. Our own domestic regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, operates as a crucial part of the EMA’s regulatory network to ensure frictionless access to medicines for the NHS without delay.
As the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care told the House of Commons Select Committee on Health on 24 January last year, we are one of the EMA’s most important members, overseeing up to 40% of its testing and taking on,
“often the most difficult and challenging cases”,
presented to it for testing and licensing. We have already lost the EMA’s headquarters, and the 900 or so jobs it provided and the economic benefits that came with these, from London to Amsterdam. A greater concern is the potential loss of quality assurance that our membership presently guarantees. For example, the common trademark system allows parallel imports across Europe.
The Healthcare Distribution Association, which represents medicines and medical device suppliers in the UK, has warned that our departure from this framework risks medical shortages and potential increases in the cost of medicines. The Healthcare Distribution Association estimates that the current system saves the NHS more than £100 million a year. Its executive director, Martin Sawyer, has already warned MPs that, when it comes to drugs,
“we take the supply chain for granted”,
and that Brexit could,
“throw a lot of cogs out of a very complicated machine”.
It is a warning worth echoing in this Chamber.
Our current perilous predicament seems to originate from the Government’s refusal to accept that appeals over licensing ultimately go to the European Court of Justice. But the EMA is not officially part of the EU, so there seems to be no constitutional justification for UK leaving it as part of Brexit. Indeed, this position has been put forward by the current chairman of the MHRA, Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, who in evidence to the Lords Science and Technology Select Committee last year stated that not only could the UK technically remain within the current system but that it may even be able to continue to influence new regulations and directives by doing so.
The sole reason that the Government have outlined for voiding their membership of the EMA is that it means accepting the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, which deals with legal processes such as licensing appeals. Having identified the jurisdiction of the European Court as one of their negotiating red lines, the Government therefore seem to believe that this renders the continuation of our membership untenable. In short, as is increasingly the case in a number of areas pertaining to Brexit, the Government would appear to be willing to jeopardise the security of our own medicines, drugs and medical devices for our citizens, and the prosperity of industry, for the sake of an ideological inclination.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for not having spoken in the debate at Second Reading, but I was unable to be here on the first day. The amendments I am supporting for the most part try to deal with the obstacles put in the way of ordinary people, both young and old, who are on holiday, working or studying abroad. These include the amendments that seek to protect the European health insurance card scheme and Erasmus+, which is the subject of the next group. I have added my name to Amendment 9, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and I have my own Amendment 205 in this group which seeks specifically to retain the EHIC scheme and to which the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Davies of Stamford, have added their names.
To focus on the holidaymaker’s point of view, I am a great believer in the EHIC scheme. Like millions of others across Europe, I carry the card with me when I go abroad, and I certainly would not travel without it. It has been a help to me personally when I had a combination of a flu-like virus and asthma in Germany. It is also clear from the stories I have heard—ranging from needing stitches after a hotel poolside fall to pulled muscles and broken legs on the ski slopes—how extraordinarily helpful the scheme has been to others, and I have even heard about a case of amnesia. All these are situations where immediate medical attention is required. In those circumstances, the last thing people want to worry about when on holiday or on a business trip is having to book the next flight back to the UK or having to claim immediately on their travel insurance. Apart from the fact that treatment is free and comparable to what one would receive at home, the scheme reduces stress. In the case of a concussion that I was told about, it meant that the person could return to the hospital for monitoring without the worry of paperwork or bills. It also gives peace of mind to the many people who have not needed to use the card but carry it nevertheless—something which cannot be overestimated.
Once you have the card, it is a simple and bureaucracy-free system for the holidaymaker. It does not replace travel insurance, but works well in conjunction with it. I realise that my speech is an unashamed advert for a scheme which saves British people thousands of pounds in bills and reduces the claims and costs of travel insurance. The fear of course is that those costs will rise steeply if we lose the scheme. A replacement scheme or schemes might do all this, perhaps through agreements with individual countries, but presently the one card covers all the single market countries, the 31 EEA countries and Switzerland. Clearly, it would not be in our interests to adopt a scheme that is less comprehensive geographically, and retaining the scheme would be the easiest and most convenient option. If we stay in the single market in some form, there should be no problem.
It is worth noting that citizenship itself is not an aspect of the EHIC scheme; rather, it is based on country of legal residence so that British people living in France or Spain, for example, can apply for a card through their health services. It should not be forgotten that the scheme works for the benefit of British people living abroad as well as those from other countries living here. It is a properly co-operative system—a two-way street.
Accusations of health tourism always ignore what we as individual citizens get out of the system. A freedom of information question in 2015 revealed that in 2013-14, the treatment of ill British tourists in other countries of the single market cost more than five times that which European visitors cost the NHS. Perhaps the one improvement we can make here in the UK is to become better at recouping the moneys we are entitled to through the use of the scheme, and last year’s Public Accounts Committee report, NHS Treatment for Overseas Patients, stated that the systems for cost recovery appear to be chaotic. Other countries recoup what is owed to them and there is no external reason why we cannot do so as well. But that does not invalidate a scheme that continues to work tremendously well for the benefit of millions of people throughout Europe, including millions of British citizens both here and abroad.
The process of leaving the EU has thrown light on a lot of the concerns of ordinary people that perhaps were taken for granted. The EHIC scheme is one of those areas. No one voted for higher travel insurance costs and no one voted for less healthcare support while they are on holiday. The Government should pledge to retain this scheme.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, no one voted for insecurity. A very strong and powerful case has been made, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. This is a simple issue. Disease is no respecter of persons, boundaries or sovereignty. In chasing this mythical beast of sovereignty we seem to be prepared to lay so many things upon the altar that we need not lay.
It has been said in the course of this brief debate that we have no obligation to opt out of the EMA. My reading would support that. So why does a party that has always prided itself, for as long as I have been a member of it—for the last 60 years—on not being doctrinaire erect a doctrine and then seek every opportunity, regardless of the consequences, to jeopardise what exists and works perfectly well? It is a nonsense. I hope that there will be no vote on this amendment—it is a probing amendment—but I sincerely hope that, if the Government cannot accept the irrefutable logic of what has been said, we will return to it on Report and be well prepared to vote on it.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 11 and in support of what my noble friend Lady Thornton, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said. I do so as the former chair of Great Ormond Street Hospital Foundation Trust, which I chaired for more than eight years until last summer. As many noble Lords know, it treats children with rare diseases and very serious illnesses. Much of its ground-breaking and innovative work, which is internationally renowned, is done as a result of, and based on, its research, much of which is carried out in collaboration with colleagues across Europe.
I will illustrate this in three different areas, which I think will bring home to your Lordships just how important it is that we do not abandon or neglect this issue. I will start with childhood cancer. Some 92% of our most important clinical trials for children with cancer in the UK require international collaboration. In 30%, the UK is the lead country, co-ordinating the international collaborative trials. This leadership role would sadly change rapidly if we no longer followed the same regulatory framework for clinical research as the rest of the European Union.
I turn to childhood epilepsies. Children and young people with epilepsies that are resistant to current therapies represent, as a group, at least 137 rare diseases with seizures as a common symptom. Collaborative European multi-centred trials are, I stress, the only way forward in assessing new targeted treatments. There are simply not enough patients in these categories of the many different aspects of epilepsy to do this work in one country alone.
I turn thirdly to children with HIV infection. Trials in paediatric HIV infection over the last 25 years have all been international. The UK works in partnership and collaboration with trial centres throughout Europe, and in particularly close collaboration with Italy, France and Spain. HIV treatment is very fast moving. It is vital that medicines for children do not get left behind. Our important European collaborations, including EU funding of our network, training and capacity building, have ensured the timely availability of drugs for children, not only in Europe but worldwide.
I cannot overstate the concern of the consultants and research specialists involved in this work about the threat posed for them by leaving the European Union. I do not think it an exaggeration to say that, without such work, the lives of very sick children would be sacrificed. I hope we can think again about this.
Lord Stephen (LD)
My Lords, while I strongly support all that has been said about the continuation of the EHIC scheme, I want to speak to Amendment 353 in my name and thank my noble friend Lady Jolly and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for adding their names to it.
The amendment would require the UK Government to make arrangements for an independent evaluation of the impact of the European Union withdrawal legislation and of Brexit on the health and social care sectors across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is intended to be a simple, common-sense amendment. In the Brexit debate, a lot of attention is on trade and the economy, or, today, on the customs union, but our care services and our NHS will also be affected in a major way by our withdrawal from the EU. There will be many impacts on care and support for children and young people, for people with disabilities, for people with long-term conditions and for those with additional support needs. Not all these impacts are yet known or understood. It is clear, however, that many are likely to be negative. That is certainly the risk and it is why we must be vigilant and aware.
So the purpose of the amendment is to say, “Let’s be concerned about these issues; let’s give them a higher priority than at present, and let’s monitor the situation very closely, because if we get it wrong, NHS services and the care of thousands of vulnerable people could be badly affected”. The proposal is to review such issues not more than one year after Brexit takes place to see what has happened, to understand the impact and to allow the Government, local authorities and the NHS to take appropriate action. The intention is to involve in this independent process the devolved Governments, the staff of the NHS and our care services, charities, voluntary organisations and others.
The amendment was inspired by Camphill Scotland, which has many EU staff and volunteers living and working in its outstanding care communities. Camphill also operates in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and right across the EU, and now around the globe, but its very first community was on the Camphill estate in Milltimber, near Aberdeen in Scotland.
More than 50 charitable and voluntary organisations support the amendment. These organisations do not care about the politics of Brexit; they care about the vulnerable children, disadvantaged adults, older people and those with mental health problems or long-term illnesses to whom they give support.
I believe that the amendment will be strongly welcomed also by many people in the NHS, not all of whom were entirely convinced by the message on the side of the “Boris bus” during the campaign. Staff from right across the EU work in our NHS and in our care services. More than 10% of our doctors in the UK are from EU countries and, in total, more than 60,000 staff from the EU work in our British NHS, with many thousands more in the charitable and voluntary sectors. If Brexit means that we lose only some of these people, we could still have big problems. If it becomes more difficult to recruit new staff from EU countries, this could become a major crisis for our hospitals, our care homes, our special needs schools and many other vital services.
I ask the Government and the Minister to respond positively to the amendment. It is the sort of amendment that makes sense and can so easily be agreed to, with little to lose and a great deal to gain.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 205, which has already been very ably explained by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. First, I want to say a word or two in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who made a most impressive speech. I hope that, for once, the Government will listen to her; they certainly ought to because she has a very special position of respect in the medical world. The medical profession in this country has been, at least up to now, one of the leading professions in the world, and she has a great deal of experience behind her and behind the words she set forth just now.
On that matter, as the noble Baroness said, the decision to leave the EMA was completely gratuitous. There was no reason for it at all. It was going to be perfectly possible to carry on with full membership while we left the European Union. A lot of us did not want us to leave the European Union—your Lordships know that I am among them—but there is no point in throwing away the whole loaf if you can keep even 5% of the bread. In this case, there would have been no difficulty at all in our remaining part of the EMA. The Government have given no explanation for this extraordinary move, which is a threat, a potential threat at least, to the advance of medical science and a certain threat to the position of the British pharmaceutical industry and to the willingness of companies to set up pharmaceutical operations and research and development operations in this country in the future—indeed, to the willingness of British pharmaceutical majors to remain as committed to this country as they have been up to now. It has really quite devastating industrial as well as medical effects.
The only reason we have ever heard for doing this is that we could not stay in the EMA because it involves some contact with the CJEU. That is quite extraordinary when this is a matter involving the health of the nation and involving one of the major industries in this country, of which we are all very proud. We do not have all that much in the way of successful manufacturing these days, but we undoubtedly do extraordinarily well in the pharmaceutical area, or have done up to now, and this industry is now to be handicapped for no better reason than one of theological fanaticism. It is incomprehensible to most of the world, either inside or outside this country. I hope that the Government will weigh very carefully the words of the noble Baroness and the representations that I know they have received from many branches of the medical profession and of the pharmaceutical industry, and for once just take account, soberly, carefully, thoughtfully and calmly of the values involved that are being thrown away and threatened by this extraordinary decision. I give an undertaking that I shall not gloat in any way if the Government do a U-turn on this: I shall congratulate them, sincerely and openly and I hope that they can find the moral courage to do what is right in this case.
I turn to Amendment 205, which was very ably set out by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I shall not repeat what he said, but I want to talk about one section of the population that will be particularly affected by the abolition of the health insurance card in the European Union, and that is older people. Perhaps I should declare an interest here because I am certainly an older person, but I may be lucky because I have not so far been refused health insurance by anybody or charged exorbitant sums and probably, if I did have to pay a premium on my insurance policy to travel aboard, I would be able to afford to do so. A lot of people in this country, probably the majority, would not.
We all know that healthcare costs can be enormous, particularly in areas such as North America. One American friend of mine, who can actually afford to pay, was recently given a bill for more than $35,000 after a two-day stay in the Houston Medical Center. It involved a number of diagnostic tests, admittedly, as well as the board and lodging in the centre, but it gives an impression of the kind of costs that one can incur. There are countries in the world where you can get first-class medical care much cheaper than you can in Europe, let alone America, such as India, but not many. Countries tend to have medical care which is not up to the standards of North America, Japan or the European Union, or the costs are quite exorbitant, or in many cases both. Switzerland is another example, like the United States, where it is both.
For people who are older or have some particular medical record which makes them a bad insurance risk, underwriters will want to charge a very strong premium for insuring them at all. It is already quite difficult for them to travel outside the European Union. Many of us know people, friends of ours, who for that reason will not now travel outside the European Union. They will not even go and visit their family in the United States or Canada. They hope their family will come and visit them here, of course, but they simply cannot take the risk of falling seriously ill outside the European Union.
If the Government have their way and we go down this road that they have set out for us, the effect will not be just that people cannot go outside the European Union; they will not be able to go to Calais, Amsterdam, Berlin, Dublin, Copenhagen or Stockholm. That is the most terrible restriction of the horizons of a very large number of people. People may not have much time to travel when they are younger. They have business and professional commitments and a lot of strains on their budget because they are bringing up children and so forth. A lot of people look forward to being able to travel when they have retired, and the Government are saying to them, “When we have got this Bill through, you guys will not be able to travel at all—ha ha! You will be stuck here in this country”, which of course will be wonderful because we will have had Brexit and paradise on earth will result. That is a terrible—indeed, devastating—piece of news for a very large number of deserving people in this country. Once again, I hope the Government will have second thoughts.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 353 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stephen. I thought I had appended my name to it but clearly it had not quite arrived. I also support the comments made on the other linked amendments. I particularly identify with the comments of the noble Baroness a moment ago about Great Ormond Street Hospital, whose brilliant services we as a family had to avail ourselves of some decades ago. I cannot speak too highly of it and I hope that the points that were so well made are noted.
This group of amendments touches on one of the most sensitive areas of public policy: health and social care. There is a widespread unease in Wales—as there is, no doubt, throughout the rest of the UK—about the potential impact of Brexit on these vital services. On one level, one might not expect changes in our trading relationships to impact this sector as severely as, say, manufacturing or agriculture, but in fact there are already discernible effects on that key component of healthcare: the availability of a skilled workforce with adequate resources. A totally unnecessary uncertainty has been created, both for the existing NHS workforce, many of whom have come to the UK from EU countries, and with regard to recruiting potential new staff from those countries.
First, I have heard from those involved in healthcare—in Wales and in England, as it happens—about skilled staff employed in the NHS now actively seeking similar posts in other EU countries, just in case they feel forced to leave at a later date, perhaps for professional or social reasons. They fear that others will do likewise and that the available jobs will then dry up and they will need to move quickly to look for them. Secondly, I heard from a very authoritative source that EU-based specialist staff are currently holding back from applying for jobs in the UK because of the uncertainty caused by Brexit. Incidentally, this is not impacting just hospital services but university medical research and manufacturing companies in the healthcare sector.
The potential reduction in the number of key workers available to the NHS needs to be very carefully monitored. If we are to go for a soft Brexit in which we will agree the free movement of those coming for specific jobs and guarantee no dilution of their employment rights, that is all well and good; we might not need the amendment. But at this stage we just do not know what sort of Brexit awaits us. If it is a hard Brexit, with no agreement, we most certainly do need the review mechanism contained in this group of amendments, and we need it for a purpose because in a no-deal scenario we may need to make alternative plans to import key workers from other parts of the world—if we can find them—and to do so quickly. For these reasons I support the amendment.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
Let me first thank noble Lords very much indeed for bringing this important topic before the House today. I reassure them that the Department of Health and Social Care is actively supporting my department in its negotiations with the EU, including forming part of the negotiation team where the topic is of direct relevance to healthcare. It is also working closely with its arm’s-length bodies, the territorial offices and others across government in preparing for EU exit under all eventualities.
I will address this group of amendments now but I note that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who I think is not in his place at the moment, has also tabled an amendment on health to Clause 6. This will be responded to formally when we reach that group and I note his specific interest in the subject.
Amendment 11, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, would delay the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 until such time as the Secretary of State has set out a strategy for ensuring the mutual recognition of medicines and devices between the EU and UK. The Government have already set out a very clear offer to the EU for the UK to continue to work in partnership in the area of medicines. It is in the interests of patients and the life sciences industry for us to find a way to continue UK-EU co-operation on medical regulation, even if our precise relationship with the EU will by necessity change. Discussions are ongoing and the outcome will form part of our future relationship with the EU. We cannot and should not delay commencement of this Act until those discussions have concluded. The UK’s medicines and medical devices regulator, the MHRA, is a strong leader that will continue to ensure that medicines and medical devices are safe and effective, regardless of the outcome of negotiations and any agreement on recognition in this area. Indeed, it is currently recognised globally as an authority in its licensing and inspections.
In response to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Davies, I can be extremely clear that the UK’s preferred outcome is to find a way to continue to co-operate on medicines regulation with the EMA. We have made that extremely clear to the EU. Even though our relationship with the EMA will have to change as we leave the EU, it is in our mutual interests to continue to co-operate and share scientific expertise. We believe that desire is shared by the EU.
Baroness Thornton
Can I ask for some clarification from the Minister about his statement about the preferred outcome? What exactly does that mean? If we do not achieve what we want to in that preferred outcome, what exactly happens and what do we do next? What is the timescale for this? That is why the amendment is framed in the way it is.
Lord Callanan
It is obviously difficult for me to speculate on what happens if we do not achieve the outcome that we want. As I said, we strongly believe that since we contribute an awful lot of work through the MHRA—something like 40% of the EMA’s work is contributed to by UK authorities—it is in our mutual interests to continue to co-operate. If that is not possible, we will set out an alternative course of action but we believe that it is and should be.
Baroness Jolly
We have a window of about two years in which to get this right. I was talking to the trade bodies for over-the-counter medicine last week and they were saying that a change to make all over-the-counter medicines UK-based would need about a five-year timescale. It is just not doable, so there is an absolute imperative to get these regulations sorted out in pretty short order.
Lord Callanan
The noble Baroness makes a powerful point. It is one of our priorities. We have a number of priorities in the negotiations but it is important that we get this one right. The MHRA already licenses nationally 90% of all medicines available in the UK but there is a small percentage regulated abroad, so we need to reach a mutual agreement on that.
Amendment 101, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, would prevent the Government making changes to the licensing or regulation regimes for over-the-counter medicines, to which she just referred. The Government will need to correct deficiencies arising from withdrawal in relation to the regulation regimes for over-the-counter medicines, self-care medical devices and food supplements where the UK’s exit from the EU would result in the retained EU law which governs the regimes being deficient or not operating effectively and where manufacturers of these products would have to adapt to divergent UK requirements, potentially leading to a temporary or permanent withdrawal of their product from our market.
The noble Baroness asked a number of specific questions. The Government have already made it clear that we wish to retain a close working relationship after exit. The Government have been engaging with industry and research charities through the ministerial and industry co-chaired life sciences group, and we will continue to work with that group and industry to ensure adequate notice and sufficient time to implement any changes necessary.
Whatever the outcome of negotiations, the principles which will underpin post-Brexit regulation for this sector will be that patients should not be disadvantaged, that innovators should be able to access the UK market as quickly and simply as possible, and that we will continue to play a leading role in Europe and the world in promoting public health. Over-the-counter products will continue to have an important role in relieving pressure on health professionals and promoting consumer choice to improve public health.
In the event that it is not possible to reach a deal that secures ongoing, close collaboration between the UK and Europe, we will set up a regulatory system in the UK that protects the best interests of patients and supports industry to grow and flourish. I hope that my comments will provide the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Jolly, with the reassurance they need not to press their amendments.
Amendments 9 and 205 were tabled by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. The Government recognise how important reciprocal healthcare is to the 190,000 UK pensioners who currently benefit from it, to UK tourists who use the European Health Insurance Card scheme and to EU nationals visiting and living in the UK. This point was powerfully made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. We want to protect reciprocal healthcare arrangements and have made important progress towards this in this first phase of negotiations. It is the intention of the UK and the EU that the final withdrawal agreement will protect reciprocal healthcare rights for UK citizens resident in the EU on exit day and vice versa on a reciprocal basis.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
The Minister said that important progress has been made. Will he tell the Committee what that progress is?
Lord Callanan
The important progress was announced in the agreement reached in December in the first phase of the negotiations. Reciprocal healthcare benefits were guaranteed for existing UK residents in the EU and for existing EU residents here. The next phase is what happens in the future.
Lord Davies of Stamford
The points I raised related not to the important matter of residents, whether continental residents living here or British residents living on the continent, but to travellers—people who may want to travel for a short period for tourism, family reasons or what have you. Has any progress been made on that front? If not, are the Government proposing to make any progress and, if so, what progress?
Lord Callanan
That will be for the next phase of the negotiations. We have guaranteed the right of existing residents from the EU in the UK and for UK residents in the EU. The next phase of the negotiations is for people who will travel there in future.
The Earl of Clancarty
Is the Minister saying that the Government intend to retain the EHIC reciprocal agreement or is he talking about something else?
Lord Callanan
We would like to retain an arrangement similar to the EHIC if possible. We cannot give any guarantee about what might happen in the next phase of the negotiations.
We welcome the progress made, but we are clear that we want a wider agreement on reciprocal healthcare. I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate that this is not something we can simply legislate for in the withdrawal Bill, but must be negotiated with the EU, which is what we have been doing. We are very clear that we want to protect reciprocal healthcare arrangements.
On 8 December, the UK and EU Commission reached an agreement which delivered on the Prime Minister’s number one priority: to safeguard the rights of people who have built their lives in the UK and EU.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
I asked the Minister for information about billing across borders to date, because that information must have been available to the Government before they started negotiating over the travel arrangements.
Lord Callanan
I will need to write to the noble Baroness with the exact amount of billing, as I do not have those figures in front of me at the moment.
I turn to Amendment 353, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stephen. The Government already keep NHS performance and health outcomes constantly under review, including through the NHS outcomes framework, which measures a number of health indicators intended to form an overarching picture of the current state of health and care services in England. We are committed to positive and productive engagement with the devolved Administrations going forward as we seek a deal that works for the entire United Kingdom.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care also publishes an annual assessment on the performance of NHS England, including how it has met its mandate from the Government, as well as an annual report on the overall performance of the health service.
Lord Wigley
As the Minister has confirmed that there is in fact ongoing, detailed monitoring of these matters, can he confirm that we are losing National Health Service staff returning to the European Union and are having greater difficulty in recruiting from Europe to fill the vacant spaces?
Lord Callanan
I am not sure that is the case. Obviously there are people returning to the EU all the time, and different people coming to the UK to take up job offers. We can get into detailed figures, but I do not think there is any large-scale exodus of health service staff.
For the reasons I have set out, this amendment is both unnecessary and risks creating unwelcome new burdens at a time when that is least appropriate. I hope I have been able to provide noble Lords with sufficient reassurance.
Lord Cormack
My noble friend is batting on a difficult wicket. We understand that. He has my total personal sympathy for the plight in which he finds himself, but what he has said this afternoon just ain’t good enough. It is important that he takes on board what has been said during this debate, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and that when we come to this on Report, he has some substantial and detailed specific progress to report to your Lordships’ House.
Lord Callanan
I thank my noble friend for his comments. A lot of these matters are still to be negotiated in the next phase. We made substantial progress in the first phase, and we will endeavour to ensure that we make good progress to achieve a good working relationship with the EMA and to guarantee the rights of travellers through a system similar to the European health insurance card for those travelling in future. I hope to be able to provide more information on Report.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
Following on from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, could the Minister provide us with data in writing on the numbers of EU staff who have applied for jobs in healthcare in the last 12 months and the numbers of EU staff who have left? We need to have the data rather than bald statements about what is happening based on anecdotes, because it may well be that the Minister is hearing a quite different set of anecdotes from the ones the rest of us are hearing.
Will the Minister also confirm, or not, my interpretation of his comments on the outcome if there is no agreement? Here I return in part to Amendment 11, but to others as well. If there is no agreement with these regulations, will the Government then simply adopt European regulations de facto? I cannot see any other way for our pharmaceutical and biotech industries to continue to function. We need them for our economy, quite apart from needing them to ensure that there is a supply of medical and biotech advances for our patients. It is particularly important because biotech is an emerging field in which to date, within Europe, the UK has been the leader. I should declare an interest here because my son is a senior lecturer in bioengineering and cardiology, so he is involved in some of this ground-breaking work.
It would be helpful for us to know that and whether, in the context of there being no deal, the Government are already establishing dialogue between different Ministers in the devolved Administrations. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has pointed out, there are very real implications for Wales, particularly west Wales—I declare my interest as someone who lives and works there—because we know there are large gaps there. We have to know how the Government intend to behave in the event of there being no deal at all.
Lord Callanan
The noble Baroness has made some valuable points. On the question of data on EU staff applying to jobs in the UK, if that information is available then we will certainly share it with her.
She asked what happens if there is no agreement. As I said, the MHRA already issues national licences for some 90% of medicines on the UK market. If we are no longer co-operating with the EMA on the regulation of new novel medicines, the UK will ensure that our own procedures do not lead to any delay in patient access to new medicines and are no more burdensome to industry.
The noble Baroness’s point about working with the devolved Administrations is a good one and we will ensure that that happens.
Baroness Thornton
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who as always is much more qualified than me and indeed most of the House, for her support. I respectfully suggest that the Minister needs to actually talk to some of these bodies about how complicated, difficult and costly it will be if we do not reach an agreement. That needs to be taken into account.
I thank noble Lords for their support across the House for this suite of amendments. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, is important and—like my own, I hope—very practical. This is about what medicines people buy over the counter, what health supplements they have access to and whether those will change post Brexit.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, tabled Amendment 205, and I thank him for his support for my amendment. He and I want the same thing: we want this scheme, which protects people’s right to healthcare, to continue, and as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, its current form would be the easiest form for it to do so. It is often the case that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, makes the observation that you wish you had—in this case, about disease knowing no boundaries. He is absolutely right.
My noble friend Lady Blackstone made an eloquent point about cutting-edge research and the importance that that has for children and the rare diseases that they experience.
I do not deny that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Stephen, is important. It will be very important that we know what the impact of Brexit has been, not just a year later but ongoing. However, the argument that we are having on the earlier part of this suite of amendments is about what happens in the negotiations and what happens if they fail. It is about the action that we take now.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is quite correct about the uncertainty that has been created for NHS staff in terms of their retention and recruitment. In fact I asked a Question of the Health Minister about precisely that not so long ago. Those figures have been collected by organisations such as the Royal Colleges so we know that the number of nurses coming from Europe in the last year has fallen by, from memory, around 80%. That is a huge drop in the number of nurses prepared to come and work in this country from Europe.
I say to the Minister that we understand—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack—that this is a difficult time and the Government are in the middle of negotiations. However, it is a long time since the referendum and we are a short time away from falling off the edge of the Brexit cliff, and issues of licensing of medicines and access of citizens to healthcare can none of them brook a two or three-year negotiation after Brexit because of the suffering that would cause and the impact it would have. That is what the amendments concern.
I hope that, between now and the next stage of the Bill, we will make some progress on both those issues. If we do not, we shall return to them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“( ) Regulations bringing into force subsection (1) may not be made until the Secretary of State has set out a strategy for seeking to remain a member of, or a strategy seeking to maintain equivalent participatory relations with, Erasmus+ and Horizon 2020 and Horizon 2020’s successor programmes.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to an amendment which concerns two EU programmes which are clearly at risk as a consequence of the Brexit withdrawal. The first is Horizon 2020, which is a major funder of research, principally in our universities. One cannot talk about this funding programme without making reference to the impact on the UK economy.
I remind the Minister that the Government’s industrial strategy sets a goal for the UK to have the world’s most innovative economy. It states that we are recognised as a global leader in science and research but that neither the Government nor the private sector are investing enough in R&D. As the Government’s paper points out, we spend 1.7% of GDP, compared with 2.8% in the US and 2.9% in Germany. Commendably, the Government have set the goal to raise total research and development investment to 2.4% of GDP by 2027. They state their intention to work with universities and research institutes to increase global investors and R&D activities taking place in the UK. That is highly commendable but also challenging in the context of Brexit.
There are a number of factors in this. First, I hark back to our previous debate on regulation. The Minister says that because 90% of medicines in use in the UK are licensed by the MHRA, we should not worry if there is no deal, and the MHRA becomes a stand-alone regulator. That misses the point that any medicines licensed by the MHRA in this country can then be taken to be licensed throughout the EU. The reason is that we play by the same rules. Unless we reach a mutual recognition agreement with the EU, it is absolutely clear that pharma’s investment in research in the UK will fall dramatically. It is not just regulation, it is funding, it is multicentre research collaboration, it is research policy and it is movement of researchers.
At the moment, many of those research programmes are at risk, none more so than Horizon 2020. This is a programme which funds major research in our universities. Rather like the UK’s general research position, we have a hugely impressive number of universities engaged in high-quality research. We know that despite the relatively low share of global investment in R&D, UK research accounted for 50% of the world’s most highly cited research articles. Part of that success has been in attracting more than £1 billion from overseas every year, with £840 million coming from the EU in 2015-16. Horizon 2020 is the biggest EU research and innovation programme and the UK has done very well out of it. It is the second in order of recipients of that programme within the EU. Around 15% of funds allocated from Horizon 2020 have gone to the UK. Indeed, Cambridge, UCL, Imperial and Oxford universities are the top four recipients to date. Other universities, including Edinburgh, Manchester and Birmingham have also done well.
Clearly, the question is: what will happen with withdrawal from the EU? At the moment, the position is that UK researchers will remain fully eligible for EU funding for at least the next 17 months. The Government have given a guarantee to pay out any funding applied for and awarded before we leave. But, of course, the question is: what happens post 2020? The Government’s position on that is non-committal. We have had positive messages from the Prime Minister in her Lancaster House and Florence speeches, and in the Government’s science and innovation discussion paper, but since then, there has been no clarification at all of the UK’s status in relation to this funding after Brexit.
Of course, the worry is that simply the loss of funding will have a big impact on our research capabilities and also collaboration with European universities. My amendment would ensure that we either remain a member of, or seek to maintain some kind of participatory relations with, Horizon 2020 and its successor programmes. I should say that part of the problem is that if academics do not know, it is very difficult for them to plan research collaborations with European universities going beyond the due date. Any week lost in terms of uncertainty is sure to put some of those programmes at risk.
I propose a similar approach in relation to the Erasmus+ programme. I should have thought that, post Brexit, the need to encourage young people from the UK to maintain and develop links with the rest of Europe is self-evident if we are to avoid drifting apart from the continent. Yet our withdrawal from the Erasmus+ programme could make that more difficult. This EU-funded scheme has enabled 600,000 people from the UK to go abroad to study, train or volunteer over the last 30 years. It is open to education, training, youth and sports organisations across all sectors of lifelong learning, including school education, further education, adult education and the youth sector, as well as higher education, for which I suspect it is most well known. For young people, this has had a hugely positive impact, leading to better job prospects and lower unemployment. The British Council, which oversees it, reports that young people who participate in international opportunities return with increased language and intercultural skills.
The programme is not just about the EU—it has enabled UK universities to develop new or to reinforce existing partnerships with universities in Asia, Latin America and the US. The British Council believes that the UK should seek to remain in a successor Erasmus+ programme, and I very much agree with that. If we do not, the UK will have to set up numerous bilateral relationships which will be time consuming and costly, and frankly, I doubt the capacity of government to be able to do it any time soon. Here we have an entirely positive programme, enabling young people from this country and other countries of the EU to enjoy fulfilment and open their horizons. I should have thought that at least in this programme, it would have been possible to agree our future participation. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that. I beg to move.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 10, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and have Amendment 163 in this group in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Storey and the noble Earls, Lord Clancarty and Lord Dundee. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has set out clearly why we feel that assurances on Erasmus+ and Horizon 2020 are essential if our world-leading universities are to retain their reputation and our students are to be given the best opportunities to broaden horizons.
Does the Minister recognise the benefits of scientific research—including, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has set out, for the economy? In particular, can he provide some clarity on how the UK Government intend either to remain in or replace the range of EU funds as we leave the European Union? Of course, it is not only the funding. Crucial to research is collaboration. Working with other European researchers and academics has resulted in work of benefit to the UK, the EU and, indeed, worldwide. As a recent CBI report set out:
“With science and innovation increasingly becoming globalised, the UK’s role as a leading global scientific power is at risk without an agreement”.
What a loss it would be if we were to walk away from these EU programmes.
Horizon 2020, as we have heard, is the biggest EU research and innovation programme, with nearly €80 billion of funding available over the seven years of 2014 to 2020. In addition to Horizon 2020, there is a range of other EU-based funding, which has included, for instance, valuable support for environmental science and the environment, whose future must also be carefully considered by the Government. Protecting the environment is best done in collaboration. We believe that these funds are key.
Horizon 2020 is a highly important source of funding for research in the UK. There are other funds such as Interreg and Life, which support applied research in the UK and are instrumental in turning academic research into public policy and maximising its benefits for society. As for the Erasmus exchange programme, it has been described as one of the greatest culture and character-building programmes that you can have in your whole life. The Liberal Democrats have long wholeheartedly supported Erasmus. It is heartening to hear that wholehearted support coming from the Labour Benches—it would be even better to hear it from the Government Benches, and not just for the niggardly couple of years that Ministers have mentioned so far but as an ongoing and enduring commitment.
Erasmus is aimed at cross-border co-operation between states to aid the growth of international studying, international understanding and fostering good international relations—and my goodness we will need all those in spades, if and when we leave the European Union. With over 4,000 students involved in the programme at any one time, it offers an excellent chance of experience abroad, which, we know, is highly valued by employers. Those from disadvantaged backgrounds can be helped by the Erasmus+ EU grant to help cover the travel and subsistence costs incurred in connection with their period of study abroad.
Erasmus has been of life-changing importance to so many young people from all walks of life. It would be an act of folly not to continue this scheme for our young people. I hope the Minister will respond favourably to these two amendments, in the interests of students, researchers and the greater good of the country.
Lord Patel (CB)
I support this amendment and will go a bit further. As we have heard, the UK is a major player in research and innovation in European countries and worldwide. A recently published document, Building a Strong Future for European Science: Brexit and Beyond, is Wellcome’s recommendation from the future partnership project, based on a survey of 200 institutions and top scientists in Europe. It might form the framework based on which the Government may wish to negotiate beyond Brexit.
If nothing were to change and we were to remain as we are, there would be no problem—the UK would remain a major player in science and innovation. But on the basis that we will have to negotiate post Brexit, I would say, as the document says:
“Brexit presents the UK and EU with choices about their future relationship on research and innovation”.
European nations, including the United Kingdom as a major player, have developed,
“a world-leading location for research and innovation”.
The EU and associated countries—there are countries which are not part of the EU but are currently associated with Erasmus and other EU research programmes—
“should accelerate and deepen development of the European Research Area (ERA), to help Europe and EU Framework Programmes capitalise on the strengths and talents of a wider group of nations”.
Each of these nations, including the UK, contributes heavily to these programmes. We have to find a way to continue, both for Europe and for us.
An EU-UK research and innovation agreement for Brexit could be possible:
“Evidence and views gathered through the Future Partnership Project showed the importance of finding a way for the EU and UK to maintain their important partnership”.
There was a strong view, both from scientists and research organisations in Europe, outside the UK, that they would like this partnership and strong relationship to continue.
As to funding, as has already been mentioned:
“The EU’s Framework Programmes are the most effective multilateral funding schemes in the world”.
The UK needs to be part of this, so:
“The UK should therefore secure Associated Country status in an excellence-focused Framework Programme 9”—
that will follow programme 8—
“as this would be the best way to participate in European research. To achieve this, the UK should be pragmatic about the cost of a good deal to access FP9, and the EU should be pragmatic about the terms of FP9 association for the UK”.
There are benefits for both sides, which the science community certainly recognises.
There will, of course, have to be some alliance with regulation and research policy. A later amendment in my name relates particularly to clinical trials, which are important for the life sciences industry in this country. It is important, therefore, for,
“the UK to participate in the EU’s harmonised clinical trials system”,
including the new system that will come. The report states:
“A research and innovation agreement should promote dialogue on areas of research policy where the EU and UK can provide global leadership, for example on open research … A research and innovation agreement should support full researcher mobility between the EEA and UK”.
Proposals of this kind, which have come from Wellcome and the Royal Society, could be the framework for future negotiations, particularly on research and innovation.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, as has been said, that our current advantages from international student mobility might now be under attack is clearly of great concern.
In 2014-15, it was estimated that international students contributed around £25.8 billion in gross output to the United Kingdom economy. There are also the considerable social and cultural benefits to which they contribute, not least the United Kingdom’s soft power overseas.
Yet recently, and unfortunately, those heartening figures and prospects have got worse, with our market share slipping against rival English-speaking countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada, as well as against European countries, which now offer more courses in English.
These amendments seek to prevent further decline by protecting continuing UK participation in the Erasmus and Horizon 2020 schemes. As we know, the Government have guaranteed participation for the next three years.
Nevertheless, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, as other noble Lords have urged, by far the best plan is to negotiate with the EU to stay within these very effective education initiatives, while at the same time doing all we can to support and work with our universities to increase international student mobility both in Europe and elsewhere?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I too support the two amendments in this group. I have a special interest in Oxford University, which benefits exponentially from Horizon 2020, and our students also benefit from Erasmus. As my noble friend said, Oxford, Cambridge, UCL and Imperial are the top four recipients to date. This has been invaluable in achieving their status in global league tables. However, my concern is about not just Oxford but our higher education sector as a whole. We often repeat the mantra that we are global leaders, and we are: our higher education system is the envy of the world and that is a matter for celebration. But too often we forget that some of our research and innovation success derives from the funding and, often more importantly, the collaboration that we enjoy as part of Horizon 2020, which built on its predecessor framework programmes. The partnerships that have enabled our universities to thrive are now being undermined by Brexit.
We are assured that our UK researchers will remain fully eligible for Horizon 2020 support for at least the next 17 months, but I have to tell the Minister that the reality is sometimes quite different. In many cases we are no longer considered the lead partner in a project because there is so much uncertainty about the future relationship. I fear that we will find, more and more, that we simply do not win the bids. As for the future, what are the Government’s intentions? Will our universities continue to be leading players in the successor to Horizon 2020, which will start in 2021—a programme over which, I regret, we will have little or no influence?
How are our universities supposed to plan, especially at a time when there is great uncertainty about the future funding of the sector as a whole? University staff and lecturers are under the cosh, facing pension cuts and living with the uncertainties caused by Brexit. Louise Richardson, vice-chancellor of the University of Oxford, said in a recent article that we must remember:
“Universities are engines of social mobility, drivers of the economy and generators of new ideas”.
I am sure that the Government agree, yet the lack of commitment in relation to the next EU research and innovation programme will undoubtedly make it more difficult to retain and recruit the best researchers—the very people who generate the new ideas and find solutions to the problems of today and the challenges of tomorrow.
Many facts and figures have already been given but I remind noble Lords that, in terms of research, development and innovation activities, in the last seven-year financial framework, the UK contributed €5.4 billion to the EU and the EU contributed €8.8 billion to the UK. The UK is not only the most active participant in Horizon 2020 but our institutions co-ordinate about 20% of the projects that have been funded so far. In Germany it is a mere 11% and in France 9%, to name just two partners. Our influence and collaboration are extraordinary. I fear that without full participation in Horizon 2020, that will diminish.
Last year, we celebrated the 30th anniversary of the Erasmus programme. It is important to note that a higher proportion of those who study abroad achieve a first-class or 2:1 degree compared with those who stay in one place, and have improved employment prospects. It is not only our students who benefit, and have benefited, from this culture and character-building programme but all the public, private and voluntary associations in which the young people later find work. The experience of a year abroad gives them language and communication skills, sometimes provides professional experience, nurtures confidence and builds resilience. As the world of work undergoes a profound change thanks to new technologies, artificial intelligence and the pressures and opportunities resulting from globalisation, these skills are needed much more, not less.
Erasmus students who come to the UK are an important part of the international student community in our universities and communities. They also make an economic contribution to the UK. However, as has been mentioned, perhaps the soft power is of greatest benefit. Erasmus funding is also available to support staff mobility, joint master’s courses and collaborative projects. Many assume that student exchanges relate only to modern languages, but many law students, engineers and biochemists, to name but a few, also benefit from the arrangements. The UK National Agency for Erasmus+, a partnership between the British Council and Ecorys UK, remains wholly committed to the Erasmus+ programme and its benefits. The agreement reached in December between the UK and the EU confirmed that we will be able to participate in EU programmes, including Erasmus, until the end of 2020.
But what then? Will the Government continue to pay for participation in this excellent programme? Students starting university this September will want to be sure that they can participate in Erasmus, and students applying for university in 2018-19 must have certainty so that they can make informed choices. Labour’s position is absolutely clear, and always has been: we will continue to pay, and I warmly welcome that. I look forward to the Minister’s reply, in which I hope that he will also tell your Lordships how the Government are continuing to shape the next Erasmus+ programme so that it is more efficient, more inclusive and has an even greater impact.
The amendments before us today are probing but I trust that the Minister will be able to give a positive response to my noble friend; otherwise, I hope that further amendments will be tabled on Report. In his response, I trust that the Minister will also provide assurance that the Government’s lack of future commitment to date has nothing to do with the way in which the concerns of Brexiteers are being assuaged. I presume that they too would be in favour of maximising research funding and collaboration with European partners that leads to excellence, as well as enhancement of the skills and experience of our students.
The Earl of Clancarty
My Lords, I have added my name to both the amendments in this group. I have tabled Amendment 204, which will be discussed later in Committee, on maintaining rights and opportunities for young people, and Erasmus+ is a part of that amendment.
If we lose our programme membership of Erasmus, it will be a huge blow not just to our young people, which would certainly be bad enough, but to the whole higher education sector, which benefits from the many projects that Erasmus has to offer, including not only the student exchange scheme but staff exchanges and projects involving the institutions themselves. The exchanges also include work placements, which can provide much experience of other work environments for British students. This is of course not just about experience and learning in the narrow sense; it is about the reciprocation of ideas, the effect of cultural exchange, and the knowledge that British students gain of other cultures and of how things are done elsewhere—and indeed vice versa, as there is also an extremely important soft power element in the creation of so many UK alumni across Europe.
Student exchange schemes embody an open-mindedness—even an open-heartedness—which is a far cry from the attitudes taken by some sections of the British press, which are currently crowing about the number of EU nationals leaving our shores.
There are some who say that, instead, we should develop independent arrangements with universities further afield. The fact is that we are developing relationships further afield anyway. For example, my nephew is at Northern Arizona University for a year, where he is studying American history as part of a degree course at Swansea University, with which Northern Arizona has an agreement. In a poll two years ago, 42% of students said that they were interested in travelling to non-Anglophone countries, some outside the EU. It should not be a case of either/or. To close down or risk closing down these wonderful educational opportunities for young people on our own continent would be perverse and a giant step backwards. Nothing in Erasmus says that one thing precludes the other.
The Government guarantee our current membership only up to 2020. There needs to be something much more concrete. Jessica Cole, head of policy at the Russell group said this month:
“We are expecting the European Commission to put forward proposals for the next Erasmus programme later … this year. There is an opportunity now ... for the UK to help shape that programme ... The UK Government needs to be engaged in this important process, especially whilst we still have a seat at the table”.
She goes on to say that,
“it should be a priority for the UK Government to secure continued UK participation from 2021 onwards ... the Prime Minister should indicate whether the UK intends to negotiate participation at the earliest opportunity”.
I ask the Minister: when will this indication be made?
On the wording of the amendments before us, one thing that we need to be careful about is the status of membership. It is possible—probably very likely—that we will retain membership technically, but there is a huge difference in the actions possible between programme membership, which we have presently, and partner membership, where we will be effectively left out in the cold. The phrase “on existing terms” in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, is crucial. We need absolutely to maintain the existing level of participation.
It needs to be said that, if we do leave the single market, we risk losing our programme membership. Witness what happened to Switzerland, which was expelled from the programme membership of Erasmus and from Horizon 2020 following a referendum that allowed a policy which compromised its own free movement deal with the EU. Switzerland has now realised what it was in danger of losing, and has since re-joined Horizon 2020 and is likely to re-join Erasmus+ properly in 2021.
In this and in so many other instances, it is wrong to think only of how the EU is treating us. We have enjoyed access to these programmes through our membership of the EU—at the very least, through being part of the single market. They have been an integral part of the deal, which has always been a two-way street. We should instead be asking ourselves: do we really want to risk losing access to programmes which have been, and still are, so beneficial to our young people, the higher education sector and research development in the UK—and, therefore, to the country as a whole?
Lord Cormack
My Lords, it is some 500 years since the great humanist scholar Erasmus came to this country to visit his friend, Thomas More. I always thought it was particularly appropriate that this programme, which has come to dominate today’s debate, was named after that extraordinary European. Whatever our nationality and identity, we are all European.
I should declare an interest, in that I was a visiting parliamentary fellow and have for many years been a senior associate member of St Antony’s College, Oxford. I have therefore seen at first hand how crucial it is that highly intelligent young people from different countries get to know each other. The programme has done untold good for this country, because so many from that particular college have gone back to their countries to occupy high positions in government and the civil service, and sometimes the highest position of all as head of state.
I have raised the Erasmus issue a number of times in your Lordships’ House and I have never been reassured by the answer I have been given from the Front Bench. A guarantee for 17 months is no good at all. As has been said already in this debate, those who are in charge of academic programmes, be they scientific or in the humanities, need to be able to look ahead. I have two granddaughters who are undergraduates—one will graduate this year and the other in two years’ time—and they may just benefit from this, but there is no absolute guarantee. Yet I know that their studies and their outlook on life would be immeasurably enriched by their having the opportunity to travel and to study abroad, in particular to study on our continent of Europe.
It really is important that we continually make the point that we are Europeans. No act of this Parliament or any other can alter that fact, and nor can any referendum result, be it on 23 June 2016 or on 23 June in some other year.
There has been much talk about a deep and rich partnership, and of course we want that, but we have to start now to be specific. One thing we can be specific about is this: here is a magnificent programme from which students and university staff have, over the past 30 years, benefitted enormously.
A couple of weeks ago, I was at a 21st birthday dinner at the University of Lincoln, a university that has risen spectacularly in the tables. It regards its 10% of foreign students as enormously important, and the chance its students have to study abroad as enormously important.
We know that there are countries outside the EU that benefit from Erasmus: so what, in the name of goodness, is holding back the Government from saying, “We are making an unequivocal commitment to continue this”? There is no reason why we cannot; there is every reason why we should. We are in an unfortunate position at the moment, with no clarity, much confusion and contradictory statements being made by different members of the Cabinet. I am told they are at one now, following their outing in Chequers last week, and I hope that is right.
However, we could make things so much better by making a number of pledges and commitments. We are part of this and intend to remain part of it because, if this country is to flourish after Brexit, it will depend, perhaps more than anything else, upon the quality of our education and, particularly, of our university education.
Those who are Brexit orientated should particularly remember that there is no doubt that the vast majority of young people in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland wanted to remain part of the EU. I deeply regret that we are not going to, but we can hang on to some of the best aspects of it, and this is one.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, which means that I depend considerably on the relationships between universities doing the kind of research that is necessary. I also have a daughter who had an Erasmus scholarship and I therefore care about this issue considerably.
I listened with great care to my noble friend’s response to the previous debate about medical matters. I emerged little the wiser as to where the Government were, intended to be, might be, would have been, thought they could have been, may in the future be if this or that might happen. We cannot go through 10 days or more in Committee—this will go on for some time—in which that will be the answer to every question put forward. There have to be sensible answers to sensible questions. This is a sensible question to which there is only one sensible answer. He is on a strong wicket on this occasion because he does not need to think any harder than deciding that doing both of these things will in no way interfere with the negotiations we have with the European Union. When we come to discuss everything else, it will not make a jot of difference if we have been sensible about these two things because they are clearly issues in which both we and the rest of Europe have a common concern and understanding.
On the research position of our great universities, we would be foolish to imagine that that happens by accident or that it is an eternal verity which will go on forever despite anything we may do. One of the reasons—not the only one—that our universities have been able to maintain and improve their position has been their openness to the rest of Europe, both in terms of the people with whom they work and the universities and institutions with which they can be the lead in so many of the occasions supported by Horizon 2020. The Government need to think carefully about the ease with which we can slip back down that list of leadership if we do not take the right decisions.
The Government must also not be blinded by a fear that anyone who disagrees with anything in this Bill is somehow or other perpetuating an anti-Brexit position. Everyone knows that I am entirely anti-Brexit and shall go on being so; that is absolutely true, but I am talking about something quite different. It is a simple matter concerning our universities and our young people. My daughter was one of the 300,000 people—a huge number—who have enjoyed this experience and she now speaks a little Catalan as a result, which is a useful skill at the moment.
This is a wonderful opportunity for my noble friend because what he could do now is make the Committee feel that the Government are genuinely listening to genuine discussions. I do not want to embarrass anyone, but a number of people in this House are dedicated Brexiteers but on this particular matter they are on our side. That is because it ain’t something about Brexit; it is about the sensible way forward. I therefore ask my noble friend this: why not accept this very sensible amendment? In case he is not apprised of this, let me tell him why he has been told not to do so. The rule is that nothing must change based on the argument that if anything changes, it will all be too late and we will not get it right. This is one thing that can be changed and will make no difference whatsoever to the timetable, so that argument will not wash. However, no doubt it is on his list of responses, but if I have said it, perhaps he will not say it himself.
The second reason that my noble friend will no doubt put forward is that it is all part of the negotiations. “We are working very hard to get closer to the rest of the European Union”. I can tell you how to stay close to the European Union, and that is not to try to leave it. If you are not going to do that, do not tell us that the Government are working hard to get closer when this is a way to do it. Just say, “We want to stay in the Erasmus programme and in Horizon 2020. We will play our full part and we will work with the Union in the way it wants us to. We are not going to be silly enough to say that this is just another item in the long list of things that we are going to discuss with the rest of Europe”.
I say to my noble friend that here is a chance for him to shine. Here is an opportunity for him to show that he has a mind of his own and say the obvious thing, which is yes.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of Amendment 10, with particular reference to the Erasmus+ programme, for two specific reasons. First, if we were no longer part of Erasmus+, there would be adverse consequences for the employability of our young people in general. Secondly, Erasmus+ is an essential part of the pipeline for modern foreign language teachers, where there is already a significant shortage. Uncertainty over our continued participation in Erasmus+ is one of the reasons for the continued decline in university applications to study modern languages. Over the past 10 years, applications have dropped by 57% and more than 50 universities have now scrapped some or all of their MFL degree courses.
Of course, Erasmus is not just for linguists and I cannot emphasise strongly enough how important Erasmus+ is for employability prospects across the board. Not only does the Erasmus year abroad help to improve language skills, it also helps to develop an international mindset and a cross-cultural attitude to work. We know from British Academy research and from a recent US study that employers rate these skills in some cases even more highly than expertise in the STEM subjects. We also know that graduates who have spent their year abroad under the Erasmus+ programme are 23% less likely to be unemployed than those who have not done so.
So, as others have said, it really is not good enough for the Government to commit to funding Erasmus+ only to 2020. That is no help at all to people in their first year of university now, whether they are linguists or studying some other discipline, who do not know whether they will be able to spend their third year abroad. It is of no help to sixth-formers or those coming up shortly into the sixth form who might be thinking about keeping up a modern language.
We need a clear commitment to be part of Erasmus+ beyond 2020 in exactly the same way as Norway and other non-EU countries, including Macedonia, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Turkey, which are all full programme partners. We would certainly be cutting off our nose to spite our face if we do not do this, not least because the European Commission is planning to double participation in Erasmus+ by 2025 by extending opportunities for exchanges and placements to school pupils, which, it is very easy to see, might turn out to be a critical factor in encouraging the continued take-up of modern languages at A-level and university. At the moment, we are simply not producing enough graduate linguists to meet the needs of teaching, business or the body of interpreters and translators working in international organisations such as the UN.
The other element of self-inflicted backlash if we ditch Erasmus+ would be to turn our backs on a vital part of the supply chain for modern language teachers. The Department for Education estimates the current shortage to be 3,500 if the Government are to meet their EBacc target. This shortage risks getting worse and more precarious post Brexit because such a significant proportion of MFL teachers and language classroom teachers are non-UK EU nationals. If they are not guaranteed residency status post Brexit, language teaching in our schools will become very precarious indeed. I implore Her Majesty’s Government to exercise a massive amount of enlightened self-interest and ensure that the UK remains a full programme partner and a full member of the Erasmus+ programme in the long term.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I will talk about two aspects of Horizon 2020. One is the question of certainty and the other is how this links with freedom of movement. I declare two interests. My wife has been on some of the advisory committees concerned with the definition of Horizon 2020 and what happens beyond it. British participation in defining research priorities across the European Union has been high in the last two or three exercises. That is not something that has been imposed on us and it is one of the things that we will lose.
My second interest is that I have a son who is a mathematical biologist and who spent his graduate and postgraduate years—up to 10 years—in the United States and came back to this country under an EU-funded scheme to bring bright young researchers back to Europe. He had his two-year Marie Curie fellowship and was advised not to apply for European Research Council fellowship, which would have naturally followed on, because we were perhaps leaving the European Union and that would make it difficult for him. The uncertainty is absolutely there. Happily, he now has another grant. He was persuaded to return to the University of Edinburgh by an Italian professor who led a multinational team there. That is how British universities work. I have been to many universities in other European countries where the overwhelming majority of staff and students come from that country or, in one or two countries such as Belgium and Spain, from that region. Those universities are not of the same quality or calibre.
I sometimes fear that there are hard Brexiteers in this country who think that we have too many foreigners in our universities already and that it would be much better if we went back to being proper British universities again, which would be much more in tune with the British national spirit.
As a mathematical biologist, my son is currently in Paris for six weeks at the Institut Pasteur, having spent some weeks last year in Heidelberg, because the sort of work you do in the life sciences is multinational and naturally collaborative. That requires easy movement, short term and long term. Anything which raises difficulties of travel in and out of this country, which is part of the intention of leaving the European Union, will make it much more difficult for our universities to go on being quite as good as they are. So I stress that, as we leave the European Union, we have to ensure that we remain internationally competitive and, in our universities, this matters.
Since the Government intend to leave the European Union in 13 months’ time, we need some rapid certainty on Horizon 2020. I suggest to the Minister that, well before the Bill leaves this House, the Government should have a clear answer, highly relevant to the Bill which takes us out of the European Union, on what the implications are of leaving and on which bits we are not leaving. Please may we have an answer?
Lord Patten of Barnes (Con)
My Lords, I will not only say that I will be brief but will be brief. I shall not pursue what has been said about Erasmus, with which I strongly agree—Erasmus must have been very grateful for all we have said about him today, although I think he would have some doubts about the present state of rationality in some of our political debate in this country.
I will instead follow the point made so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. I declare an interest, which is not financial. As the noble Lord will know, I was chancellor of a Russell group university in the north-east of England. I am chancellor today of another Russell group university. Perhaps just as significant, when I ceased to be a European Commissioner, I was asked to chair the committee which established the European Research Council. It did so on the basis of the recommendations in particular of Lord May, one of the greatest contributors to the debate about research and about universities in this country.
We established the research council on the basis that it would distribute funds by peer group review—not according to what individual countries had contributed but according to the research capacities of those countries and of particular institutions. And guess what? It demonstrated that we have the second-best higher education system in the world and arguably the best higher education system in Europe: we did extraordinarily well out of that research budget. As the noble Baroness pointed out, we get a great deal more back from the European budget than we put into it, which indicates how good our research community is in this country.
I realise that there are constraints under which the Minister has to operate—he has our sympathy and our prayers as he moves forward. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Deben said earlier: we do not expect him to do wonders. I am not sure that he will be able to tell us now what the Government’s intentions are in relation to the European research community. I do not blame him if he cannot do that, because I do not think that anybody in the Government has the faintest idea—certainly, I do not know anybody in Europe who has the faintest idea of what we want to happen—but I hope that, at the end of the day, as right reverend Prelates might put it, we will still be members of that research community.
So I do not expect the Minister today to be able to spell out precisely what arrangements we will have in the future—whether they will be similar to those which Switzerland has today, whereby it is part of the community but takes no management decisions about it. Israel is in a similar position. However, I hope that, even if he cannot tell us exactly what the relationship will be, he will at least give us one simple guarantee—and I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would want to stand over this very strongly.
When we leave the European Union we will lose the considerable surplus that we have at the moment in research spending—as I said, getting back more than we put in. Will the Minister guarantee this evening, even if he cannot give us any details about our future relationship with the European research community, that any shortfall in that funding after we leave the European Union will be made good by the Government?
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I support Amendments 10 and 163 on the need to ensure that the immense benefits of the Erasmus+ programme continue to be available to students throughout these islands and that the Horizon programme will continue to be funded. I have a particular attachment to the Erasmus programme from the early days, now decades ago, when a very good friend of mine and, I believe, a friend of a number of colleagues in this Chamber tonight, Hywel Ceri Jones, in his work in the European commission helped to pioneer the Erasmus programme. In fact, our parliamentary secretary in another place, Heulwen Huws, became one of his first administrators. I very much want to see this programme survive for those and many better reasons. The one point I want to impress upon the Committee is that the Erasmus programme has a very large input from the UK: it is not some programme being imposed upon us and owned by other people, it is something that we have a shared ownership of and we want to make sure the shared benefit continues for our young people.
The higher education sector in Wales has been a major part of the growing Welsh economy: 50,000 jobs in Wales depend upon it. Much of the success can be attributed to European investment, both structural and research-specific. Bangor University—I declare my interest in that university—has benefited over the last decade from about £100 million of funding. Swansea University’s Bay Campus has benefited from a similar level of EU funding. Incidentally, Swansea has benefited from £60 million of European Investment Bank funding. It would be interesting, although it may be outside the ambit of this short debate, if the Minister addressed that: the question of continued eligibility for European Investment Bank funding for our universities is one that could well do with clarification.
If we are in danger, in the event of a hard Brexit, of losing EU funding for higher education purposes and projects, I impress on the Government, as have a number of colleagues, the need to set up some alternative source of funding to ensure that vital work undertaken in our universities goes forward. We need a UK convergence strategy that will reproduce the European principle of equalisation and provide equivalent funds on a needs basis. This will enable universities, in Wales and elsewhere, to compete on the higher education world stage and continue to educate and innovate, as it currently does thanks to EU funding. Will the Minister clarify what the Government’s objectives are for these purposes as they enter the detailed negotiations? Do they aspire to some ongoing eligibility for access to cross-border and transnational funding programmes? Seeking single market participation is certainly the aim in the Welsh White Paper, but if the Government have rejected single market participation, as seems to be the noise coming out, can they guarantee, with no ifs or buts, that all the present levels of EU funding will be replaced, as was promised at the time of the referendum in 2016? This is particularly important for research funding: the Horizon 2020 programme has been a vital source of funding for universities throughout the land. So far the Government have refused to provide any statutory guarantee that these funding levels will be maintained. Will the Minister now take the opportunity to do so?
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
My Lords, I support these two important amendments and I apologise to the Committee for having being unavailable to speak at Second Reading. I therefore take the opportunity to declare my interests as chair of the Henry Royce Institute, a member of the Committee on Climate Change and chairman of the Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee on Climate Change. As we have heard from many noble Lords, the Horizon 2020 and Erasmus+ programmes are critical to our world-class academic institutions, to research and to our students. I will not take up any time by repeating the arguments but I remind the Committee that historically UK students are some of the least internationally mobile in Europe, particularly young people from less advantaged groups. If we are to compete ever more widely on the international stage after leaving the EU, ensuring that UK students from all backgrounds have the kinds of experiences that are enabled by the Erasmus+ programme should surely be a national priority.
We have not heard much about what Horizon 2020 does outside our outstanding academic institutions. It is a key funding source for industrial collaboration, supporting important initiatives such as helping Rolls-Royce develop new generations of more efficient and environmentally friendly aero engines. It also plays a key role in supporting innovation and entrepreneurship schemes, such as the knowledge and innovation communities, with a great example at Imperial College: Climate-KIC, which has already seen a number of new entrepreneurs with low-carbon technologies start to develop businesses in the UK.
In my own area of interest, Horizon 2020 supports environmental research. The UK wins around £147 million per annum for environmental research. Sadly, that rather dwarfs the £5 million investment in the new northern forest. Other EU funds, such as Interreg and LIFE, are important not only for environmental research but to cross-border collaboration on the island of Ireland; for example, supporting shared environments through the cross-border Loughs Agency, as well as other types of cross-border community projects. This is hugely important work that the House of Lords EU Select Committee was able to see and hear about at first hand on our recent visit to both sides of the Irish border. It is a really important element of the peace settlement on the island of Ireland.
These funding mechanisms play a critical role in our economic growth, as we have heard; in cross-border relations and well-being in Ireland; and in helping the Government achieve their stated aim to leave nature in “a better state” for the next generation. For these reasons, the amendments have my very strong support.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I would not wish to disagree in any way with all those noble Lords who have said how excellent the Erasmus+ and Horizon 2020 programmes are. Undoubtedly, the United Kingdom contribution to them is very significant, just as the United Kingdom’s gains from being a participant in them are hugely beneficial. Nevertheless, one thing that has not been said by any noble Lord is that after Brexit we will have considerably more money to spend on important programmes than we have while we are making net contributions to the European Union of £10 billion to £12 billion a year. I have never been one to use the £350 million a week figure because that was the gross contribution, but the net contribution is about half that.
My noble friend Lord Patten pointed out that our contribution to the Horizon 2020 programme is about £5 billion but we receive £8 billion back. Presumably, this means that the organisers of the Horizon 2020 programme appreciate that the United Kingdom knows better than some other participants how to use the money wisely. Indeed, we continue to use the money from such programmes extremely well. Furthermore, if one looks at the participants in Horizon 2020, there are 17 countries which are not EU members. The European Commission website makes it clear that non-members participate on exactly the same terms as members. Therefore, I see no reason at all why we should not be welcomed as a continuing participant in Horizon 2020.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
Does the noble Viscount not understand that if we participate from outside the European Union, instead of getting more back than we put in we will get exactly the same back as we put in?
Viscount Trenchard
I hear what the noble Lord says but I am not sure whether that follows at all. As far as the Horizon 2020 programme is concerned, presumably our contribution would still be assessed and valued in the same way that it is now. The deservability of the programmes for which we seek support would also be considered on the same basis as now, so I do not see why it should make any difference. But overall, we will have a considerable amount more money to spend, not less, because we will not be making the very large net contributions to the European Union budget that we make at present.
Lord Patten of Barnes
Can I clarify for my noble friend the position of countries from outside the European Union sharing in the European Research Area? I am sure he is aware that while some of them participate—I mentioned Switzerland and Israel– they play no part whatever in managing the programmes. They do not determine the priorities or what the money will go on. We could negotiate membership of the research council, I guess, although it would be with the financial consequences that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, mentioned and the additional consequence that we would have no say in managing the programmes.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, and in so doing I remind noble Lords of my declared interests at Second Reading.
This has been an important debate because it has highlighted the vital contribution that European Research Council funding, in the Horizon 2020 programme and others, has made to our national research effort—both the research effort delivered by our universities and, more broadly, the research undertaken through industrial and SME participation in such research programmes. It has also identified the invaluable contribution we have made as a nation to the delivery of those programmes by the European Union. The leadership provided by UK institutions has ensured strong delivery by those programmes and the global impact of that research effort.
In that regard, it is vital that Her Majesty’s Government are able to identify a way forward for our continued contribution to the development of the programmes that follow Horizon 2020. That is a matter of negotiation currently and the discussion takes place at a sensitive time, with Horizon 2020 coming to the end of its life and a new framework programme 9 being established. It would be useful for Her Majesty’s Government to identify how they are currently participating in that negotiation. How are they trying to influence that agenda while they define their final position on our future participation as a nation?
For instance, coming together at this moment is UK Research and Innovation, which will bring together our research councils and our national innovation structure. What role will UKRI potentially play in focusing our national research contribution with regard to those ongoing negotiations? Can Her Majesty’s Government confirm that they will not only secure funding for our research base beyond departure from the European Union but ensure that that funding can be directed towards continuing collaboration in European networks? It is the network participation, as much as the quantum of funding available, that has provided the strong base for our research effort and the high-quality outputs that we now enjoy.
There is very deep anxiety about this question because if we are unable to make an appropriate contribution to framing future programmes and ensuring the priorities that those programmes will address, then whether or not we participate in future the value of our own national contribution and the ability of our nation to benefit from that participation will be diminished. That is a question beyond the final disposition of our participation in those programmes, which is of course a matter of broader withdrawal negotiations.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief. I support these amendments, and I apologise for not speaking in the Second Reading debate for reasons which are too painful to burden your Lordships with tonight. Having listened to the debate, to me it seems that accepting the amendments is a no brainer, and I hope that the Minister agrees. Way back in the past century when I was dean of a medical school and the Erasmus programme and the predecessor of Horizon 2020 were introduced, we welcomed them with open arms. They were marvellous initiatives. They opened up research potential across Europe in a way which we had not had until then and the value to our students of being able to go abroad became pretty obvious. We loved, it, we welcomed it and it has continued in the same vein ever since. It has never faltered. It has grown from strength to strength, so why on earth would we want to jettison something that works so well and try to introduce something which will undoubtedly be more bureaucratic, will probably be more costly and which will not be nearly so valuable to our research effort or to the competitiveness of the UK? I hope the Minister will take note.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 10 and 163 and declare my interest as a governor of the London School of Economics. I echo many noble Lords across the House, including my noble friends Lord Deben, Lord Cormack and Lord Patten. This is another example of what appears to be an ideologically driven, irrational decision that is pretty impossible to justify. I cannot think of any rationale for risking our position in the Horizon 2020 and Erasmus programmes. This is not required as a result of the EU referendum. The British public surely would not support the UK failing to secure ongoing participation beyond 2020 in these programmes.
Research is a vital investment in our future. Horizon 2020 is open to all and simple. It reduces red tape and allows researchers to launch projects and get results quickly. These programmes allow knowledge exchange and collaboration on innovation and research. Horizon helps entrepreneurs scale up businesses rapidly to establish a global leading position and to improve our industrial base. This is a flagship initiative designed to secure improved global competitiveness. Is this not exactly what we need for our future growth and success with or without Brexit?
This goes beyond funding. It is the spirit of co-operation and leadership that is so important. It gives our students, graduates and entrepreneurs the opportunity to exchange ideas and research collaboratively with other countries. There is no need for the UK to go it alone. There is obvious strength in collaboration. I hope the Minister will take careful note of the strength of feeling across the Committee, including on his own Benches, that we must not countenance whatsoever and under any circumstances turning our back on these programmes. The future of our country, our young generations and our world-beating research and academic institutions must not be put at risk. The UK has far more to lose than the EU if we are no longer a leading participant in these programmes. I hope my noble friend will return on Report with his own proposals to commit to ongoing participation beyond 2020.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, the mere fact that we require these amendments is shocking in itself. UK universities receive an additional 15% in funding from the European Union. Academics will now struggle to co-operate on research projects. The change in the visa regime that takes place may deter high-calibre academics from joining British universities. That is happening already. When European universities have a chance to collaborate they already think twice before collaborating with a British university, and that is shameful.
The Erasmus programme is 30 years old. Are we going to throw away 30 years of that wonderful initiative? Hear what the Europeans say:
“‘The absence of physical mobility after Brexit would take us apart’, said João Bacelar, executive manager at the European University Foundation. ‘Student exchange is kind of the antidote to the malaise of Brexit. It is profoundly unfair if young people would pay a price for something they didn’t want’”.
Employers value the Erasmus brand. More than 200,000 British students have benefited from Erasmus. We have heard that other countries that are not part of the European Union can be part of Erasmus. Let us beware of what happened with Switzerland. When Switzerland voted to restrict European migration, it was taken out of the Erasmus programme. It has had to spend extra money to put a new programme in place. Do we want to go through all that? I do not think we should.
The best thing about Erasmus is that it is for everyone. It allows students who cannot afford it to study abroad in a variety of subjects. My noble friend Lady Coussins spoke about language skills. Erasmus involves 725,000 European students annually—a huge number. We do not want to be left out of it. We are the third most popular destination; 30,000 students want to study in Britain and 40,000 of our students are over there. These are huge numbers. If that mobility goes, we are going to suffer.
Will the Government keep their promise to maintain and protect all funding streams for EU projects in the UK? Will they ensure that there is no cliff edge for funding for scientific research at the conclusion of the Brexit negotiations? Will the Government confirm that British researchers must be able to continue to participate in an unrestricted manner in current and future EU science initiatives? Will they never prevent highly skilled scientists coming into this country? I would like that assurance from the Minister.
We have heard time and again about our funding and research power. We have 1% of the world’s population but produce 16% of the most highly cited research articles. That is how good we are. Every committee—including the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee and the House of Commons committee—is saying that this would be damaging for the UK. A recent YouGov survey showed that 76% of non-UK EU academics are already considering leaving the country. What are we doing?
There are two messages here, one about collaboration and the other about funding. As the noble Lord, Lord Patten, said, we get more than we put in. We are asking the Government for a guarantee that we are going to get that funding. But more important than the funding is the power of collaboration. As chancellor of the University of Birmingham, I am proud that it received a Queen’s Anniversary Prize last week. When I was in India, we cited an example of the power of collaboration between the University of Punjab and the University of Birmingham. The University of Birmingham’s field-weighted citation impact is 1.87. The University of Punjab’s is 1.37. When we do collaborative research, it is 5.64. When the University of Birmingham does collaborative research with Harvard University it is 5.69. Its impact in collaboration is three times greater than it is as an individual university, and that applies to all the collaborations that we carry out with programmes such as Horizon.
Finally, this is about universities and our youth. This is depriving them of their future. I speak at schools and universities regularly, and I ask students every single time how many of them, if they were given a choice, would choose to remain in the European Union. Without exaggeration, almost 100% of the hands go up. There are two years’ worth of 16 and 17 year-olds who did not get a say in the wretched referendum two years ago, and this is their future, in which they will want a say. That is what this amendment is about: the future of our youth through Erasmus and Horizon 2020. We cannot take that future away from them. We have to go through with these amendments, and it is most likely we will end up remaining in the European Union.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I was not intending to intervene in this interesting discussion, not because I do not care deeply about these issues—as chair of Lancaster University, I realise how much we benefit from both Erasmus and the Horizon programme—but because I had not realised until I heard this excellent debate what a cliff edge these important programmes now face. This really is a very serious matter that has come out this afternoon.
There are two reasons for the cliff edge. First, the European Union, in the Commission, will now be thinking about the next framework programme, which will come in at the start of 2021. It will be devising its priorities and working on the assumption that Britain is not part of the next Horizon programme. That is a very serious point. Secondly, when the Select Committee went to see Mr Barnier last week in the Commission and he set out to us how the Commission envisages the Brexit negotiations, he put dealing with what he calls “future co-operation” in one of the four treaties that are to be negotiated after we have left. That is when he is assuming that these negotiations will start: in March next year, after we have left. One is on foreign policy, one is on security questions, one is on trade and the other is this basket of future co-operation. This is really serious. Unless we set a higher priority, more quickly, to sorting these questions out, we will end up with a lot of loss of initiative and of partnership, and networks in which we are involved no longer being sustained. We have to do something.
What are the Government proposing to do? It occurs to me that the Government, first of all, must make clear now that they want to continue to participate fully in both these programmes. They must make clear now that they are prepared to put a substantial sum of money on the table so that we can continue to participate in these programmes. They should also say, without equivocation, that for anyone from an EU country who has a place at a British university as a student, researcher or lecturer, or at a research institute, there will be no question of there being any additional immigration barriers to them taking up those places after Brexit. Why can that declaration not be made? The money, the free movement, the determination to participate—why can that not be said now? Why can the Government not, in this area, try to speed up Mr Barnier’s timetable by actually tabling their own text of the agreement that they want to reach? I hope the Minister can provide a satisfactory answer to these perfectly reasonable points.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Exactly. I strongly support what the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has just said. I would like to be helpful to the Minister—it is my main purpose in life. I detect that this debate is at present all going one way, although I do not know if the Minister agrees with me on that. If he is a cynic, he might say that that is not altogether surprising, as the collective noun for a group of chancellors, vice-chancellors and university chairmen is the House of Lords.
It is important that the Minister should listen to the Cormack-Deben advice. It really would not do to answer this debate with the same answer he started off with to the last debate about medicines and Amendment 11—where, as I recall, his line was that publishing a strategy would introduce an unwelcome, undesirable and impossible delay to commencement. I may have misunderstood him, but it seems to me that the time when we need such a strategy—the strategy that is called for in this amendment—is now. We need it to be helpful to the Minister because if on Report we do not see a strategy, there is absolutely no doubt how the House would vote. This debate has made very clear, from all sides of the House, that continued membership or a close relationship with the research framework programme and with Erasmus is seen as sine qua non. If the Government do not give us the strategy which they think may achieve that, I am confident we will vote for these amendments.
The strategy would have to contain a little more than a declaration of intent. In relation to Erasmus, it would, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said, have to include something about visas. I think it would also have to include something about fees. It is relatively easy to see what one would have to say. On the much bigger issue of research, it would have to include something from the Treasury. If the sensible suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Patten, was accepted by the Treasury, that would be excellent. But it seems to me that the Treasury is going to have to accept a lesser commitment, which is that when it is pay as you go—which is what it is going to be, as my noble friend Lord Hannay has pointed out—we will pay for whatever we get. That seems to me to be a sine qua non.
It is of course the case that we will not be taking the decisions or laying down the policy anymore. But it will still be essential for our universities to have access to these networks. This would not just be helpful for the Minister on Report and in the negotiations in Brussels, where such a Cormack-Deben voluntary offer would go down extremely well, but also be something to deal with the uncertainty problem which the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, drew attention to. We are no longer desirable partners in research networks, because it is assumed that we will be country cousins or non-players.
We are no longer receiving the same demand from foreign students to come here to research. We are damaging the sector now—this is an area where the damage of Brexit precedes the deed. So in three contexts, it would be helpful to the Minister if he would say that he will take this away and think about producing a government strategy in both areas before Report.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has just uttered. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, said that we were not expecting miracles from the Minister. I think even the Minister’s most ardent admirers do not credit him with miraculous powers, and he is not going to able to produce any rabbits out of a hat for us this evening. But it is not miracles we need here: all we need is a continuation of the status quo. This is one of those areas we come back to time and again—we had it in the long debate on Euratom last week: all we need to do is to avoid massive, self-inflicted damage.
There is no need to create whole new programmes and ways of working. We have Horizon 2020 and Erasmus; the latter has been going on for the best part of 30 years and is a highly successful programme. When you are doing something well, the usual trick is just to keep on doing it. There are so many things that do not work that the idea that Parliament and Government should be spending their time dismantling things that do is clearly crazy. What we want to hear from the Minister is simply that he is open-minded to continuing with the present arrangements. The sooner the Government are prepared to say that, the better.
The most telling contribution to this debate came from the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge. In the higher education world, there is—I shall choose my words slightly diplomatically—a pronounced air of self-congratulation on how excellent everything is in this country and how brilliantly we do it, and if only the rest of world copied us then they would be a great deal better off. In many areas that is true, but in one we have a very poor international record: the propensity of our students to study abroad. According to the Erasmus figures, twice as many European students come to Britain as Brits go abroad. The noble Baroness was right to say there is a big problem with students from poorer backgrounds studying abroad. When I was preparing figures for this debate, I found that it looks as if Singapore, a country less than one-tenth the size of the UK, has about as many students studying abroad as we have in our entirety.
The fact is that we do not have nearly enough of our students studying abroad. When I visited Singapore as Minister for Schools, they were aiming—by about now, so maybe they have achieved it—at requiring all students at the National University of Singapore, regardless of their course, to spend at least six months, one semester, studying abroad. Can your Lordships imagine if we had anything like that commitment here? It might be a good thing if in due course we did. The great irony is that one of the great slogans to emerge from this Brexit policy as it has developed is “Global Britain”—but how can there ever be a global Britain unless far more of our students go and see the rest of the globe and spend time studying there? The first requirement for that is that we should not make the situation worse than it currently is.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was right that what we seek from the Minister is not a miracle; we are clearly not going to get that from the present Minister. We simply expect a commitment to continue with the current programmes, and it is absolutely within the scope of the Government to say unilaterally that the negotiating position of Her Majesty’s Government now, in 2018, is that these programmes will continue with full British participation after 2020. If the Minister does not say that, he is staring at near-certain defeat on this issue on Report.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for another excellent debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, for their Amendments 10 and 163, which respectively seek clarification on the Government’s future membership of the Erasmus and Horizon 2020 programmes. I am particularly grateful to my noble friends Lord Deben and Lord Patten for their helpful attempts to rewrite my notes for me before I started.
At the December European Council last year, the Prime Minister confirmed that UK students will continue to be able to participate in the Erasmus student exchange programme for at least another three years, until the end of the current budget period. She welcomed the opportunity to provide clarity to young people and the education sector, and she reaffirmed our commitment to the deep and special relationship that we want to build with the EU.
In response to my noble friend Lord Cormack, I say that the Government have made it clear many times that we value the Erasmus+ programme and international exchanges more generally. Cultural exchange helps to build important business, political and diplomatic bridges around the world, not to mention lifelong friendships.
Lord Cormack
I am grateful for that, but if that is the case then why do we not carry on beyond the three years?
Lord Callanan
If my noble friend will have some patience, I will come to that in a second. Supporting young people to study, work, volunteer, teach and train abroad, and supporting their schools, youth and sports organisations to build transnational partnerships, helps us to create a new generation of globally mobile, culturally agile people who can succeed in an increasingly global marketplace.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, I say that the UK has a strong offer to EU and international students, with four universities in the world’s top 10 and 16 in the top 100. In fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, pointed out, we received many more students under Erasmus than we sent. Erasmus is an important programme, but it represents only about half the student exchange programmes we have in the UK.
Our young people get first-hand experience of different cultures, helping them to broaden their horizons and their ambitions. Students who have spent time abroad as a part of their degree are much more likely to achieve better degree outcomes, improved starting salaries and stronger employment prospects, as noble Lords have pointed out. This is especially the case for students from disadvantaged or less represented backgrounds.
In response to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, no decisions have yet been made about post-2020 programme participation as the scope of that programme has not been agreed. We look forward to the Commission’s proposal, which we expect to be published in May. Participation in the successor to the Erasmus+ programme, which we think is valuable, will form part of the negotiations.
The UK fully participated in the mid-term evaluation of the current programme and we reached broadly the same conclusions as the Commission: the programme works well but there is room for improvement and simplification, especially for smaller applicants. UK respondents to the mid-term evaluation made many detailed comments and criticisms, but few suggested that radical change was needed. The proposal for the next programme will be published in May, as I said, and we are currently shaping the debate and looking forward to further discussions with the Commission about that.
We see future co-operation in education programmes as an area of mutual benefit to both the EU and the UK, provided that we can agree a fair ongoing contribution.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, what reassurance can the Minister give to students who are beginning their courses in September this year or September next year? Will they be able to participate in Erasmus or does that depend on whatever decisions the Government take after May? Is that not too late for certainty?
Lord Callanan
They will be able to participate in the existing Erasmus scheme up till 2020, should they wish to do so, and, as I said, we will see what the next programme will be. We await the proposals from the Commission in May, and we will discuss our participation in that with them.
As I said, we see future co-operation in education programmes as an area of mutual benefit to both the UK and the EU, provided that we can agree a fair ongoing contribution. We are giving this matter careful consideration as we negotiate the UK’s exit and are listening to the views of the sector.
As many noble Lords are aware, we have proposed a time-limited implementation period based on the current structure of rules and regulations. Looking to the future, we recognise the value of international exchange and collaboration in education and training as part of our vision for the UK as a global nation. That is why we said in our science and innovation policy paper, published in September, that we would discuss with the EU future arrangements to facilitate the mobility of researchers, academics and students engaged in cross-border collaboration. The UK and EU agreed in December that UK entities’ right to participate in current EU programmes for their duration will be unaffected by withdrawal. This includes the Horizon 2020 framework programme for research and innovation.
A number of noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Wallace, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and my noble friend Lord Deben—have asked me about the future of the Horizon programmes. Horizon will be succeeded by the ninth framework programme, as the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, reminded us. This programme is also still being developed by the European Commission, and we are participating in discussions on that. The UK has declared that it would like to reach an ambitious science and innovation agreement with the EU that would include future framework programmes. It is too early to speculate on whether the UK will seek to associate to framework programme nine which, as I said, is still being developed.
The Government are deeply conscious of the importance of the Horizon 2020 and the future framework programmes to research in the UK, in which we have an international reputation. We are working hard to secure a research and innovation agreement with the EU that will take effect after Brexit.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
The Minister says it is too early to decide whether we will co-operate. Can he tell us in what circumstances we will decide that it is not in the national interest for the UK to participate in the next Horizon programme?
Lord Callanan
I very much expect that it will be in our interest to participate in it. As I said, we are taking part in discussions. We have not yet seen the detail of how it will be financed, but, given a fair ongoing contribution, I suspect that we will want to participate. But they are a matter of negotiation. It is fine for us to say that, yes, we would like to take part; we need the EU side, the other side to the negotiation, to say that, yes, they would like us to take part as well. It is a negotiation. We can give a commitment that we would like to; we cannot give a commitment that we will be accepted.
As part of the new deep and special partnership with the EU, we will recognise our shared interest in maintaining and strengthening research collaboration. The UK will seek an ambitious agreement, one that promotes science and innovation across Europe now and in future. For the avoidance of any doubt, in response to the many questions that have been asked, let me say that we support Erasmus, we support Horizon 2020, but, contrary to what many noble Lords have suggested, these are EU programmes. The UK cannot adopt a unilateral stance; there has to be bilateral agreement on them. That agreement depends, first, on understanding the shape of the Erasmus programme in May and framework programme nine, when it is clarified by the Commission, and finding a mutually acceptable financial arrangement. Subject to those conditions, we would be very happy to be able to participate in both those programmes in future.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, I am not sure whether the Minister is drawing to an end, but he has not managed so far to say anything about the movement of researchers and students. Why can he not state categorically that we will not introduce any new impediments to students or researchers offered places in our universities? That would be entirely consistent with the introduction of a work permit scheme, because neither of those two categories come to our universities without a work offer. Why can he not say that now? Mobility is crucial in this area, but he has not said a word about it.
Lord Callanan
I totally agree with the noble Lord that mobility is crucial. I am fairly certain that we would not want to introduce restrictions on mobility in these areas—we want as many students to come as possible—but, as I am sure he is aware, this will be a matter for the Home Office to decide in the immigration policy that will be discussed shortly.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
Indeed so. I was hoping that the Minister would say that there is not now, and never has been, any limit on the number of genuine students who can come to the UK. I would have thought that that is bound to continue: this is a false issue.
Lord Callanan
Yes, we have been a proud recipient of and destination for thousands of international students in the past. They are welcome in this country, they contribute greatly to our education services and I am sure that we will want that to continue in future, but I cannot speculate on what a future immigration policy may look like.
Lord Deben
If this is a non-issue, why cannot my noble friend say very simply: “There will be no additional stops or impediments on students”? Does he not understand that constantly saying how wonderful everything is but that he cannot actually tell us anything is very difficult for anyone trying to plan their future and very unfair on young people?
Lord Callanan
As I said, I am fairly certain that we will want to continue to welcome as many students and researchers as want to visit this country in future, but, as I am sure the noble Lord will understand, I cannot speculate on what a future immigration policy might be before it has been announced by the Home Office and published by the Government.
Nevertheless, let me say for the avoidance of doubt that I have heard the message from all parts of the House and I will certainly reflect on these matters before we come back to the issue on Report. I understand that there are very strong feelings from all parts of the House about these issues and we will certainly see what we can do about that.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, first, let me say that I welcome the Minister saying that he will reflect on this debate, because I think it is the first chink of light from him on any of these important debates in Committee. It has been a remarkable debate. We have heard from many noble Lords about the importance of the Erasmus programme. I agree with my noble friend Lord Adonis: the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, speaking from huge experience as a former vice-chancellor of Aston University of the impact that Erasmus has had on the students who go to Aston and the way it has widened their horizons, is for me one of the most important illustrations of why future participation by the UK in Erasmus is so important.
On research, again, my worry is that the Government are hugely complacent about the UK’s position. Consider the consequences of uncertainty over Horizon 2020, which is having an impact on universities at this very moment in terms of collaboration on future research bids. Even where European Union universities will still collaborate with UK universities—and it is by no means certain that they will continue to do so in every case—they are reluctant for UK universities to be in the lead. Added to the uncertainties about the movement of both academics and students, we are entering a hugely uncertain position for a very important sector.
I listened with care to what the Minister said. To be fair, he has said that the Government value both Erasmus and Horizon 2020 and he repeated the Prime Minister’s comments, particularly in relation to Horizon 2020. He then said that while he values these programmes, the EU is working out the next stage of both Erasmus and Horizon 2020, that the UK is part of some discussion about that but they will form part of the negotiations and that there is nothing more he can say.
I think there is something more that the Minister can say. I think it is without question that it is in our national interest that we continue wholeheartedly to take part in those programmes. Thinking about the negotiations and the UK Government’s tactics, this niggardly, churlish approach does not seem to be getting us very far. This Government would attract a hell of a lot of good will if in relation to just these two programmes they said, “Whatever, we are going to stick with it, and we will make good any deficiency in UK university research programmes if the price of sticking with it means that we will get less than we did in the past”.
The whole Committee—almost all Members—really wants these programmes to continue. We will obviously come back at Report. The Minister has kindly said he will reflect on it. I very much hope that he will do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 26th February 2018
(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 79-II(a) Amendments for Committee, supplementary to the second marshalled list (PDF, 68KB) - (23 Feb 2018)
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“( ) Regulations bringing into force subsection (1) may not be made until the Secretary of State has laid before both Houses of Parliament procedures agreed with the EU for continued coordination of foreign and security policy, including association with the EU’s military staff and the European Defence Agency, and these procedures have been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Minister argued in winding up on the first group of amendments that we should be talking about the Bill and not about the issues raised by the amendments, which seemed a very ill-judged remark. This Bill is about a very wide range of policy areas—economic, constitutional and international—on which the Government are asking us to give them extensive powers, on trust, without telling us what they intend to do. The question for many of us is that we cannot trust the Government so far in giving them all those additional powers, unless they tell us rather more clearly what they intend to do.
These amendments deal with the implications of leaving the EU for British foreign, security and defence policy, and with the management of those policies when we withdraw. As we withdraw, which is what this Bill is about, we will also withdraw from the structures of common foreign policy and the common security and defence policy in the Treaty on European Union, as specified in a large number of articles. So what will we do then? The leave campaign never addressed this in the referendum, so there is no way one can say, “Well, it’s the will of the people, we can’t stand in their way”. The leave campaign denied that the EU was ever concerned with anything to do with security, foreign policy or defence. We were told when we joined that it was just about the common market, and now it has turned into something else. Anyone who has read Edward Heath’s 1968 Harvard lectures, what he said when he became Prime Minister and what Sir Alec Douglas-Home said as Foreign Secretary, what Jim Callaghan did as Foreign Secretary and what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, followed through on, including his London report on strengthening the mechanisms of common foreign policy, and what Geoffrey Howe achieved, would know that Britain was absolutely at the heart of forming common foreign policy procedures in the European Union. I remember writing something about it for publication in a Chatham House journal in the late 1970s and being briefed very helpfully in the Foreign Office by the official who co-ordinated our input to common foreign policy, whose name was Pauline Neville-Jones. One or two Members of this House may, indeed, be familiar with the name. I also recall the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who sadly is not in his place at the moment, insisting even after the referendum that the EU had nothing to do with British or European security—and I gave him an annotated copy of the 2015 security and defence review with chapter 5, which is entirely about European defence co-operation, marked for his benefit.
Last September, the Government finally published a position paper on common foreign and security policy, which said, remarkably, that,
“the scale and depth of collaboration that currently exists between the UK and the EU in the fields of foreign policy, defence and security, and development”,
is such that we need,
“a deep and special partnership”—
a familiar phrase—
“with the EU that goes beyond existing third country arrangements”.
It goes on to point out that the UK was a founding member of the EU’s CSDP and takes part in all 15 common security and defence policy operations and missions and concludes:
“The UK would like to offer a future relationship that is deeper than any current third country partnership … This future partnership should be unprecedented in its breadth, taking in cooperation on foreign policy, defence and security, and development, and in the degree of engagement that we envisage”.
Well, that was interesting. Nothing was said for months afterwards—and, finally, the Prime Minister last week gave her speech in Munich in which she went into a little more detail about what she at least, if not the rest of her Government, seems to envisage. She said:
“The EU’s common foreign policy is distinct within the EU Treaties … So, there is no reason why we should not agree distinct arrangements for our foreign and defence policy cooperation in the time-limited implementation period, as the Commission has proposed. This would mean that key aspects of our future partnership in this area would already be effective from 2019”.
In that case, it is about time the Government started to educate the population on what arrangements they propose to make with the European Union. I hope, at least, that someone has told the European Union the sort of things that we might like to envisage. She then goes on to talk about our: joining the European Defence Agency and the European Defence Fund; contributing to the European Union’s common development policy, but on the condition that we also play an active role in formulating future European Union defence policy—I am not entirely sure how we do that, as an outsider—co-operating in cyberspace and space; and dealing with a whole range of issues including, on internal security, a new bilateral treaty between the EU and UK.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, my purpose in adding my name to Amendment 12 is to enable the Government, through my noble friend, to explain what arrangements they intend to put in place before Brexit, in order to ensure that the United Kingdom is a full participant in the formulation of foreign and security policies which inevitably will be of great and enduring consequence to us all. The absence of such arrangements would be a conclusive argument against leaving the European Union. Noble Lords should be clear about this: if we wish to punch above the weight that naturally attaches to a country of relatively modest resources, it is because we are part of and not outside the structures of the European Union.
For five years, I had the good fortune to serve in the Foreign Office under the overarching authority of Douglas Hurd. It is much to be regretted that he is not able to participate in this debate. His authority within the diplomatic and international community was great. This was due in part to his patience, his personal integrity, the temperate language that he always employed and his willingness to compromise. He never sought to promote himself by appealing to the wilder fringes of any political party. My noble friend was a model of a Foreign Secretary and I commend his example to all his successors. I digress for a moment and say that I very much regret that this House does not have the opportunity of hearing from Mr Jack Straw and Sir Malcolm Rifkind, both of whom would have made a valuable contribution to this debate.
When working under Lord Hurd of Westwell, I had immediate departmental responsibility for a number of important areas: the collapse of the former Soviet Union; central and eastern Europe, most especially the war in former Yugoslavia; and the turmoil, then as always, in the Middle East. We did, of course, have distinctive political policies on all these matters and we have distinctive bilateral relations with the relevant countries and institutions. But looking back on my time in the Foreign Office I am sure it is true that we made a real difference when we were able to work with our European colleagues and within the framework of collective European policy.
Collectively within the European Union, the United Kingdom was more influential than it would ever have been standing alone. This is not the age of Lord Palmerston or Don Pacifico. If one looks forward to the major international problems that we now face, that judgment remains good. Consider the ambitions of Russia; the ever-increasing power of Asia, especially China; the fact that America is once again detaching herself from the rest of the world and, most notably, Europe; the risk of war on the Korean peninsula; international terrorism; the problems posed by climatic change; the instability in the Middle East and the rise of militant Islam. In respect of all these matters, a collective approach is infinitely more effective than the individual policies of a middling power such as ourselves.
There are also some specific problems to consider. What of our permanent seat at the Security Council? As a member of the European Union, our permanent seat was less controversial than it might have been. Outside the EU, our status as a permanent member will be under increased pressure and, in any event, the status of France will be greatly enhanced.
What about Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands? Outside the councils of the European Union we will not be able to rely on the automatic support of our European neighbours. Further, on any view, our role as America’s principal interlocutor with the European Union will cease. These considerations, by themselves, leaving aside all others, are a good and sufficient argument against leaving the European Union: that is my considered position. However, for the purposes of this debate, these concerns should cause this House to put questions to Ministers. We are repeatedly told by the Prime Minister and others that while we are leaving the European Union we are not abandoning our close ties. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, usefully summarised our position paper, whatever it actually meant. We need more detail. We do not want bland reassurance. “Brexit means Brexit” is a quite meaningless phrase. It is not a policy or even an indication of a policy. Indeed, it is conclusive evidence of an absence of policy. Therefore, I say to my noble friend that this House is entitled to know in detail what arrangements will be put in place before we leave the European Union to ensure that the United Kingdom is a full, active and influential partner in the policy decisions that will certainly affect the lives of our fellow citizens for years to come. I doubt that this House will get a clear answer. I suspect that we will be none the wiser when the Prime Minister makes her long-awaited policy speech at the end of the week.
If decisions were made at last week’s meeting at Chequers, that is welcome. It is almost, though not wholly, true that any decision is better than no decision. However, we are entitled to ask why on earth such strategic decisions were not taken before we triggered Article 50 and not now, with but 12 months or so to go. The absence of any arrangements and procedures of the kind identified in these amendments is by itself a good reason—there are many other good reasons—to reject the policy of leaving the European Union. Therefore, I look to my noble friend to give clear guidance on what procedures and arrangements the Government propose to put in place. This House is entitled to clear and precise answers to these questions, for they are fundamental in character. This is not a time for indecision, fudge, weasel words or lack of clarity. Having our cake and eating it is not an indulgence now available to us.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I had not meant to intervene but since the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, has speculated on my views, I wish to put some things in context. Obviously one seeks clarity but I think there is a certain note of hysteria going around. Only a few moments ago, we had a question and answer session showing just how impotent the EU, and, indeed, any of us, have been in relation to Syria. The EU does not even manage to pay its subscriptions to NATO and has been impotent in relation to Russia’s behaviour recently. However, our own performance as a permanent member of the Security Council, a position from which we cannot be dislodged unless one entirely rips up the charter, has been admirable. If we want to continue to be an interlocutor between the continent of Europe and America, it is not a good idea to shoot ourselves in the foot by being even more uncivil towards President Trump than is absolutely necessary. As far as foreign policy and security are concerned, we are members of the Five Eyes group, which, from what I have read, is rather more efficient in its actions than what is going on in the EU. While we of course want clarity, there is no need to panic. We have to consider what the EU has done historically in relation to foreign policy. Over the last 40 years, it has had as many failures as successes whereas our record has been pretty good.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, like the noble Viscount, I had the privilege of serving in the Foreign Office back in the 1970s. I underline his comment that it is a great shame that Lord Hurd no longer sits in the Chamber as he certainly was a very effective and powerful Foreign Secretary. One of the reasons he was successful was that he listened to people and adopted a reasonable approach to finding solutions.
There is no greater responsibility for a Government of the United Kingdom than to look after the well-being and safety of their people. At the moment there is a total dereliction of duty. We are about to abandon ways in which we have worked to protect the well-being of British people, while having absolutely no convincing indication of what is to replace our current methods of co-operation. Defence and security are inseparable and cannot be contained within national frontiers. They both require international solutions and co-operation. We also know, and debate it often in this House, that our armed services are very fully stretched; some would say overstretched. They cannot possibly do all that it is necessary to do on their own; they have to work with others. We have devised means whereby we can successfully co-operate in the interests of the British people. How on earth can we, with any sense of responsibility at all, say that we will withdraw from the existing arrangements without knowing exactly how we will fill the gap and maintain that indispensable co-operation?
This amendment, so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is absolutely crucial and I am therefore very glad to have added my name to it. It does not apply just to this sphere, of course. We are being asked to buy a pig in a poke in too many areas. However, we cannot defend the British people by buying pigs in pokes, but by having absolutely convincing, watertight arrangements in place. There can be no interregnum between one regime and the next; we have to undertake this in time. Will the Government please this evening begin to give us some indication of precisely what the arrangements will be and what resources will be put into them?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I was urged by my noble friend Lady Deech to be more polite to President Trump, so I will respond to that by thanking him extremely warmly for having brought home to us the value of the European Union’s common foreign and security policy. In the year he has been in office, he has singlehandedly illustrated why our national interests in a number of areas are much closer to those of our European partners than to those of his Administration: for example, as regards the nuclear deal with Iran, the rather unfortunate decision to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, his very lukewarm support for NATO, his withdrawal from the Paris climate change agreements and his trade policy. In all these areas he has brought home to us why this debate and this amendment, which I support, are vital to our future national interests. I hope that when the Minister responds, she will be prepared to go a bit further than generalities.
As others have already said, there is a complete lack of specificity in what the Prime Minister has said—she has, quite laudably, set out in very firm terms her desire that this should be a major pillar of the new partnership—about what the Government have in mind. It really is time that we saw more. The Prime Minister has spoken about a new treaty. We are in a negotiation. Normally, if you are in a negotiation and make a proposal, you table it. I have not seen the treaty. Has anyone seen it? I do not think that anyone has. Does it exist? I suspect not because, judging from the rather lukewarm attitude of the Foreign Secretary, he might not be able to produce much of an input into it.
This really is getting important now. We are only a year away from dropping out of all the complex machinery which makes the common foreign and security policy work. I have to say to my noble friend Lady Deech that her caricature of common foreign and security policy is bizarre. For example, the idea of a nuclear agreement with Iran originated in the European Union, and it was followed up, rather belatedly, by the United States. Therefore, I do not think that we should belittle such co-operation. In any case, the Prime Minister is firmly of the opinion that it matters and that we need to work very closely with the EU. I wonder whether it would not be better to say here and now—perhaps the noble Baroness the Minister replying to this debate could do so—that our co-operation in this area of common foreign and security policy is not subject to the rubric “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” and that it is, as we are trying to say but have been rather hesitant about saying, completely unconditional.
Lord Cavendish of Furness (Con)
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the phrase “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” came from President Tusk, not us?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
It was not only President Tusk; it was part of the agreed conclusions of the first part of the negotiations—that is, we subscribed to it too.
As that first stage did not cover common foreign and security policy, all I am suggesting is that, now we are moving into that field in the negotiations, we should make it clear that our proposals—including the proposal for a new security treaty—are not subject to “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” but will be put forward to the mutual benefit of all parties. That would make a huge difference, because there is a lot of misunderstanding and a certain amount of suspicion that we are approaching this in a spirit of transactionalism—that we are trying to trade off one part of the negotiations against another. That would be a mistake in the field of common foreign and security policy. If it is to be pursued after we have left the European Union, it can pursued on a basis of mutual benefit only and not by a transactional approach.
Therefore, I hope that when the Minister replies to this debate she can give a little more clarity on what the Government are seeking and that she can state in absolute terms that the unconditional nature of what we are pursuing here is our policy.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I have four amendments in this group, which, following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has just said, seek to maintain British membership of the EU’s Political and Security Committee, the EU’s common foreign and security policy, the EU Foreign Affairs Council and the EU Intelligence Analysis Centre.
First, I warmly welcome the noble Baroness to the Front Bench and to our debates. We have very high hopes of her and her response to this debate because she is not the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. We regard her as the more accommodating face of Her Majesty’s Government. We think that, while the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is not on the Front Bench at the moment, she has an opportunity to make all kinds of very sensible statements of government policy which can then go on the record and we can move on from there. This is a golden opportunity for her to do so in respect of foreign policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made a very powerful speech on why it is important that we remain thoroughly engaged in the security apparatus of the European Union and he spoke about the big dangers that face us as we leave. I do not think there is any point in my repeating those remarks or those of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I just want to make two comments.
The first relates to the only speech that the Prime Minister gave, on 25 April 2016, in the debate on the referendum, where she weighed the arguments for remaining in the European Union. What is so remarkable about that speech is how much emphasis—it was an almost exclusive emphasis—she placed on the security aspects of the European Union and the dangers to our security of leaving. Clearly, given her experience in the Home Office, she was particularly concerned about some of the Home Office dimensions of that, and we will cover those in a later group. However, she also raised the broader security issues.
If one looks at the words that she used in that speech, it is very clear that she regarded membership of the multilateral institutions of the EU, particularly in foreign policy and security co-operation, as being of huge importance to the Government and to this country. She said:
“If we were not members of the European Union, of course we would still have our relationship with America … But”—
these are the key words—
“that does not mean we would be as safe as if we remain”.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said, we will be leaving all these institutions in one year, and I believe it is incumbent on the Government to give the House some sense of what their policy will be in respect of those institutions. That is hugely important.
My second point is to consider the course that we now appear to be set on. It is what has become known as “hard Brexit”, which is leaving not just the security institutions of the European Union but the economic institutions—the single market and the customs union. I am a novice to international security policy. I have spent most of the last 15 years trying to reform public services at home and, like many other noble Lords, I have had to get to grips with these issues. One of the most important and, for me, influential books that I have read while I have tried to understand what this might mean for the future of Britain in Europe and globally is by Professor Brendan Simms at the University of Cambridge. He has written a quite brilliant book called Britain’s Europe: A Thousand Years of Conflict and Cooperation, which charts our whole relationship with Europe during the last millennium.
Professor Simms makes a quite obvious point, the significance of which becomes greater and greater as we appear to be heading towards leaving not only the security but the economic institutions of the European Union. The basic but fundamental point he makes is that countries which are engaged in trade conflicts and trade wars find it that much harder to co-operate on security issues. To my mind, in terms of the security of the United Kingdom going forward, the most alarming development at the moment is that, as we appear to be in an ever more tense and potentially conflictual relationship with France and Germany in particular over the future of our trade policy, and if we are to start engaging in tariff wars and setting up rival customs arrangements and things of that kind which could lead to quite significant trade conflicts, that can only weaken our security co-operation with them over the medium to long term.
Those of us who are in favour of remaining in the European Union are often accused of carrying out what is called Project Fear, but I recommend to the Minister and to noble Lords the Prime Minister’s speech of April 2016. She draws a direct parallel between the instability of relations between European powers before 1914 and what could happen if we start to fracture those relations today. That came from her, not me. Therefore, what we look for from the Minister while she is able to make positive statements about Europe in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is some indication that she appreciates the need for very close co-operation with our European partners on trade and economic matters, not least because that will tend to promote close alignment in foreign and security policy.
Lord Cavendish of Furness
My Lords, does the noble Lord not realise that those of us who advocate leaving believe in free trade, which has been a great source of peace, rather than conflict, throughout history? He belongs to the side that wants tariffs.
Lord Adonis
My understanding is that it is the policy of Her Majesty’s Government to put in jeopardy the free trade we currently enjoy in the European Union. If the Government were in favour of free trade, we would stay in the customs union and in the single market. These are straightforward, obvious propositions. The policy of the Government tends only towards reducing free trade with the single biggest set of trading partners that we have at the moment.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
How is the noble Lord just about the only person in this House who does not know that the Government have stated over and over and over again that they want a free trade agreement with the European Union?
Lord Adonis
My Lords, the best free trade agreement to have with the European Union is the one that we are currently in. That is patently obvious. When you have an existing set of satisfactory arrangements, the idea that the policy for improving them is to undermine them is total nonsense.
I hope the noble Baroness will give us some assurance that she understands the significant security dimension that is at stake in our leaving the European Union and the importance of having close alignment on trade, not least so as not to weaken our collective security with our European friends and allies.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 12. The issues which it raises are of crucial importance to a post-Brexit UK, but they have only recently begun to achieve any prominence in the Westminster debate and have had very little visibility at all on the wider national stage.
EU Sub-Committee C of your Lordships’ House has recently concluded an inquiry into sanctions policy after Brexit and is currently conducting an inquiry into the UK’s future relationship with the European Union in the fields of security and defence. In both cases, the Government have expressed an intention to act in close concert with our European partners—the Government; not the movers of this amendment—but they have not so far explained how this is to be done.
There are some very clear difficulties. The EU’s policy regarding specific sanctions regimes and its common security and defence policy are agreed at ministerial level within the Foreign Affairs Council. However, the arguments through which final proposals are hammered out take place at lower levels, in the engine rooms of the EU. If one is not present in the engine rooms, one has no influence over the formulation of policy proposals. This means that if the UK wishes, post Brexit, to act in concert with the EU in particular sanctions matters, or if it wishes to participate in common security and defence missions—for both of which it has expressed some enthusiasm—it risks having to do so on the EU’s terms. It would have to do so having had no input to the formulation of policy, and with little or no input to subsequent strategic direction. This is not a position with which I, for one, would feel very comfortable.
The question, therefore, is: what arrangement can the UK reach with the EU that would allow it a suitable degree of influence in these matters? Why should the EU be interested in such an arrangement at all? Perhaps because in those areas in particular, the UK brings capabilities which, in scale and nature, are of an order that few, if any, other European countries possess. However, that does not alter the fact that a non-EU member is unlikely to be given the kind of locus in decision-making that is available to a member. The position of current non-members that align with the EU in these matters is not one that, in my view, would be appropriate for the UK. We need to argue for a separate, tailored arrangement.
Sanctions policy and common security and defence missions are, of course, offshoots of wider foreign policy. If we wish to have a close relationship with the EU in these specific areas, then we will need some mechanism for discussing and agreeing with it in advance the wider international issues and objectives involved. We need an architecture that brings the UK and the EU together to formulate foreign policy in pursuit of shared objectives, and that places UK personnel in those engine rooms of the Union where the specific proposals on individual issues are debated and evolve. We need to agree a modus vivendi for these people that protects the status of EU members while providing for outcomes that are in the best interests of the Union and ourselves. That is a very tall order, and all the more reason, then, for pursuing such an outcome much more vigorously and urgently than has been the case so far.
Amendment 12, and indeed several associated amendments, calls for such arrangements to be not just negotiated but approved by both Houses of Parliament before the provisions of the current Bill are implemented. I do not go so far: I do not believe that the amendments as set out should be agreed. However, I do believe that they provide welcome exposure to issues that are of crucial importance to this nation, that have been largely ignored for far too long and that should at last be accorded the priority they deserve. I hope that the Government will now act accordingly.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, who speaks with great clarity and directness.
It may surprise the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, when I say that I have some sympathy for her in putting forward the notion that the European Union has not really paid up sufficiently for its defence. One of the so-called advantages of President Trump’s arrival and his apparent dismissal of NATO has been to cause a much greater degree of realism. The old arguments about burden sharing now take a very practical effect, and NATO countries have agreed on a minimum of 2% of GDP. As far as I can see, all NATO countries are now moving, as far as they can and as quickly as they are able, towards reaching that level.
I support the amendment moved so ably by my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I have one advantage over him—as indeed does the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. We were both present at the Munich Security Conference and heard how the speech was delivered, as much as understanding the content. It was an interesting speech in this sense. The first half was exemplary. The Prime Minister extolled the virtues of the existing security arrangements in Europe and rightly pointed to her role in continuing to ensure that the United Kingdom remained a participant in the application of the European arrest warrant and an active member of Europol when, on the Back Benches of the other place while she was Home Secretary, quite a lot of people in her own party would have departed from both these positions without a backward thought.
Munich is regarded, perhaps over-grandly, as the Davos of defence, and there is no doubt that the Prime Minister’s speech got pretty substantial billing. That is why I and many others found the second half so disappointing, provoking as it did an American listener—whom I believe to have had Republican sympathies—to say, “Where’s the beef?”. The truth is that the Prime Minister had nothing of substance to say in addition to the paper that was published by the Government last September.
There was no hectoring from the Prime Minister, but there was certainly a degree of lecturing. In a sense, what she said can be summed up as: the security regime of the European Union is extremely good, but we are leaving it, we want you to help us replace it with a treaty, and, if you do not agree to what we want—and here is the lecturing to which I referred—you will bear the responsibility. That is hardly the way to win friends and influence people in a gathering of experts and people with enormous experience in the realms of security and defence.
There was one element of the Prime Minister’s speech that has not, so far, received sufficient consideration. She said that,
“when participating in EU agencies the UK will respect the remit of the European Court of Justice”.
I thought that the whole purpose of Brexit was to have nothing to do with the European Court of Justice. If that is not now the Government’s position, it might be argued that the door of the ECJ has been opened, if only slightly. Perhaps it was too Delphic a sentence to attach much significance to, but it has not been the subject of further explanation.
As has already been hinted at, the consequence of leaving is that the United Kingdom will become, in European Union terms, a third country. That is relevant to the issue of participation in Europol and the European arrest warrant. It raises a number of questions—some of which are being legally disputed—about whether or not the kind of arrangement the Government appear to wish to achieve would necessarily involve the role of the European Court of Justice. There are strong arguments on both sides, but the matter remains uncertain.
Before I move on to the question of defence, perhaps I may make one last point on security. Everything in these debates seems to end up around Ireland in some way or another. Ireland is a foreign policy issue because the treaty is an international treaty lodged with the United Nations—and it is also an issue to which we must have regard in considering the question of security. As I understand it, the Government are considering the creation of a virtual border based on electronic means. At the same time, they are telling us that cybercrime is on the rise and is one of the principal issues which may have an impact on our security. If people can get inside the computer system of the Pentagon, I doubt they will find it too difficult to get inside any electronic border that we may create between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
On defence, it is quite true—unassailable—that NATO is the bedrock of our defence. But it is also true that in NATO and the European Union there is a more considered determination to provide much more co-operation. The two institutions had their head offices at the same time in Brussels and for years they would not speak to each other. Now, at the very centre of the policies of NATO and the European Union is a determination that there should be a higher degree of co-operation.
There has been discussion about the common defence and security policy but, although it now becomes an important element in the consideration of these matters, no one has yet mentioned PESCO. This is not a junior form of a place where you can buy your groceries but—I have reservations about the language—Permanent Structured Cooperation. Essentially, it is the countries of the European Union concentrating on co-operation on defence matters so as to ensure that collectively they might make a more substantial contribution to NATO. We are not members of PESCO—recently formed—and if we leave the European Union we will cease to be present at meetings of EU Defence Ministers and Foreign Ministers. We will no longer be involved in the decision making of the common defence and security policy. As a third party, our participation in operations will be at the discretion of the other member states. I see that as a highly deficient alternative to what we presently enjoy.
The security and defence consequences of our departure, as has been pointed out, were never properly discussed—any more than the political consequences. But this evening we are concerned with security and defence and there needs to be clarity. If the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, had any responsibility for it, I am sure that we would have clarity. The reason there is no clarity is that no decisions have been made. That is why, when the Prime Minister at Munich said that this was an urgent matter and we must get on with it, it did not receive the kind of ready welcome she might have expected.
The amendment is essential if we are to cause—to force, if you like—the Government to come clean on what their proposals are: to go beyond the document published last September and to set them out in detail. It is a matter on which the European Union is anxious to have detail and I see no reason why it should not be public rather than private. That is what the amendment is designed to achieve and why it should be supported.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I agree with the assessment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, of the Prime Minister’s speech in Munich—it is exactly right—but he forgot one thing: at least the Prime Minister did not set out to insult the conference as the Foreign Secretary had the year before. Things are getting a lot better.
I rise to support Amendments 12 and 185 and to say why I cannot support Amendment 166 and therefore Amendments 164 and 165. Amendment 166 states that we should remain in the Foreign Affairs Council after we have left the European Union. We have to be realistic—that is not possible. If we decide to leave the European Union, we will not have a seat in any of the councils of the European Union. That is a fact. We may be able to negotiate some kind of seat in the directing bodies of agencies; if we are operating alongside the European Union in, say, a defence deployment, we may be able to arrange some joint command structure for that particular operation, but the direction of common foreign, security and defence policies and PESCO will be set by the 27 and we will have no say in the decisions they take. This, I fear, is undeniable.
Lord Patten of Barnes (Con)
Will the noble Lord concede that at least European Ministers after they have had their discussions and made their decisions will be sure to tell us afterwards what they had decided?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I suspect we will find out. To me personally, this is an extremely sad moment. When I was ambassador to the European Union I found that the things I was allowed to suggest as policy prescriptions were taken seriously in Brussels, partly because it was assumed that if the EU followed the British prescription, the British would ensure that the Americans came in behind it. When I was ambassador in Washington I found the same. Access to and influence on the President was a function partly of the perception that, on a foreign policy issue, the British could call the shots in Brussels.
I am glad that this discussion started with a tribute to Lord Hurd of Westwell, who was the exemplar of how to handle common foreign and security policy. I am glad too that it started also with a tribute to Lord Carrington. The original EPC was, in many ways, a British construct. CFSP as it emerged, with the strong support of the Healeys and the Callaghans, was Douglas Hurd’s construct. The European External Action Service was a British proposal. We punched more than our weight but we have to accept that when we leave the European Union, if we do, that is all gone and we should not pretend that we will have the same influence from outside. What should we do?
Lord Cavendish of Furness (Con)
Can the noble Lord explain to us why it is not in the interests of our European partners—100% in their interests—to co-operate as we have always co-operated before?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I am coming to that. I agree entirely that co-operation is in everyone’s interests. This is one of the areas of negotiation where we are not talking about a zero-sum game; rather, we are talking about a common interest, so I agree with the noble Lord. The point I am making is that we are in the next room. We are not in the room where the decisions are taken. We need an offer and an architecture for the next room. We need to come forward very soon and say, “We are prepared to consult on everything in the area of the common foreign and security policy. We are prepared to consult before every great debate at the United Nations. We would like to consult about every conflict area where Europe should have a view and possibly a presence. We would like to go on contributing our analysis and our intelligence. We would like you, o European Union, to build an annex to the Council—the room next door where we, who we hope will be your closest partner in co-operation on foreign policy, will be consulted by you and will consult you”.
A moment ago the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, made the point that the timing is very important. If we leave the European Union in March 2019, we will leave the Council and there will be no such structure in existence. I should think that something will be invented in the end, but there will be a period of hiatus when we will do the best we can. It would be much better if the United Kingdom were now to put forward an offer and an architecture. It would be much better if there had been a third section to the Prime Minister’s speech in Munich in which she had said, “This is how we envisage it working”. I do not see, particularly on the common foreign and security policy, why we should leave it to the European Commission. There is no great expertise on this in the Commission. It seems that it would have been better on a number of the dossiers in this negotiation if we had actually decided to play at home rather than play on their turf. It would have been better if on every issue we had not waited for the other side to make a proposal.
This is the locus classicus. This is the area of our greatest reputation in Europe. We invented the existing structures in this area, which we are now going to walk away from. This is the area par excellence where the other countries would like to co-operate with us. Why do we not put forward a proposal now? That is why I can support very happily Amendments 12 and 185, but I fear that there is no point in pretending that we can remain, on particular issues, a member of the club. We will have left the club, so the best we can do is try to be its closest partner on the common foreign and security policy.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, following on from what my noble friend has just said, I should like to ask a favour of the Minister. I am not going to make a speech because I had my chance at Second Reading. My request is that she will respond to the question of international development. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, mentioned it, but it was not in his amendment. However, it is very connected. I am thinking in particular of Kosovo at the moment as an example of the bridge between security, defence and international development. It is still going on. At this moment the Prime Minister of Kosovo is in the House of Commons seeking our support in the context of the European Union, of which we are still a member. This is something that is happening now. I hope that the Minister can respond on that subject and I will probably table an amendment at the next stage.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, we will come to the issue of children’s rights later in the Bill: the right to education, the right to contact with both parents and the right to rehabilitation from abuse and torture. While listening to the debate I recalled my mother’s experience of losing her younger brother when he was one or two years of age. They were in an air raid shelter that was cold and wet. He contracted, I think, meningitis. I was also thinking of the Anna Freud National Centre for Children and Families, which is a centre of excellence for helping children and young people. Originally it was known as the Hampstead War Nurseries. It was set up by Anna Freud during the Second World War to care for children dealing with the trauma of bereavement as a result of losing their parents in war. I hardly need to say to your Lordships that this is a very important matter. We need only to look at what is happening to children in Syria, so we must take the most constructive and proactive course possible.
We can keep this country safe, but other countries rely on our strength to keep them safe and secure, and help their children to lead stable and secure lives. I am sure that the Minister will want to make a constructive response to this debate and I hope that she will be as sympathetic as possible to the concerns raised.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief because most of the points have been made. I am grateful to the noble Lords who tabled this amendment and have thus ensured that this important issue is being discussed today. As has been said, the Prime Minister’s speech in Munich did rehearse the case that,
“our security at home is best advanced through global cooperation, working with institutions that support that, including the EU”.
We also had a welcome reminder from my noble friend Lord Adonis of the Prime Minister’s earlier, pre-referendum speech on the same issue. In Munich, she went on to outline her desire for an ambitious post-Brexit EU security relationship, talking about a security treaty as part of the “deep and special partnership” with the EU that she wants to see. However, as we have heard from most speakers in this debate, there was a curious lack of detail, or “beef”, in what she said.
As with last week’s amendments, these issues are integral to how we leave the European Union and indeed to the vote which will take place in this House in due course over the withdrawal deal, with its framework for our future relationship with the EU. As has also been mentioned, there is clearly a relationship between trade and security, as my noble friend Lord Adonis reminded us. I hope, therefore, that when the Minister answers the various points of the debate, she will do so in the spirit of these being an integral part of what this Bill is looking at, which is the method by which we leave the European Union. Given that our role in defence is most probably the main defence power in the EU and the only one already hitting the 2% target, our departure will have a significant impact on the defence and foreign policies of Europe and will therefore affect our other relationships with it.
Indeed, we should be mindful that, while the UK possesses full-spectrum military capability—although a little stretched, as my noble friend Lord Judd reminded us, and no doubt my noble friend Lord West would if he was in his place—and an extensive diplomatic reach across the globe, we should note that our hard and soft power has been greatly enhanced by our membership of the EU. That is why, as we have heard, Mr Callaghan as he was then focused on this and why the last Labour Government helped to launch the common foreign and security policy and the common security and defence policy. So while the Government have rightly indicated that they will seek to continue our participation in, for example, EU missions and interacting with relevant EU bodies, what we need is for the Minister to outline how the Government envisage this happening and on what terms—a point made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. This is needed with a degree of urgency since, as my noble friend Lord Judd said, there simply cannot be an interregnum or hiatus, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, before something is put in place. We have a year and a month to go.
I will take a moment to pose a different question to the Minister. Given the demands at the weekend by Spain’s Foreign Minister for joint management of Gibraltar’s airport after Brexit, could she confirm that at every step of the way the Government of Gibraltar are being informed and consulted on the Government’s evolving position on these and other issues, and that nothing will be agreed to jeopardise Gibraltar’s future—mindful, of course, of its worries arising from paragraph 24 of the EU’s negotiating mandate?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I thank you all very much indeed for contributing to a genuinely extremely interesting and useful debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for his very warm words of welcome. I fear that it is inappropriate to say this to someone bearing the name Adonis, but I fear I may be doomed to disappoint him. I will try to deal as best I can with the various points that have been raised.
The Government share with this House the objective of building a close and co-operative relationship with the EU on issues relating to defence and security, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, or to foreign affairs, security and intelligence, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. These are indeed vital matters. The continued security of Europe and of our citizens is paramount to us. It would just not be in our interests to see that co-operation diminish.
The purpose of the Bill is, I suppose, mechanical and rather tedious, but it is a mechanism to try to ensure that the UK statute book continues to function after we leave the EU and that it is not riddled with gaps and holes. That is what this Bill is all about. Amendment 12, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, is about the future relationship with the EU and securing it. That is vital—nobody disputes that—but it is of course inevitably, and I am sorry to use the platitude, subject to the current negotiations. Given that the Government have already committed to providing Parliament with a meaningful vote on any final deal, I respectfully suggest to the noble Lord that perhaps this Bill is not the appropriate forum to raise these concerns. I still think that the debate is an appropriate forum in which to articulate them.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
Could the noble Baroness reassure me that there is a negotiation going on on the future relationship between the UK when it has left and the common foreign and security policy of the EU? Is there a negotiation going on? I have the impression that there is not. I was trying to say that we should start one by making a proposal now.
Baroness Goldie
The noble Lord will understand that I am a very lowly mortal and that I am not privy to the detail of the negotiations. What is clear from what the Prime Minister has said is—just as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, very helpfully identified—how extremely important these issues are to the Prime Minister. I am absolutely certain that, within the holistic forum of the negotiations, these matters are certainly being discussed and looked at.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
The noble Baroness has said, and it keeps being implied, that these are not issues for this Bill. I am sure that she knows the Bill far better than I, having read it more often, but I remind her that on page 7, Clause 9(1) says that the use of regulations is,
“subject to the prior enactment of a statute by Parliament approving the final terms of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union”.
We know that, under Article 50, those final terms of withdrawal have to include the framework for our future relationship, which is almost bound to affect and comment on issues such as this. Although on many occasions Ministers may not want to answer, there is reference in the Bill to the withdrawal deal and surely it is appropriate for us to bring to the Government anything that might be in that.
Baroness Goldie
Yes. My position that I advance to the noble Baroness—I was just going to come to this in my speech—is that there will be a subsequent opportunity for Parliament to look closely at whatever the withdrawal agreement is and its implementation. In addition, the Government have committed already to providing Parliament a vote on the final deal. Parliament will be given the opportunity to scrutinise the future relationship between the UK and the EU. That is why I submit that the Bill before us is essentially of a mechanical nature. That is what it is: it is trying to ensure, as we leave the EU, that we make sense of transferring the necessary laws, enactments and regulations, whatever they may be, into the statute book of the United Kingdom. The noble Baroness is quite correct that Parliament should have that right to scrutiny, of understanding what the agreement is and questioning how the implementation will take place; I am pointing out that these opportunities will be there. Parliament will not be denied that opportunity.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
Will the noble Baroness give way? I shall be very quick.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, I would be happy to give way later, but I am quite anxious to make progress. Important points have been raised. I want to try to keep the theme running as to how I will respond to them.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, referred to the Prime Minister’s speech in Munich. She gave a very important speech because she detailed further how the UK envisages future collaboration with the EU on internal and external security. She reiterated our unconditional commitment to European security. I turn to a very important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. I say without equivocation that we remain absolutely committed to ensuring European security and developing this deep and special partnership. Our desire for a close working relationship on foreign and security policy is not conditional on other areas of the negotiations. I hope that that reassures the noble Lords.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
We have, effectively, a willing buyer and a willing seller when it comes to security and defence. Why not take the opportunity of concluding that bargain? It would be much easier to do than, for example, the trade agreements that we hope to deal with in the future.
Baroness Goldie
This is like the fair in Paisley: things coming from one side, interventions coming from the other side and voices from behind me. I am not sure that I entirely agree with the analogy. It is the case that explorations are taking place, if you like, between a buyer and a seller—that is what a negotiation is—but these are sensitive negotiations. I am trying to make clear in the course of my speech—perhaps if I can make a little progress it might become more apparent—just how committed the Government are to addressing the issues raised by your Lordships. They are issues of real concern and are certainly of vital importance. That is because our shared values—those values between the United Kingdom and the EU—are manifest and universally acknowledged. I hope that universal acknowledgement understands that we do not need the text of the Bill to explain to everyone that it is there. I hope that everything that we have done as a member of the EU and all that we are doing in the conduct of the negotiations, particularly as made clear by the Prime Minister’s remarks, will reassure all just how serious we are about these matters.
We have proposed a bold new approach to security co-operation with the EU, including a comprehensive framework for future security, law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation, and for future co-operation on foreign and security policy. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that, as we leave the EU, of course our consultation on the CFSP will change, as it inevitably has to do. With considerable justification, many of your Lordships—the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, Lord Judd, Lord Hannay and Lord Campbell, my noble friend Lord Hailsham and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter—were anxious to get some idea of what the post-Brexit position would look like in relation to these issues of critical importance.
I say by way of preface to all of this that, as a Government Whip for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and for Defence, I have regularly found myself at this Dispatch Box outlining positions on foreign affairs and defence which are UK derived. They are positions that we have reached by ourselves and as a consequence of our NATO membership—which is very important, as acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell—as part of our P5 position on the United Nations Security Council or as a consequence of discussions with our global allies. We do that now on our own account. I make that point to explain that, while we value the relationship that we have had with the various agencies in the EU, there is another territory out there that is also extremely important to the future security not just of this country and the EU but of our global partners.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
It is crucial that we understand that the Prime Minister proposed in Munich a treaty for what was referred to as “internal security”, which is internal security within the European Union. It would be a treaty which had plenty of detail and clearly reflected co-operation with the existing institutions of the European Union—that is where we get into discussion about the European Court of Justice. But for external security, there would be co-operation. Why this difference? Why a treaty for internal security, and why just co-operation on global security, with a clear indication that we would leave the European Union’s foreign policy on the date of Brexit?
Baroness Goldie
There seems to be an inescapable distinction between these two positions. In relation to the internal security of the EU, there can be a meaningful discussion about what we can do to assist and support that, but when it comes to external security and just as I have outlined, there is a multiplicity of other positions, agencies, alliances, relationships and partnerships which govern what we do. I can see that what would be appropriate to deal with one scenario might not be appropriate to deal with another, but I say that without prejudice to whatever the negotiations are currently covering. I am not privy to the detail of the negotiations, but there seems already to be evidence that constructive dialogue is taking place. From what we have heard from the Prime Minister and her absolute and unqualified commitment to security and to trying to embark on as close and harmonious a relationship as we can get with the EU post Brexit, there is no doubt about her conviction on these matters.
We have to work as closely as we can with the EU post Brexit. The Prime Minister has made that crystal clear and is right to do so. The UK is not without influence. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, noted, it enjoys a status in relation to these matters—I refer again to our P5 position on the United Nations Security Council. One area in which people have been sceptical is in their asking why the UK should be treated differently from other third-country partners as we try to negotiate new arrangements with the EU. Taskforce 50 noted in its presentation on external security that the EU would lose one of its two permanent members of the Security Council when the UK leaves. Taskforce 50 recognises that this could merit a specific dialogue and consultation mechanism with the UK.
Perhaps I may return to a very legitimate question posed by a number of your Lordships: what is all this going to look like and is there any sort of shape to it?
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
The Minister has just mentioned the matter of our withdrawing from the permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council and that our withdrawing from the European Union will mean that there will be only one EU permanent member. Will that not be a wonderful day for France, which will be able to speak in the councils of the United Nations as representing the EU as a whole, and will no doubt do so?
Baroness Goldie
I am sorry, I think that I may have been misunderstood. I did not talk about the United Kingdom withdrawing from being a P5 member of the United Nations Security Council. I said that when we withdraw from the EU, the EU will be left with only one member, which is France. The position of the UK in that respect is powerful and influential, and I am pointing out that Taskforce 50 thought that it could certainly merit a specific dialogue and consultation mechanism with the UK.
It is pretty clear, particularly when there are many in this Chamber much more knowledgeable than I am about these important and technical matters, that to underpin our future co-operation we will seek regular institutional engagements, including specific arrangements on secondments and information sharing—that would seem to be at the heart of constructing any relationship. The nature of the threats that we face mean that we should seek a framework that could be scaled up in times of crisis. One needs a relationship which can be tested against need if situations arise when the partnership, agreement or whatever it is to be has to swing into action.
The United Kingdom intelligence community already works closely with other members of the EU. The heads of the German BND, the French DGSE and the UK secret intelligence services issued a joint statement at the Munich security conference committing to close co-operation and stating that cross-border information sharing must be taken forward on themes such as international terrorism, illegal migration and proliferation of cyberattacks after the UK leaves the EU. We want to do all that. I am trying to explain to your Lordships that there is straw with which to make my bricks. I am not just clutching it out of the air; I am trying to indicate that there are substantive matters that can be the foundation for something very firm and enduring.
Perhaps I may try to deal with one or two particular points raised. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, raised the important matter of sanctions. We have just passed a sanctions Bill which will provide the UK with the powers to implement our own independent sanctions regime, but we would delay these powers coming into force if we could agree arrangements with the EU concerning sanctions co-operation during the implementation period. On sanctions, as with co-operation on foreign and security policy more generally, we seek to consult and develop a co-ordinated approach before decisions are made. To enable such co-operation, we will need consultation mechanisms; for example, regular sanctions dialogues. I was very struck by the contribution from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who raised real and poignant issues. Nobody would disagree with that, which underlines why we need close co-operation on these vital issues.
On Amendments 164 and 166 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, the Political and Security Committee and the Foreign Affairs Council are of course bodies of the EU. They are attended by member states and are intended for the development of the EU’s policy.
We are leaving the European Union and are not seeking to participate in these meetings on the same basis as EU members. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, identified these problems. But, given our historic ties and shared values, we are likely to continue sharing the same goals and we will therefore want to co-operate closely on a common foreign policy. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said very cogently that we are not talking about a zero-sum game. It was racy language for the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, but I totally agree with him. We are not talking about a zero-sum game: well established and good relationships already exist which will not just evaporate. We will seek to bind these and tie them in to our new post-Brexit relationship. We want to establish an enhanced partnership with the EU that reflects the unique position of the UK. This will include close consultation in a variety of fora. Attending the Political and Security Committee and the Foreign Affairs Council, however, is not the only means by which we can achieve that.
Amendment 165 was also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. This amendment seeks to bind the UK—“bind” is the important word—to follow the EU’s foreign policy objectives regardless of our own views. This would limit the UK’s ability to respond independently to developments in the world post Brexit, and such a restriction would be profoundly undesirable. Of course, on many foreign policy issues the UK and EU will continue to share the same goals and will want to co-operate closely, whether that is by continuing to support the Middle East peace process or by tackling the threat of piracy off the Horn of Africa—but, again, I do not think we need texts and primary legislation to underline what are already our shared values and beliefs.
Amendment 185 was also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and refers to the EU Intelligence Analysis Centre. I reiterate the Government’s unconditional commitment to European security. In the exit negotiations we will work closely to ensure that the UK and EU continue to co-operate closely, including through the sharing of information, to safeguard our shared values and to combat common threats, including threats of terrorism, organised criminal groups and hostile state actors. The precise modalities and arrangements to enable this partnership will be decided in the negotiations. I do not expect this to satisfy the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, but I hope that it will provide them with sufficient reassurance of the Government’s commitment to continue close co-operation with the EU and its agencies and that, in these circumstances, they will see fit not to press their amendments.
I will say in conclusion—I reiterate it because the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, raised the point—that the Government have been clear that the UK remains unconditionally committed to European security. In the exit negotiations we will work to ensure that the UK and EU continue to co-operate closely to safeguard our shared values and to combat common threats, including terrorism. A partnership where we can build on the existing structures and arrangements—because it is not a zero-sum game—to improve processes will enable us to go further to respond to the reality of these. I hope that this will provide your Lordships with sufficient reassurance of the Government’s commitment to continue close co-operation with the EU and its agencies.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may say to her that she will have responded to this debate admirably if she can think of a way of conveying to the Foreign Secretary—it might be relatively easy since he is here—that there are at least some in this House who believe that the right way of advancing the dossier of co-operation with the EU that we have left on a common foreign and security policy would be for us to put forward a draft treaty now—not waiting for the other side, not waiting for the Commission, the expertise of which is not on foreign policy, but putting forward a treaty drafted by the Foreign Secretary, with all his detailed, forensic skills.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, of course I shall withdraw the amendment, but I shall make a couple of comments. It is clear that we will have to return to this at the next stage if the Government do not provide any more detail. First, on the role of the Lords in considering Bills such as this, the noble Baroness said—as the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said on a couple of occasions—that this is a largely mechanical Bill. Well, it is a mechanical Bill that gives very wide discretion to the Government to design our future relationship with our most important security, political and economic partners. So a House that concerns itself not with whether the principle of the Bill is correct but with the detail is entirely in accord with its role to ask for detail on what that discretion will be used for.
It would be easier to accept that this is a mechanical Bill and not to raise these difficult questions one after another if we had some confidence that the Government actually know what they want in these areas. Part of our problem is that many of us have no such confidence. I do not think that the Foreign Secretary has a clue about what he wants by way of a future relationship with Europe: I doubt whether he has really thought about it for more than three or four minutes. He is too busy thinking about the next anecdote he is going to tell or the next joke he is going to make. His speech last week was a disgrace for a Foreign Secretary: the Prime Minister’s was of an entirely different quality. For a Conservative Party that has always prided itself on its commitment to a strong foreign policy, it must be a real embarrassment that we still have someone in place who is incapable of giving a serious speech on foreign policy. So this House is fulfilling its proper role in asking for detail on the implications of the Bill.
Secondly, I take up what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said: the engine room is important.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, I think it is against the rules and the spirit of this Chamber to criticise a Member of another place by name. I hope that the noble Lord will see fit to moderate his comments accordingly.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I apologise for being perhaps a little stronger than I should have been in this respect. On the engine room—I wanted to return to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on this—much of the business of multilateral organisations, be it NATO or the EU, is done in working groups and committees. The common foreign and security policy structure has some 40 working groups and committees, including a military committee that has been chaired by a British officer. If we are not in any of those working groups, we will miss out on formulating policy.
There are other details that matter a great deal. I remember the noble Earl, Lord Howe, saying on one occasion, when some of us were following the noble Lord, Lord West, and asking, “Where are you going to find the frigates to make up the carrier groups that we need?” The noble Earl said, if I remember correctly, “They do not necessarily have to be British frigates”. I took him as meaning that they might be Dutch, French, Belgian or whatever. Well, that also needs a certain structure, with certain training mechanisms and certain multilateral commands.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
The noble Lord may not know, but, as I have quoted, we have been involved in some 15 EU operations, some of which have been naval. Had he visited Operation Atalanta at Northwood, he would have known that that is an entirely naval operation, commanded by the British with ships from a number of different nations. Operation Sophia in the Mediterranean has also involved British frigates working with others on the whole question of migration. So some operations are NATO, some are the EU.
I have said quite enough. Of course I am going to withdraw, but we, along with many others, do not know enough about this area to be able to give the confidence to the Government that we want—that is the whole problem with this “mechanical Bill”. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Ludford
“( ) Regulations bringing into force subsection (1) may not be made until the Secretary of State has laid before both Houses of Parliament procedures agreed with the EU for continued UK participation in measures to promote internal security, police cooperation and counter-terrorism and these procedures have been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the Prime Minister’s speech in Munich 10 days ago, which was cited in the previous debate, was encouraging as far as it went. The Prime Minister spoke of wanting to participate in Europol, the Schengen Information System, the European arrest warrant and the European investigation order, which is a sort of European arrest warrant for evidence. But aspiration is not enough. Cross-border co-operation on law enforcement is premised on an assumption that all member states share similar standards of fundamental rights protection. Mutual recognition is rooted in mutual trust. I am afraid that successive British Governments have not really understood this sufficiently and have been more or less reluctant to sign up to the protective measures alongside the measures on police powers.
It is really strange that the UK has had such an ambivalent relationship with EU justice and home affairs over the past 20 years because it is possible to say, without being arrogant, that our record on the rule of law and the quality of our lawyers, judges and police stand comparison with any other in Europe and should have put us at the centre of EU developments in civil as well as criminal justice. But successive Governments have insisted on opt-outs and optional rather than full-hearted participation. That has not stopped the merits and value of our weight and experience and our personnel in justice and home affairs being recognised. We have the director of Europol—I think he has been there for the best part of 10 years—Rob Wainwright, who is on the brink of retiring. Of course, the European Commissioner for Security, Sir Julian King, is British. Two former presidents of Eurojust are British. That is the body of prosecutors which ensures that cross-border investigations and prosecutions are carried out smoothly. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, was president of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary—the network of judges—which supports and encourages an independent and qualified judiciary.
You cannot do cross-border co-operation unilaterally. It has to be a reciprocal arrangement based on legal agreements which are enforceable in respecting individual rights as well as the rights of national authorities. There are two foundations of mutual trust within the EU: first, the possibility of recourse to the European Court of Justice to ensure a level playing field in the application of EU law; and, secondly, the rights and principles in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, the right to protection of personal data being of particular relevance in this context.
On the resolution of legal disagreements, in her Munich speech the Prime Minister proposed two principles: first, respect for the sovereignty of the UK’s legal order; and, secondly, respect for the remit of the European Court of Justice, at least when participating in EU agencies. I think there is a lot of head-scratching about how those two principles are going to be reconciled. I am hopeful that the Minister will be able to explain to me precisely how that is going to work. Can he also flesh out what a security treaty would look like in incorporating what the Prime Minister called a mechanism for,
“independent dispute resolution … in which both sides can have the necessary confidence”?
How will the full exchange of data be secured under the auspices of such a treaty? About three years ago Denmark voted to leave Europol. Since then, it has negotiated very limited access to data in Europol—and it is a full member of the EU, the Schengen area, the European Court of Justice and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. What makes the Government think we will get better access to Europol than Denmark? We might well get observer status but we will have no vote on the work programme or the direction of Europol’s work.
We will discuss the Charter of Fundamental Rights fully later but it is highly relevant to the exchange of data so I must mention it now. The relevance of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is why the trade body of the British tech industry, techUK, has urged the retention of the charter in domestic law. It is interested mainly in the commercial exchange of data for the digital economy but the same applies to the exchange of personal data for the purposes of law enforcement. The tech sector is very well aware of the long-running problems over transatlantic data transfers after the Snowden revelations in 2013, leading to years of political wrangling and litigation, including the ECJ blocking the so-called safe harbour agreement before the privacy shield was agreed—and there had to be changes in US data protection law to achieve that.
Whether or not the UK seeks a formal adequacy decision in the context of our future trade and security relationship, we can be sure that there will be a wide and deep assessment of data protection in this country, not least by the European Parliament, and the possible invalidation by the ECJ of any agreement which fails fully to adhere to EU standards. It seems ill judged for the Government to prejudice that trade and security relationship with the EU by jettisoning the charter. The fact that they insisted on weakening the privacy protection for immigration data in the Data Protection Bill may also turn out to be unwise.
The Prime Minister wanted continued participation in the European arrest warrant and the European investigation order. The extradition agreement with Norway and Iceland took 13 years to negotiate, is still not in force three years after agreement, and does not include surrender of own nationals. How do the Government propose to do better than Norway and Iceland? The 1957 Council of Europe convention would be a step backwards in extradition practice and in any case would require not only the UK but individual European countries to change their legislation. What prospect is there of them doing that?
On the European arrest warrant, the Government will of course be aware that the Irish courts have refused the extradition of a person to the UK and have referred the case to the Luxembourg court because they are afraid that if they return someone to the UK and they are in detention beyond March next year, they will not get the protection of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. So it is already affecting extradition co-operation. The European investigation order—the other measure the Prime Minister mentioned—has been implemented in UK law, as I have had cause to raise with the Government, by substituting reference to the charter with a reference to the European Convention on Human Rights, which of course is not an EU measure. That seems a rather petty thing to do and, again, does not seem very sensible if it is a flagship measure mentioned by the Prime Minister but it has not been properly implemented in UK law.
To conclude, can the Government tell us, given their limited acceptance of ECJ jurisdiction and their rejection of the charter, exactly what terms—and under what structures, as was just mentioned—they expect to get in a security treaty, and will they submit a draft for our enlightenment before too long? I beg to move.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I added my name to the noble Baroness’s amendment for two reasons. The second was that I was encouraged by what the Prime Minister said in Munich and I very much hope that we are going to have the closest possible co-operation for all our security. But the first reason that I put my name on the amendment was that I had the honour, until the unfortunate general election of last year, of serving on the EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee of this House. After the general election I was summarily dismissed because I had not voted with the Government during our debates on the triggering Bill last spring. But there we are: it did not shut me up and certainly will not shut me up tonight because we took evidence from Rob Wainwright, the head of Interpol.
On that committee, I used to sit next to Lord Condon. I am very sorry that he has retired from your Lordships’ House because he made an extremely important contribution, based on vast knowledge. I was impressed by his pride in what Rob Wainwright had achieved as a Brit leading that extremely important organisation. I was impressed, too, by the searching questions that Lord Condon asked of not only Rob Wainwright but a number of other expert witnesses who came before us. The conclusion that one had to come to after those various evidence sessions was that the measure of success of our negotiations would be determined by how close we had come to replicating what already existed.
There is no point in rehearsing all my misgivings about where we are, because we are where we are. But I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench can reassure the Committee that the Prime Minister, following her Munich speech, really is committed to coming to close arrangements with our European friends and neighbours to ensure that the measure of security which we enjoy—and which the people of this country enjoy—will not be damaged by an imperfect relationship with Interpol. I would like to see a proper membership of Interpol and, frankly, I am not persuaded that it could not happen. I hope it will because what matters more than anything else to the people of our country, almost a year away from the terrorist outrage which hit us here in Westminster last March, is that they feel secure. That feeling of security is encouraged if they know that there is the closest possible co-operation and exchange of information with our European friends and neighbours. One other thing that came out during our evidence sessions was the very real importance of the European arrest warrant. I hope that in building upon what the Prime Minister said in Munich, we can ensure that there is again a similar arrangement after we leave the European Union.
Those were the reasons why put I my name to the amendment and I am glad to support it. I do not want to sound offensive in any way because I have a high regard for my noble friend, who has a very difficult job to do, but I hope we will have a reply to this debate of real substance, in view of what the Prime Minister said in Munich a couple of weeks ago.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, perhaps I might carry on after the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, because I too served on your Lordships’ Home Affairs Sub-Committee. I chaired it some years ago, when we were going through what could be described as a dry run for our debate tonight. That dry run was on protocol 36, the opting out and then opting back in; the current Prime Minister played a notably positive role in that, particularly so far as the European arrest warrant was concerned.
The first point, which cannot be made too often and which I hope the Minister will recognise, is that in this area of EU policy there is no safety net. It is not like trade, where the WTO rules are, I would argue, inadequate but nevertheless are there as a safety net if all else fails. There is no safety net for justice and home affairs. If we do not make watertight arrangements by 29 March next year, we will be walking on thin air. On this, I would like to ask a specific question: are the Government confident that the arrangements for a standstill transition or implementation—whatever they like to call the period that immediately follows 29 March 2019—will be applicable to these justice and home affairs matters when we are a third country? It would be good to have that answered.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, there cannot be anyone in this House who does not agree that the security of this country is vital and that collaboration in fighting crime is really important. We have to remember that international cross-border crime is one of the real challenges that we face. It has been made easier because of developments in recent times, such as the electronic transfer of money, the ease of travel and the whole business of communicating by cell phones, email and the like. Just as that makes it possible for us to trade, it makes it much more possible for illicit trades to take place, too, so international cross-border crime is something that we really have to contend with in a way that was not the case 50 years ago.
Countering cross-border serious crime, whether it is terrorism, the transportation of drugs, the importation of firearms or all manner of illicit products or trading in human beings, involves incredibly important collaboration and co-operation, so like other noble Lords I welcome the fact that the right noises are being made about future co-operation in policing and security matters, particularly because of the real complexity of this stuff. I was with a group of recently retired senior counterterrorism police officers and someone who was about to retire last Thursday talked about the invaluable nature of these collaborations and the ways in which the European arrest warrant, Eurojust and the things on the list that was read out by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, are so vital in countering this really serious level of crime. If you can penetrate the dark web, it shows just how active this criminality is.
I strongly support Amendment 13, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and other noble Lords, but it raises an issue. The issue is that, if we are going to use something like the European arrest warrant, it involves something different from the need for arbitration or for some supranational tribunal to deal with trading disputes, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said. This is of a different order. When we are dealing with something like the European arrest warrant, we are talking about the liberty of the subject. We are talking about people being arrested, kept in custody and transported from one place to another. The rights of the individual there are so significant that we have to have a court with highly trained judges at the apex of any legal system because people resist the possibility of being transferred for criminal trials to proceed.
I want to reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said about the old days. It would be a frequent occurrence that attempts would be made to extradite people and it took years. People were able to resist extradition for years. I see the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in his place. Once, many years ago, he led me in a case that involved lengthy extraditions and had gone on for years. The arrival of the arrest warrant put paid to that. The difference it has made has been considerable. The UK has extradited 1,000 people to other parts of Europe to be prosecuted for serious crimes and has received some 200 individuals from other places for serious crimes. I urge the Committee to think through the consequences of that. We need to have a court at the apex of this, and the court that is sought by the rest of Europe is the European Court of Justice, which already exists and knows and understands the nature of these processes. What do we do? Do we create some new court which has all the same powers and just give it a different name in order to appease those who do not like the European Court of Justice, or do we recognise that for this area there has to be the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice?
A number of amendments in this group are tabled in my name, and I want to refer the Committee to them. Amendment 99 relates to the protection of “protected persons”. This may be something that noble Lords are not really aware of, but we adopted the European protection order directive in 2014. This relates to difficulties which are faced mainly, but not exclusively, by women who are stalked or victimised, often by former partners, and who go to live in other parts of Europe. Across Europe we have developed victim protection orders which involve mutual recognition so that, if someone stalks someone to somewhere else but we have created a protection order in the UK, it can be immediately made effective in another country where someone has pursued the person who is the obsession at the end of their malign intent. Such victim orders are used not just in relation to domestic violence and the stalking that happens in relationships but in relation to other forms of stalking, for example, in witness protection issues or in trafficking. It is an area in which I have particular experience, and these orders are going to be vital in providing protection for people in different jurisdictions. I really hope that, in seeking to create the right kind of regime for us to operate across Europe in relation to these criminal matters, we also protect the victim protection order regime—the European protection order regulations—as well.
The other matter on which I have put forward an amendment, in which I am supported by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and my noble friend Lord Judd, relates to justice and home affairs measures. I know it is the Government’s objective that some of these processes continue after departure. We are most concerned that there is a serious understanding of what mutual recognition means. There is some concern being expressed in other parts of Europe that we do not use the terms mutual recognition and harmonisation in quite the way that is intended when it comes to this collaboration on criminal and civil matters. I have spoken about this before in the House. It is about the fact that it is not enough to introduce European law into the UK, as some of these regulations require reciprocity of a very deep kind. It means that we will respect orders made in other countries and that they will respect orders that we have made here.
Think of the difference that it makes to a woman whose family are in Germany and who takes her children there to visit them, but who after a divorce is being harassed and stalked by her previous husband. She can get an order in her local court and know that when she goes to visit her family in Germany, the order will operate there too if she is pursued by her former—abusive and violent—partner. We know that this also happens in relation to matters such as access to children, where people can get maintenance orders in the local court: you can go down to the court in Bromley, get your order and it will be made effective in another country in Europe. It is so important that people do not have to instruct lawyers in other places, when they could ill afford to do so and thereby secure justice in the circumstances they find themselves in.
The mutuality there is of a very deep kind. Just introducing European law into our system and legislating for it will not be enough. What we really require is something that creates a regime that continues what has been established with great care over very many years.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 209, which is in my name, follows directly from the remarks of my noble friend Lady Kennedy, so I thank my noble friend Lord Adonis for allowing me to slightly skip the order.
The amendment echoes the concerns of others, notably the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy about the UK’s access to and participation in Eurojust, Europol, ECRIS and the European arrest warrant. This also includes the database of the Schengen Information System II and the European protection order—I think we must have covered them all between us. I want to look at this from the perspective of child protection. This amendment has implications for a huge area that includes child trafficking, child abduction, forced migration, sexual exploitation, criminal proceedings, online abuse and missing children—a long list of concerns, also mentioned by my noble friend and the noble Lord.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, one of the themes that has come through in the debates on many of the amendments so far is that the Government are enthusiastic about where we are, keen on continuing the links and determined that we shall not in any way fall out from those, but unwilling to commit themselves to the obvious solutions. We have heard in this debate tonight an exact repetition of what we have had before.
In other words, some of us are saying that these things were achieved with great difficulty. The European arrest warrant caused enormous argument and could be a really dangerous thing if it were not properly protected by the European Court of Justice. Like everyone else, when I became a Member of your Lordships’ House I was asked what subjects I was particularly going to speak on. The first was the environment, the second was Europe and the third was human rights. Therefore, when the legislation that we are now part of was going through in its various forms, I was very concerned that it was properly protected. However, I was very aware, as is the House, that crime does not know any borders, particularly the type of crime that the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, was talking about.
We need the protection that the warrant gives. When we were kids and we read stories of derring-do, we all knew that the first thing that people would try to do was to get across the channel because then they would be out of the reach of British law, and indeed of the law in many ways. I believe strongly that first of all we have to recognise that what we have we did not get easily and did not arrive simply. To suggest that somehow or other we can produce a different system and call it something else, because that would be convenient to the people who are ill informed enough to want to leave the EU, seems extremely dangerous. We should recognise that this took a lot of doing.
The second point, which has been made very interestingly, is about the nature of mutual recognition. Very often we are divided by not understanding the words that we use. There is an attitude in Britain that suggests that we get it right and other people do not, and therefore they had better do it our way because we know best. That has been our besetting sin throughout the period of our membership of the EU and, if we leave, we will get even worse at it. In other words, we are very keen to teach other people but not frightfully good at learning from them. One of the things that we have learned—I think by accident; certainly not by design—in having to co-operate on these issues is that we have understood much more clearly the problems, difficulties and solutions that others have had in our European home. We have to recognise that understanding mutual recognition is not easy, and the idea that we can suddenly create a different mechanism for doing it is very far-fetched.
On my third point, I have great admiration for the Prime Minister. I do not understand how every morning she wakes up and thinks, “God, I’ve got another day of this”, and deals with some of the people that she has to deal with—I will not list them but we all know which ones I mean. However, it is not good enough to have good intentions and show generalised support. My noble friend who is answering for the Government has given us a great deal of good intentions and noble views but no actual support for real policies and actual determinations. This is not something that we can pass off by merely having good intentions, because it is very hard and we have to be tough about it. We have to say to our friends, “We actually want, and will have, exactly what we have today on these matters because there is no alternative that is better and there is no way that we are going to invent one”, because crime will not wait.
This is a rather important amendment. All it says is that the Government have to move from intentions to reality before they can move. That is not an unreasonable thing for the House which is responsible for our constitution to ask.
I hope that my noble friend is not going to say how important all these things are, how valuable they are, how much the Prime Minister is in favour of them, but that just at the moment, because it is all part of the negotiation, he cannot go further than that. If he does, perhaps for all our debates he might just turn on the recording. That is evidently the answer we are going to have on everything, because that is the answer we have had so far today on everything. If it goes on like this, this House will have to ask whether the Government intend to have a debate or discussion about things that matter, about the future of our nation and our people. Are they going to have a discussion about the things that protect our people, the policing which has to cover areas beyond our borders? Above all, are they going to have a discussion about how this affects Ireland? We have for too long taken for granted the fact that the Irish situation is, at least to a large extent—much less so than the newspapers would have us believe, but still to a large extent—peaceful. We must none of us forget that.
I have to tell my noble friend that it will become increasingly difficult for the Government to uphold their position unless they are prepared to take seriously this House’s demand that they tell us what they want. How can you negotiate with people unless you can say very clearly what you want on crucial issues, and what could be a more crucial issue than this?
Lord Judd
My Lords, at the end of all these proceedings, some months down the road, there will be a vote in Parliament. At that time, it will be essential that we know exactly what we are voting for. That is why the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, is so important. There is a fundamental difference between good intentions and concrete policy, there to be implemented. As in our previous debate, the issues are too big; there is no room for an interregnum or period of doubt. We must be able to move from what we have to what is necessary overnight. We must have firm policies and firm decisions that follow from them.
I served on the Home Affairs Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, when we were having that dry run, and very interesting it was, too. What I found very telling was that virtually every witness working in the field, when the question, “Will your work become more difficult if we leave the European Union than it is at the moment?” was put directly, said unequivocally yes, they needed the European Union to meet the challenge of the job. Forgive me if I repeat myself, but it is terribly important. Crime is international; it does not recognise frontiers. That is true of trafficking and, as my noble friend said, of drugs. It is true of terrorism. These things do not know national frontiers. Therefore, you must co-operate and work closely with others who face the same difficulties.
The other point I want to make is that, more recently, serving on the Justice Sub-Committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lady Kennedy, it has become very clear that we have underestimated—it is rather tragic that the British people have not understood, or begun to understand—how much British lawyers and British legal expertise have been contributing to the strength of European law, which is in all our interests. British lawyers have made a terrific contribution and they are very much respected. In taking evidence from practitioners in this sphere—the chairman is here to strike me down if I am misquoting—they told us over and over how the law is improving under the present system. The overriding authority of the European Court is crucial, however, because it provides a context in which everyone can have confidence in the necessary reciprocity. These amendments are very important, and I hope the Government will take them seriously.
Lord Inglewood (Con)
My Lords, it is two or three years ago now, but I had the privilege of chairing a House of Lords ad hoc Select Committee on extradition law. Of course, extradition law, as far as the European Union is concerned, is the question of the European arrest warrant. I can say with confidence that the conclusion we reached, on the basis of the evidence before us, was that the system seemed essentially to satisfy all the parties concerned. It was working well, not only from this country’s point of view but from the point of view of other countries in the European Union. Of course, the reality is that a deep and special relationship will not inhibit criminals coming to this country. In a world where there is ever greater mobility, we will have our fair share of criminals from elsewhere and no doubt other countries will have their fair share of our criminals. We have to deal with that problem.
The other thing that was pretty apparent from our work was that most of the criticism of the system was hung up on the European Court of Justice. It was a criticism not of what the European Court of Justice on the whole decided was appropriate, but of it not being exclusively comprised of British citizens. We need to be absolutely clear about that. We are talking about a system, the generality of which worked extremely well and in everybody’s interests. Therefore, I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he can give the Committee an assurance that, whatever arrangement may come into being after Brexit, they will work as well as the existing arrangements.
We have heard a number of speeches this evening that have been a trifle philosophical in tone, and I do not want to criticise anybody for that. I want to make a purely pragmatic point: if the system is not as effective as the one we have now, there will be more criminals on the streets of this country. Do the Government wish to bring that about? Equally, more of our criminals will no doubt be enjoying their ill-gotten gains in relative security on the Costa del Sol. Is that what the Government want to bring about?
We have heard about Ireland and I need say no more about that. It is terribly important to be clear about the pragmatic, nuts-and-bolts, on-the-ground implication of scrapping this procedure because there is every risk and likelihood, if we are not careful, that we will degrade the system of justice in this country.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I follow the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, in a plea that we do not go back to the system before the European arrest warrant was introduced. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, referred to the case that we did together some years ago when the extradition proceedings, which lasted some four and a half years, were ended by the 12th application for habeas corpus being turned down by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, which he may remember. What he may not remember is that my client went back to the country demanding his extradition, where the prosecution accepted a plea of guilty to one out of 32 charges, and was given a sentence that resulted in his immediate release. That was the old system; the system we have had since the introduction of the European arrest warrant, with all the agencies that have come into being, started I think by Mr James Callaghan when he was Prime Minister, developing under the European Union banner, has been extremely good and effective.
In the Queen’s Speech debate on 27 June last year, it will not surprise your Lordships to know that I asked the Government what they were going to do about this whole area—about all the agencies to which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred. What was going to happen? After that, there was complete silence. I wondered what was happening. These discussions and negotiations are as urgent as any to do with trade. They deal with the security of this country and the possibility that, if nothing is put in place, this country will become a haven for criminals, as opposed to somewhere the law is properly administered. But nothing happened—and so it was with considerable interest that I read the speech of the Prime Minister in Munich a week last Saturday. What was she going to say? She proposed a treaty. Who is negotiating that treaty? Who is in charge? Is it Mr Johnson? That is a bit unlikely. Is it Mr Fox or Mr Davis? Who are they negotiating with? The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, in her reply to the last debate, said that she knew that there was a dialogue going on. What dialogue? I have not heard of any dialogue, and I am interested in this subject. Where are we?
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, also asked the very pertinent question of what happens after March next year. Do the extradition warrant system and all the other bodies concerned with co-operation in criminal matters continue, or not? If they do not continue, the treaty to which the Prime Minister referred must be in place. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said a moment ago, we cannot have an interregnum—a period when nothing is happening. Something has to be put in its place, and nothing I have seen or read suggests that there is a dialogue or treaty in any form, draft or anything else ready to come into operation when we leave the European Union.
So specific questions on this issue can be asked of the Minister. What negotiations are happening? Who is doing them? When will there be a result? What is in the treaty? How are you going to put all these things together in a period of months to ensure the continuation of co-operation in this extremely important field? If there are no answers to those questions and the Minister just chuckles his way through, as he occasionally does—if he will forgive me—the security of this country is at risk, and we risk becoming that haven for criminals that would be a blight on our whole country.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, my name has been added to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, and I support every word that she said. Of course, she was chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children for many years, and had to give up that job because of her new responsibilities in Europe for the welfare of children. So I am sure the Minister will want to pay very close attention to what she has said.
I have a specific question for the Minister. Many foster carers in this country are from continental Europe. We do not know exactly how many, but the European Criminal Records Information System is very useful in ensuring that those interested in preying on children do not move from one country in Europe to another or from continental Europe to this country. The Minister will be aware of recent concerns that people interested in preying on young people in the developing world have been joining charities, for instance. Will he provide the Committee with as much information and detail as possible, given the concerns raised around the Committee this evening on these issues?
I was pleased to hear of the Prime Minister’s speech in Munich. I also recall that two or three years ago, as Home Secretary, she brought in the human trafficking Act, which was an important step forward. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, until a short time ago I was Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, having served for nearly 40 years making arrests and prosecuting people, which I quite enjoyed. I will say a few words about the importance for police officers, in particular in the investigation process, of some of the things that Europe provides and which need to be accommodated in the new arrangements. I worked in South Yorkshire, Merseyside and London and also served as one of Her Majesty’s inspectors looking at serious and organised crime. The Met led the extradition process for the United Kingdom—and still does—and also counterterrorist units, both in this country and with an international dimension, with 50 officers based in embassies around the world.
Many things remained constant in the 40 years that I was an officer, but some things have changed. One of the big changes is the mobility of people across our borders. In London particularly, a high number of foreign national offenders were arrested. The Met still arrests around 225,000 times a year. That is not 225,000 people, because many are arrested more than once. That is probably about 1 million people around the country and one in three of them is a foreign national offender—a very significant proportion of those arrested. Not everybody who is investigated and prosecuted is arrested. Of those in London, 55% are Europeans and 45% are from elsewhere. Both proportions are significant and have to be accommodated.
The ratio which I have described for London differs around the country. In some of our more rural areas there is a very high percentage of foreign national offenders. It varies by part of the country and seasonality. Different times of the year lend themselves to different types of migration. The police investigate very serious offences and more minor ones, but all demand the same level of proper investigation. The process that follows arrest or any investigation is usually similar. The first part is to confirm the identity of the suspect and the second to gather the available criminal intelligence about them. The third is to gather their criminal convictions, where they are recorded, and the fourth is to check on any forensic evidence that might be available for them. Together with the evidence, this forms a substantial part of the case.
One challenge for any investigating officer is that, where there is an arrest, an investigation is time limited. Some 90% of investigations are concluded within 24 hours of an arrest. This can be extended to 36 hours by a superintendent, but the majority of offences are investigated and concluded in the first 24 hours. It is, therefore, vital to gather the four things I have just mentioned fairly quickly. The arrangements we have had with Europe have been substantially better than those we had in the past. When you are investigating an international suspect it is not always easy to gather all that information quickly, but it is often vital that it is gathered before they are released.
For example, if someone has been arrested for rape and has on three previous occasions been arrested for rape in another country but not charged, you would want to know that information before you came to a conclusion about whether there had been consent as regards this particular offence. That is just one example of why this is important.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
How do you make that effective if you do not have the European Court of Justice at the apex?
Lord Hogan-Howe
The noble Baroness is in a far better position than I am to talk about the law, so I am not sure that I am able to say that. We have an extradition treaty with America and many other countries where that type of arrangement is not in place, so I would need to understand why the American model and that of other countries works without the arrangement mentioned by the noble Baroness, and why it has to be in place in Europe. There may be a reason, but I am not aware of it.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
My Lords, before my noble friend the Minister winds up this debate, I would like to address the problem of him being constantly accused of not spelling out the Government’s position. We are mid-negotiations. Surely, if you are negotiating with the EU, it is very difficult to reveal your negotiating position. Our experience of dealing with the EU is that when we start to reveal our negotiating position, it immediately laughs at us and tells us that it is absolutely ridiculous for us to think that we are going to get these concessions, and that we are cherry-picking and want to have our cake and eat it and all this sort of thing. It seems to me that the Government are in a very difficult position. They have to hold this debate because we are processing the Bill through Parliament, but simultaneously we are trying to negotiate with the EU. We cannot reveal our position. The overall position is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I totally agree with what my noble friend is saying. It is very important that that point is made: it is not made often enough and could be made every time on every amendment. Does he agree that the most absurd question of all, which we have had several times on previous amendments, is for the Government to be asked what their fallback position is? How on earth can someone in a negotiation say what their fallback position is?
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
My noble friend is absolutely right. Of course, the EU is watching all this extremely closely because it is desperate to try to snarl up the whole process so that we cannot leave. The fact that a referendum involving a democratic vote was held on this is regarded by most people in the Commission as a sign of weakness. I think it was President Macron who said the other day that if a referendum were held on whether France should pull out of the EU, the leavers would win, but of course he was not going to allow a referendum. I am sure that that will go down in history along with other French expressions such as “Let them eat cake”.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I have six amendments in this group. They refer to the United Kingdom having continued access after withdrawal to passenger name records, to the Schengen Information System, to the European arrest warrant, to membership of Europol, to the European Criminal Records Information System, and to the fingerprint and DNA exchange with the EU under the Prüm Council decisions.
The questions put to the Minister by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, went to the heart of the matter—that is, given that the Prime Minister said in her Munich speech that she wishes to see a treaty replace all these elements of the existing arrangements, the Minister should simply tell us the process by which we will be negotiating the treaty. This debate, as with many others, gives the complete lie to the ridiculous assertion that no deal is better than a bad deal. Let us be clear: if there is no deal on 29 March next year, the current arrangements to which the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, referred, painstakingly negotiated over many years, for the European arrest warrant and the very high levels of engagement between the member states of the European Union—which the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said were so important to his work as Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police—all fall.
Is the Minister going to tell us that the security of this country will be as safe as it is now if all those arrangements fall? I assume that he is not, in which case the United Kingdom leaving the European Union with no deal at the end of March next year would be a complete abdication of the national interest. We need to get that firmly established. As we have more of these debates and see the precise benefits of the EU—which, after all, are the reason we went into the European Union—it becomes clearer and clearer that leaving with no deal would be a dereliction of the national interest.
Lord Deben
Before the noble Lord leaves that point, does he also agree that asking the Government to explain how this treaty is being discussed and by whom cannot have any effect whatever on the negotiations between the Government and the European Union? Is it not true that several of the questions asked have had nothing to do with the negotiations? We would just like to know where the Government are on matters which are unconnected with those negotiations.
Lord Adonis
I entirely agree, and I hope that the noble Lord will say that to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, who is sitting right next to him. It provides a devastating response to the noble Lord’s intervention just a moment ago.
We are asking the Government simply to declare the policy of Her Majesty’s Government in the negotiations that are taking place. Since one assumes that our European partners are being told what we are seeking to negotiate—it is quite hard to negotiate something if you do not tell the other side what you are seeking to negotiate—I cannot see that there is any damage to the public interest in telling this House and the public. These are very straightforward questions. The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, says that we should not declare our hand midway. Are we or are we not in favour of keeping the European arrest warrant after 29 March next year? If we are, that is a clear negotiating objective of the Government. It will require a straightforward continuation of the current arrangements, and people like me will say all the way through that it is yet another argument as to why we would be much better off staying in the European Union in the first place and not having to go through this hugely complex and difficult process of attempting to replicate arrangements so that we do not end up with a worse situation, when there is every likelihood that we will.
The devastating response to and commentary on all these matters come from the Prime Minister herself—both in her Munich speech, in which she made it very clear that she would regard it as damaging to the national interest not to have a treaty at the end of March, and in her speech on 25 April 2016 before the referendum, in which she was even clearer on these matters. In that latter speech, in which she sought to argue why we should stay in the European Union, she went through in great detail the benefits that the European arrest warrant, the Prüm arrangements and so on gave to the security of the United Kingdom. Those are all points that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, seems to want to will the ends without the means. I understand that he has not had to negotiate these issues himself, but just says, on a wing and a prayer, that he wants these objectives to be secured and is sure that our negotiators in Brussels will be able to do it. If the noble Lord had had any systematic engagement with the Ministers responsible, I do not think he would necessarily have so high a degree of confidence in their capacity to negotiate his objectives.
The Prime Minister herself gave the devastating response to the question of why we should stay in the European Union in respect of these security and justice issues. In her speech of 25 April 2016, when referring to the European arrest warrant and the passenger name record directive, she said that these show,
“2 advantages of remaining inside the EU … without the kind of institutional framework offered by the European Union, a complex agreement like this could not have been struck across the whole continent, because bilateral deals between every single member state would have been impossible to reach”.
Let us be frank: that is why we are in the European Union, why it serves our national interest and why we have a very high degree of co-operation when it comes to justice and home affairs.
We are talking about very large numbers. The Prime Minister herself gave the figures, saying that in the five years prior to her speech—2011 to 2016—5,000 people had been extradited from Britain to Europe under the European arrest warrant, and 675 suspected or convicted wanted individuals were brought to Britain to face justice. She said:
“It has been used to get terror suspects out of the country and bring terrorists back here to face justice”.
Just as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, gave his extraordinary statistics about how long it used to take to get extradition proceedings under way, the Prime Minister said:
“In 2005, Hussain Osman—who tried to blow up the London Underground on 21/7—was extradited from Italy using the Arrest Warrant in just 56 days. Before the Arrest Warrant existed, it took 10 long years to extradite Rachid Ramda, another terrorist, from Britain to France”.
These issues are of the utmost gravity and we need an assurance from the Minister that, in the negotiations for the treaty that the Prime Minister referred to in Munich, we will seek to maintain arrangements that are in every respect as good as those we currently have. If we do not have those in the treaty she presents to Parliament at the end of the year, many of us will say that this whole Brexit process has seriously damaged the security of the United Kingdom.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
Does my noble friend accept that the reason the Government will not disclose their negotiating objectives is not that this would somehow prejudice their position but rather that they do not know what those objectives are? The truth is that this is an issue of real sensitivity to the Brexiteers. The question is whether these arrangements are intergovernmental or involve the institutions of the European Union and the supervision of the European Court of Justice.
I know all about this because, as an adviser to the then Prime Minister, I went through many iterations of this issue. When justice and home affairs first became a subject of the European Union, and a pillar of the Maastricht treaty, it was all at an intergovernmental level. Gradually, it became more communitised, as it were, for the simple reason that that was the way to make it work. We could not make it work as an intergovernmental mechanism. We could not get the degree of co-operation needed to make something like the European arrest warrant work without having some judicial supervision mechanism, so the Labour Government agreed to it—somewhat reluctantly because some of the people involved were not the greatest supporters of civil rights in many respects, but they agreed to it.
What is happening in Brussels at the moment is that the member states are discussing among themselves what framework they are going to set for the negotiations for the rest of the year. That will be coming out at the end of March.
Baroness Goldie
Is the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, making an intervention? I want to be clear what the order of speaking is.
Baroness Goldie
I think your noble friend thought that he had been usurped.
Lord Adonis
My noble friend’s intervention is excellent and gives the Minister more to respond to. I know he is short of points to deal with at the end of this debate.
Lord Liddle
This is Committee stage. We are allowed to go back and forth. What are the Government saying to other member states at the moment about the nature of the agreement on this that they are prepared to contemplate? Are they saying to our current partners that they are prepared to see judicial supervision in these arrangements or not? I hope the Minister will answer that very simple point.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for not speaking at Second Reading; I took the view that I was unlikely to add anything new, bearing in mind the number of speakers. However, I have a few new things to add as a result of today’s debate. I had more than 30 years of service in the Metropolitan Police Service—which pales into insignificance when you consider the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe—but I have also been briefed by the National Crime Agency lead on Brexit and by the director-general of the National Crime Agency on these issues.
It might be considered a technical point, but there is a difference between counterterrorism intelligence exchange and law enforcement. The counterterrorism intelligence tends to be of such a sensitive nature that it is exchanged on a bilateral basis and therefore is nothing to do with the European Union. When sensitive data, for example, are shared by the United States with the United Kingdom, the United States would not do that if it was on the basis that the United Kingdom would then share all that intelligence with the EU 27. However, there is a technical difference between counterterrorism in terms of intelligence and counterterrorism in terms of bringing terrorists to justice, and here we are talking about bringing people to justice using these various mechanisms.
My noble friend Lady Ludford referred to the European Court of Justice and the Charter of Fundamental Rights as two important mechanisms which allow this co-operation to take place within the European Union. In her Munich speech, the Prime Minister tantalisingly mentioned the European Court of Justice and the potential for a role for it after the UK had left the European Union in relation to things such as the European arrest warrant. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, made the point that this is not about relationships between two sovereign nations, it is about individual rights in terms of whether an individual is going to be moved from one country to another. Perhaps the Minister can give us some clarity on the Government’s position on the European Court of Justice by explaining what the Prime Minister meant in her speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, talked about the need for the closest possible co-operation, which is what the National Crime Agency would say, and that the measure of the success of the negotiations would be how closely we can replicate the existing arrangements. I believe that the Government’s position is that they want to replicate all of these things as far as possible, and that is what I took from what the Prime Minister said. So to say that the Government cannot give away their negotiating position by saying what the objective is going to be is not, I think, true in this particular case. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that what the Government seek to achieve is as close as possible to the arrangements we have, but that is not the question. The question is how the Government are going to secure those arrangements; that is the critical question, not what they are seeking to achieve, but how they are going to do it. That is because there seems to be a contradiction between not wanting to have any jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice on the one hand and yet wanting to participate in things such as the European arrest warrant on the other.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, helped the House to introduce the very important issues around protected persons. For example, the victims of domestic violence have the protection of orders that are made in one country enforced in another, which brings a new dimension to the importance of these arrangements. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, talked about the importance of the protection of children through the European arrest warrant and the other measures, in particular the European Criminal Records Information System, which enables law enforcement to quickly check the antecedents of people who are suspected of these sorts of offences. These are extremely important issues in terms of bringing people to justice and in terms of protecting citizens not only of the United Kingdom but of other European states. We have heard from my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford how extradition can take years—four and a half years in the case he mentioned—whereas under the European arrest warrant justice can be brought far more swiftly.
For me, the essential question is not what the Government want the end position to be, because that is quite clear—and it is certainly what the National Crime Agency and other law enforcement officers want, and indeed what the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, has also said. The question that the Government need to answer is this: how on earth is this going to be achieved, bearing in mind their apparent contradictory stances on other issues such as the European Court of Justice?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, as we have heard, these amendments relating to reciprocal issues are key to continuing to protect and assist British citizens after Brexit, including children and protected persons, in ways that hitherto our EU membership and cross-border agreements have provided. In particular these are the European arrest warrant, the mutual recognition of family court judgments, information exchange, Europol and Eurojust.
The Government’s approach to these issues must be agreed in principle with the EU in time to be included in the framework part of the Article 50 requirements and form part of the withdrawal agreement, so a satisfactory approach to these will be key to the future vote on that deal. However, as we have heard from speakers tonight, there seems to be an extraordinary lack of urgency, especially if there is any chance—I am not sure whether this is what the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, hinted at—that a standstill transition agreement could not cover these issues. That would make it even more urgent.
I ask in particular about the Government’s urgency, or lack of it, as I began asking Written Questions on this a year ago. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, will remember it very well: it was on St Valentine’s Day last year—I do not think he chose it to be that day, but never mind—that he answered some of my questions on matrimonial and maintenance proceedings. It was very reassuring: he said that the Government,
“recognises the importance of the issues”.
Wow. There was no more than that then, nor indeed on civil judicial co-operation and cross-border disputes and family law when he replied to a similar Written Question in August. I worry about the lack of progress since then.
As the Prime Minister has remarked and others have repeated, keeping our citizens safe is the first mission of any Government. Therefore, like others, I welcome that she used the Munich speech to reiterate her desire to negotiate continued, and in some cases enhanced, co-operation with EU nations and particularly with these bodies and schemes. As we have heard, the amendments cover the Schengen Information System, the European arrest warrant, the European Criminal Records Information System, Europol and Eurojust. Given what we have heard today and in earlier debates, the Minister will recognise the importance of our continued participation in all of those, but also the challenges that that will bring to them in negotiating.
While we heard from Munich the desire for this comprehensive agreement, it is time for the Minister to offer a bit more detail and clarity sooner rather than later. It is about the direction of travel or the objectives. It does not undermine any negotiations for us, not just our Parliaments, to know what the Government want to do. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, it is time for the Government to move from intention to reality. These issues, as has been touched on just now, are partly held up by an obsession with red lines around the ECJ. They cannot be allowed to stand in the way of some logical and sensible solutions to these problems. These issues are too important to be left to a divided Cabinet. At the moment I see a pantomime horse, or Dr Dolittle’s pushmi-pullyu, being pulled in two different directions, mostly about red lines that are immaterial to the issues we have been discussing. I hope we can hear about some direction and some practical steps from the Minister, particularly on how these negotiations are taking place.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
I thank all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have contributed to what has been a fascinating debate. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to ensuring that the outcome of our negotiations with our partners in the EU delivers continued close co-operation on internal security matters.
There are parallels between the effect of Amendment 13 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and that of Amendment 12 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, which was debated previously, in so far as they both seek to discuss the future relationship with the EU, which is, of course, subject to the negotiations. The noble Baroness’s amendment seeks to prevent the Government from bringing regulations into force until agreed procedures for continued participation in EU internal security measures have been approved by both Houses. The Government have already committed to providing Parliament with a meaningful vote on any final deal. This will give Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise the future relationship between the UK and the EU in all these areas. For this reason, it is our view that the amendment is not needed.
I must come back to the points made by my noble friends Lord Hamilton and Lord Lamont. Many noble Lords have pushed me and asked for further detail and clarification on the negotiations. This Bill is negotiation agnostic; it is not concerned with the negotiations. I understand why people want clarification in all those areas, but, of course, when we have reached an agreement, it will be the subject of future legislation that noble Lords will no doubt want to comment on in great detail. However, I will attempt to answer as many questions and go into as much detail as I can. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, may be a little disappointed yet again, but I will do my best.
Lord Adonis
Can the Minister answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, as to which Minister is taking the lead in the security negotiations?
Lord Callanan
I will come to that later in my speech, but I will answer that question.
In that same paper, we made it clear that we value the operational benefits that we derive—I was struck by the comments on this from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and on how valuable many of them are. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to many of them, too, including the passenger name record directive, the second generation Schengen Information System and the European arrest warrant. There is also ECRIS, referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and all the various acronyms that go with many of these JHA matters. They are all to do with the systematic exchange of information with our EU partners—for example, on criminal records—which helps to deliver fair and robust justice. I hope that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. He referred to Interpol. I assume that he meant Europol, but, for the avoidance of any doubt, I should say that we continue to co-operate in the same way with Interpol.
We made it clear that we want to agree future arrangements in this area that support co-operation across a range of EU measures and agencies, and to avoid operational gaps for law enforcement agencies and judicial authorities in the UK and the EU. The level of co-operation that we want to sustain goes beyond the specific tools and measures highlighted by the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy and Lady Massey, and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. We have described the legal instruments here as a “toolkit” that can provide cumulative benefits. We have also indicated that we want our future partnership with the EU in this area to be dynamic, allowing us to co-operate if necessary in new ways in the face of evolving threats.
The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, highlights the respective roles of domestic courts and the CJEU. We made it clear in our future partnership paper on security, law enforcement and criminal justice that a future agreement in this area would need to provide for dispute resolution. Let me give a little more detail on that.
On leaving the EU we will bring to an end the direct jurisdiction of the CJEU in the UK. There are a number of existing precedents where EU agreements with third countries provide for close co-operative relationships without the CJEU having direct jurisdiction in those countries. The UK will engage proactively to negotiate an approach to enforcement and dispute resolution that meets the key objectives of the UK and the EU. We also published a separate future partnership paper on enforcement and dispute resolution last August, addressing many of those points and setting out the Government’s approach to these issues.
The House has of course debated this issue on a number of occasions, particularly earlier this month, on 8 February, in the debate on the EU Committee’s report on judicial oversight of the European arrest warrant. The withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill will implement the withdrawal agreement in our domestic law. In addition, the Government have already committed to provide Parliament with a meaningful vote on any final deal. This will give both Houses of Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise again the future relationship between the UK and the EU. We need to be able to work with the EU to respond quickly and effectively to the changing threats we face from terrorism and serious organised crime. In negotiations, we will be seeking to agree the best possible way to continue our work alongside our European partners in support of our common goals and shared interests. We are absolutely committed to securing the close relationship that the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford, Lady Kennedy and Lady Massey, and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, want to see—and on that basis I hope that they will not press their amendments.
Amendment 99, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, would prevent regulations made under Section 7(1) of the Bill from diminishing the protections in relation to “protected persons” set out in Part 3 of the Criminal Justice (European Protection Order) (England and Wales) Regulations 2014. As I understand it, the amendment seeks to ensure that the relevant authorities in England and Wales will continue to recognise and act upon European protection orders made in remaining member states after exit day, whether or not those states act on ours.
The EPO regime, established by an EU directive of the same name and implemented in England and Wales under the cited regulations, which came into force in 2015, is essentially a reciprocal regime. It requires the relevant designated authorities in the different member states involved to act and to communicate with each other in the making of an order and in its recognition and enforcement—and also, indeed, in any modification, revocation or withdrawal of one. It is not possible for us to regulate from here to require the relevant authorities of remaining member states to act in any particular way. As such, if we are not in a reciprocal regime we will no longer issue EPOs to remaining member states, since it would be pointless to do so, and nor will the authorities in those member states issue them to the UK, for the same reasons.
In short, absent our continued participation in the EPO regime, or in some proximate reciprocal arrangements in its place, these regulations will be redundant; they do not work unilaterally. This amendment therefore pre-empts the outcome of the negotiations, potentially requiring the retention of redundant legislation. It would not be right to create a false impression by retaining redundant legislation. I am happy to be clear, however, that if the forthcoming negotiations produce an agreement to continue access to the regime established under this directive, or something like it, appropriate steps and legislation will be brought forward to implement it at that time. This will encompass the protections for protected persons. We will, of course, consider that at that stage. Meanwhile, for now, there is no practical point or purpose in having such an amendment or these provisions.
I shall answer some of the other points that were made. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked me about the O’Connor case and about extradition to the UK from Ireland. I am sure that the House will understand that I am somewhat limited in what I can say on this matter; it is a live case at the moment. Suffice it to say that we are monitoring it closely, but it would be wrong to speculate on its impact before the case is concluded. Once it is, we will be happy to do so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I think it was, asked how we could reconcile the principles set out in the Prime Minister’s Munich speech, first on UK sovereignty and secondly on the ECJ. As the Prime Minister said:
“The Treaty must preserve our operational capabilities. But it must also fulfil three further requirements. It must be respectful of the sovereignty of both the UK and the EU’s legal orders. So, for example, when participating in EU agencies the UK will respect the remit of the European Court of Justice. And a principled but pragmatic solution to close legal co-operation will be needed to respect our unique status as a third country with our own sovereign legal order”.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked about justice and home affairs in the implementation period. We welcome the EU’s position that the UK should continue to participate in existing justice and home affairs measures where it has opted in. We also want to ensure that the UK and the EU can take new action together against unforeseen incidents and threats during that period. For those reasons, we want to be involved in new measures introduced during implementation where that is appropriate. He also asked about the Prime Minister’s speech in Munich. I confirm that she was talking about all the justice and home affairs measures he mentioned—the EAW, ECRIS, Europol and all the other appropriate acronyms.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked about the European arrest warrant and about the chance of a successful outcome compared with Norway. We value our co-operation through the EAW as it provides a faster and cost-effective way of handling extradition and helping us tackle cross-border criminality. With regard to Norway, our starting point for negotiations on future co-operation will be different from that of either Norway or Iceland, where a bilateral agreement is also in place. Of course, our starting point is different from theirs in so far as our extradition arrangements will be fully aligned with those of the EU at the point of our exit since we operate the same tool. That was not the case with Norway and Iceland when they joined.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, asked where we are in the negotiations and who is doing them—which the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, was also interested in. The Secretary of State for Exiting the EU is responsible for conducting negotiations in support of the Prime Minister. He is supported by the core negotiating team, which is made up of senior officials from a range of government departments. In response to his question about contacts, officials are engaging now and constantly with EU counterparts on a range of issues—but I come back to my earlier point that it would not be appropriate to give a running commentary on these discussions. We approach the next round of negotiations with optimism.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Can the Minister tell us if the European Union has appointed anybody to represent the 27 other countries in conducting the other side of treaty negotiations?
Lord Callanan
Michel Barnier is the EU chief negotiator. I thought that that was fairly obvious.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, asked about no deal. Of course, we approach these negotiations not expecting failure but anticipating success. We are confident that continued practical co-operation between the UK and the EU on law enforcement and national security is very much in the interests of both sides, so we approach these negotiations anticipating success. We do not want or expect a no-deal outcome. However, a responsible Government should prepare for all potential outcomes, including the unlikely scenario in which no mutually satisfactory agreement can be reached. That is exactly what we are doing across the whole of government. The UK uses and benefits from a range of international information-sharing tools in the area of security and law enforcement, which are by no means limited to EU mechanisms but include bilateral and multilateral channels, including Interpol and the Council of Europe.
I hope I have answered all the questions—
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Do I understand the Minister to be saying that the people conducting the trade negotiations will deal with the security stuff as well? Is that what he is saying? Are there no lawyers on the other side to conduct the negotiations on behalf of those 27 other countries? What is the situation?
Lord Callanan
There are lead negotiators on each side but they are supported by a whole range of officials and Ministers from various departments. David Davis is our negotiator, Michel Barnier is the EU’s negotiator, and they have different members in each of the teams—
Lord Thomas of Gresford
But is the withdrawal agreement the same thing as the treaty or are they separate?
Lord Callanan
No, the treaty will be a separate piece of legislation when we negotiate it. I hope I have tackled most of noble Lords’ questions and they will be able to withdraw or not move their amendments.
Lord Pannick (CB)
May I just ask the Minister about his comments on the European Court of Justice? Is there anything in the case law of the ECJ that justifies the Government’s reluctance for it to continue to be the dispute resolution procedure for the matters we are discussing?
Lord Callanan
We have been clear that respecting the Brexit vote means delivering on having control of our own laws. Our Supreme Court will be the ultimate arbiter of our own laws and it would not be appropriate to submit ourselves to the jurisdiction of a foreign power.
Baroness Ludford
I should briefly like to thank all speakers in this extremely valuable debate, especially the co-signatories to my amendment, the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Judd, and my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham. It was evident that, almost without exception, there was very strong support for staying in these crucial law enforcement measures. I am not so sure we got what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, asked for, which was a reply of real substance. We certainly did not get the clarity that my noble friend Lord Paddick asked for on the ECJ. Quite honestly, that was an extraordinary response to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, there is no safety net in this area. The WTO is not much of one but it exists.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
Is the noble Baroness talking of the European Court of Justice as though there would be no change in its constitution as a result of our leaving the European Union?
Baroness Ludford
There obviously will be a change, in that there will not be a British judge or British Advocate-General. What we want to know is how we will plug into what the Prime Minister asked for in Munich: to have respect for the sovereignty of the UK’s legal order—the Minister really emphasised only that—but also respect for the remit of the ECJ, at least when participating in agencies. That raises the question: will we also respect the remit of the ECJ when it rules on the individual rights of people who challenge, for instance, a European arrest warrant? We have no answer to that question but the people who are nationals of those countries will want to know exactly what the jurisdictional regime is. I am afraid we are no closer to knowing that. As my noble friend Lord Paddick said, however, we do have clear negotiating objectives in this area—this is perhaps unique in Brexit—as the Prime Minister has set them out and the Minister has just confirmed them. What we are utterly in the dark about is how the Government propose to secure the arrangements, structures and mechanisms for continuing effective and efficient cross-border law enforcement co-operation.
The Minister said that we will have a meaningful vote on the withdrawal agreement, which is supposed to give us an opportunity to scrutinise at the end of the process, and hence that this amendment is not needed. But that is not enough; we want a purchase and input into those negotiating objectives. The Prime Minister makes a speech in Munich and tells us, “These are the objectives”, but the Government do not deign to tell us how on earth those objectives are to be secured. Like me, the Minister is a veteran of the European Parliament. We found there that the European Commission, the member states and the Council learned the hard way that unless you bring the European Parliament, in that case, into your confidence about your negotiating objectives and how you are going to secure them, the danger is that at the end of the process the deal will be rejected because it has not been kept informed along the way. The lesson in Brussels was to front-load the process by keeping the people who might be in a position to block the deal informed of how it was to be secured.
I am afraid the Minister did not convince me, at least, that we are any further forward than we were with the future partnership paper, because that paper did not set out how we are to achieve these objectives. It said what the Government wanted to achieve. That has been repeated by the Prime Minister and the Minister, but we are none the wiser about how these measures will be replicated when we no longer have the structures and mechanisms of the EU. I fear that we will have to come back to this in all seriousness at future stages but, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Goldsmith
“( ) Regulations bringing into force subsection (1) may not be made until the Secretary of State has laid before both Houses of Parliament proposals for arrangements for the continued application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to retained EU law under sections 2, 3 and 4.”
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the first group of amendments that deals with the exclusion from the Bill of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. A number of amendments relate to the exclusion of the charter and to its specific provisions, so this may be a convenient place to debate the general principle of what the Government are proposing and the issues to which that gives rise. I shall therefore speak also to Amendments 14, 20, 25 and 34. Amendments 46, 47, 333 and 347 are consequential and I apprehend that there will be no need to say anything more about them.
The starting point for these amendments is the Government’s decision to exclude the European Charter of Fundamental Rights from the carryover into domestic law of existing EU law that the Bill is otherwise designed to achieve. As noble Lords know, and as the Government have been at pains to point out, the purpose of the Bill is to maintain legal continuity, certainty and stability for businesses and individuals by incorporating EU law as it stands into UK law. As the Prime Minister said in her foreword to the White Paper, the purpose is to ensure that:
“The same rules and laws will apply on the day after exit as on the day before”.
The White Paper goes on to explain that it will then be for democratically elected representatives in the UK, in this Parliament and the devolved Administrations, to decide whether to change that law after full and proper scrutiny and debate. This decision to bring EU law into UK law at the moment of exit is an essential part of the plan to provide clarity and is necessary, it is said by the Government, to bolster confidence and planning as the Brexit process comes into effect. The noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal said at Second Reading that this is,
“about ensuring that people’s rights are maintained. It is vital to a smooth and orderly exit from the EU”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1374.]
However, there is one glaring and deeply troubling exception to the proposal to bring EU law into domestic law so that it is the same the day after exit as it was the day before: the exclusion of the charter, in its entirety, from this exercise.
In another place, the Solicitor-General described the exercise as downloading EU law into domestic law, but what is not being downloaded is the charter. In another place, Sir Keir Starmer noted that although thousands of provisions of EU law are being converted into domestic law, and may have to be modified in some sense after that exercise, only one provision in the thousands on thousands of provisions of EU law is singled out for extinction, and that is the charter. That gives rise to a conundrum.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
Is the noble and learned Lord going to come on to explaining why it was, when he was Attorney-General and working with Tony Blair, he worked so hard to try to get the charter excluded from the Lisbon treaty? Indeed, they thought they had achieved such an opt-out from the treaty until it was overruled subsequently by the European Court of Justice. Surely what we are doing now is trying to fulfil the objective that he himself had in mind.
Lord Goldsmith
I can see noble Lords opposite are all very well briefed. I predicted this at Second Reading. I will come on to that, but let me make some progress on the arguments which matter.
Lord Goldsmith
No, I will make some progress on the arguments which matter. As the Constitution Committee of this House said at paragraph 119 of its report, the conundrum is this:
“The primary purpose of this Bill is to maintain legal continuity and promote legal certainty by retaining existing EU law as part of our law, while conferring powers on ministers to amend the retained EU law. If, as the Government suggests, the Charter of Fundamental Rights adds nothing to the content of EU law which is being retained, we do not understand why an exception needs to be made for it. If, however, the Charter does add value, then legal continuity suggests that the Bill should not make substantive changes to the law which applies immediately after exit day”.
I want to examine the reasons that are put forward for not including the charter. The more I look at the arguments, the more convinced I become that the Government have got it wrong. I will not deny that there are issues as to the best way to bring the charter into effect in domestic law, and there are other amendments which will debate that, but Amendment 13A would require the Government to bring forward proposals for its continued application and the route by which the charter can be given effect.
Viscount Hailsham
Would the noble and learned Lord tell the Committee whether he is contemplating that the charter should be incorporated into domestic law as a statute, and as such be capable of amendment?
Lord Goldsmith
I am suggesting that the charter is brought into domestic law in the same way as all the other provisions of EU law will be brought into domestic law by this Bill, if it is passed. That means that they will be subject to the powers in the clauses that will be passed for amendment through orders, if this House and the other place approve that way of doing it. They will also, of course, as always, be subject to amendment by primary legislation. I will come on to this, but it is interesting that special protection is given to the ECHR through the Human Rights Act to protect it as we go forward, but there is no protection provided at all for the rights which underlie the charter. That is one of the deficiencies that are not taken account of in the Government’s proposal.
Baroness Deech
Does the noble and learned Lord accept that perhaps we are being tied in knots by his argument? The nub of the charter, and why it is different from the European Convention on Human Rights and our Human Rights Act, is that the charter says that judges can set aside, invalidate or nullify our Acts of Parliament. That is the nub of it and is why it does not sit with the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty. If you incorporate it in domestic law, you are in a real tangle, because if you try to repeal it, judges could set that aside. You end up in a vicious spiral.
Lord Goldsmith
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the intervention. Of course it is not the charter which provides that, in certain circumstances, our courts have the ability to disapply domestic law; it is EU law and its ability to override Parliament. That is not what the charter has created; it is EU law that has created it. That is something which this Bill is intended to remove.
I want to get back on to the reasons why. The first reason put forward—this is the nub of the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson—is that the charter merely codifies existing rights and principles.
Lord Goldsmith
I apologise to both noble Lords. The proposition is that the charter does no more than codify existing rights and principles, so it is not necessary to bring it in. It has been said, for example, by the very distinguished and independent Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law that that proposition is demonstrably not correct. It sets that out in a detailed report that I commend to noble Lords. An opinion of Queen’s Counsel obtained by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission concludes that in fact this would lead to a significant weakening of human rights protection in the United Kingdom. Against those independent statements, it is no wonder that many NGOs and many members of civil society are deeply troubled about the exclusion of the charter. It is not just civil society that is concerned about that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, noted in the last debate, but industries such as the tech industry.
One can find examples of rights that are not protected in the report, which I also commend to noble Lords, by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. In its right-by-right analysis it identifies which rights are already included in our law and which are not. For example, on the very first item in the charter—Article 1 on the protection of human dignity, which many people would regard as the most fundamental human right and the basis of all others—the Government’s right-by-right analysis gives two reasons for saying that that would be continued: first, an unincorporated treaty, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which does not have enforceable effect in this country at all; and, secondly, as a general principle of EU law—but, as noble Lords will know, this Bill seeks to prevent general principles of EU law being given effect or creating any enforceable rights. That is an aspect that we will have to come back to later in the debates on the Bill.
Lord Faulks (Con)
The noble and learned Lord identifies the fact that certain rights are no longer protected adequately because the charter contains rights that are not there in the European convention or, presumably, otherwise provided for by law. Could he tell the House why the Human Rights Act was not expanded to take into account the protection of these laws? At no time from 1998 to the time when the Labour Government lost power was there any attempt to include these rights that he now says are a central part of our law.
Lord Goldsmith
They were, because the charter provided for them. The Human Rights Act incorporated one set of provisions only, the European Convention on Human Rights, which goes back to just after the Second World War and which provides the classic political and civil rights. The other rights that we find in the charter, which is a much longer document and refers to socioeconomic rights, were not included in the Human Rights Act because they were not included in the European Convention on Human Rights.
The right-by-right analysis demonstrates which of these rights are not included. Given that the Government’s objective, as stated by the Prime Minister, is to ensure that the protections for people in this country are the same the day after exit as the day before, I respectfully suggest that it is not for me to identify why that is not right; it is for the Government to demonstrate why it is. When we have substantial independent bodies such as the Bingham Centre and independent opinions from QCs demonstrating that actually it is not the case that the protections remain the same, the Government need to explain. I shall come on to that further.
Obviously there are examples of rights in the charter that reflect precisely other rights that we have within our law. In particular, there are a number of rights in the charter that are explicitly based on the European Convention on Human Rights; they are the same. Indeed, during the negotiations I went to some pains to try to ensure that they were phrased in the same way so as to prevent lawyers from saying, “It’s written differently so it must mean something different”. However, those are not the only rights that are there. As I noted at Second Reading, the charter is based not just on the European Convention on Human Rights but on principles of EU law and on principles that are commonly accepted by the member states, and those are in a different position from the ECHR rights.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
Just take one of the rights that is precisely mirrored in the convention. Is it suggested that henceforth, the wise complainant who faces primary legislation here which is incompatible with that right should therefore sue under both the charter and the convention because, lo and behold, under the convention, despite the constitutional arrangement whereby the court’s powers are limited to a declaration of incompatibility, he can disapply the primary legislation? Is that to be the consequence: that in a case where it matches, the convention trumps the constitutional settlement we arrived at, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, referred?
Lord Goldsmith
That will depend on the shape of the Bill when it is completed—in particular, what is said about the provisions which deal with primacy of EU law—but at the moment, as the noble and learned Lord will know well from the cases he sat on, people have been bringing cases by reference to both the charter and the convention. One reason for that is that the protection under the charter is more powerful. In future, if people want protection of human rights, they will want the more powerful protection, and if that remains available after the Bill is enacted, they will look to it.
Baroness Deech
So if that protection is more powerful, the entire British structure relating to human fertilisation and embryology, which is very liberal and go-ahead, could be wiped out by the application of Article 3. It is very fortunate that the bodies opposed to our progress in reproductive rights have not cottoned on to that. It talks about the prohibition of eugenics, whatever that is, and selection of persons. By interpretation, it would stop us doing mitochondrial research, selection of embryos to screen out disease and a whole host of other things. Another article ensures continuing freedom of movement. Surely we do not want that.
Lord Goldsmith
The noble Baroness raises two different points. Some of the rights in the charter plainly do not continue after exit because they are dependent on our membership of the EU. Those include freedom of movement, which is based, as the explanations of the charter plainly show, on the rights that currently exist. There are others, such as the right to vote in European elections, which will not apply.
Let me make this point now, because it is one of the objections raised to keeping the charter in. As with many other provisions of EU law, there will need to be changes—I think they are described as deficiencies in the Bill; defects. For example, other provisions of EU law refer to bodies to which we will no longer belong or to supervising agencies with which we will no longer be concerned because we will have left the European Union. That is what the provisions of the deficiency orders are intended to deal with. So, too, they can deal with matters under the charter which no longer have effect for that reason.
The noble Baroness’s first point was a different matter, which was to do with the ambit of Article 3. I am sure that she has it clearly in mind, but the explanations of Article 3 make it clear that:
“The reference to eugenic practices, in particular those aiming at the selection of persons, relates to possible situations in which selection programmes are organised and implemented, involving campaigns for sterilisation, forced pregnancy, compulsory ethnic marriage among others, all acts deemed to be international crimes in the Statute of the International Criminal Court”.
I do not doubt that the noble Baroness would be as opposed to those provisions as the rest of us would be. In relation to reproductive cloning, which may be what she had in mind, the explanations talk about being against reproductive cloning, but that is not the same as therapeutic cloning. We can have debates about that if need be.
Let me move on, if I may, because I have only started to deal with one aspect of the issue. In terms of the substantive protections that the charter provides but the ECHR does not, although it covers many of the same, reference has been made already to the case of Mr David Davis himself and Mr Tom Watson. I say this not because it is amusing to point the finger at Mr Davis, in his current position, having relied on the charter, as we know he did, but because it is illustrative of something significant. As a Back Bencher, he and Mr Watson brought a case against the provisions of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act—DRIPA. Mr Davis was concerned that they would impinge on the ability of MPs to have confidential communications from their constituents. In his argument, he and his lawyers relied on the charter, and they were successful in doing so. The court agreed that the charter was relevant.
Another example of new rights, developed rights or rights that have emerged through the dynamic approach of the charter is in the Google Spain case in which the right to be forgotten arose as a result of an examination of Articles 7 and 8 by the Court of Justice of the European Union. So, there are a number of examples where the substantive protections will be different. I have made it clear that there are many examples where the substantive protections are the same, but the purpose behind the Bill is to make sure that the protections for people are the same the day after leaving as the day before.
It is not just the substantive protections. There are different remedies, one of which has been referred to already—the ability to disapply legislation if that is where the Bill ends up at the end of the day. That is a more powerful remedy than the Human Rights Act. That was demonstrated in the Benkharbouche case when the State Immunity Act was disapplied so that foreign employees of an embassy could bring claims, which they would not otherwise be able to bring, so as to produce a more just situation.
The Government’s position on the substantive protections appears to have changed. I understood that the Government said that the protections would be the same, but now the formula that appears to be being used is that there will be no significant loss of substantive protection. That is not the same thing. No significant loss of substantive protection means that there is some loss of substantive protection, though someone takes the view that it is not significant. That is not the same as the principle the Prime Minister’s foreword set out.
Will the Minister respond to the following questions? First, will he confirm that the Government no longer contend that disapplying, excluding the charter, will lead to all the same existing substantive protections, or do they accept that some of them will not exist? If so, will he tell the Committee either now or subsequently what those are? Secondly, I referred to the phrase “no significant loss of substantive protections”. Does the Minister agree that that leaves aside the question of whether procedural or other protections will be excluded as a result of excluding the charter from this protection? I ask the Minister to identify what the differences are and whether he accepts that there will be a loss of protection, even though the Government wish to say that it is not significant, so that the Committee can judge. Also, he will need to say, please, why that meets the objective the Prime Minister set in her foreword to the White Paper.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
I promise that I will not intervene again—I loathe intervening. But does the noble and learned Lord agree, although he proposes the domestication of the charter, it will still be necessary in future to decide what is within the ambit of what used to be EU law, because that is where the operation of the charter is presently confined—or does he suggest that now it opens up and encompasses all UK law, so that it is a wider application than it was originally? Are we going to have to go again through the impossible exercise, notoriously uncertain in application, of having to decide what is specifically and directly within the ambit of EU law in future as well?
Lord Goldsmith
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord and I know that this is a point that troubles him, but he should bear in mind that what we have in Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill are provisions to bring specific aspects of EU derived legislation and EU direct effect legislation into UK law. That is the Union law that will continue, and that is what is defined as retained EU law—and it is to that retained EU law that the charter will continue to have effect under the scheme that I advocate to your Lordships, not to anything else or more broadly UK law.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
So the right to dignity would exist in the context of EU law, but not otherwise? Is that really how it is intended to work? Can the noble and learned Lord give an illustration of a case that will succeed under the right to human dignity in future—I mean, there has not ever been one in the past that has succeeded under that—when otherwise it would fail?
Lord Goldsmith
The noble and learned Lord knows that I took Article 1 as an example only because it is the very first article in the charter. I have respectfully invited noble Lords to look at the Joint Committee on Human Rights report, where the committee goes through each of the articles and through what the Government have said in relation to them, and identifies where they find place already in existing, enforceable UK law, and where they do not. It is where they do not that we are concerned with, and where they do not that there will be the very gap that the Prime Minister has said should not exist.
There is the further problem that, even if the rights survive, they will survive without the enhanced status and protection that they currently have. They have an enhanced status at the moment because of the 1972 Act and because of EU membership, but from the date of this Act they will only survive in a delegated form and be amendable by delegated legislation. They are not protected from being amended or removed by delegated legislation.
Compare the position in relation to the ECHR and the Human Rights Act. The Bill says in three places—in Clauses 7(7)(e), 8(3)(d) and 9(3)(d)—that the Human Rights Act is protected from amendment or revocation. The classic civil and political rights, but no more, which are, rightly, protected by the HRA, are protected from being amended other than by primary legislation to which this House and the other place have specifically agreed after proper scrutiny. However, none of the rights underlying the charter will be protected in that way, unless they find themselves within the ECHR, which is only some of them. That is unacceptable for many people.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I find this very difficult to understand. If you look at the charter, you find reference to the Union in item after item. It begins with a series of rights, but as soon as you penetrate further you find that it is closely related to membership of the Union and things that are guaranteed by its law. If I understood the noble and learned Lord correctly, he wants the charter to be brought in and protected against that kind of amendment in the same way as the Convention on Human Rights. This charter will have to be largely rewritten if we introduce it into our law, but it is not designed for the kind of situation we are facing after Brexit. It is designed for use within the Union and to be interpreted by the CJEU. I simply do not understand how the system is intended to work if it were brought into our law in the way the noble and learned Lord is suggesting.
Lord Goldsmith
The noble and learned Lord will recall that, whenever he opposed me with that argument from his position in the House of Lords or Supreme Court, I did my best to try to explain why there is an error in his thinking. With respect, I do the same here. If one takes, for example, one of the rights in the charter which does derive from Union law, is it to be said that although it is going to be transposed into our law as an EU retained law, it will no longer be subject to any of the protections that it has at the moment through being subject to the charter? It does not mean, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, suggested, that all UK law will be subject to this protection. It does mean that that law which is currently subject to that protection will continue to be so unless and until it is amended. That is the way that one gives effect to the intention that the law should be the same the day after Brexit as the day before.
I want to underline that we are talking about the extent of substantive protections; other protections and their extent; and the lack of enhancement of rights. These are all distinct points. I will also refer to the loss of the effect of charter principles. Noble Lords who have studied the charter will know that as well as rights there are principles. The principles are more aspirational, but they guide the legislator and that is a useful thing to have. Even leaving that aside, the other items I identified—the substantive protections, their nature and their enhancement or lack of it—are all things which mean we will not have the same protections after exit day as we have at the moment.
Lord Faulks
Is the noble and learned Lord telling the House that these principles are going to be actionable on their own?
Lord Goldsmith
The noble Lord knows that that is not the position in relation to the principles: they are guidance and aspirational. I am not spending a lot of time on them, although some of the NGOs have. I will give one example. There was a case in which the EU’s proposed legislation in relation to plain packaging of tobacco products was challenged in the courts on the grounds that it contravened freedom of expression. One of the things that the court looking at that noted was that the charter provided for a high degree of public protection in terms of health. I hope that all noble Lords agree with that sentiment, whether or not they agree with the result of the case. That is an example of where the principles come into effect.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
I apologise for interrupting the noble and learned Lord a second time. We have listened to what he has said with great care. He has spoken for 34 minutes. He said that he would answer the question I posed at the very beginning of his speech—namely, why he had altered his mind when previously he had tried to keep the charter out of the Lisbon treaty, when he then said that it ought to have no direct domestic effect. Why has he changed his mind?
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, I was about to come to that and I am grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord Goldsmith
I said that I would come back to it, and that is what I intended to do. A number of things have happened since the charter was drafted, as I said on Second Reading. The courts have referred to provisions of the charter and have given them effect. The decision was made to give the charter legal effect, which was not the way we started the negotiation. That is what happened in the Lisbon treaty, but that was not the original intention. That is what we argued against at the time, precisely so as to avoid the situation in which the courts were in a position to give effect to rights that we had not expected them to give effect to. That is what changed. That is why we now have a situation, where, as I have said, in a number of cases the courts have said that the charter has an effect and provides enforceable rights to individuals.
I conclude. The Joint Committee on Human Rights considered that the Government’s decision to exclude the charter, while effectively retaining nearly all other EU law, was taken without having undertaken a comprehensive analysis of the implications for the protection of rights. I cannot say whether that is right, but this amendment would require a focus to be given to that so that we can see what the correct analysis is and what the right way to proceed is. I beg to move.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 14A, 20A and 25A in this group, which stand in my name. I apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lord Bowness, who has put his name to a number of amendments but cannot be here because of weather conditions. He has asked me to apologise to your Lordships for his absence.
The purpose of the three amendments standing in my name is to ensure that the terms of the charter, if incorporated into domestic law, are capable of amendment by Parliament. This may be implied by the other amendments, but I think not. I listened very carefully to the noble and learned Lord. While there is a capacity to remedy deficiencies by regulation, there is no capacity to enable Parliament to mount a careful scrutiny and amendment of the charter. Therefore, the purpose of my amendments is to make it explicit that the charter, if incorporated into domestic law, is subject to parliamentary scrutiny and amendment.
I do not want to say very much by way of a general justification for the need to incorporate the charter; I am conscious that the noble and learned Lord who has spoken has much greater expertise than I. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, will probably speak. He, too, has much greater knowledge of this than I. I am but a journeyman lawyer and I have never had to wrestle with the charter’s significance in domestic terms. However, I noticed last week in the Times that Professor Bogdanor made a very powerful case for not scrapping the rights. The important thing that your Lordships need to keep in mind is that the charter provides a number of rights and remedies not found elsewhere in our domestic law. That point was made by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
The reason that the Labour Party says that nationalisation of the railways would cost nothing is that the shadow Chancellor thinks that financing things by bonds is costless. That is what he has said.
Viscount Hailsham
Yes, I know that is what he has said but I ask noble Lords to think about the impact on those who will lose their assets. That is the point I am making. I agree with my noble friend but my point is: what about the position of those who lose their assets?
Viscount Hailsham
I am just going to finish this point and then I will give way. It is at that point that Article 17 of the charter comes into play. As the Committee will know, Article 17 provides that property is to be protected and, furthermore, that rights of compensation are to be paid. This is the protection that this House would be very chary about giving away. I give way to my noble friend.
Lord Faulks
My noble friend will know that Article 1 of the first protocol of the European convention does precisely the same thing.
Viscount Hailsham
So there is an overlap, and the question is one of remedies. As my noble friend will know, the remedies under the charter are probably more effective than the remedies under the convention, and that is the point that the noble and learned Lord was making.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My noble friend seems to be saying that we need to incorporate this into British domestic law to protect ourselves from an extremist, wicked Government, but surely if such a Government were elected, one of the first things they would do would be to scrap this law using their parliamentary majority.
Viscount Hailsham
That would have to get through both Houses, which would be at least some check on the process. The point I am making is not quite the point that my noble friend has interpreted. I am saying that, if the charter is to be incorporated into domestic law, it has to be the subject of parliamentary scrutiny and amendment, and that is the only basis on which the charter should be incorporated into domestic law.
I accept the noble and learned Lord’s point that a number of aspects of the charter are entirely irrelevant and are hinged on our membership of the Union. Articles 44, 42, 43 and 39 are examples of that. There are also articles in the provision of the charter that many of us would disagree with. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has indicated that she does not like many of them, and I happen to agree with her. I heard my noble friends Lord Howard, Lord Lamont and Lord Blencathra chuntering away, and I agree with them: there are many things in the charter with which I disagree. But I am saying that if it is to be incorporated, it should be incorporated in such a way as to enable this House to scrutinise each and every one of its provisions and amend as appropriate.
I remind the Committee that one reason many noble Lords and others wish to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights is that the judge-made interpretation of the text is incapable of amendment by Parliament. I wish to avoid that criticism being made of the charter if it is to be incorporated. The suggestion in my amendment to make the charter, if incorporated, subject to parliamentary scrutiny and amendment is perhaps the only example in this sorry business of being able to cherry pick, or to have your cake and eat it.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, may I respond to some of the objections that have been raised to the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, with whose speech I agree entirely?
Many of the objections—those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, are typical—are to the content of the charter or to its implications. The Committee should appreciate that that is not the Government’s position. The Government’s position is not that they seek to exclude the charter because its contents or implications are objectionable. Their position is very clear indeed. If noble Lords read the debates in the House of Commons or look at the report of the Constitution Committee, they will see that the Government’s position is simply that we do not need the charter in this Bill because its contents and implications are already contained in the retained EU law that is being read across through this Bill. So many of the objections that the Committee is listening to are simply beside the point: they are not the Government’s objection to the charter. The Government’s objection to the charter—it is unnecessary because its contents are already part of retained EU law—is, I am afraid, simply unsustainable. I will not take up time on this, because the hour is late, but if any noble Lords are doubtful about it, I simply suggest they read the helpful opinion by Jason Coppel QC, in which he clearly sets out the equality and human rights position. That is the first point.
Turning to the second point, I am always reluctant to disagree with my noble friend Lady Deech, because she taught me law at Oxford, but I have to disagree with her on this occasion. Her objection, as she explained it, and I hope I do not misrepresent her, is that she is concerned that the charter will enable the courts to overturn legislation enacted by Parliament—she is nodding. But I am sure she appreciates that that is inherent in this Bill. The whole point of the Bill is to read across as retained EU law the content of existing EU law that is applicable to this country and to give it—see Clause 5—supremacy. Supremacy means that it takes priority, as in the Factortame case, over anything enacted by Parliament which is inconsistent. So the suggestion that we must oppose the charter because it gives courts that power is simply inconsistent with what the Bill does.
Turning to the third objection, my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood was concerned about whether the inclusion of the charter would, in some way, give a power that expands the role of the charter further than under EU law. My simple answer to that is no, of course it does not. The charter is being read across only because it is part of existing EU law, and it comes across as retained EU law. It will not have any greater force than it already has as part of EU law.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
In those circumstances, does my noble friend agree that the result of that is that we are henceforth, instead of treating retained EU law as part of domestic law—having discarded the separation and shed the notion that it is a distinct body of law—still going to have to wrestle with all the difficulties inherent in distinguishing operations or actions pursued in the ambit of EU law from those that are not? Will that problem continue into the distant future?
Lord Pannick
My answer is very simple: yes, of course. The whole point of the Bill is to read across the EU law which currently applies to this country and for it to continue to apply. That is the Government’s objective. It is their objective because they—very sensibly, in my view—wish to ensure legal certainty and clarity on exit day. That is exactly the legal position. It is not my idea; it is the Government’s intention in this Bill.
As to all the concerns about what the charter might or might not do, one should bear in mind that the charter has been applicable in the courts of this country for many years. No one has suggested that there is some case or principle which is so objectionable that we need now to make an exception for the charter, when the Government’s intention in the Bill is to read across all retained EU law to ensure a functioning statute book that preserves the legal position and ensures clarity, certainty and continuity. That is what this Bill is about.
Lord True (Con)
There is, I think, a fourth question. As a layman, I have been listening for 51 minutes to extensive legal argument on these questions—and who am I to judge, in a sense?—and I was persuaded by the distinguished arguments of two former Law Lords that I heard. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to three arguments but there is surely a fourth argument which has not been adduced by any of the noble and learned Lords who have spoken, and that is that 17.4 million British people voted to leave the European Union, and that means coming out from under the jurisdiction of entities which are not subject to the Crown, Parliament and UK law.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, smiles and laughs. All the arguments that we have heard in this Chamber over the past two days in Committee come from those who do not wish that to happen, but the fact is that the British people sought a future in which they and their Parliament will make UK laws, and UK judges, under the Crown, will judge those. We have no need of any charter which has been made outside, something that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, argued for repeatedly when he was Attorney-General.
Lord Pannick
I am grateful to the noble Lord. The reason I am smiling is that he clearly has not read this Bill. The Government’s Bill reads across the entire content of EU law that applies as at the exit date; it becomes part of our law. It is the whole point of the Bill.
Lord Pannick
I am sorry; let me complete the point. The noble Lord has made a point and he is simply wrong. The Government’s Bill reads across the whole of EU law. It removes the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice—I do not suggest to the contrary—and the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, has absolutely nothing to do with the role of the European Court of Justice. It will be the role of our courts and our judges to decide from now on the meaning and effect of the retained EU law which this Bill reads across. It will then be in later legislation for Parliament, as it sees fit, to amend or repeal that law. But as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, indicated, the Prime Minister said that this Bill is not an occasion for changing the law, it is an occasion for ensuring that on exit day we have a workable, certain, continuing system of law. The real question is why this Bill should make an exception for one element of European Union law, the charter. There is no justification for that whatsoever.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, it does the opposite of what my brilliant former pupil the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said. The inclusion of the charter brings with it uncertainty. It is a Trojan horse because if you carry on applying it, its meaning depends on the evolving case law of the ECJ, which has an objective of bringing further integration and other objectives to do with Europe that are not our objectives. Our judges have said that they want certainty after Brexit, but to include the charter, which is evolving all the time, without our scrutiny will give our judges sleepless nights because they will have to follow the twists and turns in EU law. I come back to the fact that the nub of this is that it will plainly give our judges the right to set aside and invalidate UK law. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, mentioned with approval the Benkharbouche case, where part of our sovereign immunity law was set aside by the Supreme Court on the basis of charter supremacy. That was actually dangerous because if other countries start setting aside immunity law when dealing with our diplomats, we will be in a very difficult situation indeed. I would not assess the Supreme Court by the outcome of what it says; we assess courts by the way they are appointed and the integrity of our judges. The retention of the charter is a recipe for confusion, uncertainty and the setting aside of British law according to ECJ judgments.
Lord Pannick
I am sorry to say to the noble Baroness that that is exactly what this Bill achieves in relation to all other retained EU law which is read across. This will be under the control of British judges. Under the Bill it is entirely a matter for them what weight, if any, they choose to give to judgments of the European Court of Justice. The charter of rights is no different from any other provision of EU law in that respect. The noble Baroness mentioned certainty. What I think provokes uncertainty for judges is the approach in this Bill. It is not simply that the charter of rights is excluded by Clause 5; the clause goes on to say that undefined,
“fundamental rights or principles which exist irrespective of the Charter”,
are retained. There is a conflict in the approach taken on this issue. I suggest to noble Lords that the correct approach is that which has been recommended to the Committee and to the House by your Lordships’ Constitution Committee: that there is no justification whatever for distinguishing between the charter of rights and all other aspects of retained EU law. I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, in what he said.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 35 standing in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, which would leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert the words as set out in the amendment. The objective of Amendment 35 is to retain the charter rights in UK law and afford them the same level of protection as those in the Human Rights Act. It has similar objectives to some of the other amendments that have been proposed. I must admit that I address the House on these issues with some trepidation because I am not a lawyer, although I have taken the advice of lawyers in drafting this amendment.
The amendment provides for what I hope is a sensible and responsible approach to Brexit that respects the referendum decision but does not sacrifice rights and protections on the altar of ideology. Removing the European Charter of Fundamental Rights from EU retained law runs counter to the stated purpose of the Bill, which is to facilitate the wholesale transfer of EU law into the domestic statute book. It also contradicts the Government’s assurances that the same rules will apply on the day before exit as on the day after. The Government’s justification for this anomaly is to claim that the charter is unnecessary and that its omission will not result in any loss of substantive rights protections.
In an attempt to support their public assurances to that effect, the Government have since published a right-by-right analysis that they say demonstrates that each right can be found in domestic law. The analysis is unpersuasive. According to Liberty and Amnesty International, it is perfectly possible to retain the charter and deal with any redundant sections after exit just as with the rest of retained EU law, as has already been mentioned. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has obtained the opinion of senior counsel Jason Coppel QC on the Government’s analysis of the charter. His advice is that the loss of the charter will lead to a significant weakening of human rights protection in the UK. This is because, first, there will be gaps in protection, for example in relation to children’s rights, data protection and non-discrimination. Secondly, many rights will no longer be directly enforceable, leading to further gaps in protection. Thirdly, many remaining rights could be removed by Ministers exercising delegated powers.
A particular concern that I would like to highlight is that Brexit will remove any children’s rights and safeguards currently offered by the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which imposes a constitutional obligation on member states to adhere to children’s rights standards when implementing EU law. The EU’s Court of Justice now routinely refers to the charter when adjudicating on cases involving children.
Baroness Deech
I am reluctant to interfere. My noble friend Lord Listowel, who is sitting next to me, knows more about child law than anybody. I must point out that the protection given to child law in the charter is very crude indeed compared with decades-old jurisprudence in this country. Very recently, the Children and Families Act 2014 and the Children Act before were a nuanced and balanced approach to the protection of children, their education and their rights to contact with both parents. They are infinitely more subtle and pay more attention to their welfare than this kind of sledgehammer approach from the charter.
Lord Wigley
I hear what the noble Baroness says. All I would say is that by ensuring that we incorporate things into UK law, we then have an opportunity, democratically and in an accountable fashion, to make modifications as may be necessary. The danger is that we will throw out babies with bathwater.
Again, the Government have stated that the removal of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights from UK law,
“will not affect the substantive rights from which individuals already benefit in the UK”.
The White Paper notes that many of the rights protected in the charter are also found in UN and other international treaties that the UK has ratified, including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, in a centralised context there is no specific statutory provision requiring respect for children’s rights in lawmaking, nor a general requirement to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the UK.
Furthermore, this particular argument has a specific Welsh angle. Stronger protection for children’s rights exists in the devolved nations, specifically in Wales. The Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure 2011 imposes a duty on Ministers to have due regard to children’s rights as expressed in the UNCRC when exercising any of their functions. To achieve that obligation, since 2012 the Welsh Government routinely undertake child rights impact assessments on proposals for Welsh law or policy that will affect children directly or indirectly.
The withdrawal Bill will limit the scope of the devolved nations to alter law within the current devolution settlement and brings competence on matters that have been arranged under EU law back to Westminster. This would prevent the devolved nations from exercising their powers to withstand or amend legislation from Westminster, even where this contradicts their own commitments to children’s rights. I submit the amendment to the Committee as a contribution to the debate on these most important considerations.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I rise as a co-signatory to Amendment 35. I usually come to these debates feeling that I understand all the issues involved and, within minutes, I am confused by contradictory legal opinions and by arguments from across the House on issues that are not even relevant to the Bill. So can we go back to basics? I feel like the woman on the Clapham omnibus who is just seeing common sense. The fact is that the Government promised to bring over all EU law and are choosing to exempt this aspect of it. I do not understand that; they break a promise at their peril, because people out there will not understand.
I could not do better than repeat some of the things said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, about the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Let me read again what it says:
“The simplest and best way of achieving the Government’s intention that substantive rights should remain unchanged and ensuring legal certainty is to retain the Charter rights in UK law”.
I do not understand why the Government do not see that as well. The legal opinion produced for the Equality and Human Rights Commission by Jason Coppel QC, which we have heard of already, states that failing to keep the charter will result in,
“a significant weakening of the current system of human rights protection in the UK”.
Why is that not accepted? It is a legal argument. Have the Government read that opinion? If so, will they re-read it and give us a considered response to it? It clearly has a validity that I doubt the Government’s position has.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, spoke about being on the centre ground, which I did not entirely agree with. I feel that I am on the centre ground; I feel that I, here, can at least express things that I hear out on the street. Out on the street, people think that the Government are going to keep all EU law and then amend it when it comes. That was the promise, so why are the Government refusing to fulfil it?
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, I want to speak in favour of Amendment 34 and in support of the other amendments in this group that seek to retain the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in UK domestic law. I did not speak at Second Reading, in good part out of recognition of a long list of speakers. I hope that the Committee will accept my apologies and my contribution this evening.
The key question here is not whether one was for or against leaving the European Union, nor is it whether one agrees with every aspect of the charter; neither of those points is relevant to this debate. It is whether there are sufficient grounds to exclude the charter from being transposed into UK law in exception to every other law being so transposed. In my view, there is no argument that, if we exclude it, we will see a weakening of our rights. That is very clear from the analysis that we have had from the commission and others.
There is no doubt that excluding the charter will lead to confusion and uncertainty in the law—that, too, is made clear in the analysis by other lawyers. So the question one has to ask is: are the grounds for excluding the charter compelling? I have not been persuaded that they are.
When Ministers say that something is not necessary, I get nervous. It usually means that it really is necessary but they do not want truly to state the reasons why. That is the reality here. The hard truth is that people speaking against the charter’s inclusion do not like it. That is a perfectly reasonable position to take but, if they do not like the charter, that is a debate for further legislative change in the future; it is not a reason for accepting it now.
The public expect us to act with integrity and to do what it says on the tin in relation to this Bill. The two things that have been very clear right from the off on this Bill are that it will not see a diminution of rights and it will not try to change legislation from the EU but will transpose it, followed by a proper debate in this House about where change is needed. Unless those advocating the charter’s exception can come up with compelling reasons why it cannot be incorporated, the balance of argument must be for it to stay and be transposed into UK law.
I say to the Government: when you are in a hole, stop digging. This should be agreed; it is a straightforward amendment that we can make in this Parliament. It does not, mercifully, await the outcome of the deal or anything related to it; it is a simple matter of integrity in the process that we are carrying out through the Bill. We should support the amendment.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I speak as a co-signatory to Amendment 63A, which is also in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. I will be very brief, especially in a room full, it seems, of Law Lords and lawyers. I come to this in perhaps a very different way from others. As a 67 year-old man, I have spent most of my life not having equality before the law or the equal protection of the law; that is, as a gay man. Most of my rights—the equality I now enjoy—have been achieved largely by dragging legislative changes forcefully from Governments who did not want to give them to us or to many other misrepresented and defamed minorities. When it comes to human rights and civil liberties, you can never have enough belt and braces. Therefore, I do not understand why the exception to the carryover of EU law is solely in relation to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and the general principles.
I promised to be brief and brief I will be. Tonight has illustrated to me more than any arguments that have come from a swathe of NGOs, such as the Bar Council, the Law Society, the Royal College of Nursing and others, that we cannot bring forward a change of such magnitude as this in a Bill that is supposed to retain all the EU law and then amend it afterwards. If we are to change the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, it should be done with full public scrutiny by both Houses, through primary legislation and the full engagement of civil society.
Let me finish on this. I talked about the rights that I and others have achieved that have had to be dragged. I want people to have easier access to the courts. If the Charter of Fundamental Rights in some way, through one clause or another, achieves that, I will go to wherever I go when I lay my head finally with great peace and rest. Why? Because the European Union was born out of the ashes of the Second World War—the ashes from crematoria that were dotted across Europe because people were taken there because of their difference, their perceived difference. Homosexuals were worked to death in concentration camps alongside trade unionists and many others. Yes, it is emotional but when you are denied and deprived of your human rights, it strikes at the very core of your being. When you are not given the equality that others have under the law, it strikes at your very existence.
These rights have been achieved and enumerated not only in conventions. Sadly, I have heard laughter rained upon people who have tried to defend the charter and the concept of human rights tonight, and I do not take that lightly. These rights that have been achieved have often been forced back against those who have sought them. They have been achieved, often, against the will of Governments and across the sacrifices of generations. Do not put them aside lightly. I urge noble Lords to support this group of amendments. If we are to change anything, let us do it through primary legislation or, at the very least, in the same way that we amend other retained EU law.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I am sure that the Committee will be greatly moved by what the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, has said. Everyone is concerned to protect human rights but we must not fall into the trap of saying rights are good and therefore, more rights are better.
The role of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in our law has been an uncertain one. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, has had a great deal to do with it and knows a great deal about its creation; he played a part in its drafting. He got his retaliation in first at Second Reading and today, knowing that it was going to be pointed out to him that he was not initially an enthusiast for the charter because of the apparent disorder it might create in the rights architecture of our law. There is nothing wrong with changing your mind. It is quite a fashionable course for the party opposite to take at the moment. My difficulty is not with the change of mind but the fact that I agreed with his original stance, which was that adding the charter, which was designed for an entirely different purpose, ran the risk of undermining the clarity and cogency of our law.
I have some experience of the way rights are played in court. I was part of the Commission on a Bill of Rights, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, who is in her place. I was also a Minister with responsibility for human rights. I have considerable experience over the past 20 years, following the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights by the Human Rights Act, of acting for public authorities which have been sued for alleged violations of those rights. Rights are very difficult to interpret, whether they come from a declaration, a charter or a convention. Inevitably they tend to be expressed in general terms and leave a great deal to individual judges to interpret and try to make practical sense of.
Most of the rights contained in the charter—obviously, some of them are inappropriate—are not controversial in what they seek to protect. What is far more controversial is how these rights should be interpreted. My right may be in conflict with your right. The protection of my right may have to be sacrificed or modified by the need to protect others’ rights or the powers that the state may inevitably have which affect or modify those rights. Of course we need to protect children, the disabled and the vulnerable in society, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out. Most of what we do in Parliament is concerned with the definition of circumstances in which individuals’ rights should be protected. A number of noble Lords have identified the right to dignity as being important since it is not reflected precisely in the European convention. We can all agree that it is important that citizens are treated with dignity but how does one translate that into anything meaningful in terms of the courts providing remedies?
The difficulty is that rights are now regarded as trumps and if we are to retain the charter, as seems to be the purport of the amendments in this group, we will have the rather strange situation of existing domestic law, whether it comes from the Human Rights Act or elsewhere, being supplemented by the charter, which will have a particular status. As the Government have made clear, the charter was never supposed to be a source of rights per se but a reflection of the rights that are generally protected by the European Court of Justice. It would be peculiar for our courts to continue to rely on the charter, which was designed to apply to EU institutions in interpreting the scope of EU law, after we have actually left the European Union.
The Advocate-General has occasionally made remarks about the charter. At its highest it has been described as “soft law”. If we need to protect or further protect rights, is that not a matter for Parliament or even judges interpreting the common law? Are we really so impotent as a Parliament that we have to rely on the relatively recent EU charter to provide such protection? Some of the amendments seek to turn soft law into hard law with application after we have left. This Bill is surely to provide clarity and coherence in the law after we have left the EU. Retaining the charter will do precisely the opposite.
I regret that I do not agree with various observations made at Second Reading that the Human Rights Act provides only for declarations of incompatibility. It does in fact provide damages for violations of the convention. I suspect the reason the charter has attracted such vigorous support is the rather egregious way it has been singled out for attention in the Bill. The reason it has been so singled out is the uncertainty of its application by the courts so far, and the Government’s desire to be absolutely clear that in the difficult task of interpreting the law that the judges will face, the charter can safely be ignored.
My amendment, which I come to in conclusion, is an attempt to provide some clarity as to what role, if any, the charter may have in the future. In so far as the charter is part of retained law—I appreciate that the definition of retained law is also the subject of debate—there seems no harm in it having some continued existence, in so far as it is necessary for the interpretation of that retained law; hence my amendment. What I find wholly unconvincing is the argument that it should somehow remain, as a non-native species, providing a free-standing source of rights—as in the Goldsmith amendment—or that it should be grafted on, subject to amendments to the Human Rights Act, as in the Wigley amendment. Who will benefit if the charter remains part of our domestic law after exit day? I fear it will not be those whom we rightly wish to protect; it will be the lawyers, and surely we do not want that.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
I stood up before the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, sat down as I knew he was coming to an end. He mentioned, and I accept entirely, his position that the Government may have excluded the Charter of Fundamental Rights because of uncertainty. But for many people it is an indicator of something else: that Conservative Party manifestos over a number of years have promised that the Human Rights Act would be removed. On many occasions, we have heard leading Conservatives say that we should remove ourselves from the European Convention on Human Rights, too. The absence of the Charter of Fundamental Rights from the Bill suggests to many that this is part of a journey taking us out of any international arrangements dealing with the protection of human rights, and that that is the real purpose.
Lord Faulks
The Government’s position has been made quite clear: they have no intention of repealing the Human Rights Act. It is perfectly true that the previous Government said that they would consult on the question and bring in a British Bill of Rights, which would not mean departing from the European convention. Of course, I understand that there are those who are suspicious of this Government’s motives—I do not speak for the Government—but if a Government were hell-bent on getting rid of human rights, they would of course be able to get rid of the charter as well. I do not accept the sinister interpretation of the noble Baroness. The intention is simply to achieve clarity; that is what the Bill is about.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
The Conservative manifesto said:
“We will not repeal … the Human Rights Act while the process of Brexit is underway but we will consider our human rights legal framework when the process of leaving the EU concludes. We will remain signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights for the duration of the next parliament”.
When the Minister replies, can he give us an assurance about the long-term commitment of the Conservative Party to the Human Rights Act?
Lord Faulks
No Parliament can bind its successor; one would expect every Government to consider human rights as an ongoing process, and how best to protect them.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 63A, which is in my name and has already been spoken to with great passion by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. He gave an excellent antidote to a debate that has otherwise been an important but nevertheless cerebral examination of the legal position of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, I do not think I am going to give way to the noble Lord because I have been trying to speak. In the course of this debate, we are not actually going—I shall give way to the Chief Whip.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 14, the effect of which is to retain the charter as part of domestic law and to retain EU law under which claimants would be able to have domestic legislation struck down on the basis of incompatibility with the charter. Some noble Lords have expressed the view that they were baffled by the exclusion of the charter from this legislation, but I felt that the arguments were put very simply and cogently by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, at Second Reading when he simply pointed out that the charter is only one part of our extensive framework of human rights, that there would be a risk of confusion because of conflict with the ECHR and that what this was doing was complicating the situation to no good purpose.
Furthermore, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has produced a memorandum showing how existing rights are being provided for in the legislation and in retained law. He has also gone further and said that if anyone can provide specific examples of rights that are not provided for, he will give the matter due consideration. Various people have suggested various things that may or may not be suitable for inclusion, but they will no doubt be considered by the Secretary of State and could be considered for primary legislation.
I asked the noble and learned Lord why he had changed his mind about the incorporation of the charter, which he and Prime Minister Blair strongly opposed in the Lisbon treaty. I do not want to go over that, as I think I made my point, but I suggest to the noble and learned Lord that he had very good reasons for excluding it, and that now is an opportunity—
Lord Goldsmith
In fact, this country accepted that the charter would become part of EU law in the Lisbon treaty—it is the opposite of what the noble Lord said.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
Against the noble and learned Lord’s will. There was also an attempt to get an opt-out, which the European Court of Justice said was not valid. I see that the Minister is agreeing with me. I believe that is a correct account of what happened. It was struck down. The case in which it happened was, I think, Aklagaren v Hans Akerberg Fransson.
Lord Pannick
Would the noble Lord accept that there are many areas of EU law which this country has opposed but which have nevertheless become part of EU law? This Bill seeks to exclude none of them from retained EU law, other than the charter. Why is that?
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
That is very much my argument. For reasons that I wish to develop, I agree very much with the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and what was said by my noble friend Lord Faulks about the confusion and conflict that this will cause between the role of the European Court of Justice and our own courts. The President of the Supreme Court has already called for further clarification of the relationship the Supreme Court will have with the European Court of Justice. It seems to me, for reasons I am about to give, that this would be made even worse if we incorporated the charter into the Bill and into UK law.
The retention of the charter would lead to real problems of uncertainty and confusion. Above all, retaining the charter would give the ECJ even more continued influence over our courts. I accept what the noble and learned Lord has said, that there is going to be a relationship for a while with the jurisprudence of the ECJ, but incorporating the charter will give much more opportunity for what people have called judicial adventurism from the European Court of Justice, as it continues to expand the interpretation of the charter. This is not an obsession of Conservatives. I draw the Committee’s attention to what the late Lord Bingham, I think, said in evidence to the House of Lords EU Committee in 2016. He said that although,
“the European Court of Human Rights is a very benign institution … the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg has predatory qualities to it that could be very inimical to some of our national practices”.
That is a reference to the expansionist activities of the ECJ. The charter, as many people know, is extremely loosely worded. The risk of leaving the charter in place is that it allows the ECJ, while it still has jurisdiction over us and our Supreme Court, to expand the charter into new areas. I am not suggesting that the rights we have are frozen for ever or should not be expanded, but merely that that is something that should be decided in this country by our Parliament.
I am also concerned, because of this and the expansion of activities of the ECJ, that if the charter were incorporated our courts would acquire the power to strike down statute on the basis of incompatibility with the charter, which is the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, was making. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to the Factortame case, which was a notorious example where an Act of Parliament was actually struck down. We do not want to create another situation in which domestic courts can strike down Acts of Parliament.
It is the European Court of Justice that interprets what the charter means within the European Union, so if the charter is incorporated into law, what relationship is then going to exist between the Supreme Court and the ECJ? As the ECJ continues to develop its interpretation of the charter, we would be on a road where we had to take it more and more into account. On the basis of what has been said, we must avoid that confusion.
If there are gaps in the rights, we have an opportunity to incorporate them with primary legislation. For example, people have been saying in some of the debates that there are various matters relating to the environment that are not covered. However, we will have a new environment Act and a new environment agency. That seems to me to be the way to cope with any rights that are not fully covered, and it is far better to avoid the confusion of incorporating the charter into UK law.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, I am being persistent this evening because I want to point out the glaring contradiction in the views that have been put forward in support of the Government and of the Bill as it currently stands. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, says the Charter of Fundamental Rights is a pernicious and dangerous document—“dangerous” was her word—that would lead to courts in this country setting aside laws that they did not like, which would be scandalously contrary to British traditions of constitution and law. On the other side, we have had people, and the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is the latest example of this, saying the reason why we cannot have the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Bill and transferred into English law is that it is unnecessary and would be confusing because all the rights are there and some of the rights are already in the corpus of British law. Noble Lords must make up their minds: they cannot say something is a radical and pernicious measure with substantial negative consequences but at the same time say that it has no effect at all and is merely otiose. There is a fundamental contradiction there. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, noticed the same thing but was not quite so explicit about it as I have been.
Lord Davies of Stamford
There is a confusion in this country that comes up quite frequently. We like to think—we are brought up to think it—that we do not have a written constitution in this country and we do not have constitutional laws. That is totally untrue: the Bill of Rights is a constitutional law; in my view the Bill that we are now trying to repeal, the European Communities Act, is a constitutional law; and the Human Rights Act is certainly a constitutional law. By “a constitutional law”, I mean a law that is generally regarded as foundational and is prayed in aid before the courts and referred to in court judgments across a whole range of subjects. Because of that contradiction, we do not really recognise what is going on and we get ourselves into a frightful confusion.
Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I am not shocked and offended by the idea that a court could put aside a Bill that was contrary to existing law. The remedy, of course, is quite simple: Parliament can change either the existing law or the previous one. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, my Lincolnshire neighbour, came out with the right solution when he said that the check and the important constitutional protection against a Government with a parliamentary majority acting entirely irresponsibly or even tyrannically is that any Bills they put forward would have to go through both Houses. In that context, one hopes that the House of Lords would act as a guardian of the constitution and be prepared to stand up to the Government and wait for them, if necessary, to bring in the Parliament Act to override it. That would be a considerable check and balance, and it is a very important role of this House that we are there as a long-stop in such circumstances. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, came up with the right solution and I am sorry that I did not sign his amendment, but I certainly approve of it very much, and if he comes forward with something like it at Report, I shall be happy to support it.
The Earl of Listowel
My Lords, it is very late and I shall be brief. My noble friend Lady Deech is absolutely right: we can be very proud of the children’s legislation we have in this country. The Children Act 1989 is an outstanding Act for children. We are good at many things: we have great lawyers, great scientists and great soldiers in this country. Unfortunately, we do not do so well at implementing the law. I am particularly concerned here about children’s rights. Let me quickly give some examples.
I have talked to families with a disabled child trying to get access to early years education for their child. They get turned away again and again because the setting does not have the right equipment or staff to deal with them. Look at what is happening in the family courts. They are being overwhelmed by children being taken into care. Year on year, the number of children taken into care increases. Lord Justice Munby, the President of the Family Division, recently said that that is accelerating and that the family courts cannot deal with it. The All-Party Parliamentary Group has looked carefully at why that is over the past two years. It is because there just are not the resources in local authorities to support vulnerable families to stop their children being taken into care.
It is very interesting for me to read Article 24 on the rights of the child:
“Every child shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis a personal relationship and direct contact with both his or her parents, unless that is contrary to his or her interests”.
That right is being compromised day by day in this country. Children are being removed from their families because those families have not had the support they needed to make a go of looking after their child.
This is very difficult and the Government have very difficult choices to make, but if you talk to social workers and academics, you find that this right is being compromised day by day. I know that the Conservative Party, in particular, is concerned to see that families are strong and integrated. I am sure that the Minister will tell me on this article that there are already strong protections in British legislation to ensure that the best interests of the child are maintained and their families are supported to prevent this happening. What is happening on the ground, however, is that because social workers wish to safeguard the children, and because the threshold of access to a social worker is so high, they are getting to see the family when it is in crisis, when things have got to a terrible pass and they think that the interest of the child lies in removing the child from this terrible situation.
If we applied this principle properly, we would be intervening earlier to support those families. We see great examples of that. For instance, the family drug and alcohol court, which is expanding across the country, is supporting parents to get them off drugs and alcohol so that they can keep their children.
A number of important protections for children are laid out here: access to education and so on. I will have a look at the Joint Committee on Human Rights report to see what is exempted here. There is lots of good legislation for children in this country, but when I look at what goes on on the continent in terms of security of tenure in housing or quality of professional care for vulnerable children, I fear that so often they do so much better. My prejudice is that we need this sort of thing.
I worry about the elective dictatorship. We get small groups of very wise and intelligent people leading this country from the way we work constitutionally, and the breadth of experience, the people who get left behind, those just managing families, get forgotten about in the drive to do one or other very good thing which eclipses every other consideration. Being as explicit as one can about the rights of children and the protection for families can be very helpful. We will come back to this, and I look forward to debating it further, but on that specific article, I should be grateful for reassurance as to how it will be protected in future.
Lord Newby (LD)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I know how concerned he is about the rights of children, but I wondered whether he had read the joint submission from the Children’s Rights Alliance for England and Together (Scottish Alliance for Children’s Rights), which argues forcefully and at length, with many details, and gives many examples of why they wish to have the fundamental charter retained. Why does he disagree with them and wishes it not to be?
The Earl of Listowel
I am sorry; it is late. I would like in principle to retain the charter. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is not part of British law, and the charter has been a means of channelling the principles of the UNCRC into British law. We need that. The minimum age of criminal responsibility in this country is 10 years old; we can lock up children of 10 years of age. Even in Turkey—with respect to Turkey—it is 16, and 14 around the continent. We are really harsh with our children and we need such protections.
Lord Blencathra
My Lords, as the tail-end Charlie in this debate, I too shall be brief. I believe that there is nothing fundamental about this so-called charter. It was a political wish list cobbled together by the EU in the year 2000, incorporated into the Lisbon treaty in 2009, and opposed by every Labour Government Minister. In fact, Gordon Brown would not even go to Lisbon on the first day to sign it. He wanted to distance himself from it. It includes such meaningless waffle as the right to “physical and mental integrity”, and such wonderful new rights as the right to marry and the right to freedom of thought. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, so cleverly exposed, my right to freedom of thought seems to apply only to the 20,000 EU laws. If I am thinking about any other UK laws, the charter does not seem to apply.
Of course, the charter contains the fundamental right to a fair trial. Well, 803 years ago, this noble House put the right to a fair trial in Clause 39 of the Magna Carta. That is the most important fundamental right of all, which we have had for more than 800 years. The Magna Carta was also known as the “Great Charter of Freedoms” and the late Lord Denning called it,
“the greatest constitutional document of all times—the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot”.
That is what our predecessors in this House did—not the King, not a foreign court but this noble House.
Lord Davies of Stamford
Does the noble Lord recall that the Magna Carta was in 1214, and that the first Parliaments began to sit in the 1270s?
Lord Blencathra
The Magna Carta was imposed on King John by the Barons, as I understand it—the Barons being Members of this noble House. The House did not exist in that form, but it was imposed by the Lords and the Barons. The House of Commons passed the Bill of Rights 350 years ago and imposed it on the sovereign, guaranteeing our rights to free elections, no taxes without parliamentary approval and free speech. The Bill of Rights passed 350 years ago by this Parliament formed the basis of the United States Bill of Rights and Bills of rights of other countries around the world.
Then just 70 years ago, we used our unique experience to write the European Convention on Human Rights—largely written by British lawyers. We wrote that for countries which had no history of our fundamental freedoms and had suffered the evils and degradations of National Socialism. What I am saying is that the worst indictment I make of the EU is that it seems to have destroyed the belief among parliamentarians, noble Lords and Members of Parliament that we are capable of governing ourselves and writing our own law.
There is nothing of any value in the Charter of Fundamental Rights which is not already covered in UK law or the European convention. If we find some great new right in the future and decide that freedom of thought must become a law, are we incapable in this House, in the other place and as British parliamentarians of drafting that? Are we so enfeebled and incapable that we cannot do it? If the Barons could do it 800 years ago, Members of Parliament 350 years ago and the British Government and parliamentarians did it for Europe 70 years ago, are we so incapable that we cannot do it now?
The people of this country voted to bring back control of our laws because they believed that Parliament was capable of making better laws than the EU. They believed that we are better at deciding on our essential rights than an ECJ judge from Bulgaria who has a law degree in Marxist-Leninist law—I have checked on that, and he has got a degree from Sofia on Marxist-Leninist law.
I happen to agree with the British people. I see the incredible wealth of talent in this House, with noble and learned Lords and Law Lords, and I trust our courts. We do not need nor want this charter. Let us wear once gain the mantle of our predecessors in the Lords and Commons, who gave us every freedom that has been worth fighting and dying for for the last few hundred years. We need the courage of the electorate, who trusted us to make our own laws once again. We should not let them down.
Baroness Ludford
There are several more speakers, I am afraid, including me.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, in briefly supporting those amendments that seek to retain the charter, I owe your Lordships an apology. I ought to have declared that I am a member of the advisory board of the British Institute of Human Rights at Second Reading, but I forgot.
I am not a lawyer, but I respectfully submit that law is not primarily for lawyers, any more than water is for water engineers—it is for people to implement the central values of our democracy on their behalf, and the deprivation of rights and access to justice causes harm, unfair poverty, unfair unhappiness and, in some cases, unjustly shorter lives. That is the sort of thing we should be thinking of when we look at these amendments.
I shall just give three quick examples, much humbler than those of Mr David Davis. The general principles and the charter ensured that Mr John Walker could challenge and end pension inequality for same-sex couples. The charter and the general principles supported the recent case in the Supreme Court, which found employment tribunal fees implemented by the Government were unlawful. And the charter enabled the recognition of the importance of health as a fundamental right—not in our law—when tobacco companies challenged regulations to introduce plain packaging of cigarettes.
It seems extremely clear that dropping the charter will do away with protective rights and drop safeguards that have ensured justice in individual cases of injustice. It is individuals who we ought to be thinking about, and rights that would not otherwise exist that we ought to safeguard in the charter.
Baroness Ludford
My Lords, the Benches opposite have been well filled to harry the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, about fundamental rights. Sadly, they were not here for the previous debate to speak up for achieving a fundamental right to safety and security.
I fear that parts of this debate have displayed a fundamental misunderstanding about the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. There has been evidence of some quite muddled thinking. The charter is not a tool that extends the remit of EU law or promotes further integration; it protects citizens and businesses from abuse of the powers that EU laws confer on EU institutions and—I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks—on national Governments when they are implementing EU laws. So it is not just about all the EU institutions that we might leave; it is about achieving legal certainty and continuity. Deleting the charter means discontinuity by making substantive changes to the EU law that is retained in domestic law.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I will make one brief point that no noble Lord has yet made about Northern Ireland, which I know is of concern to many Members of this House. At Second Reading, citing the Bingham centre and Lady Hermon, I asked the Minister to explain how the requirement in the Good Friday agreement for an equivalent level of human rights protection in Northern Ireland and the Republic would be maintained if the citizens of the former could no longer look to the charter. In his helpful letter to Peers, the Minister pointed out that the agreement preceded the charter and, as the charter is therefore not referenced in the agreement, the Bill should not affect our obligations to it. But the point is about equivalence. If the charter now applies in the Republic and not in Northern Ireland, with the loss of various rights in the latter, I ask again how that equivalence is to be maintained.
Baroness Deech
I will make a point that has not been made before. The charter has never been scrutinised by this House. If it had been, we would not have this lack of clarity. I have more confidence in the ability of our Supreme Court to protect us than I have in the ECJ. Bearing in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, said, what a failure the charter has been across Europe. The Roma are being persecuted, migrants are not getting proper treatment, the leaders of Catalonia are being locked up and extremist, right-wing parties are on the march. Freedom House is marking down European countries; they are sliding away from human rights. I am not proud of the charter; it has not worked in Europe. We are much better off with something home-grown and administered by our Supreme Court.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, if I appear faint in my defence of the Bill it is due to a lack of food rather than a lack of enthusiasm. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this important debate and set out the Government’s position. I will start by making it clear that we are listening carefully to the debates on this issue, and will continue to do so.
The Government agree that protecting our rights and liberties as we leave the EU is of critical importance and it is only right that every detail of our approach is scrutinised. This has been a wide-ranging debate about human rights after exit, but it is worth remembering that the amendments before us relate specifically to the charter and the question of what role, if any, it should have in domestic law when we are no longer a member of the EU.
I maintain that the approach in the Bill to the charter as a document is absolutely right, and that the Bill in this respect is in no need of improvement. However, as many noble Lords have pointed out, that approach cannot be separated from the Bill’s approach to the general principles of EU law, including fundamental rights. In response to the strength of feeling conveyed not just in this House but in the other place, the Government are looking again at these issues. These are highly technical issues in some respects but they are undoubtedly important, so we will look further at whether this part of the Bill can be improved in keeping with some of the concerns that have been expressed. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Lamont referred to an observation made by the Secretary of State himself that, if there were specific examples of rights which were not otherwise covered, we would examine them to ensure that the rights were not lost. However, that is not the case. On the specific question of whether the charter should be kept, our view remains that not incorporating the charter into UK law should not in itself affect the substantive rights from which individuals already benefit in the United Kingdom. This is because the charter was never the source of those rights.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, anticipated that he might be reminded of his previous remarks on the matter, and I see no reason to disappoint him. In 2008, when this House debated the then European Union (Amendment) Bill, he was absolutely clear that,
“the charter was never intended to be applied directly to member states in dealing with those matters that member states have the competence to deal with. It was always intended to constrain the European Union institutions … the United Kingdom’s position, like my position, has always been that the charter affirms existing rights, it does not create any new justiciable rights in any member state and does not extend the power of the courts. Moreover, in many cases the charter rights are based on national laws and practices and so they must mirror the extent and content of those national”,—[Official Report, 9/6/08; cols. 426-27.]
laws.
The noble and learned Lord observed that he had nevertheless then encountered the incorporation of the charter into the Lisbon treaty in 2009. Perhaps that was a game changer. I remind him of his evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee in 2014. At that time he referred back to his previous statements and publications with regard to the charter and went on to say that, as he had there explained, the fundamental point was to provide a clear and accessible statement of existing rights and therefore constraints on the power of the EU to legislate.
As the noble and learned Lord’s previous remarks help to make clear, the charter is only one of the elements of the UK’s existing human rights architecture. It reaffirms rights and principles that exist elsewhere in the EU acquis, irrespective of the charter, and the Bill sets out how those rights and principles will continue to be protected in UK law after exit.
The noble and learned Lord referred to a number of issues, such as the case of Benkharbouche in 2017 in the Supreme Court. In that case the court found that there was a breach of Article 6 of the convention but it also referred to Article 47 of the charter in the context not of rights but of remedies. One has to bear in mind the distinction between rights and remedies.
The noble and learned Lord posed three questions in the context of previous observations about the charter. First, he talked about there being no loss of substantial protection. It is inevitable that leaving the EU will result in changes to the current arrangements, but certainly we do not accept that this in itself will result in a loss of substantive rights.
Secondly, he referred to the procedural protections that will be excluded. When we leave the EU, a person can still rely on sources that are reaffirmed in the charter. I emphasise “reaffirmed in the charter”, as he himself observed in 2008 and 2014. Procedurally there may be differences but we do not consider that that can be a basis for incorporating the charter into domestic law. Indeed, we absolutely stand by what has been said by the Prime Minister: it is not necessary to retain the charter to ensure that rights are protected.
The noble and learned Lord also referred to the body of the charter, beginning with Article 1, and suggested that these rights were contained only in the charter. I simply observe that on 5 December last year the Government published a very detailed paper setting out, as it were, a comparison of the rights in the charter and where they can be found elsewhere—in the convention, in the principles of EU law and in our own common law. The noble and learned Lord referred to Article 1, which concerns the right to human dignity. I remind him that there is a long series of case law both from the ECJ, as it then was, and from the European Court of Human Rights going back to 1995 in which, for example, the convention court emphasised that the very essence of the convention is respect for human dignity and human freedom. That has been repeated in a whole series of cases since then. These are well-established rights and they were well established when they were brought together into the charter.
I want to reassure noble Lords that substantive rights protected in the charter are, and will continue to be, protected elsewhere in UK law after we leave the EU, most notably in convention rights, in retained EU law, in the common law and via specific statutory protections such as those in our own equalities legislation. I have already mentioned that the Government published a detailed analysis providing guidance about how substantive rights found in the charter would be reflected in domestic law after exit.
Reference has been made to various legal opinions and that of Jason Coppel QC, who has had a number of name checks this evening. I can only implore noble Lords to look at the very detailed analysis the Government have produced. I also note that some of the references to Mr Coppel’s opinion involve references to his concern that Ministers might change rights, for example, or that the procedures will be affected. However, that is not to say that the fundamental rights underlying the charter are not found elsewhere.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord quite rightly draws our attention to the distinction between rights and remedies, but he will agree that rights are not helpful unless there are remedies. If we were scrutinising the charter and the source of its rights to establish whether we were satisfied that the rights and remedies could still apply, we might, for instance, have noted that the sources of Article 1 mentioned in the analysis would not confer an enforceable right on individuals after exit day. That is the JCHR’s analysis of the analysis.
I hope that the Minister can answer the question asked, in particular, by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Kerslake, about why we have combined the two debates—one about the charter, its rights and wrongs and whether it is good or bad, and the other about the mechanisms. We have heard so often from the Government Front Bench that this Bill is about mechanisms. Why are the Government not using the mechanism they have themselves designed to give them the opportunity, and to give the Committee the opportunity, to consider the substance calmly after the chimes of midnight?
Lord Keen of Elie
Quite simply because, as I indicated earlier to the Committee, the rights underpinning the charter exist elsewhere than in the charter and it is not necessary to incorporate the charter into domestic law in order to find those fundamental rights in our domestic law after we leave the EU.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I am sorry to interrupt, but the analysis by the Joint Committee on Human Rights to which the noble Baroness referred, which is an analysis of the Government’s analysis, identified a number of rights that are not there other than in the charter. Does the noble and learned Lord reject the JCHR’s analysis?
Lord Keen of Elie
We have considered that analysis, and that is why I indicated that we were still looking at this. As I said, if rights are identified which are not in fact going to be incorporated into our domestic law in the absence of the charter, we will look very carefully at ensuring that those are not lost.
Clause 5(5) makes it clear that, notwithstanding the non-incorporation of the charter, retained EU law will continue to be interpreted by UK courts in a way that is consistent with the underlying rights. I hope that addresses to some extent the issue raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, in that context. Interpretive provisions will retain a means by which we can look at these rights in the proper context.
With regard to those who have expressed concerns about this Bill resulting in a loss of substantive rights, I repeat—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, has done, at least prior to his recent Pauline conversion—that it is not necessary to retain the charter to retain those fundamental rights. If we see that there is a potential loss of such fundamental rights, we will address that, and that is what we have indicated.
Lord Pannick
I put it to the noble and learned Lord that there is no other area of retained EU law where the Government have carried out this exercise or said that we do not need to read across a particular provision because it is already in domestic law. Why are they making an exception of the charter?
Lord Keen of Elie
Because this is the only case in which we have identified that situation. There is no other reason for proceeding in this way except for that.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
If, as the noble and learned Lord said on numerous occasions in his reply, the rights established in the charter are already there in our domestic law, what is lost by keeping the charter? If those rights are already there, the Government cannot be worried about anything if they retain the charter.
Lord Keen of Elie
I must compliment the noble and learned Lord on his second sight. As I was about to say, the next argument put to us is that if we say that the charter is not adding anything, what is the problem with keeping it? I hope that is a fair summary of the noble and learned Lord’s intervention. With respect, this argument simply fails to take account of how the charter applies at present. The charter and the rights that it reaffirmed have a limited application. They apply to the EU institutions all of the time, but apply only to member states acting within the scope of EU law. We will no longer be a member state and so we will be no longer be acting within the scope of EU law. Simply retaining the charter would not reflect the realities of leaving the EU. It cannot be right that a document called the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union could continue to be used as the justification to bring cases that would lead ultimately to the striking down of UK primary legislation after we leave the EU. Outside our membership of the EU, it is simply not appropriate to retain the charter.
There are also practical questions to consider. It would be no simple matter to say that we are keeping the charter. The amendments in this group all attempt, in various ways, to solve the riddle of how an instrument inherently linked to and constrained by our membership of the EU could apply purely domestically. They each highlight the complexity involved in such an exercise.
In Amendment 13A, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, requires the Government to lay a report on how the charter will continue to apply to retained EU law after we leave the EU. However, his other amendments are far from clear on precisely how he intends the charter to have effect domestically after exit. They would remove the exclusion of the charter provided for in Clause 5, presumably with the intention that it would now form part of retained EU law. I note that one of his amendments would excise the definition of what the charter is from the Bill, despite going on to say that this undefined, unclear thing will continue to have effect in relation to retained EU law under Clauses 2, 3 and 4. What would our courts make of that? Many articles of the charter set out principles, not rights, which can be relied on directly by individuals. How would these have effect after exit? Eight articles of the charter constitute rights intrinsically linked to EU citizenship—for example, the right to vote in an EU parliamentary election. Of course, they claw at the air—we appreciate that—but they do nothing.
Let us pause again on the fact that the charter applies to member states only when acting within the scope of EU law. Presumably, if retained under the Bill, the charter would then apply only when we were acting within the scope of retained EU law, which I believe is the elaboration that the noble and learned Lord made in response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. Over time, our domestic law will evolve and new laws will be made by this sovereign Parliament and the devolved legislatures that will start to replace and supersede this category of retained EU law. We would be retaining the charter, in whatever capacity the noble and learned Lord intends, only for an ever-diminishing proportion of our law. This further risks incorporating complexity and confusion into our domestic statute book.
We should not overstate the accessibility of the current rights regime, which relies on citizens knowing—
Lord Beith (LD)
The noble and learned Lord is right in that assertion, but it does not follow that retained European law should not be read across in the form of the charter as well as its other features on exit day. Lots of things will change over time. Parliament will no doubt amend retained European law so that it ceases to be retained European law, but the Bill is about legal continuity and what the situation is on exit day. For this purpose, surely the Minister should accept what is being proposed.
Lord Keen of Elie
I entirely agree with the noble Lord as to what this Bill is about. With regard to the charter, the point is that it does not bring anything over on its own. We already have these rights and obligations, as established by the principles of EU law, convention law and the common law.
As to a concern that something is omitted at the end of the day, as I indicated, we would address that to ensure that all rights are brought across. However, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, I do not believe that you can never have too many belts and braces. If you have too many belts and braces, eventually you cannot stand up. It is therefore important that we approach this issue with a degree of proportionality, if I may use a European term.
Following on from the point I made earlier, retaining the charter for what will become a fluid and changing category of law risks legislatively binding us to a document that would bring the illusion of clarity in the short term but serve only to undermine it in the longer term. Indeed, the other amendments in this group raise similar issues to those put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith.
My noble friend Lord Hailsham has tabled amendments that seek to build on the amendments put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. They seek to assign the status of primary legislation to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. For reasons that we will go into in a later group, the Government believe that the question of assigning status to retained EU law is complex and should be approached with caution. I hope that we can come back to this question when we have concluded our debate on the approach to rights protection and to status more generally. I will not seek to take up time on that issue at this stage.
I suspect that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, would also add to the confusion. Seeking to afford charter rights the same level of protection as convention rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 is fraught with difficulty. Charter rights do not correspond exactly to ECHR rights and apply in different ways. The charter also contains non-justiciable principles as well as rights, and it is unclear what status these would have in domestic law under his amendment. Moreover, it does not deal with how explanations to the charter articles should be treated or how certain sections of the Human Rights Act would apply to charter rights. I appreciate that we are in Committee and that the noble Lord is entitled to say that he will look more carefully at the form of the amendment and perhaps elaborate upon it in due course, but there are fundamental difficulties with the approach he is attempting to take in simply trying to incorporate the charter when, as indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, himself observed, the expression of rights in the charter does not coincide precisely with the expression of rights in the convention.
I would like to emphasise again that we remain committed to listening to this House and indeed to working constructively to ensure that we have a functioning statute book which maximises legal certainty. I understand the concerns expressed by some about whether some rights would somehow be left behind, but if we can and do identify a risk of such rights being left behind, we are entirely open to the proposition that we have to address that by way of amendment to the Bill, and we will seek to do that. I wish to reassure noble Lords on that point.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord give us any indication of when he thinks that that exercise will be completed?
Lord Keen of Elie
The potential answer is no, and the note says that my time is up. Nevertheless, and be that as it may, we will endeavour to address these issues as soon as we can. Clearly it will require us not only to consider the position we have adopted already in the document published in December last year but to take into consideration the concerns expressed by other lawyers and in this Committee in the course of the debate. We will look at those and we will want to address them at the next stage of the Bill; of that, I am confident.
At this stage I appreciate that there are some questions which I have not directly answered in the course of my response and it may be difficult to do so in the time remaining. Perhaps I may say that I endorse entirely the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Brown of Eaton-Under-Heywood, with regard to the potential difficulties of simply drawing the charter over into domestic law. I am not going to elaborate on the consequences of doing that, but they can be summarised as confusion, uncertainty and difficulty, and ultimately could prove to be counterproductive. In these circumstances, I invite the noble and learned Lord to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have taken part in the debate. It has been wide-ranging, as we anticipated it would be. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his remarks. I shall obviously not spend long on what I say now, given the hour. As we approached midnight, I was looking around the corner to see whether a pumpkin would arrive with horses. I was not sure whether it would be for me or for the noble and learned Lord opposite.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, we have been debating Clause 1 for 18 hours and three-quarters. That is probably enough, so I shall not prolong the debate any longer.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 28th February 2018
(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 79-III(b) Amendments for Committee, supplementary to the third marshalled list (PDF, 55KB) - (28 Feb 2018)
Lord Pannick
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 15 arises out of the report of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee published on 29 January which I commend to the Committee. The amendment has been tabled in the names of four members of the Constitution Committee, myself and the noble Lords, Lord Norton of Louth and Lord Beith, and our much respected chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton.
One of the matters about which we expressed concern is whether the Bill as currently drafted will ensure, as the Government intend, the clarity and certainty that is required of the law as from exit day. I should emphasise that the amendments to the Bill which derive from the Constitution Committee’s report are being moved as probing amendments. We believe that we have identified problems that require debate and consideration by the Government, but we are not suggesting that our proposed solutions to these difficult problems are the last word.
Amendment 15 addresses what we believe to be the first fundamental difficulty with the approach adopted in the Bill. Clause 2 includes within the scope of the concept of EU-derived domestic legislation not merely those regulations which have been made under powers contained in the European Communities Act 1972 that Clause 1 is of course going to repeal, it also purports to include within the scope of EU-derived domestic legislation other primary or secondary legislation which has been enacted by normal procedures—that is, not using the powers in the 1972 Act but legislation that was enacted for the purpose of implementing our EU obligations or which relate to them. A good example is the Equality Act 2010. For the purposes of this Bill, Acts of Parliament such as the Equality Act are to be treated as EU-derived domestic legislation even though they would continue to be part of domestic legislation without the Bill. As I understand it, that is the purpose of Clause 14(6).
The scope of Clause 2 matters for two reasons. First, if an enactment falls within Clause 2 and it is therefore by reason of Clause 6(7) retained EU law, the delegated powers which Ministers will have under Clause 7 will apply. The Committee will come to consider those delegated powers in due course because they are very extensive. A number of amendments have been tabled in relation to them. The other reason this matters is that the consequence of a provision being retained EU law is that the supremacy principle under Clause 5, which again we will come to, also applies, so the retained EU law such as the Equality Act will take priority over other laws which are enacted up until exit day. Clause 2 therefore poses real problems for legal certainty because some of the provisions of the Equality Act, for example, will have been enacted for the purpose of implementing EU law obligations while some will have been enacted for other purposes. Some of the sections of the Equality Act relate to our EU law obligations while others do not.
Given that, perhaps I may ask the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, who I believe is going to respond for the Government on this, whether Clause 2 means that if any part of the Equality Act, as an example, was passed in order to implement an EU law obligation or relates to one, the whole of the Equality Act is within the scope of Clause 2 as retained EU law, or does Clause 2 mean that only those provisions of the Equality Act which implement an EU law obligation or are related to it are within Clause 2? I ask this because the language of Clause 2 focuses on the enactment, which suggests a statute by statute approach. If that is right, Ministers will be conferring upon themselves through Clause 7 a very wide power to amend by delegated legislation provisions of the Equality Act or other Acts in which provisions were enacted for other purposes. Indeed, if Clause 2 applies to the whole of the Equality Act then the supremacy principle will give priority to the whole of the Equality Act over other legislation enacted up until exit day. We need to know the answer to that question.
The Constitution Committee’s view is that the concept of EU-derived domestic legislation in Clause 2 ought to be confined to those enactments made under the powers conferred in the European Communities Act, which is what the Bill is all about—powers that the Bill would repeal. That would have the virtue of clarity and certainty. It would cut down the scope of the delegated powers that Ministers will enjoy under Clause 7 and limit the supremacy principle. The Constitution Committee respectfully suggests that that approach accords with constitutional principle. It said at paragraph 22 of its report:
“It is not constitutionally necessary or appropriate for primary legislation, which will continue in force in any event, to be treated as ‘retained EU law’ by clause 2 and subject to the powers of amendment in clause 7”.
The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, which has made very valuable observations on these issues, has pointed out, and I agree, that if the Committee were to amend Clause 2 in this respect, consequential changes would be needed to Clause 6 to ensure that provisions in the Equality Act, for example, that implement EU law will continue to be interpreted by reference to judgments of the Court of Justice in Luxembourg delivered before exit day.
These are difficult issues but the Constitution Committee suggests that they are important. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I should notify the Committee that if Amendment 15 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 16 by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord Pannick, is a great expert in these matters. Could he give the Committee the benefit of his advice on whether he believes that converted law under Clause 2 has the status of primary or secondary legislation?
Lord Pannick
That is a very important question that we are coming to in later amendments. The Constitution Committee addressed that question. It has advised the House that one of the defects of the Bill, it respectfully suggests, is that it does not address that vital question and that legal uncertainty will be caused without it being addressed. The Constitution Committee suggested that retained EU law should be given the status of primary legislation, but there is a variety of views on this. The committee advised—I do not speak for the committee, but I am reporting what its report said—that this issue has to be addressed in the Bill. We are coming to it in later amendments.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I speak as a member of the Constitution Committee to make it clear that the committee would say that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has spoken very lucidly for it in setting out the amendment. We are talking about provisions in Acts of Parliament—the Equality Act is one example—that implement EU obligations and would not be repealed by withdrawal or by the repeal of the European Communities Act. Yet Clause 2 opens up to the process of repeal and modification by statutory instrument provisions in UK statutes and in the legislation of the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments. These are provisions in law that are not nullified or made inoperative by the act of withdrawal; they would stay on the statute book. Of course, the legislation may contain features that do not of necessity arise from the requirements of EU directives or other EU obligations. We talk much about British gold-plating of EU measures. We will probably find in a number of measures which this clause would draw in features which were clearly not within the scope of the requirement placed on us by our membership of the European Union. The committee concluded:
“The effect is to inflate the range of domestic law—including primary legislation—in relation to which the ministerial “correction” powers … can be exercised”.
These are powers the extent and scope of which are extremely worrying to the committee.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, the Bingham Centre has produced a helpful analysis of many of the things that the committee was concerned about. In almost all cases, it agrees with the committee’s analysis, but, in some, it does not agree with the committee’s proposed remedies. In this case, it suggests that if we go down the route proposed by Amendment 15, there should be an amendment to Clause 6 to make it clear that provisions in EU case law should be taken into account when interpreting EU-derived law which is already on the statute book. The logic is that it is far better that the law is in only one place rather than in two, but we would not want by that means to take away from the court the opportunity to take into account EU-derived case law prior to our withdrawal from the EU, if it ever happens.
The committee is on to an important point. I hope that we can explore as a result of this short debate ways of dealing with it.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, while I do not want this section of the debate to be dominated by members of the Constitution Committee, I should congratulate my noble friend Lord Pannick on the way he presented the amendment despite it certainly not being in the interest of the legal profession—if we manage to get legal certainty in the Bill, the lawyers will not have their field day. However, I fear that, unless we achieve legal certainty and the clarity that my noble friend mentioned, we will be in real difficulty. Our committee has put forward suggestions, but we do not think that they are the only ways forward. It is important at this stage that the Government recognise the extent of the problem and the damage that will be done if we do not have some amendment and some concessions from them in this area. It is of course an area linked to the other parts of the Bill, because, unless we make changes here, the powers that the Government will have under Clause 7 will be completely unacceptable because of the breadth of legislation there captured.
I therefore urge the Minister to reflect carefully not only on the suggestions of the Constitution Committee but on those of others outside, because this problem will dog the Bill for ever if we do not make some changes here.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
I support the idea that we should get legal certainty in the Bill, and if that damages the interest of the legal profession, it is damage in the public interest.
However, I venture to suggest that it may be wise to leave this provision pretty much as it is. That is because quite a lot of legislation was passed in the light of obligations imposed by the European Union, but we proposed our own legislation to deal with it. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, excellently illustrated, that legislation is exemplified by the Equality Act. I read this clause as referring only to the part of the enactment,
“so far as … passed or made, or operating, for a purpose mentioned in section 2(2)(a) or (b) of that Act”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, “enactment” sometimes suggests a whole Act, but this provision restricts it to the part of the enactment that deals with this point.
As the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said, it is quite likely that some of these measures are gold-plated—there used to be quite a lot of suggestions from various quarters that we went in for gold-plating. When I was in a sense responsible for some of these matters, I discovered that the gold-plating was more a result of some antagonism to the Bill in question than it was gold-plating in the sense of going beyond what the European Union required. So far as there is gold-plating of that sort—that is, unnecessary as far as the European Union is concerned—I do not think that this clause would strike it, because it is “so far as” the thing is made in view of the provisions “in section 2(2)(a) or (b)” and so on of the Act. Of course, as has been pointed out, it is perfectly likely that in some of these provisions that were introduced in that way adjustment will be required because we are leaving the European Union.
Some provisions—I have not looked too closely at how many but I imagine there might be quite a few—of these ordinary Acts of Parliament will have a connection with the European Union that may be affected by our leaving it. Therefore it is important that in that situation a power to deal with that matter in a reasonable time would be required, and we will be looking at these later. Therefore, I am inclined to think it may be better to leave this provision as it is. I am very interested to hear what my noble and learned friend the Minister has to say about that.
As for the supremacy principle, I will have something to say about that if I happen to be present when it arises. I said at Second Reading and I say again that I think the Constitution Committee has produced a superb solution to that problem, which enables us to forget for ever the supremacy of European law over our law.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, there is no more terrifying ordeal in your Lordships’ House than intervening in a debate between lawyers, particularly following the noble and learned Lord. It appears to me, however, as a layman reading the Bill for the first time and reading the reports of our Constitution Committee, that a critical issue relating to all the debates we shall have on Clause 2 and the following clauses is whether converted law is primary or secondary legislation. Will the Advocate-General for Scotland give us his view, so that that can colour our discussion of the later groups?
When I was wrestling with this issue and reading debates in the other place, I noticed that the Solicitor-General said on 15 November last year:
“Converted law … will not automatically have the status of either primary or secondary legislation”.
He did not then go on to say what will determine whether it is primary or secondary legislation. Somewhat confusingly, he then said:
“Indeed … paragraph 19 of schedule 8 sets this out: ‘For the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998, any retained direct EU legislation is to be treated as primary legislation’”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/11/17; col. 416.]
Again, as a layman reading this, I wonder whether that means only in respect of the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998 or with general applicability. I know that the Advocate-General for Scotland is good at speaking plain English as well as legalese, so will he set out for us in plain English his view of whether the generality of law converted into UK law under the Bill will be primary or secondary legislation?
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I repeat the worries about coming in on a debate populated primarily by lawyers, but if my noble friend Lord Adonis can do it, I can have a go. I very much welcomed the intent of the Constitution Committee and the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, but I subsequently received a briefing that raised a question about it. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for alluding to the issue of the amendment meaning that UK courts could not be required to consider existing European court decisions when interpreting and applying provisions that have been implemented through UK law by Acts of Parliament or regulations introduced under Acts of Parliament other than the ECA 1972. I am grateful that he referred to the Bingham Centre proposal that there needed to be consequent amendments later in the Bill to cover that. I want to highlight the importance of that because the reality is that about 80% of environment law stems from the European Union and much of it would be caught by this provision. We just need to be sure that if this provision were recognised as needing to be addressed by the Government, we will see that subsequent amendment to allow ECJ decisions to be taken into account.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I entirely agree with that proposition but since the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, had mentioned it, I thought for the sake of brevity I would leave it out of my remarks.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I do not entirely agree with the Constitution Committee and so, with suitable temerity, I will suggest modifications to its approach as we go through this and later clauses. Not surprisingly, I look at matters from the perspective of recent familiarity—one could say rather too much familiarity—with the making of EU legislation. So I know rather more about the input end of the pipeline than the output. But it is at the EU end of the pipeline that the genetic markers of EU principles and case law get attached, and since those markers have been reproduced in UK case law and the reasonable expectations of those affected, I have great concerns.
I accept that it is not easy to move legislation made in one constitutional environment to a different one without losing something. The Government have tried and their approach leads to various types of uncertainty, which are then plugged, as far as they can be, through sweeping ministerial power, which brings forward more concerns and uncertainty. So something needs to be done but the Constitution Committee package, while having good ideas to build on, does not quite gel for me. I have made some suggestions to sort out the wrinkles as I see them. They come mainly in amendments to later clauses but they have backwards relevance to Amendment 15. Like others, perhaps, I also discovered on Monday, thanks to my noble friend Lady Hamwee, that the Bingham Centre had done a report, which I think I can claim in part has similar conclusions to mine on Clause 2 and, indeed, elsewhere.
When it comes to Amendment 15, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I am torn in two directions. Doing what the amendment suggests, as with other suggestions from the Constitution Committee report, is not without constitutional cost, as is mentioned in the report in respect of the Clause 5 proposals. But it happens with Clause 2 as well: some legislation that currently has an EU dimension, and therefore would benefit from judicial interpretation using EU general principles such as proportionality and fundamental rights, will no longer benefit from that. I could add to that environmental issues that are in the EU constitution. Against that, it reduces the extent of legislation that falls to be amended under Article 7 and there is a lot to be said in favour of doing less—there will be less confusion, more time for scrutiny of the remainder, and less chance of this becoming the great gold-plating Bill.
I am not immune to suggestions that if a directive has been transposed via an Act of Parliament and that Act of Parliament has established delegated powers that have been used for other transpositions, then Parliament knew what it was doing. But without examining all the documents and the details, what was the background? Did the Government say that they had to do certain things because of the EU? Did they in fact say that to close down some other amendments? What did Members have in their minds about equality and other EU fundamental rights that were well known? They could not just say that they were not taking those into account.
If you are looking at the hybrids, as has been mentioned, some Acts may be—let us say for simplicity—half EU and half UK. One that I would choose is the Data Protection Bill, where the UK has been prepared to go much further than the EU in what can be retained. You need to know which bit is UK-only and which bit is European-only. I have always assumed that it was to only the EU-derived part that supremacy and all the EU general rights would apply, and you would have to look at how it was couched.
There is also the matter of onward intertwining. The Bingham Centre also uses the example, at the foot of page 21, of the Equality Act 2010. However, it points out that there are decisions of domestic courts interpreting that Act in the light of CJEU case law, so our decisions are going to be consistent going forward. It is considerations such as that that then provoke its first conclusion on this, which is in paragraph 60 on page 22. That suggests, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has acknowledged, that to make things work, you need to do something extra in Clause 6 about how to interpret legislation that has been removed from the scope of Clause 2. There is also a second, alternative conclusion in paragraph 61, which suggests amending other provisions; a future report is then promised.
As I have said, I did not get the report till late, so I had already gone ahead and made my plans. When I thought about it, one of my conclusions was that, perhaps instead of closing down the scope of the application of Clause 2, the thing to do was to close down the scope of Clause 7. My proposal, therefore, is not to exclude subsections 2(b), (c) and (d) from Clause 2 but to exclude them from having effect in Clause 7. That way, they will not be amended and tampered with, possibly apart from when it is necessary to remove some trivial EU reference that might no longer apply. I have already tabled an amendment that does that, which is on the supplementary Marshalled List for today.
I know that leaves the judges still having to look at EU principles over a wider range of law. If I interpreted some of the comments correctly on Monday, they would perhaps prefer to change that constitutional burden so that it fell somewhere else. However, I do not see how one can avoid that having to continue: that is the status quo, and judges have to look at where there is an EU angle—some EU derivation—and apply general principles and other things as appropriate. Without knowing what the subject matter is, it is very difficult—even dangerous—to come up with a blanket change, because you do not know what might be missing. In some cases it probably does not matter, in other cases it might be quite sensitive, and in others you would most certainly be throwing away some of the things about which other noble Lords have already spoken passionately with regard to fundamental rights. You would also be throwing away certain things to do with the environment. I have other suggestions for modification as we go forward, but I will leave those to the relevant clauses.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, your Lordships may have noticed that I am rather short: this afternoon, I can give the House some comfort by saying that, in relation to this amendment at least, I shall also be brief.
The Constitution Committee points out that Clause 2 is not needed to ensure that most categories of domestic legislation—which in practice will remain in force—will continue to apply. It concludes that,
“clause 2 appears to be significantly broader than it needs to be”.
The Constitution Committee affirms that it is not constitutionally necessary or appropriate for primary legislation, which will continue in force in any event, to be treated as retained EU law and be subject to the powers of the amendment referred to in Clause 7.
Does the Minister accept this? If not, on what basis does he take that stance? The provision appears to be a way of allowing the Government to amend legislation by the mechanism of secondary legislation. With all the concerns around the excessive use of such procedures that have frequently been expressed by committees of the House and by Members in the Chamber, it would be reassuring if the noble and learned Lord could make it clear that that is not the Government’s intention in respect of this Bill.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions from Members of the House with regard to this issue. We are extremely grateful for the extensive work done by the Constitution Committee with regard to the Bill, as set out in the report, and for the consideration that members of the committee have given to the provisions of the Bill and some of the difficult issues that arise in transposing EU-based legislation into domestic law, because it represents something of a challenge in a number of respects.
I shall begin by referring to a matter that does not arise out of this group, or did not until the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, raised it, because it may help if I address his point about whether retained EU law is primary or secondary legislation. It is neither in the Bill. There are provisions in paragraph 19 of Schedule 8 with regard to the Human Rights Act, which is a very particular case, where it will be treated as primary legislation. There is the Constitution Committee’s recommendation that it should all be treated as primary legislation. I shall not go into detail at this stage because we will address this later, but I want to reassure the noble Lord about where we are.
That recommendation raises enormous difficulties because there are aspects of EU-derived legislation that, for example, involve the enumeration of the contents of a particular dye or chemical, and the idea that we could amend that only by way of primary legislation raises issues of its own. Nevertheless, it seems to the Government that there is some scope for considering how we can take this forward, and we are open to considering not only the recommendations of the Constitution Committee but of others. For those who have an interest in this issue, I commend for consideration, at least, the recent observations of Professor Paul Craig of St John’s College, Oxford, in a blog on the UK Constitutional Law Association site dated 26 February—only a few days ago—in which, supplementary to an earlier note that he made, he proposes a categorisation of EU-derived legislation. I cannot say that it is one that we entirely agree with, but it is certainly one that we are looking at because there is more than one route to the resolution of this issue. We are looking at that and, for noble Lords who are interested in that point, it may be worth considering.
Lord Adonis
For those of us who are uninitiated into this blog, what would that mean?
Lord Adonis
What would the new status of legislation that the noble and learned Lord has just mentioned be?
Lord Keen of Elie
Professor Craig addresses a potential categorisation of EU-derived legislation by reference to its origins within EU law, so there is pre-Lisbon treaty and post-Lisbon treaty analysis based on the articles of the pre-Lisbon provisions and of TFEU post Lisbon in 2009. I shall not elaborate on it at this stage as it does not arise in the context of this group. With respect to the noble Lord, I simply want to reassure him that we understand that there is a debate about how we should categorise EU-derived legislation.
The second point I shall mention at the outset is the reference to the principle of supremacy. That turns on Clause 5(2), which ensures that the principle of supremacy—it currently has effect through the ECA—will continue to apply but only for the purpose of resolving conflicts which arise between EU law which is converted by the Bill into domestic law and pre-exit domestic law.
Again, we have to be clear what the purpose of that is. I acknowledge in passing that the Constitution Committee proposed a different way of addressing Clause 5, which on one view might be considered neat, in so far as it involves applying the principle of supremacy without using the word “supremacy”. We will come on to debate that in due course, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, observed, and I will not take time up with that at this stage.
I turn to Amendment 15. Clause 2 has been drawn broadly deliberately. As has been noted, it will preserve any domestic regulations made under Section 2(2) of, or paragraph 1A of Schedule 2 to, the ECA 1972. But it also includes within its ambit any other domestic primary or secondary legislation which implements, or enables the implementation of, EU obligations and any related domestic legislation. In response to the inquiry from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I make the point that enactments often contain provisions derived from EU legislation—we have to remember that what we are referring to in Clause 2 is EU-derived domestic legislation. It is those parts of Acts such as the Equality Act or the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act that are EU derived which are to be brought within the ambit of retained EU law. It is necessary to read two elements: EU-derived domestic legislation—those parts of legislation that come from the EU—and retained EU law. They are linked.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton
I think I am following what the Minister is saying, but a moment ago he used the phrase “legislation which … enables” implementation. How much of what is “enabling” will be caught in this?
Lord Keen of Elie
It is only that part of the legislation which is derived from the EU which is then brought in and forms part of retained EU law. As a hypothetical example, let us suppose that there are 20 clauses in some piece of health and safety at work legislation, of which 10 are derived from EU legislation. That forms part of EU-derived legislation for the purposes of this Bill, and will come into retained EU law. But the other parts are not EU-derived legislation and will not form part of EU retained law.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton
I accept that, but the Minister is assuming that legislation is always very neatly compartmentalised in a way which would allow that. My fear is that there will be enabling parts of legislation that could be caught up because some subsection could be EU related.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Could I just follow on from that by expressing a related concern? We know what the Government’s attitude is to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and we know that the Bill provides that there is no right of action on the basis of general principles of EU law. I am thinking aloud here, but the concern might be that even with only a strict and narrow interpretation of which bits of, say, the Equality Act are EU derived and therefore subject to all the consequences, including Clause 6, we might miss some of the context in which those narrow provisions should be interpreted if we were to remain in the EU and fully under the jurisdiction of the court.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am not sure I agree with that proposition. But of course, at the end of the day, pursuant to Clause 7, it will be necessary to bring forward regulations which address amendments that are required in regards to retained EU law. At that point of course, those regulations will be the subject of scrutiny to ensure that they are limited to those aspects which are EU-derived law and therefore EU retained law. I do not believe that that is necessarily a problem, but I hear what the noble Baroness has said. We will of course take into consideration any difficulties that could arise in that context.
I wish to add one further point that I meant to make at the outset in response to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. He referred to me as the Advocate-General. I am not appearing here as a law officer, and nothing I say should be construed as law officer advice. I am appearing here as a Minister in respect of the Bill. I would not want there to be any misunderstanding in the light of his reference.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
I am really interested in what the noble and learned Lord has just said. Could he explain what the difference is if he says something as a law officer or as a Minister? What import does that have? What difference does it make in the context of this House and in the legal context?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Lord. I would never say anything in this House as a law officer. It is my role to give advice to the Government in my role as a law officer, but I do not speak in this Chamber in that role. I just wanted to make that clear. The other difference can be found in the list of ministerial salaries.
Clause 2 is not broadly drawn for the reason that all this legislation needs saving—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, with reference to Clause 14(6). It is broadly drawn for two important reasons. First, any deficiencies that might arise within this domestic legislation upon our withdrawal can be corrected by the Bill powers under Clause 7. I appreciate that there are noble Lords who will want to address the scope of those powers under Clause 7 when we come to it, but that is the purpose of drawing Clause 2 in this way. During the period in which we have been an EU member state, we have brought into our domestic law a great deal of EU law, and not just expressed as EU-derived law in the form of the implementation of directives or the direct effect of regulations. We have already had reference to the scope of, for example, the Equalities Act; there is also the health and safety at work legislation. These are areas in which we know we find EU-derived legislation. It is therefore important that we bring all that together in order that it can be subject to the regulatory processes in Clause 7, subject of course to the debate that will take place with regard to the scope of the powers in that clause.
The second, rather more important, reason for treating all this legislation as part of retained EU law—I emphasise the connection between EU-derived legislation and what is defined as “retained EU law” for the purposes of the Bill—is that we have to ensure that retained EU law will continue to be interpreted consistently by our courts under Clause 6 of the Bill. This, I apprehend, is why the Bingham Centre, for example, said, while addressing the question of the scope of Clause 2, “If you’re going to narrow the scope, then you’re going to have to amend other parts of the Bill, in particular Clause 6”. That might be a different road to the same goal. All I would say at this stage is that the road we would take is to address this in the context of Clause 2 and the scope of that clause. In a sense, if Clause 2 were narrower, the powers under Clause 7 would be much broader. If we did not bring all of this into the definition of EU-derived legislation but wanted to be able to operate by way of regulations pursuant to Clause 7, there would be virtually no boundaries for the Clause 7 powers, whereas they are circumscribed by the definition that is brought into Clause 2 in the present form.
In my respectful submission, it would be odd if we were to take these categories out of Clause 2 and therefore find ourselves in a situation in which the construction of that law now differed from what it would have been while it remained to be interpreted by reference to the canons of construction that presently apply while we are a member of the EU. It is important that it should be part of retained EU law in order that we have consistency of interpretation. I do not take issue with the suggestion that an alternative route might be to narrow Clause 2 and then completely amend Clause 6, but that is simply not the route that the Government are taking here. I have sought to explain why we are taking this particular route at this time.
I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that Clause 2 is wide in its scope, but for a legitimate purpose. As I said, we will come in due course to address the question of whether and to what extent Clause 7 should complement those provisions with regard to retained EU law. In those circumstances, and emphasising again that we are listening to various considerations about how Clause 2 is formulated, I hope that noble Lords will see fit not to press their amendments. I am obliged.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
I seek clarification from the noble and learned Lord. As I understand it, the words “so far as”, are intended to give Clause 2 limited range. Is this a useful touchstone, in so far as without the provisions we would have failed to implement our obligations under EU law? As I understand it, paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) address aspects of our domestic legislation that are designed to give effect, as they had to, to EU law, but only in so far as they are achieving that objective does Clause 2 have any application. Is that right?
Lord Keen of Elie
That is indeed my reading. The noble Baroness alluded to this earlier in her contribution. That is why I sought to emphasise the term “EU-derived” domestic legislation. It is the derivation of that aspect of a particular Act which is to be brought within the ambit of retained EU law for these purposes.
Lord Pannick
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to what has been a valuable debate, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, in whatever capacity he was speaking to the House. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, emphasised the need for legal certainty not just in this clause but throughout the Bill, even though that harms the interests of the legal profession. I should have declared my interest as a barrister who may benefit from legal uncertainty. A number of barristers are present in Committee: the noble Lords, Lord Faulks, Lord Carlile and Lord Thomas of Gresford. There may be others, all of us no doubt thinking that this is the reverse of Thomas Erskine’s comment when he was asked how he had the courage to stand up in the court of Lord Mansfield. He replied that he thought of his children pulling at his robe and begging him, “Now, father, is the time to get us bread”.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, said that Clause 2 applies only to those sections of the Equality Act, for example, which were enacted for a specified EU purpose or have a relevant EU law connection. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, gave an explanation of that, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, agreed with that approach. That is very helpful in limiting the scope of Clause 2. However, it raises a problem, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, alluded. If Clause 2 applies only in relation to those parts of the statute which were enacted for a relevant EU purpose, there is still a problem of legal certainty, because there will be disputes as to which parts of the Equality Act—or other legislation—satisfy those criteria. I must say that the criteria in Clause 2 are far from clear. They operate by reference to the purpose of the legislation or whether the legislation relates to EU material. So there may still be a problem here.
I have two suggestions for the noble and learned Lord. First, if as he said, and I entirely accept what he said, Clause 2 is intended to apply only to those parts of the enactment—the Equality Act, or whichever Act—that are linked to EU law or have an EU purpose, the Government might wish to bring forward an amendment to Clause 2 on Report to make that clear on the face of the Bill. The second suggestion is that the noble and learned Lord might wish to consider whether any further clarity can be provided as to how the courts are supposed to apply this section-by-section approach and identify the purpose of the relevant section or whether it relates to EU law.
I noted the very helpful comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, on the status of retained EU law and on the supremacy of retained EU law. As he said, we will come to those matters next week, and there are amendments addressing them. I associate myself with the comments of the noble and learned Lord on the valuable contributions by Professor Paul Craig of the University of Oxford.
This has been a helpful debate in illuminating the Government’s intention. I will reflect, and I am sure the Constitution Committee will want to reflect, on what the Minister has said and on the other contributions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, the amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes, Lord Adonis and Lord Dykes. This is very much a probing amendment and I do not intend to detain the Committee long, as the issues are quite clear.
Clause 2 refers to EU-derived domestic legislation that has,
“effect in domestic law on and after exit day”,
and then goes on to explain what EU-derived domestic legislation means. If we then fast forward to Clause 14, we see that an enactment,
“means an enactment whenever passed or made”.
We are trying to get some certainty into what is meant by that—and I shall come on more specifically to enactments of the Scottish Parliament.
We are seeking to probe what is intended by this. For example, if an enactment has been made but the commencement of a particular provision is not until a date post exit day, what is the status of that? Is it intended to refer only to those enactments when an Act has been made but there has been a commencement before exit day?
Let us look specifically at Acts of the Scottish Parliament—Acts of the Welsh Assembly may well come into a similar category. Paragraph 100 of the Explanatory Notes, which refers to similar phraseology in Clause 5, states that,
“an Act is passed when it receives Royal Assent”.
The Scotland Act 1998, Section 28(2) states:
“Proposed Acts of the Scottish Parliament shall be known as Bills; and a Bill shall become an Act of the Scottish Parliament when it has been passed by the Parliament and has received Royal Assent”.
So there are two stages—passed by the Parliament and then receiving Royal Assent. Amendment 342, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, seeks to give clarity that this will be an enactment when it has received Royal Assent.
There is an argument that it should be an enactment when it is passed by the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. I took the view that it was preferable to make it after Royal Assent because there are some reasons why between being passed by the Scottish Parliament and receiving Royal Assent it could be derailed. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, as Advocate-General for Scotland will know only too well, in whichever capacity he is appearing at the Dispatch Box, he has powers under Section 33 of the Scotland Act to refer to the Supreme Court a Bill or any provision of a Bill which he believes may not be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. He has to do that within four weeks of a Bill being passed by the Scottish Parliament, and then it would be a matter for the Supreme Court as to how long it took. So you may have an enactment, or a piece of legislation—let us put it neutrally like that— which has actually been passed but may go to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court may strike it down, so it may never actually become law. That is why I took the view that, in trying to determine when an enactment becomes an enactment, it should be in the case of Acts of the Scottish Parliament when it receives Royal Assent.
To some extent this is academic. If you were to challenge me and ask me to give an example, I probably could not—but I am sufficiently acquainted over many years with the laws of unintended consequences to know that something will happen. You can bet your life that this issue could well come up and, rather than have the matter taken through the courts, it would be preferable, for certainty purposes, to put in the Bill when an enactment of the Scottish Parliament actually becomes an Act. The preference would be for when it receives Royal Assent.
This is a probing amendment but, if it is the noble and learned Lord who replies, I hope that he will accept that there is an issue here. The wording of our amendments may not be the ones that the Government would prefer, but perhaps he will accept that there is an issue here and the Government will bring forward their own amendment to clarify the point so that, at some future date, we do not have a situation where our learned friends at the Scottish Bar make lots of money out of disputing this, and we can resolve this. It is not a major point but it is one that merits clarity, and I hope that we can get a positive response to these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I am really grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, himself a former Advocate-General, for moving this amendment. In the light of what he said, all I can say is that I agree with his every word.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord not only for explaining the amendment but for their endorsement of it.
In responding to Amendments 16, 17 and 342, I start by reaffirming our view that Clause 2 is an essential provision for providing certainty and continuity regarding our law after exit day. I think that that is plain to all noble Lords. I shall then say a little more about why Clause 2 must stand part of the Bill. This clause, along with Clauses 3 and 4, delivers one of the core purposes of this Bill: maximising certainty for individuals and businesses when we leave the EU by ensuring that, so far as is practical, the laws that we have now will continue to apply. In that respect, Clause 2 preserves the domestic law that we have made to implement our EU obligations; we have touched on that already.
More particularly, on the point raised by the noble and learned Lord in this regard, Amendment 342 seeks to clarify that Acts of the Scottish Parliament are included within the clause only if they have received Royal Assent before exit day. I suspect that Amendment 16 also seeks to provide clarity on that same point. I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify any uncertainty that there may be here. Clause 2(2) states that,
“‘EU-derived domestic legislation’ means any enactment”
that is described in that subsection. Clause 14 defines the term “enactment” to include an enactment contained in an Act of the Scottish Parliament. An Act of the Scottish Parliament must have received Royal Assent; until that time, it is a Bill. Section 28(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 provides for this. So an Act of the Scottish Parliament that has only been passed and not received Royal Assent does not fall within this definition, and would not be categorised as EU-derived domestic legislation for the purposes of this Bill. I believe that the noble and learned Lord rather suspected that this might be the case; his concern seemed to be one of certainty as regards the drafting.
The same applies in relation to Acts of the UK Parliament. The reference to “passed” in Clause 2(2)(b) is therefore a reference to the purpose for which the enactment was passed, not whether it was passed. In that context, I venture to suggest that Amendments 16 and 342 are unnecessary.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. He does get my point that it is for clarity; in Section 28 of the Scotland Act, there is a distinction made between being passed and Royal Assent. It is the word “passed” that appears in Clause 14(1) and the noble and learned Lord knows as well as anyone that, when statute uses the same word, it may—not unreasonably—have the same interpretation. Yet, a Bill “passed” by the Scottish Parliament is not the same as “enacted”. Simply, does it really go to the heart of this Bill that the Government could not bring forward an amendment just to make it clear beyond doubt and, therefore, not allow unnecessary litigation at some stage in the future? Because you can bet your life that something will come up when someone finds some clever point.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I do not have any red lines so far as Clause 2 is concerned in this context. It appears to me that if there is concern about a lack of certainty, we can take that into consideration, and we will do so in time for Report. I do not indicate that we will bring forward any amendment in regard to this; it seems to me, as the noble and learned Lord will appreciate, that context is everything. We have to read the provision and the use of “passed” in Clause 14 in the context of what is said in Clause 2(2), but I hear what he says. I am not seeking to strike it down, as it were, at this stage; I am merely seeking to explain the approach that we have taken to this issue and why we consider that, on the face of it, Amendments 16 and 342 are unnecessary.
Amendment 17 seeks to mirror the language of Clause 3 in terms of the cut-off point for inclusion within the scope of the clause. Clause 2 of course works in conjunction with Clause 3, which converts direct EU legislation into domestic law. Both clauses take a snapshot of the law that is in place immediately before exit day. EU-derived domestic law will fall into the scope of Clause 2 if it has been enacted before exit day—that is, if it can be said to be on the statute book at that time. There is of course a different test employed for direct EU legislation to be retained under Clause 3, because direct EU legislation must be operative within UK law “immediately before exit day”, as defined in Clause 3(3). That is why there is a distinction between the two clauses; they serve distinct purposes.
As I say, we are listening and we will consider further the point made by the noble and learned Lord and by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. Having given an explanation of the Government’s position, I hope that, at this stage, they will see fit to withdraw or not move these amendments.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response and his willingness to look at this and take on board the comments made. A simple amendment could be made that in no way detracts from the purpose of this Bill; if anything, it would add to that purpose in terms of legal certainty. Using the word “passed”, which, from what the noble and learned Lord said, has a different meaning in two Acts, is not helpful. I do not think the amendment in any way departs from or mitigates what the Bill seeks to achieve and I therefore strongly encourage the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues to bring forward a simple amendment to provide legal certainty. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I do not intend to speak to whether Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill.
“Status of EU directives adopted, but not implemented, before exit day
(1) EU directives adopted by the EU before exit day remain binding, as if the United Kingdom had not left the EU.(2) In implementing any EU directive covered by subsection (1) after exit day, a Minister of the Crown may use any power set out in the European Communities Act 1972 as if that Act had not been repealed.(3) If, through implementing a directive under subsection (2), a situation arises which would be considered a deficiency had it arisen in retained EU law, a Minister of the Crown may use any of the powers set out in section 7 of this Act to remedy that situation as if that directive had been implemented before exit day.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak to Amendment 18 in my name before the Committee this afternoon. I refer especially to page 24 of the Explanatory Notes, which states, in paragraph 76 on Clause 2(1):
“This will include legislation that has been passed or made but is not yet in force”.
The reason for my introducing and speaking to this probing amendment—I recognise, as Ministers have said previously, that this is a facilitating Bill—arises from the debate at Second Reading, where it was identified that a number of directives are coming forward and commitments are being discussed and agreed in both the European Parliament and Council of Ministers that will be agreed but not transposed into British law before 29 March 2019. I am not sure whether my noble and learned friend the Advocate-General will reply to this amendment, but I hope that he will see it as a tidying-up exercise that is designed to be helpful.
The purpose of the amendment is to facilitate the transposing into UK law of directives that fall into this category which have been agreed by the relevant ministries in Brussels, and in co-decision between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, but have not yet been transposed into UK law. This follows on from the debate at Second Reading, where the issue was discussed in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, several noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, myself and a number of others. For example, the drinking water directive will be completed and will likely be transposed into UK law before we leave on 29 March 2019. It forms part of the price review that Ofwat is conducting, which will also conclude in 2019.
However, a further series of environmental directives does not fall into this category, including the so-called mother directive—the EU water framework directive—the bathing water directive and the waste water directive. Given the current timetable for the revisions being discussed in Brussels by the European institutions, it is quite likely that the directives will be agreed in the very month that we leave the European Union.
The purpose of this amendment is simply to clarify whether that would leave the door open to the directives being transposed at a later date, thereby guaranteeing the environmental protections that water companies themselves might wish to adopt, and which the Government and indeed all of us as consumers would wish to see implemented. So my question to the Minister is simply: is it the Government’s wish to facilitate the transposing of directives that are left in this halfway house into UK law after 29 March 2019, and in those circumstances would they welcome this amendment?
Lord Wigley (PC)
I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, which seeks to clarify the status of EU directives which will be “adopted, but not implemented” on the day we exit the EU. The Government have repeatedly stressed that the purpose of the Bill is to provide legal certainty. Whichever side of the Brexit debate we take, clearly, that is a worthy and necessary objective. That being so, I am truly baffled that in this instance the Bill totally fails to give that clarity. Everyone affected or potentially affected by EU legislation that has been adopted but not implemented needs to have absolute certainty as to where they stand.
Amendment 18, if passed, would allow Ministers to treat EU directives adopted before exit day to stand, for those purposes, as if the UK had not left the EU. I understand from a House of Commons briefing that no fewer than 23 directives have already been published with implementation deadlines which fall after 29 March 2019. Several of these would enhance the lives of UK citizens. For example, one is aimed at strengthening restrictions on firearms, which are currently permitted to move freely within the European single market. If the Bill stands unamended, can the Minister clarify whether firearms will be controlled when they cross the north-south border in Ireland, for example? Another such directive aims at limiting the exposure of employees to dangerous substances in the workplace, such as carcinogens and mutagens. I will not elaborate but clearly there is an arguable case for saying that such safeguards should be part of UK law. Even more so, there is a crying imperative that people know where they stand on such matters.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I am doubtful about this amendment for two reasons. The first is that the whole purpose of the Bill is to ensure that a snapshot of our obligations under EU law is transposed into domestic law as at exit day. If, as the amendment suggests, retained EU law contains the directives which are not yet in force, the purpose of the Bill will not be accomplished—something more will be read into EU law. However, it is not simply a technical matter; it is also a question of uncertainty. If the amendment is included in the Bill, one will not know at exit day the scope of retained EU law, as that will depend on what happens in Brussels thereafter. A directive which has been adopted but has not yet come into force might be amended before it comes into force, or it might never come into force. Therefore, I am very doubtful that legal certainty is accomplished by this amendment or that it is consistent with the objectives of the Bill. I entirely understand that it may be desirable to include within English law matters of this sort but it is certainly not consistent with the objects of the Bill.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I might check that, in interpreting the clause as it now stands, it is not possible for there to be a freeze on implementation by a particular exit day, whereby Ministers can cherry-pick the pieces of legislation they want to take through. That was not the intention. Can the Minister comment on that possible consequence of the exit date?
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, for many of us, this is a seminar and we are hoping to learn quite a lot from noble and learned Lords in the course of the Committee proceedings. We are dealing with areas that certainly I have very little grip on. Perhaps I may probe the relationship between this issue and the transition agreement being negotiated in Brussels at the moment, because I do not understand it. As I understand the transition agreement, presumably we will commit to bringing these admirable pieces of legislation that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has referred to into our law. If the transition agreement requires that, does that mean that everything passed during the transition period will acquire the status that it would have had on 29 March 2019 and will all become retained law? How does the Bill deal with that point and the relationship to the transition agreement? I am sorry if this is all very ignorant but it seems to be a very relevant point.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. For those of us who are not lawyers and are uninitiated in the complexities of this law, what does “implemented” mean? As I understand it, once the Council of Ministers adopts a directive, it is then the responsibility, under the European Communities Act 1972, of member states to implement it. Presumably the question is: what duties lie on Her Majesty’s Government and Parliament to implement directives which have been adopted by the Council but which would, in the normal course of events, be implemented over a period that might or might not span beyond 29 March next year? I assume that that becomes a very important issue in the scenario that my noble friend Lord Liddle has just referred to, where, in the “implementation period”, the United Kingdom is undertaking to abide by the evolution of European law in the making of new directives over that period. I am not sure whether I should call him the non-Advocate-General for Scotland, but could the noble and learned Lord, in whichever capacity he is speaking to us this afternoon, give us a view on this matter?
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
My Lords, further to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, as I have said before, this Bill deals with a crash-out situation in which there is no transitional period. If there is a transitional period, a good deal of this will have to change or will require some alteration—the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. As far as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is concerned, once the directive is adopted, the member states are then given a particular period—generally two years—in which to implement it, and sometimes they are late in doing it. This Bill surely ought to deal with the two situations, including the one where the implementation date has passed, in which case we would perhaps be in a rather different situation from that which assumes that the implementation date has not yet arrived when we leave, and so a different answer might be given as to how you deal with this position.
Baroness Young of Old Scone
My Lords, I want to add to the voices of those who have said that there is a lack of clarity and point to a specific example that raises some questions: the circular economy package. We, along with our European colleagues, have been working on this since 2014 and it is due to be agreed shortly. There is legislation to amend six EU directives on resource use, all of which are incredibly important both domestically and internationally. That includes things such as the waste framework directive; the packaging and packaging waste directive, which has a big impact on the Government’s commitment on plastics; the landfill directive; and directives on end-of-life vehicles and batteries in electrical and electronic equipment, for example, all of which will be hugely germane to our potential export of motor vehicles and other electrical equipment. We will be approaching exit day with the package enshrined in EU law, but we will not have had time—nor indeed will many member states—to implement it.
For me, this package is important for a number of reasons. First, there are hugely important international commitments that we need this legislation to fulfil. Secondly, we have spent an awful lot of time on it and have been quite effective in making and shaping it to ensure that it fits with our requirements, as well as being effective for the environment. Thirdly, one assumes that we are going to keep a car industry going in this country, and I doubt that we can maintain our trade, or the levels of exchange of components for the automotive industry, across national boundaries if we do not adopt similar standards.
I am concerned about the “snapshot” mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I understand that it is required, but if that snapshot will leave us with a great need for this legislation to go forward but an inability to make it happen, then I must press the Minister on how he envisages that such a situation will be dealt with. It would have a poor effect not just on the environment but on our ability to trade.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my declaration of interests. I declare an interest in the question of waste and I would like to follow on from the noble Baroness.
I am inclined to follow the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in dealing with this amendment. My problem with the snapshot concept—although it is the concept—is that it is rather fuzzy at the edges. Unless we think carefully through this, we will find that if we leave the European Union we may have signed up to obligations which we have not had time to carry through but which we intended to carry through. We may also sign up to obligations which, perhaps in retrospect we did not intend to carry through. However, that is unlikely. We may also have signed up to obligations where we had not worked out how we were going to carry them through. So there is bound to be uncertainty at this stage.
I emphasise what the noble Baroness has said: we have worked extremely hard across the board on a number of packages, particularly those concerned with the environment. Her Majesty’s Government have been enthusiastic about most of the elements that that contains. The noble and learned Lord who has replied to the previous two debates has been extremely helpful, not only in explaining to the House where the Government are but in giving us real hope that they will look carefully at the real questions we have raised. It is not a question of whether or not you are in favour of Brexit but of how we get this right. As the Minister has been kind and generous in that way, I hope he will help us to see what we should do. I say to my noble and learned friend that I do not think we should do this, but it is clearly something we have got to do if people are to know where they will stand.
Lord Pannick
The noble Lord is undoubtedly right that there will be instruments in Brussels to which we have contributed and which we would wish to incorporate into domestic law. This Bill does not prevent that. It is designed to provide the best snapshot possible, and Parliament is perfectly entitled to—and no doubt will—adopt many other later instruments and incorporate them in appropriate form into domestic legislation.
Lord Deben
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on that. However, the problem comes when an agreement is in Brussels and has been agreed by us but the implementation date comes later. That is the part I am particularly concerned with.
I am also concerned to take the opportunity to say to my noble and learned friend that one of the ways in which this Bill can be more readily acceptable is for the Government to be clear with the House. If there were such circumstances, would the Government be prepared to say now that they would seek to implement those things to which they had signed up in advance in a form they would choose? That is not an unreasonable thing to ask the Government to do. Otherwise we will go through this period—it seems as though it will go almost to the end before we know what is going to happen—of negotiating, discussing, agreeing and indeed voting on some of these matters, and no one will know whether, having voted for them, we were then willing to accept them into our own system and law and implement them, having signed up to them.
It would be helpful for all of us who are trying to work these things out and trying to run businesses to remove that uncertainty by committing the Government to say that they will implement what they have signed up to, in a form which they may choose, but under British law.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendment and declare my interest as being employed by Cambridge University; essentially my day job is teaching European politics. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, have pointed out, this amendment fills a gap in the proposed legislation, although I understand that it is probing in nature. At present, Clause 2 talks about saving EU-derived domestic legislation—that part is clear—while Clause 3 looks at incorporating direct EU legislation. However, the gap lies in EU legislation which has been agreed or adopted, and here I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
If the legislation has already been adopted by the European Union it will not then be amended, so the issue is that if the 28, including the United Kingdom, have already agreed legislation but the UK has not yet transposed it, that is legislation which we would have expected to be in place at the snapshot point of 29 March 2019. If the legislation has not been transposed by then, there is a question of where we are on 30 March 2019. If, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, said, it is simply a question of adopting things later, that is one thing for a crash-out Brexit, but if there is going to be a transition period and we are supposed to be absolutely at one with the EU 27 on the day we leave, surely that includes legislation that has been adopted but which we have not yet transposed and which we therefore have a duty to transpose.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, it is fairly clear that this Bill already has enough to do in trying to deal with the situation of withdrawal, and it cannot be right that it should take account of any transition period or implementation period, whatever you like to call it, until we know a good deal more about it than I do at the moment. That ignorance is possibly shared to some extent by other noble Lords.
On this point, the true position is that once a directive has been adopted by the European Union with a period for implementation by a member state, the obligation on that member state is to bring it into law in its own domestic arrangements within the period stated. The directive therefore does not become part of the domestic law of that member state until its implementation before or by that date. This Bill is intended to deal with the state of the law on the day of our withdrawal and therefore strictly speaking such directives, however desirable they may be, are not really part of our domestic law any more than an Act which has been passed but not commenced is part of our domestic law. I have a fair amount of experience of that happening.
The situation is clear so far as what this Bill should do, but so far as what my noble friend Lord Deben wants, that is another matter. It is perfectly reasonable that the Government should have a policy on that if they want it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
Is my noble and learned friend saying that the United Kingdom Government should absent themselves from all legislation and all the directives that are being discussed, whether it is the EU circular waste package or the water framework directive? I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, referred to 23 directives—I am most familiar with the environmental ones—which fall into the very narrow category where there is every expectation that the UK Government are prepared to sign up to the commitments. However, because the Prime Minister has set an arbitrary date for us to leave, we will not be in a position to implement them. Is it the case that even if we agree them in March 2019 and it is the wish of the Government to implement them, because of the arbitrary date, we will not be in a position to transpose them?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
The problem about the arbitrary date is that it is rather an important one because it is when we will cease to be liable to obligations under EU law unless they are made part of our law by this Bill. The problem is that a directive which has been adopted but not yet put into effect, but with the obligation to put it into effect still running, could in some cases last for as long as two years. That would greatly alter the clarity of the Bill in the meantime. If the Government want to implement one of them there is absolutely no reason why they should not. They will have plenty of legislative power and so long as they can get parliamentary time they can do so. That is a matter of policy that my noble friend has referred to. It is a perfectly reasonable way of dealing with this sort of point.
Lord Deben
Does my noble and learned friend agree that my noble friend Lady McIntosh has raised an issue that probably should not be answered in this way, but provides a difficulty for the Government that would be overcome if they said, when they had agreed and supported a particular decision, that they would then carry it out in whatever way they thought was the most sensible? That means that we can go on discussing and not be left in some sort of oblivion.
Baroness Ludford
Before the noble and learned Lord answers that point, I add a further complication. Whether we agree to a directive or not, if it was adopted by qualified majority voting it would still be adopted with an obligation for the UK to implement it. That does not quite solve the issue. What is raised is surely a very valid issue. It may not strictly come within the definitions in the Bill, but there is still a legal obligation if a directive has been adopted at EU level, whether we agree to it or not.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
The legal obligation would cease on Brexit day. That is the situation. Unless something has been implemented by that time it is not strictly part of our law. On deciding what is to happen in the future, as far as I am concerned, there is enough to decide at the moment, but nothing will harm the Government if they give some indication of what they would do with instruments that have been adopted but not yet implemented, although, at the date of Brexit, we were obliged to adopt them on some future date.
Lord Adonis
Does the noble and learned Lord think that there is a distinction between those directives that we have agreed to where the implementation date is before or after 29 March 2019?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
If it is implemented before the 29th it is part of our law.
Lord Adonis
What if the obligation to implement them is before that date, but we have not fulfilled that obligation?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
The question does not arise if they have not been adopted before. The amendment deals only with directives that have been adopted before Brexit day and, even if they are not part of our law, whether they should be admitted, which the Bill could do. The problem is that that might delay the finalisation of this as an Act in force for some considerable time.
Baroness Young of Old Scone
I would like some technical clarification on this. My understanding of the example I gave is that Europe will change the standards for packaging and packaging waste, the landfill directive, end-of-life vehicles, batteries, and electrical and electronic equipment and the old standards will no longer hold, except in Britain. Quite frankly, I am not sure that that is a viable way forward. We will continue to apply standards that everyone else has abandoned immediately on exit day if we do not take forward the implementation of that directive.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I am beginning to find myself answering questions that I should pass on to my noble and learned friend. So far as I am concerned, it is unlikely that all the member states, if they have plenty of time for implementation, will, except for us, have implemented them on exit day.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, I am still not quite convinced by the explanation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. Clearly, if a directive has not completed its legislative process by 29 March 2019, there is no question about it: whatever happens to it later on is nothing to do with us and it does not in any way enter English law. Equally, if a directive has been assumed into domestic law and been implemented, there is no doubt that it is part of English law. However, where a directive has completed its legislative process, has been implemented into English law in the normal way but has not come into force because it contains a provision under which it comes into force only at a certain date after 30 March, the English law—or, for that matter, the Scottish law—has already been altered and adopted the new provision. Those provisions enter into force at a certain date subsequent to 30 March but without any further change in the corpus of statute because the measure is already provided for. Surely, in those cases, that directive remains in force in English or Scottish law in the normal way. Even though it had not reached the point at which it would come into effect on 29 or 30 March, it would nevertheless be part of the corpus of law in all the union countries.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
If it has become part of our law, even if it is postponed, it is subject to this Bill. If it has not come into our law, it is not part of this Bill. I shall not answer any more questions.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
I would quite like to complicate matters a little further. It is unfortunate that the word “snapshot” was used, because, if we look at the way in which European legislation comes into force and effect, we see that it is a bit more like a movie in that it keeps on going. Certainly, we may well have implemented some things and they will then come into force, but it would not be on a single date beyond because lots of delegated Acts and implementing regulations would come in progressively over a period of time. I am curious as to what happens when we are straddling that. Will we then take the implementing regulations and delegated Acts on something that we have already adopted into our law, or will we make up those ourselves?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, says that he is confused about the transition; my worry is that the people on the Bench in front of him remain confused about what a transition period means—but let us put that to one side.
I want briefly to broaden the discussion to regulations—I know that the amendment refers to directives, but it is probing and there is an important issue here which Ministers may have heard. The clinical trials regulation was mentioned at Second Reading. Like many of the measures that we are discussing today, that would have been adopted but not implemented, either because it was complicated or it took a lot of work to get everyone lined up to it—so it would not have reached its implementation date by the time we left. It might well reach that date during the transitional period—which raises another question and, probably, another Bill. If it is a standstill only on measures that have come in by the day we leave, there will be important issues to address such as the clinical trial regulations and those others that we have heard about today. They will not count as retained law, leaving us reliant on regulations that rapidly become obsolete—those relating to cars I know less about, but certainly in respect of those relating to clinical trials it would end our ability to participate. All such regulations are about not just anonymity but the way data are held. It will happen very quickly: if we are not on the same basis as the rest of Europe, our ability to be involved in those could end quite promptly. That is obviously important to patients, but also to researchers and, indeed, the pharmaceutical industry.
I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, on 19 January and he replied very rapidly on 26 January. As we have heard today, he confirmed the Bill’s approach, which will bring over only regulations actually operative as we leave. That would exclude these clinical trial rules, for example, although we agreed them back in 2014. The letter that the noble Lord kindly wrote to me makes smoothing comments, if you like. It says, “Yes, we recognise the importance of close co-operation, we want UK patients to have access to innovative medicines, for which we need to be part of the same system, and we want the UK to be one of the best places to do science”. I turned over the page expecting the Lord Deben response, which would be to say what we are going to do about it. Unfortunately, at that point the letter stops. It says that we will discuss with the EU how to continue to co-operate in business trials but it fails to look at what will be needed, which is, I fear, a legislative process to make that happen.
Lord Deben
Will the noble Baroness be kind enough to make a distinction between these things? It seems to me that this is not a matter to discuss with the EU. The British Government could perfectly well say that where they have signed up to something already, they will in fact implement that. They could do this about regulations and directives if they wished to. They could do that in advance and would not have to say that they would have to discuss it with the European Union. That would help all of us and be an earnest of the Government’s good will.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I agree: the Committee will be pleased to know that, had the letter ended like that, I would not be on my feet today. These are important measures for our international co-operation, and if the Government would say, “Yes, this is something that we are willing to do”, that would take us forward. I hope that the noble and learned Lord may be able to give us that assurance as he responds.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I am obliged to all sides of the Committee for their contributions to this part of the debate, which began with an amendment concerning directives. I was not initially taken with the use of the word “fuzzy” by my noble friend Lord Deben but the term has begun to gain traction as the debate has continued. Let us try to be clear about one or two issues. The Bill seeks, for very clear reasons, to take a snapshot of EU law as it applies immediately before exit day. That is the cut-off point. Regulations emerging from the EU have direct effect on the domestic law of member states, so regulations that have taken direct effect by the exit date will be part of retained EU law. There is really no difficulty about that whatever.
Baroness Ludford
Nobody, I think, has questioned that. We are talking about directives.
Lord Keen of Elie
That is what we began talking about but the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for example, has referred to regulations. I will come on to address the point she made, but regulations have direct effect and if a regulation has direct effect by exit day it will form part of retained EU law. Directives have no direct effect in the domestic law of a member state. Directives have to be the subject of implementation and in that regard a transition period is given to member states for the implementation of a directive. There may be directives that have been adopted prior to the exit date which have a transitional period that will expire by the exit date specified in the Bill. In that event, the Government have indicated that they will seek to implement those directives that require implementation by a transitional date before the exit date. Therefore, they will become part of retained EU law because they will have been implemented in our domestic law.
Lord Pannick
Perhaps I might suggest to the Minister, and ask him to confirm, that there will also be directives that have passed their implementation date and have not yet been implemented in domestic law, but are sufficiently clear and precise that they confer individual rights under EU law and, therefore, to that extent they will be part of retained EU law.
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect, that is a slightly different point. First, the Government are committed to implementing in domestic law those directives which have a transition period that expires before the exit date. There are, however, circumstances in which a directive may have direct effect in a question between an individual and the state but has not been implemented in domestic law. That is subject to a determination by the Court of Justice of the European Union or, indeed, by our own courts. In circumstances where a directive has not been implemented by the end of the transition period and has direct effect as determined by the courts of justice, and that has been determined prior to the exit date, that will be brought into domestic law by way of Clause 4. That is the point of Clause 4 in that context.
Where a directive has been adopted before the exit date but has an implementation period which expires after the exit date, and has not been implemented in domestic law by the exit date, that will not form part of our domestic law and therefore it will not form part of EU retained law for the purposes of the Bill.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
Both my noble and learned friend the Minister and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay have indicated that the Government could choose to implement directives falling into that category if they wished to do so. My question to the Government is: what is the legal basis for doing so? My understanding is that there is not a legal basis at the moment, which is why I tabled this amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie
There is no legal basis for doing so. With great respect to my noble friend, her amendment would not actually provide one; that is perhaps an aside. The point is more central than that: directives that have been adopted but not implemented by the exit date, and which have a transition period that goes beyond the exit date, are not part of domestic law, and for the purposes of the Bill they will not become part of domestic law or EU retained law. Therefore, we will not be taking them into our domestic law by way of an implementation that takes place after the exit date.
Lord Wigley
Following this is fairly complicated, is it not? To add to that complication, what will be the position on devolved matters—such as environmental matters, which are to a very large extent devolved—where the implementation may be on different dates in different devolved regimes?
Lord Keen of Elie
We have to be clear here about the distinction between implementation and application. Essentially, there is only one date for implementation. That is when we implement the directive into our domestic law. There may be situations—and if I misunderstand the noble Lord’s question, I am sure he will tell me—in which there is a directive, or indeed a regulation, that is adopted into domestic law but which applies only at a date after the exit date. There are examples of regulations as well, where we accept that the regulation has come into domestic law but its actual operation is deferred, perhaps until 2020. That regulation or that provision will form part of our domestic law at the exit date, even though the operative provisions come into force only after the exit date.
Lord Wigley
I do not want to overlabour this point, and perhaps it is one that the Minister could look at between now and Report in case there is any validity in what I am raising, but since it is by instruments that are passed in the National Assembly for Wales or in the Scottish Parliament that some of these will be put into force, there will quite likely be different dates for those purposes, and that could have a material effect. Some may fall one side and others the other side of 29 March 2019.
Lord Keen of Elie
If I understand the noble Lord’s point, he is suggesting that we may have a situation in which a directive that has been adopted is implemented in England or in Wales or in Scotland but on different dates.
Lord Wigley
Yes, indeed, or it may have failed to have been implemented within the timeframe in one area and therefore does not get implemented but does get implemented in another area.
Lord Keen of Elie
In that event, it will be by reference to the exit date that we determine whether or not it forms part of the domestic law.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
I wonder if the Minister could deal with one category which I do not think he has dealt with yet; that is, a directive that is adopted before the exit date but whose implementation date is after the exit date but within the standstill period which the Government are currently negotiating in Brussels—and which, it is no secret, will involve the Government accepting that all the obligations of European law will continue to apply during that period.
Lord Keen of Elie
The implementation period is a wholly distinct issue from what we have to address in the context of the Bill. The implementation period has yet to be negotiated. The outcome of that implementation negotiation has yet to be determined. In the event that we agree an implementation period, clearly there will have to be further statutory provision—a further Bill—addressing our rights and obligations during that implementation period, and it may be that that further Bill will amend this Bill with regard to the effect of the exit date on further EU legislation, whether in the form of regulations or directives, after 29 March 2019. But that is not an issue for this Bill. This Bill is dealing with the situation at exit, subject to the fact that, if there is a negotiation, things may change.
Lord Adonis
For those of us who have not been following the minutiae of the Government’s announcements, can the Minister say that it is an absolute commitment on the part of the Government that directives that have been adopted and for which the implementation date falls before 29 March next year will be implemented?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, my understanding is that the Government are determined, and have the present intention, to implement directives that have been adopted and which have an implementation period that expires before the exit date. I cannot give an absolute assurance to that extent but that has been and continues to be the Government’s position. Indeed, to put it another way, we will continue to perform our obligations as a member of the EU, as we are bound to do by the treaty provisions. One of our obligations is to implement directives that have been adopted in Europe within the implementation period or by the transition date that is set out.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I express my gratitude and admiration for the way that the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Keen of Elie, are bringing lustre to the Scottish Bar in the way that they are answering all these questions so brilliantly and with such trouble. My inquiry relates to a directive requiring implementation that has not been implemented, where there are certain rights that would be directly enforceable by an individual and there is no court case that says that. Can you go to court afterwards and say, “We can enforce that because there was a directive prior to the date of exit”? No court has said that it was directly enforceable; you could argue subsequently that if you win, you win—this would be in the domestic courts—and can say it is enforceable. Would that be covered?
Lord Keen of Elie
No, that would not be covered, because in those circumstances there would have been no crystallisation of the direct right prior to the exit date. That is our position with regard to that point—but I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his acknowledgment that we are answering questions as they are posed. I was rather hoping that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern might actually come forward to the Front Bench and allow me to retire to the second tier in order that this matter could be dealt with even more cogently than I am able to do.
I return for just a moment to the actual amendment. I have sought to emphasise—clearly, I hope—why the amendment is not appropriate in the present context. It would simply take away from one of the principal purposes of the Bill, which is to determine that there is an exit date—a cut-off point—when we will determine the scope of our own domestic law. I can quite understand the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about emerging provisions in the EU that have been worked on for many years and that would bring about appropriate and attractive standards for various aspects of our life in the United Kingdom—but, of course, it would be perfectly open to this Parliament to decide, in light of what has already been agreed in Europe, that it would be appropriate to have these standards in our domestic law, and we will have the means to do that. It is just that they will not form part of retained EU law for the purposes of this Bill.
On the noble Baroness’s amendment, I respectfully suggest that the mechanism that she has put forward—that you somehow retain the ECA for some purpose after it has been repealed—simply would not work. I appreciate that this is Committee, and we are actually looking at the underlying purpose of the proposed amendment and therefore have to consider whether we find that attractive and then look for a way to make it work. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to notice that the actual mechanism proposed in the amendment would not work.
I hope that I have addressed most of the points raised by noble Lords, but I agree with the observations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, with regard to what this Bill is attempting to achieve. It is attempting to achieve certainty as to the scope of our domestic law at exit date. That is its purpose, and we must keep that in mind.
Baroness Ludford
Will the Minister take another look at Clause 4(2)(b), which is a double negative? It talks about rights that are,
“not of a kind recognised”,
by the European Court or any UK court. When he was talking earlier about a directive that had direct effect, I think I recall him saying that it would have had to be recognised by a court decision as having direct effect—but the wording of Clause 4(2)(b) suggests a direct effect if it is “of a kind” that has been recognised by the European Court or a UK court. He might not be able to reply immediately but perhaps, when we come to Clause 4, he could look back at what he said today on directives with direct effect and be sure that there is a logical fitting together with Clause 4(2)(b).
Lord Keen of Elie
In my submission, it fits entirely with what is said in Clause 4(2)(b) and is consistent with that. It points to the necessity of there having been a recognition by the European Court or a court or tribunal in the United Kingdom for those purposes. It may be that the noble Baroness will want to take issue in due course with the use of the word “kind”, and no doubt we will come to that when we consider amendments to Clause 4.
Lord Pannick
This is the precise subject of Amendment 26, which arises out of a recommendation from the Constitution Committee. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, is interested in this subject, we are going to debate it under Amendment 26.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Lord, but we have ranged rather widely in the context of the present debate—or, to use my noble friend Lord Deben’s term, we have got a little bit fuzzy as regards the precise terms of the amendment. I hope that, in light of the explanations that I have sought to give, including the reference to regulations and the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, to which we will return in due course, the noble Baroness will see fit to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I am grateful to all those who have spoken in this debate. I had not realised that we were going to have such a full debate, but it shows the importance of the issue that has been raised in Amendment 18. With regard to fuzzy wording, I am sure that my noble and learned friend Lord Keen, like myself, remembers a key distinction. I was one of the first law students to do the compulsory six-month constitutional law course on EU law, in which we learned straight off that a regulation is directly applicable and does not require any other implementation, whereas a directive is given direct effect only through implementation.
I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Liddle, who managed to put more flesh on the bones and give much greater clarification to what I was hoping to say. I am a little concerned by the Minister recognising that there is no legal basis for what we are seeking to do here—and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern as well. I suggest, mindful of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that this amendment has established that a legal basis is required, and if this is not the wording that would give that legal basis, I would request that the Government come forward by Report with the legal basis in the form of an amendment on which the House could agree. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I cannot call Amendment 20A, as it is an amendment to Amendment 20.
“Future treatment of retained EU law
(1) Following the day on which this Act is passed, no modification may be made to retained EU law except by primary legislation, or by subordinate legislation made under this Act insofar as this subordinate legislation meets the requirements in subsections (2) to (6).(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a schedule listing technical provisions of retained EU law that may be amended by subordinate legislation.(3) Subordinate legislation to which subsection (2) applies must be subject to an enhanced scrutiny procedure, to be established by regulations made by the Secretary of State. (4) Regulations under subsections (2) and (3) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(5) The enhanced scrutiny procedure provided for by subsection (3) must include a period of consultation with the public and relevant stakeholders.(6) Regulations under this section may be used only to modify provisions of retained EU law listed in any schedule made under subsection (2) to the extent that such modification will not limit the scope of or weaken—(a) employment entitlements, rights and protection,(b) equality entitlements, rights and protection,(c) health and safety entitlements, rights and protection,(d) consumer standards, or(e) environmental standards and protection.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, this amendment has support from across the House: it is supported by the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, who will be speaking after me. The objective of the amendment is pretty clear. It is to ensure that no reduction in rights which are being brought over can then take place without primary legislation. It is possible that there is a better way of achieving this; I am personally attracted by the proposals of the Constitution Committee, some bits of which we discussed earlier and some bits we will come to at another time.
It is worth rehearsing why we see the need for such protection for these standards. We are talking about protections and rights that cover—in these amendments —employment, equality, health and safety, consumer rights and the environment.
When we are in the EU, although regulations, for example, are not primary legislation, they are effectively ring-fenced or secured via our membership, which means that a Government cannot suddenly sweep in and sweep them away. However, once brought into domestic law under the Bill as it stands, they could be amended and, indeed, weakened by secondary legislation without consultation, when stakeholders can have their say, and without the Government having to take a Bill through Parliament where the scrutiny that takes place, which we are seeing now, allows MPs and Peers to interrogate the rationale, costs and benefits of any change.
Now we might assume that as we have worked with and lived with these rules for some time, no one would want to take away these established rights and protections, but there is the possibility that a deregulation-obsessed Government might want that to happen. We have already quoted Liam Fox thinking protections make it too difficult to fire staff, and that:
“Political objections must be overridden”,
to deregulate the labour market. We have heard Michael Gove say,
“we now have the potential to amend or even if necessary rescind”—
—yes, he said “to if necessary rescind”, splitting an infinitive—employment protections. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who is not in his place, in the name of “speeding up growth”, thought to,
“scrap the working time directive, the agency workers’ directive, the pregnant workers’ directive”.
Indeed, the Initiative for Free Trade, founded by that Minister’s friend, Daniel Hannan MEP, favours tearing up the EU’s precautionary principle under which traders have to prove something is safe before it is sold—a key consumer protection.
Meanwhile, the Foreign Secretary, from whom the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, sensibly distanced himself yesterday, described workers’ rights from the EU as “back-breaking”, a particularly inept description since most of these protections are for the health of workers, including of their backs.
Another point that Boris Johnson noted, quite rightly, is that we are a nation of inventors, designers, scientists, architects, lawyers and insurers, but it is exactly those architects, scientists, designers and insurers, as well as the CBI and the British Chambers of Commerce, who have been filling up my email, urging us to remain in a customs union with its relevant regulation. The very businesses which already operate such rules seem very content to keep them, but the rules are at risk as they could be amended by secondary legislation. Similarly, the TUPE regulations, which protect the jobs, pay and conditions of workers who have been affected by outsourcing, could be at risk. The TUC has highlighted that TUPE rights tend to protect workers such as cleaners, one in six of whom is BME. Without those protections they could be dismissed or be placed on zero-hours contracts rather than in permanent, secure jobs. The TUC heard rumours that Ministers want to scrap the working time directive and fears it could be just the start and that other protections could similarly go.
As we might expect, it is not just the TUC and unions representing workers which have these concerns. There is widespread public support for EU-derived consumer, employment and environmental regulations and minimal appetite for deregulation. Three-quarters of the public support retaining or strengthening the working time directive and nearly three-quarters want to keep vehicle emissions rules. Indeed, an Opinium survey for the IPPR found,
“little to no appetite among the public for reducing or removing EU standards”.
Interestingly, that feeling was shared by leave voters and remainers, with only 5% of either remainers or leavers supporting any loosening of consumer cancellation rights, for example. Furthermore, the survey found strong support for higher standards in certain areas, particularly environmental and financial regulation. So the unions are not clamouring for deregulation and nor are the public or the public sector. I am sure other noble Lords’ emails show that the rights that we are bringing over in this Bill should not be weakened.
The British Medical Association, along with 12 royal colleges and unions, wrote to the Prime Minister in December calling on her to stand firm against any Brexiteers who want to scrap European laws, warning of risks to patient safety and arguing that even with current EU regulations,
“fatigue caused by excessive overwork remains an occupational hazard for many staff across the NHS”.
The Royal College of Nursing warns that,
“removing or weakening working time regulations would put patients at serious risk.”
Such protections are clearly supported by those who know them and work with them, but they are not just good in themselves: they matter for trade. Indeed, non-tariff barriers are a bigger hurdle to trade than are, for example, customs duties. So even if the Government are not worried about patient safety or workers’ rights—and I am sure they are—they should listen to industry, on whose success our economy depends. The CBI has stressed:
“Frictionless trade with the EU is businesses’ number 1 priority”,
and:
“A hard-headed look at the economic evidence ... shows that some form of a customs union is necessary to ensure frictionless-trade and no hardening of the Irish border”.
The British Chambers of Commerce stresses the importance of businesses getting,
“their goods across borders as quickly as possible”,
and getting things across borders means not checking for different regulations. The regulations we are bringing over under this Bill will be the ones that operate in the rest of the EU, and so long as we continue with them, our trade with the EU will be easy to maintain.
The chief executive of ADS, which represents companies in aerospace, defence and security, stresses the same issue and says that the freedom to move with the same regulations is the solution that those businesses want after Brexit. Noble Lords will know that the farming industry and the NFU strongly stress that the only way for frictionless trade in the food sector is with the same regulations—the regulations that we are bringing over by the Bill.
We are content that bringing over those regulations is the aim of the Bill. They are about safety, workers’ rights and the environment but they are also about our future trade and competitiveness. This amendment seeks to ensure that having brought the regulations over it will not be possible for a Government to start playing with them by statutory instruments to weaken them after we have passed this Bill to bring them over. The Prime Minister said, I think in her response to the BMA and other bodies, that,
“it will be for Parliament and, where appropriate, the devolved legislatures to decide on future law”.
That is the commitment we are trying to put into the Bill: that it would be an Act of Parliament, not secondary legislation, that would amend what we are now putting into UK statute. We are seeking to protect standards, not privileges. I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment, at least in principle, if not the wording. I beg to move.
Lord Cashman
“( ) human rights protection.”
Lord Cashman (Lab)
This amendment is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Kennedy. I agree wholeheartedly with what has just been said by my noble friend Lady Hayter. It seems to me we need the protections on the listed exclusions not least because the Government are intent, following Monday evening, on not retaining the Charter of Fundamental Rights or the right of action on the general principles of EU law. My noble friend Lady Kennedy and I merely want to make the important and explicit amendment that “human rights protection” is included. I feel there is no need for me to say any more than that.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, on Amendment 21. I do not intend in my remarks to spend a lot of time with the actual list at the bottom of the amendment, because she put across very well the need to protect in particular certain things which do credit to this country and which will give us advantages in the future, whatever the status of this country is.
I certainly felt my optimism rising today as I heard the reactions of my noble and learned friend the Minister to the whole question of how EU retained law will be protected in future. He seemed to be suggesting at one point that there might be some sort of hybrid approach. I am not sure what that might result in, but in the meantime we are in a situation where, as I am sure noble Lords are aware, the law, however it is made, comes in various forms. It comes in various packages, some of which are packages of principle of law, while other parts of the packages are the levers or the actual technical means by which laws are implemented.
That is why the amendment specifically states that primary legislation should of course be the main means by which any modification could take place, but also that subordinate legislation would be appropriate in certain cases to deal with technical areas that are not appropriate for a primary approach. Indeed, it is very sensible that even subordinate legislation be dealt with in a manner that allows it to have the support and security afforded to the principal legislation itself. I think there are certain doubts—to say the least—about the list of retained EU law. We have had several debates today and previously about what is actually meant by retained EU law, and we need greater clarity as to precisely what components make up this category.
There was a debate in another place on a very similar area and amendment. It was a very strong debate, to which a considerable number of people contributed, and real concerns were expressed about the way in which retained EU law, however it is finally listed, could be supported. As I said, I will not spend any time on the main areas that have been listed, but the Government have given many assurances—which I welcome—that the main areas of retained law will be specially protected and that they regard them as terribly important. That is only being affected, in a negative sense, by remarks from legislators who in the main do not form part of our Government but who nevertheless have been making statements indicating that, almost with immediate effect from its arrival, the retained EU law will be either tampered with or destroyed. That has meant that a considerable number of people currently affected by the law are seriously worried about what might happen to those areas that are so important to our public and social life. The reasons for this amendment are to make sure that the Government are aware of the concerns and to ask them to do their best to put in place the security necessary to protect these areas on an ongoing basis. I support the amendment.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I too support Amendments 21 and 22, which would restrict the powers of Ministers to modify retained EU law by secondary legislation in the contexts that have been mentioned: employment rights, equality rights, health and safety, consumer standards, environmental standards and human rights. All of those are vital areas. It is important in considering these amendments to recognise the breadth of the secondary legislation powers that are being conferred on Ministers under the Bill—and not just by Clause 7, to which we will come next week or the week after. The point is made by the organisation ClientEarth in a helpful opinion, which I commend to the Committee, written by Pushpinder Saini QC. He draws attention—and I draw the attention of the Committee—to some provisions that are tucked away in Schedule 8 to the Bill, on page 55. Paragraph 3(1) refers to existing powers in legislation to make subordinate legislation. It says:
“Any power to make, confirm or approve subordinate legislation which was conferred before exit day is to be read, on or after exit day and so far as the context permits or requires, as being capable of being exercised to modify … any retained direct EU legislation”.
That is a remarkably broad power. On page 56, at paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 8, there is a similar power for any future power to make subordinate legislation. Of course, the word “modify” has a very broad meaning, because it is defined in Clause 14(1), on page 10, to include amending, repealing or revoking.
That gives context to the importance of these two amendments. Can the Minister confirm that this really is the Government’s intention? Schedule 8 does not have the two-year limitation period that Clause 7 has. Clause 7 applies only for two years, which is bad enough, but at least it is time-limited, whereas Schedule 8 is not. Is it really the Government’s intention to confer power on Ministers to repeal by secondary legislation—with all the difficulties that poses for adequate scrutiny by Parliament—any employment rights and any of the other important protections mentioned in Amendment 21 and 22 in so far as they are part of retained EU law, which as we have heard covers the Equality Act and many other Acts in so far as they derive from, or are linked to, EU law obligations?
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, the support of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, for the amendment will be welcome. It reflects what I have always thought was a considerable cross-party consensus in this country in favour of a reasonable amount of regulation. Of course there are fanatics. Professor Minford is a very good example of an intelligent man who believes if we got rid of all regulation it would be a very good thing, and he has made calculations of the economic benefits to the country if literally all regulations—health and safety, environment, consumer protection and employment protection and so on—were simply abolished. However, he is rightly regarded as a fanatic in his own profession and indeed in politics. There are a number of people on the right wing of the Conservative Party who have always been very close to that way of thinking, and it would be quite terrifying if the Government, under the camouflage of taking powers apparently needed to bring about Brexit, found themselves in possession of instruments that meant that without any real let or hindrance they could simply take an axe to the protective regulation that has emerged in this country over the decades.
All civilised countries have to have a reasonable amount of regulation in these fields or they very rapidly cease to be civilised. One of my great worries about leaving the EU is that we will probably end up with more regulation that in many cases will be much less rational: it will be the result of a campaign by the Daily Mail and weak Ministers giving in, saying, “Oh goodness, let them have what they want”, and regulating on this or that. There is a much greater chance of that happening when we are no longer part of a body of 28 countries that are forced to look at these issues in realistic terms and come to some agreement on the subject. That is very worrying.
Lord Liddle
Would my noble friend give way? I want to be helpful to his argument. He refers to Professor Minford and the cost of EU regulation. It is only by making the extreme assumption that all these regulations will be abolished that the tiny number of economic studies that demonstrate some growth benefit from Brexit are able to get to that number. Those studies are quoted very frequently from the Front Bench opposite as examples of the fact that some economists differ from the consensus, but in fact that difference depends on the assumption that we would scrap every single piece of EU social protection.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I think that was an intervention. I gave way believing that it was.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I do not know whether or not to be pleased by that remark. It was very kind of my noble friend to want to help me but I do not know if I was in that much need of help at that moment. However, he has made a major contribution to the debate. He has pointed out something that all of us who were involved in the referendum campaign are well aware of: there were constant references by leave campaigners and the leaders of the leave campaign to the costs of the EU, but when you looked at the figures you found that they were based on the assumption that we would get rid of a whole raft of regulation—perhaps all regulation, as Professor Minford would like. However, very few people, if you put it to them, would want to live in a society in which there was no regulation in these areas. So there has been a great deal of dishonesty and obfuscation, not only in this area but in the whole European debate. In my view, that has not been a positive contribution to the ability of the British people to make an intelligent and well-informed decision. It is regrettable that some people have been prepared to be that cynical in this context.
To revert to the amendment and the clause before us, there is an extraordinary aspect to this: if the Government really do not have sinister intentions in this area—I cannot believe that they do; I do not actually think they intend to get rid of a whole raft of regulations, even in areas like employment protection, which we know the Conservatives particularly tend to dislike—why have they themselves not produced, in drafting the Bill or subsequent amendments, protections that would assure everyone that they had no such intentions? The amendment is a good one but it should not be necessary. It is most unfortunate that the Government have allowed the suspicion to be created that these regulations, which are fundamental to a civilised society, should be at risk. I look forward to hearing from the Minister that I am quite mistaken and the Government have no intention of using these powers in a deregulatory fashion but want only to use them functionally to assist in the transition to the post-Brexit era, and that they are prepared to accept the need to reassure the public that these powers cannot be misused and therefore will introduce some protections of their own, if they do not agree with this amendment, on Report.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, has the noble Lord considered that, rather than resorting to his mythical thing of worry and terror about the Conservative Party, his arguments might gain more traction with some of us on these Benches if he considered the threat to property rights put forward by the leader of his party and the threat of the expropriation of value put forward by the shadow Chancellor in relation to the nationalisation proposals? The noble Lord talks about retaining regulation and parliamentary protections perhaps being helpful. Is he worried or terrified by a Labour Government having these powers to act without the kind of protections that he talks about?
Baroness Smith of Newnham
My Lords, we have already heard that this amendment is necessary, for some of the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned. I shall speak in favour of Amendments 21, which has my name on it, and 22. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, I propose not to talk much about the details of areas that should not be amended, other than by a parliamentary role, but to focus a little more on the role of Parliament and the importance of ensuring that retained legislation should not be amended other than with clear parliamentary engagement, either through primary legislation or, as subsection (4) of the new clause in Amendment 21 suggests:
“Regulations … may not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament”.
One thing about the vote to leave the EU, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, pointed out in Committee on Monday, is that the people of this country voted to bring back control of our laws because they believed that Parliament was capable of making better laws than the EU. Not all of us in your Lordships’ House necessarily agree that we wanted to bring back control. But, to the extent that the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, surely the importance of the Bill is in ensuring not just that legislation is on the statute book but that there is no Executive power grab and that Henry VIII clauses and other opportunities—as in Schedule 8, outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick —should not enable Ministers to make decisions that subvert the legislation without full parliamentary engagement.
It is hugely important that the rights and duties that have been outlined in existing legislation cannot be changed by ministerial fiat. If this amendment is not accepted, it is therefore important that the Government bring forward some other suitable amendment on Report that enables us to be reassured that the aim of the withdrawal Bill is not to give more powers to Ministers but, rather, to take back control to Parliament.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, in considering how to deal with this legislation in future, will the Government keep very much in mind the impact on families? The Minister may be aware that in Germany there is no Sunday opening and that after 8 pm businesses are not allowed to send emails to people who work in their offices, yet it is the most productive of nations. I would say that part of that is attributable to the care that it takes about family life and finding a balance between that and work. The risk is that, in driving towards greater immediate remuneration and productivity, we fail to take the long-term view and think through carefully what changing these regulations would do and the impact that would have on family life.
In Germany, 15% of children grow up without a father in the home; in Britain, it is about 20%; in America, it is 25%. If we keep on putting pressure on families to be more and more active in the job market, the risk is that this will contribute to family breakdown and we will be shooting ourselves in the foot in the long term. I agree with Amendment 21: we should think very carefully and go through as strict a process as possible before removing these protections. Of course, it is a complex argument, because employment can reinforce family life and protect from family breakdown, but it needs to be carefully thought through. The Germans, with their better life balance, seem to be more productive than us, so we may need to keep that lesson in mind in legislating in such areas in future.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
I agree with what the noble Earl said about the balance between work life and family life, particularly with regard to the recently adopted hours which are becoming commonplace in your Lordships’ House, but I regret to say that I cannot support the amendments, because they do not achieve their intention.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, recognised, the intention of her amendment is to ensure continuity and certainty in the law both before and after exit day. She worries that the powers granted to Ministers to amend retained EU laws should be both restricted and subject in each case to an enhanced scrutiny procedure, which would also provide for a period of consultation with the public and relevant stakeholders. But the effect of the amendments is to increase uncertainty and, ironically, reduce the likelihood—the certainty that is needed—that retained law will continue to provide exactly the same protections as before. Indeed, the period of public consultation to be provided in the enhanced scrutiny procedure gives the impression that policy changes may also be entertained. As we have heard from Ministers, the Bill is not about policy change.
Without these powers, there are huge risks that retained EU law will be defective for technical reasons—for example, due to the enormous number of references to Union institutions, which all need to be changed. Such changes would take so very much longer if each change was made subject to the enhanced scrutiny procedure proposed by the noble Baroness. That is just one area in which the amendments are counter productive.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 23A but, before I do so, I should like to say how much I admired the clarity with which my noble friend introduced the lead amendment in the group and how warmly I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Kennedy on the issue of human rights.
I have two points to make. The first is that the anxiety out there in British society should not be underestimated. There is a great deal of anxiety among extremely good quality people who are doing dedicated work in the spheres with which we are concerned. Secondly, as a layman in no way involved in practising law, I have always understood as a citizen that what is terribly important about the law is its clarity and transparency. As we consider the amendments we must therefore not inadvertently allow doubt and misgiving as to whether there has been full transparency, and full commitment to that transparency, to creep into our future.
It is therefore very important, and I make no apology for proposing it, to get written into the Bill the fact that we seek to protect existing rights of citizens in the spheres affected. I shall read to the Committee the points that Amendment 23A says should be, and seen to be, central to the deliberations and negotiations that lie ahead. They include: human rights and equality, in which we have made great progress; privacy and data protection, which we have debated at great length in this House; and immigration and asylum protections—I am certainly one who believes there is much more to be done in that realm, but the Bill is not about that. My amendment is therefore not about that either but about protecting what we have. The other points are,
“criminal justice protections … employment protections … environment and public health protections … consumer protection … access to housing, education and health and social care”.
I want to feel confident, in the immense amount of work lies ahead, that those issues will be in the Bill as primary considerations. I hope that the Minister, for whom my admiration increases all the time with the clarity with which he responds to amendments, will be able to reassure me that there will be some way to ensure that these things are not just implied in what is proposed but are there specifically.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 21. The Bill gives Ministers what the Constitution Committee described as,
“an unprecedented and extraordinary portmanteau of powers upon which the Government could draw”.
We are now seeing growing concern that by our giving such powers, well beyond those needed to effect legal continuity, Ministers could use them to effect substantive policy changes. That is what is at the heart of this tension.
Many important protections currently enjoyed by UK citizens are not written into Acts of Parliament but underpinned by membership of the EU, which cannot be weakened by the UK Government. Once some of those protections are brought into domestic law by secondary legislation, there is no assurance that they can be changed only by primary legislation. The Bill will also allow Ministers to use the delegated powers contained in existing UK legislation to effect significant policy changes to retained EU law. The powers under Schedule 8 have already been referred to.
The merit of Amendment 21 is that it poses greater protection by enhancing scrutiny of ministerial amendments to retained EU law and restricting the modification of retained EU law by subordinate legislation to technical provisions. Such modifications could not limit the scope of or weaken standards and protections afforded to UK citizens. Amendment 21 makes a clear distinction, which the Bill fails to do, between technical and substantive policy changes—between necessary amendments to retained EU law to provide legal continuity and the wider issue of discretionary amendments that implement substantive changes to policy.
I want to refer to employment rights and consumer standards to illustrate the amendment’s merits. There are many EU-derived equality and employment protections enjoyed by the people of this country that are essential ingredients of economic fairness and social cohesion. These are rights which working people now take for granted, including rights to paid holidays, equal pay for equal-value work and equal treatment in the workplace.
Baroness Ludford
Before the noble Baroness sits down, I invite her to agree with me that the fears that she raises are not fanciful. Indeed, the reason the Brexit Secretary had to make his speech was that we have on record numerous statements by Conservative politicians who are now Ministers expressing a desire to deregulate. I quoted one from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, the other day. In 2012, Liam Fox said:
“To restore Britain’s competitiveness we must begin by deregulating the labour market. Political objections must be overridden. It is too difficult to hire and fire and too expensive to take on new employees. It is intellectually unsustainable to believe that workplace rights should remain untouchable”.
That is on the record, and I have lots of other quotes in a similar vein.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, three pretty clear themes are emerging around the House. First, you should be able to use the subordinate legislation to change EU retained law only where it is necessary to make EU retained law work. Secondly, it should affect only technical matters; and thirdly, it should not take away any individual’s rights. So there are three requirements: it must be necessary to make it work, affect only technical matters and not take away anybody’s rights. The argument for being allowed to go further has not been made anywhere, and I would be very interested to hear the Minister say why those three principles should not apply to every piece of subordinate legislation under the Act. If the Government want to go further, primary legislation should be used. Unless there is a case for going further, this Act should be appropriately limited.
Lord Faulks (Con)
The Bingham Centre makes the very cogent point that there is no clear analysis so far as to what the body of EU law is in an easily accessible form, so that businesses and individuals can ascertain what applies to them. However, the Solicitor-General said in the other place that there are 12,000 EU regulations currently in force in the UK and around 7,900 statutory instruments implementing EU legislation.
I understand the fears expressed around the House, particularly on the opposite Benches about the feeling that the Government have all sorts of sinister plans to take away rights. They will do so if they feel it necessary, by primary legislation, it is said, but no other way. This amendment would make it very difficult to do anything other than by primary legislation. First, a list of so-called technical provisions has to be established—a considerable challenge. No changes can modify any of the matters which are set out in Amendment 21. Those matters seem to cover more or less everything. What is to say that labelling and packaging is not a matter for consumer standards? Matters of health and safety entitlements, equality entitlements and rights of protection—almost anything can come within those definitions. Similarly, there are environmental standards and protection. I am not talking about fundamental matters such as the working time directive, but a great deal of the various regulations and statutory instruments that come from Europe are relatively trivial. Even those who endorse very much what has come from Europe would accept that not all of it is critical or crucial to our society going forward. That will make it almost impossible to change anything, which may be the desire of members of the party opposite who do not want to leave the European Union—or those all around the House.
That is the effect of this amendment. So far as Amendment 22 is concerned, on “human rights protection”, the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, was very succinct; he did not specify what “human rights protection” meant. We had a debate on the Charter of Fundamental Rights—
Lord Cashman
I precisely did not elaborate on the reasons why, as I felt that I did that at some length on Monday evening. But it is precisely because the Government have said that they have no intention of carrying over the Charter of Fundamental Rights, or the right of action based on the general principles. It is precisely for those reasons that we need to protect the aspect of human rights, because it is not contained specifically within the previous amendment.
Lord Faulks
The Human Rights Act is expressly preserved as a result of the changes that the Bill is going to bring about. The charter is, of course, ruled out by the Bill at the moment; I suppose, from what the noble Lord says, this is a way in which to bring it back in under the rubric of “human rights protection”—but, of course, “human rights protection” is potentially a varied and wide description.
This amendment is an absolute recipe for confusion and litigation. Although I understand the feelings of insecurity about what a Government might have in mind, it is not consistent with the overall objective of this legislation, which is to provide clarity at the moment when we leave the European Union.
Lord Pannick
Given the noble Lord’s objections to the drafting of this amendment, does he sympathise, as I do, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, with the idea that a way can be found to restrict powers of Ministers by subordinate legislation to change retained EU law? Will he express the hope that the Government will think very carefully about that and bring forward an amendment before Report?
Lord Faulks
I am grateful for that intervention. I am certainly receptive to the possibility of some restrictions on what the Government can do, but this is far too much of a restriction—it is a complete straitjacket.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
If I may, I shall just reference the former Attorney-General, Dominic Grieve, who wrote recently:
“Having just spent four months considering the EU (Withdrawal) Bill … I don’t think I have ever seen a piece of legislation that conferred such power on the executive to change the law of the land by statutory instrument … and where the entire structure was so closely interwoven that the same end could often be achieved by different routes”.
We have not yet touched on this, but we had the Strathclyde review from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. On 26 October 2015, noble Lords withheld agreements to tax credit regulations and the following day a Motion was moved and narrowly defeated and, therefore, the Prime Minister said that we should review this. The House was criticised for flexing its political muscle and the review said that we should,
“understand better the expectations of both Houses when it comes to secondary legislation and, in particular, whether the House of Lords should retain its veto”.
We built up lots of experience with secondary legislation and, of course, the House of Commons is meant to be primary and its will should not be blocked. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde said:
“It would be regrettable if the Lords simply became a highly politicised ‘House of Opposition’”.
We are not a House of opposition; when that happened, it was a rare occurrence for all of us present, because since 1968 there has been a convention that we should not reject statutory instruments. It has very rarely happened. The rejection of the tax credits regulation broke new ground.
So it is much more complicated. There are so many different types of statutory instruments, including super-affirmative, subject to affirmative resolution procedure, subject to negative resolution procedure, laid instruments and unlaid instruments. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said that there were already 8,000 statutory instruments in place regarding the European Union. If you look at the number of instruments over the years, it runs into thousands. How many thousand statutory instruments does the Minister predict we will need to implement this Bill?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but does not he see how absurd the argument is that he is putting when these European regulations are matters over which the House of Commons has no choice but to implement? The whole point of this Bill is that it is restoring it to the primacy of Parliament to decide on these regulations.
Lord Bilimoria
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth has great foresight, because I am about to cover that in my speech.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
In terms of limiting the powers of Ministers, is that not within Clause 7? Forgive me if I have misread that, but I refer both to the point that the noble Lord is making and to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made earlier.
Lord Bilimoria
With all due respect, that is the whole objective of this—the fact that one can use statutory instruments. Here is the underlying worry—about a Government who have tried to bypass Parliament from the beginning, from the wretched referendum. They tried to implement Article 50 without Parliament. That is a fact. It took an individual—Gina Miller—represented by my brilliant noble friend Lord Pannick, to defeat the Government in the High Court. The Government then appealed to the Supreme Court and were defeated resoundingly—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, was on the other side.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Did the noble Lord think that it was the intention of Miss Gina Miller that, when the House did have a vote, it would actually vote by an overwhelming majority to move Article 50?
Lord Bilimoria
I remind the noble Lord that this House, in that Article 50 Bill, had two of the largest votes in the history of the House of Lords; 614 of us voted in one instance and 634 in the other instance. In both instances, we defeated the Government by almost 100 votes. The fact that the House of Commons did not accept that is a different matter—and the point that I am making is that the Government tried to bypass Parliament. There is the worry that statutory instruments bypass Parliament.
Do Henry VIII clauses give Governments the power of royal despots? Well, secondary legislation is used all the time to amend the text of primary legislation in non-despotic ways, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said—they do not have to be. In fact, the biggest Henry VIII section of them all can be found in the European Communities Act 1972—the very piece of legislation that we are repealing.
Lord Bilimoria
I am coming to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—will he please have some patience? Specifically, Section 2(2) of that Act deals with the type of EU legislation and rulings that need to be transposed into UK law. Typically, these involve EU directives where the intended outcome of the law is made clear, but it is up to the individual member states how to implement them. After Brexit, if Brexit happens, the Government want to use a Henry VIII clause in reverse—to adapt EU laws to make them British. For example, disputes that are currently referred to EU regulators or courts will be amended to refer to their British equivalents. The logic of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is that, if you are going to have a swathe of amendments to undo primary legislation that has already been made using secondary legislation, you should make those replacements in the same way. It is not as simple as that; because of the “deficiencies arising from withdrawal”, the references to the EU regulators, the European Court of Justice and other entities will no longer have any sway if there is Brexit. It is not as simple as saying, “Because they are simple things, we just can’t do this”, and the Government saying, “We will just use these Henry VIII powers to tidy up things”. The problem is that it might alter not just technical details but also the substantive effect of the law. These amendments are trying to protect really important issues.
The Supreme Court has also said that it is well established that, unlike statutes, the lawfulness of statutory instruments can be challenged in court. Even if a statutory instrument gives Ministers broad powers, the courts have established that they will apply limitations. The broader the power, the more likely the courts are to intervene to ensure that the intention of the law in question is not being altered or undermined. Does the Minister accept that?
I conclude that the power to amend all EU-derived primary and secondary legislation by the Government without sufficient scrutiny, checks and control, bypassing Parliament, goes against the ultimate supremacy of Parliament itself.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, may I elaborate on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick and invite the Minister to respond further? A key point in this debate is surely that powers conferred by Parliament should be exercised only as Parliament intended. A key point on paragraph 3 of Schedule 8, which the noble Lord referred us to, is that the power to make and approve subordinate legislation—which is conferred in primary legislation—was, in the case of retained direct EU legislation, originally conferred in the context of directives and legislation which derived from the European Union itself. So the context in which Parliament gave the power to make subordinate legislation was that it should achieve the purposes of the directive.
That being the case, allowing these powers to be used completely independently of those directives significantly enlarges the scope within which those powers can be exercised, which was not intended by Parliament when the powers to grant that subordinate legislation were first conferred. I am not sure that I am carrying the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, with me, but that seems to me to be a crucial aspect of Schedule 8, and it would be good to get the Government’s comments on that.
Lord Pannick
The only reason why the noble Lord is not carrying me with him is that I do not understand the purpose of paragraphs 3 and 5 of Schedule 8. It seems to me extraordinarily broad, which is why I am seeking an explanation from the Minister as to why we need these powers, given that we also have Clause 7 in the Bill, which is time limited.
Lord Judge
Well, noble Lords may not want to hear what I am going to say. I have had a sense developing over the last 40 minutes that we are well ahead of ourselves. We should be discussing these issues when we come to decide the very important question of whether retained EU law is to be treated as primary legislation, subordinate legislation or a bit of both. We will then have a debate on Clause 7, which entirely addresses this issue of subordinate legislation and Henry VIII powers, and we will come again to it when we debate Clause 9.
I just make two points. First, no Parliament can bind its successor. We do not know what a future Parliament will think about all these various matters raised in proposed new subsection (6) in Amendment 21; they are very important issues, but we cannot bind anybody. Secondly, in relation to the exercise of any Henry VIII powers—and there will of course have to be careful thought given to it—I am fascinated by the proposal in proposed new subsection (2) in Amendment 21 that a schedule should list,
“technical provisions in retained EU law that may be amended by subordinate legislation”.
When we come to look at Henry VIII powers, do we not have to take a rather more revolutionary look at them? Should we not be saying to ourselves that the Government of the day—whatever Government it may happen to be—should, at the very least, in the proposal for subordinate legislation, set out which terms of primary legislation are being repealed, amended or affected by the secondary legislation? That is some food for thought.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, as may have been observed during the passage of the Investigatory Powers Bill, the Government are always listening. I am most obliged to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for his observations, because they go to the very heart of the point I want to make. We are, in a sense, having the wrong debate in the wrong place, but I am also relieved to hear from my friend the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that he does not understand paragraph 3 of Schedule 8, because I was rather concerned about his earlier interpretation of it under reference to the opinion of Pushpinder Saini, QC—I will come back to that in a moment, if I may.
The areas that these amendments seek to protect, such as employment rights and environmental standards, are issues that are important to every Government, and in particular this Government. Of course, we are anxious to ensure that rights and standards such as these are maintained—indeed, where possible, increased —after we leave the EU. It might be observed that UK protections in many of these areas—for example, parental leave—in fact go beyond the level of protection provided for in EU law, so let us keep this in context.
It is important, however, that we are able to address deficiencies to ensure that the protection of these rights and the standards that they reflect continue to function effectively and that the Government are able to amend legislation in line with our history of leading in these areas of protection. When people voted to bring back power to our Parliament and to bring back control of our laws, they did not vote to put them in the deep freeze for any number of years. We have to see this in context: we are talking about thousands of regulations—somewhere in the order of 12,000 regulations —which were of course not the subject of parliamentary scrutiny; and we are talking about thousands of SIs implementing directives, which were of course not the subject of parliamentary scrutiny, which have come into our law and will be part of our law on exit day, because they will form part of the area of retained EU law.
The noble Baroness, in her amendment, proposes a schedule of “technical provisions” in an area where we are dealing with enormous quantities of law, by way of regulation and by way of implemented directives. The first point that would arise is: where is the line to be drawn between what is a technical and a non-technical provision? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, alluded to this as one of the three criteria he had in mind. You have to be able to define these criteria, otherwise you immediately run into a further issue. That is in itself a very real challenge: how would we define or class a technical issue in the context of seeking to update retained EU law?
Perhaps the more important point, however, is that much of what has been said here anticipates the issues that we will debate in the context of Clause 5, on the classification of retained EU law, and, more particularly, Clause 7, in relation to the exercise of certain powers by government in dealing with the body of retained EU law. Again, it is important to try to put this in context. We have had references to the suggestion that the Government are taking untrammelled, unlimited powers to do virtually anything with the statute book. Let us not, even if we think we have a good case, overstate it because, in doing so, we rather spoil our argument. That is not at all what the Government seek to do. Clause 7 is concerned with how we deal with deficiencies arising from our withdrawal from the EU. It is therefore concerned, as it says, about the making of regulations which are,
“appropriate to prevent, remedy or mitigate—
(a) any failure of retained EU law to operate effectively”.
We are not talking about wholesale policy changes to our employment or environment laws, our standards for consumers or anything of that kind. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to—
Lord Davies of Stamford
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. Of course, we hope that we are not talking about any of those things. We hope that we are not talking about radical changes and reductions in some of the essential regulation which we have all said is so necessary. However, we need a little bit more than hope. We need some evidence of the Government’s commitment to restrain themselves when it comes to using these powers.
Lord Keen of Elie
That is why Clause 7 is drafted in the terms in which the noble Lord will find it in the Bill.
Reference was also made to the provisions of paragraph 3 of Schedule 8. I am not sure how the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, interpreted that paragraph but let us be clear: it refers to existing powers, not to powers created under this Bill. Those powers already exist in respect of existing legislation. They are not being extended. If the Government truly intended to bring about wholesale change to these policy areas, and could do so on the basis of their existing powers, perhaps they might have done so already. The provision does not extend to these powers. Therefore, again, with respect, it appears to me that the matter is being taken out of context. However, I would be happy to look at the opinion on this from Pushpinder Saini referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, we must make progress at this stage, if the noble Lord does not mind. We have to keep moving.
I come to the nub of the point. If there is a concern about the powers being conferred on Ministers to ensure that the retained EU law works after exit, that arises in the context of Clauses 7 and 5, which will be the subject of future debate in this House. As I say, it is not appropriate to try to represent the powers already set out in the Bill as extending beyond the boundaries set out precisely there about correction, regulation and making retained EU law work. I respectfully suggest that the route proposed by the noble Baroness is not one that we should go down as we would simply run into the sand. If we were to list technicalities and technical changes in all these areas of legislation, we would be here in 10 years’ time trying to produce such a schedule; let us be frank about it. Of course, many people may wish that we will be here in 10 years’ time attempting to achieve that. In that context, I invite the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing her amendment and invite the noble Lord, Lord Judd, not to move his.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I know the Committee will not believe this but the three noble Lords I most want to thank are the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Faulks, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. I thank the noble Lord, Lord True, for raising my spirits. I love the words “Labour Government”; I will use them again and again. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, because sometimes when you know what you are talking about, you assume that everyone else does. I had got something wrong and it was not clear. I was not talking about how, under this Bill, the current EU rules will be put into legislation by statutory instruments. We are content with that. We will in due course argue about whether the relevant word should be “necessary” or “appropriate”, but that is not the purpose of this amendment. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for giving me the opportunity to say that.
The purpose of the amendment is about looking way into the future and future-proofing what we are putting into UK legislation and to make sure that it cannot then be tampered with by means of statutory instruments. It is not about the current work that many of our colleagues on the statutory instruments committee are about to undertake. We are talking about the future. I again thank the noble Viscount for giving me the opportunity to discuss that.
I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, that I said at the beginning of this discussion that we would come on to how we deal with the bigger issues involved in this matter. However, today, I want to discuss the human, environmental and consumer rights that we sometimes risk losing sight of when we get into the technicalities of law and how we are going to hold on to those. As I said, I absolutely accept that we may deal with the technicalities later.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said that certain bits of retained EU law could possibly be dealt with by statutory instruments and others by primary legislation. Elsewhere in the Bill judges are allowed to deal with measures on a case-by-case basis. But in the case of retained EU law, we have a difficulty as I think he said that he was happy for the Government to decide which measures could be dealt with by secondary legislation. Perhaps that is the nub of the problem.
Lord Faulks
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I perhaps ought to clarify that I was responding to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I meant the Government in the course of the Bill rather than the Government simply deciding that they wanted to do it.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I thank the noble Lord. I apologise for misunderstanding that point.
I am afraid there was an offline conversation between the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and myself. I do not know whether he referred to that when he spoke but in that conversation he gave a very good description of the aims of the Bill—namely, that after we have examined it and are satisfied that all the stuff is going into UK legislation, everyone should know what the rules are and the Bill should achieve that outcome. That is what this measure is about. It is about whether we leave it to Ministers in the future to decide which bits of retained EU law they can deal with in secondary legislation. As my noble friend Lady Drake said, we need to restrain executive powers as ministerial promises will not suffice. That in a sense is where we are with this issue.
My next point relates to the issue raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel—namely, that we as legislators look at something but may forget sometimes to undertake consultation, be it with families or anyone else. That is one of the other great advantages of primary legislation: it is much more out there for people to talk about.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, as always trumps everything I do and comes up with much better arguments. However, I too had not noticed the lack of a time limit in Schedule 8. I am sure that we shall want to return to that.
As we have heard a number of times, the Minister said that there has been no parliamentary scrutiny of the current EU law, so anything we get in future will be better. I remind him that much of that law goes through the Council of Ministers, where we have a Minister, and through the European Parliament, where we have British MEPs. Therefore, the idea that there is no democratic involvement from the Brits is not quite right. We are listening to the concerns of consumers, workers and, indeed, business, about the Bill and I think there will be amendments to it to address some of their concerns. However, we are looking now to future-proof it to ensure that we do not give Ministers rights that we may not want them to have. We will come back to that in the broader discussion. However, for the moment, all noble Lords will be very pleased to know that I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 21.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 28th February 2018
(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 79-III(b) Amendments for Committee, supplementary to the third marshalled list (PDF, 55KB) - (28 Feb 2018)
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
“Strategy for economic and social cohesion principles derived from Article 174 of TFEU
(1) The Secretary of State must, before 31 December 2018, lay before Parliament a strategy for developing principles for economic and social cohesion derived from Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).(2) The strategy laid under subsection (1) must state the principles derived from Article 174 of TFEU.(3) The principles under subsection (2) form part of domestic law on and after exit day.(4) The aims of the strategy under subsection (1) are—(a) to reduce inequalities between communities, and(b) to reduce disparities between the levels of development of regions of the United Kingdom, with particular regard to—(i) regions with increased levels of deprivation,(ii) rural and island areas,(iii) areas affected by industrial transition, and(iv) regions which suffer from severe and permanent natural or demographic handicaps.(5) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make provision for programmes to implement the strategy.(6) Programmes under subsection (5) shall run for a minimum of 10 years and shall be independently monitored.”
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to move this amendment and I am glad that we have got to it at last. It is tabled in the names of my noble friends Lady Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Judd as well as mine. I am pleased to see my noble friend Lord Judd in his place. My noble friend Lady Royall has asked me to pass on her sincere apologies for not being able to be present for the debate, but in no way is that a reflection on her enthusiasm for the amendment—quite the reverse.
The amendment proposes a new clause be inserted into the Bill to incorporate Article 174, Title XVIII of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union into domestic law. This would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament, before the end of December 2018, a strategy for the future provision of funding and other support to achieve economic and social cohesion across the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. All noble Lords will know that the European Union cohesion policy has been very effective in ensuring that the less developed and transition regions have access to operational programmes and funding to support economic growth across the whole of the European Union, and thus have been able to develop.
Once the United Kingdom leaves the European Union—in my context, I should say if the UK leaves the EU—this proposed new clause will be necessary. However—I will never give up—I sincerely hope that the clause, and indeed the Bill, will be unnecessary, but since we are moving in a particular direction we need to make sure that safeguards are in place. This amendment would ensure that the principles of social and economic cohesion which the UK regions would have qualified for under the EU cohesion programme, along with the funding after the date of exit, are continued and that the Government will go on with the aim of strengthening and rebalancing the entirety of the union, including the regions of England as well as the devolved nations.
I hope that when the Minister comes to reply—she is my good friend and she had a good birthday celebration yesterday—which I am pleased to say makes it an even more interesting and enjoyable debate, she will be able to give us a clear assurance on this. Some vague promises have been made. It has been suggested, or perhaps hinted, that the block grant might be adjusted to take account of the money that will be lost through the non-availability of these cohesion funds. As far as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are concerned in terms of the block grant, it is never guaranteed to include everything that it is supposed to include. We would never be able to check that the grant was going to be that much greater than it would have been otherwise, if the cohesion fund had not been included. Anyway, what about the parts of England that have been benefiting from the fund? They do not get a block grant, so will the adjustments to local authorities be changed? Local authority incomes are being cut and they are not getting any extra money, so it will be even more difficult for them. This amendment would guarantee that the funds would be available.
Let us take a closer look at the regions that have qualified for cohesion funding. Those which receive assistance are described as either less developed or transition regions. Of course, once a less developed region gets assistance and develops, it then becomes a transition region. It will still qualify for cohesion funding, but to a lesser extent. A region is less developed if its per capita GDP is less than 75% of the European Union average. In the 2014 to 2020 period, the less developed regions of the United Kingdom have been allocated £2.6 billion. Those are Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, and West Wales and the Valleys. A region is in transition if the per capita GDP is more than 75% but less than 90% of the European Union average. In the 2014 to 2020 period, £2.5 billion was allocated to those regions, which are Northern Ireland, the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, Cumbria, Tees Valley and Durham, Lancashire, South Yorkshire, East Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire and Devon. It is also worth noting that the majority of these qualifying regions could be described as rural, coastal or peripheral parts of the United Kingdom and are therefore in great need of this kind of assistance.
I want to give some examples of the kind of money that will be lost and the kind of projects that will be affected. I shall first mention Cornwall and then Scotland. I refer to Cornwall because I was inspired to table this amendment by Clare Moody, the Member of the European Parliament who represents Cornwall and other parts of the south-west of England. I am grateful to her for her assistance in this. My first example is something called Launchpad, which received almost £10 million worth of European Regional Development Fund money. Launchpad is a graduate start-up programme run by Falmouth University that aims to give participants the skills to develop a project from inception to a sustainable, high-growth potential company in just two years. It will support graduates to develop new products and processes in response to market demand, focusing on the digital games and interactive technology sectors. These sectors are rapidly developing. That money would continue to be available right up until the end of the period if we were still in the European Union, but if we go out there is no guarantee that it will continue and Falmouth University will not be able to continue the programme. We need some kind of guarantee from the Minister and the Government that such projects will continue to be supported.
Another example from Cornwall is CETO Wave Energy, which gets £9.5 million from the ERDF. This project aims to build a wave energy converter device at the Wave Hub off the north coast of Cornwall, near Hayle. By developing a 1 megawatt device connected to the national grid, the project will advance wave energy technology and demonstrate its commercial viability. That is good not just for that area but for the country as a whole, and for trying to mitigate the effects of climate change as we develop wave technology. It is a very important area that is being funded.
Those are two projects from the ERDF. I will take one from Cornwall funded by the ESF, the stability fund. Some £1.3 million has been allocated to Skills for Young People. This project will provide skills development for young people not in education, employment or training—sometimes described as NEETs—or who are at risk of becoming part of that group. Managed by Careers South West and delivered by a range of partners, it brings young people closer to work and further learning. Again, it is a very important project in an underdeveloped area, Cornwall.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
It is our money.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
That is the constant refrain from the leavers. We heard it all through the referendum campaign: “It’s our money”. It is money from all the European countries that comes in according to their ability to pay and goes out to different parts of the European Union according to their needs, and rural areas, transition areas and less developed areas are those which get it. But that is not the argument here; we have had that argument. It has been made and we can have it in another place.
Wherever it comes from, that money is within the European Union budget at the moment and is then allocated to these projects in different parts of the United Kingdom. We are asking for an assurance—we need a guarantee—that, if we leave the European Union, this money will go to the same projects and be funded by the United Kingdom Government. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us that guarantee; such projects will otherwise have an uncertain future. People’s livelihoods depend on them; people who have put their lives into developing them are now faced with uncertainty. The only way in which they can be given some certainty is if the Government accept my amendment or something like it, and make sure that the money that they currently get from those European Union funds will come in future from Her Majesty’s Government.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I apologise that I missed the first minute of the noble Lord’s speech. I want to stress, first, that the history of Article 174 is one of British leadership. The regional development fund was set up by one of the first British Commissioners, George Thomson, and was designed to help poorer regions in Britain and Ireland in particular cope with the impact of joining the European Union—it is very good that two of Lord Thomson’s sons-in-law are in this House and taking part in this Committee, although I do not see either of them in their place. I recall clearly how he carried that through the European Community, as it then was, in the early 1970s.
The article as we now have it was inserted into the Single European Act by the British Government as one of its flanking elements, but it was then transformed by Margaret Thatcher because she committed herself to eastern enlargement—one remembers the Bruges speech and the point she made about bringing Prague, Budapest and Warsaw back into Europe. The regional development fund within the European Union became very much part of how we have helped to spread prosperity, and therefore stability, democracy and security, into those new member countries. It is worth noting that Norway contributes to the European Regional Development Fund and that in any conceivable deal which we strike with the European Union after we leave—if we end up leaving—it is likely that we will be asked to contribute in the same way. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, might say that this is dreadful because the European Union spreads conflict, but I think that the rest of us will agree that the European Union has helped to stabilise the former socialist countries of eastern Europe. One has only to move from Poland to Belarus to see how much difference it has made.
Now that we appear to be leaving, the question of what happens to this country and what reassurance the Government can give us about the future of regional development in it is important. The Prime Minister said when she came into office that she wanted to bring the country back together and to reunite this very polarised public we have had since the referendum, but let us remember that England has the deepest regional disparities of any country in Europe—the United Kingdom even more so—and that the areas which qualify for and benefit most from the European development fund in Britain are Yorkshire, the south-west, parts of Wales, the north-east and parts of Cumbria and Lancashire. Recent studies have suggested that Yorkshire and the north-east are the two regions which will suffer most from Brexit because our trade is most clearly across the North Sea, from Hull and Newcastle, and the damage will be severe. Can the Minister begin to give us some reassurance that the Government are alive to this issue and that, as they attempt to bring the country back together, as we hope they do, they will have an active regional policy to cope with the impact of Brexit?
I read the Yorkshire Post—published by a company that used to be called Yorkshire Conservative Newspapers—and the image one gets of views in Yorkshire from our media and gossip are: that we are now governed by a very Home Counties, southern-English Government; that the north is forgotten; that the northern powerhouse is a placard without much behind it; and that the spending in the north on infra- structure, innovation, schools in rural areas and elsewhere falls well behind what is given to government. I should have thought that might leave the Conservative Party very worried. In replying, can the Minister give us some assurance—and feed this back into the Government—that, as we move towards an apparently inevitable Brexit, the Conservative Government are thinking actively about the regional disparities we already have, are taking into account that poorer regions will suffer disproportionately from a loss of European regional funds and realise that compensatory action needs to be taken by the British Government to prevent that?
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I warmly thank my noble friend for having put this amendment before the Committee. I should explain that I live in Cumbria and I understand very directly some of the things that have been said in this debate. It always gives me great heart when I see the European sign on tangible projects in an otherwise not too prosperous county, as an indication of European solidarity and a determination that people should stand together in making sure that a decent life is available to everyone. I do not think that, historically, we can overestimate the significance, the sadness, of what we are losing in that concept of European solidarity.
The other point I will make is that there have been references to reassurances and so on. Forgive me, I do not mean to be critical of those who have used the word, but I do not think that is enough. Possibilities have been created through our membership of the European Union. I believe that we have to have very firm guarantees from the Government that nothing is going to be lost in the context of what may be about to happen and that they will ensure that any work already in train, and any expectations already generated, will be fulfilled.
There really is a growing sense of injustice and unfairness in many parts of the country. The south-west is one example, and certainly the north is another example, not least Cumbria. There is a deep frustration—and in some instances it is not an exaggeration to say “anger”—about the disparities between what is available in the south and the south-east and what is not. I agree most warmly with the point made earlier in the debate that there is a feeling that our Government is a Government of the south-east and not a Government of the totality of British life. In that context, for Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and indeed for English regions, we need those guarantees from the Government tonight.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am delighted to support Amendment 23, moved by my noble friend Lord Foulkes, and I concur without reservation with everything he said. The amendment addresses many crucial matters for Wales, as well as for Scotland and indeed for many parts of England. Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union aims to reduce disparities in terms of economic and social development between the various regions of Europe. The central plank of this is to reduce inequality. I fear that the same thing cannot be said of the policy of the present UK Government. The objective of their policy is in no way a concerted drive to attack the disparities that exist within these islands. The income per head of an area such as Kensington and Chelsea is 10 times that of the area of west Wales and the valleys, the Anglesey area or the Gwent area. We surely cannot accept a tenfold disparity in a civilised society.
Europe has been a bulwark for us over the past 15 years in Wales—the past 18 years, in fact—since we started getting the Objective 1 money in 2000. That money has come through as additional funding for Wales, after a bit of a fight, which I will talk about on another occasion, but we have not had the success that Liverpool and Merseyside, certainly, have had, and South Yorkshire has had to a lesser extent—and we still have a lot of work to do.
The reality is that, when we look at the matters of industrial infrastructure investment that are in Westminster’s hands, we see that Wales is the only country in western Europe that does not have a single mile of electrified railway line. What happened to the plans that were already drawn up to electrify to Swansea? They have been dropped—and the proposals to electrify from Crewe to Holyhead are somewhere in the clouds. Yet we in Wales are asked to pay our contribution towards HS2. The reality is that we get greater assistance with our economic needs from the European Union than from Westminster. That is one reason why it hurts so much that we are about to leave the European Union, unless something can be done about it. Another example of where the Westminster regime is not sensitive to the crying economic need of Wales is the Swansea Bay lagoon, which has been confirmed as being a viable project, with a former Conservative Member of Parliament driving it forward, yet the Government refuse to come off the fence on it.
Then there is the disparity in another important aspect of economic infrastructure: broadband connectivity. The UK Government have recently directed significant sums to improve broadband in three of the four countries of the UK. They found £20 million for ultrafast broadband in Northern Ireland and £10 million for full-fibre broadband in six trial areas of England and Scotland. We are missing out on important things such as this and we cannot rely on Westminster to look after our needs. The Government’s justification for their broadband investment was that it will trigger the most effective short-term economic growth. Therein lies the central weakness of the Westminster approach: its short-termism and its links to political returns, as we have seen in the context of Northern Ireland.
The EU has been a major source of assistance to Wales, not least in terms of our economic infrastructure. The ERDF and the European Social Fund have been mentioned. Areas of England such as Merseyside, South Yorkshire and Cornwall have certainly benefited greatly from the EU as well. We will miss out all round when we turn our backs on Europe.
In the context of the amendment, we have a right to know how the Government intend to sustain the EU objectives of Article 174 after Brexit—if indeed they do. We are told that there will be a shared prosperity fund, but we have no details of its size or remit, nor how it will work with devolved government. In particular, given our experience in Wales with the Barnett formula, which has been such a travesty—and has been recognised by this House as a travesty—we have enormous reservations about leaving it to the Treasury in Whitehall to be the adjudicator in the distribution of such resources. It is for these reasons that I support the amendment, and I am certain that we shall have to return to these critical issues later in the Bill’s passage.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-chair of the Local Government Association. I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, because over the past two years I have been attending two inquiries led by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children: the first into children’s social care services and the second into different thresholds for access to those services.
It has become clear from the evidence I have heard that local authority funding has been cut by 30% to 40%. Local authorities are delivering their statutory services and safeguarding children as best they can, but all the peripheral services—the family support services and the charities—are really struggling to meet the need and therefore more and more children are being taken into care. As I said earlier, Lord Justice Munby, President of the Family Court, in his statement last year highlighted that more and more children were being taken into care and the courts were finding it difficult to process the numbers of children being taken into care.
What needs to happen is what has happened to adult social care: additional funding needs to be given to local authorities so that they can meet the needs of their children and family services and we can stop taking children away from families whom, if they had had additional support early on, they could have stayed with. It is relevant to this debate because we have heard in the inquiries that it is often the poorest local authorities, with the most deprived families, which have both the greatest demand on their services and the fewest resources to meet those needs. So in what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, proposes I see a way of reducing deprivation and improving the wealth of those communities so that there is more resource available to local authorities to meet local need, and reducing the need of families to turn to those kinds of services. I look forward to a response from the Minister to the principles that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has just set out.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I add my support to Amendment 23, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, from an environmental perspective. These funds have been hugely beneficial in helping bring environmental progress, together with economic and social progress, to these very deprived areas.
The ERDF is big and it is substantial—you can see it from the moon. Four of its 11 thematic objectives are environmental: climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, wider environmental protection and sustainable transport. The thematic approach has really helped mainstream environmental considerations into development in these areas and encouraged more sustainable development strategies and schemes that provide local employment and economic activity, often in areas that have absolutely nothing but their natural resources to rely on. That has been a hugely valuable process.
I particularly commend the Interreg process as part of the EDRF. This focuses on cross-border environmental protection projects and has provided for projects that have struggled to get funding elsewhere because they span administrative and governmental boundaries. It is quite telling, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, that Norway participates in Interreg, and I encourage the Government to consider remaining in the Interreg process. It is hugely innovative and facilitates cross-border work which simply will not be done by a “Britain going it alone” process, as is the case with many of the issues that we will face in the future outside the European Union. This is particularly important in environmental areas because, of course, the environment does not recognise governmental or administrative boundaries.
I therefore ask the Minister whether she would consider how a strategy could be brought forward to fill the gap post-Brexit. It needs two elements. First, it needs to recognise that these funds are absolutely crucial and that that level of funding needs to be continued, because so many other sources of funding for these sorts of projects are diminishing. Local authority money is going, lottery money is going, the Government themselves are broke and the charities are not too well-off either.
Secondly, there is the whole issue of stability. If the funds are reshaped along Barnett formula lines—and if they are simply locked into the block grant and not ring-fenced—key areas of high need will lose out. Currently, these funds are allocated on the basis of need and merit proposals, and we would not see a degree of stability going forward if they were simply dealt with on a pre-existing formula. I therefore hope the Government will come forward with a strategy; this is a splendid proposition.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, we are still formally on Clause 3, and I had the benefit over the short dinner break of speaking to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, about the issue we were debating before the break in relation to Schedule 8. May I put a specific request to the Minister, to which I hope the noble and learned Lord will be able to respond? It will be crucial to our discussing this matter further on Report. Will he write to us to clarify a specific point that arises from what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said earlier? Does Schedule 8 give the Government the power to use subordinate legislation to modify primary legislation whose primary purpose is to implement EU directives? I wonder whether the Minister might write to Members of the Committee on that specific point.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I can tell the noble Lord and, indeed, the Minister that there will be a probing amendment on paragraphs 3 and 5 of Schedule 8. It has been tabled today and will be on the next Marshalled List.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
The group that we are dealing with is not actually mine but, with the leave of the Committee, I will respond to the inquiry. In light of the reference to the probing amendment, the appropriate step would be for us to consider that amendment and determine what response we shall make to it. If I am in a position, in light of that amendment, to write to the noble Lord ahead of Report and elaborate on our position, rather than responding by way of a government amendment or something of that kind, I will do so.
Lord Adonis
I am very grateful for that response; I think that might help us in our further discussions.
In response to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I will make two points. First, in the debate about regional assistance, one of the arguments is that we are simply getting our money back. The crucial point about the European Regional Development Fund and the other cohesion funds of the European Union, however, is that they are long-term development funds. The reason that they are so valued in the regions is not just because of the investment, but because they enable long-term planning to take place in the regions, which does not happen in response to Treasury funds because our own funding for these projects is so short-term. One of the big struggles that we have had in government—and this spans all three parties that have been in government in the last 20 years —is that we have had a huge difficulty in fixing and delivering long-term investment priorities because of the short-term attitude of the Treasury, which is not prepared to make those commitments.
When I became Secretary of State for Transport in 2009, the forward investment strategy for the railways in the United Kingdom was for five years, until 2014; so—surprise, surprise—there were no plans for high- speed rail at all and no electrification programme. It is not just that it did not go to Swansea: it did not go anywhere. Wales is the only country in the entire continent of Europe besides Albania that does not have one mile of electrified railway. This is because of a consistent absence of long-term infrastructure planning over the last generation. Thanks to decisions that we took in 2009, electrification is at long last going to reach Wales, but the plans that were in place for it to go to Swansea have been cut back to Cardiff; it was supposed to go to Bristol but it is now going only to Bristol Parkway, not to Bristol Temple Meads.
I do not wish to bore the Committee with the details, but the fundamental underlying point here is the absence of long-term infrastructure planning. We look to the Government for a commitment not just to have significant funds for regional assistance—because clearly funds are going to be required unless we are going to see the divides between different parts of the country becoming even wider over the coming years—but we need a long-term approach. The current European Regional Development Fund has a six-year planning horizon and we need to see at least that length of planning in respect of new funds and policies that the Government put in place. Otherwise, we will see a short-term scramble for short-term projects that do not begin to be able to deliver huge benefits such as new railway lines—HS2 and HS3 that we need linking the northern cities—and significant investment in Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, referred to tidal lagoons and the investment that could be made there. That, again, is an investment that would deliver economic and energy benefits over the next 80 years, and it needs to be long-term.
My second point, which is linked to the points made by my noble friend Lord Foulkes, is about the European Investment Bank. One of the most worrying things in relation to the funding of infrastructure projects, particularly in less developed regions of the country, over the period since the Brexit decision has been the collapse in lending to the United Kingdom for projects supported by the European Investment Bank. An article in the Financial Times last month gave quite scary statistics: new contracts in the UK financed by the EIB are down from £5.5 billion in 2016 to just £1.9 billion last year in 2017. Of that £1.9 billion, only £377 million was spent in the nine months after Article 50 was triggered. The president of the European Investment Bank, Werner Hoyer, was very clear that a key factor in this was,
“extra legal work the bank now had to do to ensure its assets in Britain would be protected after the UK left the EU”,
and uncertainty on the part of investors. This is leading to a significant problem in investment in infrastructure projects, in particular. Speaking as a former chairman of the National Infrastructure Commission, I can tell the Government that they will not get a commitment to long-term infrastructure projects unless they can put together the funding packages that are required. They need to span the public and private sectors, and for many of these projects which span a 10, 15 or 20-year horizon, the public sector is looking for guarantees, and if those guarantees have to come exclusively from the Treasury in future, we will see significantly less infrastructure investment than we have in the past.
Although the European Union is not the be all and end all—
Lord Wigley
Before the noble Lord leaves the issue of the European Investment Bank, I raised a question in the debate on Monday evening about the ongoing eligibility of higher education institutions, such as Swansea University, which has had £60 million out of the EIB. Will the noble Lord confirm my understanding that the UK will have an ongoing entitlement to help from the EIB? As he says, it is a question of the level of help and the confidence that is there and not that we will not be eligible.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I am afraid we again get into the Alice in Wonderland world here, as we were in the debates on Erasmus and Euratom. My understanding from discussions with the European Investment Bank when I was chair of the National Infrastructure Commission is that if the Government were to wish to stay a member of the European Investment Bank, that might be possible. There are lots of legal issues which would need to be addressed, but it might be possible. However, it is the Government’s policy, as a matter of principle, that we will withdraw from the European Investment Bank because it is seen as a European institution and apparently the instruction from the British people two years ago was that we must withdraw from it for exactly the same reason that we must withdraw from Euratom: it is seen as a European institution and we are supposed be withdrawing from all of them or else Brexit does not mean Brexit.
We are engaging in self-inflicted harm purely for an ideological purpose by choosing not to be part of an institution which has “Europe” in the title. What has concerned the Committee so much in our debates is that sector by sector, area by area, we are committing to policies that are going to make the country worse off bit by bit. The cumulative effect of all this is going to be immensely serious. Where it is possible to not engage in that self-inflicted harm, it seems to me to be just a matter of common sense not to do so. I would be very grateful if the Minister could tell the Committee the Government’s policy in respect of lending currently made by the European Investment Bank and whether it might still be open.
I am constantly encouraging, and we have the more emollient face of the Government responding to the debate in the noble Baroness. I always have very high hopes of her because she sounds so reasonable when she replies. It may just be that she is so practised at doing these things, but I very much hope that she might give us a commitment that the Government will consider remaining a part of the European Investment Bank and not putting this essential investment in the future infrastructure of the country at risk, as appears to be happening at the moment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I do not like to start by contradicting my noble friend, but I have not heard the Government ask that we leave the Eurovision Song Contest, so there is one thing they are content with despite the name containing “Euro”.
This amendment is important not simply for the amount of money being spoken about but what it is used for. I think I heard the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, say from a sedentary position “It is our money”, somewhat missing the point of the amendment, which is about having regard to the principles of social and economic cohesion which we signed up to, welcomed and have benefited from. In fact, it is particularly important given the drive to equality whether in this country, Europe or both. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, reminded us that England has the deepest regional disparities of any country in Europe. That is why it is not just the money, although I will come on to that, but what we want to use it for and how, and the need for a long-term aspect, as my noble friend Lord Adonis said.
This article enables funds to be used in a way that particularly led to our disadvantaged regions benefiting enormously from the Cohesion Fund, the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund. In the period 2014 to 2020, they will have brought £12 billion our way, and it is not simply the money but the way it is aimed to reduce disparities and concentrates on what the EU calls less developed, transition or other regions. These are significant amounts, but it is the aims and objective that are important. They help create jobs, with start-up businesses, and with research and development. They have had a particular impact in Cornwall, west Wales and the valleys—some of us have to declare an interest there. We have heard of particular cases which have already benefited from this sort of money, including through the environmental impact of some of them, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Young.
The important thing now is to look forward. As we have heard, the Government, in preparing for our departure from the EU, committed themselves to what they call a,
“UK Shared Prosperity Fund … using money returning to the UK from European structural fund”—
if it has not already gone to the NHS or anywhere else. The idea, as laid out in the Conservative manifesto, is to use that same amount of money. The Exchequer Secretary, Robert Jenrick, promised,
“to consult widely ahead of its launch”.
However, he did not commit to matching ERDF funding after Brexit, so the consultation would presumably be about its use. We have been told:
“The design … is currently being considered, including its funding arrangements, and further details will be set out in due course”.
Although he is not replying to this amendment, the Minister often reminds me that in a year and a month today, we are due to leave. That is not much time for getting these details, even in draft form, let alone for consultation or beginning to think about how people might use these funds. There is undoubtedly some urgency.
I hope that we could maybe have that detail from the noble Baroness as well as the basis on which the Government are planning to allocate the money. Will it be, as we heard suggested, under the Barnett formula, which is on a per head rather than per need basis? Will it be long term? What will the other attributes be? Will it be whoever wants matching funding or something else? Will it be concentrated in the same sort of areas as before? These are important questions, as I am sure she appreciates. It is a matter of funding, otherwise we might lose £8.4 billion from the sort of work that has been done to reduce inequalities. We need to know not just the amount but that it will be targeted towards achieving the same sort of ends as Article 174.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank your Lordships for a genuinely interesting and very helpful and useful debate. I particularly thank the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes, Lord Judd and Lord Wigley, for the amendment to which they put their names. I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, of course for his kind remarks, although I fear he will dismiss me as a huge disappointment when he listens to my observations. I will try to deal with the points raised, because the amendment raises a very important issue, around which numerous very legitimate questions arise. I do not dispute that for one moment. Although I will not be able to answer every point raised in detail, I will do my best to try and give a helpful—I hope—indication of the direction of travel.
I know the amendment is well intentioned, but I shall endeavour to argue that, with the existing proposals which the Government have put in place, it is unnecessary. I will explain that in greater detail and expand on that proposition. The Government have an industrial strategy that covers many of the areas of cohesion policy and, as numerous noble Lords mentioned, are developing a new UK shared prosperity fund, which will replace EU structural funds. Furthermore, existing legal powers in place in this country in our domestic law already cover some of these issues, and I shall expand upon that.
To reassure the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Judd, who all referred to this, I say that the Government have a manifesto commitment to replace cohesion policy funding with a new UK shared prosperity fund. It will reduce inequalities and raise productivity across our four nations, and we shall engage extensively with the devolved Administrations on that fund later this year.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The Minister said that the Government would consult about the shared prosperity fund later this year. We are already 21 months past the referendum and, as my noble friend Lady Hayter said, have just over a year to go. When are we going to get the proposals? When are the people hoping to benefit from this actually going to see it? When is the consultation going to start? I hope the Minister will not say “shortly” but will give us some clear indication because, as my noble friend said, people are desperate to see it and to know the details.
Baroness Goldie
I shall come on to that and endeavour to address the points that the noble Lord has raised. I was merely going to observe to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who was concerned about what he saw as a sort of Home Counties-centric Administration, that, looking at this Front Bench, there is not much Home Counties representation here, with the honourable exception of the bicycling baronet. Across this Front Bench there is a genuine understanding of all parts of the UK—including, to be fair, the Home Counties—and that is very important. The Government are very anxious to reflect the pan-UK need and relevance in conceiving and constructing policy to address the issues that are the subject of the amendment.
As I understand it, the noble Lord’s amendment seeks to transfer the provisions of Article 174 of the Lisbon treaty, which provides the legal basis for EU cohesion policy, into UK law. Indeed, that policy is one of the key policies of the EU, as the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Wigley, recognised. It recognises the importance of reducing inequalities between communities and reducing disparities across the EU. At the same time, leaving the EU allows the UK to begin to take its own decisions on the future of regional development. Arguably, perhaps, it will be better placed to ensure that those are better tailored to UK priorities rather than the priorities of the EU.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, raised important points, to which I listened with care. I think they are more a matter for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the revenue support grant, but I am informed that the local government financial settlement has allowed additional flexibility in meeting costs for adult social care, which I understand has been widely welcomed.
The Earl of Listowel
I thank the Minister for saying what she has said. That is true about adult social care, but we need the same arrangement for children’s services. That is my concern; I do not think it has come in. If she could say during the passage of the Bill that that will indeed be made available for children’s services, that would go a long way towards assuaging my concerns in this area.
Baroness Goldie
I assure the noble Earl that I am listening to what he says.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, specifically raised the issue, which I will deal with here, of UK access to the European Investment Bank. The UK wishes to explore options for maintaining a relationship with the EIB in the second phase of negotiations. To avoid doubt, I say that the UK will leave the EIB when it ceases to be an EU member state, but that is all I am able to tell him at the moment. I think that will be an important feature of the second phase of negotiations. He rightly identified that the bank has been an important source of investment finance.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, rightly wants to know the shape of all this and what the Government are actually doing. If your Lordships will permit me, I shall try to outline the situation. The Government have already set out their long-term strategy in many areas covered by the noble Lord’s amendment. In November, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy launched the Government’s industrial strategy, which sets out the long-term plan to boost the productivity and earning power of the UK. It sets out how we will help businesses to create better, higher-paying jobs in every part of the UK with investment in the skills, industries and infrastructure of the future.
The strategy will boost productivity and earning power across the country by focusing on five foundations of productivity. It is worth repeating them: ideas, people, infrastructure—in that connection, let me say that I listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said about the value of long-term strategic thinking; he made a number of important points, which the Government will want to bear in mind—business environment, and places.
All these foundations have links to cohesion policy, but it is perhaps that final foundation which is most relevant: places. This recognises that every region of the UK has a role to play in boosting the national economy, including North Yorkshire, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, referred. The UK has a rich heritage, with world-leading businesses located around our country. Yet—and this is disappointing —many areas are not fulfilling their potential, and that despite receiving cohesion policy funding. The UK still has greater disparities in regional productivity than other European countries.
The challenges and opportunities facing us are shared across the union. We recognise that the devolved Administrations are acting to identify and deliver their own priorities, and we respect the devolution settlement. But devolution has never meant that the Westminster Government should stop delivering for people, businesses and places in the devolved nations.
As part of the industrial strategy, we will agree local industrial strategies that build on local strengths and deliver economic opportunities. We want to work with all relevant bodies in England and partners in the devolved nations to consider how local strategies can deliver for places in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and, of course, England. I hope that that to some extent reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, who asked how all this would flow out across the UK. We are also introducing a new £115 million strength in places fund to build excellence in research, development and innovation across the UK.
We are already seeing the opportunities and benefits of a focus on places. In the year that we launched the northern powerhouse project, we saw productivity in the north rise at a faster rate than London and the UK average. We have also seen further exciting developments outside England. Our city deal programme demonstrates how the UK Government can work hand in hand with our partners in the devolved Administration Governments and local authorities to deliver co-ordinated, locally led interventions that have a real impact on local economies. As confirmed by the Chancellor in the Budget, we are currently working with regional representatives from Stirling and Clackmannanshire, the Tay cities, Belfast, north Wales and the border lands between Scotland and England to negotiate new city deals.
Meanwhile, under the people foundation, we also want to tackle regional disparities in education and skill levels so that we build on local strengths and deliver opportunities for people wherever they live. The industrial strategy will do this through a major programme of reform to ensure that our technical education system can stand alongside our world-class higher education system and rival the best in the world. There will also be investment of an additional £406 million in maths, digital and technical education, helping to address the shortage of STEM skills.
The industrial strategy recognises the importance of ensuring that all areas in all parts of the United Kingdom can meet their full potential. The strategy recognises that every region of the UK has a role to play in boosting the national economy, but the noble Lord’s amendment refers to a number of specific types of region in particular, including regions which suffer from what he described as demographic handicaps, and rural areas. These are very important matters. In responding to the challenges of demographic handicaps, the industrial strategy recognises these. The ageing society grant challenge aims to bring an innovation, productivity and growth lens to the challenges and opportunities of our ageing population.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
With respect, these are fine words beautifully delivered, but the word “guarantee”, which my noble friend Lord Judd mentioned, has not appeared so far. Will all those projects, three or four of which I described, and which reasonably expected funding right up to 2020, be guaranteed funding under the strategy described by the noble Baroness?
Baroness Goldie
The noble Lord would not expect me to be able to deliver specific information on figures. That would be unreasonable, but he knows that the Government fought an election on a manifesto commitment to replace the cohesion policy. I am outlining the structures on which the Government propose to base replacing that cohesion policy. I am trying to outline how that strategy has been constructed to have regard to the whole of the United Kingdom and to deal with the issues about which the noble Lord has expressed concern in his amendment.
Lord Judd
The noble Baroness says it is unreasonable to expect figures, and there is a certain amount of sympathy with her on that. However, is she really telling us that she cannot guarantee that any projects in train, those planned on the basis of agreements, or any undertakings will be fulfilled?
Baroness Goldie
I heard what the noble Lord said and I am coming to that; I hope what I am about to say will reassure him. I am explaining what the new proposals and structures are in order to give some context to my response to what is a very important amendment. The amendment also refers to rural areas. The Committee will be aware that my noble friend Lord Gardiner is the Government’s rural ambassador. He is working to ensure that government policy is addressing the challenges faced by rural areas. The House will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, carried out a review in 2015 on the effectiveness of the Government’s rural-proofing policy, to which the Government responded. They have taken action based on his recommendations. That now includes practical guidance published by Defra to ensure that government departments make rural issues a routine policy consideration.
Looking beyond England, the devolved Administrations obviously have responsibility for rural policy, and I know that Scottish and Welsh Ministers will be thinking about how to ensure that their own policies and initiatives reflect the needs of rural communities. The Government’s industrial strategy and other existing policy initiatives therefore already cover the areas covered by the EU cohesion policy, which the noble Lord’s amendment seeks to preserve.
Lord Wigley
One of the core principles of the EU cohesion funds is the element of additionality. In previous UK regional policies, before we went into the EU structural funds from 2000 on, there was not that element of additionality, and initially the UK Government refused to recognise the need for additionality for European funding. Can the Minister therefore give an undertaking that the funds that will replace the money now coming from Europe will be additional, over and above existing regional policy?
Baroness Goldie
What I can say to the noble Lord is that we are in new territory. We are leaving the EU and having to construct successor policies and funding streams to deal with what we were accustomed to as a member of the EU. I have tried to explain what the principal strategy underpinning that would be, but as the noble Lord is aware, there are other funding sources. There is the United Kingdom shared prosperity fund, which will be a very important source of the funding streams to which I think he alludes. Before I come on to that, I shall deal with matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, because they are important.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Can I ask an additional question? Interreg is very much about cross-border schemes and co-operations. As we all now understand, there is one very important cross-border relationship, which we have somehow to maintain, between the United Kingdom and Ireland. Will the Government’s devolution of these funds back to national level include a specific Irish co-operation dimension?
Baroness Goldie
It will in as much as, post Brexit, the United Kingdom will work within each of its component parts, which obviously includes Northern Ireland. I anticipate that discussions would principally rest in that respect on the subject of the question that the noble Lord has raised.
Baroness Goldie
I think that, in the first instance, as we look at how we will fund different parts of the United Kingdom, the primary discussions will be with those parts of the United Kingdom—they would have to be. That is without prejudice to the Executive in Northern Ireland, who I hope will be established. We will want to pay proper respect to that Executive when they are constituted and consider what they want to do. I would be very surprised if there were not a desire to have constructive discussions with the Republic of Ireland in the interests of trying to determine how best to address these needs, if there is a relationship. The Republic of Ireland, at that point, will be an international country separate from the United Kingdom, as it will be in the EU and the United Kingdom will not. We have to respect these new relationships and new boundaries.
Lord Wigley
This will be the last time I trouble the noble Baroness. On the Interreg question, one area that has benefited greatly has been the western Wales coast, particularly the seaports with their connections with southern Ireland. Given the pressure that there will be on Holyhead and other ports arising from Irish trade coming through the UK, surely this is an area where a version of Interreg has a very significant role to play. Can the Minister keep that in mind as the thinking on these issues develops?
Baroness Goldie
I thank the noble Lord; I think he raised an important point. The Government, as my noble and learned friend Lord Keen said, are very keen to listen. One benefit of debates like this is that points arise which merit careful consideration, so I thank him for raising that point.
The amendment strayed on to a more technical area. It would create provision for a Minister of the Crown to make provisions for programmes to implement cohesion policy domestically. I argue, however, that these powers are unnecessary. For example, under Section 126 of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, the Government already possess power to provide financial assistance for the areas currently supported by EU cohesion policy and European structural funds. It allows the Secretary of State to give financial assistance in activities that contribute to the regeneration or development of an area, which include contributing to or encouraging economic development, providing employment for local people and providing or improving training services for local people. These activities cover much of the support provided under current European structural funds.
I have tried to set out why I think the noble Lord’s amendment is not required. The Government already have an industrial strategy which covers many of the areas of the amendment. There are also existing powers in place that make the amendment unnecessary. I have endeavoured to outline our plans for new funding to replace cohesion policy programmes—I appreciate that it has not perhaps been with the detail that the noble Lord might be seeking, but I hope I can reassure him that there is a plan to provide successor mechanisms to the European funding sources. I hope I have tackled his concerns and I urge him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, this debate has ranged rather more widely than I had expected, and the noble Baroness has given us a very comprehensive answer, for which I am grateful. I was particularly intrigued by the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, to George Thomson, who I remember very well. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Steel, is here; he will remember George Thomson, who represented Dundee before he became a Commissioner and was responsible for this major development within the European Community that we are talking about today.
He once told me that he was very excited at being selected as the candidate for the Member of Parliament for Dundee. He was employed by DC Thomson at the time and went to tell his employer that he had been selected as the prospective parliamentary candidate. He thought that his employer would be delighted. Instead, his employer said, “You realise if you’d stayed with us you could have gone on to be the editor of the Beano”. So instead of being editor of the Beano, he went on, thankfully, to do a very good job in the European Community.
Lord Newby (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but as a representative of the sons-in-law of Lord Thomson of Monifieth, I should tell him that he was the editor of the Beano before he went on to a more serious job.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
How can I contradict a son-in-law? Without my noble friend Lord Liddle being present to advise me, I am not able to do so. I thought that my original story was quite funny; I wish it had been true. To return to the serious matter, because this is a serious matter, George Thomson left us a great legacy.
The noble Baroness has covered a lot of the issues. She has gone two-thirds of the way towards answering the points that I raised. She has given a very detailed and careful outline of the Government’s strategy, for which we are grateful, and has indicated that projects in the pipeline will be supported to the end of the current funding period, but it is beyond that that we are concerned about. We are concerned about continuity. That is something we need to pursue.
The noble Baroness also helped us a little on the UK shared prosperity fund and said that the Government would engage with that issue later this year. That could take us almost to the exit date, which will be a few months beyond that, so we need to be told about that soon. I hope that through a Written Answer or further discussion we might get a clearer indication of the timescale, otherwise, there will be a vacuum and hiatus there.
I will talk with my noble friend Lady Hayter outwith the Committee but we need to look at the Minister’s very comprehensive reply in detail and consider whether it would be appropriate to table an amendment along these lines on Report. I will withdraw my amendment but this is yet another example of the many dozens, if not hundreds, that we are discussing in this Chamber and outwith it where it would be an awful lot better if we just stayed in the European Union. Why are we having to deal with all these difficulties and problems all around the country, and in this case in the poorest areas of the country, when it could be completely unnecessary? In the next year and a bit, we may have the opportunity to give the British people a chance to re-examine whether we should continue to be members of the European Union. That point is not irrelevant to this amendment, but I beg leave to withdraw it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
I cannot call Amendment 25A, as it is an amendment to Amendment 25.
Amendment 26
Lord Pannick
Lord Pannick
Amendment 26 is another amendment arising from the report of the Constitution Committee and stands in my name and those of three other members of that committee: our chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lords, Lord Norton of Louth and Lord Beith.
This amendment focuses on Clause 4(2)(b), which excludes from Clause 4, and therefore excludes from the scope of retained EU law, as defined in Clause 6(7), rights and obligations which arise under an EU directive but which,
“are not of a kind recognised by the European Court or any court or tribunal in the United Kingdom in a case decided before exit day (whether or not as an essential part of the decision in the case)”.
The problem with that was summarised in paragraph 38 of the Constitution Committee’s report. We said that this involves,
“ambiguities in the interpretation and effect of clause 4”,
which,
“will inevitably cause legal uncertainty about a fundamental provision of the Bill”.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, when I was a young barrister doing cases in strange places such as Caernarfon Crown Court, nobody at that time thought of bringing charges under the Justices of the Peace Act 1361, but some time in the 1970s somebody had that bright idea. The Justices of the Peace Act 1361 applies to certain public order issues. Suddenly, charges of affray started appearing before those courts, and nobody questioned the efficacy or applicability of the Justices of the Peace Act 1361 in that context. Noble Lords may well be thinking: it is bedtime and that is a good story, but what on earth has it got to do with this amendment? I venture that it has something to do with it.
I am not a member of the Constitution Committee but I admire everything it has done and I support what my noble friend Lord Pannick has just said. This is about the clarity of the law. Normally, if we in this Parliament enact a law and nobody questions its efficacy for years—such as, for example, the Justices of the Peace Act 1361—we tend to pat ourselves on the back and say, “For once we’ve got something right. It’s not troubling their Lordships and Ladyships in the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, so we can be well satisfied with our legislative process”. What seems to be being said here, at least to the ordinary reader, I suspect, is that if a particular provision, though it exists, has not been tested and questioned before a court, in some circumstances it should not apply. But if it has given rise to difficulty and has had to be tested in court, that is a kind of imprimatur of quality. I just do not understand it. I hope that your Lordships, at least at 9.20 pm, tend not to understand it either.
Whichever version of this particular law we have—which has, I say to the Minister, the commendable virtue of retaining existing rights and allowing us to presume that we can act on our retained rights—please may we have clarity on what is intended and, if necessary, an explanation of why the Government wish to disapply certain rights that exist?
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 28, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and my noble friend Lady Brown of Cambridge. This amendment, which seeks to replace Clause 4 with a new clause, includes the same intent as that of Amendment 26 but goes further. It aims to preserve, more comprehensively than the existing Clause 4, the rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures derived from EU law and incorporated into domestic law via the European Communities Act 1972. Where such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and so on are incorrectly or incompletely transferred, it also imposes a duty to make regulations to remedy the deficiency.
The Government’s ambition for the withdrawal Bill is for the same rules and laws to apply after the UK leaves the EU as they did before. This ambition has been repeatedly stated, including in the Government’s great repeal Bill White Paper. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, reminded us in Monday’s debate,
“the Prime Minister said that this Bill is not an occasion for changing the law, it is an occasion for ensuring that on exit day we have a workable, certain, continuing system of law”.—[Official Report, 26/2/18; col. 550.]
However, the Bill as drafted fails to retain all EU law and therefore does not meet this objective which has been set by the Prime Minister.
I am approaching this from the point of view of environmental protection. The problem is not exclusive to environmental law, but because 80% of environmental law stems from the EU it is particularly important in this area. I would expect the Government to welcome this amendment as it will help to support their ambitions for protecting the natural environment. As the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs reaffirmed recently:
“It is this Government’s ambition to leave our environment in a better state than we found it”.
It is widely accepted that, over recent decades, the state of our environment has improved in many respects, due primarily to the introduction of EU laws. Amendment 28 will therefore support the Government’s ambition to go further in protecting and enhancing our environment by addressing four problems with the current Clause 4.
The first problem is the one identified by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in his Amendment 26. As the Explanatory Notes explicitly state,
“any directly effective provisions of directives that have not been recognised”—
that is, by a court—
“prior to exit day … will not be converted”.
I do not propose to say more about this because the noble Lord has explained, in better terms than I could, the ambiguity created by this clause.
Secondly, the proposed new clause in Amendment 28 imposes a duty on the Government to make regulations that will remedy any cases in which there have in the past been an incorrect or incomplete transfer of EU law. If the Minister considers this to be unnecessary, perhaps we could understand why. The powers to do so are contained in Clause 7(2)(f) but, surely, she would agree that there is a significant difference between a power to do something and a duty to use that power.
The third point that the amendment aims to rectify is that a number of provisions of directives are relied on directly, rather than via transposition into UK legislation. The status of these provisions is unclear as the Bill stands. An example is the Government’s current environmental reporting obligations. Can the Minister confirm that these will be put on a domestic footing as a result of the Bill?
The fourth point, on which I do not intend to elaborate because it is dealt with in Amendment 58, is that the current Clause 4 does not include the preambles to EU directives, which are important in interpreting existing EU legislation. I shall not say more about that today.
Without the amendment to Clause 4, which I am proposing with others, the Bill puts at risk EU law provisions such as the requirements to review and report on the adequacy and implementation of laws such as those in the marine strategy framework directive, the air quality directive and the habitats directive. It does not place obligations on the Government to report and send information to the European Commission —not surprisingly—which is then able to aggregate this information and use it in its consideration of the appropriateness of laws and their implementation.
Without Amendment 28, the Bill omits the aim and purpose of directives, such as the habitats directive specifying that its aim is to contribute towards biodiversity conservation, while some obligations incumbent on member states that have not been transposed into UK law will be lost—for example, the water framework directive’s requirement that water-pricing policies provide adequate incentives for users to use water efficiently. Without Amendment 28, the requirement for regional co-operation in transboundary environmental matters—for example, in article 6 of the marine strategy framework directive—would be lost.
As I have already mentioned, these problems will not only be felt in the field of environmental law. There are other examples of where directives have been incompletely or incorrectly transposed, and which would therefore be lost because of the current drafting of the Bill. These include article 15 of the e-commerce directive and article 4 of the employment equality directive, to name but two.
Finally, I would like to give one practical example of why Amendment 28 is needed. Article 6 of the energy efficiency directive requires member states to ensure that central governments,
“purchase only products, services and buildings with high energy-efficiency performance, insofar as that is consistent with cost-effectiveness, economical feasibility, wider sustainability, technical suitability, as well as sufficient competition”.
This obligation is currently implemented through a procurement policy note. The legal basis for such guidance is article 6 of the directive. No statutory obligation exists in UK domestic law. This means that the article 6 obligation on the Government to purchase highly energy-efficient products, services and buildings will disappear from our law after exit day. The procurement policy note has no legislative status and could be revoked by a Government at any time, without any form of parliamentary scrutiny.
I hope that the Minister will address my points in her response and, if she is not prepared to accept Amendment 28, will explain what additional steps the Government intend to take to ensure that the environment is protected by law and that this Bill ensures that we will have a workable, certain and continuing system of law on exit day.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 28, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Krebs and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and to which I have also added my name. My noble friend Lord Krebs has already described very eloquently the purpose of the amendment. During Committee in the other place, the then Minister of State for Courts and Justice described this clause in nice, simple, visual terms. I found them slightly easier than all the legal language that we have been dealing with. He called it a sort of broom: a sweeper provision that,
“picks up the other obligations, rights and remedies that would currently have the force of UK law under section 2 of the European Communities Act”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/11/17; col. 498.]
Such a broom seems a jolly useful idea, but as it stands it is missing a few bristles.
My noble friend Lord Krebs mentioned the air quality directive. I believe that Clause 4, as it stands, could fail to sweep into UK law the requirement on the Government to review and adjust the airborne particulate PM2.5 targets in line with scientific information from the World Health Organization. The current clause could also fail to sweep, as he mentioned, details such as the aims and purposes of directives. For example, the environmental liability directive includes the really important principle of “the polluter pays”. I am not quite sure whether I am addressing the noble Baroness the Minister or the noble and learned Lord the Minister, but I would ask one of them to please let us have a broom with denser bristles.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, Clause 4 contains many ambiguities, some of which have been helpfully pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown. The clause domesticates all directly effective treaty provisions whether or not they will be capable of meaningful application following exit. Several problems arise from that which the Government are aware of and say they will address. However, I am not entirely comfortable with the sort of formula the helpful Solicitor-General brought to the committee when he came to see us. He said:
“‘The Government will consider how these rights can be given effect to in the context of our exit from the EU on a case-by-case basis ahead of exit day’”.
There is an awful lot of work to be done before exit day and I look forward to receiving this case-by-case analysis at some point.
The Constitution Committee suggested amendments to deal with some of the ambiguities, but it could not deal with all of them for the reason we set out in paragraph 37. Reciprocal rights are,
“inextricably linked to the legal relationship between the UK and the EU post-exit. The full impact of Brexit upon reciprocal rights will not be known until the UK’s future relationship with the EU is determined. This highlights a broader issue that the uncertain environment in which the Bill is being considered makes it difficult fully to assess its likely consequences, including its constitutional implications, at the time of its passage”.
That is putting it gently, but that is the difficult situation in which we are operating.
I turn specifically to the effect of Amendment 26. I remain puzzled by not just the ambiguity but the conflicting language used in the clause. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, elucidated this at the start of this short debate by citing the phrase,
“not of a kind recognised by the European Court or any court or tribunal in the UK in a case decided before exit day”.
The committee responded by saying:
“It is unclear whether this means that there must be a judgment on the specific provision of the particular directive, holding that it has direct effect, or whether it simply requires that the provision in question satisfies the criteria that would be applied if the matter were to be judicially considered”.
That is a pretty hypothetical basis on which to defend a right. We said:
“The language of clause 4 supports the latter interpretation, but the explanatory notes appear to endorse the former”.
A great deal of paper is being shuffled around at the moment because it may be that the ambiguity is being resolved as I speak, although I suspect that what is really being looked at is how far we can get tonight in the course of these proceedings. However, we need some help in getting the Government’s view on this, but that might not be sufficient because we also need to ensure that the Bill is tightened up in this respect.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
My Lords, we have spent a lot of time today trying to define what is a snapshot and what could give clarity in the transposition of the legislation. We are now poking around as to where the fuzzy edges are, and some of this is very much more than just fuzzy edges. In fact, it is very good that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, outlined areas that this measure would solidify and imply. My worry about Amendment 28 concerns subsection (3), which deals with law that,
“incorrectly or incompletely gives effect”.
It is hard to say what that will apply to. It is obviously drawn up that way because we do not know what it will apply to. In some ways, it seems we are now trying to include laws in the snapshot when we do not know what they are or what they might be.
My main gripe is that the amendment says that,
“a Minister of the Crown must make regulations for the purpose”.
This is one of the things for which we might say that a Minister of the Crown “may” make regulations, because we wish to leave some power to the UK Government to intervene to construct the type of law we would like to see.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn (Con)
My Lords, in welcoming Amendment 28 I note that it supplements Clause 4 in a way that can be considered constructive. Among other things, it would strengthen the position of archaeology and cultural heritage, which are often associated with environmental issues. A new policy statement has been promised, but that would surely be weaker than a statutory approach, which this amendment follows. It takes a more comprehensive approach in what I consider to be a constructive way.
As drafted, the Bill does not fully transpose the environmental principles set out in the European Communities Act 1972 into United Kingdom law. The amendment would therefore impose a duty to make regulations to remedy this deficiency. It is fair to say that we do not want our rich body of archaeological remains to be put at risk by deficiencies that might remain in the legislation following our withdrawal from the European Union. The amendment is supported by the Council for British Archaeology and the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists. It offers an important safeguard and I am very happy to support it.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 28, although my colleagues the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, have made the case for it very eloquently. We have rehearsed many times before in this Chamber that 80% of UK environmental law derives from the EU, so we have a particular interest in ensuring that those same environmental protections are fully transposed and are not weakened by either omission or design in the transposition. Our concern is that the current wording of Clause 4 does not give us that guarantee. The tablers of Amendment 26 attempted to address that ambiguity in one way and we have attempted to address it in a different way, but I think we are aiming to achieve the same outcome.
Crucially, the amendment concerns the issue of whether the rights, powers, obligations et cetera derived from EU law are incorrectly or incompletely transposed, and the duty to remedy that deficiency. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, gave some examples of that. For example, under current directives there is an expectation of reporting obligations, which will cease on Brexit day and are not part of the provisions that will be transposed. Although the Government have promised to create a UK body to oversee future standards and reporting obligations, we have not seen the detail of that, so we are being asked to make a decision blind. We need a substitute for that current arrangement to be spelled out.
Equally, the principles and preambles that underpin EU environmental legislation have an important but amorphous status that needs to be underwritten with guarantees as we transfer. Such provisions set out, for example, the aims and purposes of directives. They include Article 1 of the environmental liability directive, which refers to the “polluter pays” principle, and Article 1 of the habitats directive, which sets out the aim to contribute to biodiversity conservation. These things are important; they are not about to be transposed automatically, and we need extra provision to make sure that they can be followed through, which we believe our amendment does.
Finally, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who described matters not having been being dealt with by the courts as a rather odd way of defining what should and should not be transposed. He made the case much better than I could, but he is spot on and I hope that the Minister is able to answer those points.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly, first, because it is already past my bedtime and, secondly, because noble Lords have already outlined some of the problems. It was a pleasure to hear the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, speak on this matter in relation to archaeology. I started a speech about 15 years ago, when he was in the audience, by saying that when I was a trainee archaeologist he was such an icon that I thought he was already dead. I am therefore absolutely thrilled to see that he is still not dead; it is always a pleasure to hear him.
I want to put my comments in simple terms so that Members of your Lordships’ House on the other Benches understand exactly what the problem is with the EU withdrawal Bill on this issue. Amendment 28 —and, by implication, Amendment 26—is designed to make sure that we do not miss out on important parts of EU law; namely, directives. EU directives place obligations on our Government to act in particular ways, such as bringing forward particular legislation. Examples include the working time directive, a social measure, and the habitats directive, an environmental measure. These directives cover a wide span of issues. The wording of the Bill leaves huge gaps that these important directives could fall through. The amendments would plug those gaps and make sure that they are all brought over into UK law. They would also allow or require Ministers to make sure that these directives are properly implemented so that we receive whatever benefits, rights and remedies were intended. As has been said several times, the big problem with the approach set out in Clause 4 is that it will exclude legal rights simply because they have not been litigated on. I do not see the sense in that. I am sure the Government will see that it needs a little bit of fixing and that we will see some positive compromises come forward.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
I rise to seek clarification on the precise objective of Clause 4(2)(b) in this whole pattern of legislation, and therefore on the effect of the attempt made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to get shot of it. As I understand it, Clause 4(1) faithfully reproduces Section 2(1) of the 1972 Act. On the face of it, these directly effective provisions are to continue to apply. Of course, it is not always easy to decide what is a directly effective provision that comes within the ambit of Section 2(1) of the 1972 Act, which is here given effect to. As I see it, though I may be quite wrong—I should like the Minister to confirm or reject this—subsection (2)(b) is there basically to say: “Look, if it’s one of those doubtful provisions as to whether it is indeed a directly effective provision under the EU legislation, whether it is completely unclear—there isn’t a case on it—and nobody has specifically suggested that it is, it is not to be argued henceforth that it is”. In other words, the certainty and clarity that this legislation overall is designed to achieve is supposed to be advanced by getting rid, in Clause 4(2)(b), of cases where the past jurisprudence simply leaves the thing high up in the air with no proper guidance.
The Duke of Montrose
My Lords, the reason I dare to intervene at all is that I have always had a great interest in conservation, as a farmer, and in looking after nature reserves and various such things. Will the Minister make something clear? It seems to me that the habitats directive and the water directives are already part of our law; I do not quite see how they would fall through in the absence of some of these clauses, but we do want to tighten up the legislation.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I start by affirming that we on these Benches—or what is left of us—support the thrust of Amendments 26 and 28, which deal with significant issues raised in Clause 4. As the Constitution Committee avers, as drafted,
“Clause 4 will … domesticate all directly effective treaty provisions, whether or not they will be capable of meaningful application”.
What is the point of such an outcome? What is the point of creating a situation under which in the case of domesticated provisions which have,
“no practical application, or makes provision for reciprocal arrangements or rights which no longer exist or are no longer appropriate once the UK has left the EU, statutory instruments can be brought forward to repeal or amend the provisions”?
More substantively, what is the Government’s response to the damning conclusions of the committee in paragraphs 37 and 38 of its report? These describe the implications of the Bill for reciprocal rights as “uncertain” and state:
“The full impact of Brexit on reciprocal rights will not be known until the UK’s future relationship with the EU is determined”.
What is the Government’s position on this issue?
Given the concerns of the committee, what, if any, estimate have the Government made of the consequences of the Bill’s impact in this area, and what is their response to the committee’s observation that:
“The ambiguities in the interpretation and effect of clause 4 will inevitably cause legal uncertainty about a fundamental provision of the Bill. This will undermine one of the Government’s main objectives in bringing forward this Bill”?
The committee concludes its observations on this part of the Bill by stating starkly:
“The ambiguities need to be resolved”.
Does the Minister agree that there are ambiguities? If so, how and when will the Government address the problem?
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, I rise to respond to these amendments with one very clear thought in my mind: I wish my noble and learned friend Lord Keen were standing at this Dispatch Box. We are dealing with issues that are clearly perplexing much greater intellects than mine, but I shall do my best. These amendments, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Pannick, concern the operation of Clause 4 and I am grateful for the opportunity to further explain and discuss the Bill’s approach to directly effective provisions arising from EU directives, one of the issues raised by these amendments.
As the Committee is aware, one part of EU law that the Bill is not converting into our domestic law is EU directives. The reason for this is clear: as they are not a part of our domestic law now, they should not be after we leave the EU. Indeed, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern made this point very succinctly in the earlier debate. Instead, the Bill is saving the domestic measures that implement the directives under Clause 2, so it is not necessary to convert the directives themselves. My noble and learned friend Lord Keen clarified that in the earlier debate. This is not only a pragmatic approach but one that reflects the reality of our departure from the EU. As an EU member state, we were obligated to implement those directives. When we leave the EU, those obligations will cease and it makes no sense to retain the direct effect of this category of law within our domestic law.
However, the Bill recognises one important exception to this approach: where, in a case decided or commenced before exit day, a domestic or European court has recognised a particular right, power, liability, obligation, restriction, remedy or procedure provided for in a directive as having direct effect in domestic law, Clause 4 will provide for that right, power, et cetera, to continue to have effect in domestic law.
The debate seemed to centre around the nub of phrasing in Clause 4(2)(b). In the earlier debate the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, raised the interesting question of what “kind” means in the phrase “of a kind”. That question was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. In Clause 4(2)(b) “of a kind” is to be read in the context of a right recognised in a decided case. Rights recognised in particular cases are often described in specific terms particular to that case and to the individual who has brought the action. The phrase “of a kind” is designed to ensure that comparable rights particular to other cases and individuals are also retained by Clause 4 but in respect only of decisions pertaining to that same directive. It is the opinion of the Government that this strikes the right balance, ensuring in respect of directives that individuals and businesses will still be able to rely on directly effective rights that are available to them in UK law before exit day, while also providing clarity and certainty in our statute book about what will be retained in UK law at the point of exit. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, encapsulated that point very neatly.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, which is similar to the one tabled by Lord Pannick, would instead remove this balance. These amendments could have the effect that pre-exit directives would give rise to a directly effective right that has not previously been identified, for an unspecified period after our exit. Such rights would therefore become part of our law. The Government have always conscientiously implemented EU legislation, in accordance with our obligations as a member state, but once we are no longer in the EU, we should have no enduring obligations in relation to the implementation of EU directives. To accept these amendments would be to undermine the certainty that this Bill seeks to achieve. Businesses and individuals will be placed in the difficult position of not knowing when their rights might change, and our courts could face practical difficulties.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, goes even further. It would place Ministers under a continuing duty and obligation to make regulations where there has been incorrect implementation of any of the EU law that is retained through Clause 4. I would argue that this provision is harmful for several reasons, and it would not be consistent with the principle that we are separating our domestic statute book from that of the EU.
First, binding Ministers to legislate to give effect to any incomplete or incorrect directly effective EU law retained through Clause 4 would effectively require the UK to act on obligations of implementation relative to the EU framework that it was no longer under—a situation that would be simply inappropriate following exit day. Such an approach would impact on the certainty that the Bill aims to provide in our domestic statute book. By potentially allowing developments in the EU to continue to flow into UK law past the point of exit day, the clear snapshot—I know some Members do not care for the term but I think it is the best term we can come up with—taken by the Bill will be distorted, giving rise to confusion about what our law actually is and where it comes from.
Lord Krebs
The Minister has just said that it would be inappropriate to rectify omissions or incorrect translations. But if the overall aim of the Bill is to move what is currently governed by the EU into UK law and, as it happens, maybe by accident or some other reason, we have made a mistake in the past, surely it would be right within the overall aims of the Bill to rectify errors in the translation, rather than to say, “We made a mistake in the past so we will persist with the mistake”. I just do not understand the logic of not wanting to rectify mistakes.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Can I repeat something that I have raised in the Chamber before and about which I had correspondence with a Minister? The European Investigation Order, one of the directives cited by the Prime Minister in her Munich speech that she wants us to stay part of, was transposed at the end of last year into UK law, but incorrectly. It is like a European arrest warrant, but for evidence. Instead of saying that it could be opposed on the grounds that it breaches the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is what the directive says—I know, because I was one of the MEPs who battled to get that in—it says that it could be refused if it breaches the European Convention on Human Rights, which is not an EU measure. That has therefore not been transposed correctly. What is the status after exit day? Can someone challenge an EIO on the grounds that it breaches the charter, or only on the grounds that it breaches the convention?
Baroness Goldie
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, we must go back to the fundamental principle of this Bill, which is that we have to have a cut-off point and beyond that point, law-making will revert to the United Kingdom. If there are corrections or incompletions or other matters that we are required to address, we can do that through domestic legislation. That is what any Government of any complexion would want to do. The matters referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, might take years to emerge. Therefore, it would be essential for Governments to pay attention to whatever was emerging, some of which might be de minimis. We do not know, but my argument is that this would confuse and cause difficulty about understanding what our law is and certainly where it is coming from.
I was going on to say in relation to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that there is a lack of clarity regarding when exactly Ministers would have the duty to make such regulations under this amendment. Is it intended that all the instruments that currently give effect to EU directives should be reviewed so that such regulations could be repaired? Such a review would have considerable resource implications for both the Government and Parliament, and that should not be underestimated. Furthermore, it would be unnecessary: as I have already mentioned, while the UK has been a member of the EU, we have sought fully to meet our obligations and give effect to EU law in accordance with them. In the case of implementing directives, we have conscientiously discharged our obligations. To require potentially a proactive review exercise, as the noble Lord’s amendment could require, is, in my submission, pointless.
I have tried to address the concerns and issues raised; I believe the effect of these amendments would be profound, undermining the Government’s clear and coherent position on retained EU law. I hope I have explained in sufficient detail why the current design of Clause 4 is right and appropriate, and I would therefore ask both noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Pannick
I thank all those who have spoken in this debate, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, whose amendment I support. I said in opening this debate that I, and the Constitution Committee, found Clause 4(2)(b) very difficult to understand. I am reassured that even the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, with his experience dating back to 1361, with the Justices of the Peace Act, finds it puzzling.
The position is this: there is no dispute—it is well established in the case law of the Court of Justice—that an unimplemented directive does have direct effect and confers individual rights in national courts where it is clear and precise and unconditional. I understood the Minister to say that Clause 4(2)(b) is intended to exclude reliance on such a directive after exit day unless there has been a court case before exit day, either in Luxembourg or in this country on that specific directive. I find that a very odd approach—it certainly is not consistent with the language of Clause 4(2)(b) of a kind. It does not suggest that you are concerned with a court case on that specific directive.
Lord Pannick
“( ) are the subject of an enactment.”
Lord Pannick
My Lords, this is another amendment that comes from the Constitution Committee. It suggests that we should exclude from the scope of Clause 4 any EU law rights derived from the 1972 Act which are already the subject of an enactment—in other words, where Parliament has already dealt with the subject. The Constitution Committee explained its concern at paragraph 35 of its report.
The concern is this. Clause 4 as drafted would include, within retained EU law, rights and obligations under EU law irrespective of whether they have already been implemented in domestic law by primary or secondary legislation. The problem to which this gives rise is that, as a result of Clause 4, there may be, as part of our law after exit day, two conflicting sets of legal rights on the same subject: the ones already implemented by Parliament and the greater rights which a litigant will say are derived from retained EU law. The question is: how is the court supposed to deal with that conflict? It has two retained EU law rights on the same subject. The Constitution Committee heard evidence from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, the former President of the Supreme Court. As set out in the report, he told the committee that this problem needs to be addressed by the Bill.
Paragraph 36 of the report mentions that the committee heard evidence from the Department for Exiting the European Union that suggested that the problem that I have sought to explain is no different from the situation under the current law where there may be a statute which has sought to implement an EU law obligation that is found by a court judgment not fully to have implemented the EU law obligation, so the EU law obligation takes priority over the inadequate domestic implementation. The problem is that under the Bill, both the domestic enactment and the EU law obligation —see Clauses 2 and 4 respectively—are treated as retained EU law, so the supremacy principle under Clause 5, to which we will come, applies to both of them, and the question remains: which of them takes priority? I look forward to hearing the answer from the Minister to this difficulty. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, at this late hour, I am more than content to rely on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the questions he has raised.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, this will be brief, because my soulmate and prop has deserted me. With this amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has raised what he sees as the potential conflict between the EU law retained under Clause 4 and the domestic legislation preserved under Clause 2. His amendment seeks to ensure that rights, powers, obligations et cetera provided for in EU directives which have been implemented into EU-derived domestic law—and therefore are already subject to an enactment—will not need to have their directly effective provisions domesticated through Clause 4.
The Government consider this amendment unnecessary. To the extent that there is any potential overlap between Clause 4 and Clause 2, this is no different from the situation at present in relation to EU law and how we see it given effect in UK law. A judgment may establish direct effect, and domestic legislation to implement that finding may follow. But this does not cause any practical difficulties now—indeed one process complements the other—so we simply do not agree that there will be practical difficulties under this Bill as phrased.
I am of course grateful for the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, but the Bill’s position is clear and consistent with existing practice, and his amendment is unnecessary. In these circumstances, I ask him to withdraw it.
Lord Beith
The noble Baroness is bringing out an explanation which the committee has already considered and was not satisfied by. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, explained, there is a remaining ambiguity. Can I suggest to her that she composes a note to her very good friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, saying she was given a very difficult time over this and that the Government really have to look at it again? If she is agreeable to doing that, we will not spend much time making a fuss about it.
Baroness Goldie
I thank the noble Lord very much indeed. I am sure my noble and learned friend Lord Keen does not even need the note. He will know that I have had a very difficult time.
Lord Pannick
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. The problem is, as I sought to explain, that under existing law we know which takes priority: it is EU law. The problem under the Bill is that the EU obligation, which is retained EU law, and the existing domestic implementation, which is also retained EU law, because Clause 2 says so, are in conflict, and the Bill does not provide any order of priority between them. I had assumed that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, had gone off because he wants to sit in the Library and think about the answer to this problem. I very much hope that before Report he will come up with the answer and that this can be resolved. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 5th March 2018
(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 79-IV(b) Manuscript amendment for Committee, supplementary to the fourth marshalled list (PDF, 79KB) - (5 Mar 2018)
Baroness Sherlock
“Maintenance of rights in the area of family law
(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, a Minister of the Crown must publish a report outlining the ways in which the rights afforded by EU family law continue to exist in domestic law.(2) The report provided for under subsection (1) must include—(a) the steps, if any, taken by Ministers of the Crown to negotiate the continuation of reciprocal arrangements between the United Kingdom and member States in the field of family law;(b) the nature and duration of these reciprocal arrangements, if such arrangements have been successfully negotiated; and(c) a declaration from the Minister of the Crown outlining whether, in their view, the rights of individuals in the area of family law have been weakened.(3) The Minister of the Crown must lay the report before both Houses of Parliament.”
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 29 I shall speak also to Amendments 53, 120 and 336, all tabled in my name. In doing so, I should like to record my appreciation of the work done by the Brexit and Family Law group, especially the members of the Family Law Bar Association, Resolution and the International Academy of Family Lawyers who have worked so hard to produce expert briefing for the House.
At Second Reading I set out the problems facing international family law post Brexit. I have tabled these probing amendments specifically to give the Minister the opportunity to reassure the Committee that he understands the severity of the problems and tell us how the Government propose to take forward family law provisions within the UK after Brexit. I will spell out—as succinctly as I can, given the complexity of this issue—what the problems are, explain the only two ways I can think of in which the Government could deal with this, and invite the Minister to tell us in which direction they plan to take the country.
Amendment 336 simply clarifies what counts as family law for the purposes of this debate. It focuses on two main instruments, the first of which is Council Regulation No. 2201/2003, known as “Brussels II revised”, or “Brussels IIa” in the jargon. It deals with jurisdiction for divorce and issues about parental responsibility for children. As well as private law disputes about child arrangements within a family, it covers child abduction cases and public law disputes where local authorities seek child protection measures. The second is Council Regulation No. 4/2009, known as the maintenance regulation, which deals with child maintenance obligations and maintenance for the adults in a family. There are plenty of other important EU instruments that affect families, but because of time I will not go through them all.
Let me explain how the EU family law provisions named in Amendment 336 work. Unlike in other areas of law, each EU state makes and keeps its own family law, so that countries decide the terms of their own substantive family law. These EU family law provisions are really about procedure and they do three things, the first of which concerns jurisdiction. They provide a mechanism for deciding which country’s courts take precedence if cases are issued in two countries at the same time, thereby avoiding expensive parallel proceedings that could lead to contradictory decisions. The certainty and predictability make it easier for families to understand what will happen.
Number two is enforcement; that is, a court order for maintenance or child contact—or an injunction against harassment issued by an English court—can be enforced in other EU states, and vice versa. Thirdly, there is co-operation between EU member states, for example the sharing of information to protect children, help locate people to make them pay maintenance or start proceedings across borders.
The Bill copies those EU provisions into UK domestic law, but the whole point of the regulations is that they will work on a reciprocal basis. When we leave the EU we will lose that reciprocal aspect. The Bill cannot solve that problem; in fact, it creates an additional one. By importing EU provisions, we do not change our substantive law but we do retain our obligations toward the judgments of other EU member states, without any guarantee of reciprocity. So we have a one-way street where the UK is obliged to apply current provisions but the EU 27 will not have to do the same for us. A Polish order to return an abducted child or enforce a contact order would be automatically enforceable in England, but the reverse would not be true. English orders might be enforceable using other international conventions, but those have different provisions and there would be a mismatch in the way decisions are treated. A British woman could be forced to stop her divorce case in the English courts if her husband had filed first in Germany, but the reverse would not be true. The couple could end up with cases running simultaneously in Birmingham and Berlin at vast expense and reaching contradictory decisions on maintenance with no certainty of enforcement. There are no other international conventions applicable across the EU to help in divorce cases. Lawyers will not know what to advise on how orders will be treated, and many families will not have the money to fight it out in court. Those who cannot afford advice will be lost.
I am afraid that, to complicate things further, these regulations are about to change. The EU is in the middle of renegotiating them: it is about to negotiate an update to Brussels IIa, creating a “Brussels IIa recast”, in the jargon. In October 2016, the UK decided to actively get involved by opting into the renegotiation of Brussels IIa, which is expected to conclude some time next year. The reforms aim, broadly, to improve return proceedings after a child is abducted by limiting the number of appeals and concentrating on certain courts—to enhance children’s rights and give children the chance to be heard in court—as well as making various other improvements, such as better co-ordination with the 1996 Hague Convention on Protection of Children. Those improvements are welcome, but they help us only if the recast provisions are complete before Brexit. If they are not—and they probably will not be—we will end up importing into our law provisions that will almost immediately be different from those from the EU, making it even harder to negotiate getting back any reciprocity.
A final challenge is that the UK contains a number of different jurisdictions—England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—all of which have different family law systems. We might come back to that later in the Bill. So that is the landscape at which Amendment 29 is directed. It invites Ministers to publish a report that outlines the way in which the rights afforded by EU family law will continue to operate in domestic law, what steps Ministers have taken to negotiate reciprocal arrangements between the UK and the EU 27, and whether the rights of individuals have been weakened as a consequence. I hope that Ministers will accept the amendment, but for the report to be meaningful we need the Minister to answer a key question today: what is the Government’s vision for family law post Brexit? I will make it easier by making it a multiple-choice question, because I think there are only two choices. Option one is that we seek to retain the status quo as far as possible, permanently. The 2017 report of our Justice Sub-Committee of the European Union Committee—called Brexit: Justice for Families, Individuals and Businesses?—said that the three main EU regulations were,
“crucial to judicial cooperation in civil matters and reflect the UK’s influence and British legal culture”.
The report urges the Government to stay as close as possible to those rules when negotiating their post-Brexit position.
So the questions begin: is the Government’s goal to stick with the provisions of the EU family law regulations? If so, we will clearly need some sort of reciprocal arrangement with the EU, covering the EU 27, to make those provisions effective. Question two: are there negotiations with the EU, ongoing or planned, to discuss that issue—and, given how tight time is, when might those be expected to conclude? Question three: if the Brussels IIa recast is adopted by the EU after Brexit, do the Government intend to amend the provisions brought into our law to reflect the improvements brought about through the recast measure?
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Just before my noble friend leaves Amendment 53, I will say that I have followed her almost entirely and agreed with her, but I do not understand in practice what the amendment means by requiring UK courts and tribunals to “have regard to” relevant decisions of the European court relating to cases referred to it by the domestic courts of EU member states. In practical terms to a layman, what does “have regard to” mean? Is it standard legal terminology?
Baroness Sherlock
It is standard legal terminology, and I thank my noble friend for his question. It would mean having regard to the human rights model. I said at the start that these were probing amendments. One of the reasons why I tabled it in that form is that I knew that if I tried to do anything more specific I would end up getting a classic government answer about the European court. To be honest, I am not really interested in having a fight about that. All I want to do is to understand what the Government’s approach to this is and how they will deal with whatever kind of judicial oversight is needed to enable reciprocity. So I will be open to whatever they come back and say; I will look at it in Hansard and judge it afterwards, rather than getting into it now. This is Committee and that is what I was trying to do.
My final questions are: will the Minister assure us that the 1996 Hague child protection convention will have continued application? Secondly, the UK will have to ratify the 2007 Hague convention on maintenance independently once we have left the EU. Because we have to give three months’ notice on that, if we do not take action before Brexit there will be a minimum three-month gap in its applicability after we leave. So what steps are the Government taking to ensure that it continues to apply seamlessly?
I know that I have asked an awful lot of questions, but at heart there is a core question: do Ministers want to try to stay with the current reciprocal provisions, which are tried and tested? If the answer is yes, are they taking the necessary steps? If it is no, where are we heading and what are we going to do in the interim until we get there? These are important provisions for the effective conduct of cross-border family cases. There are a lot of international divorces each year. These issues cannot be ignored. Children will suffer if they are not returned promptly after being abducted, or if their main carers do not get the maintenance they are entitled to. Families can lose time and money fighting court cases in two countries, with no certainty as to what happens at the end. We need to know where we are heading. To that end, I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 29 and the supporting amendments. My noble friend Lady Hamwee has put her name to them to express our strong support from these Benches.
The Foreign Secretary said in his one of his more perceptive interventions—delivered, appropriately, on Valentine’s Day—that if we get the right deal on aviation and visa-free travel, British citizens will continue to travel within the EU, meet interesting people and fall in love. It follows that they may also marry and have children with EU citizens.
There are approximately 16 million international families in the European Union and about 140,000 international divorces in the EU annually. While the statistics are not collected by individual countries, a great many of them involved British citizens married to citizens of other member states. Over many years, we have painstakingly constructed an effective, fair and widely admired set of arrangements for permitting very different family law systems to operate alongside each other within the EU, while enabling member states to respect the laws, orders and arrangements made elsewhere in the Union.
Importantly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, explained, EU family law concerns procedural and not substantive law. All EU states have their own substantive family law; in the UK alone, we have three systems: one for England and Wales, one for Scotland and another for Northern Ireland. However, EU law has established a common set of rules for jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments and orders and cross-border co-operation. The Brussels IIa regulation, enforced since 2005, governs jurisdiction; that is, where proceedings ought to be brought and decided. It applies to divorce and cases concerning children; in private law disputes, such as those concerning residence or contact between parents and children; and to public law disputes where local authorities are concerned for child protection. The regulation also provides rules for child abduction cases, of which there are roughly 1,800 a year within the European Union, simplifying and expediting the enforcement within the EU of the protections accorded by the Hague convention.
The maintenance regulation which the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, also mentioned, enforced since 2011, enables parties to enforce maintenance obligations for adults and children across the Union. Further EU measures, directly applicable in all member states, reinforce protection for victims of domestic violence and assist in enforcing out-of-court settlements.
The effect of the Bill is that the UK would continue to be bound to apply EU family law in its entirety as it stood at exit day. However, there would be no reciprocity. We would be bound to recognise and enforce the decisions of EU member states, but the 27 remaining member states would be under no such obligation to recognise or enforce decisions of UK courts. So British citizens would be at a significant and lasting disadvantage. There would be the risk of proceedings in the UK being pursued in parallel with proceedings in EU member states and so the risk of conflicting judgments, with EU judgments enforceable in the UK and UK judgements unenforceable in the EU. This would be,
“the worst of all outcomes”,
as the Family Law Bar Association, Resolution and the International Academy of Family Lawyers pointed out in their excellent joint paper published in October. It would, as the paper asserted, leave our citizens in a position of significant vulnerability and confusion, and lead to unfair outcomes.
A further issue is that Brussels IIa is currently being revised. British family lawyers have been playing their important part in shaping the new arrangements. However, the new regulation will not apply to the UK unless we legislate for it to do so. Even legislating for it to do so will not bring about reciprocity unless we agree in negotiations to that reciprocity, and there’s the rub, because EU law is subject to interpretation and ultimate determination by the Court of Justice of the European Union, yet the Government insist on rejecting the direct application of CJEU decisions. Decisions of the CJEU in this field concern the rights of individual citizens. Cases are referred to the court because national courts seek the determination of individual cases before them by the European court. Members of this House have asked over and over again: why should the 27 give that up?
Amendment 53 is designed to explore a continuing role for the CJEU. The court has provided a successful system for the determination of disputes and for the supervision, monitoring and development of EU law. In our debate on the European arrest warrant on 8 February, I suggested that if we went ahead with this project to leave the EU, we could seek some adjustment of the constitution of the court, so that in areas of cross-border co-operation involving the United Kingdom the court might include a UK judge and a UK Advocate-General, which it otherwise would not, after we left, whether by the creation of a separate division of the court or by some other means.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, whom I see in his place, raised the constitution of the court in Committee with my noble friend Lady Ludford, last Monday. However, I cannot see any basis on which we can preserve the benefit of EU family law, just as in many other areas where we seek continued co-operation with the EU, without agreeing to its fundamental underpinning by the guarantee of recourse to the CJEU. There has been no answer from our Government on these issues.
European family law brings this country an unqualified benefit. There is no down side. The Government, in answers from the Dispatch Box, have recognised this. They say they want to continue to benefit from the rules for cross-border co-operation in family law. However, we can no longer be asked to listen to pious protestations from the Dispatch Box in this House to that effect when, almost in the next breath, they contradict themselves by rejecting the decisive role of the Court of Justice in determining the application of the rules. Amendment 29 would insist on some frankness on the part of the Government about the consequences of Brexit for family law—frankness with the British public, who have a right to be informed of the threat to international co-operation in this area, and frankness with this Parliament, which will in due course be asked to enact a statute approving any withdrawal terms.
This Bill and the Government’s obsessive stubbornness on the question of the CJEU threaten to make international co-operation in family law a needless casualty of Brexit, with absolutely no countervailing benefit, either for British citizens or for citizens of the rest of the European Union.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
As a family judge, I regularly tried international family cases, so I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and very much support Amendment 29. I am dismayed, I have to say, by the inadequacy of the current wording of the Bill, which does not refer specifically to family law and does not deal with the main issue of reciprocity and the importance of the European court in Luxembourg. I will reiterate two figures because they are important for noble Lords to know. One is that there are 140,000 EU divorces between the UK and other member states. That is not a small number. There are 1,800 EU child abduction cases—an area of the law that I spent a disproportionate amount of my time trying under the Hague convention before the EU law came in and enormously improved the Hague convention.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 29 and will speak briefly to Amendment 336, to which my name is attached. I remind the House of my declared interest as chair of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. I wish to dwell on that experience in my remarks today, by thinking in this debate about the impact on the child and whether or not they feel that their voice is heard.
It is for this reason that I feel it is vital that the Government take all possible steps to achieve an outcome which retains full reciprocal arrangements between the UK and member states in the field of family law. It is so vital that families needing to go to court must know that whatever court they end up in, and in whatever country, its decision will be respected by other courts. We have heard a lot from distinguished lawyers about the current reciprocal arrangements, which have been built up and evolved over decades. They have provided real benefits to families across the UK. These harmonised rules across the EU for establishing jurisdictions to hear cases, to recognise and enforce each other’s orders, and to co-operate across borders have made a real difference to families caught up in these difficult situations.
Replicating provisions in our own domestic law without full reciprocity would leave our citizens in a position of real vulnerability and confusion. It would lead to very unfair outcomes for British citizens, a point which has already been made. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, said so persuasively, the EU instruments which affect UK family law deal primarily with procedural, not substantive, family law. Sovereignty is not the issue here and I really hope that in this debate, as we look at what happens to family law in the context of Brexit, we will not get caught up on the high altar of sovereignty. This is about what happens to very vulnerable and distressed children and families.
I turn briefly to Amendment 336, to which my name is attached. The reason I wanted to attach my name is that the first regulation cited in this amendment—I will not go into the technical detail—is one that we at CAFCASS use a lot in both private and public law, since the fundamental principle is to ensure the reciprocal recognition of court orders between the EU states. It saves re-litigating and protects children who move between states, whether they are living there temporarily or permanently. It also requires states to co-operate with each other in providing information in public and private law, and to assist in placing children in public law cases in other member states; this is practical but really critical. The absolutely key point is that these arrangements help to alleviate the inevitable distress and disruption for the children and families involved.
Our key role at CAFCASS is to ensure that the voice of the child is heard in family courts, whether in public law, which is usually where local authorities are making an application for a child to be removed from a parent and taken into care, or in private law, which is usually where parents are separating with such high levels of conflict that the court is involved in deciding child arrangements such as residence and contact. At the moment, my strong sense is that the critical voice of the child is absent from discussions about what happens to family law post Brexit. This will be much to the detriment of children and young people involved in family proceedings, who are often extremely vulnerable and going through a very difficult period in their lives. This can lead in turn to real emotional distress and trauma, and have an adverse effect on mental health and well-being.
Many of these children will have had what is called in the research “adverse childhood experiences” first-hand, including abuse, domestic violence and bereavement. That is why what we do to our family law as we look at the Bill is so important. We need to make sure that it is as child-friendly as possible, rather than something that is done to children and over which they feel they have no control.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lady Sherlock in this group of amendments. I appreciate the wisdom of noble Lords who have spoken.
I will add a few comments, mainly on children’s rights and child protection, which have been spoken about by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. I should declare an interest as the chair of the sub-committee on children in the Council of Europe. The EU does not have legal power to change domestic family law, but in procedural rules it ensures that family-related decisions made in the UK can be recognised and enforced in other countries in the EU. Most children live in families, and therefore family law will often have an impact on children. The current rules ensure a level of certainty for families, and therefore children, who move about the countries of the EU. The rules prevent parents avoiding their obligations by moving around. This is because EU law has uniform rules across member states for family law proceedings, including those involving children. EU law ensures that public law decisions to protect children can be enforced in countries of which the child is a non-national. Such law emphasises the best interests of children, as enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child—which I am sure will come up over and over again in the discussion on children—where the welfare of the child is deemed paramount and a child who has the capacity must be given the opportunity to be heard, including in family disputes. The EU maintenance regulation provides for child maintenance to be automatically applicable in any other member state to which either of the parents and/or the child move.
My noble friend and others mentioned the Hague conventions. Other options to ensure family welfare, such as creating bilateral agreements, would take more time to implement and children and families would suffer. The six-week deadline for the resolution of child abduction cases should be retained. Membership of the EU judicial network to facilitate information sharing between courts dealing with family issues should continue. One example of the protection of children is related to the EU directive of the European Council establishing minimum standards for legislative and practical measures to support victims of crime. This includes the specific needs of children and the need to pay attention to services and support in, for example, gender-based or domestic violence. The directive includes special reference to the need to ensure that children’s best interests are the primary consideration and to ensure a child-friendly approach.
I am impressed by and grateful for the report by the EU Committee chaired by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, Brexit: Justice for Families, Individuals and Businesses. It addresses the 1996 Hague convention in respect of parental responsibility and measures for the protection of children. The maintenance regulation is designed to ensure that rules on jurisdiction and the enforcement of decisions relating to maintenance obligations are continued and provides that obligations should be determined in accordance with the Hague protocol. The report comments on the Brussels IIa regulation in relation to divorce, legal separation and the annulment of marriage. It carries specific rules on child abduction and access rights. I will not go into this in detail but will just say that witnesses to the inquiry on which the report is based commented favourably on Brussels IIa. Sir Mathew Thorpe stated that it is a,
“laudable ambition to achieve better justice for European citizens where issues cross the border of member states”,
and viewed the regulation as “broadly successful”. David Williams QC stated that Brussels IIa had spread into every area of our domestic law.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I apologise that this is the first time I have spoken during the passage of the Bill: I was unavoidably out of the country when it received its Second Reading. My contribution, if I had been able to make one then, would have touched on the vital area of the implications of Brexit for family law.
I understand that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, has said, these are probing amendments, but I find myself in disagreement with the noble Baronesses who have tabled Amendments 29, 53 and 336. This is generally not the case: indeed, I and other noble Lords are aware of their very strong track record in championing families in general and family justice in particular. However, under their amendments the UK would either remain entirely subject to EU law in the family law context or enter into some bespoke arrangement—such an arrangement does not exist presently between the EU and any other non-EU member state—which would lead to the same outcome.
Reciprocal arrangements are possible only by being subject to EU laws. The UK government position in the withdrawal legislation is that EU laws on the day we leave the EU will become part of UK national law, but not that we will be bound to those laws on an ongoing reciprocal basis, whether in the short term or for eight years or more. As far as I am aware, this is not being proposed in any other area of UK law. I understand and share the concern for children and families that drives many of those tabling these amendments. However, if accepted, they would lead to a situation in which, in effect, the UK had not left the EU. I will look in turn at Amendments 29, 53 and 336.
Amendment 29 would bind the Government to publish a report on the maintenance of rights in family law within six months of the Act being passed. If that event takes place in June 2018, two years after the referendum, this proposed new clause would take us to late 2018 and a matter of months before we leave the EU. Obviously, the Government need not take the full time, but it is worth saying that there have already been many meetings and consultations: I am aware of an early round with international lawyers and the Ministry of Justice as early as October 2016, with responses requested by the MoJ by November 2016 so it could report to DExEU.
A major family law conference was held by Cambridge University in March 2017 with academics, practitioners and policy advisers from across the UK and some EU nations, again with civil servants in attendance to report back. A couple of other conferences were held last spring. Then over the autumn, I know there were direct meetings between practitioners and civil servants about these issues, including the proposal that we should remain part of EU family law after we leave the EU. These meetings continued throughout the latter part of 2017 and, no doubt, are still ongoing.
Noble Lords will be aware that just before Christmas there was a debate here on the European Union Justice Sub-Committee’s report on civil law matters. Allowing another six months would unnecessarily extend what has already been a long consultation process. Nothing has been said by any government department to hint that the UK Government will contemplate such a dramatic change to the withdrawal legislation that we will continue to be a direct party to EU legislation in one distinctive area of law.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way; I was anxious to ask him this before he sat down. I respect his professed commitment to the rights of families and children, but he appears to be saying that a rather ideological commitment to escape the jurisdiction of the European court and the other enforcement mechanisms should prevail above the needs of divorcing people and especially children who need maintenance obligation enforced and who may have been the subject of abduction. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said—as a judge, she has vast experience in this area—it was much easier once EU law provisions came into force than under the international conventions. Can the noble Lord honestly tell me that he could look children in the eye and say it is better to be outside the reciprocal EU arrangements?
Lord Farmer
I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. I believe it will be better in the long run. We have mentioned the Hague convention. There are many experts; Professor Paul Beaumont, for instance, is a leading expert, who has said at international conferences that in his opinion the Hague alternatives will be perfectly adequate and satisfactory on our leaving the EU.
Moreover, the amendment anticipates a report on steps taken to negotiate continued reciprocal arrangements—that is, effectively, continued membership of EU family law. This position has not been adopted in any other area of law, as far as I am aware, and is not supported by organisations such as the Law Society.
The Archbishop of York
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He really needs to answer the question posed by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. The Hague convention can of course go some way to help, but it is much weaker than the present reciprocal arrangements. It seems to me that it is no good to simply incorporate EU law that we then cannot reciprocate at all. What would be the point? What about, for example, extradition, where we have agreed with other countries that are not part of the EU to have the same arrangements? We have managed to do that for extradition and no sovereignty question has been raised—it is a question of process. Will the noble Lord explain how he thinks simply incorporating EU law into our laws is going to guarantee that British citizens who are in the EU and EU citizens who are in Britain are treated the same in matters of family law? How would that work?
Lord Farmer
I thank the most reverend Primate for his intervention. There is a requirement that our courts, as we heard earlier, would take regard of EU law. We were not being tied to precedent, but certainly—
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but I have some doubts about his repeated assertion that the sort of approach in the amendments is not being taken anywhere else in the EU statute book. I wonder if he would like to read the Prime Minister’s speech at Munich and her references to the European arrest warrant, and try to parse and construe them in any other way.
Lord Farmer
Am I going to be able to make my speech? I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. I will be referring to the Prime Minister’s speech on Friday, which I think has some bearing and is more up to date. I am happy to talk to the noble Lord following this debate.
The amendment is highly presumptuous in suggesting a report on a measure that has no established government or parliamentary support. Passing this amendment as even contemplating a possibility of ongoing reciprocal arrangements and thence continually being bound by EU law would allow and openly encourage other areas of law, trade and social life to seek the same. This is not what the Government have said they would permit or seek. Acknowledging the possibility of this distinctive arrangement will encourage the hope of other aspects of trading and commercial life in being bound to the EU in our future arrangements.
Finally, the amendment suggests that there should be a declaration whereby a Minister of the Crown considers whether the rights of individuals in the area of family law have been weakened. This is legally controversial—and I think relates to a point just made—because of a difference of opinion on the respective advantages and disadvantages for families of EU family laws. Proposed new subsection (2)(c) in this amendment is highly presumptive of the expectation that there will be weakened rights, and would act to countenance some sort of special arrangement for ongoing reciprocity and being part of EU laws.
Amendment 53 to Clause 6 would give a UK court the power for eight years after March 2019—that is, to 2027—to refer matters relating to family law to the European court for a preliminary ruling, and it would then be bound by that ruling. Moreover, proposed new subsection (1C) states that UK courts must have regard to decisions of the European court for those eight years, but these eight years could be extended with proposed new subsection (1D). Those eight years appear to me to be entirely arbitrary; certainly, they are intended to take us beyond the next general election. But again the intention of the supporters of this amendment would appear to be that we are forever bound by the European court.
This Bill brings EU law into UK law. The Government have made it very clear that we will not be bound by the European court, but we will give strong regard to its decisions. When we apply law which is the same as EU law, the Prime Minister has made it very clear that our courts will look at European case law. The UK courts will not be bound, as understood in the common-law system of precedent in which courts are bound by higher court decisions. This was the result of the referendum and the present approach of the Government. But when it is looking at UK legislation which is similar to or indeed the same wording as EU legislation, there will need to be strong and good reasons—in my words, but as generally understood—for us not to follow it. That is already similar to the way the UK courts look at the Supreme Court decisions of other friendly jurisdictions when dealing with other international family laws—for example, in relation to Hague conventions in respect of child abduction. The UK is well able and frequently does give very strong and high regard to such decisions without being legally bound by them.
The Prime Minister was clear in her Mansion House speech on Friday on this issue. She used very careful words confirming continued strong recognition of European court decisions but not bound in law. We cannot be bound by EU laws in a reciprocal arrangement with the EU in respect of EU laws unless we are also bound by the European court. The EU will simply not countenance the UK being part of any arrangement for being bound into EU laws without being bound into the European court. This amendment must fail because proposed new subsection (1B) requires that we are bound.
One of the reasons that I and others are very keen we leave this aspect of the EU and its political agenda is because the EU intends its laws to have universal application. This means that they do not apply to just intra-EU cross-border family matters. The EU laws must apply to all cases with no other EU involvement—so, at present, a London/New York family or a London/Sydney couple are bound by EU law. This deals with several areas such as divorce jurisdiction and the inability to bring claims for reasonable needs on a divorce settlement. If the amendment is allowed, we will have cases before the UK courts which have no EU aspect—because we will have left the EU—but in which one party could apply for a preliminary ruling to the European court where it suited their litigation advantage. One can imagine the astonishment of lawyers in, for example, New York or Sydney, saying, “But you, the UK, left the EU several years ago in 2019. Why is this still being referred to the EU and subject to EU law?” Today we must lay to rest, once and for all, any suggestion that the distinctive area of family law should alone be bound by European court decisions.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
This is not my area of expertise, but it seems to me that the noble Lord, in his very detailed speech, has not addressed the central point, made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, about the benefit of being able to enforce decisions in other member states. Is the noble Lord arguing that these wonderful international arrangements, which he referred to as being just as effective as the EU, provide for that enforceability? I very much doubt it.
Lord Farmer
I thank the noble Lord for another intervention. They are a matter of negotiation and finding the best practice, as they are even with the EU. As I said, up until now they have operated well with other Governments around the world. They work well in the USA, Canada, Australia and countless other countries.
The narrow definition of family law in Amendment 336 ignores certain EU laws on the service of documents and taking evidence because we have perfectly satisfactory alternatives through Hague worldwide laws. Moreover, working with worldwide family laws with countries across the world, not just Europe, fits in entirely with the Government’s intention that on leaving the EU we will be a worldwide-facing country, looking at our global role and using the leading initiatives and developments in the UK to aid and encourage other legal systems.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry that I was not here at the beginning of the discussion on this amendment. My name is on a later amendment associated with the discussions on family law. As many in the House know, I chaired the group in the European Union Select Committee that dealt with family law. We created the report referred to by the noble Lord.
It is just not true that world law deals with this issue just as well as European law. Every family lawyer will tell you that some directives have made a huge difference to the safeguarding of children, women with abusive husbands and enforcing maintenance orders made in this country. Those directives can be enforced in another country in Europe with great ease without someone having to get themselves lawyers over there. However, you cannot do that with the United States. You have to get yourself “lawyered” up to the eyeballs in America to deal with your husband taking your children there and not returning them to you. If your partner goes off to another part of the world and is not paying maintenance, it is a very expensive and problematic business to get maintenance paid for your children, who need it. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to please not mislead the House by saying that there is an equality of arms in this respect around the world. That is not true. We seek a mechanism to make this system operate after we leave the European Union—some kind of agreement that makes it possible for children, and perhaps abused partners, to have proper mutual recognition arrangements to enable them to seek remedies and enforcement easily. That is the point of this and that is what is misunderstood by the noble Lord.
Lord Farmer
I thank the noble Baroness for her intervention. Perhaps I can speak to her afterwards concerning countries outside the EU. It is worth mentioning that Professor Beaumont who I mentioned earlier—a leading expert on both the EU and The Hague—said in his opinion that The Hague alternatives are perfectly adequate and satisfactory on our leaving the EU. Apparently, the House of Lords committee does not seem to have heard this evidence.
I am sure noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I am coming to the end of my remarks. This amendment should be rejected because it concentrates on the UK remaining Eurocentric, not global, which is an important point if we are leaving the EU. Academics and lawyers who would have spoken favourably about the Hague laws were not consulted by the House of Lords Justice Sub-Committee, yet practitioners and others have described to me the incredible benefits to children and families from the UK being part of these worldwide international laws.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, is rightly respected for his expertise on a number of subjects—this was not one of them. Indeed, it was palpable that the atmosphere in the Chamber was curdling as he spoke. I remind the noble Lord and, indeed, the Committee, and particularly the Minister, who I suspect did not enjoy the speech we have just heard, about the danger of double standards on this subject. I remind the Committee in particular of Section 1 of the Children Act 1989, and of the standard that that Act imposes on courts. By “courts” I refer to every court dealing with children’s issues, from the Amlwch magistrates’ court, if the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, will forgive that reference or enjoy the name check, to the Supreme Court and, indeed, to the President of the Family Division, a role which my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss filled with such great distinction. It is worth reminding your Lordships that the “paramount consideration”—those are the statutory words—when a court considers the upbringing of a child or anything to do with the child is that child’s welfare. Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 does not merely deal with physical aspects of the child’s life but includes, for example, in Section 1(3)(a),
“the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of his age and understanding)”.
Those are the standards that this Parliament places on our courts.
There is a danger that, if the Government do not sort out the problems so ably articulated by those who have spoken to these various amendments, we will have a situation of double standards. The courts will be obliged to apply those standards but our Government will abandon them, possibly merely to avoid a few cases coming before the Court of Justice of the European Union. That is completely unconscionable. I am not saying that the only solution is to fall under the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union; there may be alternatives, such as a treaty with the European Union that provides for similar processes, albeit through our own courts, and reciprocal arrangements with other courts. The Court of Justice of the European Union is not a shibboleth—one way or the other. It is just the current way of solving a series of problems, which nobody is able to improve on at the moment.
It would be completely unacceptable to hear from the Minister who responds to this debate words such as, “We hope to negotiate”; “We are considering negotiating”; or “We expect that we will achieve”. That will not do, because it does not put the welfare of children first. So when the Minister comes to reply, I hope that we will hear, specifically, how many meetings have taken place in an attempt to start to negotiate a resolution of issues affecting the welfare of children who may be abducted in the most appalling circumstances; when the next series of meetings is to take place on that subject; at what level it is being done; and to what extent the leaders of the family Bar and the family solicitors are being involved in the process of consultation and negotiation. Otherwise, we will have no option but to adopt something like these amendments on Report.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Sherlock, and the important questions that she posed to the Minister at the start of the debate. The debate has shown how critically important it will be to get the answers to these questions right, not just in the coming months but in the coming years and perhaps decades. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, was forensic in her description, which came from very real experience, of the benefits of the current system and of what might be lost if we make the wrong decisions in passing the Bill.
I will not go back over all the points that have already been made; in the current circumstances I will be deliberately brief. I will raise two points in particular. First, within the United Kingdom we have different jurisdictions concerning family law and some of the other legal rights that have been mentioned in the debate so far. I would welcome some reassurance from the Minister in his response that appropriate discussions are taking place with the Scottish Government and others to ensure that whatever we enact here in the UK Parliament is appropriate for the whole of the United Kingdom, and not just for the legal system in England or England and Wales.
Secondly, on a point of principle, there is a reason why this subject matters so much. We can have ideological debates about our future economic partnership with the European Union, and we can have ideological or political debates about the financial position before and after exiting the European Union—but children and family law are at the very core of the things that matter to us most: the relationships between parents and children; the relationships between children and other children who might be estranged from their brothers and sisters; the relationships between adopted children and their natural parents, whom they may wish to contract later in life; and the relationship between estranged couples.
That is why this debate is different from others, and why in this instance I urge the Government and everybody on all sides who supports or sympathises with Brexit to look for solutions to these issues that deal with the personal, not the political. I urge them to ensure that, whatever arrangements are finally agreed, those personal rights will give families an opportunity to continue contact and to seek appropriate rights and redress, and to be able to do so in the easiest and least expensive way possible.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I hoped that I would get an opportunity to intervene, as the person who first presented to Parliament the text that has just been referred to in Section 1 of the Children Act. I strongly support the view that the interests of the children in question should be the primary consideration in everything that applies in family law. I am interested to see that the definition of family law chosen in Amendment 336 is not one of ours but is imported from the European Union. However, that is a rather unimportant point.
If this Bill is ever to finish its Committee stage, it is important that we realise that it is concerned primarily with putting existing European law which is effective in our country on to the statute book in a way that will work on Brexit day. It is not concerned with the negotiations—although your Lordships are interested in how they progress, and nobody is more interested than I am in how children’s affairs will progress. I agree with what has just been said: it is a question not of politics or ideology but of making sure that we have the best thing we can for our children. Incidentally, I do not agree that we did not enjoy the speech of my noble friend Lord Farmer. He can speak for himself, but it is not for us to make judgments of that kind about our fellow Members of this House—and I hope that nobody is judging me too hard, either.
My point is that the Bill cannot provide for reciprocity. We cannot legislate for the laws of France, Germany or anywhere else in the European Union—but we can do our best to ensure that our law conforms as far as possible with existing European law when Brexit day comes, because that is an invitation to the others to reciprocate. If we have a system that does not in any way mirror the existing European system when Brexit day comes, how can we ask others to do the same? We cannot. Therefore, it is a question not of reciprocity but of ensuring that this Bill does things properly from our point of view and that the ground that we have to plough for reciprocity is properly ploughed and ready. That is why the Bill is so important.
It is also fairly important that we make some progress with the Bill. Therefore, I will say simply that I entirely endorse the importance of family law and the reciprocal arrangements with the EU, and I would like to see more effective reciprocal arrangements with many other countries. From my time as Lord Chancellor for 10 years I have strong and sad memories of receiving many people who complained that their children had been abducted and taken to a country from which they could not be brought back. That is not the way in the European Union and, fortunately, it is not the way in quite a number of other countries.
It is true, however, as the noble Baroness said, that you may be required to employ a lawyer. In fact, it is rather difficult to get your maintenance payments in this country, never mind the United States. I did my best to try to improve that situation with the CSA—but it has not proved very satisfactory, as the noble Baroness knows very well. It was a difficulty: many times people came to me and said that although they had an order from the court for money, they could not get a penny.
This is an important series of amendments and it is right that we should look at them. However, we must restrain ourselves from considering the negotiations if we are going to finish this Bill at all.
Baroness Deech (CB)
May I ask the Minister a few questions, because I suspect that his response is going to proceed on the basis that the Hague conventions are sufficient? It is true that the biggest number of abductions that come to our courts relate to Pakistan, the USA, Australia and then Poland. It would also be very sad if either we or the rest of the EU put ideology ahead of the welfare of children. Therefore, I want to know what the Minister’s prediction is as to the arrangements that might be made.
Overall, I feel that the amendment is perhaps too narrow. We have units in this country that study the effect of abduction: we have a permanent bureau, the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children and the International Child Abduction and Contact Unit, which can look not just at the European Community countries but at the others. We need a global view of the welfare of children and cross-border abduction, not just an EU view. How does the Minister think we can cope, given that the EU takes apparently 164 days to deal with returned children, whereas we manage to do it in 90 days? For a small child, a matter of a few months is extremely important.
Is the Minister satisfied that we can swiftly and properly sign up to the 2007 Hague convention, which at the moment we are a party to only through the EU? We need to, and we should be able to, join it in our own right. Those are the questions that I put to the Minister.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I am obliged. “Reciprocity” was the term used and emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. They both recognised the significance and the relevance of that term in the context of the issue we are discussing and of this Bill. They may have approached it from different directions, but there is a common recognition there. I will come back to that point in a moment, particularly in the context of this Bill and not the other Bills that may follow it in due course.
I acknowledge the commitment of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, to family law and the rights that it provides to many of the most vulnerable in our society. I also extend my appreciation to the report on this subject produced last year by this House’s EU Justice Sub-Committee, under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. In addition, I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, met my noble friend Lord Callanan and officials to discuss this matter a week or so ago. I observe also that officials have engaged in discussions with a variety of groups, including Resolution and the Family Law Bar Association, and others at an EU level, to discuss this critical issue.
To the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I say that I would be perfectly willing to meet—or at least to arrange a meeting with other Ministers who might be more directly involved in this issue—at some stage in order to discuss with all relevant and interested parties the issues that arise here.
I emphasise that the Government are committed to maintaining an effective system for the resolution of cross-border family law disputes once the UK leaves the EU in 2019—of course we are. Any system which requires cross-border dialogue and co-operation needs a common language to be effective. To that end, as part of our future partnership we want to agree a clear set of coherent common rules about: which country’s courts will hear a case in the event of a dispute—that is choice of jurisdiction; which country’s law will apply—that is choice of law; and a mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments across borders. That can be achieved within the EU and beyond the EU as well.
We are only beginning to embark on the negotiations of our future partnership with the EU 27 but we set out our position on this in a future partnership paper in August last year. That paper makes clear that an effective framework of civil judicial co-operation, which includes family law, is an important part of any deep partnership we want to establish with the remaining members of the EU. We believe that the optimum outcome for both sides will be a new agreement negotiated between the UK and EU as part of a future partnership which reflects our close existing relationship.
My noble and learned Friend, Lord Mackay of Clashfern made the point that the object of this Bill is to bring into our domestic law existing EU law so that we start out in the same place as the other members of the EU. We have to bear in mind the means of ensuring that litigation in a cross-border case involving UK and EU parties, wherever it takes place, can be as easy, efficient and cheap as possible. Such an agreement is necessary to provide confidence and certainty to families and individuals.
As the noble Baroness reminded us in backing up a point well made last year by the EU Justice Sub-Committee in its valuable report, reciprocity is key. This Bill can bring EU rules and regulations across into UK law, but it cannot place requirements on the remaining EU states. That is precisely why we want to negotiate a new deal with the EU and, as of this month, we are set to embark upon that negotiating process.
The current reciprocal rules on which we hope to model a new agreement provide a legal route to resolving what are often difficult and intractable problems. As noble Lords may know, and the noble Baroness readily appreciates, that can include determining in which member state a divorce takes place, child arrangements are made, maintenance issues are determined and, on the fraught issue of child abduction, the return of an abducted child is facilitated.
As I have mentioned, this area goes far beyond the EU. The EU, of course, is important, but we have the Hague conventions with respect to children, one in 1980 and one in 1996. The Hague convention in 2007 has the EU as a signatory, not the individual members of the EU. We will be taking steps to engage with the council on the Hague conventions in order that we can become individual signatories of that convention. I acknowledge the well-made point of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, about the three-month time lapse that could potentially occur. We are mindful of that in setting about the process of negotiation because no one wants to see a gap in the process.
We also have the Lugano convention which engages with not only the EU, as a signatory, but also the other parties to it—Norway, Iceland and Switzerland. Returning to the point raised by the noble Lord about having regard to cases of another court, as between the Lugano convention and the EU it is agreed that each will have regard to the decisions of the other’s court. They are not bound by them or subject to the jurisdiction of the other, but they will have regard to them and take them into consideration when construing the rights and obligations that arise under these various conventions. So it is not making yourself subject to the CJEU but, in general terms, it is saying that you will respect its decisions and look at them for consideration.
Perhaps I may elaborate on that a little. The role of the CJEU is often either misunderstood or exaggerated in this context. What we are concerned about, generally speaking, is the ability of a court in one jurisdiction to recognise the pre-eminent jurisdiction of another country, the willingness of the courts in one country to recognise the orders made by the courts of another country, and the willingness of the courts in one country to enforce the judgments of another country in respect of these matters. Of course, if you are within the EU, the construction of a particular provision such as the Brussels convention—Brussels Ia, IIa and so on—would ultimately be a matter for the CJEU. However, in negotiating with our other partners, we recognise where we start from and the wide ambit of these conventions, and we understand how critical they are to family life going forward. No one is going to ignore them or turn their back on them, so I can assure noble Lords that we are intent on negotiating this. The precise way in which it will be done will have to be the subject of negotiation with our EU partners.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, asked me, as it were, to enumerate the negotiations that are ongoing, but so far we have been dealing with the separation agreement. From March we have set upon the negotiation of our future partnership; that is what the Prime Minister set out in her recent speech.
With regard to the other jurisdictions within the United Kingdom, officials within the Ministry of Justice are in regular contact with officials in Scotland and in Northern Ireland in regard to these matters. Of course we take account of those, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, will recognise that I am conscious that there are different laws in the different jurisdictions of the United Kingdom.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
I thank the Minister for giving way. Of course discussions are taking place between officials in the different departments, but are Ministers talking to each other and are agreements being reached that will ensure that the right decisions are made to serve the different jurisdictions of the UK?
Lord Keen of Elie
I cannot say that agreements are being reached at this time because we are only setting out on the process of negotiation with regard to the future partnership; I cannot take that any further at this stage. However, our position is that family law co-operation is critically important, and it is no different from our general position with regard to civil co-operation.
I would acknowledge that the development of Brussels IIa is an improvement on the Hague conventions, and indeed I believe that some would acknowledge that it is an improvement on the terms of the Lugano convention in this regard as well. The terms have been refined and developed, and it may be that there will be a further negotiation and conclusion over Brussels IIa—what might be termed as Brussels IIb, I suppose—which may well occur after Brexit. Nevertheless, in order to ensure that we have reasonable alignment and therefore the basis for reciprocity, we will want to take into consideration such developments in the law.
Let us be clear: generally speaking, these developments take place for all the best reasons. They are developments that reflect improvements, so why would we turn our face away from improvements in the law on the reciprocal enforcement of family law matters related to maintenance, divorce and child abduction? We have no cause or reason to do so and of course we are going to embrace these matters.
I appreciate that the amendments in this group are probing in nature, but I shall try to address some of the specific details. The report called for in the first amendment tabled by the noble Baroness would require the Government to publish details of how rights in EU family law operate in domestic law as well as key details of the negotiations within six months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent. With great respect, that is an arbitrary deadline which makes no reference to the position of the negotiations at that stage or the other documents that the Government will be publishing on the subject. These documents include not only any final agreement reached in the negotiations regarding continuing judicial co-operation on family law, but also the explanatory material that Ministers will publish when they exercise their key Bill powers to amend retained EU law. That will include retained EU family law. So, as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, any agreement between the UK and the EU will be detailed clearly within the withdrawal agreement and domestically legislated for in the upcoming withdrawal agreement and implementation period Bill, which Parliament will have a full opportunity to scrutinise. However, I have to say that it does not arise in the context of this Bill.
The next amendment concerns the jurisdiction of the CJEU. We will discuss that in more detail when we come to debate Clause 6, so I will not take up a great deal of time although I want to make a couple of points. First, it is not necessary for the UK to be subject, unilaterally, to CJEU jurisdiction to secure a reciprocal agreement in this field any more than it is a requirement of the signatories to the Lugano convention to secure agreement with Brussels regarding family law matters. There are a number of existing precedents: not just Lugano, but the Hague convention as well. As I have indicated, the jurisdiction of the CJEU is sometimes either exaggerated or misunderstood in this context. In the EU, it is of course the final arbiter of the construction and application of EU instruments, but that does not mean that we have to embrace the CJEU’s jurisdiction to have a suitable partnership agreement with the 27 members of the EU.
Baroness Ludford
In his lengthy reply, the Minister appears to perpetuate some of the misunderstanding that underlay the Prime Minister’s speech on Friday, which is that somehow if you mirror the laws of the EU 27 and start from the same position, you do not need the rest of what Commission jargon calls the ecosystem—in other words, the common rules and the enforcement of institutional and supervisory mechanisms. Surely that is the difference between the EU context and the Hague and Lugano conventions, and accounts for the difference between having regard to and mutually recognising and enforcing judgments. It is part of a complex of arrangements. There is a qualitative difference between the international arrangements and the EU arrangements, which does not seem to come through in the Minister’s response.
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect, neither I nor the Prime Minister misunderstood any of that. With great respect, I want to correct the noble Baroness on one point: that ecosystem is simply not required for mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments by two separate jurisdictions. That happens between the countries of the Lugano convention and countries in the EU in any event. I am talking about starting from the same point, with common rules regarding judicial recognition and enforcement, and moving from there to the negotiation of a new partnership. We do not foresee the sort of difficulty that the noble Baroness alludes to in that context.
At this stage, I want to come back to the point I was seeking to make. First, it is not necessary for the UK to subject itself unilaterally to the CJEU’s jurisdiction to secure a reciprocal agreement. Many other countries do that. Secondly, in any event, the Government have been clear throughout debate on the Bill that it is in no way designed to legislate for any future agreement between the UK and the EU. That is not the purpose of the Bill. We cannot unilaterally legislate for our future relationship with the EU simply by including in our domestic legislation certain provisions about recognition of family law, maintenance and other agreements—a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, readily acknowledged at the outset of her opening remarks some considerable time ago.
I understand that the intention behind Amendment 120 is to make sure that there can be continued application of international agreements, such as the Hague 2007 maintenance convention, which the UK currently operates by virtue of its membership of the EU. Of course, we are intent on doing that; as I noted earlier, we understand that there is a potential three-month gap there, which we need to address. I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that we are clearly intent on securing an agreement, albeit not as an EU member and not subject to the direct jurisdiction of the CJEU, which ensures that we can maintain the highest standards of family law and mutual recognition, whether it be jurisdiction, choice of law or enforcement. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
I entirely understand the response the noble and learned Lord gave to the effect that you can, of course, have a treaty to ensure reciprocity, but he does not appear to recognise the role of the CJEU in the difficult cases where there is an argument about what reciprocity means and the obligations on states that are parties to that treaty. I do not know that there has been any explanation from the Government of how we deal with the difficult cases without accepting the jurisdiction of the CJEU. Would he like to elaborate?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am happy to repeat the observation I made earlier: these difficult cases are resolved, for example, between Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and the other members of the Lugano convention embraced within the EU. In that context, each of the courts—the Lugano court and the CJEU—respects each other’s judgments, but they are not bound by them. That happens all the time. Ultimately, it would be for the domestic courts of each jurisdiction to determine what they were and were not prepared to enforce in the context of these agreements. That does not present any insurmountable difficulty, any more than it does in the context of the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of orders made pursuant to the current Hague conventions.
Again, I am obliged to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, for the report. I repeat my offer of further meetings to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed and the Minister for his reply. When I tabled these amendments—I realise that they have not found favour in all corners of your Lordships’ Committee—my aim was simply to have a discussion that I thought had not happened since the Bill began. It had not happened in another place and, with all respect to the Government, it has not been happening in the kind of detail we need in the publications we have seen so far. We have at least now begun to have this conversation and I am delighted that we have.
The debate has established to so many people quite how important these family law provisions are. They are fundamental to the welfare of so many of our children, because issues of child abduction, child protection and child contact are caught up at the centre of this. Those points were made very well by my noble friends Lady Massey and Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. The importance of a single effective family law system was stressed very well by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, who also expressed how well-functioning and widely admired our system is. The need for it was underscored so well. I am hugely grateful to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. When I heard her speech I wanted, in the way children do nowadays, to say “what she said”. She expressed it so well that I should have walked away at this point, but I think convention prohibits it so I press on.
I will pick up two or three points that were in contention. I do not think I will take up all the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, but his most important contention was that the provisions in the Hague conventions and elsewhere are sufficient unto the day. I hope he will take the opportunity, when he can read Hansard, to reflect on the comments made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and to look at how the weight of opinion in family law is clearly against him on this matter.
I would be happy to discuss this further outside the Committee, but to make a couple of specific points, Brussels IIa is distinctly better than Hague because it has a stricter timetable on abduction. There is a back-up mechanism—a second bite of the cherry—so that the child’s home country has another opportunity to overrule a decision by another court not to return an abducted child. The Brussels II recast will make that far better still.
The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, mentioned the provisions on divorce, which I found harder to understand. My understanding is that the 1970 Hague convention is much more restrictive than the current arrangements and that very few EU members are signed up to it anyway. It has no direct rules about jurisdiction, so we would be back to these forum conveniens arguments deciding expensively where which court should rule. Those things take at least two days in court, probably with a circuit court judge or above. I do not think there is a practical alternative on divorce, but I would be very interested if the noble Lord wanted to intervene or to talk to me later to challenge that.
I hope that we would all widely accept that the current EU provisions are the superior offering available. The challenge would be to find out how we can best salvage what is there. I take the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, from whom I dissent with great trepidation, that the Bill is doing what it can to replicate the current provisions. The problem is that, by importing those provisions, it is not replicating the current situation, because, by doing so in a context of no reciprocity, it is creating asymmetry between our obligations to the EU 27 and theirs to us. That needs dealing with very early on.
“EU Protocol on animal sentience
The obligation on Ministers of the Crown and the devolved administrations to pay regard to the welfare requirements of animals as sentient beings when formulating law and policy, contained within the EU Protocol on animal sentience as set out in Article 13 of Title II of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, shall be recognised and available in domestic law on and after exit day.”
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this very amendment has been debated in the other House and was voted down by 18 votes. I think the Government were shocked by the public outcry at the amendment being lost.
EU law puts an obligation on the Government and devolved Administrations to “pay full regard” to the welfare requirements of animals when Ministers make decisions and implement policies. This means that Ministers have to think carefully about how their decisions might harm animals.
The British Government played a key role in making this law during our term of EU presidency. It has influenced more than 20 pieces of EU law, including the ban on conventional battery cages for chickens and the ban on cosmetics testing on animals. Certain lobby groups claim that protecting the animal sentience laws will be disastrous; for example, that farmers will not be able to control agricultural pests or to go out and shoot pigeons. This simply cannot be true. If it is not the case with the law as exists today, then nothing will change tomorrow if we retain it.
The Government’s stated intention in the White Paper was for the withdrawal Bill to bring all EU law into UK law and then only amend retained EU law in future legislation. I have raised this issue previously and find it rather offensive that the Government would make such a promise and then not honour it.
Ministers have admitted that these animal protections will be lost as the Bill is currently worded. I understand that it is unfortunate to have to make “single issue” amendments to the Bill, but unless and until we are able to fix the Bill properly to retain all EU law, I have little option but to propose this amendment.
As a compromise when the amendment was proposed in the other place, the Government said that a new Bill would be created to include protections relating to animal sentience—I am sure that they will claim today that my amendment is not needed because of that new Bill. However, the Government’s proposals are weaker than the EU law. They have changed the wording in the draft Bill and included a much broader list of exceptions. Ministers would have only to have “regard” rather than “full regard” for animal welfare, and there is a massive loophole whereby a Minister can make decisions harmful to animal welfare whenever there are other matters of public interest.
A legal opinion commissioned by Friends of the Earth concluded that the Government’s proposals make it far too easy for Ministers to ignore animals, and their decisions would be subject to legal challenge only where they were so irrational that no reasonable authority could have come to them. That is a rather broad exception. The Government’s proposals do a very good job of appearing to protect animal rights, while actually reducing them to near zero.
The House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee looked at the Government’s draft animal sentience legislation and tore it to shreds. It basically said that it should be removed from the animal welfare Bill and kicked into the long grass. So it looks likely that, despite the Government’s best intentions, their draft legislation on animal sentience might never see the light of day, let alone reach the statute book. We need to keep this in the withdrawal Bill: it is essential that we retain the existing provisions of EU law. We cannot allow a gap in protections between Brexit day and the point at which the Government are able to provide a suitable animal protection Bill. Ministers have been telling various people that animal sentience is already protected in UK law and that we do not need my amendment. If so, why have the Government drafted their own proposal on the issue? The situation is very simple: this protection does not exist in UK law, it stems from EU law.
Without this amendment to retain Article 13, animals will lose these protections, there being only the vague hope that the Government might one day bring forward a Bill. Once it is retained, we can always go back to it and change it with a future Bill—I would be happy to work with the Government to improve these animal protections—but in the meantime my amendment will keep these animal protections once we leave the EU. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness—I am sure we will have another opportunity to consider the contents of her amendment—and to speak to my own Amendment 212, which inserts a new clause. I hope that I am not responsible for the typo in subsection (3), which refers to, “the Untied Kingdom”. It is not in my interest or that of the country to untie all the arrangements that we have in the United Kingdom.
The purpose of this amendment is to consider,
“border arrangements relating to animal welfare”,
and broaden it out to other themes as well. I am delighted to see my noble friends the Minister for Exiting the European Union and the Minister with responsibility for agriculture in their place to hear these concerns. As of 11 pm on 29 March 2019 the UK becomes a third country and will be treated as such until the new relationship and other arrangements are in place. In her speech on Friday the Prime Minister set out five tests, one of which is that any agreement on our future relationship must protect people’s jobs and security. I wish to consider these remarks in the context, specifically, of the border between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland.
In our debates on Amendment 18 in Committee last week we were told, including by the Minister, that the Bill represents a snapshot. That snapshot would mean that there are no checks at borders between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland because of the common travel area. Indeed, the first scenario that exists today is that the Belfast agreement of 1998 setting up the common travel area means that there are currently no checks on the border between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland. The second scenario assumes that there will have to be a border if we have either a free trade area or, worse still, WTO rules, in which case there will be border checks. I reminded the Committee that that border is 300 miles long.
In preparing for today I came across a rather useful piece which I found, I regret to say, on Twitter, and which I bring to the attention of the Committee. It is by Katy Hayward, whom I believe teaches and lectures at Queen’s University Belfast. She looks at the case of Britain being outside the single market and the customs union, either in a free trade agreement with the EU or under no deal, and it appears that agricultural products would have to be checked at the border. Assuming that animals are moving across the Irish border, I put to the Committee that this cannot be done by technology, either for this category or indeed for food, farming and agricultural products. Instead, there will have to be physical checks and inspections by veterinary surgeons and other enforcement officers. This will also be because we have very high standards of animal welfare, animal health and animal hygiene in this country—which I am immensely proud of—which mean that goods passing across the border will have to meet EU requirements going into Ireland and our requirements coming into the United Kingdom from Ireland.
I draw the Committee’s attention to what Article 5.1 of the draft protocol published by the European Commission last Wednesday, 28 April, says about agricultural trade:
“The provisions of Union law on sanitary and phytosanitary rules”—
please do not ask me what phytosanitary rules are because I have not had time to find out—
“listed in Annex 2.5 to this Protocol shall apply to and in the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland”.
For the other 27 European Union member states, food and other agricultural products coming into Ireland from the UK, whether from Northern Ireland or Great Britain, will be in free circulation within the remaining single market. The remaining 27 member states will demand reassurance on standards, not least because some may seek economic and competitive opportunities from the Irish authorities in these circumstances.
The purpose of the amendment is to seek reassurance from the Minister that the Food Standards Agency will have the staff and resources it needs to ensure that these cross-border arrangements, when in place, will be policed properly.
Lord Hain (Lab)
The noble Baroness is making a very compelling argument about the agricultural and livestock issues associated with the Irish border. I suggest to her that it is even more compelling if the Committee takes account of the fact that many of these farms actually straddle the border; in other words, livestock moves back and forth of its own volition all the time. It is absolutely vital that these phytosanitary issues are addressed but the Government seem to be in denial about them.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that point. He is much more familiar with Northern Ireland and these arrangements than I am, but I am very cognisant of this and I am sure that the powers that be are as well.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, I too find the word “phytosanitary”—the Brussels term—a bit of a nuisance. “Biosecurity” is a term with which I am easier. One might wish to look at these issues with respect to the Irish border rather differently from the way in which one looks at the movement of persons and of goods. I will say nothing about the movement of goods and persons for now but will speak simply about the movement of beasts—and, indeed, carcasses. It seems to me that there is probably a remedy which consists in devolving standards of biosecurity—yes, to Stormont should it come back into operation—with the proviso that they may not go lower than EU standards and, of course, UK standards. This might give the desired level of protection for the movement of animals and of plants. Unfortunately, the movement of plants is in the hands of the wind and has caused great damage in Northern Ireland because of the fact that it cannot easily be controlled. There, I believe, would be the place to look.
Just on one other point, I say that the common travel area dates from the 1920s not from recent years.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness and I think she confirmed the need for physical checks. I have not considered plants or people in Amendment 212. There is a very real problem, which I have raised separately and privately, of the tripartite agreement between France, Britain and Ireland in relation to racing. That covers not just the racehorses but the stable lads and jockeys. But for today’s purposes I am restricting my remarks to animals and food products. The other reassurance I seek is that there will be sufficient vets. We might not have sufficient vets when these arrangements come into place next year, or other relevant inspectors at borders and UK ports by 11 pm on the magic date of 29 March 2019.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, on Amendment 30, to which I have added my name. Coming as it does after the previous vital group of amendments on family law, this group is on a very different aspect of the impact of the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, this issue was debated in the other place. On that occasion, there was much rhetoric about whether animals can feel pain and emotions. I can only assume that those who deny animal sentience have not visited the countryside in the spring. Surely those who see young lambs running around with each other, teasing, jumping and enjoying the thin sunshine and light breezes do not assume that that is not a natural activity. Similarly those who see sheep lamb in the depths of winter, as many do, and see their offspring shivering in the bitter winds and driving rain cannot imagine that they would not choose to find warmth and shelter if they could.
There are many farmers and experts present in your Lordships’ House, along with those like me who have no connection with animals other than that we live in the countryside. We will all have heard and suffered the pitiful lowing of a cow which has recently been separated from her calf, even though it may be in an adjoining field. This distressing calling for her calf can go on for hours and long into the night. She misses her calf and wishes everyone to know this so that eventually they may be reunited by her persistent calling. Farrowing pigs in metal arcs scattered around open fields are able to root around in the dirt and keep a watchful eye on their playful young in peace and tranquillity. This is a very far cry from farrowing crates, in which they do not have enough room to turn around and certainly cannot nurture their piglets.
Some noble Lords will think that I have a very rose-tinted view of the countryside in assuming that young animals enjoy playing, exploring and getting into mischief. Very many children’s books give human characteristics to animals. Beatrix Potter’s books are a very famous example. Some of these characterisations are fanciful, but others are based on observing at close quarters the behaviour of animals. Those who have met a small troop of escaped and inquisitive piglets marching down the middle of the road looking for adventure and trouble cannot deny that many of the fictional caricatures are based on fact. Lambs like to play, piglets like to investigate their surroundings and calves are attached to their mothers. The very process of suckling for their sustaining milk means a bond is formed.
As we move forward with Brexit, it is essential that the protocol on animal welfare is high up the list of government priorities. The United Kingdom is nothing if it is not a nation of animal lovers. I have often been surprised and alarmed, as an elected councillor, at the number of letters which people have written to me about animal welfare issues, including hunting, compared to the very few I would get about child cruelty and abuse—although this latter subject has recently moved up the consciousness of the nation, as demonstrated this afternoon. If the Government do not rigorously defend and transfer into domestic UK law Article 13 of Title II of the Lisbon Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, I fear this will be a very serious miscalculation of the mood of the country on this issue.
Organic farmers who have built up their award-winning herds over many decades prize the quality of the meat of their animals, which rightly fetches high prices in the marketplace. Butchers are keen to demonstrate to the restaurants and hotels they supply with meat which particular farmers it comes from. For their part, catering establishments which believe the quality of the raw meat is half the secret of a successful dish and to a steady flow of customers are also keen to list the source of the meat and fish on their menus.
Organic and other farmers keen to sell to quality outlets will tell you that the way in which their animals are slaughtered affects the flavour of the meat from the carcass. They believe an animal that is stressed at the point of slaughter will produce meat of an inferior quality to that of an animal that is slaughtered completely unaware of what is about to happen to it. This is very important to those farmers who have nurtured their animals to produce a high-quality product.
Standards of animal welfare in abattoirs and slaughterhouses are important, as is the presence of a qualified vet. Many of these vets currently come from EU countries. Can the Minister give reassurances to the Committee that, post Brexit, there will be sufficient trained veterinary officers to ensure robust standards of animal welfare at the point of slaughter? Those of your Lordships who are vegetarian or vegan will not be much interested in the quality of the meat which comes out of the abattoirs, but I believe they will care very much about the way in which the animals are treated as they come forward for slaughter.
Just as it is unacceptable for animals going for slaughter to be nervous and afraid, it is unnecessary and damaging and causes suffering to transport live animals to the EU for slaughter. If we have insufficient abattoirs in the UK to cope with our own animals, then we must increase that capacity. Just as we should not export live animals for slaughter, we must not accept live animals sent to the UK from the EU to be slaughtered here. As the saying goes, there is many a slip between cup and lip, and in the transfer of law from the EU into UK law, we must ensure that animal welfare is preserved at all costs. It is also important that high UK animal welfare standards are not undermined by cheaper imports produced to lower standards, as has already been referred to.
Whether it be the family pet pig that is coming for slaughter or a large herd of sheep, the way in which we treat animals says an awful lot about us as a caring society. In leaving the EU under Brexit we must preserve those principles of our culture which define us as a country. We will have a long time to regret it if we do not. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the issues raised in this debate.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I have my name to Amendment 30, which I will address in a moment, but before doing so I turn to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. I am not sure whether she or other noble Lords heard the programme on Radio 4 at lunchtime yesterday about the problems ports in the Netherlands face in taking the steps needed to meet the 29 March deadline next year in due time. What came out of that is that it patently is not going to happen. It is not just that the resources are not available—there will be questions of resources and who pays for them, hence some of the duties that will be forthcoming—but it is a question of actually getting qualified vets. There are just not enough to do the job and there is no prospect of finding enough by the deadline, so it is not going to happen in that way. The reality of the situation facing us, and facing our partners within the EU, is starting to come home to roost.
I listened to the intervention a moment ago by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, on Northern Ireland. The mind boggles at the idea of vets chasing animals roaming around their own farm across the border. That is totally impractical. If we then say, “We accept that there will be an agreement between the north and south of Ireland with regard to the movement of animals that may be different to the relationships with the UK”, the question arises of the ports in the UK that will be taking these in. In any case, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, food coming in from the third world will need to be inspected. The thing just defies credibility.
Lord Deben (Con)
I am sure the noble Lord is aware that there is only one vet in an abattoir who is not a national of the rest of the European Union. So this is not a small issue. He might think vets are going to run around chasing animals but it is much more likely that there will be no vets to run around chasing anyone.
Lord Wigley
Absolutely—I accept that entirely. I was painting the picture that had been depicted by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in order to illustrate how ludicrous the situation is. The noble Lord is right with regard to the backgrounds—the national origins—of a very large proportion of the vets that we have; we just do not have enough now. If the demand is going to be that much higher, the problem is going to grow out of all proportion.
I turn to Amendment 30, to which I have added my name, to support the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I support the amendment, which probes the surprising situation that the Bill does not include provision to carry into UK law the principle of Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty recognising animals as sentient beings. Of course animals cannot be put on a pedestal alongside human beings, but they are clearly sentient, as the noble Baroness said. No one who has had anything to do with the countryside or with animals would deny that possibility, so the question arises as to why we are deliberately excluding this. Alarm has been raised among animal lovers as the Animal Welfare Act 2006 does not fully cover this, if we had to resort to that direction.
In the other place, the Government gave an understanding that they would consider how this could be rectified. I would be glad to know what their intentions are. I am not sure whether they are in a position to do so, but I suggest that an amendment should be put into this Bill to give MPs another bite at the cherry. However, if the Government are relying on the draft legislation that I believe they introduced on 12 December to cover this point, a response to the draft Bill was due in by 30 January, as I understand it, but there is still considerable dispute about the appropriateness of Clause 1. We in the Committee have a right to know what the Government’s intentions are on that, and whether the provisions that they are trying to make in that direction will meet some of the points raised by the amendment.
The other aspect that I wish to address is that EU laws on animal sentience have allowed Wales—the National Assembly and the Welsh Government—to take a lead on certain animal safeguarding matters. I remember that when my own party, Plaid Cymru, was in coalition government in the National Assembly from 2007 to 2011, we were able to introduce legislation to ban the appalling electric shock collars that had been used. Can the Government give an undertaking that, when these powers are repatriated from Brussels, the National Assembly and indeed the Scottish Parliament will retain the competence that exists under European provisions in order to take the sorts of steps that I have mentioned in relation to electric shock collars and, indeed, a range of other animal well-being provisions? Can we be assured that these powers will not be centralised to Westminster, thereby imposing on to Wales and Scotland a straitjacket that may constrain their ability to act in a positive manner on these important matters?
Lord Deben
My Lords, I declare an interest as the owner of a few Red Poll cattle, which are the local cows of my part of Suffolk. I also was one of the longest-serving Ministers of Agriculture, and this is a matter of very great importance to me. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will realise that he is asking of us, if he does not accept these amendments or agree to do something about this issue, three things, and none of them seems to me acceptable.
The Minister is asking us to accept that, when the Government promised that the withdrawal Bill would take into English law all that is at the moment in European law, and that we would start again from there, that is not the case with sentient animals. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, explained that very clearly. There are two ways in which it does not. First, it is not complete—and the Government accept that, because they had very urgently to rush forward the advice that they were going to produce a sentient animal Bill to overcome the gap in this Bill. Will my noble friend explain why it is not in the Bill? It is a real issue. If the whole purpose is to use this Bill to ensure that the law after we leave, if we were to leave the European Union, will be the same as before, why is there this exception? It is very important for my noble friend to answer that question because he has in the past, when I have asked him other questions, told me that it is not about the withdrawal Bill, that it is a different issue and comes up elsewhere. This is clearly about the withdrawal Bill—the issue is clearly missing and it ought to be here. My questions are, “Why isn’t it here?”, and whether he will undertake to include it.
We are also supposed to accept that there will be a Bill that will cover this issue. That is a difficult thing for this House because we know very well that, with the best of intentions, the Government do not have a great deal of time to bring in these Bills, and certainly not before the self-imposed end date that they insist upon. Therefore, are we supposed to rely not only on the Government’s good faith, which I am sure I can, but on their ability to deliver on time? Otherwise, there will be a gap when this protection is not afforded.
No doubt my noble friend will say that we will work all that out in the negotiations, but these negotiations are likely to take place after the due date on which we would leave, if we leave the European Union. What is more, clearly, it is not going to be left to the negotiations, because he has already told us that we are going to have a sentient animal Bill—so it is not just a matter of the negotiations. Not only are we supposed to accept that this is outside the Bill, even though that is the Government’s fundamental proposition about the Bill; we are also supposed to accept that they will be able to bring forward legislation that will cover this matter in time for there not to be a gap, which is unconnected with the negotiations because otherwise we would not need to have that until after the negotiations, in which case we could merely take it into our law.
I am afraid that this is very complex and, worse than that, we have before Parliament a Trade Bill. It is clearly the Government’s intention not to restrict their future trading arrangements to ensure the high standards of animal welfare that I spent quite a lot of my life arguing about in the European Union and working for in this country. Those standards are not enshrined in the Trade Bill. There are no arrangements in that Bill for this House to discuss, or to have, in any sense, an influence on, trade negotiations and agreements. We are, therefore, fixed into a position in which we have to accept that this omission from the arrangements of the withdrawal Bill is accidental—it is of no importance and will be covered by another Bill. We also have to accept that there will be another Bill and that it will be in time. What is more, we are to accept that what is in the other Bill will cover this issue. As we know, it has, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones—I would not like to use the phrase myself but I can repeat it—“been rubbished” by the Select Committee which looked at it. It does not actually do the job.
The Trade Bill will not give any protection for animal welfare, so that our farmers, who meet high standards, will have to accept imports from elsewhere which do not meet them. The argument about chlorinated chicken—I know that phrase has been ridiculed but it is useful—becomes very strong. I hope your Lordships are aware of why the words “chlorinated chicken” are so important. The United States has to chlorinate its chickens because it does not have high welfare standards and unless you chlorinate them you have even more food-borne disease than America has now. It has at least four times the food-borne diseases that we have in Europe. This is no passing comment; it is a fundamental issue of the health of the British people, leave alone the issues of sentient animals.
I am sorry that there is more to say—but this is a very serious area. The Government seem to have misunderstood the way in which you take EU laws into British law. EU laws have always to be read in their context, inside the protocols which make those laws operate. The trouble with this particular bit of the withdrawal Bill—as indeed with much of it—is that when you take the bare bones and put them into English law, you lose that context. You really do have to find a way of getting the context in, otherwise the bare bones do not have the same effect as they do at the moment in the application of EU law.
There is another thing that I find difficult with the Government’s willingness to discuss this issue in such a peculiar manner. I can understand my noble friend, and other Ministers at various times, recognising that some of us do not think that withdrawal is a very good idea. That is perfectly understandable, but we are not debating this on that basis. What we are doing is trying to make sure that the withdrawal Bill does what it is supposed to do—and we are trying to do that as a House that has that specific duty and job. I know that the Daily Mail finds that hard to understand, but what we are here for is to ensure that the legislation that is passed is, in detail, what was intended. The House of Commons—the other place—is now less able to do that because of the way in which it restricts the time spent on these matters. I know that my noble friends would much prefer this House to spend less time on the Bill. But if we do not spend the time, no one else will go through it in the way that we will have to if this is not to be a disaster not just for animals but for human beings, because we will have none of the necessary restrictions.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on introducing the amendment very clearly and effectively. I support it strongly. I also commend the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, who spoke straight from the heart. However, there was nothing at all sentimental or false about what she said; it was said straight from experience and was very matter of fact.
I too have the benefit of living in the country—I see it as a benefit, anyway—and I see many animals. I have cattle grazing on my land and I have a dog; I should declare that interest. I have many times been able to verify how intelligent these animals are, how sensitive they are and what an extraordinary relationship they can have with human beings. All of this is orthodox science. It was demonstrated by Pavlov or Konrad Lorenz and has been demonstrated over and over again, so I do not think there is any doubt about it. It has always seemed to me that caring about sentient animals is one of the marks of a civilised society. There is terrible cruelty to animals in this world. The situation is obviously worse in many poorer countries, for reasons one understands. I think that the European Union has probably the highest standards of anywhere in this matter—certainly far higher than the United States. I hope that we can keep things that way if we have to leave the European Union and that we will at least not resile from those standards. That is why I want to comment on what has just been said.
I am not sure that I have ever said this before, but I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said in his excellent speech. That being the case, I might normally be tempted simply to record my agreement and then sit down. However, I have some slight hope that if I make similar points to those he made—it was my intention to make exactly the points he pre-empted me in making—but from a rather different perspective, and the Government hear a similar message from different parts of the House, they might for once consider whether there might be something in those points—and it would be very desirable indeed if the Government thought again about the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, made a couple of very important points. I will not follow him on Northern Ireland as we shall have other opportunities to debate that in the course of our proceedings, and I look forward to taking part in those debates. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made it very clear that the Government clearly intend that there should be protection for sentient animals in our legislation, but not to the same high standard that applies at present. Over and over again—countless times—we have heard in these debates that the Government’s only intention in bringing forward this Bill is to transpose Union law into British law so that there is no legal vacuum or legal confusion if we leave the European Union. We understand that that is a perfectly reasonable and logical response to the situation and I think that most of us on this side of the House want desperately to take the Government’s words in good faith.
However, over and over again we find that that is not true, that there is a surreptitious agenda and that rights and protections which exist by virtue of our membership of the European Union are not being carried forward and that the Government appear to have no intention of carrying them forward into domestic law after Brexit. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made this absolutely plain and cited the Government’s proposed wording to replace the article in the Treaty of Lisbon on animal welfare. It is quite clear that the Government want to weaken that language. Why do they want to do that? I had always thought that there was a consensus among civilised, humane people on the protection of animals which went across this House and the other place and had nothing at all to do with political parties. Is that not the case? Why should the Government therefore decide in this case not to carry forward into British law the existing levels of protection in the Treaty of Lisbon but to deliberately reduce them and dilute them? Why is that? I cannot understand it.
Secondly, on another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, there should be no illusion about this matter as regards international trade. If we are serious about animal welfare, we must impose exactly the same standards that we impose on our own farmers in this matter on any imported animal products, otherwise we will make complete fools of ourselves without any gain to animal welfare at all. All that will happen is that the business will go to farms in other countries which apply appalling standards of animal protection or none at all and who therefore have an economic advantage and can undercut the British farmer with produce that is produced in barbaric fashion. I include in that the way the Americans produce their beef, which is absolutely revolting. They now have zero grazing for over 95% of their beef, which means that you have two animals in an area slightly smaller than the Table in front of me. They never see the air or a blade of grass in their life. That is appalling but it undoubtedly gives the Americans an economic advantage.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
The noble Lord is repeating a point he made last week about American agriculture. I let it pass then, but on that occasion he said that if you go to Texas, there are no cattle outdoors, and that you would not see a lot of Texas longhorn outdoors. I go to Texas quite regularly and see an awful lot of cattle being raised outdoors. The noble Lord should be careful not to exaggerate what is happening. I do not know what relevance this has to EU withdrawal, but it is important not to go too far in this respect.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I will come to the relevance to EU withdrawal in a moment. I will just say that I feel that I have not lived in vain, because the noble Viscount has listened to what I said and thought about it for several days. I was perhaps speaking figuratively; in this life you can never apply the word “infinity” or “zero” in a completely literal sense. He may have been to the wrong part of Texas, or to parts where there are expensive ranches and the oil billionaires who own them like to have some longhorn on display. Those ranches exist, and I have seen one or two of them. Perhaps the noble Viscount has some friends who invited him there. That is not the heart of the beef economy. If the noble Viscount knows anything about Texas—he obviously does—he will know that Fort Worth used to be the centre of the Texas meat industry. I used to go there very frequently because I had a lot of dealings with Lockheed Martin, which is based there. I went there at different times of the year and I got to know the countryside around Fort Worth and towards Dallas quite well. That would have been cattle country 100 years ago; there would have been cattle on every horizon. I have literally never seen a single live animal in the area around Fort Worth, which was the headquarters of that industry. That is not a part of the United States where wealthy people have ranches with animals on display, which is a very different matter.
The point I was making—I will not say before I was interrupted, because I was pleased to have the intervention from the noble Viscount, particularly if he has been listening to my speeches carefully—was that there is no point in having any kind of regard to animal welfare and persuading ourselves that we are being humane and civilised in doing so if we then let in, in our imports, meat or other agricultural products which derive from inhuman practices. All we are then doing is making sure that the business and the activity moves from this country abroad with not a single iota of gain to animal welfare or happiness, and causing the destruction of the British livestock industry in the process. That makes no sense.
If we are to do this, we have to do it properly. We should make it a matter of moral commitment that when we leave the European Union—if indeed we do—we stick to the high standards which the European Union has set in this matter and certainly do not dilute them, and secondly, that we ensure that we impose those standards if we have left the European Union and are in a position to sign free trade agreements with other countries. I have explained why I think it is unlikely that we will be in that position in practice with the United States, but supposing that we were, we should in that eventuality impose exactly the same standards on anybody who wants to sell us meat or other agricultural products in future.
Lord Bowness (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords will be pleased to know that I will be brief. I put on record my support for Amendments 30 and 98, and for the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I cannot imagine what good reasons there can be for opposing this amendment. I appreciate that a number of directives and regulations will be incorporated into our law, but not this important treaty provision. As other noble Lords have already said, a hallmark of a civilised country is how one treats one’s animals, and recognition of animal sentience is key to that.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I add my support to this important amendment, which has received widespread support from around the House. Noble Lords have rightly concentrated on farm animals because of the implications of the trade Bill—I associate myself with the wise remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Deben. However, let us remember that the animal sentience directive applies not only to farm animals but to all animals: wild animals, companion animals, working animals and lab animals. If we did not accept it, it would be a major step backwards. This House will remember that the Animal Welfare Act 2006 was a major step forward, but it was quite controversial and took a lot of time to go through both Houses. That is one reason why I am particularly surprised at the Government wanting to spend lots more time on animal sentience—time which we know Governments rarely have. As other noble Lords have said, they could simply include it in this Bill and avoid all that time being taken up.
So the question I ask myself is: what loopholes are the Government hoping to create for themselves in their Bill? There must be some reason why they do not want to put provision firmly into this Bill. Those suspicions fuel public anger when people realise that the Government are resisting an amendment of this sort.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Bakewell was absolutely right to talk about Britain as a country of nature and animal lovers. I remember that one of the first things to happen when I became an MEP in the mid-1990s was that I received a sackful of mail about live animal transport. The Rwandan genocide was taking place at the same time but I received no letters whatever about that, despite the EU’s role. I relate that story only to show that I am in no way sentimental about this issue, but I completely support Amendment 30 in particular because I can see no reason why we should not include it in the Bill.
I chair the House’s EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee, which covers agriculture. During an inquiry into Brexit and animal welfare, one thing that clearly came out was the trade issue, which a number of noble Lords have referred to. At that time—and I really do not see things as being very different now—it seemed to everyone on the committee that there was a schizophrenia within government. On the one hand, Defra was saying that high animal welfare standards would continue after Brexit. One obvious point to make about this amendment is that it does not in any way constrain our Government from increasing welfare standards after Brexit. It would not get in the way of that, so that is no reason to resist it. On the other hand, the Department for International Trade was very gung-ho in fulfilling its mission of getting free trade agreements throughout the world more or less as part of the Brexit dividend—agricultural trade being an important part of that.
Two other things came across during our inquiry. One was that no one in the industry resisted retaining the current EU and UK animal welfare standards and legislation—no one wanted to reduce them. The other was that WTO rules are very unclear in this area. There is no guarantee in trade agreements that you can prevent trade happening. Whether under WTO rules or under FTAs, there is no guarantee of enforceable animal welfare clauses. The example given was the EU’s resistance to accepting North American hormone beef. The EU effectively lost the case on animal welfare and has to provide compensation to the United States for that restriction. Therefore, this is an area where I still see a fundamental difference within government—between Secretary of State Liam Fox and Secretary of State Michael Gove. I do not see that as resolved, and that is why this proposed new clause has to be included in the Bill.
I have a question for the Minister. In her speech last week, the Prime Minister mentioned remaining a member, or an associate member, of the European Aviation Safety Agency, the European Medicines Agency and the European Chemicals Agency. I did not see this mentioned in her speech but is it the Government’s intention to try to remain an associate member of the European Food Safety Authority and, as part of that, the Panel on Animal Health and Welfare? This is viewed as one of the most authoritative and excellent organisations in that area but, by not being an associate member of the European Food Safety Authority, we will no longer be a member of or an influence on that panel.
This amendment is fundamental. The Government can gain only praise by accepting it, and I hope that they will do so.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to speak to my own amendment in this group, as well as supporting the other amendments in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady McIntosh.
On animal sentience, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, rehearsed the background to the amendment and other noble Lords have done so too. Animal sentience is an important underlying principle. It comes from Article 13 of Title II of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which states clearly that animals are sentient beings. It is therefore very important that this principle is transposed into UK law. However, as we have heard, when the Greens, Labour and others fought for amendments in the Commons to enshrine this principle in the Bill, it was voted down by the Conservatives. I hear the voices of some Members opposite who still do not quite understand why that happened; we, too, do not understand why they took that decision.
There was then an immediate backlash, not only from animal charities but from animal lovers around the UK. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, gave us a flavour of how passionate people are—quite rightly—not only about the countryside but about their personal interconnection with animals and about how important animals are to them. All those arguments have been made very well.
Effectively, the Secretary of State realised that his reputation was about to be trashed and he decided that there would be a process of damage limitation. His solution was to announce that the original amendment was not well drafted and that a separate Bill on animal sentience would be produced. A draft Bill has now been produced and it bears all the hallmarks of a rushed job. Apart from anything else, it combines two distinct issues: increasing sentences for animal cruelty—something that has been in the pipeline for some time—and attempting to define animal sentience. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed out, it is therefore not surprising that the Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee produced a scathing pre-legislative scrutiny report on it. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, queried whether he could quote the noble Baroness as having rubbished it. It is fair to say that the committee did rubbish it. It said that the Secretary of State should go back to the drawing board and that animals,
“deserve better than to be treated in a cavalier fashion”.
It also recommended that the separate bit of the Bill on animal cruelty should go ahead as planned and that much more thought should go into the Government’s vague and ambiguous reforms around animal sentience.
We agree with that analysis. We would be happy to work on the animal sentience Bill to make sure that we get it right, but then of course it has to take its place in the queue of Defra Bills that have already been promised within the next year—a point echoed by other noble Lords. Bills on agriculture, fisheries and the environment have already been promised. Most are in draft form, although some are not even at that stage, and they all have to be delivered within the next 12 months or so. This one would have to take its place in that line of legislation, not to mention all the other EU withdrawal Bills also currently in the pipeline.
It is a bit of a stretch to think we will ever get to a separate animal sentience Bill, so we come back to the amendments on animal sentience before us today. Our belief is that amendments of this nature are necessary to provide a guarantee of the transposition of EU rights for animals, which the Government have promised. Again, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, made that case very forcefully. Ultimately, this is a simple process, which can be accomplished by a simple amendment. If we can find better wording than that which we have put forward, that is absolutely fine; that is the purpose of Committee stage and we would be happy to hear the Minister’s suggestions on that. We would then welcome the chance to work on a more thorough animal sentience Bill, which would take into account the concerns of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and reflect the latest scientific evidence on how animals experience pain and suffering—a lot of new research is coming forward on that issue, of which we need to take account. Today, the task before us is to ensure that all existing EU law is transposed appropriately. We believe a simple amendment of the kind we have put forward would achieve that purpose.
Lord Davies of Stamford
Does my noble friend agree that the excuse that the Government cannot accept this amendment because another Bill may be coming along on the same subject cannot be accepted as genuine? If the Government do bring forward another Bill on this subject, there is absolutely nothing to stop them, if they so wished and if Parliament agreed, modifying the amendment as it is incorporated in the Act.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That is our position: we should have this amendment now but work on it in the longer term. I am sure we could all find ways of improving it. The easiest and most honourable thing is to transpose what was in the treaty and move that wording over, then move on to something better for the longer term. I agree with my noble friend.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to it. I start by directly addressing the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Davies, my noble friend Lord Bowness and others. There is no question but that this Government regard animals as sentient beings. As we said on this issue in the other place, we certainly agree with the sentiment of the amendments, such as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. However, as I will set out, we cannot support them.
Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, to which many noble Lords have referred, places an obligation on the European Union and EU member states when formulating and implementing certain EU policies to have regard to the welfare requirements of animals because animals are sentient beings. However, the weakness of that article—this relates directly to my noble friend Lord Deben’s point—is that it applies only to a limited number of EU policy areas and, even then, allows for certain religious and cultural traditions which many would consider to be cruel. Two examples, of course, are bull-fighting and the production of foie gras. Article 13’s effect on domestic law is minimal. As the Secretary of State for the Environment has made clear, as we leave the EU, we believe that we can do much better.
We have made it clear that we intend to retain our existing standards of animal welfare once we have left the EU, and, indeed, to enhance them. This Bill will convert the existing body of EU animal welfare law into UK law. It will make sure that the same protections are in place in the UK and that laws still function effectively after we leave the EU. However, the purpose of this Bill is to provide continuity by addressing any deficiencies in law as we leave the EU. It is not about improving EU laws that the Government think could be better. That is why, at the end of last year, the Government published draft legislation, the Animal Welfare (Sentencing and Recognition of Sentience) Bill, to which a number of noble Lords have referred. The draft Bill sets out how we can better enshrine in domestic law the recognition of animals as sentient beings.
Let me reply to the questions asked by my noble friend Lord Bowness and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. The Secretary of State for the Environment has been clear that we will legislate and that there will be no gap left in our law on sentience after we leave the EU. We believe that the draft Bill is a significant improvement on Article 13, imposing a clear duty on the state to have regard for animal welfare when considering all policies, rather than just the six areas outlined in Article 13.
Lord Deben
My noble friend has said that the reason we are not including that part of the article which is excluded is that it does not go very far and it is not good enough, but that is not what the Government promised. The Government said that they were going to include in this Bill all the present legislation. That is all we ask. Why will he not include even so deficient a piece as this and then do the additions afterwards, which is what he has told me he is going to do on every other occasion?
Lord Callanan
Because we do not think that Article 13 works in the context of UK law; it applies only to EU law. I have set out why we think we can do better.
The public consultation on the draft Bill closed on 31 January. The Government are analysing the responses and will publish a summary and next steps in due course—I hope before we get to Report. I hope this reassures the noble Baroness, and indeed my noble friend Lord Deben, about the Government’s firm stance on animal sentience.
Lord Wigley
The Minister emphasised that he hoped this would be brought forward by Report. If it is not, would he be prepared to look at an amendment along these lines to meet the Government’s shortcomings and ensure that the Bill covers the possibilities we have outlined in the debate, rather than relying on the possibility of future legislation that may not reach the statute book?
Lord Callanan
I do not want to give the noble Lord an exact commitment but, as I have said, we hope to have it by Report stage. If that is not the case we will look at what can be done in its place.
Amendment 30 seeks to transfer the obligations contained in Article 13—to have regard to the welfare requirements of animals as sentient beings when developing and implementing certain EU policies—to domestic law. Unlike Article 13, however, the amendment applies only to the formulation rather than the formulation and implementation of law and policy. Furthermore, once the UK has left the EU we will obviously no longer be a member state and therefore no longer formulate or implement any EU laws or policies. Therefore, by referring to the obligations contained in Article 13, it is not clear what the effect of the amendment would be in practice. Although it is assumed that its intention is to require the welfare requirements of animals to be taken into account in formulating domestic law and policy, it appears that the amendment would only require it when formulating and implementing EU policy and law, which of course we would no longer be doing. As I have said, the Government have published a draft Bill which introduces a clear duty on Ministers to have regard for animal welfare when formulating and implementing all government policy and not only the six areas I mentioned earlier.
Amendment 98, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, seeks to apply the requirements of Article 13 to the use of Clause 7. It would require Ministers to pay full regard to animal welfare requirements when introducing any legislation under Clause 7. I remind noble Lords that the purpose of Clause 7 is to allow the Government to address deficiencies in retained EU law arising from our withdrawal. Clause 7 provides powers for Ministers to make secondary legislation to deal with any problem that would arise on exit—for example, to remedy any provisions that would have no practical application after the UK has left the EU.
However, the power is temporary and can only be used for up to two years after exit. After that point it will expire. Similarly, the proposed amendment to Clause 7 would only have effect for two years from the date of our withdrawal from the EU. The amendment would also only apply to those regulations introduced by Ministers before March 2021 for the purposes of addressing deficiencies arising from our withdrawal. Therefore, the limited protection provided for animals by the amendment would also expire on 30 March 2021.
The amendment would not hold Ministers to the standards required in Article 13 two years after we have left the EU and, therefore, would weaken the current obligation in Article 13. The provisions set out in our draft Bill in December go beyond the two years following our exit from the EU and will apply to more than just those regulations that deal only with any deficiencies arising from the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I would like to offer them all a hug but I fear I might be infringing HR regulations. I am aware that the Whips have been looking anxiously at the clock and I shall try to be brief.
The amendment would not change anything that exists in the UK at the moment—it is merely a safeguard. If the Government bring forth a Bill I will be incredibly supportive. I am not saying this is the best option for animal protection but it is as good as it gets. It is the best we have at the moment and I certainly do not want to see any worse protections.
Chickens have already been mentioned. I would like to add that mastitis is common in the States—it is an infection of the udder, which means that the milk produced has a high level of pus in it. Americans consume a lot of pus in their milk because of the way their animals are farmed. The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, might have seen cows with sore udders in Texas. We cannot have this in our country and the British public would not allow the Government to drop our welfare standards. If the Government are going to bring forth a Bill, fantastic—but in the meantime let us have the amendment to keep things as safe as possible.
I hope the Government do not come back to your Lordships’ House with a fudge. Many noble Lords are more knowledgeable about this issue than I am, and it would not be accepted. It is a mistake for the Government not to say, “We will have this until we can do better”. If they did, I would support them. I would love to not withdraw the amendment but, with your Lordships’ permission, I will.
Lord Pannick
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, Amendments 31 and 33 arise again out of a report from your Lordships’ Constitution Committee. They are in the names of four members of that committee, the others being the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, and the noble Lords, Lord Norton of Louth and Lord Beith. In the same group I have tabled Amendment 31A.
These amendments address the inclusion in the Bill of the principle of the supremacy of EU law. Noble Lords will know that under the European Communities Act 1972, EU law takes priority over any inconsistent domestic legislation or rule of law. That is why the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 was disapplied in the Factortame case to the extent that it was inconsistent with the EU law rights of Spanish fishermen.
Since the purpose of the Bill is to read across the substance of EU law as at exit day and so secure continuity, the Constitution Committee recognises the need to maintain the priority of retained EU law over laws that were enacted or made prior to exit day. The scheme of the Act is that any future Act of Parliament will take priority over retained EU law. Our objection is to the Bill using the term, the “supremacy of EU law”. We point out in Chapter 5 of our report:
“The ‘supremacy principle’ is alien to the UK constitutional system”,
not only in its origin but also in its content. In our constitutional law, Parliament has supremacy and we think that it is very unsatisfactory that the Bill chooses to implement legal continuity by maintaining a legal concept, the supremacy of EU law, which leaving the EU is designed to abolish. If it is possible to avoid the use of the concept of supremacy for the application of our law after exit day, that would be preferable.
It is also difficult to see how Clause 5(3) advances the objective of legal certainty. To make the application of the concept of supremacy dependent on,
“the intention of the modification”,
seems to the Constitution Committee to invite uncertainty. I would be grateful if the Minister can explain how subsection (3) is intended to apply in practice. Amendment 31 would simply remove the provisions relating to supremacy and it needs to be read with Amendment 33, to which I will turn in a moment.
Another approach is offered by Amendment 32A. It would be much more consistent with British legal principles for Parliament simply to enact, as Amendment 32A suggests and as Professor Paul Craig of Oxford University has suggested—I gratefully adopt his scholarship—a provision that if, on or after exit day there is any inconsistency between retained EU law and an enactment made or a rule of law enforced before then, priority shall be given to the retained EU law.
Whether Clause 5 should use the concept of the supremacy of EU law is linked to another fundamental issue raised by this group of amendments. The Constitution Committee has advised your Lordships that one of the defects of the Bill is that it fails to accord a defined legal status to retained EU law. That is the focus of Amendment 33. The Bill as currently drafted does not say whether the retained EU law is to be treated as primary legislation, as secondary legislation or as something else; and if so, what? The Bill ignores the problem save in paragraph 19 of Schedule 8 which tells us:
“For the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998, any retained direct EU legislation is to be treated as primary legislation”,
meaning that it cannot be disapplied by the courts but can be made the subject of a declaration of incompatibility. Our objection to paragraph 19 is that it begs a question: if retained direct EU legislation does have the status of primary legislation for the purpose of the Human Rights Act, does that mean that it does not have that status for any other legal purpose? The Constitution Committee advised in paragraph 51 of its report that the Bill will give rise to confusion and uncertainty about the legal status of retained EU law by failing to address this issue clearly and consistently.
The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law has agreed with our concern that the Bill should confer a defined legal status on retained EU law. The centre has explained that individuals and businesses need to know about the status of one rule relative to another because the question of hierarchy is determinative of a number of legal questions. Which rule takes priority if there is a conflict between them? On what grounds may the content of a legal rule be challenged? What remedies are available if the legal challenge is successful, and what process must be followed if the rule is to be repealed or amended? Even worse, in the opinion of the Constitution Committee, the Solicitor-General told us in his helpful evidence that the Government would, if necessary, use the powers conferred in Clause 17 to make provision themselves to determine the legal status of particular retained EU laws for specified purposes. The report is very clear about that in paragraph 69:
“It is constitutionally unacceptable for ministers to have the power to determine something as fundamental as whether a part of our law should be treated as primary or secondary legislation”.
We added that for the Bill to say nothing about legal status but to allow Ministers to determine the status of particular retained EU law for particular purposes is,
“a recipe for confusion and legal uncertainty”.
Amendment 33 would implement the recommendation of the Constitution Committee by conferring on retained EU law the status of primary legislation enacted on exit day. The simplicity of that approach is that it would ensure, by a means entirely conventional on domestic legal principles, that retained EU law would take priority over previously enacted legislation, as the Government intend, but it would give way to legislation enacted after exit day—again as the Government intend. Another advantage of treating all retained EU law as primary legislation is that it would not be capable of amendment under existing delegated powers which are not Henry VIII powers. Ministers would be able to amend the retained EU law only by using existing Henry VIII powers where applicable or by using the powers conferred under this Bill. I should add that although the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law does agree that the failure of this Bill to address the legal status of retained EU law is a serious defect, it does not agree with the remedy proposed by the Constitution Committee. The centre has expressed concerns that to treat all retained EU law as primary legislation risks devaluing its currency as well as running the risk that we will become inured to the use of Henry VIII powers to amend primary legislation.
The Bingham centre, like Professor Paul Craig, would prefer the Bill to accord a legal status to retained EU law that depends on the status which the norm had in EU law pre-exit day. There is an opinion from Mr Pushpinder Saini, the Queen’s Counsel for ClientEarth, which makes a similar proposal. I would be content with such a solution to this complex problem on which different views may reasonably be taken as to the solution, but I emphasise that the Constitution Committee and the Bingham centre agree that there is a serious deficiency in this Bill since it fails to accord a defined legal status to the retained EU law. I therefore look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to all three of the problems in the Bill raised by this group of amendments. First, the inclusion in Clause 5 of the concept of the “supremacy of EU law”; secondly, the failure of the Bill to confer a domestic legal status on retained EU law: is it primary legislation, is it secondary legislation; what is it?; and thirdly, the lack of clarity in Clause 5(3) with its reference to,
“the intention of the modification”.
I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, if Amendment 31 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 32 for reasons of pre-emption.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, when I first heard of a Pannick amendment, I thought it was something like an emergency resolution. I now realise that it is an elegantly drafted and eloquently spoken to amendment. In the light of what we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, there will be no need for me to move Amendment 32.
Lord Dykes (CB)
My Lords, I begin by very quickly thanking the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for his comments—with which I agree entirely—and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his very comprehensive explanation.
In general, Clause 5 is very problematic as drafted. I am grateful for the suggestions that have been made so far. Other colleagues who have spoken on other occasions about this danger in Clause 5 have expressed real concern about it suggesting leaving out the main subsections. Even if Section 1 is not separately debated today, they all come together in a cohesive generality.
The Bill converts existing EU direct law—as has been said, mainly regulations but also directives and sometimes decisions—into UK law as it applies on the actual exit date. I fear that Her Majesty’s Government, who have already shown massive incompetence in handling the whole wretched process of Brexit, underestimate the huge volume of SIs that would need to cascade through the system if enacted as they stand. I feel very strongly that it would not be seemly and proper to incorporate the words of the so-called supremacy of EU law as is written down now, even if there was a laid-down definitional basis. Even the qualified tone in subsections (2) and (3) does not reassure me. Unless the text is improved appropriately, I envisage endless scenes of parties arguing in UK courts over the underlying meanings—arguments for some length of time and at notable expense, of course.
Many outside expert observers of these matters—including, I recall, the Law Society—have flagged up these possible consequences. There have also been suggestions of them in various quarters, not least in our House’s Constitution Committee. The principle of the famous Clause 2 in the original 1972 EU membership Bill should be invoked to decide on the solutions—albeit for the reverse objective and in the reverse direction—to mitigate these dangers and provide the cover-all effect needed to avoid unnecessary litigation and post-Brexit wrangling.
I conclude by emphasising that taking part in these irritating and, dare I say, excessively bureaucratic legislative procedures in no way implies my support for the Government’s foolish, relentless, drive for a nightmare Brexit that fewer and fewer people in the UK now want. That is why I support the symbolic resistance of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, to all the clauses standing part, including Clause 5.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, we are now looking again at the principle of supremacy and status. I agree with a great deal—in fact, almost all—of what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said. However, in the various amendments I have sprinkled around, I differ with him on one fundamental point: I always wish to preserve the rights of individuals and businesses to have legislation struck down. That is their current position in that they can have EU law struck down. I put forward my alternative plan in Amendment 32A; I will explain how I got to it.
Broadly speaking, there are three baskets of EU laws. In basket 1, there are the treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which have to be followed by the European court. They are not revocable, as I am sure noble Lords know, and it is a big procedure to change them. In basket 2, I put legislative acts, meaning regulations and directives that set policy. To be precise, they can be identified by the article of the procedure in the treaty that they were made under. In the Lisbon treaty—the TFEU—it would be Article 289. The important point for noble Lords to hold in their minds is that these regulations and directives set policy. Basket 2 legislation can also be struck down by the European court—including on an action from individuals and businesses—for being incompatible with the treaty or the charter. A recent example is the data retention regulation that was ruled disproportionate in cases brought by Digital Rights Ireland and others. In basket 3, I put the implementation of Acts and delegated Acts and their predecessors. In the Lisbon treaty, that comes under Articles 290 and 291. These can be struck down by the European court for being incompatible with the treaty or the charter, as well as for being incompatible with the powers and instructions that were delegated to it in the legislation on which it depends.
If we take rights as our guide—by which I mean the right of an individual or business to challenge the validity of a bad law—then we get to the categorisation that the EU gives to law: that it is all secondary, except for the treaties and the charter. It is quite easy to accept that retained EU general principles—corresponding to basket 1, as I called it—should have primary status. Once converted under Clause 7, it would be wrong if they were changed or revoked other than by an Act of Parliament.
Basket 3 regulations are very close to statutory instruments in the way that they are made based on delegated powers, including an all-or-nothing single vote in the Council or Parliament to turn the whole lot down. There is also similarity in the ways they can be invalidated in court. That is quite easy to map on to our statutory instrument. Basket 2 is harder. The policy content and procedure of making the law look a lot like the making of an Act of Parliament; that leads some—I think Professor Craig was one of them—to conclude that it should map on to primary legislation. But then, if primary, it cannot be quashed under the general principles, so the rights of individuals and businesses are lost. Of course, if noble Lords look at Schedule 1—as we will later today—it can be seen that the Government’s intention is that there is no right of action on a failure to comply with the general principles of EU law. That is wrong. Treating legislation as primary carries the same cost that the Constitution Committee accepts. As it says in paragraph 48 of its report:
“Treating retained direct EU law as primary legislation for all—including”,
Human Rights Act,
“purposes is not without constitutional costs”.
I consider that cost to be too high because I give more weight to maintaining status quo rights and the reasonable expectations of individuals and businesses than making judgments easier or fewer.
We have to address that question several times in the Bill. Each time, I come down on the side of the people’s rights. No manifestos have ever said, “We want to take back control, including your right to challenge bad law”. However, the secondary legislation nature of basket 2 may require some further protection from overly easy change and revocation by statutory instruments, especially once things are no longer pinned in place because we are not part of the EU. In the EU, this was not made by a statutory instrument-type process, nor is it amendable in that way, so basket 2—although of secondary legislation status—could be deemed amendable in life after Clause 7 only by an Act of Parliament. This idea is similar to the one we debated regarding Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. Such treatment means that there is a special category for these laws, but we are in an unusual situation. The fact is that basket 2 is an intermediate, piggy-in-the-middle category. It is secondary legislation-plus, or primary legislation-minus. It could be replicated more or less by secondary legislation plus amendment protection, or the other way round as primary legislation but challengeable as to validity, although that is a bit more controversial.
The piggy-in-the-middle nature shows up in other ways. Basket 2 legislation actually contains within the individual documents a great deal of detail that in the UK domestic system would be done in delegated secondary legislation. It is the same with directives: a greater level of detail is there than in the lean and mean UK Acts of Parliament. That is even more the case after implementation for the secondary legislation made under the European Communities Act. For example, look at the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill, which recently received its Third Reading in this House. The money laundering regulations 2017, based on the fourth anti-money laundering directive, are some 112 pages plus a glossary. They were replaced in the Bill by one clause of 28 lines, including the headings and a three-and-a-half-page schedule listing delegated powers. It has been much amended and improved, but the contrast in content is much the same. If we made secondary legislation transposing directives into primary legislation, there would be a great deal of detail on which I would not wish to say I gave the sovereignty of Parliament a totally unchallengeable status.
There are three parts to my amendment. The first would reword the supremacy principle. I intend it to do the same thing and I am not precious about the wording. In fact, I just modified the Constitution Committee’s idea and stole the idea that you allocate precedence as if it were primary legislation, but in my plan the only bit of primary legislation it gets is the precedence. The second part would allocate secondary status to basket 2 retained legislation, and indeed to basket 3—everything except for Acts, because where we have Acts they already are and look like Acts. I then allocate primary status to EU general principles. As I have indicated, for life after Clause 7, basket 2 could be made so as to require amendment by primary legislation. Possibly that belongs in Clause 7 or somewhere else.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Bowles has identified a problem that goes beyond what the committee sought to solve in its proposal, and proposed an ingenious way of trying to deal with it. The committee’s proposal seeks to protect the important bits of that legislation from the degree of vulnerability provided by the repeal of statutory instruments under our present procedures. It is an intriguing point in some ways, because I expect this to be a shrinking area of law over time. If we leave the EU, one assumes that much of this legislation will in time be replaced by new legislation bringing that area of law up to date, not because it is EU law but because things move on and there is a need to do so.
That reminds us of the danger that the committee set out at paragraph 103 of its report. It said:
“If the ‘supremacy principle’ were to continue to feature in the Bill, clause 5(3) would need to be amended to clarify the extent to which retained EU law can be modified while retaining the benefit of that principle, and to clarify in what circumstances the modification of pre-exit domestic law would be such as to turn it into post-exit domestic law that is no longer vulnerable to the operation of the ‘supremacy principle’”.
We chose not to go down that road or try to define it because it seemed an extremely bad situation to get into. One other problem that I will add to the list so well adumbrated by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, occurs in paragraph 87 of the report, which points out that Clause 5 would also need to be amended,
“to provide courts … with suitable guidance for the purpose of determining whether a rule of the common law should be taken to have been ‘made’ before or after exit”.
If that is not done then the procedure that the Government have chosen will yet again promote and continue uncertainty. In both cases it would be better to go for some version of what the committee proposed.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I agree very substantially with my noble friend Lord Pannick’s general approach. Any attempt to repeat or paraphrase what he said would merely weaken it. I shall not do so, but I will make two comments.
First, on the supremacy question, my noble friend is clearly right that this is a wholly alien notion and we do not want it incorporated in the Bill. I confess I could not find what he calls Amendment 31A in my Marshalled List—this must be my fault. Is it the same as what I have as Amendment 32B? I suspect it may be. I certainly read that amendment as modelled on Professor Paul Craig’s proposal for how to deal with this. If that is the position—my noble friend nods helpfully to indicate that it is—I entirely support that approach. The language is substantially Professor Craig’s and it is altogether satisfactory.
Secondly, my noble friend canvassed an outline of the alternative ways to deal with giving legal status to, and the categorisation of, retained EU law. On the one hand, the Constitution Committee suggested that we turn it all into UK primary legislation. Then there is Professor Paul Craig’s competing approach, which is also endorsed by the Bingham Centre. I have a huge preference for the latter, not the former. As Paul Craig points out, we pass, in round figures, about 40 statutes a year. If we suddenly turn 10,000 or so instruments—the figure I think he suggests—which obviously in the ordinary categorisation would fall into the category of secondary legislation, into primary legislation, with all the consequences of that, we would simply overwhelm the statute book. We would make it impossible to deal with them properly as statutes. We would then inevitably start needing Henry VIII clauses in full measure. We would devalue primary legislation and give credibility and justification to use of Henry VIII powers, which is the last thing we want to do. Go down the Craig-Bingham line, not the Constitution Committee’s recommended route. I say that with all respect and deference to the committee, whose report is overall an enormously helpful document.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I can be brief. I wish to support the various submissions made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, but also to draw your Lordships’ attention to some revealing contents of the Constitution Committee’s report, in particular the words of the Solicitor-General, which seem to indicate very clearly the weakness of the Government’s position.
As I recall, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, confined himself to the first sentence of paragraph 69 of the report:
“It is constitutionally unacceptable for ministers to have the power to determine something as fundamental as whether a part of our law should be treated as primary or secondary legislation”.
He went on to say that this is a recipe for confusion and legal uncertainty. I invite your Lordships to look to paragraph 67 on page 23 of the report, particularly the direct quote from the evidence given by the Solicitor-General. He says of the powers under discussion that,
“there is nothing unusual about these powers. However, I accept that the way and the context in which they are used is somewhat unusual … I accept that we are in new territory here. Having said that … when embarking on new territory, all Ministers tread extremely carefully”.
If this is genuinely new territory, it is inevitable from the Solicitor-General’s expression that there is no precedent. If there is no precedent for exercise of powers in the way the Government seek, that is not just something where we should tread extremely carefully; it is something which should be rejected outright.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I indicated at Second Reading that I would support the propositions that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has enunciated on behalf of the Constitution Committee. Bringing into our system legislation from an alien system and doing so reasonably consistently require it to have an allocated status of some kind. Making it primary legislation is probably the best. Otherwise, there will be doubt about precisely which item of legislation goes to a particular area. The result will be to make it possible to dispense with the rather outmoded idea of the supremacy of EU law once Brexit comes along by the date which allows our ordinary system to operate.
I have tremendous respect for the Bingham system and, as your Lordships know, for the noble and learned Lord whose name it carried. It has kept up the traditions and quality of his work wonderfully—I should perhaps in passing declare an interest: I find it very useful to support the Bingham institute in connection with its funding. However, it makes quite a lot of the difficulty of using Henry VIII clauses. This is a very special situation, as the Constitution Committee recognised some time ago, because trying to fit together two systems of legislation is certainly difficult. We must remember the timescale involved in trying to do it any other way. I shall not comment on the detail of the powers to amend proposed in the Bill—that is for a later stage—but it is reasonable at the moment to accept that this is a very special situation with a necessary operation which requires to be performed in reasonably short time to make the whole thing work. Therefore, the idea that we are dividing primary legislation by this method is open to doubt.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, when we last debated this issue, the Advocate-General for Scotland said that he was very attracted to the proposals published by Professor Paul Craig in his blog—the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to that. I notice that Professor Craig published a subsequent blog on 26 February, also referred to by the noble Lord, in which he suggests that, once the process of transposing law has taken effect, we should assign,
“legal status to EU retained law in the UK based on the status it had in EU law”
Having read his blog as a non-lawyer, I felt that, if the intention is to give certainty, the proposals of Professor Craig would do that—except in one key respect which I hope the Minister might comment on: what process would be undergone between now and next February to allocate the huge body of retained law to one or other category if we were to adopt Professor Craig’s mode of proceeding? Since the Solicitor-General said in the House of Commons that about 20,000 pieces of EU law will be transferred, and if it were possible to establish, as Professor Craig sets out, a criterion based on the intention of existing EU law which would divide between primary and secondary legislation, can the Minister indicate, if he is minded to go down that route, what process would take place, so that, on 29 March next year, we know the status of law being transposed?
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
We need to speak from these Benches as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made a powerful speech in favour of his amendment, backed by the powerful arguments of the Constitution Committee. It is apparent that this gives rise not to a difference on what the end objective should be: the need for clarity; the need for a clear status for EU law; and the recognition that retained EU law will need to retain its position of priority over pre-existing UK law because that is the status it has at the moment and because, as we have been reminded in debate after debate, the Government have promised that EU law will be passed across on exit day as it is at the moment. The routes proposed by the Constitution Committee and the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law—and in the interesting proposals put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles—demonstrate that it is possible to reach those objectives by different routes.
However, the methods put forward by the Constitution Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, have the merit of simplicity and elegance. The status of the law is clear. We do not have to go through a process of trying to decide between now and next February what it is; we certainly do not have to go through a process of allowing a Minister to use powers under Clause 17 to assign a process, which would be, as the Constitution Committee says, an unacceptable approach.
It would have the additional advantage, or so it would seem to me at least, that retained EU law would then have some protection against amendability, save by the processes of this House and the other place considering the amendments which ought to be made rather than by a process of delegated legislation—I say “some” protection, because it would not be complete. Those seem reasons why the elegant solution proposed by the Constitution Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has much to commend it
I would like to read when it becomes available what the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, said, to make sure that I fully understood all of it. I do not disagree with the intention behind it, but the proposal of the Constitution Committee may achieve it more readily and elegantly.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I am obliged for all the contributions and for the opportunity to respond to this debate. These provisions and amendments may be technical, but, in debating them, we must not lose sight of the real practical consequences that follow from how we deal with this issue. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, observed in passing, we are aiming at the same goal; it is a question of which route can most appropriately take us there. I shall come on in due course to look at some of the routes proposed.
Lord Goldsmith
I was referring to the different proposals by the Constitution Committee and the Bingham Centre, rather than to the Government’s proposals.
Lord Keen of Elie
Then I reassure the noble and learned Lord that we are all intent on arriving in the same place; it is a question of how we arrive there. I shall deal with the routes that he touched on.
Perhaps I may correct one point: the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, referred to the work of Professor Craig and to some previous remarks that I had made about that. I commend to him what I said as recorded in Hansard. I referred to the publication of 26 February on the previous occasion; it did not come out after those remarks were made. I shall mention Professor Craig’s analysis in due course. The task of categorising such legislation would be challenging, but we would consider it as one route forward.
As we know, one of the core requirements of EU membership is the principle of supremacy of EU law. In the event of any conflict with domestic law, domestic law must give way. When we leave the EU, it would make no sense and would not be in keeping with our principles to leave that unchanged in our law; we all recognise that.
Lord Pannick
It is more fundamental than that. The difficulty is, why use the concept of the supremacy of EU at all? It is surely inappropriate in a Bill of this nature.
Lord Keen of Elie
Not necessarily in the context of retained EU law, which comes over with that principle of supremacy standing behind it. I will come on to deal with that in more detail. I understand that, as the noble Lord indicated, his amendments draw on the recommendations made in the Constitution Committee report on the Bill—although I was interested to note that Amendment 33 appears to go further than the recommendations put forward by the committee, in that it extends the status of primary legislation to all retained EU law, rather than just to law being preserved by Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill. So there is that difference between Amendment 33 and the recommendations of the Constitution Committee.
I understand entirely the concerns here and the attraction that these amendments have as a result. It is only right, however, that we should examine fully the consequences of dealing with status in a one-size-fits-all way.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
Before the Minister moves on to the consequences, perhaps I might draw his attention to the status of environmental law currently drawn from the European Union. Of course, a considerable proportion of the anticipated changes that will be required are in environmental law, because so much of what we draw from Europe is environmental law. At the moment, the status of environmental law drawn from Europe has been pretty random, to be frank, and not at all reflective of the importance of the legislation. It has been random, whether it is drawn from a regulation which would be picked up by the clauses that the Minister mentioned or from a directive which would not be picked up in that way. But it did not really matter that it was rather random in its status, because the framework provided by the ECA was there, and therefore none of the legislation could be meddled with randomly by the Executive. Of course, once the safeguard provided by the ECA has gone, the status of existing environmental law becomes rather strange. It sticks out like a sore thumb, in that some of it that one would think was sufficiently important to be considered eligible, as it were, for primary legislation, has not got that current status, while other bits of law that are pretty functional and practical have a much lower status. So I urge the Minister to think about just how complicated the process would be if we did not simply adopt a single status for all that law.
Lord Keen of Elie
First, with respect to the noble Baroness, I do not accept that the way in which environmental law has been received and enforced in our domestic legislation has been random. We differ at the outset to that extent. Of course, various propositions have been put forward, one of which is to give the status of primary legislation to all retained EU law—but that would raise difficulties that I will come on to address. The categorisation below that can be carried out: indeed, the noble Baroness tried to set out for Amendment 32A a hierarchy that could be employed in that context. But I do not consider that environmental law stands out in the way that the noble Baroness suggests.
Our concern is that, as I mentioned, a one-size-fits-all approach will not really work. Again, I quote from the Bingham Centre’s report, which stated:
“We consider that the Rule of Law objectives of legal continuity and certainty are better served by the approach taken by the Government in the Bill. The principle of supremacy is well understood and its future role is very limited, being confined to the relationship between retained EU law and pre-exit UK law. Treating all retained EU law as primary legislation enacted on exit day, on the other hand, will increase legal uncertainty because it changes the settled approach and leaves unclear whether the interpretive obligation, to interpret pre-exit UK law so as to be compatible with retained EU law, continues to apply”.
EU law that is being converted into domestic legislation under this clause covers both a vast range of different policy areas and different types of EU law, from regulations and directives applying to agriculture and farming to detailed and technical pieces of tertiary legislation, such as the list of contents for a dye or chemical. At the end of the day, treating all of that as primary legislation would present, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, indicated, a quite enormous task for Parliament if it is going to legislate to amend any of that retained EU law. How many Acts of Parliament would we have to contemplate putting through this House to wrestle with that demanding position? It really would be formidable. Because this legislation will come on to our domestic statute book in a unique way, it will not already have been scrutinised and approved by this Parliament—so we would be bringing in this enormous body of law and treating it as primary legislation when nobody in this Parliament had actually examined it.
The breadth of this body of law, in the case of EU law being converted, is unique in its nature, which is why the Government have deliberately chosen to tread rather carefully and not simply assign a single status to that retained law in domestic legislation. While assigning a single status for all purposes to all retained EU law may be theoretically possible, it would have the most difficult consequences and might lead ultimately to a situation in which we had to extend the use of Henry VIII powers beyond any reasonable limit normally contemplated in the context of provisions of this kind.
Beyond that practical consideration, there is a more fundamental concern about the constitutional appropriateness of what has been proposed. Domestic primary legislation is less vulnerable to subsequent amendment and is less vulnerable to challenge in the courts for a very good reason—because, as I said, it has undergone scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament, which means that there can be no doubt about Parliament’s intentions so far as that primary legislation is concerned. That would not apply to retained EU law.
While we are spending considerable time scrutinising this Bill, we are not able to scrutinise the law it is converting. Some of that law is itself the EU’s own subsidiary legislation, which has not been subject to comparable scrutiny anywhere. The noble Baroness observed on an earlier occasion that the European Parliament had had the opportunity to scrutinise much of this. It has had the opportunity to scrutinise some of it, but scant scrutiny—if any—of the subsidiary legislation has actually occurred in the European Parliament. By contrast, our proposed approach has been to deal with the status of converted law for certain specified purposes, such as that alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick: that is, paragraph 19 of Schedule 8 in the context of the Human Rights Act and rights arising from there.
Of course I understand the concerns put forward by the Constitution Committee and noble Lords about the consequences of the case-by-case approach that we are taking. I do not dismiss them lightly and I do not say that the Bill is a perfect solution to the issue that we have to address. As I indicated on day three of Committee, there is some scope for considering how we can take this forward. Reference has already been made to the work of Professor Paul Craig and the alternative model of categorisation that he proposed in his article of 26 February. That is something that we are looking at—albeit, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, anticipated, that it might involve a considerable amount of work. But if that can be an appropriate and effective categorisation, rather like that of the noble Baroness, it is something that we are willing to look at.
Again, I ask the Committee not to dismiss lightly the potential ramifications of treating all this law as having the status of primary legislation just to exclude the concept of supremacy from the operation of Clause 5. That would raise formidable problems for us and we do not see it as an effective way forward for the Bill. But, as I indicated previously, we are looking at the mechanisms employed here, and a mechanism that avoids actually applying the doctrine of supremacy may find greater traction as a way forward if we can come up with a suitable categorisation for retained EU law, rather than a blanket categorisation of primary legislation. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
Perhaps I may make an observation. Leaving general principles out of it, if you categorise all the legislation as secondary legislation and then deem that some of it can be amended only by Act of Parliament, you do not have to sort it all. You would have to sort it only when you wanted to amend it—and at that point you would look at the basis on which it was made.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Baroness for that observation. Obviously, that is something that we would take into account. It perhaps touches on a question I did not answer from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, with regard to Clause 5(3), where he queried the reference to the “intention of the modification”. Of course, what that makes clear is that this will need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Lord Pannick
Of course, “case-by-case basis” suggests lots of work for lawyers and a lot of legal uncertainty. I am grateful to the Minister and all those who spoke in the debate. There was, I think, widespread agreement in the debate—apart from the Minister—and from expert commentators that a legal status does need to be conferred in the Bill on retained EU law. How one confers the legal status is much more difficult than what legal status one confers. I would say that there is more than one way to skin a cat—but that may upset those who spoke in the previous debate.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Goldsmith, for supporting the approach recommended by your Lordships’ Constitution Committee. But I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, that there is also great force in the suggestion made by Professor Paul Craig that the Bill should confer a status of either primary or secondary legislation, dependent on the category of EU law from which the retained EU law derives. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who asked about this, that Professor Craig is not advocating a process of allocation on a case-by-case basis; he is advocating that legal status should depend on the article of the EU treaty from which the retained EU law derives—a much more objective approach.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
Did my noble friend hear Paul Craig say at a seminar, as I did, that it would take four competent EU lawyers four days in Brussels to classify, consistently with the classification both pre and post Lisbon, all this legislation? Four lawyers, four days—that is perhaps the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.
Lord Pannick
Well, it depends. How long is a piece of string—how long does it take EU lawyers to allocate? But it is an objective approach. There may be difficulties, but they would be far fewer than the problems that would be posed by not addressing this problem at all in the Bill or by leaving it to Ministers to determine the matter. The other suggestion was that made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. She may have the right answer. She spoke of various baskets—I think it was “baskets” rather than the word used by Sir John Major as Prime Minister in relation to opponents of the Maastricht treaty.
The core point is that it is unacceptable for the Bill to ignore the question of legal status. It is a problem that needs to be addressed if the Bill is to achieve its objective of securing legal certainty. Therefore, I hope that the Government will, as the Minister indicated, reflect on these issues before Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 5th March 2018
(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 79-IV(b) Manuscript amendment for Committee, supplementary to the fourth marshalled list (PDF, 79KB) - (5 Mar 2018)
Baroness Massey of Darwen
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 37 focuses on the protection, welfare and rights of children once the UK is no longer a member of the EU. I am disturbed by the notion of excluding the European Charter of Fundamental Rights in our domestic systems. Why is removing this being considered? What can be put in its place that is better? Perhaps the Minister can give the House an explanation.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
I apologise if there are no microphones, although it is not my fault. There has been little effort to consider how Brexit might affect children. I do not know who has been consulted on this. Perhaps the Minister can tell me. Have children been consulted? Organisations now often consult children about matters which affect their lives. Have the UK commissioners for children been consulted? They are advocates for, and speak for, children. Has the voluntary sector, which does such a splendid job in supplying information and support to children and those of us who work for them, been consulted? If not, why not? Have academics who support children’s rights been consulted? If all these people have been consulted, what are the results of such consultations? Has an impact assessment on how Brexit will affect children been considered? If not, why not?
I believe that there are 80 EU instruments which entitle children to protection and welfare. EU directives have not all been incorporated into UK law, yet these are comprehensive. There are numerous case studies on children as victims of crime—the sexual abuse and exploitation of children, criminal justice, and legal aid for victims. All these emphasise what it will mean to not have the European charter in place. Some have argued that our domestic laws on children are sufficient to protect them in all instances. This is not the case and I shall discuss it in a moment.
Last Monday, my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith spoke about the need to retain the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and stated that the charter will not be downloaded into our domestic law. An opinion by a Queen’s Counsel concludes that this would weaken human rights protection in the UK. The independent Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law has stated that the charter does much more than codify rights and principles. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, commenting on the Government’s right-by-right analysis of the withdrawal Bill, concluded with six devastating paragraphs in support of retaining the charter. The final paragraph states that some of the charter rights,
“are based wholly or in part on provisions of the ECHR”.
Other international treaties also come into play that have not been incorporated into domestic law, such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which the UK is a signatory. However, the UNCRC is not incorporated fully into UK law and there are no legal or financial sanctions for non-compliance with its provisions. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, was hoping to comment on this but has had to leave.
The response also states that,
“a failure to preserve relevant parts of the Charter in domestic law after Brexit will lead to a significant weakening of the current system of human rights protection in the UK”.
The Children’s Rights Alliance points out that the European Charter of Fundamental Rights sets out in a single document the fundamental rights protected in EU law and of particular importance to the protection of children’s rights.
We all know that the UK under successive Governments has made great strides to protect and enhance the welfare of children. Examples include the Children Acts of 1989 and 2004 and the Children and Social Work Act 2017, which is not yet in force. However, our domestic laws do not cover the full range of children’s entitlement regulated by the EU. We have no constitutional commitment to children’s rights at central government level, the level at which most EU legislation will be amended or repealed after Brexit.
I give other examples. The Children Act 1989, of course, enhanced the welfare of children but did not regulate the full range of children’s rights to protection covered by EU law—for example, as regards consumer protection and health and safety. The Children Act 2004 strengthened the 1989 Act but does not cover cross-border recognition and enforcement of family orders currently regulated by EU Brussels I and II. In particular, the right of a competent child to be heard in relation to child abduction or family disputes is significant. The Equality Act, welcome though it is, is not particularly strong as an instrument for children’s rights and does not cover many issues that would be of concern post Brexit—for example, equality in the workplace.
The Children and Social Work Act improves decision-making and support for looked-after children and for safeguarding work at the local level. It also makes relationships and sex education appropriate to age mandatory in schools. However, it seems to contradict amendments introduced by the Immigration Act 2016, specifically on care support for unaccompanied children when they reach the age of 18 and do not have leave to remain, are not asylum seekers or do not have a first immigration application for leave to enter or remain.
Other Acts such as the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the broadcasting Act 2003 contain measures to protect children, but are not fully comprehensive and obligations may be vulnerable to repeal when implemented through statutory instruments. The EU (Withdrawal) Bill could create problems for thousands of families affected by divorce or separation or involved in cross-border EU-UK family or child protection cases.
In 2017, UNICEF published its report on the progress made on children’s rights in the UK. It stated that while we have made much progress, we are weak in assessing the impact of legislation and policy on children. There have been significant advances in child protection and welfare in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, these devolved measures will be impaired by Brexit as much of EU law affecting children may well be repealed through the use of delegated powers at a centralised level. This, of course, is worth a debate in itself. The Minister may say that Government cannot ignore the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010. But these Acts, welcome though they are, have limited relevance to children. The European Charter of Fundamental Rights and the UNCRC go wider and deeper. Does the Minister accept this? If so, could he say—I ask this again—what will replace the European Charter of Fundamental Rights? The only way to ensure that children’s rights and welfare are protected is for it to be incorporated as part of retained EU law.
The Government should ensure that all existing protections for children’s rights and welfare in the EU legislative framework are reserved in domestic law. We cannot leave children from the UK—but also, in certain cases, from the EU—vulnerable to unclear or non-existent laws. I cannot understand the decision to drop the European Charter of Fundamental Rights when nothing else is in its place, and I do not know what will be. Why bother? Why reinvent? Any charter or convention, if attacked, must surely weaken the commitment to human rights, and we should resist such attacks with all our might.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, in connection with EU withdrawal, and as already intimated, there are perhaps two key aspects concerning our protection of children. First, that the current level of cross-border co-operation should not diminish. Secondly—which this group of amendments highlights—that UK domestic law and its deployment should continue to be guided by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
With regard to the first, can my noble friend the Minister reassure us that to safeguard children the right steps are being taken so that the UK will remain part of relevant cross-border interventions, including Europol and the European arrest warrant agreements?
The second focus is on United Kingdom law protecting children. Here, two inconsistencies already obtain. For, while subject to EU legislation, our own UK legal provision still falls short of that covered by EU law on children. In relation to UNCRC there is an even wider gap. That is since, although guided by it, none of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child has been incorporated into UK domestic law at all—hence within Amendment 70 the exhortation that it should now come to be.
However, in spite and irrespective of such apparent anomalies and omissions, after EU withdrawal clearly our principal aim must be to avoid any slippage of existing UNCRC standards. What plans does my noble friend now have to ensure that we do avoid this?
Yet at the same time, does he concur that we ought to go much further; thus not just guarding against the erosion of standards; but in properly maintaining them also seeking to build upon and improve them?
For, rather obviously, sustained cross-border co-operation as well as improved national legislation protecting children are both in the interest of all states. To mutual benefit, therefore, this consideration in turn reflects the positive opportunity for attaining much better results for protecting children’s rights.
All the more so is that the case with us since, although leaving the European Union, we will remain within Europe’s consensus on human rights and the rule of law represented by its far larger affiliation of the 47 states of the Council of Europe, in which parliament, along with those here tonight, including the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Foulkes, and my noble friend Lord Balfe, I have the honour to serve.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 70, in my name, supported by the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Russell, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, to whom I am grateful. However, my remarks are also relevant to other children’s rights amendments in this group, some of which I have signed. I am grateful, too, to the Children’s Society for its assistance, and to all the children’s organisations that have worked so hard to ensure that children’s interests are not forgotten as we debate the Bill.
I have already made clear my strong opposition to the removal of the Charter of Fundamental Rights from retained EU law, and colleagues have made clear the damaging impact this is likely to have on children. Amendment 70, which is a probing amendment, goes further than other amendments in this group in that it provides for the full incorporation of those parts of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child ratified by the UK. The convention covers all aspects of a child’s life and sets out the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights to which all children are entitled. Key principles include the best interests of the child being a primary consideration in all actions concerning children, and children being able to express their voices in all matters affecting them.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 38, 39 and others regarding the rights of participation of children and the maintenance of dignity in older people. The EU charter includes children’s right to participation in Article 24, as we have heard, but there is no broad right to children’s participation in law domestically, although there is some provision for it in certain cases.
One of the general principles of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child concerns children’s right to be heard and to have their views considered and taken seriously. Accordingly, in 2016 the UNCRC made recommendations to the UK, including that it should:
“Establish structures for the active and meaningful participation of children and give due weight to their views in designing laws, policies, programmes and services at the local and national level”.
However, in the UK there continues to be no permanent structure or action plan to facilitate the systematic participation of children in policy-making, although the DfE has indicated that it wishes to improve such engagement, and has recently published several child-friendly consultation documents.
The European Charter of Fundamental Rights brings together in a single document the rights which underpin EU law. It has included new issues that require protection—for example, the protection of personal data—extended existing rights and established new rights, such as the right to human dignity. It reaffirms the rights for children that already exist in the European Convention on Human Rights, such as the right to education, and includes key rights enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. As the UK has not incorporated certain treaties such as the UNCRC into domestic law, there is no guarantee that rights contained in unincorporated treaties would be adequately protected after Brexit. It is therefore very important that the charter is retained in its entirety, in order not to weaken existing rights protections.
For example, the charter has strongly influenced the development of EU regulations in relation to cross-border family law. In 2016, one in 10 children born in the UK was to a family with one parent from the UK and another from an EU member state. EU cross-border family law regulations, covering issues such as child custody, contact, child abduction and child maintenance, provide these families with certainty about their legal rights in difficult situations.
If the family breaks down and disputes arise between UK and EU parents, the EU framework ensures child rights-based court proceedings that make a difficult situation slightly easier for a child to cope with. For example, regulations ensure that children have the opportunity to have their opinion heard during court proceedings that determine if they are to be returned to a parent in another country. Further charter-based proposals are being agreed that will strengthen children’s rights further, ensuring that the best interests of the child is a mediating principle.
The protection of the rights of children and older persons in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is essential as there are not such specific protections in the European Convention on Human Rights. Children in the UK cannot access the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child as the UK has not ratified the third protocol, and there is no treaty on older persons.
Dignity for older people, especially those in care, is about supporting people with the same respect you would want for yourself or for a member of your family, treating each person as an individual and giving people independence and choice as to how their needs and wants are met. There are good examples of people who have been treated in a dignified manner but also, alas, several such as Mid Staffordshire and Winterbourne View have been identified by the Care Quality Commission. The last thing we want is that gaps in the law allow such cases to rear their ugly heads once more.
The principle of the inherent dignity of all people underpins human rights treaties. The right to dignity in the EU charter echoes the principles and rights of the charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Dignity underpins all the provisions in the EU charter and is as relevant for children as it is for the rights of elderly people and those in need of care and their right to be treated with dignity, to participate in social and cultural life and to fulfil their dreams and aspirations.
We have come a long way in this area and the present and previous Governments have made great strides in helping us to treat anyone who lacks the capacity or the ability to self-determine—in dementia, for example—with consideration and dignity, and it would be more than a pity to put all this to waste. The amendment will signal to both our own people and EU members that the UK remains committed to maintaining the human rights standards we have established together.
I was in Adelaide in Australia some years ago and I went to the local museum. The history of what happened to English children who were sent to Australia has recently been in all our news and papers. We know what can happen to a country with which we have a great deal in common. We must not allow anything to lessen our understanding of and commitment to the human rights of both the young and the old in our society.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 37 and I associate myself strongly with the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey. I will not delay the House by repeating her persuasive arguments. I warm to the amendment spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in her effective speech.
Issues relating to the rights of the child obviously arise in the generality but I am not going to go after that. To save time, I will concentrate on some aspects that relate to the devolved context, which has already been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. Stronger protection for the child is necessary through legislation and it has been secured in legislation passed by the National Assembly in Wales and also in legislation in Scotland. One piece in Wales is the Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure 2011. It imposes a duty on Welsh Ministers to have due regard to the rights of children as expressed in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child when those Ministers exercise any of their functions. To achieve the objective, since 2012 the Welsh Government routinely undertake child rights impact assessments on proposals to change Welsh law or policy that may have a bearing on the well-being of children.
My fear, which is shared by colleagues in the National Assembly, is that the withdrawal Bill will limit the scope of the devolved legislatures to amend laws relevant to children along the lines I have mentioned. These are powers which are currently within the devolved settlement, but there may be uncertainty as to the future. When we withdraw from the European Union, there is concern that these competences may come under Westminster and the powers in Cardiff to that extent would be curtailed. Indeed, the devolved regimes may, under those circumstances, be required by Westminster to act in a manner that contradicts their own commitments to children’s rights. I hope that the Minister can put my mind at rest in this matter and give the devolved regimes the clarity, certainty and transparency they seek.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support these amendments very strongly. One of the sadnesses of recent social and political history in Britain is that although this country won immense respect at the time when the convention was being drafted, it has never been fully incorporated into our law. That applies to successive political Administrations. Now, with Brexit, this is being thrown into strong relief. Incidentally, I am very glad to see that those who are speaking to these amendments have emphasised how this illustrates why the charter matters and how we have been wrong to treat it so lightly.
I want simply to say this: we were champions in the drafting, introduction and birth of the convention. Whatever happens on Brexit, we must take the opportunity presented to us by these amendments to ensure that what is enshrined in the convention is made in every way absolutely fundamental to the policy and the work of any future Administration.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to speak to Amendments 68, 97 and 158, all of which would ensure that following our departure from the EU, children’s rights will continue to be given due regard. The Government have claimed that the Bill will ensure continuity—in fact, a number of noble Lords think that is correct—and that there will be no legislative cliff-edge if or when we leave the EU.
However, whether by accident or by design, there is a gaping children’s rights hole in the Bill. These amendments would not introduce any new policy or extend provision; rather, they require only that where EU legislation has been developed in line with the principles of the UNCRC, new UK law or amendments to retained EU law will also pay due regard to the UNCRC. The Government have argued in previous debates that children’s rights are fully protected in UK law. I will clarify that this is not actually so and I want to pay tribute to the Children’s Society and a number of academics who have enabled me to do this. The Government argue that, for example, the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporates the ECHR into UK law and does the job of protecting children’s rights. However, that ignores the fact that the ECHR is confined principally to civil and political rights, while remaining relatively silent on a range of social and economic rights that form the substance of EU law. There are further problems in relation to the process of bringing a claim for an alleged breach of ECHR rights.
The Children Act 1989 provides important protections for children in both public and private proceedings, but it does not regulate the full range of children’s rights that are covered by EU law such as consumer protection, health and safety, and non-discrimination; other speakers have mentioned one or two of these. It also does not cover the cross- border recognition and enforcement of family orders which are currently regulated by Brussels I and II. Furthermore, the Children Act 1989 is often interpreted narrowly, to the detriment of the fuller range of rights set out in the UNCRC. A crucial example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, said, is the right of a child to be heard following abduction before a return order is made. The crucial question is, does the child wish to be returned? It is pretty desperate if they do not, and they will not be able to make their wishes known, as I understand it, even if they are of an age and maturity to make that appropriate. The Children Act 2004 places obligations on local authorities but does not extend those to immigration authorities or commercial or private entities to whom public authorities have contracted out aspects of their children’s services. These days, of course, much of that work is contracted out.
The Equality Act 2010 provides a number of protections for children and young people. However, it does not cover many of the issues that are a real worry for children, post Brexit. For example, it does not promote the need for public agencies to act in the best interests of the child as a top priority in the way the UNCRC does, which the EU implements. The Immigration Act 2016 proposes to withdraw leaving care support from unaccompanied young people at age 18, as has been mentioned, if they do not have leave to remain or are not asylum seekers. A lot of these kids probably do not have the knowledge and information they need to be in a position to claim those rights. There is therefore a human rights issue here, for which there is no provision in UK law. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 provides good protection for young people. However, the removal of Section 32 of the EU charter following Brexit will weaken protection against child labour. It will leave weak obligations on business in this area. Also, the EU trafficking directive includes requirements to have regard to the children’s best interests and to consider the long-term outcomes for children. These are absent from the Modern Slavery Act, wonderful though that Act is.
At an EU level, the rights of the child are currently guaranteed by Article 24 of the charter and are one of the fundamental rights mentioned explicitly in the commission’s strategy. They are thus included in the regular fundamental rights check, which the commission applies to relevant draft EU legislation. These safeguards will not apply to new UK laws or amendments to retained EU law. If, or when, we leave the European Union, we will thus need to correct the statute book and legislate for the future in areas of previous EU competency, such as matters relating to justice, specific areas of social policy, consumer protection and research and development. Across the UK, the range of issues where children could be exposed also covers data protection, paediatric medicine clinical trials, food labelling, television advertising, the rights of migrant children to access education and healthcare and, importantly, cross-border family law, as others have mentioned.
In conclusion, I do not believe that these gaps in UK law are the Government’s intention, but an oversight that can and should be corrected between Committee and Report. Does the Minister agree that if this Bill is about providing “certainty and continuity” for people—as the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, said at Second Reading—it is only right that the Government provide certainty and continuity for children also? I would be grateful for an assurance from the Minister that he will take these matters back to the department for consideration before Report. Also, it would be helpful if children’s rights could be included on an agenda for a briefing session on the Bill with Ministers in the next few weeks.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I rise to lend my support to this group of amendments on children’s rights and to briefly say one or two words on Amendments 37 and 69, to which my name is attached. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, I want to talk about this group because my fundamental feeling is that the voices of children and young people are simply not being heard in the Brexit process. Frankly, that is ironic when we consider that they are the population group who will be most affected by this—and for the longest time.
The Government’s plan not to retain the European Charter of Fundamental Rights through the EU withdrawal Bill is a real concern to me, particularly in relation to children. As we have heard, the charter enhances rights for children that already exist in the European Convention on Human Rights, such as the right to education. It also includes key rights enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, such as the rights to care and protection, to express views freely in accordance with their age and maturity—the principle of best interests being a primary consideration—and the right to know both parents. I know that others have said this, but I make the point that these are not small, trifling matters or marginal extras; they are fundamental things we should be very concerned about.
The charter contains certain provisions of great importance to children and young people that are not protected in domestic law at constitutional level. Children’s rights enshrined in the charter have been translated into practice through EU legislation, policy and case law. This includes legislation on child-friendly justice systems, and the charter has strongly influenced the development of EU regulations relating to cross-border family law. We heard an awful lot about this earlier in our debate on family law and I certainly do not intend to repeat that because we heard it in great detail. I simply make one point, which was my key point in that debate. It is crucial that children, including children born to families where one parent is from the UK and the other is from an EU member state, feel that their voice is heard in this process and that their wishes and feelings can be expressed, so that they feel that a fair decision is being made about what happens to them regarding these crucial decisions in their lives, particularly if they are to be returned to a parent in another country.
Finally, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is not in his place to talk in more detail about Amendment 69, to which I added my name because I felt it very important that a government body or right in statute exist somewhere to ensure that children’s physical and psychological needs are being met and considered, particularly when they are a victim of any form of neglect, exploitation or abuse. As many in the Chamber will know, no group of children has suffered more neglect, exploitation and abuse than children in care. That is why this amendment, which I know was tabled as a probing amendment, is so important.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, I have one brief question that I would like the Minister to answer. Most of the debate has been about children, apart from the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. I will talk about the elderly. I need to declare an interest—although we would all need to declare that interest. I am chair of Age Scotland. Like the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, as he mentioned, my noble friend Lady Massey who moved the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, who will speak, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, who is in his place, I am a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. How will Council of Europe recommendations be incorporated into United Kingdom law if we leave the European Union? I ask this because an excellent report has been approved by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe entitled Human Rights of Older Persons, and their Comprehensive Care.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The author is the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. This was approved unanimously by the appropriate committee and by the parliamentary assembly. It recommends a whole range of things, including an adequate income for the elderly, appropriate housing, action on elder abuse, intergenerational provision, which is very important, the integration of health and social care—I am glad to see that the Government are doing that at a national level, but it needs to be done at a local level as well—and many more. These are very important recommendations, although I say so myself, immodestly. They are things that everyone is agreed on, but what strength, power and influence will they have? Will they just be advisory to the British Government, or will they take them as being more than that and as clear indications of the kind of action they propose to take? Would the recommendations of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Council of Europe itself have greater influence if we were to leave the European Union? If the Minister is not able to answer that question today, because I know that it has come out of the blue, I would be willing to receive a letter from him in due course.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I have my name to Amendments 37 and 70, and declare my interest as a trustee of the charity, Coram. I remind the Minister that it is the hereditary oik from the Cross Benches here again for the second time—good evening.
There appears to be broad agreement that it would be disappointing and unfortunate if we inadvertently managed to let children’s rights slip as a result of our anything-but-straightforward and frictionless departure from the EU. The United Kingdom has often played a prominent role in developing global human rights frameworks, and I sincerely hope that the Government intend that we should continue to do so in the hereafter.
Many of us have taken on board the distaste which many on the pro-leave side feel for the charter. Indeed, I have watched online a video of the Minister lamenting the United Kingdom being told to make prisoners have the vote and to allow some individuals involved in terrorism to be given greater human rights than he thought was entirely appropriate. The European Scrutiny Committee of another place in 2014 described the charter as creating a state of confusion.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I think I heard the noble Lord refer to prisoners’ votes. That was the judgment of the Strasbourg court about the European Convention on Human Rights; it was nothing to do with the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. In any case, the way in which it has been demonised is wrong, because it said only, “Please have a scheme”, and not, “All prisoners must vote”.
Lord Russell of Liverpool
I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. All I would say is that the discussion I heard was framed in the context of the European charter of human rights, probably incorrectly.
Lord Russell of Liverpool
That committee was chaired by Sir William Cash and included a certain Member for the 18th century, Mr Rees-Mogg, so I think that we can conclude that it was clearly completely impartial. We have got the message.
The question that we are posing to the Government, in response to a wide range of representations which many of us have had, is whether they will honour their commitment to defend the rights of children as we come through this process.
I mentioned at Second Reading that scrutinising and discussing this Bill in a non-partisan and apolitical way might be helpful, so I have a specific question for the Minister: does he have a twin brother or a doppelganger? Can he be same person who on 30 January was responsible for writing two articles? One of them appeared on the ConservativeHome website and said:
“From the beginning we have been clear that we need—and indeed want—to adopt a collaborative approach and listen to the views of Parliamentarians from all sides of the House. The necessity and sheer scope of this legislation means that thorough debate and examination is more important than ever. We took this approach in the House of Commons and we will continue to do so in the Lords … The House of Lords has a well-deserved reputation for its detailed and thorough scrutiny. This Bill should be no exception—it will benefit from the forensic examination the Lords can bring and we look forward to that razor-sharp review”.
On the same day, in the Sun newspaper, he wrote:
“We are seeing a co-ordinated push by the defeated elites; the Europhiles will use their majority in the Lords—a majority that rests heavily on quangocrats and busybodies, some of them in receipt of fat Brussels pensions”—
which possibly includes Members of the European Parliament—and:
“For the Lords to overturn a result supported by more British voters than anything else in history would be outrageous”.
He described some of your Lordships as scheming Peers who want an anti-democratic coup. So I have two more questions for the Minister; could he share with us what he had for breakfast the day he wrote those two reports, because I shall try to avoid eating the same? Secondly, did he ever consider a career in the Foreign Office?
Let us please forget the unending politics and focus on the children, whose voice and interests have hardly been top of mind as a rather unseemly procession of opinionated individuals compete for media airtime and attention. I recall noble Lords to the fact that I am speaking to Amendments 37 and 70. Amendment 37 aims to bring into domestic law the parts of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights into UK law that are necessary to protect children’s rights. I appreciate that we are not going to bring the charter overall into our law; however, it has some very important provisions: the child’s best interests must be a primary consideration in all actions, children’s views may be expressed and shall be taken into consideration, and children have a right to maintain a personal relationship with both their parents unless that is contrary to their interests. It contains other articles, as other noble Lords have mentioned, including on education and the prohibition of slave labour—the Minister will be aware that our Prime Minister has a particular interest in anything to do with child slavery.
Amendment 70 goes about achieving the same end in a different way. The UNCRC is viewed by most of us as the gold standard. The Government have stated that the source of the rights of the child set out in Article 24 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights stem from the UNCRC, but as others have mentioned, it is not incorporated into domestic law. We share the concerns outlined by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in its recent report, Legislative Scrutiny: The EU (Withdrawal) Bill: A Right by Right Analysis. There are several examples of where the UNCRC and the charter have fundamentally helped where there are gaps in our own law. Among these are cross-border family breakdown; the right to be forgotten and data protection; and where 17 year-olds, who are still children under the law, are arrested and treated as if they are adults, which is against the law.
I believe that we must protect the hard-won protections of children and ensure that they are not inadvertently lost. I also support Amendments 68, 69 and 97, all of which are simply trying to probe the Government, to understand how they see the way forward. What all of us are saying is that, however we go forward, we must ensure that in no way, shape or form are the rights and protections of children in any way impaired.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
My Lords, I too strongly support the rights of children. Indeed, I support the rights of the elderly, in whom, like the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, I must, alas, declare an interest. However, with the best will in the world, I cannot support any of these amendments. The first point I make is that we debated reasonably fully last week the desirability or otherwise of incorporating this charter into UK domestic law in this Bill. The previous group is said to have been “already debated” and I find it difficult to see the logic of now debating a host of questions which raise the same idea, only more narrowly focused on one or two specific, individual charter provisions. This debate has ranged far and wide. We have even been back to cross-border co-operation, which was the subject of an earlier group, and I am certainly not going back down that trail.
I shall turn to the specific rights addressed here. The suggestion that the rights of children could be a primary consideration in any decision affecting them is hardly radical. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, noted earlier, the Children Act 1989 puts it rather higher than a primary consideration: it is the “paramount consideration”. Of course there are areas beyond the scope of the Children Act as such which are in play with regard to children, but for the life of me I cannot think of a single case in recent years affecting children—or, indeed, the elderly—which would have failed under the convention and the common law but would have succeeded only by reference to the charter; nor can I envisage such a case in the future. Somebody may be able to devise a scenario which would meet that but I have not been able to do so.
In any event, the Article 24 rights are regarded as retained general principles of EU law and therefore will continue to apply. The right to be heard on the part of children is not a contentious one. I took the opportunity of the regrettably short break we were given this evening to look at a particular decision—indeed, I think it was one of the last Supreme Court cases I was involved in, and my noble and learned friend Lord Hope will remember it because he presided over it. It was a group of extradition cases under the title of HH v Deputy Prosecutor of the Italian Republic. In the course of it the question of the children’s views was raised; it was an extradition case but the same principle applies across the wide field of children’s interests. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond, who gave the lead judgment in the case, concluded:
“I share the view of the Official Solicitor that separate legal representation of the children will rarely be necessary, but that is because it is in a comparatively rare class of case where the proposed extradition is likely to be seriously damaging to their best interests. The important thing is that everyone, the parties and their representatives, but also the courts, is alive to the need to obtain the information necessary in order to have regard to the best interests of the children as a primary consideration, and to take steps accordingly”.
I do not know of cases where children’s interests are lost because they are not permitted to express their views.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
I have a number of case studies on these issues, which I will show the noble and learned Lord. Children’s rights are not always consistent, particularly in youth justice cases. I know that children in custody in the youth justice system are very often ignored, mistreated and not heard.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
I would be extremely obliged to the noble Baroness if she would put these cases clearly and crisply on a piece of paper and share them not only with me but with the Official Solicitor, who I think would be extremely interested in the proposition that children’s rights are being ignored in the youth justice system. But if they are ignored now, when the charter is available, what is to be lost?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
The noble and learned Lord may remember that in my speech, which was about the UN convention rather than the charter, I cited a case, which I am sure he is familiar with—R(SG) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—where three of the judges, including the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, found that the Department for Work and Pensions was in breach of the UNCRC, but because it was not incorporated they could not find against the Government and said that it was for Parliament. Here is a clear example of where three out of five judges found that children’s rights in the charter—the best interests of the child—were not being treated as a primary concern, yet they could not find for those families.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
I was going to come specifically to that case but, as I understand it, it was put forward not as a charter case but as a UNCRC case. I am not talking about that yet; I am talking about the charter because if it would not avail those children, then what is the point and why is it so important to incorporate those provisions of the charter? The UNCRC is a completely distinct point. I acknowledge that there may be a case and if that case is made good and establishes in full measure the proposition which the noble Baroness is advancing, it may be sensible, whether in this legislation or somewhere else—it would not logically take any part in this Bill—to incorporate the convention into domestic law. I acknowledge that it has not been. But unless you can show that something is to be lost by not continuing to honour the charter—if you fail to do that—with respect, it does not make any logical sense to bring in the UNCRC at this point of the Bill. I hope that the Committee can follow the logic of the way I put that.
I do not really want to spend a long time on this. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and I are even more concerned about Article 25 and the rights of the elderly. That charter right is put in this way and it is worth incorporating what it says:
“The Union recognises and respects the rights of the elderly to lead a life of dignity and independence and to participate in social and cultural life”.
That is of course an admirable sentiment, a great principle and a suitable aspiration. But is it really said to be an enforceable right, which the courts would pay regard to if they had already rejected the claim under the common law and the convention? With the best will in the world, it does not make sense. I do not want to rain more heavily on everybody’s parade but I respectfully submit that it would not be a good idea to adorn this Bill, which has a limited aim, with these additional rights that logically do not stem from the ending of the charter.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I certainly would not attempt to trade cudgels with the noble and learned Lord but Amendments 37, 38 and 69 seem common sense to me. If one thinks in terms of child trafficking and one particular area that personally concerns me, female genital mutilation, there is the taking of young girls out of this country to be mutilated and brought back, and sometimes they are brought here to be mutilated. It surely makes sense that we have the strongest possible cross-border co-operation, whether we are in the EU or out of it.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Brown is of course right. There is a simple proposition in law, which is that the United Nations convention, like others, is not directly enforceable in this country—let alone between two individuals—until and unless it has been incorporated into our domestic law, which it has not been. On the face of it, if one brought it as it stands by our decision tonight, or later, how would we tackle things such as where the charter and the convention say that every child has the right to know and be brought up by his parents? How would we reconcile that with our very complicated and subtle laws about, for example, sperm donors or surrogate parents? How would we reconcile a child’s right to education with our very lax attitude towards home schooling and our inability to bring that under control? How would we reconcile it with the very sad fact that the majority of divorced and estranged fathers do not turn up to see their children, even though their children would like to and have a right to see them?
In other words, it is extremely complicated. It is not enough simply to wave a flag for what a good thing the United Nations convention is, which indeed it is, unless it is incorporated in a careful and detailed fashion into our law, which it has not been. It therefore cannot be by a side wind as this Bill goes through Parliament.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting and important debate and one that was much needed. As my noble friends Lady Massey of Darwen and Lady Lister and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, pointed out, there does not seem to have been enough attention paid to how Brexit may affect children. This point was made strongly in the briefing that a number of us attended and in the written materials given to us by an alliance of children’s organisations, and we are all very grateful for the work it put into briefing the House on this.
Many children’s charities are worried that neither the referendum nor the subsequent discussions engaged adequately with the voices of children and young people, especially those under 16, who still should have the opportunity to express their views.
A number of areas have been raised. I shall not go through them all, but we heard interesting comments around issues of cross-border co-operation by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on the European arrest warrant, Europol and Eurojust. The noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Greengross, touched on family law and cross-border co-operation, which I will not come back to, having spoken rather a lot on that on an earlier amendment, but I will be interested in anything the Minister has to add on that.
Two specific issues came up tonight. One is the status of children’s rights in the UK after Brexit and the other is we how retain appropriate mechanisms for ensuring that due regard is paid to children’s rights when policy and law are being developed. As my noble friend Lady Massey pointed out, a range of different types of EU regulations affect children. The way the key mechanisms come together is interesting. For example, the European Convention on Human Rights, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, particularly Article 24, which is based on the UNCRC in the first place, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the constitutional commitment in Article 3(3) of the Treaty on European Union to protect the rights of the child in all EU activities affecting children. The interesting result of this is that measures enacted at EU level, whether or not they directly target children, are interpreted and applied by member states in a manner that is consistent with international children’s rights standards. That is what we are trying to chase down here today. The risk of losing some of that is what these amendments are concerned with.
Amendment 37, tabled by my noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen, and Amendments 38 and 39, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, seek to retain parts of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Amendments 68, 69, 70, 97 and 158, tabled variously by my noble friend Lady Lister, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, refer in various ways to the UNCRC and the requirement at least to have regard to the provisions of sections that have been ratified by the UK or, in some cases, to go further than that. My noble friend Lord Foulkes and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, made a powerful case for the importance of attending to the right to dignity for older people, especially in care. I am sure the whole Committee will be interested to hear the Minister’s response on those important issues.
Looking at these different instruments, Ministers in general argue that removing the charter will not result in a reduction in rights and they cite their right-by-right analysis, but as we have heard sometimes that may simply indicate that aspects of a charter right are protected domestically without necessarily meaning that those rights are being fully protected. My noble friends Lady Massey and Lady Lister referred to a counsel’s opinion obtained by the EHRC which offered a very different assessment of the likely reduction in rights. I should declare a historical interest as an EHRC commissioner in the long-lost and greatly missed days before I joined this House and had the opportunity to spend many evenings discussing the importance of Brexit.
The EHRC briefing states that “some Charter rights”, for example the right for a child’s best interests to be a primary consideration in all actions taken by a public or private institution,
“have no equivalent protection in UK law. Furthermore, the Charter provides remedies, such as the ability for an individual to challenge laws that breach their fundamental rights, which are not otherwise available in UK law”.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, mentioned that we had a debate on day 2 in Committee specifically about the charter—led, if I may say so, brilliantly by my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith—but the reason that these amendments are being debated here is because when he responded to that debate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, did not make any reference to the issues raised about children and therefore people who are concerned about children’s rights want to understand how they will affect the people they are concerned about.
The noble and learned Lord said in reply:
“I understand the concerns expressed by some about whether some rights would somehow be left behind, but if we can and do identify a risk of such rights being left behind, we are entirely open to the proposition that we have to address that by way of amendment to the Bill, and we will seek to do that”.—[Official Report, 26/2/18; col. 573.]
Can the Minister tell us whether an audit has been done in respect of children’s rights to see whether any of them will accidentally be left behind? If so, what was the result, and if not, when will it be done?
What of the other measures? My noble friend Lady Lister quoted the reply given by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, at Second Reading, in which he sought to reassure the House that children’s rights would continue to be protected by the Children Act 1989 and through our remaining party to the UNCRC. The UNCRC is hugely valuable, and I was pleased to hear it being defended so vigorously and passionately by my noble friend Lord Judd. But as many noble Lords have said, although we have ratified the UNCRC, the convention has not been fully incorporated into UK law and there are no effective sanctions for non-compliance.
The Children Act 1989, to which the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, referred, applies of course only to England and Wales. The problem for children in the UK as we leave the EU, as pointed out very clearly by my noble friend Lady Lister, is that there is no explicit constitutional commitment at a central UK level to children’s rights, and it is that level at which most EU legislation will be amended or repealed in the period post Brexit. We do not have any specific statutory provision requiring respect for children’s rights in lawmaking, and no general requirement to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in the UK.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, pointed out, there are devolved provisions, such as the Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure 2011 and the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014. But as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, my noble friend Lady Massey among them, the Bill brings competence on matters that have been arranged under EU law back to Westminster and would seem, on the face of it, to prevent devolved nations from exercising their powers to stop or amend legislation from Westminster—even, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, pointed out, where it might contradict their own commitments to children’s rights. I look forward to hearing the Minister explain to the Committee how the Government will deal with that.
On one level, these conversations may sound academic, but the noble Lord, Lord Russell, made a passionate defence of why human rights matter. They matter for everybody, even—probably especially—for people we do not want to give them to, but they certainly matter for children. One reason they matter is because of what we are talking about at the end of this: how to ensure that our children are safeguarded, protected from harm and enabled to flourish. I know no Government would want to challenge that aspiration, but the danger is that where there is no specific requirement to pay due regard to the interests of children when deciding matters in legislation, law and practice, especially when the matters may not appear to specifically relate to children, there is a real danger those interests can, and do, get overlooked.
The noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, gave some important examples of forced child labour and slavery, but there are also some examples that are wholly unrelated, on the face of it. Under current EU law, the free circulation of goods and services between member states—a very fundamental principle of course—has to be balanced against the need to ensure the welfare of children who are exposed to them. In post Brexit trade deals, how will similar safeguards be ensured and, if it is necessary, how can they be enforced legally?
The noble Lord, Lord Russell, referred to data protection. The general data protection regulation makes specific recommendations in respect of children, saying that they have the right to be properly informed in language they can easily understand. Children’s charities fear that without that, our children will specifically be targeted by marketing of things that will not be good for them.
Nearly a quarter of our population are children. As we have heard, they did not get to vote in the referendum, but they are the ones who will live with its consequences for the longest time. I doubt many of the parents who voted leave did so in order for their children to be less well protected than they are at the moment.
We should be celebrating and building on the significant contribution the UK has made to the EU’s work on promoting the best interests of children. I hope the Minister has heard the concern from around the Committee and that the Government’s previous assurance does not seem to have given the reassurance that he might have hoped. If the Government do not like these amendments, could he tell the Committee how they will ensure that our children will be protected in future?
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful that the important issue of children’s rights has been raised. I thank noble Lords for these amendments, which seek to make changes relating to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the charter of fundamental rights, specifically to incorporate them into domestic legislation via the Bill and to impose statutory duties on Ministers to consider the UNCRC when making regulations. Many of the noble Lords who have spoken to these amendments have a track record of tirelessly championing children’s rights over the years, and the issue is of utmost importance to them and to this Government. Protecting children’s rights is paramount, and I assure noble Lords that I have heard their concerns about how existing rights and protections for children, and our commitment to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, will continue as the UK exits the EU.
Amendments 37 and 38, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey of Darwen and Lady Greengross, seek to provide that some or part of the charter of fundamental rights would remain part of domestic law following withdrawal from the EU. As a number of noble Lords have observed, we have already debated the wider issue of the charter at length and noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I will not go through the general arguments today, although I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, for rehearsing some of them. I take the opportunity again to reassure the Committee that the Government remain fully committed to children’s rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Our ability to support and safeguard children’s rights will not be affected by the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.
I have heard the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, about the impact of Brexit on children’s rights and the need to ensure that their welfare, safety and best interests are not compromised as we leave the EU. The rights and best interests of children are already, and will remain, protected in England primarily through the Children Act 1989, which sets out a range of duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, including making the child’s welfare the paramount consideration for any court—I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, referred to that. Children’s rights and best interests are further protected through the Adoption and Children Act 2002, which among other things ensures that the child’s welfare is the paramount consideration in all decisions relating to adoption. In addition, other legislative and administrative measures are in place, including the Children Act 2004, which imposes general safeguarding duties in relation to children on various bodies.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own measures for the protection of children’s rights which fully comply with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Additionally, the European Convention on Human Rights as a whole offers the protection of children’s rights, and this is implemented domestically by the Human Rights Act 1998.
Lord Wigley
The Minister referred to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland having devolved competence. Can he give an assurance that all the powers they currently have in that context will be maintained after Brexit?
Lord Callanan
I will come on to the noble Lord’s question shortly and answer him directly. None of this extensive framework is altered or in any way diminished by our exit from the EU and the non-retention of the charter. Amendments 68, 69 and 70, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Lister, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, would incorporate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child into domestic legislation and require all public authorities and Ministers of the Crown to have regard to it. Further, Amendments 97 and 158, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, seek to ensure that regulations made to remedy deficiencies in retained EU law are not contrary to the UNCRC. Again, I thank noble Lords for these considered amendments. Although tabled with great intention and faith, in reality they would not enhance the existing safeguards in place to preserve the rights of children in this country—measures that I have already outlined and which will remain in place after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for her comments and points on this matter.
It is also important to highlight that in addition to these measures, which are a combination of both legislation and commitments, the UK Government already have a commitment to Parliament to give due consideration to the UNCRC when making policy and legislation. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, I assure noble Lords that the Government are working closely with the Children’s Rights Alliance for England to ensure that children and young people’s views are heard and taken fully into account when developing policy and delivery in this area. We are hugely grateful to it for the great work it does to help preserve children’s rights and deliver a framework of actions on the UNCRC. These actions are designed to embed children’s rights across Whitehall and beyond, as we set out in a Written Ministerial Statement in October 2016. Those actions include developing and promoting training for civil servants to help them understand children’s rights and the UNCRC, and looking at how we can promote and embed good practice.
As I have set out, the UK already meets its commitments under the UNCRC through a mixture of legislative and policy initiatives, which effectively safeguard the rights of children in this country, negating the need directly to incorporate the UNCRC itself. That approach is in line with normal practice for implementing international treaties. By going over and above measures already in place, and which will of course remain in place after we leave the EU, the amendments would create new burdens on public bodies and individuals, when the UK’s existing laws and commitments already adequately safeguard the rights of children in this country.
Amendment 70, from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, addresses continued co-operation on various security and law enforcement tools. Those discussions will be a matter for negotiations with the EU. The continued security of Europe is unconditionally guaranteed and is of paramount interest to us. The Government have been clear that the UK remains unconditionally committed to European security, and in the exit negotiations we will work to ensure that the UK and the EU continue to co-operate closely to safeguard our shared values and combat common threats. We recognise in that regard the value provided by Europol, the European arrest warrant, Eurojust and ECRIS. I hope that that provides appropriate assurances to my noble friend Lord Dundee and reassures other noble Lords of our wholehearted commitment to children’s rights and the UNCRC, showing that our ability to support and safeguard children’s rights will not be negatively affected by UK withdrawal from the EU.
I turn to Amendment 39, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, on the rights of the elderly. I entirely sympathise with the concerns raised today and I reassure the Committee that the Government are committed to the welfare of the elderly. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for drawing my attention to his no doubt excellent report in the Council of Europe. I must profess that in my extensive reading material I omitted to go through that worthy document but, now that he has drawn my attention to it, I shall make it my priority to get hold of a copy and will reply to him in writing on it.
There are enforceable domestic safeguards for the rights of the elderly under the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act. Older people will continue to benefit from the existing strong protections against age discrimination, harassment and victimisation in the Equality Act 2010—for example, when accessing services when we leave the EU. Of course, the Government also make provision for the rights of the elderly in domestic legislation in a range of ways. To take just the most obvious example, domestic law provides for state pensions and the safety net of state pension credit, as well as disability benefits and other measures such as the provision of social care for those with eligible needs—subject of course to a financial assessment—free prescriptions where charges would otherwise apply, and travel concessions. Again, none of this is in any way diminished by our exit from the EU and the non-retention of the charter.
Article 25 of the charter is also a principle, which is different from a right. It cannot be relied upon directly by individuals in the way that rights can. Principles are a valued and important tool, and, in so far as the principles and rights underpinning the charter exist elsewhere in directly applicable EU law, or EU law which has been implemented in domestic law, that law will be preserved and converted by the Bill. Retaining Article 25 as a standalone right in this way is simply not necessary. If Article 25 was incorporated into domestic law, it would be unclear how it was supposed to apply and it would undermine the Bill’s core objective: to give certainty and continuity after we leave the EU.
I turn to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on protecting children’s rights. The UNCRC does not impose a requirement on state parties to incorporate the UNCRC itself. It is focused on the implementation of rights without prescribing how state parties should achieve that. I reassure noble Lords that the UK meets its obligation under the UNCRC through a mix of legislative and policy initiatives, as opposed to the incorporation of the UNCRC itself.
With regard to Wales, the Rights of Children and Young Persons (Wales) Measure 2011 requires Ministers to have due regard to the convention when exercising their functions. The Children’s Rights Scheme 2014 sets out the arrangement Ministers have in place to ensure compliance. None of the rights exercised by Welsh Ministers will be affected by any of the provisions in the Bill.
My favourite hereditary oik, the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, mentioned two articles. I certainly remember writing the article for “ConservativeHome” but have no recollection of writing an article for the Sun on the same day. I would be grateful if he would send me a copy of this for my delectation and interest, and I will respond to him when I have had a look at it.
I hope that my reassurances to noble Lords will enable them to withdraw or not move their amendments.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. We have had an excellent debate on children’s rights and protection, with many articulate and forceful contributions. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, stressed that children are potentially the most affected by Brexit because they are young and will be subject to the forces that Brexit might bring. I am disappointed by the Minister’s response. Many of us have said tonight that we recognise that we have made great strides in defending children’s rights and proposing things which improve those rights and the protection and welfare of children. But I would like the Minister to recognise what was also said: namely, that our domestic laws do not protect children in all circumstances. Many noble Lords have given examples of this.
As my noble friend Lady Sherlock said, our laws do not incorporate all the treaties and we should be working towards more incorporation. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, thought this might be an “oversight”—I think that was the word she used. Whatever it is, we need to sort it out. We need to recognise that children’s rights and protection are not always incorporated into what we do. An example is youth justice, where 17 year-olds can be treated as adults rather than children. Children say that this is not right or sensible, and I agree.
The Government have made it clear that they are very keen on social mobility. It is important, but it will not happen unless children are encouraged to participate in their own futures. I am talking about empowerment as well as protection. Last November, I held a seminar in Portcullis House. One or two noble Lords were there as observers. We talked about child-friendly justice and child mental health. Almost half the participants were children and young people; others included academics, European politicians and NGOs. It was acknowledged by everyone that the contribution of young people was absolutely crucial to defining the needs of children and young people and responding to them. I recognise that the Minister says that they have talked to CRAE—for which I have the highest regard—on the rights of the child, but have the Government actually listened to what children have to say on this? I would like some evidence of that.
As I said, we have made progress on involving and protecting children, but we should be big enough to take criticism when it comes—and we are criticised. We are not rated highly at international level on how we deal with children. I gave the example of youth justice. We should not be complacent.
This is an important set of amendments, spoken to most forcefully by colleagues. I hope that the Minister will call a meeting of those present today and others to discuss how we can move forward on issues relating to Brexit and children. My questions and those of others have not been sufficiently answered. I still have reservations and I would like to meet the Minister to talk about them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Future provisions relating to family friendly employment rights, gender equality and work-life balance for parents and carers
(1) A Minister of the Crown must, as soon as reasonably practicable, report to both Houses of Parliament whenever new or amended EU law in the area of family friendly employment rights, gender equality and work-life balance for parents and carers would have amended provisions or definitions in domestic law had the United Kingdom remained a member of the EU or the European Economic Area (the “EEA”) beyond exit day.(2) Having reported to both Houses of Parliament, the Minister must consider whether to seek to incorporate those amended provisions or definitions into domestic law, in order to ensure that there is no material reduction of gender equality and employment rights as a result of the United Kingdom exiting the EU or EEA and that those working in the United Kingdom have at least the same gender equality and employment rights and protections as they would have had if the United Kingdom had remained in the EU or EEA.(3) New or amended EU law for the purposes of this section includes but is not limited to—(a) any future EU directives relating to family friendly employment rights, including but not limited to rights for pregnant workers and employees, and those returning from maternity, paternity and parental leave;(b) any future EU directives relating to gender equality;(c) the proposed directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on work life balance for parents and carers.(4) Reports presented under subsection (1) must include—(a) an assessment of how such amendments to domestic law would have impacted gender equality and work life balance in the United Kingdom had the United Kingdom remained a member of the EU or EEA beyond exit day, and(b) an assessment of how not implementing amended provisions or definitions in domestic law will impact gender equality and work life balance in the United Kingdom.”
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann, Lady Burt and Lady Greengross, whose support I very much value. I also thank Working Families for its assistance.
The amendment would simply require the Government first to report to Parliament on developments in EU law in the areas of family-friendly employment rights, gender equality and work/life balance for parents and carers which would have affected UK legislation had we remained in the EU, and then to consider whether they should incorporate these changes into domestic law to ensure that such rights are not diminished or are no less than they would have been were the UK still a member of the EU. What it does not do is bind the UK to implement future EU law. While it is essentially a probing amendment, I hope to convince your Lordships that it goes with the grain of government policy and therefore there is no reason for the Government not to accept it or bring forward some other version of it. If the Minister cannot give me such an assurance, we may want to come back to this on Report.
In their note on equality legislation and EU exit, the Government rightly point to the UK’s rigorous domestic equality legislation, part of which predates or goes beyond EU provision. The same is true up to a point when it comes to family-friendly and work/life balance provisions. But, as the Government acknowledge, only part of our legislation predates or goes beyond EU provision. There is wide agreement that, in the words of the Equality and Diversity Forum, the EU,
“has been an important driver for improvements which have benefited us all”—
and, I add, women in particular. An example is the pregnant workers directive, which, as Working Families attests from its helpline, has been crucial in helping protect women from pregnancy discrimination or maternity discrimination, although a recent EHRC report shows that it is still all too common. It is worth noting here that according to new analysis published in the journal Social Policy and Society, these pregnancy and maternity rights were watered down by the then UK Government during negotiations. Other examples of EU-driven legislation include the original right to parental leave, equal rights for part-time workers and the concept of equal pay for equal work of equal value, which strengthened our own pioneering equal pay legislation immeasurably.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights 2016 Brexit report likewise noted that:
“EU law has been described as the engine that hauled the development of UK anti-discrimination law”.
Yet the Minister gave the committee,
“no commitment that the government would monitor or take account of EU law developments”.
That, it observed, “may prove significant”, especially so because we know there are a number of important directives in the pipeline, one of which is explicitly included in proposed new subsection (3)(c) in the amendment, a directive on work/life balance for parents and carers. This includes two measures on which I and many outside organisations have campaigned for many years: improved terms of paid parental leave and the introduction of paid carer’s leave. I stress that work/family life balance is of increasing importance to men, as it has traditionally been to women. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, will say more about parental leave, because she has repeatedly raised the failure of the shared parental leave scheme to achieve its aim of significantly increasing fathers’ take-up of the leave.
The draft directive would provide four months of non-transferable leave for both fathers and mothers, paid at a minimum of statutory sick pay levels. This could provide just the kind of boost needed to encourage greater paternal involvement. I hope and trust that whatever happens to this amendment, the Minister can give us an assurance that the review currently taking place of shared parental leave will include consideration of the directive.
In addition, the draft directive includes a right to five days of carer’s leave a year, also paid at a minimum of statutory sick pay levels. As a vice-chair of the All-Party Group on Carers, I have been convinced of the importance of the case made by Carers UK and others for a period of such leave. As Carers UK argued in a report making the case:
“The evidence base for supporting working carers is growing, and it is compelling”.
Around 3 million people—one in nine members of the workforce—combine working with unpaid care for a loved one, and the numbers are predicted to grow as the population ages. The danger is that without the safety net of the right to a few days’ paid leave a year, carers will either reduce their hours or give up paid work altogether, which, as the Women and Equalities Minister said, is “a huge loss” both to them and the economy. Welcome as it is, the impact of the fund to help carers return to work in the private sector that she just announced will be reduced if it is not backed up by carer’s leave. The state pensions reviewer highlighted this issue recently and recommended statutory carer’s leave. Care leave is becoming increasingly common across the world, and if we do not keep up with our European neighbours on this matter we will fall further and further behind.
The question of future EU directives was also raised in the Women and Equalities Committee’s Brexit report. The government response stated:
“The UK Government’s record on equalities is one of the best in the world and we are determined to ensure that this remains the case … We are committed to protecting and promoting equality and to eliminating discrimination—leaving the EU does nothing to change this”.
This amendment does no more than to support, help and promote this commitment.
I will not take up time by detailing the depressing evidence from the Working Families 2018 Modern Families Index, which shows just how far we still have to go to achieve genuinely family-friendly employment, and therefore how important it is that we keep pace with EU developments. But such evidence is also there in the work of Carers UK and other organisations, which are calling for some way of keeping pace with EU developments—notably the EHRC, the TUC, the Fawcett Society and the Fatherhood Institute. In addition, new public attitude research by the IPPR indicates strong public support for continued alignment with the European economic and social model, regardless of the position taken on the referendum.
When a similar new clause was moved in the Commons in the name of Ellie Reeves and a number of other MPs, it was given short shrift by the Minister and rejected in two sentences on the grounds that it,
“suggests a procedural device for incorporating certain EEA-related rules into UK law. This is entirely unnecessary given the wider snapshot of EU law this Bill will take at the point of exit”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/11/17; col. 904.]
That was entirely to miss the point. It is not about incorporating existing rules, which, as the Minister said, will be done as part of the wider snapshot, and of course government assurances with regard to existing equality and employment rights are welcome, even though they have not convinced everyone. Similarly, the government amendment to Schedule 7, ensuring transparency in any changes to equality legislation and placing reporting obligations on government, is welcome as far as it goes, although it does not go far enough, despite the assurances in the Minister’s helpful letter to Peers.
Snapshots are static. The whole point of this amendment is to recognise that the world is not static—it will not be frozen in aspic on the day we leave the EU. Indeed, just the other week the Brexit Secretary assured business leaders in Vienna that Britain will remain a “dynamic and open country”. This amendment is all about dynamism and openness to change in the wider continent of Europe. Mr Davis continued that Britain will be leading,
“a race to the top in global standards”.
That is great, but how can it do so without ensuring that Parliament is informed about, and is able to consider changes in, such standards among its closest neighbours? In this spirit, I call on the Government to accept this amendment, or some version of it, to ensure that we do not lose the race in global standards of equality, family-friendly employment and work/life balance. Doing so would act as an important symbol that they are prepared to translate the Brexit Secretary’s fine words into deeds. I beg to move.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I support this small suite of amendments, to which I have added my name. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. Her excellent speech leaves very little for me to add and I will test the patience of the Committee by making only a couple of brief points.
I emphasise that Amendment 40 is not a grab for any further powers to keep the EU linked to Britain post Brexit. We merely wish to ensure that the UK Government consider any future EU developments in the areas of family-friendly employment rights, gender equality and work/life balance. I hope that the UK would be ahead in these areas, as in the past we have been a leader in these fields. Indeed, we may well introduce changes which the EU would do well to consider.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred to an EU directive coming down the line on shared parenting, the uptake of which in this country needs considerable improvement. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, has graciously agreed to meet me and others to discuss some of the proposals that we have been working up. However, that is for the future.
Right now, with suggestions that we could be jettisoning our membership of the European Court of Justice and with talk of leaving the European Court of Human Rights, some colleagues on these and other Benches fear that our proud record of leadership in these areas will be lost and that the United Kingdom will enter a race—not to the top, as Minister David Davis has suggested, but in the opposite direction, to the bottom. Amendments 89A, 129A and 157A would simply enshrine in law the certainty that existing EU protections relating to families in the workplace could not be changed or got rid of under secondary legislation.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
Can the noble Baroness explain where the evidence is that we will be reaching for the bottom in equality laws? I certainly do not see any evidence of that.
Baroness Burt of Solihull
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. As I have just outlined, my concern is that there has been talk on the Government Benches—it has all been suspended at the moment because nothing will happen pre Brexit—of abandoning our membership of the European Court of Justice and leaving the European Court of Human Rights. That is what worries me and it is why I mentioned it.
Baroness Manzoor
With due respect, that does not affect what we are doing with equality and human rights legislation in the UK. Perhaps the noble Baroness could explain a little further what that would mean. I do not see any impact on equality law in the UK from leaving the institutions that she has mentioned.
Baroness Burt of Solihull
What I am concerned about is the general direction of movement that is being mooted in certain quarters regarding various types of rights for people in the UK in order to make the UK more amenable to having less protection in the fields we are talking about—employment, equality and human rights.
None of these amendments is unreasonable, and the Government would give considerable comfort to mums, dads and carers throughout the country if these simple amendments could be incorporated into the Bill.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I fear I must intervene at this point, having been restrained a little earlier. I did have some amendments down which I thought were rather germane to the transition period potentially, on which noble Lords could take different views, but in the interest of making progress I thought that those issues could be more intelligently addressed once we knew a bit more about the progress of negotiations.
I must point out that, prior to that, four groups of amendments had occupied your Lordships’ House for five and three-quarter hours. At that average rate of progress and with 85 groups still to consider on the Marshalled List, many of which have been tabled by noble Lords who are concerned about leaving the European Union, we will need 13 more days in Committee, sitting for nine hours until midnight every day, with no dinner break and without considering any other business. With all respect, I do not consider that that is a good way to make progress or that it is sufficient progress to make. I think that a number of your Lordships will probably agree privately with those reflections.
We have a 19-clause Bill here, to which already your Lordships’ have tabled 67 new clauses. Perhaps some of these statistics might be noted outside. The amendment to which I speak is such a new clause.
I feel that, with all respect—
Lord True
The noble Lord has spoken a great deal in the past few days; I would like to continue my remarks, if I may.
The important issue that is raised here is a perfectly good issue on which to have a debate in the Moses Room or on an Unstarred Question. These are matters of great importance. I strongly disagree with the noble Baroness who said that we had not made progress in this country: we have made a great deal of progress in this country. The performance of this country on gender equality, work/life balance and carers has been transformed in my lifetime. It needs to go further, but I cannot accept—
Lord Pannick (CB)
Does the noble Lord accept that a great deal of the progress that we have made—for example, on gender equality—has been because of the judgments of the Court of Justice in Luxembourg, which has imposed standards that our Parliament has not imposed?
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
Why has the noble Lord singled out this set of amendments to be, in an ideal world, debated in a committee room rather than on the Floor of the House? Nobody has made that suggestion about any other set of amendments so far.
Lord True
I did not make that suggestion, and the record will show it. I was coming to make some suggestions about how we could address this as a House. We have had some outstanding debates in this House from committees of your Lordships’ House on broader policy questions that arise from this difficult exit process. This is an extremely important issue, as I acknowledged at the outset, which deserves to be considered and continually considered in your Lordships’ House. I am merely saying, with great respect, that perhaps the usual channels should give some consideration to ways in which some of the issues that have been raised on this quite narrow Bill could be discussed—but, since I have been invited to explain why, it is nothing to do with the matters concerned.
By the way, the noble Lord cannot argue that because progress has been made by one judicial process it would not have been made by other processes. After all, huge progress has been made in the United States of America, which does not accept the judicial authority of Luxembourg.
This worthy amendment seeks to raise and bring before your Lordships’ House an important subject that your Lordships should consider and hold dear. However, the amendment is absurd in what it asks the Government to do—and that would be true if it was applied to any other field of public policy. So far in Committee we have had a series of general public policy debates. We have had several today which have been cloned, as it were, on to the Bill. The amendment wants Ministers to be required by law to watch only EU law as it develops and give regular reports to your Lordships’ House whenever a proposal comes forward on what should happen. A new principle is being grafted on to the law for this one issue.
I could reverse the question: why for this worthy policy only? Will it be submitted in the rest of Committee as we proceed on different aspects of public policy on all these new clauses that we should have a process whereby Ministers are required to watch and report on this and that after we have left the European Union? That is not very sensible. Our Ministers and Government should watch the legislation brought forward in every advanced country of the world, not only among our European partners, but not have this specific process clogging up the statute book.
The remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown—I am sorry, I can never remember his full title; I know it has got something to do with living in a leafy place with a wood nearby—on the previous group were absolutely correct. He made the point that we had discussed the Charter of Fundamental Rights before.
So, with the greatest respect, I oppose this amendment for the reasons I have given. It is not a sensible process on any aspect of law to ask any future Government to specifically watch the development of debates on future policy within the European Union and bring reports to your Lordships’ House. That is simply not practical legislation.
I have the highest esteem for the noble Baroness, as she knows. I recognise that she is passionately committed to these issues, as is the noble Baroness, Lady Burt. They are trying to bring issues they care about before the House, but they do not have to do so on this Bill—and certainly not in the context of an amendment that will not work in practical terms.
We have been sent a Bill by the other place that is to provide for withdrawal from the European Union—not to provide a basis for a series of lengthy Second Reading-like debates on different aspects of public policy. That is the way we are drifting. It is why we took five and three-quarter hours to debate the first four groups and why, if we continued at that rate, we would have another 13 days to get through. The amendment is not practical and will not work. It raises an important issue, but we should move on. I will give way to the noble Lord now.
Lord Davies of Stamford
I am grateful to the noble Lord. He has been implying—rather more than implying—that noble Lords in this debate have been wasting time; that they have not been getting to the bottom of the subject or have been talking about irrelevancies. Is that what the noble Lord means to say—in other words, that we have not been doing a good job on this Bill? It seems to me that we have fairly elucidated the quite complex details in this proposed legislation so far. It is an enormously important matter and we can scarcely be accused of spending too much time on it. Our debates are being followed carefully by the country as a whole—and rightly so. If the noble Lord has any evidence of someone who has been filibustering or wasting time, I hope that he will bring it forward.
Lord True
My Lords, I could well be tempted and I suppose that it depends on how quickly you can see paint dry. I leave it to people outside your Lordships’ House to judge the progress that we have made in the first four days, despite some of the undertakings and understandings of the Opposition Front Bench. Perhaps I may say that I greatly value and respect the Bench whose behaviour has been absolutely admirable and exemplary. I do not think that we have made fast enough progress, which is not justified. There are important issues to raise and I have simply suggested that these are some things that, as with the reports of your Lordships’ committees, could be discussed in other forums—but surely not during consideration of this little 19-clause Bill with a rather narrowly defined purpose and given all the other legislation that we have coming forward.
I oppose this amendment. It suggests a new mechanism for the Government in relation to our future relations with the EU which is unnecessary. I look forward to seeing the progress that the noble Baroness wishes to see being made.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 89A, 129A and 157A in the group and I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Burt, for their support. Many noble Lords have already referred to the executive powers in this Bill which go beyond those needed to deliver the intent of preserving and converting existing EU law into domestic law to provide legal continuity on exit day. Clause 7, for example, gives Ministers corrective powers to do whatever they consider appropriate to address a deficiency in retained law. As the Constitution Committee has observed, as wide a subjective concept as “appropriate”, applied to such a broad term as “deficiency”, makes Ministers’ regulation-making powers potentially open-ended. Ministerial assurances on their use cannot substitute for a provision in the Bill to prevent the correcting powers being used to effect substantial changes to implement government policy outwith the stated intention of this Bill.
There are many areas of substantive policy which could be impacted by these open-ended powers, a concern that is captured in the long list of amendments to the Bill. I say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that if the Government more quickly took action to restrain the powers in Clauses 7, 8, 9 and elsewhere, and reflected the concerns that people have, the list of amendments that the Committee is debating might actually reduce in number. I am sure that he did not intend it, but choosing his moment at 10.25 pm to express his frustration at the amount of time spent on certain amendments, just at the point when we are discussing women’s and family issues, does not help the case that there is increasing anxiety that the Conservatives want to cut back on employment rights, particularly as they are afforded to pregnant women and mothers.
The particular focus of these amendments is to prevent powers in Clauses 7, 8 and 9 being used to limit the scope of or to weaken rights relating to maternity, paternity, adoption, parental rights, the rights of pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers. Such rights are important because they affect the status of half of the population of this country. That is not a small or minority group, it is half of the population. When millions of women voted in the EU referendum to remain or to leave, I doubt that many will have done so in the belief that the result could prejudice their rights or status. These amendments reflect real concerns about the potential impact of Brexit and the application of this Bill on women, expressed by a broad coalition of women and equality organisations such as the Fawcett Society, Women on Boards, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Girlguiding and many others. Bodies such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission share an anxiety that in setting the future of the UK economy, the Government could weaken women’s status in their vision of a differently regulated country.
The treatment of women who are pregnant and who care for children is fundamental to their ability to achieve social and economic equality. The penalty paid for child-bearing and caring is at the heart of the discrimination and loss of opportunity that many women continue to experience. It affects women who have been pregnant, are pregnant, may become pregnant and, by gender association, who do not have children. They all experience the consequences of a collective stereotyping of women.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 40, 89A, 129A and 157A, to which I have added my name. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister, Lady Drake, Lady Burt and Lady Greengross, whose names are also on the amendments. These amendments deal with issues that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, so passionately and rightly said, will impact half the population of this country and would potentially reintroduce rights that would otherwise be lost for women, carers and parents. These measures have support from many groups representing women’s interests. I am grateful for briefings from the National Alliance of Women’s Organisations, Working Families, Carers UK and the Fawcett Society, among others. It is vital that we protect existing protections and equality law for women and carers, and maintain these protections into the future.
The EU has been a leader in equal rights for women. I am proud that the UK has been a principal player in Europe on this agenda. Measures such as rights for part-time workers, sex discrimination laws that put the burden of proof on the defendant and the right to request flexible working have all contributed to a far more female-friendly and family-friendly working environment for millions of employees across the UK. Brexit must not put women’s progress and prosperity at risk. It must also not dilute parental and paternity rights.
The Bill as drafted does not provide sufficient protection for hard-won equal rights that we have already attained. It introduces risks that rights will be weakened in future and fails to contain safeguards to ensure that the UK does not fall behind future EU advances on these issues. That is why these amendments seek to put in the Bill specific protections for the rights of important groups, including part-time workers and carers. The Government said that they intend to retain the current rights and protections, but why would they then resist putting them into the Bill explicitly? I hope that the Minister will come back on Report with his own proposals to this effect.
As we debated last week, the UK must not lose rights derived from the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. I suggest to my noble friend Lord True that the reason why there has been such a lengthy debate on individual areas of UK rights, including this series of amendments about women and carers—I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Drake—is that the Government have chosen to exclude the charter of fundamental rights and unfortunately have raised suspicions that they seek to weaken rights after Brexit. Ministers must not be given powers that could enable them to bypass Parliament to weaken such rights. It is true that the charter covers rights contained in other UN treaties that have been ratified by the Government. However, those treaties are not incorporated into UK law. Therefore, they do not provide the same protections. These amendments aim to introduce specific safeguards into the Bill. I am sorry if my noble friend believes that these issues are not sufficiently worthy to be debated in this Chamber.
Lord True
I have made it absolutely clear that I consider these to be important issues. The points I made were entirely about the way in which progress is being made on this Bill. I would be extremely grateful if my noble friend did not impute to me things that I did not say and do not think.
Baroness Altmann
I am most reassured to hear my noble friend’s words, but it is unfortunate that that issue was raised on this set of amendments about women, with the suggestion of moving to the Moses Room. I assure him that there are many on these Benches and across the Chamber who believe these issues to be extremely important for our country.
Many noble Lords across the House are concerned that the UK must not fall behind on gender equality and women’s rights. As we have seen recently, there is still some way to go before we can say that we have achieved gender pay parity and there remains a need further to improve women’s rights. Sadly, I have seen all too often women’s issues fall under the radar of policymakers. There are many loopholes in UK law which penalise women predominantly. For example, in the area of pensions, part-time workers, usually women, still fall through cracks in both the national insurance and auto-enrolment pension systems, leaving them disadvantaged. Any weakening of women’s rights and protections is moving entirely in the wrong direction.
The new clause proposed by Amendment 40 would help protect us from falling behind the EU. A practical example is the directive on work/life balance for carers and parents which the EU will bring in but not until after March 2019. The majority of carers for elderly parents tend to be oldest daughters in their late 50s or early 60s—I declare an interest as one such. The forthcoming EU directive would introduce carer’s leave, which can be so important to help women who might otherwise have to leave work altogether. Women who stop work to care for loved ones when they are in their 50s or beyond usually never return to the workplace, denying them the chance of a richer retirement and wasting their valuable skills. Ensuring that we do not fall behind when the EU introduces protections for carer’s leave is extremely important for women. We should not weaken rights and protections which they would otherwise enjoy. The amendments would not force the Government to adopt new EU laws and regulations, but they would ensure that Parliament had the opportunity to protect the position of the UK and keep pace with, or even exceed, improvements in these areas in the EU in future.
This Bill and earlier debates this evening highlight vividly that the Government’s proposed legislation does not ensure the objective of transferring EU law into domestic law in all its aspects, nor does it achieve the same protections and rights as citizens have at the moment. There will be a watering-down, which is not appropriate for a country that has spent so much time and energy on enhancing the rights, protections and position of women, part-time workers, carers and families. To countenance measures that put those achievements at risk is unacceptable. I hope that the Government do not wish to risk the UK falling behind or moving backwards on these issues, and that my noble friend the Minister will return on Report with proposals of his own which can achieve the aims of the amendment.
Baroness Crawley
My Lords, I support the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lady Lister and Lady Drake. We could call this set of amendments “Keeping up with progressive forces” or “Ensuring UK women and families do not begin to lose out beyond the point of our exiting the EU”. My noble friend Lady Lister wants the Government closely to monitor, report on and replicate future EU developments in the area of family-friendly employment rights, gender equality and work/life balance for parents and carers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has just said.
Baroness Greengross
My Lords, I will be very brief. It is true that the UK has often gone further than the EU in providing key equality and employment rights that are of benefit to working parents and carers. As an example of this, when I started working with the Commission and the European Parliament many years ago, they thought of carers only as young people looking after young children. There was no mention of the fact that a whole lot of carers were looking after elderly people and that their numbers were increasing rapidly. This has changed. While Amendment 40 takes the Bill beyond simply incorporating the law as it stands at the point of exit, it is not about binding the UK into implementing future EU directives but will ensure that Parliament is informed of any such developments and commits our Government to considering their implementation.
I believe there is a danger that, without the assurances provided in the amendment, the UK might fall behind the EU on family-friendly employment rights in the future. The amendment will signal both to our own people and to EU members that the UK remains committed to maintaining fair and relevant employment rights and that we do not seek to become an offshore, low-wage, low-standard dystopian state.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
My Lords, we have had a really good debate on equality and women’s rights, and I am pleased to support the amendments in this group. Amendment 40, which inserts a new clause, was moved so ably by my noble friend Lady Lister, who explained in detail why it would be very useful to have it in the Bill. It is a very good amendment, which would require the Minister to report to Parliament whenever there are new or amended EU laws in the area of family-friendly employment rights, gender equality, and work/life balance for parents and carers, which would have amended provisions in domestic legislation if the UK had remained a member of the EU, and the Minister would have to consider whether or not to incorporate these provisions into domestic law.
There could be a danger that the UK will fall behind the EU on gender equality and women’s rights when we do not automatically have to follow EU laws. The amendment means that Parliament will at least be informed of new EU laws and that consideration will be given to whether or not to incorporate them in UK law. This is not anything new, really. We do look at other countries and see what they are doing. If one thinks of the devolved nations, the UK Government have learned from the example of the Welsh Assembly, where we had a children’s commissioner—the first one in the UK—and then the UK Parliament decided that there would be one for England. There are other examples I could go into where we have learned from other countries. There is no problem in looking to see what works in one area or one country and then incorporating it into our laws. That is the importance of the proposed new clause.
Amendments 89A, 129A and 157A, spoken to by my noble friend Lady Drake, would ensure that regulations will not weaken our rights relating to maternity or paternity, or adoptive parental rights, or the rights of pregnant or breastfeeding women. We know that even today regarding our gender equality rights, which have been hard fought for, there is ample evidence that employers do not always adhere to the law. In recent weeks we have heard of employers who seem to disregard the laws around maternity and pregnancy. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, as my noble friend Lady Drake mentioned, said recently that many businesses were “decades behind the law” and,
“living in the dark ages”.
This followed a survey which showed that a third of those working for private companies thought it was reasonable to ask women during the recruitment process about their plans to have children in the future, whether they were pregnant and whether they had small children. This type of questioning is against the law and one wonders why it still goes on.
In December, the Prime Minister failed to rule out scrapping the working time directive, the agency workers directive and the pregnant workers directive, even though she was asked several times to give that assurance. The pregnant workers directive is of great value to women and gives much-needed protection in the workplace. So we need to ensure that delegated powers cannot be used to weaken maternity, paternity, adoption or parental rights. One can see why, after that long fight for equality, it has still has to go on. We want to make progress all the time but there are grave concerns about the Bill.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give guarantees tonight in relation to these amendments. Equality rights do not just stand still; they have to progress all the time. That is why it is so important that we look to see what the EU is doing and then see whether it is something that we would want to incorporate into our laws. We really need that reassurance from the Government that the equal rights we have fought for, hard and over many years, will not be watered down at all. These are sensible amendments that would continue to ensure the protection of women in the workplace, as well as ensuring that women’s equality rights do not fall behind those of future EU laws. I hope that the Minister can give assurances that he will look seriously at these amendments, because they are good and sensible ones.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister, Lady Altmann, Lady Greengross, Lady Burt, Lady Drake and Lady Gale for their contributions, and for bringing this debate alive tonight. It is right and proper that that debate should be here.
I would like to make a few points, which are necessary this evening. First, on the day after Brexit, the rights which we have worked so hard while within the EU to create will be brought back. We have been a partner in the framing of those rules and we will return them to the United Kingdom. There will be no dilution. There will be no weakening or regression. These rules will come back and they will stand here. I emphasise that as members of the EU, we have never been bound by those rules as anything more than a foundation upon which we can build greater adherence to those rights. It is important to stress that.
The EU pregnant workers directive requires 14 weeks of paid maternity leave. In the UK we offer 52 weeks, 39 of which are statutory maternity pay. Our maternity entitlements are nearly three times greater than the minimum within the EU. We have given fathers and partners statutory rights to paternity leave and pay—an entitlement which the EU is only now starting to consider in its proposed work-life balance directive. In light of the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, she will be aware that the work-life balance directive is still only at the Commission proposal stage. We have not yet heard, or had a report, from the European Parliament or begun the necessary dialogue to determine what exactly will form the final elements of that directive. It is important to stress that the process of negotiation is right and proper. We have always taken part in that and will continue to do so. Exactly when it will reach the stage of clarity remains yet to be determined.
We have given the parents of all children up to the age of 18 a right to take up to 18 weeks of unpaid parental leave, while the parental leave directive requires only four months and applies only to the parents of children up to the age of eight. Again, we have sought to go further. It is important to stress that when we look at our ability to deliver against these EU expectations, we have never seen them as limiting us. We should be able to go beyond them.
Importantly again, it is not simply enough to enact these proposals; they must also be adequately enforced. That is why looking at the EU’s enforcement scoreboard is particularly important. At that point we begin to understand how successful it has been not just in transferring the law into the statute book but in making the law a reality because it is by those instruments and the reality of that law becoming functional that we adhere, advance and create functional rights.
Baroness Drake
The Minister’s reference to enforcement is very important. Is he giving an assurance that there are no government plans to cap compensation in discrimination cases when we leave the EU?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Baroness will recognise that that is part of a discussion for another time. We have already touched on it on more than one occasion. If I may, I will focus primarily on the amendments before us today.
It is important that we recognise that the rights we have cannot be undone. That must be the fundamental guidance. For those who ask whether I can give a categorical assurance that there shall be no erosion of the working time directive, the answer is yes, I can give that assurance. We will not be eroding these rules as they come back or after they come back. It is critical that these rules become and remain functional as we begin to develop our own rulebook. It is right that we should be cognisant of the advances in the evolution of rights whether it be in the EU or elsewhere. We have heard this evening about a number of these rights which we have seen emanating from the UN. We should not be limited in that regard. Time and again we have found ourselves in the vanguard of particular rights. As we consider this suite of amendments, I do not think we should lose sight of the fact that in more than one area on more than one occasion we have pushed rights far further forward than had been the case of the median rights within the EU as a whole.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
The Minister just made an extremely significant statement. He will appreciate that part of the problem many of us have with the Bill is how far we trust the Government to have the very extensive delegated powers which are granted by the Bill and the chatter one hears, including from Ministers, about a desire to loosen EU regulations, in particular to loosen EU labour regulations. If the statement he has just made represents the Government’s considered view, that puts a number of minds at rest, although it may upset a number of people within his own party.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I hope I can put the noble Lord’s mind at rest.
It is important that we recognise how these functional rights are developed and ongoing. The day after Brexit, our rulebook will be safe. The rights which we have will be incorporated and we will build on them as a foundation. They are not a ceiling. It is right and proper that both this Chamber and the other place are instrumental in taking forward the enhancement of these rights. We have to recognise that over the past 30 years our understanding of what is a necessary family right has entirely evolved. As the vice-chair of the LGBTI group in the European Parliament, I recognised how far we could push things within the European Parliament, but I was very clear about how far we could not push them within the European Parliament because of the inability of certain member states to move forward with us. In that regard, in terms of equalities, on not one occasion have we ranked lower than third in the whole of the EU—indeed, in the whole of the continent of Europe. We have pushed forward those rights far faster, deeper and more surely than many of the other member states, so we should not lightly shake them off. We will remain what we have been, I hope, all the way through: a deliverer of these rights, not just on paper, because that is not a functional right, but in functioning and working in the workplace and elsewhere. It is absolutely right that we do so.
In response to a number of the questions raised, I am conscious that there is unease and a certain regard that the Government today will take the first opportunity to cast these rights aside, to scrape the barnacles off the boat to allow the ship to move faster. I assure the Committee that they are integral parts of the engine of the ship and we shall not be discarding them. That is how important they shall remain.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
If that is the case, and we are all very impressed by this unexpected and thorough assurance from the Minister on behalf of the Government, why can he not accept some amendments in this area and some others to put that in the Bill?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Baroness makes an interesting point as to why people have not been able to hear these points, but I am iterating what the Prime Minister, and a number of other Ministers in the Government, have said as regards this, and am pleased if I have been able to cut through some of the hubbub that has surrounded it. We are and remain a Government committed to ensuring that on day one after Brexit there is no diminution whatever in the rights which are and have been enjoyed through our membership of the EU. It is important to stress that. I hope I have been able to give noble Lords some reassurances this evening and some confidence that they will be able to set aside these amendments on this occasion.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken from across the Committee in support of this amendment—with one exception of course, the noble Lord, Lord True. I cannot help but point out that there is a certain irony that the longest speech came from the noble Lord who complained that we were wasting time. He took, I think, nearly a fifth of the non-ministerial time in order to tell us we were wasting time.
Lord True
I will rise to the bait. It is clear that one is going to be characterised and monstered, but the reality is that I very clearly set the remarks I made in the context of the four days that we have already had and the 13 days, at this rate of progress, it will take to complete Committee. I also made it very clear that I regarded the rights that are being discussed as important and hoped that the noble Baroness would see all that she hoped for come to fruition. I was as delighted as the rest of the Committee by what we heard from the Front Bench.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
As some of my noble friends have said, it is odd that it is this amendment, when we are talking about women, families and carers—
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I think I should carry on. The noble Lord asked a question, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, gave a very clear answer, but perhaps the best answer came from the Minister himself. I thank him for his very courteous response and for his acknowledgement that this is a very valid amendment and debate, which we should be having. I very much welcome his categorical assurance that there will not be a watering down of the working time directive, and I know many other noble Lords welcome that as well. But I am puzzled. Yes, he has given assurances about not watering down existing rights, which is very welcome indeed, but I have not heard an argument against my amendment about keeping pace with what is happening in the European Union in the future. He was asked why he was not able to support the amendments, given the very positive stance he was taking, and I did not hear an answer to that. I am not going to pursue it now, but given his positive stance, and at the same time his failure to give arguments against this amendment, we may well want to return to this on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
(c) the challenge relates to general principles of EU law.”
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I have tabled three amendments in this group, and signed two others. What links them is the provision of continuity and the ability to challenge the validity of retained law, which noble Lords will note repeats a theme I followed with regard to Clause 5.
The Bill is a bit of a yo-yo when you want to find out what rights exist. Noble Lords might think that the rights are saved. Paragraph 1(1) of the Schedule rules out the possibility of a challenge but in paragraph 1(2) the possibility comes back in again, either if there is a European court decision before exit day or if an unspecified provision is made in regulation. My Amendment 40ZA would amend the provision about that regulation, adding,
“or … the challenge relates to general principles of EU law”.
I have already spoken, in the context of Clause 5 amendments, about the fact that the EU legislation—more or less, except the treaties—is all secondary legislation and challengeable as to validity. I repeat that that gives individuals and businesses rights that I do not consider it proper to take away, even if the court making the final decision is no longer the European court. I therefore want to make it clear that such a right continues. As explained previously, retained EU law will contain many things that correspond much more to what would be in UK secondary legislation that could be struck down, so it is not such an outrageous proposition. I will not spend further time repeating what I said, save to say again that taking back control was never cast as meaning a general removal of rights from individuals and businesses.
The third sub-paragraph of paragraph (1) of the Schedule states:
“Regulations … may … provide for a challenge which would otherwise have been against an EU institution to be against a public authority in the United Kingdom”.
My Amendment 40A would basically change “may” to “must”. I do not see companies currently lining up to take their regulators to court so I do not envisage any tsunami of cases. This is just to ensure that what appears to be promised actually happens.
There are then two amendments in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, on which I will leave them to elaborate. My reason for signing them is the same: I am not satisfied with the notion that the general principles of EU law are merely to give the courts a way of flavouring interpretation in a non-fatal way. Although that may well be sufficient for many purposes, it is not the continuity of rights and rule of law that is currently enjoyed. For that reason, I seek the deletion of paragraph (3). I also support the retention of environmental protection as defined in Article 141.
Lastly, I come to my Amendment 63, which would amend Clause 6 but is directed to the same ideas of challenge to validity. It states that notwithstanding anything else in the Bill, there remains a right to challenge validity on the basis of proportionality. Many noble Lords have spoken eloquently on the issues of fundamental rights and human rights. I am now being a bit more mundane and flagging up the importance of proportionality, particularly for business and single market legislation, where it can affect competitiveness. At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Oareford, said,
“we had a lot of influence in the EU: pro-free trade, pro-markets, pro-business, pro-proportionate legislation”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1389.]
He was right, but one of the reasons why we kept going on about proportionality was that we do not have it in our own law. Our domestic test for irrationality is a lesser test, and we did not want to have to rely on CJEU salvation.
At the moment, yes, our courts have to consider proportionality when there is an EU dimension, and they will become responsible for more decisions that previously were taken by the European court. This means more consideration of wording that has been nowhere near a parliamentary draftsman and has been negotiated with the principle of proportionality underwriting everything. I cannot count the number of times that less than perfect and overprescriptive wording has been justified in a trialogue by the Commission, Council and parliamentarians with, “But it’s subject to proportionality”—and I was not always there to change it. So that attitude has to be understood and applied. I am concerned that, when we have, as I am sure we will, some continuing alignment of regulations post Brexit, the deeper test of proportionality will not be considered and applied by government or public authorities unless they know that the ultimate sanction of striking down is available to the court. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, also subscribed to by my noble friend Lady Bowles. The amendment is primarily a probing one, to seek clarification from the Government on what they are seeking to do here. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 states:
“No general principle of EU law is part of domestic law on or after exit day if it was not recognised as a general principle of EU law by the European Court in a case decided before exit day”.
So if one allows for the double negative, it rather suggests that, if it was a general principle of EU law that had been determined by the European Court in a case before exit day, it will continue to be part of domestic law. Having reached that point, the following paragraph says:
“There is no right of action in domestic law on or after exit day based on a failure to comply with any of the general principles of EU law”,
and that no,
“court or tribunal or other public authority may, on or after exit day … disapply or quash”—
and so forth.
I am intrigued about why, having apparently established that there is a general principle of EU law that becomes part of our domestic law, when what is given away with one hand is taken away with another, one is not allowed a remedy based on that general principle of EU law. It would be helpful if the Government could clarify that.
The matter was raised in the report of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, which at paragraph 117 of its report quotes Professor Alison Young, who wrote:
“Schedule 1 to the Bill makes it clear that ‘there is no right of action in domestic law on or after exit day based on failure to comply with any of the general principles of EU law’ … This prevents claims of the nature found in Benkharbouche, where the Charter was used independently from other provisions of EU law. … But claimants will still be able to rely on general principles of EU law, which protect fundamental rights. They will not be able to use these general principles on their own, but they will still be used to interpret EU-derived law, which then in turn could be used to disapply legislation. For the claimants in Benkharbouche, the stronger remedy currently found under EU law for the protection of fundamental rights will disappear”.
Again, I seek clarification from the Government as to why they believe that these protections should disappear as currently found in EU law. Indeed, the committee in paragraph 120 concludes:
“The effects of excluding the Charter rights, retaining the ‘general principles’, but excluding rights of action based on them, are unclear … We recommend that the Government provides greater clarity on how the Bill deals with the general principles and how they will operate post-Brexit”.
I sincerely hope that the noble and learned Lord will take the opportunity when replying to the debate to respond to that recommendation from the Constitution Committee and give us a clarification.
There was also one specific point, on which I would ask for a view from the Government Front Bench. The provision in paragraph 3 is:
“No court or tribunal … may, on or after exit day … disapply or quash any enactment … because it is incompatible with any of the general principles of EU law”.
I assume that that would mean to any enactment pre exit, which could of course include an Act of the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, would the provision in paragraph 3 prevent any challenge being made to an Act of the Scottish Parliament passed before the exit day on the grounds that it was outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament because it was incompatible with those general principles, but not on the grounds that it was incompatible with any other pre-exit European Union law?
In other words, if other EU law had been satisfied but there was still a problem or it was still not compatible with EU principles, would an action that had been raised before exit day on the grounds that it was incompetent have to fall because no court could make a determination of it because of this paragraph? Some clarification on this point would be welcome. It would appear that a principle is established, but not the remedy that might go with it.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I have a similar question for the Minister. In paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 1, we are told:
“There is no right in domestic law on or after exit day to challenge any retained EU law on the basis that, immediately before exit day, an EU instrument was invalid”.
I understand why that should be so, by reference to EU law principles, because at the moment you cannot challenge, in our courts, the validity of an EU instrument; you have to go to the Court of Justice. I am not sure whether the provision in paragraph 1(1) prevents, after exit day, a challenge to a provision of retained EU law brought by reference not to EU law but to common law principles. For example, are challenges on the grounds of legal certainty, the presumption against retrospectivity, or proportionality, which has already been mentioned, prevented by paragraph 1(1)?
Lord Faulks (Con)
Would the noble Lord agree that proportionality now seems to be part of UK law, notwithstanding what the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, said?
Lord Pannick
I do not think that the courts have accepted that proportionality can be a challenge by way of judicial review where you are not raising an issue of EU law or convention law—but we have come a very long way towards recognising proportionality as a principle of the common law. That is one reason why I am asking this very important question. I simply do not know whether you can challenge retained EU law after exit day by reference to traditional common law principles.
One reason why this matters is that the Supreme Court, in the HS2 case, suggested that this might be possible under existing law. As was raised in the debate last Monday, we should also bear in mind that, under Clause 2, retained EU law includes statutory instruments that do not owe their legal basis to the European Communities Act. They include statutory instruments enacted through other mechanisms, albeit that they are linked to EU law. At present, one can challenge those instruments by reference to traditional common law principles. Therefore, if Clause 1(1) were intended to prevent such a challenge after exit day, it would be a significant change in the law.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
Are these questions affected by the proposal to make this particular branch of law statutory? In that case, certain principles of our constitution might cause some difficulty.
Lord Pannick
The noble and learned Lord is absolutely right. If retained EU law were to be categorised as primary legislation, such challenges could not be brought. But the Minister resisted that suggestion in our earlier debate. I am concerned with the Bill as it is at the moment. What is the Government’s intention in this respect?
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, that short exchange has demonstrated how complicated this area is and how important the general principles of EU law are in it. It is, perhaps, late at night to be discussing this but it is extremely important because of both the principles and the way they operate. If one looks at it in this way, and takes the Government’s intention not to take away rights as a part of this process, one has to recognise that the architecture which provides rights at the moment is quite complicated. As a commentator has said, there is no single, simple answer to restoring the position in the light of what the Government propose to do.
Amendment 41, which stands in my name, follows the principle the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, initiated by saying that the general principles of EU law should continue to be capable of giving rise to rights which can be enforced by our courts. The point has already been made that there is a difference between these general rights existing as a way of interpreting other rights—as an interpretive technique—and giving rise to freestanding rights themselves. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 prevents any action being founded in contravention of one of the general principles or rendering any Executive act unlawful or disapplying any legislation, including secondary legislation, on the grounds that it offends these general principles.
The general principles of EU law have been critical to a number of legal decisions relating to people’s rights. One of those often cited is the case of John Walker, who brought a case for equal protection in pension rights for his same-sex partner, a claim upheld by the Supreme Court which recognised that prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation was a key principle of EU law. As I apprehend it, without that the case would not have succeeded.
The principle of effectiveness of remedies has also been relied upon. When the Supreme Court struck down employment tribunal fees that disproportionately affected disadvantaged women and low-paid workers, the principle of effectiveness of remedies was relied upon. Cases concerning caps on compensation and equal pay cases have depended upon the general principle that we find in the EU principles. The amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, seeks to enable those general principles to continue to have that effect in our law. It is important that they do for a couple of other reasons. Take, for example, something that was raised in the other place. What if there is a principle of EU retained law which is deficient, defective, does not operate properly or is disproportionate? Without being able to rely upon the general principles of EU law, it may be that all the court could do if faced with that would be to say that either that principle or that particular Act or that particular piece of law, though deficient or defective, has to continue to operate because there is no principle by which it can be struck down, and that would be a loss.
The other reason goes back, I am afraid, to the debate that we had last week on the charter and the Government’s assertion that the charter is not necessary because all the rights are otherwise protected under our law. Of course, at the time the charter was drawn up we were still a member and, in many people’s minds at least, were expected to continue to remain a member of the European Union with all that that implied, including the continued application of general principles. But if one looks—
Lord Goldsmith
If the noble Lord will allow me to make this point, he can then, of course, intervene. If one looks, as we did briefly last week, at the reasons given by the Government in their right by right analysis for why certain rights would, according to them, continue to exist, we see—I take this from the JCHR’s analysis—that 16 out of 50 of the rights are based, in part at least, on the general principles of EU law. If the general principles of EU law have no more value than as an interpretive tool, that principle would disappear. That means that those rights that the JCHR saw could continue to exist and give rise to rights only because of the general EU rights.
Lord Faulks
When we were having the debate about the charter, I specifically asked the noble and learned Lord whether principles which were referred to in the charter were actionable or not, and he said that in his contention, they were not actionable. I am not simply trying to make some forensic point, but I seek clarity from him as to why in that context he said that the principles were not actionable—I can well understand his answer, because principles are rather difficult to identify as regards a clear breach, for example—but he now says that the Bill is wrong and that principles should somehow be actionable.
Lord Goldsmith
I am grateful for the question, because it enables me to clarify that point. There are two sorts of principles. I was talking in answer to the noble Lord’s question last week about the principles which are contained in the charter itself. The charter says that it is a charter of rights and principles, and the principles there—it is not that easy to identify which are principles and which are not—are not actionable in themselves. They may become actionable, because as they are aspirational tools, they are then implemented into law and are actionable at that stage. The principles we are talking about here are different. These are the general principles of EU law, which are, for example, the principle of legal certainty, the principle of proportionality, and the principle of non-discrimination. These are different in that sense; they are general rather than specific principles, and they are actionable at the moment. That is why the Walker case I mentioned gives rise to a remedy, as did the other cases where the Supreme Court struck down tribunal fees as being disproportionately high for particular categories of workers.
That is why we believe it is important to keep this. It is one element of the architecture to retain rights. I remind noble Lords that the Prime Minister made it clear that the intention was that rights would continue the same the day after exit as the day before. To remove general principles in this way, and the ability to rely upon them, will fail to keep that promise. This amendment also—it has been referred to already—specifically proposes that the general principles of EU law should include those which are contained in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Those are environmental principles of huge importance: the precautionary principle, the principle of polluter pays and the principle for preventive action. Those principles and the others I referred to need to continue to operate to keep in place the rights that people enjoy at the moment.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their brevity.
Amendment 40ZA, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, seeks to ensure that challenges to validity could continue on general principles of EU law grounds. I will address concerns raised on general principles in more detail later. First, Schedule 1 generally ends the ability to bring challenges on validity grounds to what will become retained EU law after we leave the EU. We recognise, however, that in some circumstances, individuals and businesses may be individually affected by an EU instrument. For example, a decision of an EU institution or body may be addressed directly to an individual or business. After exit, they would continue to be able to challenge such decisions—in so far as they apply in the EU—before the CJEU, and to have them annulled. Of course, the converted form of the decision would however remain in force within the UK as retained EU law.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked whether paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 would, after exit day, prevent a challenge to a provision of retained EU law by reference to common-law principles. I understand that the answer is no, it would not, and it is not intended to do so. I hope that that meets the position that he raised with me a moment ago.
Domestic courts currently have no jurisdiction to annul an EU measure or declare it invalid, and we do not believe it would be right to hand them a new jurisdiction which asks them effectively to assume the role of the CJEU in this context. This amendment would effectively ask our courts to consider whether the EU acted incompatibly with the general principles when it made an EU instrument. Generally speaking, this is a function that we do not consider it appropriate to confer on domestic courts.
Therefore, although I appreciate the points raised by the noble Baroness, the amendment would undermine the Government’s stated policy of a clear exclusion of both validity challenges and general principle challenges provided for within Schedule 1. However, we recognise that there might be some limited circumstances in which it would be sensible to maintain the ability to challenge retained EU law on validity grounds. The Bill therefore contains a power set out in paragraph 1(2)(b) of Schedule 1, to which the noble Baroness alluded, which would enable the Minister to make regulations providing for a right of challenge in domestic law to the validity of retained EU law in specified circumstances.
Sub-paragraph (3) sets out that those regulations may provide that a challenge which would previously have proceeded against an EU institution may, after exit, proceed against a UK public authority, because of course there would be no EU institution against which it could be directed. I seek to reassure the noble Baroness that the word “may” is there as a precautionary term lest, in the context of trying to make such a regulatory power, it be perceived that there is no easily identifiable body against which the matter can be directed. However, the intent is that it should be possible to proceed against a public body in those circumstances.
Lord Beith (LD)
Can the noble and learned Lord envisage the circumstances in which such regulations would be made? Will Ministers have to decide between now and exit day a category of matters for which such regulation is to be provided, or are we to await a case coming up which ought to have been the subject of regulations which are then made? That surely cannot be possible.
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect, it is a precautionary power and it is intended that, where the circumstances arise, the Minister will address himself to those circumstances and contemplate the making of appropriate regulations.
Lord Pannick
Perhaps I may suggest to the Minister a circumstance in which this might arise. The day after exit day the Court of Justice gives a judgment saying that a provision of EU law is invalid. Nevertheless, that provision will be part of retained EU law—it will be part of our law even though it has been abolished in the EU. That might be a circumstance in which the Minister wishes to act.
Lord Keen of Elie
I fully acknowledge that that is most certainly a circumstance that could arise. Of course, one might address that circumstance by Parliament legislating to reflect the outcome of that post-Brexit decision. However, I fully acknowledge that, depending on the way in which one constructs the departure on exit day, one might find that what one has retained as EU law ceases to be EU law almost immediately after one has left the EU. I believe that that has been acknowledged on a number of occasions. Indeed, it could lead to the development of two parallel jurisprudences—one for retained EU law and one for EU law. That is an inevitable outcome of our decision to leave the EU but to retain in our domestic law that which was EU law at the point of our departure. I fully acknowledge that, but it might also be a circumstance in which potentially one would seek to exercise the exceptional regulatory power that is referred to.
Reference was made to Amendments 41 and 42, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, which seek to retain indefinitely in domestic law rights of challenge based on the general principles of EU law. If agreed to, these amendments would empower domestic courts to quash administrative actions or secondary legislation or, indeed, even go as far as disapplying an Act of Parliament on the ground that it breaches one or more of the retained general principles of EU law—that could take place long after we have left the EU. That is why we have to have a point in time at which we have certainty as to the scope for such challenges, and that is reflected in the schedule.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, acknowledged, Amendment 41 would go even further. It seeks to set out an ostensibly broader definition of which general principles are to be retained under the Bill. In that context, he alluded to Article 191 of the TFEU, which deals with environmental issues. I take issue with him as to whether the polluter pays principle and the precautionary principle are both now accepted as general principles of EU law. I would suggest that there is considerable doubt as to whether the former, in particular, constitutes what is recognised in EU law as a general principle, so I have some difficulty with that amendment.
I come now to Amendment 63, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. It is, I apprehend, intended to retain this right of challenge but solely for the principle of proportionality, as she indicated, and specifically including where retained EU law is to be treated as primary legislation. It would also appear to permit the possibility of a challenge on the basis of invalidity of EU law, as well as judicial review of such legislation. It is our position that the general principles of EU law, such as proportionality, non-retroactivity and fundamental rights, will be kept in our domestic law, but in order to assist in interpreting retained EU law and not to give rise to additional stand-alone rights. Whereas some general principles are now set out expressly in EU treaties, the general principles were those that were first recognised by the European Court of Justice. They are essentially judge-made and determined as principles on the basis of case law. It is those principles that we are dealing with.
I come back for a moment to Amendment 41, which goes beyond just the issue of proportionality. It would undermine the approach that we are seeking to take if we were to pursue it. In particular the inclusion of Article 191 in the amendment risks going further than the existing principles that are, as I say, set out in EU law and consequently in UK law today.
Lord Goldsmith
Leaving aside Article 191—we can argue about that and there is a decision that appears to demonstrate the point: the case of Artegodan, where the court appeared to be willing to extrapolate from the precautionary principle a general principle of EU law—does the Minister accept that, so far as the other general principles of EU law are concerned, to exclude them from the ability to found a cause of action and not just be an interpretative tool would be a diminution of the rights that people currently have and would include a diminution of many of the rights that the Government are saying are already protected under English law?
Baroness Ludford
So that the Minister does not have to bob up and down, may I also ask him a question? He talked about our approach in this Bill. That leads me to reflect on how far the approach in this Bill fits, for instance, the Prime Minister’s speech on Friday, in which she envisaged not only strong commitments in the area of trading goods but binding commitments in competition law. The noble and learned Lord talked earlier about how there would be EU law and then retained EU law in this country, the interpretation of which could diverge. How will the Prime Minister’s commitment to binding commitments in some areas to stay fully aligned with EU law be reflected in this construction of the Bill? If we diverge, would we then have to have domestic legislation to bring us back on track with the EU?
Lord Keen of Elie
The noble Baroness is confusing two distinct issues. The Bill is about the retention in domestic law of EU retained law at the point of Brexit. The Prime Minister was addressing our future relationship with the other 27 members of the EU in the context of our seeking to align in some areas and not align in others. This will be the subject of negotiation which is about to commence and will apply in agreeing a transitional period, and then our post-transitional period relationship with the other EU 27. They are two distinct issues.
On the noble and learned Lord’s observation about the general principles, these are retained as an interpretive tool. It may impact upon the matter of remedies but not on the issue of rights. One has to bear in mind that distinction.
Reference was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, to the case of Benkharbouche, which was a classic example of where the issue of rights had to be distinguished from the issue of remedies. There were rights arising under Article 6 of the convention but there was an also an issue as to whether or not certain principles arising by reference to the charter were also in play. I believe it was Article 46 of the charter that was referred to by Lord Sumption, who delivered the opinion of the court. The point was that while the rights could be identified by reference to the convention or the charter, the particular remedy there arose by reference to the charter. I acknowledge that that is the case.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Is that not part of the point? An expectation has been built up by what has been said—that, on Brexit date plus one, people will be in the same position. The noble and learned Lord is admitting that they will not be in the same position because they may have rights but they will no longer necessarily have remedies.
Lord Keen of Elie
They will have rights but they may not have the same remedy, but that is quite distinct. We are talking about maintaining rights at the point when we leave.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
Does the noble and learned Lord accept that Mr Walker would not have the same rights? Those are rights purely based upon EU general principles and nothing else. Does he not accept that in that case, at least, the rights would not be there?
Lord Keen of Elie
No, I do not accept that. I certainly do not accept that that is the position under reference to the Walker case. However, I am content to come back to the noble and learned Lord on that question on the Walker case but I do not accept that it falls in the way he indicates.
Perhaps I can make some progress. We remain of the view that after we cease to be a member of the EU there is a real risk of allowing general principle challenges to continue indefinitely, which is what these amendments would allow. Simply put, this would not be in keeping with our undertaking—our promise—to return sovereignty to this Parliament.
Of course we are aware of the concerns that have been raised, particularly about the impact on those whose cause of action precedes exit but who are unable, for whatever reason, to issue proceedings before some change takes effect. That is why we brought forward amendments on Report in the other place to provide reassurance that where a breach of the general principles occurred or gave rise to a potential claim before exit day—that is the important point—individuals and businesses will still have the opportunity to make certain claims based on the breach of the general principles of EU law for a period of three months after exit date. That period of three months after exit date is taken to mirror the period normally allowed in the context of applications for judicial review. That strikes a balance between ensuring that, on the one hand, individuals and businesses will still have the opportunity to bring these challenges and, on the other hand, delivering the result of the referendum and maintaining our parliamentary sovereignty.
While we believe that the compromises we have already made on the general principles of EU law have improved the Bill, the Government are looking again at these issues to see whether this part of the Bill can be improved in keeping with some of the concerns that have been expressed. That is because we understand the complexities of the issues that arise in the context of Schedule 1 and we are looking at those at present.
With that, I hope that the noble Baroness will see fit to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie
As the noble and learned Lord rises to his feet I am reminded of his reference to whether paragraph 3 includes Acts of the Scottish Parliament passed before Brexit day and not within competence. If they are not within competence, they are not law.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Perhaps I may explore that with the noble and learned Lord. The point I was making was that if the Acts were passed before Brexit day and they were challenged on the basis that the alleged incompetence was that they were not consistent with the general principles of EU law, would that challenge fail on Brexit day plus one, because it would mean that the court could no longer determine it?
Lord Keen of Elie
In the event that an Act of the Scottish Parliament was enacted beyond the competence of the Parliament, it would not and would never have been law. That is the position pursuant to Sections 28 and 29 of the Scotland Act 1998. I hope that that clarifies the point, but if I have misunderstood the noble and learned Lord—
Lord Keen of Elie
I am quite prepared to discuss the point with the noble and learned Lord because it may be that we will look more closely at those provisions in the Scotland Act in the very near future.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
I thank the noble and learned Lord for his response and all noble and noble and learned Lords who have spoken in this debate. I think that it has been confirmed that it is every bit as bad as I thought it was, and in fact I am not even sure that it is not worse. We now seem to have some kind of parallel jurisprudence which appears not to be actionable either under general principles or under common law, so we have created a kind of lacuna that cannot be approached. I also reject the fact that we would not be going on indefinitely applying general principles because the whole point is that we have the law as it is in the snapshot until such time as we change it. While I understand that one would not necessarily want to go in for a sudden wholesale redrafting of things, as amendments are necessary—especially if we avail ourselves of some of the mechanisms we have talked about where an Act of Parliament is going to be needed either because it is primary legislation or because we have put that on as a safeguard—these things are going to be revised and updated. I am still concerned and it is something that along with others we might want to return to on Report. However, for now, with the leave of the Committee I shall withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Stamford
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, it is not easy to generate a great deal of excitement at this time of night about an item of jurisprudence, but I rise to speak about the Francovich principle, which is extremely important both as a general principle—in fact, I do not think that there is any more important principle in our legal system—and as an instrument for driving ever-better standards of governance and of output by the public sector. Let me explain this briefly.
The Francovich case, as I think noble Lords will know, and certainly all noble and learned Lords will know very well, is a piece of jurisprudence dating originally from 1991 that has been with us for 25 years. It has become very much part of the scene, and I think that without exaggeration I can say that it is part of the political and legal culture that we have created in the European Union over that time. It has been extended by jurisprudence so that it covers states, public authorities and agencies as well as local government, and more recently it has also been extended to cover the private sector. What the principle says is that where an individual, a corporate body or a state body has been in breach of union law and corporate or private individuals have suffered thereby, they have the remedy that the courts concerned are able to impose damages proportionate to the losses incurred by those who have suffered as a result of the bad governance concerned.
When I say that it is a very important principle and a very important pragmatic instrument, let me explain that. Surely the very important principle here is that the state must be subject to the law. If I go out and break the law, I can be arrested, charged and eventually fined, or even sent to prison in certain cases—and I can certainly be sued for civil damages for negligence, breach of the law et cetera. If, however, state bodies are immune from the law, the relationship between the citizen and the state is very different from the one we like to think exists in a constitutional democracy. That principle is very important and it will cease to be enshrined in law if we do not amend the Bill as it currently stands.
The valuable, pragmatic instrument to which I referred is simply that the existence of the Francovich judgment, which—as the Library told me—has been cited by over 300 cases since and has played a major part in many decisions. If I had more time I would digress on the bad planning decisions that have been reversed and the beaches and rivers that have been cleaned up as a result of the working of this principle. The principle drives better government the whole time.
I dare say that the Government, in their contribution to the debate, will say, “It doesn’t matter because when we leave the Union we can fall back on judicial review”. Judicial review is a creation, of course, not of European jurisprudence but our own jurisprudence; it is a very valuable principle and a valuable achievement over the past 50 years. In my view, as I have already argued, it is not quite as important or valuable as the Francovich principle, but nevertheless it is a splendid thing. There is a big difference between judicial review and Francovich, because under judicial review, you cannot get any damages. You can spend £3 million or £5 million—I have no doubt that noble and learned Lords will tell me any amount of money you want—by running the case, but you will not get the damages that you would get under the Francovich case. All of us who have been involved in government know that there is nothing more terrifying for any Minister than the prospect of being exposed as responsible for the loss of money in their department. Indeed, the political life expectancy of any Minister who finds himself in that position is frankly a matter of hours rather than days. So the risk of having damages awarded against one is a very real threat to anybody in a position of responsibility—chief executive of the local council, chief executive of an agency, a Minister or whoever—and it makes everybody stop to think extremely carefully. That is what we are talking about in the amendment.
Going through the Bill, all of us face a great difficulty. We have a choice to make and I do not think that any one of us is completely clear on how we should make it. Hopefully, we will have taken a decision by the time the Bill emerges from Report, but it may take a little while yet. The choice is this: do we believe the Bill or the Government? If we believe the Bill, all these rights and remedies and protections are disappearing. That is what the wording of the Bill before us says—that Francovich has been abolished—quite unambiguously and clearly. In other parts of the Bill, as we have seen today and on other occasions in Committee, it is the same story. We were talking earlier about family rights and labour rights and so forth, and it looks as though some of those are not being protected—even animal rights are not being carried forward on the same terms, with the wording being changed and softened and so on. There are subtle ways in which rights and protections are being withdrawn. That is what you get from reading the Bill.
What is more, the Government continually tell us that all the Bill does is make sure that there is no legal uncertainty at the time of Brexit and that we will simply carry forward retained law into British law. In fact, there is an agenda in the Bill that is quite blatant to anybody who reads it. It is not a hidden agenda; it is quite obvious. It is a kind of power grab by the Executive at the expense of the citizen. The European Charter of Fundamental Rights is going, which is clearly a loss to the citizen. Again, the Executive cannot have the charter prayed in aid against them.
The most concerning aspect is of course the Henry VIII clauses that we have not yet come to, which constitute an extraordinary power grab by the Executive at the expense of Parliament. We have it here again with the Francovich issue. Again, it is a power grab by the Executive, who want to abolish this because it is a trial and a problem for them and the state. They have to perform or else they have to pay up and get humiliated. That is what we see.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, I must advise the Committee that if this amendment were agreed to, I would be unable to call Amendments 44 or 45 for reasons of pre-emption.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, for those of us who have real enjoyment in the law, a nice bit of law at three minutes past midnight is rather like a comforting, calm, creamy cup of cocoa, but I recognise that not everybody is of the same view. With that in mind, I propose to elide in the remarks I am going to make comments on Amendment 45, which appears in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and on Amendments 48 and 50, which appear with the same names. That should save time in a few minutes because I understand that we intend to complete that group as well.
These amendments are designed to retain the so-called Francovich principle. I congratulate the noble Lord who has just spoken on summarising it very well. I will add a little bit of flesh on it because I wish to try to tease out of the Minister a welcome response to those of us who seek to preserve at least part of the Francovich principle, although I would happily pass to him the burden of perfected drafting.
In the Gina Miller litigation, in which the noble and learned Lord and my noble friend Lord Pannick played starring parts, the Government in their submissions place considerable weight on their intention to enact what was then called a “great repeal Bill”. As the Supreme Court understood it, that Bill would—and this is a quotation from the majority judgment at paragraph 34,
“repeal the 1972 Act and, wherever practical … convert existing EU law into domestic law at least for a transitional period”.
Surprisingly, in relation to the Francovich principle, there has been no conversion and no transition. I ask the Minister to explain whether that really is the position that the Government wish to maintain.
The Francovich principle is a principle of existing EU law which requires damages to be available where three conditions are met: first, that the rule infringed was intended to confer rights on individuals—I am sure that we would all applaud that; secondly, that the breach was sufficiently serious to give rise to a legal action, which I am sure we would also applaud; and, thirdly, that there was a direct causal link between the breach of the obligation resting on the defendant and the damage sustained by the injured party, and I am sure that we would all applaud that, too. Perhaps the Minister would explain why he wants to get rid of that principle.
To provide a little more explanation for the fascinated non-lawyers here, who may just about be in a majority—
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I always listen with great respect to the Government Chief Whip, especially when he sympathetically allows us to debate these issues after midnight.
In Francovich, workers who suffered damage when their employer became insolvent were entitled to compensation under an EU directive which required member states to secure their protection. Since Italy had failed to implement the directive, the individual workers brought a claim before their national courts for compensation from the state for the damage they had suffered due to this failure, and I think that we would all applaud that, too.
State liability is enforced not through the European courts but through national courts, thus the ECJ stipulated that national procedures should determine how state liability is enforced. The procedures for claiming damages from the state before national courts must comply with the principles of equivalence—that is, with the procedures available for comparable claims for damages—and effectiveness, to secure that EU law as well as national law is respected. As long as it respects these two principles, the member state can prescribe its own procedures for claims as regards, for example, proof and time limits —so it is hardly imposing wicked European ideas on the national courts, since they are left to enforce the principles concerned.
The Francovich principle has led to some significant legal actions; perhaps the best known in the UK is the Factortame litigation, which contained five cases concerning fishing rights.
What is the problem with the Bill? It is confusing. I quote from the summarised views of commentators more expert than me on this subject. It is said that Clause 6(1) removes the right to rely on EU law and obtain a reference to the ECJ after the date of exit. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of Schedule 1 plainly remove the ability to rely on EU law or utilise the Francovich principle after the date of exit. Or do they? I ask that because paragraph 27(3) of Schedule 8, which all noble Lords will have been reading carefully in preparation for this short debate, makes it clear that cases begun prior to the exit date are not subject to the restriction that I have described and therefore can continue to rely on Francovich.
As was pointed out by Dame Cheryl Gillan in another place on 14 November last, the Bill is contradictory, in that it both allows continued reliance on Francovich in cases commenced before the date of exit but also removes that right. That appears to mean that a litigant in a case started before the date of exit, and who has a legitimate expectation that the law will not change retrospectively and that he or she will be able to rely on Francovich, will lose that expectation. If I am wrong in that, I am not the only one and I would like a correction, please. All litigants have a legitimate expectation to have their cases heard under the rules applicable not at an arbitrary time, such as the date of exit, but at the time of the breach of the law concerned. This includes EU law at that time, if it was applicable, and on the face of it, the right of a reference to the ECJ if they are dissatisfied. The purpose of the two groups of amendments is to achieve something much simpler, clearer and more just than the conclusion if the complaints I have described are correct.
I respectfully suggest that if a relevant cause of action accrues before the date of exit, the claimant should be able to pursue that cause of action. That would be their normal litigation right, and exit should not retrospectively remove that normal litigation right. As the Bill stands, because of ambiguity there is a risk that some or all Francovich claims, unless they have already been completed, will be extinguished. Surely, that would be an incorrect and unintended consequence. Plainly—and I will deal with this in a moment—there are some concerns about the potential role of the ECJ.
Lord Faulks
One of the points I was going to make concerned the continued role of the ECJ, but while I am on my feet, I entirely understand the noble Lord’s points about transitional provisions, but will he clarify to the House whether his support would go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in having a continuing Francovich?
Lord Carlile of Berriew
No, I would not go so far as the latter part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I recognise that if we leave the European Union, as we are doing, we have to have the transitional arrangements that were promised and that were referred to by the learned judges in the Supreme Court, on the basis of submissions that may well have been made by the noble Lord himself.
What I suggest to deal with the ECJ problem is one of two alternatives. One is to allow the ECJ jurisdiction to continue for the very small number of cases likely to arise. I recognise, of course, that that will attract political problems that might better be overcome by a more pragmatic solution. The pragmatic solution is to recognise and clarify that the United Kingdom courts, in dealing with such cases, should apply normal, comparative law principles; the sort of thing that we lawyers are accustomed to when we cite, for example, Australian or Canadian cases before the senior courts. This would mean that the courts of the United Kingdom, in dealing with such cases, should have due regard to ECJ decisions on similar and analogous matters. This would fall, as I say, within the ordinary principles of comparative law, whereby the United Kingdom courts give due weight to useful and relevant decisions in other jurisdictions. Thus we would have at least analogous law applied to the residual Francovich cases. We would have a right to make a claim on the basis of the date when the claim accrued, even if it is not yet quantified and not yet pursued, and the unintended consequences of retrospectivity would be avoided. In my view this would accord with sound legal principle.
I urge the Minister, even at this late hour, to say that he will return to the House with suitable and welcome government amendments for the clarification and preservation of what are proper bases for action.
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, I support Amendment 43, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and supported by the noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Foulkes, and to which I have added my name. I also support the thrust of Amendments 44 and 45. I will try to be brief in light of the hour.
Amendment 43 aims to ensure that the Government maintain their pledge not to water down rights if we leave the EU. I do not see why the Bill needs to explicitly remove the right to Francovich protection, which allows citizens—individuals and small businesses—to sue the Government for damages resulting from past breaches of EU law. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will reconsider the removal of this protection; otherwise, we will lose a key last-bastion protection for citizens and small businesses, which allows them some remedy against harm caused to them by government policy.
The Government say that people will still be able to sue in the UK courts, but in practice this power is not normally exercisable. I have personal involvement in this area and have seen how difficult it is to mount a legal challenge against the Government. A judicial review must be launched within a very short timescale, which most ordinary individuals would struggle to meet. When I was helping the 150,000 members of final salary pension schemes, including Dexion and Allied Steel and Wire, who had lost their entire company pension and part of their state pension as a result of flawed laws which failed to properly protect their pension rights when their company became insolvent, despite being obliged to do so by the EU insolvency directive, I had to find lawyers who would work on a no win, no fee basis. Even then, the Government refused to agree not to pursue the claimants for their costs if we lost. These poor claimants faced losing all their assets, including their home, when taking the Government to court. Realistically, most people simply could not take such pressure.
It is unreasonable to remove the last-resort protection that such people have, which would allow them to appeal to the EU courts under Francovich protection for a ruling which would not risk the same costs and difficulties as a UK court action against the Government. If an EU directive was implemented wrongly, and the Government had not introduced sufficient protections, despite being obliged to do so, the amendment would ensure that the Bill does not remove people’s last resort to redress. I hope that the Government will agree to this amendment or produce their own version.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 43, and I support Amendments 44 and 45. I begin by disagreeing slightly with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I suspect that I am in a minority: those of us who are not lawyers.
However, I am very conscious that during our deliberations so far we have heard many times that the Bill is intended to ensure that,
“as a general rule, the same rules and laws will apply after we leave the EU as they did before”.
About an hour ago we heard a very powerful reiteration of that from the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, who made it very clear that he believes what the Government seek to achieve. Yet that has to be put alongside the continuing concern in the other place and in many parts of your Lordships’ House that somehow or other Schedule 1 provides the Government with a get out of jail free card—an opportunity to have a series of measures which appear at least to curtail some of the legal rights and remedies we have enjoyed as a result of our membership of the European Union. A glaring example of that was well illustrated by the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Carlile, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and is contained in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 in relation to Francovich.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, rightly pointed out, Francovich is not just some right whereby anybody who feels slightly aggrieved by their Government not properly implementing some piece of EU legislation can immediately start action. Three clear criteria have to be met and have already been laid out: that there are rights conferred on an individual, that the breach was sufficiently serious, and that there is a clear causal connection between the breach and the damage sustained by the individual.
It seems clear, at least to me as a non-lawyer, that if paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 remains in the Bill, no retrospective claims under Francovich will be permitted, and certainly not if the proceedings have not been started before exit. In those cases, individuals will lose their ability to claim damages against the state for failure to implement EU laws and directives issued pre-exit. This would mean that the victim of a government failure to correctly implement an EU law must have started action before exit day, but that will not always have been possible and would seem contrary to natural justice. Access to justice, including the ability to challenge the actions of the state before a court of law, is central to the rule of law. If paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 remains as it stands, it seems that access to justice for some people will be denied.
I was in your Lordships’ House some 10 days ago when we heard during exchanges on the Statement on air quality that the High Court had ruled that the Government’s air quality plan, designed to tackle nitrogen dioxide in the air, was unlawful. The Court ruling said:
“It is now eight years since compliance with the 2008 Directive should have been achieved. This is the third, unsuccessful, attempt the Government has made at devising”,
an air quality plan,
“which complies with the Directive and the domestic Regulations."
The judge, Mr Justice Garnham, added,
“In the meanwhile, UK citizens have been exposed to significant health risks”.
It may be that some individuals will wish to argue, under the rule of Francovich, that they have suffered damage and deserve compensation because of the Government’s failure to implement the 2008 directive. Without Amendment 43, or some similar measure, such individuals will be prevented from seeking justice unless they submit their claim and have their case under way before exit day.
In the other place, many other examples of potential loss of access to justice under Francovich were raised. Initially the Minister there, Dominic Raab, offered assurances that:
“Individuals will not lose their ability to vindicate their rights in court after exit”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/11/17; col. 290.]
It may be—I have no way of knowing—that he believes that to be the case because of Section 16 of the Interpretation Act 1978, which provides that,
“where an Act repeals an enactment, the repeal does not, unless the contrary intention appears ... affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability … accrued or incurred under that enactment”.
So the right to claim under the rule of Francovich post-exit would seem to depend on whether the Bill before us provides an effective and clear contrary intention. Can the Minister tell us clearly whether the Government believe that paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 provides a clear contrary intention, within the meaning of Section 16 of the Interpretation Act 1978?
Certainly, there are some other lawyers who appear very uncertain about that point. For example, the very helpful briefing from James Segan of Blackstone Chambers leads me to conclude that seeking justice by arguing that there was no contrary intention or that it had been introduced ineffectively would lead litigants into a legal quagmire, so I was slightly heartened when in the other place a little later in the deliberations the Minister changed his tune when pressed by, among others, Conservative MPs Robert Neill, Dame Cheryl Gillan and Sir Oliver Letwin. He told them that he acknowledged the importance of legitimate expectations and agreed to see whether these concerns could be addressed, at least transitorily, by regulation rather than in the Bill. I hope that the Minister can update us on progress on that thinking. He has already said in relation to other aspects of Schedule 1 that the Government are willing to do that.
I would have thought that by far the better route to securing the continuation of the rights under Francovich would be to accept Amendment 43 or something like it, and ensure that the Bill makes it clear that when the Government say that the same rules and laws will apply after we leave the EU, they really mean it.
Lord Pannick
I have two questions for the Minister. First, will he accept that the right to damages under the Francovich principle is more generous to claimants than the common law principle of judicial review under which you very rarely have a right to claim damages as you need to prove misfeasance in public office or something similar? Does he accept that Francovich is more generous? Secondly, does he accept that it therefore follows that paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Bill conflicts with the Government’s purpose in bringing forward this Bill, which is to read across all existing rights that are enjoyed under EU law? If he accepts that, what is the justification for making an exception for Francovich damages?
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, it seems to me that if the Government break the law, they should be judged on the basis of the law at the time that they break it and that this is not a Bill in which the Government should seek to advantage themselves by averting that principle.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I spoke on this subject at Second Reading in respect of the disputes that arose under the old regime which seem to me to deserve fair treatment. I am aware of instances, in particular relating to small businesses, where it could lead to a very unfair result and deprive genuine claimants of going to the EU courts. The noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, mentioned the note by James Segan, and it raises a question which perhaps my noble and learned friend can answer about whether as it currently stands with paragraph 27 of Schedule 8, which was mentioned, and Section 16 of the Interpretation Act 1978, there could be action under the Human Rights Act. It would be politically unacceptable, apart from anything else, to see claimants pursuing their claims if there were that interpretation.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, I look forward to the answers that the Minister will give to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I have Amendment 44 which deals with the timing of the Francovich claim. I can be brief. My noble friend Lord Davies of Stamford set out very well what we are talking about. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, indicated the problems to which the Government’s approach gives rise. One can look at it this way: at the moment the Bill appears to say that if the Government were to commit an act that was unlawful—a breach of Union law, for example—before exit day, the Francovich claim could not be brought, except in circumstances where the claim had been brought before exit day. I do not see the justification for that. That amounts to whitewashing an unlawful act and, as has been said—and it seems to me to be absolutely right—it is quite inconsistent with the promise that has been made that we will have the same rights the day after exit day as the day before.
I look forward to the answers to those questions. Even if any change does not go as far as my noble friend Lord Davies of Stamford, said, it must at least apply, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, put it, to accrued rights, so that any act which is committed before exit day which gives rise to a Francovich claim should continue to do so.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I am obliged. Reference has been made to the Francovich principle. I am not sure there is such a principle, although there is the issue of Francovich damages, which arises from the case that was referred to in 1991. In order to put that into context, since 1991, and in the 20 years following, there have been 22—possibly up to 25—claims for Francovich damages in the UK courts. This is not some wide-ranging citizen or business right for the recovery of damages. There have been very few actual Francovich damages claims. I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, shaking his head, but I invite him to study the case law.
Lord Goldsmith
I have no doubt about what the noble and learned Lord says. So why are they so worried about keeping it?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am just about to come on to that. I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for his patience in that respect, and will endeavour to deal with matters as swiftly as I can, given the hour. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, very correctly, pointed out the criteria that apply in determining whether or not there is a claim for Francovich damages: first, that the relevant provision of European Union law was intended to confer rights; secondly, that there has been a serious failure to implement European Union law; and thirdly, that there is a direct causal link between that failure and the loss complained of. I would not go so far as to suggest that Francovich damages are in some sense more generous than those available otherwise under the common law in this country, particularly those available in the context of judicial review. I have to point out to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that damages are potentially available in a claim for judicial review.
Lord Davies of Stamford
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, dealt with that point. In practice, damages are not usually available under judicial review. The general view of the public is that there is a very small chance of getting damages that way. That is the difference between that and Francovich, and it is very important.
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect, it is not. I have to say to the noble Lord that Francovich damages are a rare remedy, as I have already indicated. Damages in the context of judicial review are not so uncommon as the noble Lord was suggesting. They are available as a remedy, albeit in limited circumstances.
Lord Keen of Elie
Perhaps I can continue just for a moment. I would begin by looking at the Bill against that background. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 is perfectly clear in saying the right to Francovich damages is removed, because of course it is related to a breach of European Union law, and it would not be appropriate to continue—in accordance with Amendment 43—after we have left the European Union. The Bill is quite clear in saying that there is,
“no right in domestic law on or after exit day to damages in accordance with the rule in Francovich”.
To that extent, it does deal with the issue raised in the context of Section 16 of the Interpretation Act 1978.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I take it from what the noble and learned Lord is saying that he accepts that there are existing rights to recover damages available in the British courts which the Government wish to remove. That is a breach of promise, is it not?
Lord Keen of Elie
I wonder whether the noble Lord could exercise a small degree of patience while I just complete what I have to say on this topic. But we can take as long as it takes. As I was saying, in terms of paragraph 4 of Schedule 1, the right in domestic law to damages in accordance with the rule in Francovich is removed as at exit date. There is of course a proviso in paragraph 27 of Schedule 8 in respect of claims for Francovich damages which have already been raised prior to exit date—the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, made. The potential lacuna is this: there may be accrued rights as at exit date where no claim has been made. We recognise that and it was noted in the other place. We are open to addressing that issue in order to ensure that those accrued rights are not removed by the application of paragraph 4 of Schedule 1. That is something that we are prepared to look at, as I have indicated, because we are aware of the criticism that has been made about the potential removal of rights that have already accrued as at the exit date.
Lord Goldsmith
Do I take it from that that the Minister will be bringing forward an amendment to correct this?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. As I say, we are addressing that issue, which we recognise, and therefore in time for Report we will be determining what our position is. I cannot go further at this stage and I am not going to commit to an amendment, but I make it perfectly clear that we recognise that there is a potential lacuna arising from the fact that while, where a claim has been made before Brexit date it is continued, where the claim has accrued but no claim has actually been made it would be lost by this process. We recognise that there is room for criticism of the legislation on that basis; I am absolutely clear about that.
In these circumstances, I recognise the force of the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in order to address that issue. I would take issue with the scope of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, which goes well beyond that and would maintain some sort of claim for Francovich damages in a context quite unrelated to our departure from the EU. I underline that this would not be appropriate.
I mentioned earlier the limited number of cases in which Francovich damages have arisen. That in itself suggests that it might be a proportionate response to the amendments made by the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, to allow for claims that have accrued because they are potentially very few indeed. I recognise that entirely. I am not committing to an amendment at this stage but I will make the position clear by the time we reach Report. In the circumstances, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Pannick
Before the Minister sits down and we all go to bed, I am very puzzled by his suggestion that there is currently a right to damages in judicial review such that Francovich damages do not add anything. In what circumstances is the Minister suggesting there is a right to damages in judicial review, other than in the very rare cases where you can prove misfeasance in public office?
Lord Keen of Elie
That is one example of where a claim for damages would arise in the context of a judicial review. There are distinct circumstances in which Francovich damages will arise. The noble Lord will himself recognise that the circumstances in which you can actually establish a basis of claim for Francovich damages are even rarer than those instances in which you can establish one in domestic judicial review.
Lord Pannick
I do not accept that. It is quite clear, I suggest, that damages under Francovich are provided in circumstances where you would not otherwise get damages because you cannot prove misfeasance but you can prove that the breach is sufficiently serious and that the law was intended to confer a right to damages. That is why I suggest to the Minister that paragraph 4 is taking away something of value.
Lord Keen of Elie
In response to the noble Lord’s observations, we are dealing in the context of Francovich with the court having to find that there has been a serious failure with regard to an EU obligation, and I suggest that that is not very far from the test of misfeasance in the context of judicial review.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, I am grateful to everybody who has taken part in this interesting debate. I think that anybody listening in from outside will be impressed that we are working hard on a very serious matter at quarter to one in the morning.
Lord Davies of Stamford
Yes, not drinking cocoa, indeed—absolutely right.
First of all, I must say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has misunderstood a number of things. One is that I think he has got it wrong on the issue of damages. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is representative in what he said of the great majority of legal opinion on this subject and of the experience that any of us have had—via our constituents or otherwise—in this area of the law.
The second thing is that I think the noble and learned Lord has misunderstood that the major part of the importance of the Francovich system or jurisprudence is that it is a potential deterrent to those who might be inclined to misgovern us. People know that they are subject to this particular sanction if they do, and that has enormous effect. The fact that the power is used 25 times is not negligible—28 times I think it is in this country and 300 and something times over the Union as a whole. That does not mean to say that it is without effect, or that its effect is limited to those occasions. It would be very naive to say that; its effect is created by the presence of that particular sanction and means of redress for those who have been wronged in this way.
I also do not think that the noble and learned Lord is right in saying that the whole matter of Francovich is not very important because it applies only when there are serious issues. The principle of—to put it in language that I think he will understand—de minimis non curat lex—applies to everything really, in the Roman law tradition anyway. So it is not at all surprising that it applies in this case.
I want to leave the Committee with complete clarity about this, and there are three separate issues here. One is what we do about people who have a claim, or think they have a claim, under the Francovich principle—and I continue to call it that—and it is overtaken by events because they have not litigated before Brexit or they are half way through or they have not expressed their claim or put it in at all. What happens about them? That is important, because it may only be three or four people, and we should always be concerned about justice for anybody. I do not in any way denigrate people who have taken up a lot of time to talk about their particular subject; it is a perfectly respectable concern to have. But my concern is not really with that—mine is to my mind much more significant. Going forward, do we have the Francovich principle or something like it in our own legal system, both to enshrine that principle that the state is subject to the law like everybody else, which as I say is so important, and to make sure that we have that instrument of good government, which has a real deterrent effect on the behaviour of central and local government, public corporations and, indeed, the private sector? That is very important to me.
I disagree very strongly with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, when he says that the Francovich system does not make any sense when we have left the European Union, because there will not be such a thing as European law here. He is quite wrong about that; there will be retained law for decades, no doubt, until it is changed by statute—if it is changed by statute over that time. It is called retained law; it is exactly the same law. The difference may be that, whereas you could litigate under it before Brexit, after Brexit you will not be able to litigate under it at all, which seems completely unreasonable. That means the loss of remedies and rights that we currently have in respect of exactly the same laws, because they are exactly the same provisions with exactly the same wording having exactly the same effect, whether they are today on 5 March, or on 1 April next year after we have left. That is what the whole principle of retained law is, as I understand it—and I think that the noble and learned Lord knows that.
It is my concern in this amendment to make sure that, when the citizens of this country have current rights and protections, they should enjoy all those after Brexit. I thought that the Government were in favour of that principle. We heard earlier from another Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, that he believes that that is the case and favours that principle—and I think that that principle is enormously important.
Then there is the third issue, which I raised—and it is probably not the last time that I shall raise it in this House. The experience of Francovich is such that I believe that it should be carried forward into the whole corpus of law in this country, Scots law and English law. We continue to have these rights and these remedies. I believe their jurisprudence in this case to be a considerable advance of civilisation in the European Union over the last 25 years; there have been many such advances and, if we are going to carry forward the assets that we take over rather than throwing them away on Brexit, we should make sure that we carry forward this one. That is not a matter for this Bill; what is a matter for this Bill is the second point that I make, which is to make sure that in respect of retained law the rights that currently exist will be carried through and not abolished.
I hope that the Government will think about that between now and Report. I would certainly welcome the opportunity to discuss the matter with them before we decide how we can take this matter further. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he said earlier. It was well worth waiting up for and rather more stimulating than the cup of cocoa that I referred to earlier. Having said that, I can see no point in prolonging the debate on this amendment. If it is appropriate, therefore, I seek leave to withdraw it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
The noble Lord must move the amendment before he can withdraw it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
It is the property of the Committee until the noble Lord obtains its permission to do so.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 7th March 2018
(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 79-V(b) Amendment for Committee, supplementary to the fifth marshalled list (PDF, 55KB) - (7 Mar 2018)
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 49 I shall speak also to Amendment 52. I read the other day that the two most disbelieved statements are, “The cheque is in the post” and, “I am from the Government and I am here to help you”. Here is another one: this amendment is designed to be helpful to the Government, and I hope they will genuinely believe that. It seeks to formalise the agreement reached in December 2017 in the UK/EU joint report in relation to EU citizens and their ability to refer cases to the CJEU.
Clause 6(1)(b) states that, “A court or tribunal”,
“cannot refer any matter to the European Court on or after exit day”.
However, paragraph 38 of the joint report agreed by the UK Government last December states:
“This Part of the Agreement establishes rights for citizens following on from those established in Union law during the UK’s membership of the European Union; the CJEU is the ultimate arbiter of the interpretation of Union law. In the context of the application or interpretation of those rights, UK courts shall therefore have due regard to relevant decisions of the CJEU after the specified date. The Agreement should also establish a mechanism enabling UK courts or tribunals to decide, having had due regard to whether relevant case-law exists, to ask the CJEU questions of interpretation of those rights where they consider that a CJEU ruling on the question is necessary for the UK court or tribunal to be able to give judgment in a case before it. This mechanism should be available for UK courts or tribunals for litigation brought within 8 years from the date of application of the citizens’ rights Part”.
We are not taking away any powers from the courts or tribunals. They decide whether to seek advice, and when they get it they then decide whether to take account of it. It does not in any way undermine the principles the Government have adduced for withdrawal. I hope, therefore, that this is helpful. All I am suggesting is that the joint agreement the UK Government have put their name to should be incorporated into the Bill, and I have helpfully provided an amendment to enable them to do that.
I also draw the Minister’s attention to the draft withdrawal agreement presented on 28 February by Michel Barnier to the Brexit Steering Group. I refer specifically to Article 83, which states:
“Where in a case before a court or tribunal in the United Kingdom a question is raised concerning the interpretation of the Treaties or the validity or interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union relating to facts that occurred before the end of the transition period and where that court or tribunal considers that a decision on that question is necessary to enable it to give judgment in that case, it may request the Court of Justice of the European Union to give a preliminary ruling on that question in accordance with the procedural requirements laid down in Article 267 TFEU. The Court of Justice of the European Union shall have jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings on such requests”.
Do Her Majesty’s Government agree to that proposal by Monsieur Barnier in the draft withdrawal agreement and do they plan to amend the Bill accordingly?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
How would the noble Lord’s proposed new provision work in the event of there being no agreement and is he not anticipating the terms of an agreement?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
As I understand it, all that we include depends on there being an agreement. It is not just my amendment; it is the whole legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I fully support my noble friend’s decision to raise these questions, which are very important. I suspect the Minister will say that the Government have given a commitment that, when the withdrawal agreement is concluded, it will become before this House an Act of Parliament and we will therefore have the opportunity to debate it then. However, there are two powerful reasons why citizens’ rights should be incorporated in this Bill now.
The first is the high level of anxiety that EU citizens have about their position. I am sure there is relief that, in principle, an agreement was reached in December, but there could still be many a slip between cup and lip in its ratification. Those citizens’ rights should be guaranteed now to provide reassurance.
Secondly, I listened hard to an earlier contribution from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, in which he said that the main utility of this Bill is to make sure there is legal certainty if we crash out of the EU—because, assuming that negotiations work, there will be a transition period during which EU citizens’ rights will not be affected. The problem we are dealing with particularly in this Bill is the risk of a crash-out. Of course, the Government will say to us, “Well, we’re very determined there won’t be a crash-out”, but they will not exclude that possibility. It was clear from the intervention at the end of my noble friend Lord Foulkes’ speech that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, actually relishes the possibility of a crash-out because he thinks, wrongly, that this is some bargaining leverage we have over the EU.
Lord Liddle
I will give way in a moment.
The question is whether we want the rights of EU citizens to be used by the likes of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, as a bargaining chip in these negotiations. If we do not, then we should support amendments along the lines of that in the name of my noble friends Lord Foulkes and Lord Adonis, to give people the security to which they are entitled.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, but he must not put words into my mouth. I simply asked a straightforward question as to what the position would be if this amendment were carried in the event of no deal. Clearly, it would create enormous confusion. There is the separate issue of why we should allow extraterritorial jurisdiction on the part of a foreign court, but I was not embarking on that particular argument. If this is the best the noble Lord can do to support the amendment, I am sure he will support the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, in withdrawing it in due course.
Lord Liddle
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is clearly saying that he thinks there is a real possibility we are going to crash out of the EU. We have heard that from him on other occasions and from people who agree with him. David Davis wrote to Conservative MPs to say that it was a possibility that we would not pay up the money unless we got a good free trade agreement. The fact is that any deal is better than no deal: no deal would be an absolute disaster for this country. But if there is a serious risk of no deal from Members of the governing party—I am sure the Government do not want that but there is pressure in that quarter—I believe we would be right in this Bill to guarantee the rights of EU citizens living in this country.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord said that we seem to be able to crash out and to have no deal as a bargaining chip. Surely, we either crash out or we have no deal as a bargaining chip—we cannot have both.
Lord Liddle
The point I am focusing on is that this is our opportunity to guarantee the rights of EU citizens in the event of there being no deal.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I deeply regret and resent the fact that we are having to discuss this and waste the House’s time. We had an opportunity at the beginning of the day to make an unequivocal declaration that we would grant these rights to EU citizens. We voted in that sense, a number of us spoke in that sense and we had a large majority in that sense. Yet here we are, arguing. Frankly, I agree that the amendment is necessary, but we are now arguing unnecessarily about something we could have taken the moral high ground over and dealt with immediately after we had activated Article 50. It is indicative of the mess into which we have got ourselves, and we are taking up so much parliamentary time that should be devoted to other things. I bitterly resent it and wanted to get that on the record.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, as someone who is a co-signatory of the amendment that was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, I support what he said and also endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said. This should be a no-brainer.
The United Kingdom Government have agreed with the European Union; the terms of that agreement were set out in paragraph 38 of the document of 8 December 2017, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has spoken them into the record. If one goes back to paragraph 33 of the same document, it is interesting to read that:
“It is of paramount importance to both Parties to give as much certainty as possible to UK citizens living in the EU and EU citizens living in the UK about their future rights. The Parties have therefore reached agreement on the following specific set of arrangements to implement and enforce the citizens’ rights Part of the agreement”.
Admittedly, a later paragraph suggests that the bestowing of or guarantee of rights will come in the withdrawal agreement implementation Bill, but if one reads the paragraph on the consistent interpretation of citizens’ rights, one will see that there is no such commitment there with regard to a future Bill. It would not be right for this Parliament to pass a Bill which cuts off recourse to the Court of Justice of the European Union when we have already agreed that that avenue should be open in this specific case of ensuring consistency in determining the rights of EU citizens living in the United Kingdom and UK citizens living in the European Union.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that if at the end of the day there is no agreement and we go crashing out, surely he is not suggesting that we would not honour our commitment. We have made that commitment to European Union citizens living in the United Kingdom and United Kingdom citizens living in the European Union. It must send some very alarming signs to UK citizens living abroad if it is suggested that, should we go crashing out, nothing will be done to establish or secure the rights of those citizens—
Lord Adonis (Lab)
Did the noble and learned Lord notice that in the Prime Minister’s Statement on Monday, she specifically mentioned that the United Kingdom might seek to achieve associate membership of certain European agencies? She said that,
“the UK would also have to respect the remit of the ECJ in that regard”.—[Official Report, Commons, 05/3/18; col. 26.]
Now that the Government themselves have recognised that there will be a continuing role for the European Court of Justice, is this not an absolutely appropriate further role that it should play?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
It is not only appropriate as a further role but one we have already agreed to. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, on many occasions noble Lords from all sides of the House have spoken about securing the rights of EU citizens in the United Kingdom and UK citizens in the European Union. This amendment fleshes that out and it would be wrong to pass a Bill which denied something we have already agreed.
Baroness Prosser (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Foulkes and I will speak to Amendment 54, which stands in my name. I will not detain noble Lords for long because much of what I intended to say has already been said and covered. Agreement on the wording of this amendment has been expressed by various Benches in this House, so this is not simply a one-sided argument. It seems to me that this country’s reputation globally will simply go down the Suwannee if we are prepared, at one moment, to say that we agree to certain protections for people who have become embroiled in this dreadful situation in which we find ourselves and then, a moment later, decide that, no, we do not agree with that and will not give those protections. What will people think of us as a nation if that is how the leadership of this country behaves?
My amendment would extend the requirement for certain persons to be able to refer their legal matters back to the European Court of Justice to a period of eight years. I trust that noble Lords will understand the need for such an extension. There is a statute of limitations existing for six years; if we do not include a period of coverage, people whose claims may well start quite late after the leaving date may well find themselves without that coverage, which I hope will be agreed.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 52, which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and I support his comments and those made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, a moment ago. I wish to place the amendment within its context, which is EU citizenship—the citizenship of people resident in the United Kingdom, and on the European mainland. These comments are particularly relevant in the context of the interventions of the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Liddle, a moment ago.
I am a European; that is my identity. I am Welsh; that is my nationality and, as noted on my European passport, I am a citizen of the United Kingdom. I have rights and obligations under each of these three headings. Some of those rights are protected by international law, some by European law, some by UK law and some by Welsh law. Taking established rights away from a citizen is a very serious matter. Citizens are protected in generality against any negative impact upon them that may arise from taking some of these rights away from them.
There is clearly a wide range of such rights but I shall refer to only one. Page 32 of my passport states that if you need consular assistance when you are outside the EU in a country where there is no British embassy or consulate, you can get help from the embassy or consulate of another member state of the EU. That is a right that I have today but which I may lose as a result of the UK leaving the EU. In other words, Brexit may be taking away from me a right that I currently have by virtue of being a European citizen. This is one of many rights that we have as citizens living within the EU. For those rights to be meaningful, there clearly has to be a process of redress whereby a citizen can seek to protect his or her rights through the courts, and in this context Amendment 52 is highly relevant as it would allow citizens to pursue their rights in the European courts after exit day, where that is relevant.
Lord Dykes (CB)
The noble Lord is making an extremely good speech with which I agree, so I am sorry to break in. He referred to being a citizen of the UK. Under Maastricht, he is also a citizen of the EU. Is he aware that the ECJ is beginning to receive many messages from British citizens, both here and living in other EU countries, asking for the ECJ to consider giving protection to them even post-Brexit if necessary?
Lord Wigley
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for his helpful intervention. We are all European citizens; it is a European passport that we carry at the moment. Some of our rights are enshrined in the context of Europe, some in the context of the UK and some—in my case, as I mentioned a moment ago—in the context of Wales.
I am not going to speak at length to this amendment because there are several noble Lords who will speak with greater authority on the legal positions involved. However, I want to use the principles underpinning the rights of citizens in the EU to say a brief word about EU citizenship in a broader context: the rights afforded to us at present as citizens of the EU and the status of those rights once we leave. These matters are highly germane to the amendments before us—and they will not go away.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
I want to present to the Committee an observation: according to the December agreement reached by the Prime Minister, citizens of Northern Ireland will still be EU citizens after we leave. I am not sure where that leaves the rights of everyone else in the UK.
Lord Wigley
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing that point; I was going to move on to it a little later but I shall do so now. Northern Ireland creates a precedent, if the undertakings that have been reported are indeed carried out. It is a part of a union of countries that may be retaining its rights after the other parts of the UK may lose theirs. Of course, there is a precedent in the context of Ireland: people in the Irish Republic maintained many of the rights relating to the UK that they previously enjoyed after the Republic was formed, and for many people those rights continue up to today. As the noble Baroness has said, many of the rights relating to the EU of citizens of Northern Ireland may well continue after Brexit. If it is possible to negotiate such rights for some of the citizens of the UK, why cannot such rights be ongoing for all its citizens?
Lord Cormack
Do we not have a particular responsibility for the smallest group of citizens for which this Government have responsibility—namely those living in Gibraltar?
Lord Wigley
I am sure we shall come on to the position of Gibraltar in greater detail at another time. In many ways this parallels the issues that arise in the context of Northern Ireland. If a solution to Northern Ireland were enshrined which allowed the free movement of people and goods across the border, that might well solve the problem of Gibraltar as well. We need to bear in mind our responsibilities to Gibraltar and to get an amicable settlement which would be acceptable in the European context, and therefore acceptable to Spain as well as to the people of Gibraltar. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for raising this.
I want to use the principles underpinning the rights of citizens in the UK to say a brief word about citizenship in the broader context and about the rights afforded to us at present as citizens of the EU, as well as the status of these rights once we leave. These matters are highly germane to the amendments before us. Incidentally, there is an Opposition Day debate in the House of Commons this afternoon, initiated by my Plaid Cymru colleagues, on this precise topic.
By pursuing what may become a no-deal Brexit, the UK Government would, in effect, strip—at least potentially—our citizens of some of their rights. Our rights to travel, live and work across Europe will be curtailed. Our children’s rights—
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. Currently, a British lawyer, dentist or doctor can practise in any other European country. There is a reciprocal right for nationals of other EU countries to practise here. We are losing dentists and doctors because of the certification process which will be subject to negotiation on the basis of mutual recognition. Is this right, which could be curtailed, justiciable under his amendment?
Lord Wigley
Of course, this amendment provides a mechanism to create a redress for people who feel that they are losing these rights. It may not be the only mechanism available. There may be provisions under international law, which I shall mention before I close. It is not only our rights that are being curtailed but the rights of our children—the right to study in any of the other 27 countries across the EU may well be lost. It is questionable whether, in the context of these rights, we shall thereafter be able to call ourselves European in the full meaning of the word. I am a European. I am a Welsh European and no Government should be able to take away from me or from any citizen of these islands their right to their European identity, nor any of the practical rights they currently hold by virtue of that identity.
It is by virtue of their de facto European citizenship that the citizens of these islands currently have recourse to the European court. Stripping people of their citizenship against their will is illegal under international law. I have tabled another amendment which explores the retention of EU citizenship. I hope this will be debated at a later stage. Suffice it to say, at this stage we need these amendments to safeguard the position of people facing such a serious threat after Brexit. I am delighted to support the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, of particular interest to me in this Bill is the way in which ordinary people would be most directly affected by leaving the EU. I have tabled Amendment 210, which asks the Government to support retention of European citizenship where the individual British citizen wishes to do so. Although not explicitly stated in the amendment, it would also cover those who had not yet acquired European citizenship at the time of Brexit. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Davies of Stamford.
The importance of European citizenship and the effect of its loss at the individual level has not been sufficiently considered or explored, either before or in the 20 months since the referendum. Nevertheless, its retention has been consistently advocated by Guy Verhofstadt, the European Parliament’s representative on Brexit. Last year, it was the subject of a paper by Volker Roeben, then professor of international law at Swansea University, for Plaid Cymru MEP, Jill Evans. From the Government’s point of view, a useful conclusion of this paper was a belief in the feasibility of an associate citizenship, if citizenship rights were to be extinguished after Brexit. Roeben’s belief that this should be so was given some traction following the submission last month of a request to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling in the case brought by British residents of Amsterdam. It is early days yet, but it is worth noting, in the context of my amendment, this statement from the judgment:
“Once legally acquired, EU citizenship is an independent source of rights and obligations that cannot be simply reduced or affected by actions of a national government”.
The loss of European citizenship would not just adversely affect the British abroad and, indeed, European citizens in the UK, but every British person living in the UK. Following the referral to the ECJ, QC Jolyon Maugham, supporter of those who brought the case in the Netherlands, made a particular point of saying that the final outcome of this case would have implications for residents of the UK as much as those abroad. The loss would be of all those rights that EU citizenship embodies, both in terms of the principle of that citizenship—the loss of identity that many would feel deeply, and which cannot be overestimated—and the very real practical concerns about rights and opportunities that would be lost or compromised, including being able to freely travel, work, study and raise a family abroad.
This is likely to have the greatest effect on young people living in the UK—an effect with no silver lining and which can only register negatively, as a loss. At the level of the individual citizen, it is not replaced by anything. European citizenship is additional to British citizenship, and that is the reality, whatever the outcome of the case begun in Amsterdam. As Sunday’s Observer editorial responding to Theresa May’s speech, but which might just as well have been referring to the potential loss of citizenship, put it:
“It was a defeat for young people, British and European, who, more so than older generations, will perforce inhabit an ugly new world of harder borders, work permits, bureaucracy and pervasive state intrusion”.
The referendum notwithstanding, many British people, both abroad and in this country, are angry that they should be stripped of their European citizenship without their own individual consent. For all these reasons, a Brexit that does not allow the retention of individual European citizenship for those who wish to retain that citizenship is a hard Brexit—more than that, it is a brutal Brexit, whatever the outcome on the wider national scale in terms of any trade deals.
What is being asked for in this amendment is very simple, and the precedent already exists, as this is no different from the dual citizenships that some in this House possess. The amendment asks only for the continuing acknowledgement of that additional citizenship. Do we now wish to start stripping people of all citizenships that are not British—for example, Australian, Canadian, American, Indian, Chinese? The list goes on.
At the level of the individual, the only solution that would be realistic or fair is that the 52%—or whatever the figure is now—may hand in their European passports and renounce their European citizenship, and the 48% retain theirs. The reality, of course, would be quite different. We have heard in the news about noted leavers who have bought, or are buying, EU citizenship as we speak. As I am sure others in this House do, I know of those who voted leave who, in circumstances where they are lucky enough to do so, are applying for European citizenship for themselves and/or their children, sometimes through having a husband or wife who is an EU citizen. Hypocritical? Of course it is, but it is also testament to the significance and desirability of retaining that citizenship and the real loss involved, with those who are lucky or rich enough becoming the first-class citizens of tomorrow, when previously it was an entirely equal arrangement for all of us.
The loss of European citizenship will in itself create an unequal society within the UK. Look too at Northern Ireland, as has been remarked upon: all those born there—about 89% of that country—will retain European citizenship, further turning the rest of us in the UK, in effect, into second-class citizens. Of course, I am not suggesting that Irish citizenship be given up. Late last year, Theresa May gave her agreement to an understanding that goes back to 1917 and that was rightly confirmed in the Good Friday agreement. Better, surely, that all of us who wish to should be able to retain our individual European citizenship. The Minister may say that that offer is not on the table, but a Government and a Parliament that really want to bring this country back together and heal the divisions would take the initiative and put it on the table. That is the right course of action, and I hope that the Government accept this amendment.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
I will stay away from the law on this, but when it comes to travel and so on to the EU, is there not a discussion to be had, the likelihood being that most people—unless they are going to work there—will be able to move around Europe without a visa? If I may say so, it is therefore not quite as disastrous as the noble Earl suggests.
The Earl of Clancarty
I am not sure that is the case at all. It is very likely that visas will be introduced.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
It may well be that we benefit from a visa waiver but it is also likely that we will have to apply for what is often called a “visa lite”, which similar to the United States’ ESTA. The EU is bringing in something called ETIAS and for most people it will not amount to a big difference: you have to go online, pay a fee and answer lots of questions about health, criminal background and so on. We may not require a visa but we will need a “visa lite”, so it will not be hassle-free.
The Earl of Clancarty
Absolutely. Whatever happens, we will be at a disadvantage to everyone else in Europe and that is really significant.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment. When this whole matter originally came before the House, we had the firm assurance from the Front Bench opposite and the strong assurance from the Prime Minister that this was to be a top-priority issue in their considerations of our future. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said so powerfully, here we are, way down the road, and we have made no progress whatever.
The reason why I feel so strongly and passionately about this issue is that I fear that we are demeaning and undermining the whole concept of citizenship. Citizenship is something that people have fought for and struggled for centuries to establish. There are thousands and thousands of people from Britain in Europe. I declare an interest: in my extended family I have family members living in Europe and family members living in this country who are married to Poles, Czechs and so on, and it is a very rich experience. Such people have gone to Europe in the confidence of citizenship and all it has meant historically—to make new lives and build their future in the knowledge that they have citizenship of Europe.
Do we or do we not stand by the concept of citizenship? If we do, how can we contemplate any future in which we have not absolutely guaranteed that people have their rights of citizenship? My noble friend referred to anxiety being out there, and it certainly is. We are talking about men, women and children; about the futures of people who are working; about vulnerable people who have reached old age in the context of what they believed was European security—about real human situations. We need firm, unequivocal assurances from the Government that we believe not just in the right of citizenship, but in the whole concept of citizenship that has been established across Europe in our history. We want cast-iron guarantees that, in one way or another, that is going to be fulfilled.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 211, which is in my name and deals with our rights but in a slightly different way. It would ensure that after withdrawal, our rights and protections remain intact by maintaining the standards at home and at work that we have come to expect in our daily life as part of our normal existence, and that those standards would not be sacrificed or lowered in any future negotiations.
I tabled this amendment some weeks ago and was pleased to see it reflected in the Prime Minister’s speech last Friday and in her Statement on Monday, when she spoke of maintaining current standards in some sectors. My amendment calls for them to be maintained in all sectors, because we cannot pick and choose where our quality of life is concerned. Even Monsieur Barnier seems to agree, and in his recent draft document he speaks of equivalent standards.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to the noble Lord and I understand the point he is making about international standards and international bodies. However, the effect of his amendment is, surely, that the British Parliament would be tied, in future, to decisions made by the European Union and the European court. Why does he not trust this Parliament to set regulations that are appropriate for the standards for our own people?
Lord Haskel
I do trust Britain to set its own standards, I just do not want to see them lowered. I am concerned that they will be lowered because of trade negotiations and the give and take that will go on in negotiating withdrawal.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
On that point, why does the noble Lord not think it possible that we might set higher standards, as for example we have done in respect of paternity rights and other matters?
Lord Haskel
I would very much welcome setting higher standards and am sure that all noble Lords would do so. My concern is that we should not lower them, because that is one of the rights we should not be giving away.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that in her speech last week, the Prime Minister said that she wished us to retain an association with the European Medicines Agency, the European Chemicals Agency, and the European Aviation Safety Agency, specifically to mirror 100% every standard that they set? The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, says that we still have a choice. No—if we are associate members of those bodies, not only do we not have a choice but we agree that we are bound by the decisions of the European Court. The Prime Minister set out very clearly how damaging it would be were we not to be members of those bodies, and therefore why we should retain membership of them.
Lord Haskel
The noble Lord is absolutely right and in a later amendment, I will call on the Government to set up institutions which would not accept the European standard but enforce our standards—institutions that are independent of the Government. The importance of independence is illustrated by the fact that the main reason why Ministers are doing something about poor air quality in some of our cities is the risk of fines or legal action from the EU, possibly through the European Court of Justice.
As other noble Lords have observed, we are now being less doctrinaire about the European Court of Justice. Being doctrinaire is the reason why we do not want EU standards because of the possibilities of disputes being settled by the European Court of Justice. But many institutions which enforce these standards have their own systems of settling disputes, and these systems have stood the test of time. So whatever the outcome of our withdrawal negotiations, a major concern for Ministers must be the disruption to our way of life and to trade. This amendment would go some way towards helping Ministers to deal with this concern and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Ludford
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 202, which is in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham, who is unfortunately unable to attend because of illness. It is also in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno and the noble Lord, Lord Judd. Before going on, I fully agree with what has been said in this debate about the need to retain EU citizenship for us all, and about the hypocrisy of some of those who supported and continue to support leave, but who have somehow managed to acquire a passport of an EU member state, such as Malta. That enables them to continue enjoying the benefits which they are quite happy to deprive the rest of us of.
Amendment 202 calls on the Government,
“to maintain, preserve and protect the rights of”,
EU citizens in the UK. I therefore very much agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, about the fact that that has not been done. We are seeking a guarantee that existing rights will remain unchanged. The Government have had the opportunity in the last 21 months to give a unilateral guarantee that existing rights would be retained. They were invited to do so by the EU Select Committee, in a report produced under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws—I had the pleasure to serve on that sub-committee—but have not done so. They also had the opportunity to try to ring-fence the discussion about citizens’ rights from all the other matters being discussed within the withdrawal agreements but, unfortunately, they have not done that.
EU citizens resident in this country and British citizens resident in the EU 27 have indeed been used as bargaining chips. That has led to great distress for many of the 5 million affected citizens, who live in a state of anxiety and limbo that was not helped by the words of the Prime Minister in her speech to the Conservative Party in October 2016 about “citizens of nowhere”. She has now resiled from that kind of terminology, but unfortunately the damage has been done in that the tone is somehow one of, “You do not belong here if you have multiple allegiances. It is not good enough to be a contributing and responsible person in this country”. The Government still have a chance to offer unilateral guarantees and I invite the Minister to tell us today that he is going to ignore the mire into which all of this has become embroiled and just give a straightforward guarantee.
Many ambiguities and gaps still exist in the current state of play over the discussions about settled status. Some of the issues are being taken up in correspondence with Home Office Ministers on the part of the EU Select Committee. The problem is that settled status is not the retention of the same rights and protections that EU law currently confers on people; it is based on UK immigration law and has all the features of that law, including the hostile environment that is currently being created. People will have to apply for settled status. It will not just be a question of carryover or cut and paste—they will have to apply. Apparently, the Home Office expects the vast majority of cases to be granted, although that begs the question of which ones will not be granted to people who are currently resident here.
Lord Green of Deddington
Will the noble Baroness explain how we could possibly deal with several million people unless we invite them to apply?
Baroness Ludford
There could be a simple declaratory process. If any parliamentarians in this Chamber have ever had to deal with the Home Office on behalf of one of their constituents, as I did when I was an MEP, they will know what a happy—or otherwise—process that is. Something simple and declaratory such as going to the local town hall could be worked out. It should be light touch: a declaration of existing residence. That is quite different from having to apply to the Home Office.
The fear has been expressed on behalf of the group, the 3 million, that perhaps around 10% of people might fall through the cracks because their application is rejected or because they do not apply. Some people are not very aware of what is going on in the law or they do not have access to computers and so on. There is no legal presumption in favour of granting settled status to all residents who are legally living here before exit day, which begs another question. Perhaps the Minister could explain to us what exactly is going to happen to those people who arrive during the transition period. That, of course, is something the Prime Minister has conceded, in that they will have a status, but it is slightly unclear how it is going to work.
There has also been no clarification of the continuation of all the individual economic rights and recognition of qualifications that EU citizens currently enjoy and, as I have said, no guarantee that the registration will be simple and light touch. There is supposed to be a digital application system. Can the Minister tell us exactly where we are in the construction of that system? We all know that IT projects, in particular Home Office IT projects, have a habit of becoming problematic. Moreover, the backstop to all this is that the European Parliament will have to approve the withdrawal agreement, including the conditions for EU citizens. I note that Mr Verhofstadt tweeted yesterday,
“the European Parliament expects a cost free and burden free registration process”.
It wants to ensure that there is no discrimination between EU citizens and British citizens, which of course raises the question: are the Government planning to introduce ID cards by the back door in order to say that we are all being treated the same?
There are many holes and gaps that the Home Office is still unable to answer questions on. I do not have time to cover them all but I would like to ask about comprehensive sickness insurance—the requirement that people have private medical insurance—because very mixed messages are being given about it. The position of the European Commission has always been that if people are allowed to use the NHS, that amounts to comprehensive sickness insurance under the directive. It started legal action but that has apparently not progressed.
Lord Green of Deddington
I am very puzzled as to how any of this is relevant to the Bill we are discussing. Does the noble Baroness not understand that this kind of stuff, which is being repeated time and again, is actually doing more harm than good? It is raising issues for people who do not face them. It is quite clear that the maximum is being done to help people qualify for residence in the UK. We could not do more than we have done. Frankly, this is just making trouble.
Baroness Ludford
It is highly relevant to whether people are being guaranteed their existing rights to legally reside in this country. I am quite surprised that the noble Lord thinks it is not relevant to an amendment that is about maintaining and guaranteeing the existing rights of EU citizens. The confusion is caused by the Home Office’s lack of clarity, not by me.
I end on that note. I would like some answers from the Minister to these detailed questions and many others.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I want to make two short points. The first is that the precedent of giving rights in other countries when there is a separation is set up very well by the arrangements between ourselves and the Republic of Ireland in relation to Irish citizens and their rights in our country, which are guaranteed by statute in a number of cases.
Secondly, on the idea that we have to refer all these matters to the European court, anyone who reads the judgments of our courts from day to day will realise that the fairness they exhibit towards foreign citizens is of the highest possible standard. I know of no country in the world and no court in the world that succeeds in getting a higher standard; there are others that have an equally high standard, but I know of none that has a higher one. It would be a most retrograde step for this House to do anything that suggested to people in Europe that they could not get justice from the courts of this country.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Just to clarify, my amendment does not suggest that—quite the reverse. It would be the British court or the British tribunal that took the decision whether or not to refer such matters to the CJEU. It would still be the decision of a UK court.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I think that is meant to be an intervention, because I have not quite finished. The situation is that the British courts, the Supreme Court in particular, have discretion to look at any judgment that they wish, and to raise any question they wish in these judgments. There is nothing in the present Bill that impedes that, except in respect of questions of European law, because the courts themselves, and the members of the Supreme Court, have been anxious that if they paid too much attention to the European court after Brexit, they might be accused of being involved in politics. They have sought a direction from Parliament on this matter, and that has been attempted, and I hope it is successful.
I personally do not share the animosity that exists in some quarters towards the European Court of Justice. It is over 30 years now since I often appeared before them, and I have nothing but praise for the way in which they do things. They do things very differently to us. There are far fewer oral hearings—at least, there were when I did it, which was a long time ago. There is much less oral pleading than there is in our courts. Actually, our courts have moved slightly in that direction in recent years, since I was last involved with them—and in some cases quite far in that direction.
The respect I have for the European Court is of the highest order, but I do think there is a difficulty because, after Brexit, no judges or advocates-general of the British Bar will be members of the court or advocates-general in the court. That is an important factor to be taken into account in the arrangements. I am not part of the negotiations—I have nothing to do with them—but I do believe that that point has to be taken into account. There is a usual rule that the people administering justice are the people who are in accordance with the arrangements between states. International courts, for example, may not have representatives from all the states that appear before them, but there is a question to be considered in that connection, because the Court of Justice referred to in the amendment will not be the Court of Justice as it is now.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I would like to intervene, following what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has said, and referring to the amendment that was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. One of the problems I have faced since looking at this Bill, is trying to find hard examples of situations in which the Supreme Court would wish to refer a matter to the European Court of Justice.
There is a very good example reported in Monday’s Times of a case called SM (Algeria) (Appellant) v Entry Clearance Officer. I will take a moment to explain what the case is about, because it is a good example of citizens’ rights. SM was a little girl, who was placed into the legal guardianship of EU citizens, who happened to be in Algeria. The question concerned her position in coming to the United Kingdom as a member of that family under the Immigration (European Economic Area Regulations) 2006. Merely referring to those regulations reminds us that they would become, as I understand the position, retained EU law under Clause 2 of the Bill.
The problem arose because the court saw that the regulation had been transposing wording from a directive, which is the normal way in which these things work, but the transposition was inaccurate. This is a situation I have encountered before—it happens from time to time. The question is how to deal with the inaccuracy. The inaccuracy was that while our regulation talked about “family member”—somebody who was put into the legal guardianship of a couple, would normally be regarded as a member of the family—the directive was talking about “direct descendants”, and she was not a direct descendant, because she was not actually related, in that sense, to the people who had become her guardians. In order to resolve that problem, the court found it necessary to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice—which it did on Monday. That was under the existing position.
In resolving the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, it may help to ask how that matter would be handled after exit day. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that it would be for the Supreme Court to resolve the issue itself. The directive would come into EU retained law under Clause 3, so we would have both pieces of legislation to look at. I think that the court, having regard particularly to the way in which we had translated the directive, would give great weight to our own language and regard this little girl as part of the family and therefore entitled to take the benefit of the regulation.
In explaining the situation, I hope I have not made it too complicated, but it is a good example of citizens’ rights, accorded by our own regulations, giving effect to EU law. There must be very many in the corpus of regulations which forms part of EU law. It comes back to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. The Supreme Court looks very carefully at the interests of children and would accord every weight to the normal rules about the priority given to the interests of the child in construing the regulation in a sense that fits with our own language. I should have thought that, after exit day, the question of referring the matter to the European Court of Justice simply would not arise because the court would be capable of resolving the issue itself without being bound by the problem of having to refer something which was not that clear. If I may use the English expression, it was not crystal clear; therefore they were bound to refer. Under the situation after exit day, any superior court will be fully able to resolve the problems of interpretation that arise. Will the Minister confirm that, in this situation, there would be no need for a reference because our courts would be able to deal with it perfectly properly, looking at the language of our own regulations, despite the problem that might have arisen in translating them from the directive into English?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, in moving this amendment— I referred to it myself—was that, as part of the agreement that was struck between the United Kingdom and the European institutions in December, provision was made to,
“establish a mechanism enabling UK courts or tribunals to decide, having had due regard to whether relevant case-law exists, to ask the CJEU questions of interpretation of those rights where they consider that a CJEU ruling on the question is necessary for the UK court or tribunal to be able to give judgment in a case before it”.
So it is not a case of questioning the ability of the Supreme Court. We have entered into an agreement which says that there must be an opportunity or a mechanism to refer to the Court of Justice of the European Union. How does the noble and learned Lord see the mechanism for giving effect to what the United Kingdom Government have agreed?
Lord Hope of Craighead
I have listened with great care to what the noble and learned Lord has said but I cannot look into the future. I do not know what is going to happen as a result. We just have to look at the present situation. There are two factors to bear in mind. As far as the UK is concerned, for people looking to come here, an immense amount of citizens’ rights are guaranteed already under the regulations which implement directives. We ought not to lose sight of that. Secondly, problems of interpretation because of conflicts between the wording of the directive and our transposition of it, give rise to some doubt. Under the existing position, there is an obligation to refer which will not be present after exit day. This is a different situation with which I believe our courts will be able to cope perfectly well.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, in summary, was he saying that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is completely unnecessary?
Lord Hope of Craighead
With great respect, I would not put it in that way. It has given me an opportunity to bring forward an example which I am hoping the Minister will be able to comment on. The noble Lord has raised an important point. We all care about citizens’ rights. I hope I have drawn attention to the context in which one looks at the amendment. It is a well-crafted amendment to which the Minister may have an answer along the lines I have suggested.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, I speak not as a lawyer—I find it difficult to follow some of these legal arguments—but as a grandfather to seven grandchildren, each of whom was born into European citizenship after the treaty of Maastricht. They are just representative of the more than 18 million others who were born since that treaty was signed. If the Bill were to go through unamended, we would withdraw rights and hopes given to them during the past 25 years. What moral right do we have to do this?
If I spoke today in favour of this Bill, what would I say to Haf, Osian, Manon, Megan, Reuben—I am trying to remember their names—Ianto and Aiden? They would say, “Taid”—which is Welsh for grandfather—“why did you not oppose this? Why did you not oppose the loss of all these freedoms and the availability we had in the previous time? You didn’t do a thing”. I am not the only grandfather in this room; I am not the only grandparent in this room. If a grandparent can vote to withdraw rights that have been cherished by their grandchildren, they are doing a tremendous disservice. To the various concessions in travel, in education and in so many other ways that we get as members of the European Union there will now be barriers, and it will be because we went along with the Bill—I would nearly call it an insane Bill—to withdraw these rights from those who have cherished them and used them during the past 25 years. We were able to choose to be members of the European Union; they were not. They were born into British citizenship; they were born into European citizenship, and, as my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, they were born into Welsh citizenship. We cannot withdraw these things. It is a blind way of treating the future generation.
That is all that I will say at this point. Seriously, we have no right. How will the Minister defend the withdrawal of such rights from 18 million citizens? We should remember that only 17 million people voted to leave; we are talking here about 18 million. How on earth can the Minister defend such a move?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support the amendments. I speak not as a grandmother, although I am one, but as somebody who not only voted for Brexit but campaigned for it. Therefore, I carry quite a heavy burden to help ensure that we get the best outcomes for people living in our country.
When voting to leave, no one voted to lose their rights. The amendments would ensure that the Government safeguarded the rights and protections of people as we negotiate leaving the EU. It has been hard to get much sense out of the Government about their plans for Brexit. The default message is to refer to the Prime Minister's Florence speech or Lancaster House speech, but platitudes about “getting the best deal” or “making Brexit a success” simply are not enough to guarantee that our Government do not risk undermining our basic rights and protections during the Brexit negotiations.
The Government seem unable to agree on many of the big issues and it is unclear who is in charge. In the absence of principled, clear leadership, Parliament must take the reins and do what is right for the majority of people. The amendments would protect both British citizens and EU citizens, people who have built their lives around the opportunities given to them by EU membership. They would force the Government to stop abusing our rights as a political bargaining chip. There should never have been any question over the rights of EU citizens living in this country, but our Government insisted on using our basic rights as part of their struggle to gain bargaining power in negotiations.
It is often conceived by supporters of remaining in the EU that the main motivation for Brexit is a narrow-minded, nasty little racist attitude which blames all our country’s problems on foreigners. I could not be further away from that world view, although I believe that some of the Brexiteers—I have some names here but will not read them out—and others have a lot to answer for in the way that they used migrants as scapegoats for the very real destruction that our own Government have cast upon our society with their slash-and-burn austerity measures. The Government sowed the seeds for a lot of the division and anger that prevail in our country.
I celebrate migrants and migration. Humans have always moved around as we seek opportunities and form new communities. It is an essential part of what it means to be human and without migration we would probably be stuck in isolated little groups, still using flint tools and eating with our fingers. Instead, humans have done the most astonishing things and we have all gained enormously from the massive cultural and technological growth that results from humans meeting humans and sharing ideas, cultures, stories and lifestyles. These amendments would do what is absolutely right and fair. They are about breaking Brexit away from those who espouse anti-immigrant views and saying that Brexit is about being more open, tolerant and diverse than ever before. A Brexit that cannot achieve that is not a Brexit worth having and not one that I will support.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, if there is to be a commitment to the highest standards of protection of citizens’ rights—I go back to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel—this would presumably include the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. But the Bill suggests that we omit that charter, so can the Minister say what would be the mechanism by which those charter rights would be guaranteed for EU citizens who remain resident in the UK?
Lord Adonis
My Lords, Amendments 160 and 170 are in my name and they would prevent regulations being made under Clause 9 if they,
“remove, reduce or … amend the rights of”,
an EU citizen,
“lawfully resident in the United Kingdom on any day before 30 March 2019”,
or until such time as Her Majesty’s Government have signed a reciprocal agreement with the European Union on the rights of citizens post-March 2019.
The issue here is simple. It is about giving legal effect to the assurance, which the Prime Minister has repeatedly given since Article 50 was invoked, that the rights of European citizens who are currently resident in the United Kingdom will be respected. The Prime Minister said in her October 2017 email to EU citizens not only, “I couldn’t be clearer”—actually, most of the Prime Minister’s statements which are not clear begin with “I want to be clear that”. She said she could not be clearer that,
“EU citizens … lawfully in the UK … will be able to stay”.
She also said:
“When we started this process, some accused us of treating EU nationals as bargaining chips. Nothing could have been further from the truth”.
If nothing could be further from the truth, why has Parliament not been invited by the Government immediately to give legal effect to the rights of EU citizens resident in this country? It is a very simple issue. The reason why it has not happened is precisely that the Government do want to use EU citizens as bargaining chips. Saying that they do not, when all the evidence is that they do, does not, I am afraid, cut the mustard at all.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, also raised a crucial issue, which I hope the Minister will address. What is to happen to EU citizens who come here during the transition? We all know what the Minister will say: that it all depends upon the agreement. When the Prime Minister brings that agreement down with her tablets of stone, whether that happens in October, November, December or January, it will have to include a precise set of legal commitments on what is to happen in the transition. The only point I make in respect of that, which I hope the Minister might address in his remarks, draws very much on what the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said: that this is a really shabby way of presenting this country abroad.
Let us be clear. People across the world, including people whom we want to work in our National Health Service and make a big contribution to this country, are having to make decisions as we deliberate on whether they can come to this country from the end of March next year. Quite soon, that will be a matter not of months but of days in which they will have to make these decisions.
I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will claim that we are open and that we welcome them coming here. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, made what I thought was an excellent speech in favour of remaining in the European Union because we would embrace all the rights set out in the treaties. How is it that we can look at people straight and say to them, “This is a great place to come and live. We are going to maintain your rights, but even now, we are not prepared to tell you what those rights will be in a year’s time”? This country is presenting a terrible face to the world. Frankly, I am ashamed of the position our Parliament is adopting towards the rights of existing EU citizens, who still do not have those rights enshrined in law, and of those we are seeking to attract to this country from the end of next March.
As the whole Brexit project starts to disintegrate, nothing is undermining its moral foundations more than our inability as a Parliament—and, indeed, the noble and learned Lord’s Government—to give firm legal undertakings in respect of people who are resident in this country and came here in good faith.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the issue is important not only to those who might be thinking of coming here, but to the people living here now? It is perfectly clear that their confidence has been undermined and they are showing that by voting with their feet. They are leaving jobs which are important to the whole of our society. The longer this debate goes on, having started from a position of, “Let us be clear: no rights will be taken away”, the less confident many people feel about their future.
Before I finish, perhaps I may say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who also got off my chest a lot of the things I feel about this issue.
Lord Adonis
Perhaps I may respond to the noble Baroness and make one further brief point. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said that we should be proud of our courts and the work they do. I entirely agree with him; however, we are told time and again—indeed, it is part of the argument for Brexit—that our courts are of course subservient to Parliament. They implement and give judgments on the laws that are passed by Parliament, which has still not guaranteed the rights of European Union citizens resident in this country. Moreover, because it is not being invited to do so by the Government, at the moment it will not make any declaration about those rights after the end of March next year. That, I believe, is shameful.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I want to concentrate on the last point made by my noble friend Lord Adonis and on the arguments made, particularly on Amendments 49 and 52, by my noble friend Lord Foulkes and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. I do so because the bit that is so critical is implementing what in December the Prime Minister said would be on offer to EU citizens already living here and which we need to put into law. That is an absolute priority and a priority for this Committee.
As we have heard, there is a particular need, because of what the Prime Minister agreed to in December, for the Government to rethink their blanket refusal to allow access to or take heed of the Court of Justice of the European Union within this Bill. It has been written out of the Bill precisely because of the draft withdrawal agreement—it is called a report, not an agreement—produced in December. As drafted, that document will allow access to what I still call the ECJ for EU citizens resident here for another eight years, which is why that is mentioned in the amendment. It would fulfil the undertaking written into the report last December with regard to their rights.
It was suggested in one of the meetings I had with a Minister—I cannot remember who—that everything is fine: we should not worry because it will be put into law by repealing parts of the Bill before us more or less as soon as Her Majesty’s ink is dry on Royal Assent. That is one way of dealing with it, and I gather the idea is that we pass this Bill and then start amending it. But to me, that seems a little weird, given that this Bill is before us now and can be amended in the way required by the December agreement so that we get it correct now. That would provide certainty and would ensure that it is in the correct form—I am sure that if the wording is not quite right, the noble and learned Lord can correct it. It would mean that it is done in good time and not at a rush after October or whenever everything else is settled.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to be able—I use that term advisedly—to respond to the issues raised in the context of these amendments. Given the scope of the contributions, I will perhaps begin by touching on one or two points that have been made by noble Lords in the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, referred to the content of the joint report and quoted, among other things, the phrase,
“the Agreement should also establish”.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, did likewise, and referred to the passage about the bestowal of rights that will come with the conclusion of the withdrawal agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, referred to Michel Barnier’s recent draft—quite accurately, if I may say so. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, pointed out that the European Parliament will have to agree to the terms of any withdrawal agreement. That is self-evident.
In other words, these matters are prospective. Why are they prospective? I do not want to be overly technical, and I do not believe that I will be, but we begin with the duality principle of our law. That means that we enter into international obligations at the level of international law and they have no direct impact on our domestic law. For example, the withdrawal agreement will be an international treaty entered into by the Executive. We then implement or bring the rights and obligations of that international treaty into domestic law by way of domestic legislation of this Parliament. That is the duality principle: you have international law and you have domestic law, and you can only have the domestic law once you have the international treaty, because it is from the international treaty rights and obligations that you allow the domestic rights and obligations to be brought into our domestic law. What we have at the present time is a joint report from December of last year. We acknowledge that.
Lord Keen of Elie
It is not yet a treaty, if I can anticipate the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, because the position of the EU has been, quite rightly, that there is no agreement until everything is agreed. This has been a staged process. We believe that it is important that we were able to achieve the first stage and that we were able to achieve consensus. It is perhaps better to use the word “consensus” here rather than “agreement”, which can be confusing and sometimes misleading. We have achieved consensus in a number of important areas and, as we carry that forward, we proceed into the negotiation of what will be an international treaty.
As we have said before, once we have that international treaty, we can then draw down from the rights and obligations of that international treaty into domestic law by virtue of the fact that we will bring forward a withdrawal agreement Bill for scrutiny by this Parliament.
Lord Adonis
Can the noble and learned Lord explain to the House the difference between consensus and agreement?
Lord Keen of Elie
One has to be careful in the matter of language. We are at one with regard to the first part of what we want to do in the context of withdrawal, but we do not yet have an agreement that is binding in law with the other EU 27. For example, going forward, and during the subsequent negotiations, the EU may come and go as to the terms of the joint report. Indeed, we saw some indications of that when it came out with its draft recently, where issue was taken with the way in which it expressed some aspects of the joint report, particularly with regard to Northern Ireland. I appreciate that, if you want to construe the term “consensus” in that way, it involves “agreement”. The reason why I am trying to move away from “agreement” is that some see the word and infer that there is some legally binding concept. That is not yet what we have. We have a joint report and, therefore, we have consensus. We are moving on to the overall negotiations on what will ultimately be an international treaty.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
We all hope that this agreement, or whatever word it is, is fixed soon, but it could be quite late. We may not have the withdrawal Bill until sometime next year and it could be that we are due to leave a month or so afterwards. This part of the Bill affects individuals more than businesses and they will not know whether they can go to court until it is fixed—we may not get Royal Assent until a month or two before we leave. Is that really a good way to treat individuals?
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect to the noble Baroness, businesses affect individuals, so it is not appropriate to try to draw a distinction between citizens’ rights and businesses in that context. The right to work involves the right to maintain a business in various countries; you cannot simply draw them apart in that way. As regards regards timing, of course we are concerned to ensure that we achieve a withdrawal agreement sooner rather than later. That is why these negotiations are under way. If perchance no agreement is achieved—and I am not aware of anyone who wishes this, although others will perhaps assert the contrary—we will have to look at how we then deal with matters in the absence of that international agreement.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord and I hear what he is saying about the duality principle. Can he conceive of any circumstances in which the consensus reached between the United Kingdom and the European Union on the way in which we should treat EU citizens in the United Kingdom and United Kingdom citizens in the EU would not be taken forward or would fall apart? Can he see any circumstances where that might happen?
Lord Keen of Elie
At the present time, no, but we are only now undertaking the detailed negotiation of the withdrawal agreement. It may be, for example, that the situation of UK citizens in Europe will alter during the course of those negotiations. It may be that the European Parliament will take a different view on how the rights and interests of those UK citizens in Europe should be approached. The noble and learned Lord will recall that, at an earlier stage, there were some suggestions that the rights of UK citizens in Europe would be limited to the member state in which they were resident at the time of exit. There are all sorts of possibilities and I am not going to indulge in an analysis of those possibilities—we are concerned with achieving certainty. We have achieved, by way of the joint report in December, an expression of joint opinion about where we are going, with regard not only to the rights of EU citizens in the United Kingdom but also to the rights of UK citizens in the EU. Of course we want to bring that in to the final withdrawal agreement, in order that we can then draw it down and implement it in domestic law.
Lord Cormack
My noble and learned friend is being very honest with the Committee, but in a way that gives me some cause for alarm. He has made it absolutely plain that, at the moment, there is no guarantee. Would it still be possible—I believe that it would—for this Government to give and enact in Parliament a guarantee such as this House voted for at the time of the debates on the Article 50 Bill?
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect, no, my Lords, because we are not in a position to guarantee that which has been arrived at in terms of the joint report. For example, we cannot by ourselves guarantee the rights of UK citizens in Europe. To try to dissect the joint report and say, “We’ll take one piece out and leave another piece in”, is not a way forward in the context of an ongoing international-level negotiation. It is not the way in which this Government would proceed in that context.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My noble and learned friend is talking in the context of this being an international treaty that has to be transposed into UK law, but surely the amendment addresses the issue of the supremacy of European Union law, which citizens of the EU currently rely on when they live in this country. I thought that the purpose of the amendment was to make sure that those rights continued to exist and would be clarified. That is all that we asking in the Committee today.
Lord Keen of Elie
With great respect to the noble Baroness, I think that I must respond to my noble friend Lady McIntosh.
Again, that argument rather misses the point, because what we have at the moment is a belief on the basis of the joint report that rights of EU citizens in the UK may be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union after Brexit, but that is not finalised; it is not yet contained in an international treaty agreement.
Baroness Ludford
We have always understood that we cannot unilaterally guarantee in the context of what is now happening an agreement of two parties. What was said from the very beginning, immediately after the referendum, was, “Give a unilateral guarantee and then we can with almost 100% certainty expect full reciprocity”. That was always what was suggested.
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect to the noble Baroness—who I think invited me to drop all the mire; I am not sure what I am supposed to do about that—the expectation of reciprocity is something that we hope to achieve during the negotiation, and that is ongoing.
Lord Keen of Elie
Perhaps I may make a little progress.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, also raised the question of settled status. We are intent on putting in place provision for settled status, which can be done pursuant to regulations made under the immigration legislation, in particular the Immigration Act 1971. We plan to open that application process on a voluntary basis in late 2018 in order that people may begin on it. The noble Baroness suggested that it was inappropriate to have an application process and went on to suggest a light-touch process. I suggest that we have an efficient and effective process from the perspective both of the applicant and of those who have to process it.
The noble Baroness also raised the question of arrivals during the implementation period and the need during the implementation period for those arrivals to register. Again, the final outcome as to the rights and obligations of those who arrive during the implementation period will be the subject of negotiation. We hope to take that forward in due course.
Lord Wigley
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord and I am following what he is saying. Is he in fact confirming that there will be two classes of citizen in Northern Ireland: those who hold Irish citizenship as well and will be able, if there is a border, to cross it totally freely and thus into the rest of Europe, and a second class of UK citizens in Northern Ireland who will not be able to do so?
Lord Keen of Elie
No, my Lords, there will not be two classes of citizens. Let us take a simple example. If I hold USA citizenship and UK citizenship, I can pass between the UK and the USA because I am a citizen of both countries. If I am a citizen of the UK and a citizen of the Republic of Ireland, I can pass between the two countries because I am a citizen of each state. It is not a case of classification; it is simply a matter of status.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Will the noble and learned Lord clarify a point raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley? What is the position of citizens in Gibraltar?
Lord Keen of Elie
Gibraltar is an overseas territory whose people hold UK citizenship. However, if they do not retain citizenship of another EU country after Brexit, they will not be EU citizens.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
As I understand it, they can get a Spanish passport if they so wish, although I do not think that many of them do. Will they continue to be citizens of the United Kingdom and will they be eligible also to get EU citizenship?
Lord Keen of Elie
This seems to confuse a number of different issues because the parallels are the same as those in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. If you are a UK citizen in Gibraltar and you are also entitled to apply for and be granted citizenship of Spain, you will then hold dual nationality or dual citizenship, and as a citizen of Spain, for as long as it remains a member state of the EU, you will enjoy the right to EU citizenship. It is no different from the position in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. In the same way, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford—perhaps referring to something she may have read in the Daily Mail—talked about people applying for citizenship of Malta in order to ensure they can maintain EU citizenship. This is how it happens, but the fundamental point is that you cannot be a citizen of the EU unless you are a citizen of a member state. That is written into the treaties.
It may appear—and it will almost certainly appear to the Chief Whip—that I have digressed slightly from some of the amendments; he will be watching. I just seek to touch on some of them. I hope I covered in my opening remarks some of the points made. Amendments 160 and 170 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and Amendment 202 by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. Unfortunately, she was not here to speak to it, but it was referred to. As I have indicated, at the end of the day, we will have to conclude the negotiations in respect of the withdrawal agreement treaty and then draw it down into our domestic law. Tying Clause 9 to a particular outcome is not going to assist that.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, moved Amendment 210. Again, I hope I have set out the Government’s position on this. We appreciate what we have achieved by way of the joint report, and we go on to the detailed negotiations in the hope it will effectively mean that we can confirm in domestic law not only the rights of EU citizens in the United Kingdom, but the right of UK citizens in the EU.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, moved Amendment 211, which details a requirement to keep equivalence with the EU on rights and protections. Again, this is prospective. We are addressing it in the course of negotiations and we hope to achieve it in many respects. In my view and in the view of the Government, it would not be appropriate to bring this into our domestic law.
Finally, we have Amendments 49 and 52, which I hope I have gone some way to addressing so far. The Bill aims to provide a stable and certain domestic statute book on exit day. That is its point, irrespective of the result of the negotiations and of any final agreement with the EU. Of course, once we achieve a final agreement, we fully appreciate that we are going to have to draw it down into our domestic law. Parliament will have an opportunity to scrutinise it.
Lord Liddle
If, as I am sure we both do not want, the withdrawal agreement is not reached, what then happens to EU citizens’ rights? Do we not have the opportunity now to guarantee them, whatever the case?
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect, if there were no agreement, then it would be for this sovereign Parliament to decide what it was going to do about that in domestic law. We have already made clear expressions of intent as regards their status. There is an issue here of time and place. While I understand the expressions of concern that we have heard from across the House, this is not the time and this Bill is not the place for these amendments. In these circumstances, I invite noble Lords not to press them.
Lord Patten of Barnes
I wonder if I could put one point to the noble and learned Lord before he sits down. As ever, what he said was intellectually lucid and stimulating. I just want to jog back to what he said about consensus and agreement. It is a very important distinction and I am sure it will be interesting to all his ministerial colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and to diplomats around the world. How does this distinction translate into other languages? Does he think that our interlocutors in Brussels regard what we appeared to accept in December as a consensus or as an agreement? Does he think that they will now be quite relaxed if we walk away from some of what was a consensus because it was not an agreement? I should like to be a little clearer on this. It is going to be very important as we go through this debate when we are told that things are part of a consensus and not part of an agreement. If, with his usual intellectual authority, he could explain that to naive, one-time make-believe diplomats like me, I should be grateful.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am most obliged to the noble Lord, if only for the compliment. As I sought to explain, we have the joint report and we have embraced it. We go on now to the next stage of negotiation. I used the term “consensus”, perhaps ill advisedly, to underline the point that we have not yet signed a binding agreement in international law—we have not yet achieved a treaty. We strive to achieve a treaty, and in striving to achieve that treaty we have in mind what we have already achieved in the joint report. But we acknowledge, as the EU itself has noted, that we have not yet placed that in the form of a treaty that is binding in international law. Until we do that, we do not draw it down into domestic law.
Lord Adonis
Does the noble and learned Lord envisage that Her Majesty’s Government might resile from any of the commitments they gave in the consensus they reached at the end of last year?
Lord Keen of Elie
I do not even imagine that Her Majesty’s Government would wish to do anything of the sort.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, one of my comrades, if I may use that word in this place, commented that I was unduly brief in my introduction—or perhaps it was unusually brief; it was one or the other. That was because I stuck precisely to the terms of my amendment. The debate, however, has gone much wider than that. We have heard some powerful, passionate pleas on behalf of the rights of European Union citizens. We have heard them from colleagues on all sides of the House, and it is important to note that it is not just the opposition parties arguing this: support has come from the Cross Benches and from the Conservative Benches.
One of the ironies is that if European Union citizens has been given the right to vote in the referendum—they are taxpayers: “no taxation without representation”—as they were in the Scottish referendum, we would not now be going through this tortuous procedure. We would be getting on with running the country, looking after education, health, justice and all the things we should be doing as the sovereign Parliament.
My noble friend Lady Prosser put it very well: the reputation of the United Kingdom is at stake in all the matters that we are looking at today. The arguments put forward by my colleagues on behalf of all the amendments in the group were very powerful.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Could he add that European Union citizens will be allowed to vote in the forthcoming council elections in May?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Indeed, and as I understand it, if I read the Evening Standard right, they are going to send a very strong message as far as London is concerned about what they think of this Government.
I conclude by saying that I wish I was learned as well as noble, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, because I would then be able to understand some of the detail rather more precisely.
Lord Adonis
Before my noble friend concludes, does he share my concern about what the Minister said about the difference between “consensus” and “agreement”? Does he agree that that is quite a significant statement on the part of the Government in the course of this debate? The only point in making the distinction, as I understand it, is that the Government do not regard themselves as fully committed to the terms of the “agreement” of last December.
Lord Keen of Elie
It is unusual for me to intervene, but I feel that if the noble Lord is going to make statements, he should make them accurately. If he is going to represent what a Minister has said, he should do so accurately. The distinction I drew was between an agreement that was now binding in international law and an agreement that was not now binding in international law. I hope the noble Lord’s recollection coincides with mine. If it does not, could he perhaps consult Hansard?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
It is a very interesting point, and the noble Lord, Lord Patten, highlighted it in his intervention. I wish that while he was speaking I had been able to translate “consensus” and “agreement” into Spanish, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, Welsh and so on to see whether there is a coincidence between one and the other. No doubt that is something that we can return to.
The Minister finished by saying that there is a time and a place, and that this is not the right time and not the right place for these amendments. There will be many more times and this will be the right place, and I look forward to speaking to the rights of European—
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Does the noble Lord agree that although on the legalities we have heard an extremely lucid explanation that in my view nobody could disagree with, delivered with all the noble and learned Lord’s customary charm, what we have not heard is any indication that anybody is aware of the reality in the outside world: that these people are choosing to go home? The people we need are going back because the Government are not giving them an assurance. These people believe that we agreed something in November. What we are seeing now in this intellectually fascinating legal debate is a total betrayal of their belief that we had agreed something. The pace at which people move away from this country—people who we need—will speed up if we do not get this right.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, for pointing out that although the Minister has all the legality behind him, perhaps his argument is lacking in humanity. It is humanity that the European Union citizens deserve, not the legality that we have heard.
I was about to conclude by saying that this may not be the right time but it is certainly the right place. I look forward to returning to this, and I know that many noble Lords who have spoken do also, to argue and to fight for the rights of not just UK citizens on the continent, who matter as well, but the European Union citizens who have given so much to this country over the years and continue to do so.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
It is worth pointing out that these citizens have existing rights by law in this country, and that will remain the case until these provisions are repealed, if and when they are.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The noble and learned Lord is a distinguished lawyer and had great distinction as the Lord Chancellor. Perhaps he can explain to the European Union citizens in Scotland, where he and I both live, why they were allowed to vote in the Scottish referendum but not in the European Union referendum. Many of them have asked me but I do not have the intellect or ability to answer them; perhaps the noble and learned Lord can.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
That does not appear to be entirely relevant to the present debate and it is a bit late anyway. I had very little to do with the formulation of the franchise.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I think now it would be appropriate for me to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I rather hope that the modest amendments in my name do not take the House two hours to deliberate over. They focus on a narrow set of issues relating to pending cases.
Amendment 62 would allow our domestic courts, subject to the terms of the withdrawal or transitional agreement, to refer cases to the CJEU after exit day if the course of action arose before exit day. Amendment 61 would require the Government to obtain from the CJEU and then publish a list of pending cases referred to domestic courts before exit day. Amendment 64 changes the definition of retained EU case law to include case law relating to pending cases referred to the CJEU before exit day.
These amendments were drawn from the Constitution Committee’s excellent report on the Bill and essentially aim to deal with two issues: first, pending cases in domestic courts that might have been referred to the CJEU and, secondly, pending cases already lodged with the CJEU before exit day. In the first instance I am really asking for the Government’s assurance that, in any withdrawal or transition agreement, they will seek to clarify whether domestic courts can continue to make reference to the CJEU in relation to cases that began before exit day. I can see that there has to be a cut-off point for references but it is the timing of that point which concerns me. What criteria will Ministers apply and how will these be written into the agreement in such a way as to guarantee, and not undermine, procedural fairness and access to justice?
It may seem that this is a small or insignificant matter but, given the wide range of issues that the court considers, I think not. After all, it looks at everything from trademarks to intellectual property rights, workplace rights and even the distribution of EU funds. Given that cases started before the Prime Minister triggered Article 50 are likely to be treated differently from those which followed it, it is surely important that principles of fairness and consistency enter into any agreement which the Government can sign.
The second type of pending cases, dealt with in Amendment 64, will be those that are already with the CJEU. In another place, the Solicitor-General argued that these cases would simply continue. That is fine as far as it goes but, as the Constitution Committee pointed out, the Government intend to provide for these pending cases to be covered in the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill. But what happens to those cases if there is no deal? Would it not make sense to have a saving provision in the Bill saying simply that any case that is with the CJEU is determined to be treated as contributing to pre-exit case law, and in turn forms part of retained EU case law?
The Constitution Committee’s proposal that the Government should produce a list of cases on exit day that would be treated in this way made very good sense. To my way of thinking, that is a logical way of handling quite a complex set of legal issues, which are obviously well beyond my sort of competence as a non-lawyer. However, I hope that the Minister can satisfy my curiosity and set out how the Government intend to proceed. I also hope that he can satisfy the Constitution Committee, which I thought had a rather neat solution to the problem. Pending cases are of great value and will be of great interest to colleagues. I am hopeful that the Government can satisfy my simple concerns and provide us with an explanation that works. I fear that we will otherwise end up with something of a case law muddle. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right that this is not a small or insignificant matter. It is an important one with rule-of-law implications. The starting point, as he explained, is his proposed Amendment 62 which, if agreed, would add a new paragraph (6C), the purpose of which would be to encourage the negotiation of an agreement that cases can continue to be referred to the CJEU by our own courts after exit day. That would relate to new cases where the cause of action arose prior to exit day. This is logical because the important point is about whether the full remedies currently available to litigants, potential litigants and, importantly, our courts remain until we leave, while the law of the EU remains in place.
Of course, being able to refer such cases depends on an agreement, the very agreement that my noble friend’s amendment would make it an objective to negotiate. We will not be able to refer cases to the court in Luxembourg after exit day, except by agreement with the EU in such an agreement. But he is also right that there is a risk—although we hope very much that it will not happen—that if we end up without a withdrawal agreement, there would need to be legislation enabling this to continue to take place. So the principle of the amendments seems entirely right, and he is right to say that this was dealt with by the Constitution Committee at paragraphs 150 and 153 of its excellent report.
Perhaps I may refer to what the committee said in paragraph 153, having made the point that my noble friend has identified:
“We recommend that, irrespective of any implementation bill, pending cases are dealt with in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. We further recommend that rulings on cases that have been referred to the CJEU before exit day are treated as pre-exit case law—such that they form part of ‘retained EU case law’—and that the Government publishes, on exit day, a list of all such cases”.
The middle part of that, on what the significance is of,
“rulings on cases that have been referred … before exit day”,
is dealt with in a later amendment. But, as he has said, the requirement that the Government should publish a list of all such cases is dealt with in these amendments. He is right to say that the Solicitor-General in another place referred to the importance of knowing, at least as I read his remarks, what those cases are.
It seems that there has to be a justification, although I can see none, for depriving litigants and our courts of the ability to refer cases to the CJEU. It is important that noble Lords are clear on the fact that that does not mean sending cases to the CJEU for it to decide; it is for that court to determine questions of interpretation, as the treaty currently provides, although the interpretation given may in fact then decide the case. Our own courts would then take the interpretation provided by the European court and apply it to the case before them.
I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness or the noble and learned Lord, depending on who will respond to the debate—forgive me, of course it is the noble Baroness the Minister—will say to my noble friend.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, this may have been a short debate but it concerns a significant issue, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for their contributions. I am aware that a key issue of interest in this Committee is how pending cases before the European courts will be resolved, and I hope that I can respond relatively briefly to these amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam.
As was acknowledged in their contributions, the Government have been clear regarding their approach to cases which have been referred to the European courts before exit day and we have made good progress in achieving this outcome in our negotiations with the EU. As such, I applaud the similar concern expressed by the noble Lord that there should be legal certainty in this area. However, as I have said previously, and indeed as my ministerial colleagues have also said, the purpose of this Bill is to provide a functioning statute book on the day we leave the EU, irrespective of the result of the negotiations on any final agreement with the EU.
The Government have been clear throughout the passage of the Bill through this House and the other place that it is not intended in any way to prejudge the negotiations or to predict an agreement between the UK and the EU on their future relationship. For that reason, I would submit that the Bill is not a suitable vehicle for such amendments to take effect. Future legislation will be needed to implement the withdrawal agreement, including the treatment of cases that are pending before the European Court of Justice. That legislation will need to be informed by the precise terms of the agreement. The Government have already committed to introducing a withdrawal agreement and an implementation Bill, but let me try to clarify a couple of the specific points raised.
I think it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, who in effect asked about the status of a case that has been referred to the European court before exit, but does not proceed to a judgment until after then. The intention is that a case which starts and has been referred to that court before exit would proceed to a judgment, which our courts would be bound by. That is the intention but—let me make this clear—this is pending an agreement with the EU about these issues. In relation to the request of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for a list my understanding is that, at the moment, cases registered at the Court of Justice of the European Union are made available online, so after our withdrawal we will have certainty as to how many pending UK cases have been referred to the court.
I apologise to the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord if I have not specifically addressed some of their concerns. The difficulty, as was made clear in December, is that there is a clear statement of intention made in good faith by the Government, surrounding heads of agreement that have been achieved between the United Kingdom and the EU. But we need to continue with our negotiations to fine tune that, and hopefully then reduce it all to the final agreement. But I cannot pre-empt what may be in the final agreement and I hope that, in these circumstances, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Goldsmith
I apologise for not having properly identified the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, as the Minister responding to this debate. I wonder whether she will allow me to just press one question. She has very helpfully identified the position in relation to pending cases that have started but for which rulings have not been given at the date of exit. These amendments include an additional category of cases, as I understand it, such as cases where the cause of action has arisen prior to exit: for example, where EU law is in place and there is an issue of EU law that a litigant wants to raise but they have not actually started the case at the moment we leave; or where the case has started but a reference has not been made at that stage, because the court does not make a reference until it comes to a particular point in the proceedings. In line with her helpful answer in relation to the category of cases that are pending in the CJEU at the date of exit, does she think the same principle ought to apply, subject to agreement, to cases where the cause of action has arisen before exit or the case has started but not got any further than that? Could she help on that point?
Baroness Goldie
I thank the noble and learned Lord for his point, but I am afraid my response is going to be slightly less encouraging for him. The position of the Government is that we do not agree that new cases should be initiated post exit, even when these refer to pre-exit causes of action, because it would lead to an uncertain environment. It would be impossible to predict for how long the European Court of Justice would continue to issue judgments in respect of the UK. That, in the opinion of the Government, would strike at the underlying purpose of this Bill, which is to try to achieve a snapshot—to use that phrase again—as at the date of exit.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
I am grateful to the Minister for her response. She partly satisfied my concern, but not wholly. I do not really think it is satisfactory that the cases that will be floating around in the ether will be left with the degree of uncertainty that she has suggested may be the case. The fact that the legislation that is going to cover this point will be left until the final Bill—the transition and withdrawal Bill or whatever it is finally called—does not satisfy me greatly. I think that will leave uncertainty for litigants in cases that could be incredibly complicated. I am rather worried that this issue is going to get caught up in the Government’s general dislike for the CJEU. My recollection is that this is one of Theresa May’s red lines: she does not like the CJEU and therefore part of taking back control is getting rid of it. We have got news for the Minister dealing with this: it is going to take the UK some time to extract itself from CJEU processes. The quicker the Government wake up to that fact, the easier it will be for us all to deal with it. In becoming more realistic in their approach to the court, the Government will give some greater certainty as to how we intend to proceed in future.
While I am happy to withdraw my amendment for the moment, I may come back to this at a later stage, because our legal system and litigants require greater certainty. This is not necessarily the small issue I dreamed it might be when I came across it in the Constitution Committee’s excellent report. I am grateful for the debate we have had, but I am not so grateful for the answer. We will probably require a bit more from the Minister at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Pannick
“(2) A court or tribunal may regard the decisions of the European Court made on or after exit day to be persuasive.”
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the two amendments in this group address the important question of the weight, if any, to be given to the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union which are delivered after exit day. Amendment 55 is in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Adonis. Amendment 56 is in my name and those of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Goldsmith and Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham.
Amendment 56 would implement the recommendation of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee at paragraph 142 of our report on the Bill. After exit day, there is no dispute that our courts will make their own judgments on retained EU law. They will not be bound by judgments given by the court of justice after exit day. While judgments given before exit day will bind our courts up to the level of the Supreme Court, those given after exit day will not be binding. But our judges will wish to look at the judgments of the court of justice in Luxembourg delivered after exit day. That is not just because our judges are always interested, and rightly so, in seeing how courts in other jurisdictions address the same or similar issues. The connection here is much stronger. The retained EU law, which our courts will be interpreting, owes its origins to the institutions of the EU and there may be very good reasons for our courts looking carefully at how the court of justice has interpreted after exit day the same or a similar provision.
There are three problems with Clause 6(2) as currently drafted. First, it begins in a negative way by stating that a domestic court “need not have regard” to judgments delivered by the court of justice after exit day. That default position is unhelpful because it may be understood to suggest that our judges should not normally have any regard to post-exit day judgments of the court of justice.
Secondly, the end of Clause 6(2) allows the courts here to have regard to post-exit day judgments of the European court only if our courts consider it “appropriate to do so”. But judges do not look at foreign judgments because it is appropriate to do so; they look abroad for assistance because the foreign judgment is relevant to the issue that they are deciding. The terminology matters here. The use of “appropriate” wrongly suggests that our court will be making a policy choice to have regard to a post-exit day judgment from Luxembourg. Senior members of the judiciary have understandably expressed concern that if Clause 6(2) is left in its current form, the courts will inevitably be criticised for making a policy choice in this context.
I should make it clear that of course I do not speak for the judiciary, but I do speak to them. I can tell the Committee that many senior judges are very concerned about the content of Clause 6(2). Paragraphs 134 and 135 of the report of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee record the evidence that was given by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, the President of the Supreme Court, and her predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, who I am pleased to see in his place today. The concern of the senior judiciary is not that judges should be shielded from criticism or that they are not tough enough to withstand it. The point is that confidence in the rule of law is undermined if judges are seen to be taking sensitive policy decisions that are for Parliament to make. Clause 6 therefore needs to make it much clearer that although our judges are certainly not going to be bound by Luxembourg judgments handed down after exit day, Parliament does intend our judges to have regard to judgments of that court given after exit day where they consider that those judgments are relevant to the issues before our courts.
The third defect of Clause 6(2) as currently drafted is that it suggests that the same principles apply to decisions of “another EU entity or the EU” itself. I am doubtful that there is any need to mention other EU entities or the EU itself, or certainly to compare them with the European court itself.
Amendment 56 seeks to address the issues in a manner which gives much clearer guidance to our courts. It would make it clear that our judges must have regard to a post-exit day judgment of the European court if the domestic court considers it relevant to do so. It would also add that in deciding the significance of any such post-exit day European court judgment, the domestic court should have regard to the terms of any agreement that is reached between the UK and the EU which it considers to be relevant. The terms of the withdrawal agreement, if and when approved by Parliament, will identify the relationship between the UK and the EU post exit day, and that will give considerable guidance to the courts.
I emphasise, however, that at all times under Amendment 56 and indeed under Amendment 55, it will be for the domestic court to decide on the significance, if any, of the Luxembourg judgment. There is no dispute over the fact that our judges will remain in charge in relation to post-exit day judgments. However, Amendment 56 would provide the guidance that they are seeking and which, I suggest, they are entitled to expect. I beg to move.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, there is little to add to the excellent introduction made to these amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, except to say that decisions of the other courts which currently have persuasive authority include those of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, decisions of higher-level foreign courts, especially in the Commonwealth and other similar jurisdictions, and one that I have a particular interest in, being a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe; namely, decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, which under the Human Rights Act 1998 must be taken into account by UK courts. It is right that the European Court of Justice should have a similar role and persuasive powers.
Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury (CB)
My Lords, Clause 6 is concerned with the issue of how the large body of retained EU law is to be interpreted by judges. It is an important issue because it is a fundamental principle that the law should be clear and consistent, but also because the topic could lead to ill-informed political and media attacks on the judges, to which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has referred, which would undermine the rule of law at home, the reputation of English law abroad and the consequential attraction of London as a global dispute resolution centre. Your Lordships will no doubt recall one such Brexit-related attack on the judiciary that received worldwide publicity. Clause 6 should be worded with a view to clarifying the law and minimising the risk of such attacks. Quite apart from that, I suggest that we need to think through the implications for the UK legal system and its attraction to others when it comes to developing our own system of retained EU law. I cannot pretend that this issue is easy to resolve but it is an appropriate opportunity to explain the context from a judicial perspective.
At the moment, at any rate, the Government envisage that post-Brexit the UK courts will, at least in general, no longer be subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ and so will be free to interpret EU law as they see fit. This gives rise to two closely related problems. The first is: what principles of interpretation are to be applied to that retained EU law? Secondly, what use can be made of ECJ case law when carrying out that interpretation exercise?
On the first problem, unlike normal UK legislation, which is generally tightly drawn, EU legislation is relatively loosely drafted, leaving the judges to resolve ambiguities and fill gaps. Some EU legislation is of course drafted on the basis that it will be interpreted to give effect to fundamental EU aims, such as ever closer union and the strengthening of the internal market, which may well be no longer relevant to the UK after Brexit. In providing that general principles of interpretation set out in pre-Brexit ECJ decisions will be applied by UK judges after Brexit, Clause 6(3) in its present form none the less has the effect of maintaining all those interpretive principles, although by virtue of Clause 6(5) it would be open to the Supreme Court to depart from such decisions.
The second, related problem is the use of ECJ case law. In her speech last week, the Prime Minister said that,
“where appropriate, our courts will continue to look at the ECJ’s judgments, as they do for the appropriate jurisprudence of other countries’ courts”,
and added that,
“if, as part of our future partnership, Parliament passes an identical law to an EU law, it may make sense for our courts to look at the appropriate ECJ judgments so that we both interpret those laws consistently”.
That sounds fine but things are not quite so straightforward. The Bill sensibly provides that the UK courts must follow the pre-Brexit decisions of the ECJ although, as I have said, Clause 6(4) states that the Supreme Court can depart from those decisions in the same circumstances as it can depart from its own decisions. By contrast, where there is a post-Brexit ECJ decision, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has explained, Clause 6(2) provides that a court,
“need not have regard to”,
such a decision,
“but may do so if it considers it appropriate”.
That gives precious little guidance to a judge—indeed, as I will mention later, possibly unhelpful guidance from the point of view of the judiciary’s reputation—as to how to approach post-Brexit ECJ decisions.
It has been suggested that a judge could be assisted by the approach that courts have taken when looking for guidance from decisions of courts in other jurisdictions. However, courts in this country normally do this when looking for general principles or when considering the scope of human rights conventions. That is not really a sound analogy because Clause 6(2) would normally apply to a case where a judge was looking at an ECJ decision on the interpretation of specific legislation. It has also been suggested that a judge could get help from cases that have stressed the desirability of UK courts taking account of decisions of overseas courts so as to reach a uniform interpretation, but that does not provide a real analogy either because EU law is unlike those conventions: it is a law of a union from which the UK will have departed because it does not want to have such uniformity, although accepting that it may be desirable in some cases.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said, Clause 6(2) in its present form appears to indicate that there is a presumption against following decisions of the ECJ but that judges can follow such judgments in this country if they think it appropriate. That would suggest, as again he says, that judges would be expected to make decisions that were essentially political—in particular, whether to align the UK with an ECJ interpretation against the statutory presumption for policy-type reasons, or to depart from the ECJ interpretation.
Given that pre-Brexit decisions of the ECJ are, sensibly, to be determinative on questions of interpretation, both consistency of approach and the experience of the ECJ as interpreters of EU law support the notion that post-Brexit ECJ decisions should be given the same effect, at least where the retained legislation has not been changed. However, if this is not to be the policy, rather than leaving any new policy to be worked out by the courts, which is the effect of Clause 6(2), there is obvious force in the notion that Parliament should clearly state what the new policy is. Similarly, Clause 6(4) is questionable in providing that the Supreme Court should decide whether to adhere to pre-Brexit ECJ decisions or whether new principles of interpretation should apply, because principles to sustain ever closer union or single market freedoms are no longer relevant interpretative considerations in the UK.
There are various possible solutions that need careful consideration, given that this issue is so important, and I shall present some examples. First, the interpretative approach should follow a policy decision set out either in the amendments to be made to EU legislation under powers granted in the Bill or in the final agreement reached between the UK and the EU, and given formal parliamentary approval. In relation to issues not covered by such arrangements, it could be provided that retained EU law was to be interpreted without any departure from existing principles of interpretation. If that were not an acceptable solution, the courts could be given more specific assistance as to how to interpret legislation, in particular whether or not to continue alignment.
Secondly, as some amendments before your Lordships’ House today indicate, including those that were moved just now, post-Brexit decisions of the ECJ could be regarded as persuasive or it could be provided that UK courts must have regard to them if relevant, and that in determining relevance the court should have regard to any relevant agreement between the EU and the UK. Such formulations would probably be better than the present Clause 6(2) but they do not address all the perceived problems.
Thirdly, Clause 6(2) could be omitted altogether. At the moment, it seems to me that, with respect, the present clause is worse than nothing from the judicial perspective. First, it creates the presumption to which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has referred, and secondly it uses the word “appropriate”, which suggests a policy role for the judges. That would leave them more exposed in both what they do and what they may be perceived to be doing.
Fourthly, more specific interpretative guidance could be given, bearing in mind the particular circumstances of Brexit and the particular way in which EU legislation is crafted, so that decisions on differing political issues are not left to the judges. The argument that telling judges how to interpret the law could be a precedent for ordinary parliamentary legislation can arguably at least be met by the point that this is a unique circumstance. It would also have the advantage of providing clarity for the UK’s relationship, including its trading relationship, with the other states of Europe and elsewhere.
I hope these issues and the choices they reflect will be subject to proper scrutiny and discussion. The right solution will not only protect the independence of the judiciary but will demonstrate that decisions of a political nature should not be left to judges, and it will help to achieve the legal clarity that is so important to the rule of law and to the future of this country’s trading and other relationships with the EU and other states.
As I hope I have indicated, I accept that there are no perfect answers. That is unsurprising. The incorporation of pre-Brexit—but only pre-Brexit—EU law into UK law requires a sort of multidimensional Procrustean solution. In so far as the Bill requires the judges to perform the role of Procrustes, Parliament should do all that it can to ensure that the judges do not suffer the fate of Procrustes.
Lord Adonis
The noble and learned Lord has made a number of strong statements to the Committee about the impact, as he regards it, of Clause 6(2) on judicial independence and the reputation of the judiciary. In particular he objects, as did the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to giving the courts the discretion to reach a judgment on whether it is appropriate to have regard to the European court. Proposed subsection (2B) in Amendment 56 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, states:
“In determining the significance of any judgment … the court or tribunal must have regard to the terms of any agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU which it considers relevant”.
To a layman, this clearly involves an exercise of judicial discretion. So why is the judicial discretion in subsection (2B) set out in Amendment 56 potentially any less damaging and likely to be conducive to controversy than the existing Clause 6(2)?
Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury
I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, whose amendment it is, is better placed to answer. My answer would be twofold. First, it specifically tells the judge what to have regard to; it does not leave it completely open. Secondly, it uses a rather more familiar expression, “relevant”. A judge will be able to say, “When construing this, I have looked at the document”—namely, the agreement referred to in subsection (2B)—“to which I am required to have regard. In my view, it tells me to do this or that”. It is specific guidance, albeit indirect specific guidance, through the agreement referred to in subsection (2B), whereas the term “appropriate” leaves it completely open for the judge to decide whether it is appropriate, if I may use that word, to consider matters that he or she is not specifically told to take into account. The judge has to make the decision, “Do I think about x; do I take that into account?” Here, the judge knows what he or she has to take into account because it is spelled out; namely, the agreement.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, I hesitate to follow the very careful analysis of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, but perhaps I can add a few words. We are all trying to find the best way of expressing in clear and simple language, in statutory form, the guidance that the courts and tribunals will need about the interpretation of retained EU law. In particular, Clause 3 is about direct EU legislation which we will be receiving in the language of the directives and regulations to which this clause refers.
The position is fairly clear about judgments or decisions of the CJEU before exit day. That is retained EU case law which is referred to in Clause 6(3) and we are not in any difficulty on that; rather, it is what to do about the future. Had it not been for the concerns expressed by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, about the risk of being criticised for being drawn into areas of policy, I would have been content to see Clause 6(2) deleted and to rely simply on the normal, traditional way in which comparative law is applied by courts up and down the country. I have been doing this ever since I started sitting as a judge. Of course, there are examples outside the particular area we are dealing with here of conventions to which we are a party and which need to be interpreted. One looks at other jurisdictions to see how the language of a convention is interpreted and applied. This is a normal part of our jurisprudence and it would have been enough. However, I recognise the force of the points made in their evidence to the Constitution Committee and today by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, and I think that we have to do something to give the guidance for which they are looking.
One should also bear in mind that it will be some time before the Supreme Court handles cases of this kind. We are talking about tribunals as well as courts at every level. I am sure that when the Supreme Court gets hold of the thing, it will be astute enough to give the kind of guidance that one normally gets from the higher courts, but we have to look at the beginning of the process.
On the table at the moment we have Clause 6(2) as it stands and Amendment 56 from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me when I say that I think his amendment is like the curate’s egg. There are bits of it which I rather like and bits which I would prefer to drop, and the same goes for Clause 6(2). I suggest an amalgamation of the best bits of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the best bits of Clause 6(2).
Lord Hope of Craighead
Not at all. It is curing the curate’s egg and producing an acceptable piece of guidance which has the best bits of both, which is what we need to look for. I am not cherry-picking; I am analysing.
Lord Hope of Craighead
No, this is analysis. Let me explain what I would like to do.
I quite like the words of Clause 6(2) as it stands:
“A court or tribunal need not have regard to”,
a judgment or decision given by the European Court on or after the exit day because that fits very well with the way we are looking at the position before exit day. It is certainly true that it is a negative way of putting it, but I regard it as a helpful transition to the new situation. However, I do not like the remainder of Clause 6(2) for the very reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, explained. That is where I would like to bring in the passages from the latter part of his formula, which are that a court or tribunal may have regard to such judgments or decisions where it considers them relevant for the proper interpretation of retained EU law.
I would take out “appropriate” from Clause 6(2), for reasons that have been referred to already, and would leave out the early part of proposed new subsection (2A) in Amendment 56 where “must” is used. I would prefer “may” to “must”, leaving it to the court to make its own decision regarding whether the matter is relevant.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Would Amendment 55 tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Adonis not deal with the noble and learned Lord’s points?
Lord Hope of Craighead
I am very grateful to the noble Lord and I apologise for not having paid due regard to that formula because the wording is exactly what I am looking for, but I am trying to fit it into the opening words of Clause 6(2). However, it is certainly right; I respectfully suggest that “may” is the right word to use. It is better to add in the bit about,
“where it considers it relevant”,
which is what comes from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. So one is putting together bits and pieces of thought from various attempts to produce a formula.
Perhaps I may read out again for Hansard’s benefit how I suggest the provision might run: “A court or tribunal need not have regard to a judgment or decision given by the European Court on or after exit day, but it may have regard to it where it considers this relevant for the proper interpretation of retained EU law”. If “may” is used—although the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, will correct me—proposed new subsection (2C) in Amendment 56 will no longer be relevant. I say nothing about subsection (2B) which may have force and value if the court requires guidance as to what to do with the agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU.
I hope that that contribution will give the Minister something else to think about. I think that we all hope that on Report he may be able to come back with a formula which we can all endorse.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, perhaps I may add a few words, simply because of the devoted affection in the Bill for the word “appropriate”. It is larded through the document. Its inappropriateness in this particular context needs to be underlined—I shall come back to it at a later stage under different clauses. It is terribly simple: if something is relevant to a court’s decision, it is likely to be appropriate that the court should look at it. If something is irrelevant to the court’s decision, it cannot possibly be appropriate for the court to look at it. So the term “appropriate” should go.
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, I rather agree that “appropriate” is not particularly desirable. I wonder whether putting “helpful” in Clause 6(2) would more accurately reflect the way that courts generally consider law from other jurisdictions in developing the law—one always invites courts if they find a particular decision to be helpful—whereas I understand that “appropriate” is considered perhaps to have too much of a political charge. However, I do not wholly understand why the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, finds the initial words of Clause 6(2) rather offensive, where it says:
“A court or tribunal need not have regard”.
All that is saying is that they are not obliged to have regard—I do not think it says any more. I personally read no particular charge in it, and I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, would agree.
There is something of an irony about these amendments, in that the only way to have real certainty would be to tell the court either to disregard it or to follow it. In a sense, we are dealing with an imperfect situation. We are trying, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, said, to craft something which helps judges by reducing any political element in their decision-making but which—I am sorry to use a political expression—allows our courts to take back control. In order to take back control, I am happy that they should have a great deal of freedom to do so without in any sense involving them in a political decision.
Amendment 56 from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others is of course much longer than the original wording, with three subsections as opposed to one. Respectfully, I say that using words such as “relevant” is only quite helpful, because in any event a court will ignore matters that are irrelevant. I feel similarly about the word “significance”: a court will itself have to decide significance. That of course may offend the political element but, if something is insignificant, the court will disregard it in any event. Although I understand what lies behind this amendment, I am not sure that it really does the trick.
It is not just out of nominative loyalty that I turn to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, but because he may be on to something. I agree with the use of “may”, which was endorsed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I am not quite so sure about “persuasive”, but I will listen to what the noble and learned Lord says. However, I like the succinct nature of the amendment and it seems to me to allow our courts the freedom that we have, as it were, granted them by the decision that the country has made in the referendum, but nevertheless not to compromise them.
Lord Hope of Craighead
Does the noble Lord have any reaction to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about the reference to,
“another EU entity or the EU”,
in Clause 6(2) as it stands? Section 3(1) of the European Communities Act 1972 does not mention these and refers only to the European Court of Justice, so it may be that there is no need to refer to these entities and we can confine it to the European Court of Justice.
Lord Faulks
I take that point from the noble and learned Lord. I wait to hear from the Minister why he considers that it needs to be included; at the moment, I am none the wiser.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Foulkes and I are basking in the judicial praise we have received this afternoon for Amendment 55. We put our pen to paper on it with no legal training whatever. Perhaps we should offer advice, which no doubt will be very expensively provided after this Bill becomes law, because we are able to cut through the issues with such great clarity. I note also that Amendment 55 is by far the shorter of those we are currently debating, so clearly we were able to summarise these matters succinctly.
I have listened to the debate and I am still none the wiser about the real difference, in plain English, between “relevant” and “appropriate”. I simply cannot understand it. I was astonished at the vehemence of the statement from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, about the impact that this would have on the judiciary where a court is expected to decide that something is relevant rather than appropriate. It seems to me that in plain English these words have precisely the same meaning. They both require a court to exercise discretion and, to me, they look to require it to exercise precisely the same discretion. Unless the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, can lay out for us some compelling arguments, as he always does with such lucidity, it looks as if it does not matter one way or the other what we do here. It is a straightforward matter of whether or not courts are prepared to be robust in reaching their decisions.
Lord Pannick
There is no doubt that there has to be judicial discretion, the question is the extent to which guidance is given to the court. To suggest to the court that it should exercise its discretion by reference to whether something is appropriate suggests, does it not, that it is to make a policy decision? The question is whether something is relevant, meaning legally relevant by reference to the particular issue that arises before the court in its legal context.
Lord Adonis
The word “relevant” does not, in any normal meaning of the word, mean legally relevant, any more than the word “appropriate” means legally inappropriate.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, can I make a confession before we go further? I cannot claim credit for the wording of this amendment. The credit must go to Michael Clancy of the Law Society of Scotland—that is why it is better than I would have done. The Law Society of Scotland says that,
“‘persuasive authority’ is a recognised aspect of the doctrine of stare decisis or precedent. Persuasive decisions are not technically binding but the courts can pay special attention to them”.
I mentioned the three courts earlier: the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the Court of Human Rights and the supreme courts of Commonwealth countries. It seems to me to be a very good amendment, but I do not want to take credit for it, as that must go to someone else.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is wondering why the word “appropriate” does not fit into the context of trying to limit judicial discretion, he should look at how many times it is used in this and other Bills to give Ministers the opportunity to decide one way or the other, in what are quite clearly different kinds of decisions from those you would expect judges to make.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick said in reply is in my experience absolutely right. To a judge, the word “relevant” requires him to look at the issues that need to be decided. It is a much tighter word than “appropriate”, and is used frequently. In case law, one searches for the point that is directly relevant to the point at issue. It may be that legal terminology is best adopted because that is what judges understand. It is a different kind of word from “appropriate”, which judges do not normally use. Therefore, I suggest it is a better word to use in this context.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, given the time, it may be relevant, appropriate or even helpful to try to wind up this particular debate, although not in such a way that undermines the very real importance of the amendment.
I want to underline two aspects. The first aspect is legal certainty, which was referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. It is very important, for example, that in considering cases where retained EU law is in question, people and businesses are able to recognise that if there are decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union that are relevant, then it is likely—though not an obligation—that the courts will take them into account. They can order their affairs on that basis, and that is a critical part of legal certainty. It seems right, therefore, that this amendment, to which I have added my name, gives direction or guidance that where such decisions are relevant to the interpretation of retained EU law they should be paid regard.
The second principle is the independence of our judiciary. It is right in this context to refer to the shocking instance of the attack on our judiciary that took place at the time of the Article 50 decision. It was shocking not just that our judiciary was referred to in such terms by a popular newspaper but that it was not immediately defended and the accusation rejected by the Government, including Ministers whose job it was to do so. In dealing with this particular amendment we have to be alive to the risk that if after exit day a judge chooses—because he or she believes it right or relevant to do so; whatever word you want to use—to make reference to a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union, that judge is not then subjected to a barrage of criticism and the accusation, “How dare you take refuge in decisions of this hated institution, one which we have left, in making decisions on this law?” It is important that we should look at this carefully and make sure that judges are protected.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
Does my noble and learned friend agree that, in all fairness, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, distinctly and clearly criticised those attacking the judiciary at the time that my noble and learned friend mentioned?
Lord Goldsmith
I am grateful for that unexpected intervention from my own Front Bench, but I am happy to take the opportunity to say that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, was one of the few to say the right thing and uphold the independence of the judiciary at the time of that attack. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Beecham for making the point because it deserves to be made.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for making that point. I would add only that I spoke as a Minister of this Government in expressing that view, because I spoke from the Dispatch Box when I made it clear. I can refer the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, to Hansard in regard to that point. Of course, the origins of the remark may not have had quite the impact that it could otherwise have had if coming from another source—I do not seek to elaborate on that point.
Sometimes it comes ill to counsel to listen rather than to speak, but this is an occasion when it is entirely appropriate for me and for the Government to listen to what has been said. I am extremely grateful for the contributions of all noble Lords and noble and learned Lords with regard to the formulation of Clause 6(2). I refer to the formulation of the clause because I believe we have a common desire to ensure that we give appropriate, effective and clear guidance, in so far as it is required, to the judiciary regarding what is a relatively complex issue. Of course the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, pointed out that in the normal way one might delete Clause 6(2) and allow the courts to deal with this as they deal with other matters of comparative law, but he went on to point out—quite correctly, I submit—that here we are dealing with a very particular situation where guidance may be needed. I am conscious of the way in which the various amendments have evolved.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, also referred to Clause 6(4) and the issue of whether and when the Supreme Court might decide whether to adhere to precedents in this context. I bow to the far greater experience of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Neuberger and Lord Hope, who sat in the UK Supreme Court. My limited experience is that, where I attempted to persuade them to adhere or not to adhere to a particular precedent, they had no difficulty in making their own minds up.
Be that as it may, I recognise the force of the points that have been made. They have come from beyond this House as well because, as noble Lords will be aware, the Constitution Committee also made some recommendations about this. Indeed, its early recommendation in March 2017 was,
“the Government may wish to consider whether the Bill should provide that, as a general rule, UK courts ‘may have regard to’ the case law of the Court of Justice (and we stress that it should be optional)”.
Indeed, we were having regard to that as we looked at Clause 6(2).
A point was made about the distinction between “may” and “must” in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. It occurs to me that, where he uses “must”, he goes on in his amendment at (2C) to qualify the context in which that word is used, and there may not be a vast gulf between “may” and “must” in the context of the two amendments that have been tabled. Of course, that which was recommended by the Law Society of Scotland has the merit of some simplicity and embraces the same point.
At this stage I would add only that the Bingham Centre looked at the current recommendations of the Constitution Committee that lie behind the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and raised concerns about a number of aspects of the formulation put forward by the committee. However, I make it clear that we greatly appreciate the contributions that have been made to this part of the Committee’s debate. We will go away and consider the various formulations, and I believe it would be sensible for the Government to engage with various interested parties once we have come to a view about how we can properly express what we all understand is necessary policy guidance in the context of this exceptional step. Against that background, I invite noble Lords to consider not pressing their amendments at this stage.
Baroness Ludford
I know I will not be popular by holding things up, but the Minister was specifically asked if he could explain the reference to,
“another EU entity or the EU”,
in Clause 6(2). I do not know whether he feels he could do that. Does it have any reference to the European Commission? The Prime Minister said we would have a binding commitment to follow EU state aid and competition law, and I wondered if it had any relevance in that context.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am not going to elaborate at this stage because, as I say, the Government are going to go away and consider the proposals for an amendment to Clause 6(2).
Lord Pannick
I am very grateful to the Minister for that encouraging response, and I am grateful to the noble Lords and noble and learned Lords who have spoken in this debate.
On a matter of detail, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, asked about new subsection (2B) in Amendment 56, giving guidance to the judges to look to the relevance of an EU agreement. The noble Lord asked how that would work. I shall give him an example. If the judge is seeking to interpret a provision of retained EU law, relating to, say, medicinal products; if the Court of Justice after exit day pronounces on a regulation which has become part of retained EU law, and if the withdrawal agreement has said that there will be close regulatory alignment between the EU and the United Kingdom in that particular area, then the judge would be encouraged to pay close regard to what the Court of Justice had said about the meaning of the regulation. Our court would still be in control but it would pay particular regard—that is the whole point of new subsection (2B).
There is widespread agreement around the House that the wording of Clause 6(2) is unsatisfactory and that Parliament needs to give as much guidance as possible to judges in this context to protect them from being seen to be required to take policy decisions, which would undermine confidence in the rule of law. The Government and Parliament would be very unwise to reject, in particular, the concerns expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury. It is much more difficult to identify precisely what should be put in place of Clause 6(2). I am encouraged by what the Minister said—that the Government are listening and considering this matter. I am sure that all noble Lords who have spoken would be happy to contribute to the discussions that will take place before Report. I hope that, on Report, the Government will bring forward amendments to Clause 6(2).
Lord Goldsmith
Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, as I suspect he is going to do, can I ask him to clarify one point? He talked a moment ago about the need to protect the judges. Would he agree that it is a question not of protecting the judges from attack, but of protecting the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law?
Lord Pannick
I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord. I think I said in opening this debate that it is not that the judges cannot withstand criticism of their judgments, it is rather that we are all concerned about confidence in the rule of law. As the noble and learned Lord said, if the judges are left to take policy decisions in a very sensitive context, where a decision will have to be made as to the weight—if any—to give to Court of Justice judgments handed down after Brexit, there is no doubt that they will be exposed. They will be the subject of criticism which will undermine the rule of law unless we do our job and give very clear guidance on what Parliament thinks should be the appropriate approach.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 7th March 2018
(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 79-V(b) Amendment for Committee, supplementary to the fifth marshalled list (PDF, 55KB) - (7 Mar 2018)
Lord Wilson of Dinton
Lord Wilson of Dinton (CB)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 71, I will also speak to Amendments 116, 253 and 257, which are in my name and the names of my noble friend Lord Lisvane and the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. My noble friend Lord Lisvane has asked me to convey his apologies for not being here to move the amendment himself, but he has to be absent to speak at a memorial service in Cardiff for an old friend. I am sure the Committee will understand that reason.
I feel we are now coming to the heart of the Bill. I confess that, while listening to the debates, I have found myself thinking of the Bill as creating a Frankenstein’s monster. It is sewing together 40 years of EU law, snipped around to fit with this country’s law. Clause 7 gives a Minister of the Crown the power to snip away at EU law and British law to try to get them to fit together. It is a task on a huge scale, and I do not believe anyone, wherever they are working, can quite get their mind round it at the moment or round what the consequences will be.
These amendments would tighten, in two ways, the threshold which the Minister of the Crown has to reach in order to be able to exercise the powers. They would tighten it by providing, first, that the powers could be used only where it was “necessary” to use them, not where it was considered “appropriate”. Secondly, they would give an objective test for whether the use of the powers was necessary, rather than the subjective test of whether the Minister considered it appropriate.
I believe that such changes are needed and would be justified by three things. First, there is the sheer scale of the task being undertaken. Of course, there are limits to the power—it can only be used to correct deficiencies in EU retained law which arise from withdrawal from the European Union and do so in areas which are not excluded by Clause 7(7)—which are important. But there are still huge swathes of law which could be amended under the powers. From listening to a sample of the debates that the Committee has had over the last days, those include human rights, the environment, the welfare of animals—there is very little in the legislation we are dealing with that does not affect most aspects of people’s lives in this country.
The power itself is very broad: to make law which has the status of an Act of Parliament. An extraordinary subsection, Clause 7(5), says:
“Regulations under subsection (1) may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament”.
We are talking about the power to make Acts of Parliament without going through the processes of Parliament, which I find breath-taking.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
And in an unamendable sense, because it is to be done by resolution—there can be no amendment to those resolutions.
Lord Wilson of Dinton
The noble Viscount reinforces the point which I am trying to make. The Explanatory Notes explain that the power also extends to,
“altering Acts of Parliament where appropriate”.
We are talking about the power to make law and to amend existing law. This is the dream of tyrants through the ages. It is something which is repugnant to the history of this country and the development of our legal system. My argument to the Committee is that the House should lean as hard against it as it can, provided that does not get in the way of achieving the desired result of a functioning legal system. We should not leave leeway which allows Ministers to do things which would be policy changes. I am uneasy about the danger that policy changes could come through the use of the power.
When you try to marry 40 years of legislation with British law, there will be endless choices to be made: you could go this way; you could go that way. Policy is tied up in the interstices of quite small decisions about how the laws should be married together. We should lean against anything which encourages policy change and we should focus the Minister’s power exclusively on achieving a functioning legal system, without going wider. If the law as it emerges needs to be improved, it should be improved by separate legislation that goes through proper processes. We should give only the power that is strictly necessary from the point of view of the objects of this legislation.
Another point I draw to the Committee’s attention is the number of people who will be able to make and amend law. I am not a lawyer—I was 50 years ago, but I am not now—but if I read the Bill correctly, it gives the power to a Minister of the Crown, as defined in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975. Section 8 of the Act says that a Minister of the Crown is anyone who holds,
“office in Her Majesty’s Government”.
I have not checked this, but my memory is—it used to be imprinted on me when I was working in the Civil Service—that you can have up to 109 Ministers in the Government, so 109 people are being authorised to make or to amend law. In addition, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise will be given the power to make law and amend law, subject to the restrictions. That is another seven people—a Permanent Secretary and a number of directors-general—being given this power which tyrants dream of.
In addition, I draw the Committee’s attention to where the Explanatory Notes say that the power could include,
“sub-delegating the power to a public authority where they are best placed to deal with the deficiencies”.
So we are talking about giving public authorities the power to make law without going through parliamentary processes and to amend law. What is a public authority? According to Section 14, “public authority” is defined by Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998. If you read that Section 6, which I will give in its entirety, it says in subsection (3) that,
“‘public authority’ includes … a court or tribunal”.
I ask the Minister: are we seriously proposing to give the power to make law to a court? This is constitutional territory which is completely novel. Paragraph (b) in that subsection says that “public authority” includes,
“any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature”.
The proposal before this Committee is that the power to make and amend law within the conditions set out in the clause could be capable of being given to any person certain of whose functions are of a public nature, which in essence is any public servant. I put it to the Committee: is this necessary or reasonable?
Lord Wilson of Dinton
Is this reasonable without reference to Parliament, or to the lightest sifting procedure where any recommendations can be made?
I ask the Minister whether he has an estimate of how many people may be given the power to amend law and make law. I would be interested just to know the number. If you have so many people, possibly hundreds, given the power, you should restrict it as much as you possibly can, so far as is consistent with the objects of the Bill.
Why do I think that the phrase “the Minister considers appropriate” is inadequate? First of all, “appropriate” is a word which should be avoided as much as it possibly can. In my last jobs in the Civil Service, I was sometimes faced with proposals that the Minister should be able to do something “when appropriate”. I always reached for my red pen and struck it out.
Lord Wilson of Dinton
I think we are making the same point, which is that it either conceals inadequate thought, or it is devious.
Of course, the truth is that, if you are in government, you want to surround the Minister and yourself with plump cushions of legal protection. The legal phrase is “ex abundanti cautela”. It is about excessive caution—you do not want to take risks. I have to say to the Committee that, in this case, I think the scale of the powers proposed is so extensive that we should lean against giving Ministers plump cushions of legal protection; it should be the strict discipline of an objective test of what is necessary.
It is interesting that the Government themselves, in their White Paper last March, used the language of necessity. The White Paper twice said that the powers would only be usable “where necessary”. In the cases which it provided where the powers might be used, it used the word “need”: it used the language of necessity; it did not use this language of appropriateness. I think it is only recently, with the sudden alarm that the scale is going to be so great, that the desire for plump cushions has arisen. I think that the Government are backing away from an undertaking only to have the power usable where it is necessary, which they gave in March last year and which they should have stuck to.
There are all sorts of arguments which may be used, such as that the word “appropriate” is used in other legislation. I think that is true, but I do not think that it is justified in this case, where the scale is so extensive. It could be argued that, when faced with a choice, there are different solutions and, therefore, there is no solution which is necessary. That is a flimsy argument—that horse will not run. What we are saying in this amendment is that the power should be used where its use is necessary, not where the solution is necessary.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, if this Amendment is agreed, I cannot call Amendments 72 or 73 because of pre-emption.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My noble friend Lord Tyler has added his name to Amendments 71, 116, 253 and 257. Unfortunately, he is unwell and unable to be in his place today. He has, however, advised me —extensively—to rely heavily in my remarks on the report of the DPRRC published on 1 February. As I am sure that Members will know, the report was highly critical of this Bill. It noted that:
“The Bill confers on Ministers wider Henry VIII powers than we have ever seen”,
and went on to discuss some of these powers in detail. The first it examined was the use in the Bill of “appropriate” instead of “necessary” as a test for action by secondary legislation. The committee pointed out that this gives the Minister much wider discretion than the Government’s White Paper commitment not to make major changes to policy beyond those necessary to ensure continued proper functioning of the law after we leave the EU. Instead of a test based on objective necessity, the Government have substituted the much wider and entirely subjective test of the Minister’s judgment about what he or she considers appropriate. The Government must explain why they have abandoned the White Paper commitment. It would help us to understand their reasoning if the Government could also provide the House with concrete and substantive examples of where a test of necessity may fail to produce continued proper functioning of the law.
I am sure that when he does this, the Minister will want to acknowledge and deal with paragraphs 8 to 10 of the DPRRC report, which concluded, via a worked example, that a proper test of necessity does not prevent his choosing between possible solutions when the “necessary” threshold is in fact met. I am sure that he will tell the House why he disagrees with the DPRRC’s recommendation in paragraph 12, which simply says:
“The subjective ‘appropriateness’ test in clause 7 should be circumscribed in favour of a test based on objective necessity”.
As the DPRRC remarked, the Bill is packed with Henry VIII clauses, and it might be worth remembering what actually happened when the Minister’s predecessors, Thomas Cromwell and Lord Audley, presented the original Henry VIII power, the Bill of Proclamations, to Parliament. Historians have disagreed about Cromwell’s motives but not about what the Bill sought to do—to make the King’s proclamations enforceable as law by the courts. Both Houses of Parliament saw the evident dangers in this and both resisted. The eventual outcome, the Act of Proclamations, was a heavily revised version of the original Bill. It showed Parliament’s strength of feeling on the issue and its skill in avoiding direct confrontation with the King. In those days, the penalty for defying the Executive was a little sharper-edged than a visit from the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. In the end, Parliament passed the Bill but amended it to ensure that the provisions for enforcement would be wholly unworkable—and so it proved.
I am not suggesting exactly the same approach, but I do suggest that we take the same view as our predecessors about giving wide, direct law-making powers to the Executive. We should do what Parliament did in 1539—we should resist.
Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak to this group of amendments and support those spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton. I congratulate him on how he exposed the ramifications that reach so far into our constitution. It saves me the task of trying to tackle it.
It is a shame that the House is not more fully attended tonight. That is nothing to do with my personal egotism—quite the reverse—but this is such an important subject; I am very glad that we have reached it in the Bill, and it deserves the closest of attention. I speak in support of Amendments 71 and 72, as well as Amendments 76, 77 and others in this group. In so doing, I am keen to focus less on the Brexit-related provisions than on the constitutional implications of granting Ministers special powers to undertake the Bill’s purpose, while not limiting and containing such powers and enhancing scrutiny of the resultant secondary legislation.
The amendments themselves rein in Ministers’ powers from when they are appropriate to only when they are necessary, and are very straightforward. In the case of the amendment yet to be spoken to by my noble friend Lord Hailsham, “essential” is injected into the proceedings as well, giving a threefold choice to your Lordships. However, it is a transparent illustration of why the amendments are needed. “Appropriate” is so bland, broad and subjective as to be almost meaningless, as has been said, and it gives the Minister excessive influence and discretion. “Necessary”, by contrast, is more specific and requires justification—and I believe that the courts prefer to handle litigation over “necessary” than “appropriate”, for reasons one can understand. Clause 7 is stuffed with powers that need to be addressed in this way. It is time limited to some extent by subsection (8). I welcome that, and I welcome in passing the concession on sifting granted by my noble friend the Leader of the House in her Second Reading speech. But the clause is one that cries out for tighter control and closer scrutiny.
The Constitution Committee reported extensively on the Bill in three volumes—a unique event—so the Government have known for a whole year of the concern that we expressed on such matters and have heard it often repeated since. I am no longer a member of the committee, but I plead guilty to being partly responsible for the first of those three reports. Again unusually, that report was published before even the White Paper was produced, let alone the Bill itself, a procedure that I rather recommend to Select Committees. It makes life very much easier and gives room for one’s imagination to fly. However, the essence of the report was to recognise that the massive task of legislative retrieval would need special powers for Ministers. The Government repeated that in their White Paper and quoted our report in support, but they rather cynically omitted and ignored the vital qualification that we had stressed that such new powers had to be accompanied by tighter controls and the safeguards that we recommended—explanatory memorandums, certification of statutory instruments by Ministers, strengthened scrutiny procedures and so on. I heard the comment that the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, made about the Constitution Committee’s recommendation as an alternative to “appropriate”. I am glad to say, “Not me, guv”—I was off the committee by the time that report came out.
Our recommendations were largely ignored in the first report, such that when the Bill appeared last autumn the Constitution Committee, then under the capable hands of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, felt obliged to point out that,
“the Bill weaves a tapestry of delegated powers that are breath-taking in terms of both their scope and potency”.
Since then, there has been some progress, but not very much and not nearly enough.
The amendments in this group are not just a matter of trivial semantics; they are the granular embodiment in microcosm of a fundamental principle—namely, that one pillar of our democracy is the balance of power between the Executive and Parliament. This Bill, if unamended, would tilt that balance quite heavily towards the Executive. To do that would be to degrade what will be an historic Act in due course and jeopardise the rights of Parliament. These amendments and others to come are not about Brexit itself; Brexit is important and the Bill is vital to help us to secure that. I want it to pass into law and soon. But the amendments are about something every bit as important —who is going to guard the constitution if not this House?
Ministers want their legislation to get through quickly and painlessly; officials are loyal to their Ministers and fancy a quiet life. The other place has an interest, but one that is often secondary to political obligations of Members, and the pressure on them from other events. I hope that my noble friend is listening to this debate and that the Government will at last respond to the case being put to them and respond not just in this clause but throughout the Bill, right up to and including Clause 17, perhaps by reference to changes that they have already agreed to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill. Debate in Committee would then proceed just a little faster.
It falls to us in this House to guard the gate on behalf of Parliament and democracy and to uphold the role of the constitution in protecting both. If the balance between Parliament and the Executive is lost, the rule of law and our freedoms are at risk. The time when we take back control of our laws is not the time to allow the corrosion of our law-making process.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, if I may just follow on from the noble Lord, Lord Lang, I often say that this House’s role is to be the guardian of the nation. To build on what the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, said, when we go back to the beginning of all this—the referendum—it was all about taking back control and sovereignty and not bypassing Parliament. What happened with Article 50? The Government tried to bypass Parliament. Now we have this withdrawal Bill, giving powers to make and amend law. As the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, said, there are over 100 Ministers, and it can be delegated to government departments—once again trying to bypass Parliament.
Under an earlier amendment, I quoted Dominic Grieve, a former Attorney-General, who recently said:
“Having just spent four months considering the EU (Withdrawal) Bill … I don’t think I have ever seen a piece of legislation that conferred such power on the executive to change the law of the land by statutory instrument … and where the entire structure was so closely interwoven that the same end could often be achieved by different routes”.
That is a former Attorney-General from the government party.
Then there was the Strathclyde review. Let us not forget what happened in 2015 when this House was criticised for flexing its political muscle. The review said that we should,
“understand better the expectations of both Houses when it comes to secondary legislation and, in particular, whether the House of Lords should retain its veto”.
We were openly bullied and told, “Don’t you dare challenge a statutory instrument again”. In fact, I remember in that debate, the Government went so far as to say, “You are threatening the very existence of this House if you threaten us any more”. Now we have the potential for thousands and thousands of statutory instruments. Are we going to challenge every one of them and threaten our very existence every day? Do Henry VIII clauses give Governments the power of royal despots?
Viscount Hailsham
Not only that, but the more tightly constrained the language of the Bill, the more readily the courts will intervene.
Lord Bilimoria
I thank the noble Viscount for that intervention. At the moment, the courts very rarely intervene. They had to intervene with Article 50 being put through Parliament; that was fundamental. This House defeated the Government twice by almost 100 votes each time in two of the biggest votes in the history of our Parliament—614 of us voted in one and 634 in the other. Do we want a situation where this Parliament or the Government are continually challenged by the courts? We do not want to go there, and this is why these amendments are important.
I conclude that the power to amend all EU-derived primary and secondary legislation by the Government without sufficient scrutiny, checks and control, bypassing Parliament, goes against the ultimate supremacy of Parliament itself.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, from this side of the Committee I shall speak to Amendment 244A, in my name, which comes from the Constitution Committee and was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, in his opening remarks. The amendment’s purpose is to provide a more objective test and a requirement for Ministers to state that they have applied an objective test. Should they have failed to do so, they become accountable for not having done so. That is the value of it. It is in no way exclusive of the series of amendments in the remainder of the group, almost all of which replace “appropriate” with “necessary”. I will come to that in a moment. I want to appreciate the words a few moments ago from the noble Lord who is the former—and much respected—chairman of the Constitution Committee. His contribution is one that Ministers really ought to note.
We are dealing with wording in this legislation that worries us enough in this context. However, noble Lords should be in no doubt that, if this wording remains in this legislation, subsequent debates will take place around the idea that, “It was included in the withdrawal Bill and there were some very serious issues raised in that, so it must be acceptable” and that it must be reasonable to use such a shallow test of appropriateness for very far-reaching statutory instrument powers. Numerous other Bills will come before us in the course of this Parliament which have statutory instrument powers in them, and this and future Governments will draw on the precedent of how this legislation is worded.
As to the distinction between “appropriate” and “necessary”, the suggestion I have heard that Ministers do not realise they are open to legal challenge is, I think, quite wrong. Ministers are well aware that they might be open to legal challenge, and that is why they prefer “appropriate” to “necessary”. It gives them a “plump legal cushion”—that wonderful expression of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson—behind which they can hide. It is just not good enough; we have to find better wording. If Ministers are unhappy with necessity, they must come up with something more effective. We find the word “appropriate” used in many contexts. It conjures to mind the sort of instructions for a day out that say “Appropriate footwear should be worn”. That clearly indicates to the person who has to make the decision that they have a fair degree of discretion—it could mean hiking boots or other firm-soled shoes, as long as it is not stilettos or ballet pumps. They have a choice. Ministers are desperately trying to preserve choice for when they bring forward statutory instruments under this legislation.
The problems of the statutory instruments are not confined to Henry VIII provisions, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, pointed out. There is the inability to amend any of these statutory instruments, whether they are Henry VIII in their impact or whether they impact merely on previous statutory instruments. The inability to amend them grossly weakens Parliament’s ability to deal with matters that would normally be in primary legislation.
I am not only sympathetic to the amendment that the committee itself has put forward, which has my name on it, or something like it, but I am also very supportive of the attempt to find a better word than “appropriate”. So far, at any rate, necessity seems the right provision.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I have added my name to a number of amendments that delete “appropriate” and insert “necessary”. They are all in this group. I do not claim any particular merit for that amendment: the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, is, I believe, the lead name on this amendment. The fact is, we have one thing in common. Whether is it “essential”, as my noble friend Lord Hailsham will doubtless seek to persuade us in a few minutes, whether it is “necessary”, used in the context described by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, when he moved his amendment so admirably, or whether it is a bare “necessary”, I do not mind. I frankly have a slight preference for the wording of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson.
We are in a very sad place when, having been told that we were taking back control, what we are doing is bestowing control. Parliament is bestowing control—if this goes through—on the Executive. I have quoted before in your Lordships’ House the famous Motion moved in 1781, I believe, in another place by Colonel Dunning: “The power of the Crown has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished”. Substitute “Executive” for “Crown” and that is what this is all about. I also think of the immortal words of my friend the late father of my noble friend Lord Hailsham, who talked about an “elected dictatorship”.
Are we really seeking to leave the European Union—which I believe is a foolish step—to bestow on the Government the power which Parliament should take? That is the fundamental question. We should not bestow the power on or allow any Minister—whether he or she be ever so high or ever so low, whether he or she be at the top of the 109 or at the bottom, it matters not—to change the law of the land, and then indeed extend it, as the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, pointed out in his admirable speech, to public bodies and to the courts. We live in a parliamentary democracy. Your Lordships’ House rightly has much less power than the elected House, but we can act as a check and a balance and as an encourager to those in another place. These are probing amendments tonight, of course, but I am confident that this will come to a vote on Report, and we should say to our colleagues in another place, “Do not give up the power which you exercise as representatives, not delegates, of your constituents, because if you do that, it will be a real nail in the coffin of democracy”.
I personally believe that a referendum is inimical to representative democracy. But, as we have said before, we are where we are. We are moving away from the European Union, but we must move away as a parliamentary democracy, where power ultimately resides not in No. 10 Downing Street, the Treasury, or in any ministerial office but in the Chamber at the other end of the Corridor. Your Lordships’ House has a particularly important role in stiffening the sinews of those at the other end of the Corridor. There is an enormous wealth of experience in your Lordships’ House, which was demonstrated by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, this evening, and which would have been demonstrated, I am sure, with equal eloquence by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, had he been able to be with us. We in a sense must see ourselves as the servants of democracy, but with a duty to put some real strength in the directly elected House.
I hope that we will have a response from the Minister this evening that will indicate that he understands what this is about. He, of course, is one of the 109. He may be low down on the list, but he is there. Whether he is 109, 108 or 73, I know not and I care not—but he is there. I hope that at the very least he will repudiate any notion of exercising power that it is not for him to exercise. We have to address this issue, whether we think in terms of Henry VIII or Thomas Cromwell or Oliver Cromwell, all three of whom would have looked upon this as a marvellous mandate. We have a duty. Tonight we are probing, but there will come a night when we must vote if the response is not as it should be this evening.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I add my voice to those who are expressing caution. I sympathise with Ministers. Somehow a balance has to be struck between the technical freedom and flexibility to deal with matters as they arise—that is a legitimate concern—and the constitutional questions that have been raised this evening. The words matter. The word “significant” is one of my pet hates, where people use it because they do not want to find a more precise word. You always want to ask, “Significant of what?” They probably mean, “It’s important” or “It matters to me”.
“Appropriate” is another one. It is a word that creates space when we do not want to be precise—but when you are dealing with matters of law you need precision. It seems to me that the very simple mechanism of changing “appropriate” to “necessary”, with some criteria by which it could be deemed to be necessary or unnecessary, offers the sort of balance that the Committee is looking for.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, said that it was 50 years since he had practised as a lawyer. Perhaps I may observe to him, once a lawyer, always a lawyer—and he certainly demonstrated that in the way in which he introduced this amendment. The effect of the statute before us is to provide an unfettered discretion, and we should be extremely slow to provide unfettered discretions to anyone. You would not give an unfettered discretion to the captain of a golf club. The idea that we will give 109 Ministers an unfettered discretion seems to me to fly in the face of all constitutional propriety.
It is not even the Secretary of State who is asked to exercise these powers. That frequently appears in statutes where a power is afforded. In this case it is any Minister of the Crown—and, added to that, public authorities, as widely defined. It is difficult to imagine public authorities understanding the whole question of discretion, as we see time and again in the courts when judicial review is successfully taken against local authorities, for example. As the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, pointed out a moment or two ago, if you have the power to make by regulation such provision as you consider appropriate, the prospects of judicial review are nil. There will be no review because, in any circumstance where a subjective test has been imposed or offered to the Minister, there can be no challenge. Necessity, on the other hand, is capable of challenge and leaves open the whole question of judicial review where the test of reasonableness arises in the course of the action—in this case of a Minister, or indeed of any of these public authorities.
When the bus with “£350 million a week” was going around the country, and when those who emerged from it, including the blonde bus conductor, told people, “We want to take power back from the European Union and Brussels”, no one said, “We want to take power back so we can give it to 109 Ministers or public authorities”. If they had said that, I rather fancy that the bus would not have received the generous welcome that it did on many occasions.
Lord Dykes (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow five or six scintillating and convincing speeches, all saying similar things, and I entirely concur with what was said. Therefore, I can be very brief. First, I thank my noble friend Lord Wilson for his remarks. I apologise to him for missing the first minute and a half of his speech because I naively thought that two government Statements would last a bit longer than they did; they were very brief indeed. I surmise that my noble friend referred to my noble friend Lord Lisvane, a very good friend to many of us. I assume he is on onerous public duties in Herefordshire. Sadly, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, cannot be present due to illness. Therefore, two sponsors of the amendment are sadly unable to be here but that in no way weakens the strength of this message for the Government. I hope the Ministers on the Front Bench will listen very carefully to these words.
It is also worth noting that, apart from a later big grouping, this group contains the largest number of amendments of any group since the Committee proceedings began. This is the subject that most exercises the Members of this Committee and, I think too, quite a number of MPs although they are sometimes under much greater pressure for obvious reasons not to say too much about it.
I was very struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said and by what he said representing the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. Since I am an amateur and not an expert on these matters, I was impressed by the comments of the Bar Council on its worries about these matters. In paragraph 60 of its general statement, it said:
“Clause 7 empowers Ministers to make regulations to ‘prevent, remedy or mitigate’ any ‘failure of retained EU law to operate effectively’ or ‘any other deficiency in retained EU law’. Clause 7(5) includes an open-ended power to make ‘any provision that could be made by Act of Parliament’. There are comparable Henry VIII powers in Clauses 8(2) (in respect of regulations to ‘prevent or remedy’ any breach, arising from Brexit, of the UK’s international obligations”.
It went on to say in paragraph 61:
“We consider that these provisions (and in particular Clause 7) continue to raise serious concerns both from the perspective of the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament and in respect of legal certainty”,
which we sometimes forget. By the way, as the sunset clause possibilities in Clause 8 have been mentioned by at least one speaker, in paragraph 67, the Bar Council adds:
“While we recognise that the Henry VIII power in all three clauses (7-9) is subject to sunset provisions, we do not think that this is sufficient to address the above concerns. As noted in the introduction to this paper, the operation of the amending powers and sunset clauses will need to be carefully reconsidered in the light of whatever is ultimately agreed for any transitional period or under the Withdrawal Agreement”.
I agree with the passionate remarks of my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, about the dangers facing this Parliament—mainly the other House, of course, but also this one—in allowing these dangerous provisions to go through without any amendment. I anticipate a major expression of unease, to put it mildly, when Report stage comes along. I hope and pray that will be so, and we look forward to the Minister speaking in the framework of that need to assuage our anxiety when he comes to reply.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, I rise to speak primarily —subject to pre-emption, whatever that means—to Amendments 73 to 79 and Amendments 117 to 119, which are in my name.
I think we ought to start the debate—although we have started it already—by reflecting on how very wide the powers contained in Clauses 7 to 9 are. They are powers exercised by regulation: mostly by the negative procedure, but some by the affirmative procedure. However—this is the critical point—in both instances, the regulations when laid cannot be amended. That raises an issue that I hope this House will come to on some subsequent occasion, because I have a number of amendments in my name on that very subject.
These powers are very wide-reaching. One way of ascertaining how significant they are—I hope the right reverend Prelate will forgive me if I use the word “significant” in this context—is to look at paragraph 2 of Schedule 7, which lists the provisions that can be made only by the affirmative procedure. I cite a few examples: the creation of a public authority and presumably the powers to be given to it; the transfer of legislative powers from an EU entity to a UK-based public authority; the levying of fees without specific limit, which I am sure noble Lords know we will come to later in Committee; the creation of criminal offences that attract a custodial sentence of up to two years, which, again, we will come to later in our debate; and the creation of powers to legislate or amend existing powers. These powers are not trivial in character. I have not sought to identify the various powers that could be exercised by way of the negative procedure, because their name is legion.
There is one fundamental rule in politics, which I have learned from 31 years in the House of Commons: if you give powers to Ministers and officials, those powers will be abused—sometimes by design and sometimes by inadvertence, but the abuse will happen and that is certain. It is especially so when the powers are created by secondary legislation because the parliamentary oversight is slight and ministerial oversight is often non-existent. So the question your Lordships should be asking—I agree with my noble friend Lord Lang that it is a pity more noble Lords are not asking themselves this question tonight—is whether the language in the Bill is sufficiently tightly drawn to prevent abuse. The answer to that question is manifest to all of us and all noble Lords who have spoken: no. The Bill does not prevent abuse; it enables abuse.
The powers given to Ministers are “appropriate”. That is a weasel word. Nobody is better placed than I to describe it as such. It is a subjective word, very difficult to define in advance, impossible to challenge and non-judicable. That is why, when I was a Minister, I used it often—at the Dispatch Box, in drafting and in correspondence. I knew full well, as does every person who has stood at the Dispatch Box, that “appropriate” means precisely what the Minister wants it to mean. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, is quite right about that. Might I suggest the Corbyn/Johnson test to your Lordships? It is very useful. I look to my side of the House and ask, “How many of your Lordships want to see Mr Corbyn possessed of these powers?” I now turn to the other side of the House, lest noble Lords think I am being partisan, and ask, “How many of your Lordships want to see Mr Johnson possessed of these powers?” The joke is that you can reverse the question and get the same answer.
We should not allow the draft as it is. I accept that the distinction between “necessary” and “essential” is pretty minor. I can live perfectly well with the word “necessary”. “Essential” is one notch higher in the hierarchy of requirement but I accept that “necessity” has been hallowed by legislation in the past. I encounter that word frequently in regulatory law, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, was absolutely right to touch on the point of judicial review. If you use the word “necessary”, it makes things easier to challenge. There have been many appeals in the regulatory framework where the courts have held that the test has not been laid out.
I want to comment on two other amendments I have ventured to propose. Amendments 74 and 117 require the Minister to have “reasonable grounds” for his or her decision on the need to trigger the regulation-making powers. I will be open about this: my purpose is to tighten the test, to make it judicable and to limit the discretion. I would very much like to know from the Minister why he objects to the use of reasonable grounds as the criterion for exercising the power. I am sure he is not going to say that he wants to rely on unreasonable grounds; that is not, I think, an argument he would like to put forward. We are entitled to know the justification.
I have one very small point on Amendment 75, which includes a reference to redundancy. What does that reference add to what is already covered by the retained part of Clause 7(2)(a)? It comes to this: the main issue for this House is to require a test of necessity to be imported into these three clauses and elsewhere in the Bill where the Government want us to accept a lower threshold of need—or, more precisely, put no threshold at all. I regard this as matter of considerable importance and I want to know—as I am sure the Committee does—why the Government want us to prefer a word that gives the maximum discretion to Ministers, but the minimum control and influence to Parliament and the courts.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, my name is on some of these amendments. I will be extremely brief. We are now at the core of the Bill, and at the core of how the Government respond to it. I cannot recall reading two such critical reports from committees of this House as the two we have had on these clauses— for example the suggestion that Clause 9 is wholly unacceptable and the suggestion that Clause 7 leaves very considerable uncertainty, both of which are from the Delegated Powers Committee. I therefore ask the Minister to offer us the prospect that the Government will come back on Report with their own recognition of the strength of feeling in this House. Without question, the Government will lose heavily on this the first time it is tested, and quite possibly again after it has gone back to the other place if the Commons sustains it.
We are in a position at which we need from the Government some reassurance on these constitutional issues, as well as these issues of trust, as they put through a Bill with a huge range of flexibility. We need reassurance on the Government’s future intentions, as their future intentions on much of this are still not entirely clear. I simply ask the Minister to be generous and to stretch his freedom of action as far as he can in the way he responds.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lang, pointed out that we are a bit thin on the ground for such an important set of amendments, but the Minister should know that there is behind us an army. I have had more representations on Clause 7 than on any other part of the Bill—representations from national organisations, human rights organisations, advocacy organisations, legal organisations, professional organisations, and from individuals. There is very widespread civic concern over these clauses, and the Government should heed it and accept these amendments, which have such widespread support also in your Lordships’ House.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, the existence of these powers in the Bill has created an apprehension in a lot of people that the Government are proposing to use the powers in some way to undermine something that is valuable to them. It is therefore important—apart altogether from the argument that examines the detail—that we examine this carefully. The noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton—with his background of great success as a civil servant, no doubt contributed to by his early experience as a lawyer—has moved the amendment in a way that has made it extremely clear. It is quite clear to me that necessity is a better test on which to leave these powers than the discretionary test of “appropriate”. It is not absolutely right that discretion is not subject to judicial review, but at least an objective test is certainly more likely to lead to successful judicial review if it is transgressed.
We have to remember the huge task involved in trying to put these two systems together; the European system, which has been here for 45 years, has been working alongside our system and kept separate from it over all that time. That is by no means an easy task. Indeed, what we already discussed with regard to Clauses 2 and 3 illustrate that. It is difficult and time consuming, and we must ensure that the solutions we suggest to the Government are practical and will enable this to be done in a reasonable time so that the statute book can be right on Brexit day.
I anticipate that the test of necessity will be an easier one to apply for those entrusted with the power than the test of what is appropriate. The latter involves an element of judgment, which is not always easy to exercise; whereas if it is obvious that these two bits do not fit together, it is necessary to do something about it. As the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, said, it is not necessary to circumscribe the solution. The argument that necessity suggests not only that the amendment is required but also what particular amendment is required stretches the matter a little far. So long as it is necessary to do it, that is a sufficient test for our purpose, and then it is for the Minister to do his best to sew these two pieces together.
I am somewhat alarmed at the survey by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, of the people entitled to use this power, and the Minister may well have something to say about that. However, there is a lot of work to do, and we do not want to overwork the Ministers with necessary adjustments when they ought to be doing something else. There is certainly plenty to do between now and Brexit.
In addition, it has been said that this is surrendering the power of Parliament to the Executive. To an extent that is true, but Parliament retains a veto in respect of every single regulation, either by a negative or an affirmative resolution. It is true that we do not want to have thousands of these if we can possibly avoid it, apart from anything else. But there is an element of control there. How practical that would be is, I think, doubtful. There is an urgent need now to circumscribe these powers so that they work properly and effectively but not excessively. As I said, a lot of people have worries about human rights, equality rights and a whole lot of other rights. Sometimes people have spoken in conversation or in observations to the press or whatever, which does not represent the Government’s policy. This helps to inflame the idea that the Government are using these powers to take away all that has been so dearly won. I do not think that is true, but we should try to remove the possibility that this idea can be represented.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, these are hugely important amendments. The Minister will have noted that not a single Member of the Committee has spoken in favour of the present position in the Bill. From all sides of the Committee, it has been stated that the Bill, as it stands, is not acceptable. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, is not present today, for reasons that we all entirely understand. Noble Lords will recall what he said at Second Reading, when he talked about this as the biggest transfer of power from Parliament to the Executive in peacetime. I entirely agree. I agree with what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Wilson of Dinton, Lord Cormack and Lord Lang of Monkton—with whom, or rather under whom, I was privileged to serve on the Constitution Committee, when he chaired it. I agree also with the noble Lords, Lord Beith, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Campbell of Pittenweem. Everybody has taken the same position in relation to that.
Let us look at the key amendment, Amendment 71, to which I am privileged to have added my name, just to note the importance of what it does. It would replace the statement that “the Minister considers it appropriate” with “it is necessary”. As a former Minister, as a former adviser to Ministers and as a practising lawyer, I fully see the significance of that change. I know as a lawyer that if I am able to say to the judge, “All that is required is that the Minister considers it appropriate—how can you say that he did not? How can you second guess that?”, I am home and dry. If, on the other hand, I have to show that it is necessary—not just in the Minister’s decision, not just on reasonable grounds, but that it is in fact necessary—then that is the test that the court has to undertake in order to satisfy itself. The point behind these amendments is that nothing less than that will do to enable this huge transfer of power to the Executive from this House.
I do not need to repeat the remarks made by other noble Lords about how taking back control should not mean taking back control by the Executive—that is not what anybody had in mind. I do not need to repeat the remarks about the number of Ministers that this gives power to. I am not even sure that the figure of 109 is right. I recall, in government—no doubt the Minister will tell me that it does not apply here—that all Ministers can act, and often do act, by their officials. The Carltona principle means they can sign the instruments, so it may mean that the 109 is multiplied manifold. I have no doubts about their good intentions, but this is not what our system requires, and we should not be giving it up in these circumstances.
Other noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Bilimoria and Lord Dykes, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, have also spoken powerfully in favour of these amendments.
I have a couple of other points to make, as most of what I wanted to say has already been powerfully and clearly expressed by noble Lords. The most important point is the one I started with, which is that the Minister must see the unanimity of view, as it appears at the moment, around the Committee about the change that needs to be made. We can debate whether it is essential or necessary. I rather agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that “necessary” has become a term well understood by the courts and so it is probably the better one to have, but the end aim is the same. That it is not a decision for the subjective view of the Ministers is the other key point on which we agree.
One point that I want to deal with, which has not had much discussion so far—although the noble Lord, Lord Beith, raised it—is Amendment 244A. It proposes that there should be a statement by a Minister as to the need for the change, and it is not simply a policy change. There is merit in that proposal, I would suggest, though not as a substitute for the amendments we are proposing. I draw attention to the similarity with Section 19 of the Human Rights Act, an excellent provision which requires that a Minister has to certify that a piece of legislation is compatible with the convention rights. We see it on the very front of this Bill itself. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, is not in his place. He had a lot of involvement in making sure that that worked, by insisting that when it came to certifying that legislation was compatible, it was not just on a wing and a prayer.
Viscount Hailsham
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Taking his point, if you were to combine the certification together with the requirement that the Minister had to have reasonable grounds for triggering regulatory power, then one has a very high degree of protection, does one not?
Lord Goldsmith
I am grateful to the noble Viscount. I would go further. First, I would say that the amendment needs to change the test so that it is “necessary”, not “considers necessary”, not “considered on reasonable grounds”. Secondly, the way the Human Rights Act certification works is that it is not enough for the Minister to have “reasonable grounds” that it may be compatible. What is required—at least when I was in government, and as a result of the diktat that was given to the Civil Service—is that the Minister must have legal advice that, more likely than not, the court would agree. I am glad to see the Minister nodding because that means that the same principle is being applied under this Administration as under the Administration in which I was privileged to serve.
Therefore, I take the noble Viscount’s point, but it is important that it is not just a consideration but an actuality based not on reasonable grounds but on fact. Obviously there is some judgment to be made about “fact” but it needs to be clear and there might, in addition, be a role for something like Amendment 244A.
This is the second time today that this Committee has considered the use of the word “appropriate”. Those who were not able to be present may wish to read the report of the earlier debate when we considered the use of the word “appropriate” in rather different circumstances—whether judges could and should rely on European case law in reaching decisions and whether it was enough that they should find it relevant or appropriate. One noble Lord who is not in his place suggested that the judges could use the law if they found it “helpful”. My worry is that that is exactly what the Government think “appropriate” means here. If this power means that Ministers can make regulations and changes because they think it helpful to do so, that is not what this House should allow them to do.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords very much for what has been an excellent debate. I use the word “debate” but only one point of view has been expressed and I have heard the message from all sides. However, I shall address the issues under consideration.
I say, first, to my noble friend Lord Cormack that he has put an intriguing thought into my mind. I will speak to my officials first thing tomorrow morning to find out where I, as a Minister of State, come in this list of 109—I suspect more towards the bottom than the top but we will find out.
The noble Lord, Lord Wilson, asked me about the number of people who will be able to exercise this power without parliamentary scrutiny—a question that I suspect is almost impossible to answer. I think that the main issue is not the number of people but the number of limitations on the exercise of that power. The power is time limited and clearly limited in what it can be used for. It may only prevent, remedy or mitigate deficiencies in EU law, and of course secondary legislation is subject to well-established parliamentary procedures. Where legislative powers are sub-delegated to public authorities, this will always be subject to the affirmative procedure.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to revisit what is clearly a very important issue in the context of the Bill. The Government will place some additional draft examples of statutory instruments or parts thereof in the Library of the House. That is something that a number of noble Lords have asked for in meetings that I have had with them, so I will ensure that that happens—most likely tomorrow.
I have listened with interest to the many contributions today, and to the extensive contributions of the Constitution Committee, which I had the pleasure of speaking to this morning along with my colleague in the other place, the Solicitor-General. I have read the reports of that committee and of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which have very much helped to frame our thoughts on this issue.
As a number of noble Lords have said, both those reports go into great detail on the scope of the delegated powers. As many noble Lords will also be aware, they come out with quite different recommendations. As I said at Second Reading, we are approaching this matter in a spirit of collaboration. The Government are looking very closely at how the powers in the Bill are drawn and how they will be exercised, particularly in the light of the committee recommendations and developments in other pieces of legislation.
As the Constitution Committee notes, comparable arguments were made during the passage of the sanctions Bill through this House and a mutually agreeable position was found in that instance. That has clearly informed the committee’s recommendation and we are receptive to the arguments made in its report. I am confident that a mutually agreeable position will be found.
As I will explain in a moment, the Government do not see the DPRRC’s recommendation as workable. However, we would very much like to talk to noble Lords following the debate, with an eye to coming back to this issue on Report.
As noble Lords will appreciate, the situation that this Bill responds to is, quite simply, unprecedented. A vast amount of EU law is being transferred to our statute book, including thousands of EU regulations. As such, the programme of secondary legislation to ensure that this law operates effectively must match that. In the face of such a task, it has always been clear that the Government will need relatively broad delegated powers to deliver a functioning statute book. Indeed, the Constitution Committee outlined in its interim report that “relatively wide” delegated powers were inevitable.
I understand that there are noble Lords who have had concerns about delegated powers for some time, and the Government are keen to continue listening to suggestions in order to improve those areas of the Bill. That listening process started during this Bill’s passage through the other place, where a number of changes were introduced to reduce the scope and increase the parliamentary scrutiny of the delegated powers. However, we cannot significantly restrict the scope of these powers, which, it is acknowledged, need to be broad.
Let me deal directly with the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson. Much of the concern about the delegated powers focuses on the use of “appropriate” to describe the discretion afforded to Ministers when making regulations to correct deficiencies. In case there is some misunderstanding here, let me be clear: “appropriate” in Clause 7 does not give Ministers unrestricted discretion to correct anything that they may wish or like. Corrections must not be appropriate per se; they must be appropriate to correct the particular deficiency they are addressing. The threshold for ministerial decisions is set firmly within the context of those purposes.
I appreciate that there is a degree of subjectivity to these tests—but that is true of almost all tests, and it is important to acknowledge that there are limitations on the power. Parliament polices the Government’s interpretation of its vires to act through the mechanism of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which I have no doubt will take a keen interest in instruments under this Bill; and ultimately, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, these tests are litigable in the courts. So we cannot responsibly remove “appropriate” from the Bill.
I will now delve into the detail of the various different permutations of amendments seeking to restrict the scope of the delegated powers. The first amendments I would like to discuss are Amendments 201, 243 and 245, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, which attempt to ensure that Ministers have considered that exercises of the main powers are made for good reasons and are reasonable courses of action. These match the Constitution Committee’s recommendation, and a smaller group were added to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill.
Amendments 74, 117 and 139, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hailsham, seek to write into the Bill that Ministers’ consideration of the appropriateness of any exercise of the delegated powers must be made on reasonable grounds. This is the right type of approach in not altering the fundamental scope of the powers.
Lord Cormack
Is my noble friend saying that he has made his mind up—or the Government have made their collective mind up—on retaining “appropriate”?
Lord Callanan
If my noble friend will forgive me, I will discuss that in a second.
Ministers make their decisions on secondary legislation based on reasonable grounds in the normal course of events. The use of these powers will be subject to the usual public law principles designed to ensure that the Executive act reasonably, in good faith and for proper purposes. I accept, however, that noble Lords have principled and legitimate concerns and we will ensure that these are addressed and that the reasonableness of a Minister’s courses of action is made clearer. Given the views expressed today, I would like to engage in further discussions with noble Lords with a view to returning to this issue on Report.
Amendments 71, 72, 76, 77, 78, 79, 116, 118, 140, 229, 253, 254, 257, 258, 264, 265, 276, 277, 290 and 291, which were tabled by noble Lords including the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane—to whom I spoke yesterday and I understand why he is not in his place today—the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, seek to exchange “appropriate” for “necessary”, about which we have had a great deal of debate, in the main powers and schedules in which it can be found. I understand noble Lords’ concerns but, as I have stated, this would have a serious impact on our vital programme of secondary legislation to prepare our statute book for exit day. “Necessary” is a high bar to meet. The courts have said that the nearest paraphrase for “necessary” is “really needed”, but such a test would be too constrictive.
Lord Newby (LD)
Can the noble Lord give an example of where something is not really needed? Surely the whole point of this legislation is only to do things that are really needed—not to do anything that you think, when you wake up in the morning, might be a jolly good idea.
Lord Callanan
If the noble Lord will have a little patience I will get on to that in a second.
If regulations could only make “necessary” provisions, the powers would be heavily restricted to a much smaller set of essential changes. For example, if the Government wanted to change references in legislation from euros to sterling, we would expect such a change to be considered “appropriate” both by the courts and, I hope, by this House, but it might not be considered “necessary”.
We might manage to ensure that our statute book is in a legally operable state, but it would not be in its most coherent form, or arranged in a way that best promotes our national interest. I am sure that this Committee does not intend to restrict the Government from legislating coherently or in the national interest, but that may be the unintended consequence of amendments which swap “appropriate” for “necessary”.
I note that some of the amendments in this group contain wording suggested by the DPRRC in its report on the powers in this Bill. In particular, I was interested in the assertion that:
“The operative test in Clause 7 should be whether it is necessary to deal with the problem, not whether only one solution follows inexorably”.
I first highlight that I do not believe that these amendments break up the necessity process in the way that the committee intends. I also question the merits of breaking up the necessity test in the way that the committee suggests. In its report, the committee cites the example of a deficiency in which there is:
“A requirement to collect and send information that will no longer be accepted by the EU”.
The committee states that it,
“is clearly a deficiency that it is necessary to remove from the statute book: it cannot be right to retain a redundant legal duty that amounts to a waste of time, effort and public money”.
However, I question whether this change is strictly necessary, or whether it is merely appropriate. The committee asserts that it cannot be “right” for this arrangement to continue—and I agree with it—but is it strictly “necessary” that it be removed? What great harm, after all, would be done if the information were still sent? The statute book would continue to function, albeit illogically and not in the public interest. But is it necessary, in a strict legalistic sense, to have the statute book working logically and in the public interest, or are all our changes merely appropriate? In these sorts of instance we cannot with any certainty predict the way in which a court might rule. It is precisely to guard against such a decision that the Government cannot support the suggestion made by the committee.
Viscount Hailsham
Is the Minister saying that he will not accept these amendments because he might be defeated in court? If so, that is a thoroughly bad reason.
Lord Callanan
I think I have made my position clear on that but, nevertheless, I also said that we are listening and endeavouring to satisfy the concerns of noble Lords.
Amendments 73, 119 and 141 tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and also spoken to by my noble friend Lord Lang, meanwhile used “essential” rather than “appropriate” to limit the discretion of Ministers in exercising the delegated powers. This really is very similar to the amendments which propose the use of “necessary”. I think that a court would likely interpret the meaning of “necessary” and “essential”—in this context—in much the same way and, therefore, I will not repeat the arguments that I have already made.
Lord Cormack
I beg my noble friend to talk to his ministerial colleagues and think again, otherwise the Government will suffer the most massive, crushing defeat when this comes up on Report.
Lord Callanan
I said at the start that I am setting out a position, but I have heard the messages that came to me from all sides of the Committee and I very much take on board the point that my noble friend makes. I shall state again that, despite their breadth, these are not powers designed to deliver major policy changes and they can only be read in light of their purpose. For Clause 7(1), that is to “prevent, remedy or mitigate” deficiencies arising from withdrawal.
Amendment 244A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, the noble Lords, Lord Beith and Lord Dunlop, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, touches on a point to which I will return to in more detail later, but I will stress now the risks of introducing additional legal uncertainty by creating new and untested definitions to the law. However, I am conscious of the need for transparency in this process and we will look to see how, in line with developments and other legislation, we can ensure that ministerial decision-making about the appropriate exercise of the powers is more transparent to the Committee.
Amendment 75, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hailsham, allows me the opportunity to expand upon the reasons why we are taking the correcting power and to build upon the arguments made in previous days of debate. Areas of our domestic law, such as those relating to EU obligations, will be redundant when we leave the EU. The Bills repealed by Schedule 9 are an example of this. Some noble Lords will consider that having provisions that do nothing on the statute book is not harmful. Indeed, the Easter Act 1928, which was never commenced, continues to sit on the statute book with no effect and causes no harm. My noble friend Lord Hailsham and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, also argued that there is no legal recourse under the use of powers under Clause 7. That is not strictly correct. If the threshold set out in the Act is overstepped the regulations can be struck down by judicial review.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
The noble Lord was helpful in trying to give an example for something else. Could he give an example of where something that was “appropriate” could not be covered by the principle of necessity?
Lord Callanan
I do not have any additional examples beyond the ones I have already given, but I will certainly write to the noble Lord with alternative information on that.
However, the Government and I believe that a majority of noble Lords in this House will agree that the statute book is not truly effective unless it is tidy. The Bill is designed to provide clarity and certainty on the law; if we cannot remove or correct these redundant provisions this goal will be undermined. However, having said all that, as I have set out, I would be very happy to engage in further discussions with noble Lords. I have very much heard the messages given from all sides of the Committee with a view to returning to this issue on Report. On the basis of those assurances, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Wilson of Dinton
My Lords, I thank the 13 noble Lords who spoke on the amendment, all of whom were unanimous in their support of the need to change Clause 7(1). There was a lot of support for the substitution of “necessary” for “appropriate”. I am not going to go through what was said because, first, I agreed with everything; and secondly, it was said so eloquently that it would be otiose for me to add to it at this hour of night.
The Minister has clearly heard the voices of so many noble Lords in favour of some change to Clause 7(1). I say respectfully that he seemed to be speaking with two voices. One was a clear, fierce defence of “appropriate”. I have to confess that I found some of it surprising. I would have thought, faced with EU retained law expressed in the euro, that that would be a deficiency that one needed to correct and that it would be necessary to correct it. However, I will study what the Minister said with interest. On the one hand he spoke with a fierce voice defending the present drafting. On the other, he referred three or four times to the need to discuss before Report. At one point, he said that he was sure that a mutually agreeable position would be found. We need to study exactly what he said. Against that background, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, when we discussed Clause 2 and the Constitution Committee’s amendments, I said I did not wish to exclude the three paragraphs that the Constitution Committee wanted to exclude; I wish to exclude them instead from amendment under this paragraph. With the discussion we just had about what is necessary rather than just appropriate, to put as much as possible beyond the temptation of amendment by the Government seems to be a good idea. That was the approach I outlined previously. As far as this clause is concerned, it is in line with the Constitution Committee and with the Bingham Centre report, and in view of the state of my voice, I think it is best if I just say that I beg to move.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I am tempted to send some cough sweets to the noble Baroness to help her: she certainly has my sympathy, and I suspect the Prime Minister’s sympathy, for the difficult position she is in. I am grateful to her for the amendment and this debate.
The noble Baroness has proposed to limit the Clause 7(1) power so that it is only possible to correct deficiencies in domestic legislation in two circumstances. The first is where the deficiency is of any type provided for in this Bill and that the legislation was a statutory instrument made under Section 2(2) of, or paragraph 1A of Schedule 2 to, the European Communities Act. The second, for all other EU derived domestic legislation, is that inappropriate EU references are the only type of deficiency which may be corrected.
I understand the noble Baroness’s well-intentioned desire to, where possible, protect from amendment legislation which has already been considered in detail by this House. However, while Section 2(2) of the ECA has been a crucial tool in the Government’s implementation of our EU obligations, it is far from the only way the Government have implemented EU obligations in the 45 years of our EU membership. Indeed, many noble Lords have been vociferous in encouraging Governments past and present to do more under primary legislation and specific powers and less under Section 2(2). Furthermore, whether a deficiency is in primary or secondary legislation is not, I believe, a meaningful indication of the type of deficiencies which might arise in it, or the significance of the correction that needs to be made.
To be ready for exit day a large number of fairly straight-forward changes will need to be made to primary legislation in exactly the same way as in secondary legislation made under the ECA. For example, Section 42(5) of the Employment Relations Act 2004, concerning information and consultation, will require amendment as outlined in the draft regulations the Government have already published. This power relates to the implementation of a directive. This directive has already been implemented in our domestic law and the relevant implementing legislation will be converted to retained EU law by the Bill. Once the UK has withdrawn from the EU, this power will have no practical application. I hope noble Lords will accept that we need to be able to make appropriate corrections to such deficiencies. The power therefore needs to be broad enough to allow for corrections to be made to both primary and secondary legislation for the full range of deficiencies. Textual and technical changes must be made in primary legislation if we are to have a functioning statute book on exit day.
The Government’s contention is that what matters is not the status of the law that is being amended but the purpose of the amendment. Indeed, some provisions of secondary legislation made under Section 2(2) are extremely important, which is why the Government have provided for the sifting committee and affirmative procedure to ensure that all regulations are subject to the appropriate level of scrutiny. For example, much of the vital statutory protections of the rights of workers in this country lies in regulations made under Section 2(2) of the ECA. We have already published details of some of the corrections that will be required here, and I hope they have laid concerns to rest. They are also representative of the type of corrections that will arise throughout the statute book and will need to be corrected to ensure that important areas of law continue to function.
I hope I have persuaded the noble Baroness of the Government’s position that it is the substance of the change, not where it is being made, that matters, and that she therefore feels able—if she can do so—to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak also to Amendment 82, which itself is amended—or, in truth, corrected—by Amendment 82A.
Amendment 80 is pretty simple and is very much in line with the amendments we have debated today, which aim to restrict the very wide powers that Ministers—be they Minister number 1 or number 109 —have dreamed up for themselves in this Bill. The amendment would remove from Ministers the discretion to extend the definition of what constitutes a deficiency in retained law. That is important, given that Ministers have taken considerable powers to correct what they consider to be deficiencies. So it would be a two-way gain for Ministers: first, they could extend what they define as a deficiency and then they could use their powers to correct it.
The main thrust of Amendment 82 is to prevent secondary legislation under Clause 7 from being able to change the Equality Act 2010 or subordinate legislation made under that Act, or, indeed, later legislation, as in Amendment 82A. Again, it is about not reducing the rights and remedies that are available under EU retained law. While we were drafting Amendment 82 we also put in wording to restrict the ability under Clause 7 to impose taxes, fees, charges and to create quangos or introduce new criminal offences under secondary legislation. However, as I have alerted the Minister, we will not deal with that at this point because three separate groups are coming up and we will discuss the issue of criminal offences and fees later. The important thing for now is not allowing Ministers to extend the definition of deficiency or to use the regulations under Clause 7 to change the Equality Act and the subordinate legislation that flows from it. I beg to move.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 80 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I cannot speak for her, but my remarks will also encompass Amendment 80A in the name of my noble friend Lady Bowles who, as the Committee will appreciate, is not in a fit state to speak to her amendment, although it relates to Clause 7(3).
Clause 7(3) is rather strange. It was inserted by the Government on Report in the other place. I am trying to resist the word “sneaky”, but the Government gave with one hand and took with another. On 16 January, David Lidington said in the other place:
“The Government remain of the view that the power in clause 7(1) is crucial. We do not take delegated powers lightly, and we want them to be tailored as tightly to their purpose as possible. We have therefore listened to hon. Members’ concerns about the scope of the power in clause 7(1), and in bringing forward Government amendments 14 and 15, we have built on the amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve)”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/1/18; col. 838.]
Amendment 14 was the one that led to the change in Clause 7(1) to put in “are” instead of “consist of but are not limited to”. So it was more specific on what ministerial powers could cover.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s Amendment 82. Yet again it is the issue of using secondary legislation under Clause 7 to make changes, in this case to the Equality Act 2010 or to subordinate legislation made under that Act, or to reduce rights or remedies under EU retained law,
“in comparison with the position immediately before exit day”.
Your Lordships’ Committee made its views on the abuse of Clause 7 abundantly clear during the earlier debate. Surely the same reasoning applies.
Lord Beith
My Lords, I follow my noble friend Lady Ludford in querying what is intended by Clause 7(3) and hope that the Minister will be able to draw on his limited stock of examples to provide me with one—indeed, with something that fulfils this definition:
“There is also a deficiency in retained EU law where the Minister considers that there is … anything in retained EU law which is of a similar kind to any deficiency which falls within subsection (2)”.
In that case, why does it not fall within subsection (2)? Can the Minister give me an example of something which subsection (3)(a) would provide for but which subsection (2) has not provided for?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, this has been a short but interesting debate covering an important point. When my ministerial colleagues in the other place moved the amendment that inserted into the Bill the subsection that Amendment 80 would remove, the Government’s reasoning was accepted by the other place without a Division. That is an onerous responsibility upon me, and I hope I can replicate that performance and satisfy any concerns the noble Baroness has.
As we heard at Second Reading, most of the House accept that the power in Clause 7(1) is essential but, was as said then, the Government are looking forward to using the expertise of this House to tighten any slack in the power and ensure that it is capable of neither too much nor too little. I have just addressed the importance of retaining Clause 7(3)(b), but I repeat that the Government believe we can be a responsible Government only by ensuring that we can provide for all the types of deficiency we discover.
Subsection (3)(a) provides that the meaning of “deficiencies” in Clause 7 includes those of a similar kind to those set out in subsection (2). The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Beith, asked what this means and whether there are any examples. This ensures that, for example, deficiencies relating to arrangements between public authorities in the British Overseas Territories and the EU and its member states, or between the UK and the EEA and EFTA states are caught by the definition of a deficiency. They are not included in the list in subsection (2) but are very much of a similar kind to the types of deficiencies listed, and it is important that the power is wide enough to allow the Government to correct them. This House accepted at Second Reading the principle of resolving all the deficiencies in retained EU law using the power in Clause 7, and we cannot do this without both a type of sweeper—I think the legal term is “ejusdem generis”—and a power to provide for additional kinds of deficiency if they are later identified. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that that is why the clause is drafted the way that it is.
May I seek clarification from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter? I was not quite clear whether she wanted to speak to Amendment 82 or whether she is forgoing that for the moment for the purposes of this debate.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I am speaking to only a part of Amendment 82 and to Amendment 82A —in other words, to the bits about not using Clause 7 to remove any rights and standards or to repeal or revoke the Equality Acts 2006 and 2010 or any subordinate legislation made under them. There is obviously much more in Amendment 82. There is stuff about criminal sanctions, raising taxes and setting up public bodies. I was making the point that I am not talking about those now because we have separate groups on those topics. The bit of Amendment 82 and Amendment 82A are about not using this power to make any changes under the Equality Acts.
Baroness Goldie
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. I am looking at my speaking notes. It is a little difficult to disentangle the points to which she has just alluded. If the Committee will indulge me, I will perhaps try to cover the general points.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I emailed the Minister’s advisers very early this morning and spoke to them earlier, so I would hope they had got the Minister’s notes in the right place.
Baroness Goldie
I thank the noble Baroness. I shall soldier on as best I can with the material I have. By way of general comment on Amendment 82, I hope I can reassure the Committee that I understand the concerns many noble Lords have regarding the scope of the powers we are seeking to take in the Bill. I shall use this opportunity to allay, I hope, some of the concerns as we look at the general premise of this amendment in relation to the Clause 7(1) power.
The general concern is about the ability to create new public authorities, which was alluded to by the noble Baroness. Let me make it clear that we have been listening to Members of this House and the other place; the noble Baroness is not alone in having these concerns. As such, we have made it a priority to find a solution that will satisfy both Parliament and the objectives of the Bill, and the Government are looking very closely at whether the key powers need to be drawn as widely as they are in this regard. We will revisit this matter in more detail when we reach the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, but I hope this satisfies the noble Baroness on this point for now and signals our commitment to listen to the concerns of noble Lords.
The noble Baroness, in her amendment, expressed some concerns about the power to create criminal offences. We will come back to this in more detail later in the debate on these clauses when we respond to the amendments in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. If the noble Baroness wishes me to do so, I will deal with that in more detail now, but perhaps that is one of the areas she is happy for us to deal with later.
The noble Baroness also expressed concern about not losing any EU functions. The Government are committed to ensuring continuity, but there are a small number of functions it would be inappropriate for us to transfer to a UK public authority after exit. Examples might include the functions of the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union or the Authority for European Political Parties and European Political Foundations. The Clause 7(1) power makes provision to remove these functions, but only if, outside the EU, they were somehow deficient, not simply because the Government disliked them as a matter of policy.
The noble Baroness raised the important matter of maintaining rights, standards and equalities protections, and I want to make it clear to noble Lords it is not the intention of this Government to weaken these as a result of our exit from the EU. It is for that very reason that it is necessary for Ministers to have the ability to make adjustments to any relevant legislation to ensure we can continue to enjoy these rights, standards and equalities as we currently do when we are no longer part of the EU.
To reassure noble Lords of the Government’s commitment to ensuring transparency around any amendments made to equalities legislation, we tabled an amendment in the other place that will require Ministers to make a statement in the Explanatory Memoranda of all SIs made under this power and the Clause 8 and 9 powers confirming that they have had due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct prohibited under the Equality Act 2010.
Would the noble Baroness like me to respond on data protection? It is very helpful to get that reassuring shake of the head. In conclusion, I thank the noble Baroness for perhaps simplifying the matters immediately before us. I hope that the points I have raised in addressing her first amendment, and then those parts of her Amendment 82 she is concerned about, are enough to demonstrate the need for the power to have such scope and to be able to address all the deficiencies, including those alike to the types listed in Clause 7(2). In these circumstances, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Ludford
Before the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, responds, forgive me, but I am not sure I have entirely grasped this. Are the Government going to have another look at Clause 7(3)? In the other place, the Government changed Clause 7(2) so that instead of saying that deficiencies “included” but were “not limited to” those in a list, it now says “the deficiencies are” the list. However, Clause 7(3) adds, “Oh, but by the way, we can do things ‘similar’ to those in the list”. The Minister has not explained why the Government cannot lengthen the list to obviate the need for a provision that says Ministers can do “similar” things. That is why I say the Government are giving with one hand, in Clause 7(2), but then coming back with Clause 7(3) and saying, “Oh well, we’ve limited ourselves there, but we’re going to expand our powers here”.
The noble Baroness referred to these changes being passed without a Division, but a bloc of five or six government amendments was voted on in one Division. I am not aware that in the other place they really distinguished between the amendments, because the one tightening this up was lumped in with the one expanding it. I do not know whether I am being overly cynical here, but it seems to me that a fairly clever government operation in the other place gave with one hand and took with another. I would like an assurance that the Government will have another look at this.
Baroness Goldie
I would say to the noble Baroness that our elected counterparts in the other place were able to scrutinise this Bill in detail. The Government were transparent in what they were doing when they brought forward the amendment that passed without a Division. Indeed, it was for Members of that place to raise objection to the way in which the amendments were structured, and I understand that no such objections arose—and at the end of the day, it passed without a Division.
Let me deal with the substantive point raised by the noble Baroness. I was trying to explain that if we accept the principle, as the House appears to, that we need this corrective provision to let us deal with deficiencies on withdrawal, the Government are trying to ensure that there is a flexibility. I made it clear in responding to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that this is about having the powers to do what we need to do, but being conscious that we do not want these powers to enable Governments to do too much. It is equally important that they are empowered to do what they need to do and that the powers do not restrict them so that they are only able to do too little.
Part of the difficulty with the complexity of what confronts the statute book is that there is a degree of unpredictability in the events with which we are dealing. We do not know quite what difficulties may arise. That is why there is a desire to build in the flexibility created by Clause 7(3). I did endeavour, in responding to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, to give an example of the kind of things that are not in Clause 7(2) but would actually be covered by subsection (3). There is no further comment I can make to the noble Baroness, other than to repeat my reassurance that the Government are anxious to work with this House in trying to make sure that this clause is responsible, but also workmanlike and capable of managing the difficult situations that may arise, so that action can be taken to correct deficiencies without harm being caused because the power does not exist to do that.
Lord Adonis
I took it as quite a significant move on the Government’s part for the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, to say that she was open to discussions about limiting the power to create new public bodies—and it is one that we welcome. That power, I know, has caused concern in the House. The noble Baroness has shown herself to be so emollient that we very much hope to hear a great deal more from her in the next six days of Committee. We will welcome her presence at whatever hour of the night she wishes to speak.
Baroness Goldie
I am not one to spurn the comments of attractive gentlemen, particularly when they are honeyed compliments uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. As I have said in previous debates, I may not always be able to acquiesce on points that he makes, but I understand that my noble friend the Minister is prepared to look again at the creation of new bodies. I cannot provide further detail at this stage, but it is an area where we have an open mind.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I thank the noble Baroness for that. Obviously, we will come on to a grouping of amendments specifically about public bodies—perhaps even tonight. I will deal firstly with the amendment to take out Clause 7(3) on page 5. I was a little worried when the Minister said that it allowed some flexibility—which I take to mean wriggle room, or wanting to do something that is not quite allowed for. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, described the problem of subsection (3) better than I could. Our concern is partly that we are again back to the implications of where the Minister considers something—which is a very wide way of saying that where a Minister considers, without any test, they can then define something as “similar” to another deficiency. We may have to return to this, because I do not think that it is robust enough.
Her particular example did not help her case, given that Clause 7(2)(d)(i) involves the EU, an EU entity, a member state, or a public authority and a member state. EFTA and NATO must be the only other two bodies: could we just not write those in? To put in a whole clause just to allow for EFTA does not seem to me, with all that discretion, very appropriate. So I think we may want to return to that.
Amendment 82, as amended by Amendment 82A, is very much about not using regulations to amend, repeal or revoke either the Equality Act 2006 or the Equality Act 2010—or, indeed, to reduce any right conferred on a person by retained EU law, if it were to be made less favourable. The Minister may have said that that was not the intention but, without the words in our amendment, clearly that would be possible. For the moment, I hope that we can revert to the specifics, such as public bodies, taxes and criminal offences and put that to one side. However, we may need to return later to subsection (3). I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to speak to Amendment 81, which for these purposes is joined with Amendments 95, 96, 100, 227C and 244. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is not in his place. I would be interested to hear the content of the other amendments, but they seem to make very positive noises that there should be no increase in legislative burdens on individuals in businesses; that we should not exceed what is essential and not impose greater burdens; and that the Government should seek to make only technical changes and not to change policy materially.
I speak specifically to Amendment 81, which relates to deficiencies arising from withdrawal from the EU and considered in this group. The difficulty that I have with the wording as it stands in Clause 7(4) is partly because it contains a double negative and does not seem to be plain English, saying,
“retained EU law is not deficient merely because it does not contain any modification of EU law”—
and so it goes on. So partly the amendment is to express what is clearly meant, to seek greater clarity, but it also goes to the timing of the laws deemed to be deficient.
I think that it was my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern who said earlier that it was for Parliament to veto any statutory instrument put forward by government through the normal procedures of negative or affirmative resolution. Someone else in an earlier debate said that it should be the right of Parliament to be able to scrutinise amendments that fall under this clause—and, I would argue, particularly under Clause 7(4). So the question really to the Minister is to ask, if there is to be this scrutiny, at what stage this scrutiny would take place. My understanding is that the Minister is going to be able to act before Brexit to be able to prevent a deficiency from arising. My question is at what stage that would be and how Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise that. Also, if failure of retained EU law is a type of deficiency, and a failure means that the law does not operate effectively, we have already established that deficiency could cover a wider range of cases where it does not function appropriately or sensibly. Guidance as to who will actually decide what the deficiency is and when it will apply will be extremely helpful.
I mentioned at the outset that subsection (4) is not immediately clear. One turns to the Explanatory Notes and particularly paragraph 120, which says:
“Subsection (4) provides that the retained EU law in the UK is not deficient just because the EU subsequently makes changes to the law in the EU after the UK has left, or planned changes come into effect after exit. The law is being preserved and converted as it was immediately before exit day. The EU might go on to make changes to its law but those subsequent changes and the consequent divergence between UK and EU law do not by themselves automatically make the UK law deficient”.
I am not sure that this entirely clarifies the situation, nor does paragraph 116, relating to the earlier subsection (2). I want to probe the Minister to perhaps tease out what is the legislative deficiency, whether there is more than one stage at which it can apply, and who actually decides. If it is the Executive, at what stage can Parliament call them to account to scrutinise that? I hope that, in summing up on Amendment 81, the Minister can clarify, to create greater legal certainty, the legal basis for the functional restriction—where this is contained in a directive and therefore not retained or transposed into domestic law—to be described as a deficiency.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
My Lords, I speak only to Amendment 227C, just to say that this is a sort of “double omnibus” amendment in that it covers the whole Bill and also puts together, in its proposed new paragraphs from (e) onwards, some ideas about how to address in a generic way some of the concerns that other noble Lords have expressed in what I call the “Thou shalt not” clauses. Clearly, we cannot go through the Lobbies 20 times to deal with them all but, if this kind of formulation is adopted, we could achieve something that was both votable and covered a lot of the common ground that there appears to be when looking at other amendments, many of which will be spoken to later. I will limit my comments to that for now.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
In the absence of my noble friend Lord Bassam, I just want to encourage the Minister—though I am sure it is already in his notes—to comment on Amendment 244, which appears in this group. It requires that:
“The statement under sub-paragraph (2) must include a certification that the regulation does no more than make technical changes to retained EU law in order for it to work following exit, and that no policy decisions are being made”.
I appreciate that the Minister and other Ministers have said all the way along that this is not about making policy, so it should be an easy certification on this occasion for a Minister to sign. I hope that that might be accepted.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, Amendment 81 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, concerns the core concept of this Bill, namely that it preserves and makes functional the law at the moment of the UK’s exit from the EU. As the long and learned debates in this House and the other place demonstrate, this is of course something much simpler said than done. We can all agree that the law in the UK should not be considered deficient simply because the EU adopts a new law once the UK has left. The Bill reflects that with the provision in Clause 7(4) and, therefore, this would not constitute a valid trigger for the use of the power in Clause 7(1).
It is also the case that the law is not deficient simply because EU law, as is often the case in some areas, contains provisions that are adopted before our withdrawal but only come into force or apply after exit day. This reflects the approach taken in Clause 3, which provides for the conversion of direct EU legislation that is operative in the UK immediately before exit day. As the Government set out when we debated Clause 3, we believe that it is right that we incorporate only that law which is operative at the time of our exit. It is surely not taking back control to this Parliament and the devolved legislatures if we simultaneously preserve the automaticity of new provisions of what was EU law becoming operative in our law, months or perhaps years later. It would be unacceptable for EU law provisions to flow automatically into the UK many years after we have left and would undermine the clarity and certainty this Bill is designed to provide. That is why Clause 3 preserves only the law as individuals and businesses were bound by it immediately before exit day, and why that decision is reflected in Clause 7(4), which makes it clear that the law is not deficient simply because it does not contain planned future changes to EU law. In preserving EU law, the Government have drawn a line in the legal sand on exit day. Wherever the line was drawn, the outcomes would, of course, please some and not others. I note that the controversial ports regulation, although already in force, will enter into application only days before exit day. Clause 7(4) merely reflects this line in the legal sand.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Although Amendment 244, in the name of my noble friend Lord Bassam, asks for,
“a certification that the regulation does no more than make technical changes … and that no policy decisions are being made”,
I take the point that policy choices may be being made. Although it is not in this group, Amendment 244A says that there would be a certificate saying that either the change was just technical or a policy choice has been made. That amendment may not be in this group, but I am interested whether the Minister is closing his mind to the idea that there should be a certificate from the relevant Minister. That is what this amendment aims to do.
Lord Callanan
No. As I have made clear throughout the Bill, our minds are not closed on many of these matters. I think I gave the noble Baroness an example. It is a difficult distinction to draw about what is making policy or what is a policy choice. As I said, the choice between two regulators can be said to be a policy choice, but it is certainly not our intention to use any of the power in the Bill to massively expand on different levels of policy. It is our intention to impose a snapshot on exit day and ensure that the law is compliant and tidy, as we have said.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister and to all who have contributed to this little group. While I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply, I am not sure that he addressed the question of timings, and I am slightly concerned about the scope for judicial reviews. I end with the comment that the wording I seek to delete refers to the earlier Amendment 18, on which we had a lengthier debate, and to which I will return on Report. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
Amendment 82A, which is an amendment to Amendment 82, therefore falls.
Amendment 83
Lord Newby
Lord Newby
My Lords, this amendment simply asserts a long-established principle of British practice and law, namely that public bodies are created via primary legislation. There are good reasons for this principle. Public bodies perform important functions. They cost money to establish and run, and they can often themselves levy fees and charges or bring enforcement actions in the courts. They typically have quite a big impact on the people and organisations that they regulate. They are, in short, important. They should not be capable of being established via secondary legislation for the simple reason that such legislation does not allow their purposes, scope and operating practices to be subject to adequate debate.
In the Commons, debate on any statutory instrument is limited to 90 minutes. While we can take slightly longer in your Lordships’ House, the nature of statutory instruments, as the Minister knows, is that they can only be approved unamended or rejected outright, except in the most extreme circumstances. If we attempt, as we very rarely do, to reject them outright, we are accused by the Government of exceeding our powers, and the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is wheeled out to threaten us with dire consequences.
I had rather hoped that the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, who had planned to be in his place, was in his place, because he wrote the Cabinet Office guidance which clearly explains to Ministers that they should use primary legislation when establishing public bodies. However, in order to check whether I was right in thinking that it was normal practice to establish public bodies by primary legislation, I had a look at the public bodies that the Government proposed to abolish in the Public Bodies Act. These were a very wide range, from the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council to the Victims’ Advisory Panel.
I asked the Library to discover by what power this random cross-section of public bodies had been established. Of the 34 listed in Schedule 1 to the Bill they looked at 27. They were without exception established by primary legislation, and while it is unsurprising in the case of larger entities such as the Competition Service—established by the Enterprise Act 2002—it was also the case with relatively insignificant ones such as the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee, established by the Forestry Act 1967, or the Railway Heritage Committee, established by the Railway Heritage Act 1996. So what the Government are proposing in the Bill is without precedent. Certainly, any body established to fill a gap created by our exit from the EU would be more important than some of those I have already mentioned.
Is such a departure justified? I do not, as a matter of principle, believe that it is, but if it were to be justified, the only grounds I could imagine the Government plausibly advancing were that there were simply far too many bodies to be established by primary legislation by exit day. At first sight this argument looks as though it might have some merit. There are, excluding the EU’s core institutions such as the Commission and the Parliament, some 54 other EU bodies described by the EU as,
“specialised agencies and decentralised bodies”.
Virtually all of them are set out in Amendment 263, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. But the truth is that we will not need to replicate anything like that number.
Clearly, we will not need to replicate the functions of the European Police College, or the Translation Centre for the Bodies of the European Union, or the European Institute for Gender Equality. We will not need to create new bodies in the area of financial regulation. In some cases, the question of whether we need to create new bodies or not is extremely unclear. The Prime Minister, in her speech last week, suggested we would be seeking associate membership of three bodies, which we are already members of by virtue of our European membership—namely, the European Medicines Agency, the European Chemicals Agency and the European Aviation Safety Agency. It is clear that, if we stayed in those bodies, the need to replicate them would be very small, if needed at all. However, the negotiating mandate published today by the European Council states that:
“The European Council further reiterates that the Union will preserve its autonomy as regards its decision making and excludes participation of the United Kingdom as a third country to EU institutions, agencies or bodies”.
It seems that, since the point at which I first drafted my speech for this evening, we may need to create three more bodies than I had originally envisaged. None the less, the total number we are talking about is substantially smaller than 54 and, almost certainly, is less than 10. Indeed the Government have already admitted that some bodies which will need to be created, will be created by primary legislation. We heard earlier today, when we were talking about environmental protections, that there will be an environmental protection Bill with a new environmental body created within it which replicates some of the functions of European environmental agencies.
So, despite the lack of clarity, we are talking about a relatively small number of bodies for which primary legislation should be needed—and there is almost certainly time for that legislation. Before leaving the subject, I would like to refer back to the debate we had earlier, when we discussed Euratom, and also discussed Amendment 263 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. That debate asked an extremely important question of the Government, which was: will they publish strategies explaining how these various bodies are to be replicated, or not replicated, and what we should do to fill any gaps, so that we know what is happening? The answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, consisted of a single sentence. He said that it,
“would be neither helpful to Parliament, nor in the national interest”.—[Official Report, 21/2/18; col. 252.]
I suggest to the noble Lord that both those statements were false. It will be in the interest of Parliament to know how the Government intend to fill gaps in respect of public bodies caused by our leaving the EU. For the noble Lord to assume that he knows what is in the interest of Parliament is rather extraordinary. What he really means is that it is not in the interest of the Government to say what they will do to fill the gaps, because they clearly do not know. They do not know where they will get to in the negotiations and I suspect that, regarding some of these bodies, they do not know, full stop. I invite the Minister in his reply this evening to be a bit more gracious towards the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and his suggestion, and to commit the Government to come forward with some suggestions as to how they are going to fill the gaps that they are about to create.
On the amendment itself, it is very straightforward. There is a well-established principle in British practice and law that public bodies are established by primary legislation. The Government are seeking to tear up that convention for no good reason and they should desist.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, the difficulty with having been in this House for a number of years is that all these debates come round and round. I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, was right in saying that this is the first time we have been faced with sweeping powers for Governments to reform public bodies by secondary legislation. He may remember that one of the first acts of the coalition Government in 2010 was to introduce the Public Bodies Bill. I vividly remember the debates on that Bill because it gave sweeping powers to the Government to abolish public bodies by statutory instrument. Because it is the job of the Opposition to oppose draconian attempts by Governments to seize Henry VIII powers, those of us on this side of the House made exactly the same speech as the noble Lord, who was then sitting on the Bench opposite, has made, saying why that should not happen.
There was then one of those classic showdowns between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. From memory, it centred on whether the Youth Justice Board, which at that time was threatened with abolition, should be capable of being abolished and whether it should be done by primary or secondary legislation. We all thought that was a very bad idea because it was doing such a brilliant job of dealing with the problem of young offender institutions. I believe we saved the Youth Justice Board, and all the brilliant developments in penal policy that we have seen in this country in the last eight years, which have been such a phenomenal success, are no doubt due to its survival at the insistence of the House of Lords in 2010.
The proposal put forward by the noble Lord is all immensely worthy and I obviously support everything he has said. The power grab by the Government which the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who I see is now back in his place, is trying to undertake is utterly reprehensible. I thought I heard the noble Baroness say earlier that the Government are prepared to move on this. I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have been speaking so that we can bank this great act of liberalism on the part of the noble Lord. It will be the first one that we have heard since he assumed his current place but we would welcome it greatly.
I simply note that in the great scheme of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, this is a small issue. It is a classic House of Lords issue where we will probably achieve a great victory. It will make no difference whatever in the great scheme of things but I suppose that is why we are here.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I rise to take the place of my noble friend Lord O’Donnell, who unfortunately cannot be here, to make it clear that there are quite a few others on these Benches who share his views. I would not be so unwise as to talk about the collectivity of Cross-Benchers—I have been around long enough to know that that does not exist—but there are quite a few, and for the same reason. I hope that when he comes to reply to this debate, the Minister will not again trot out the “housemaid’s baby” argument that he has been using all evening—that it is a very small one and nothing terrible is going to happen, et cetera. We are talking here about some quite significant decisions which, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said, have invariably, and quite correctly, in the past been taken by primary legislation.
I know—this is very welcome—that in her Mansion House speech the Prime Minister rather reduced the number of public bodies that might have to be created following our leaving. She has recognised that we would do much better to stay in a number of the public bodies that already exist in the European Union, and we will see whether that bears fruit in the negotiations. That might reduce the list but it does not remove the problem. Therefore, this amendment deserves wide support from all round the Committee. It would be an extremely unwelcome and dangerous precedent if we started delegating the powers to set up these public bodies to a government Minister with only a resolution available and the nuclear option to stop it. I support the amendment.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, was kind enough to refer to my amendment, which was probably misgrouped at an earlier stage when we were discussing Euratom, I wish to underline the points that he makes. At that time I asked the Minister to set out for Parliament the approach to the EU agencies that the Government were going to take in the negotiations. Frankly, the noble Lord was far too dismissive of that approach, and it would do him some good now if he were to say that at some point during the course of the Bill the Government will set out the line that they will take. After all, as has been said, the Prime Minister has set out her line in relation to some of those agencies. Unfortunately, within 48 hours, the EU has effectively said, “Sorry, that is not on”—not only for the post-transition period but for the transition period itself. While we were continuing to follow the rules and procedures of those agencies, we would no longer take part in their activities. We have an issue here.
I was a bit diffident about the coalition’s Public Bodies Bill—I did not want to embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Newby, who has been so kind to me—but, as my noble friend said, the achievement of the House of Lords was to knock out an enormous schedule. The Chief Whip, who was the Minister in charge of the Bill at that time—he is now in his place—looks less fraught with this Bill than he did when he was dealing with the Public Bodies Bill. In the end he wisely convinced his colleagues that he had to drop the huge schedule that gave carte blanche powers to the Government to abolish or tweak the responsibilities of a host of public bodies. That Bill was to abolish bodies or alter their remit; this Bill is to set up entirely new bodies. Unless we do that knowing what the overall approach is, this House cannot give the Government that degree of power.
Mention has been made of the new environmental body. Strictly speaking, under this clause as it currently stands, the Government would be able to establish, under secondary legislation, the kind of body that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who is no longer in his place, was arguing for earlier—a body so powerful it could sanction other public bodies, including the Government, if it was able to reproduce the powers that presently rest with the European Commission. That is an enormous power, which this House would not allow the Executive arm of government on its own without primary legislation conducted through the two Houses.
I recognise that there is a timescale problem for the Government, but might it be possible to set up some of these bodies in shadow form? If there are 10 bodies, as the noble Lord suggests, there may be a need at least to stop the process before the final passage of this Bill. To have permanent public bodies to regulate large swathes of our public life, industry and personal behaviour—even if there are only a dozen of them—would require primary legislation. This House needs to assert that it does and the Government need to accept that.
Lord Beith
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Newby on one specific reason why it is primary legislation that we use, and should use, for the creation of public bodies, even in these circumstances. He referred to the somewhat limited procedures in both Houses, but particularly in the Commons, for dealing with statutory instruments, but one abiding characteristic of them is that they do not admit of amendment. When a public body is being created, even in the short timescale we are talking about here, its remit, terms of reference, composition and the powers it can exercise are incapable of amendment. The idea that the Government would produce so perfect a form that it would not benefit from amendment, or even discussion of amendment, is so fanciful that I am sure the Minister will not advance it. Surely primary legislation capable of amendment, even if addressed with greater speed than normal because of the circumstances, is the only defensible way of doing something as extensive as creating a public body.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to these amendments. I believe that public bodies should be established by primary legislation. Parliament must have the opportunity to properly scrutinise and access the expenditure associated with trying to replicate bodies to which we already belong. The Bill, and in particular Clause 7, contains elements that are frightening to those of us who believe in parliamentary democracy. Handing such powers to the Executive is a gross dereliction of duty. I encourage my noble friend to urgently ask his department to reconsider the Government’s current intention to leave so many excellent EU agencies and try to recreate our own versions.
Baroness Whitaker
My Lords, it must be inherently undemocratic for bodies that have significant obligations, for instance under the Equality Act or the Human Rights Act, not to be set up with the full parliamentary scrutiny of primary legislation, so I support these amendments.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I think the good news is that we heard a hint earlier that this might be one of the areas where we are going to hear a bit of movement tonight. If the Chief Whip will allow us to go home after this group, we will be sent home in a very happy mood.
My name is also on these two amendments and I will not make the case again, because the noble Lord, Lord Newby, made the clearest of cases against the use of secondary powers to create new quangos, with others adding similar reasons for why this is not just a power too far but is in breach of government guidelines.
I will add only two points. First—this is a slight gripe, I am afraid—in answer to my Written Question as to whether there were other examples of NGOs established by secondary legislation, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, said that it was not possible to answer other than “at disproportionate cost”. But the Government must have known why I was asking this Question—they have a brain—and I would have thought that if there were some public bodies set up by secondary legislation they could have found a few examples. This was some time ago. Unfortunately it is an undated letter—like many I get from the Government —but it is HL1651, so I think it was probably last year that I asked it.
My second point—and in a sense it is really the point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Beith—arises from my experience both as a consumer representative and as a former member of various regulatory bodies set up always by statute. It is simply to say that the very way we establish those bodies—whether it is the Charity Commission, the Competition Commission, the Legal Services Board or the National Consumer Council of which my noble friend Lord Whitty was such an eminent chair until the Public Bodies Act abolished it—affects how they do their job. The founding statute will spell out their task and set out the “have regards to” that influence how they set about their work. It will also define who sits on their boards, how they are appointed, to whom they report and whether, for example, they have a duty to heed consumers in the relevant industry, the regulated industry itself, the employees, the wider social considerations such as the environment or things like that—and indeed their degree of independence from the Government. It is a crucial part of the function of many public bodies.
Such limitations on the powers of those public bodies, and the requirements for how they operate, are written in primary legislation. They can be discussed carefully, they can be amended—as we did before with others, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said—they can be debated in this Chamber or in the other place, and they could have pre-legislative scrutiny. For example, setting up a new public ombudsman—as the Member in the other place Mr Jenkins has been recommending—could come by a Bill and could be amended after consultation with the relevant interested parties. That is the way that we should set up public bodies. Instead, this Bill says to a Minister, “Well, you decide. You decide how to set it up; you decide how its board will be established; you decide who to appoint it—probably you could decide to appoint your friends to it”—and Parliament will nod it through. That is not good enough and this power must be dispensed with.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate, if only to confound all the prejudices of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that I am some inflexible hardliner who never gives him anything he might want and that only my noble friend Lady Goldie can—I was going to say “satisfy him”, but perhaps I should not use that word. He could not put a cigarette paper between us, by the way. She might do so with more charm than me, but we are saying essentially the same thing.
I understand that a number of noble Lords are concerned about the scope of this power and I reassure your Lordships that the Government are listening to those concerns. When Clause 7 was drafted, we thought it would be only sensible for the sake of contingency to include in its scope the ability to establish new public authorities to ensure, as many amendments in the other place sought to ensure, against losing any important functions as they are transferred over from the EU, as no such public authority may currently exist in the UK. Certainty and continuity are, after all, the watchwords of the Bill.
We have been clear that our preference will always be, where possible, to transfer any functions returning from the EU to existing bodies in the UK, but it has proven necessary to legislate in parallel with negotiations because of the strict Article 50 timeline. Therefore, we do not know at this stage exactly which functions are returning. We must make this legislation without prejudice to those negotiations, where, as the Prime Minister said in her Mansion House speech last week, we are looking to continue a productive relationship with various EU bodies as part of our deep and special partnership.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked about our strategy towards the agencies. Where there is a demonstrable national interest in pursuing a continued relationship with any EU body or agency, the Government will consider carefully whether we should do so. However, as he knows, it is ultimately a matter for negotiations. We remain committed to keep Parliament as fully informed as possible without prejudice to our negotiating position.
However, we already know of one function that we expect to return to the UK and which it is agreed does not sit happily with any existing public body: our environmental protections. This prompted the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to announce our intention to consult on a new, independent and statutory body to advise and challenge the Government and potentially other public bodies on the environment—we discussed this extensively earlier—stepping in when needed to hold these bodies to account and enforce standards. As such, we need to retain the power until we can be confident of delivering all necessary legislative changes without it.
It is for this reason that I am sorry to say that we will not be accepting Amendments 83 and 94 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, which seek to remove this ability from the scope of the power. The Government have a responsibility to safeguard against the potential disruption and confusion caused to businesses and individuals as we exit the EU, and we believe that the ability to create new public authorities plays a big part in ensuring this. However, the Government also recognise their responsibility to Parliament in listening to Members’ concerns regarding the legislation it seeks to pass. Therefore, I can assure noble Lords that the Government are working hard on finding a resolution to this matter that will satisfy the concerns of noble Lords—maybe even the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—and we will revisit it on Report. In the meantime, with those assurances, I hope the noble Lord will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I am most grateful to everybody who has spoken in this debate and to the Minister for his reply. On several occasions this evening he has managed to combine Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde in the same speech and he has repeated that performance here. I am pleased, none the less, that the Government are considering how to deal with this issue. The only thing that slightly concerns me, both in this case and others where we have had the same response from the Government Front Bench, is that that clock is ticking quite quickly towards Report. The fact that the Government are thinking about it is better than their not thinking about it, but we will soon come to a point at which their thoughts need to be crystallised in something that we can look at.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made an extremely sensible suggestion for how we can deal with some of these issues in the short term, with the establishment of shadow bodies, and I hope that is one of the options the Government will consider as they move forward. We shall return to this, in one form or another, on Report, but for this evening I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 12th March 2018
(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 79-VII Seventh marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 331KB) - (12 Mar 2018)
Lord Patel
“( ) No regulations may be made under this section which make changes to EU-derived domestic legislation concerning the regulation of clinical trials until the Secretary of State has laid a report before both Houses of Parliament assessing the costs and benefits of adopting EU Regulation 536/2014.”
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 84 in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Jolly, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, is a very simple amendment that seeks clarification about how the Government intend to deal with the clinical trials regulation when it comes into force. The amendment is not designed to be political, or to interfere with the aims of the Bill. It has been tabled to bring to the Government’s attention a very specific issue with the forthcoming clinical trials regulation as the UK withdraws from the EU and the implication that will have on clinical trials.
The CTR is a significant improvement on the existing regulations governing clinical trials that it will replace, the clinical trials directive. It has the potential to benefit both patients and the research environment in the UK, yet it is also in a somewhat unusual position with regard to the Bill. It will reform the governance of clinical trials across the European Union. The UK was central to its development, with both the MHRA—the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency—and individual researchers contributing their expertise. It was adopted in 2014, with the UK’s full support. However, due to a minor technical delay with the set-up of the data-sharing portal it will not come into effect until late 2019, rather than this year as planned. As such, it will come into effect after exit day and will not be covered by Clause 3 and what it converts into UK law. It will be the existing clinical trials directive that is covered by the current Bill.
If we do not take steps to adopt the CTR, we will fall out of alignment when it comes into effect and our ability to undertake collaborative clinical trials with our EU partners will cease. To reduce the uncertainty that is of concern to the research community and pharma, the Government should commit to aligning with the CTR when it comes into effect, and provide details of how they will seek to do this.
The CTR is a major improvement upon the current clinical trials directive, harmonising the approach to conducting clinical trials across the EU. It will include a co-ordinated, centralised approval process and a portal which decreases the administrative burden for clinical trials and support. It is transparent and, since it is a regulation, it will immediately come into law across member states, ensuring clinical trials governance across the EU. The current divergence in how the clinical trials directive is applied in member states results in substantial delays in opening trials involving more than one country.
The CTR allows for a more risk-proportionate approach to trials and authorisation, extending them to investigational medicinal products and enabling the optimised use of medicines that already have marketing authorisation. Other benefits include quicker trial set-up, ambitious timelines for review, flexibility and the simple reporting of adverse reactions leading to improved patient safety. Patients also benefit from being involved in clinical studies, which are the gold standard for developing evidence to see whether a new intervention is suitable to become standard practice. They also provide patients with opportunities to access innovations at an early stage in their development. Through enhanced collaboration, the CTR would provide increased opportunities for UK patients to access clinical trials. Collaboration is particularly important on rare diseases, where patient pools are smaller. Streamlined co-operation on trials looking at these diseases is crucial in making progress in research and improving outcomes.
The CTR also has implications for UK science and innovation. The Prime Minister said in her Statement last week that,
“our partnership will need to cover agreements in other areas, including … a far-reaching science and innovation pact”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/3/18; col. 28.]
The UK’s life sciences are strong and the UK is a world leader in medical research. Looking at existing medicine, for instance, around 25% of the world’s top 100 prescription medicines were discovered and developed in the UK, while three of the five top-selling drugs to treat rheumatoid arthritis and other inflammatory conditions globally are innovations based on UK science. Unfortunately, we did not commercialise them so we do not get the billions with which they now benefit pharma.
The Government’s recent Life Sciences Industrial Strategy sets out the UK’s ambition to strengthen the environment for clinical trials. The strategy mentions opportunities to improve translational science and attract more clinical trials from industry. Alignment with the CTR will facilitate this ambition to come to fruition sooner.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Jolly has added her name to this amendment, but unfortunately she cannot be in her place today. She has asked me to speak in her stead, and I am delighted to do that. I declare an interest as chair of the Association of Medical Research Charities and of the Specialised Healthcare Alliance, which campaigns on behalf of people with rare diseases. Both these organisations have a direct interest in this amendment.
As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, made clear, the UK has a tremendous record in medical research, in both basic blue-sky research and in translation into treatments. We live in a golden age for medical research, and this golden age is driven very largely by the UK, by efforts in our universities and in our hospitals. There are many reasons for this pre-eminence: world-class university research, world-class medical institutions, the unique NHS system and a funding structure unlike anywhere else in the world, where medical research charities contribute £1.6 billion each year to research, sitting alongside public and private funding.
All this makes our medical research achievement one of the undoubted successes of the United Kingdom. This success has a simple and direct consequence: it produces very significant improvements in health and well-being and very significant improvements in our ability to cure and to treat disease. The chief mechanism by which research turns into cures or treatments is the mechanism of clinical trials.
The UK has long been, and remains, attractive to the pharmaceutical industry, for example, because of the NHS’s ability to run extensive clinical trials. The UK has been able to recruit the very best researchers—again partly because of the NHS. Another reason why clinical trials in the UK are important to researchers, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, made clear, is our alignment with the other 27 EU states under the existing EU clinical trials directive of 2004.
This alignment is absolutely critical. It allows wide and varied datasets, it creates standard procedures and protocols, and it makes research into rare diseases possible. This last point is of huge importance. Some diseases, very often serious diseases, are so rare that there is not available in any one country a sufficient number of patients for research to take place. But because we are aligned across the EU by the 2004 directive, we can and do find sufficient numbers across 28 countries to carry out effective research.
Pancreatic cancer is a case in point. This is one of the hardest cancers to treat and has an appallingly low survival rate. Just 1% of people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in England and Wales survive for 10 years or more. The European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer recruited more than 700 patients from the UK, Germany, Sweden and France to a large-scale clinical trial. The results showed that an extra 13% of the patients on the trial lived for five years when given the tested combinations of chemotherapy and drugs. This is a huge result for patients and for the future of pancreatic cancer treatment, all made possible by, and only because of, the ability to run trials across 28 countries under a common regime. I should add here that the European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer is led by an outstanding team at Liverpool University.
The 2004 clinical trials directive has proved invaluable. But it has also proved to have many deep and fairly obvious flaws, which we in the UK have been instrumental in trying to correct. After the introduction of the directive, the number of applications for clinical trials fell by 25% between 2007 and 2011, administration costs rose by 98% and delays in actually launching a clinical trial rose by 98%. All this was recognised in 2012 when, with a great deal of UK lobbying, work began on a revision to the directive.
This revision became, in 2014, the new EU clinical trials regulation, referred to in the amendment before us. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, the benefits of the new regulation are straightforward: it speeds up the process for launching new clinical trials; it establishes a more proportionate regulatory regime, with much less red tape; it recognises the concept of co-sponsorship of trials; it simplifies the rules for critical multicountry trials; and it streamlines reporting requirements. This means faster and cheaper trials, faster results and faster delivery of any benefits to patients. All these are of course very good things.
Although the new regulation was agreed in 2014, it was estimated that it would apply only from 2017-18. That was to allow time to get in place the mechanisms needed to make it work properly. But this application date, as has been mentioned, has been delayed yet again, and the EU now says that the regulation will come into force in the second half of 2019. This presents the problem that the amendment addresses. The Bill assumes that we will have left the EU on 29 March 2019, so the new regulation will not be incorporated by this Bill into UK law. Without the amendment, though, the old directive will be, or could be, incorporated. Either way, that means we will not be aligned to the new regulation when it comes into force in the second half of 2019. We will not be part of a group of 28 member states when it comes to conducting clinical trials; we will be a group of one outside a group of 27. The consequences of that for clinical trials in the UK would be disastrous, as they would for UK medical research, for research in the NHS and for our attraction as a research base for pharmaceutical companies.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, takes no political stance and no view about the merits or otherwise of Brexit. It simply says that the Government must not incorporate the old, defective clinical-trials-directive-derived legislation into UK law before the Government have reported to both Houses about the costs and benefits of adopting the new EU clinical trials regulation.
I entirely support the amendment and believe it to be necessary, but I also believe it does not go far enough in ensuring that we are compliant with the new regulation from the day that it applies. That is what we need, not just to protect existing trials but to make certain that we are part of the new regime, which after all we were instrumental in creating. I very much hope that the Minister will take the amendment as the beginnings of a conversation about how to adopt or realign with the new regulation on day one of applicability, and I hope that he will be able—on Report if not today—to make a firm commitment to aligning the UK with the new regulation from the day that it becomes applicable.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment. Unlike many amendments to the Bill, this one really is intended to be helpful to the Government and the Bill. Unlike many, it has a genuine point to make and is not merely an excuse to filibuster. Unlike some speeches in support of the amendments, when I say I shall be brief I shall mean it.
As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, says, the Prime Minister’s speech 10 days ago removed the need for lots of amendments to the Bill. In saying that we intend to join or align with the European Medicines Agency if possible, I think she has effectively indicated that the amendment is welcome. However, it is worth pressing the point briefly to get clarity. The background, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, has said, is that the EU passed a disastrous clinical trials directive in 2004, destroying much of a thriving British clinical trial industry almost overnight—a crown jewel of our world-leading biomedical sector. It was not one of Brussels’ finest hours. None the less, the UK remains the leader in Europe and one of the leaders in the world in discovering, developing and testing new treatments for diseases, thanks to our strong pharmaceutical industry and our superb academic sector.
The UK’s MHRA—I shall not spell it out; we know what it stands for—in particular has been instrumental in designing and delivering a robust regulatory environment across the EU, providing an attractive and harmonised framework for clinical trials. It is the senior agency relating to the EMA. This includes reviewing the shortfalls of the clinical trials directive and putting its considerable expertise towards drafting the new clinical trials regulation that is coming along to undo some of the harm done by the 2004 directive.
We have already agreed to the CTR in full but, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, says, due to a minor delay we risk not only failing to adopt its vastly improved principles in data sharing and expedience but, in the process, losing alignment with our European partners on vital shared research. The CTR will be applied in late 2019, as opposed to this year as originally planned. It will therefore not be covered by the EU withdrawal Bill as it stands. The resulting uncertainty is already having an effect. Clinical trials can run over many years and require significant planning. Uncertainty is already having consequences.
The Government have sent out strong signals that the UK should be a leading centre for the life sciences through the life sciences industrial strategy and associated sector deal. Aligning with the CTR and allowing collaboration to continue to underpin the UK’s thriving research sector will help the Government to achieve that ambition. I and many others are rightly concerned about new regulations that could come in during the implementation period that the UK will have no say in. The clinical trials regulation is categorically not one of those. It was devised with enormous input from British research expertise, was fully agreed to by British representatives in the EU and is regarded as a significant step forward for the governance of cross-national clinical trials. So I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us and the vital biomedical sector in this country by clarifying that we will align with the CTR, as implied by the Prime Minister 10 days ago.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on his amendment. As we have heard, the proposed revision to the clinical trials directive, the agreed clinical trials regulation, is vital. Despite many positive aspects of the directive, which was applied in the United Kingdom in 2004, it is regrettable that our contribution to clinical trials globally in the period from 2000 to 2010 diminished from 6% of all patients who went into clinical trials in 2000 to just 1.4% in 2010. That was why clinical researchers from not only the United Kingdom but throughout the European Union came together to undertake a thorough revision which resulted in the 2014 clinical trials regulation.
The regulation is quite complicated. It has two attendant regulations: one, 2017/556, deals with the regimen that will be applied to inspection of clinical trials in the European Union after the regulation comes into force; the other, 2017/1569, deals with the manufacturing standards that need to be applied to interventional products that are being assessed in clinical trials. Those two regulations also need to be considered along with the 2014 regulation.
The real concern, from looking at information available about the regulation, is that for non-member states of the European Union, there is an obligation to continue to apply the 2004 clinical trials directive, also recognising elements of the new regulations once they come into force across the European Union. How do Her Majesty’s Government intend to deal with the broader issue? The amendment is designed to ensure that once the regulation is fully adopted across the European Union in late 2019, so it will be applied in the United Kingdom. There are other considerations about being a non-member of the European Union with regard to what is stated about the standards that need to be applied to clinical trials. What approach do Her Majesty’s Government propose to take there?
It seems counterintuitive that, as things stand, if no action is taken, our country will be left with a clinical trials directive that was considered throughout the European Union to be in need of revision. That revision has been undertaken in such a way that it will make the performance of clinical trials more effective, efficient and responsive to the different nature of trials being undertaken and provide an appropriate level of bureaucratic intervention for individual trials to ensure the protection of patients. It would seem completely wrong, having led the revision of the clinical trials regulation, for our country to be left behind with a directive on its statute book that continued to make clinical research more difficult.
These are vital matters, because often when designing a clinical trial there is a long lag period. One takes one or two years beforehand to develop a protocol, identify participating sites and determine what regulatory framework the trial is to be conducted under. Therefore, early reassurance in these matters is critical. A failure to provide that early reassurance may lead for some years to a diminution of the contribution that our country can make to clinical research. As we have heard, that would be detrimental to our entire life sciences industry.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, as a former pharmaceutical and life sciences Minister, I rise to support the modest amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I have done my time in the salt mines of trying to streamline the processes for undertaking clinical trials in this country. Despite what the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said, it was not just the 2004 directive that caused problems for clinical trials in this country; it was sometimes the sheer bureaucracy of securing agreement to undertaking them, which has contributed to the departure of clinical trials and sometimes investment by big pharma in this country. It is all very convenient at present in some quarters to lay the blame at the door of the EU, but there are historical facts that support a more balanced view of the 2004 clinical trials directive.
From my experience, I know how critical it is for securing a flourishing pharmaceutical and life sciences industry in the UK, and the investment and jobs that that brings. For a decade or so, we have struggled to maintain the level of clinical trials undertaken in this country, and the pharmaceutical industry’s investment in the UK has been dropping. A number of people have made that point time and again in this House in debates with the Government on this issue. The new EU clinical trials regulation will have an incredible impact on the system for conducting clinical trials across Europe with its new single data portal. That point has been made very clearly by the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Kakkar. We have to be a part of this future development if we are to protect our position on clinical trials and life sciences inward investment. That is why it is so important to have an amendment of this kind in the Bill.
I do not think it is fair to say that the Prime Minister’s speech of a fortnight ago is sufficient guarantee that everything will be all right on the night. We have had a number of those speeches on a number of subjects, which tend to show that it will not necessarily be all right on the night. The show may go on but UK participation in the show may be sadly absent in some areas that are critical to this country, as this particular sector of industry is. That is why we have to look a little more carefully at what sort of guarantees we want and that the spirit and meaning of the noble Lord’s amendment is guaranteed in the future.
I do not think we can just rest on ministerial assurances. It has been a convention in this House—I have been in it for nearly 20 years—that we accept ministerial assurances. However, on Brexit, ministerial assurances, while well-intentioned, are not always good enough to ensure that British interests will be guaranteed after we have left the European Union. That is why we need more than simply ministerial assurances. I would like to hear the Minister’s explanations of what the Government’s policies are and what they will do. I for one want to see an amendment of this kind to the Bill before it leaves this House. This issue is too important for a major sector of our economy. It is one of life’s great ironies that we, who have been a moving force in improving clinical trials with proposals for such trials in the EU could, by one of the strange fates of history, be unable to benefit from those improvements if we are not very careful. I hope the Minister will give us an explanation, but it will need just a bit more than warm words to give us guarantees on this issue before the Bill leaves this House.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am not an expert in clinical trials but there are remarkable similarities between the discussion on this Amendment 84, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and words expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, at Second Reading on that group of directives and regulations that will have been adopted but not implemented at the time of Brexit. We had a full discussion, which I will not repeat at this time, but which was spoken to very eloquently by the noble Lords, Lord Wigley, Lord Judd, Lord Liddle, and, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, mentioned 23 directives identified by the House of Commons Library that fall potentially into this category. This is too important an area for us to risk being out of kilter, whether in clinical trials, the circular economy—as identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Young—or a number of environmental directives, to which I referred. This is too important an area—where Britain has been at the forefront of and party to all discussions at earlier stages—for us no longer to be aligned at the point of Brexit.
Lord Ribeiro (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment because I think it is very important after all the points that have been made by previous speakers.
In my Second Reading speech, I referred to something slightly different: a loss of some £32 million to nuclear research, which would have gone to 25 university institutions, as a consequence of leaving Euratom and the Horizon 2020 project. The key benefits of the CTR are the improvement in collaboration, information sharing and decision-making between member states, as well as maintaining high safety standards for all participants in EU clinical trials. Withdrawing from these arrangements will have a negative effect on UK research and clinical trials.
The PM’s speech has been mentioned. It is worth reading because this is perhaps about holding her to account. She said:
“We will … explore … terms on which the UK could remain part of EU agencies such as those that are critical for the chemicals, medicines and aerospace industries”.
There is an opportunity here to hold her to account because it sounds as if the decision that was made early on to withdraw from Euratom was rather hasty and the consequences of it are only now beginning to dawn. The amendment is essential to re-establishing the research collaboration that we need with the EU, which has benefited us greatly in the past.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, much has been said in support of the amendment. I do not see how the Government can argue against us going along with the flow of modernising regulation.
I hope that in responding the Minister might consider what we will lose if we do not go down this route. Quite apart from losing the ability to attract pharma here and so on, it is important to record that many research groups that currently collaborate with European researchers know that their only future to pursue research—and want to do so under the new, better framework—means that they will effectively have to move, either to Dublin or Amsterdam. Those are the two main university hubs currently being looked at, although others in other parts of Europe are too. It becomes very easy for very high-powered researchers to move into different academic units, yet if we do not have biological and life sciences research here as new discoveries are made, we will not reap any economic rewards from those discoveries—quite apart from then not having the industries to produce whatever has been discovered.
I hope the Minister will consider very carefully that the amendment is absolutely essential going forward. Irrespective of what we think of Brexit, we need to be part of this group. If we are not, we will massively become a loser.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I entirely support the main thrust of the amendment in the sense of seeking, if at all possible, to secure the benefits of the agreement already entered into—but not yet implemented—to which the noble Lord, Lord Patel, referred. This is not the only one that we have come across in the course of our discussions to date. The amendment does not actually produce anything except a sort of stop, so I wonder whether it would be possible, indeed acceptable, to Her Majesty’s Government to amend the Bill to allow discretion to use EU proposals to which we have already agreed and, in some cases, initiated and worked out in great detail—this is certainly a very important one, but there are others; that is, an amendment that would move, in a sense, the centre of the Bill. Of course, the Bill is a snapshot of what happens on Brexit day, but unfortunately some of the good things may escape because they are not yet implemented in time for Brexit. I therefore wonder whether it would be feasible to introduce an amendment to the Bill to give the Government a discretion to put into effect, in our law, agreements already made which are judged to be of use to this country after Brexit.
Lord Winston (Lab)
I will add a brief note of agreement with the amendment, for the obvious reason that this country’s pharmaceutical industry is our most important and must be involved in drug trials. I have seen this myself, having been involved with various clinical trials in the past. These have been of benefit to British patients and, subsequently, to our economy.
Lord Spicer (Con)
My Lords, I have a tentative question. If it is true that we do not trust our own legal environment with medical research in which, as has been said, we have great expertise, why should we trust ourselves with anything else? Across the whole of the Bill, responsibility is being transferred to this country. Why should we not be able to do that for medical research as much as for anything else?
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
This benefits all patient populations, and is particularly important for paediatric and rare cancers—diseases which, precisely because they are uncommon, are among the hardest to research and treat. You therefore need a larger pool than the 66 million people who live in this country: Europe has a combined population of 510 million to draw on. That is nothing to do with trust; it is to do with how clinical trials need to be carried out. You need a larger pool of patients to test these drugs.
I was pleased to add my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I raised this issue in my speech at Second Reading and will mention only one additional matter, which is to do with rare paediatric illness; tumour types which affect relatively few people; and rare cancers which translate to over 20% of all cancer diagnoses across the world. If the UK is to make progress on therapies for paediatric and rare cancer, it is vital that we can work closely with EU nations on clinical trials. Cross-border collaboration is crucial to paediatric and rare cancer clinical trials. Some 75% of clinical trials in the EU involve cross-national collaboration, rising to 86% for rare disease trials. As noble Lords have remarked, that is because of the patient population across Europe. We will be doing a huge disservice to our children, and to the cancers which threaten a few of them, if we fall out of this system. It is as simple as that.
The BEACON clinical trial system is an example of how cross-national collaboration is fighting back against rare paediatric cancers. Neuroblastoma is a form of cancer that affects around 100 children, mostly under the age of five, every year in the UK. More than half the children with aggressive forms of the cancer will see it return and, for these children, there are few treatment options left. In 2013, Cancer Research UK scientists and paediatric cancer specialists launched the BEACON-neuroblastoma trial to find the best chemotherapy treatment for children and young adults with recurring neuroblastoma. To do this, it is bringing together clinicians and scientists from 10 European countries and two international consortia, with funding from Cancer Research UK and European partners. It is a fantastic example of successful European collaboration. The rarity of this neuroblastoma and the low number of patients means that trials could not have happened in a single European country. It is vital that this type of cancer trial—
Baroness Kramer (LD)
Given the noble Baroness’s expertise on this issue, I wish to ask her a question. As I understand it, medicine is becoming more and more personalised and customised. Therefore, by definition, the pool for a far wider suite of diseases is becoming smaller and smaller because of that much narrower customisation and personalisation. Therefore, the situation with rare diseases today is about to become the norm across a very wide range of diseases. Does the noble Baroness read it that way?
Baroness Thornton
I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness. In fact, several noble Lords who are much more expert on this have already mentioned that aspect. The noble Baroness is absolutely right. I do not think I need to say anything more. I think this amendment is the remedy. I hope that the Government will respond positively to it. The case is unanswerable.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, when she replies, will the Minister comment on the remarks of her noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie on 28 February, when we discussed this issue in the context of directives whose implementation date was beyond exit day? The noble and learned Lord addressed this issue, partly because the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, mentioned regulations. In his reply, he said something rather interesting: namely:
“There are examples of regulations … where we accept that the regulation has come into domestic law but its actual operation is deferred, perhaps until 2020”.
I think that date was given just as an example. The noble and learned Lord continued:
“That regulation … will form part of our domestic law at the exit date, even though the operative provisions come into force only after the exit date”.—[Official Report, 28/2/18; col. 690.]
Will the Minister clarify whether she believes that the clinical trials regulation falls into the category envisaged by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie? If not, why not?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for raising this extremely important issue, and to all your Lordships who have contributed so authoritatively to the discussion on this amendment. It provides me with the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on the regulation of clinical trials and the introduction of the new EU clinical trials regulation.
As I am sure the noble Lord is aware, the MHRA is working towards the implementation of the new clinical trials regulation. The new regulation, agreed in 2014, is a major step forward as it will enable a streamlined application process, harmonised assessment procedure, single portal for all EU clinical trials and simplified reporting procedures, including for multi-member state trials. This has been widely welcomed by the industry.
A key priority for the Government throughout the negotiations is to ensure that the UK remains one of the best places in the world for science and innovation. Noble Lords will be aware that the life sciences sector in the UK is world-leading, a point emphasised by my noble friend Lord Ridley. It generates turnover of over £63.5 billion per annum and the UK ranks top in major European economies for life sciences foreign direct investment. There are over 5,000 life sciences companies in the UK, with nearly 235,000 employees, and the Government are determined to build on this success as we leave the EU.
But it is not just UK industry that benefits from a thriving life sciences sector. More importantly, UK patients benefit from having access to the most innovative and cost-effective treatment available. That is why the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care committed to a post-exit regulatory system underpinned by three key principles: first, patients would not be disadvantaged; secondly, innovators should be able to get their products to market in the UK as quickly and simply as possible; and, thirdly, the UK should continue to play a leading role in promoting public health.
The UK has a strong history of collaborating with European partners through EU, pan-European and other multilateral and bilateral initiatives. I entirely agree with your Lordships that it is in the interest of patients and the life sciences industry across Europe for the UK and the EU to find a way to continue co-operation in the field of clinical trials, and for continued sharing of data and information, even if our precise relationship with the EU will by necessity change.
As the Prime Minister outlined in her Mansion House speech on 2 March, the UK is keen to explore with the EU the terms on which the UK could remain part of EU agencies such as the European Medicines Agency. Membership of the European Medicines Agency would mean investment in new, innovative medicines continuing in the UK, and it would mean these medicines getting to patients faster as firms prioritise larger markets when they start the lengthy process of seeking authorisations. But it would also be good for the EU, because the UK regulator assesses more new medicines than any other member state. These matters are all key components of the negotiations.
Lord Warner
Can I ask for clarification on the subject which we discuss fairly frequently in this House: the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice? Is it the Minister’s understanding that any disputes under this new regulation, when it is in operation, would be settled under that jurisdiction whether or not the UK was in the EU? Would she therefore accept that there is a risk that we might not always be able to benefit from the advantages in this set of regulations?
Baroness Goldie
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. This is an area where a dispute resolution procedure will have to be agreed, and that is currently part of the negotiations.
I will continue with the point I was making; there were many frankly authoritative contributions to this debate. I cannot pre-empt the negotiations, nor can I disadvantage the UK’s position in these negotiations by giving premature guarantees at this time.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
Could the noble Baroness answer the question that was posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern? She seems to think that this will be a matter for negotiation. However, if the Government were to rule that we would bring within the scope of the Bill European laws which had been adopted but whose date of entry into effect fell after the exit date, you would not need to negotiate at all. Have not the Government enough things to negotiate about?
Baroness Goldie
With respect, I am not sure that I entirely agree with the noble Lord. I am coming to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
I assure noble Lords that the Government will continue to seek the best possible deal for the UK and that the Government continue to undertake a huge amount of preparatory work relating to the UK’s exit from the EU under all scenarios. This includes correcting any deficiencies that could arise from withdrawal in relation to the regulation of clinical trials where the UK’s exit from the EU would result in the retained EU law which governs the regimes being deficient or not operating effectively. The application date of this regulation is linked to a new EU portal and database being in place. As a number of your Lordships have observed, this has been delayed on multiple occasions, and the latest intelligence suggests that it will apply from March 2020. Perhaps I may clarify for the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that, for that reason, it is almost certain that this regulation will not be caught by Clause 3 of the Bill. The existing UK legislation, based on the current EU clinical trials directive, will be corrected using the—
Baroness Thornton
Will the Government therefore consider amending the Bill to allow that to happen?
Baroness Goldie
At this point, we are not entirely in control of matters regarding the future. I know that it is frustrating for many of your Lordships, but that is where we have to deal with the negotiations.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I am not an expert in any of these matters, but it is a bit of a puzzle. Why would we want to bring into our legislation regulations which everyone accepts are not fit for purpose, and not bring into effect immediately—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am referring there to the old regulations. The new regulations would provide for a better regime and—this is the most important point, which I hope my noble friend will deal with—enable people to plan ahead for their clinical trials in the future. They need to know which regulatory regime will apply.
Baroness Goldie
I thank my noble friend for his intervention. I was about to say that the existing UK legislation based on the current clinical trials directive will be corrected using the powers in this Bill so that that regime continues to function properly when the UK is no longer a member of the EU. This will mean that there is no interruption in UK clinical trials approval. Perhaps I may deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar.
Baroness Ludford
I thank the Minister for letting me ask her a question. First, how will that operate if we continue to apply the directive and the other member states apply the updated regulation? There is a rather peculiar situation in justice and home affairs where that is envisaged, although I have never been sure how it is supposed to operate. Perhaps she can tell us how it will operate for clinical trials and how we will avoid a bumpy playing field. Secondly, can she explain what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, meant? What category of regulations was he talking about if he was not talking about the clinical trials regulation?
Baroness Goldie
Taking the last point first, I will need to check that out in Hansard because I do not recall in detail the point to which the noble Baroness is referring. I say to my noble friend Lord Forsyth that the practical difficulty we have is that we have something that we all agree is very good but is not yet functioning EU law. Of course, this Bill is concerned with a snapshot—making sure that we do not go down a large legislative hole with gaps in our body of law. The Bill means that we have to bring over what is there at the point that we leave. One consequence of being in charge of our own legislative functions after Brexit is that we are free to make such changes as we wish. Perhaps I may try to deal with the point—
Baroness Goldie
With all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, I will come back to him but I am trying to deal with a point that has been raised. I think that two issues are getting conflated. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay raised an interesting point about alignment of our law post Brexit. As I have just been trying to explain, to that extent matters lie in our own hands, and obviously any Government would legislate in the best interests of the UK. However, my noble friend’s question also embraces matters which, under the new clinical trials regulation, will reach into the EU. They will concern EU agencies and regimes, and these will be capable of being embraced by the UK only if we can negotiate that.
Lord Warner
I think the noble Baroness might want to have a conversation with the noble Lord sitting on her left. As a former pharmaceuticals and life sciences Minister, I know only too well that the pharmaceutical industry, including the biotech industry, makes decisions on planning its clinical trials quite a long way ahead. It would be a pretty strange company that, knowing there were going to be a new set of rules for 27 countries in the EU, which it would be of much greater benefit to participate in, entered into clinical trials with the one country that was not in that set of arrangements and which was using the 2004 clinical trials directive. Can the Minister explain how she expects big pharma and biotech companies to make sensible investment decisions on the basis of the sorts of assurances she has given the House in this debate?
Baroness Goldie
I think these businesses understand the very real and practical challenges that confront the Government in the unprecedented complexity of a process to leave the EU: that is, when we leave, we will not be part of the body of EU member states nor its regimes, agencies and institutions. However, there is no reason to imagine that in the UK post Brexit we will not continue to be at the forefront of the life sciences or that we will not have the most excellent regime of clinical trials regulatory structures. These will fall within our control.
Lord Winston
I am increasingly puzzled by this conversation. If you are doing a clinical trial, you have to harmonise all the arms of that trial for it to be randomly and properly assessed and for its statistics to be valid. Is the noble Baroness suggesting that we do our own small trials, irrespective of what is going on in a much larger pool of people? Does she not understand that, given the genetic diversity of the European population, the more people who are involved in the same trial, the more relevant the answers to the trial are, particularly in cases such as cancer, where they are all under the same rules?
Baroness Goldie
I am not in any way diminishing the important point that the noble Lord makes. I am pointing out that there are many types of clinical trials—for example, at the moment we are engaged in partnerships with non-EU countries. However, the Prime Minister has made it clear that we desire to have the closest possible relationship with the EU. We think that the systems we have been engaged in around clinical trials have been very strong, good and important.
Lord Patel
My Lords, it was not my intention to intervene. I am sorry to do so but it has been forced upon me. I think there is a fundamental failure of understanding here. Clinical trials are planned over a long time: it takes at least six to eight months to plan a clinical trial; it takes a lot of collaboration to find out whether we will be able to recruit the same category of patients; and we are required to understand whether the people who volunteer to join the trial have the necessary patience to do so. Because of this time lag, my amendment seeks to raise a very simple question. We had agreed to a regulation—the new clinical trials regulation—and we believed that it would come into force this year and therefore would be incorporated into the current European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. By a quirk of fate, that will not happen. But we have already agreed to have it in the Bill, so, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, what is the problem with incorporating it in the Bill?
Baroness Goldie
The problem is that the Bill is intended to transfer a body of law from A to B. At the moment, this regulation is incomplete: it has not been enacted and it is not currently in the body of EU law. That is why there is a risk that it will not be covered under this Bill.
Lord Kakkar
I wonder whether the noble Baroness will take this slightly different point. If, as is argued, the clinical trials regulation will not form part of the applied European law at the time of exit, clinical trials will still have to be conducted under some form of law in our country, and that will be the 2004 directive that currently applies. If that goes forward, what ultimately will happen is that everything we know that is wrong with that directive, and which has been corrected by the new regulations, will apply in our own country. Even if we continue to be active participants in clinical research, we will be so under the less satisfactory situation of the current 2004 directive unless the Government decide to modify that directive. As there must be a legal basis for undertaking clinical research, does it not seem logical simply to apply what we have already agreed is a sensible approach rather than having to reinvent a new basis for legal provision to undertake clinical trials in our country?
Baroness Goldie
I partly agree with what the noble Lord is saying because if this regulation has not become law before we leave, we can use Clause 7 of the Bill to attend to deficiencies, amend or correct, and that is what we will do to keep our own regime of law up to date. However, at this point it is impossible for the Government to go further than that and embrace matters which are potentially directly enactable under this new regulation and involve the EU, which implies that you have to be a member of the EU and a part of the agency. We have a strong desire to see that kind of partnership continue, but it can only continue if it is successfully negotiated.
Lord Kakkar
Does not the Minister consider there to be a substantial risk? As I understand it, non-member states of the European Union are obliged to be fully compliant with the 2004 clinical trials directive. If we become non-members of the European Union and do not have an agreement in this area prior to leaving, will we not be forced to continue under the 2004 directive if we wish to participate in the data and information generated from clinical research being applicable more broadly for those who wish to take their arguments for adoption of those findings, and authorisation of new medicinal products as a result of those findings, in the European Union?
Baroness Goldie
My noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy, who is advising me, says that once there is a new regime in Europe, all non-member states will have to make a decision about whether or not to be compliant with that. We hope that in our Brexit negotiations we have made clear—the Prime Minister has emphasised this—the huge importance we attach to these issues. They are massively important and we want to get a positive outcome in the negotiations, but it would be premature at this stage to incorporate into this Bill the anticipated enactment of the new regulation because it might be inert law.
Baroness Thornton
I have already written to the Minister asking for a meeting to discuss this issue and have copied the letter to many noble Lords. It is important that we have the meeting before the next stage of the Bill.
Baroness Goldie
I am happy, as are my colleagues, to engage in and attend meetings and to listen to the views expressed.
I was going to make an observation about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, made an important point about how we deal with whatever law we will have if this new regulation has not become law when we leave. It is important that we have the flexibility in the Bill to deal with such matters but, under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Patel—I am sure it is not intentional—there could inadvertently be a delay in dealing with them as we leave because his amendment stipulates that Clause 7 powers could not make regulations until a report had been laid before both Houses assessing the costs and benefits of adopting the new EU regulation. We do not know when that is coming through. We think it might be March 2020—we do not know—but in the meantime we could be in limbo in trying to do the very things that noble Lords want us to be able to do in respect of the existing law. For these reasons, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Can the noble Baroness clarify her constant references to Clause 7? As I understand the clause, it is intended to allow Ministers for a period of two years to introduce regulations to remedy deficiencies that come to light during that two-year period. But if we know patently, as has been illustrated in this debate, that there is a severe deficiency that we know about before Brexit, Clause 7 is not designed for that at all and the noble Baroness should not be relying on it. She should instead accept an amendment of this general kind.
Baroness Goldie
Clause 7 is designed to address identified deficiencies post Brexit where our existing clinical trials regime may include references to EU bodies and institutions, but those would no longer be correct or competent and an amendment would be necessary. In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, it goes back to what may be, and I hope will be, a very positive outcome to the negotiations. In that case, many of these fears will be assuaged, but I cannot second guess the negotiations and I cannot give premature guarantees that might be completely inappropriate.
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
My Lords, I do not think that I am the only Member of the Committee who is listening with increasing bewilderment to my noble friend’s reply to this amendment, particularly her constant references to negotiations. This is not an issue for negotiation, this is an issue where we have agreed to the new directive and there is nothing to negotiate; rather, we will implement it in the best and most effective way we can. Is she suggesting that if we say we wish to implement the directive, the European Union will come back to us and say, “No, you can’t”?
Baroness Goldie
With the greatest respect to my noble friend, it is a matter for the negotiations. We cannot remain part of the European Medicines Agency unless that is agreed in the negotiations. The other aspects of the regulations, if they are subsequently enacted, will require us to adjust and adapt our UK law to be consistent with whatever the regulation provides.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, perhaps I may make what I hope is a helpful suggestion. This is not a unique regulation. There is a class of regulations and directives, some of which have now been agreed but not implemented and others that, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and others have observed, are currently moving through the policy-making process and may or may not have been agreed by March 2019. The Government must have a list of all of these and must have a clear idea of which ones they think we automatically ought to accept, others that we would prefer not to accept and those about which they are not entirely decided. Since we are all concerned about giving business as much certainty as far ahead as possible, will the Government commit to publishing that list so that we can see where we are and come back on a more informed basis to discuss which of these directives and regulations that have been passed but not yet implemented automatically ought to go into British law and which of those going through are or are not thought to be in the national interest?
Baroness Ludford
Perhaps I may draw the noble Baroness’s attention to Clause 3(3)(a):
“For the purposes of this Act, any direct EU legislation is operative immediately before exit day if—
(a) in the case of anything which comes into force at a particular time”.
The regulation came into force in June 2014, 20 days after its publication in the Official Journal and is stated to apply from a later date—that is, 2020 when the EMA certifies that the portal and the database are ready,
“it is in force and applies immediately before exit day”.
This regulation is not only in force, but it applies before exit day according to the Government’s own proposed legislation. Have I misread Clause 3(3)(a)?
Baroness Goldie
I am looking at the provision and my understanding is that technically, the character of the regulation that we are discussing is that it is not currently in force.
Baroness Ludford
Forgive me, but according to Article 90-something of the regulation, it came into force 20 days after it was published in the Official Journal. That was in May 2014. Therefore, it was in force some time in June. It applies from a date to be specified once the EMA has done its homework.
Baroness Goldie
I am certainly interested in the point that the noble Baroness raises. I suspect that we have probably exhausted all possible aspects of this discussion, but I undertake to look at that point. As I said, I do not have technical information available, but I will certainly have that point clarified.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
We have established in this debate and in the earlier debates on Amendments 18 and 81 that precisely what the Government may wish to do, and what this amendment and Amendment 18 try to do, to which my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay has given a very elegant solution, are not permitted by the Bill. There is no legal basis. Will my noble friend come forward with a form of words to cover the 23 eventualities in the form of directives identified by the Library and other situations in the directive that apply to regulations, such as this, to give a legal basis to permit the Government to have the discretion where they choose to do so to implement the content of those directives and regulations at that time?
Lord Judge (CB)
If Clause 3(3) will not do the trick, will the Minister please take advice about whether we need to add EU regulation 536/2014 to the group of matters raised in Clause 2(2)?
Lord Judge
I ask the Minister merely to consider it; that way, we might have a solution.
Baroness Goldie
I must apologise to the noble and learned Lord; the Chief Whip sat down and bumped into me, so I was distracted from hearing what he had to say. I certainly offer to come back to that point.
Lord Patel
My Lords, it is difficult for me to sum up. The message is quite clear to me, although that might merely be perception, that my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, is in some difficulty. It is quite clear to all those who understand the amendment—and, more importantly, the European trials regulation and the law as specified in the Bill—that there is no reason why we cannot incorporate this into the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, suggested that we might need to bring another amendment; I suppose he means with the view to having a vote. That was not my intention when I tabled the amendment. It was merely to clarify the Government’s position on importing the European trials regulation into the Bill as we are the prime movers of the regulation and we are formulating it. The solution identified by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, seems to be the answer to cover all such regulations that we might have agreed to and might come into force. This is not the first time that he has come to my rescue. He has done so twice before, on admixed embryos and on mental health having equal esteem. Both times they were put to the vote and the votes were won—so that is a warning.
I hope the Minister might agree that more work needs to be done on this by Ministers. I am glad to understand that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is to meet with Cancer Research UK and others at some stage in March, I assume to discuss this and other science issues. I hope he will agree that there might be a place for the Ministers to meet and see whether there is a solution. Otherwise, I fear that either there will be an amendment in the form suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, or, if it is not me, somebody else will table an amendment. We can tell from the support this amendment received even from strong Brexiteers such as the noble Lords, Lord Lawson and Lord Forsyth, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, that such an amendment might be carried.
Viscount Ridley
As a result of this debate, could the noble Lord consider the possibility that he, I and the other supporters of the amendment have been doing so on false pretences—that is, on the assumption that some action is needed to make it come into law—whereas, if the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, are right, perhaps it automatically does? That might explain the problems that we have got into today, and we would have wasted an hour and a quarter on something that might not matter.
Lord Patel
I thank the noble Lord. That is why I hope the meeting will help the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and others to clarify that the amendment was not necessary, in which case we are saying that any such regulation that we have agreed to stands. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak sparingly to this amendment and others in this group given the expertise and experience of those others whose names are on them. Of course, it is traditionally not for this House to decide anything on the raising of taxes, but we have a role in considering the powers to raise fees or charges. This is the nub.
Without having spelled out why they consider that such powers need to be created and to whom they might be given, Ministers have decided that they should by mere secondary legislation be able to levy funds from—we assume—business and individuals. I shall leave it to those whose names are on the amendments to spell out rather more than I will their disquiet over such powers. I will then listen with great interest to what excuses the Minister is able to dream up to explain this particularly extraordinary Henry VIII power. I beg to move.
Lord Turnbull (CB)
My Lords, I regret that I was unable to attend all of Wednesday’s Committee stage, thereby missing a number of important speeches, but I have the opportunity now to speak on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell. I hope that your Lordships will accept that one Treasury ex-Permanent Secretary is a fair swap for another.
I particularly admired the speech of my immediate predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, who set out the proliferation of players and organisations who could have the right to make secondary legislation out of this Bill and the low hurdle they have to get over. These amendments raise important issues on the scope of secondary legislation, some of which has important constitutional implications.
The report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has pointed out that it is a long-standing principle—of some 330 years—that the introduction of taxation or its increase should not be permitted simply by secondary legislation. Amendments to Clauses 7, 8 and 9 rightly insist that levying of taxes and increasing them should not be covered by these powers. They also point out that some fees and charges are equivalent to taxation and should be subject to the same constraints.
One can break down taxes, fees and charges into different categories. There are those that simply cover the costs incurred in administering a particular service—for example, passports. One can test this principle by looking at the annual trading account that an organisation produces to ensure that no surplus is generated. Secondary legislation may be appropriate for fees or charges which satisfy this condition.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Will the noble Lord help this Committee as to the distinction in law between a fee and a charge? At the moment, I am rather puzzled.
Lord Turnbull
I am about to get to that. There are other fees and charges which, as a matter of policy, raise more than enough to cover costs and these should be treated as taxes. I think that in the national accounts, even if the words “fee” or “charge” or “levy” are used, statisticians look at the facts of the case. If there is this surplus generated beyond the simple covering of costs, then it would be classified as a tax.
Lord Turnbull
If something generates a surplus, it is equivalent to a tax and should be covered by the same legislative understandings about taxes.
There is a third category, where a conscious policy relates the fee not according to how much it costs to administer that piece of service to a business or a household but to something like wealth or income. The most egregious example of this was the recently introduced change in the schedule of probate charges, where larger estates are being asked to pay not what it costs to administer the probate but according to the size of the estate, producing charges many times greater than the pure costs. We need to decide in this amendment whether all fees and charges should be treated as taxes—that would be the simplest thing—or whether it is possible to make a distinction between those fees which are purely covering costs and those which go beyond, either in the total or in their social distribution. I hope that the Minister will agree to come back to this House with amendments which make that distinction.
The issue will resurface when we get to Amendments 348 and 349, which deal with Schedule 4, where we have the possibility that secondary legislation could be used to introduce fees and charges by a body that was itself created by secondary legislation. I should say that that would put us not just in double jeopardy but jeopardy squared. We are going to have to deal with the problem of these two points in our work on the Bill.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendments 86 and 127. I will be very brief because the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, has described the problem we have over fees, charges and legislation. I remember that, when I was on the board of Transport for London and we brought in the congestion charge, it was the alliterative nature of the word “charge” that led us to use it, rather than any legal definition. So my answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is that there may well be legal definitions but I think they are now observed in the breach on many an occasion.
Baroness Kramer
The noble Viscount gives a superb example. We can think of parking charges and a whole wide variety. That is why it is really important that there is clarity over when a statutory instrument is the appropriate mechanism and when, frankly, it is not. The Bill as it stands does not give that clarity.
I also put my name to these amendments for another reason. Most in this Committee will remember the time of the tax credit debacle, a major policy change that most of us regarded as a change that should have been introduced as part of a welfare Act. The Government sought to accomplish that through a statutory instrument attached to a Finance Bill. Because of the nature of charges and money-type instruments, it is very possible to use them to affect very broad policy issues and not just the narrow issue of revenue raising. That is why Amendment 127, for example, is an important amendment, as are others in this category. We are all concerned about the inappropriate use of Henry VIII powers, since this Government have actually tried to use these to achieve those much broader policy ends in the past. We have to be sure that we are not leaving a mechanism by which that could be repeated, because that really would be a coach and horses through many of the concerns and issues that have been raised.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and I shall speak to Amendment 126, which is in my name and those of my noble and learned friend Lord Judge, my noble friend Lord Pannick and the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. Amendment 126 would bring Clause 8 into line with Clauses 7 and 9.
Taxation matters can be dealt with by statutory instrument. For example, they can restrict relief from Customs and Excise duties or VAT under the Customs and Excise Duties (General Reliefs) Act 1979. But taxation, as it is normally and properly understood, is undoubtedly a matter for primary legislation. What is troubling here is the potential width of these powers and the lack of indication of how the Government intend to use them.
The Delegated Powers Committee’s 12th report says:
“At committee stage in the House of Commons, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker) indicated that the power to tax by statutory instrument in clause 8 was needed because the power was not available under clause 7”—
that is true enough. It continued by saying that,
“furthermore, taxation might be needed to ‘comply with international arrangements’”.
The committee then pointed out, and I entirely endorse what it said:
“The question which remains unanswered is why taxation by Ministers in statutory instruments is an acceptable alternative to taxation”,
approved by Parliament, with the normal rigour of the process, in primary legislation.
The Minister will need to give your Lordships some very hard examples of why a statutory instrument would be used and not primary legislation. If that is not known at this stage, the withdrawal and implementation Bill we are promised might well be the vehicle for making those changes in primary legislation, if the precise requirements are known at that stage. But this potentially wide power to tax by statutory instrument is, as I say, more than troubling. I am not suggesting that indications of how a power is expected to be used will in themselves suffice, although they should give your Lordships a clue to why the power is required, which is perhaps a more important question to address. What matters, of course, is what ends up in the Act. The use of the power then will not be trammelled by reassuring indications of how, at this stage, it is expected to be used.
Perhaps I may finish by enlarging on my noble friend Lord Turnbull’s masterly catalogue of fees and charges and their various characteristics, to add another category. In the financial procedure of the House of Commons, a fee that is levied and then applied for the good of the industry as a whole is not treated as a tax, so it does not require ways and means cover. As I say, that is merely a footnote to my noble friend’s excellent speech.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, I am a co-signatory to Amendment 126, as the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, said. I want to underline a couple of the points he has made. This amendment derives, as he said, from the work of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House, which, I remind the House, is cross-party and non-party. It is entirely devoted to advising the House on important issues relating to the way we handle secondary legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, has been characteristically modest in not quoting the committee’s specific comment, which is very powerful. It said at paragraph 20(c):
“The Government should demonstrate a convincing case (if one exists) before the supremacy of the House of Commons in financial matters gives way to taxation by statutory instrument”.
This may be only a minor incident, but it is part of a much bigger pattern. I worry—I am getting old, I think—that Ministers and civil servants do not seem to have spent quite so much time with their history books as I used to when I took a degree in that subject. The power of Parliament to hold the Executive to account in matters of taxation goes back beyond even the 300 years to which the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, referred. It could be said to go back to Magna Carta or Simon de Montfort’s Parliament, or indeed to the decision of our colonial cousins to declare independence: “No taxation without representation”.
This is very sensitive territory. We are surely entitled to demand a full explanation of why the regulations under Clause 8, unlike those under Clauses 7 and 9, may impose new taxation or increase taxation, allowing the supremacy of the House of Commons in financial matters to give way to taxation by secondary legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, referred to some discussions that took place in the other place on 13 December, when the Minister, Robin Walker, sought to explain why the provisions of Clause 7 could not apply and why Clause 8 was necessary. I shall quote him in detail because I think it is important:
“In addition, there are restrictions on the use of clause 7 relating to, for example, taxation that might, in some circumstances, prevent important changes to comply with international arrangements from being made. We need this power because we need to be prepared for all eventualities”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/12/17; col. 557.]
There are three triggers there: “taxation”, “important changes”—this is not just trivial stuff—and “all eventualities”. Throughout discussion on the Bill, we have constantly been told that Ministers require a great deal of room for manoeuvre and flexibility; they need to be able to move fast. In this case, they have made the case themselves for proper discussion and consideration. Matters relating to taxation in these circumstances require the most composite and careful care. We should be seeking comprehensive scrutiny, not the usual approval of SIs.
If any noble Lords on the Conservative Benches think these are trivial issues, I invite them to consider how a future Government of a distinctly different colour might choose to use these unprecedented powers in relation to taxation. The very important role of Parliament is here before your Lordships’ House today. I know we will be told of the need for speed, flexibility, expediency et cetera, and that all the usual excuses for slipshod legislation will be trotted out, but this is an issue of considerable principle and of considerable responsibility for your Lordships’ House and the other place, and we must do what we can to assist it to fulfil that responsibility. Whether or not Brexit actually happens, these amendments to this clause are of huge long-term importance. We could be establishing a precedent for taxation being treated as a secondary issue, rather than as a matter that should always come in the form of primary legislation.
I was disappointed not to have been able to be here last Wednesday for the Committee, but I noted with admiration the range of expertise from all over the House and the eloquence with which it was deployed. This is not an area we can simply wave through as though it were just some small technical question. This goes to the very heart of the balance between government and Parliament. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who last week quoted the late Lord Hailsham warning of a slide towards “elective dictatorship”. We are back there again this afternoon, and I say amen to that.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
With some timidity, may I offer a cruder and less specialised perspective, somewhat along the lines of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler? Taxation and mandatory fees and charges are surely, in principle, cardinal to the social contract and the liberty of the subject—that is, the subject cedes liberty as part of a democratic deal. In the past when monarchs have attempted to impose taxes, Parliament has continually rebelled. It is Parliament’s job to decide taxation, fees and charges, through primary legislation. I deeply support these amendments.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group, most notably Amendment 86, the lead amendment. The first thing to perhaps acknowledge is how wide the power is in Clause 7. I acknowledge that the Minister will make this point. The power proposed under Amendment 86 would be governed by the overarching provisions of Clause 7, but it is also fair to point out that Clause 7 has a very wide scope. If one looks at Clause 7(3), one sees that the Minister has a power to enlarge the interpretation of the legislation in question.
The second point is that if one looks at paragraph 2 of Schedule 7, one finds that a fee—an important word in this context—imposed by a public authority can be created only by the affirmative procedure. What the Committee needs to address, however, is the distinction between a fee and a charge. The noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, suggested a difference, which I think was that a charge involves a surplus, so that perhaps it should be treated as taxation. But I am not sure that definition is recognised by law.
Lord Turnbull
I do not think I was making a distinction between fees and charges—they are just words. They broadly mean the same thing and both suffer from the same defect.
Viscount Hailsham
I am very grateful to the noble Lord and I am sorry if I misunderstood him, but I understood that he sought to suggest that a charge that creates a surplus in effect amounts to a tax. However, I am bound to say that if he is right and these things are essentially the same, that creates a very major problem. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 7 says that an instrument that allows the imposition of a fee by a public authority can be created only by affirmative resolution. But then, I ask rhetorically, what about a charge? If the fee is governed by the affirmative resolution procedure and a charge is not, we are in an extremely difficult situation. What is a charge? Incidentally, I am not sure this really helps the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, but if one goes to paragraph 6 of Schedule 4, one finds the phrase “fees or other charges”, which rather suggests to me that there is a distinction between a fee and a charge.
I have a number of specific questions for my noble friend the Minister. First, what is the difference between a fee and a charge? Secondly, related to that, does the provision of paragraph 2 of Schedule 7, which insists that a fee can be imposed only after the creation of a power by an affirmative resolution, also apply to a charge? If it does not, we have a wonderful situation whereby the fee can be imposed only if the power is created by a statutory instrument of the affirmative kind but that is not true of the charge.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
May I throw another word into this taxation Scrabble? What about the word “contribution”? Most of us in this House have paid national insurance contributions for most of our lives. Is that a tax, a charge, a fee or a contribution?
Viscount Hailsham
The point is a very sound one, although of course most of us no longer pay national insurance contributions. There is of course another word that one could use, which is “imposition”, as in a financial imposition. The real truth is that we are entitled to a proper definition.
Having focused on some specific narrow points, I would just like to look at one or two general ones. The first is the point that I made on Wednesday, and I shall keep a firm grip on it: any power given to Ministers and officials will be abused. That is an absolute cardinal rule of politics. Secondly, the degree of ministerial and parliamentary control on any statutory instrument is minimal. I speak as one who has considerable authority for saying that: for 10 years I was a Minister and I do not know how many scores of statutory instruments I signed off, but it must have been a very large number.
Viscount Hailsham
My noble friend Lord Forsyth was also guilty, I hasten to say; we were the same in that respect.
The third point is that statutory instruments are not amendable by either the negative or the affirmative procedure. Moreover, and this is the point that we dealt with on Wednesday, the regulation-making power is triggered if the Minister thinks it appropriate. I remember very clearly the way that my noble friend Lord Callanan dealt with the argument that we should delete “appropriate” and insert “necessary”. He did not like it, but he is left with this: if a Minister, by affirmative or negative resolution, thinks it appropriate to levy an imposition—a charge, a contribution, a fee—on a citizen, he can do that. I regard that as a very unhappy state of affairs and, should this come to Report, I will not be supporting it.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I was once estimably advised by the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull. I want to look at this amendment from the point of view not of the civil servant but of the Minister. I think your Lordships’ House has already understood how difficult it would be for a Minister to understand what he could or could not do under this part of the Bill. First of all, he would have to turn to the modern equivalent of the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, to ask him what the distinction between a fee and a charge was, and I am not sure that the noble Lord’s equivalent could be entirely precise as to what that distinction was because it is almost impossible to tell.
The noble Lord sitting next to the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, got up and pointed out the word “contribution”. Of course when talked of in terms of national insurance a contribution is manifestly a tax, but it does not cover the cost of the service to which it is actually appended. It must therefore be possible to have a fee that does not cover the cost but is in fact a tax. That suggests that this part of the Bill—I do not speak of any other part—has not been entirely well thought through.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I do not wish to prolong this but I have been reflecting on the definition by the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, of a tax. He said that it was if you made a surplus. Does that mean that if a charge were being made for a service and the body concerned cut its costs so that it was making a surplus, it would then turn into a tax?
Lord Deben
It seems to me that almost any circumstance does not fit this part of the Bill; indeed, I find it difficult to find a single circumstance that does. I hesitate to put this to my noble friend because on the last occasion when I tried to be helpful he found me more unhelpful than usual, so I shall be very careful, but I ask him to imagine that this particular clause was being proposed by a monarch who simply said, “I want to have the powers to decide what kind of word I am going to use for taking money out of your pocket without proper parliamentary control”. I think I know what our forefathers would have said to that monarch. He might indeed have been in fear of his life, for this is precisely what Parliament is about.
We ought not to deal with this merely in the reasonably light-hearted way in which we have pointed out that this is an ill-conceived, utterly ill-thought-through and entirely indefensible bit of the Bill. We should take it one stage further and say that it is fundamentally unacceptable in a democracy that any mechanism can give Ministers the power to decide on taxation without representation. This is what we are here for. This is what Parliament is here for.
It is no good my noble friend reading out, as he will, the carefully phrased answers, because the people who have written the answers have caused the problem in the first place. They are the ones who have not understood that taking back control does not mean giving it to my noble friend. It means, if it is necessary—I do not think it is, but if it is—giving it to Parliament. This is part of the Bill which does not so do. The amendments attempt to put right what is, in the immortal words of some Members of the House, a dog’s breakfast, which is rude to dogs.
This is entirely unacceptable, but there is one bit that I find more unacceptable than any other. If this is necessary in order to carry through our international obligations, which is an argument that has been used, it is a peculiar addition to a Bill which is removing us from international obligations. The one place where this should not be is in the withdrawal Bill. We are withdrawing from international obligations on the basis that we do not want to have them, but writing in an ability to assert international obligations by secondary legislation.
My noble friend Lord Forsyth, who has followed me so far, did not like my little comment about the EU, but I am sure he agrees that we should not be using secondary legislation to impose taxation as a result of international obligations. That is not what it is about.
My last point is very simple. I have always found the word “expediency”, when used by Ministers, a red flag. Ministers always say that something is necessary because it is expedient. Expediency is always the excuse for doing something which you cannot do properly but which you get through on the basis that this is an emergency, it is urgent, or it has something to do with terrorism—we can find some reason or other that means we cannot wait for the proper process.
I was a Minister for 16 years. We are three former Ministers. None of us thinks that this power should have been given to us, so just think how little we believe it should be given to people with a different political view. I say to the Minister, who is well to a different part of the Conservative Party from me, that he should be the last person to give these powers to Ministers.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I make two short suggestions. One is that all the words that we have heard today should be treated exactly the same. The second is that Parliament should deal with all of them.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Deben, in his scintillating speech, referred to the power of arbitrary monarchs. I do not need to remind him—or anyone else in your Lordships’ House—that 369 years ago something happened to a monarch who had sought to exert those powers absolutely. The ultimate end of ship money was outside Banqueting House in Whitehall on 30 January 1649. I do not want to make too many historical diversions, but I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, whom we missed last week when we really began these debates on Wednesday, for referring to what I had sought to say then. This is the specific consequence of the generality that we abhorred last week—giving to Ministers, effectively, arbitrary power.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My noble friend mentioned VAT. Is that not an example of where Parliament no longer has the power to reduce the rate of VAT below 5% because we have given that to the European Union? Is not our leaving the European Union an example of restoring the authority of Parliament to impose taxes?
Lord Cormack
Our leaving the European Union is an exceptionally unfortunate measure that will do great damage to this country, in my opinion. But the answer to my noble friend’s specific question is that it was enacted by Parliament—a Parliament of which he was not a Member but of which my noble friend Lord Deben and I were—and that, knowing the consequences, we voted for it because we believed that it was in the general interest of our country. We were behaving as Members of the House of Commons should behave. It was properly debated, thoroughly approved and it came on to the statute books as other things have done.
I go back to what I was saying when my noble friend interrupted me. We have a duty to protect and to urge the other place not to abdicate the central power of an elected House—to deal with taxation. I hope that when my noble friend replies we will have a slightly more satisfactory and understanding reply than we had last Wednesday. I hope, too, that he will ensure, if not today, that we have a glossary of all these terms, including charges, fees, taxes, contributions and levies. At the end of the day they all mean something very similar: imposing an obligation to pay. People should never fall under that obligation unless it is imposed by their representatives in Parliament. We have a duty, as the second Chamber—the unelected Chamber—to say to our colleagues at the other end of the Corridor, “Please do not abdicate; please flex your muscles; please do not give to Ministers—the 109 whom we talked about the other night—or to other bodies or authority a power that is only rightly yours”.
Lord Judge
My Lords, my name is to Amendment 126. I do not want to say very much. I can think of another word to add to that great list and I could give my view of the history of how taxation became the weapon for democracy, ultimately. Taxation is the ultimate control that the Commons has over the Executive. Just reflect on the set-to in the United States of America a few weeks ago: Senate and President at odds over money. These issues must be resolved at parliamentary level and House of Commons level—not by regulation.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
The general principle referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, which has been very clearly enunciated by the courts, is that no public authority, including local authorities, has the power or statutory authority to exact money that exceeds the amount that the local authority—or other person making the imposition—sets. The charge the person is required to pay must be just equal to the amount that will be needed to carry out the service, or other thing. If it does exceed it, it is taxation and that covers all forms; it does not matter whether it is a payment, charge, fee or anything else. That is a general principle. Therefore, the provision in Clause 7(7), preventing the regulations imposing or increasing taxation, prevents any local authority or other power having the power to make any such imposition.
On the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, I wonder whether the first part of the clause —Clause 8(1), I think—is the subject of Amendment 126. My noble friend Lord Deben wondered why we were talking about this in a withdrawal Bill, but the clause says that we may have an international obligation that is breached by withdrawal; it therefore seems reasonable to deal with that in the withdrawal Bill because it is a consequence of withdrawal. That amendment implies that this power cannot be used to make any financial settlement that would cause a cost to the United Kingdom because, if it did, it would inevitably require taxation—presumably, whoever makes the settlement does not intend to defray the cost out of his or her own pocket. It is a fundamental restriction on the way in which these matters of international obligation may be resolved. I think I am right in that, but no doubt the noble Lord will tell us its effect on the amendment in due course.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 86, 126, 127 and 155—in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lords, Lord Turnbull, Lord Lisvane and Lord Higgins—concern Clauses 7, 8 and 9 and the ability to provide for taxation or fees and charges under those powers.
Let me start by saying that the Government are aware of the concerns of many noble Lords about the raising of fees under these powers. On Report, we will look closely at how we can resolve those concerns. Let me explain the various issues, beginning with Clauses 7 and 9. I am glad to be able to reassure noble Lords that the restrictions in Clause 7(7)(a) and Clause 9(3)(a) already prevent Ministers establishing charges of a type that would involve any element of taxation or tax-like provision under these powers. Beyond that specific issue, I want to set out the Government’s intentions with regard to those fees and charges.
Viscount Hailsham
Will my noble friend tell the Committee what, in his view, is the essential difference between a fee, a charge and a tax? The Committee must understand the expressly defined difference.
Lord Callanan
If my noble friend will stay with me, I will come on to that. Beyond that specific issue, I will set out the Government’s intention with regard to fees and charges. We have included the powers in Schedule 4 to provide for fees and charges in order to be clear and transparent. It is, however, necessary for the powers in Clauses 7 and 9 to interact with existing regimes to correct deficiencies within them, and to properly modify them to reflect the withdrawal agreement. Without prejudice to our negotiations, an example of such a correction might be modifying a fee in relation to the authorisation of a credit rating agency so that the fee becomes payable to the UK financial regulators rather than the European Securities and Markets Authority. That might be argued to amount to the imposition of a new fee.
The requirements to pay new fees and charges established under Schedule 4, and the ability to modify existing regimes, will depend on deficiencies being properly corrected and on functions being transferred. Clauses 7 and 9 are not primarily aimed at imposing fees, and they cannot impose other kinds of charges, but sometimes that will be part and parcel of the correction. In answer to the questions about fees and charges from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and the other poachers turned gamekeepers—if I may refer to them as that—on the Privy Council Bench, a fee is a payment only for a service received. By a charge, in paragraph 6(2) of Schedule 7, we mean anything which goes beyond cost recovery. Clause 7 cannot create a charge. In addition, creating either a fee or a charge is subject to the affirmative procedure.
The argument against a tax restriction—
Lord Deben
There is a large number of fees that are paid to, for example, the Environment Agency, to carry out certain services. We have no idea whether those fees are equalled by the amount of work that is done. The Environment Agency says: “We want this amount of money because we need it”. There is no proof. If one were to prove that the agency spent less money than the fee, does it then become a charge or a tax? There is a real issue here. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay points to the fact that one may define it like this but how does one prove it, and how does the House deal with it? Is it not better to not have this distinction at all?
Lord Lisvane
Before the Minister responds to that point, could he also answer my question? He has sought to make a distinction between a fee and a charge. Could he explain why, at page 761 of the latest edition of Erskine May, there is no distinction made between fees, charges, impositions, contributions or anything else of that sort? The test which is set out there, and is reflected in the current practice note from the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel—available on its website—is whether or not those payments are,
“akin to taxation in their effect and characteristics”.
I suggest that an additional test needs to be applied to the template which the Minister has offered.
Viscount Hailsham
I am sorry for my noble friend, but he did say that both the fees and the charges were subject to the affirmative procedure. I know that the fees are, but I am not sure where in the Bill I find the provision that charges are subject to the affirmative procedure. Will he tell the Committee?
Lord Callanan
I do not have the specific clause in front of me, but I am sure that is the case and I will write to the noble Viscount about it. I am not an expert on Erskine May and the precise legal definitions, but I will have a look at the matter towards which the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, has pointed me.
The argument against a tax restriction on Clause 8, made by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, is altogether different. The Clause 8 power is predicated on the fact that when we leave the EU, without further action we may inadvertently end up in breach of certain international obligations which have been affected by our EU membership, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out was said in the other place by my honourable friend Robin Walker. It is possible that some of these obligations may be in the field of tariffs, although it is, of course, impossible to know the full picture until our future relationship with the EU has been negotiated. If Clause 8 had a tax restriction as the other main powers do, we may not have the capability to remedy these breaches in all circumstances. As I hope noble Lords will appreciate, we are committed to international relationships and a key part of that is ensuring that we are fully compliant with our international obligations.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That is a very interesting point. Would that be remediable if we were to stay within the European Economic Area, which would classify us as part nevertheless of a regional economic arrangement? Is that one of the things that perhaps we and the Government should take into account in considering this transition?
Lord Callanan
If we were part of the European Economic Area, I assume that we would not need to do that. However, as we are not going to be part of the European Economic Area, it may perhaps be necessary. I hope that the noble Lord will listen to my next point.
In the light of our successful phase 1 agreement, we are increasingly confident that we will secure a deal with the EU and that the prospect of leaving negotiations with no deal has reduced significantly. It is in both the UK’s and the EU’s interests to secure a good deal for both sides. However, as a responsible Government, we have a duty to plan for the unlikely scenario in which no mutually satisfactory agreement can be reached. I hope noble Lords agree that that is common sense. If we do not have this power, and in exiting the EU we are unable to correct a breach of the MFN principle, another WTO member could bring a dispute against the UK in the WTO. That is a situation that we want to avoid, and which could result in a loss of trade for UK business through retaliatory measures by other WTO members or claims for compensation against the UK.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
The noble Lord makes some very good points about how we might need to levy charges or fees, or whatever he wishes to call them, but he has not made any case as to why this should be done by secondary legislation as opposed to primary legislation.
Lord Callanan
Because in such circumstances we will need to react quickly in the light of the events as they happen, depending on—
Lord Callanan
I did not want to use the word “expedient”, as it had been referred to.
Lord Callanan
It would be totally appropriate and, indeed, necessary to do so in the circumstances. We are in a difficult position in that we are trying to plan for all eventualities. It is one of those powers that we hope we will never use because, of course, we want, and seek, a good agreement with the EU.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
There is a different eventuality using the same example that the noble Lord gave—namely, the eventuality of the Government’s proposal for what I think is called an implementation phase; most of us call it a transition or standstill phase—lasting about two years. Is he suggesting that we might be in breach of our WTO obligations if we reach an agreement with the European Union on that basis, because it is about to be reached, is it not?
Lord Callanan
No, I am not suggesting that we might be in breach of our international obligations. However, as the noble Lord knows, we are currently negotiating for the implementation period, and as soon as we have an agreement—I hope within the next few weeks—we will be sure to report back to the noble Lord and others.
For those reasons, which I set out earlier, the Government therefore cannot accept these amendments to Clause 8. The power can be used only for the specific purpose of ensuring continuing compliance with international obligations to which this House has already consented and which would be affected by the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. It is available only for a limited period of time, and any further restriction risks increasing the primary legislative burden on this House and weakening the UK’s promise to the rest of the world that we are ready and able to honour our commitments.
However, having said all that, I repeat the point I made at the start of this debate: that we are listening carefully to what noble Lords have said, that we will look closely at how we can resolve many of the concerns that have been raised by noble Lords throughout this debate, and that we will come back to the issue on Report. In the light of those assurances, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, will the Minister take the message from this House that we are very happy to have this burden imposed on us? Although we appreciate his concern at the weight of business which we might have to undertake if we had to pay attention to primary legislation in respect of fees and charges, we will be very happy to assume that heavy burden.
Lord Callanan
I take on board the sincere nature of the noble Lord’s assurances on this matter.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Might my noble friend point out to the noble Lord that, if it is about taxation, that burden would not be placed on this Chamber anyway?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, since we are discovering the enormous complexity of all this, on the previous amendment I asked the Government whether they would be willing to share with us their own calculations on the process of policy-making for directives and regulations, some of which are in force but not implemented, and others of which are about to come into force but will not be implemented until after March 2019. What view have the Government formed on those? That would be helpful to us and others in understanding how the Government are coping with this complex process.
Lord Callanan
The noble Lord makes a good point. I was speaking to my noble friend Lady Goldie about the matter when he asked her the question earlier. I will have a look at this for him. I think it is fair to say that most of our negotiating positions on the existing directives and regulations are already public. We share our positions, the issues that are being discussed are transparently available on both our website and the EU’s website, and many of the issues that will come to fruition over the next year or two are already in early formative phases. I therefore genuinely do not think that there is much about this process that is secretive, but I will certainly have a look at the issue for the noble Lord.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I think it will be obvious why I spoke so briefly at the beginning of this debate, as I have now heard far better speeches on this group than I would ever have made. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, who “salivated”—his word at Second Reading—at the thought of being able to raise money by SIs, was not here. However, he and the other “guilty men”, as they were called, who used these in the past, have made the case well that this would be quite a move from our traditional way of raising money. Whatever the name of the charge—the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said that it was basically “taking money out of your pocket”, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, called it an “obligation to pay”—we know what we are looking at.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, said that this had, “not been entirely well thought through”. I hope that that, rather than anything more untoward, is why this power has crept in there. As everyone has said, it is for Parliament to decide whether to raise funds—whether to pay for some WTO obligation or for anything else. The example of the American situation is very valid: it is how, ultimately, you stop Governments doing what you do not want them to do.
Earlier in this debate the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, said that we need some hard examples. I do not think that the WTO example is the hard example to justify these powers. I think that his second point was that, if we do not get those hard examples to convince the House, surely it is much better that we leave this to the withdrawal (No. 2) Bill, by which stage we will know exactly what in the withdrawal agreement had led to the need to raise a particular fee, charge, imposition or whatever. That seems more appropriate.
Speaking about the WTO, I think that the Minister said that he thought the Government might be in a difficult position. I have to advise him that I think the Government are in a difficult position now on this power in the Bill. I hope that the Government will bring forward their own amendment on Report. That would be a way of taking matters forward. I am sure that there are far more expert noble Lords in the House than me who might meet the Minister to see whether we can find some such amendment. I hope that we do not have to repeat this debate on Report and that the Minister will bring something back because, if he does not, I can assure him that we will. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Judge
Lord Judge
My Lords, the amendments in this group go to a simple but crucial issue. The Bill proposes to give the Minister the power to create criminal offences by regulations. The proposal is slightly obfuscated by language, with the Bill saying that the regulations may not,
“create a relevant criminal offence”,
but the intention is that they will and the words are good enough to do so.
I know that your Lordships have kindly listened to me on this subject on a number of occasions and I will not go on about it more than I have to, but there is a simple principle: it is wrong for a criminal offence to be created without proper—not notional and not theoretical—parliamentary scrutiny. The fact that it has happened before, which it has, merely signifies—I am sorry to say this—that Parliament, including this House, was not sufficiently alert to the deviation from constitutional principles.
My objection is to the lack of scrutiny. Very recently during debate on the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill, your Lordships gave a very strong indication to the Government that this was a concern that occupied the attention of all sides of the House. The result is now a significant government amendment to the original proposal. In the subsequent debate in the Public Bill Committee in the other place last week, on 6 March, the Minister, Sir Alan Duncan, acknowledged that the Government accepted,
“that the powers of the Executive to create criminal offences and regulations should be subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny”.—[Official Report, Commons, Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill Committee, 6/3/18; col. 119.]
Although he did not say so, the Government must have implicitly accepted that the theoretical arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny were inadequate, because the Minister then went on to reflect on possible options for improving the processes. It was this that culminated in the government proposal that, if offences were to be created by regulations, there must be “good reasons” for their creation and, once the Government had concluded that there were indeed good reasons, they then had to be justified by a detailed explanatory and open report to Parliament.
I leave open the argument that “good reasons” should give way to “necessary” but that is for another occasion. However, I acknowledge that, in the context of that Bill, this was a significant advance that would greatly increase the opportunity for genuine scrutiny by Parliament and therefore diminished Executive control. Today, I shall not set out the details of the proposed amendments to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill because they are government amendments, but it would make a great start for the Minister if he would indicate that, at the very least, the government proposals in the sanctions Bill will be carried into this one. I beg to move.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I had intended to stand up before the noble and learned Lord sat down to respond to his kind invitation. Perhaps it would be to the benefit of the House if I note that, as the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, this issue has been debated previously in the debate on the sanctions Bill. As with the issue we debated last Wednesday—the appropriate test for the use of delegated powers—the solutions found in the sanctions Bill are at the forefront of our minds in this regard and we intend to meet noble Lords to discuss the issue over the coming weeks. I will set out the Government’s views at the conclusion of the debate on this group of amendments. I very much look forward to hearing what noble Lords have to say but I thought it would be helpful to say this at the start.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, in view of what my noble friend has said, I can be very brief. I support the first four amendments in this group, to which I have set my name, and have ventured to put forward a sort of default position in my Amendment 340. As the Committee will appreciate, the purpose of the first four amendments is to ensure that the regulatory power now under discussion cannot be used to create a criminal offence, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has set out very clearly the reasons for this. Amendment 340, which stands in my name, is the default position, so that if by any evil chance this Committee or your Lordships’ House decided that it was right to create a criminal offence, it should be one that does not attract a custodial sentence.
We need to be quite plain about what we are talking about. The Bill as presently drafted enables the Minister, if he deems it appropriate and subject to the affirmative resolution, to create a criminal offence that attracts a custodial sentence of up to two years. Two years is not an insignificant period, and it is very important that one reminds oneself that the test is whether the Minister thinks it is appropriate. Furthermore, we must go on reminding ourselves that the procedure—that is the affirmative resolution procedure—is simply not subject to amendment. So this is, in effect, the power to introduce a criminal offence which attracts a custodial sentence by fiat or declaration. I find that profoundly unattractive.
As a former Minister who signed an awful lot of statutory instruments, I know that the degree of ministerial oversight is extremely limited. As I said, if this Committee decides that a criminal offence should be creatable in this way, then surely it should not attract a custodial sentence of any kind.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, my name has been added to a number of the amendments in this group and I appreciate the Minister’s intervention, which should make this debate fairly short. I want to take up an earlier point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley: he said that he thought some of the speeches were too long and bordering on filibustering. That set a little alarm bell ringing in my mind. I have sat in on some of the debates and I have read others, and I think that this Bill is being handled by this House in the appropriate way that it deserves. Some of the speeches, from all the Benches, have been among the best I have heard in parliamentary debate.
The Minister, in referring to his Privy Council Bench, said that they were poachers turned gamekeepers. I say, en passant, that I look on them as sinners turned penitents, but that is a matter of taste really.
As I say, there have been some magnificent debates, but I worry where we are going on this. Sometimes I wonder whether the Ministers are adopting the tactics of the great boxing champion Muhammad Ali. His “rope a dope” strategy was to take all the punishment in the early stages and then have his own way in the later stages of the fight.
I hear what many noble Lords have said—the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, among them—that of course the House of Lords can go only so far with its opposition in the face of the Commons. The contribution from the father of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who warned of an elected dictatorship, comes into play here. So too does something I have mentioned on a number of occasions over the past 20 years that I have sat in this House: this House has the right to say no. We must ask ourselves why successive Governments, some with very large majorities in the House of Commons and some who have reformed this House from time to time, have left it with the right to say no. The reason is that unless we retain the right to say no, we would become a debating Chamber and the Government could simply use their Commons majority to force things through willy-nilly, regardless of whether or not we oppose them. I realise that, in some areas, we bow to the wishes of the elected House, even when we do not want certain things to go through.
As happened in the past two sittings of this Committee, we have discussed in great detail two very important constitutional issues: the right to impose taxation and, now, with this group of amendments, the right to create criminal offences. The proposals go to the very heart of our constitutional settlement and, in my opinion, to the very heart of the responsibilities of this House. Therefore, although I appreciate that a considerable promise was made at the opening of this debate, I say this to Ministers and to colleagues who have made outstanding speeches: regarding our red lines about the right to impose taxation and to create criminal offences, somewhere down the line, if what the Government come up with is not satisfactory, in our responsibility to defend the constitution this House must reserve the right to say no.
Lord Carlile of Berriew
My Lords, I want to add one short point to what has been said about sentences of imprisonment. It is likely that if the Government think it necessary to introduce new criminal offences, they are not going to be offences of assault or anything of that kind, but offences that relate to the conduct of business between the United Kingdom and the European Union. What we are talking about here are possibly mainly regulatory offences, for which sentences of imprisonment may not be necessary at all. However, such offences may affect severely the conduct of companies and the relationships between them, the conduct of local authorities and so on. Therefore, I ask that included in the scrutiny that the Minister has very helpfully promised is a slightly more sophisticated test that bears in mind the effect of potential new offences on the business community and the economy.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I support what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has just said and ever so slightly disagree with my noble friend Lord Hailsham. Whatever the nature of the offence, it is wrong that it should be created in this way. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that custodial sentences are highly unlikely, but that is not the point. To create any sort of offence in this way is fundamentally wrong and we should not have anything to do with it.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has just said. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and my noble friend Lord McNally explained, the Bill as drafted would permit Ministers, when they consider it “appropriate”—a point made by the noble Viscount and a word discussed at length last Wednesday—to create by regulations new criminal offences carrying up to two years’ imprisonment for wide and diffuse purposes. As discussed last week, regulations could also be used to make any provision that could be made by Act of Parliament. The Henry VIII powers are as all-embracing as could be imagined. This is all the more shocking in the context of the creation of new criminal offences. These may concern individual liberty, certainly; reputation, always; and the conduct of business, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has pointed out.
The report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—on which I sat for a number of years—described the powers as “wider than we have ever seen”. It described Clause 7 as notable for its width, novelty and uncertainty, and the same can be said of all three of the clauses in question. The principle is simple: it is in general not acceptable for the Government to have the power to create new criminal offences by regulation without an Act of Parliament. That principle was treated as cardinal when I was on the Delegated Powers Committee.
In 2014 the committee produced a document headed Guidance for Departments, directed principally at memorandums for the departments. However, on the question of criminal offences it was considered so out of order that new criminal offences would be created by regulation that the guidance did not even address that possibility. The committee said:
“Where a Bill creates a criminal offence with provision for the penalty to be set by delegated legislation”—
that is, the Bill creates the offence—
“the committee would expect, save in exceptional circumstances, a maximum penalty on conviction to be included on the face of the bill. Therefore, where this is not the case, the memorandum should explain why not, and at the very least the Committee would expect the instrument to be subject to affirmative procedure. Similarly, where the ingredients of a criminal offence are to be set by delegated legislation, the Committee would expect a compelling justification”.
However, this Bill potentially permits the creation of a new range of criminal offences. Both the Bill and the Explanatory Notes are silent about everything to do with such offences as might be created except for the broad statement of their purpose in the three clauses, in the most general terms, and with no indication of what offences are envisaged, except that the maximum penalty must not exceed two years imprisonment—which, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, pointed out, is a not insubstantial period.
The basic principle was enshrined in Article 39 of Magna Carta: that no one should be imprisoned or stripped of his rights or possessions or deprived of his standing in any way except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land. These are constitutional principles as old as this Parliament, and we should be very careful in dealing with the issue of allowing the right of Parliament to insist on a say over criminal offences being created by the diktat of Ministers.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, in this context, I draw attention to the paragraphs in the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report which deal with tertiary legislation because it is important that this aspect should be understood. The Bill confers powers on Ministers to make law by regulations, and the secondary legislation can do anything that Parliament can do. This would allow people, bodies or Ministers to make further subordinate legislation—tertiary legislation—without any parliamentary procedure or any requirement for it to be made by statutory instrument. Where tertiary legislation is not made by statutory instrument it evades the publication and laying requirements of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 but it is still the law.
Nothing in the Bill limits the power of creating tertiary legislation. It can be used for any purpose—for example, to create new bodies with wide powers, which could introduce criminal offences in many of the areas currently governed by EU law, including aviation, banking, investment services, chemicals, agriculture, fisheries and medicines. They may only provide the skeleton provisions in relation to a particular activity, leaving the detailed regime to be set out in tertiary legislation made not by Parliament or Ministers but by one of the new bodies so created.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I am sorry that there are too many speakers from this part of the Chamber, but I should like to point out that, although some advances have been made in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill with regard to the proposals that have already been mentioned, that is in the context of a particular Bill that has already received some scrutiny—and indeed some policy amendments—which make the application of criminal offences a little more palatable. There is, for example, the stipulation in the anti-money laundering part, which is the bit that has two years and is more akin to the instance envisaged within the withdrawal Bill, that there has to be a mental element. I do not see that safety here.
I further wonder why things that were not previously subject to criminal sanctions have to be made into criminal offences. It is a big policy change to say that any administrative or other misdemeanour is henceforth going to be criminalised with a two-year prison sentence. I do not call that “no change”. It has to be looked at in the context of each individual offence and how it may arise, otherwise you are saying that any regulatory breach will henceforth carry two years in prison. Moreover, you do not know the detail of what those regulatory breaches may be—how big or how small, or who may be on the other side of them. This would cover every piece of single market legislation. Some of these things will be quite small, and were not criminal offences before. What has changed through Brexit that suddenly we have to criminalise everybody for everything?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, because the case was made so clearly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, with the added detail provided by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, I shall not try to add anything to the substance of the argument. I just want to express my regret at the lack of preparation and forethought that went into the drafting of this power. Indeed, I was alarmed by it on the very day I first read the Bill and started blogging about it back in the summer. I then tabled Questions for Written Answer in October asking the Government what other instances there were of new criminal offences being created by secondary legislation. In the replies I received on 2 and 23 October, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, was unable to list any.
I went on to ask the then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, the same question. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, had by then taken over and replied in her stead on 14 November—but again gave no examples. The letter merely noted that “existing” criminal offences “in our law”—those are his words—which relate to the EU might need to be transferred to another body: for example, an offence not to notify an EU institution of something important relating to health. The letter ended by saying that the offence might have to be changed to a failure to notify the equivalent UK body. I understand that, but that is an existing offence, not a new one, and alters only to whom the report should be made. No case was made for, and no example given of, where new offences might be needed as we leave the European Union—much less one with the threat of up to two years in prison on first offence.
Noble Lords will not be surprised that I did not let this drop. I raised the issue again with the lucky noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who had another meeting with me in January—he has all the fun. On Wednesday last, when we anticipated dealing with this group, just before we broke for lunch I received an email from his department in response to my request in January. But again the email failed to answer why any new offences might be needed. It commented only that,
“existing criminal offences may require widening or amending, or new offences may need to be created to fix deficiencies in retained EU law”—
but provided absolutely no examples. The only example given in the email was of an existing offence where a business fails,
“to provide an EU authority with certain information”,
and therefore such an offence may,
“need amending to ensure they continue to operate effectively post exit day, for example by changing references from an EU authority to a UK one”,
and to ensure that businesses are complying with the law. Again, that is a change rather than a new offence. It is true that the email goes on to state:
“Previous case law”—
here I shall look to others to look into the detail of this—
“has created some uncertainty as to whether actions such as these would amount to creating a new offence rather than amending an existing one, and there could be differing legal views on this point”.
As I read the email, it seems that on that basis alone—that there is possibly a legal issue as to whether an amendment to an offence is a new offence—the Government have written themselves powers to create brand new offences that are punishable by up to two years in prison. So I think we are agreed that that will not do and that these powers have to go. Moreover, they have to go more completely than the Government allowed for in the sanctions Bill because, as was said in the debate at the time, anything there would follow an international agreement to which we would be a party as a Government—so there would have been that earlier stage. But these powers will not be part of that, and therefore I hope that, when the Minister responds, he will say that these powers are going to be taken out of the Bill.
Lord Callanan
First, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and my noble friend Lord Hailsham for bringing the matter of creating criminal offences under the powers in Clauses 7(1), 8 and 9 to the attention of the Committee through their Amendments 87, 128, 156, 339 and 340, which seek to amend the relevant provisions in the Bill. As I said, I understand that similar concerns were raised during the debates on the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill, but that a mutually agreeable outcome has since been reached, with the Government bringing forward a requirement on Ministers to make additional statements alongside their statutory instruments. Of course, the offences envisaged under that Bill were different and carried considerably greater sentences. I hope that I can satisfy the concerns that noble Lords have expressed during this debate. However, the Government are still looking very closely at how the powers in the Bill are drawn and how they will be exercised—and, as I say, we are open to discussion on finding similar solutions in this Bill.
I shall start with the reassurance that the three main powers in the Bill are explicitly restricted from creating a “relevant criminal offence”, which is defined in the Bill as an offence for which an individual who has reached the age of 18, or in relation to Scotland or Northern Ireland the age of 21, is capable of being sentenced to imprisonment for a term of more than two years. A vital part in achieving continuity and consistency for businesses and individuals as we leave the EU is to ensure that criminal offences continue to operate effectively after exit. As such, the Clauses 7(1), 8 and 9 powers can create criminal offences punishable by imprisonment for two years or less. In applying this two-year limit, the Government have sought a balance between appropriately limiting the three main powers and providing a functioning statute book on exit day.
The amendments would see that no criminal offences—or no criminal offences punishable by any term of imprisonment at all—could be created under the three main powers in the Bill. However, it is important that these powers are able to create certain criminal offences, as I shall come on to explain. For example, criminal offences provide an essential function of ensuring compliance with regulatory regimes which provide crucial protections for businesses and individuals. Some of the regimes criminalise particular conduct relating to the EU and some offences may no longer operate as intended after exit day if they are not corrected, particularly where functions transfer to a UK authority. For example, it could be an offence for a business to fail to provide an EU authority with certain information, but after exit day the authority collecting that information might be a UK one instead. Continuity would seem to demand penalties remaining in place—
Lord Beith (LD)
I wonder if the Minister could help us. He seems to be arguing what might be a coherent case for some offences needing to be redefined to have the same effect as they would have had before exit day. Surely it cannot be part of what he is describing to create offences that did not exist simply to ensure that the statute book after exit day has the same effect, in terms of the criminality that people would face, as it had beforehand. Does that not need him to approach this differently and try to find a way of defining the process so that it is not about the creation of new criminal offences?
Lord Callanan
I understand the noble Lord’s concern, which comes on to the same point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I will come on to deal with what constitutes a new offence and what does not in a second.
Continuity would seem to demand penalties remaining in place for what would substantively be the same misconduct. Currently, certain types of financial services firms are regulated at an EU level. Depending on negotiation outcomes, we may need to bring such firms into the UK regulatory regime. Under these circumstances, we would want the UK regulators to be able to regulate such firms in a way consistent with their current regulatory framework, in line with their statutory objectives. Where appropriate, this may include bringing firms within the scope of existing criminal offences to which UK financial services firms are already subject.
To give another example, Her Majesty’s Treasury is considering amending the existing offence in Section 398 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 of “knowingly or recklessly” giving a regulator,
“information which is false or misleading”.
This would make it an offence, as a consequence of transferring functions from the European Securities and Markets Authority, for third country central counterparties to mislead the Bank of England in connection with recognition applications. In direct response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Beith, a view could be taken that this creates a new offence as it will be a new function for the Bank of England and extends this offence to central counterparties established in third countries to whom it did not apply before. Her Majesty’s Treasury is also considering making similar provision for the FCA—as a consequence of transferring functions from the European Securities and Markets Authority relating to trade repositories—and similar considerations apply. We therefore need the power in its current shape to provide certainty that we can make such statutory instruments.
As an alternative example, marketing authorisations for medicinal products are currently granted at both EU and UK level. Post exit—again, depending on negotiation outcomes—it is possible that the best way to provide continuity for businesses marketing medicines in the UK will be to convert EU marketing authorisations into UK ones. Under Regulation 95 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012, it is currently an offence to provide false or misleading information in connection with applications for marketing authorisations as this information is key to assessing the safety, quality and efficacy of medicines. The offence is punishable with a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. It is vital that, if we need to, we are able to amend the existing offence or create a comparable one. I think we can all agree that it remains important that false or misleading information is not supplied in connection with the process of converting EU marketing authorisations into new ones, and that the public’s health is protected.
Noble Lords will see from the examples that the intent here is largely to ensure that the same types of conduct carry criminal penalties as before, or that we can create criminal offences to deal with the post-exit world. Previous case law has, though, created some uncertainty as to whether widening an existing offence would amount to creating a new offence, and there could be differing legal views on this point.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
The noble Lord just used a different word—“widening”—but I think his earlier example was making a notification to a different organisation. “Widening” suggests that the scope of what might be a crime would be extended. Is that what he meant?
Lord Callanan
No, that is not what I meant.
It is therefore vital that the Bill can provide for “creating” criminal offences to ensure that no offences that are needed fall away as we leave the EU, and that businesses and individuals continue to comply with the law.
Any statutory instruments made under Clauses 7(1), 8 and 9 which create or widen the scope of a criminal offence will automatically be subject to the affirmative procedure so that they will be subject to a debate and vote in this House and in the other place. The Government accept that this level of scrutiny is important here and, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, I hope we can consider further safeguards. Therefore, I hope that with those assurances I have demonstrated why we think this element of the power must remain part of the Bill and that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Judge
My Lords, I am troubled by just one observation made by the Minister. I think someone has been advising him incorrectly. Speaking for myself, I have never come to a mutually agreeable arrangement relating to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill. I have certainly welcomed an advance by the Government relating to these issues, but, as I said at the beginning, I leave open the argument that “good reasons”, which are proposed, should give way to “necessary” and I have added that there is an advance.
Beyond that, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. We really must not return—can we make up our minds now not to?—to the constitutional aberration of unexplained, and effectively unscrutinised, regulations creating criminal offences. That is the constitutional principle. In view of the observations made by the Minister, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) amend, repeal or revoke the General Data Protection Regulation, the Data Protection Act 2018 or any subordinate legislation made under that Act,”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 88, which is in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Clement-Jones, I will speak to the related Amendments 129, 157 and 338. These amendments are probing in nature, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. Their purpose is to add a prohibition to the Bill equivalent to the one found on page 6, line 19, for the Human Rights Act so that it is not possible for Ministers to amend or revoke the GDPR, the Data Protection Bill when it comes into force, or subordinate secondary legislation arising from it. In that sense, it follows the discussions that we have been having in Committee on recent amendments.
One of the first Brexit Bills to reach Parliament was the Data Protection Bill, which completed its Lords stages earlier this year and has just had its Second Reading in the other place. It is a Brexit Bill in two senses: it brings in the legislation needed to give effect to the EU’s general data protection regulation, the GDPR, which will be in force here before and after Brexit; and it aspires to ensure that the rules governing personal data in the UK will satisfy the European Commission that our legislative framework gives a level of protection of fundamental rights and freedoms that is essentially equivalent to that guaranteed in the EU, or the Union, as it is called. This is what is called an adequacy agreement.
The importance of getting an adequacy agreement from the European Commission cannot be overstated. Without it, it would be illegal to continue to exchange personal data with other EU countries after we leave. As well as being worried about whether the DP Bill will be enacted in time before 25 May 2018, this is the biggest issue raised by the industry—investment, location of its businesses and future growth are intimately tied into what happens to our EU adequacy agreement.
To be clear on the timing issue, as an EU regulation, the GDPR will be directly applicable in the UK without the need for an Act of Parliament from 25 May 2018, but how we transition into the post-Brexit world is key to the question of adequacy. One of the judgments we will face is the extent to which our data protection regime has varied from the EU since 25 May 2018. As things stand, this can be done by secondary legislation under the powers outlined in the Bill. To the extent that this is foreshadowed within the Data Protection Bill there can be no objection, provided that these changes are within the scope of the Bill once it is given Royal Assent. Clearly, it is crucial that the powers exist to correct any deficiencies that arise as a result of the current text being retained post exit, since much of it relates to EU structures and organisations that have to be translated. It is also right that there is a power to replace specific articles of the GDPR and, dare I also mention, the recitals that would be deficient and possibly confusing in a UK-only context. But corrections and adjustments in a Bill that has been approved by Parliament are not the same as wholesale changes made by Ministers, which, although there are safeguards, are not prevented under Clause 7 of the Bill before us.
My first argument is that, as with the Human Rights Act, the Data Protection Bill, dealing as it does with important rights of individuals over their personal data, should be protected against changes to that regime made through secondary legislation. It might be argued that similar kinds of changes will need to be made to a wide range of EU-derived legislation to ensure a smooth exit and that there is nothing particularly special about data protection in this regard. But is that right?
I want secondly to argue that there is something special, something extra, about data protection which warrants it being given the additional treatment outlined in the amendments. Remarkable though it may seem, I believe that I have the support of the Prime Minister on this. In her statement on our future economic partnership, she said,
“I am proposing the broadest and deepest possible future economic partnership, covering more sectors and involving fuller co-operation than any previous free trade agreement. There are five foundations that must underpin our trading relationship”—
the fourth of which was—
“an arrangement for data protection that goes beyond an adequacy agreement”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/3/18; col. 26.]
There is not much detail on what she means by going beyond an adequacy agreement, other than when she said in her Mansion House speech that she wanted to see,
“an appropriate ongoing role for the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office. This will ensure UK businesses are effectively represented under the EU’s new ‘one stop shop’ mechanism for resolving data protection disputes”—
a modest, though not unimportant, request.
It is not hard to see why data protection is being treated as a special case. Forty-three per cent of EU tech companies are based in the UK and 75% of the UK’s data transfers are with the EU member states. They need us as much as we need them, and everybody wants early certainty. It is an important part of our economy and it would be mad not to do whatever it takes to allow those companies to thrive and grow within the United Kingdom.
However, we now know that the EU takes a fundamentally different stance. In the draft negotiating guidelines circulated only last week, the text reads:
“In the light of the importance of data flows in several components of the future relationship, personal data protection should be governed by Union rules on adequacy with a view to ensuring a level of protection essentially equivalent to that of the Union”.
Like the words of the Prime Minister that I quoted earlier, this is obviously preparatory to a negotiation and it may be possible in time to reach a satisfactory compromise, but that passage reads to me like a setback to the UK position. We are being told that there has to be an adequacy agreement of the type offered to any and every third country—as we will become—which is all that is on offer. Surely the sting is in the final section, where the message is: EU rules apply. Of course, initially they will apply because of the GDPR as implemented on 25 May 2018, but, as time goes on, there will be changes not just in the text but through court judgments and other mechanisms.
An EU adequacy agreement is in effect the granting of a general permission to move data across national borders where the Commission has recognised the data protection standards of the third country as being adequate, but it is by all accounts quite a formidable exercise and it takes time. At the end of the process, there is no graduation. If you pass, there are no distinctions, merits or first-class honours; it is just pass or fail, and you are judged adequate or not adequate. Not adequate means the end of any UK-based data processing industry—financial services comes to mind—as far as intercountry personal data transfers are concerned.
We also know that an adequacy assessment of the UK by the EU will not only evaluate our data protection and privacy laws but examine the totality of UK domestic law, including UK security law and the UK’s international commitments, to determine whether there is a level of protection of fundamental rights and freedoms that is “essentially equivalent” to that guaranteed within the EU. This does not require identical law but laws which offer substantially the same level of protection. Despite the welcome changes made in the Bill, we know that there will be some issues of concern in the area of national security and defence.
The Prime Minister says that she wants an arrangement for data protection that goes “beyond an adequacy agreement”. So what could we do to help here? What would “adequacy-plus” look like? In some senses, the solution is not adequacy agreements but a treaty—however, we can only guess, given where we are in the process. Given that the DP Bill will contain substantial amounts of EU retained law, it surely follows that the regime that it establishes needs to be properly safeguarded and not subject to vicarious amendment if we are to be able to trade data as at present.
If we want to be helpful to the Prime Minister, and I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, would want that, we should make sure that the Government accept these modest amendments. After all, what would strengthen more our chances of an adequacy-plus ruling or provide a basis for a treaty that reassures all those working in this area than ensuring that the DP Bill when it is an Act can be amended only by primary legislation after full scrutiny by Parliament? I beg to move.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendments and agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said. I do not intend to traverse the same ground as him and may not be quite as helpful to the Prime Minister as he has been.
I want to add a dimension on data protection from the perspective of someone who has been a Minister and a senior civil servant. It is very easy for even the most well-intentioned Minister to overlook the importance of data protection and privacy to some of our fellow citizens when we are trying to push through what is seen as a measure of great collective benefit. We have seen how easy it is for free-speech arguments to trump individual privacy considerations. In the rush to secure medical advances through research, it is easy to see people who are nervous of giving their medical history to a researcher they do not know as Luddites to be overruled. That is why the Data Protection Act 1998 was a landmark Act. It calls on bureaucracies to stop and think and to become more thoughtful about citizens’ rights to privacy and individual data protection. Since that Act, case law has extended those protections in many cases. We do not want any backsliding, and there are plenty of powerful interests who would backslide if these legal protections were diminished. It is for similar reasons that the successor to the 1998 Act needs to be fully protected following our departure from the EU, and that protection needs to be set out clearly in this Bill. This is even more the case given that the Government have set their face against protecting the transfer into UK law of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which contains privacy provisions.
As I said on an earlier amendment on clinical trials, we need overtly to protect existing rights and provisions important to our fellow citizens from casual vandalism later. That means being sceptical about assurances from Ministers, even the Prime Minister, in relation to this Bill and relying on future actions to preserve safeguards. We have to put more guarantees in the Bill before it leaves this House, as I said on Amendment 84. I want before I sit down to draw the attention of those who were not present for the debate on that earlier amendment to two important points made respectively by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Judge and Lord Mackay. My noble and learned friend Lord Judge, as I understood him, ventured the view that the new EU regulations of concern under Amendment 84 could be added to Clause 7(7). That seems to give support to this amendment. If we went down that route, we would be doing exactly the same for data protection issues as for clinical trials. That suggests that there is scope in the Bill for specific EU regulations to be given particular protection where it is considered of such importance to the rights and safeguards of citizens.
Similarly, on the same amendment—I would need to read Hansard to check that I understood it correctly—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, made a contribution that was extremely helpful to the Minister, who, if I may put it delicately, was in a little trouble over that amendment. He suggested that, where there were new provisions and some ambiguity about whether the full protections would be safeguarded, it would be open to this House and the Government to consider putting a list of regulations requiring special protection in some form in this Bill.
If that course of action commended itself to the Government before Report, I would respectfully suggest that data protection should be on that list as something that will be given particular protection. I think there is a very strong case, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has argued very convincingly, to give some special protections in the Bill to data protection. Regardless of whether this amendment is precisely the right wording, or whether there is another way of doing it, I think that the noble Lord has made the case, just as I think that we made the case earlier this afternoon on clinical trials regulations. I think the Government need to think, in the way that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, was saying, about the kinds of issues that merit that kind of protection if we are to safeguard well-earned citizens’ rights and protections that have built up over time.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and speak to Amendment 88 and the other amendments in this group. I very much support the words and the very comprehensive introduction that was given by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. It is vital to many key sectors—manufacturing, retail, health, information technology and financial services in particular—that the free flow of data between ourselves and the EU continues post Brexit with minimum disruption. With an increasingly digital economy, this is critical for international trade. TechUK, TheCityUK, the ABI, our own European Affairs Sub-Committee and the UK Information Commissioner herself have all persuasively argued that we need to ensure that our data protection legislation is treated as adequate for the purpose of permitting cross-border data flow into and out of the EU, post Brexit.
Fears were expressed in Committee and eventually the Data Protection Bill was amended on Report and at Third Reading to show that some principles, at least, were incorporated in the Bill, despite the fact that the European Charter of Fundamental Rights will not become part of UK law as part of the replication process in this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, quoted the Prime Minister’s recent Mansion House speech, a speech that I am sure will be quoted many times, when she said that,
“we will need an arrangement for data protection. I made this point in Munich in relation to our security relationship. But the free flow of data is also critical for both sides in any modern trading relationship too. The UK has exceptionally high standards of data protection. And we want to secure an agreement with the EU that provides the stability and confidence for EU and UK business and individuals to achieve our aims in maintaining and developing the UK’s strong trading and economic links with the EU. That is why”—
this is exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said—
“we will be seeking more than just an adequacy arrangement and want to see an appropriate ongoing role for the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office”.
Whether or not something more than adequacy will be available—the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, also dealt with this—depends on the EU, which states quite clearly, in paragraph 11 of its recent draft negotiating guidelines:
“In the light of the importance of data flows in several components of the future relationships, personal data protection should be governed by Union rules on adequacy with a view to ensuring a level of protection essentially equivalent to that of the Union”.
I have slightly more extensively quoted paragraph 11 of the recent guidelines, but the difference between those two statements is notable. Both the statements recognise the fact, as many of us emphasised in this House during the passage of the Data Protection Bill, that the alignment of our data protection with the EU is an intensely important issue. There will be a spotlight on the question of whether we meet an adequacy assessment by the European Commission, which I think we all agree is necessary and essential.
As I said on Report and at Third Reading of the Data Protection Bill, the Government added a new clause designed to meet the adequacy test in future, yet this Bill also gives Ministers power to make secondary legislation to amend any retained EU law, which would include laws governing data protection rights. So the Government could give with one hand and take away with the other. This amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, emphasised, is exactly designed to avoid a situation where our data protection law does not meet the adequacy test, to the great disadvantage of our digital economy and other sectors. Set against this danger, it cannot be necessary or desirable to exercise any of the powers in Clauses 7, 8 and 9 to repeal any part of our data protection legislation, which we have so carefully crafted and adopted. These are probing amendments but I certainly hope the Minister can give us the necessary assurance to make sure that such amendments do not reappear on Report.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for bringing before us what are undoubtedly very important issues. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Clement-Jones, for their contributions. I say by way of preface that the general data protection regulation comes into force on 25 May this year. Noble Lords will be aware that there is, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, referred to, a Data Protection Bill currently before Parliament which fully implements the current EU framework, including the GDPR. We would not have chosen to legislate in this way if we were not committed to that EU framework. To be fair, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, was gracious enough to acknowledge that. I also say that to seek to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Warner. Let me try to help a little further.
As the Prime Minister has set out, the Data Protection Bill will ensure that we are aligned with the EU framework, but we want to go further than that and further than the typical adequacy agreement—I think that this was the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. We want to seek a bespoke arrangement to reflect the UK’s exceptionally high standards of data protection. To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, this would include an ongoing role for the UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office and effective representation for UK businesses under the EU’s new one-stop shop mechanism for resolving data protection disputes.
Even with that background and that backdrop it is nevertheless crucial that we have powers to correct any deficiencies that arise as a result of the current text of the GDPR being retained in the UK, post exit, word for word. For example, at its simplest we will need to replace references to “Union law” and “member states” with references to “UK law” and “the UK” respectively. We will also need to replace specific articles that do not make sense in a UK-only context; for example, article 3 on territorial scope. These are, of course, exactly the same kinds of changes that will need to be made to a wide range of EU-derived legislation to ensure a smooth exit. Where I slightly differ from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is that while data protection is extremely important, there is nothing particularly special about data protection in this regard.
The difficulty about the amendments tabled—we have to be quite clear about this—is that they would remove the powers that allow the Government to remedy these deficiencies or make any other adjustments to the GDPR to ensure we have complied with our international obligations or implemented the withdrawal agreement. Alarmingly, this would damage the integrity of our regime and put at risk the data flows between the UK and the EU, which are crucial, I think we all agree, for our shared economic prosperity and wider co-operation, including on law enforcement. It is essential that we have the powers to ensure that the UK legislation framework remains functional after our exit. Of course, I accept that exactly how the powers in Clauses 7 to 9 will be used in relation to data protection depends on the outcome of negotiations, but I hope it is helpful to noble Lords to have the illustrative examples I have provided on the record.
I hope I have reassured noble Lords of our commitment to both data protection and the flow of data between the UK and the EU and in these circumstances I urge them not to press their amendments.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, since we are in Committee I have a question for the Minister. She has said that there may be some need to slightly alter data protection legislation, but this is very broad. Surely, there is scope for a much narrower formulation, so that those adjustments could be made without any radical changes to our current data protection law.
Baroness Goldie
I say to the noble Lord that a phrase I used last week was that we need the powers to be broad enough to be useful and to let us cope with what will arise, but not so narrow as to restrict us in doing what we have to do. The difficulty is trying to quantify exactly what may require adjustment and tweaking once we leave; that is a genuinely challenging logistical problem.
Lord Warner
Could the Minister say something about the points I made in drawing on the debate we had earlier today on Amendment 84? Will the Government consider the rather thoughtful interventions of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Judge and Lord Mackay of Clashfern, about issues similar to the issue of data protection which might be given special protection in the Bill?
Baroness Goldie
I say to the noble Lord that I am still recovering from the debate on Amendment 84. I listened very carefully to it, as I know my colleagues did—my noble friends Lord O’Shaughnessy and Lord Callanan, the Minister on the Bill—and as did the officials. We will certainly look at the suggestion that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay made.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Clement-Jones, for their contributions. The interesting exchange we have had here went a bit wider than we perhaps needed to do on this Bill. But I am afraid that it reflects our concern on two, or perhaps now three, sides of the House that we may have missed something quite important in relation to the Data Protection Bill and its assurance of the fundamental rights involved in it.
The Minister said that she felt that the Government had fully implemented the GDPR through the Data Protection Act—but I do not think that is right. This is for another time, but the amendment to Clause 2 that was made on Report, which we welcomed and signed up to, flagged up that the Government had not quite yet got to the bottom of the argument. The rights deficit that arises with the failure to ensure that Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is in place as a back-stop or underfloor element to the Data Protection Act means that there may be dangers going forward. That was the starting point for this amendment. If it is possible to see it more fully worked in the way that was suggested creatively by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, building on an earlier suggestion from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, with the Bill picking out high-risk areas in our public life which need to be given extra protection, that might be a solution to one of the issues raised.
Lord Faulks (Con)
I know that the noble Lord is coming back to an issue which was much discussed during the course of the Data Protection Bill. The charter, in particular, was raised in that context. But one of the difficulties pointed out during those debates was that the charter is expressed in generalities, as opposed to the Data Protection Act we now have, which is far more specific. The noble Lord once again invokes the charter. He will not have forgotten that the Human Rights Act and Article 8 are expressly preserved by Clause 7(7). Does he not agree that we are trying to have as clear a position as possible? The Minister explained that Clause 7 is of a limited but important purpose: to enable that clarity to be achieved.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention, because it allows me to refer back to the recently received JCHR report, Legislative Scrutiny: The EU (Withdrawal) Bill: A Right by Right Analysis. I am sure he is familiar with it. It says, if I can find the paragraph—I will talk quickly until I do—that there is still some doubt as to whether the treatment accorded to Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is covered in the Data Protection Act. The report says:
“The Government … relies heavily in its analysis”,
on the GDPR,
“as a means of incorporating Article 8 of the Charter into domestic law. The GDPR and the Data Protection Bill contain numerous rights for data subjects. However, the Bill does not explicitly incorporate Article 8 … Given the vast number of exemptions and derogations from these rights provided for in the Bill, there is a question as to whether the Bill offers protection that is equivalent to Article 8 of the Charter”.
I put it to the noble Lord that this is an open question.
I know that I am straying into territory that we do not need to, but I started doing that because I was aware that my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition had not yet arrived to take the Statement. I have now been caught going a bit further than I should have, and I apologise to your Lordships’ House. I will sum up quickly. I accept the good intentions from the Minister. May I suggest to her that it might be worth one further discussion on this issue before we finalise our consideration of this Bill and the Data Protection Act? With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 12th March 2018
(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 79-VII Seventh marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 331KB) - (12 Mar 2018)
Lord Hope of Craighead
“( ) modify the Scotland Act 1998 without the consent of the Scottish Parliament, or( ) modify the Government of Wales Act 2006 without the consent of the National Assembly for Wales.”
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, three amendments in this group are in my name: Amendment 90, which relates to Clause 7; Amendment 130, which relates to Clause 8; and Amendment 148, which relates to Clause 9. They all raise the same point about the extent of the delegated powers given to Ministers of the Crown by these three clauses. The context is the way in which exercise of these powers may affect the devolution settlements for Scotland, under the Scotland Act 1998, and for Wales, under the Government of Wales Act 2006 and the Wales Act 2017. I am obliged to the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for her amendments introducing the position of Northern Ireland in exactly the same terms as my amendments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
Before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, proceeds, it may be of benefit to the House if I now confirm that the Government will bring forward amendments on Report to apply the same protection for the Scotland Act and the Government of Wales Act to the Clause 7 correcting power that applies to the Northern Ireland Act. I will speak about that more at the end of the debate. It may also benefit the House to note that the Government have tabled an amendment to Clause 11 —as I am sure noble Lords are aware—that reflects the significant offer we have made on that issue to ensure that the House can debate the offer when we reach that clause, just as we promised to do in the other place.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
Since he has started speaking, would it not be better for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, to speak fully now and tell us what he was going to say? That would give us much more to respond to and might indeed shorten the debate.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has not yet moved the amendment so he needs to do that first.
Lord Hope of Craighead
I am very grateful to the Minister for his intervention and for the indication that he has given. My amendments extend to Clauses 8 and 9; what he has said is an indication of the way the Government are minded to go on Clause 7, but I must introduce my amendments in relation to Clauses 8 and 9 as well.
The provision relating to Northern Ireland, to which the Minister referred, is what we find in Clause 7(7)(f), which indicates that,
“regulations under subsection (1) may not … amend or repeal the Northern Ireland Act 1998”.
That provision is then substantially qualified in a way one can only understand by reading through the schedules. I am not clear whether the Minister is proposing that the Scotland Act and the Government of Wales Act should be qualified in the same way, but if he intends to qualify them, my amendments are unqualified. It is therefore appropriate for me to explain why my amendments are in the terms they are. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, will appreciate why I need to set this matter out in a little bit of detail and explain why I have brought the amendments forward.
As we have seen, these three clauses confer a very wide power on a Minister of the Crown to make provisions by regulations. That includes a provision to which attention has not been drawn until now, but which is certainly relevant to the amendments in this group: a Minister of the Crown may make a regulation of the same kind that could be made by an Act of Parliament. We find that in Clause 7(5), Clause 8(2) and Clause 9(2). I need not go over what these clauses deal with but, broadly speaking, in Clause 7 the power is to enable a Minister to deal with,
“any other deficiency in retained EU law, arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU”.
In Clause 8, the power is to enable a Minister to,
“prevent or remedy any breach, arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU, of the international obligations of the United Kingdom”.
In Clause 9, it is a wider power to enable the Minister to,
“make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate for the purposes of implementing the withdrawal agreement if the Minister considers that such provision should be in force on or before exit day”.
Each of these clauses is limited in some respects by saying that regulations made under them may not do certain things. The Committee has heard about that in earlier debates today, such as in relation to sentencing, the creation of criminal offences and so on. These amendments seek to add two further limitations. One is that the power under these three clauses may not be used to modify the Scotland Acts and the government of Wales Acts without the consent of the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales, as the case may be. As I mentioned earlier, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, is seeking to make similar provision in relation to Northern Ireland. Amendment 148 goes a little further than that: it builds in an additional provision relating to the Ministers of the devolved institutions. These are the subject of the group after next, which we will come to later this evening. I will not develop that aspect until we get to that group.
The scale of the transfer of legislative competence to Ministers of the Crown, provided for by these clauses, raises concerns of a fundamental nature. This is not only about the balance of power between Parliament and the Executive, as the Constitution Committee pointed out in paragraph 158 of its report, it also raises concerns about the balance of power within the union and the future of the devolution settlements themselves, referred to in the same report at paragraph 243. Some of what I will be saying in a moment will be directed only to the Scotland Act, but it should be understood as applying equally to the Government of Wales Act and the Wales Act, which are referred to in my amendments.
As I understand the wording of these clauses, if they are left as they are the powers could be used to change the constitutional balance of powers between the UK Government and the devolved institutions which the relevant devolution statutes set out. An aspect worth stressing is the width given to the meaning of the word “deficiencies” in Clause 7. We see it set out at length in subsection (2), supplemented by subsection (3). It is extremely wide and can be widened still, as we can see, given the power in subsection (3). The provisions in Clause 7(6) are about the transfer of functions from EU entities or public authorities in member states to public authorities in the United Kingdom, which would, of course, include public authorities in the devolved areas of Scotland and Wales.
The Committee needs to bear in mind the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, in his speech last Wednesday morning about the width of Clause 7; the meaning to be given to the expression “Minister of the Crown”; and the numbers of people who could be embraced by that expression. The point which was of particular concern to me in the amendments in this group is that the power includes a power to make any provision that can be made by an Act of Parliament. I appreciate that the provision in Clause 7 is time limited. This is also true in the case of Clause 8. In Clause 9, the power is not exercisable after exit day. Nevertheless, as these clauses stand, and while they continue to have effect, it would be open to a Minister of the Crown to modify the Scotland Acts and government of Wales Acts in a way that, as I mentioned earlier, could shift the constitutional balance, and to do so without even consulting the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales, let alone obtaining their consent.
A particular part of the Scotland Act which is quite vulnerable to an inadvertent amendment without that process of obtaining consent is the detailed wording of Schedule 5. I was involved, as was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in considering the Bill which gave rise to the Scotland Act 1998. We sat until late in the night—indeed, early in the morning—dealing with that Bill and went over Schedule 5 in some detail. It has survived very well over the years since devolution, but it contains considerable detail which could be adjusted a little. That would alter the balance between the UK Government and the Scottish Government in a way that should not be done without the consent of the Scottish Government.
I appreciate that Ministers may say that it is not their intention to modify the Acts in this way, but it is well known that there is a high degree of mistrust between the devolved institutions and the UK Government about where this legislation is going. Personally, I regret that but, from a Scottish point of view, the reason is not hard to find. As one reads through these clauses, and looks at them from the approach of a Scottish Minister, or the Scottish Parliament or, indeed, a lawyer who has dealt with the devolution system since it first came in, it is striking that—apart from Northern Ireland—there is simply no mention in these three clauses of the fact that there are devolved Governments in Wales and Scotland that need to be considered. That aspect causes one some alarm as soon as one begins to read through the Act. It would be desirable to do something about it, if one possibly can. That is why I welcome what the Minister said when I began my speech.
Baroness Suttie
“( ) modify the Northern Ireland Act 1998 without the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 91, I shall speak to Amendments 131 and 149 in my name. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has set out in great detail what his Amendments 90, 130 and 148 in this group seek to do, so I shall be extremely brief. My Amendments 91, 131 and 149 seek to achieve the same aims as those amendments but for Northern Ireland.
Sadly, despite several false dawns, well over a year has now passed since there was a functioning power-sharing Executive in place in Northern Ireland. This means that it is now well over a year since the formal mechanisms have been in place to ensure that the voice of the Northern Irish people is heard through the Executive and the Assembly. It should be recalled that the majority of people in Northern Ireland did not vote the same way in the referendum as the Government’s partners in the DUP. Whereas the Scottish and Welsh Governments have been able to make clear their very deep concerns about the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, there has been no joint position on matters relating to Brexit since the joint letter from Arlene Foster and Martin McGuinness back in August 2016.
If the Minister agrees with the proposition from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that it is inappropriate for regulations under Clauses 7, 8 and 9 to make changes to the Scotland Act 1998 or the Government of Wales Act 2006 without the consent of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, he must also agree that it would be inappropriate to make changes to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 without the consent of the Northern Irish Assembly. Does the Minister acknowledge the principle that Ministers in Westminster must not encroach on the devolution settlements without the consent of the appropriate devolved Parliament or Assembly? In previous debates, the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, has made much of “not ruling anything out”. There are elected Members in the Northern Ireland Assembly and in the continued absence of an Executive, is thought now being given to how these MLAs might be effectively involved in this process?
Finally, can the Minister say how the Government intend to deal with Northern Ireland in the context of the Bill, in the possible continued absence of an Executive and Assembly, how they would make the Bill fit for purpose were an Executive to be formed, and how they would ensure that the powers provided for in the Bill are appropriate for the very specific circumstances in Northern Ireland? I beg to move.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, the Minister unusually intervened at the beginning of the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, to say that he had some significant announcements to make in respect of Scotland and Wales and Clause 7. I assume he also meant Clause 8, but it was not clear. Given that this debate will be precisely on what the terms of Clauses 7 and 8 should be in respect of the devolution settlements, may I suggest that it would be fitting if the Minister made his announcements on the Government’s intentions now, and then noble Lords can respond afterwards? He has already told us that he intends to make such announcements and it would be ridiculous to have a big debate only for us to learn of the Government’s intentions after we have spoken.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I thought I was explicit that my remarks concerned only Clause 7, but I thought that was still significant because, clearly, that is a large part of the debate. I wanted to make it clear at this stage that we have moved significantly on Clause 7, but there is still an issue to be addressed in relation to Clause 8, and, I believe, Clause 9.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, what does the noble Lord mean by “moved significantly”? For those of us not initiated into the intricacies of this, what does he intend to do?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I seek to indicate that I can confirm that the Government will bring forward amendments on Report to apply the same protection to the Northern Ireland Act as to the Scotland Act and the Government of Wales Act. This means that all the changes we are proposing—bar one, I think, in relation to technical standards, but even that we will be able to spell out in relation to the Bill—and all the powers in relation to corrections will be in the legislation when we get to Report. We will table amendments on Report so that the correction power in Clause 7 will not be necessary. It will be in relation only to international obligations in Clause 8 and complying with the exit in relation to Clause 9.
Lord Judd (Lab)
On that point, could the noble Lord confirm that the amendments to be brought forward by the Government will make absolutely sacrosanct the principle of the preservation of the Good Friday agreement?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I certainly can confirm that but I was going to confirm it, as it were, right at the end of the debate. Clearly, this is fundamental. We are very much wedded to it, as was indicated in December, when there was a meeting with the EU on this issue and as we have stated again and again. I appreciate the point the noble Lord makes. It is important and I can confirm that we will do that.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 92 and 93 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and myself. I am sorry that he cannot be here to speak to these amendments, but I understand that it is in order for me to do so.
These amendments would restrict Ministers of the Crown from being able to amend or repeal the Wales Act 2017 and the corresponding Scotland Act using regulatory powers. The fact that these amendments are necessary underlines a perceived disregard the UK Government have for the sovereignty of the two devolved parliaments. If the Northern Ireland parliament were in existence, I am sure there would be feelings along similar lines.
The Bill gives sweeping powers to Ministers of the Crown, with which they can do what they like, including amending and/or repealing the devolution settlements. This was exemplified last Friday 9 March, when, despite no agreement being reached at the JMC (EN) meeting on the status of powers being repatriated from Brussels, the UK Government pushed ahead and published their framework analysis. This was essentially a list of devolved areas of policy that the UK Government will take over themselves—I will not list them or go into that, because they will mainly come under Clause 8, as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, mentioned a moment ago.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and I am grateful to him for the careful way in which he has gone through each of them. I do not propose to do that myself, but I will address the broad issue that the Bill as it stands alters the balance on devolution.
Once granted, devolution cannot be taken away. We had a royal commission and two Acts, and for more than 30 years I played a small part in ensuring that eventually we got there. We have got there, and there is no going back. However, the Bill alters the balance, and finance is involved as well. I mention that in passing. The Barnett formula now is based on population. The grants that agriculture and the environment get from Brussels are based not on population but on need, so that will be the fundamental change if the Bill stands unamended. It goes to the very heart of the matter. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, for indicating to me today that he was minded to bring forward some amendments, but are they of very great importance? We cannot say until we have seen them. However, something more important is at issue.
There have been conversations between the Westminster Minister—the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, as I understand it—the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. There has been no agreement. I understand that they are getting closer to each other, but this should have been done a long time ago. The promise was made in the other place—the Scottish Secretary made a commitment on behalf of the Government that it would be amended by Report in the Commons. We are now almost on Report in the Lords, but still we have had no agreement from either of the devolved Governments or any indication of what kind of amendment will be forthcoming.
I dealt with the issue of legislative consent in some detail in my short speech on Second Reading. Legislative consent had to be dragged out of the Government. The Whitehall departments have yet to take devolution seriously. I still have the bruises of many years’ campaigning to persuade each one of them that devolution, following the royal commission, was inevitable. Eventually, after a long time, we won. However, I still believe that there is an inherent objection in the Westminster departments to devolution at all. We had an indication from Stephen Crabb MP, the former Welsh Secretary, when he addressed the Welsh Conservative Party conference, saying that,
“we still have to get the cabinet secretary to put pressure on departmental permanent secretaries to take devolution seriously”.
That is why there has been this foot-dragging, why there has not been an agreement, and why there has been this resistance to bringing forward a proposal that would ensure to all of us that we will not go back on devolution.
On 21 June last year, on the issue of legislative consent, the Prime Minister said: “There is a possibility” —those were her words—that,
“a legislative consent motion may be required by the Scottish Parliament”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/6/17; col. 62.]
The next day, the Leader of the Commons kicked it into touch, and a few days later, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, kindly affirmed in this House that they would seek legislative consent. That is an indication of the way in which the Westminster departments have not been able to take devolution seriously. That is why the joint letter from the two First Ministers of the Assembly and of the Parliament says that they would not give legislative consent to the Bill in its present form. That is an alarming position, and we are still not clear whether legislative consent, which is now politically necessary, will be given at all.
On 14 September, the Minister, Mr Skidmore, wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, of this House:
“We will continue to engage the devolved administrations as we seek to deliver an EU Exit approach that takes proper account”,
of the devolved and interested parties. We still await that agreement. It had not been reached last Thursday, when I discussed the matter with the counsel for the Assembly, or this morning, when I discussed it with the person I speak to in the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff. We still await it—although there is more confidence now that there is hope on the horizon.
Perhaps I may set out briefly my objections to the present proposals in the Bill. First, it freezes existing law at the point of exit, and only UK Ministers appear to be allowed to unfreeze it, even in areas clearly within the competence of the Assemblies and the Parliament, such as agriculture and the environment. I hark back to what I said earlier about the Barnett formula and the finances. Is that the reason?
Secondly, UK Ministers will be able to amend legislation within the competence of the Assembly without being answerable to the Assembly, explaining what they are doing and why. That does not seem democratic to me.
Thirdly, the clauses would allow Ministers of the Crown to amend legislation within the legislative competence of the Assembly and Parliament and to amend legislation in respect of which Welsh Ministers may also exercise functions under Schedule 2 or under existing powers. This could extend to amending legislation passed by the Assembly. That is the legal position which has not been faced. It is what this Committee should now consider and get some kind of response on from the Minister. I know that there were many speeches to be answered at Second Reading but there was no response at all to some of the fears that I expressed then and repeat now. I hope that at the end of this debate there will be an answer to each of these points.
Any regulations made by a Minister of the Crown would be scrutinised by the UK Parliament rather than by the Welsh Assembly, even if the law in question contained provisions relating to devolved subjects. That is a horrific scenario and goes well back on the devolution settlement.
One specific piece of advice that I received astonished me and I hope it is wrong. If it is not, I enjoin the Minister to correct it. I am told that these powers could also be used to amend the Government of Wales Act without any requirement for the Assembly’s consent. If my advice is right and that is correct, we are certainly going back on the settlement. We are going back on 30 or 40 years of campaigning; we are going back on the recommendations of the royal commission; and we are going back on what was agreed in two Acts of Parliament—one in 1998 and one in 2006—and by referenda in each country.
Therefore, I hope that on this occasion, unlike at Second Reading, we will have some reply and some indication of where we are going, and that the balance of devolution, which many of us have fought for all our lives, will not be reversed.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 90, 130 and 148. I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Hope for introducing the amendments in meticulous detail.
I heard the Minister speak about a correcting power in relation to Clause 9 but unfortunately I did not hear the words “legislative consent”. In the Government of Wales Act there is a principle of legislative consent from the Assembly, and that is important when powers change and when legislation comes from Westminster with a direct effect on Wales. I am no lawyer and I hesitate to speak following two such knowledgeable lawyers as my noble and learned friend Lord Hope and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, and the very informed opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, but I believe that the volume of amendments tabled on this issue and the strength of feeling show both the deficiencies in the Bill as drafted and the deep unease that the Government’s efforts to appease the concerns appear to have been left until the 11th hour. That is a tremendous shame for the operation of the whole of the UK going forward.
As it stands, it seems that the passing of this Bill could mean that Brexit becomes a conduit through which legislative competence is repatriated slowly— as the thaw occurs, after time—from the devolved Governments in Wales and Scotland back to Westminster. In the words of the First Minister of Wales and the First Minister of Scotland, this Bill appears to be a “naked power grab”. It does not return powers from the EU back to the devolved Administrations, as promised; it returns them solely to the Government and Parliament, and freezes them, and it imposes new restrictions on the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 130, to which I have added my name, and will satisfy the Committee’s curiosity as to why I have done so. I am a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates and have the lesser distinction than the noble and learned Lord of serving as a Bar apprentice with the firm of Simpson & Marwick as part of my training. I also made my maiden speech in the other place on the Scotland Bill as it was going through its various stages. I simply want to support everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has said in speaking to this amendment. This is of course a cause of great concern to the Scottish Parliament, which I understand debated this very issue with a number of practitioners, including a leading practitioner from the Law Society of Scotland, and a number of academics last Wednesday in its Finance and Constitution Committee.
I listened very carefully to what my noble friend the Minister said in seeking to satisfy the Committee this evening that we should desist from supporting this little group of amendments because the Government are coming forward with an amendment at Report. If that is the case, I urge my noble friend the Minister to share with the Committee this evening the full contents of that amendment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has accurately identified the issues at stake, and anything that might jeopardise the fine balance achieved under the devolution agreement and the Scotland Act—I wish to speak only to Amendment 130 —would be regrettable.
Lord Wigley
My understanding is that the government amendment to Clause 11, which we will come to in due course and which was promised for Report stage, has in fact been tabled today and is public property. It is a nine-page amendment—I have seen a copy of it. Therefore, I think the Committee should have that information available to it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Perhaps it is my fault but I have not been able to access a copy of the amendment; as we conclude this debate, it would be very helpful to have the contents of it. For now, I support the amendment standing in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and others. I hope that the Committee will persist with this little group of amendments.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, this Bill gives UK Ministers powers to make statutory instruments that would include the power to amend the founding Acts of devolution without requiring the consent of the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Scottish Parliament. These powers could be used in relation to policy areas, as noble Lords have said, that are the responsibility already of Welsh Ministers, Northern Ireland Ministers and Scottish Ministers. The assumption is that the UK Parliament would legislate to alter their powers. Obviously, there may be times when this is pragmatically acceptable, but what is not acceptable or reasonable is that, under the provision as drafted, the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly are not required to give their consent.
I wish to speak simply and briefly, referring specifically to my experience as a Wales Office Minister, as a Member of the Welsh Assembly for 12 years, as a Minister in Wales and as a Minister for Northern Ireland in this House. It is safe to say that I have seen it from both ends of the telescope. It has been unthinkable from the start of devolution that UK Ministers would progress in these circumstances without the consent of the devolved Assemblies and Parliament. It has been an early-established principle of devolution that that did not happen. There has on occasion been sabre-rattling but it has not happened because that principle was established.
I am pleased to see the amendments of my noble friend Lady Suttie in relation to Northern Ireland because we are in danger of behaving as if the phase of devolution in Northern Ireland has passed. It is important that the Bill caters for the resumption of devolution in Northern Ireland.
I am pleased to hear from the Minister that the Government are planning changes. However, I know that he has too much respect for devolution to be happy with the situation in which he finds himself today. It is a muddle, a mess, and almost provocative. I certainly would not for one second lay this at the Minister’s door, but it is almost provocative to leave it to the last minute so that, effectively, the opportunity for government amendments in Committee has been lost. I am sad that we are in this situation because it is becoming increasingly negative, when we could go forward in a positive manner. I have tremendous respect for the Minister, his experience and his belief in devolution; I hope his replies will reassure us.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, my intervention will be extremely brief. I was entirely persuaded by what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said. To allow the Westminster Parliament to interfere with the constitutional settlements already agreed without the consent of those constitutional Parliaments or Assemblies is a recipe for disaster. It will stir up nationalist opinion in a way that we would be very well advised to avoid.
The only other point I will make is that the mechanisms for making these changes are unamendable. The Scots Nats in the House of Commons would be active in arguing that it was profoundly wrong to have a regulation before the House—if it was ever before the House, and that is extremely questionable, as we know well— which they could not amend. I can think of few things more calculated to fracture consent and fragment the union.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, before we whip ourselves into a lather of outrage at the prospect of doing something without the consent of the devolved Administrations, perhaps I may remind the House that we have a short memory. The devolution settlement in Northern Ireland represented by the 1998 Act was butchered—a term I used some weeks ago—by this Parliament without a by your leave, without the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly and without the consent of the parties that negotiated the agreement. That was done in the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Act 2006, where dramatic changes were made to the methods we had negotiated with the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, and others over many years. So this Parliament can do what it likes, when it likes. That is the nature of having a devolved institution versus a sovereign Parliament. There is a hierarchy.
The Good Friday agreement, for which the noble Lord, Lord Judd—who is not in his place—and others indicated strong support, which I welcome, was dramatically changed without a by your leave. It was done as a result of a back-stairs deal and this Parliament implemented it. There was no requirement for the Northern Ireland Assembly to agree—it was just done. So let us look back at the actions that have already been taken.
In these challenging circumstances, and from what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, among others, in his forensic examination of the amendments that he introduced, I understand that there is genuine reason to be concerned. But we have to keep this in proportion. When powers are repatriated to the United Kingdom, the European Union deals with the member state—that is the way in which it works—so the only place it can come to is the member state. The question then is: what happens when it gets there? That is of significant concern to Members. But I am not as concerned as some because I believe that it is perfectly possible to arrive at an appropriate accommodation.
The word “balance” has been used, and that is an important point. But let us look at legislative consent. I have to say to noble Lords that we have got to be extremely careful about what we are doing here. If there is a Northern Ireland Assembly, do we know what legislative consent means? It means that Sinn Fein will decide whether there is legislative consent. If we build that into an Act of this Parliament dealing with such an important matter as the consequences of the EU decision, we will be handing a veto to that single party. Under our devolution settlement, it will be about Sinn Fein’s consent as a party. Whether it has a majority or a minority in the Assembly is irrelevant; it has sufficient power to block consent. What are we doing in considering that?
Lord Hope of Craighead
I am most grateful to the noble Lord. In Clause 7(7), which deals with Northern Ireland, there is no mention of the need for consent at all. It states simply that the power to amend or repeal the Northern Ireland Act by statutory instrument is excluded. I can see the sense in that. Does the noble Lord agree that that is a sensible way of dealing with the matter, and that perhaps the same provision should be made for Scotland and Wales?
Lord Empey
I think that we have to be careful because this is complicated. It is obvious that the devolution settlements are not uniform; they are at different levels. My concern with the whole point of having consent is that, while it is obviously highly desirable to have it, although we are talking about the institutions, in practice we are talking about the people who at any point in time are controlling those institutions. In our particular case, there is a veto. I take the point made by the noble and learned Lord, but in the Scottish case a similar situation arises because there is a political party which has a particular objective in mind. It is not simply about the institutions but about those who are controlling them at a point in time when these matters come forward. In fact the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, said in his passionate contribution—I know that he is a lifelong devolutionary —that devolution, once granted, cannot be taken away. That is a contradiction in terms, because by definition devolution is something that is given—and of course our experience is that what has been given can be taken away. That is the danger in all of this.
Obviously we are waiting to see what the Government’s proposals will be. I do not believe that what the Minister indicated at the start of this debate will be the only contribution they will be making on these clauses, because it is clear that other matters need to be dealt with in Clauses 8 and 9, and I am sure that we will hear more from the Government. But I would urge colleagues to be careful about what this may mean in practice—because it is not as straightforward as it seems.
Lord Adonis
We will be debating Northern Ireland at greater length later. The Minister said in response to my noble friend Lord Judd that the Government would be bringing forward on Report amendments in respect of the Good Friday agreement—or at least that is what I took him to be saying; no doubt he will clarify his remarks when he rises to speak. Will he tell the Committee more about what those amendments will contain?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, I speak in support of the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, to which I have added my name. I shall try to confine myself to the actual amendments to Clauses 7, 8 and 9. Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I have not yet had an opportunity to see the amendments to Clause 11 which were laid today, but I suspect that we will consider them in great detail before we come to debate them in Committee next week. Suffice it to say that it is helpful that some information has been forthcoming. I may not necessarily agree with it all but it will shed a helpful light by giving us an indication of the frameworks where the UK Government at least think that there should be a United Kingdom dimension, and hopefully some polish from outside stakeholders may help to inform our discussions when we come to them.
On the amendments moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, to Clauses 7, 8 and 9, I shall certainly consider with care what the Minister said at the outset of the debate and then again in response to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. I thought that perhaps he went slightly further when he responded to the noble Lord, but I shall read carefully what he has said just to see whether this particular part concession has substance. That is because, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, pointed out, the position with regard to Northern Ireland in Clause 7(7) is not absolute. There are qualifications to it and it will be interesting to see whether there are similar qualifications with regard to Scotland and Wales.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, also intervened on the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and said that the difference between what is there as regards Northern Ireland in Clause 7(7) as it stands and what we have proposed in our amendment is that Clause 7(7) does not make any provision for the consent of the relevant Scottish, Welsh—or in the case of my noble friend’s amendment—or Northern Irish devolved Assemblies or Parliaments. I do not know enough, and I know that it is dangerous to go into Northern Ireland politics without deep knowledge. However, I will say why our amendment, which gives the opportunity for consent, would be preferable, certainly with regard to Scotland and Wales. Ministers talk generally, and one of the concerns we have is with the breadth of the powers given to Ministers under these clauses, but we do not know whether there might be a genuine cause or reason for an amendment to be made to these founding pieces of legislation. It would therefore be helpful if there was a provision for consent so that it is not done unilaterally.
It might also be helpful looking forward. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, mentioned distrust. That cuts two ways. There is distrust among the Scottish and Welsh Governments as to what United Kingdom Ministers might get up to in using these very broad powers, and there is distrust—I can speak only for Scotland—among UK Ministers that the Scottish Government might well seek to veto something that they might otherwise think is perfectly reasonable. That is holding back quite a lot of the development of a pragmatic and reasonable solution to a lot of these issues. It might be that there will be something akin to the so-called Edinburgh agreement, which paved the way for the amendments to the Scotland Act that allowed the EU and independence referendums to take place, so that we can get some understanding between the Governments that consent would not unreasonably be withheld where a compelling case could be made for it.
The problem we have at the moment is that there is no scope for that at all. It is imposition. It could be a unilateral imposition in a change to the Scotland Act or the government of Wales Acts without any form of consultation or consent at all. As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, Clause 8, certainly in terms of Scotland, and Schedule 5 allow some limited powers for the Scottish Parliament relating to international obligations. Again, we think some provision should be made in Clause 9 for putting a brake on any amendment to, or modification of, the Scotland Act or the Government of Wales Act unless there is the consent of the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly.
Lord Empey
Will the noble and learned Lord elaborate on his suggestion for how a middle way could be established? We would all want to see consent if that is achievable, but the problem is that it is very difficult to design a situation in the legislation to say we will seek consent but we do not really need it. The second problem that we have in Northern Ireland is the absence of the Assembly. That creates an even more dramatic situation.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, taking that second point, as I indicated earlier, the absence of the Northern Ireland Assembly raises far more questions than those specific to these amendments. My noble friend Lady Suttie touched on that when she moved her amendment. It goes far further than these particular amendments.
I will say more about consent. If it is, in fact, fear that consent will be unreasonably withheld, surely it is not beyond the wit of those negotiating to come up with some kind of agreement that the various parties can sign up to, indicating that that consent would not be unreasonably withheld. I accept that the downside is that they could go back on their agreement. There would be a political consequence to that. Ultimately, we are dealing with issues that have a practical effect on people’s livelihoods and businesses. It is far more important to get some practical solution based on good faith, if it can be restored, rather than standing in corners, not wishing to engage.
If the Government accepted these amendments it might well be a step forward to trying to establish some of that atmosphere where trust can be created. What we currently have would not, as has already been said, trigger a legislative consent Motion in circumstances where, if it was primary legislation, it would have a legislative consent Motion.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
On the subject of trust, the noble and learned Lord mentioned the Edinburgh agreement, which the Scottish nationalists signed up to. No sooner was the ink dry on the paper than they were repudiating it. Does he remember the assertion that it would be a “once in a generation” referendum on independence? Surely we are dealing in Scotland with a nationalist Government determined to destroy the United Kingdom. Why on earth would one want to give them a veto over decisions taken by the United Kingdom Parliament?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I accept that, with regard to “once in a generation”, the Scottish National Party is guilty of not living up to what it said, but it is not right to say that, once the ink was dry on the paper, it totally forgot it. What was in that agreement informed both the Section 30 order that was passed and the legislation then passed by the Scottish Parliament in conformity with the agreement. A substantial part of that agreement was carried through in good faith by both parties.
The detailed wording of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act was important in getting the right balance in the devolution settlement. If in the normal course of events that were to change, it would require an order under Section 30 of the Scotland Act, which requires an affirmative vote not only by both Houses of this Parliament but by the Scottish Parliament. What we are proposing is consistent with what would happen in the normal course of events when the balance of the devolution settlement was changed. That is why I strongly encourage the Minister at least to show willingness to think about this matter and reassure us that the Government are sensitive to it. That could go some way towards establishing a better basis for trust as we look forward to our debates on Clause 11.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, the amendments introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, might be perfectly okay from the point of view of the UK Government. The only change likely under Clause 7 is to something where it says “EU law”; it would have to be changed to something else. The powers in Clause 7 are intended to enable the knitting together of existing UK law and existing EU law which is not already part of it. That is a difficult job. These descriptions are meant to cater for that. I do not see it as likely that much will be required in relation to Scotland in that respect.
The main question is what happens under Clause 11. The Government promised that it would be brought before the House of Commons and hoped that it would be agreed. Your Lordships may or may not remember that I was keen at Second Reading to stress the need for agreement, because it is the only answer. Intense negotiations have gone on at official level over the last while. It now appears sadly possible—I do not make it any stronger than that—that the Governments may not be able to reach agreement. Therefore, it is important before anything further happens that your Lordships get a chance to apply your great experience to the problems separating the two parties. I greatly regret that there is no proper representation for Northern Ireland. I had the responsibility of being a Minister in Northern Ireland for 10 years; I feel very sad that the present situation has been reached and only wish that it could be resolved. From what I hear, I fear that it may not be very easy until after Brexit. In any case, agreement is essential if it is possible. I do not want to say or do anything that would impede the reaching of such agreement.
As for Clause 7, to retain a power to amend the Scotland Act seems unimportant in this situation, although I think the number of amendments generated by a proposal of this kind would be very small and the Government may feel it worth while to forgo such a power in the interest of making peace and progress.
The Clause 11 procedure is much more difficult. It is important to bear in mind that the Scotland Act—this goes for the Wales Act as well—was set up and legislated within the European Union. Therefore, the only powers that were dealt with were the powers that existed in the Parliament of the United Kingdom when these Bills became law. That did not involve the powers that the EU had and therefore I think it is not determinative of how these powers should be distributed on return to look at what was decided in the original Acts setting up the devolved Administrations, because the powers are now wider. It is therefore very much a matter of trying to resolve the issues between the parties by agreement. If we can help in that respect, so be it: I very much hope that we can. Certainly, I hope we do not do anything to hinder it. So far as I am concerned, I am prepared to trust all the parties to do their best to reach an amicable solution.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
The contributions already made make it perfectly clear how fragile and in many respects how insubstantial is the basis of devolution as we know it. The sovereign Parliament of Westminster has created a sub-Parliament in respect of Scotland and Wales. The sovereign authority that created that Parliament can undo that Parliament any day that it wishes to do so. If it did so I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, would agree with me that it would be the best recruiting sergeant that Plaid Cymru ever had. Be that as it may, the power is there to do exactly that. It is, of course, utterly understandable that nobody expects that power to be used. In fact, in Clause 1 of both the Scotland Act and the Wales Act of last year there is written in what is intended to guarantee the permanence of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. In terms of law, it has no restriction whatever; it is purely cosmetic but well intentioned. I do not think that, in so far as any legal interpretation is concerned, there is a different view held, but I will be corrected on that point.
Nevertheless, those two Parliaments exist at the mercy, as it were, of this sovereign Parliament. I do not know whether one can change the situation, because the concept of sovereignty means that it can be withdrawn at any time. Unless, of course, one has some self-abnegative discipline—for example, to say that there is a convention. In the Miller case that came before the Supreme Court some time ago, the argument was raised that there was a basic authority that related to each of the Parliaments. No, said the Supreme Court, it is a convention. However, nobody had defined a convention. If Parliament went out of its way to define a convention and said, “In this context a convention means a, b, c and d”, that might get us somewhere. It is a suggestion.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble Lord may recall that during the passage of the last Scotland Act there was great debate on Clause 2 about whether the convention of seeking legislative consent could be enshrined in law. We ended up with a rather unsatisfactory clause that said that this Parliament,
“will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters”.
As some of us argued at the time, what on earth does “normally” mean? It came from trying to enshrine the convention in statute. On the subject of people respecting conventions, the noble Lord may not be aware that the Scottish Parliament wishes to charge on with its own legislation on the basis that there is no legislative consent Motion agreed to this legislation, despite the fact that the Presiding Officer has declared that legislation illegal. If we are to have a Parliament acting illegally, led by nationalists who wish to break up the United Kingdom, I think that, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has suggested, we should go cannily.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
One is greatly tempted to look at this situation beyond the Tweed, as it were—but I will abjure that temptation now and, I hope, for ever. I have scars on my back already in relation to what has happened in Wales over the last few decades.
I believe that in relation to these situations, one can draw a distinction between a convention and something else. A convention can be defined by Parliament in such a way as to have a semi-sovereign authority. That is my point. It is not the same thing as saying that it is regarded as the ordinary way of doing things—that is a totally different argument. In that way, it seems that one might achieve a reasonable and honourable settlement.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I am at a loss to know quite how we have got where we have. The labyrinthine discussions we have been involved in have not helped me to clarify any sense of where I am, either.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has just talked about a Bill proposed in Scotland that has been judged by the Presiding Officer to be illegal; I think he said it was beyond competence. The law will no doubt run its course and somebody will make a judgment as to whether it is legal or illegal at that stage. For all that, in Wales it has been judged to be competent and it is well under way. So the concern in both cases, however we define the words, is that when all is said and done we will be left with a mess—and continuity has to be guaranteed because that is the basis on which this debate and the Bill are posited. We simply must have a snapshot moment on that date so that continuity in law can continue.
If we are not to reach the agreements that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is so desirous of—indeed, who can be for anything else?— there has to be some modus agendi to take us through the impasse, because it will be an impasse. Why could we not have thought of adding the words of the amendment about exempting the need to modify the Scotland and Wales Acts? Why could we not have put in, understood, assumed or intuited that consulting the devolved Governments was a natural, normal, everyday breathing kind of thing to do? I cannot really understand why we are in this mess. You cannot judge for two devolved Governments without having agreements or consents from them.
I have made the case already in debate, and the last thing I am going to do is add to the time taken to resolve this matter this evening, but what worries me are the parallel narratives coming out of the discussions that have taken place so far. The press has been full of articles suggesting that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has pulled off some kind of a coup—that there have been magnificent and radical developments. But just this morning I got an email from Wales, from people who have been discussing the amendments. It says quite clearly that the basis on which such amendments have been prepared, “while representing a move in the right direction”—we rejoice at that—“was not sufficient to secure our support”. They made suggestions as to alternative ways that their outstanding concerns could be addressed. The conclusion of the communication I am looking at is: “We must keep on talking”. They say that the Government gave a promise that they would not press to a vote the amendments that are to be put before them—in other words, the amendments will be available for discussion. I hope that the Minister will be prepared this evening to repeat the assertion contained here, which was given to the parties in the discussions with the devolved Governments.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords who have participated in this very wide-ranging debate, particularly to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for moving his amendment and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for moving her amendment to the amendment. I shall first try to deal with a couple of very basic points before turning to the substance of the debate and I shall then try to pick up some of the points made by noble Lords. I gently say to the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, that if my aim was to cut short this debate, I failed fairly spectacularly. I regret that. I had sought to clarify where we were—but I will go through the basic principles again.
I shall deal with a couple of very basic points. First, I do not know where the idea came from that there is some possibility of the Government fundamentally amending or repealing the Government of Wales Act without consent. That is not remotely on our agenda. It is certainly not something that I would tolerate. I suppose it is just about within the scope of Austinian sovereignty, but I do not know where the idea came from that that is a possibility—so let me put that to bed absolutely right away. We are totally committed to devolution—the Government of Wales Act, the Scotland Act and the Northern Ireland Act—and I think that noble Lords will appreciate that point.
Secondly, I think that there has been some confusion. We are not principally dealing with Clause 11 today. There might be some confusion because we have just published the amendments in relation to Clause 11, following an undertaking we gave in another place—but that will be the subject of much broader discussion later. No doubt we will go through that in some substance, so I do not intend to deal with it and pre-empt what is going to happen later in our consideration of the Bill.
I thank noble Lords for this valuable debate. We will consider the main clauses relating to devolution in coming days, but the question of how the powers conferred by the Bill interact with our devolution settlements and the responsibilities of our devolved institutions is no less important and deserves no less robust scrutiny. I shall first speak to the protection for the devolution statutes in relation to the Clause 7(1) correcting power and by extension its Schedule 2 counterpart. There are many amendments in Schedule 3 for those who want some idea of what will be brought forward on Report. It is not a question of them coming forward now. My noble friend Lady McIntosh raised this, but we are not in a position to come up with all the amendments that may be necessary. They will be debated on Report. We are talking about every correction that is necessary being brought forward on Report for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. It is as simple as that. I hope that clarifies what I hoped to clarify right at the start.
I must start by emphasising that the Government recognise the importance of our devolution settlements and the Acts through which they have effect. I think noble Lords who know my history will know that that is my starting point. That is why we have sought to make as many corrections to the Acts as possible in the Bill already. Those, as I say, can be found in Part 2 of Schedule 3. We want to be open and transparent in demonstrating that these are, as noble Lords will discover when they look at them, simply technical fixes to remedy deficiencies created by leaving the EU. For instance, much like in other pieces of legislation, we must remove or replace redundant references to member states or EU institutions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, is absolutely right to raise the unique importance of the Northern Ireland Act as the statutory manifestation of the Belfast agreement. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—I hope the record will show this—I do not think I said that we were bringing forward amendments in relation to the Good Friday agreement on Report. What we are doing is bringing forward some amendments in relation to Northern Ireland to make sure that all the amendments that relate to Northern Ireland are in the Bill. I cannot stress often enough or strongly enough our total, steadfast commitment to the Belfast agreement. That is precisely why we have, in this Bill, already generally restricted the correcting power from making corrections to the Northern Ireland Act. As I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, is aware, references to Northern Ireland amendments are minimal, and we will seek to make sure that all of those are on the face of the Bill when it comes back on Report.
Noble Lords must recognise that there remain outstanding corrections to the Acts that must be made in order to ensure that they function properly on exit day. Corrections to the Scotland Act and the Government of Wales Act are being discussed with the Scottish and Welsh Governments, and progress is being made. It is a mistake to think that people are at daggers drawn. This is not how things are operating, as many noble Lords are well aware. Day to day, negotiations go on very constructively and effectively—that is what is happening. We have not made all of the corrections on the face of the Bill so far, as we must rightly agree the forms of the corrections to those Acts with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. Indeed, some fall within devolved competence to address. In some cases, alternative mechanisms may exist to deal with them.
I can provide further reassurance, because these are not matters of substantive policy. This is about correcting provisions that will not function correctly once we have left the EU. For example, there is provision in the Government of Wales Act requiring the Auditor-General for Wales to make certain arrangements for bodies established by the European Union. This will need to be updated so that the provision continues to work in a post-exit world. There is one correction that must be made to the Northern Ireland Act, as I have referred to, which relates to technical standards—the quality of goods and safety marks. This, again, is fairly routine and will be brought forward on Report.
It would be irresponsible for us to place these limits on the correcting power if we could not also provide the answers to the questions—which I am now providing —and the assurance that we will deal with these issues on Report. I can confirm that we will bring forward amendments on Report to apply the same protection for the Scotland Act and the Government of Wales Act as for the Northern Ireland Act, so that all the necessary amendments will appear on the face of the Bill on Report. Contrary to what some noble Lords seem to think, we have made substantial progress in discussions, but we were not in a position to remedy the remaining deficiencies for consideration in Committee. I regret that, but I am very pleased that we have made the progress we have.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I do not know whether my noble friend reads the Scottish papers. If he does, he will have seen that there has been headline after headline about the Scottish Government claiming that this is a great power grab by Westminster—attacking the Government and attacking the whole concept of leaving the European Union with scare stories about the impact of it. I am a little puzzled that he can say that there is a gentlemanly discussion going on when that is the perception north of the border.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I do not recognise the power-grab allegation as being anywhere near reality. We are making progress. Of course there are differences, but I think in fairness all parties concerned have indicated, as the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, did, that progress is being made. These are complex issues and it is a great mistake to see this, in some Animal Farm way as all black and white. It is not like that. Progress is being made. There is still territory to cover and progress to be made, but we are making that progress.
Lord Wigley
Before the Minister moves on, we are aware of his good intentions in this, his experience and his wish to get a coming together of minds. However, if the Government’s intention is always to get agreement for the changes—and, from the tone of what he has said, that is their objective—why should they be building provisions into the clause now under discussion to have a veto for Westminster that overrules either Cardiff or Edinburgh?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. It certainly is my view that we want to get agreement—I have no doubt about that—but I shy away from his idea that one party should have a veto on things where there is no substantive reason why it should do so. I shall come to this, but if something relates to a devolved area, of course we will need the relevant consent of the devolved Administration. However, we are not seeking to add powers in this legislation that do not already exist to give bodies vetoes over Westminster legislation.
Baroness Randerson
It is my understanding that the concept behind the phrase “Westminster will not normally legislate without the consent of the devolved Administrations” depends on what you mean by “normally”. It was explained to me that it meant there was a recognition that very occasionally one would need emergency legislation, perhaps in a situation of terrorism, where it was impossible, possibly because the other body was in recess, to get agreement in a reasonable timescale—that sort of exceptional situation. That is how the meaning of “normally” was explained to me from a legal perspective. Is that accurate? Is that the Government’s understanding of what that word means? If so, would it be possible to reach an agreement with the devolved Administrations on that definition?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Baroness, with her normal quicksilver mind, has darted ahead to the bit of the speech that I have not yet got to, relating to where we are on Clauses 8 and 9. She makes a fair point and I intend to deal with it. I hope I have reassured noble Lords over the correction power, and I thank noble Lords who contributed to that part of the debate.
Amendments 130, 131, 132, 148, 149 and 159, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, seek to extend such a restriction to the international obligations and withdrawal agreement powers. I have listened carefully to what has been said. To avoid any shadow of a doubt, I am very happy to sit down with the noble Lord on what he says about the points raised on international agreements to look at the point on international obligations; I think it related to Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act. I am happy to look at that point with officials. However, I think he must accept, as noble Lords would, that the overriding ability in relation to international agreements must rest with the UK Government as the member state and the body able to conclude international treaties. I do not think there can be any question about that. However, I am happy to look at the valid issue he has raised on that point.
The position on international obligations and the withdrawal agreement powers must necessarily be more nuanced because we do not yet know what changes may be required, as we are not yet sure what the precise shape of the withdrawal agreement will be. However, I can confirm that this power will not be used to unpick the devolution settlements, nor to undermine or amend the Belfast agreement. As I have indicated, we are adhered to both the devolution settlements that we have and to the Belfast agreement that was reached in April 1998 and must be protected in all its parts.
Lord Beith (LD)
The Minister speaks as though the Clause 8 and Clause 9 powers are basically the same. They are not, of course. The Clause 9 powers can be exercised only if a further piece of legislation, a withdrawal Bill, is passed. It is not clear to me why the Minister is letting himself be cornered over this when the powers do not need to be in the Bill at all.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I accept that they are not the same thing. Perhaps by definition, Clause 9 relates to the withdrawal agreement, but that will be made by the United Kingdom Government. As the member state, it will be the United Kingdom Government who will sign the withdrawal agreement. There may—indeed, I am sure there will—be issues about ensuring that our law is compliant with the withdrawal agreement in all parts of the United Kingdom, in both the Westminster Parliament and the devolved Administrations. That is why we need it.
Noble Lords will be aware that it is quite normal to use delegated powers in such ways, including Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, which amends the devolution statutes to ensure that our legislation reflects the most accurate position in law and ultimately to ensure that we fulfil our international obligations. To give an example, the Treaty of Lisbon (Changes in Terminology) Order 2011 was made under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act. It amended the Scotland Act, the Northern Ireland Act and the Government of Wales Act to give effect to new terminology relating to the EU. This is not the stuff of power grabs, believe me; it is the stuff of ensuring that day-to-day business can continue. Leaving the EU requires changes of a similar technical nature across the settlements, and we will need the flexibility to ensure that these important Acts operate effectively once we have left the EU. That is precisely what these powers enable.
Amendments 148 and 149 also speak to the concurrent powers for United Kingdom Ministers and would apply a requirement for devolved Ministers to consent to their use. We will consider this matter fully in the next group, but I am very willing to engage with noble Lords on the subject that the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, raised when she talked about the use of the word “normally”. “Normally” is not subject to definition by government, it is subject to definition in law, but of course we would normally expect the consent of devolved Administrations in conducting discussions on these matters. A lot of this, believe me, is down to ensuring good housekeeping and common sense. If we have the prospect, by agreement, of dealing with this just once in one United Kingdom Parliament rather than repeating it in all the different legislatures of the country, that makes sense.
I shall try to deal quickly with the points raised by noble Lords, I hope in more or less the order in which they were raised. Forgive me if I miss points; I will try to pick them up by letter and will place a copy in the Library for those who did not participate in the debate.
First, I restate my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for tabling the amendment and ably and cogently setting out what it was about. I followed precisely what he said and sympathise with a lot of it. I suspect we may disagree on some of the detail and emphasis, but I am certainly willing to engage with the issues he has raised. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for bringing forward the Northern Ireland dimension. She asked who we will engage with. Sadly, we cannot engage with an Executive at the moment, but we continue to put all our energies into ensuring that we have an Executive in place to engage with. Whatever our differences with them will be, that is far a more desirable form of government and governance of Northern Ireland.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, spoke next, and spoke also on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. As I said, we will look at Clause 11 later. If I am not mistaken, we sought and obtained agreement from both Scotland and Wales to publish that. There are deep dives, as the parlance has it, going on in all framework areas—I think we are now down to 24 from 27. Full and active engagement on that is the way forward, and significant work is being done.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, spoke next. He has massive experience and knowledge of this area, so I listened very carefully to what he was saying. I appreciated our earlier chat. I can confirm that these framework areas are frozen, as it were, until we can get down to the substance in the deep dives of the things that need to be devolved and the things that need to be held in the centre. I think there is common agreement, including in Scotland, on the principle that some things will have to be retained in the centre. If we are seeking to pull something back—I do not see that that will happen, but if we were, through some of these other Acts—of course we would need LCMs just as we are seeking an LCM on this legislation. That is, again, a reassurance that I am able to give.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for the engagement that we have had on this. I can confirm that we are seeking an LCM, as I believe she knows, on this legislation in both Scotland and Wales, and on the other legislation—on agriculture and so on—insofar as this involves potentially encroaching on devolved areas. Of course, once again we would seek to have long and deep discussions, as we are doing. If it were to impinge on devolved areas, we would fairly clearly need that LCM.
I hope I have answered on deficiencies; all of those will be covered in the Bill. An example of an international obligation would be something perhaps not mundane, but, for example, complying with a new law of the sea if there was a new law of the sea convention. That may be something we would seek to amend. It would be that sort of issue.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked for full details of the amendments. She will see that we have published the Clause 11 amendments. The amendments to Clause 7 will be tabled on Report. I have given that undertaking. They are not yet ready for reasons I have sought to explain but they will be there for Report stage. I hope she will take some comfort from that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, spoke with great experience of the devolved areas, and I thank her for her contribution about how things have moved and how there are still rough edges. I share some of the frustration of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, because we tried to solve some of this together on asbestos. This is not a power grab. Nobody knows where that power lies. Indeed, there is perhaps a little bit of, “You do it”, “No, you do it”. It is just lack of clarity rather than a power grab, but I hope we will be able to solve and settle it before too long.
I think I have dealt with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who is not in his place at the moment, on the Good Friday agreement. It will not involve any amendments in relation to that agreement, to which we are totally wedded, but there will be some amendments on Report in relation to Northern Ireland and some of the deficiencies that need correcting, in just the same way as in relation to Scotland and Wales. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, once again for the clarity of what he said. I agree that we should look, perhaps through conversation and discussion, to move this forward. Like my noble friend Lord Forsyth, I have grave doubts. We will not be moving to a position of consent but I would certainly like to see us talking and consulting, and I am very happy to engage with that. To move to a position of consent in non-devolved areas would be dangerous to the union.
I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern once again for what he said. I totally agree: if we think this is difficult, just wait until we get to Clause 11. I think this is relatively straightforward and I can see a way through this where we would have broad agreement. As the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, indicated, Clause 11 will be a much more difficult area.
The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, knows so much about this area, through both his political and legal experience. I agree with him that it is important to move to a position where, for things related to devolved areas, there is a convention that has grown up and is widely accepted about consent. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, for his clarity. I agree with him about the importance of transparency and coming up with some common sense; I think that is essentially what he was saying and I do not disagree at all.
We have probably reached agreement on Clause 7. In relation to Clauses 8 and 9, I am very happy to look at the points that were made and discuss them further ahead of Report stage. In the meantime, I ask the noble and learned Lord and the noble Baroness to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
I believe the amendment under debate is that of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie.
Baroness Suttie
I thank the Minister for his characteristically detailed and courteous response. We look forward to examining these amendments in greater detail ahead of Report stage, when we will probably have many longer discussions about them. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, I moved my amendment some time ago—at least I believe I did. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate and to the Minister for his very constructive response.
To sum up briefly, it seems that a theme ran through various contributions, which I want to bring to a point. I picked up from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, the point that the Government have not really carried the people with them in the way they have responded to devolution, at least in Wales. Then, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, said that devolution had yet to be taken seriously. Then, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said that the atmosphere is becoming increasingly negative. These are very unfortunate phrases to be using in a situation where we seek agreement. However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, said that accepting these amendments would be a step forward and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said—if I understood him correctly—that accepting the amendments would not cause the Government much trouble, given what they have been saying about their intentions for the use of the powers that will be given to Ministers of State by these three clauses.
If the Minister searches his conscience very thoroughly, it does not look as though the Government have much to lose, if anything, in accepting these amendments. At the same time, there is a lot to be gained because they would help to change the atmosphere, which is so negative at the moment. He has made a step forward in Clause 7, which I appreciate, but he has done so because he says that he does not need to bother with the Scotland Act because he will have it all there on Report. I applaud that, but surely he might take the same step with Clauses 8 and 9. He may say that there is no question of amending the Scotland Act or the Government of Wales Act under those clauses—if so, why not just say so? Why not put these measures in the Bill and get this all over with, as a background to when we come to the real difficulty of Clause 11? There is that to take away from the debate.
I want to mention one other point. If we put a provision of this kind in Clause 7, people will look at Clauses 8 and 9 and say, “Oh, it’s not there. The situation is different as far as Clauses 8 and 9 are concerned”. There is a Latin phrase for this: inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, which means that putting one thing in excludes the other. We need to look rather carefully at the wisdom of adding a very sensible amendment to Clause 7 but not reproducing it in Clauses 8 and 9 as well.
I hope we can take these thoughts into the discussions which I would like to have with the Minister if we can find time. I look forward to Report when he will bring forward his other amendments. That is as far as we can take the matter this evening. We will come back to it on Report, but for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hope of Craighead
“( ) The consent of the Scottish Ministers is required before any provision is made in regulations under this section so far as the provision would be within the devolved competence of the Scottish Ministers within the meaning given to those words by paragraph 18 of Schedule 2.( ) The consent of the Welsh Ministers is required before any provision is made in regulations under this section so far as the provision would be within the devolved competence of the Welsh Ministers within the meaning given to those words by paragraph 19 of Schedule 2.”
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, I am afraid that I have to introduce this group, and I hope to be able to do so fairly concisely. There are two amendments in this group in my name. Amendment 102 relates to Clause 7 and Amendment 124 to Clause 8. They seek to qualify the extent of the power given to Ministers of the Crown to make provision by regulations to deal with the matters to which these clauses refer, asking that these powers be not exercised without the consent of the Scottish or Welsh Ministers, so far as the provision that is sought to be made would be within “devolved competence” within the meaning given to that expression in paragraph 18 of Schedule 2.
Once again, at the heart of these amendments is the need to respect the constitutional importance and integrity of the devolution settlements. How the areas of government within devolved competence should be administered is seen—certainly in Cardiff and Edinburgh—as the responsibility of the devolved authorities. They have that responsibility by virtue of the democratic vote under which Members of these legislatures were elected. Their quite correct position is that it should not be for UK Ministers to enter into the area that is devolved to them without their consent, especially in the exercise of the power, to which I referred in the previous group, to make any provision under these two clauses that could be made by an Act of Parliament. I mention the Sewel convention in that connection. In practice, the Sewel principle has been operated for a considerable time in the way that the devolution system has been working since the two fundamental statutes were passed in 1998. The problem is that these clauses fail to give effect to that practice, and that needs to be corrected.
To set this point in its statutory context, so far as Ministers are concerned, Section 53(1) of the Scotland Act 1998 sets out the basic rule that, in so far as they are exercisable within devolved competence, they are to be exercisable by the Scottish Ministers instead of by a Minister of the Crown. That section expresses the devolutionary principle, but the rule is qualified by Section 57(1) in the case of functions in relation to observing and implementing obligations under EU law. A member of the Scottish Government has no power to make any subordinate legislation, or to do any other act, which is incompatible with EU law. Section 57(1) provides that any function of a Minister of the Crown in relation to such matters shall continue to be exercisable by him in relation to Scotland for the purposes set out in Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. No mention is made in the statute of any need to consult with, or obtain consent from, the Scottish Ministers before that power is exercised in relation to EU law.
Coming on to the way that the matter is worked out in practice, these provisions are operated in practice under successive memoranda of understanding on devolution between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. I think they have operated almost since the start of devolution. One must recall that, to begin with, the Government in Edinburgh and the Government in Westminster were of the same persuasion: Labour Government here, Labour Government there. That, of course, assisted very much in the setting up of memoranda and a common understanding of how these matters were to be operated. The latest of these memoranda was published in October 2013. In a concordat on the co-ordination of EU policy issues, the memorandum states that the UK Government wishes to involve the devolved Administrations,
“as directly and fully as possible in decision making on EU matters which touch on devolved areas”.
It then sets out a series of underlying principles with which I think all those who are responsible for implementing EU obligations in devolved areas will be familiar. Among other things, they state that,
“it is for the devolved administrations to consider, in … consultation with the lead Whitehall Department”,
how the EU obligations should be implemented and enforced, including whether they should be implemented by the devolved Administrations themselves separately or by the UK in UK legislation. As I understand it from those I have spoken to, ever since devolution, this has been a matter of routine intergovernmental working between Scotland and Whitehall ever since the institutions were set up. This is important as it enables the Scottish Government to fulfil the responsibilities that have been devolved to them without their being cut across by measures taken in Whitehall without their agreement. That is where we are now. It is important to say that this system has worked remarkably well, with co-operation particularly between the civil servants on both sides of the border and, initially at least, with political agreement, as I indicated, on both sides of the border too.
The context in which the powers are given to a Minister of the Crown by Clauses 7 and 8 are, of course, different because we are leaving the EU behind, and this Bill is all about the withdrawal process. In the Bill as it stands, Section 57(1) of the Scotland Act is to be omitted: that is the provision that deals with UK Ministers dealing with EU obligations. Section 57(2) is to be amended by removing the reference to EU law and putting in provisions which are to be found in paragraph 1 of Schedule 3. Their effect is that the power of the Scottish Ministers will be under a restriction in relation to retained EU law which is similar to that in relation to EU law at present. However, when we look at Clauses 7, 8 and 9, we see that the Ministers of the Crown will have power under those provisions to modify retained EU law in areas of policy which are within devolved competence without any prior notice to the devolved Governments, let alone their consent. Therefore, the amendments I am putting forward in this group seek to deal with a problem which runs right through the Bill.
Provisions in Schedules 2, 3 and 8 to the Bill provide that retained EU law is to be treated in the same way as EU law as regards devolved competence, and I have later amendments which seek to deal with that. However, the problem is that they fail to recognise that much of what will become retained EU law will relate to matters within the devolved competence of the Scottish and Welsh Governments. To deprive them of their primacy, which is established under the memoranda of understanding to which I referred, would be very unfortunate and would create a situation which in both Cardiff and Holyrood is regarded as quite unacceptable. It would mean that while policy areas within devolved competence which raise no issues of retained EU law at all would be for the devolved Administrations to deal with themselves under the ordinary rule, you have policy areas within the same devolved areas which are subject to the provisions in the Bill without the need to obtain the consent of the devolved Governments.
The point I am really trying to make, as briefly as I can, is that there is here a recipe for confusion and mismanagement which would be in nobody’s best interests, and which we should, if possible, try to avoid. The remarks I have been making are directed largely to the Clause 7 situation, about which the Minister may wish to say something more, but they apply also to Clause 8, without elaborating further on the point I drew out of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act and paragraph 7. My point is therefore common to these two clauses, and seeks to try to avoid the risk of confusion and mismanagement, which at present is avoided by the common understanding in the memoranda, which works so well.
I hope that the Minister might be willing to accept these amendments. I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, is seeking to intervene. So that we can get into discussion, I beg to move.
Amendment 103 (to Amendment 102)
Baroness Suttie
“( ) The consent of the Northern Ireland Ministers is required before any provision is made in regulations under this section so far as the provision would be within the devolved competence of the Northern Ireland Ministers within the meaning given to those words by paragraph 20 of Schedule 2.”
Baroness Suttie
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 103 and 125, which are tabled in my name. I shall be extremely brief, because many of the arguments have already been rehearsed in the previous group of amendments. Again, these amendments raise issues of fundamental importance. Their aim is to amend the amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, to include Northern Ireland.
The initial devolution settlement in Northern Ireland was carefully constructed and delicately balanced. The settlement gave the Assembly real power to make decisions in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland. Since 1998, the powers have been enhanced, most notably with the transfer of policing and justice powers in 2010 to the Assembly, and with an Act going through this Parliament in 2015 to allow for the devolution of corporation tax to the Assembly at a future date.
Given the delicate and careful negotiations that took place over many years to reach the settlement, and the particular nature of identity politics in Northern Ireland, I hope the Minister agrees that it is only right that Northern Ireland Ministers—once there is, as we all hope, an Executive back in place—should have to give their consent to any move to make regulations under Clauses 7 and 8 which would encroach on the devolved competences of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Does the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, think that it would be possible to deal with his point by amending the memorandum of understanding so that it meets a new situation?
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, I can see the force of that, but I do not know whether that option is available in the present climate. As regards reassuring the parties in Cardiff and Edinburgh, something in the Bill is looked for. Again, it is a matter of trying to find a way to soften the atmosphere, which is highly unfortunate at the moment. I deliberately have not discussed Clause 11, because that is quite a different debate. However, the more we can do to clear the air by getting these points out of the way before we get into Clause 11, the better, and that is the basis on which I have moved this amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, late at night on 21 July 1998, I was sitting where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, is sitting at the moment, when Lord Sewel responded to an amendment moved by Lord Mackay of Drumadoon to this effect during the passage of the Scotland Act:
“This Act does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland, which may not be amended or repealed by the Scottish parliament”.
In resisting that amendment, Lord Sewel said:
“Clause 27 makes it clear that the devolution of legislative competence to the Scottish parliament does not affect the ability of Westminster to legislate for Scotland even in relation to devolved matters. Indeed, as paragraph 4.4 of the White Paper explained, we envisage that there could be instances where it would be more convenient for legislation on devolved matters to be passed by the United Kingdom Parliament. However, as happened in Northern Ireland earlier in the century, we would expect a convention to be established that Westminster would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish parliament.
If problems do arise the solution is for the Scottish executive and the United Kingdom Government to resolve the matter through political dialogue. That is what differences between mature parliaments and executives will be concerned with. That is what happens in other political systems. I cannot believe that it is beyond our wit to develop such a convention”.—[Official Report, 21/9/98; cols. 790-91.]
So the use of the word “normally” was off the cuff, and I imagine that Lord Sewel would be as surprised as I am to find that it has become subject to such intense examination in subsequent years.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The word “normally” was certainly not off the cuff. If the noble Lord looks back at the lengthy debates we had during the passage of the last Scotland Bill, he will find that there was considerable debate about the use of the word “normally” and the wisdom of including in statute what Lord Sewel said was a convention.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I think that the noble Lord misses the point. I am saying that that was where the word “normally” first originated in 1998. No doubt it has received considerable debate since, and indeed I have listened to debates on that topic.
The problem is a lack of trust—as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords today and as has been illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, in a number of interventions—between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government, and no doubt a lack of trust between the Labour Government in Wales and the Government in Westminster. It seems to me that it derives from the suggestion that there should be an imposition by the Westminster Government on areas currently devolved to the Parliament and the Assembly.
I looked at the leave campaign’s open letter of 14 June 2016, a week before the referendum. It said:
“There is more than enough money to ensure that those who now get funding from the EU—including universities, scientists, family farmers, regional funds, cultural organisations and others—will continue to do so while also ensuring that we save money that can be spent on our priorities”.
That letter was signed by Mr Johnson, Mr Gove, Ms Priti Patel, Mr Grayling, Mr Duncan Smith and many others. The leader of the Conservatives in Wales, Mr Andrew Davies, said:
“Today’s announcement is hugely welcome and is further evidence that Wales would be better off out of the European Union ... we now know that funding for each and every part of the UK, including Wales, would be safe if we vote to leave”.
Carwyn Jones, the First Minister of Wales, said:
“Those who signed this letter have no more power to deliver on it than my children’s pet cat”.
However, the referendum was won by the leave faction, and there was a proposal in the 2017 Conservative manifesto to set up a UK shared prosperity fund. The manifesto said:
“We will use the structural fund money that comes back to the UK following Brexit to create a United Kingdom Shared Prosperity Fund, specifically designed to reduce inequalities between communities across our four nations ... We will consult widely on the design of the fund, including with the devolved administrations, local authorities, businesses and public bodies”.
The word used in that manifesto was “consult”, not “agree”. Certainly, there was no suggestion that they would look for consent. Similarly, the paper published in June 2017 on the agreement with the DUP, UK Government Financial Support for Northern Ireland, said that Northern Ireland’s needs would be “properly reflected” in the fund,
“which will benefit all parts of the UK”.
So it seems that the intention, as expressed in that manifesto, was for the United Kingdom Government at Westminster to hold the money bags—the structural funds—and dole out the money as they thought fit without any requirement for agreement. The mistrust probably began before then, but that is where it was intensified.
The position is this. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, mentioned earlier the Barnett formula. If, in taking over the rules and regulations relating to regional development, the money were to be distributed under the Barnett formula, Wales would be significantly worse off. The Bevan Foundation, in its report published in conjunction with the Welsh Local Government Association last October, said that using the Barnett formula the estimated allocation of funds for Wales between 2014 and 2020 would be not the actual €2.2 billion but just €562 million. In other words, if the Barnett formula was applied to the structural funds, Wales would get one-quarter of what it was promised up until 2020. And we really do not know what will happen after that: no commitments have been made.
If this clause remains unamended, the United Kingdom Government will have the power to take over all the rules and regulations relating to regional development, agriculture, fisheries and many other areas and to change them and develop other structures as they think fit. Maybe that is a good thing, but only provided that the devolved Administrations consent to it. I cannot understand why the Government resist the concept of consent and agreement—surely, that is the way forward. I think the only reason they resist it is that they do not trust the people they are negotiating with. But they are negotiating with members of a unionist party in the United Kingdom: it does not say much for a United Kingdom if you cannot trust the other partners to that kingdom to reach a sensible agreement. That is what the fuss is about and why I support these amendments.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I want to follow on from what the noble Lord said. I am not going to talk about Wales, but one of the arguments often put forward by Scottish nationalists is that we must not leave the European Union because we are so dependent on the single market that is the European Union. I think we should focus tonight on the single market that is the United Kingdom. I listened to the noble Lord and I take his point about the Barnett formula. He is absolutely right that it is extremely generous to Scotland and very unfair to Wales. In my opinion, resources should be distributed according to need and not on the basis of a formula that has been amended according to population. But if it is to be the case that the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament are to have a veto on these matters, what is the prospect of Wales being able to get a fairer share without that being vetoed by Scotland? It is a matter for the United Kingdom Government to decide for the United Kingdom as a whole, and for the single market that is the United Kingdom as a whole.
I have to say that I think the amendments from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, are naive. We are faced with an Administration in Scotland who are absolutely determined to break up the United Kingdom —that is their purpose. We can have all the talks we want with the political Administration, until the crack of doom, but hey ho, we will find that they are saying something completely different from the civil servants. The civil servants will take exactly the kind of sensible, pragmatic, legalistic approach that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has. But the politicians have another agenda—an agenda which has been set back by the courage of the Prime Minister—which is to destroy the United Kingdom. As a unionist, I have an agenda to make sure that every part of the United Kingdom is treated fairly and that there is no veto for any part of it. We have four parliaments in the United Kingdom, but we have only one United Kingdom Parliament, and that is this.
When Lord Sewel produced his convention, it was greeted with great enthusiasm by the Scottish Parliament. If the noble and learned Lord looks at the record, he will find that this Parliament has legislated for the Scottish Parliament to a very considerable degree—mainly because, until recently, it sat for only one and a half days a week on legislation and so did not have enough time. Now we are in the absurd position where, when a perfectly sensible accommodation has been offered to them by the United Kingdom Parliament, the posturing of Ministers in the Scottish Government—which is about trying to create division and turn everything into a constitutional crisis—is against the interests of having a single market, which they say is essential to the Scottish economy in the case of Europe. Their position is that they do not want any of these powers to come to Wales, Scotland or the United Kingdom; they wish them to remain in Brussels. It is an utterly hypocritical stance. They would rather these matters were decided in Brussels, where even the Scottish Nationals elected as Members of Parliament down the Corridor would have no say. It is political gamesmanship and we would be foolish to accede to it.
We should proceed with the Bill, unamended, and ensure that the United Kingdom Government can work with the Parliaments of the various parts of the United Kingdom to preserve that single market—which, incidentally, is worth four times as much to the people of Scotland in income, jobs and everything else than the single market they purport to defend, which is that of the European Union.
This is a great deal of heat and waffle perpetrated by people who do not like the result of the referendum. They are terribly keen on referenda but find it difficult to accept the results. They argue that we have to have another referendum on independence and we have to have another referendum on Europe. I say to the noble Lord, who is normally very courteous, that to describe in such pejorative terms the 17.4 million people in the United Kingdom who voted to leave—400,000 of whom were Scottish nationalists—is following the course of his leader, who used disgraceful language to insult the 17.4 million people only this week.
I hope that the House will reject these amendments so we can get on with the task of making a success of the United Kingdom, which at last has the powers and authority to ensure that all parts of our country benefit from being able to determine our own affairs.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My noble friend has given an interesting speech but it does not appear to bear any relation to the amendments before the House this evening. The amendments go to the heart of obtaining the consent of the Scottish people as expressed through the Scottish Parliament. He is a democrat, I am a democrat. Does he not agree that the amendments go to the heart of devolution and that that is what we are trying to maintain, particularly in the amendments that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, introduced this evening?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
If the noble Baroness would like me to repeat my speech when she is listening, I will happily do so. However, I do not think the House would like me to. Perhaps she will read what I have said. She says that this goes to the heart of democracy: well, these are matters for the United Kingdom Parliament. There is no veto for any of the devolved Administrations. We have debated this endlessly. This amendment would give a veto; it would mean that the tail was wagging the dog; it would mean that the Scottish Parliament could prevent what was in the interests of the rest of the United Kingdom. That is not democracy.
The noble Baroness needs to address the words on the Order Paper—the words of the amendment—and listen to the arguments, instead of pursuing her ideological determination to reverse the decision of the British people.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I hope that the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, will be reported loudly and clearly in Scotland, because I have no doubt that only one set of winners will be coming from that. The whole of the previous debate and this debate have centred on the question of trust. I am not sure whether the comments we have just heard will help create that trust in future.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said that my friends in Scotland were ignoring the English single market while building up the European single market—but the European single market includes the UK single market. It is one single market—a bigger one. Those who are looking to that single market are looking outward, not inward and restricting their boundaries to around the coasts of these islands.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I said no such thing. I said that the single market, which is the European market, is a quarter of the size of the single market that is the United Kingdom for Scotland.
Lord Wigley
It may well be, but the European single market includes England at this point in time. In other words, they are not losing anything.
The main point I want to come back to is that made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, with regard to resources. If we are being asked to trust giving a veto to Westminster and to the UK Government —that is essentially is what is coming through in a number of these clauses, whether or not that veto will be used in any way—that a power to impose policies in areas that have been devolved. That is clearly going to rankle with people who have become used to using those powers.
We have had experience of this. The noble Lord mentioned regional policy. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, will remember the problems we had in the early days of the National Assembly for Wales. There were problems in getting Westminster and Whitehall to pass over money that was for Wales and not holding it in the Treasury in London. That was what was happening, and it was not until Mr Barnier intervened with the then Chancellor, Gordon Brown, that £442 million was passed over to Wales. It was being held back by Whitehall and the Treasury. That is the background to the lack of trust we have. If we are to build up a future of trust, which is what I want to see between the nations of these islands, it has to be recognised that in some areas the leadership is coming from the devolved regimes. In other areas such as international affairs and defence, it is fair enough that the responsibility should lie here, and there will be grey areas. However, we have to make sure that we have a mechanism whereby we respect each other to sort out the grey areas, but attention has not been paid to that side of the argument. We should concentrate on that, and the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is a step in that direction.
If the Minister will consider the request made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and respond to his proposals in this context as a way of showing good will towards reaching some understanding in the other contexts we shall come to, perhaps we will then start to make progress. May I ask the Minister to consider inviting those interested in these matters to meet to try to agree on a proposal from here that would go at least some way towards answering the problems being felt in Cardiff and Edinburgh? This is not insoluble, but it needs good will. However, good will is not always in evidence here.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I am a signatory to two of the amendments in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead. I should declare first that I am a member of the Bevan commission, which has been quoted, and I should also say that funding for Wales has indeed been a concern over time.
To return to these amendments and the core issue of trust, a wise saying comes to mind: trust arrives on foot and leaves on horseback. It seems as if we have had a few galloping horses through the Chamber this evening, but we have to move forwards. In the new world we will face after Brexit, which will not be easy—no one is now pretending that it will be—we need to be a United Kingdom and we need to pull together. Given the Minister’s remarks in response to the previous group of amendments—he indicated that he sincerely wants to bring the parties together to restore trust and find a resolution that helps us to move forward—I hope he will be able to work with others to achieve that, and that he will give serious consideration to these amendments. They have not been tabled to divide; rather they seek to establish a degree of reconciliation, restore trust and find a working way forward.
Lord Deben (Con)
I wonder if I can be my usual emollient self at this point. I admit to being of Welsh extraction with a Welsh-speaking father. My noble friend Lord Forsyth spoke entirely from the point of view of someone who has been bruised—I would be on his side in this—by the activities, and sometimes more than that, of the Scottish nationalists. But the debate here is not about vetoes, although the amendment would confer them; rather it is a debate about trust. My noble friend says we can all work it out: this Government, the coalition Government and the Labour Government continued the utterly unfair system of the Barnett formula, which has done such damage to Wales, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, the Labour Government retained large sums of money, rather than pass it on in the system we previously had.
My noble friend knows very well that I believe in a single market. I do not have a view that narrows that single market to the United Kingdom. I look to a single market that continues through the whole of Europe, which is, of course, of great benefit to all of us and I am sad that he should try to remove us from it. But I do not think that it helps in this debate not to face the very considerable lack of trust in both Scotland and Wales, where there is a history of not getting a fair share except almost by force.
Scotland has managed to get itself into what many of us feel is the opposite position. That is how the Barnett formula works. It would be good for the Government of Scotland occasionally to recognise into what a favourable position history has put it. However, I should not like the Committee to fail to recognise, because of the way these amendments are drawn and have been put together, the specific position of Wales, not least because of the special position in which the north of Ireland has managed to get itself, for political reasons, and the historical position Scotland has been in. This is not to sow discord between the parts of the United Kingdom; it is merely to say to my noble friend the Minister, for whom I have enormous respect—his last speech summing up was an exemplary one to show how the Government can deal with issues in a way that at least makes the Committee feel that it is listened to; I thank him for that, because it was a very different touch—that there is a real feeling among people in Wales that the history does not help people believe that the United Kingdom Government will be entirely even-handed on this issue. Therefore, if, in the withdrawal Bill, Wales has its membership of the European Union, from which it has benefited very significantly, taken away, is there a way the Government can at least give greater confidence to Wales? If they do not, I fear the ability to come to a compromise will be made very considerably more difficult.
I feel my noble friend Lord Forsyth was partisan in the way he concentrated only on Scotland. He was kind enough to say that he did not know about Wales, but I do, so in these circumstances, will the Minister please give us a little more confidence? I should very much like my noble friend, whose own name reminds us of Aberystwyth, to give us a feeling that Government will, in some way, find a manner to give confidence in the Bill, since this is not appropriate.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, as a co-signatory to the amendment, I shall briefly make three points. My first is to correct something said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. He said that the smooth running of the early years of devolution was because we had a Labour Government in Westminster and a Labour Government in the Scottish Parliament. In fact, it was a Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition in the Scottish Parliament. That is an important difference.
Secondly, I endorse what the noble and learned Lord said when he gave the example of orders under the European Communities Act 1972 and the memorandum of understanding between the Scottish Government and United Kingdom Government on consultation, and how these might be taken forward. My experience in the Scottish Executive at the time was that it worked. I can say that because I cannot remember an issue over which there was any major dispute. It is also fair to say that I cannot think of any major dispute on that kind of area, some of which was very technical, while the Scottish National Party was in either minority government after 2007 or majority government after 2011. It is possible on a whole range of technical issues to get some common- sense agreement. That is why we should persevere.
Thirdly, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said that underlying the amendments is an effort to have building blocks for trust. I shall not repeat the arguments I made in the previous debate other than to say to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, that, like the noble Lord, Lord Deben, I appreciated his comprehensive response to it. He seemed to suggest that I had spoken about allowing a veto over areas that were non-devolved. Given that the previous amendments were about modifications to the Scotland Act, I do not think anything I said could have given that implication. Here, where we are talking explicitly about matters within the devolved competence of Scottish Ministers, that cannot be said either. I think there is something we can build on there.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I share the admiration of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for the way in which the Minister summed up the previous debate. He was a rather brilliant performer of the work of the fire extinguisher. Foam was spread over all of us and calm ensued. It was a brilliant performance.
I am sorry that, this time, the Minister has to deal with pyrotechnics from a pyromaniac, in his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean. It is rather a pity that the attacks of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on the party now governing in Scotland are responded to only by a Welshman, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. He responds very well, but, as a Scotsman who does not support the Scottish National Party, it seems to me rather an easy trick to score pyrotechnical victories against an opponent who is not in the room.
Trust is what this is all about. I can see nothing wrong with this amendment; I cannot see any reason why Ministers should not buy it now. If they cannot, a discussion needs to start. It does not help to insult the party in office in Edinburgh by implying motives. It may well have such motives, but they were not those it explained when it published a perfectly reasonable economic analysis at the end of last year which established clearly the damage that will accrue to Scotland from leaving the single market. The scale of the damage was almost exactly the same as what we have now seen in the Treasury analysis for the United Kingdom as a whole—eight, five, two: the same numbers pop up in both studies. The Scots are not being unreasonable or necessarily malicious when they say that they would prefer to remain in the single market. Of course, the market of the United Kingdom is more important to Scotland than the market of the rest of Europe, but that is not the point; they do not want to have to choose. That seems a perfectly reasonable position to adopt. It does not help establish trust to insult them.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I had no intention to speak, but having added my name to Amendment 124, I want entirely to endorse what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, in introducing it. I want also to refute any allegation that I am an ideologue; I have always considered myself a pragmatist. It is unfair to impute a position to a party that is not represented in this House and cannot answer back to any of the allegations made previously.
I believe that this amendment goes to the heart of the consent and trust that has been debated here at great length. I declare a vested interest in that I am doing some work and I visited the offices that my noble friend Lord Forsyth opened: the Water Industry Commission for Scotland is doing some great work across the European Union, as indeed is Scottish Water, providing technical assistance. Obviously, one hopes that that work will continue after Brexit day. I do not see this amendment, spoken to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, or the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, as the tail wagging the dog: this is simply an effort to bring the Scottish, the Welsh and the Northern Irish people with the Government of the day.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate on this group of amendments, particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for tabling their amendments. I will seek to deal with the substance and then very briefly pick up some of the points that were made in debate. Amendments 102, 124, 103 and 125 seek to place a requirement on UK Ministers to have the consent of devolved Ministers when using Clause 7(1)—I think that issue will not arise now but I am happy to discuss it further; however, I think we will have exhausted that by bringing proposals forward on Report—Clause 8 and Clause 9, where it is appropriate, in areas of devolved competence.
I stress that the concurrent powers in this Bill do not in any way undermine the devolution settlements. Rather, they give the UK Government and the devolved Administrations the tools required to respond to what is a shared challenge of ensuring the functioning of our statute book in a pragmatic and collaborative manner which reflects current practice, and I stress has been the norm for some time. I made this point on the last group of amendments and an example can be found in new Schedule 3A to the Government of Wales Act 2006, which lists no fewer than 34 laws containing concurrent functions for United Kingdom and Welsh Ministers, including powers to make subordinate legislation.
I also highlight Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 itself, which is concurrent and has routinely been used to make a single set of regulations to implement directives relating to devolved matters. Take, for example, the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessments) Regulations 2007—enacted, therefore, under the last Labour Government. If a deficiency arises within that statutory instrument and we all agree on the best way to correct it, it makes little sense for four Administrations to make four sets of regulations to make the same amendment. This is of course compounded by the volume of legislation that will be needed in this House and in the devolved legislatures to ensure the proper functioning of our laws after exit day.
Our approach in this Bill is to mirror that effect: to continue working collaboratively with devolved Administrations, which is certainly the norm, to ensure that our statute book is fully functioning on exit. This has not been a cause of conflict in the past—there have certainly been differences but they have been few and far between—and we do not believe that it should be a cause of conflict in the future. We cannot compromise the flexibility provided for by the concurrent power that allows us and the devolved Administrations to benefit from shared working. This is crucial for us to meet the considerable task that lies ahead in order to have a complete, functioning statute book on exit day. I remind noble Lords of the clear commitment the Government have made that we will not normally use the powers in this way without the agreement of the devolved Administrations. I am happy to restate that: it is there in black and white in the delegated powers memorandum and in written evidence to the Constitution Committee. It was stated in the other place and I have repeated it here today.
However, I take very serious note of what my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay suggested about the possibility of a memorandum of understanding. I shall take that away and look at it. Noble Lords have asked why such a commitment is not included in the Bill and I would be happy to look at this with them and to hear their views, taking seriously what my noble and learned friend has said. There can be no doubt about the commitment this Government have made to “normally” seek the agreement of the devolved Administrations on these matters. I hope that that offers some reassurance.
Let me pick up some points made by noble Lords during the debate, first thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for the constructive way he has introduced this set of amendments: I am very happy to talk about this further, ahead of research, as I have suggested. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and quite understand her seeking the best interests of Northern Ireland, which must be treated in precisely the same way. As I have indicated, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern for his suggestion about a memorandum of understanding, which I would like to take away and look at further.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made far-reaching points on Barnett. We certainly made some headway on that when I was in the Assembly—not because I was in the Assembly, but I remember some headway being made on it. That issue is of course still there but it is far beyond the Bill, let alone this amendment. He made a point, as did others, about the importance of trust, which I take very seriously. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, very much; trust is important and we need to build it.
My noble friend Lord Deben is at his most deadly when he seeks to praise me. He was being so constructive that I am bound to agree with him, and I thank him very much for his kind comments. I know that he speaks with authority and understanding, particularly on Wales, and once again on the importance of trust. Again, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, on the importance of that in our discussions. We can of course discuss this further. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, for clarifying the point and I am sorry if I misrepresented him. It was certainly unintended so I take that point, too.
My noble friend Lord Forsyth made some serious points about the dangers of the unintended consequences of legislation. We have to be careful of that and I take his point but that said, there is the serious and important issue of building up trust, as my noble friend Lady McIntosh reminded us. She also reminded us of how we all have interests in different parts of the country; it is not as if we are talking about a union that does not mean something. When we all have relations, friends and interests in different parts of our country, we have a shared interest in getting this right.
On the suggestion about engaging made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I am very happy between now and Report to meet with officials to see whether we might move in the direction of a memorandum of understanding. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, who has vast experience not just of Scottish issues but of legal issues, made a very valid point as to how we might achieve that. In the meantime, I ask the noble and learned Lord and the noble Baroness if they could perhaps withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Suttie
My Lords, I join in the general compliments to the Minister and thank him very much for his courteous and detailed replies this evening, and for his commitment to engage further with noble Lords before Report. We will no doubt return to many of these issues on Clause 11 in Committee, and again during Report. But in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, since that amendment has been withdrawn I am now in a position to withdraw Amendment 102 but I wish to make a few remarks. First, I must thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this rather briefer debate, and particularly the Minister for his helpful response to it.
I have to apologise to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, for my lapse of memory as to the nature of the Government at the beginning of devolution. He was of course absolutely right on that. I reject the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, that I am being naïve. I believe that my amendment had cross-party support in Edinburgh and, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, it is really all about a question of trust.
If I understood the Minister correctly, we are really in the same position on Clause 7 as we were on the previous group. In effect, he will say that the Clause 7 problem is going to be exhausted. There is therefore nothing to be lost by putting in the same thing that he is prepared to put in about the Parliament; he might as well put in something about the Ministers, too. There is a serious issue with Clause 8, which would benefit from further discussion, but perhaps that is for another day. On the basis that we can still talk about it, the proper thing for me to do is to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Berkeley
“( ) No regulations affecting or amending the frontier control procedures for freight transport at borders between the United Kingdom and the EU may be made unless a Minister of the Crown has laid before both Houses of Parliament a report demonstrating that the new or amended procedures will not increase delays to freight transport.”
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 231. This group of amendments is completely different from the previous one. It is about frontier controls between the UK and the EU after Brexit. The amendment would require Ministers to report to Parliament on how any new procedures can be implemented without increasing delays and cost. This is a very serious issue. I regret that there is no separate Bill, so far, on this. We have already been discussing the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill, which has been a very useful forum, but we are tonight discussing this issue.
Ministers have stated time and again that there will be no border control between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. They might rightly say that but they have also told the Commission that they do not want to remain in the single market and the Commission has taken that into account in its draft withdrawal agreement dated 28 February. To a simple mind like mine, since the Republic will stay in the EU and the UK will not, and since the Government insist we cannot remain in the single market, there has to be some kind of frontier between the Republic and the United Kingdom. Whether it is between the north and the south of Ireland or down the Irish Sea, we have debated many times, but I cannot see how it can be fudged or cherry-picked.
The volume of traffic between the UK and the EU is huge. In 2016, about 67 million tonnes of unitised freight were imported or exported, of which 14 million tonnes were temperature controlled. In 2015, there were 55 million UK customs declarations, and that number is due to multiply by five after Brexit. They have all got to be checked and controlled somewhere. Can that be done electronically at frontiers? The British Ports Association has said that one of the biggest challenges the ports face is accommodating the new environmental health standards inspections at the borders, which will obviously cost a lot of money and time if they go wrong. It is estimated that 3,000 trucks a day carrying temperature-controlled traffic might need checking for environmental health standards.
I have a couple of interesting examples which have come from the Irish Exporters Association, which seems to be more open with its ideas than people on this side of the frontier. A lot of people have talked about the benefits of the EU-Canada free trade agreement. An issue found there was the need to check the compliance of pallets used to carry the product within the container with the ISCN standard. If a load is found to have one non-certified pallet or one non-certified repair to a pallet, the whole lot is sent back to the sender. That will cause chaos. One has to question what proportion of trucks would need checking. The UK will not say. I have not heard any information from the Government, but the Irish News states that 6% to 8% would need their paperwork checked and some visual inspections at the frontier, which looks to me like roughly 1,000 trucks a day in addition to the temperature-controlled traffic, and the Government say there will be no queues. They have to do something about this.
There is a real problem. If the UK is not in the single market, and the Republic is, there have to be some controls somewhere. It is a great shame that we do not have a representative of Sinn Féin in your Lordships’ House to give a wider view of the problems in Northern Ireland. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, regretted the lack of SNP members here to have a good debate about it.
What are the Government doing about this in terms of IT systems? The tax commentator Richard Murphy reports that there are 85 IT systems at UK borders, of which 30 will need to be replaced or changed. I do not think I need to go into the disasters of some previous UK IT systems, but there is little evidence that the Home Office or Customs will be able to have a system up and running for when we need it. It may take many years.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
My Lords, the logistics industry permeates all our lives. It dominates retailing and allows most sophisticated industries, such as the motor industry, to organise themselves on a multisite basis. When we buy something in most shops, we start a process which means that our purchase will trigger the order for a replacement, stretching back to the manufacturer or supplier. This arrangement has become very much more sophisticated since we joined the EU 44 years ago. Supplies of parts flow through a network as complicated as a spider’s web, throughout the community and beyond. This is what makes your orange appear at breakfast or your new car come off the production line.
We are told in ever shriller tones by the logistics industry and its customers that the survival of that system depends upon frictionless trade: no stops at borders, no need to provide documentation and no tariffs—they are the words of the Freight Transport Association. The industry was lured into a state of complacency by the assurances of Ministers that this “frictionless” trade would continue after March 2019, which is less than a year away. However, that complacency is swiftly turning to panic as it becomes evident that the assurances offered concerning frictionless trade are becoming less likely to be realised. Trade deals, even if these could be negotiated, seem a very distant prospect. Your orange at breakfast has to come from Spain, and the parts to make and deliver your Mini need to arrive at Cowley every 20 minutes or the production line stops. The prospect of empty shelves in the shops, as witnessed recently due to the weather, becomes almost a certainty.
If there is any interruption at ports or similar points of entry and exit, I suggest that people’s anger with those politicians who have sold them a false prospectus will be deep and severe. If people are unable to obtain the supplies of groceries to which they have become accustomed, or workers in factories that cannot get a time-critical supply of spare parts are laid off, there will be trouble. The chance of protests in the streets as these shortages become apparent should be taken far more seriously than the suggestion of a popular uprising if the concept of Brexit is eventually frustrated. The mantra “Europe needs us more than we need them” is perhaps best not put to the test, as there will be those doing business here who decide to seek the certainty of closer union with the EU by moving their operations within its borders. The future of the aircraft construction industry is an example.
The logistics problem is very serious in respect of Ireland, to which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has referred. A very large amount of perishable material has to transit via Great Britain on its way to and from Europe. If any border checks are necessary to secure passage at either Holyhead and Dover—probably both, as things stand—there will be serious implications for that trade, and it will surely lead to the establishment of direct ferry links between the Republic and Europe to avoid using those at Dover or other crossing points. At this moment the Government of the Republic are giving serious consideration to that possibility.
Maybe those in the logistics industries—notably the ports industry, the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association—have kept quiet until now because they have always trusted and supported the party opposite and have trusted the assurances of David Davis and Liam Fox. That misplaced loyalty is about to be tested, possibly to the point where these businesses suffer permanent damage. The purpose of the amendments is to seek from the Government, at this late stage, the humility to accept that the promises about frictionless trade cannot be delivered and to bring back on Report a plan to keep Britain working and supplied in the present just-in-time way, or they face a defeat in this House on Report. As the Freight Transport Association said, the trailer registration Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred, which is coming back to your Lordships’ House in Committee, is not a viable solution.
As the Prime Minister said only last week, we need certainty. I submit to your Lordships that we are as far from that as ever.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, I put my name to both the amendments and I would like to build on what the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Bradshaw, said. Some 70% of the UK’s food imports by value are from the EU, and 60% to 65% of the UK’s agricultural exports are to other member states. Any risk of delays would put a strain on our supply chains and would probably raise food prices.
The Channel Tunnel illustrates how important timing is: 1.4 million trucks and 2,900 rail freight trains went through in 2014, transporting approaching £100 billion-worth of goods between the UK and the continent, including almost £200 million-worth of iron, steel and metal products from Yorkshire and the Humber. The time saved by using the Channel Tunnel was equivalent to 120,000 days in 2014, saving a lot of money on each crossing. So any delays and any more customs checks would up-end such financial projections and have downstream consequences.
One whole aspect of Brexit is the huge complexity caused. The amendments highlight the impact that it will have not just on our freight industry but on as us a public. The list of border operations includes revenue collection, safety and security, environment and health, consumer protection and trade policy. Modern customs systems have to balance providing security with facilitating the free flow of goods. Some 37 million tonnes of trade a year pass through Southampton alone, including more than 1 million containers. How could you possibly inspect every container? It would just create delays and blockages.
Of the freight transport that goes in and out of the UK, 69% of that going to the EU is lorry traffic, whereas 99% of non-EU is containers. Of the EU share, between 75% and 100% of lorry traffic goes through Dover, the Channel Tunnel, Harwich and Holyhead. We cannot possibly have any delays that will make life more difficult for our businesses. I just mentioned the requirement for food products. Ireland and the British land bridge have also been mentioned. We will be talking about air transport later, and rail in more detail.
The UK will not be deemed a third country until the end of any transition period, if one exists. Even if the UK were to remain in the customs union with the EU, it would still be a third country and goods would be subject to checks. Freight using the UK land bridge will effectively be subject to non-tariff barriers—people always miss the non-tariff barriers.
Brexit will cause one disaster after another in this area. Customs’ rule of thumb is that 2% of cargo coming from third countries is subject to physical exam, while 4% to 6% of such cargo is subject to documentary checks. However, the Department of Agriculture is obliged to check up to 50% of food and other products that contain an element of food, such as cosmetics, pharma or medical devices. There is a 100% check on animals, including pets. This is how complicated this whole area is. Revenue will prepare a list of approved customs courses for use by traders. Traders should apply for customs registration numbers. This will be absolutely disastrous; I do not think people have comprehended how difficult it will be.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned, 50% of FTA members operate more than 200,000 lorries: almost half the UK fleet. FTA members represent 90% of freight moved by rail. FTA members consign 70% of UK visible exports by sea and 70% of UK visible exports by air. They speak for this industry. If we do not listen to them, we are not listening to the people who do this. How UK companies get goods to and from the continent in the future will be a matter for EU negotiations, but the changes to border controls and customs will impact our transport efficiency. There is no denying that. At the moment there is frictionless movement of goods to and from the UK. Unless a solution can be agreed as a free-trade agreement when the UK moves outside the single market and the customs union, that will change.
Lord Bilimoria
If noble Lords do not like facing reality, they can cheer, but I am talking about this reality as a businessman who imports from and exports to Europe. I will be affected, my consumers will be affected and our citizens will be affected. Noble Lords can laugh as much as they want, but this is the reality.
Aidan Flynn wanted the prospect of a deal. This is the quote:
“We’re all looking for transition, in terms of whatever changes are going to be required … but effectively, if there’s no likelihood of a plan by October 2018 in terms of UK-EU negotiations you’re going to be without a doubt going into … a cliff-edge situation”.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised a very important point about freight transport crossing the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. It is a very legitimate issue to raise and I hope the Government will listen. He also identified that, of course, this can be solved with modern IT.
I want to bring the House’s attention to the reality of the border in Northern Ireland. I was working in the Northern Ireland Office just over three years ago. I said to my office, “I’d like to go to South Armagh”. They said, “Well, Minister, that’s a frightfully bad thing to do”, but I went. Noble Lords may know that South Armagh used to be referred to as “bandit country”. Let me tell you, three and a half years ago, it certainly still was. I was with a lot of police, with a helicopter going overhead; the police still fear for their lives there because there are booby traps and things laid for them.
I particularly want to focus on smuggling. We followed a lorry on one of the little lanes from the Republic into the north. We did not stop, but the police said, “That’ll be smuggling”. We saw the impact of smuggling diesel, because there are different duties in the south and the north; huge amounts of diesel are imported from the south to the north, including a lot of red diesel that is then cleaned—sorry, has the red taken out of it—and has a huge environmental impact. There are still different subsidies there. Cattle get smuggled back and forth across the border because a lot of money can be made through smuggling across the border. There are two different customs so, of course, there are customs officers on the border; not sitting in posts, as they used to be, but still down there. They do not do much, it has to be said; there is less to do because we are part of a single market. There are, I believe, 275 different crossing points between the south and the north of Ireland, on a border of some 305 miles. Between 1922 and 1972, it was never possible to police everyone. During the Troubles—I served out there for a bit—it was not possible to stop terrorists crossing the border. We used to put concrete blocks and everything at the border, but it did not work; people came across the border.
I also remind noble Lords that there are different currency units: Ireland uses the euro but we use the pound. People manage to get past this quite easily and they will manage to do so in future as well. People say that the border in Ireland is a huge problem; it will only be a problem when we leave the European Union if people wish it to be so. It does not have to be so; good will and common sense on both sides will show that it is not beyond the wit of man for Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to co-exist quite happily and trade with each other—as they did before 1922, between 1922 and 1972, and since.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
I have not spoken on this Bill at all yet. I have made a point of not speaking because I understand the pressure on the Government, but I want to raise one issue—trusted trader status. The Government have told us that they intend to establish such a system on the border of Northern Ireland and southern Ireland. We are told that an exemption will apply to small and medium-sized enterprises involved in cross-border trade. The Government say that it is possible to manage the allegation that there will be substantial fraud under such a system. First, where can we find a definition of what constitutes a small or medium-sized enterprise? It is very important that we know that in advance. Secondly, do we know what percentage of trade will fall under that description? Thirdly, when they talk about “managing” a system, what kind of management arrangements do they intend to set in place to ensure that fraud does not take place? Finally, what will happen when it comes to customs entries for those firms that are not covered by trusted trader status? Will the clearance and entry arrangements for their goods going over actually be on the border posts? I presume that if some businesses are exempt then there must be some actual control on the border itself. These issues need to be answered at a very early stage in the procedure. I have truncated much of what I wanted to say, but I want to get this on the record this evening.
Viscount Hailsham
My intervention at this stage will be extraordinarily brief. What I say about Amendment 104 also applies to Amendments 105 and 106, which are in the two subsequent groups. There is a great deal of merit in requiring these reports, but there is no reason at all why they should be linked to the initiation of the regulations: that is slightly misconceived. The noble Lords, and my noble friend, who put their names to the amendments are lacking ambition. They should require these reports to be published, in any event, before Brexit day. As the Committee knows, later on in this debate we will come to the issue of parliamentary control. Parliament can only exercise full control if it is in possession of facts, and the facts will be furnished by these reports. Those noble Lords, and my noble friend, are right, thus far, in linking it to the institution of regulations, but they should be ambitious and, on Report, require these reports before Brexit day. If my noble friend does that she will find me with her.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, given transport’s essential role in supporting the UK economy, transport issues should be given high priority by the Government in this Bill and other legislation relating to Brexit. It does not seem to have had that level of importance attached to it. Amendment 104 requires that no regulations should be laid that would amend UK-EU border transport procedures unless Ministers can demonstrate that the new procedures will not increase delays to freight transport. I appreciate the sentiments of my noble friend Lord Hailsham. I will take his comments under advisement on Report because, as he said, this is such an important issue.
The time sensitivity in modern logistics and UK supply chains means that retaining a seamless supply-chain process is of significant economic importance. Customs clearance, as well as passenger entry mechanisms to the UK from the EU, including on the island of Ireland, should be as seamless as possible. If the UK leaves the EU, the current system whereby all trucks can operate through the EU on the basis of a one-page document, and without requiring specific permits, may well not continue. UK-based road haulage businesses have benefited considerably from the EU principles of free movement, which has meant that UK lorries and their drivers can cross borders and operate within other parts of the EU. The Government’s own statistics suggest that 85% of the lorries operating between Britain and the other 27 EU countries are owned by businesses in the other EU 27 countries rather than the UK. In order for these international commercial arrangements to continue if we leave the EU, specific arrangements will be required that have not yet been negotiated. As far as I am aware, this cannot be achieved through our domestic legal system. It is a separate issue from the customs union and depends on access in some form to the single market. If we leave the EU without proper agreements in place or if we fail to maintain full regulatory alignment, road haulage, especially from the UK and Northern Ireland to Ireland, will face barriers. This does not fit with the aim of frictionless trade and our commitments under the Good Friday agreement, notwithstanding the comments of my noble friend Lord Robathan.
Lord Robathan
I am grateful to my noble friend for mentioning me, but why do they have to face barriers?
Baroness Altmann
If we are not in the single market as well as the customs union, there must be checks at the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. It is not good enough for us to somehow assume that some magical solution will appear. There is no IT solution that will work for the border. The Smart Border 2.0 paper that was released does not solve the issue. If you read it carefully, you will see that it is not a solution. There is no solution, so either both sides need to turn a blind eye to the fact that there is no checking at the border even though there is supposed to be, or there has to be some checking.
In the last year, 4.4 million driver-accompanied freight vehicles moved between the UK and continental Europe. Four million of these movements took place on ferries through Dover or on the shuttle through the Channel Tunnel; around 99% of these required no customs clearance processes at the ports. As road movement is free of customs controls now, it has allowed UK industry to build up the fully integrated supply chains that we are in danger of losing. If we were to remain in the EEA or EFTA and elements of the single market, such problems could be minimised. I am very disappointed that the current red lines have ruled this out. It is hard to see how traffic and goods can flow freely and without further delays on the island of Ireland without regulatory alignment that mirrors the single market and customs union arrangements we have now.
This amendment aims to ensure that Ministers do not jeopardise the UK’s economic activity, industrial success and the arrangements for the Irish border. We should perhaps demand that this provision be included in the Bill rather than just in future regulations. Can my noble friend the Minister explain how the Government can contemplate introducing a Bill that could cause such significant damage to our country without providing adequate safeguards? I support these amendments.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate and I have sat patiently all day listening to excellent discussions, but what brought me to my feet was when noble Lords opposite started laughing at the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. The issue that he raises is extremely serious and it does not justify the Chief Whip, who I think is an excellent chap, laughing at him.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, I take debates in this House seriously. I felt that the arguments presented by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, were duplications of arguments that had been admirably presented by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and I felt that he should not have indulged in the way he did by speaking for 11 minutes and repeating arguments that had already been stated.
Lord Liddle
I understand the noble Lord’s explanation, and I will not speak for 11 minutes. However, I will say something and ask the Minister serious questions. The facts have been explained by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the Government are perfectly well aware of these facts. They produced a paper on customs arrangements, I think last July or August. What work has been done on developing the proposals in those papers? If the Government were serious about developing what the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, wants, they would have presented a proposal to Brussels in the last couple of months. In December, in the agreement that the Prime Minister is so proud of—I was delighted that it occurred —it was said that joint work would be done on the Irish border and the other issues to draw up a draft withdrawal agreement in the coming months. What work has happened? How many meetings were there between British and Commission officials before the Commission produced its draft withdrawal agreement? If the Government had a clear view of how the problems set out by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, could be addressed, they would have come forward with a compelling alternative proposal to what the Commission has come forward with. Can we therefore please have a balanced, sensible explanation of what the Government are doing and why they refuse to face facts and produce objective reports on how they will deal with very serious economic issues?
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, it may be convenient for the Committee for me to set out the Opposition’s view—
Lord Tunnicliffe
The noble Lord may speak after me, and as many times as he likes, but—
Lord Wigley
Not on this amendment, because these points have not been covered. This is Committee, and we have a right to put our points.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Those who are familiar with the rules will know that as many Lords as they like can speak after me. They cannot speak after the Minister.
I think it will be useful if I simply set out the position of the Opposition. The seriousness of the situation, as described by a number of speakers, is entirely accepted. Those of us who have slogged through the road haulage and trailers Bill know that the extant law that a no-deal would fall back on is totally unfit for purpose and would give us perhaps only 4% of the capacity we need. I think there is a consensus on that. The fear of customs friction, which, once again, we raised at Second Reading, is acknowledged. It was neatly summed up by the chief executive of the Road Haulage Association:
“Simply using current customs practices and applying them to UK/EU traffic risks delays of biblical proportions which would strangle growth and hurt the entire economy”.
Basically, these amendments say, “Sort this mess out before you start executing change through Clause 7”, and, “Don’t misuse the regulations to do it”. We broadly agree, and we hope everybody agrees. We hope everybody recognises that we need these problems solved in road haulage—I will not repeat myself later; it is the same in railways and in aviation—before we can contemplate leaving the Union. They are not related to soft or hard Brexit, although each means different problems; they are related to transport problems. No deal means no transport, and that has to be sorted out.
Are these amendments the best way of doing that? I am not sure. At the moment we have an open mind on that. Perhaps this is an opportunity for the Government to propose a series of meetings for interested Peers off the Floor of the House with senior Ministers—no doubt with the noble Baroness, and perhaps the Secretary of State should intervene because this is so important—so that we can get to the bottom of the progress that the Government are making and find out how they propose to tackle what is a real problem. We have a common interest in it being tackled, and the Government have a duty to put a lot of effort into convincing sceptical Peers. They should tell us what they plan to do, respond to ideas and come back with amendments to assure the House that we are not going to drift into a disaster of biblical proportions.
Baroness Randerson
I have spoken for a total of three minutes on this Bill. I think we have a right to be heard.
Lord Wigley
The point I wish to make, if I may, is that Amendment 104 is very significant for Wales because of the implications that it has for the ports of Holyhead, Fishguard and Pembroke Dock—an angle that has not yet been covered in this debate. These are vital trading links between Wales and the Republic of Ireland. Holyhead is the UK’s second-largest port. In excess of 400,000 trucks pass through it each year, and a hard maritime border between Wales and the Republic of Ireland will inevitably hit it hard.
I ask noble Lords to read the excellent article by Professor Richard Wyn Jones in the Irish Times on the specific issues facing Holyhead and his native Ynys Môn, or Anglesey. Almost 80% of the Irish-registered HGVs heading for the continent pass through these Welsh ports, the vast majority via Holyhead. There is simply no space in or around the port for the kind of infrastructure that will be required to process the number of lorries and trailers that currently pass through it. A hard border in Holyhead will yield only chaos, and the same problems apply to Pembroke Dock and Fishguard on a lesser level.
The inevitable consequence of physical constraints in and around the ports is that freight will need to find ways to bypass Holyhead and Wales, especially if there is a soft border between the British state and the European Union in Northern Ireland. Without trade arrangements that mirror the outcome of what we already have, Welsh ports will be in danger of becoming uncompetitive. In practice, the border for freight at the Welsh ports must be as frictionless as it will be between the north and south of Ireland. That is why I support the amendment.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, these amendments are designed to concentrate the Government’s mind and to get some answers. I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, about Holyhead. The situation is very similar to that at Dover. When the Government try to close down the debate, I remind them that the areas expressing extreme concern to us about the lack of preparedness are the ones that have loyally voted Conservative over a long period, and they will be particularly worried that their concerns are not being heard with due seriousness in this Chamber.
The sort of Brexit that we get will of course have a major impact on our ports. They might have to change the way that they process goods twice: once possibly for the transition period and once for the end game, whatever that is.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Before the Minister responds, I want to spend a couple of minutes on a highly relevant issue that has not been raised on this Bill at all.
Following the BSE crisis, which was very damaging to the economy, an all-island animal feed arrangement was created in Ireland. It is not generally appreciated that there are a disproportionate number of animals for food production on the island of Ireland, hence its exports to the rest of the world: 15% of the world’s infant formula market is controlled by the dairy industry on the island of Ireland. The animal feed situation, which is crucial, is controlled by the ports around the island of Ireland. After Brexit, the EU will be ultra-sensitive—do not forget that we are the country that gave the world BSE—about the imports of animal feed. Given that there already exists an all-Ireland animal feed arrangement, and all-Ireland control mechanisms at the ports and the mills, how will this work after Brexit for the transport between the north and the south from the feed mills and ports? It simply will not be possible to drive a lorry full of feed across the border into Europe without it being checked. I cannot understand why this issue never gets raised. A third of what we grow feeds animals—it is a huge amount of business. We are what we eat, of course, and the animals are produced that way. What will happen in the island of Ireland to the existing animal feed arrangements? It is highly relevant to this debate.
Lord Callanan
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for this debate on Amendments 104 and 231, which raise the important matter of frontier control procedures and freight transport in relation to the Clause 7(1) power. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord for his helpful technical and operational suggestions. I would have passed them on to my colleagues in the Department for Transport but my noble friend Lady Sugg has already taken careful note of them and I am sure she would like to take them forward with him personally.
I am pleased to reassure the noble Lord that discussions in this field continue with all those involved in the running of our roads and railways and the freight services that use them. How these services and the procedures involved continue to operate after our exit is, however, a matter to be negotiated with the EU. In the event that there is no negotiated outcome, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will treat EU trade as it currently treats third country trade, which means that businesses trading with the EU will need to comply with additional customs requirements. The Government recognise that this represents a change to how UK businesses currently trade with EU firms and so we will model new customs processes and procedures on the existing Union customs code.
The noble Lord’s amendment would prevent the making of regulations in certain scenarios but it does not, and cannot, do anything to prevent those scenarios arising. This will be determined purely by what happens in the negotiations. All it would do in the unhappy situation that we did not secure a satisfactory agreement with the EU is to leave us unable to reflect that situation in domestic law, which of course would only make the position worse. Furthermore, any report that was carried out before the outcome of the negotiations would necessarily be speculative and so would lack a certain utility.
Happily, I can tell the noble Lord that the transport of goods is incredibly important to both the UK and the EU, as many noble Lords have pointed out, and there is a strong mutual interest in reaching an ambitious agreement which maximises the benefits for all businesses and individuals. As such, the Government aim to negotiate for the most tariff and barrier-free trade with our European neighbours, as the Prime Minister said in her speech last week. The Government will ensure that appropriate measures are taken when implementing whatever may be agreed. It will be done in a phased process, thereby providing businesses with enough time to plan and prepare for the new arrangements, minimising disruption.
Whatever the outcome of the negotiations, the Government believe that it is in the interests of both the UK and the EU to have efficient and effective frontier control procedures to achieve one of the strategic objectives of ensuring that UK-EU trade is as frictionless as possible. We will continue to meet our commitment to keeping Parliament fully informed on these negotiations and allow for proper scrutiny, including through regular statements and in our support for the work of committees in this House and the other place. I hope I have reassured the noble Lord that the Government will work hard on securing an agreement with the EU that works well for all in the road and rail freight sectors and I therefore ask that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Campbell-Savours
I asked four questions on trusted trader status. When will I get my answers?
Lord Callanan
I will read Hansard and respond to the noble Lord in writing.
Lord Liddle
The Minister did not answer any of the points that I made about what level of contact the Government have had in Brussels discussing these issues, and why in the interval between the September agreement and March, when the Commission produced its own proposals, Britain appears to have done nothing. Will he please tell us what is going on?
Lord Callanan
We are having extensive discussions with our partners in Europe. We are also having extensive discussions with representatives of the rail freight industry and other players in the sector, but as the noble Lord well knows, the arrangements are a matter for negotiation.
Lord Liddle
If Brussels can produce a proposal, why cannot the British Government produce an alternative proposal?
Lord Callanan
As the noble Lord pointed out, we did produce a customs paper last year. In her speech last week, the Prime Minister referred to two alternative customs arrangements and those matters are being taken forward in the discussions. If the noble Lord reads the Prime Minister’s speech of last Friday, he will see that she referred to them specifically.
Lord Liddle
Of course I have read the Prime Minister’s speech. What do you take me for? I follow these things very closely, but the Minister still has not explained how it is that the Prime Minister simply referred to the principles that were put out last summer. This is a situation of real urgency for the economic actors, so why are the Government not producing proposals? Would the Minister be willing to write to me on this point?
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this interesting debate. It has been really well informed and I am amazed that the Government have nothing better to respond with other than answers that I think I heard six months ago. As my noble friend has said, time is running out. This is a probing amendment and I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, for suggesting that we should have gone harder, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said the same thing. We have time to have discussions before Report, but it is a sad reflection for all of industry, not only the transport sector. The noble Baroness referred to the manufacturing sector and said that we are no further on. The Commission has produced papers but we just get motherhood and apple pie. I do not think I can take this any further tonight, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Berkeley
“( ) No regulations altering the roles and responsibilities of the European Union Agency for Rail relating to rail transport and the application of legislation relating to it may come into force until a Minister of the Crown has laid before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out the benefits and costs of any such alteration for the passenger and freight rail sectors and the impact of the alterations on rail infrastructure managers in the United Kingdom in terms of capital and operation costs.”
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I shall be brief on this amendment because the Minister has almost answered some of the questions. However, it is worth reminding the Committee that the Prime Minister has talked about how she is keen that the various agencies should continue to exist after Brexit. I have not seen anything about the European Union Agency for Railways, as it is now called. It is vital that we have this agency.
We have only one link across the Channel at the moment. Last week DG MOVE at the Commission produced a paper which goes into great detail about what we cannot have after we have left. It is a pity that we do not have a response to it. That includes our UK-registered train drivers who will not able to operate in France or anywhere else unless they pass the test in France. The same applies to approvals for equipment that is manufactured over here if it is not produced to the same standard. This could be a complete disaster, and it will be a great shame if we cannot maintain our involvement with the European railways agency because some of us have spent the past 10 years trying to have one technical agency that covers all the railways in Europe rather than having 25 different ones, which is what we had before.
I hope that when the noble Lord comes to respond, he will be able to give us some warm words about how we can retain our involvement with the European railways agency and sort out all the different issues around standards, drivers’ approvals, rolling stock approvals and everything else. I declare an interest as the chairman of the Rail Freight Group, and we do want to see rail freight and Eurostar continuing their services after March next year. I beg to move.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, I added my name to the amendment to note that rail contributes £85 billion of extra economic benefit to the British economy. About 41,000 of the 240,000 people who work in the rail industry are EU nationals. To make this point, the amendments basically say that we have to adhere to the European Union Agency for Railways, which has EU-wide responsibility for implementing the technical aspects of railway legislation. This cannot be under- estimated because it encompasses safety, specifications of interoperability—TSIs—and a common verification process for infrastructure and rolling stock. Most railway industry manufacturers have standard products designed for supply across the whole of the EU, in line with these requirements.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I am again grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for bringing this important matter before the Committee. The Government are considering carefully all the potential implications arising from the UK’s exit from the EU, including the implications for the UK’s future relationship with the European Union Agency for Railways. The UK’s continued participation in the agency as a third country and its continued co-operation in the fields of rail safety and standards, as well as the implications for the UK’s technical standards regime, is, of course, a matter for the negotiations.
Our domestic railway and the cross-border services that link us with the EU serve an incredibly important function in the transport of goods and people across the UK and between the UK and the EU. In 2016, there were some 1.7 billion passenger journeys facilitated by rail in the UK, while the rail freight industry transports goods that would otherwise require 7.6 million more lorry journeys each year. Equally, the Channel Tunnel was responsible for 25% by value of all trade in goods between the UK and continental Europe in 2014, facilitating an estimated £91.4 billion of trade in total. Passenger services through the tunnel, including Eurostar and Le Shuttle, and international rail freight services, transported an estimated 20.8 million passengers and 22.5 million tonnes of goods in 2016.
As the Prime Minister made clear in her Mansion House speech last week, we want to maintain the continuity of rail services that link us with the EU, which provide important economic benefits to both the UK and the EU. However, our participation in the European Union Agency for Railways is not something that the Bill can legislate for. For decades, we have worked closely with our European partners to develop a regime in the field of rail safety and standards that reflects UK practice. We strongly believe it is in both our and the EU’s interests to ensure continued productive co-operation on safety and standards in the future, regardless of the outcome of negotiations. As I have said, this will be a matter for negotiations. In considering all relevant factors relating to the future rail safety and standards framework, the Government remain committed to our railways continuing to have the highest standards and remaining steadfastly amongst the safest in the EU.
We will continue to take on board the views of industry. The Government have a number of established mechanisms for engaging regularly with the rail sector. These include, for example, the Rail Delivery Group and the Rail Supply Group, whose members include the supply chain, passenger and freight operators, and Network Rail. As we prepare for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, the Government will continue this engagement with a wide range of stakeholders from across the UK’s rail industry to seek views, which the UK has taken, and will continue to take, into consideration.
In the light of that, I hope I have satisfied the noble Lord that we understand the importance of maintaining the continuity of our important EU rail links, as well as maintaining a safe and effective railway. This will continue to be an important factor as we approach the negotiations. I therefore hope he feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. It is not news to me, because, obviously, I am aware of what is going on. Could he possibly write to me quite soon about some information that I have which states that the Department for Transport is looking at which regulations from Europe could be torn up as soon as we leave? It is apparently highly confidential, which probably means that we will end up retaining a mishmash of half European and half British regulations, with a divergence which will be incredibly bad for both our manufacturing industry and operators.
Lord Callanan
My noble friend Lady Sugg will be happy to discuss that with the noble Lord.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Berkeley
“( ) No regulations may be made under this section altering the roles and responsibilities of the European Aviation Safety Agency until a Minister of the Crown has laid before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out the benefits and costs of any such alteration to the United Kingdom’s aviation sector, including airlines, airports, aircraft manufacturers, aircraft maintenance and air navigation services providers, in terms of capital costs, operational costs and the impact on market access and safety.”
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, this the last of my three amendments and it is to do with aviation. Aviation has so far come out better from the various statements from the Prime Minister and others because of the noise from the aviation industry, be it airlines, which were rightly frightened about being unable to fly one day after Brexit day unless some changes were made, or the manufacturing industry, which is reliant on a massive amount of approvals for all components. Some 2 million components manufactured in this country go into an Airbus. They are all approved centrally by the European agency. If we do not retain membership of this agency, those approvals will be null and void and we will not be able to carry on.
There are many other consumer interests as well. The airline sector benefits dramatically from being part of a European group of airlines. Leaving EADS and having to negotiate directly with goodness knows how many other member states for particular routes does not bear thinking about. The noise from the airlines has been great; I hope it continues and that Ministers take notice of it. Let us not forget the manufacturing industry. It is not just aircraft wings for Airbus, which I think are made in north Wales, but many other components. We need a thriving industry and we need to stay part of it. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some comfort on that. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I first raised this issue in the autumn of 2016 and have done so repeatedly since then, even in a Private Member’s Bill on the Single European Sky. It is important because there is no fallback position for aviation; there are no WTO rules that we can rely on. If things do not go right, there is simply a blank in which planes will be grounded. Along with them will be the passengers and very high-value freight which goes by air.
I do not mention these concerns on my own initiative; they have been put to me by people in the aviation industry from across the world, because our whole economy stands on the shoulders of our air transport industry.
All along, the Government have expressed confidence that this will all work out fine on the night, but there has not been any official commitment either to remaining in EASA or the Single European Sky. Despite the commitment made by the Prime Minister last week there has been no official commitment, so these amendments give the opportunity to provide that. With the best of intentions, we could find ourselves at an impasse, and this is not just a little local difficulty between the UK and the EU; it is also very much about the US. We rely on the EU/US open skies agreement as a member of the EU, and we will cease to be a member of it when we cease to be a member of the EU. It cannot just slot into place later because airlines sell tickets a year in advance. Indeed, they are already selling tickets for a period of time when they cannot be absolutely sure that the planes are going to fly. There will be an awful lot of airline tickets on sale from next month for a year hence—some have already been sold, as I say.
There are already stories—for example, in the Financial Times last week—that early talks have not gone well. The Minister denied that and I am very pleased to hear those words, but in the past the United States has not been easy to make aviation agreements with. Opening up US aviation to both EU and UK flights has been a problem in the past. There are potential issues over the continuation of anti-trust exemptions, which allow airline alliances to set fares and share revenue. Any new deal has to allow for the pattern of ownership of our own major airlines, which have very big foreign shareholdings, especially IAG, of course. In the short term it is important that we remain in the open skies agreement during transition, or at least that we are treated as if we are within that agreement. In the longer term it is clearly best if this continues beyond transition.
Briefly on EASA, at any one time half the aircraft in the skies above Britain are not UK registered, so we need to remain the dominant influence over aviation security and safety in the EU and beyond. We have been a major force so the Prime Minister’s words, as I said earlier, were welcome last week. We need full, official government commitment here in legislation: not just to being associate members of the EASA or observers, but to being full members because there is consensus in the sector that it makes no sense to create a national regulator. It is essential that we remain fully integrated with EU rules and systems. The EU has brought huge benefits to passengers—lower fares, more destinations and greater passenger rights and compensation. We must remain part of that scheme. We must also maintain the environmental benefits it has brought.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I shall make a brief intervention and ask a couple of questions. I realise that it is the Minister for DExEU replying to the debate rather than the Minister for Aviation and I declare my interest as vice-president of BALPA, the pilots’ union. There is a lot of concern and it is felt that it would be helpful if we could have a clear commitment to retain membership of the single sky agreement and the aviation safety agency. I ask the Minister, possibly through his colleague, to write to those of us who are taking part in this debate to tell us whether it is government policy to continue with this membership. If it is, what steps have they taken up to now and can they arrange some way of keeping those of us who are interested abreast of the issue, other than by intervening on Bills? I know that this issue moves ahead. We have had very good relations with the Minister. This is in no way a criticism but rather a request for dialogue to be opened, possibly in writing and possibly with the letters to be deposited in the Library for anyone else who is interested.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, I have put my name to these amendments. It should be emphasised that the European common aviation area, or what we refer to as the single European sky, should not be taken for granted. Any British airline can fly anywhere it likes in the EU—not just to but within another member state—and sell tickets to anyone in the 28 member states, without restriction. The aviation industry contributes £52 billion to our economy and, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, it leads to cheaper fares, better consumer protection and compensation, and a greater variety of destinations. There is of course the environmental aspect as well.
Does the Minister accept that, if we retain access to the single skies, it would require accepting the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, which is one of the Government’s red lines? Does he also realise that there is no fallback on the WTO in the aviation sector? In fact, Tim Alderslade, the chief executive of Airlines UK, has said:
“The Government is fully aware that aviation sits outside”,
the WTO system. He continued:
“The principle of ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ does not apply to us”.
So whatever happens, the airline industry needs a deal. It cannot have any limits to capacity. Already, easyJet has said that it has applied for a licence in Austria to set up easyJet Europe. As we have also heard, airlines plan their schedules up to a year in advance. Can you imagine if the situation with Ryanair was happening today? How will we cope with that across the sector if we do not come to an agreement?
This whole aspect really keeps us connected to these countries; the administration and infrastructure run like clockwork. However, I have looked at a table of the Brexit impacts under different scenarios. It lists eight scenarios, five of which would not be allowed any more. An EEA airline flying from a third EEA country to the UK, for example Air France flying from Berlin to London, would no longer be allowed. A non-UK airline flying from the UK to a third EEA country, such as Ryanair flying to France, would no longer be allowed, and nor would a UK airline flying between two EEA countries. A UK airline flying within an EEA country or an EEA airline flying within the UK, such as Ryanair flying from London to Glasgow, would no longer be allowed; nor would a US or EEA airline using the UK as a hub to fly from Europe to the USA, such as American Airlines flying from New York to Heathrow and continuing on to Rome. We take this all completely for granted but it will no longer be available to us.
According to Ministers, 35 separate pieces of EU legislation work together to make the EU’s aviation single market. This is separate from the single market in goods and services and continued membership for the UK, or alternative arrangements, will be needed. What can we do? As a result of its membership, UK airlines benefit from 42 air services agreements entered into by the EU with countries outside the European Union, including the United States and China. This is what open skies is all about: it has allowed European majority-owned airlines to fly between places within any EU country, not only between the home country and another EU country.
We have also heard about the common regulator, the European Aviation Safety Agency. The UK has been a really proactive member of that organisation. It has been a leading member of it because it has brought benefits to the UK and to Europe. Security is also going to be really important and difficult—as will future border and visa arrangements.
In the longer term, unhindered access to EU aviation is absolutely essential. Benefits have been derived from open skies and a more restricted market would be disastrous. The transport regulations are most comprehensive. They provide for compensation, reimbursement and protection from overbooking. A large part of this is European Court of Justice law. Passengers are protected when they take off from an EU airport or land at one, provided that the carrier is an EU carrier. These are all issues that we take for granted, but if we do not look at these amendments it will be another way in which the whole economy and all our citizens and businesses will be damaged.
I shall conclude by quoting Andrew Haines, chief executive of the UK Civil Aviation Authority:
“Let’s just imagine the UK was to withdraw from EASA altogether and adopt our own framework–although I’m yet to meet anyone of substance that supports that approach. It is, of course, theoretically possible and let’s just suppose we established the best aviation safety regimes in the world. It would mean a major increase in UK regulatory regime, potentially represent a major barrier to track increased costs and yet we would also risk becoming a backwater in terms of wider impact”.
A backwater—that is where we are heading.
Lord Liddle
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, once again on an excellent speech raising many serious issues which we have to deal with. I shall draw particular attention to Amendment 233, which asks that any amendments to the roles and responsibilities of the European Aviation Safety Agency should be subject to the affirmative procedure. I would like a response from the Minister. I see no reason why the Government cannot just agree to that now to assure the Committee that there will be full accountability on these questions. Why not just say, “Yes, we agree to that”?
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I shall make a brief broader point. For all the reasons we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, I strongly support the objectives of these amendments. So, apparently, does the Prime Minister, judging from her speech last week. Is the reality not that it is also in the interests of all the airlines, the aerospace industry and the airfreight industry across the whole of Europe to retain the present situation? Was that not obvious from day one of Brexit discussions? Why did the Government’s negotiating strategy not recognise that this was one deal which we could have done very quickly and very clearly which would not have interfered with any of the rest of the negotiations and one which almost the rest of Europe would have greatly welcomed? There would have been no cries of “kein Rosinenpickerei”—“no cherry-picking” —from Europe on this one. A bit of common sense at the beginning of these negotiations would have parked aviation. We would have agreed aviation.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Was it not the EU that said that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed?
Lord Whitty
It was both the EU and Mr Davis and they were both wrong because in all negotiations whenever you enter negotiations you agree some things and you then park them. We could have agreed this. It is ridiculous that airlines are now faced with selling tickets in three weeks’ time not knowing whether they can deliver on them. I just make that more general point because the Minister keeps saying it is all down to the negotiations, but the negotiations went wrong from day one, and this is one example where we could have delivered something, albeit it would need to be part of a total package at the end of the day.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I shall be brief. I spent 22 years in the airline industry from the mid-1960s onwards as everything from co-pilot to number two in the marketing department. I learned two things from that. One was that aeroplanes are very dangerous. When I first joined the industry, we would crash a jet aircraft about every two years in the United Kingdom, and it has been a long, hard slog. That slog has not been all UK—it was the UK, the US, Canada and France, working together through international co-operation, producing the safety we take for granted today. It is crucial that those mechanisms stay in place to achieve that.
The other thing I remember is what air services agreements are. They are treaties, and if you are not part of one of these more modern situations, such as the European one, there are country-by-country treaties between pairs of countries—all of which would have to be renegotiated. Falling out of the present situation would create enormous problems. I am very sorry that the Minister did not like my suggestion of contact between interested Peers and senior transport people on these three groups. I hope that perhaps that could be reconsidered—I am glad they are nodding now on the Front Bench, but the Minister said nothing in either of his two speeches to suggest that. Obviously in all parts of the House there is a genuine concern that progress is not being made in these very important areas. I do not want to have that concern; I want to share the Government’s optimism. At the moment, given the responses we have had, I do not.
Baroness Altmann
I rise briefly to explain why I have added my name to these important amendments. One thing that has not been mentioned in Committee so far is the idea that the arrangements we have with Europe also protect the safety, maintenance and repair facilities around our country for our aviation and aerospace industries. We must maintain alignment of regulation. We have 100 airports and 172 maintenance and repair facilities, and if we jeopardise the standards of safety, if we are not in the open skies agreement and not in EASA, then the US apparently is already planning to send its own inspectors to make sure that our standards are up to scratch. If we cannot reassure people that we will maintain those standards, we will not have a functioning aerospace and aviation industry.
Another important element that must not be forgotten is that if we do not maintain our membership of the open skies agreement and EASA, the flights taken by ordinary citizens will increase in price. One estimate from the consultancy Oxera is that if all flights operated by third country airlines were removed, air fares for UK passengers would rise by between 15% and 30%—a Brexit surcharge which people were never told to expect to pay when they voted to leave the EU. These restrictions cannot be overcome simply by airlines setting up subsidiaries in Europe, because ownership restrictions do not allow non-EU investors to own a controlling interest in EU airlines.
I urge my noble friend the Minister to make a commitment to the Committee that we intend to maintain membership of EASA and the open skies agreement, notwithstanding the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, to start with, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, as we are more than happy engage in discussions with interested parties. Before I had this job, I was Aviation Minister and had regular meetings with all the concerned parties in the industry, and my noble friend Lady Sugg has told me she is very happy to continue those discussions. I am sorry if I did not make that clear to him earlier. We are of course carefully considering all the potential implications arising from the UK’s exit from the EU, including the implications for the UK’s future relationship with the European Aviation Safety Agency and the Single European Sky agreement. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Adonis—surprisingly, I see that the latter is not in his place—for their amendment.
Lord Bilimoria
I thank the Minister for giving way. I just want to clarify that he is accepting that by remaining in EASA we will have to submit to the European Court of Justice, and therefore the red line does not exist any more.
Lord Callanan
I will repeat the words that I used, for the noble Lord’s benefit:
“The Prime Minister … acknowledged that an appropriate financial contribution would be necessary and that there will be a role for the Court of Justice of the European Union”.
As I was saying, the precise form and nature of the UK’s future relationship with EASA, as well as continued co-operation with the EU in the field of aviation safety more generally, will of course be a matter for the negotiations. The UK’s geographical position means that, with Ireland, the UK services over 80% of traffic entering or leaving EU airspace from the North Atlantic. Given that, the level of interaction between the UK and the EU demands close co-operation. The Government recognise the need for UK air traffic management arrangements to remain interoperable with the rest of Europe once the UK has left the EU. Safe and efficient air traffic management is a priority for us. The UK’s air traffic management system will remain closely bound to that of our European partners. We seek a close and collaborative relationship in this area, just as in many others. However, NATS will continue to provide the same high-quality service to airspace users that it does today.
The Government also want to avoid disadvantaging industry by imposing additional regulatory burdens. The Bill is part of that: it allows the Government to be clear that we are committed to maintaining a harmonised safety system that benefits both the UK and EU aviation networks and maintains the high safety standards that we all wish to see. I hope what I have said has been reassuring for noble Lords and that they feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Liddle
My Lords, what about the point about the affirmative procedure?
Lord Callanan
I took on board the noble Lord’s question but I am unable to give him those reassurances at the moment.
Lord Berkeley
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and to all noble Lords who have spoken in this excellent debate. The Prime Minister has made more progress here than in the logistics, customs and railway sectors. My final question to the Minister is: has the European Union agreed this? Until it is agreed, it is not a lot of good. We need to revisit this and, we hope, have regular updates. I hope the Government will push very hard for it to be a priority—as my noble friend Lord Whitty said, to have this signed, sealed and delivered at as early a stage as possible. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Hailsham
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to the three amendments in my name, Amendments 109, 134 and 188. These are intended as sunset clauses but, as I do not want them to be sunrise clauses, I intend to be extraordinarily brief.
Those of your Lordships who have been in Committee during debates on Clauses 7 to 9 will know that I am very unhappy about the process those clauses attract. For example, the powers within those clauses are very widely drawn, the scope is considerable, the regulations are made by secondary legislation with very limited scrutiny, both parliamentary and ministerial, and they are triggered by a test—the test of appropriateness—which I regard as wholly unsatisfactory. For all those reasons, my view is that the regulations made under the regulation-making powers should die two years after Brexit and should, if necessary, be replaced by primary legislation. That is my suggestion to the Committee, and I hope it commends itself to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendments 111, 137 and 192 in this group and share the unhappiness that has just been described. Mine is a narrow but, I think, important point.
The thrust of most of the amendments in the group —not the noble Viscount’s—is about consultation and transparency. You do not have to spend long working in Parliament to realise that scrutiny very much depends on the input of stakeholders—I hate the term but I cannot think of a better one at this time of night. They assist us to understand how things work in practice, both with technicalities and wider issues. That is not to say that I do not have great admiration for parliamentary counsel and the lawyers working in the departments, who are most concerned with statutory instruments, but my amendments would require consultation on the regulations provided for by Clauses 7 to 9. This should all be a co-operative venture, with stakeholders contributing at an early stage, not least for the reason that the regulations are statutory instruments and not open to amendment, so you have to get it right from the very start.
I was a member for some time of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which received a lot of very valuable representations—lobbying, if you like. I suspect we will not hear comments in support of Amendment 228 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, about the Cabinet Office code, but I support the application of the code to the regulations. We may well be told that of course the code will apply. I have to say that in my time on the committee, we undertook quite a lot of work on the application of the code in practice and were quite critical of the responses we received from the Cabinet Office. One of our criticisms was that when consultation was undertaken—which it was not always—on the statutory instruments we were considering, the Government did not publish the responses to the consultation before they published the statutory instrument, so the work was not as helpful as it should have been.
Other amendments in this group are more detailed. Mine is not very elegant. I am not proprietorial about it but I wanted to raise the subject because some provision is necessary and, if I may say so, appropriate. It is a step that is very easy to miss out and I hope we will not be told that all the regulations in question are simply about technicalities and that stakeholders would have nothing to add to the exercise. Practitioners in almost every area may see what is workable in proposals being put forward, as well as substantive points.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 227A in my name, which is also supported by the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane, Lord Tyler and Lord Judd. The amendment is intended to be helpful to the Minister, although it is unlikely that he will regard anything as helpful at this time of night. Nevertheless, it is intended in the spirit of helpfulness to ensure that the statutory instruments that the Government are proposing turn out to be correct and effective. Many of the changes made by the statutory instruments will be technical and potentially uncontroversial but some will involve policy choices. The aim of my amendment is to ensure wider consultation on statutory instruments before they are formally laid.
The nature of the challenge is quite severe. There will be an awful lot of them—potentially 1,000. I have been looking primarily in the last year at the number that will be required in Defra alone—over 100—on environmental issues. They will need to come thick and fast, and in many cases they are being dealt with in departments by staff who have only recently been recruited. Having seen these departments shrink in times of austerity, lots of people are now being recruited, some of whom are old faithfuls but some of whom are rather new and probably not as well acquainted with the policy area as we would like.
So there is a risk of two things: one is cock-up, if noble Lords will pardon the unparliamentary language—things just going wrong because of the sheer volume and pace; and the other is conspiracy. A large number of the Defra SIs will be roll-ups of a whole variety of issues. I am being ignoble in suggesting that the Government might hide under a pile of harmless stuff the odd thing with a slight curveball in it, but increased transparency and consultation would help reassure people that no fast ones were being tried.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out—and it is inalienable—that the process of both the affirmative and the negative procedures means that once measures are formally laid there is very little room for manoeuvre, so it is important that this consultation happens in advance. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, for his letter of 20 February, following Second Reading. It provided more information but offered only that the Government would make efforts to publish a sample of statutory instruments in draft where appropriate. That rather misses the point, which is to let loose on these drafts expert eyes from across a variety of sectors of stakeholders to help the Government with that checking process to make sure that nothing has been missed, there has not been a cock-up and the policy intentions have not been perverted in any way. I hope the Minister will consider this and see it as a genuinely helpful proposal.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young, whose name stands at the head of Amendment 227A. I will add just two points in addition to endorsing the unhappiness of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, partly conveyed through his lead amendment and other amendments in this group.
So far, the practicalities of Brexit have been a conversation primarily between government and Parliament. If the use of the sweeping ministerial powers in the Bill will carry credibility with our fellow citizens, that conversation needs to be joined by the huge army of those who will be directly affected. However—and I think we could all draft the reply of the Minister, just after the headnote that says, “resist”—the possibility of consultation throws into sharp relief the extraordinary pressures of time under which the EU-related parts of the statute book will have to be repatriated and adjusted. Even if there is a two-year period of transition—or implementation; I do not think the two are the same, by any means—a three-month consultation period would be luxurious indeed. Yet effective consultation—that is, beyond the usual suspects—cannot be done quickly.
My second point relates to the relationship between the Lords and the Commons. I cannot help but remark that if Ministers agreed to be bound by the test of necessity rather than appropriateness, their problems in this area might be very much fewer. It seems pretty clear that there will be heavyweight regulations—probably quite a lot of them—for both Houses to consider. As the Bill is drafted at present, there may be too many that are subject to the negative procedure and not enough that are subject to the affirmative procedure, but in any event we will have to focus minds on what will happen if the two Houses disagree.
So far as affirmatives are concerned, I have put my name to an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey—Amendment 239A—which explores a possible dispute resolution procedure. However, if major regulations come forward on which there manifestly has been insufficient consultation, the possibility of disagreement between Lords and Commons would increase. Given the inevitable degree of political contention and unyielding pressures on time, this might become a matter of serious concern. I suggest that systematic consultation offers a possible way of reducing that hazard.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I rise to speak to Amendments 249, 250 and 251. Several noble Lords will know of my lifelong concern for good-quality regulation. The Bill will, by its very nature, lead to the creation of a vast number of SIs of exceptional importance, so proper scrutiny is more important than ever, as the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, just said.
I am concerned about content, scheduling, consultation and time for debate. On content, I want the Government to follow the good practice of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, where making the draft implementing regulations available has helped to reassure people and made its passage easier. I have suggested five areas where specimen regulations might be made available: agriculture, customs, financial services, immigration and intellectual property. My amendment says that specimen regulations should be made available within a month of Royal Assent—which is what the Public Bill Office felt able to approve—but my suggestion to the Minister is to make specimen SIs available for our consideration before Report.
I understand and fully support the objective of putting extant EU laws onto the UK statute book from day one; anything else would lead to the utmost confusion. However, there is still much to ponder and much scope for mistakes. All these problems will be lessened by allowing all interests to see and comment on what is envisaged, as has been said. We need to know which enforcement body will take over what are now EU duties, as we discussed at length in relation to the new environment body. For example, in financial services it could be the FCA, the PRA or even the Treasury. In agriculture, the situation is equally complicated, not least because of the extra dimension of devolution. We need to know the criminal and civil penalty regime for each area and, as debated earlier, the approach to fees and charges—especially for SMEs, which I know will be a concern in relation to intellectual property and immigration. We need to understand the future arrangements for standard setting and the sharing of intelligence. Exemplar SIs could—and probably would—cast reassuring light on all of this.
On scheduling and consultation, I start by thanking the Minister, as he kindly arranged for me to meet one of his officials and those responsible in the Treasury for the SI work on financial services. This was very reassuring. The numbers on financial services are fewer than I feared—80 to 100 SIs—and I understand that they will take account of existing UK regulations. Hopefully, this will mean that practitioners will be able to find their way round the law more easily than they can do now. I believe there is some sympathy for my suggestion that it would be wise to publish SIs for consultation, which is the subject of my amendment and of others. The process of SI sifting and review in Parliament will, unfortunately, only allow an SI to be debated and agreed or rejected by either House. There is no scope for amendment so SIs need to be right first time. Will the Minister provide some commitment to publication of and/or consultation on draft SIs, at least in the five areas I have identified?
In practice, if—as I hope—a transition period is agreed, and thus for relevant purposes we effectively remain in the EU during transition, there is a fair amount of time to do this properly. But if the negotiations go badly and we have to rush for the line, it may be as well to have done as much consultation as possible early. Finally, and Amendment 251 relates to this, we need time to debate the more important SIs in a planned way. There is a substantial issue here which has not yet been fully acknowledged by the Government. One solution could be to group related SIs and to set aside significant time—perhaps one day a week—when they could be considered on the Floor of the House. These SIs will be mini-Bills, important future statutes as we leave the EU, and our existing arrangements for EU scrutiny are inadequate if this new need is to be met satisfactorily.
I believe that all noble Lords will want to know, before they agree to the significant delegated powers in the Bill, that the scrutiny system envisaged can meet the needs of the moment and hence attract confidence across the House.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
Noble Lords will be glad to hear that I will be brief. The European Union Select Committee and EU Justice Sub-Committee have been given estimates of the number of SIs concerned. Our estimate was 5,000; I was interested to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Young, say that it was only 1,000. My point is the same either way. In my language, the Bill essentially amounts to a gigantic pink ticket where we are asked to trust the Government. In the commercial world, one tries to trust and verify. You give out your trust, but you retain the ability to verify it, so that if something goes wrong you can sort it out later on.
This group of amendments tries to deal with three problems. The first is the mistakes, as the noble Baroness pointed out. The second is wrongnesses. We had a good example of these from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, earlier on. If we carried through a particular piece of EU legislation without thinking then a wrongness would be done. Third is the necessity for the scrutiny of Parliament; the verification process that follows on from the trust. As I look at the three sets of proposals on how to deal with these three problems, I have some sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, who said that there is not really time to do the consultation suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I regret that, but there certainly is not time, whether it is 5,000 or 1,000. The ever-canny and thoughtful noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has come up with an ingenious way of trying to cater for that. Turning to the noble Viscount’s idea of a two-year life span, I am only concerned that if we are going to have to do 1,000 pieces of legislation then two years is probably not enough. The number I wrote down was five. However, that is a very useful way of doing it and my favourite route tonight would be the one he has taken.
All that being said, what is important in parliamentary terms is a mechanism for trusting and verifying. We will have failed if we do not get some kind of verification procedure in there. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
When I speak at this time of night, I often recall the words of a friend who said to me shortly after I became a Member of the House of Lords, “You’re in the House of Lords now—you must be semi-retired”. As we are debating issues at almost half-past midnight, I do not feel semi-retired at all.
This is a very useful group of amendments for the Minister and the Government. As my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone said, they are designed to be helpful, and I think their content makes that clear. It is only in your Lordships’ House that technical issues around SIs cause any excitement or great interest for noble Lords who have expertise in them. I hope that when the Minister responds she will accept these amendments or take them away and come back with something similar as a way forward on the Bill.
First, I wish to make some general comments. Issues around SIs and accuracy have been foremost in my mind since we first heard about the number of SIs that would flow from this Bill. Indeed, when I, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, gave evidence to the Commons Select Committee and to our Constitution Committee, we specifically raised the issue of accuracy and the number of SIs we would have. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House can confirm that I discussed these issues with her. I welcome the fact that so far eight draft statutory instruments have been published on the Government’s website—perhaps the sample to which the Minister referred in his letter to my noble friend Lady Young. However, I am not sure what the purpose of a sample is other than to show how we can look at SIs and the issues that can be addressed in so doing. I think the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Neville-Rolfe, said that we need guidance on accuracy and getting SIs right. As my noble friend Lady Young said, we have one opportunity to get these measures right. They cannot be amended and making a mistake could have serious consequences. As more SIs appear on the website in draft, as I hope they will, I suggest to the Government that there should be a separate link and some kind of classification process as we want stakeholders and others with expertise and interest in this area to be able to identify them and find them instantly without first having to search through pages and pages to get to them.
On that basis, I welcome the agreement the Procedure Committee has reached with regard to the sifting and consideration of statutory instruments, as we have seen in this legislation. As in the House of Commons, we have 10 days in which to conduct a sifting process on the Bill and in which the committee will consider whether there should be an affirmative Motion, and then, in the normal way we conduct business in your Lordships’ House, we consider the merits of the order. We should be under no illusions: this is a huge task to be undertaken. Even the setting up of in effect a separate committee by having two sub-committees will not mean that all the work is undertaken that it is necessary to do. Given the scale of the work ahead, I welcome the suggestions we have had today on how we can draw on the experience and expertise of stakeholders, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, to deal with the issue of accuracy. It is not an issue of policy or change but of accuracy.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said, we have one opportunity to get this right. Given the nature of the consultation, it is a good idea to provide an explanatory document. That is extremely important. The principle of her amendments is sound. My only disagreement is that I do not think they go far enough in that she selects certain areas to be addressed. I am sure she understands the need to have the opportunity to debate all the SIs. I think the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, made the point in a slightly different way but if there is a draft of all SIs and consultations on all of them, the formal consideration can be speeded up at that point rather than have problems arise later.
The amendment of my noble friend Lady Young is important. I raised it in the Procedure Committee as her amendment rightly goes beyond the Bill to address Brexit-related orders from other legislation. Our committees would be able to examine any secondary legislation, whether related to Brexit or not—most will be although that is difficult to define—but the sifting power currently applies only to the withdrawal Bill. Negative SIs relating to other legislation will not be included in that process. That point was made by our Constitution Committee in its report on the road haulage Bill.
The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, reflect the concern that has featured in other debates: for example, the issues around what is “appropriate” or “necessary”, and ministerial discretion. Therefore, given the avalanche of orders we may face, it will be helpful to consult on all SIs, not just leave it to the discretion of Ministers.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, this is a wide-ranging group of amendments. I will begin with my noble friend Lord Hailsham’s Amendments 109, 134 and 188 on the effect of regulations made under the main powers of the Bill. My noble friend was commendably brief and very clear—very blunt—about what he seeks. My difficulty is that these amendments would end up running counter to the fundamental aims of the Bill. We have heard from my noble friend himself that these amendments are intended to cause any regulations made under Clauses 7, 8 and 9 to lapse two years after exit day. Quite simply, this would prescribe a rigid legislative timeframe for the Government to replace them and would risk unnecessary disruption. If we could not find an alternative vehicle to write these regulations into law by the two-year deadline, it would create holes in the statute book. However, it is surely illogical to force the Government to make these regulations again in an identical form when they have already legitimately made them once.
The powers themselves, quite rightly, already have their own sunsets: for Clauses 7 and 8 it is two years after exit day, and for Clause 9 it is exit day itself. That is a sensible way in which the Executive have constrained these delegated powers to avoid their being available in perpetuity. But surely the regulations made under these powers should not necessarily be so transient. They will, of course, be doing vital work to ensure that we have a fully functioning statute book for when we leave the EU. We do not want our functioning statute book, or bits of it, to lapse after two years. I sympathise with the intention behind the amendments, but it is too rigid a fetter on the Government and Parliament’s ability to manage legislative priorities and workload between now and 2021, and it certainly would exacerbate the very uncertainty that the Bill is seeking to reduce.
Amendments 111, 137 and 192, all tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, deal with stakeholder consultation. It is my pleasure to tell the Committee that departments are very keen to engage with stakeholders on current matters and progress of the negotiations, and will continue to do so where this is possible and does not negatively impact the negotiations in any way.
Baroness Young of Old Scone
I am not sure that the evidence stacks up on that. I have been seeking clarification from Defra for over a year now on just a simple list of the issues that might be subject to statutory instrument, and I have been unable to get that from the department. Perhaps the Minister might like to prod departments to reflect the terms she just stated.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I too asked for a list of necessary statutory instruments from the Home Office, and the Parliamentary Answer was that the work had not been done to calculate the number.
Baroness Goldie
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, that it is a pleasure to be asked to do the prodding rather than be the recipient of the prodding, which has certainly been my sensory experience standing at this Dispatch Box. I understand her concerns and will certainly relay them to my noble friend Lord Gardiner.
Similarly, I will refer the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to my noble friend Lady Williams. I understand the concerns; there must be a degree of frustration. It may of course simply underpin the enormity of the challenge confronting departments, in that at this stage it is extremely difficult to try to map exactly what lies ahead. Some of it might be predictable but some of it is unknown and will depend on the negotiations. However, I undertake to do what I can to seek some assistance.
The requirement in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for relevant stakeholders to be consulted on all the provisions contained within all statutory instruments made under Clauses 7, 8 and 9 goes, I believe, beyond what is reasonable in this instance and belies the nature of those instruments. I appreciate the concerns that we have heard throughout this debate about the potential breadth of the power—something that clearly concerns my noble friend Lord Hailsham—but I hope that the Committee will accept at the least that a great many instruments will be technical and minor, and will merely ensure flexibility, swiftness in dealing with identified defects and, of course, continuity of our legal framework.
A specific legal requirement to consult could also impact on our negotiations with the EU. It could inadvertently expose our position at an inappropriate moment if we were engaged in sensitive discussions about particular issues. Compulsory consultations would also impact on the tight timeline for Parliament to scrutinise instruments. The consultation process requires resources and time from government and stakeholders, and we want to focus the energies of those inside and outside government on the most important measures rather than have them occluded by the sheer volume of consultations on what might, at the end of the day, be very minor technical matters. That is the challenge that could arise under these amendments. I hope that the noble Baroness understands why the Government cannot accept her amendment, and I urge her not to press it.
Baroness Hamwee
Before the noble Baroness moves on to the other amendments, is she able to expand a little on the point about upsetting negotiations? We are talking about moving existing legislation over the break point into the future. I am quite puzzled by that part of her response.
Baroness Goldie
That may be part of what is involved but the other part might, as emerged in earlier discussions today, impact on subsequent matters that are germane to the negotiations and will therefore have to be taken into account in whatever legislative framework is proposed. It is not just a simple question of the bridge; there may be other aspects to be considered.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
Can the noble Baroness give us an example of where that might conflict with the negotiations? Some of us are struggling to understand the rationale behind that.
Baroness Goldie
Given the breadth of activity already referred to by both the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Hamwee—a huge breadth of activity involving a multiplicity of issues—it is inevitable that some of these matters will be caught up in the negotiations. I cannot be drawn on specific examples because we may be talking about generic issues. However, the Government are very anxious to avoid in any way hog-tying their freedom to conduct the negotiations with a degree of confidentiality and privacy.
Baroness Young of Old Scone
I share my noble friend’s perplexity. We are talking about a government commitment, in my field of expertise, to take existing European environment law and bring it safely across to preserve the same standards. It will not be a great surprise to the European Union and those with whom we are negotiating if what we propose is exactly the same in intent as what currently exists—if the Government are indeed genuinely committed to making sure that we enjoy the same standards post Brexit as we did previously. Therefore, I find it difficult to believe—I have not been able to think of an example—that there will be something monumentally important as regards the negotiating process.
Baroness Goldie
I merely observe that the breadth of activity implicit within the negotiations could anticipate issues arising that we are unable at this moment to specify. The Government have been sensible in retaining the flexibility in the negotiations to deal with these if they do arise. It is important in that event—
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, the whole House is perplexed. Maybe we are perplexed because we are very tired, but might I suggest that the noble Baroness write to noble Lords with at least one or two examples of the problem she is describing? It is clearly the case that, for most of us, it sounds like a Sir Humphrey excuse and not a substantive point.
Baroness Goldie
It is not meant to be a Sir Humphrey excuse; it is meant to be an attempt to anticipate what is for most of us a very challenging scenario. However, I will of course take back the noble Lord’s suggestion and I will be very happy to try to produce some examples.
I shall return, if I may, to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone. I hope I am pronouncing her title correctly; those who come from Basildon may be interested to learn the pronunciation.
Baroness Goldie
We do not do “scohnes” in Scotland.
The difficulty with the noble Baroness’s amendment is that the scope of future legislation that is caught by it has the potential to be enormous. I have no doubt that the amendment is well intended—that is beyond question—but it is not necessarily as helpful as the noble Baroness thought it might be. The additional scrutiny provisions of this amendment are not confined to the powers in this Bill but, as drafted, would apply to any regulations which replicate EU legislation, with or without modification, or any regulations which amend or modify legislation that was made to implement our EU obligations.
To add an additional scrutiny provision to such a large body of future legislation is simply not feasible. The parameters set out in this amendment are so vast that this would not only represent a significant burden of additional procedure for government departments now but could also mean that Governments decades into the future would be bound to this three-month consultation period for every single amendment made to retained EU law. This is very undesirable, given that many of these regulations are likely to be uncontroversial and technical in nature. Indeed, there are times when it is widely agreed that speed is of the essence.
The noble Baroness is rightly concerned about a range of important issues, so let me try to reassure her. Her amendment focuses particularly on environmental and social issues, so I will repeat what the Government have said on this. We were elected on a pledge to be the first generation to leave the environment of England in a better state than we inherited it.
On social issues, I am proud to say that the UK has a long-standing tradition of ensuring that our rights and liberties are protected domestically and of fulfilling our international rights obligations. The decision to leave the European Union does not change this. Indeed, the Government have made clear their firm commitment to protecting these rights throughout our exit. Additionally, of course, Clause 9 is already explicitly prohibited, like Clauses 7(1) and 8, from being used to amend, repeal or revoke the Human Rights Act or any subordinate legislation made under it.
On employment issues, also of concern to the noble Baroness, we have made a clear commitment to protect workers’ rights and to ensure that they keep pace with the changing labour market. We do not need to be part of the EU to have strong protections for workers, and in many areas the UK goes beyond the minimum standards set by the EU. For example, the rights of workers to annual leave, paid maternity leave and parental leave all go beyond the EU standards.
This amendment, like several others that have sought to protect environmental protections and social matters, fails to refer to specific rights and protections. As there are a vast number of laws on our statute book that relate to these matters in some way, the risk of judicial review of any statutory instrument made under this amendment would be inappropriately high.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is not in his place, but the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised the issue of public consultation. I do not know whether she was embracing the issues raised in the noble Lord’s amendment, but let me say briefly that the Cabinet Office code of practice which the noble Lord suggests must be followed has already been in use by all departments for some years. Indeed, departments are already held to account by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, on the code of practice that is the subject of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, my experience from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee is that it is honoured in the breach as well as in the observance.
Baroness Goldie
There was a universal welcome for the Government adopting as their principles much of what was proposed by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The committee has a locus if it considers that consultation has been inadequate.
I turn to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, starting with Amendment 249. She has an exceptional, perhaps encyclopaedic, understanding of the statutory instrument processes and is clearly aware of the historical issues that led to concerns regarding the quality of documents laid as part of this procedure. While I understand the concern that underpins her request to place in statute the responsibility to provide sample statutory instruments before both Houses, the Government do not believe that such a responsibility is proportionate. Wherever possible, and where negotiations will not be affected, we would hope to provide details of draft SIs from all sectors.
The noble Baroness’s proposed new paragraph in Amendment 250 seeks to address the procedures for conducting consultations. She makes a number of sensible suggestions as to what should be considered and included when conducting consultations—in fact, many of these are already being conducted or are currently being incorporated—but to require that a draft instrument should be published not less than 60 days before it is laid would place an undeliverable duty on departments, given the limited timeframe that is available and the need at times not to reveal expectations as to the outcome of negotiations while they are ongoing.
Similarly, Amendment 251 would place an impossible burden on the House and its time and does not allow for flexibility in the management of business. The new proposals for laying draft negative SIs with a sifting committee would mean that the Minister would not be able to give any indication as to when it was expected that the instrument would be debated. In these cases, if, as I hope, the Committee accepts the recommendation of the Government that the negative procedure is proportionate, the SI would proceed as a negative statutory instrument. This House has a well-established process for considering affirmative and, where desired, negative SIs, and we want to see this continue.
None of this is to refute that my noble friend has set out some very good suggestions for practice, but practice should not be placed in the Bill. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, had an interesting suggestion about listing SIs once known.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I suggested listing the drafts for consultation.
Baroness Goldie
People are bellowing “End!” in my right ear and I know which side my bread is buttered on.
I have spoken at length but I hope I have addressed noble Lords’ concerns. I urge the noble Viscount to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, this group of amendments has enabled the Committee to identify matters of considerable importance. I think that the Committee will say to my noble friend that she has tried to be helpful. We do not always agree with her but we are grateful to her for the way in which she has responded. Important issues have been raised with regard to statutory instruments and consultation with stakeholders. These matters will be addressed later on in future sessions of this Committee. The hour is late and, with the consent of the House, I would like to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lisvane
“( ) Where regulations under subsection (1) confer power to legislate by subordinate instrument, the instrument is subject to the same parliamentary control and the same time limit in subsection (8) as are the regulations.”
Lord Lisvane
My Lords, in moving Amendment 110 I shall speak also to Amendment 135, both of which are also tabled in the names of my noble and learned friend Lord Judge, my noble friend Lord Pannick and the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who like me is a member of the Delegated Powers Committee. The amendments seek to place controls upon the use of sub-delegation and the creation of tertiary legislation. We have had something of a preview to this in the debate on Amendment 71 held last Wednesday, and earlier today the horror story about the Bar Standards Board told by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, which I think would have greatly alarmed my nervous maiden aunts.
I was extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Wilson of Dinton for moving Amendment 71 last Wednesday and to the Committee for its understanding of why I could not do so myself. My noble friend made a magisterial and compelling speech in which he pointed out that the powers in Clauses 7, 8 and 9 could be used to sub-delegate. Indeed, so compelling was his speech that the only person who disagreed with him in the debate was the Minister. That reminded me of the story of Benjamin Jowett: when he was the Master of Balliol and was outvoted 20 to one at a college meeting, he said, “Gentlemen, we appear to have reached deadlock”.
This Bill is riddled with provisions which have serious constitutional implications, and the unrestricted power of sub-delegation is one of them. It allows Ministers to authorise bodies and even individual persons to make law without the approval of Parliament. As the Delegated Powers Committee pointed out, there is no requirement for this legislation to be made by statutory instrument. If it is not made by SI, the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 does not apply to it and the legislation does not have to be laid before Parliament or even published. The possibility that law which the citizen must obey might not be published offends against the first of the late Lord Bingham’s eight principles of the rule of the law: that the law must be accessible as well as clear and predictable.
The Government memorandum submitted to the Delegated Powers Committee suggested that the power to make tertiary legislation is intended to be used sparingly. Once again we come back to the fact that what matters is what is on the face of the Act. If the power of sub-delegation is there, you can bet that it will be used whenever convenient to the Government of the day. Moreover, it will go on being used. In addition to these amendments, I have tabled Amendment 365 to paragraph 28 of Schedule 8 which would complete the removal of the exemption for tertiary legislation from the two-year sunset provision for secondary legislation-making powers. Slightly oddly, it has not been grouped with these amendments, but when we reach it, it will provide us with a further opportunity to consider the Government’s response to the amendments in this group.
As the Delegated Powers Committee points out, the power to make tertiary legislation could be given to new bodies to control and regulate, by legislation and without any parliamentary control, areas that are currently governed by EU law. These include aviation, banking, investment services, chemicals, agriculture, fisheries and medicines. They would all become in effect judges in their own cause. Amendments 110 and 135 would subject sub-delegation to the same parliamentary control and time limits as regulations in the first tier of delegation. I beg to move.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, if we reflect on the words used by my noble friend Lord Lisvane, it is really rather chilling. There will be power in a Minister to create laws by giving him or her a blank sheet of paper so that he or she can write out whatever he or she thinks is appropriate. It will be uncontrolled and unscrutinised.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I have little to add but I have tabled Amendments 350 and 351 in this group. I should like to mention the importance of ensuring parliamentary scrutiny, in particular of tertiary legislation which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. We will deal with that issue later in a different group. The issue he raises is covered in paragraph 15 of the report of the Delegated Powers Committee. There is to be no time limit on the ability to pass tertiary legislation.
As has been made clear both last Wednesday and today, in seeking to bring into UK law the provisions that are currently effected in the UK by virtue of the 1972 Act and our EU membership, the Government have simply slipped into a belief that they should take control of all of this and have drafted for themselves powers and possibilities that rightly belong in Parliament, not with the Executive. As has been said, these amendments are to ensure that use of the powers will be properly scrutinised, and that they will be used by Parliament, rather than Ministers. I hope that the Minister has heard this often and strongly enough to be able to indicate, even at this late hour of the night, that it should be the Government who bring forward amendments on this on Report, because the arguments have been so well made. We should expect them to take the next step.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I know that concerns regarding the delegation of legislative power, particularly where that delegation permits sub-delegation or allows for tertiary legislation, are shared by many in the Committee. I know that this debate has been brief because the hour is late, but I am aware of the concerns. I say up front in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that the Government understand these concerns. We have listened carefully to this debate and to other representations that we have received, so for Report we will look to see how we can provide additional reassurances and transparency around sub-delegation and additional scrutiny of any fees and charges made under Schedule 4.
I will go into this in a little more detail, if noble Lords will forgive me. I know that it is late, but these are serious amendments on an aspect of the Bill that is of legitimate concern, unlike some of the amendments we discussed earlier. I hope I can do something to put some concerns to rest. I shall first take a moment to clarify that, where a legislative function is being sub-delegated under Clause 7 or any of the other powers in the Bill, that power will also be constrained by the policy restrictions that apply to the delegating power. In the case of Clause 7(1), that includes all the restrictions in Clause 7(7).
Although, beyond Ministers, there are indeed a great number of public authorities in the UK, there are only a very small number to which it would be appropriate for Ministers to sub-delegate legislative functions as an appropriate correction for a deficiency in retained EU law. Again, these will all be subject to the affirmative procedure.
I also restate that any SI providing for legislative sub-delegation will be subject to the affirmative scrutiny procedure and will have to set out what conditions apply to the exercise of that power. Whether scrutinising the sub-delegation of any of the powers in this Bill, the creation of a new, specific and targeted legislative function, or the transfer of any legislative power from the EU, I would expect this House in particular to take a keen interest in these instruments and to have vigorous debates on the appropriateness of the conditions proposed for the exercise of the power before voting on the instrument.
While the Government are listening to the Committee’s concerns about the form that this sub-delegation will take, they believe that conferring powers on public authorities, including Ministers, to allow them to make provisions of a legislative character or other legislation can be an appropriate course of action, either to make corrections to retained EU law or to maintain a regime in the future. This is particularly true where there is a need for specialised, technical rules to be developed, introduced and maintained by a body that has the necessary dedicated resource and expertise.
I will give noble Lords an example. The EU binding technical standards—the detailed technical rules developed by EU regulators for financial services—demonstrate where it might be appropriate to sub-delegate the responsibility for correcting. These standards, which run to almost 10,000 pages, fill out the detail of how firms need to comply with requirements of policy set in higher legislation. The PRA and FCA have already been given the responsibility by Parliament of developing and making the domestic detailed rules needed to ensure that financial services firms are stable, well managed and meet the needs of consumers. These UK public bodies have played a leading role in the EU to develop these standards, so they already have the necessary resources and expertise to review and correct them to operate effectively in the UK from day one of exit.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
Perhaps the Minister could help me with a clarification. As I understand it, the FCA and others have the powers he just described as a consequence of a cascade that comes, as he said, from higher levels of legislation that originated in a democratic process. They therefore have safeguards, frameworks, constraints, mitigations and appeals processes—all kinds of characteristics sitting around them. How do the powers of sub-delegation which the Minister described relate to any of those structures of cascade or framework, since we are supposedly leaving the EU?
Lord Callanan
I am not sure that the powers originated in a democratic framework; a lot of them came from EU legislation introduced by regulation which takes automatic effect through the European Communities Act. We could have an argument about whether that is a democratic framework, but perhaps now is not the time.
Lord Callanan
Let me make some further progress and see whether it responds to the noble Baroness’s questions.
Some of the powers to make legislation that will be transferred under the powers in the Bill are integral parts of regimes currently managed at the EU level; for example, where the European Commission currently legislates to add to or remove active compounds from lists of biocidal products. Where sub-delegated or transferred legislative powers are crucial to the functioning of a regime, it would not be appropriate for those powers to be subject to a sunset. That would only postpone rather than remove the requirement in the limited time available before exit for either a regular flow of primary legislation to keep regimes up to date or a suite of primary legislation to design equivalent powers to those which the Government intend to transfer under this Bill.
Perhaps I may address the three elements of Amendments 350 and 351 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. First, I turn to the scrutiny of the exercise of the powers by Ministers of the Crown in Schedule 4. We have laid out in Schedule 7, which I know we will debate at length another day, provisions for the scrutiny of those powers. Our position is that the powers should indeed be subject to the affirmative procedure where Ministers are creating new fees and charges regimes, or where we seek to grant an authority the power to set its own fees and charges. It is the sort of framework being established in which this House rightly takes a great interest. All this is of course possible under Schedule 4 only in relation to new functions that we are transferring from the EU or setting up on exit under the powers in the Bill. We have not provided for the adjustment of these, or for existing fees or charges, to be subject to the affirmative procedure. In years to come, there will be many such adjustments as technology cuts costs and inflation raises them. This ebb and flow can make a real difference to businesses, but does not normally represent a matter requiring debate and division within this House.
Nevertheless, I accept the point made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the raising of a fee not by 1% or 2% but by, let us say, 13,000% would be a substantial matter. I trust, however, in the expertise of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments to draw this House’s attention to such matters. I remind noble Lords that the negative procedure for statutory instruments does not mean no scrutiny at all, nor does it prevent debate. Nevertheless, if I have not addressed sufficiently the noble Baroness’s concerns on this point, I would be more than happy to discuss further how we might do so. As I said at the start, we are looking closely at this issue and expect to come back to it on Report.
Secondly, these powers are vested also in the devolved Ministers—we do not have the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, with us to make his regular point about devolved matters. While the scrutiny of the powers is important and, as I have just set out, the Government have tried to ensure that the most important of the regulations made under them will be affirmative, it is not for this House to dictate scrutiny to the devolved legislatures. The Bill contains a starting base of procedures for the devolved exercise of powers. While the devolved Administrations are competent to change these following Royal Assent, discussions continue with them about any alterations they may think it appropriate to make in the Bill. It would also not be appropriate for us to require the devolved Ministers to seek our approval for their statutory instruments—I am sure the noble Baroness did not intend this to happen.
My third point regards the sub-delegation of the power to provide for fees and charges. It bears repeating that any instrument providing for this will have to be affirmative, can delegate this power only to a body being given a new function under this Bill, and will have to set out the conditions for the exercise of that power.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
It sounds as though what the Minster is reading out dates from before today’s debate on fees and charges. I had hoped that, in light of that, this continued idea of setting these by secondary legislation had gone from his mind.
Lord Callanan
We said that we would return to this matter on Report, but we are now talking about the sub-delegation of those fees and charges.
Moving on to Amendment 352 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hailsham, I am in total agreement with the principle that the Government should not raise fees or charges from the public, whether businesses or individuals, without considering the impact on those who will pay or the impact on both the payers and the wider economy. I may be wrong but I doubt that many in this Committee, other than the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, who is sadly not in his place and is of course intimately familiar with it, will have read Managing Public Money. This weighty tome is easily available online and serves as the sacred text of Her Majesty’s Treasury regarding many things, including the setting of new fees and charges. It sets out that charges on the public must be subject to the general practices on consultation and economic and financial analysis. Without this, the consent of Her Majesty’s Treasury to establishing a new fee or charge, required by paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 for all new fees or charges under the Bill, cannot be obtained.
I hope that this long explanation, for which I apologise at this late hour, and my other points have gone some way to reassuring noble Lords. I am happy to continue discussing these important issues, but in the meantime I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments today.
Lord Lisvane
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the detail he went into in his reply, particularly at this late hour. I also pay tribute to him for his customary generosity in being prepared to discuss these matters outside the Chamber. He recommended one weighty tome with which, as a former accounting officer, I am moderately familiar. Perhaps I may recommend to him another weighty tome, Craies On Legislation, edited in masterly fashion by Daniel Greenberg, former parliamentary counsel. I think it is at chapter 3.5.1 that he will find a very good treatment of the dos and don’ts of sub-delegation. That might be something we discuss before we come back to these matters on Report.
Of course, he is absolutely right to say that the consigning of these powers to a body or a person will require the affirmative procedure, and that is fine up to a point, but the exercise of the powers, once sub-delegated, will be free of the trammels of the accepted processes, so it becomes even more important that, in the consigning of the powers, the constraints on how they can be used by the consignee, if I can use that rather unlegislative term, are made absolutely clear. That is something, perhaps, on which we can have further conversations between now and Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 110.
Lord Whitty
“Chemicals
(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that the standards established by and under the Regulation for the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (EC 2006/1907) ('REACH') continue to apply on and after exit day.(2) The standards referred to in this section include, but are not limited to, the restriction of chemical substances and the identification and control of substances of very high concern.(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a procedure for the registration of chemical substances with a domestic agency previously registered under REACH, with particular attention paid to companies whose market is limited to the territory of the United Kingdom.(4) Chemical substances that have not been registered by under REACH before exit day or under domestic legislation procedure established pursuant to subsection (3) must not have access to the United Kingdom market after exit day.(5) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a procedure for issuing authorisations for the use of substances of very high concern.(6) The procedures referred to in subsections (3) and (5) must retain as far as possible the rules applied, principles underlying and processes followed under REACH.(7) The Secretary of the State must, within one month of the passing of this Act, produce and publish a review analysing the options for the regulation of chemical substances in the United Kingdom after exit day and this review must consider at least the following—(a) the potential for future participation in REACH processes;(b) the functions currently exercised by the European Chemicals Agency or shared with other member States that are not currently carried out by an equivalent UK body;(c) the compatibility of new chemicals regulations with achieving a high level of environmental protection;(d) the future validity of registrations of United Kingdom chemical companies in the EU; and(e) access to the REACH database.”
Lord Whitty
My Lords, in moving Amendment 115 I will also support Amendment 172, which is about the European Chemicals Agency. Noble Lords may have noticed that, although I normally speak to amendments as a Back-Bencher, I am also representing the Front Bench tonight. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, the Chief Whip, will recognise that this reduces the number of speeches by one—and possibly two if the Minister agrees with me.
Amendment 115 sets out in some detail a fallback position to deal with the important issue of the management of chemicals. Essentially, it is also a probing amendment in that it asks the Government to clarify their future relationship with REACH, the regime for registering, authorising and controlling the use of chemicals in industry and in everyday life. I note that, since we tabled this amendment, the Prime Minister is at least in part in support of its objective, in that she wishes to maintain some degree of UK participation in the European Chemicals Agency—which I applaud.
This is a very important area of protection for workers, consumers and the environment, and for ensuring that there is a level playing field in the trade in chemicals across Europe. It deals with more than 20,000 chemicals in an industry which, in British terms, exports 60% of its export produce to the EU, while 75% of our own imports are also from the EU. Having equivalent arrangements is therefore very important: for the industry and the trade; for the protection of people as workers, consumers and the general public; and for the environment and the associated ecosystems of air, water and soil.
The REACH system goes well beyond the point which the Prime Minister made in relation to the agency. It is a very complex interrelationship between regulating the way that companies operate and market, and the way in which products are handled, traded and transported. It is dependent on a lot of highly intricate, multiple interactions between UK actors and actors within the EU at various levels, and between the institutions of the EU. It is essentially based on a precautionary principle and is a backstop to prevent dangerous chemicals entering the UK. This is a further backstop, were no agreement to be reached along the lines which I hope the Prime Minister is moving towards—in other words, to maintain the present system. Clearly, maintaining the present system is the preferable option. It is one which the chemical industry itself and environmentalists are advocating, and which those who have to deal with the chemicals trade, its products and their incorporation within other products also strongly support.
The Government have been looking at various options and it is right that they should do so. We are given to understand that Michael Gove, or rather the Permanent Secretary of his department, has suggested that we should be paying £6 million at the moment to create the capability to enable registration on a UK basis. Amendment 115 attempts to move on from that and to ensure that we have a clear legislative basis for the UK to operate on, which would come as close as possible to maintaining engagement with the REACH process.
We would, however, much prefer it if the REACH process were incorporated in the UK and that we effectively continued in the status quo. If we do not do so, it will not only engage the Government in considerable expenditure but disadvantage UK industry. It will also potentially disadvantage the UK public, in that they will not have the same protections as they had within the EU because we will not have access to the complex database on which the REACH procedure is based.
Incidentally—but to many people quite importantly—it would also increase the number of testing arrangements that would have to be made within the UK, which would be expensive and complex, and would also, among other things, increase the number of animal tests. Therefore, the issue of animal suffering and opposition to animal testing would be duplicated between the EU and the UK.
Lord Fox (LD)
Just when noble Lords thought it could not get any better, they have double chemistry to look forward to. I shall speak to Amendment 115, which bears my name, and in support of Amendment 171. I 100% endorse the words of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, so I will try not to repeat them and earn the ire of the Government Chief Whip.
As the noble Lord set out, REACH is a very complex system and not just chemical companies are affected by it. All manner of manufacturing employs chemicals, and those chemicals currently fall under the REACH process. That REACH process came through the co-operation and participation of many of those companies. I know from experience that companies have put a lot of time and effort into committees working to create this system. I know very well that they do not want to have to repeat that process. Above all, maintaining REACH or something as parallel as possible is a priority in this process.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, mentioned that the Prime Minister seemed to endorse that process. When the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, was speaking to Amendment 66, I thought I heard him endorse continued involvement in REACH, and that was heartening. This amendment seeks to achieve some sense of how the Government feel that is going to happen and unfold. It is not straightforward. Once we have left the European Union, how does the system continue to remain in parallel, or do the Government intend that we remain at the heart of REACH? If so, how do they expect to negotiate that process? Is it through associate membership, full membership or some other way? We need to understand not just how we remain at the point of exit but how we remain on a continuing basis, because this is a living thing. As new chemicals come into use and the ways of using them change, so REACH changes. Even by staying close to REACH, if the United Kingdom does not have full access to all the data, it is going to come up against legal problems if it starts to try to rule on chemicals without all the data behind it.
There is one issue I am very interested in which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, did not mention. Recently, the Cabinet Office Minister David Lidington was talking about the possible necessity for Westminster to take back responsibility in previously devolved areas—this perhaps reflects on some of the debates we had earlier—in order to maintain,
“the integrity of the United Kingdom market”.
These are David Lidington’s words, not mine. In my words, he would be seeking to “undevolve” some issues. He took a specific example, saying that,
“if you’re a paint manufacturer in Wales you’ve got to stick to some chemical standards … but you want those to be the same as the paint standards in Scotland or Northern Ireland”.
He said it “makes sense” to have unity within a single market, by which he meant the United Kingdom. There is an element of irony in that. I was surprised by that, so perhaps the Minister can help us understand whether David Lidington was off piste on that occasion. It would be very helpful it the Minister could rule that out.
However, strangely enough, the point he was making about the need for a single set of rules within the United Kingdom is of course the whole point of REACH in the first place. The reason the REACH system was created is that manufacturing spans the whole of Europe. We need a chemicals management system that spans Europe, and we want to hear from the Government how that will happen.
Baroness Young of Old Scone
My Lords, I will speak briefly to support the amendments. As chief executive of the Environment Agency, I lived through the process of designing and delivering REACH, and it was a joy to work as closely as we did with British industry and industry across Europe in devising a system that was shared between government, regulators and business. It is a bit of an object lesson in how to go about it, and much admired globally. I welcome the Prime Minister’s expression of support, but would just take issue with one thing the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said. I do not think we should be aiming at a parallel system in any way—we should be a full and absolute member of the REACH process. It works, it is elegant and I hope we can get an assurance from the Minister tonight that we will move rapidly to find a way to give industry clarity about how the REACH process will operate post Brexit.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and, in his absence, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for their amendments concerning the very significant issue of chemicals regulation.
The Bill will incorporate current EU law into domestic law and allow it to be corrected in order to operate properly, giving consumers and businesses as much certainty as possible. This includes regulations relating to chemicals. The Bill will convert the REACH regulation into domestic law, meaning that the obligations on duty holders and the environmental standards and principles that underpin REACH will continue to apply in the UK, including in the devolved areas. These include the specific measures included in the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty.
We are working to ensure that we have a functioning chemicals regulatory and enforcement system in the UK for day one. For example, the Environment Secretary has given the go-ahead for the development of six new systems, including one for chemicals. Work has started on delivering the new IT system that will enable registrations and the regulation of chemical substances placed on the UK market. This will provide continuity for businesses after EU exit.
Let me be clear: our priorities are to maintain the effective and safe management of chemicals to safeguard human health and the environment, to respond to emerging risks and to allow trade with the EU that is as frictionless as possible. We have been engaging with a range of stakeholders to understand the detailed impacts of Brexit and are grateful for the pragmatic approach that the chemicals industry is taking to Brexit and for its positive approach to working with the Government to understand the impacts and deliver the best possible outcome for the industry after exit. We are committed to continuing this engagement throughout the process.
With regard to chemicals, REACH is underpinned—this is explicit in Article 1—by the precautionary principle. So, once REACH is translated into UK law through the withdrawal Bill, the precautionary principle will continue to exist directly in UK law in relation to REACH. The precautionary principle is also embedded in international conventions relevant to the regulation of chemicals, such as the Stockholm convention on persistent organic pollutants, and the UK is and will continue to be a signatory to the convention in its own right.
Further, our 25-year environment plan sets out our intention to publish a chemicals strategy that will set out our approach as we leave the EU. It will set out our priorities for action and detail how we will achieve our goals, building on existing regulatory approaches and tackling chemicals of national concern. The Government will discuss with the EU as part of the exit negotiations how best to continue co-operation on chemicals regulation in the interests of both the UK and the EU. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, acknowledged, in her Mansion House speech the Prime Minister said we want to explore with the EU the terms on which we could continue to co-operate with the European Chemicals Agency and participate in certain processes, the point that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, sought clarification on. As for the specifics, I think your Lordships will understand that I cannot go into more detail because this is the subject of live negotiation in the negotiation process.
Lord Fox
That is very clear, and I thank the Minister for what she has said so far. What is not clear to me is whether the overall idea is to avoid divergence from EU REACH. It does not sound as if the UK is inside REACH in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, pointed out; it sounds as if the aim is to run a parallel system. Have I misunderstood?
Baroness Goldie
I can only repeat the Prime Minister’s stated intention in her speech, and that is specifically to explore with the EU the terms on which we would continue to co-operate with ECHA and participate in certain processes. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that clearly, EU REACH is an EU organisation and to be a member of it you have to be an EU member state. After Brexit we shall not be that, but it is in the interests of the UK and certainly of industry that we work, in so far as we possibly can, in tandem with what is happening within the EU. That is certainly what the Government’s objective will be. The precise detail of that will be the subject of the negotiations.
The UK is strongly committed to the effective and safe management of chemicals and pesticides, and that will not change when we leave the EU. I hope this provides the noble Lords with sufficient reassurance that they will not pursue their amendments.
Lord Whitty
I thank the Minister for that reply, and I thank my noble friend Lady Young and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for supporting the amendments. I am afraid the Minister’s speech was not as forthcoming as I was hoping due to the way that I had been led, in my usual spirit of optimism, to interpret the Prime Minister’s speech. I am therefore going to have to say slightly more than I promised the Chief Whip.
It seems that the Minister is saying that we will be outside the REACH process but will develop our own parallel process and might, if we can negotiate it, still in some way be party to the agency. I had hoped that being party to the agency as part of the Prime Minister’s aim meant that she had been convinced by the industry and others that it would be sensible to be part of the process. The Minister’s reply today narrows that hope somewhat.
Lord Carrington of Fulham
“Market access for financial services
(1) Before exit day, a Minister of the Crown must lay before Parliament a report setting out how access to markets by persons carrying on business in financial services in the EU and the United Kingdom will be maintained after exit day.(2) The report must include—(a) the method of assessing the degree of alignment necessary between the regulatory provisions applying to persons carrying on business in financial services in the EU and the United Kingdom;(b) the arrangements to be made to enable continuing alignment between those provisions;(c) the process to be followed to provide continuing co-operation between the bodies responsible for supervising the application of those provisions;(d) the legal framework required to enable co-ordination of supervision of persons carrying on business in financial services by the bodies responsible for supervising those persons;(e) proposals for the establishment of a forum for regulatory alignment in respect of financial services in the EU and the United Kingdom.(3) The forum referred to in subsection (2)(e) is to exercise the following functions—(a) to encourage continuing alignment through information sharing and co-operation in the development of provisions applying to persons carrying on business in financial services;(b) to assess the extent of divergence between such provisions as they apply in the EU and the United Kingdom and to make recommendations in respect of it;(c) to promote co-operation in respect of the general principles applicable to supervision and enforcement.(4) In this section “business in financial services” means business which—(a) if carried on in the United Kingdom, is a regulated activity within the meaning of section 22 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000; or(b) if carried on in the EU, is an activity which, if it were carried on in the United Kingdom, would be an activity to which that section would apply.”
Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)
My Lords, I am conscious of the hour and shall try to be as brief as I can with what I am sorry to tell your Lordships is a rather technical proposed new clause. Therefore, what I have to say may be slightly tedious, but the new clause is intended to be helpful to the Government.
The new clause suggests a way in which the UK and the EU 27 working together—however improbable that may appear at times—could resolve some of the issues around the provision of financial services from the UK to the EU 27 and, perhaps as importantly, from the EU 27 into the UK. It is not a fully worked out scheme and could not be at this stage. To be capable of adoption, it would require agreement in the Brexit negotiations. It is, however, pretty much in line with the Prime Minister’s proposals in her speech at Mansion House on 2 March and the Chancellor’s in his speech on 7 March, so it might just be an acceptable way forward.
The importance of the financial services sector to the UK economy and the significance of the Brexit process to the sector are well understood by your Lordships. What is often called the City is not just London, with its leading position as a financial centre; it is important to the UK as a whole. Of the 2.2 million people who work in financial and related professional services in the UK, 1.5 million work outside London.
My new clause proposes a mechanism by which this very important sector might operate to best advantage in the UK and in the EU 27 after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. I would like to be able to claim that this proposal is all my own work but, in reality, it is based on work undertaken by the International Regulatory Strategy Group, a practitioner-led group drawn from across the UK-based financial services sector, co-sponsored by the City of London Corporation and TheCityUK.
The new clause is based on the principle of mutual market access rather than the EU’s third country equivalence regime. To quote the Chancellor in his speech last Wednesday,
“that regime would be wholly inadequate for the scale and complexity of UK-EU financial services trade”.
The basis of the proposed new clause is the requirement to produce a report on market access set out in subsection (1). Currently, cross-border access for firms is given by passporting, as it is known, under the single market directives. A supplier of financial services obtains authorisation in the form of a licence from the regulator in its home country and that will then allow it to operate in any other member state without needing to obtain a separate licence from the regulator in that state.
Inevitably, passporting will disappear when the UK leaves the EU. The proposed new clause requires a report to be produced detailing the arrangement which might take its place, to enable trade to continue without the need for local licensing. Essentially, the arrangement seeks to confer mutual market access between the EU 27 and the UK without local licensing based on the terms of a free trade agreement.
This is, admittedly, ambitious, but needs to be seen in the context of the current arrangement of complete alignment and passporting. If a licence-free arrangement cannot be fully agreed, the requirement for a licence for international trading should be applied only where strictly necessary. The overarching objective to allow this arrangement to work would be, to quote the Prime Minister’s Mansion House speech, based on,
“the ability to access each other’s markets, based on … maintaining the same regulatory outcomes over time”.
Proposed subsection (2) sets out what needs to be achieved to make this aspiration reality.
I should make it clear that these paragraphs do not require that the regulatory requirements are the same. Rather, the objective is to frame the criteria for mutual market access as being that the UK’s and EU 27’s requirements are sufficiently aligned to enable the desired regulatory outcomes to be achieved. Of course, the financial regulations in both the UK and the EU 27 will change over time—and at times, quite dramatically. Resolving this problem is covered in subsection (2)(e), which covers the need to set up a forum for regulatory alignment, a joint UK-EU 27 body whose functions are set out in subsection (3). This forum would have a big role in sorting out the problems arising from regulatory divergence. The joint UK-EU 27 forum would facilitate proactive and co-operative engagement between the UK and EU 27 to resolve the problems.
I could expand further on the detail and, of course, I have not attempted to cover in this proposed new clause the consequential issues, such as arbitration and enforcement mechanisms. That alone is a subject on its own and bears on the arrangements for the independent institutional structure which replaces the ECJ’s oversight. I hope, however, that what I have set out would provide a collaborative, objective framework that is reciprocal and mutually agreed, and could be relied on by business. Indeed, it may be a framework which could also be adapted to business sectors beyond financial services. I beg to move.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)
My Lords, my name is attached to the amendment but I will, indeed, be brief. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington of Fulham, said that he tabled the proposed new clause to be helpful to the Government. That may well be his motivation; it is not entirely mine. I attached my name to the amendment to bring severely needed clarity to a few of the really important aspects of financial services regulation and supervision that we need now, rather than waiting until the end of the transition period.
In doing so, I declare that I chair the EU Financial Affairs Sub-Committee. I am also a member of the EU Select Committee, though I speak in a personal capacity. My committee recently wrote a report on financial regulation and supervision. It came home to us, in a very stark fashion, how little of the architecture of financial regulation and supervision will be clear to enable firms and businesses to do the planning they need to do. This essentially touches on two or three areas. The first is the continuity of the legal position of contracts and the legal position that affects businesses in terms of laws passed during the transition period, when the UK would be in full regulatory alignment with EU law.
Another aspect of concern to us was the extent of supervisory co-operation between the EU and the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said he believes that the proposed new clause will reflect the views of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor in his recent HSBC speech. I agree that it will probably reflect those views, but I do not think it recognises that, in the European Commission’s draft negotiating guidelines or the European Parliament’s new paper, the idea of having provisions for financial services is dealt with either extremely skimpily or not at all. The amendment is perhaps somewhat optimistic, but nevertheless I want to hear from the Government; in that sense, my attachment of my name to the amendment is just to probe them.
Coming back to continuity of contracts, our inquiry was told by Stephen Jones from UK Finance that there were approximately,
“10,000 pages of EU originated financial services rules”.
The City of London Corporation told us that it sought, as a matter of urgency “clarity, stability and certainty”. I notice that the Chancellor raised those issues and said that he thought we could get that. However, the challenge of the technical detail of EU regulation has not been addressed by what the Government have told us as yet. One example of that is the Lamfalussy framework, which we looked at. We were told by the then Minister, Stephen Barclay—it is a sign of some concern that we do not get a Treasury Minister who deals with financial services in post long enough to have any continuity in the relationship; Mr Barclay is now gone and I think Mr Glen, who has other things going on at the moment with Salisbury and so on, has replaced him—that it would by a straightforward process. Levels 1 and 2 would be dealt with by primary legislation and levels 3 and 4 would be handed over to the regulators as part as the rulebook.
However, as we looked into this more closely, we did not think that it reflected what will happen in reality. I quote Simon Gleeson of Clifford Chance; he did not see even level 1 as straightforward. In our report, he said:
“When we translate that into UK law, if we simply copy Europe … we will be moving into our primary legislation stuff that properly belongs in regulators’ rulebooks … If we take a bunch of regulatory material that, almost by its nature, should be reasonably dynamic, and hard-bake it into statutory instruments, we are creating a monstrous procedural problem for ourselves in how we regulate the market”.
Inoperables are another issue. One of those is “in-flight” legislation, which I just referred to and is partly transposed—let us assume—during the transition period. However, much of EU financial services regulation takes four or five years to come into effect. Noble Lords may recall that MiFID II started in 2012 but came into effect only in January 2018. It seemed clear to us that we needed guidance and further direction on how the remaining parts of that in-flight legislation would come into EU law once we had actually left. My final example of that concerns the position of EU businesses in the UK. The Chancellor has said again that the Government will bring forward legislation to enable EEA firms and firms in the UK to obtain temporary permission, for a limited period. We need greater clarity on that.
It is a late hour so I will not labour this point, but there is a great deal of uncertainty on how the legal application of financial services regulations would work. On a recent visit to Brussels, the European Union Select Committee had the privilege of a discussion with Mr Barnier and Mr Verhofstadt. I notice that there is a great deal of emphasis in this clause on the IRSG’s proposals for a joint EU-UK alignment in respect of financial services that would take the form of a forum. I probed both of those people about the level of regulatory co-operation we could expect in the future, post withdrawal. We were not encouraged by their response, which was rather lukewarm. I do not think this proposal will get very far, but that does not mean that the Government can avoid setting out their intentions and how they envisage the strong regulatory alignment that they seek playing out in practice.
In his recent speech, the Chancellor acknowledged concerns about the legal framework for the regulation and supervision of financial services. The Commission’s draft guidelines on the withdrawal agreement foresee a large and continuing role for the European Court of Justice in adjudicating, in some cases for the whole of the foreseeable future. Although this may just be an opening shot in the negotiation, the defining of the EU positions makes it even more important that we force the Government’s rather reluctant hand, to make them spell out their thoughts on the conduct of business for financial services at the time of exit and beyond.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I listened with interest to the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Carrington of Fulham and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner. I accept that my noble friend is trying to be helpful to the Government, but for various reasons I nevertheless feel unable to fully support his amendment. I understand well that the amendment reflects the proposals put forward by the IRSG in its paper published last September, prepared in collaboration with Hogan Lovells. That report has been endorsed by TheCityUK and the City of London Corporation, which support IRSG.
The reasons why I cannot support the amendment are, first, that it is not appropriate or helpful to put into legislation, at this stage, the detail of any future regulatory collaboration with the EU, let alone on financial services. Secondly, the report which the amendment would require the Government to prepare, like other reports which other amendments discussed today have called for, would be quite onerous and time-consuming. Thirdly, it is not helpful for our negotiators if we argue against ourselves, and especially unhelpful to incorporate amendments into law which appear to accept that it is desirable, even necessary, to treat continuing alignment with EU regulations as being a greater priority than aligning our regulations with those of the SEC in the United States, the FSA in Japan, or other regulators in other countries with significant financial markets. Fourthly, the Government have already stated their intention to negotiate an implementation period following exit day when things would be largely the same, including, as I understand it, for the financial services sector. This amendment appears to assume that everything changes on exit day.
In his excellent recent speech at the Mansion House, the Chancellor referred to a framework to supervise,
“separate evolution of rules to deliver the same results”,
and to resolve disputes. I believe there is a danger that this would place too much pressure on UK regulators to continue to align completely the UK’s rule book with that of the EU 27. This would make it more difficult to agree any kind of mutual recognition of standards with other financial regulatory regimes around the world. For example, the City Corporation and Tokyo Metropolitan Government have recently entered into a memorandum of understanding to collaborate more closely on financial services, and this could be developed in future to include some kind of mutual regulatory recognition of standards.
Of course, the City will survive if there is not a deal which covers financial services. The EU regulators have forced upon us Solvency II, AIFMD and MiFID II, to name but three directives which have cost the City dear in terms of higher costs, fewer jobs and fewer revenues than would otherwise have been the case. We should not agree to align more closely to EU rules than to US rules, Japanese rules or the rules of any other major financial centre in the world. Once our regulators recover their independence from the EU regulators, their influence in shaping best practice rules at the global level will be enhanced, not diminished. Of course, while the inclusion of financial services in our FTA would be better than its exclusion, our negotiators need to be very aware of the significant upside for the City in recovering our regulatory independence.
The amendment, in proposed new subsection (2)(a), refers to the degree of alignment “necessary” between the regulatory provisions of the EU and UK. I submit that this is a rather subjective concept. What is important is that our regulators will establish the best regulatory regime for our markets, retaining the highest standards for which London is rightly held in high regard and participating fully in discussions with regulators of the other major financial markets, within IOSCO and other bodies, with a voice commensurate with the size and scope of our markets.
As my noble friend Lord Hill of Oareford said in his interesting speech at Second Reading, our withdrawal from the EU is allowing Europe already to move in directions that we have traditionally resisted, whether that is a financial transactions tax, more screening of overseas investment or more centralisation of supervision of financial services. As we now have to choose between effectively remaining in the single market and being free to make our own rules where we want to, we must surely place a greater priority on being able to shape our own future than on preserving the status quo.
Mark Hoban, chairman of IRSG, has proposed a forum for regulatory alignment, referred to by my noble friend, whereby the UK and the EU can work together to implement new global and international standards. That is fair enough, although I do not think it is in the City’s interests to do this with the EU exclusively. Furthermore, my noble friend’s amendment is silent on the proposed forum’s relevance to new global and international standards and relates only to a perceived need to maintain regulatory alignment with the EU alone. If I were a banker in the EU 27 or the finance director of a major EU 27 company wishing to raise money in the capital markets, I would certainly not want the EU to impede my access to the UK’s financial markets, but I have not yet heard of any proposed EU regulation or directive requiring the Commission to continue to align closely to UK regulations.
My noble friend’s amendment indicates a frame of mind which I believe casts us too much in the role of supplicant, where we do not need to be. Does the Minister recognise that the City would worry less about the downside and show more confidence in the upside of Brexit if the Government showed more leadership and enthusiasm for the City’s role as the leading international financial centre, unfettered by the EU’s cumbersome and somewhat dirigiste regulatory framework, while maintaining the high standards and proportionate regulations that provide the necessary protections and financial stability for investors and borrowers, but without burdening market participants with unnecessary costs or with measures that inhibit the innovation that has helped to make London the great success it is?
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, speaks a commonly held Brexiteer view. I take a very different view—that if we were to follow the course he just recommended, in 10 years’ time the UK would no longer be the premier centre for financial services in Europe, and certainly not for those generated within the EU, which is one of the largest economic and trading blocs in the world, and perhaps the most important as regards feeding financial services.
I understand the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, but I cannot support it because, as I think he would say, it is quite limited. Financial services depend not just on passporting: for the asset managers it is delegation, for the fintechs it is the e-commerce directive, and for the insurance and trading world it is the mutual recognition of contracts. There are so many complex features at so many different levels that create the ecosystem that has enabled London to thrive, essentially on the basis that it has sitting behind it the resource of a 28-country 510 million population who turn to it as their primary financial centre. However, the way in which the Government respond to Lord Carrington will be critical. It is a matter of timing.
The industry, as the Minister well knows, has been in some despair to try to persuade the Government that how they structure the relationship, should Brexit take place, is absolutely critical. The large companies in the industry have been going ahead with contingency planning that, so far, has been in a relatively preliminary phase. They have identified new real estate, taken out leases, and negotiated licences and other authorisations that they need to be able to expand either their field of business or to be able to expand business. However, almost every one of them has said, I think to many noble Lords in this House, that by the end of March—we are now talking about a matter of days—they will have to push the button on the next phase. That is the fitting out and purchasing of the very extensive and expensive equipment that has to go in, and the setting up of the recruitment process to staff out those new operations. From that there is no return. We therefore reach a point of no return for a significant portion of financial services which will be transferred to continental Europe with, frankly, no possibility of reversal, in a very brief period of time.
The industry has coalesced around the idea of mutual recognition as the one possible route. If we leave the single market—that is key; if we stay in the single market, it is not an issue, although the Government say that we will not—mutual recognition is the only possible route to limit the damage. It is nowhere near equivalent to the access that we have today, but it could perhaps be negotiated so that the damage is to some degree limited. Every major company I have talked to says that it does not understand how this new form of mutual recognition will work. It seems highly problematic. I have said in this House before that when the EU first began to bring together and create aspects of the single market in financial services, it began by using mutual recognition. However, it turned out to be completely inadequate to deal with the complexity of so many different kinds of issues, so much competition, so much size and so much depth.
So mutual recognition is seen not as a successful strategy but as the failed strategy for these arrangements that is now being revived in a new form. Because the industry is listening, it is important that we get from the Government something that provides some meat and bone on how this mutual recognition could function. If we do not hear that today, we will in many ways be accepting that we will not have any kind of significant arrangement around financial services, and the consequences for this country, which is essentially a service economy in which financial services are the most significant part and the largest exporter, will be highly significant. We need to understand today whether we are looking at something that is real and has the prospect of achieving success or whether we are simply tossing around an idea that has PR attractions but, frankly, offers no meaningful route to keeping access to the European market for our financial services industry.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, we are very grateful to my noble friend for raising a very important issue. I know that the hour is late but I declare my interests as a partner in the law firm DAC Beachcroft in the financial services industry and as chairman of the British Insurance Brokers’ Association, known as BIBA. In the light of those interests, it will come as no surprise to the Committee to know that I spend a great deal of time talking to insurers and brokers, and many of them share the anxieties that have prompted my noble friend and the noble Baroness to put forward this amendment.
I think that all those who have spoken have welcomed the speech made by the excellent Chancellor of the Exchequer, with his determination to ensure that financial services lie at the heart of any new free trade deal with the European Union post Brexit. However, as the noble Baroness has just pointed out, some of the larger insurers have already begun to make provision for Brexit by relocating elements of their activities out of the UK to ensure that they remain in the jurisdiction of the EU—although I am still finding a strong desire and commitment to continuing the remarkable success story of the insurance sector in the UK post Brexit.
I have no time at all but I urge the Minister to give us assurances that committed engagement and genuine consultation with those affected will take place in a timely, orderly and constructive fashion. Insurers and their customers will be looking for reassurances that their legitimate interests will be protected during any changes in policy that are made or even considered during the transposition process. Obviously there is much more to say, particularly about the role of regulators, as my noble friend Lord Trenchard mentioned, but these are very important issues and I hope that the Minister will respond in a very positive way.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I do not think that anyone who has read the excellent December 2016 report Brexit: Financial Services from our EU Committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, will be under any illusion about the challenge that Brexit poses to this economically crucial sector of our economy. This evening we have heard of the needs both of those in the financial sector and of those who depend on it, and we have heard of one possible way forward, but the most important point is that something is needed urgently.
The British Insurance Brokers’ Association, to which we have just heard reference, the Alternative Investment Management Association, the ABI and TheCityUK have all come to me, and I am sure to other Members of this House, to raise their concerns about Brexit and particularly the wider implications for the legal sector and the insolvency sector and what that means for investors as well as for the more traditional City firms. Along the lines outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, TheCityUK has called for a bespoke market access agreement based on mutual recognition, regulatory supervision and co-operation, with, as we have heard, particular emphasis on mutual recognition and the enforcement of judgments.
In long-term contracts, legal continuity and certainty are vital for business, as we have heard, but also for consumers, as the ABI has stressed. Retired British citizens in nice warm areas such as the south of Spain need to know whether their annuities and pensions from London-based providers will continue after March next year, and indeed after December 2020.
The AIMA wants to see regulatory frameworks that enable managers to deal with any type of fund vehicle or account, as they now do, as they manage the savings and investments of pension funds and insurance companies. The British Insurance Brokers’ Association—100,000 people are employed in that industry, and they arrange 70% of all general insurance—says that it is “critical” to reach a transition agreement quickly and, following that, a mutual free-trade agreement.
The one word that I want to leave the Minister with is “urgency”, because insurance renewals are already being issued for annual policies renewable on 30 March next year, a date that I know is uppermost in his mind. Any policies running after 30 March next year would result in uncertainty over the legitimacy of that part of the policy that is effective after we leave. So we need these brokers to be able to ensure that there are no interruptions in customers’ cover, and that extends to whether we can be insured when we travel and when we drive our cars abroad, and to travel insurance if the EHIC ends—these are real things that people rely on day by day.
As we know, the UK is the world’s largest exporter of financial services to the EU, which is where I have to disagree with the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. He thinks that there is great hope somewhere else, but actually, for us to earn money in the EU and maintain all the customers we serve there, we must first prioritise establishing that we can continue with what we do so well there. Shoring up that business certainty through a formal agreement on regulatory equivalence or something similar is becoming ever more urgent.
We first started debating this report in the House in December 2016. We are now in March 2018, and I fear we are no clearer in knowing what the Government are doing. I hope that at this late hour, not just of the clock but of the calendar in moving towards when we leave, the Government will be able to provide a little more assurance than they have done thus far.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I first thank my noble friend Lord Carrington for his amendment, which has enabled us to have this excellent short discussion. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, for her contribution. Of course, I know the report of her committee extremely well, as I was a member of the committee when it was produced and I participated in many of the discussions to which she referred, and which she very ably chaired. I thank my noble friend Lord Trenchard for his comments. He made some excellent points and pointed out the global nature of many of the financial services regulations that we are talking about.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made some good points about the insurance industry. I can assure him that we will continue the work that we are doing in consultation and discussions with the industry as we take the negotiations forward.
However, although I thanked the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his amendment, I am afraid that we cannot accept it for reasons that I will explain. It would not be practical given that the negotiations on the UK’s future relationship and the eventual arrangements for market access in financial services post Brexit have yet to begin. It will be important that in entering negotiations the UK retains a degree of flexibility as to what the precise arrangements for market access for financial services firms may be. It is imperative that both sides come to the negotiating table with a constructive mind set. That was the essence of the Chancellor’s contribution last week. Agreeing now to set out a report according to the specific and detailed criteria set out in the proposed new clause would prejudge a great deal of the substance that has yet to be discussed by both ourselves and the EU.
I emphasise that the Government share the aims of the noble Lord’s amendment. We are seeking an ambitious relationship that takes account of the fact that the UK and the EU start from a position of total alignment, with unprecedented experience in working with one another’s regulators and institutions. As the Chancellor outlined last week, the UK is a global financial services hub—an engine that powers the real economy and the UK—and it is a real asset for Europe too.
In his speech—this refers to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer—the Chancellor set out three key elements for a possible approach to a future partnership: a binding dialogue for establishing regulatory requirements for cross-border trade; supervisory co-operation arrangements that are reciprocal, reliable and prioritise financial stability; and an independent arbitration mechanism that has the confidence of both parties to provide durable dispute resolution. We hope that we would agree that the UK cannot be a rule taker in financial services but, by working together as the Government have proposed, the UK and the EU can preserve market access and strengthen stability and prosperity in the UK as well as the rest of Europe.
Underpinning this is our commitment to upholding the robust standards which are, as the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, pointed out, often based on international standards that we have developed since the financial crisis. These aims have consistently been emphasised in government messaging—more recently by the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and by the Chancellor. These align with what we have been hearing from the financial services sector in terms of a desirable end state deal. However, the details have to be worked through via the negotiations and the process will require imagination on both sides. This proposed new clause would set out a prescriptive template for the Government to follow. Negotiations are by their nature fluid and we cannot agree to provide a report based on a set of potential end state arrangements, which are predefined and outlined specifically here, that prejudges the outcome of negotiations before those talks have even started.
These issues are extremely important and I hope that the Government’s conduct in negotiations, as well as the clear public stance of Ministers on the significance of financial services to our future relationship, will help to provide reassurance over our commitment to securing agreement on these issues. Once the negotiations conclude, the Government will need to make clear the substance of what has been agreed. This is particularly so in order to enable the industry to understand the provisions for market access and how they sit within the UK’s agreed relationship with the EU on financial services going forward. We will of course, as always, be happy to update Parliament when the appropriate time comes. However, in light of the need to preserve UK flexibility in the negotiations, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carrington of Fulham
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. We have had an interesting short debate which has highlighted some of the problems which the City of London is going to face. I will pick up on one point. I rather agree with my noble friend Lord Trenchard that the City will survive whatever happens and that there are workarounds for most of the problems that the City will face when operating inside Europe. What we are actually talking about is how to make those problems less difficult to resolve rather than attempting to find a solution to an intractable problem.
Having said that, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his comments. He understands fully the issues that the City will face and I look forward to him having successful negotiations with the EU Commission. If its representatives have any sense at all, they will accept that they have as much to gain from a successful result to these negotiations as does the UK. On that note, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
Before we dispense with the amendment I have a brief question for the Minister. If I have understood him correctly, he has just said that when the negotiations are complete, the Government would set out and clarify their position. Can he tell me what he means by “when the negotiations are complete”? Is he talking about the negotiations on the withdrawal agreement—in other words, by the end of this year—or the agreement on the FTA, in which case we will not know the parameters of the Government’s thinking until very much later when we are into the transition agreement itself? There I would have to agree with my noble friend Lady Kramer that essentially, businesses will have made up their mind and taken the necessary actions, not least because the regulators require them to carry out their contingency planning.
Lord Callanan
I think I mean both. We will update the House on the position at the end of the negotiations on the withdrawal agreement, on the agreement on the future FTA, and if I can add a third criterion to that, of course on the negotiations for the implementation period, for which we hope to be able to provide an update in the very near future. All those factors are important in the provision of financial services. If we get the implementation period agreed in the near future, which we hope and expect, that will provide a slightly longer period for businesses to establish the appropriate stability, but it is hoped that as we get to the end of the year we will have the withdrawal agreement. We expect that to provide the details of the framework for future co-operation. I will be very happy to update noble Lords at all of these stages.
Lord Collins of Highbury
(1A) Within one month of the passing of this Act, a Minister of the Crown must publish an assessment of each of the international treaties, agreements and obligations that will require amendment or renegotiation as a result of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU. (1B) The report required under subsection (1A) must include an assessment of how the powers under this section may need to be used.(1C) A Minister of the Crown must lay the report under subsection (1A) before both Houses of Parliament.”
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the Chief Whip for ensuring that so many noble Lords are in their places to hear my contribution. At one point I was slightly anxious that I would be speaking to an empty Chamber, so it cheers me up to see so many noble Lords here at this time. I am not worried about my own side; it is noble Lords opposite whom I want to hear and understand the issues.
I was going to say that I will be very brief, but I will not do so because I need to apologise for not speaking at Second Reading. However, this is not the first Brexit Bill. The Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill, which has passed through this House and is now in its Commons Committee stage, was the first, and it was that Bill which prompted me to consider this amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. What we have heard in previous groups is that we are potentially seeing, rather than enhanced parliamentary sovereignty, what appears to be the biggest Executive power grab since the days of Henry VIII. That is why so many noble Lords are very concerned about the powers suggested to deal with the difficulties that Brexit will bring about.
The sanctions Bill was very important because most of its powers related to the 1972 Act. It was important that we ensured that we had a domestic legal framework in place to meet very important international obligations, particularly as a member of the United Nations. We made a number of improvements to that Bill, which are being considered by the other place. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, described the sanctions Bill as a “bonanza of regulations”. While acknowledging that some of this was justifiable—I acknowledge that even in this Bill the regulations are required—it places on us an important obligation to ensure that there are sufficient safeguards and adequate parliamentary scrutiny to make the delegated powers constitutionally acceptable.
That is why I have tabled this amendment to Clause 8, which gives Ministers extensive delegated powers to introduce regulations that they consider appropriate to prevent, remedy or mitigate any breach of the UK’s international obligations as a result of Brexit. But that power is not restricted to modifying retained EU law, as it would not require Ministers to demonstrate why any changes are necessary. This is the important element of my amendment: while we heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that his amendments deal directly with delegated powers, mine focuses on the need for increased transparency on treaties and international obligations that may require changing post Brexit. When using such powers, Ministers should proceed with the fullest parliamentary scrutiny. We must be able to do our job effectively, and with proper transparency on the Government’s part we can ensure that this can be done.
I hope the Minister will not offer up the suggestion that the requirements and measures I am proposing will somehow be a barrier to negotiations. Of course they will not. They are about helping us do our job of scrutinising. They do not affect the negotiations; they affect how we do our job in our House.
In his group of amendments, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, mentioned the risks of some of these powers being used. I recall in the sanctions Bill my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer saying that we would have to be extremely careful because, whatever Ministers tell us now, in either the Commons or the Lords, ultimately the Executive always reach for the Act of Parliament and see what that Act of Parliament allows—what is on the face of the Bill. That is why this added element of transparency will ensure that, in the future, we can do the job of scrutiny well and properly. I beg to move.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, Amendment 138 is in my name. I will concentrate simply on the international treaties and agreements that relate to transport as an illustration of the complexity of the situation that we face. We are party to many hundreds of agreements as members of the EU that we will have to renegotiate as part of leaving the EU. There are other agreements that we will have to join because we cannot rely on EU arrangements.
To illustrate the complexity of the situation, in the field of transport it is estimated that the UK will have to renegotiate and replace 65 international transport agreements following Brexit. The Government’s preparedness for this is perhaps rather doubtful—the signs are not good so far. I give as an illustration the last-minute appearance of the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill, which was not in the Queen’s Speech as an EU Bill, which was sprung on us at very short notice and which is being rushed through with great speed because the Government have discovered that, in future, we will have to rely on the 1968 Vienna convention to transport goods abroad and to take trailers abroad. We will have to rely also on the 1949 Geneva convention to get international driving permits.
We are going back a very long time in history, so it is not surprising that it took the Government a while to wake up to this situation. As a result of the rush in which we are having to deal with this issue—we signed the Vienna convention but never ratified it; we have to give a year’s notice of ratification and are running out of time to do that—we are faced with a Bill which is not so much skeletal as almost a ghost. It is so insubstantial that it fades in front of our eyes. There is perhaps a slight chill surrounding it as well, because the Government give no indication of what they want to do with powers which they admit they would rather not have to seek—and all of this is in preparation for the possibility of a no deal Brexit.
This is no way to make legislation. However well prepared the Government are, there will be dozens of agreements to reconsider. I have raised in this House many times the issue of the single European sky, which was mentioned earlier this evening. It is not just an EU issue; it is crucial to our arrangements with the US as well. Transport-related agreements are only one corner of the problem and are simply an illustration of the complexity that the Government face.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, it is quite important that the number of occasions on which this power will be used will be considerably lower than the number of adjustments for EU law. Therefore, it would probably be easier to make adjustments to what is required in the way of precautions when these powers are exercised than is the case with the huge number required in the other field. One thing I feel strongly about is that we want to find a way of doing it that is practical in the time and with the number of these other regulations that require to be put in place. This one is easier from that point of view, which perhaps makes it more suitable for the Government to consider further precautions.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for their amendments, which are effectively seeking transparency. The Department for Exiting the European Union is leading cross-government work, including with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office treaty section, to assess and act on the international agreements for which, as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, there will need to be arrangements to ensure continuity for business and individuals. Alongside this, we are also working with our international partners—the EU 27, the Commission and third countries—to identify the full range of agreements which may be impacted by our exit from the EU, and we will be taking their views into account.
I might observe to your Lordships that it is not common practice to publish assessments on treaties that have expired, ended or been superseded. However, I assure noble Lords that any treaties which require new or amended implementing legislation and/or parliamentary scrutiny before ratification will go through the appropriate well-established procedures. Where the powers in subsection (1) are used, these will be subject to the scrutiny procedures set out in this Bill. To set all this in context, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern rightly identified that the instances where these provisions may be used are not likely to be plentiful. As I have explained, given that the Government’s approach to international agreements is to achieve continuity, I believe this renders unnecessary the impact assessment that the amendment would require.
I can confirm that we will, of course, continue publishing impact assessments to accompany legislation, in line with existing practice. I take this opportunity to remind the Committee of the Government’s overarching policy approach to international agreements after we leave the EU. As set out in the technical note recently published on this issue, we are seeking to ensure that our existing international agreements continue to apply to the UK during the proposed time-limited implementation period. Our officials are working with the Commission on the precise mechanics of this. The focus, both during the implementation period and beyond, is on seeking, wherever possible, to continue our current arrangements with third countries and international organisations. We recognise the need to promote stability for businesses and individuals and we will aim to transition agreements as seamlessly as possible to ensure an orderly withdrawal.
I hope that that background and this explanation provide the necessary clarity and with this insight, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Collins of Highbury
I thank the Minister for that explanation, but I fear that we will need to return to this issue. The noble and learned Lord may be right that there is limited scope, although I think we have heard in the debate that there are lots of examples. There are lots of conventions and agreements that, since our membership of the EU, we have had exemptions from because we are complying with EU law. But when we are outside the EU, we will find that we will need to ensure that we have the mechanism, so that those agreements and conventions are properly implemented. That is the issue.
Regarding the process we are going through on the Bill, at the end of the day—I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, says—I do not really think that the people of this country understand exactly what will be required to ensure that Brexit is effective, or the sorts of agreements and international conventions that might affect them. I hope that the issue of transparency will be one not just of implementation but of ensuring that we all know and understand better the full implications of the decision that has been made. But in the light of the comments made, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Andrews)
I cannot call Amendment 125, as it is an amendment to Amendment 124.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I cannot call Amendment 131, as it is an amendment to Amendment 130.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 14th March 2018
(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 79-VII(b) Amendments for Committee, supplementary to the seventh marshalled list (PDF, 67KB) - (14 Mar 2018)
Lord Monks
(a) approval by both Houses of Parliament of a mandate for negotiations about the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the EU; and(b) ”
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 142 is very ambitious and I am grateful to my co-signatories for their support. It is designed to assert the role of Parliament in the approach that the UK Government adopt to the future relationship of the UK with the EU. At the moment, where does Parliament stand on this vital future relationship? It has won the very welcome right to have a meaningful vote on any final deal that emerges from the talks, but it is conspicuously silent on the approach that the Government are taking to the talks on our future relationship. The amendment—noble Lords will see why I term it “ambitious”—is designed to claim the right of Parliament to have a meaningful vote as soon as possible on that approach, and, in effect, to give a mandate to the UK’s negotiators on the lines to follow.
Critics may justly say, “You’re a bit late; the talks are already starting”. Indeed, it is true that we are a bit late in addressing this question. But it was only 10 days ago that the Prime Minister gave her Mansion House speech, and only a couple of weeks since the Cabinet meeting at Chequers that managed to patch up at least some elements of a common position to take to the talks—and, I would guess more importantly, managed to pacify different wings of the Conservative Party. Many of us consider the position adopted to be unrealistic, wishful thinking and a pick and choose à la carte menu of what we like and what we reject. I fear that it is a fantasy to think that it will get anything other than short shrift in the forthcoming talks.
Other critics of this proposal might say that for Parliament to establish a mandate is unconstitutional, and might quote the convention that the Government cannot be instructed in how to conduct themselves when they are involved in international negotiations. But in fact it would not be unprecedented in recent times, because Parliament stepped in and intervened powerfully on certain occasions in recent years. In 2003 the Government sought a mandate for military intervention in Iraq, and more recently Parliament refused to sanction military action in Syria.
The decision on our future relationship with the EU is just as momentous as a declaration of war. So, to coin a phrase, it is time to take back control. “Take back control” was a powerful slogan in the referendum campaign. It should be equally powerful in this House and the other place now. Our future relationship with the EU is too important for us in Parliament, especially those in the other place, to play the part of spectator: too important for jobs, too important for prosperity, too important for peace, too important in relation to the Irish border question, too important for our future dealings with Russia—an issue that is very much in the headlines and on the front pages today.
As an aside, the importance of a close relationship with the EU is underlined by the present rupture with Russia. If economic sanctions are to be ramped up, it would be necessary for the EU to be involved because the EU is by far Russia’s biggest trading partner—as, of course, it is ours. The uncertain response so far of the United States to the Salisbury outrage contrasts with the solidarity from the EU and underlines the need for us to maintain a close and warm relationship with it.
Frankly, I do not know where a meaningful vote in Parliament on a mandate would lead. The position of the Front Benches would no doubt be key, as it was in the vote on triggering Article 50. It is possible that a vote could endorse the Government’s position, as set out by the Prime Minister in the Mansion House speech: ruling out membership of the single market, the customs union and any role for the European Court of Justice. That could happen—or a meaningful vote could perhaps lead to an insistence on a clean, sharp break and a switch to trade on WTO grounds. Or it could, as I would certainly prefer, aim for the UK to stay in the European Economic Area, perhaps via membership of a strengthened EFTA, thus retaining membership of the single market and the customs union. That would make us more than just a mere rule-taker. It is not an ideal position, but I believe it to be the best of the options available.
Additionally, I would favour using our existing powers—as, for example, do Belgium and Germany—to exert more control on migration. I also draw the attention of the Committee to new proposals from Brussels to ensure that the terms of employment of migrant posted workers do not undercut those of resident workers. We could have done with that three years ago.
Whatever the outcome of a meaningful vote on a mandate, Parliament would have spoken on the future relationship and not left these crucial matters solely in the fumbling hands of the Cabinet. After such a vote, it would be incumbent on all of us to get behind the decision, for better or for worse, and to make it work for both the UK and the EU. My message to this House and the other place is: assert yourselves. Do your democratic duty. Uphold the sovereignty of this Parliament before it is too late to do so.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Monks. I support the fundamental aim of Amendment 142 that Parliament should be empowered to determine the mandate for the Government to follow in the talks about the UK’s future relations with the EU.
Amendment 144 seeks to place a requirement on HMG to secure mutual recognition of professional qualifications. The Government have agreed to seek to protect the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK nationals in the EU under the withdrawal agreement. This includes the continued recognition of professional qualifications. However, the withdrawal agreement is a draft agreement and still needs to be agreed with the EU 27 and then negotiated with the UK. The final withdrawal deal will make reference to the framework for our future relationship with the EU, which is why it is important that mutual recognition of professional qualifications, which I will refer to as MRPQ, is included. The amendment is about bringing more certainty to British and EU citizens, to businesses and to services about how they can operate in future.
I should like to outline why MRPQ is important to a range of professions and what the consequences would be for those professions if we did not have an agreement in place. The professional business sector generates a huge amount of wealth and jobs for both the UK and the EU, and the current system of mutual recognition of professional qualifications within the sector allows for a great deal of flexibility and freedom. For example, an architect who studied and qualified in France can work on a project in Rome and then establish his own practice in Birmingham. Lawyers who qualified in the UK can move between the UK and Belgium, providing advice to clients in Brussels on both English corporate and finance law and EU competition law, and there is no need for these individuals to prove that their qualifications meet local standards. UK auditors can take part in audits in other member states, although they cannot sign off an audit report in that state unless they have taken an additional aptitude test.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Monks in his excellent introduction and other noble Lords with amendments in this group, which contains Amendment 145 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Judd.
My amendment requires Her Majesty’s Government, in partnership with Parliament, as my noble friend Lord Monks would put it, to seek ongoing reciprocal arrangements in the field of consumer law. The consequence of this not happening would be consumer chaos in this country. It is a modest request, in the context that UK consumers are key to the prosperity of our country and integral to the economy. As we know, every month consumers spend £100 billion in the UK, and in doing so support UK businesses, manufacturers and employees. It is therefore vital that this Bill protects the rights of consumers into the future.
The Bill as it stands reveals the gaps left by the Charter of Fundamental Rights not being part of domestic law on or after exit day. One important gaping gap relates to Article 38 of the charter: the right to a high level of consumer protection. In the launch of its consumer charter for Brexit, which I attended this morning, the leading consumer body Which? called on government to maintain and enhance Britain’s vital consumer rights and standards, stating that those rights should be at the heart of the Brexit negotiations—negotiations of which, as my noble friend Lord Monks has said, we as a Parliament are at present spectators. We must ensure that Parliament is no longer a bystander.
Government reassurance is long overdue when it comes to consumer concerns about the uncertainty, risk and disruption of the Brexit process and the sheer lack of information coming out on areas such as food safety, energy bills, travel rights, the validation of aeroplane safety—as the representative from ABTA reminded us at the Which? launch this morning—and roaming charges. How will the Minister go about responding to those consumer concerns? What is his response to the list of consumer priorities that were set out this morning, such as the need to maintain the UK’s world-leading consumer rights framework? The consumer framework in this country is very much based on local government and on trading standards—and I am very proud to be a vice-president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute. The lack of resources to local government questions the Government’s insistence that, post Brexit, they will lead a race to the top in consumer rights in this country, given that the consumer framework is so heavily based on a local government framework.
Ensuring that we maintain and incentivise food quality and safety standards is another priority, as is maintaining the supply of affordable energy. Monitoring and maintaining access to the EU’s common aviation area to protect flight choice and suppress travel costs are also priorities. Further priorities include ensuring that reciprocal rights are maintained, such as in the field of healthcare and the European Health Insurance Card, which is used by nearly 250,000 UK citizens every year; and protecting mobile roaming in Europe. All these are urgent priorities for UK consumers which I do not believe the Government have really focused on and addressed so far.
What strategy have the Government in place to maintain reciprocal rights for consumers? If the Government are unable to secure a deal, for instance on aviation post Brexit, what will happen to all those passengers who are already booking holidays beyond 29 March 2019? What happens to their rights to holiday refunds or to compensation? What Government messages have been communicated to people about travel uncertainty beyond Brexit? Both Lufthansa and Ryanair have recently warned that UK holidaymakers could face flight disruption as a result of Brexit.
Surely it should not be left to individual travel companies, who themselves are unclear as to what a post-Brexit scenario will look like and who, not unnaturally, are looking themselves to their own interests in these uncertain times. For instance, according to Which? this morning, Thomas Cook has changed its terms and conditions to state explicitly that it will not provide compensation and will also not reimburse expenses or cover losses if it has to change bookings, which could occur in the event of airspace closures. Thomas Cook’s Brexit clause places airspace closure—
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
Is the noble Baroness aware that we are in this situation, which I agree is a serious one, because the European Union has declined to discuss any of these issues until there is an actual treaty dealing with the rights of EU citizens in the UK? That is the reason that none of this has been touched—and I agree that it is a very serious matter for many people.
Baroness Crawley
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. We have said from the start that UK citizens’ rights and the rights of EU citizens in our own country should never have been used as a bargaining chip. We have said right from the start, particularly on these Benches, that that should have been sorted out even before negotiations began.
As I was saying, the Thomas Cook Brexit clause places airspace closure as a potential scenario alongside natural disasters. We know how they feel. The Chartered Trading Standards Institute welcomes the Government’s aim in the Bill to transfer all directly applicable EU law to ensure that there are no fewer protections on the day we leave the EU. However, it remains concerned that regulations and networks that require reciprocal action and co-operation from remaining EU states, as my noble friend Lord Brooke said, will not be easy to retain unilaterally. It offered the examples of the RAPEX system for EU product safety risks, the online dispute resolution platform and the consumer protection co-operation regulation that allows for cross-border enforcement of rogue trader practices.
Divergence from the current system of rules, regulations and protections offered by the EU single market inevitably brings uncertainty and costs to businesses and consumers. The Prime Minister said as much last week. UK consumers need to be at the heart of these ongoing negotiations and need certainty that their protections will not be diminished, that rogue trading practices emanating from within the EU will be tackled and that they can enforce their rights in cross-border transactions. What is the Government’s strategy for consumers post Brexit and will the Government accept that these amendments bring greater clarity and safety to consumers?
Finally, what is plan B if consumers are not able to see beyond next week’s transition agreement? One of the issues that came up again and again with consumer bodies that came to speak to us was what happens if next week we do not get a transition agreement. Many of them are already making plans. Many of them have made their plans. They need a plan B. What plans are there for collaboration post Brexit to ensure that standards of outcomes for consumers will be there when UK and EU law diverge?
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 146 is an amendment to the one just moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monks, which I support. I speak on behalf of and will use the words of my noble friend Lord Puttnam, who cannot be here today as he is suffering from flu. I am sure your Lordships will want to send him good wishes for a speedy recovery.
I know that my noble friend is very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, and my noble friend Lord Judd for signing his amendment, and I look forward to their speeches.
Our creative industries have emerged as one of UK plc’s great success stories of recent decades. According to the latest figures, the UK’s creative industries represented nearly 4% of the UK’s gross value added in 1997. In the past 10 years this has increased by a massive 44.8% to the point where they now contribute £91.8 billion to the UK economy. But, just as importantly, the creative industries have become one of the instruments of soft power through which the UK has helped to shape ideas and thinking across Europe and the world.
Many of the policies developed by the EU, and warmly supported by the UK, have helped to grow our creative industries. I will leave it to others to talk about intellectual property, which is the basis of the creative sector, but I will give one example from the EU framework. It allows UK designers to register their designs and trademarks once in a single application that covers the entire EU and, like the recently established Unified Patent Court, provides an effective and efficient way of defending their IP.
Our creative industries cover a fairly wide range of subsectors, so let us take the example of cross-border broadcasters based in this country. The UK is Europe’s leading international hub for global media groups. It is home to more television channels than any other EU country. According to the Commercial Broadcasters Association, around 1,400 channels are based here, representing more than a third of all EU broadcasting. Over half the channels licensed in the UK broadcast direct to overseas countries. These channels employ thousands of people in this country and one in 10 jobs in the television sector is related, wholly or in part, to the presence of channels that broadcast outwith the UK.
They currently invest more than £1 billion a year in wages, overheads and technology, helping to ensure that the UK broadcasting sector has the critical mass to compete on the global stage. But the reason this works as well as it does—and it does work well—is that when the UK regulator Ofcom grants a company based in the UK a broadcasting licence, that licence, under EU law, has to be recognised by every other EU member state without further checks or review.
So, what happens when we leave? Unless we can reach a reciprocal agreement with the EU, this privileged position will be lost forever, along with the investment and jobs that go with it. It is not just the jobs at the broadcasters themselves—we should think of the value chain and the production hubs that have sprung up around them, helping to make the UK the leading centre for the audio-visual industry in Europe and, by a country mile, the most significant outside the US.
The scenario I describe and the economic minefield it represents are not a far-off prospect. There is a clear and present danger. Last week, as reported in the press today, a group of senior officials from Ireland’s audio-visual regulator was in London, pitching to the major broadcasters the advantages of moving to Dublin. Two weeks from now the President of Estonia, together with her Minister of Culture, will be in London on a similar mission. Others, from Holland, Luxembourg and elsewhere are planning to follow. Without some form of reciprocal agreement with the remaining EU member states, our creative and cultural sectors will undoubtedly suffer irreversible economic and cultural damage.
There is more. Research undertaken by Oxera for the British Film Institute indicates that the proposed diminution of freedom of movement will erode our available pool of talent. This could lead to a decrease of 5% to 6% in the volume of screen sector content made in the UK, along with the loss of some 5,000 jobs. The same research shows that the no deal scenario, under which we fall back on WTO rules, would lead to 14,000 job losses.
However, the freedom of movement challenge is even greater than that. Let us reflect for a moment on the difficulties that orchestras, rock bands, actors and every kind of creative person, whether from the UK or the EU, may have in crossing borders after we become a third country. Then add in the issue of moving equipment between two very different jurisdictions. Lorries queueing at Dover, Harwich and Holyhead will be stuffed not just with food and electrical goods but with musical instruments, sophisticated camera equipment and the physical goods that even in this digital age enable people across the UK and Europe to enjoy the very best of our common European culture.
We do not want to return to the era of the carnet, when an enormous amount of paperwork was required simply to move a film camera from London to Paris or Rome. Unless we can wrap a reciprocal agreement around our creative industries, we risk returning to those dark days of zero growth, little confidence and minimal opportunity.
The people who will suffer as a consequence are not just those who work in the creative industries; audiences across the UK will no longer be able to enjoy to anything like the same extent performances by orchestras, theatre companies, dancers, musicians and poets from across Europe. They will not be able freely to access the fruits of a common European culture—a culture that every person in this country under the age of 40 has taken entirely for granted.
The case for remaining in the EU is economic, but it is also cultural and historical. More than 50 years of peace, prosperity and culture exist and must not be forgotten. This is why we need to secure an agreement with the EU that underpins the future of our cultural industries, to the benefit of both our citizens and our economy.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to announce that this is the last speech I shall make in Committee on the Bill.
Lord Rooker
Well, when tempers got a bit frayed on Monday evening, I thought, “Well, I’ll make the next one my last one, so I don’t upset anybody even more”. It is my fourth but it will be my longest. I also support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Monks.
I cannot understand why—as one of my noble friends asked on Monday—after the December agreements the UK Government did not do exactly what the EU did and set out a legal document. It looked as though it was the EU’s job to do that but, when you read about it, you found out that it was not. The EU took the view that it would put that agreement into a legal form; we could have done exactly the same but we chose not to. In some ways, to put it at its crudest, I would rather have Monsieur Barnier looking after my interests than the amateurs representing the UK at the present time. It is a really serious issue that we have come to.
I want to raise food standards and have a couple of questions. First, will the UK remain a member of RASFF, the rapid alert system for food and feed? Its members are the Commission, the European Food Safety Authority and the EEA only. There is a legal basis for it; it started only in the late 1970s; it did not exist before we joined the EU and it has been evolving since then. It is a 24/7 system for exchanging information on serious risks detected in food and feed. It is a very simple system with clearly identifiable points.
The latest report on RASFF is from 2016. There were 2,993 notices issued—eight a day—all across Europe to the ports and authorities dealing with these issues. The system keeps people safe and it is run by the EU. You cannot be half in and half out of getting the notifications, or issuing your own.
When I was in government I discovered, much to my surprise, that only two departments run a 24/7 system: one is the Ministry of Defence, for obvious reasons, and the other is Defra. I would like to think that that is still the case, because they are the only two. Part of the reason is these notifications and other issues relating to food.
Research done by the Food Standards Agency for the balance of competences review when I was there back in 2013-14 showed that many people did not feel protected, but the thing that really stuck out when I was re-reading the research report the other day was that 80% of people in the UK did not know that the EU was responsible for the majority of food and feed laws in the UK. Part of the reason for that, of course, is politicians in Brussels masquerading as lying journalists telling falsehoods about the EU over three or four decades—so it was never really understand who was responsible for what.
The UK is a big player in the RASFF system. We are in the top 10 of notifying countries. In 2016 we notified on 79 occasions regarding salmonella and aflatoxins. The countries of origin that are reported most on the system are Turkey, Spain, Iran, China, the United States, India and Egypt, on matters relating to fruit and vegetables, nuts, herbs and spices, and fish and fish products. It is a 24/7 rapid-alert system for what is discovered at ports of entry and in manufacturing.
What are we talking about in terms of food law and what the EU does? I will go through the list. First are the general principles of food law, including traceability and incident reporting; the principle of control on farm to fork; and the establishment of the European Food Safety Authority. Then there are hygiene rules from the farm to the point of sale; official feed controls; and checking out abattoirs each time they are working, 24 hours a day—if there is no vet there, they cannot open. There are massive issues relating to feed safety. I spoke briefly about it the other night, so I will not repeat what I said then. One-third of the land that we use is growing feed; 85% of EU compound feed is now GM or GM-derived material; two-thirds of feed is produced by farmers; there are 4,000 feed mills in the EU; 500 million tonnes are needed each year; and there are serious issues with dioxins and PCBs. Feed safety is crucial. The animals cannot read the labels. We have to do it for them. We have to check this because the reality is that that feed becomes our food. We have to make sure that pathogens and other problems are not passed on through that food chain into the human one.
There are regulations on hygiene practices. On treatment of contaminants in food, there is an EU-wide framework for maximum levels of certain contaminants to protect public health. Food additives are controlled on an EU basis, as are flavourings. If you visit the ports of entry for food, as I did both as a Minister at Defra and with the FSA, you will find bonded warehouses of things that have been put on one side. Something might look like the product, will be labelled as it, might even smell like it, but it damn well is not the product. The crooked chemists have been to work to try to put filth through the system to cut corners and costs. These are massive issues that we need protection from. Flavourings are an area where corners can be cut. Smoke flavouring, food enzymes and extraction solvents used in the production process are controlled throughout.
Another key EU food standards issue is food contact materials. We cannot put food in any old pack. It might look like a cardboard box, but it has to be one that does not contaminate the food with whatever is in the cardboard, paper or printing. Because of trade issues, it is absolutely fundamental that these matters are dealt with on an EU-wide basis and contact materials are crucial. There are regulations about ionising radiation. I will not frighten people, but we do eat irradiated food, such as herbs, though this is not an issue. Novel food regulations relate to food production and foods that have never been used in the EU before. When someone invents a new product or process, it has to go through these regulations. This is crucial because it was not done across the EU before. GM comes under that heading, but so do other products. On quick-frozen foodstuffs for human consumption, rules are laid down for the speed of freezing, the packaging, labelling and inspection. These are fundamental to protecting trade and people. There are general rules on food labelling. One might want to complain about labels, but they are much more accepted and accurate than they ever were. I can find faults with them, but they work across Europe.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, since this is my noble friend’s last speech in Committee on the Bill and as we are so distressed at the thought of not getting his further advice on our procedures, has he detected any advantage whatever, on any substantial issue relating to food protection or standards, from us leaving the European Union?
Lord Rooker
The short answer to that is no. I will give the evidence as my final point. In 2013, the coalition Government set up the balance of competences review of 32 areas of government. At the time I chaired the Food Standards Agency, a non-ministerial department, so I was part of the coalition in a way. It was a bit of shock when I turned up to a Cabinet sub-committee one day. There was a separate review on animal health and food safety. We consulted and did a lot of research work. As I said, people thought that the EU does not do much and that they were not very secure. We consulted widely on food standards and safety. The balance of views from the Food Standards Agency and Defra—it was a joint report in the end—was that we were better off being in this system of regulations. I am a Brussels sceptic but I believe that, on balance, UK customers are better protected in terms of food and feed in this system. I have not spent much time on feed, but it is the Achilles heel of all this. But the short answer to my noble friend is no. The balance of competences review, which can be found in the Library, is there for everybody to read. We have been through all this before.
I will finish on this point. What happened to the 32 reports on the balance of competences? They were buried, because they all came out with roughly the same idea: by and large we are better off being in the EU arguing our case than being out. So we never heard any more about them until we had the barmy idea to have a referendum.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I spent a lot of my time in government negotiating the 32 reports in the balance of competences review. I remind the Committee that it was a Conservative demand within the coalition agreement of 2010 that there should be an extensive examination of the balance of competences between the UK and the EU. In almost all the 32 reports, the answer was that stakeholders across the country were satisfied with the current balance and did not wish any repatriation of competences from the EU to the UK. The noble Lord is absolutely right: the No. 10 press office did its utmost to ensure that they were published the day after Parliament rose, either for the summer or for Christmas, to minimise the amount of publicity that the reports would get because the Conservatives were scared of the right wing in their own party, as they still are.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 147A, which proposes a requirement to seek ongoing reciprocal arrangements in the field of professional sport. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for their support of this amendment.
Sport in the UK is woven intricately into the fabric of European policy and the EU’s bilateral arrangements with the world’s international federations of sport. Professional football sits at the pinnacle of that intricate tapestry. Our duty to sports men and women is, first, to understand the ties that bind the sporting world in the UK to Europe and then to unpick, reshape and ultimately redesign a model that keeps our sporting industry robust, competitive and capable of retaining its positon as a global leader. In the brief time that I have available, I want to set out the key points, genuinely confident in the knowledge that the Minister and the Government, and indeed all parties, are interested in seeking the same solution: the retention of an environment in which the British professional sporting landscape can flourish commercially, competently and competitively on behalf of everyone involved in the industry.
It will not have escaped your Lordships’ attention that today is the second day of Cheltenham. Indeed, my expectation is that many noble Lords would prefer to be at Cheltenham than here, but such is their commitment to the Committee stage of this Bill that they are rightly here debating these issues. Cheltenham highlights an important point. The festival focuses and relies on the movement and transportation of horses and on welfare issues. Thoroughbred horseracing and breeding is a truly international industry, with significant roots in Europe. Its continued growth is predicated on the ability to move racehorses as freely as possible for competition and breeding while, crucially, retaining the highest levels of animal health, welfare and biosecurity. A key element to this is the tripartite agreement, or TPA, between the UK, France and Ireland, which facilitates 25,000 movements annually between the three countries for racing, breeding and sales purposes. There is no clarity at all on what will happen to that tripartite agreement post Brexit, but it is essential for the success not just of Cheltenham but of the industry. At Cheltenham alone, 30% of the runners have crossed European borders in order to race.
I very much hope the Minister can give comfort to the House and tell us that after the proposed transition and implementation period through to the end of 2020, when arrangements for the movement of thoroughbreds are finally determined, they will continue to be based on the thoroughbreds’ high health status. That would mean no severe delays at ports, which is vital, not least for mares who are toing and froing with foals. This issue is critical to the British Horseracing Authority and the Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association, and I very much hope that my noble friend the Minister will take that point on board.
Lord Adonis
Is the noble Lord suggesting that Royal Ascot may not happen next year if these matters are not finalised? Does he know whether Her Majesty has been consulted about this eventuality?
Lord Moynihan
I know that the whole question of Royal Ascot and the timing of the Queen’s Speech last year was very much determined by Her Majesty. I know for sure—and all noble Lords will know—that the Government, I hope, are absolutely committed to resolving the issues, which are vitally important and serious for the horseracing industry.
On the wider sporting front, we need clarity and certainty over the EU-UK’s future relationship for the sporting industry. I urge the Government to set out clearly what this relationship will look like so that the sports sector can prepare for the future. We also need to look beyond the specifics of top-level elite and professional sport. While the issues of players and transfers in football are important, they should not be the only focus of government in seeking to negotiate the best possible settlement for the sector.
We also need to focus on the continued freedom of movement on a seasonal basis for particular sports. I hope that the Government will consider proposing sports-specific visas to allow players, fans and support staff to enter and leave the European Union easily.
We have been a very important and attractive destination in hosting many events, not least the London 2012 Olympics. However, there will be increased challenges for fans and players to come into and exit the UK which could not just reduce the pool of workers but risks making the UK a less attractive international destination to host events. I hope the Minister will address that point.
As far as the Premier League is concerned, I mentioned that football was at the pinnacle of the debate. That is because there are very important points about player transfers—Bosman issues are high on that list. I will focus the Committee’s attention today on one point, although there are many aspects of professional sport that will be need to be addressed and I hope are currently being addressed. FIFA has a relationship with the European Union under Article 19, which allows international transfers to be permitted only for players over the age of 18, save for limited exceptions. One exception is that the transfer takes place within the European Union or the EEA, when the age criteria is reduced to 16.
When we leave the EU, we could potentially lose the ability to utilise the exception in Article 19 and therefore be prevented from signing players at other EU clubs between the ages of 16 and 18. That is fundamental to how UK clubs acquire young, talented and cost-effective players. This sort of youth development issue is extremely important in light of UEFA’s financial fair play regulations. Naturally, losing the Article 19 exception would have adverse consequences for all UK clubs. It is crucial for clubs to sign talented players whom they have identified at the earliest possible occasion, not just to limit the acquisition cost but to develop the young talent that is vital.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
It is worth making the point that we are not talking about income for massive, rich clubs. We are talking about many clubs, which might be on the verge of insolvency in terms of their operations, having to seek through their scouting systems talented players within the EU who can not only contribute to the club by playing, but through their development can bring in later transfer fees.
Lord Moynihan
I completely endorse that point. This is not just about the top clubs in the Premier League; it is about the survival of professional football in the country. I am delighted to hear the noble Lord place his points on the record and I completely endorse them.
Briefly, when we look at the rugby football world, there are Kolpak players. I mentioned this at an early stage on Second Reading, so I will not rehearse the Kolpak agreement. Kolpak players, under the Cotonou agreement, have specific non-discriminatory rights once they are lawfully employed in the European Union. In rugby, this means that, once a player from a Kolpak country has legally entered the UK, they cannot be classed as a foreign player under the Rugby Football Union regulations. Currently, the RFU regulations are that there should be no more than two foreign players in a match day squad in the top four tiers of English rugby. There are some 165 contracted Kolpak players in the top four tiers.
This is a very important point. Negotiations will need to take place within the context of the European Union and the UK Government and also with the Rugby Football Union. There needs to be early engagement with the RFU so clubs have visibility and can make strong commercial decisions moving forward over a number of years. That is vital. Many noble Lords have made the point today that we need consistency, clarity and vision so that decisions in the world of sport can be made early rather than the day before the season starts.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, my Amendment 147B is in this rather diverse group of amendments. I declare an interest in that most of my close family are involved in the creative industries in Wales. My amendment is very similar to Amendment 146, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, who cannot be here, unfortunately. I support that amendment. My wording makes reference to the creative industries in all parts of the United Kingdom.
By their very nature the creative industries are international. Nothing that emerges from the negotiations that the Government are undertaking with the EU should in any way serve as a disincentive to all elements of the creative industries to engage as fully as they do now with counterparts throughout the European Union, or for those engaged in creative industries in the other 27 member states of the EU to maintain their engagement with colleagues in the UK and, indeed, with the general public.
The creative industries are the fastest-growing sector of the Welsh economy, having increased by way of employment by 58% between 2005 and 2014. Film and television account for a significant part of this, and the Welsh Government have had creative industries as a growth target since 2006. Our Welsh universities generate 5,000 creative industry graduates each year in such subjects as animation, visual effects and digital and mobile technology.
The creative industries are a key component of the UK economy, worth more than £35 billion per annum, with almost half their exports going to the EU. The audio-visual sector alone contributes £16 billion to UK GVA, with £7 billion of exports—more than £3 billion of them to EU countries.
The Creative Industries Federation published its Global Trade Report in January, based on evidence from 130 leading creative businesses. Of these, more than 80% were not confident that the UK’s creative industries could maintain their global reputation after Brexit. Forty per cent said that a no deal outcome would harm their ability to export, with 21% saying that it would lead to them moving their business abroad. They desperately want the UK to continue to have an active role in future EU legislation, as that can have a far-reaching impact on their work. The sector urgently needs to know how alignment with the EU will be managed post Brexit. Who will make the rules and regulations that will affect their ability to export to the EU countries? They also need clarity on the movement of self-employed performers and are calling for a labour movement framework that enables individuals and businesses to travel unhindered throughout the EU in order to provide their services.
The federation is calling for ongoing participation for UK citizens and businesses in EU cultural and educational programmes. It wants mutual recognition of qualifications—as has been mentioned already—and an agreement that covers the key dimension of intellectual property. It also wants clarification about the future of the digital single market.
One very important function is provided by UK-based broadcasters which broadcast programmes and services to European Union audiences. It is a significant sector; I believe that a staggering 700 such services are generated from the UK. Will they be allowed after Brexit to broadcast without barriers? They need to know the likely position relating to intellectual property. In particular, there is a strong feeling in the sector that we must be able to bring in labour from the EU as we do not have enough home-grown skills to satisfy demand.
Last November, the Welsh Government hosted in Cardiff a conference of EU peripheral maritime regions on European co-operation beyond Brexit. Their final declaration emphasised the need for continued participation in Creative Europe. Will we still have access to Creative Europe, which supports transnational co-operation projects involving cultural and creative organisations from different countries? If we lose access to this resource, it will be a very great loss to Wales and many other parts of the United Kingdom. Will the Minister clarify the position on that point when he responds?
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 147C. In this rather pick-and-mix debate, as we go from one important topic to another, my amendment refers to transport. Our transport systems operate on a system of ongoing reciprocal arrangements and there is no WTO fallback position—indeed, I spoke about this in the early hours of yesterday morning. It is essential that we remain part of the arrangements that already exist, because our whole economy and society stand on the shoulders of our transport systems.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
The noble Baroness described this as a pick-and-mix debate. Is there not one thing in common, that in every case we would be much better remaining in the European Union?
Baroness Randerson
The noble Lord makes an excellent comment. I am not in any way undermining the debate. I said that these are really important topics. Of course, the one thing they have in common in the pick-and-mix—they are all sweets—is that they are all really important aspects that we need to remain part of.
If our transport systems stop, we all stop. It is essential that we continue with the existing international arrangements. In transport, it is estimated that there are some 65 of these sets of international arrangements in total. Do not worry, I am not going to go through all of them, but to illustrate, I spent yesterday in the Moses Room debating the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill, which is being rushed through here because the Government have discovered that for lorries to continue to travel abroad and vice versa, and for us to continue to be able to drive abroad, we might need to fall back on the Vienna convention of 1968 and the Geneva convention of 1949.
We signed the Vienna convention but we never ratified it. We did not need to because we joined the EU. We now need to do so, for which we have to give a year’s notice. Noble Lords might wish to think about what this country will be doing if the Government have their way in a year’s time. Therefore, that Bill is in a bit of a rush. It was not expected and it was not in the Queen’s Speech. It has clearly been put together by the Government at great speed because it is a very skeletal Bill. Indeed, the Delegated Powers Committee report called it not so much “skeletal”, more of “a mission statement”. We have no idea what system the Government will introduce in the regulations. Therefore, it is important that we retain the right to know what will be put forward to scrutinise it. At the moment it allows for only negative instruments, which is very unsatisfactory.
That example does not inspire confidence that the Government are on top of the job. There are probably other corners of the world of international transport that they have not come upon yet. Another example is the open skies agreement between the US and the EU, which we are a member of by virtue of being a member of the EU. I have a Private Member’s Bill on this that your Lordships might like to support. Without this agreement, planes will be grounded. It affects flights to and from the US, as well as within the EU. It affects not just our right for planes in Britain to fly to EU countries, but our right for them to go from one country to another in the EU. It is not easy to renegotiate this because of the complex ownership of our major airlines, several of which have a majority foreign ownership, although they are UK-based airlines. By the international judgment on these things, when we cease to be a member of the EU they in effect cease to be UK airlines, or could cease to be.
There is also the European Aviation Safety Agency, of which we have been a predominant member. It is very important that we remain a member of it. There are many other agreements relating to railways and a whole host of agreements associated with the maritime industry, including many that affect the protection of workers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, has already amply illustrated the importance and impact on consumer rights of these international agreements. Consumers in Britain have benefited enormously from the rights given to them, for example in relation to air travel, as a result of international agreements of which we are members.
The new customs we will have to be part of will have a major impact on our haulage and international travel sector. The British Retail Consortium believes that 180,000 UK companies, many of them small and medium-sized enterprises, will be drawn into customs declarations for the first time with new excise and VAT systems. Although they have exported, they have done so entirely to the EU and therefore have not had to have these customs arrangements. When they talk to me, they describe the huge cost to them of becoming involved in all these new systems. As this is such a massive topic, I am not going to produce any more examples, but I can assure noble Lords that there are many dozens more.
Lord McNally (LD)
I wonder if my noble friend could add just one more example. She and I and the Minister—before he was sent to the Brexit gulag—worked on the Space Industry Bill. Nothing more typifies the need for co-operation within Europe than that industry. Will she add to her litany of examples the space industry, to which we have made such a contribution and about which there are many unanswered questions?
Baroness Randerson
My noble friend makes a very good point. The uncertainty is already having an impact on the space industry because aspects of it are moving abroad. The same applies to the automotive industry, where we have had such growth in recent years. The impact of customs arrangements on the industry will be so complex that it will not be able to import and export parts across borders during the manufacturing process as companies have been doing. People occasionally say, “Well, what you can do is produce all the goods in one country”. They make the point that it takes about five years to develop a supply chain in one particular process in one country. It is extremely difficult, nigh on impossible, to do that in the modern world.
To conclude, I meet dozens of representatives of businesses in the transport sector on a weekly basis. I am assiduous in meeting organisations and individual companies and going on visits in order to take the temperature of their views. I am yet to meet a single one who thinks they would be better off outside the EU, outside the single market, outside the customs union. They are, with a will, trying to prepare themselves for the worst, but they still hope for the best.
Lord Green of Deddington
Will the noble Baroness explain one point? She has set out a range of extremely important issues, as have other noble Lords. Clearly, a whole range of things is of extreme importance. I do not understand how this suggestion of putting all these issues into a mandate in order that, presumably, Parliament should take a view on it and then go to the European Union and discuss it can possibly work.
Baroness Randerson
The noble Lord underestimates the level of wisdom and expertise that sits within Parliament. The EU is managing its negotiations in line with the European Parliament. There is no way in which we need to adopt a different model; the supremacy of Parliament should remain.
Baroness Deech (CB)
Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question in relation to these amendments—I am sorry that I was a little late because of the early start; I may have missed the answer. Given that three times as many European students come here as ours go to Europe—in my experience, ours always wanted to go, and still go, to the USA; given that we know that we will not expel our migrants in any brutal fashion; given that they will presumably want to fly here; given that we have more Indian and Chinese students coming here than we have from the whole EU because our universities are so much better and far higher in the league table than any single continental European university, and given that Australian and Middle Eastern airlines fly in and out all the time, what is the problem? Is the pressure not on European nations? Are they perhaps begging us in the negotiation to allow them freedom of movement to come here to participate in the activities that I have mentioned? Cannot our airlines fly in exactly the same way as Australian, Middle Eastern and American airlines?
Lord Judd (Lab)
My noble friend Lord Stevenson invited me to add my words to what he was saying, and I am very glad to do so, but I am associated with some of the other amendments as well. I want to speak honestly from past to past. In 1978, I can vividly remember enjoying being part of the Committee of Ministers in Europe working on mutual recognition of qualifications. What was so exciting about that discussion was that everyone in the room recognised that the issues with which we were dealing could not be contained within national frontiers, that they were all international in character and all crossed frontiers. We recognised that the way we looked at health, at the enhancement of the arts and at the quality of the professions as they built for our future would be best served if we fully co-operated. The measures we sought were there to support the whole concept of co-operation and enhancement of the quality of life for people in Europe. I find it utterly miserable that we have deserted that reality, have deserted that dream and are talking now about regulations to try to salvage a situation into which we should never have strayed.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, unlike for the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, this is my first as well as last contribution to the Committee stage, but it is on a very big question indeed. While I support the amendment effectively introduced by my noble friend Lord Monks, I have become rather sceptical about the value of most of the debates about the withdrawal Bill, because they are not put in any sort of picture about the architecture of the treaty that we are moving towards.
To use the current vernacular, cherry-picking is all very well, but frankly it will not get us very far. The amendment would give the Parliament whose sovereignty we hear so much about the opportunity to consider how we can get towards a satisfactory outcome from this affair for the nation as a whole. We do not at this moment need to split hairs about whether we would be amending a draft presented by the Government or whether Parliament would consider some sort of resolution on a mandate. Today is the day to consider the principle, which is the broader canvas on which this will be played out.
Only yesterday, the President of the European Commission, Mr Juncker, shortly to be succeeded, we are told on the Brussels grapevine, by Monsieur Barnier, stated:
“As the clock counts down, with one year to go, it is now time to translate speeches into treaties; to turn … broad suggestions”,
into “workable solutions”. We have to raise our game and address the bigger picture to see how the Bill can be amended to facilitate that.
The field that I know best, workers’ rights, provides a good illustration, particularly those derived from collective agreements made in Brussels under the Maastricht treaty, a baker’s dozen ranging from pro rata rights for part-time workers to rights to information and consultation. The blunt fact is that the only way they can be guaranteed if we leave the EU is to move from pillar 1 of the EEA, the EU, to pillar 2 of the EEA, which is EFTA and, by doing so, stay in the single market with all its provisions. That has yet to be broached with our friends in Norway, for example, and the clock is ticking on this too: how that could be worked out on the EFTA-EEA side. It would be very discourteous not to start that process in an exploratory fashion with them, especially given the context that it is now at least 50% likely that that is where we will wind up.
The nearest we have to a document that would show the architecture that the treaty would cover is the draft of the withdrawal agreement, which has been in the Printed Paper Office for two weeks. It is the first outline of what will become a treaty, like the treaty of Maastricht, for example, which caused Sir John Major so much difficulty with his “bastards” the best part of 30 years ago. It gives us an indication of the territory that must be filled in, a framework to add in what this country wants to insert separately as and when such can be agreed.
For reasons that we all understand and to which my noble friend has referred, it is counterproductive to the national interest to fail to take the opportunity to spell out the mandate that Parliament wishes to give our negotiators. Some people have not yet realised why this is so important.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)
My Lords, 20 months after the referendum we are no closer to knowing what the UK will look like in a post-Brexit world. In a series of speeches this morning, the Committee has heard desperate cries for clarity and certainty in everything from football to horseracing, from transport to the law. But there is no clarity or certainty and this really does not feel like taking back control. I put my name to Amendment 142 because it aims to give back some control of this process to Parliament. It was ably described by the noble Lord, Lord Monks, and then by the noble Lord, Lord Lea. It intends to get some process into what, at the moment, looks like a dreadful muddle.
We need to support all the amendments in this group—but they could all, in their way, hang under Amendment 142. They all demonstrate the need, and the wish, to impose some form of direction on a Government who look as if they would appreciate being given it. They need some help in how they conduct their negotiations with the EU 27, and that is what this amendment intends to deliver.
We have heard that the Government do not want to be shackled; they need to be free to negotiate on their own terms. Nonsense. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Lea, negotiations benefit from having their terms—for both sides—laid out relatively clearly at the beginning. I have seen it from the other side of the table from the noble Lord, Lord Lea, and it is jolly useful to be able to say, “My board won’t put up with that”. It would surely be very helpful for the government negotiators to go into their next round of negotiations with a clear view that they can say, “This far and no further as far as my board—Parliament—is concerned”. The EU 27 are making it very clear what their terms of negotiation are.
So we need to give clarity. We have heard various wish lists from the Government, but hope does not constitute a policy. We now need to empower the Government to go into negotiations with a clear sense of purpose. Like many in this House, I hope that that will include achieving a customs agreement. That is what business needs; it is what the country wants; and it is certainly part of the solution—although not the entire one—to the issue of Northern Ireland, which will be debated later today.
Time is running out, energy is being expended and money is being spent—getting us, it would seem at the moment, precisely nowhere. The Department for Business is going to be taking on an extra 1,000 people—it is nearly there now—to deal with Brexit. Goodness knows how they are going to do that. One knows that Boy Scouts should be prepared, but these people are having to prepare for they know not what and to cover all eventualities. It is like trying to shape water—without the prospect of an Oscar.
There is no point in the Government going into negotiations if they are going to eventually return to Parliament with the terms of a deal—and if the “meaningful vote” is to have any meaning, they will do—if Parliament is already clear that it will not accept that deal. How much more sensible and time efficient it would be to allow Parliament to hear what the Government really want and for us, in both Houses, to have a chance to debate it and to give the negotiators a mandate. That is what this amendment is about. It is very simple really, and I absolutely support it.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 142 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monks, to which I also have added my name. I can be brief, in view of the effective, coherent and measured way in which the amendment was introduced, and I will confine my remarks to the question of sovereignty.
On the face of it, the purpose of the amendment, which I support, is to involve Parliament more considerably in the process of Brexit. A recurring theme of those who argued that the United Kingdom should leave the European Union was that we wanted to make our own laws. I interpret that, and believe that I am entitled to do so, as being by implication an assertion of the sovereignty of Parliament. To begin with, that was not an implication recognised by the Government, who were forced to do so by the Supreme Court in the case of Miller.
I think it can be argued fairly that sovereignty carries rights and responsibilities and that both of these exist in parallel—some might put it slightly differently and say that it carries powers and responsibilities. But the negotiations that are being carried on by the Government are being conducted on the principle that the Government are answerable to Parliament. The responsibility for the decisions of the Government, therefore, is a consequence of the sovereignty of Parliament. Governments are not sovereign, although some think they are—and it is not difficult to think of Prime Ministers who thought they were sovereign as well. If the ultimate responsibility is Parliament’s, then Parliament has responsibility but no power. I am not sure what the antonym for a harlot is, but I hope I make the point that the sovereignty that we enjoy is sovereignty that carries responsibility.
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that we give practical application to the sovereignty of Parliament by giving Parliament in these matters a power to fashion the terms of the future of the United Kingdom’s relations with the European Union. To deny that power to Parliament is a breach of our sovereignty.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 147A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to which my name is also attached. I have a number of interests to declare in the area of sport, one of which is that I am the chair of ukactive. I am slightly disappointed that sport and physical activity has not had a higher profile within the debate on the EU withdrawal Bill. We cannot assume that sport will be okay just because sport is generally very good at looking after itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised many issues, and perhaps they are just the tip of the iceberg of the challenges we face as the impact on elite sport filters down to the grass roots. He talked about Cheltenham. It is not just the movement of horses that will be affected. That might be the very visible impact of the legislation, but there will be an impact on the local economy—on the provision of stables, food supplies, grooms and so on—that we will not see until it is too late. We might understand the impact of a high-profile player not coming to the UK or choosing to leave the UK, but we will not see the impact on associated personnel and coaches, on how it filters down to the academy structure, on the potential success of our clubs, and on whether fans choose to go and watch those sports. It will go right down to the individual owner of a burger van parked on the outskirts of a community if there is a huge impact on sport.
We know that the value of community leisure to the UK economy alone is £3.3 billion a year. That has been worked out via a social value calculator. The impact of sport amounts to many more billions. While I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that it might be a pick-and-mix group of amendments, each of them has a massively important impact on the economic prosperity and international standing of our country.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, spoken to so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, as well as the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. Both noble Lords have set out very well why the creative industries are hugely important for the country, economically and in terms of soft power—and, I would add, in the potential growth of employment in the sector, not just in London but across the whole country, particularly in the area of creative tech.
As has been explained, the sector now faces many serious concerns in the light of Brexit. I will highlight just one: the mobility of the workforce. This concern runs like a thread through the briefings I have received. It is one that affects many who work in the arts and in creative industries, including those who run their own small business. This is not just about creatives coming into the UK but about British artists and creatives journeying into Europe—a direction that is to some extent being overlooked. Europe, as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, has said, accounts for 45% of the market.
The potential loss of free movement is the greatest concern of many of the arts, and prompted the #FreeMoveCreate campaign to be set up last year by fine artists and musicians, namely the Artists Information Company and the Incorporated Society of Musicians, but joined now by a wide membership that includes the Creative Industries Federation and the British Fashion Council. That campaign has been gathering data from the industry, specifically about present patterns of movement, which will help the Government to understand precisely the extent of this concern.
The creative industries are naturally collaborative and internationalist in outlook. They are unlike the traditional industries in one key respect: people themselves are an essential aspect of the product. Whether we are talking about artists, musicians, fashion designers, creatives in film and television or creative tech, including video games and advertising, it is absolutely essential that the British creative industries have physical access to the rest of Europe. Free movement of personnel, more than in any other industry—43% of those in the creative industries are self-employed, rising to 90% for musicians—is a crucial element of the creative and, indeed, digital industries as a whole.
It cannot be overestimated how much that movement must be free. Flexibility and the need for rapid response are key aspects of the creative industries, with British musicians, dancers and fashion models, for example, often needed immediately on the spot, a plane’s flight away. Ad hoc visits with work found and taken up abroad are also hugely significant, particularly for the self-employed. As #FreeMoveCreate says, the time taken to secure a visa is lost work, and if every three months, for example, an artist had to turn down a performance or an exhibition to secure an ongoing visa permission, that could cause a major loss in income, or indeed the loss of a project.
Artists and creatives make multiple journeys abroad, move while in Europe and often individually work on many projects. Multiple visas, work permits and tax forms will not be a solution. Have the Government looked carefully at the effect of Brexit on the self-employed, who will often work for many different larger organisations or clients abroad? At present it is simple: their EU passport is their work permit, with the only thing required being their A1 certificate demonstrating the payment of national insurance contributions. Any kind of delay or paperwork additional to what is normal within the EU could kill this work, since UK workers will be immediately at a disadvantage.
The allied concern is that of the movement of equipment, including instruments, sets, costumes and much else, which has to be transported across borders as quickly as it is now without red tape. Finally, we are not necessarily talking about short periods of time abroad. As an example, a placement with an orchestra could last for years.
The recent House of Commons DCMS committee report on the potential impact of Brexit on the creative industries makes the recommendation that,
“the Government should seek to retain free movement of people during any transitional period after the UK formally ceases to be a member of the EU … If the visa system is to change subsequently, an intensive and detailed process of consultation with all those affected will need to begin as soon as possible”.
I hope that the Government are taking very careful note of this, alongside the many other recommendations in that report.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, I rise to add my support to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and wish him a speedy recovery. I also speak to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. May I add my thanks for the way in which recent Governments of all hues have got the point of the creative industries and their importance? In my case, it was the late Matthew Evans, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, who was a Labour Government Minister when I first entered this House. He encouraged me to support and put down debates and Questions on the creative industries—something that I duly did and continue to do. I also add my appreciation for everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Jowell, and the right honourable Ed Vaizey have done to support the sector.
However, their good work and prescient strategy now risk unravelling. To get to the substantive point of Amendment 146, without some form of reciprocal agreement with the remaining EU member states, our creative and cultural sectors will, as the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, has said, suffer terrible economic and cultural damage. It is absolutely essential that, as well as being at the heart of the Government’s industrial strategy—which they are—the creative industries are at the top table of Brexit negotiations.
As the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, have said, many things are crucial to the continuing success of the creative industries—country of origin, IP legislation and collaboration, portability and funding. For example, the British Film Institute distributes around £50 million per annum in lottery funds, but Creative Europe contributes a further £13 million, which would potentially go. Another crucial issue is freedom of movement, which is access not just to international talent, as others have said, but to much-needed skills. Also crucial are the ability for touring performers to cross borders with minimum red tape; design law; and protection from the EU’s cultural exception rules.
Supporting this vital, vibrant sector is of paramount importance to our economy, to our country’s sense of itself and to our place in the world. Our rich history of cultural exchange must be maintained within Europe. Unless the interests of the creative industries are protected, leaving Europe will be a disaster for a jewel in the crown of our nation. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.
Lord Inglewood (Con)
My Lords, I rise to add a few words to what has been said already. In particular, I will focus my remarks on the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Wigley. I should add that I and members of my family have been involved in the creative industries.
I want essentially to talk about broadcasting and its allied sectors, for which it has been said that the UK is the principal centre in the European Union and, as a result, has become one of the pre-eminent broadcasting hubs in the world.
The industry as it is now is essentially a child of the 1990s—a child of a union between digital technology and the European Union single market. In this country, noble Lords will remember, digital television was launched by the Broadcasting Act 1996, and the European single market officially came into being in 1993. Perhaps I ought to explain that I was the Minister for Broadcasting responsible for that legislation. For much of the 1990s, I was working in the European Parliament on the single market. I have always been a strong supporter of this Conservative initiative, but I am aware that that is perhaps a rather unfashionable stance at present.
We do not live in a laissez-faire, devil-take-the-hindmost market. We live in a regulated market like all the countries with which we usually compare ourselves. One of the characteristics of that is that legal access to a market does not of and by itself confer a right to trade in it. It is through the instrument of the single market that this sector has beneficially enlarged UK sovereignty in an interdependent world so that across the entire EU it has done things to its own and our nation’s advantage.
We have had a number of figures quoted already about the value of this sector to the country, so there is absolutely no need for me to repeat them. It is interesting that the two sets of confidential documents I have seen in 100 Parliament Street confirm the damaging impact of leaving that marketplace.
If we do not attain equivalent arrangements in any post-Brexit world, the capabilities of this sector will be much diminished, as has been said. As we speak, the sector is rearranging its modus operandi and exporting not only its products but its infrastructure elsewhere in the EU. Furthermore, as has also been said, its capabilities are becoming much reduced, as London is a magnet and a melting pot for many of the most talented across Europe.
Only a couple of weekends ago, I was talking to a friend who is a very senior director of one of the UK’s most well-known, globally esteemed firms of architects, a name that I suspect that every noble Lord would recognise without problem. He told me that the greatest damage Brexit was going to do to his business was to dry up the stream of highly talented people who wanted to work with them and contribute to this country in that way. It is happening now.
We sometimes forget that one of the United States’s greatest instruments of soft power is Hollywood, and this sector does something equivalent for this country. If we cannot reverse the inevitable consequences of serving Article 50 in this respect, real damage will be done to this country. The Prime Minister, to her great credit, recognised that and has assured us that she is striving to do whatever she can to mitigate that consequence. Parliament should support her in doing that.
The implications of all this should be spelled out to everybody in this country, not just the privileged few who are given access to 100 Parliament Street. That should strengthen the Prime Minister’s hand, not least here at home, as the reality of what is at stake—both the prize to be won and what could be lost—should be available to everybody.
Lord Adonis
Before the noble Lord sits down, I ask him the same question that I asked the noble Lord, Lord Rooker: can he see any benefit at all from leaving the European Union in respect of the broadcasting and cultural sectors with which he is so familiar?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Monks said, we in Parliament appear at the moment to be mere spectators, highly dependent on the Government to negotiate on our behalf—indeed, on behalf of future generations—an agreement with the EU as to how we withdraw from nearly half a century of membership and, more seriously, how we work with and alongside the EU in the decades to come: the canvas, or the mandate, in the words of my noble friend Lord Lea.
It is to this latter task that Amendment 144 and its amendments draw our attention. At the moment, the Government are telling us nothing as to the shape of the agreement they wish to reach. “Deep”? “Bespoke”? Those words tell us nothing. What does it mean in regard to family law; our highly profitable creative industries; the protection of consumers, especially in food safety or transport—those trains, planes and ships that carry people and goods from here to there every hour of the day? How does it affect our artistic, sporting and other professionals, who are currently able to work across the EU, representing British companies or citizens, competing, performing or conducting architectural, veterinary or scientific work across that enormous market, or undertaking accounting or auditing work for multinationals? Indeed, a whole range of jobs are currently undertaken day by day by virtue of the IP agreements, broadcasting licensing or the mutual recognition of qualifications, which my noble friend Lord Brooke set out so clearly. Negotiations are needed on those areas.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 147A, to which I have added my name. The world of sport, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned, is a complicated one that fits into all the other strands here. He spoke about Cheltenham most passionately. I live in the village of Lambourn, which has a mass exodus to Cheltenham. However, round it are other things that are not, say, France and Ireland. When you come to the show-jumping world, there are other countries coming there, with other workers, and you have travel from other nations such as Germany and Holland. It gets more complicated the more you look at it. The employment rights of professional sportsmen get more and more complicated and tap into the other things we have spoken about. It comes into the creative industries. All of these come across.
Are you going to stop the expertise of Parliament getting into this? Government departments and Ministers tend to be very bad at picking up on these concerns—and that is effectively the function of Parliament. How many of us here spend our entire lives saying, “You hadn’t thought of that. You haven’t spoken about that”? It is virtually all we do. Civil servants do not have a limitless supply of crystal balls, and neither do party hacks backing up the machine of government. Unless Parliament gets in and we have comprehensive agreements, when we do something this complicated we are going to make mistakes. Sport is just one example. The creative industries is another. It was not that the list was long for this group; it was not long enough. There must be a way of getting this information in. The way to do that is to aim to get Members of both Houses of Parliament to get through, because there is nothing else that can start to do it.
The main amendment here—and those supporting it—point us this way, and unless the Minister can make some response that tells us how that is going to happen, we are going to have major problems. I hope this will be the first and last time I have to speak on this Bill—but if the Minister does not give a proper answer I will be back.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, there is a theme that recurs in many of our debates on the Bill; and perhaps in this debate most of all. I think the noble Lord, Lord Addington, expressed the view that this Government somehow do not respect Parliament, do not understand its place in the constitution and are somehow seeking to work around it or sideline it. With respect, I hope to demonstrate that this suggestion is unfounded. Let me be clear and emphatic. Given Parliament’s pre-eminent position in our constitution, it is not possible for the Government to disregard it or work around it—and nor, of course, would it be desirable for them to seek to do so.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Why, therefore, did Gina Miller have to take the Government to the High Court?
Lord Callanan
That is a separate issue—but we respected the outcome and the Article 50 Bill was, of course, approved by Parliament.
The need for parliamentary assent to executive action is woven into our constitution at every juncture, and rightly so. Of course, on occasion Parliament puts a question to the electorate directly for their views. The debate we are having today—and had on previous days—is of course the result of one of those occasions. In the course of the debates on this Bill, it has been asserted that it has profound constitutional implications, and so it does. However, I am wary of endorsing some of the language that has been used with regard to the delegated powers in this Bill.
If noble Lords have some time to take a look at the draft statutory instruments that we published last week, they will perhaps see what I mean when I say that there is a profound disconnect between the picture painted at times in this House of the types of powers we are taking and the actual uses to which we propose to put those powers. I urge noble Lords to look at these draft instruments on the GOV.UK website.
The group of amendments we have been debating so far today and the group to which we will turn next do of course raise some profound constitutional questions. They require us to ask ourselves who can act on the international plane on behalf of the UK, and how the mechanisms of control and accountability operate for the conduct of such action. They pose the question of if and how there should be a role for the courts in examining the conduct of those negotiations. They also pose questions about the circumstances—if any—in which it would be appropriate for Parliament to consider action that goes against a decision made in a referendum.
Our debate here today has, understandably, touched on a number of different areas. However, I now wish to address the core theme of the amendments in this group: that it is for the legislature to set the mandate for the negotiations that the Government are currently undertaking with the EU. It was right that the electorate had the opportunity to make its voice heard at the last election, and the result of that democratic exercise was the return of the Government in their current form, to pursue their stated objective of a deep and special partnership with the EU.
Most of the amendments in this group are attached to Amendment 142, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monks, and they raise important and valid issues in the context of our future relationship with the EU. I reassure noble Lords that I will revisit these issues later in my response. However, as a point of principle, it is not beneficial to enter into a negotiation with a number of domestic constraints on exactly what we can negotiate. Flexibility is necessary for a successful negotiated outcome.
The challenge now is to make a success of our exit and get the best deal possible for the UK, so that this House, the other place, and our national conversation more broadly can turn to discussing and taking decisions on what kind of country we wish to be after we have concluded our negotiations with the EU. After exit, and once we have negotiated the new deep and special partnership, great opportunities for new decisions will open up in this Parliament and in the devolved legislatures.
In case it appears that I am trying to exclude the role of Parliament in shaping our negotiating objectives, I once again reassure the Committee that I am doing nothing of the sort. Parliament does not need to go beyond our settled constitutional boundaries and set mandates in order to exert profound influence over the conduct of the negotiations. We take incredibly seriously our need to keep Parliament apprised of the Government’s negotiating intentions. That is for the purpose not just of transmitting information but of inviting scrutiny and allowing Parliament and its committees to take informed views. Government positions are created, tested and refined in the light of continual challenge from this Parliament. We are mindful always of the Government’s ultimate accountability to Parliament, and in this particular circumstance we are mindful, too, that we will be seeking Parliament’s approval of the agreements that are currently under negotiation.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, does the Minister not see a profound contradiction in his remarks? He has praised the role and significance of Parliament—until it actually chooses to express a view. Is it not the whole purpose of Parliament to express views? My noble friend is seeking to codify those views into a remit. The Minister’s response is that that is inappropriate because Parliament would then be taking on the responsibility that he wants to arrogate entirely to himself as a Minister.
Lord Callanan
Of course Parliament should express its view—but there are a number of ways in which it can do so.
Given that the next grouping on the Order Paper covers approval of the withdrawal agreement, I shall not prejudge that discussion by going into further detail here. That is part of the reason why we have sought to be as transparent as we can while protecting our negotiating position. Noble Lords will, I hope, acknowledge that this is a difficult balance to strike. But they will also note the information contained in speeches by the Prime Minister and other Ministers, in the large number of papers the Government have now published, ranging from White Papers to the raft of position papers on various areas, and in the papers for the negotiations themselves. Most recently, of course, we have also just published our draft text for the implementation period.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
Access to information does not constitute the proper exercise of sovereignty.
Lord Callanan
Having access to that information helps to inform the views of parliamentarians for their many speeches and committee appearances. On top of these publications, and the legislation we have introduced, the Government have further sought to facilitate scrutiny through the frequent making of oral Statements, the timetabling of debates in both Houses in various forms, and through appearing frequently at a range of Select Committees. Of course, we have not covered every subject or satisfied every member of every committee with our answers to every question, but noble Lords should be in no doubt that there has been more parliamentary scrutiny of EU exit than there can have been of anything else in the history of our modern committee system. That is right and proper, and we support it as well as we can. In order to pay tribute to the wide-ranging debate, I hope noble Lords will be patient as I seek to set out, relatively briefly, the Government’s position on these various issues, many of which will be key parts of the wider negotiations on the future economic partnership.
First, on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, raised in Amendment 144, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, the Government have already stated that they will seek to agree a continued system of mutual recognition as part of the future economic partnership. This system will form part of the wider negotiations underpinning trade in services. The joint report from the first phase already includes provisions on the recognition of professional qualifications which apply to UK nationals already resident in the EU at the specified date and, of course, EU nationals in the UK on that date. Those provisions will be included in the withdrawal agreement to provide clarity and security to the individuals affected.
Lord Adonis
Will the Minister answer the crucial point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan: will there be free movement of horses around the European Union after Brexit?
Lord Callanan
I am sure that it will be at the forefront of our negotiation priorities, given the close interest that many noble Lords have taken in this vital national issue.
In response to Amendment 145, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, I reiterate that this Government have committed to maintaining high standards of consumer protection, delivering the stability that consumers need to continue to make purchases and a level playing field in trade with the EU—at the very seminar to which she referred, I believe that my ministerial colleague, Robin Walker, was present to set out the Government’s position. I myself have met Which? in Bristol on a number of occasions, and we will continue to engage with consumer organisations. We start from a strong position of long-standing co-operation on the effective enforcement of consumer protection laws, and it is essential that the UK through this Bill is able to ensure that UK consumer protections continue uninterrupted at the point we exit the European Union.
Amendment 147, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is rightly concerned with food standards. The UK has world-leading standards of food safety and quality backed up by a rigorous legislative framework. The Bill will ensure that we are able to maintain those high standards once the UK leaves the European Union. The Government are proud of our high standards of food safety, and these will not be watered down when we leave the EU. Maintaining safety and public confidence in the food we all eat is a high priority for the Government, and any future trade deal must work for UK farmers, businesses and consumers.
A number of EU agencies, such as the European Food Safety Authority referred to in Amendment 184 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, have been established to support EU member states and their citizens. May I say how pleased I am to see the noble Lord in his place today? We missed him very much in our debates on Monday evening, with his great insights on our issues.
Lord Callanan
Touché, as they say.
We are committed to exploring with the EU the terms on which the UK could remain part of EU agencies. However, our future relationship with the EU and arrangements with regards to agencies such as the food safety authority are still to be determined and are the subject of ongoing negotiations. I would give the noble Lord the same response to his comments on the RASFF system.
Lord Rooker
Is it possible to have an answer to the only question that I asked? Are we going to stay a member of the rapid alert food and feed system? If we do not, we are in real trouble. I cannot see the arrangements for that—nobody ever talks about it—but it is pretty crucial. Are we going to stay in that system?
Lord Callanan
I cannot give an absolute guarantee that we will; it is a matter for the negotiations. However, I can certainly tell the noble Lord that we see the value of it, and it is one of the many EU agencies and systems that we will seek to continue to collaborate with.
In response to Amendment 146, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, whose illness I was sorry to hear about, and Amendment 147, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, I can say that the Government want to seek the best possible outcome for the UK’s creative industries following the negotiations with the EU. In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, we are considering all our options for participation in future EU funding programmes, including the Creative Europe programme.
As the Prime Minister has already made clear, the UK will not be part of the EU’s digital single market, which will continue to develop after our withdrawal from the EU. This is a fast-evolving, innovative sector in which the UK is a world leader.
In response to Amendment 147C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who has yet again spoken very effectively on this topic, as she did on Monday evening, the Government fully recognise the central role that transport will play in supporting our new trading relationships as we leave the EU. As I set out in my response on Monday, our ambition for transport is to maintain and develop the current levels of transport connectivity between the UK and the EU to underpin our future trading relationship.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, asked me about aviation agreements. She is of course correct to say that all worldwide aviation agreements are concluded on a bilateral basis, as are most of our existing aviation agreements. We benefit from a number of these as part of the single sky policy through our membership of the EU and we are currently discussing replacing those agreements with the countries concerned.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton
Listening to the Minister, it occurs to me that this group of amendments endorses almost precisely what he is saying, so are the Government going to accept them?
Lord Callanan
I think I have made clear that we are not going to accept them because we do not want our negotiating position to be constrained by them. We want to be as flexible as possible in the negotiations.
As I was saying, the UK will also seek to continue to collaborate with EU and international agencies to maintain critical safety and regulatory arrangements.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 227BF, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Ministers and officials recognise that vehicle type approval can be a key enabler in such international trade and that the automotive industry in the UK and across the EU wants to be able to plan for future production and development with certainty at the earliest possible stage.
Lord Patten of Barnes (Con)
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply, but could he comment on a point made by my noble friend Lord Moynihan on competition policy and state aid? Will he remind the House what the Prime Minister said in the Mansion House speech about the Government’s attitude to competition policy and state aid? As I recall it, she said that we want to stay in that domain of policy. Can the Minister confirm that from the Dispatch Box today?
Lord Callanan
The Prime Minister did indeed refer to these important level playing field issues and said that we do not want to see a significant diminution of standards in these areas.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
If I recall, the Prime Minister promised binding commitments in the area of state aid and competition, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for reminding me of that element of the speech. The Minister tells us that he does not want to be constrained in the negotiations, but has not the Prime Minister already constrained the negotiations by accepting binding commitments in the area of competition law and by using the phrase “strong commitments”—apparently she was banned from saying “binding commitments”—with regard to regulatory alignment?
Lord Callanan
I will allow the Prime Minister’s words to speak for themselves.
It is in the interests of consumers and industry in both the UK and the EU to maintain the freest and most frictionless trade possible in vehicles and automotive products after exit.
I apologise that have I spoken at length about issues of constitutional significance, but—
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, the Minister seems to be reaching the end of his remarks. In replying to matters raised on the individual areas of transport, sport and so on, he has simply ignored the fact that most of those who spoke to these areas talked about the need for rapid movement of people, rapid access and no impediment to such movements. Could he perhaps say something about that? At the moment, the Government seem to have a blank sheet in front of them on that. We have not been told a single thing about the immigration rules that will apply after 29 March 2019—not one word has been said other than that it is going to take a lot longer for the Government to consult everyone before they can tell us what they are doing. All the areas that have been referred to in the debate this morning involve the movement of people. Will the Minister please try to fill that out a little?
Lord Callanan
I fear that I will disappoint the noble Lord yet again. It is of course a vital subject. We are currently formulating our proposals. It will of course be a matter for negotiation, but the Home Office will, I believe, set out in a White Paper later this year how a future immigration system might work.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I am most grateful to my noble friend. I have heard every word of this debate and have refrained from taking part because the case was being made so splendidly by everybody who was. Quite honestly, I say with due respect to my noble friend, appreciating the difficulty of his task, that all he has presented to the House is a stone wall. Frankly, this is not good enough.
Lord Callanan
I can only apologise for disappointing my noble friend. Of course, we take very different views on the issue of our EU withdrawal, so perhaps he will forgive me on this occasion for not agreeing with him.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
I thank my noble friend for giving way. Can he confirm that he said that the Government want to remain flexible about belonging to the rapid response and alert system which governs public health, public food safety and feed standards? It would seem to me that that is not something that the country or Parliament would think was an issue one could be flexible about. We need to be in that arrangement, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, so vividly explained.
Lord Callanan
I apologise to the noble Baroness, but I do not think I used the word “flexible” in respect of that agency. I said that the agency does some valuable work, as do a number of other EU agencies, and that is one matter that we need to discuss.
Lord Rooker
Will the Minister accept that it is not an agency? Get briefed. Have a look at the annual report of RASFF. It is a 24/7 system that is incredibly simple. That is why it works. We are either in it to give notifications or to receive notifications. You cannot be half in and half out. I should have thought this was non-negotiable, to be honest.
Lord Callanan
The noble Lord is right: it is not an agency. I was referring to the food safety agency. As I have said, the system, or whatever we want to call it, does good work, we value our participation in it and it is one of the things that we will want to raise as an urgent priority in the negotiation, as will be our participation in a number of agencies mentioned by the Prime Minister.
I am sure that noble Lords will return to this debate at Report, and I am more than willing to engage closely with any noble Lords who wish to talk about these issues in the interim. I hope—I suspect that I have not—that I have helped to allay some of noble Lords’ concerns in this debate and that the noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord Monks
My Lords, I thank all the contributors to this debate. Amendment 142 was love bombed by many noble Lords with extra amendments raising important points which deserved airing and have received consideration, so we provided a vehicle for a lot of other important issues. At times, I was concerned that the central point—what the noble Lord, Lord Lea, called “the architecture”—was getting lost in the specifics that were being raised. We were brought back to those key central points very ably by my co-signatories, the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and the noble Lords, Lord Lea and Lord Campbell. By the way, to remind everyone, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, was a distinguished Olympian in his own right. We had references earlier to our Olympic heroes around the House.
“( ) The statute provided for by subsection (1) must include the terms of the withdrawal agreement and make provision for any transitional arrangements which have been negotiated within or alongside the withdrawal agreement.( ) In addition to the statute provided for by subsection (1), the Minister of the Crown must, as a further precondition of making regulations under subsection (1), seek interim approval for the withdrawal agreement by means of motions in both Houses of Parliament, with such motions to be voted on, so far as practicable, before the European Parliament votes on the withdrawal agreement.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I move Amendment 150, which also appears in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, Lord Hannay, and Lord Patten, and shall speak more broadly about the objective which, in the mix, these various amendments seek to achieve.
Amendment 150 is perhaps the most modest in the group. It would put into statute the Prime Minister’s promise that the withdrawal agreement would be voted on in both Houses, before a similar—albeit more serious—vote in the European Parliament. Why “more serious”? It is because the European Parliament has to agree the deal or it can go no further. MEPs have a veto, whereas a mere Motion in either or both Houses this side of the water would have no statutory force.
In theory—in law, if not in politics—either or both Houses could say “nay” and the Prime Minister could still say “yea” and sign up. Or the Prime Minister could even, for whatever reason, fail to table a Motion in either or both Houses. We should at the very least write this into law. But the truth is that we must go further than this, along the lines suggested in other amendments, such as that in the name of my noble friend Lord Liddle.
Our amendments cover three specific areas: first, approval by Parliament of the draft withdrawal Bill, prior to the European Parliament vote, plus a procedure for the Commons deciding what to do should our Parliament decline to approve; secondly, approval by Parliament of the final agreement, including the framework for our future relationship and the transition arrangements, plus a procedure for the Commons to decide what to do if Parliament declines approval; and finally, preventing the Government walking away from the talks with no deal without the consent of Parliament and enabling the Commons to decide what should happen if MPs disagree with the Government.
In case anyone thinks that the no-deal scenario has gone away, just last week the Foreign Secretary was still saying that leaving without a deal holds no terrors and that the UK would do very well on World Trade Organisation terms, despite everything we hear from manufacturers and exporters about duties and red tape, the possibility of border posts in Ireland, and of Calais facing 30-mile tailbacks with potential food shortages if we end up with mandatory customs and sanitary checks at the French ferry terminal. Parliament must keep the Government’s feet to the fire and ensure more sensible judgments than Mr Johnson’s guide to negotiations.
It is not just this side of the Committee, nor the various noble Lords who have put their names to the amendments in this group, who want the outcome of the Government’s negotiations to be put to Parliament for endorsement. John Major, who knows a thing or two about negotiating treaties as well as about Parliament, has said that there,
“must be a decisive vote, in which Parliament can accept or reject the final outcome or send the negotiators back to seek improvements, or order a referendum … That is what parliamentary sovereignty means ... No one can truly know what ‘the will of the people’ may then be. So, let parliament decide”.
I might not quite share his view about a referendum, but I do share his view that it is for Parliament, not the Government, to decide on the outcome of the negotiations. That is what the sovereignty of Parliament is all about and it is vital on this issue because of its long-term implications. We need to ensure that the Government, at every stage of the way, remain very aware that it is not just the divided views in the Cabinet that must be satisfied, but Parliament on behalf of the people.
During the Article 50 Bill, this House voted overwhelmingly for a “meaningful vote” for Parliament. We will ensure that this demand is put into this Bill. I hope the Minister will give an undertaking that the Government will accept an amendment on Report to make that demand a reality. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, my name is to this amendment. I think most of us would agree that Clause 9 as it stands is simply not fit for purpose or constitutionally acceptable. It leaves it to Ministers to decide and implement whatever our divided and chaotic Government have by then asked for and managed to negotiate with the rest of the EU. I find it astonishing that the Government have failed to set out their negotiating preferences 18 months after the referendum and 12 months before the proposed exit day.
In six days in Committee we have had a process of discovery about the number of issues on which the Government do not have a coherent view. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has argued that the Government are protecting their negotiating position. It seems to me they are rather protecting their nakedness on much of it as they do not have a coherent position. In the speech he just made he said that they do not want to have their negotiating position constrained. The Government have themselves produced a number of red lines that constrain their negotiating position. Parliament must be allowed to constrain their negotiating position in other ways. Every day in Committee and on almost every subject we discover more issues that are important to Britain’s prosperity and security on which the Government remain confused and unclear about what their preferences are.
The Prime Minister’s speech the other week was a major step forward. She moved to recognise that we need to maintain in a number of areas that she specified—but only a few—close relations with the European Union. The Luxembourg Prime Minister’s comment on her speech was entirely appropriate: the United Kingdom now intends to move from a position where it is inside the EU with a number of opt-outs to one in which it is outside the EU with a large number of opt-ins. Parliament would wish to have a view on that. What we heard in the first debate this morning was: how many of these opt-ins do the Government wish to have? They must have a view on that and they ought to share it with Parliament. They need to share it with their European Union partners. It is not a negotiating position on which we wish to maintain flexibility.
Given all of that, it is all the more important for Parliament to have a meaningful and coherent vote on a package—or the absence of one—well before the prescribed exit date is reached. That is what Amendment 150 and the others in this group talk about, in one way or another. The Government seem to be more concerned about negotiations within the Conservative Party than with the long-term national interest of the country. We parliamentarians, in both Houses, therefore have to be the guardians of the national interest, and that requires substantial changes to Clause 9.
Lord Cormack
My name is on the second amendment in this group, Amendment 151. I am most grateful to my noble friends Lord Balfe and Lady Verma and the noble Lord, Lord Reid, for adding their names to it.
I have become increasingly depressed and disturbed with every day that we are facing this Bill, particularly because my noble friend—whom I totally respect—is so fervently on the Brexit side that he does not seem to be able to grasp the importance of the points that are being made about the sovereignty of Parliament. In the Lord Speaker’s corridor, on the wall opposite what the Americans euphemistically call a comfort station, is a row of cartoons. One of them concerns Queen Caroline. Most noble Lords will know that she had a somewhat unfortunate relationship with her husband, George IV, and was locked out of the abbey for the coronation, but she was the idol and darling of the people. The cartoon refers to her as “Britain’s best hope”, and “England’s sheet anchor”. That sums up, in a phrase, the attitude of many of those who have embraced the Brexit cause.
But where are the details? Where is the substance? The important point of this amendment, as of the one previously moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is that it wants to give Parliament centrality. Indeed, it is building, constructively, upon the one amendment that was carried in another place and was most eloquently moved by my right honourable friend Dominic Grieve. I think he would accept, as would most of your Lordships, that that put down a marker but did not guarantee a position. This amendment, similar to the one eloquently moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, would build on that and rectify the position. It calls for Parliament to approve the final terms, by statute, before they are referred to the European Parliament and would guarantee Parliament a meaningful say on the withdrawal agreement at a meaningful, realistic, sensible time. There is no point in merely going through the motions if Parliament is not going to have a proper opportunity to deliver a verdict at a time when something can be done about it. It builds on Amendment 7—as my right honourable friend Dominic Grieve’s amendment was numbered in the other place—to ensure that Parliament has ample time for consideration of whatever agreement is reached. At the moment, there is not a sufficient guarantee that Parliament will have that time to examine the agreement before the European Parliament does so. In effect, we are also building on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monks, earlier today.
I want to be brief, because we had a long debate on the first group of amendments. I am delighted that my second amendment, Amendment 199, is a wholly Conservative amendment, because the other signatories are my noble friends Lord Balfe, Lady Verma again and Lord Deben. In this amendment, we are saying, as Conservatives who believe fundamentally that the nation is making a mistake but who want to rescue as much as we can, that a no-deal outcome is not acceptable. It aims to ensure that if Parliament fails to endorse the proposed agreement, the UK will continue with the existing arrangements and relationship with the European Union, and it will require the Government to seek an extension of Article 50 so that negotiations can continue.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 151, courtesy of my noble friend Lord Adonis, who is moving the next amendment. Amendment 151, in a word, is about sovereignty. That word is much used, much abused, perhaps overused, but anyone who lacks the feeling that the sovereignty of Parliament is in doubt need only, I fear, reread the first section of the Minister’s response at the end of the previous group of amendments. We are not speaking about the theory of sovereignty, abstract sovereignty, sovereignty as a slogan on the side of a bus, but what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, referred to earlier as the practical application of sovereignty. That is what is supposed to be at the root of this whole debate.
When I spoke in the debate at Second Reading, I said that it was the responsibility of this House to make absolutely sure that the other House in particular—the elected House—had the ability not just to accept or reject but to shape, to mould, to compromise, to send back, because it is in that House, above all, that sovereignty lies. This amendment underlines that sentiment, as it seeks to ensure that the meaningful vote that was voted into this Bill by the other House comes to Parliament in a meaningful timeframe.
It is worth reminding ourselves why the amendment proposed by Dominic Grieve and accepted by the other House—Amendment 7—was so important. Whatever the Minister may now believe, Clause 9 of this Bill contains the power needed for Ministers to implement the withdrawal agreement. However, the Government had originally sought sweeping and virtually untrammelled powers to implement whatever they thought “appropriate”, with no substantive reference back to Parliament, with no real further scrutiny in either House and without the consent of legislators. The Minister will forgive us if we are sceptics whenever we are assured that the sovereignty of Parliament is respected by the Government. The track record does not suggest that to be the case, especially when a citizen had to go to the High Court in order to impose or reassert the sovereignty of Parliament.
As noble Lords are aware, the Government failed to convince MPs that carte blanche should be given to them in this way, and the Government were defeated on the amendment referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, which proposed that the powers in Clause 9 could be exercised only,
“subject to the prior enactment of a statute by Parliament approving the final terms of withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union”.
That amendment—known as Amendment 7 in the House of Commons—was passed and is now part of the Bill. That process started outside Parliament through the courts in order to reassert the primacy of parliamentary sovereignty. It means that the Government have to give both Houses of Parliament a legislative opportunity to vote on the final deal. For the purposes of my argument, I will refer to this as the Amendment 7 statute.
Let us remember the Government’s response to the defeat in the Commons. We now know that Ministers were hugely disappointed that this change was ever made. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU maintain now that they will place a Motion before the Commons to gain in-principle approval for any deal reached. We do not know what options—if any—such a Motion would contain or when it would be brought to Parliament. We know that it would be a Motion only, with no statutory effect.
In a Written Statement on 13 December—the day Mr Grieve’s amendment was being debated—the Government stated that they would also bring forward a withdrawal and implementation Bill to implement “the major policies” of the withdrawal agreement. But again, we do not know when that Bill will be brought to Parliament. I hope that such a Bill will fulfil the requirements of the Amendment 7 statute fully and that the Government do not offer instead a rushed, after-the-fact rubber-stamp exercise.
Lord Balfe (Con)
Can I point out to the noble Lord that it is of course possible that the European Parliament’s consent could be given only on the basis that the Houses of Parliament had had a valid vote? It could withhold its consent to the agreement on the grounds that there had been no valid vote in the UK Parliament.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
With the noble Lord’s usual foresight he has accurately pre-empted what I am going on to say. That is precisely the point. The Government’s reassurances were not—for that reason among others—enough for the House of Commons and it proceeded to put the requirement of the statute in the Bill. My point about that is that, from beginning to end, that process was not the voluntarism of the Government reasserting the sovereignty of the House of Commons or Parliament; it was forced on them first by the courts and secondly by the House of Commons itself.
Further safeguards are needed and this amendment seeks to give one by ensuring that the Amendment 7 statute will be brought forward to Parliament in a fair, appropriate and, above all, timely manner. As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, alluded to, as it stands, Britain could possibly face a scenario whereby the Government strike a sub-optimal deal with the European Union, then rely entirely on an “accept or reject” Motion in the House of Commons and delay the Amendment 7 statute and the regulations necessary to implement the withdrawal agreement right up until the 11th hour. This could take Parliament to the cliff edge and leave the legislature with no real alternative option. This would clearly not be in the spirit of the Amendment 7 statute which the Commons have sought, but, in the light of the Government’s record on the issue of parliamentary sovereignty, there are simply insufficient guarantees written into Clause 9 to ensure that we will see this statutory process in good time.
By ensuring that the Amendment 7 statute is placed before Parliament as soon as a deal is done—and every effort must be made to enact it prior to the parallel ratification stage in the European Parliament—we would enhance the rights of MPs and Peers to have such a “meaningful vote” in a meaningful way and at a meaningful time. We have been told time and again that Brexit is a matter of Britain taking back control. It is so loose in the current clause that it actually allows a huge gap in that control. That is what this amendment addresses. It would be preposterous if Ministers accepted a deal and UK legislatures were watching the televised proceedings from the European Parliament discussing our withdrawal agreement before this Parliament had the opportunity to make a decision itself. That is precisely what this amendment is about.
The Amendment 7 statute, passed in the House of Commons, is the only viable context in which MPs and Members of this House can express their views on the deal, and whether it should be rejected or, crucially, whether the Prime Minister should be requested to seek different or improved terms. In its simplest terms, this amendment is a protection for the will of the House of Commons, which it has already said it wants. If the Government are truly committed to a meaningful say for the British Parliament, if they truly believe in the British Parliament taking back control, surely they can accept this amendment today. I hope that they will.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 190 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno. I warmly support what has already been said on the important amendments in this group. My amendment is framed to ensure that it is quite clear in the Bill what the implications would be of Parliament not approving the terms of a deal negotiated by the Government. If there is to be a meaningful vote by Parliament as opposed to a take-note Motion, which would be a total travesty of democracy on such a vital issue, then there are three possible outcomes. First, Parliament could endorse the terms of Brexit negotiated by the Government, which would clearly mean the UK leaving the EU on those terms. Secondly, Parliament could reject the terms negotiated. Thirdly, Parliament could resolve to refer the issue back to the people for a confirmatory referendum, something which I believe is raised in later amendments. I am excluding, for the purposes of this debate, the possibility that Parliament could tell the Government to return to the negotiating table and come back with a better agreement—a course of action which appears to be the subject of Amendment 199 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.
Amendment 190 is essentially a reset amendment, meaning that if there is no deal at the end of the negotiating period then the UK falls back on to the status quo terms. On 7 February 2017 Mr David Jones, the MP for Clwyd West, then a Brexit Minister, said during a debate on the Article 50 Bill:
“There will be a meaningful vote. The vote will be either to accept the deal that the Government will have achieved—I repeat that the process of negotiation will not be without frequent reports to the House—or for there to be no deal. Frankly, that is the choice that the House will have to make. That will be the most meaningful vote that one could imagine”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/17; col. 273.]
MPs should not be put in a position where they can vote either for a really bad deal result from the negotiations or in a way that delivers a no deal outcome. There must be a reset alternative for MPs. In circumstances where the deal secured by the Government is transparently inadequate there must be an option provided for the UK to continue being in the EU on existing terms. If that is not an available option it is essentially telling MPs to vote with a gun to their head.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 216 and 217 in my name. I will come to the detail in a moment, but for present purposes suffice it to say that these amendments, individually and collectively, would give to Parliament—here I acknowledge the primacy of the House of Commons—a decisive and conclusive say over the outcome of the Brexit negotiations. It is for Parliament, not the Government, to determine whether we leave the European Union and, if so, on what terms. If Parliament thinks it appropriate that that decision should be tested by a second referendum that would be wholly appropriate. These conclusions are wholly in accord with our constitution and history, and are, in my view, quite unchallengeable.
I acknowledge that the amendments might be clumsily drafted; I am no parliamentary draftsman. So I say to your Lordships that if others on Report draft different positions that are more happily phrased but achieve the same purpose, I shall be pleased to rally behind them.
My purpose now is to explain in greater detail the nature of these amendments and the reasons behind them. I turn to the text of the two amendments. They are inevitably cast in the statutory language and I do not want to test your Lordships’ patience by going through each clause. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I summarise them. My intention is that Parliament shall have the decisive say over the outcome of the negotiations. In that determination, the House of Commons must have primacy. Its decisions must be conclusive. This House does not have the authority to reject Brexit—only the Commons can do that—but we can encourage and facilitate that process. That is what these amendments enable.
Taken separately or collectively, the amendments enable Parliament to approve or reject Brexit whether or not terms have been agreed. They enable Parliament to require the withdrawal of the Article 50 notification and the UK to remain within the European Union, which is indeed my preferred outcome. If Parliament thinks it appropriate, these amendments provide for a holding of a referendum either to test public opinion or to ratify a parliamentary decision. That is wholly correct. Most importantly, the amendments enshrine and protect the primacy of the House of Commons. Without going into detail, although I happily would, the method is set out in subsections (7) and (8) of Amendment 216 and subsections (5) and (6) of Amendment 217. These provisions are based on the Parliament Acts, suitably modified to deal with resolutions.
I will explain the differences between Amendments 216 and 217. Both are designed to ensure full parliamentary control over the outcome of these negotiations. Amendment 216 is simple and is based on a cross-party amendment which was tabled during the European Union (Notification of withdrawal) Bill. Its basic attraction is that it has achieved all-party endorsement. Amendment 217 is a little more complex. It is more explicit in its provisions for the withdrawal of the Article 50 notification: it enables the holding of a second referendum and deals more fully with what should be done in the event of no deal. However, in substance these amendments are designed to achieve the same result: namely that these decisions are to be taken by Parliament, primarily the House of Commons, and not by the Government.
Let me briefly explain the fundamental justification for these amendments. I believe that Brexit is the single most disastrous peacetime decision that we have taken since at least the end of the 19th century when we failed to offer effective home rule to southern Ireland. Indeed, I am inclined to think that Brexit is even graver than that. I do not think that the referendum of 2016 was authority for Britain to leave the European Union, whatever the terms or in the absence of terms. The electorate neither could nor did know what the outcome of the negotiations would be. In my view, the proper interpretation of the referendum is that it was an instruction to the Government to negotiate the best exit terms that could be achieved. However, that leaves open the fundamental question of who will determine whether the terms, or the absence of terms, are an acceptable basis for leaving the European Union. In my view, the only proper answer to that question is that it is for Parliament to make that decision, and, if Parliament thinks it appropriate, the decision should be tested or ratified by a decision of the electorate expressed in a second referendum.
In most political careers, and certainly my own, party and national interests are not seen to be dramatically divergent. Occasionally, they are. The debate in 1940 which led to the fall of Chamberlain is perhaps the most dramatic of recent examples. Going back in history, the decision of Sir Robert Peel in 1846 to repeal the corn laws was another. I happen to believe that we now face another such moment. None of us should put party interest before our assessment of what is right for our country. Our decisions may lead to the fragmentation of existing party structures—I hope not—but our duty is to put our country first. Whatever the cost to our respective parties, we must give Parliament the decisive say on the outcome of these negotiations. That is the purpose of my two amendments and I commend them to this Committee.
Lord Patten of Barnes (Con)
This debate should be what I think is called a “no-brainer” for anybody who believes in parliamentary sovereignty. I do not want to add to what has already been said on the subject. I find myself in the curious position, for the first time in my life, of beginning a speech by quoting the Prime Minister of Luxembourg. As the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, pointed out, his description of the—in many respects admirable—Mansion House speech was spot on: here we are, going down this flower-strewn path, from a position where we were members of the European Union with loads of opt-outs to one where we want to be outside the European Union with as many opt-ins as you can get on the back of a lorry. It is called a “bespoke” deal. I do not have many bespoke suits—most of mine are off the peg and on to the floor—and I think that it is more an “off the peg and on to the floor” deal.
However, it was after the Mansion House speech that the most significant question that anyone asked the Prime Minister was raised. After questions from all the “trusties”, a German journalist got up and asked the Prime Minister: “Is it all worth it?” The Prime Minister, perhaps excessively honestly, did not reply directly but just pointed out that we had had a referendum which had to be honoured. I think that some others, including some of her supporters, would have put the point rather differently. They would have said that it is of course worth it because—to use a phrase which has occurred again and again in this debate—we are going to take back control. I think that most of them would at least in principle have conceded that taking back control means this Parliament—the House of Commons and the House of Lords—having control.
I have been struck as we have sat through these debates by the elephant in the room: the person who in many respects is more responsible for us being here and having this debate than anybody else, the regularly occasional leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party, Mr Farage. When Mr Farage talks about taking back control and when some of our tabloid newspapers talk about it, they do not mean Parliament having that control—they mean them; they mean a populist way of running this country. I spent some time this morning looking at Dicey—I have not done that since I was an undergraduate. I looked too at what I think is the best book on the rule of law, by that great jurist and great man, Tom Bingham—I recommend it to noble Lords. I read again what he says about parliamentary sovereignty—the keystone of our constitution. When people talk about taking back control, what they should mean is Parliament having that control. When they talk about a “meaningful vote”, they should not mean a vote which does whatever they want. A meaningful vote does not mean that it cannot make any difference to the whole process of Brexit, which was more or less said the other day by the Secretary of State, David Davis —who had said that there would be a meaningful vote.
I hope that it is not unparliamentary for me to make this comparison, but the Secretary of State increasingly reminds me of a character in a PG Woodhouse novel, of whom it is said, “He’s like one of those people in a Tolstoy novel, living in those dreary birch woods, who’s just chopped up his wife, thrown the baby down the well, goes to the cupboard, opens the cupboard and finds that there’s no vodka in the bottle”. That is the position in which our negotiators are increasingly finding themselves.
On the constitution, the Secretary of State seemed to be absolutely clear: we must have a meaningful vote, but you cannot actually change what happens. It is important for this House to give an absolutely clear message that parliamentary sovereignty in our system is what happens in this House and, above all, in the House of Commons—I agree with what my noble friend Lord Hailsham said on this. This is an occasion when a lot of us will have to make speeches and say and do things which we never imagined we would have to in our political careers. I hope more people in future will take the advice of my noble friend Lord Hailsham and follow their conscience on this issue and assert the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I want to direct the Committee’s attention to the fact that in the process of defending this Parliament and trying to bring back control to it, we are in danger of legislating one of the worst set of Henry VIII powers that could possibly be imagined. They would enable the Government to change the Northern Ireland Act, the Scotland Act and any of a series of things, so long as they were matters that had been considered in the withdrawal agreement.
Having come from a position of wondering why Clause 9 was in the Bill at all, because these are all matters to do with the withdrawal agreement—we have not got one yet, so we cannot legislate for it—we are now in a situation where I am surprised that the Government want to keep it. A poison pill has been administered to it by a very helpful amendment in the other place. None of the powers which we will put on the statute book can be exercised until a piece of legislation on the withdrawal agreement has been passed. It is entirely useless from the Government’s point of view, but from the point of view of those of us who are trying to protect Parliament, it is the one place in which we have a guarantee that there has to be an Act of Parliament to complete this process—if we do, indeed, complete it.
The grouping suggests that this is where we consider clause stand part. I think it would be wrong to pass over what Clause 9 contains, without recognising that it is not what we should be putting on to the statute book at all, certainly not without knowing what the withdrawal agreement is and without therefore being able to circumscribe the powers to things which reasonably arise from it.
There are things that cannot be done under these powers which are specified in subsection (3) but an enormous range of things can be done if a Minister considers them appropriate for the purposes of implementing the withdrawal agreement. I will no longer be ready to turf Clause 9 out of the Bill, for the reason I gave. The Constitution Committee, when it considered it, thought that it was entirely inappropriate to have these powers at this stage. The stage at which we should have them, if at all, in modified form is in the withdrawal agreement Bill, and not before, but we have the compensation that the clause contains the guarantee that the process can go no further without another statute being passed in both Houses of Parliament.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I think it is fairly reasonable as someone putting forward Amendment 150 that I should be allowed to speak.
Lord Liddle
My Lords, I just want to get Amendment 196 on the record, because it makes helpful points which should be taken into account by noble Lords when we come to devise a composite amendment on Report. That is why I am anxious to speak and I am sorry if I have upset the noble Lord, Lord Hannay.
We have had many excellent speeches. I think the three by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and my noble friend Lord Reid are among the best I have heard on this Bill and perhaps even since I have been a Member of this House. I fully support what they said.
The purpose of Amendment 196 is to build on the Grieve amendment that is now incorporated in the Bill. En passant I will say from this side of the House how much I respect the bravery of the Conservative MPs who voted for that amendment and put the national interest first. If they had not done that, a lot of the point of our proceedings would have been removed—so I respect them enormously.
The merits of Amendment 196—I will be very brief—are, first, that it specifies a date by which the Government have to produce their withdrawal agreement: 31 October 2018. That would prevent any attempt to bounce a last-minute decision through Parliament. Secondly, it attempts to deal with two eventualities: not just the eventuality of no agreement and no deal being reached in Brussels but also a failure on the part of the House of Commons to agree to and adopt the resolution that the Government will put forward seeking to endorse that agreement.
It does not give the House of Lords a veto. I agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said: these matters fundamentally have to be decided by the Commons. This amendment allows the Commons to consider a whole series of options, including the extension of Article 50.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I agree very much with what he said about the speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Reid and Lord Patten, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham.
I am concerned about the point he is on now. Subsection (2)(b) of the clause proposed by Amendment 196 seems to me to open the possibility of a period after we have left the European Union before we have any agreement with it in respect of the terms of withdrawal. That would be an extremely dangerous legal vacuum.
One of the desirable features of the Mansion House speech was that we had no more nonsense about no deal being better than a bad deal. It was clear that the Prime Minister wished to do a deal. It is very important that, if we leave the European Union, we do so on the basis of agreement with it on the terms of our withdrawal. If not, our position with third countries would be impossible and they would be unable to do business with us until we had established a secure position with the European Union—and, of course, our position with the European Union would be pretty bad. So I agree with the spirit of this amendment—indeed, I agree with the spirit of all the amendments in this group—but it seems to me that there is a real danger lurking in the wording of subsection (b).
Lord Liddle
If the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, thinks there is a danger, we will have to look at it again because I so respect his judgment. I certainly do not want to create a legal vacuum; I want to see the possibility of an extension of Article 50 as one thing that Parliament might do if it decided to reject the Motion on the withdrawal agreement. I also think that it would be appropriate for the Commons to decide on any other course—and certainly I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that a referendum would be a possibility in those circumstances. How can we possibly judge at this stage what those circumstances will be? We have to have in our amendment—while maintaining legal certainty—the possibility of the Commons being able to decide on a number of different things.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
One of the benefits of the Grieve amendment, as inserted, is that it refers to approving the “final” terms of withdrawal. Part of the problem we now face with an exit day in March 2019 is that the prospects of reaching a final and detailed agreement before then are receding day by day. So it appears to me—I read the Daily Mail every day and follow, as far as I can, what Jacob Rees-Mogg is saying—that the hard Brexiteers want to get us out with the vaguest possible interim agreement and do not mind about it. Parliament has not to allow that. Therefore, it is important to talk about the final and detailed terms of the agreement to be presented to Parliament before we leave, and it is something that we all need to ensure we have in this Bill.
Lord Liddle
I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is saying. That is why I think that the possibility of extending Article 50 is realistic, before one contemplates the possibility of a further referendum. The risk that we face at the moment is that the Government will seek to take us out of the European Union finally on the basis of a political declaration that will, frankly, contain mushy words that mean one thing to one set of people and another thing to another set of people.
Lord Lea of Crondall
Will my noble friend allow me to interrupt to check that I have understood what has been said in the last five minutes by both him and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr? As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said that we cannot have a vacuum and have to have what I would call a treaty. A treaty, in turn, has to be an agreed document. It cannot be just a piece of paper to say that we want to agree with each other; it has to fill the vacuum to which the noble Lord referred. Am I right in my understanding of what is being said?
Lord Liddle
My noble friend is making a good point, but I think that the vacuum that we potentially face is the risk of a vague political declaration that gives us absolutely no idea what the eventual economic relationship between Britain and the EU will be. In those political circumstances, one might want to say to the Government that we have to extend the period allowed under Article 50 and be given a much better idea of where this course that they are so in favour of is leading us. On that basis, we might then consider whether the final deal should be put to the people in a referendum. The risk is that this declaration will provide the opportunity for misleading the British public about what is involved.
That is all that I have to say. I am wholly in favour of all the amendments in this group and the sentiments behind them. It is wonderful that there is such support around the House for them, but we need to think through the precise terms of what I hope this House will eventually pass on Report.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, the Chief Whip has asked me to indicate that there is some concern about the availability of facilities if we do not adjourn the Committee. I therefore propose that at this point we adjourn and I suggest that we resume after Questions have concluded.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 14th March 2018
(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 79-VII(b) Amendments for Committee, supplementary to the seventh marshalled list (PDF, 67KB) - (14 Mar 2018)
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, we are now well into the 11th hour of consideration of the Bill. There has been no break of any kind since lunchtime. I do not believe that noble Lords have been guilty in any way of prolonging the debate unnecessarily; I think the discussions have been perfectly reasonable, and the contributions have been precisely what we would expect of this House. To expect us to carry on with no break whatever is treating the House with contempt. I will oppose this Motion, and subsequent motions, unless the Chief Whip is, very graciously, prepared to allow us to behave in a reasonable manner in respect of the Bill.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, the arrangements for debates are frequently discussed through the usual channels, as the noble Lord will be aware. The Statement that we have just listened to occupied the dinner break. I am afraid that the noble Lord had the opportunity, if he wished, to get sustenance. A number of noble Lords have not had dinner up to now, but no doubt they will find opportunities to do so.
Lord Adonis
Is the noble Lord saying that it was inappropriate for me to be present for the Statement on Russia repeated by the Leader of the House because I should have taken a dinner break then?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Dinner breaks are always filled with other business, or usually so. I am happy with the answer that I have given the noble Lord.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, will the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, give us an indication of when he proposes to adjourn the Committee this evening? Many of us came here on the basis that it would adjourn at 10.30 pm. Can he tell us why a decision appears to have been taken that this will no longer be the case?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
The target for the day is printed on the groupings list. It states that we should,
“go no further than the group beginning amendment 220”.
We have adjusted that because of the amount of time we have spent so far on the amendments today. We have had eight and a half hours of actual discussion on the Bill today and completed four groups. We need to make progress. I am afraid that we are going to have to sit later than 10.30 pm. I would like to conclude the business at that time but I am afraid that it will not be possible unless we have an enormous rush of amendments not being moved. I think that is unrealistic, so I must tell the noble Lord that I think he will be sitting quite late this evening.
Lord Liddle
Is it the noble Lord’s view that the Committee has not been reasonable in its treatment of these amendments? We have had four very big, serious debates today which, in my view, have been of the highest quality and have shown the House of Lords at its best. Is the noble Lord telling us that there has been time-wasting?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Not at all. The House is perfectly entitled to take as much time as it wishes in debating these issues. However, as Government Chief Whip, it is my task to get this legislation through the House. I am afraid that noble Lords will have to be prepared to co-operate in that endeavour.
Baroness Kramer
“( ) No regulations may be made under this section until the Chancellor of the Exchequer has published a statement setting out a strategy for retaining membership of the European Investment Fund.”
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, I am moving this amendment because it is an important amendment in an important group. I suspect that the noble Lord will want to make a more substantial speech than I will, but these amendments would essentially require the Government to have a strategy for how they build or retain engagement with the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund post Brexit.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
Order. Could the noble Baroness tell the Committee to which amendment she is speaking?
Baroness Kramer
I am speaking to Amendments 183 and 187, which would require the Government to create a future strategy to retain engagement with the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund. On all sides of this House, Members have appreciated the value of both those bodies; their contribution to the UK has been substantial. In 2016, the European Investment Bank contributed support in excess of £5.5 billion to a very wide variety of projects, ranging from schools in Yorkshire to Crossrail. The European Investment Fund has played an absolutely key role in the development of new start-up companies in the UK, particularly in fintech—an area I am very close to—which received some £2 billion between 2011 and 2015. The Government have not yet made it clear to any of those in the business world, including those who rely on these sources, what the future framework will be either to continue a relationship with those two bodies or to replace them with an alternative source of funding.
From time to time the British Business Bank has been mentioned as a possible route to provide those mechanisms. However, I point out to the Government that businesses certainly need reassurance in that area if the Government intend to pursue that strategy. The British Business Bank is in no way geared up to make loans on the scale of the European Investment Bank, nor does it enter into the role that the European Investment Fund pursues, which has been very much to fund venture capital, which in turn flows into this range of start-ups.
I would like to hear from the Government how they see the future framework of the British Business Fund. Your Lordships will remember that in 2016, the Government were pursuing a strategy of essentially privatising that operation. It was widely understood that a number of companies—JPMorgan, Nunes, Deloitte and Norton Rose—were advising on the transfer of all the assets of the British Business Bank to an investment vehicle, to be called the “British Income and Lending Trust”, which would then be floated on the London Stock Exchange and its shares made available to investors. That would have been, in effect, the end of the British Business Bank, and the Government took that as a strong position. Its actions were ended somewhat abruptly because of legal complications surrounding the privatisation of the Green Investment Bank. I regret the Government’s decision, but the complications at that point led to the delay in the same strategy being applied to the British Investment Bank.
Can the Government give us clarity on the future of our relationship with the EIB and the EIF and, if they have decided that those roles will now be picked up by the British Business Bank, can they give us assurances about what the nature of this will be or say whether a delayed privatisation will take place? Can they also tell us where the British Business Bank will get funding from and on what scale, and whether it will get both the mandate and the resources to enable it to move into this field, which is far wider than the field it is currently engaged in? Without that, we will compromise not only our vast infrastructure projects, which are absolutely critical to any kind of economic growth, but also our start-ups, and particularly that very important area of tech and fintech which has been utterly dependent—you cannot find a single fintech in the UK which has not had funding through the EIF source.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I think the noble Baroness was speaking to Amendment 183, but that is grouped with Amendments 167, 187 and 227BC, which relate to the European Investment Fund and the EBRD.
We had a brief discussion about the European Investment Bank on 28 February, in which I made comments, which I will not repeat—at columns 731 and 732—about the value of the EIB, particularly for infrastructure investment, where it is a key partner, both in its own right for the investments it makes but also, crucially, in catalysing private sector investment. It acts as a strong guarantor of the determination of the state and partners to take projects forward. In my experience as a Minister, having EIB support for projects has been crucial in putting together funding packages from the public and private sectors, including different public sector partners, to make it possible for projects to go forward. Therefore, the big collapse in EIB lending—particularly the significant collapse after the notice under Article 50 was served—is of immense concern. The collapse is partly because it has been difficult getting projects going, but also because the European Investment Bank itself has withdrawn from engagement in projects because it is not at all sure of the security of its investments after 29 March next year.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 187, which specifically refers to the European Investment Bank. I did so because, almost invisibly, the EIB has made a major contribution to investment in UK infrastructure. The advantage of the EIB, of course, is low interest rates, but it also offers commercial expertise and very highly prized advice.
I just want to illustrate the importance of the bank to our economy with some statistics. For example, in the field of transport, in 2016 over €2.5 billion was loaned to various projects in the UK. That included loans to Merseyrail for rolling stock, to the Port of Dover and to Aberdeen harbour, and over €1.75 billion for social housing. For energy projects, €3 billion was loaned, and for education projects, €0.75 billion. In my own country of Wales, in 2016 Swansea University borrowed €71 million for a splendid and wonderful new campus. It is so large that it is almost the size of a small town and it is very highly regarded. Bangor University borrowed €10 million for a new campus. Here in London, Transport for London is, in Britain, just about the biggest borrower from the EIB and has relied on it very heavily. Since 2002, there have been loans to London Underground for the Northern line extension, for Crossrail rolling stock, for Stratford International station, for the East London line and for the DLR Woolwich Arsenal extension, and that is in addition to seven other Underground schemes.
Noble Lords will see immediately the importance of this borrowing to some fundamental sectors of our economy: energy, transport, education—particularly universities—and urban regeneration and housing. In 2015, in total the UK received over €16.5 billion. In 2016, that went down to €9 billion, and in 2017 it was around only €3 billion. There was an immediate drop-off in the number of projects funded, and new lending by the EIB to the UK fell by almost two-thirds last year.
The Welsh Government had been hoping to use the bank to fund the South Wales Metro project and the M4 relief road. Already in Wales, providers of social housing have had to look elsewhere for funds, and that of course costs more. An increase of 200 basis points in the cost of capital would lead to an increase of around £1.5 million per annum for each £100 million borrowed.
There may not be an official moratorium on lending to the UK by the EIB but clearly the bank is already concerned about the future basis for repayment. It has been suggested that we should set up our own development bank, although so far the Government have not expressed interest in this. Can the Minister clarify the position of the UK Government on setting up our own investment bank? However, even if the Government were keen to do that, it would take years for a new bank to gain scale and expertise. There could also be uncertainty about its status. There could be a problem with the classification of its funding, as it could be classified as providing state aid, and we know that the Prime Minister has already said that she wants to observe international rules on state aid. The recent experience of setting up the British Business Bank and the Green Investment Bank indicates that it can be a complex and lengthy process. As a minimum, I believe that the UK Government should make it clear that they wish to negotiate a specific mandate for continued bank lending by the EIB to the UK as part of our future arrangements.
On the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, 90% of EIB lending is to EU member states. However, it also lends to EFTA states and to others preparing to join the EU. It therefore would not stretch the imagination too much that it might be possible for it to lend to those preparing to leave the EU. The rules and conditions of the EU guarantee for the EIB’s external lending are decided by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, and those rules were most recently decided in 2014. The Government need to negotiate an amendment to that decision. Do the Government intend to do so?
I hope I have illustrated that the amendment does not refer to a hypothetical situation. This is not a prediction that doom might come but a factual statement of the situation with the European Investment Bank as it is now: it has stopped lending. This has had a serious impact on our infrastructure, which is already showing signs of strain as a result. The lending could dry up altogether and projects will have to find an alternative source, but that source will be more expensive and less reliable. I urge noble Lords to take an interest in this issue, which is fundamental to the development of our infrastructure in this country.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I shall speak briefly to Amendment 183. I am aware of the EIF because of its investment in the UK venture capital industry, in which I serve on a professional basis from time to time. I understand that the Chancellor has committed an extra £2.5 billion to the BBB specifically to make up for the loss of future investment from the EIF into venture capital funds in the UK, which would negate the need for this. There is a problem in that the EIF, from Article 50 being triggered, has announced that it is looking only at funds where two-thirds of the investment will be in the EU and at least 50% in continental Europe. So organisations that contribute enormously to our economy—for example, social impact investment companies such as Bridges, which is 100% investing in UK companies—have, from the moment of Article 50 being triggered, had the decision-making process frozen by the EIF. This has been damaging to them. I suggest—the Minister might care to comment—that the problem is not here and then after we exit the EU but in the transition period. For some unknown reason, the EIF is freezing the money rightfully due to UK investments.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I can at least discuss the EIB with the qualification of someone who nearly borrowed money from it. I commend the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, because it was EIB expertise that helped me to persuade the Government to fund the Jubilee line extension. We were then able to have even cheaper money called government grants, so it was all right in the end.
This group of amendments illustrates that in the whole Brexit debate there are unintended consequences that were clearly not thought through at the time of the referendum. We discussed some on Monday, such as haulage, airlines and so on. What we need to hear from the Government tonight is either that they intend to pursue this course and try to produce appropriate associate agreements—or whatever the right term is—with these institutions, or that they will set out how they will provide the money and expertise that make sure that they do not put a serious dent in the already inadequate investment programmes in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments—frankly, I have lost track of who moved what and which ones are in the group, but I will be generous and address all the issues that were part of the original grouping under the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, although the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has moved Amendment 183—addresses two quite distinct institutions, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the European Investment Bank, including its subsidiary, the European Investment Fund. If the Committee will permit, I will address each of them in turn.
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development is an international financial institution that is based in London and is subject to its own establishing agreement through a multilateral treaty that was laid before Parliament in 1990. The EBRD is led by a British president, Sir Suma Chakrabarti, who in 2016 was re-elected to serve a second four-year term. The bank is not an EU institution and therefore the UK’s membership is fully independent of EU membership. As such, the European Council does not have dominion over the membership or operation of the EBRD. The UK’s exit from the EU will not have any bearing on the location of the bank’s headquarters in London, which is enshrined in its articles of agreement. The EBRD has also publicly reiterated that Brexit will have no impact on the UK’s membership and the London headquarters. Amendment 167 is therefore unnecessary and would have no effect on UK membership, which will continue unaffected after the UK leaves the EU. The Government have made it clear in recent Answers to Parliamentary Questions that the UK remains firmly committed to the EBRD and that exit from the EU will have no impact on our continuing membership. With that reassurance, although I am not sure whether the noble Lord moved the amendment, I hope that he will feel able not to press it.
Amendment 227BC would create a negotiating objective for the UK to remain a full member of the European Investment Bank. The EU treaty defines members of the EIB as EU member states. It also sets out that only members can hold capital in the bank and participate on its board. That means that in March 2019 the UK will no longer be a full member of the EIB, as it will no longer be a member state of the European Union. However, let me reply directly to the questions put by the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. The Chancellor has made it clear that the UK considers that it may prove to be in the mutual interest of all sides for the UK to maintain some form of ongoing relationship with the EIB group after leaving the EU. The UK will explore these options—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
Why did the Minister say “may” when surely he means “will”? Will he think again about that?
Lord Callanan
If the noble Lord will forgive me, I will use the words as I have said them. These issues are matters for negotiation, so we will use the word “may” instead of “will”. Obviously, we cannot impose our will on our negotiating partners. The UK will explore the options with the EU as part of the negotiations on the future relationship.
Perhaps I may use this opportunity to respond to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, on agencies. I think that I indicated to him during the debate that the list issued by the Prime Minister was not necessarily an exclusive one and that we are considering carefully a range of options. Where there is a demonstrable national interest in pursuing a continued relationship with an agency or other EU body, the Government will carefully consider whether we should pursue it, at which point of course it will be a matter for the negotiations. We will continue to update noble Lords on our negotiations, subject to the usual caveat of not undermining our negotiating position.
Amendment 227BC seeks to make it an objective of the Government to achieve a particular outcome in the negotiations on our future relationship with the EIB. It is important that the Government should maintain negotiating flexibility in this and all other areas in order to achieve the best deal for the UK. However, as I said, we have not discounted maintaining some form of ongoing relationship, if that supports an overall deal. I hope that that will be sufficient for the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Amendments 183 and 187 would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish a strategy for retaining access to the EIB and the EIF. As Parliament has agreed, we will not publish anything that would undermine our ability to negotiate the best deal for the United Kingdom. Any information on potential economic considerations and negotiating strategy is important to the negotiating capital of all parties. Publishing a statement from the Chancellor setting out the strategy for retaining access to the EIB and its subsidiary, the EIF, will ultimately harm our negotiating position. However, as I said in response to Amendment 227BC, I can assure the Committee that we have not discounted maintaining some form of ongoing relationship with the EIB group if that proves to be part of the best overall deal for the UK.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked about the British Business Bank.
Lord Dykes (CB)
Can the Minister explain, distinctly and clearly, to the Committee the distinction between demonstrable national interests and the national interest adjudicated by Jacob Rees-Mogg, Bill Cash and others?
Lord Callanan
We are having a serious debate about the EIB. The noble Lord is demeaning the subject before the House.
The British Business Bank has already raised the limit on the amount that it can invest in venture capital funds from 33% to 50%. It has also brought forward the £400 million of additional investment that was announced in the Autumn Statement. As a result, we expect it to have doubled its investment in venture capital this financial year. We have also broadened the range of the UK guarantee scheme by offering construction guarantees for the first time. I hope that that addresses the noble Baroness’s question.
Baroness Kramer
Perhaps I could just press the Minister on that, although I appreciate that he may not have an answer. In terms of volume, what he has discussed does not meet the need. Businesses are concerned that we may not end up with an appropriate relationship with the EIB and the EIF. Are the Government looking at similar programmes but on a relatively minor scale?
Lord Callanan
I do not have an answer to that question. I will come back to the noble Baroness on that. I have only the figures that I outlined to her.
I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord enough not to press whichever amendment he wished to move.
Lord Adonis
The Minister’s response was helpful and I completely accept his reassurances on the EBRD. That issue is clear. My amendment was just a probing one to elicit the response that he has given, which is that there is no relationship with the EU and therefore our position is not affected at all.
The Minister made tantalising remarks suggesting flexibility on a wide range of agencies and the Government’s position on them. He said that this would be a matter for the ongoing negotiations. This will be a big issue for us when we come to Report because, as he knows, a lot of the amendments that we have been going through have sought to elicit from the Government their intentions toward individual agencies. Is he in a position to let us know before Report which agencies the Government will seek either full or associate membership of? Otherwise, I am not quite sure how the House will proceed on Report. We will be presenting amendments that seek continued British engagement with agencies when we do not know whether it is the Government’s policy to share that objective.
Lord Callanan
I understand the noble Lord’s point. As we have gone through the various categories of debate, I think that we have been reasonably clear on where we see the values in certain agencies in the individual sectors that have been talked about. The difficulty with putting any of these requirements to achieve something in statute is that this is a negotiation. We can seek to achieve anything, but if our negotiating partners are not interested in discussing it, it would be very difficult to do. We have gone as far as we can and I do not want to go any further this evening than the statement that I have already given. In her Mansion House speech, the Prime Minister gave some examples of agencies that we would be willing to participate in, subject to the negotiations. That applies to a lot of other agencies that have been mentioned at various stages, so I do not want to go any further at the moment. As soon as we have any information that we can share with the House, we will do so.
Lord Adonis
I do not think that the Minister quite grasped the point that I was making, which was not about whether it is appropriate to have requirements of this kind in legislation. The question was simply about knowing whether the Government seek to negotiate continued engagement in particular agencies so that we know whether it is appropriate for noble Lords to move amendments on Report calling for an objective that, unbeknown to us, the Government may be seeking to achieve anyway.
Lord Callanan
I will take the noble Lord’s statement as an invitation to give some thought to the matter, to consult ministerial colleagues and to see what further information we can share before Report.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I fear that it was called and there was no response. I am now at Amendment 184.
Lord Adonis
I am still anxious to speak about roaming. The only reason why I was unable to move my amendment is that I was in a Division Lobby, not because of any lack of willingness to move it. Yet again, we see how these proceedings are not being well conducted, if noble Lords are unable to move amendments because of procedural matters.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, this may be an opportunity, then, for me to make the speech I was going to make on Amendment 174, procedure in this House being endlessly flexible. I can assure the Minister that I am not going to give up on these things: we will find a way of getting back to them, one way or another. The issue I want to address, even at this late hour, coming into our 12th hour of debate today, is roaming charges and the EU’s digital single market.
If you asked ordinary members of the public what benefits they have seen in the last year from membership of the EU, one thing they would highlight most would be the big advances we have made in digital co-operation across Europe, in particular the development of the EU’s digital single market and, last year, the ending of roaming charges for users of mobile phones between member states of the EU. This is a great triumph of British policy. To bring about this result has been an objective of British policy for the previous 20 years and it is very much due to our work and that of big British companies which have developed on the back of the development of the single market, notably Vodafone, that we have this situation in the first place. I have a specific question for the Minister: what is the Government’s policy in respect of roaming charges after next March? Are they seeking to negotiate a continuation of the current reciprocal arrangements we have, meaning there will be no roaming charges, or should mobile phones users expect that from next March roaming charges will apply because there will be no reciprocal arrangements?
My second question is about the EU digital single market. To the surprise of many people, in the Prime Minister’s Mansion House speech when she talked about areas where we are going to seek continued engagement in EU programmes, she specifically ruled out the EU digital single market:
“On digital, the UK will not be part of the EU’s Digital Single Market, which will continue to develop after our withdrawal from the EU”.
She went on:
“This is a fast evolving, innovative sector, in which the UK is a world leader. So it will be particularly important to have domestic flexibility, to ensure the regulatory environment can always respond nimbly and ambitiously to new developments”.
The big question begged by that is: if the aim is for us to be an active participant in this market, why are we not prepared to remain part of the structure which is negotiating it, so as to be there for the creation of the rules surrounding it and in a much better position to take advantage of the opportunities that will develop as a result of it?
I invite the Minister to say more about what he believes the UK’s relationship will be with the EU’s digital single market after next March. In particular, how does he think it is in the public interest for us to forgo all the benefits which have been so painstakingly and painfully negotiated over recent years, and which have given users such benefits in travelling freely without hindrance and additional charges for mobile phone technology across Europe?
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Does the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, share the surprise I feel that the Prime Minister should have said that we would not be part of the digital single market? I am at a loss to think what domestic regulatory flexibility she could be alluding to. After all, the very point of the Data Protection Act is ostensibly to implement European standards on cross-border transfers of data, which is crucial for the tech industry as well as many other industries. If we are not part of the digital single market, how are British consumers to continue to enjoy the absence—the abolition—of roaming mobile charges? The mobile operators are saying, “We hope we won’t have to put up roaming charges, but it rather depends if we are in the digital single market so that we can get access to European-level wholesale rates”. So first, a British policy not to be in the digital single market does not make any sense. Secondly, British consumers are going to take a hit when they go on the continent for business or holidays. Who is going to explain that to British consumers?
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I agree with everything the noble Baroness has said. When we were given the instruction by the British people two years ago to commence negotiations on leaving the European Union, I did not meet anybody who said that the reason they wanted to leave it was so that they could pay higher mobile phone charges and restart paying roaming charges for travelling on the continent. It is a complete absurdity.
Since in her Mansion House speech the Prime Minister showed movement in many areas, which we have welcomed in earlier debates, on engagement in key areas of the single market and customs arrangements, I find it utterly mystifying that she should specifically have excluded the digital single market. This is one area in which Britain has done more than any other to forge its rules, which have been so advantageous to major British companies that would not exist if it were not for the development of the single market. Vodafone, one of the biggest and most successful companies in the country, would not exist as a serious international company if it were not for the success of successive British Governments in negotiating what has become the digital single market during the last 20 years.
I invite the Minister, with the new-found and emollient flexibility that he has been demonstrating, to say that he is prepared to take away and consider—I think that is the phrase he now uses—Britain’s continued engagement in the digital single market. Specifically, is it the view of the Government that we should start to reintroduce roaming charges for British mobile phone users from the end of March next year?
Lord Tunnicliffe
“Economic outlook taking account of the terms of the withdrawal agreement
(1) Following the completion of negotiations between the United Kingdom and the EU on the terms of the withdrawal agreement, the Secretary of State must commission an economic outlook from the Office for Budget Responsibility.(2) The economic outlook provided for by subsection (1) must—(a) take account of the terms of the withdrawal agreement, and(b) be laid before both Houses of Parliament before Parliament considers legislation to approve the withdrawal agreement.”
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the most significant actor in forecasting the development of the UK economy is, of course, the Office for Budget Responsibility. It is mandated to provide two forecasts each year, yet there has been no updated forecast on the impact of Brexit since the Economic and Fiscal Outlook of November 2016. Uncertainty about how the Government will respond to the choices and trade-offs they face during the withdrawal negotiations renders forecasting extremely difficult. There has been no meaningful basis on which to form a judgment on the final outcomes.
The Government have given the OBR short shrift, referring it to the Prime Minister’s Florence speech as definitive. In that speech, Theresa May said the UK would seek to achieve a deep and special partnership with the EU and that this should span a new economic relationship. Not surprisingly, the OBR did not consider that a basis on which to update its analysis. However, the OBR did set out to forecast the outcome for certain parameters of the negotiations. It made several key assumptions about what will happen when the UK leaves the EU next March. New trading arrangements with both the EU and leading states will slow down the pace of import and export growth over the 10 years following the 2016 referendum.
The Treasury Select Committee finds this situation highly unsatisfactory, given that the OBR is required to produce regular reports analysing the risks surrounding the economic outlook for the UK. Committee members saw no reason why the OBR should not provide an update, the rationale being that it already has information on migration flows and can assess the likely state of the public finances, plus the OBR has already formed the judgment that,
“the consequences of Brexit on economic growth, whether positive or negative, are likely to be so substantial as to dwarf the impact of the financial settlement”—
a settlement that has so exercised members of the Cabinet through and since the referendum campaign.
While the Select Committee report came too late to be considered in the other place during its debates on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, it is being discussed tonight. The amendment in my name and the names of my noble friends Lord Davies of Oldham and Lord Judd offers this opportunity and calls on the OBR to publish a fresh economic outlook, something that would incorporate the terms of the withdrawal agreement and inform Parliament’s conclusions on whether to act on the outcome of the negotiations. Challenging as this task might be, a flow of firm and up-to-date information will obviously be in demand over the course of this year. Parliamentarians have the right to ask the OBR, the best placed institution, to provide the information we so clearly require. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I shall say only a few words because of the lateness of the hour, but I support this amendment. The Government have continually used the argument that they cannot provide detailed forecasts of the impact on the UK economy, jobs and other opportunities either because they do not know the full clarity of what the end agreement will look like or because any disclosure might compromise their negotiating position. I have always found that a little strange. Having negotiated trade agreements on our behalf for 40 years, there is, in fact, more expertise about the impact of these arrangements on the other side of the channel than there is on this side, so we are really not fooling anybody in any of the discussions that we have.
Setting that aside, at the point that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, describes, neither of those arguments stands any more. We will have completed our negotiations and will know the details of what we have negotiated. Do the Government not agree that transparency is both possible and crucial at that moment and, therefore, that the analysis that the noble Lord just described is vital and owed to Parliament and the British people?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in his absence for this amendment and thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for moving it and speaking to it. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s remit is clearly defined in legislation, under the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, as being,
“to examine and report on the sustainability of the public finances”.
In doing so, the OBR must produce at least two forecasts per financial year, which must include the impact of government policy where it can be quantified with reasonable accuracy.
The Government expect the OBR to include the impact of the withdrawal agreement alongside its forecast of the UK’s economic and fiscal outlook as soon as sufficient information is available. That would contribute to the transparency which the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is looking for. But the Government cannot dictate when that might be. This is the important distinction. It is therefore not appropriate to request the OBR to produce analysis specifically for a legislative debate, as this will draw the OBR into political debate, which could undermine its reputation as an independent and objective institution.
Baroness Kramer
But this will surely be one of the most important debates and most important votes ever held in this House. Is the noble Baroness suggesting that it is not appropriate and necessary for the OBR to provide the information that probably only the OBR is capable of providing to make sure that that vote is taken with the best knowledge available? That would be extraordinary.
Lord Tunnicliffe
Surely the OBR is up to its ears in political debate. It produces the document on which Parliament discusses the Budget, taxation and all parts of the economy. The OBR is part of the political process. It is a neutral and independent part of the political process, but it is not without the political process.
Baroness Goldie
The noble Lord identifies the important characteristic of the OBR, which is its statutory independence. That is a strength and something we all commend. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, we have to respect what the OBR by statute is required to do, and we expect it to do that.
There are practical difficulties in addition to those which I was just beginning to outline when the noble Baroness made her intervention. If the Government agreed to have a forecast ahead of the withdrawal legislation being considered by Parliament, there is simply no guarantee the OBR would be able to take the terms of the agreement into account in its forecast. For example, if there was only a short period of time between the agreement being made public and the point at which legislation is introduced, then the OBR may not have capacity to conduct a thorough analysis.
Lord Liddle
I have the most recent report from the OBR here. It seems to me that the time point is irrelevant. If we are serious about letting our own Select Committees look at the proposed withdrawal agreement, there will be time for the OBR to do a forecast. It is one of the things that it complains about in the recent report:
“We asked the Government if it wished to provide any additional information on its current policies in respect of Brexit”—
but all the Government did was send it a copy of the Prime Minister’s Florence speech. The report goes on:
“Given the current uncertainty as to how the Government will respond to the choices and trade-offs facing it during the negotiations, we still have no meaningful basis for predicting a precise outcome upon which we could then condition our forecast”.
As soon as the withdrawal agreement is known, the OBR will want to produce that. Is the noble Baroness saying it should not?
Baroness Goldie
On the contrary, as I made clear in my initial comments, the Government expect the OBR to include the impact of the withdrawal agreement alongside its forecast for the UK’s economic and fiscal outlook. In fact, the noble Lord perhaps makes the point better for me than I make it myself. The OBR’s comments, which he has just read out to me from the report, are not redolent of criticism of the Government but of an acceptance of the reality of the difficulties of the negotiation.
Baroness Kramer
This is a crucial point. It decides whether or not Parliament is in a position to make an informed vote, which is absolutely at the base of democracy. Does the Minister realise that she is inviting this House on Report to provide for a change in the statutes of the OBR to require it to produce that report and to provide it with the appropriate resources, if it needs additional staff, to be able to do it in a timely way so that the vote can be an informed one?
Baroness Goldie
I must apologise; I am clearly explaining this very poorly. I am trying to indicate to your Lordships that it is not a matter of resource or of intent; it is a matter of whether or not the OBR would have sufficient information available to conduct its analysis and come forward with any conclusions. I have made clear that, under statute, the OBR has to produce at least two forecasts per financial year, and these must include the impact of government policy. What I am anxious to avoid is that this House puts the OBR in a different situation. I was going on to explain to the noble Baroness that, as the OBR has flagged at previous fiscal events, even once the outcome of negotiations are known, its forecast will be subject to considerable uncertainty. This is particularly the case around the associated economic and fiscal consequences of the withdrawal agreement. In addition, there is another body here, the reaction of which is extremely important: the Bank of England. Its reaction is difficult to forecast, yet that reaction will have a large impact on the analysis.
I have tried to explain why I totally understand the desire for transparency—that is understood and we sympathise—but I am pointing out that the amendment would impose an unacceptable statutory obligation on the OBR in terms of its current responsibilities and its capacity to discharge them in any meaningful fashion.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, I have to admit to be stunningly underwhelmed by that response. It seems to me that the request is perfectly reasonable. It may need some tuning to fit in with timetables and so on or a condition here and there, but I hope the Government will take this idea away—it is clearly popular around the Committee—and come back with a more positive view so that the Government and Parliament at the time can be better informed. With that comment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharkey
“Statutory instruments under other Acts of Parliament for the purposes of withdrawal
(1) The Statutory Instruments Act 1946 is amended as follows.(2) After section 9, insert—“9A Instruments relating to the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union (1) Any statutory instrument under any Act of Parliament containing regulations to make provisions for the same purposes as set out under section 7, 8 or 9 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, is subject to the same parliamentary procedure as an instrument made for the same purposes under a power provided for in those sections.(2) Subsection (1) applies instead of the parliamentary procedure set out in any Act under which the instrument is made.(3) For the purposes of this section—“the same purposes as a power provided for in those sections” means—(a) under section 7, regulations which make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate to prevent, remedy or mitigate—(i) any failure of retained EU law to operate effectively, or(ii) any other deficiency in retained EU law,arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU;(b) under section 8, regulations which make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate to prevent or remedy any breach, arising from withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU, of the international obligations of the United Kingdom; and(c) under section 9, regulations which make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate for the purposes of implementing the withdrawal agreement if the Minister considers that such provision should be in force on or before exit day;“exit day” has the same meaning as in section 14 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.””
Lord Sharkey
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Hansard Society, whose work on delegated legislation will be known to many noble Lords. I will be brief in dealing with what is essentially a simple procedural proposal.
The issue is delegated legislation. This has already been the focus of a lot of debate, much of which has consisted of expressions of anxiety about the likely number of instruments; about the range of the powers that they confer; about timing; and about Parliament’s ability to conduct proper scrutiny. There are varying estimates of the number of SIs that the Bill will produce. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said in his letter of 20 February that it will be between 800 and 1,000. Our own EU Justice Sub-Committee thinks it may be 5,000, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, noted on Monday. What is clear is that the number will be very large. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, estimates that 20% to 30% of those SIs will trigger the affirmative procedure. That estimate is no doubt based on the rules for categorisation set out in the Bill, and will certainly prove to be an underestimate once the sifting committees get to work.
As has been noted, the SIs will give the Government an extraordinary and quite unprecedented range of powers. They will enable the creation of criminal offences without primary legislation, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has explained to us; they will allow law-making by tertiary legislation; and they will allow Ministers and, apparently, 109 others largely unfettered discretion to range across the statute book. All this presents a formidable challenge to Parliament when it comes to effective scrutiny. The Government seem to recognise—a bit—that the situation is unprecedented and requires special care. They have written some constraints into the SI-generating clauses, but not enough and not wide enough. These constraints do not, in any case, address the problem of sufficient and effective scrutiny.
We will come to proposals for dealing with the scrutiny problem when we reach the group beginning with Amendment 237 on Monday. These amendments will enable the House to debate how it might adapt our current SI scrutiny system so that we may deal effectively with the avalanche of SIs coming our way. There are at least three schemes for us to consider. But whatever system of scrutiny the House finally settles on, it should apply to all SIs generated by this Bill. The same system, whatever it turns out to be, should also apply to all other SIs, whatever their parent Act, if they are to be used for the purposes of maintaining a coherent and functioning statute book on withdrawal from the EU. It would be quite wrong, for example, to have a rigorous system of scrutiny of SIs generated by this Bill and a less rigorous system for SIs used for withdrawal purposes generated by existing Acts.
This is not a theoretical concern. We know that the Government intend to use SIs generated by existing Acts when they consider that to be appropriate, or perhaps even necessary. The Solicitor-General made it clear in his speech on day 2 of Committee in the House of Commons that that is what the Government would do. In response to that, Amendment 200 sets out to create a common minimum standard of scrutiny. It simply requires that, no matter their provenance, all SIs with the same withdrawal purposes should be subject to the scrutiny procedures we finally agree on SIs generated by this Bill. It does this by making the appropriate amendment to the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, and by specifying in language taken directly from this Bill what “withdrawal purposes” means.
In a brief conversation about this amendment with the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and his officials, they reminded me that this amendment could not bind future Acts. That had occurred to us. Any future Act could, of course, write its own rules for withdrawal SI scrutiny, or indeed for anything else. But, if that happened, the Government would have to explain to Parliament why one type of scrutiny was appropriate for SIs generated by the withdrawal Bill, with another for SIs with the same purpose generated by subsequent Bills. We should have one minimum standard of scrutiny for any withdrawal-purposed SI, and this amendment is aimed at doing exactly that. Whatever scrutiny standards we eventually adopt for SIs arising out of this Bill, they should be the minimum standard applying across all similarly purposed SIs, wherever they come from, and whatever their parent Act. I beg to move.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
There is a good deal to be said for the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, when one bears in mind the power given in each of Clauses 7, 8 and 9 to make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament under regulations made under these clauses. Of course, one can look back to an existing Act, which could be amended by the exercise of this power, for a purpose related to the Brexit arrangements. If one takes an existing Act—one can visualise all sorts of situations when that might arise—it would seem right that the same procedure should apply if the amendment is made for the purposes which one sees in Clauses 7, 8 and 9.
For future Acts I can see there is a problem, because one cannot control a future Parliament, but as far as the past is concerned I respectfully suggest that there is a lot to be said for the amendment.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I am sorry I missed the beginning of the speech of my noble friend Lord Sharkey as a result of unaccustomed speed breaking out on the Bill’s proceedings while I was having a cup of tea. Whether this will be repeated, I do not know.
I had discussions before with my noble friend to properly understand his amendment and its main aim, which is to embrace, within scrutiny procedures used for withdrawal Bill statutory instruments, all those statutory instruments for the same purpose that derive from other previous statutes. That is an interesting idea. When it comes to referring back to the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, it is worth recalling that the Act was surrounded by generous commitments, promises that prayers against negative instruments would always have time for debate on the Floor of the House and all sorts of undertakings that were completely unfulfilled in practice.
Whether the amendment can be made to work in precisely this form I am not quite sure, but I think that the purpose of ensuring that nothing is slipped through by anything less than at least the procedure of triage and scrutiny that we seek for statutory instruments under this Bill—if it becomes an Act—is extended to anything that does the same thing. We certainly would not want to create a perverse incentive for a Government to use the wrong legislation, or a different piece of legislation, for the statutory instrument simply because they could evade a form of scrutiny by doing so.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, for the reasons that have already been given, I also support this amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, that was even shorter than my speech. The Government have to accept that they have to come to some sort of accommodation on statutory instruments. We all know that a lot of them will be required, and we have got to have a good system that satisfies everybody, both in this and the other House. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, sensibly makes that task simpler by making it uniform across the Bill. I am very persuaded by his argument and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and I hope that the Government are as well.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for tabling this amendment so that we can have a discussion about this and for the extremely courteous discussion that he had on this matter with me and my officials.
Many of us here today are opposed, in general, to making sweeping fixes to the whole statute book through one Act. Indeed, that is the cause of many of the concerns about the powers in this Bill, and an issue that the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, addresses with his amendment. I am therefore wary of inadvertently undermining the delicate and proportionate balances struck within other Acts between haste and scrutiny. The need to deal with the detail of how the Acts differ from one another is, however, what makes these Henry VIII powers necessary.
Nothing in this Bill directly changes the scope or functioning of other delegated powers. The exceptions that this Bill provides are that, within the context of and with the scrutiny attached to the original powers, they can be used to amend retained direct EU law. The Bill also clarifies that it lifts any implied EU-related restrictions from exit day, a necessary consequential step to our leaving the EU’s legal architecture. It is right and proper that, within their context and limits, other powers can be used for the same purposes as Clauses 7, 8 and 9. This amendment, if it is broadly constructed by the courts, could render moot any debate that this House has had or is having on scrutiny provisions in other Bills. This also extends to exit-related Bills and, in this field alone, this could catch the trade, sanctions and customs Bill.
It is I think best to let the sleeping dogs of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde lie, so I shall skate over the very concerning question of how financial privilege would apply under this amendment to the powers to correct deficiencies in the customs Bill.
I call noble Lords’ attention back to the crucial importance of the ability to exercise the powers in the sanctions Bill at speed and the additional information requirements added to that Bill. Even if parallel changes were to be made to this Bill, these would be tailored to the specifics of this Bill.
I stress the Government’s commitment to proper scrutiny of the powers under this Bill; they are a unique, time-limited solution to a unique problem. None of this, however, should be a reason to render irrelevant any specificities of scrutiny that this House has insisted on in other Acts. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Sharkey
As I listened to the noble Lord, I could not help thinking that we were talking entirely at cross purposes. The House has yet to decide on exactly what method of scrutiny we shall use and how we will amend existing methods—if we do at all—when we consider this Bill. That is not the issue for this evening; that is for Monday’s discussions.
This amendment simply says that whatever we decide is the appropriate method of scrutiny, all other SIs, no matter where they come from, should be subject to the same level and procedure of scrutiny. That is all it does. It does not interfere with anything else, or any workings of the parent Act, apart from the scrutiny procedure itself. It leaves the parent Act entirely untouched in every possible sense. The Minister is greatly overcomplicating what the situation will be. I accept that there may be cases with other Acts where the Government prefer not to have more rigorous scrutiny applied to the SIs generated by those Acts, but that is part of the point of tabling the amendment in the first place. I will withdraw it now, especially at this time of night, but I suspect we will return to this subject on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Clancarty
“Rights and opportunities of young people
It is an objective of the Government, in negotiating a withdrawal agreement, to ensure that the rights and opportunities of British citizens aged under 25 and resident in the United Kingdom are maintained on existing terms including—(a) retaining the ability to work and travel visa-free in the EU, and(b) retaining the ability to study in other EU member States, including through participation in the Erasmus+ programme on existing terms.”
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 204 seeks to maintain the rights of, and opportunities for, young people to continue to travel, work and study within Europe, and to ensure that those rights are not diminished. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Royall of Blaisdon and Lady Humphreys, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd. One of the reasons I tabled this amendment is that so little has been said about the effect of Brexit on young people’s opportunities, either by the Government or in debate. Young people are the future of this country, yet their future is being almost entirely ignored.
My fear is that, far from the country getting a deal that includes young people, they will become the collateral damage of a hard Brexit, because it is they who will be affected by Brexit more than anyone else. There are various reasons for this, and I will come on to why I believe this is the case. At present we are all treated equally within the EU, young people included. The right to free movement is entirely democratic—but the introduction of any kind of visa system or work permits will change this, as a visa system is by definition a class system. Celebrities, the rich and the lucky will be waved through airports, and established professionals will have a harder time of it, but those at the bottom of the pile will be the young, who are starting out on their careers and who wish to explore other countries and cultures and expand their horizons through work and/or study abroad—the very people for whom free movement within Europe means the most. This includes young people from poorer backgrounds, for whom a flight within Europe is more realistic than one further afield. Those who voted leave surely did not do so to create new hierarchies, new elites.
Some people have expressed the view in this House that things will not be so bad, and that we are worrying about this too much, unless someone is going to work in Europe. However, we cannot take work out of the equation. For many young people, travel and work are inextricably bound up. They are part of the same thing—that experience of exploring their own continent. This is true for the working class and the less well-off, who may need to find work out there to pay for their stay. Thousands of Britons work across Europe in all kinds of temporary jobs—as couriers, doing maintenance work, as waiters, working in bars and much else—in addition, of course, to the permanent jobs young people may be offered, very possibly as the result of an extended stay.
If young people lose these rights, not only will they lose this essential flexibility of travel, they will also be subjected to a double whammy, because every young person who is a citizen of any EEA country, as they will retain these rights and opportunities to a considerable extent, will have an immediate and substantial advantage over young British people in obtaining work abroad, whether permanent or temporary. I have heard recently of someone whose parents we know: a working-class 20 year-old boy who has been told not even to bother to apply for a job in in the kitchens of a top hotel in Paris, because of the uncertainties of Brexit. The effect of Brexit on young people is already happening.
As I have said, it is not true that only the young middle classes make use of the EU. It is worth reiterating the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, in Committee on 26 February, about our relative lack of international student mobility within Europe, particularly among young people from less advantaged groups. But if we start to shut down all opportunities for everyone, including Erasmus+, young people from less privileged backgrounds will again be hurt most, and most immediately, as it will become more difficult for them in particular to take advantage of a system with more restrictions, increased costs and greater bureaucracy in both work and study opportunities, if those opportunities even exist then. We must surely make greater headway in the other direction. I will not say very much about Erasmus+ as we have had a very full debate on this topic. However, in our debate on Erasmus+ in Committee, the Minister said he would reflect on what was said. Has he been able to reflect on that further in the last couple of weeks?
The goal of intercultural skills, which Erasmus+ holds dear, is surely an effect, at its best, of not just study but travel and work abroad as well, with the contact that young people make with others. This is hugely important culturally and has, of course, educational and commercial implications in the exchange of ideas as young people bring those experiences back from Europe. Encouraging young people to go abroad in Europe is good for the country.
Finally, it is worth reminding ourselves that the Ipsos MORI analysis of the results of the referendum estimated that for 18 to 34 year-olds the remain vote beat the leave vote significantly in every class of society. It seems clear that most young people from whatever class feel European in a way that many older people do not. This is not then just about being young and wishing to explore beyond one’s own country; it is a break between generations and, in that sense alone, to deny these rights is culturally a huge backward step.
This amendment sets down the red lines that many young people would not want to see crossed, and I hope the Government will accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I warmly endorse this amendment to which I have put my name. The feeling of dismay and disappointment among young people is hard to overestimate and has been put to me very forcefully. The Government keep saying that we are going to be an international nation whatever happens on Brexit, and that they put our international participation at the forefront of their considerations. It seems to me a very strange way to start if we in any way foreshorten the much appreciated opportunity to enjoy travel, study and the rest abroad, and to bring that experience back to Britain.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I support this amendment. My eldest grandson is about to leave university. He is incandescent with anger that he is about to be deprived of the right to look for a job anywhere across Europe when he leaves university. He is typical of a large number of young people coming out of university, colleges of further education and school who want the opportunity to travel, and, as my noble friend Lord Clancarty has suggested, the opportunity to do something outside their own country, to move away. However, that is something they are in real danger of losing with this change that we are about to have. The Government must really listen to these young people.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I regret to say that I shall introduce a bit of controversy into the proceedings at 22.38 in the evening. It is insulting to suggest that those of us who believe that our future will be better outside the European Union—at 66, I’m all right, Jack; I think about the young, not myself—wish to curtail the rights of young people. I say to the noble Earl that I am European and I feel European; I just do not wish to be part of the European Union.
Let us look at this issue in detail rather than at what the noble Earl has said. We all agree that everybody should have opportunities to go to Europe and elsewhere. I have a niece studying in Canada, which is not, as far as I am aware, a part of the European Union. I have another niece studying in Australia, which is not, as far as I am aware, a part of the European Union. I understand that the Erasmus programme covers a great many countries that are not in the European Union, so it has absolutely nothing to do with the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. The noble Earl is only a year younger than me; I have just looked that up. Surely he remembers that people were able to study in Europe before we were in the European Union. They did, and people from Europe came and studied with me at university. There was no bar. The only bar that the noble Earl talks about is the situation he mentioned of somebody in Paris stopping somebody else from going to work in Paris. It is not up to us; it is up to them.
Lord Adonis
Why does the noble Lord think, then, that young people are so overwhelmingly in favour of staying in the European Union?
Lord Robathan
Because they are by nature conservative, of course, and that is what it was: no change, like the noble Lord.
How can we not diminish, as the amendment says, the rights of young people to study in Europe? We want them to go and study. It is up to our friends, neighbours and allies in Europe to let them come, as we will let their people come to our country—not least, it has to be said, because foreign students pay a lot of fees to our universities. I am not going to detain the House for the half hour that I probably have in me, but I think that this amendment makes those of us who do not agree with it feel pretty insulted by the suggestion that we wish to curtail the rights of our children and grandchildren.
Lord Liddle
The referendum was won on the basis of controlling immigration by using posters that had 5 million Turks about to enter Britain. People who support Brexit have the gall to say that we are all in favour of people coming to Britain. That is the basis on which the referendum was won. Brexit is withdrawing the fundamental rights of EU citizenship, rights which are in the treaties. We have these rights because we are a member of the European Union. It is the treaties that give young people the right to work, study and travel without let or hindrance anywhere within the European Union. People on the Benches opposite are responsible for taking those rights away.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
I support this amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, to which I have added my name. I thank the noble Earl for tabling such an important amendment and introducing it in such a clear and precise manner.
History is littered with battles to achieve basic rights, and each hard-earned right is seen as an advancement—a sign of progress and enlightenment—as we move forward as civilised nations. Attempts to rescind our rights would and should be met with outrage, and no self-respecting Government would normally attempt such a backward step. So it is in the case of EU citizenship. UK citizens have had, since 1993, the same rights, freedoms and legal protections as every citizen of the EU and, although these are rights that have been bestowed upon us, they are rights that very many of us have embraced and valued. It seems unthinkable that the Government, egged on by the 37% of our population who voted to leave, are happy to see those rights removed.
It is those of us who remain living in the UK who will lose the most. We will lose all the rights that we have held as EU citizens, and it is young people who will feel that loss more than any other group. For those under 25, their EU citizenship is a birthright: they have known nothing else. Many young people in Wales consider themselves to be Welsh, British and European and wear those three identities comfortably, as do their English, Scottish and Irish counterparts. They have embraced the rights to live, work and love in the EU. They have grabbed the opportunity to obtain an international education and have studied at universities throughout the EU, advancing their language skills to enable them to work in an international sphere, and they have travelled freely throughout the Union. These young people voted far more strongly against Brexit than their older counterparts and they are the people who will have to live with the consequences of the votes of the older generation.
It is thought that 74% of under-25s voted to remain, but when will the Government acknowledge how strongly they feel? When will they listen to the voices of the young?
Lord Robathan
Does the noble Baroness think that the same people who formed this group were the same angry people who painted obscenities in Whitehall—about something they wished to do to Clegg—in 2010, against the Liberal Democrats?
Baroness Humphreys
I do not think so, because this new group has just been formed in the last couple of months or perhaps a little longer.
This group bypasses traditional media outlets because they know that these are increasingly irrelevant to young people, who only access the news items that interest them via social media. Their media posting today uses cartoons to combine a serious message with humour and it is aimed at the Labour leader this time. Entitled “Dear Jeremy Corbyn”, it reminds him that “the young people have supported you, they need you to support them”. This non-politically aligned group has realised that the co-operation of all people who hold the same opinions as they do is essential.
As ever, matters to do with the European Union come down to the personal and emotional. For the last 25 years, I and my compatriots have been proud to call ourselves Welsh, British and European. Our EU citizenship has given us the right to travel unhindered throughout Europe and has seen us accepted in every European country we visited. In Europe, we are citizens of everywhere, and we resent the fact that this right is being taken away from us and that future generations will not have the benefits of EU citizenship that we have enjoyed.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, the noble Lord should be rather careful about drawing comparisons between the EU as a place to travel and to work in, and Australia and Canada. My son studied in Canada, where there is a strict visa system for students: you have to leave as soon as you have finished your course, and he had to be very careful to get himself out of the country before his permission ran out. You need a visa even to visit Australia, and I suspect that it also has rules for visas if you have to work there. Of course people go there, and that visa system is comparatively relaxed, but it is not the same as the freedom we have in the EU.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, if I may take over from where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, left off, of course even the access we have to Australia is hugely facilitated by the fact that it is a former colony which has the same language and so many practices which are familiar to Brits, and is therefore a comparatively easy and familiar place to travel. It does not at all make the argument that somehow divorcing ourselves from the continent will enlarge opportunities for young people. However, I am a natural optimist—indeed, one could hardly be otherwise in the hours we are all investing in seeking to improve the Bill. Some good things are coming out of the Brexit process; actually, the whole thing might stop as a result of them.
The noble Baroness is completely right that one thing that is happening is the massive engagement by young people in politics and the political process. That did not take place before. We had all bought into the idea that the young were not voting or taking an interest in the future, and that politics was decided by the elderly. We had the triple lock on pensions at the same time as we were trebling tuition fees. Those two policies, more than anything else, symbolise the political centre of gravity in the last 10 years—students were expected to pay more and more of the burden of university education while the retired got a better and better deal. That is all changing now. The young are voting and are engaged as never before. They voted in the last general election in numbers which we have not seen for a generation. It is very clear to me that if we move, as I think is increasingly likely, towards a referendum on the Prime Minister’s Brexit deal, then either in that referendum or whenever a general election comes we will see very high levels of engagement by the young. I think it is now very likely that that will include votes for 16 and 17 year-olds—there is probably a majority in the House of Commons for that now. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, who is a natural conservative, will be fiercely opposed to that.
Lord Robathan
The noble Lord has tempted me. As it happens, I am. So is my 18 year-old daughter. She has just turned 18 and says it would have been absurd to give her a vote at 16 or 17 when she did not know anything about things.
Lord Adonis
If knowing anything about issues was a criteria for voting, we would need the noble Lord sitting in the judgment of Solomon over every member of the electorate to decide whether they qualified for the franchise. Being a conservative, he would probably approve of that, but we tend to have more objective criteria.
What we need in this country is to get young people more systematically engaged. A number of members of the noble Lord’s party in the House of Commons, including two former Secretaries of State for Education, are now in favour of votes for 16 and 17 year-olds, and there appears to be a majority in the House of Commons. I very much hope—and this could be the ultimate irony of Brexit—that the first time that 16 and 17 year-olds get to vote in a poll in this country is in a Brexit referendum held early next year, where they make the decisive difference in the decision this country will take to stay in the European Union. If so, the noble Earl’s great ambitions may be realised to an even greater and more positive extent than he may realise.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I should welcome the long-term political suicide of the party opposite in its failure to embrace the wishes and ambitions of young people, but the tragedy is that those young people will be most affected by its approach to Europe and to Brexit. This approach seems to be driven by some wistful look back at this country’s imperial past. It is interesting that the noble Lord referred to Australia and Canada, because that seems to be the basis of the party opposite’s approach to negotiations—we will pass up the market that is on our doorstep for the sake of some ludicrous imperialistic notion. How many times do we hear members of the party opposite refer to Australia, New Zealand and Canada in the media when push comes to shove as to where they are going to get these mystical trade agreements?
Lord Robathan
Much as I like all three countries that the noble Lord just referred to, the facts are that I have a niece studying in Australia and another in Canada. Sadly, I have none studying in France or Germany at the moment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I rejoice in the success of the noble Lord’s family, though I do not think it takes away the point.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I do not think so. The point I am making is that the party opposite’s visceral hatred of the EU and its obsession with past glories is taking us down a path which will have a hugely negative impact on many young people.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, moved this amendment to see whether the Minister has been able to reflect on our earlier debate. Perhaps I may take him back to the debate about the Erasmus programme on 26 February. The Minister may well recollect that he made some encouraging noises about the value that the Government place on that programme. He then went on to say that,
“no decisions have yet been made about post-2020 programme participation as the scope of that programme has not been agreed”.—[Official Report, 26/2/18; col. 478.]
If only the Minister would go a little further and say that it is the Government’s intention that this country will participate in the post-2020 Erasmus programme, that would give some grounds for optimism among young people who need to make a decision very soon about applying for the programme because it will take them past 2020. He would do them a great favour were he to do so.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, in addressing Amendment 204 moved by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, at the risk of repeating myself I remind the Committee yet again that the purpose of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is to provide a functioning statute book on the day we leave the EU, whatever the outcome of the negotiations. It is our intention that the planned withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill will implement the major elements of the withdrawal agreement, including giving effect to the agreement on citizens’ rights.
The amendment appears to seek to make it an objective of the Government to achieve a particular outcome in the negotiations on our future relationship with the EU and so to tie the Government’s hands on these issues. The amendment is focused on the withdrawal agreement, but these matters are for the future relationship with the EU, which this Bill does not seek to address.
After we leave the European Union, there will continue to be migration and mobility between the EU and the UK. We have proposed a time-limited implementation period based on the current structure of rules and regulations. This means that UK nationals may continue to have the same rights as EU nationals, such as the right to move and reside freely.
Looking to the future, UK citizens will still want to work and study in EU countries, just as EU citizens will want to do here, helping to shape and drive growth, innovation and enterprise. Indeed, businesses across the EU and the UK must be able to attract and employ the people they need. That is why, in our science and innovation policy paper published in September, we said that we will discuss with the EU future arrangements to facilitate the mobility of researchers, academics and students engaged in cross-border collaboration. We are open to discussing how to facilitate these valuable links.
Of course, we recognise the value of international exchange and collaboration, through both study and work placements abroad, in increasing people’s language skills and cultural awareness as part of our vision for the UK as a global nation. We will continue to take part in those specific policies and programmes which are greatly to the joint advantage of the UK and the EU, such as those that promote science, education and culture.
I repeat for the benefit of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, what I said in the debate on Erasmus, although I forget exactly when it was—sometime in the past. No decisions on UK participation in the successor Erasmus+ programme after 2020 have yet been taken for the simple reason that the scope of the future programme has not yet been agreed. The noble Lord is asking me to give him an assurance that we will take part in a programme about whose composition we have no idea. No Government could agree to do that. We will take a decision when we see what the successor programme is. UK participation will form part of the negotiations about our future relationship with the EU. There may be some specific European programmes that we want to continue to participate in as we leave the EU, and that will be considered as part of the negotiations.
Whatever the outcome of those negotiations, including the increasingly unlikely scenario in which we leave the EU without a deal—
Baroness Butler-Sloss
If the noble Lord will forgive me, will the Government continue to take into account the importance of young people’s desire to be able to work freely and move freely through Europe?
Lord Callanan
Of course we will take into account the wishes of young people to move freely, just as we will take into account the wishes of older people to move freely.
We will underwrite successful bids for Erasmus+ submitted while the UK is still a member state, even if payments continue beyond the point of exit. Therefore, applications for funding from UK institutions should continue, and are continuing, as normal.
The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, asked me again, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has done in the past, about the issue of associate EU citizenships. Let me make the point to the Liberal Democrats once again—it seems to have difficulty permeating through to them—that the EU treaty provisions state that only citizens of EU member states are able to hold EU citizenship. Therefore, when the UK ceases to be a member of the European Union, British nationals will no longer hold EU citizenship unless they hold dual nationality with another EU member state.
For those reasons, I hope the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Clancarty
I thank the Minister for that reply, which I interpret to mean he is still reflecting. This has been a good debate, even at this late hour, and I am grateful to everyone who has participated and for the support the amendment has found. Yes, some young people travelled and studied abroad before we joined the EU, but they were mostly people who could afford to do so. Restrictions put people off. If we shut our young people, our students, out of our own continent, this is not global Britain but parochial Britain.
As it is getting late, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Maintenance of refugee family reunion rights within Europe
(1) A Minister of the Crown must make appropriate arrangements with the aim of preserving specified effects in the United Kingdom of Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 (the “Dublin Regulation”), including through negotiation with the EU.(2) “Specified effects” under subsection (1) are those provisions, and associated rights and obligations, that allow for unaccompanied minors and adults to join a family member in the United Kingdom before making an application for asylum. (3) Within six months of the passing of this Act, and then every six months thereafter, a Minister of the Crown must report to Parliament on progress made in negotiations to secure the continuation of reciprocal arrangements between the United Kingdom and member States as they relate to subsection (1).”
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, there are at present two legal paths for unaccompanied child refugees in Europe to come to this country. Clearly there are people traffickers who exploit the situation reprehensibly but that is for another day.
One legal path is under Section 67 of the Immigration Act, an amendment I moved that was passed by this House, accepted by the Government and became part of the Act. The other legal path is what we have called for short Dublin III. That is, under an EU-wide treaty it has been possible for unaccompanied children in one EU country to join relatives in another. For example, a Syrian boy in France could join an uncle in Stockholm. This amendment seeks the continuation of the rights and entitlements that at the moment come under Dublin III.
Under the existing paths that I have mentioned, we have to date, under Section 67, let some 250 unaccompanied children into this country. The Government say that they will put a stop to it when the figure reaches 480. However, that is a subject for debate on another day. Under the Dublin III provisions, something like 800 unaccompanied child refugees have arrived in this country, mainly over the past two years. The majority have come from France, mainly from the Calais area, but not exclusively so.
The numbers in Europe continue to increase. At the moment it is estimated that over 3,000 unaccompanied children are registered in Greece, a third of whom are in shelters. That means that at least 2,000 children, mainly on the islands, are sleeping rough without any proper accommodation or facilities. Secondly, although the Jungle in northern France has been removed, some of the young people who were there before have worked their way back to northern France and several hundred are sleeping in the woods, under the trees, near where the Jungle used to be, in difficult conditions. Quite a few are scattered around Italy as well.
The amendments seek to ensure that Brexit does not result in the closing down of that safe and legal route for unaccompanied children, and some adults, to seek asylum in this country by joining their families. It is simply a matter of keeping the existing methods going. It is not a big thing to ask and it is fairly straightforward. The Government have hinted that they might consider this but we want that hint to become clear.
The Dublin III provisions allow family members and dependants to join family in Britain. Some of those dependants might be, for example, spouses who became separated in the course of their journey and want to join their partner, if that is appropriate, in this country or another EU country. However, much of the argument has been about unaccompanied children; that is, those under the age of 18. By having this significant and legal route, we have provided safety. As I say, quite a lot of Dublin III-eligible children are waiting to be able to come to this country, but the concern is that that might be stopped as a result of Brexit.
Something quite good happened when in January this year the Prime Minister met President Macron of France. Although the policy did not change, there has been an impetus to speed up the process. We have been told that that is the result of the Sandhurst treaty or meeting, and I hope that impetus will continue, but I have not seen many signs of it; things are moving rather slowly.
In moving this amendment, I have been careful, with the help of friends and NGOs, to ensure that we are asking for something pretty straightforward. We are asking that this issue should be negotiated. Clearly, for the Dublin III provisions to work, bilateral arrangements are required between us and the country from which many of these young people come. If we do it unilaterally, there will be no obligation on, say, the French authorities to verify who is eligible under the Dublin III provisions, so it has to be done on a reciprocal basis. It is something that has to be negotiated, which is why it is appropriate for it to form part of this Bill.
All we are asking for is that the process should be negotiated, with a commitment on the part of the Government to do so. That is perfectly reasonable. It is a matter of continuing the process that we have already and of giving some rights, particularly to the young people who come here, while of course the rights of young people in other European countries will continue as before. It is a fairly reasonable proposition and I hope the Government will be sympathetic to it. I beg to move.
Amendment 208A (to Amendment 208)
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Dubs, the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. These are important amendments that, frankly, should not be left to be considered at the fag end of a long day. I hope that when we come to the Report stage of the Bill, they will be debated in a rather fuller House than is the case this evening.
In essence, as my noble friend Lord Dubs has said, the amendments seek to preserve the position established by him during the discussions on the last Immigration Act and as a product of Dublin III. Since 2015, some 811 unaccompanied children have been successfully reunited with family in Britain under the Dublin III arrangements, while a further 250 have been transferred under Section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016. These are not big numbers and it frankly shames our country that we have failed to provide help and support for children fleeing war zones and civil war, but at least they represent a level of intervention that we can recognise as the beginning of a humanitarian programme of aid and support. It would be my wish to see our country go further.
In 2015, more than 1 million people arrived in Europe seeking refuge. It is estimated that 90,000 of them were unaccompanied children. The fact that we have taken just over 1,000 I find frankly lamentable. However, I recognise that we need to be realistic in the current situation and those of us committed to helping refugees, particularly child refugees, want at least to ensure that in a post-Brexit Britain we keep alive the important gains we have made to date. As my noble friend Lord Dubs has argued, these amendments go no further than ensuring that the UK Government do not close down safe and legal routes for unaccompanied children and adults seeking asylum to join family and receive protection.
I am not as experienced in arguing the case for refugees as my noble friend Lord Dubs, but I have had some personal experience of dealing with the fallout for refugees through the Refugees at Home charity, which seeks to place refugees with families. For some six months, my wife and I had a young woman called Riam staying with us while she sorted out her asylum status and began to rebuild her life. In talking to her extensively during that time, I gained a picture of how it must feel for many thousands of refugees across Europe who need help and support. Her family were originally from Aleppo. They fled the violence and moved to a city that they thought was safer. She, her sister and her brother eventually escaped the Syrian conflict, leaving her mother and father behind. Now, the family communicate by phone and, occasionally, by Skype. Her brother and sister are in different cities in different European states. This family faces the prospect of never being able to see each other again and enjoying the normal things that families do.
I know that Riam worries endlessly about her parents’ welfare. She once told me that ISIS—and loyal and rebel forces—had made it to the outskirts of her parents’ city and were engaged in fighting. She was terrified by that prospect. I cannot imagine how she must feel daily: estranged, thousands of miles away from her family, who are scattered across Europe and the Middle East, with a sense of loss and not belonging always present in her mind. She is a gifted woman with most of her life ahead of her; she now works here in the UK.
If these amendments are agreed—as they should be, given previous amendments—we can at least make a contribution to helping some of the most vulnerable young people in Europe with a safe passage and some optimism. For the longer term, we need an EU-wide agreement that ensures we shoulder a fair share of the international refugee crisis. My fear is that post-Brexit Britain will turn its back on an issue where we need common and binding institutions to bring countries together to help. I want to hear from the Minister that we will at least retain a common commitment, and I want some reassurances that we will work together across the EU 27—whatever the outcome of the negotiations—to secure fair and humanitarian outcomes in the future, especially for young people and vulnerable refugees. It gives me great pleasure to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and I hope that this House will eventually agree to it at a later stage.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. My purpose in adding my name to it is quite simple. If Brexit happens, I want to preserve one of the few safe and legal routes open to unaccompanied children seeking asylum.
Although the Jungle camp in Calais was demolished in October 2016, thousands of asylum seekers remain destitute in France and other parts of Europe. Many children are among them. Dublin III presents a safe and legal route through which a process can be put in place that will allow them to be reunited with parents, uncles, aunts, siblings or grandparents who, in some cases, may themselves be seeking asylum. That is the crux of the matter: it does not take a psychologist to tell us that the separation of children from their families has a detrimental impact on their emotional well-being and physical and moral development. If Dublin III were not to be transferred into UK law post Brexit, an orphan in Europe could no longer be reunited with other close members of his or her family.
A week and a half ago, I was back in Calais to catch up with developments there and lend support to the work that Help Refugees does there. The young volunteers there—many of them British—were working flat out during the bitterly cold spell we have recently experienced. Many of the asylum seekers there are still trying to cross the border illegally, which often means taking their life in their hands. Five children have died over the last two years in the attempt, but for some, there is the hope that legal help provided by organisations such as Safe Passage will secure for them a safe and legal route to the UK so that they can be reunited with a family member or relative here. Without a functioning equivalent of Dublin III, children will continue to congregate in Calais, taking desperate and life-threatening steps to reach their families. I hope that, as a nation open and welcoming to refugees in the past and with a proud history of doing so, we can continue doing it and keep our heads held high on the global stage.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, spoke powerfully about a particular girl from Syria but she is typical of children across Europe. I went to Calais in May with Fiona Mactaggart, then an MP, and we wrote a report about the situation in Calais and Dunkirk, but it is also true in Italy and in Greece. Of those children who have come across Europe without their families, there is a group who have rights under EU law. Those are the children who can apply under what is known as Dublin III. This amendment asks that the relatively small number of children who have actually succeeded in coming to this country should not be cut off when Brexit occurs. I accept Brexit, but what I ask, along with fellow Members who have put their names to this amendment, is that the Minister who answers on behalf of the Government recognises that Brexit should not prevent the existing rights of children. It is not just a moral issue; it is a legal issue: they currently have rights and it would in my view be shocking if those rights were got rid of because we leave the EU.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, at this very late hour I say that I agree with everything that other noble Lords have said and add that our record has not been what it should be in implementing our obligations regarding this most deserving of humanitarian problems. We should improve it, not curtail it, so I support these very moderate amendments.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to this amendment, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Our exit from the European Union presents us with a unique opportunity to define, in our own terms, the country we want to be. This nation is and always has been generous and open-minded towards refugees and has offered a home in times of trouble. From the Huguenots to the Belgians and Jewish refugees, we have a strong tradition of welcoming those who seek shelter. As a child, I can remember my own mother working as a nurse to welcome the Ugandan Asian refugees, and then later the Vietnamese boat people. This seemed only natural to me, given that my own father had been evacuated as a child to Canada during the war. This tradition is something which I hope, regardless of one’s views on Brexit or the European Union, we can all agree on.
In the period January 2016 to September 2017, the UK welcomed a total of 9,897 refugees, approximately half of whom were female and half were children. We can and we should do more, and we should seek to keep open and available every channel by which people are able to safely seek asylum. Dublin III is one of the ways in which respect for family life and unaccompanied minors’ best interests are kept at the heart of the asylum process. For some 300,000 unaccompanied child refugees, the risks of trafficking and forced prostitution or forced labour are extremely high. We know that in the Mediterranean, more than 75% of the 1,600 14 to 16 year-olds arriving in Italy reported being held against their will or forced to work. This staggering statistic is absolutely why we should be working to ensure that there are accessible, legal routes such as Dublin III, which allow children to apply for asylum safely from the country they are in, and not be forced to take dangerous journeys to join their families.
For children and adults fleeing conflict, the best place for them to be is with family members. This offers the best possible chance for them to thrive and rebuild their lives post trauma. The co-operation that Dublin III offers aids this but, as we all know, the Dublin conventions are only a small part of the story, and while the co-operation should remain, it is one strand of a much wider issue.
From the Calais operation, just 29 of the 769 children who were transferred to the UK came from the Dublin regulation route, and in 2016 just 355 people were transferred under this route. To date, the UK has taken in 10,538 refugees from Syria—just over half of the number we committed to resettle by 2020. We have so far welcomed around 220 children under Section 67 of the Immigration Act, which my noble friend Lord Dubs fought so hard to obtain: less than 1/10th of the original number committed to. Going forward, is this the sort of country we want to be?
Brexit is an opportunity to re-evaluate our priorities as a country and refocus on the country we want to be. Being an open nation with a generous welcome for those in need of our shelter should be a key part of that. I understand the limitations of Dublin III. But I call on my noble friend the Minister to clarify and confirm in this Committee that, post March 2019, the Government’s new and independent approach to refugees would guarantee that those who benefited under the old system would still benefit under the new, and that no restriction would be put in place preventing those in need from being reunited with their families.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, for that speech—not just for the speech but because it was the voice of compassionate, socially engaged conservatism, which I have always respected. May that tradition in the Conservative Party reassert itself. It is desperately needed at this juncture in our history. What the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said about the legal situation was also a powerful argument, which the Government must answer. Are we going to strip what have been legal rights away?
In the context of this Bill, we debate from time to time what sort of Britain we want to be, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, was absolutely right. I share completely her view about the sort of Britain we should be. I want us to be a Britain in which the world sees “Compassion” in capital letters in all our approach to public affairs. We seem to have lost that and I want to see it reasserted. I thank my noble friend Lord Dubs for having moved this amendment. His consistent and tireless work on this issue challenges us all. If we talk about family and its importance in society, this is an issue which we can no longer prevaricate about.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, was absolutely right to say that respect for family life lies at the heart of this matter. That in particular was the basis for the regulation we are looking at, Dublin III, and this provision, which is talking about those unaccompanied adults and children from outside who wish to join a family member who is already here in order to make the application. It is about respect for family life as well as seeking to give the benefit of the asylum application under the convention, to which we are, after all, already parties. So without elaborating and with great respect to what has been said by everyone who has spoken so far, I too support the amendment.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, it is a great shame that there is not more of a consensus between the two—or three—parties on the issue of refugees. We have debated it much over the years. Recently, we have got to what I would loosely call an uneasy peace, which is essentially based on my noble friend Lord Dubs’s Section 67 and Dublin III. That has produced modest numbers, but there are very real numbers of people meeting very real problems.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, put her finger on it. The rights individuals have as a result of Dublin III must be maintained. I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that the Government will either accept these amendments or make a very firm commitment to assure us that, one way or another, the effect of Dublin III will be maintained after Brexit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this evening’s debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I think the word “noble” is appropriate in so many different ways in the manner that we have been discussing this matter this evening.
It is a number of years since I worked for the Scottish Refugee Council. At that time, I was struck by a number of challenges experienced by those fleeing and seeking refuge across the globe. I was very much aware of the challenges experienced by refugees and asylum seekers; I draw a distinction between the two, as does the law. My frustrations were also manifest as a Member of the European Parliament at how the Dublin regulations were discussed, ultimately moved towards law and, frankly, not enforced in the manner in which I believe they should have been across the EU. While we often look towards Brussels for leadership in these areas, quite often we are disappointed by what happens when we move from the high words which can be found in certain of the discussions towards the realities of delivery, which can be quite different.
I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Stroud, who has again helped us realise some of the realities which we face. She is right to point out one of the greater challenges, which is finding unaccompanied minors in a difficult situation which they have not chosen to be in.
I turn specifically to the amendment. Noble Lords will be pleased that my noble friend Lady Williams is in her place beside me. I believe that on a number of occasions she has affirmed the Government’s commitment to ongoing support for those who are seeking asylum or who fall under the refugee convention. However, we must remember that the Dublin regulation is not, and never has been, a route for family reunification. It is a mechanism to determine the member state responsible for consideration of an asylum claim. Dublin confers no long-term right to remain in an EU state, whether on the grounds of family relationship or on any other basis. If someone is transferred under Dublin to the UK to join an asylum-seeking family member, should that asylum claim fail, they can be removed to their home country. In the UK, around 60% of those who claim asylum are found not to need protection.
The Dublin regulation rules are fundamentally different from the family reunion procedure in the Immigration Rules, which allows refugees under the Geneva convention, or recipients of humanitarian protection, to bring their close family members to the UK, where they are entitled to leave to remain. Furthermore, the Dublin regulation does not create refugee family reunion rights because it deals with asylum seekers, not refugees. Once a person is recognised as a refugee in the EU, they are no longer in scope of the Dublin system and the family unity provisions in the regulation do not apply.
More broadly—this is perhaps worth stressing as we consider movement outside the EU—the system has reciprocal effect in all participating states. It is a two-way process which governs the movement of asylum seekers into and out of the UK. Unilateral rules that place an obligation on only one state do not work. They need to be reciprocal.
Going forward, we seek a relationship with the EU that will address the entire spectrum, not just asylum seekers but refugees and the wider question of illegal migration, not solely on the basis of family reunion. A relationship with the EU on this matter above all will be how we are judged, and I note the noble Lord, Lord Judd, noting that point. We will be judged on this, and we need to get this right. However, I stress that the EU also needs to get this right and, if I may be so bold and so frank, I do not believe that the EU has got this right either. It is seeking to find that solution and, for as long as we are a member, we will be part of that struggle. At the moment, there is no easy way forward, as the EU is finding and as I do not doubt we will find.
However, as long as we are guided by the noble intentions of individuals such as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, I believe we will be moving in the right direction. On that basis, I ask him to withdraw the amendments.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, I am very grateful for the first half of what the Minister said, but slightly less certain about the second half. I wish he had continued as he started. I want to consider his speech when we are all wider awake and in a calmer moment, but the fact is that the Dublin III mechanism is still a way in which unaccompanied children have been able to come to this country and join relatives. That has been a route for them, and more than 800 have come by those means—many from France, but also from Greece. Whatever the technical argument, it has been a positive right and a positive way to safety for some of these young people.
I appreciate what the Minister said about this needing to be reciprocal. Indeed, the wording of the amendment aims to achieve precisely that. It talks about our negotiating on that basis; it has to be reciprocal. I fully understand that otherwise it will not work, because if the French authorities are not interested, they will not identify young people in France who might be entitled to come by that path.
I also agree that the EU has a lot of improvement to go in for. I would like to see, as my noble friend Lord Bassam said, an EU-wide or Europe-wide policy whereby we get near to common standards on behalf of refugees. That would be more sensible, and Dublin III is part of that, although only a small part.
I thank the Minister again for the first half of his speech. I did not know he had been involved with the Scottish Refugee Council. Good for him, although the effect did not last long. That is a bit churlish of me. I did not mean to be so churlish; I appreciate anybody who worked with it. I used to work for the Refugee Council in London, so I know about the good work the Scottish Refugee Council did. I want to think about this and we will have to look at the best way of moving forward on Report. I am grateful to all noble Lords who were so supportive of this amendment and beg leave to withdraw it.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 19th March 2018
(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 79-IX Ninth marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 218KB) - (19 Mar 2018)
Lord Shipley
“Local government consultation
Her Majesty’s Government must—(a) maintain a full consultative role for local authorities in the planning and decision-making processes involved in the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU, in due time and in an appropriate way for all matters which concern them, and(b) provide by regulations made by a Minister of the Crown for a formal mechanism in domestic law to replicate the advisory role conferred on local authorities via membership of the EU Committee of the Regions within the United Kingdom after exit day.”
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. Amendment 227 derives from two problems. The first is the fact that consultation with local authorities has been inadequate in the planning of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. Secondly, the absence to date of any mechanism in domestic law to replicate the advisory role conferred on local authorities by the European Committee of the Regions after exit day is becoming a matter of increasing concern.
Local government has in the past been told that there would be a seat at the table for it. That has not been fulfilled. It is not enough for the Government to have occasional informal discussions with some elected mayors in England and dress that up as proper consultation. The Minister will be aware that the devolved legislatures of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as the Mayor of London, have had detailed consultative involvement in recent months. However, similar involvement has been missing in England and I fear that this results from Whitehall seeing itself as representing all of England as well as the UK as a whole. I have concluded that we need a proper consultative structure for all parts of the UK—the nations, the regions, the sub-regions and the local authorities, right across the United Kingdom.
I accept that, in England, regions and sub-regions may have very different governance arrangements from each other. Nevertheless, we need representative bodies reflecting natural geographies to meet regularly with Ministers. It is very strange that UK Core Cities has found it easier to meet with Monsieur Barnier in Brussels than with UK Government Ministers in London.
There are several very big strategic problems that need resolution if Brexit is to proceed. First there is the replacement of the EU funding streams that currently provide some £8.4 billion in structural funds—mostly ERDF and ESF in the UK—between 2014 and 2020. The aim of the funding streams is to create jobs, support business growth, improve skills and reduce comparative deprivation in poorer areas. The question arises as to how this will be continued if Brexit happens.
Secondly, there are serious issues around workforce planning, particularly in high-tech industries where, for example, graduate retention of international students in our university cities matters profoundly. The immigration and trade Bills must recognise this and I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm shortly that they will.
Thirdly, we need structures to permit discussion of exactly those matters that the Committee of the Regions helped to establish across national borders, such as extremist prevention strategies, protection of our steel industry and community energy supply projects. Talking within the EU across national boundaries has produced better legislation for the United Kingdom.
Finally, we should remember that one reason for the Brexit vote was the serious inequalities that have emerged over the past 20 years across the United Kingdom. A lot of places have felt left behind, and justifiably so. But Brexit must not result in those places feeling even more left behind. We have to ensure inclusive growth for all and so I hope that the industrial strategy and the planned shared prosperity fund will help to deliver that. To achieve it will require a structure for shared discussion of the issues by the regions, the sub-regions and local government generally, and I hope that the Minister agrees. I beg to move.
Lord Porter of Spalding (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to speak in support of the spirit of the amendment, but first I need to put on the record that I am the chairman of the Local Government Association and the leader of South Holland District Council. Obviously that is South Holland in Lincolnshire, not south Holland in the Netherlands.
Lord Porter of Spalding
It would be better because I would like to have been an alderman, really.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, depending on whether we leave the European Union, the noble Lord might be able to transfer.
Lord Porter of Spalding
There are some people who have already offered me a one-way ticket.
I should clear up one minor misunderstanding in the previous comments. We do meet with the DExEU team and my local government counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland also meet regularly. As noble Lords will know, it is our staff who generally do most of the heavy lifting and they meet continually with representatives of DCLG, as it was, and DExEU. That is not to say that we should not have something not to replace the bureaucracy of the European Committee of the Regions but to strengthen the ability of local government to help the national Government form better policy.
Over the past 10 years national government has managed to give itself 350,000 more staff while in the same period local government has lost 840,000 staff. There are some people who would probably say that the Civil Service has a better capacity to advise the Government, but I would just like to remind them that local government has the capacity to advise them better.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, perhaps I may follow the noble Lord, Lord Porter. When I was a small boy singing in the choir of Spalding parish church, after services we used to look for the graves of the Dutch engineers who had dug out the Fens and drained them—which of course is why the area is known as South Holland. I also remember that when the current Government Chief Whip came to this House, I formed an early bond with him in part because I think I was almost the only person in the Chamber who knew where Holbeach was.
I strongly support the amendment. One of the things that I became increasingly irritated by when I was in government was going to meetings where one would hear the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish perspective on a subject, and then we would move on. The population of England is extremely diverse and there is, as my noble friend said, a great deal of inequality between regions—and yet we did not discuss the north-eastern or the north-western perspective, or the Yorkshire perspective because there is no mechanism for consultation and for giving the English regions a voice. This is a particular problem in Yorkshire, as the noble Lord will know. We do not yet have an agreed strategy with the Government for the one-Yorkshire solution that we are now all agreed on, so that while the city mayors whom Government officials meet represent bits of urban England, they leave an awful lot of English local authorities outside.
I do worry that, if we leave the European Union and the economy goes down further, there will be a real backlash in some of the areas of the north that have been left behind. They voted strongly to leave because they feel ignored, underpaid and undertrained. They expected to get lots of goodies when we left the EU. Well, new apprenticeships, which are desperately needed in the white working class communities of West Yorkshire, have halved in the past year. Spending on schools and children’s social care has been going down. As my noble friend said, we are about to lose the European social and structural funds, so the outcome could be bad.
It is in the interests of all parties that we make sure that the voices of the poorer regions of England are seen to be represented in this process. That is because an outcome which leaves Yorkshire and the north-east, which are most dependent on trade with the EU and are also heavily dependent on EU funds, distinctly worse off will create the sort of popular discontent that could revive UKIP or worse in our country. So I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that some visible and public form of consultation will be established and that the Government will actively pursue the reassurance and the funding that is needed by those who have grown increasingly cynical about the northern powerhouse and the various other promises that have been made but which do not actually seem to add up to very much.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I, too, should begin by declaring the usual interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association—but rather more relevant to this debate is a former interest. I was appointed to the EU Committee of the Regions when it was first formed in 1994, and indeed as I look across the Chamber to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, I think that he was among the same number—as indeed was the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington. We were all elected to this new body that had been created.
I could go on for the rest of the evening about this, but I will not. Suffice to say that with each European treaty, from Amsterdam through to Lisbon, the Committee of the Regions was given more powers. There were probably a number of reasons for that, one of which was that we were finding our way. Maastricht was the first treaty that recognised any form of government below member state level, and it was certainly the first time that what I choose to call sub-state government—local and regional government—was represented. That became recognised as increasingly useful.
My purpose in this debate is to wonder why and to say what is important. It was not simply a process of turning up every so often and consulting local or regional government on what we were going to do anyway. It was eventually recognised that local and regional government in the EU was in fact responsible for implementing what someone calculated was around 70%—the figure might have varied between the member states—of EU legislation. It was good common sense to talk with the people who had responsibility for implementing rules, regulations and laws and discuss with them how that could best work before getting to the legislating stage.
In my 20 years on the Committee of the Regions, that was often the very best way to do it: not necessarily—in fact, not usually—in the formal, awful plenary sessions with 300-plus people present, but much more in meaningful dialogue and discussion with the Commission and with commissioners. As my noble friend Lord Shipley said about the experience of city mayors in this country, we found it much easier to access the Commission and commissioners than it ever was to access Ministers and civil servants in this country. When we did, we had a meaningful dialogue and discussion before decisions were made. That worked very well. I am not surprised—indeed, I am pleased—to hear that nobody is suggesting that we try to replicate in some way the Committee of the Regions for the United Kingdom. The thought of trying to replicate something that already struggles with 28 member states is somewhat horrifying.
The point has already been made about the recognised need for the English regions, but nobody has yet devised a way of meeting it. We should remember, too, that the Scottish Parliament and Executive, the Welsh Assembly and Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive were all members of the Committee of the Regions, as was English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish local government. It worked remarkably well—the noble Lord, Lord Empey, would recognise that, although he was not there quite as long as 20 years—and the UK delegation was, and is, one of the most effective delegations in the Committee of the Regions. If Brexit happens, that will of course come to an end. The other day, I was surprised to be asked by a colleague, “Will we still be members of the Committee of the Regions if we leave the European Union?” He was a little surprised to be given the very obvious answer, “No”. He said, “Well then, we need something else”. This is the opportunity for the Government and the Minister to tell us what else we will have and how it will be effective, not simply in a consultation process but in the policy formation process and the decision-making process.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, drew attention to a significant weakness in our constitutional arrangements. The paradox of devolution as it has developed in recent decades in respect of Scotland and Wales—and Northern Ireland, to some extent, although it has a more complicated history—is that the greater the degree of formal statutory devolution, the greater the degree of formal statutory consultation with central government.
As these debates have unfolded in the interminable Committee, which I now think of almost as the committee for public safety on the Bill and which we have held over many weeks, I am struck by the fact that we have devoted huge amounts of time to arrangements with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They have a population of 10 million between them; England has a population of 53 million and we have spent almost no time on it—indeed, I think this is the first substantive debate we have had, in a very thin Committee at 8 o’clock in the evening, on the arrangements for consulting and liaising with England on devolution. That goes to the heart of the big problem in our constitutional arrangements, which is that sub-national government in England has no formal relationship in terms of statutory bodies or arrangements with central government and is largely ignored. I hope that the Minister, who is very reasonable, will at least reflect on the fact that the responsible leaders of English local authorities who are in the House this evening—including the noble Lord, Lord Porter, on his side—appear to have more confidence in the consultative machinery in place in the European Union than in central government here in London. That is quite a telling sign.
The bit of English government that I have had most contact with in recent years, as a Minister and politician, is the government of London. The single most significant and positive change made by the British state, in respect of the government of England in the last 20 years, was establishing a Mayor of London with substantial powers and a real degree of autonomy. When I was sitting on the Benches opposite as a Minister, I can say that you took the call of the Mayor of London; he is elected by a million votes and has statutory responsibilities. For other local authority leaders in England, with little formal status—nothing like the clout of the Mayor of London—and no formal machinery in place, it is very hit and miss whether their voice is heard at all in London.
The paradox of the Brexit vote is that the areas that are the least consulted and engaged with by central government in England—which, to be blunt, is most of England outside the south-east—are also the areas that voted most heavily for Brexit. There is a big and fundamental commentary there on the state of the government of England: whether we complete Brexit next year or not, the substantial unfinished business of constitutional reform in Britain over the coming years will be the government of England outside London. That is not something we will determine at 8 o’clock in the evening in debate on amendments to the EU withdrawal Bill, but it is quite clear that the whole EU withdrawal process has set in train a set of concerns that will be very difficult not to address.
I want to make one final comment so that we can put the entire constitution on the agenda in one short debate. I suspect that the future of the House of Lords will have a part to play, because if we have proper devolved arrangements for the regions or cities of England—however we choose to provide better government for England—we will have something that starts to resemble a genuine, balanced federation in the United Kingdom. Once we have that, the obvious and logical successor to this rather toothless and nominated House of Lords would be a proper federal second Chamber. Who knows? If we can envisage withdrawing from the European Union, we can certainly envisage having a federal second Chamber of the United Kingdom in our lifetimes.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a councillor in Newcastle.
Of course, it is understood that the north-east will be the region most adversely affected by the departure from the EU that Brexit will bring about. It is ironic really that the population in the north-east is greater than that of Northern Ireland. Of course Northern Ireland has its own history and problems, but it has not been overlooked in the north-east that in cash terms the offer made to the North of Tyne Combined Authority amounted, over 30 years, to less than half the amount recently secured by the DUP as a condition of supporting the Government. We feel somewhat underfunded compared to other places. Not to be included in any of the discussions that will take place—and are currently taking place—rubs salt in more than somewhat.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who participated in what has been a very interesting and wide-ranging debate on the Committee of the Regions aspect of this legislation. I will respond to the thrust of what the amendment seeks, then I will briefly go through the contributions and pick up the points that have been made.
In thanking the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, I say that I have considerable sympathy with the underlying aim of Amendment 227, which he tabled, although I do not believe that the proposed provisions are strictly necessary. Addressing the first limb of the amendment, the Government have been very clear that we are consulting with local government and will continue to do so throughout the withdrawal process. Local government has a clear and vital role to play as we depart from the EU and the Government are committed to facilitating it. We have held meetings with leading members of the local government associations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and their officials, as was indicated by my noble friend Lord Porter. We have met with the Mayor of London and attended a number of “sounding board” round tables, facilitated by the Local Government Association, in Newcastle, Essex, Bristol, Cornwall, London and Staffordshire. These crucial conversations will continue, with local government remaining engaged throughout the Brexit process.
The second limb of the noble Lord’s amendment concerns domestically replicating consultative rights that local government currently has at European level through the mechanism of the Committee of the Regions. The United Kingdom delegation to the Committee of the Regions currently makes an invaluable, important contribution to the decision-making process of the European Union on issues including transport, and economic, social and territorial cohesion. I pay tribute to noble Lords in the Chamber who have been part of that process. I readily agree that it performs a very useful and important function. We do not consider it necessary to provide a statutory basis to a domestic replication of the existing consultative rights provided to local authorities through the mechanism of the Committee of the Regions, but I will explain how we propose to proceed.
We believe the statutory basis risks introducing unduly rigid bureaucracy, which many find so unattractive in some of the current structures. That said, the Government have been having constructive discussions with local government about how the consultative rights and responsibilities it currently has at European level can be replicated domestically, in a non-statutory way, when the United Kingdom has left the European Union. These discussions involve the Local Government Association, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Northern Ireland Local Government Association and the Welsh Local Government Association, and they are continuing, including at ministerial level.
However, I can now say that we envisage the following approach. Through a ministerial Statement to Parliament, the Government will give local government a clear assurance about how it can expect to be consulted on certain matters which, following their repatriation from Europe, will now be handled at the United Kingdom level. These matters will be those which local government would have been consulted on through the mechanism of the Committee of the Regions. In this way, we could have a flexible, non-statutory mechanism that, in essence, replicates for local government the rights and responsibilities it had through the Committee of the Regions, but in a lighter-touch, non-bureaucratic way. Any such new consultative arrangements will need to complement the wide range of domestic processes and procedures the Government already have for consulting local government.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, will those consultative arrangements include a consultative body? If they do not, people will regard what the noble Lord just said as rather hollow.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I am coming to that point, but I anticipate that they would. I will just deal with this point, because there is a complication here. In devolved areas, many of these issues will be matters for the devolved Administration dealing with the relevant bodies. That has to be catered for too. Clearly some non-devolved matters would be part of the arrangement relating to this legislation, but we have to recognise that there are some that are rightly the prerogative of devolved Administrations.
This is the important point, which I hope goes some way to answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. My colleague in the other place, the Minister for Local Government, Rishi Sunak, will carry this forward with the local government associations’ representatives, and we will update the House on the progress made by the next stage of the Bill. I anticipate that in seeking to replicate the arrangements it will take that forward. We need to allow those discussions to take place with the Minister in charge of local government. I will report back on this on Report.
I will deal with the relevant points raised. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, talked about the importance of the European Social Fund, the European structural funds, steel, community energy and so on. I anticipate that all these points will come within the ambit of the new arrangements.
My noble friend Lord Porter of, I think, South Holland made it clear that he had consultation and discussion with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the DExEU teams. That is very much on the record.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, talked about the regions of England being left out of the devolution arrangements. I readily recognise that point. It came up in a wide-ranging discussion that, apart from the city mayors—I take the noble Lord’s point about Yorkshire not quite being there at the moment, but it will eventually be there with the might of the whole of the county, so I hope that will progress—there is, I readily recognise, a dimension in England that is not answered by the devolution arrangements that exist for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, spoke with feeling and passion about the importance of the Committee of the Regions. He was clearly very much part of it. In this House we have the collective wisdom of many noble Lords as to how that operated very effectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, talked about the paradox of devolution. I recognise some of the points he made, although I do not necessarily agree with all of them. He talked about the regions of England having some of the highest Brexit votes. That is true, but we should not ignore the fact that some very high Brexit votes were in the valleys of Wales. That happened not just where there was an absence of some substructure of government. I think that the highest yes vote in Wales was in Conservative Monmouthshire, so these things are perhaps not quite as simple as they may seem.
Lord Porter of Spalding
My colleagues in Wales would not forgive me if I missed the opportunity to put it on record that that was probably due largely to the fact that devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland seems to have bypassed local government in all those provinces as it seems to have done in this country. If the vote there was due to people not being consulted, it might be because the Welsh devolution system does not recognise Welsh local government.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I am not going to be tempted too far down that path, but I shall be tempted a little way. The area that has historically been most resistant to devolution is Monmouthshire, the only local authority that voted against extended powers in 2011.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
Let me finish the point if the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, will allow. If what I said is true, the area with the lowest yes vote on devolution had the highest yes vote in relation to Europe, so I am not sure that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Porter, would be borne out totally.
Lord Wigley
It was 49.5% yes in the referendum in Monmouth, so it was almost a majority, while all the other 21 areas voted overwhelmingly in favour— 66% over the whole of Wales. On engagement with local government, it is quite clear that there is a system that works in Wales. Local authorities are brought into consultation, sometimes to an excess—I have heard some complain about the number of times they have to be down in Cardiff to be consulted. It is a question not just of being consulted but of whether the representations lead to change of policy. In those valleys that voted to leave, it was the economic frustration driving them, as in the rust belts in America and in north-east England. Getting the economy right is the key to this.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
I support what the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said. Is it not ironic that the valleys of south Wales, where there was a large Brexit vote, had received more money from the EU almost than anywhere else?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
Certainly, it is, but before we cause great confusion on the part of anybody tuning in now and thinking that they have tuned into Cardiff Bay, I think all noble Lords will realise the dangers of us going down that path. Suffice it to say that it is wise in the light of that not to be led down the path of discussing a federal second Chamber, although there are certainly issues worthy of broader consideration on another occasion. However, I appreciate some of the points being made.
I am pleased to note that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is recovering from his injury and that it is not more serious than it looks.
Lord Beecham
I am grateful to the Minister for that. I should make it quite clear that it is not damage inflicted by Brexiteers.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I am not sure that the noble Lord is absolutely certain of that, because it seemed to be a Tube driver who caused the accident. Anyway, I am pleased that it is not a serious injury.
The noble Lord talked about the particular issues in the north-east in relation to government offices and so on. Again, I think it wise to leave the matter for the new arrangements, but I take the point about the great regional interest of the north-east. It is worth mentioning in passing that there was an opportunity under the previous Labour Government which was turned down pretty heartily, but circumstances change and it does not mean that there are not regional interests that need looking after.
We have had a fascinating and wide-ranging discussion. As I have indicated, I am very sympathetic to the aim of what is being sought, but it should not be on a statutory basis. We will follow up with a ministerial Statement. The Minister for Local Government will proceed shortly to discuss this matter with Local Government Association representatives cognisant of the fact that interests in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will need protecting. I understand the concerns. In light of these assurances, and with the undertaking that I will update the House on Report, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Shipley
Indeed, my Lords, I shall do so. I thank the Minister for his response, which is mostly welcome. It is clear that some progress is being made. It is good to hear that, prior to Report, we shall hear more about what is planned.
However, I want to say two things. First, meetings regionally and sub-regionally, certainly in England but almost certainly also in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—although it is not for me to say—need to be more regular, inclusive and public. Secondly, I was encouraged by what the Minister said about replicating the Committee of the Regions’ consultative arrangements, but I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, about the structure within which that will take place. It is one thing for roadshows to turn up in places and take evidence; it is another to have a formal structure where everybody understands how it is working. That should include elected mayors, combined authorities and local enterprise partnerships. I hope that the Minister will give due consideration to this prior to Report.
Lord Adonis
Does the noble Lord agree that it is crucial that an actual body is established? Will he perhaps invite the noble Lord, Lord Porter, who chairs the Local Government Association, to bank the very constructive response of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, to ensure that that happens, because this could be a seminal moment in the development of the constitution of England?
Lord Shipley
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. He has made several points which constitutionally are extremely important. I also believe that to link the regions and sub-regions of the nations with Parliament through its second Chamber seems a very interesting constitutional proposal. It would not be strange in some other countries I can think of where similar structures apply. I would like to think we could look further at that as well. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Empey
“Mutual Recognition Agreements relating to the safeguarding of public health
In respect of mutual recognition agreements relating to the safeguarding of public health, within one month of the passing of this Act, a Minister of the Crown must publish a strategy for ensuring that existing United Kingdom notified bodies, in accordance with provisions laid out in the EU Medical Devices Regulation, may continue to conduct conformity assessment certification for both United Kingdom and EU medical devices to ensure continuity within and beyond the EU.”
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, before I speak to the amendment in my name, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, tempts me down memory lane. I served on only the first two terms of the Committee of the Regions; he is a veteran with many stripes on his arm and much more experience. I recall that when it began we had a president, Jacques Blanc, who was the president of Languedoc-Roussillon. We invited him to Belfast and he came in a pillar of fire, having hired a private jet. By the time he came to Belfast, he was Jimmy White and not Jacques Blanc. He then proceeded to tour the European capitals in that jet, much to the chagrin of our paymasters in the European Parliament. I do not know whether the jet has yet landed—but, whatever it did, President Blanc ran up against the buffers of the accountants in the Parliament. Nevertheless, it was an interesting body, but it was a mixture of those of us who were from local authorities and the very powerful—the Bavarians were on it and others with enormous resources. So it was not a balanced body, but it was interesting and at least everybody could have their say.
This probing amendment would require the UK Government to seek agreement with the European Union during the withdrawal discussions—which would of course include the transition period—that the current legal framework underpinning the regulation of medical devices in the EU will be maintained after 29 March 2019. This would enable notified bodies hosted in the United Kingdom, such as the British Standards Institute, to continue to perform conformity assessments on medical devices both from within the UK and across the EU, and issue CE safety label marking after the UK’s withdrawal. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, earlier introduced a number of amendments concerning the welfare of women and young girls and said that she was hoping to put this clearly on the agenda that was moving forward—and this is what I am trying to do this evening.
On 14 September 2017 the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, our Health Minister, gave a speech at the Association of British Healthcare Industries on the future of medical technologies post Brexit. He set out the Government’s commitment to the medical tech sector and discussed the opportunities and challenges it faces as the UK leaves the EU and what support the Government were going to offer. There were some core principles in the speech about regulation and conformity assessments post Brexit, including that patients should not be put at a disadvantage and that the industry must get its products into the UK market as quickly and simply as it does now. He said:
“I want to give this promise; no matter what the outcome of the negotiations—on basic patient safety and public health issues—the UK will be, as it always has been, a willing and reliable partner for Europe”.
Furthermore, the European Commission recently warned manufacturers within the EU that CE safety labels provided by notified bodies based in the UK may no longer be valid after Brexit. The Commission document states:
“Subject to any transitional arrangements that may be contained in a possible withdrawal agreement, as of the withdrawal date, the EU rules in the field of non-food and non-agricultural products, whether for use by consumers or professionals no longer apply to the United Kingdom”.
That means that the UK will no longer operate as a host country for EU notified bodies as it currently stands.
Significantly, the European Commission has advised manufacturers to consider the legal repercussions of their current conformity assessment procedure, advising that in future they will need to gain their CE certification through an existing EU member state after the UK’s withdrawal, or to transfer existing files to an EU notified body. It should be noted that, while manufacturers can obtain a CE label from any notified body in the EU, the UK has built an expertise in this area, with approximately 40% of medical devices and 60% of high-risk medical devices on sale in the EU having been certified in the UK by a notified body. The British Standards Institute has led the way in such testing and has recently set up an office in the Netherlands so that it will continue to have an EU-country representation post Brexit.
The development with the European Commission regarding the publication of the notice to stakeholders mentioned earlier would impact on the five existing UK-based notified bodies working in the area of medical devices, including the BSI. BSI chief executive Howard Kerr has previously suggested in media interviews that he believes that a mutual recognition agreement on medical devices between the UK and EU will most likely be achieved during the course of the negotiations, allowing for retained aligned standards after Brexit. As for the possibility of the UK hosting notified bodies after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, some so-called third countries are able to operate as host nations for a notified body, including Turkey, Switzerland and Norway—so it is possible that an agreement can be made between the UK and the EU.
I believe that mutual recognition agreements and related conformity assessments post Brexit will be vital for sustained patient access to medical devices post Brexit. Although not always at the forefront of the current debate on the EU withdrawal Bill, they are still important so that treatment is consistent for patients. I believe that this approach is also in the spirit of the broad principles and objectives of the Bill: to make sound provision for the transfer of EU law into UK law. Mutual recognition agreements will be the mechanism within the necessary new trade arrangements to transfer into UK law the rights with regard to conformity assessments that the UK currently has in the area of the regulation of medical devices.
The second dimension to this is that there are a number of manufacturers of such devices in the United Kingdom, not only in my own region but elsewhere. They tend to have concentrated in the higher-value and higher-quality areas of the sector. So I believe that this item, although it may not attract the full House that we had earlier on other aspects of the debate, is nevertheless a significant matter. I believe that it should be drawn to the attention of the Government so that it is included in the agreement. It can be done—we know that—and I believe that it is something we should pursue vigorously. I beg to move.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Empey. It seems to me, though, that one should put them into a wider picture, because this is yet another example of how the best outcome of the negotiations is worse than where we are. I do not think that this Committee has to remind the country as a whole that this is what we are negotiating. We are negotiating a situation that we already have but in which we will of course have no say. Even if we get the very best deal we can, and protect our industry and the excellence of our regulatory structures—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, rightly pointed out, has meant that in one case 40% and in another case 60% of these devices are brought here, whether or not they are manufactured here, because of the excellence of our regulatory control—we will no longer have a say in the central issue of how the regulatory structure is changed in future. This is crucial in this case because, as we all know, medical devices are constantly changing and improving. If we accept that, then we recognise that the way they are regulated—the way in which we set the standards—will also change, and that we will play no part in such decisions.
I am a patriotic person. I object strongly to the intention of sidelining my country from these things and us being the beggar, because that is what we are going to have to be. To compare us with Turkey, to put it delicately, does not fill me with enthusiasm. I suggest that this is another example of the intended consequences of Brexit because the people who are enthused by Brexit—and I see few of them around just at the moment—want to believe in a world in which we can operate on our own without any drawbacks. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, has rightly pointed out that that is not possible, and that the world we live in is a world of co-operation and joint concern in getting the right answers.
I wanted to intervene because I was unhappy with one part of what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said. He talked of the need to protect ourselves and the importance of this to his own Province as part of the United Kingdom. I want to turn it round and refer to the importance of our contribution to these decisions, the important place that Britain should have in these discussions, not only with regard to medical devices—and the curious expression in the amendment that I particularly like, which refers to the “safeguarding of public health”—but of course to any medical aspect. We have had several debates in the Moses Room on precisely these issues. What this means, of course, is that Britain is saying, “We no longer want the opportunity to play a proper part in seeing that we do this right”.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment and echo very much the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I say that as a former Minister who was responsible for regulating pharmaceuticals and medical devices. In those days, we were a rule-maker; now, we become a rule-taker—and in an area where we have already lost the European Medicines Agency, which is disappearing out of the country. So our position on the regulation of medicines has been worsened, as has the investment in this country as a result.
We are now going down the same path with medical devices, which are one of the unglamorous bits of our healthcare system but they are very important. We are rather good at inventing medical devices in this country. We produce quite a lot of inventions and have been the rule-maker through the BSI. Most of Europe has been happy to take that rule-making from the BSI, which has moved abroad, because it has a reputation as an effective regulator in this area. We are ending up with medicines and medical devices coming ever closer together but we have lost the regulatory system for them both. That is no mean achievement for the Government.
If we do not secure some kind of reciprocal agreement, as this amendment suggests, we will be in an even worse state than the noble Lord, Lord Deben, thinks we might. I am with him all the way. This is another industry which we are neglecting. In many cases, the companies making these devices are quite small and we are putting them into a very difficult position. They cannot hang around when they make their business decisions in the hope that David Davis will come up with a deal that resolves some of the uncertainties in their business. They will have to take decisions quite quickly if they want to survive.
The Government’s approach to negotiation is to be untransparent and incoherent, while trying to reassure everybody that it will all be all right on the night. But that is not a position that businessmen and businesswomen can accept in running their businesses and keeping them solvent. This is another example of a sector where we are going to diminish our capacity to innovate and to open up new markets within Europe for our inventions. Much more to the point, we will lose the kind of control over regulation that we had in the past.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Can I just remind the noble Lord of the debate we had last week on the clinical trials regulation and the uncertainty there? We have had contradictory statements from two Ministers about whether the clinical trials regulation will be retained EU law, in domestic law, on exit day. As I think the noble Lord is aware, I have written to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, to try and clarify exactly what the Government’s position is.
Lord Warner
I did not want to remind the Government Front Bench of the slaughter of the innocents over clinical trials last week, but I have no doubt the Minister will read that debate in Hansard and form his own judgment. I am pleased the noble Baroness has written to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, about this. It opens up the possibility of securing more protection in the Bill for some British industries, and we should not be afraid to take that opportunity in this House.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that we are really shooting ourselves in the knee. It is a matter of active interest to a significant minority of Members in the House, because replacement knees and hips are among the medical devices which are most common among us.
Lord Deben
I was going to suggest that there is probably not a Member of the House who should not declare an interest in this debate, because there are few of us who have not had some device or other implanted. Are we not lucky that they were made and regulated in this country?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Shortly after the referendum, I was sitting in the orthopaedic surgeon’s office with my wife, who was about to have a new hip, and he explained to us how leaving the European Union would cost the NHS more and would make it more difficult for him to procure what, in his opinion, was the best artificial hip available for the occasion. It was made by a multinational company in southern Ireland with bits—as noble Lords will know, these are complicated devices—coming from across the border and various other places. This undoubtedly would be more expensive, take longer and cost the NHS more. It is yet another example of where, despite the false promises of how much money would flow into the NHS, it will actually be completely the other way round. We will be creating artificial obstacles of one sort or another for these artificial devices, which will affect us all extremely closely. Those of your Lordships who have not yet got one will probably get one within the next 10 years. As the noble Lord says, we are absolutely shooting ourselves in various different embarrassing places by accepting that, in leaving the European Union, we are making these possibilities more difficult and more expensive.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey (Con)
My Lords, I hesitate to join in, as I have to declare a double interest. As many of your Lordships will remember, I witnessed Second Reading sitting just in front of the Throne in my surgical socks.
I have every sympathy with the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and particularly with the speech of my noble friend Lord Deben. There is absolutely no doubt that the pioneering spirit, particularly in orthopaedics, in this country has been of immense value. It is not that other countries within the EU do not have their experts—of course they do—but there has been, as I will say in a later debate, a very special dedication in this country to improving health, not only for this nation but for our partners in the EU and partners far more widely across the world. It therefore behoves us to make sure that we have, in any arrangements, the opportunity for those British companies that have been such pioneers and indeed such income earners for Britain not only to pursue their existing research but to collaborate with the partners that they have engendered and encouraged in many other parts of the world.
I hope when my noble friend replies that he realises that this is far wider than just your Lordships’ personal interests. It goes right across the world, and what is done here can be replicated for the benefit of Britain, in or out of the EU. But we must be able to continue to give that information freely and for it to be accepted within the EU. That is the concern that many people have: that, if and when we leave the EU, much of that brilliant innovation will be lost to other partners and other parts of the world.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment. I remind the House that many of these inventions in the biomedical sphere actually happen in academic clinical departments. That is where the idea comes—the bright spark of invention. They will establish whatever the device is, and then often it will be a spin-out company from the university that will start to develop it. These new devices are getting smaller and smaller so they are getting into smaller blood vessels or parts of the body to do things that, when I graduated in medicine, were unimaginable.
However, in order for a company to be able to go out and market the device, it has to be able to go through all the rigorous testing procedures that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, outlined. So if we create yet another barrier and another difficulty, the bright sparks are not going to stay here because other universities are already looking at them. Those universities want them and their inventiveness; in Europe they are very attractive commodities. We have to remember that a part of our economy and our economic strategy has depended on our science, and our biological sciences in particular. We have a unique situation with the NHS where we have a broad patient population that is different from some of the other ways in which healthcare is organised and allows such innovation to happen here.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. Here we have a successful and innovative industry with lots of SMEs involved, but their very future is at risk because of the approach that the Government are taking to Brexit. We need to be clear about this. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, talked about CE marking and the notified body. What is crucial is that the CE marking is a logo placed on medical devices to show that they conform to the requirements of the various EU directives. The notified body is an organisation that has been designated by an EU member state to assess whether manufacturers and their medical devices meet the requirements set out in legislation. As part of our being within the EU, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is the designated competent authority in the UK. That sets out the legal position and why it is so important in terms of both patient safety and the ability of UK companies to do business in the rest of the EU and market some of the most extraordinary machines, devices and developments that have been seen in the world.
Here we come to the point where there is such a risky position for our companies. To take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, we should look at Mrs May’s Mansion House speech, where she referred to the fact that the Government,
“want to explore with the EU, the terms on which the UK could remain part of EU agencies such as those that are critical for the chemicals, medicines and aerospace industries”—
and she mentioned the European Medicines Agency by name, although, extraordinarily, not Euratom, which we will come to debate later this evening and tomorrow. She went on to explain why we should be seeking associate membership of the European Medicines Agency and the other agencies named. She said:
“First, associate membership of these agencies is the only way to meet our objective of ensuring that these products only need to undergo one series of approvals, in one country. Second, these agencies have a critical role in setting and enforcing relevant rules … Third, associate membership could permit UK firms to resolve certain challenges related to the agencies through UK courts … Fourth it would bring other benefits too. For example, membership of the European Medicines Agency would mean investment in new innovative medicines continuing in the UK, and it would mean these medicines getting to patients faster as firms prioritise larger markets when they start the lengthy process of seeking authorisations”.
If ever I have heard a convincing case for remaining a member of the EU, the Prime Minister set it out in her Mansion House speech. The point is the one that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, made. We are going to beg for associate membership. As the Prime Minister said, we will follow the rules and pay the cost, but we will have no say in the rules that are being set. At the moment, the MHRA is one of the most effective negotiators in the EU, so when it comes to medicines safety or devices, the UK has a huge influence. That means a big advantage for UK companies, because it has in mind the interests of the UK as a whole.
We are to throw all this away and be supplicants at the altar of those agencies, because the Government have woken up to the fact that they cannot let those industries go down, so they will have to negotiate associate membership. It will be on EU terms, because they are a lot bigger than we are. We will have to abide by their rules but no longer will we have any say in how those rules are developed. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, we are trying to negotiate the least worst option, but it is a worst option.
It is a wholly depressing picture: this Government seeking to destroy so many of our innovative industries through their obdurate and ignorant approach to the way industry, the UK and the EU work. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, has done us a great service tonight by letting us debate this important issue. It would be nice, would it not, to hear a proper response from the Government to show that they recognise the problems that they are now causing for British industry?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, this medical device amendment has been deemed a probing amendment, and I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that I feel well and truly probed by the comments made across the Chamber this evening.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, made a number of sweeping statements, which of course are accurate, about the response that I must give at this point. He will not be surprised to know that. We have agreed today the beginning of a journey with regard to the transition. I sought confirmation again that medical devices and the CE framework are included in that transition, and indeed they are, so I can give that assurance just now. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, will also be aware that the matters that we have discussed this evening must necessarily be a matter for negotiation. I am sure he will understand why that is so, also.
Were I to stop there, the Committee would rightly be disappointed. This has been a wide-ranging debate touching on a number of points. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in summation, raised the Mansion House speech delivered by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. That speech is a recognition of the importance of mutual recognition, what it means and why it will be important after we leave the European Union.
As a Member of the European Parliament, I sat on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee when the medical devices and in vitro question was being debated, and I was aware how important that forum was for determining particular standards. I am also aware of the importance of the United Kingdom’s innovation in medical devices. It is global in its reach and import and is extraordinary in what it can achieve. I am aware that, as we exit the European Union, we must secure mutual benefit to both sides. I do not accept the assertion that this is a moment when big means right. We are seeking an outcome that is right for those who would seek the comfort and necessity of what those medical devices must be and can achieve for them.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Will the Minister explain to noble Lords what effect mutual recognition would have? Can he explain how the UK will have as much influence on those rules in the future, outside the EU, as it does now, as a key member of it? Or does it mean that, in effect, we will simply have to follow the rules set by the EU?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I am again reminded of the importance of the United Kingdom’s academic sector and the academic excellence which it creates, not just in the wider area of science but specifically in medical science. I am aware of how important that innovation is and believe that, right now, it should be able to speak for itself in the negotiations and discussions in terms of the wider recognition and import of what they represent.
I am conscious that, as we embrace the challenges which lie ahead—
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
Will the Minister answer the point made by my noble friend Lord Hunt? It sounds to me that he is unable to do so. If that is the case, he should tell the House so. It is clear to me that he has not answered the question, which is highly pertinent and relevant to the direction of the debate.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I am sorry if I have misled noble Lords. I am unable to answer the question. That will be a matter for the negotiations and I cannot comment upon them. This is the point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I wish I could, but I cannot. I am sorry if my response misled the noble Lord as well. Determining exactly how that mutual recognition will work in practice will be a matter for the ongoing negotiations. I hope that it will work on both sides in a common-sense way which recognises that, at the heart, we are talking about the health and well-being of individuals. We are not talking about constitutional matters or anything other than ensuring the best health for the people of the continent of Europe that we can achieve.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the Government have talked about completing the negotiations by October 2018. Is this one element that they hope to have completed negotiations on by then, or will it have to be put off into the transitional period?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
It is the Government’s intention to complete all negotiations by that point.
I think that all noble Lords agree that UK notified bodies have a strong reputation in the EU. We have heard it more than once this evening. The notified bodies assess a disproportionate number of medical devices. According to a recent independent assessment of the market, UK notified bodies make up the first, third and fourth largest share of assessors. Furthermore, we estimate that UK notified bodies oversee between 50% and 60% of all the highest-risk devices on the EU market.
As I stated earlier, the UK has played a leading role in the negotiations of new regulations for medical devices in general and, specifically, for in vitro diagnostic medical devices. I believe that these innovations will make a significant difference. As the Government have made clear, whatever the outcome of negotiations, the principles which underpin our approach remain: that patients should not be disadvantaged; innovators should be able to access the UK market as quickly and simply as possible; and the UK will continue to play a leading role in both Europe and the world in promoting public health.
At the heart of much of this is the notion stressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. Inside the EU, there are a number of means by which research is supported, not least of which is the Horizon 2020 fund. We have been blessed by punching above our weight in securing funds from this resource. I believe that in future it will be an asset for the entire EU and this will be negotiated in the next few years. It has yet to be made clear exactly how it will be determined. I remind noble Lords that the last time this was negotiated the EU top-sliced a substantial amount of money away from the fund, to the detriment of the overall Horizon 2020 reach.
Lord Empey
My Lords, little did I believe when I moved this amendment that I was going to open up the spectre of your bionic Lordships. Nevertheless, it did personalise the issue to a point. My noble friend Lady Finlay pointed out that science and very often SMEs emerge out of spin-offs from universities. That is true, but there are larger international companies involved in this as well, and that might have been overlooked. It is not all a matter for small business.
I thank all noble Lords who participated in this debate. I did not know when I tabled the amendment what would happen today. I am glad the Minister has confirmed that this matter is on the agenda for those discussions. I shall certainly follow that extremely closely and obviously reserve the right to come back to this matter later in the Bill’s proceedings. With the assurance that the Minister has given, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Campbell-Savours
“Failure to negotiate a withdrawal agreement by 29 January 2019
(1) In the event that no withdrawal agreement under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on the European Union acceptable to both Houses of Parliament has been reached between the United Kingdom and the EU by 29 January 2019, a Minister of the Crown may move a motion in each House of Parliament to provide for a referendum on whether the United Kingdom should seek to revoke notification of withdrawal under Article 50 and re-negotiate membership of the EU with—(a) restrictions on the arrangements for the free movement of persons between the United Kingdom and the EU;(b) a renegotiation of the Own Resources Decision to provide a new mechanism for calculating the United Kingdom’s reduced contribution, replacing the rebate; and(c) amendments to other regulatory arrangements as they affect the United Kingdom as proposed by both Houses of Parliament.(2) If such a motion is agreed to in the House of Commons, the Minister of the Crown may not make regulations under section 9(1) but must bring forward proposals to hold such a referendum, and the Government must seek such an extension of the Article 50 period as may be necessary for this purpose.”
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, under this amendment, if by the end of January 2019 negotiations have not concluded in an agreement endorsed by Parliament, then a Motion would be put to revoke Article 50 and authorise a second referendum with the Government having already opened talks and informally secured an agreement on three issues. These are: a non-rebated own-resources contribution maintaining our existing contribution under subsection (1)(b); amendments to regulatory arrangements of most concern to Parliament—and I suggest animal welfare as one—under subsection (1)(c), and stronger border controls under subsection (1)(a), on which I intend to concentrate my remarks.
My amendment, which is not Labour policy, would signal to our European partners an alternative to Brexit and end the delay which is on course to undermine our economy and, in my view, our industrial base. Negotiators would need to negotiate on the core issues that concern the British people and influenced the referendum. I am arguing today a direct linkage between loose border controls, insensitivity to public concerns over immigration and developing political extremism in both the United Kingdom and Europe.
My amendment finds its origins in February 2016, after David Cameron’s return from Brussels, having failed to secure a meaningful deal. I am not blaming Cameron: I blame inflexibility in Europe. As I set out in the February 2017 debate, I have always been a supporter of European union, having canvassed in its favour in 1975 and loyally supported union throughout the period of Labour difficulties on Europe in the 1980s. I have never wavered until the Cameron failure in 2016.
For me, the Commission is the problem: its insensitivity to public opinion, its almost breathtaking administrative arrogance and its inability to address the problem of developing political extremism in the European Union. The result of that was that the people gave the system a good kicking—as indeed I did. I voted leave, along with another 17.5 million people. Neither I nor they voted to leave the customs union. People in the industrial heartlands of south Wales, the Midlands and the north—the core leave vote—are not stupid; they were alert to the risks of economic and industrial upheaval, and they were not rejecting the whole single market. For most, these were obscure terms. Millions travel abroad every year; they like what they see and recognise the benefits. They are not bought off with billion-pound promises on healthcare—they know instinctively when politicians are telling porkies.
Those issues were not at the heart of the leave vote. Millions voted leave due to a feeling of national insecurity, stemming from what they believe to be permeable borders throughout Europe. They believe that we have lost control over immigration and fear migratory flows across Europe from other continents that will destabilise populations. Be all that a true or false, valid or invalid reason, all was not helped by inadequate official statistics hiding inertia in government. They believe that inertia threatens their jobs, their personal security, the national well-being, and, for some, their cultural heritage. That is at the heart of the leave vote, not antipathy towards Europe.
The Merkel initiative, Sangatte, the crisis in the Mediterranean, imported criminal activity and the bombings in Europe have all served to aggravate the condition. Our leadership in this country is in denial, and most frightening of all is that the pursuit of integration in areas such as education and the tearing down of indefensible cultural boundaries, which are desperately needed, have fallen victim to political correctness. The public know it, and all over Europe the public are kicking the system and challenging permeable borders. Even those of us who argue for managed migration and its benefits are deemed out of touch. Even we are told that we are in denial, that we do not understand, and that we live in silos of privilege—which, to some extent, is probably true. When we argue that migration is not the cause of all the insecurity they point to threats to their jobs and unscrupulous employers who insist on passive cheap migrant labour sheltering behind government indifference.
It is all an invitation to political extremism and anti-migrant prejudice. That is what happens when states do not listen. For those of us who believe in the vision of a new Europe, our dream is being shattered by the politics of that institutional indifference. Denial at home is only surpassed by denial overseas. France is divided and the Visegrad states are riddled with division; there was Italy last week, and the AFD in Germany. All over Europe people are in revolt; in some EU states, even freedom of movement is being questioned.
I spent Christmas researching anti-immigration and wider extremist movements generally in 32 inner and outer European states. The findings were breathtaking. The migration crisis has given not only birth but real lift to reactionary movements throughout the continent of Europe. One is reminded of the 1930s. It is about time the powers that be consider whether their failure to act collectively on migration and its resultant insecurity is undermining their historic role in the development of Europe. They should be talking about aiding development, increasing resources on aid and creating safe areas in parts of the world where people live in fear, at the same time as acting to hold back the forces of political extremism. I used my leave vote to promote that debate, on Schengen and wider European border control issues. Without a leave vote in the United Kingdom there would be no debate in Europe on these matters, just drift. This amendment is a modest attempt to forward that debate.
I recognise that tougher border controls may be limited in effect, but that would depend on border management policies, whether we introduce work permits, ID requirements and the profile of social support. The Government’s Brexit-inspired immigration advisory committee recommendations due later this year might point to a way forward. At least we can be sure that taking back control of borders would help in planning our public services. That is what the public expect of their Parliament.
For me personally this has always been a high-wire, high-risk strategy. I saw my own credibility slip away among colleagues in both Houses as I set out in 2016, two years ago, why I, as a remainer, was voting leave. Those of us who wanted a real debate on those issues which are of most concern to the public had to stand up and be counted. I repeat: without a leave vote there would be no debate. We cannot rely on the Commission, as it is smothering any debate that questions its direction of travel. It says that the pillars are immutable, all while some nation states are chomping at the bit for reform. We need tough negotiations and brinkmanship with a clear message. Commission inflexibility should be met by preparedness to go direct to nation states. If we leave the Commission to run amok and run rings round nation states, there will be no single market left in the end to defend. We should be leading the charge, not only for ourselves but for Europe as a whole.
For those in the Chamber who say that challenging a single market core principle is a pipe dream, I say that they underestimate attitudes in Europe towards Britain, our Parliament, our institutions, our history, our stability, our commitment to democracy, our response in history when they were all in trouble, and our financial contribution to Europe. They have an eye on our money and, in particular, the topslicing of budgets post Brexit, which worries many of them.
I believe that one day we will have real freedom of movement throughout Europe. There will be no borders, just regional differences and cultural traditions, but not now. At this time in our history, the developing crisis demands a rethink. Too much is at stake and the threat of extremism has to be tackled head on now. If we win a new deal on the basis of the agenda in this amendment, we could win a second referendum with a resounding vote and our nightmare would be over.
This has not been an easy contribution for me to make, particularly as I personally embrace immigration in its most positive form and in warmth. My great, great, great grandmother on my mother’s side was born in slavery in the colonies in the early 1800s. Even now, after 200 years, one is conscious of that legacy and the agony of those before me who suffered racism through extremism—political extremism—in those times. We want to love our fellow man, but sometimes love has to be tough to survive. My amendment is about being tough and stamping out the evil of intolerance before it is too late and sweeps across Europe. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I thought that we would have a longer debate on this matter. I understand the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, with this amendment. He is concerned, as are many other noble Lords, with the timeframe in which a deal with the EU is reached, and the consequences should Parliament choose to reject it. I also understand that the Government’s position on future referenda on extending the Article 50 period and what will occur if Parliament does not support our negotiated agreement is, to be fair, not one which satisfies the whole House. Therefore, I reassure the House once again that we are confident that we will reach a positive deal with the EU, as that is indisputably in the mutual interests of both the UK and the EU. Parliament will be given the opportunity of a vote on the final terms of the agreement, alongside the terms of our future partnership. There will be a clear choice—whether to accept the deal we have negotiated or move forward without a deal. Ultimately, if Parliament chooses to reject the deal, we will leave the EU with no deal once the Article 50 window closes.
The noble Lord proposes that, in the event of Parliament rejecting the deal, there should be another referendum on whether the UK should revoke its notification under Article 50 and renegotiate its membership of the EU. We had a very long and strong debate about a second referendum earlier this evening. As has been said, rather than second-guess the British people’s decision to leave the EU with a second referendum, the challenge as the Government see it is to make a success of it. That is how we are approaching the negotiations—anticipating success, not failure. It is vital that we try to reach an agreement that builds a deep and special partnership between the UK and the EU, not just for those who voted to leave but for every citizen of our country.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I am sure he will understand, as indeed will most Members of the House, that immigration is a very difficult subject to talk about and to seem fair in doing so. Tonight, I have tried to set out what I believe should be the thrust of our negotiations. If we settle that issue to the satisfaction of the British people, we will not be leaving Europe.
The Minister referred to the Cameron negotiations. The problem is that they took place in a climate within Europe in which these issues had not really been debated at great length. What has happened over the last two years? There has been a lot of water under the bridge and the nature of the debate is changing, because we have driven our European partners into a position where increasingly they are having to address these issues. I am arguing that there is now a very different market in Europe and that we should raise these matters again in exactly the same way as Cameron did then.
If Cameron had come back with a deal, I would have voted to remain. It was that single failure on his behalf that drove me into the leave camp and I hope that it can be righted. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Recreational boating
(1) Before exit day, a Minister of the Crown must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out the extent to which, and how, the rights currently enjoyed by recreational boaters from the United Kingdom in the EU will be maintained after exit day.(2) The report under subsection (1) must include consideration of—(a) the ability of recreational craft to retain Union Goods status;(b) the ability of UK recreational craft that do not have Union Goods status to continue to be able to visit the EU without being subject to an 18-month restriction on Temporary Admission procedures for relief on customs duties and VAT provided they do not change ownership;(c) the ability of recreational craft to travel between the United Kingdom and the EU without being subject to border controls;(d) the ability of UK citizens who are accredited as Royal Yachting Association instructors to continue to work on a seasonal basis in EU member States for such purposes.”
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is unable to attend, so I will move Amendment 227BB in his stead. This amendment represents something of a change of scene from what we have been discussing this evening, relating as it does to the future of the recreational boating sector following the UK’s departure from the EU. But this is an important sector for us. It is not just about the estimated 3.5 million people who take part in boating activity in the UK every year. It is also a thriving business sector, with the recreational boating and marine sectors being a success story in the UK. In 2015-16, the marine industry contributed about £1.3 billion to the UK economy, which adds up to around 33,000 full-time employees and more than 4,500 businesses. We should realise also that this is often in areas where alternative employment is not always available, so the sector is very important to the communities in which it exists.
The industry currently enjoys the benefits of free movement of people and the absence of customs borders between the UK and other EU countries. There are then, unsurprisingly, a number of issues arising from Brexit, causing significant uncertainty to both recreational boaters and the marine industry. I know that the Royal Yachting Association, the RYA, and British Marine have been in contact with DExEU and other government departments in relation to these issues. Briefly, and for the benefit of the House, I will set out the key issues.
The first is the ability of recreational craft to retain what is called Union goods status, which allows continuous free navigation around the waters of the EU. The second is the nature of the maritime border control regime between the UK and the EU after Brexit. The third is the ability of UK citizens who have RYA qualifications to travel freely to and from the EU for work that is often seasonal.
The Union goods issue requires a little explanation, so I will go into that detail, if noble Lords will excuse me. Vessels and all the equipment on them, such as computers and electronic gear, that enter the EU from non-EU countries are required to pay customs duties and VAT unless the owner can show that they are entitled to exemption. This is not the case if the equipment has Union goods status, which means that it is treated as duty paid. Pre Brexit, vessels moving between the UK and the rest of the EU are treated as Union goods, provided that VAT and customs duties were paid when the vessel first entered the EU. After Brexit, vessels moving between the EU and the UK, and vice versa, should qualify for a temporary relief from duty—but only if the vessel stays for fewer than 18 months in the country in question. So UK citizens who keep their boats in, say, Greece, would find that they would have to pay all the duties or move completely outside the EU before they could re-enter for another 18 months. The result of this is clearly not good for the Britons who have to keep moving their boats around to avoid paying up to 20% of the boat’s value in duties. It is also not good for countries such as Greece that are hosting this tourist trade. Additionally, when boats are moving in long-term passage within EU waters, there might also be customs duty when moving from one EU country to another EU country. It is not clear how that will unfold.
Noble Lords will appreciate that these issues may not necessarily be front of mind and addressed in the broader negotiations on customs and border controls. Accordingly, this amendment asks the Government to produce a report to Parliament in advance of 29 March 2019. This report would set out the rights and freedoms that recreational boaters currently enjoy and how they would be maintained after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. It would provide a clear opportunity for the Government to offer much-needed certainty to the thousands of recreational boaters—and of course to the marine businesses as well.
Without that reassurance, there is potential for significant damage. Very briefly, that significant damage comes in terms of costs and the administrative burden faced by boaters and business, with associated significant damage to the resale market for boats. It also causes new maritime border controls, which could be disproportionate and compromise navigational safety—and, as I said before, RYA instructors could find it difficult to do seasonal work elsewhere.
The RYA and British Marine have been in touch, and I know that they are ready to negotiate. None the less, the importance of this sector to communities all around the country should not be overlooked when there is so much else going on. We have talked about the need to negotiate everything in such a short time, and this is just one more thing that the Government need to place on their list. Before the formal departure from the EU it is vital that the Government commit publicly to setting out how they will defend the interests of UK boaters and marine businesses. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to this amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, my name is not associated with this amendment but I am a regular attender of the London Boat Show at the invitation of British Marine. I have a specific question for the Minister to answer when he sums up. The record figures for the export of yachts and recreational craft this year were spectacular. But a source of concern to British Marine once Britain has left the European Union is the extent to which Britain will remain aligned with the legislation. I mention that because we transposed the recreational craft directive onto the statute book. The British Marine Federation was instrumental in making sure that that directive did not cause too much damage to our industry in terms of the standards with which it had to comply. Will the Minister assure the House that we will continue to align ourselves with future legislation to make sure that our main export market for recreational craft will still be there and that we will have some means of ensuring that the concerns of the British marine industry can be made known when future statutory instruments are being negotiated?
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a recreational boater and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for proposing the amendment of my noble friend Lord Berkeley. Everything that he said seemed entirely reasonable and I am sure that the whole House awaits the Minister’s concession on this point.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My Lords, in moving this amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said that it may not be at the front of everyone’s minds. But as often happens in these circumstances, this particular issue is almost the nexus of all the key issues affecting withdrawal from the EU, whether it be our mutual recognition of certain types of goods for the purposes of customs duty, the precise arrangements and procedures for ensuring cross-border security or the mutual recognition of professional qualifications. So in truth, one might argue that this is a key amendment in many respects. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, is right to remind us of the significance of this sector. It is a substantial contributor to the Exchequer and a major employer. It is also, as a number of noble Lords have noted, a source of much pleasure, and we should not lose sight of that.
In responding to this debate it is important that I am very clear, so perhaps I may turn directly to the specific question raised by my noble friend Lady McIntosh. She asked whether we will continue to align with future legislation within the EU. I am afraid that that is a commitment I cannot give at this moment because it will be determined by the ongoing negotiations and our future relationship at that point. However, it is important to stress that we are in very regular contact with the British marine sector and are attentive to the issues that it is raising. I hope that in saying that, my noble friend will recognise that it is our intention to be very careful as we take this matter forward.
Lord Tunnicliffe
The noble Lord started by saying that this is the nexus of the issues virtually across the piece. He is painting a very dull picture of the future if he cannot assure us that in this area we are able to achieve the objectives of the amendment.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I thank the noble Lord for his probe in this regard. This is, if you like, the epitome of the challenges we are facing, but unfortunately it is larger than the individual amendment can recognise and what it seeks to do, which is to have Ministers place before us a single report setting out both the current arrangements and thereafter the arrangements that we secure through negotiation. The arrangements we secure through negotiation will be detailed for this House and will be iterated so that we understand what they are, and they will emerge from that negotiation. It is not our intention to downplay the significance of these issues, but we must recognise that they play a part in a wider question, in particular when it comes to the customs issues. On that basis, I still hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Fox
My Lords, I thank the Minister for demonstrating his sensitivity to this issue, which will be reassuring to some extent for boat owners and boating businesses around the UK, so there may be some solace in that. The amendment is not seeking a running commentary on the negotiations. The Minister is correct to say that this goes to the nub of the customs and free movement issues as they unfold, but providing a promise of some kind to keep the industry informed about what is going on is very important. Obviously we will look at the Minister’s response in detail in Hansard, and with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Warner
“Public health
In carrying out their duties and functions arising by virtue of this Act, a Minister of the Crown or a public authority must have regard to the principle that a high level of human health protection must be ensured in the definition and implementation of all policies and activities.”
Lord Warner
My Lords, I shall bring the Committee back to terra firma with this amendment, which is tabled in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Patel. This amendment inserts a new clause on public health and requires that:
“In carrying out their duties and functions arising by virtue of this Act, a Minister of the Crown or a public authority must have regard to the principle that a high level of human health protection must be ensured in the definition and implementation of all policies and activities”.
The language of the amendment draws on Article 168 of the Lisbon treaty and has the advantage of existing legal precedent and interpretive guidance on which to draw when determining its meaning. It does not preserve our law in EU aspic because it would be for UK courts to decide the specifics in future individual cases. In doing so, they would be able to draw on pre-Brexit legal precedents. Putting the amendment in the Bill would give a clear signal to EU members that the UK remains committed to maintaining our public health agenda to the high standards we have established together.
Disease is no respecter of international borders, and public health is best protected when the international community operates to established and well-understood high standards. The amendment goes much further than the power placed on the Secretary of State for Health under the 2006 National Health Service Act, as amended by the 2012 Health and Social Care Act. It places the duty to “do no harm” on the whole of government, including devolved Governments and a wide range of public authorities. In other words, it reminds a wide range of interests that they must continue to protect and do no harm to public health. This seems particularly apposite in the year that our hard-pressed NHS reaches its 70th birthday and its hard-pressed staff face a future of continuing rising demand without the funding to meet it.
The Secretary of State and the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, have given various assurances about the Government’s commitment to the UK playing a leading role in promoting and ensuring public health in the EU and around the world. Jeremy Hunt has outlined his commitment to,
“maintain participation in European cooperation on … disease prevention”,
and,
“public health”.
I do not doubt the good faith of those assurances—or of any more that the Minister gives us today—but they rather miss the point. The citizen does not need ministerial assurances but an effective legislative provision to challenge in court the Government, devolved Administrations and public bodies when they fall down on the job of protecting public health.
Although I am not a lawyer, let me try to explain why a legal protection formulated in this way is important when UK courts come to adjudicate on specific cases before them. Here I draw on helpful advice provided by Professor Tamara Hervey, a professor of EU law at Sheffield University. There have been a number of cases in which the high level of protection under EU law for human health in all EU policies and activities has been an important part of the outcome. These include the failed challenges by the tobacco industry to the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015. Here, the high-level protection provisions were used to interpret EU tobacco products law as well as the powers to implement it. It was also used to determine the proportionality standard according to which freedom to trade versus public health is balanced. In particular, much restriction on free trade is legitimate for the purposes of protecting public health, so it helps strike a balance in these contested areas. Perhaps I might quote a passage in the High Court judgment:
“Articles 168 TFEU (on public health) and 169 TFEU (on consumer protection) are especially important. They emphasise how the protection of public health is to be placed at the epicentre of policy making and also how the setting of EU policy is to take account of the work of international organisations (which obviously includes the WHO) and how ‘all’ EU policies must ensure a ‘high level of human health protection’”.
The amendment is not the vague wording that government Ministers have tried to claim in meetings with public health interests. It specifies a very clear consideration that the courts can take into account when considering specific cases. By placing the wording in the Bill, the UK courts would be under no misapprehension about what Parliament expects them to continue doing after Brexit. I hope the Minister will have the good sense not to read out anything in his brief about the wording being vague. It establishes an important legal principle that is not currently provided for in UK legislation but is provided for in EU legal principles.
I am spoilt for choice in terms of future cases where concerned citizens might well ask the courts to intervene because of the action—or, more likely, inaction—of the Government, a devolved Administration or a public authority. As a Londoner, I cite air pollution. In the first five days of 2017, London exceeded the total annual limit for air pollution. Outdoor air pollution is estimated to cause 40,000 deaths in the UK each year. The High Court has slammed the Government for failing to produce an adequate plan to tackle air pollution. To do so, the Government will need the co-operation of the EU after Brexit. The amendment will help keep the Government focused on tackling this killer more effectively. There are other areas, such as unhealthy foods and minimum pricing of alcohol, where this amendment helps, but I do not want to steal the thunder of other colleagues who will probably speak on them regarding the amendment.
In conclusion, I will say a few rather unkind words about why ministerial assurances about good intentions simply will not do. The Government’s track record on public health has been inadequate, as was brought out in this House’s Select Committee report on NHS sustainability. A credible draft obesity plan was put by the Department of Health to No. 10 and emerged with two-thirds removed. It is a totally inadequate response to a crisis. Public health budgets nationally and locally have been cut, despite government protestations to the contrary. On top of all this, the Government’s incoherent and untransparent approach to Brexit, which we have discussed endlessly under the Bill, makes it impossible to give much credence to the assurances of individual Ministers, however well meant they may personally be.
The recent letter to the Times by many public health experts makes it clear that the profession, in the public interest, strongly supports the amendment. That is borne out by the excellent briefing provided by the Faculty of Public Health to me and to many other Members of this House. Here, I say a big thank you to the faculty and to its staff. The extent of support for the amendment is brought out well in the piece in today’s Times. I hope the Minister will have the good sense to accept the spirit of the amendment, but the DExEU approach so far to the Bill does not encourage me to think that he will. I beg to move.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 227BD, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and others, including myself. I add my thanks to the Faculty of Public Health for its support with this amendment. We are all approaching a major crossroads in our political life. Much may well change. Since we joined the EU there has been a huge improvement in our public health. I think that the general public would expect that this rate of change should not be jeopardised.
Some members of the Committee might think that this amendment should be part of a health and social care Bill, but many in this Committee will remember the 2011 Health and Social Care Bill and certainly not wish to revisit it. The EU Withdrawal Bill is where our constitutional stability and certainty will be secured within the UK legal system, so this is where the amendment should sit. Thus, in the current circumstances, this is the appropriate Bill. The British constitution does not exist, as do others, with a single set of principles. If it did, this amendment would be part of it. But it should be enshrined in this Bill, which will be part of the patchwork which forms our constitution.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I, too, thank the Faculty of Public Health for its briefing. Perhaps I may cast this issue a little wider and refer to the immense work done both by the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. What they have laid down in public health has often been taken as a whole by other institutes of public health both across the European Union and far wider.
We have always been really quite fortunate in this country. Many will ask why I as a constituency Member many years ago had an interest in public health. “We don’t have cholera here,” I remember being told. “We don’t have the various diseases we read about in far-off places”. The reason we do not have them is our high standards of public health. It is a very simple thing to say, but it is fundamental. That is why I believe this modest amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Warner, is very important. It does not interfere with the Brexit process, wherever one comes from. It lays down something that has been basic and good in this country for well over a century. I shall not go into the history of the women pioneers who established public health standards, but we owe it to our history and to our outstanding progress in taking public health standards into a wider world to make sure that what we maintain in this country will not only be maintained but be enhanced in the time after we leave the European Union. I do not know of any branch of medicine that does not pay considerable tribute to the standards of public health developed in this country. I believe that this is a non-intrusive amendment and one that the Government will be very grateful to have on the statute book in the proper way in the future.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to this amendment and point out two crucial things. One is the importance of cross-border co-operation. The second is the importance of UK/EU collaboration.
Cross-border co-operation is critical to addressing health threats. The EU has a number of technical agencies relevant to health; for example, the European Centre for Disease Control, the European Food Safety Authority, the European Medicines Agency and the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. They gather data and undertake monitoring, surveillance, trend analysis and risk assessment. They provide alert mechanisms for Governments and key stakeholders. They contribute to shared learning across borders and offer a platform for co-ordinated European responses to crises within the EU and globally; for example, during the Ebola crisis and pandemic influenza outbreaks. These mechanisms are critical for public health. Noble Lords might be interested to watch the BBC Four programme at 9 pm this Thursday on the effect of pandemic flu and how many it might kill without co-operation—good watching.
EU co-operation has also incentivised work on antimicrobial resistance, which requires a global response. Infectious diseases remain a major threat to the UK health system and economy. Repeated threats of infectious diseases from overseas in recent years have highlighted the necessity of arrangements that enhance co-operation between the UK and EU to protect the health of the UK population. Since infectious diseases know no borders, collaborative work to develop robust systems for surveillance and preparedness is critical. It is thought that there are currently five major infections threatening the world and each may have a more devastating effect than Ebola had or that pandemic flu may have.
Our proximity to Europe means that infectious diseases in the UK are regularly imported from Europe, and vice versa. Outbreaks of measles in England and Wales have been repeatedly linked to ongoing outbreaks in countries in eastern Europe, while cases of hepatitis A have been linked, with approximately 4,000 cases identified to date that probably came from Europe. Further diseases regularly emerging from Europe include legionella, an often severe form of pneumonia, and food-borne sources of infection, eloquently spoken of by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on his amendment last week. As we leave the EU, it is important that we reassure our European partners that we recognise our international obligations in relation to health protection.
Our arrangements for international health protection have been shaped in tandem with the EU. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control is tasked with strengthening Europe’s defences against infectious diseases. It works in partnership with our national health protection bodies, such as Public Health England, to strengthen continent-wide disease surveillance. The ECDC’s work includes risk assessment; being a hub for data analysis and interpretation to enable disease surveillance across borders; carrying out scientific analysis; and co-ordination between national public health agencies during outbreaks and emergencies. These are things we do not do just now; we do not need to because the ECDC does them.
As a member of the EU, the UK currently benefits from a number of specific ECDC systems which enhance the UK’s ability to detect in real time and manage infectious disease threats. Examples include the Early Warning and Response System, the European Surveillance System, the Epidemic Intelligence Information System and the Threat Tracking Tool. The ECDC has significantly more capacity to manage public health threats than individual national surveillance systems. An example is the fact that the ECDC took the lead on the enhanced infectious disease surveillance required for the 2012 London Olympics.
In summary, I welcome the Government’s commitment to maintain participation in EU co-operation on disease prevention and public health. It is important for the UK to continue to play a leading role in promoting and ensuring public health globally. This amendment would reinforce that commitment more tangibly, and I support it.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. I associate myself with the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, about the great history of public health in this country, but there is still a great deal more to be done. We cannot be complacent. We know that few areas of public policy are of more concern to our population than healthcare. Many people fear that their well-being is being threatened by a lack of investment in all areas of health and they desperately need reassurance. The NHS and access to good healthcare come close to the top in many public opinion surveys about what concerns the electorate.
Particular importance is attached to public health, although that term is not always used. Public health is not just about treatment, it is about prevention—more than anything else, perhaps. It should not be cut, as has happened recently. As has already been said, investment in this area has been incredibly important in reducing smoking and cutting the number of teenage pregnancies, to give just two examples. We may no longer have cholera but the challenges continue: appalling air pollution, alcohol consumption that is too high, drug abuse, poor diets, lack of exercise—all these have dire consequences, leading to very high levels of obesity, health inequalities and widespread physical and mental illness.
As has already been said, well-being is created not just by high-quality public health provision but by good housing and good schooling, creating happy and fulfilled children enjoying learning, with opportunities for post-school education and training, and decent conditions of employment which reduce stress. Leaving the European Union poses dangers for economic growth and therefore for the funding of all these public services, as well as threats to rights at work which derive from European Union directives.
I am particularly concerned about mental health, which has not been mentioned so far. Although additional investment was pledged in November 2017 for mental health services, the historic underinvestment is so great that hugely more needs to be done. Mental health problems cause 23% of all illness in the UK but mental health care receives only 11% of health spending. There is a huge disparity here. Two-thirds of people with common problems such as anxiety and depression receive no appropriate treatment, compared with a quarter of those with physical health illnesses. This was evidence given to us on the Select Committee on the Long-term Sustainability of the NHS.
To tackle the massive amounts of undetected and untreated mental ill-health requires more trained staff and more understanding and knowledge of the causes of mental illness and what constitutes effective treatment. I fear that greater economic uncertainty as a result of Brexit reduces the likelihood of these resources being available. Substantial support for research into mental health has been secured from European Union programmes, with large tranches of funding since 2014 through Horizon 2020. Brexit jeopardises all this—just another example of the dire consequences of leaving the European Union which people were completely unaware of when they voted in the referendum.
I conclude by asking the Government to give serious consideration to this amendment, which recognises the enormous importance of protecting our citizens’ physical and, indeed, mental health as a matter of principle, alongside the other issues of the security of our nation and the prosperity of our people.
Lord Deben
I bring the Committee back to the fact that this is a Bill about withdrawal, so we might ask why this amendment has been tabled. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, how important the amendment is because of the Government’s commitment. The Government said that they were taking into British law all that was in European law. This amendment draws attention to the fact that the Government are not doing what they said they would: they are not taking into British law the protocols and those things that surround European law to which one can refer in a court case. We have been precise in what we have taken in and the Government have been precise in what they have excluded.
I speak in favour of the amendment because there is no reason why the Government cannot accept it. It is not possible to say that this is all a matter of negotiation—we are not going to negotiate this. Before my noble friend Lord Duncan spoke on the amendment before last, he gently upbraided me for suggesting that I knew how he was going to reply, and of course he did reply that it was not possible to commit the Government to the protection of medical devices because that was going to be part of the negotiation. However, there will not be a negotiation as to whether we will uphold the highest standards of public health; that will not be part of the negotiation at all. What is true is that the protection that, as a member of the European Union, we now have under European law would no longer be afforded to us were we to leave the European Union. Therefore, this amendment is merely to ensure that the withdrawal Bill does what the Government said that they wanted to do, which is to take into British law all those things that at the moment are in European law. This is an important amendment, because it helps to complete what, unfortunately, the Government left out from what they said that they would achieve.
There is a second reason why the amendment is so important. I am fortunate to be the chairman of the Committee on Climate Change. One of the things that is important to us is that we have a statutory position. When the carbon budgets, which we prepare, are passed into law by both Houses of Parliament, they cannot be changed thereafter without the Committee on Climate Change saying that that is right and proper. That is how we in Britain have made sure that we do not go back on our climate change commitments.
For most of our laws, we do not have that kind of protection, but we did and do have it because of our membership of the European Union. That is the kind of change that we will have to make if we leave the European Union to make sure that the public are as well protected after so sad an occasion as they were before. It is not me saying that but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defra, who is not known for his enthusiasm for the European Union. He has made it clear that we need to protect the people of Britain post Brexit by having very clear rules which give independent enforcement of environment law. He said we cannot have a system whereby environment law is affected by the whims—or sensible policies—of Ministers. He said we have to have something independent and has promised that he will present it to the Houses of Parliament. If that is true about environmental law, is it not also true about public health law? Do we not need precisely the same protection for public health that we clearly need to replace the protection we have in the European Union on the environment?
I shall listen extremely carefully to my noble friend’s answer, but I do not think that we can now say that the reason this is not acceptable is because of negotiation, nor do I think the Government can really say that they do not believe that this is what their policy is. This is, after all, only a statement of what the Government have said they believe—so why can we not put it on the face of the Bill, continue the protection which the British people have in the European Union, so that if we leave we at least make sure that public health is as protected afterwards as it was before?
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has pointed out, this is about moving into our law the regulations that currently protect us. That is why it seems appropriate in this Bill. I remind the Committee that the implications of Brexit for our health were published in the Lancet in a review in November last year, which detailed the areas that are in jeopardy. A fortnight ago, the Guardian reported a leaked document highlighting an unprecedented, co-ordinated effort by transatlantic right-wing think tanks to secure what they described as the “ideal” trade arrangement between Britain and the USA, which would involve the UK diluting its existing standards on food safety. I remind the House that the excessive use of antibiotics has resulted in superbugs, which is precisely why we have been worried about diluting any food safety standards. Working conditions in the farming areas that want to export to us are troubling. This would tear up the precautionary principle, whereby companies have to prove their product is safe before it can be sold, rather than waiting for it to be proven unsafe before it is recalled. That precautionary principle and the principle of safety run right through everything. As my noble friend Lord Patel outlined, and as previously discussed in Amendment 30, this relates to all of the infective areas, but it also covers toxic substances and the way that we handle those.
I strongly support this amendment because it would build up the health protections that we have built up slowly since we entered the European Union. It would simply guarantee the continuity of the present conditions and ensure that Articles 9, 11 and 168(1) of the Lisbon treaty are actually respected. It would require European institutions to maintain high levels of human health in all their policies and activities and would mean that these are then mirrored in the UK. It would of course affect areas of shared competence, such as environmental law, health and safety law, and public health law, as well as trade law. By mainstreaming this, it would build on precedents in UK law such as in Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act, Section 149 of the Equality Act and Section 3 of the Human Rights Act. It covers acts of all public authorities, as I understand it. Judicial acts taken in interpreting retained EU law would then be subject to the same standards that we are used to and have become accustomed to. It covers the whole of the UK, irrespective of whether legislation is made or adopted in Westminster, Belfast, Cardiff or Edinburgh. I cannot see a reason not to accept it. It would maintain the standard to which we have become used. We are all aware of the dangers of dropping that standard.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I support this amendment on public health. I feel very strongly on this issue, having played my part as a member of the health team on the government Benches that took the then Health and Social Care Bill through the Lords. My responsibility was to take through the measures on public health; I had an academic background in a related area. We placed public health back with local authorities. We said that public health would be safe there, in its appropriate place. As we have heard, the 19th-century development of public health in Britain led the way in extending life for those living in cities globally, and it did so in a local authority setting. It was not antibiotics that transformed life expectancy, it was public health measures.
So has public health been safe? Not recently, I submit. With local authorities and social care in crisis, what chance for public health? So when the Faculty of Public Health flags to me its worries about public health if we leave the EU, I listen. Yet another threat from Brexit, it seems, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, pointed out. The Minister will be aware of the concerns from the Faculty of Public Health and others working in this most important field. I am sure he will assure us that there will be no reduction in standards if we leave the EU—in which case, enshrine that in the Bill.
The public health community is concerned that, without the safety net of EU law, we may see our existing high level of vital public health legislation, policy and practice eroded. This year we celebrate the 70th anniversary of the NHS, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, pointed out. Public health is a critical part of that NHS, not a side issue. We know that diseases such as cardiovascular disease, cancers, chronic respiratory disease and diabetes account for around 40% of premature mortality in the UK, and they continue to place a significant burden on patients and the health service. These conditions are to a large extent preventable and their costs in human, social and economic terms largely avoidable. We also know that effective public health strategies to tackle these and other challenges deliver an extensive range of benefits. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker, and the noble Lord, Lord Deben, have referred to, we have been able to bring benefits and improvements worldwide by the promotion of public health, from sanitation onwards.
That is why safeguarding public health is vital. The Government have said they will continue to co-operate with the EU on disease prevention and public health and that the UK will continue to play a leading role in promoting public health globally, so the amendment would simply put that commitment in the Bill. I have heard those promises on public health. When I was in government, I was worried that public health in local authorities was not ring-fenced as we were ring-fencing the NHS. I was assured by our coalition partners that all would be well. I was particularly worried about the position of reproductive health, given how essential yet controversial that might be. The reason why I am supporting the amendment today is that those promises proved rather hollow, so no promises that the Minister gives tonight will ring true to me. Whatever he may genuinely feel or whatever may be in his brief, they could be out of the window should the UK decide that standards are to be lowered or costs cut in an effort to increase the UK’s competitiveness. That is why the amendment is so important.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I want to say a few words—a very few, I promise—in support of the amendment. Decent public health provision is of special importance to people living in poverty and people living in deprived areas, whether we are talking about the impact of the daily cocktail of pollution referred to recently by the Chief Medical Officer of England and mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, as a prime example of why the amendment is needed; the incidence of obesity referred to by my noble friend Lady Blackstone; preventable stillbirths; or life expectancy, where some recent statistics have been very worrying. In the Longevity Science Panel study published last month, the life expectancy gap between England’s richest and poorest neighbourhoods has widened since 2001, and it identified income inequality as the biggest factor. Recent data from the Office for National Statistics indicate that life expectancy of the poorest girls in England has fallen for the first time on record since the 1920s.
These are stark examples of how health and illness follow a social gradient. Campbell Robb, chief executive of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, was quoted in the Independent as saying:
“These figures should serve as a wake-up call: we need action to loosen poverty’s grip on the health of our nation”.
I hope that the Government will take note of this wake-up call and, as a minimum, accept the amendment, which sets out important guiding principles for public policy as we exit the European Union.
Baroness Goldie
For once, I am grateful to the noble Lord opposite. Can I ask one of my colleagues to determine who should precede the other?
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes
I would just like to put the opposite view. Some of the regulations that we have had to accept from the EU on health matters were likely to be completely unhelpful and possibly even make matters worse. I remember when people were concerned about harmful additives in food and parents, in particular, wanted to know more, so the EU produced a regulation in which the information was to be given in tiny letters, smaller than anything else on the label. You had the vision of a busy mother with a child on each arm who possibly needed her glasses to read what it said. She would get a completely opposite view because the writing was so small: she would think that it was the good thing that they should have when in fact it was trying to warn her against it. I was unable to get that amended at the time. That was just one small example of such misinformation or lack of information. I am looking forward, when we complete everything and achieve Brexit, to redrafting a number of these regulations that we had to accept to make them much more sensible for those who are rightly concerned about these matters.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, it is this side. I have been waiting patiently on this side. I am grateful to the noble Baroness; you will have your chance.
I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, signed by several other noble Lords. The UK is a leader in public health. We have done extraordinarily well on the world stage and within Europe. I trust that the Minister will have no problem with the advice from his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, to incorporate this into the Bill. There is no real reason why it should not go in. It should go in because that would send a wider message about what life might look like in future.
Post Brexit, the Government will have to negotiate about 760 treaties on different subjects with 168 countries. Many of these will affect people’s health in a variety of ways, many of which have been mentioned: food safety, environmental standards and chemicals.
I suspect that these negotiations—particularly with the United States—may affect the NHS. Given the fact that the NHS was a central part of the Brexiteers’ argument, it is very important to keep a close eye on this. It is possible that the UK may be vulnerable to industry lobbies when we are negotiating alone, not in concert with others from Europe. It is also possible that there may be other pressures. We have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, who indicated that we should look at existing standards and change them. I suspect that many people who are interested in seeing a low-cost, Singapore-style economy will be pleased to see many of those weakened in future.
It is interesting to look at the lobby groups which have been involved in the Canada-EU negotiation, to see where they came from, what they were after and what they tried to secure. Many of those groups were involved in the failed negotiation between the USA and the EU. As has been mentioned, their interests revolve around alcoholic spirits, the quality and standards of meat, pesticides and chemicals. I have been seeking to find out who is lobbying the Government regarding the negotiations for a deal with the USA. From all accounts, there is a significant interest from the health sector, which is an extraordinarily big part of the USA economy. Compared with most other countries in Europe, the NHS is quite unique. We are the one remaining country with a virtually totally state-run health service with—as yet—minimal amounts sectored out, sourced out or privatised.
There is a view that, as part of a trade deal with the Americans, when seeking to get better deals in other areas, we might have to let something go—as you do in any negotiation. I am pleased to see that the Minister is shaking his head, saying that we are not going to negotiate on the NHS in a trade deal with the Americans in order to have the freedom to get deals in other areas when we could do better for our manufacturing business elsewhere. If that is the case, why do the Government not come out more firmly on this? They could make a start by accepting the amendment.
As other noble Lords have mentioned, this year is the 70th anniversary of the National Health Service. The amendment also provides the Government with an opportunity to affirm for future generations their commitment to universal healthcare free at the point of use and funded through general taxation. The negative impacts of privatisation on health service efficiency and quality are now well evidenced in many areas. Publicly run health services must not be opened up to further competition and no “ratchet clause” or negative listing should preclude the return of privatised public services to a state operation. A reverse could take place. If the NHS is safe in our hands, let us have a true red line written into the sand on this issue. We could make a start by seeing the Government’s commitment. Will they accept the amendment or not? We can then start moving towards firm commitments: not just mealy words then finding flexibility introduced into the negotiations allowing further encroachment and privatisation of the National Health Service.
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment and to point out to the Minister that it gives him an opportunity. I know that he and the Government care deeply about public health. This amendment gives him the chance to reassure the Committee, and the wider public, that the Bill will do no harm to the precious public health. It is supported by more than 15 medical organisations, and I thank the Faculty of Public Health for its very informative briefings.
The amendment deliberately uses the language of Article 168 of the Lisbon treaty, so there is a body of jurisprudence through which it can be interpreted. The UK can be proud of its high standards of public health protection, safeguarded by legislation, policy and practice. I hope that the Government and my noble friend will seriously consider accepting this amendment to help provide the reassurance that, if we leave the EU, we will do no harm to public health. The amendment places a duty not only on the Government and the devolved authorities but on the arm’s-length bodies that can so often be involved in the detail of public health standards. This Bill is where constitutional stability and certainty needs to be established within our legal system, so I hope that the Minister will respond positively.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to join with others on this important amendment in support of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests as the president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. I will focus on the importance of public health prioritisation in easing the extreme pressures on our A&E departments, in promoting, improving and safeguarding the health of the nation’s workforce and its productivity, and in preventing unnecessary burdens on society and families caused by unintentional death and serious injury.
Currently, an average of 14,000 people die every year in accidents, and accidents remain the biggest single killer of children and young people up to the age of 19. While the UK has made incredible strides over the past century in reducing accidents at work and on the road—giving the country the enviable safety records it has today—unintentional death and injury at home and at leisure is on the increase, with around 6,000 people being killed in their own home each year. In 2010, a total of £11.5 billion was spent by the health and social care sectors on fall-induced fractures alone. This will, of course, rise if today’s problems go unchecked.
Despite the overwhelming evidence that unintentional injury is one of the biggest public health issues facing society today, accident prevention is afforded woefully inadequate focus on the public health agenda. We need a major investment in falls prevention programmes in order to promote healthy ageing and thus ensure that older people are kept out of the health and social care systems for as long as possible, allowing them to enjoy later life to the fullest.
We also need to ensure that we are protecting the most vulnerable at the other end of the age spectrum: the under-5s. A disproportionately large number of young children visit A&E departments, while at least one child under the age of five is killed in an accident every week. This amendment will help as we strive to meet these challenges. It is my hope that it will encourage assessment of public health priorities, and of distribution of resources in line with this. Local authorities must be empowered to discover where their greatest health challenges lie, and properly assisted when they look to tackle them.
As for Europe, the accident prevention community in the UK has learned a lot from its colleagues on the continent, as they have learned a lot from us. RoSPA is a leading member of the European Association for Injury Prevention and Safety Promotion—EuroSafe—and also hosts the European Child Safety Alliance. It also continues to work with the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work in ongoing efforts to drive down occupational accidents and ill health. The latest Health and Safety Executive estimated cost to UK business of injuries and ill health from current working conditions stands at a staggering £14.9 billion, with 31.2 million working days lost each year. While there is still more to be done, much can be learned from the excellent workplace health and safety practice displayed by employers across the country—and, indeed, across the continent—as we look to reduce accidents that happen to people when they are in the home and at leisure.
It is to be hoped that this amendment will go some way to addressing concerns of an impending deregulatory agenda which has the potential to erode decades of research and creation of solid, evidence-based regulation that ensures that the population can work and live their lives unhindered by unintentional injury. While we hear much about the red tape of such regulation hindering business and productivity, we know that the opposite is in fact true: good, proportionate regulation is good for the workforce and good for business.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment, which is in the name of my noble friend Lord Warner and others. It has been nicknamed, as everybody knows, the “do no harm” amendment although perhaps, more accurately, it should be the “do not roll back” amendment. I declare interests as an honorary fellow of the Faculty of Public Health—I too wish to thank the faculty and staff for its briefing—and as a former chief executive of the King’s Fund.
Much has already been argued, and I will not repeat any of that; it is late, and there are more amendments to come. However, I lay on the line that, as was asserted by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, in the debate on the amendment on medical devices, this is a moral issue. “First, do no harm” is a moral imperative taught to all medical and healthcare students, and this amendment makes it clear that those hard-won advances in public health as a result of EU legislation and regulation must not be rolled back, for whatever reason, be they air quality, tobacco packaging, alcohol pricing or whatever else that has been raised from around the House. The Government have given assurances that all will be well. However, as my noble friend Lord Warner has already said, we need more. We need this in the Bill. I cannot remember the public health community coming so strongly together on anything since tobacco packaging. This matters hugely to those who work in the area of public health, and it should matter to all of us. There is concern out there, and a moral imperative in the amendment. I support it strongly.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate, and we have identified some of the challenges that we face in public health: air quality, environmental standards, food standards, accidents, infectious diseases and, indeed, huge health inequalities. I listened with interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. Overall, I disagreed with her. Of course, you can pick out some regulations from the EU with which one might disagree or think that they do not go far enough, and she identified an issue around labelling. Overall, however, the EU has been generally helpful and a force for improvement in public health. I mention in particular air quality, because that is one clear example where it has pressed this country hard on our very poor performance. Governments have started to do something about it only because of the fines we face. There are other examples as well.
The fear expressed so well by noble Lords—I too pay tribute to the Faculty of Public Health for its briefings on this—is that without EU law, and in the context of already significant reductions in public health budgets, we will see a gradual erosion over time of our important public health legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and others mentioned food safety as an example. The Minister will no doubt tell us that he cannot say anything substantive because of the process of negotiations; he has said that a few times before. However, one of the fears clearly is that in the Government’s haste to negotiate a deal with the US—they are desperate to do so, for obvious reasons—when it comes to it, things like some of the food standards we have at the moment will go by the board. We know that that will happen because they have to produce a US trade deal; they have no option but to do it. They are so weak compared to the US in terms of the negotiation that it is quite likely that some of those standards will have to be thrown away.
That is why this amendment has been brought forward tonight. Ministers have helpfully discussed this amendment in meetings with some stakeholders. I know Ministers may say that the Secretary of State already has the powers set out in the amendment. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said, the amendment would place a duty on the whole of the Government to do no harm. That is a very important distinction. Importantly, it would also place a duty on other public authorities, including the devolved nations, so I believe that it goes further than current legislation. It is relevant to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, not just to a theoretical health and social care Bill which may be introduced at some point.
Other noble Lords have talked about the Lisbon treaty and the impact upon it. The amendment essentially seeks to ensure that there is a legal precedent and interpretive guidance on which to draw when determining the meaning of the proposed new clause, but, as I understand it, it does not seek to preserve EU law and regulation. Therefore, it would be for the British courts, on the basis of our doctrines of parliamentary sovereignty, to decide the future interpretation of the law.
This has been a very important debate. The Minister has to recognise that there is real concern that the Government’s desire to negotiate agreements with other countries will lead to them having to agree to reduce some of our essential public health standards. This amendment seeks to provide a guarantee and assurance that this will not happen. We should very much welcome it.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I will start where he finished: no, we are not going to do that. I am afraid that is not the Government’s purpose. There will be no rollback of these standards because they are at the heart of what we believe to be right and proper. A number of noble Lords have implied that what has been proposed will be the case. I assure them that is not the case.
My noble friend Lady Chalker is right to stress the leadership role that the United Kingdom has long had in the area of public health. Indeed, that leadership role has been a beacon to not only the EU but its member states. As someone who currently lives in Edinburgh, I recognise the role that Scotland has had in pushing forward boundaries which are only now being adopted in certain parts of the world. It is important to stress that we are not in any way diminishing our regard for public health. Indeed, in bringing across the corpus of European law, those matters will rest in our statute book and will therefore be removable only by the other place and by this place.
Before I address some of the more substantive points, it is important once again to look at the EU itself, mostly in the area of public health. The noble Lord should be aware that public health has not been a core competence of the EU. Indeed, many of the aspects of public health have rested elsewhere within the statute books. Noble Lords will be aware that we have known about the pernicious and deadly impact of tobacco for many years, yet it is only in the last five years that the EU has phased out subsidies for tobacco growers.
I was a member of the European Parliament and sat on the environment committee. I also sat on the committee that investigated a scandal that came to be known as “dieselgate”. Noble Lords will be aware of exactly what that represented. At the heart of the EU, a major organisation installed cheap devices in vehicles that were specifically intended to undermine the core air quality standards. We should again remember that that was uncovered by an American public body, not by the EU’s body, which is in itself a borderline scandal. Further, we must also recognise that Volkswagen has compensated car owners in the US but has not in any way compensated car owners in the EU.
I am reminded also of the traceability of food and the horsemeat scandal, which riddled the EU. High standards are important only if they are met, and they must be met in each and every instance. Far too often we have found across the EU some of the most rigorous standards on paper that there could ever be, yet their enforcement is dreadful and woeful. Indeed, I am nearly certain that when we leave the EU the mean standard of public health will fall in the remaining states, so important is the contribution that we make to the wider question of public health.
When we look at the role of global standards and something like the recent Ebola outbreak, it was not the EU that pushed at that standard but France and the UK. They recognised an obligation to deliver against that pernicious pandemic. I believe we also need to recognise that the UK has been at the cutting edge of driving forward public health.
The noble Lord, Lord Warner, said that I might suggest that his amendment was vague. It is not vague; it simply duplicates exactly what the Government—indeed, not just this Government but every Government—have long said and long held to be dear. At the heart of good government must be the preservation of public health. It must be a cornerstone not just in the UK Government but in the Governments of the devolved Administrations, which in some respects have been brought into the ambit of the report. We need to recognise that.
Perhaps I may touch upon some of the other issues that have been brought into this wide-ranging debate. I reiterate that many of the aspects that we are touching on here will necessarily be part of ongoing negotiations, but I assure noble Lords that it is this Government’s intention to secure the highest possible engagement on matters of wider public health. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for bringing up a number of the areas that I believe the Government need to look at carefully—how we continue our collaboration, how we ensure that we can co-operate and how we can maintain that high standard. We can do so by sharing practice on both sides, because we both have a great deal to contribute and each will be the poorer for the absence of that collaboration.
It important for me to stress that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has a statutory duty under the National Health Service Act 2012 to protect the health of the public. A number of noble Lords have raised that, as indeed has the briefing from a number of sources, not least the Royal College of Physicians of the United Kingdom. Of course we are going to argue that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care already has these powers, and it is his intention to hold them to the highest possible standard. I stress that, although there is an equivalent duty under the NHS—
Lord Warner
Can I make it clear that the Minister is saying that the powers and duties of the Secretary of State are as wide as the powers and duties in this amendment?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I am stressing once again that the powers and duties that rest upon a Secretary of State for Health and the health department are high enough and wide enough to capture the intent of this amendment, and that is why the Government will not support the amendment on this occasion.
Lord Warner
That was not my question. Can the Minister say whether the current powers extend to the devolved Administrations, the other public bodies and the whole of government, as covered by the amendment?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
No, for one very simple reason. As the noble Lord knows, we cannot impose on the devolved Administrations by this mechanism. I am afraid that that is a simple statement of where the law and the devolution settlement rest.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, there is another way of approaching this, and that is to ask whether the provision in the treaty on which my noble friend Lord Warner has based his amendment is part of retained EU law. If it is, then it has a place in the statute and will be applied by the courts if necessary. Is the noble Lord able to answer that? Is it part of retained EU law?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
In this instance, it is not part of EU retained law, but that is not the point. We are saying that the powers that already rest in the Secretary of State’s hands are equal to the powers that would come through this amendment.
Lord Deben
If it is not part of this Bill, why not? The Government said that they were going to take this into the legislation. Why is it excluded? That is why people are frightened—because the Government have not put it in the Bill.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
Because it is superseded by the power that rests in the hands of all good Governments to deliver at that particular level. That is the purpose, and that is the point that I raised just now. If I may, I will make some progress.
It is important that I stress that we are committed to continuing co-operation not just within the EU but more broadly. That is why we are an active participant in the World Health Organization and in various other elements of global public health. My noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who is sitting beside me this evening, has committed to continuing the UK’s leading role in promoting and ensuring public health, in Europe and beyond. This commitment builds upon the principles set out by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care last July on a post-Brexit regulatory system where patients are not disadvantaged and patient safety remains at the heart of our endeavours. It is the Government’s intention, as stated in the future partnership papers, to continue collaboration with the EU to safeguard resilience. This of course will be determined as we move through the engagement on this matter.
I stress that the values and principles which have underpinned our National Health Service for the past 70 years—and which are not to be traded away with the US or any other trade partner we might have—will continue to guide us, just as they have contributed to the development of health and social care services across the EU. That is why, in this instance, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I am grateful to everybody for their contributions in this debate. My score-card shows 14 in favour of the amendment and two against, including the Minister, and that was across the Benches. I am glad that he has moved on from saying that the amendment is vague—that is a bit of progress from what Ministers said before to the Faculty of Public Health.
The Minister seems to be setting up the EU as a straw-man villain to criticise. I never claimed in the past that everything that the EU did in this area was perfect and for all time. What I was trying to do in this amendment was take a principle in the Lisbon treaty, which this country has signed, and apply it to the jurisprudence of the future. If I may, I remind him of the quotation from the High Court judgment, which he needs to read carefully. It makes it very clear that the courts found it useful to apply this principle and put it at the “epicentre”—the word of the judgment, not mine—of public health. It was used in coming to a judgment that actually helped the Government’s position on tobacco policy.
I have heard nothing from the Minister which suggests that the Government have got the same breadth and width of coverage as this amendment provides in this legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, I cannot see why on this issue the Government cannot put in the Bill what they claim to be their policy. It would reassure a very large number of people and help with the exit from the EU. I can guarantee the Minister that I shall return to this issue on Report.
I would be very happy to have a meeting with him, if he feels some flexibility coming upon him, as would many of my colleagues. However, if he does not, I think he can expect a rerun of this on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Marlesford
“Common Travel Area
It is an objective of the Government in negotiating the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU to ensure that the Common Travel Area between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland is maintained.”
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I raise this issue because the question of the Irish border has increasingly become a major obstacle to the whole issue of withdrawal. Despite a debate last week of some two hours, very little progress has been made.
For me, this whole debate has been immensely enlightening and indeed entertaining, if sometimes a little long. I have been rather disappointed in the Government’s rejection again and again of noble Lords’ suggestions. It reminded me of AP Herbert, who, after he had chaired a committee and was asked to make recommendations, made them, and they were rejected by the Government. He wrote a short letter to the Times saying that the Government,
“like an elderly hypochondriac, is always asking for a second opinion but never accepts it”.
At any rate, I will quickly set out the assumptions on which I think we agreed last week. The common travel area must be retained. There can be no physical border for the movement of people by land between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. There should be symmetry for persons travelling from Northern Ireland to the Republic and those travelling from the Republic to the north. The national security of the UK will be protected and enhanced against the growing threat from terrorism regardless of how the terrorists seek to enter the United Kingdom.
It was made very clear in the debate last week that to impede the free movement of people over the land border would intrude on the social life and indeed the community relations that have, thankfully, been building up since the Good Friday agreement. I have what I hope is a simple and practical suggestion by which these objectives could be achieved. I do not of course claim to be able to help on the parallel issue of trade and the movement of goods over the border.
Let me first describe briefly how I came to the conclusion that I shall put to your Lordships. Some months ago, my wife and I flew from London Heathrow to Dublin to visit friends. My wife is Italian and has an Italian passport. I have a UK passport. On arrival in Dublin Airport my passport was looked at and waved through. My wife’s passport was scanned and she was waved through. The whole process took seconds rather than minutes.
When we returned to Heathrow some days later, by the same airline—British Airways—all the passengers on the aircraft after disembarking were directed by a special route straight to baggage collection. There was no immigration procedure whatever. I should mention that there were a multitude of nationalities on board the aircraft, although of course I have no idea what passports they held—nor did anyone else have any idea. However, it appeared that there was absolutely no sort of border control. My proposal is therefore that this asymmetry be removed by making the border of the island of Britain the border for those travelling to or from the island of Ireland. The immigration procedures would be identical for both directions of travel.
To those who say that this removes or infringes the rights of passport-free movement I would reply that to be required to show that you hold a passport that entitles you to passport-free movement is no more an infringement of your rights than it would be if any of us claimed that to carry—and wear, as we are nowadays required to—our parliamentary passes is an infringement of our rights to be in the Palace of Westminster. Surely this simple measure of common sense, made necessary by the sad state of the world we now live in, must trump the memories and prejudices that were so justifiably generated by the many sad periods of the history of the relationship between the British and the Irish. I feel that we need some action and I hope that I am not going to hear from the Minister that it is all impossible, unless he has a better idea to suggest. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, if I have understood correctly, my noble friend Lord Marlesford is calling for us to remain within the customs union, because the history is that passport controls were dispensed with when we entered the single European market in 1992. Is that understanding of what the amendment proposes correct?
Lord Marlesford
I am concerned purely with immigration and the movement of people across borders. I want to make the border of the island of Britain the border between Britain and the island of Ireland.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, your Lordships are going to have to tolerate AP Herbert’s elderly hypochondriac. I thank my noble friend Lord Marlesford for highlighting this issue. The Government are committed to ensuring that the common travel area with Ireland and the Crown dependencies is maintained. The common travel area has special importance to many of the people of these islands going about their daily lives. Importantly, maintaining the common travel area protects the ability of British and Irish citizens to move without hindrance across the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, recognising the symbolic significance of this in the implementation of the Belfast Good Friday agreement, and removes the need for immigration controls on journeys from Ireland to the UK.
The common travel area with Ireland was formed many years ago, long before either the UK or Ireland were members of the EU. It is reflected in each state’s application of national immigration policy and provided for by bilateral agreements and arrangements. The common travel area arrangements are recognised in European Union law, confirming that the UK and Ireland can continue to work together to make arrangements for the movement of people between our states. Let me reassure my noble friend Lord Marlesford that the Government are committed to maintaining these arrangements. The common travel area has proven to be resilient over the years, withstanding legal challenges and new policy and political developments. It has been staunchly protected by all its members. Both the UK Government and the Irish Government are firmly committed to protecting and maintaining co-operation as part of the common travel area arrangements.
The Government have endeavoured to set out, from the Prime Minister’s Article 50 letter and her Florence speech to our position paper in August, that preserving these arrangements and the unique relationship between the UK and Ireland is a priority for the negotiations. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords that, importantly, paragraph 54 of the December joint report includes recognition from the EU that the common travel area with Ireland is protected after the UK has left the EU. As with all the commitments made in the December joint report, we are determined to ensure that this is turned into legally binding text in the withdrawal agreement. To reiterate, the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill will implement the major elements of the withdrawal agreement, including the protection of all the Northern Ireland and Ireland commitments in the joint report. All of that is of course a matter for the future Bill rather than the one that we have before us.
As well as the clear commitment of this Government to maintain the common travel area, I am also clear that these arrangements can be maintained after the UK has left the EU. The UK’s approach to the common travel area is provided for by primary legislation in the Immigration Act 1971. Our approach to arrivals in the UK from within the common travel area is distinct from our membership of the EU and will therefore be unaffected by the UK’s exit. The high level of collaboration with Ireland on border security, on strengthening the external border of the common travel area and on promoting legitimate travel within this special travel area can continue. In these circumstances, I suggest that the amendment moved by my noble friend is unnecessary and I hope that, with my explanation, he will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Marlesford
I thank the Minister for her comments, which are what I very much expected. The simple fact is that a solution has not yet been produced to avoid having any sort of hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. What I was seeking, as far as the movement of people is concerned, is to make it possible to allow the situation to remain as it is. We are not talking about the impact of leaving the EU; we are talking about national security and the present unsatisfactory position that it appears is going to cause further problems as a result of leaving the EU. However, the hour is late and I am sure that we shall return to these matters. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Broers
“Implementation of agreements reached with the EU on nuclear research and development
(1) Before exit day, the Secretary of State must publish a report which includes the details of any agreements reached with the EU on the United Kingdom's continued participation after exit day in—(a) extensions of the JET project;(b) the ITER project;(c) research into advanced nuclear fission reactors;(d) any other research undertaken by Euratom.(2) In addition to the report described in subsection (1), at the same time, the Secretary of State must make regulations providing for the implementation of any agreements described in the report.(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (2) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
Lord Broers (CB)
My Lords, the amendment would ensure that we maintain the resources needed to remain competitive in nuclear research and development beyond 2020. If we do not, we will almost certainly lose the ability to replace and increase the nuclear baseload needed to underpin our intermittent renewable sources. Our large wind and solar resources will leave us in the dark on windless nights—at least until full-scale storage or fusion power become realities—unless we replace nuclear power with fossil fuel plants and thereby miss our legally binding target of reducing emissions by at least 80% by 2050.
Indeed, we would find ourselves in the situation that exists in Germany, as described by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, in today’s Times, where, because the Germans decided to abandon nuclear power, they are now being forced to build coal-fired power stations to back up their renewable sources, thereby counteracting the purpose of building the wind and solar facilities in the first place. At least we have not got that far. We are pressing ahead with our nuclear baseload and all looked well until we made the incomprehensible decision to withdraw from Euratom, despite the fact that our withdrawal was not legally required by our withdrawal from the EU. Until now, we had sensibly been relying on our membership of Euratom to improve our capabilities to manage and dispose of nuclear waste, improve radiological protection, keep up to date with the progress being made on advanced fission reactors—including small modular reactors, or SMRs—and remain major contributors to the development of fusion power, particularly extensions to the Joint European Torus, or JET, at Culham and the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, or ITER.
Let me say a few words about fusion. Controlled release fusion was first achieved in JET at Culham in 1991. In my opinion, this could well turn out to be one of the most important advances in experimental physics ever made. This was the earliest successful experiment; however, it produced only two short pulses when fusion power of one megawatt was verified for a fraction of a second. By 1997, things had moved on and JET produced a peak of 16 megawatts of fusion power, with fusion power over 10 megawatts sustained for over half a second. This gave everyone the confidence to proceed with JET’s successor, ITER, which had been talked about since the mid-1980s but was escalated into a multinational project that had been estimated to cost about €13 billion—interestingly, about the same cost as has been estimated for the finding of the Higgs boson. ITER is currently under construction in southern France and is designed to produce 500 megawatts of fusion power and 10 times more fusion power than the power put into the plasma.
I mention this background to show that progress has been made but this is a very long-term project. Construction of ITER will not be completed until 2020; the initial plasma will not be created until 2025; and the first fusion experiments will not be carried out until 2035. Few noble Lords will see that happen. Many challenges face the project but there are potential answers to all of them. At present, there are no experimental or theoretical showstoppers identified. By the middle of the century, it could well demonstrate that fusion power is practical and capable of delivering unlimited quantities of clean, carbon-free energy.
Through what I see as government neglect or lack of support, we have lost our expertise in a disturbing number of vital technologies, of which microelectronics is one. We are leaders in designing microelectronic chips—that capability is now owned by Japan—but we cannot make chips. More recently there was the decoding of DNA, where we do retain expertise but have lost the business of DNA decoding to the USA.
Let us not lose our expertise in nuclear power. These matters are too important to leave to chance and words of promise. Let us this time ensure that we remain internationally competitive in nuclear technologies and lead rather than follow in seeking truly clean energy for our planet. The amendment would ensure that our nuclear technology continues to receive support at its present level. I beg to move.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I share with the noble Lord, Lord Broers, many of his concerns about the future of our nuclear energy programme. Like him, I regret very much that we have lost so much expertise. Part of the result of our withdrawal from Euratom is that the ONR will have to recruit a large number of scientists qualified in nuclear matters. Perhaps we will also have another opportunity to debate these matters tomorrow in the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, so I will not detain the Committee long, except to say that although I basically agree with the noble Lord, Lord Broers, about the importance of nuclear power, and the fact that it is not subject to intermittency makes it much more reliable than renewable energy, I do not go as far as him in saying that it is necessarily deplorable that we withdraw from Euratom.
Many scientists and senior executives who have worked in the nuclear industry consider that Euratom is a rather bureaucratic organisation that is too cumbersome in its approach to verifications and too much concerned with understanding the detail of what all its members are doing, rather than helping to ensure a proper, adequate nuclear safeguards regime. I believe the noble Lord’s amendment does not recognise the upside of our withdrawal from Euratom—we will ourselves be able to decide where to commit funds in nuclear research and development. For example, we might want to spend money on small modular reactors instead of on ITER. Anyway, if we want to be in ITER, besides the EU/Euratom countries, China, India, Japan, Korea, Russia and the United States all participate. It will be good to be able to decide which projects we commit funds to in nuclear research and which we do not, whereas at present we have no independent right to decide.
Besides that, it is clear that we will need a transition or implementation period for the Euratom treaty as well as the EU treaties, so we do not have to decide any of this by exit day anyway. We will take some time to decide the detail as to which projects to go on with after we have recovered our right to decide where we will commit our funds in nuclear research.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I find that slightly strange from the noble Viscount. We do have a choice over our expenditure on the JET programme because we finance a significant proportion of it outside of Euratom. We already have that independence to a large degree. In fact, as I understand it from the Government’s policy, we are already offering to extend that financial contribution up to 2020. I have to admit that it did not seem a great come on to the European Union or the EU 27 to offer the same terms if it happened to keep its research in Culham as it has at the moment.
I did not the read the amendment as saying half the things that the noble Viscount mentioned. I understand it very sensibly to be saying that we want the Government to tell us in no uncertain terms how we are going to remain in the various programmes of Euratom. That does not stop us doing other things such as small modular reactors or whatever we might want to do in addition—I really do not see that problem.
It is important to remember that Euratom has a research budget of €1.6 billion from 2014 to 2018. As it is part of the industrial strategy of the United Kingdom, we should want to stay a part of that. Although some of us can be slightly sceptical about fusion, as someone concerned with non-carbon energy I see it as one potential pathway to the future which the United Kingdom should be a part of. I went to Culham earlier this year. There are 1,300 jobs there, 600 of which are high-skill, with employees drawn from all European countries and beyond that. I hope that the Government will find uncontentious a sensible amendment such as this and that we can remain a part of this community, see what it offers and be a part of its success in the future.
It would be a dead end if we continued to contribute to the JET funding and to be a part of it until 2020 only to throw all that investment away and not be a part of ITER. To be a part of ITER, we have to plan ahead, which is what this amendment calls for. It is entirely logical and a very good way for the Government to take forward this agenda openly and constructively and to keep Parliament informed as it happens.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, when the Minister replies eloquently as she always does, could she try to explain to the Committee why in all our mini-debates on this issue and on the nuclear safety Bill, the Government have still not come forward with a coherent written explanation for their decision to leave Euratom? Why have we not been written to about this, despite repeated requests in this House, and when will the Government face up to the fact that they are doing this purely for ideological reasons without any clear explanation whatever?
Lord Broers
I want to point out two things in response to the noble Viscount. First, I have introduced this amendment because research and development was ruled by the Public Bill Office to be outside the remit of the safeguards Bill, so it had to be brought here. Secondly, the fusion projects are large and collaborative; they are not projects where we can decide what we want to do and where we want to do it. We would be hopelessly underresourced if we did not join these European projects. That is why we have to join them. At the moment, we are major players in them and have always been so, but we have relatively small resources. ITER costs €13 billion—it has to cost that amount. It is certainly worth that amount. It is a tiny fraction of what we spend on energy, but, unless we collaborate with the other nations in this project, we will be nowhere.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I recall many years ago in private practice acting on the instruction of the late Lord Weinstock to fix the price of Hunterston A. At that time, we were in the very lead of nuclear energy development. I regret to say that I have the feeling that we are slightly less in the lead now than we were then. I do not have anything like the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Broers, but I want to emphasise the need to ensure the important place of nuclear energy in our future plans.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord remember what price he fixed it at? How does it compare with Hinkley Point B?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, that was a mischievous intervention by my noble friend, which the noble and learned Lord has dealt with eloquently from his place.
It seems to me that this is a very important question and the noble and learned Lord is surely right: obviously, this country developed the first peacetime nuclear plant at Sellafield—or Windscale, or Calder Hall, even—and we blew that. We blew our leadership completely. We have though, with nuclear fusion, still great potential and we are at risk of throwing that away as well. That is why this is such an important amendment and discussion. It would be a tragedy if we lost the current expertise that we have, and I hope the noble Baroness will be able to say something about that.
I echo what my noble friend Lord Liddle said: we have had a number of debates about Euratom now, but there has never been a straight explanation as to why the Government decided they had to leave Euratom even though we were members of Euratom and Euratom existed before the EU. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, is critical of Euratom, but the fact is that the Government—his Government—are saying that we want to maintain nuclear safeguards in consistency with Euratom, but we cannot do so at the beginning so all we can promise to do is to maintain the standards of the IAEA, which as the Office for Nuclear Regulation told the Public Bill Committee in the other place will mean fewer inspections at lower intensity. So we have this remarkable situation where the Government have decided, for no reason that anyone can understand, that we are going to leave Euratom, but because we think Euratom is such a good institution our aspiration is to keep to Euratom standards. However, we cannot do it: because the UK cannot get the number of inspectors in place to maintain those standards, we are going to keep to the reduced standards of the IAEA. We find ourselves in a quite extraordinary position.
I turn to the speech given by the Prime Minister at the Mansion House just a couple of weeks ago. She differentiates between some EU agencies and others. So, in her speech, she says:
“We will also want to explore with the EU, the terms on which the UK could remain part of EU agencies such as those that are critical for the chemicals, medicines and aerospace industries: the European Medicines Agency, the European Chemicals Agency, and the European Aviation Safety Agency”.
However, when she talks about energy, she simply talks about having “a close association” with Euratom. I ask the noble Baroness why, when is it is quite clear that the Government are going for associate membership of a number of agencies, such as the EMA, which means accepting their rules but having no influence over those rules, in the case of Euratom, which I would have thought, frankly is as crucial as the European Medicines Agency or the European Chemicals Agency, all we are seeking to do is to have a close association. It would be very helpful if the noble Baroness would explain what is it about Euratom that the Government seem so determined to leave and not seek associate membership, when it is an agency whose standards we aspire to keep. It is a puzzle that, despite the help of Ministers on this Bill and the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, we still do not understand.
Lord Teverson
Before the Minister stands up, perhaps I might ask for some clarification. The draft transition agreement was published today. I read through what it says on Euratom—it is in green, meaning that it is completely agreed apart from any legal, bureaucratic changes that might be made, yet I am still unclear from that document whether during the transitional period the ONR is responsible to the International Atomic Energy Agency for safeguarding in the UK or Euratom continues to be responsible under the acquis. I ask the Minister to clarify that tonight—it must have been agreed because it is in green—so that we are clear for the debate tomorrow.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, having listened to the very distinguished contributions, I can say that I bring to this matter only my ignorance. I was not a star in the physics class at school and I am feeling much humbled by the calibre of the contributions. I welcome the sentiment behind Amendment 227BK, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Broers. The UK is a world leader in nuclear research and development, as he acknowledged, and the Government are committed to ensuring that that is not put at risk.
I will try to advance a proposition for why the Government consider the amendment unnecessary. We are taking the future of UK participation in nuclear fusion and fission research and development programmes very seriously, and we have already taken practical steps to protect them. The Joint European Torus—JET—facility at the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy is currently the most advanced fusion reactor in the world, I understand, and has helped the UK become a world leader in this technology. Let me be clear: the Government are committed to maintaining and building on this hard-won position as we leave the EU.
As noble Lords indicated, we have already announced that the UK will continue to pay its fair share of the JET operating contract, should it be extended to 2020. That commitment is independent of the outcome of the Brexit negotiations. Furthermore, the Government recently committed £86 million for a national fusion technology platform to support further development of fusion technologies in the UK and to underpin our commitment to continued international collaboration. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government are also working closely with the UK Atomic Energy Authority and the Nuclear Innovation and Research Office to engage with our EU partners and determine the best way forward for the UK’s nuclear research and development sector.
The Government have consistently been clear that we want to find a way to continue science and innovation collaboration with Europe. The Prime Minister recently set out the UK’s commitment to establishing a far-reaching science and innovation pact with the EU. This will enable continued participation in key programmes alongside our EU partners. More specifically, in September our future partnership paper on science and innovation made it clear that the UK wants to find a way to continue to work with the EU on nuclear research and development. In January, we went further. A Written Ministerial Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy confirmed that the UK’s specific objectives in respect of the future relationship are to seek,
“a close association with the Euratom Research and Training Programme, including the Joint European Torus (JET) and the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) projects”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/1/18; col. 10WS.]
Of course, these matters are all subject to the negotiations.
Both the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Fox, raised specific issues about what they perceive as a distinction in the Government’s treatment of different EU agencies. I undertake to look in Hansard at the points raised by the noble Lords and will try to come back with a more specific response. I do not have detailed information available to me. What I can say is that the Secretary of State has also committed to report back to Parliament every three months about overall progress on Euratom, covering the EU negotiations and other important matters such as research and development, by way of further Written Ministerial Statements. The first of these updates is expected to be published before the House rises for the Easter Recess.
The UK’s contribution to EU nuclear research programmes is valued, and it is in no one’s interests for the UK to be excluded from these efforts. We are working constructively and with great determination towards a successful and mutually beneficial outcome for this important area of the negotiations. I realise that what I say may not totally satisfy your Lordships and may be short of what the noble Lord, Lord Broers, is looking for, but I suggest that, in the circumstances, he might feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I ask the Minister again to clarify—this has to be clarified because it is in the draft agreement—who is responsible to the international community for safeguarding during transition. Is it Euratom, on our behalf, or is it the Office for Nuclear Regulation?
Baroness Goldie
I am sorry, but I do not have a specific response to the noble Lord. I shall find out and write to him.
Lord Broers
My Lords, I am encouraged that the Government are going to be conscientious and provide all these updates. I wonder whether one of these updates might satisfy my amendment. In light of what the Minister has said, while I am still minded to hang on to this issue—I have been pursuing it for a long time with a lack of any success, but that does not mean I will not hang on to it—for the moment, with the permission of the House, I beg to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Adonis
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I should remind your Lordships that if Amendment 230 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 231 to 235.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, speaking in the middle of the night I see my role as being purely a silent John the Baptist to the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. I beg to move.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 240. I am really not cut out for the role that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has set out for me. I am not sure whether, in its emergency arrangements, the Bishops’ Bar is serving locusts and wild honey tonight. But I will do my best with Amendment 240, which has in common with the other amendments in this group the fact that it seeks to impose a restriction on the use of regulation-making powers. However, it is a little different and it reflects a recommendation of the Delegated Powers Committee.
If secondary legislation made by Ministers or Ministers in the devolved Administrations under Schedule 4 imposes a new fee or charge, those regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure. But if the fee or charge is subsequently changed— the lovely word “modified” is used, but we can probably assume that the change would be an increase, just as new fares always turn out somehow to be higher—the regulations making that change are subject only to the negative procedure.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, we support that. It is particularly important for the new SIs that will deal with functions hitherto carried out by EU bodies and which therefore will not be part of the normal, ongoing scrutiny that may have happened for many years. It is particularly important that these should be by only the affirmative procedure, as the word “modification” can only mean an increase.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
In order to indicate cross-party support, I will say that I support this amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I am just wondering whether the noble Lord who moved this amendment is thinking that the House of Lords should not reject an SI outright once it has been confirmed by the House of Commons but should ask that it be reconsidered, and whether that should be the only option apart from approving it.
Lord Lisvane
My Lords, I think that if it were an SI concerned only with imposing a fee or charge, noble Lords would not have it laid before them.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, we have spent, if not many happy hours, then certainly a significant period of time constructively discussing the powers in the Bill. The Government have never denied that they are broad, and they welcome the improvements to sensitive legislation such as this which such detailed scrutiny brings. I hope that noble Lords feel that this has been time well spent.
Although we have touched on this area before, we now come to look fully at the provisions in the Bill relating to the scrutiny of these powers by Parliament. I am well aware that by the end of these groups, many noble Lords will remain sceptical, so I would like to place on the record that the Government welcome scrutiny. It acts as a powerful constraint on Ministers and quite simply improves the quality of legislation.
Many Members of the Committee have already mentioned the excellent work done by the committees in this House in scrutinising secondary legislation. If we can perhaps offer ourselves the smallest of commendations, I believe the calibre of scrutiny of secondary legislation in this place is of the highest order and the processes very robust.
As we said in our White Paper, ensuring the right level of parliamentary scrutiny for all the instruments which are to come under the Bill is essential. This will be a major logistical challenge for Parliament and the Government, and I think all noble Lords understand that.
The provisions in Schedule 7 sit alongside reforms in government where the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee, chaired by the Leader of the other place, now oversees secondary legislation. It is the first time that a Government have done this. This Government are trying to improve the service that Parliament gets for secondary legislation. Individual Ministers are responsible for SIs—responsible for the quality that this House expects and for ensuring that they are produced in a sufficiently timely fashion that the flow can be managed. It is a matter of fact that we shall have a limited number of days between Royal Assent of the Bill and exit day, and we must use each day well and effectively.
To ensure that the daily consideration of SIs is effective, we have provided for a range of specialised statements to provide the information that Members of the other place and of this House have raised in debate as being important to the effective scrutiny of the secondary legislation to come. The Government have also taken the points made in the debate so far to heart, and I can say to noble Lords that we are viewing them with an eye on the solutions agreed on the sanctions Bill. However, the logistical challenges will remain. The only way to address that aspect will be to approach the scrutiny of legislation with openness from the Government and, I might suggest, proportionality on all sides.
It is simply not true that negative SIs receive no scrutiny. There is a hierarchy of legislation in this country where content matches scrutiny. Delegated legislation is not amendable for a reason; negative SIs receive less scrutiny than affirmative instruments, which in turn receive less than primary legislation. I do not dispute that, but I suggest that what they receive is appropriate to their form and content. If we accept that all these are valid procedures, we must appropriately match each provision to a proportionate procedure. With regard to primary legislation, we have always said we will not be making substantial policy changes through the powers in the Bill and would introduce other legislation. The fruits of that have already been seen in the form of the sanctions, trade and customs Bills, among others.
I am sympathetic to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and his Amendments 230, 234 and 235, alongside all others who wish to prescribe that SIs being made under the Bill that make corrections or other amendments in sensitive areas of our law should be subject to the affirmative procedure. However, I do not believe that is proportionate in every case. Using the affirmative procedure for all SIs risks giving a level of scrutiny to some SIs that is disproportionate to the content, and I fear we would risk being unable to see the wood that is effective scrutiny for the trees of principle.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has suggested that adjustments to several important areas should always be subject to the affirmative procedure. Neither the decision to leave the EU nor this Bill changes our commitments to ensuring, for example, that workers’ rights and the rights of disabled people are protected and keep pace with the changing world. The human rights of people with disabilities will continue to be protected through our commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which is binding in international law. Additional protection is provided by its optional protocol, which the UK has also ratified.
I recognise while saying this—and I beg your Lordships’ forgiveness here—that I am not personally an expert on legislation relating to the rights of people with disabilities or of workers, but I am fully aware of the importance of these areas and I reassure noble Lords that the Government are fully committed to protecting the rights of people with disabilities and the rights of workers. I am also, and again this will not surprise your Lordships, not an expert on the detail of a range of other important areas including financial services, medical regulation or cross-border divorce proceedings. These are all important areas of our statute book but nevertheless are all areas that are likely to also contain a variety of minor and technical adjustments, including changes such as modifying references to EU law to read ‘“retained EU law” or “other Member States” to read “Member States”. I hope we have demonstrated this to the House in the draft SIs that we have already published.
The Government remain of the view that it would not be proportionate for these changes to be made by affirmative instrument, even where we are making these changes in law of a sensitive nature, such as the rights of workers and of people with disabilities. Decisions on the scrutiny procedure attached to statutory instruments should, the Government feel, be based on the type of correction rather than by policy area.
I encourage your Lordships to view the draft statutory instruments that we have already published. I have looked at them myself, and I think they illustrate, for example, how the amendments will ensure that the legal framework that provides for employment rights continues to be operated effectively after exiting the EU.
I trust the expertise of many of your Lordships, especially those who have already served with distinction on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, to draw the House’s attention to SIs. I submit that this, in conjunction with the new sifting process which, as we committed to on Second Reading, we intend to extend to the Lords, will make efficient and proportionate use of this House’s expertise and ensure proportionate scrutiny.
I turn to Amendment 240 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane, Lord Tyler and Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. The Government deliberately provided that the powers in Schedule 4, which we will debate on another day, should indeed be subject to the affirmative procedure where Ministers are creating new fees and charges. Fees and charges of the type that will be established here or where established under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act and Section 56 of the Finance Act 1973 require regular adjustment. These adjustments are not in their nature inherently the type that should be subject to the affirmative procedure. Nevertheless, I understand that noble Lords are concerned by the possibilities here and by the fact that there have been a number of controversial instruments in recent years.
I have certainly paid close attention to the contributions to this debate, and I reassure your Lordships that we will reflect on this issue ahead of Report. Nevertheless, I repeat that it cannot always be proportionate to have all adjustments to fees made by affirmative procedure. For example, when technology allows Ministers to cut costs—although I recognise that reductions in fees feel like a rare event—or in the very common case of simply accounting for the effect of inflation, a simpler procedure may be appropriate.
Finally, I return to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and his Amendment 236—
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, before the noble Baroness leaves the issue of fees, it was fairly clear earlier that the House probably would not accept that fees could be charged without primary legislation: we do not accept that the power to do that should be by secondary legislation. Assuming that we win on that, which I think we might, when we come to Report, I think it unlikely that the House will want to accept the idea that those fees could then be hiked by a Minister without coming through the affirmative procedure. Given that the Minister said that she would look at this in the broader context that this is a new power to set up fees for new functions being brought over, raising them without an affirmative procedure is perhaps a step too far.
Lord Tyler (LD)
Further to that point, am I not right in thinking that the reference back under the amendment to Part 1 of Schedule 4 means that we are talking about public authorities, not just Ministers? Will the Minister comment on the number of organisations that may fall into this category? I recall a previous discussion where it was clear that literally hundreds of organisations might be making such modifications to taxes or charges. So this is not, in her words, a small, technical matter; it could apply to a large number of organisations which could impose considerable increases in taxes and charges.
Baroness Goldie
I have undertaken to look at the contributions to the debate. I have not suggested that all matters are de minimis; I am merely pointing out that some are, and trying to find proportionality in how we deal with our response to this. However, I undertake to look at what the noble Baroness and noble Lord have said and reflect further on the position.
I return to Amendment 236, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, which requires all regulations made by Northern Ireland departments under their Schedule 2 powers to follow the affirmative procedure. As drafted, the Bill provides that the criteria for triggering the affirmative in the Assembly are the same as those for this Parliament. It is right that, where this Parliament confers powers on the Northern Ireland Executive, it should provide for those powers to be scrutinised. We do not necessarily have to provide that those procedures be the same for Northern Ireland departments and UK Ministers if there is good reason that they be different. However, that decision cannot be taken without a view from the Assembly as to the level of scrutiny that is required. In the absence of an Executive, we cannot invite the views of the Assembly and the Executive as we have for the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, and the Scottish and Welsh Governments.
It is also right that we do not introduce an entirely new procedure, such as the sifting committee, without a view from the Assembly, and that we should preserve the competence of the Assembly to challenge the scrutiny provisions if they see fit. That is only respectful and it is what this Bill does. If we were to provide a set of scrutiny procedures entirely different from those for UK Ministers’ powers, or for the Scottish and Welsh Ministers’ powers, as this amendment would do, we should do so only where we are satisfied that this reflects the needs and wishes of the Assembly.
I have tried to cover the main points of concern and, I hope, to include the presence of a comfort blanket to reassure your Lordships that the Government are prepared to reflect on this. On the basis that we cannot, at this present time, find what the noble Lord wants, I ask for his indulgence and suggest that he withdraws his amendment for the moment.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, the noble Baroness is so mellifluous and so reasonable when she says that she is not actually prepared to accept anything you have said but there are, none the less, very good and sufficient reasons why—she may not be personally familiar with them, but they are extremely compelling and she proposes to give them full consideration outside the Chamber—that one cannot possibly end up without agreeing with her. However, I latch on to the words, “sifting process”, because everything in the judgment depends on whether we should have negative or affirmative instruments on that process. At 12 minutes before midnight, the sifting process is the groups of amendments we are about to proceed to. The best service I can give the Committee is to enable it to move immediately on to them. The warm and mellifluous words from the noble Baroness will probably ensure that she gets them all completed by midnight. I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Lisvane
“Parliamentary committees to sift regulations made under section 7, 8, 9 or 17
(1) This paragraph applies if a Minister of the Crown—(a) proposes to make a statutory instrument to which paragraph 1(3), 6(3), 7(3) or 11 applies, and(b) is of the opinion that the instrument should be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament (“the negative procedure”).(2) Before making the instrument, the Minister must lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of the instrument together with a memorandum setting out the reasons for the Minister’s opinion that the instrument should be subject to the negative procedure.(3) The negative procedure applies unless within the relevant period either House of Parliament requires the affirmative procedure to apply, in which case the affirmative procedure applies.(4) A House of Parliament is taken to have required the affirmative procedure to apply within the relevant period if—(a) a committee of the House charged with reporting on the instrument has recommended, within the period of 10 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the draft instrument was laid before the House, that the affirmative procedure should apply, and(b) that House has not by resolution rejected the recommendation within a period of 5 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the recommendation is made.(5) For the purposes of this paragraph—(a) where an instrument is subject to the affirmative procedure, it may not be made unless the draft of the instrument laid under sub-paragraph (2) has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament,(b) “sitting day” means, in respect of either House, a day on which that House sits.(6) Nothing in this paragraph prevents a Minister of the Crown from deciding, at any time before a statutory instrument mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) is made, that another procedure should apply in relation to the instrument.”
Lord Lisvane
My Lords, I will move Amendment 237 and speak to Amendments 237A and 239A. One of the host of extraordinary things about the Bill is that, for many of the regulation-making powers under Clauses 7, 8 and 9, the Government have a choice as to whether the affirmative or negative procedure is to be used. This applies even in some cases to Henry VIII powers. This is not a decision to be taken by Parliament but, as the Bill stands, arrogated to Government. It is consistent with the Executive carte blanche which characterises much of the Bill. The amendment on sifting which passed in the Commons and now appears at paragraph 3 of Schedule 7 appears to involve Parliament in the process and so it does, to an extent. The requirement in paragraph 3(3), for a draft to be laid and the Minister’s reasons to be given, is welcome. However, in a surprising irony, not only can the Minister then ignore any recommendation of the committee—as the Bill stands it is only a committee of the House of Commons, but the Minister has said that it will be extended to your Lordship’s House—it is the committee’s making of the recommendation which is the trigger. That is what brings into play the Minister’s ability to do just what he or she wants.
Therefore, Amendment 237 in my name and in those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Blencathra—respectively a member and the chairman of the Delegated Powers Committee—sets out, as recommended by that committee, a procedure that actually has teeth. It would give to a committee of either House the power to recommend the upgrading of the procedure from negative to affirmative. It would also allow the relevant House the opportunity to disagree with its own committee’s recommendation. It would work on the basis of highest common factor rather than lowest common denominator in that a recommendation in either House is enough to raise the bar to affirmative so there is no need for a reconciliation mechanism. It is slightly less ambitious than the heavyweight procedure in Amendment 238 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, which we will come on to talk about shortly, but nevertheless it seeks to cure something that is very concerning in the Bill as it stands at the moment.
Last week I was rather beastly to the noble Baroness about precedents. That was mainly because the precedents that she was deploying were ones that I did not like. However, I have much better precedents for Parliament setting the level of scrutiny: the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, the Public Bodies Act 2011 and the Localism Act 2011. I really do not see why a similar procedure cannot be adopted here. It would certainly be better for Parliament, rather than Ministers, to take the decision.
Amendment 237A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, to which I have added my name, is an amendment to Amendment 237, which would simply allow either House to take the initiative directly rather than acting on the recommendation of a committee. Amendment 239A, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, is not about sifting but it provides a reconciliation mechanism that would operate when the House took different views on an affirmative instrument. Of course, if a Government get into difficulty, it is always open to any Government to withdraw and relay an instrument or a draft that has been disapproved of by one or both Houses, as was famously and unfortunately not done in the tax credit case. The relaid instrument does not have to be very different either, but Amendment 239A would provide a transparent mechanism. I beg to move.
Amendment 237A (to Amendment 237)
Lord Sharkey
(c) irrespective of the committee reporting on the instrument, that House has resolved, within the period of 15 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the draft instrument was laid before the House, that the affirmative procedure should apply to the instrument.”
Lord Sharkey (LD)
I declare my interest as chair of the Hansard Society, whose work on delegated legislation will be familiar to many noble Lords. I have three amendments in this group, to which the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane, Lord Norton, and Lord Lexden, my noble friend Lord Tyler and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, have variously added their names, and I am very grateful for their support. Amendment 237A is an amendment to the sifting Amendment 237, which I wholeheartedly support. In particular, I support the fact that Amendment 237 removes ministerial discretion over whether to take any notice of the sifting committee’s recommendation to upgrade an SI to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 237A proposes a simple addition to Amendment 237. It gives the House the power to upgrade to the affirmative procedure even if the sifting committees have not. I do not imagine that this provision will be used frequently, but it would be wise to reserve the power for the House to take action if it felt that the sifting committees were making an error or if there was an uncertainty over their decision sufficient to warrant a full debate.
Amendment 239A proposes a more significant change to the currently available methods of dealing with affirmative SIs. In fact, the next group of amendments, Amendments 238, 239 and 248, also put forward new proposals for dealing with SIs generated by this Bill. Between the current group and the next, there are three SI procedure proposals for the House to consider. They are: a mechanism for sending back SIs to the Commons for reconsideration; an option to upgrade to super-affirmative; and an option to make affirmative SIs amendable. Here I will deal only with Amendment 239A, which is the reconsideration proposal. I will spend a few moments saying why I believe the change to our procedures is necessary for SIs used for withdrawal purposes.
The Government estimate that the Bill will generate between 800 and 1,000 SIs, and there are rival and much higher estimates. Of these 800 to 1,000 SIs foreseen by the Government, they estimate that 20% to 30% will fall into the affirmative resolution category as determined by the tests set out in the Bill. This is certainly an underestimate. It cannot take account of the sifting committee’s powers to upgrade negative procedure SIs to the affirmative procedure. This means that we will be presented with probably around 300 to 400 affirmative SI procedures from this Bill alone—all to be dealt with as rapidly as possible. This is an unprecedented situation, both in volume and timing. However, there is ample precedent for Parliament’s dealing with very wide delegated powers. Parliament has frequently insisted that a strengthened scrutiny procedure be inserted into Bills to control the use of such wide powers. There are currently 13 Acts of Parliament that contain such strengthened procedures, all of them inevitably slightly different.
The nature of the Bill before us and the unprecedented powers it delegates to Ministers and to others calls for a strengthened procedure to be incorporated into the Bill too. The question is: what kind? We have to balance the need for thorough scrutiny with the need to have a working statute book on exit day. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, will in a moment press the merits of the super-affirmative and amendable-affirmative routes. Amendment 239A proposes a power to send an affirmative procedure SI back, once only, to the Commons for reconsideration, with reasons if we so wish. The Commons will have 10 sitting days to confirm its approval. If it does, the SI is approved; if it does not, it is rejected. This is a classic “think again” procedure entirely in keeping with the normal relationship between the two Houses. Its one-time-only nature gives the Commons the final say.
At the moment, of course, we have the option of either accepting or rejecting an affirmative SI—a regret Motion has no practical effect—and there is a view that, under the current system, a consideration without explicit rejection can be read as equivalent to approval. That means that we either say yes or we use what has been described as the “nuclear option” of rejection. We have been very cautious about doing this. In fact, we have rejected affirmative SIs only on six occasions since 1950 and noble Lords will remember the constitutional tensions on the last occasion we did that: the rejection, or at least the non-approval, of the tax credit orders of 2015.
Given the number of affirmative SIs that will come before us, and the delicate and sensitive areas they will inevitably deal with, it would be very difficult for us, and probably very unwise, to resort to the nuclear option with any frequency. In fact, with only two options open to us, our proper reluctance to reject SIs outright will almost certainly lead us to approve marginal cases, or cases about which we still retain serious reservations. That would be entirely unsatisfactory as to the quality of created law, and potentially damaging as to the balance of power between the Executive and Parliament. Better to do what we often do where doubt exists: ask the Commons to think again. That is what Amendment 239A proposes. The mechanism will not frustrate the will of the Commons—and, importantly, it will not act significantly to delay the progress of the necessary secondary legislation, as other proposals might. There is not a lot of time, as the Minister said, between Royal Assent and exit day, and I think that we all acknowledge the need to have a coherent and consistent statute book on that day.
Noble Lords may recall that in his report, commissioned by the Government after the House had declined to approve the tax credits order, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, also recommended a reconsideration mechanism for SIs. He said:
“I recommend the third option of creating a new process set out in statute, for the Lords to ask the Commons to think again about a statutory instrument. This would provide the government of the day with a degree of certainty, while maintaining for the House of Lords a simplicity of procedure in keeping with already established procedures for other forms of legislation. It would preserve and enhance the role of the House of Lords to scrutinise secondary legislation by providing for such legislation to be returned to the Commons. In the event of a further Commons vote to approve a statutory instrument, it would enable the Commons to play a decisive role”.
You had to read on into the small print to realise that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was proposing to substitute this reconsideration mechanism for our veto power to reject—and, of course, we rejected his package of proposals. Our amendment does the first part of what the noble Lord proposes, and for the reasons he sets out. It does not touch our power to reject at all. It simply creates for us an additional mechanism alongside acceptance and rejection, and I commend it to your Lordships.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, I am an eternal optimist, which somehow goes with the territory of being a Liberal.
What a wonderful thing it would be if out of this dismal, divisive, deceptive process we could achieve a modest but beneficial change to the way in which Parliament works. This group of amendments, all of which I enthusiastically support, offers a very timely, perhaps even unique, opportunity to improve the co-ordination between the two Houses in our joint scrutiny of secondary legislation proposed by the Government of the day.
Long after Brexit has been forgotten and we cannot remember what it was all about, we could still benefit from a rebalancing of the power between the legislature and the Executive as promoted by this group of amendments. Your Lordships will have noted the formidable supporters and signatories.
I have been involved at both ends of this building in attempts to improve the quality of secondary legislation. It has been a very difficult task and a cross-party task, and it has taken place under different Governments, but at every stage I have been reminded that, if Parliament did not have an unchallenged monopoly in the manufacture of regulation, our customers would cheerfully take their business elsewhere because, frankly, the quality of our product is pretty variable. A succession of investigations and reports carried out internally, and by very professional external observers such as the Hansard Society, have come up with two perpetual areas for criticism and need for reform.
First, the interface between the scrutiny work of the two Houses has been rightly identified as at best disjointed and at worst counterproductive, and Ministers in successive Administrations have been able to divide and rule. Amendments 237 and 237A address this very important issue. They draw on the analysis of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and the principal architecture for the improved, co-ordinated sifting system, which is set out in Amendment 237, is signed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, who was here earlier this afternoon and is chairman of that committee.
The second weakness in the present system is even more profound. In essence, Parliament—both Houses individually and together—is faced at present with a dangerous false choice: either to accept an obviously inadequate addition to the law of the land, perhaps with a devastating impact on individuals or interests, or, as my noble friend Lord Sharkey said, to take the nuclear option and reject an SI outright. I remind those who claim that the latter option is “unconstitutional” that the Joint Committee on the conventions of the British Parliament, on which I served, reported as follows in 2006. Recommendation 15 read:
“Neither House of Parliament regularly rejects secondary legislation, but in exceptional circumstances it may be appropriate for either House to do so”.
That recommendation was endorsed unanimously by both Houses.
At the time of that committee and its assessment of the conventions that apply to the two Houses of our Parliament, I was very struck by the evidence given by the Conservative Party—indeed, by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to whom reference has already been made. He said:
“The fundamental view of the Conservative Party is that the executive in the UK has become too strong and Parliament is too weak. We wish to see both Houses strengthened. We do not believe strengthening of scrutiny in either House would be to the detriment of the other House”.
Of course, it was the Leader of the Opposition in your Lordships’ House speaking at that time rather than a government representative.
Ingenious attempts to get round this false dichotomy have led us to all sorts of mealy-mouthed Motions. However powerfully advocated or well supported in the Division Lobbies, regret Motions, for example, can be conveniently ignored by Ministers, even in a minority Government. As my noble friend Lord Sharkey said, the most persuasive case for a “middle way” was argued, perhaps rather unexpectedly, in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, produced for the Government in 2015. As my noble friend has referred to it and it is just past midnight, I do not think that I need make further reference to it, but I recommend to Members, particularly on the other side of the Committee, the logic that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, used in arguing for the middle way that we are now promoting.
It is absurd that, unable to express an intelligent, practical and positive view as to how an SI could be improved, both Houses continue to face this destructive dilemma. Amendment 239A, devised by my noble friend Lord Sharkey and supported by the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane and Lord Norton of Louth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, rides to the rescue, as has already been explained. The reconsideration procedure is carefully crafted to achieve all that the Strathclyde report seemed to be searching for.
I believe that the adoption of this amendment, for this Bill, for all other EU Bills and as a precedent for all future secondary legislation, would be a hugely beneficial step forward. Popular with MPs and Peers alike, in time I suspect that it would soon be seen as a major improvement in our working mechanisms by Ministers and civil servants themselves. While not abolishing our established right in the Lords to reject an SI outright, I doubt that that would happen any more often than it has in recent years. However, the major advance would be that the regret, the delay and the complicated conditional Motions would surely become almost completely redundant. Instead, the reconsideration option set out in this amendment would be far more effective and would improve the eventual legislative product. Perhaps we should refer to it in future as the Strathclyde solution.
Meanwhile, whether or not Brexit actually happens, here is a golden opportunity in a previously unbalanced area of lawmaking for this House to enable the British Parliament to take back control.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, we can already see this evening what will be the Government’s formula to get these statutory instruments through: they will produce them at 12 minutes past midnight, put forward the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, to propose them, and then they will go through on the nod with nobody daring to protest and us all thinking that it was the best possible thing that could happen.
The real danger facing us is not the procedure; I think we can get too hung up on that. In particular, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, when he said that there was great constitutional tension caused by the rejection of the tax credits orders. The crucial thing to remember about that rejection is that the Government accepted it immediately—they did not seek to reverse the rejection in the Commons because they knew that they did not have the majority for it in the Commons. It was a legitimate use of your Lordships’ role, which is to require the House of Commons to think again. What in fact happened, under the smokescreen of the Strathclyde report, was that the Government were forced to think again, they did not have a majority and they backed down.
The real issue with these regulations, which no one has an answer to because we are in such unprecedented circumstances, is not the precise procedure—although it is better to have an affirmative procedure than a negative one for issues of consequence—but the volume of orders that will hit us. It is going to be colossal, given the scale of law that has to be transposed and the amount of consequential legislation that is going to follow in the process of transposing it. Nothing that I have heard in our consideration so far gives me any reassurance at all that we are going to be able to cope with the sheer volume of it—unless the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, with his great skill in these matters, manages to ensure that all these orders come before the House between midnight and 4 am, when they will be proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and will all go through without us really realising what has happened, under a kind of parliamentary anaesthetic, which she does such a good job of imposing on us all.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments that have already been spoken to most eloquently by the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane and Lord Sharkey. I have added my name to Amendments 237A and 239A. The only reason my name does not appear on Amendment 237 is that others got there before me. I will keep my comments brief as I am conscious of the time and I do not wish to repeat points that have already been made by noble Lords, although I appreciate that that did not stop quite a lot of noble Lords earlier in our proceedings.
I serve on the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House, and to some extent these amendments cohere and flow from what we put in our report. I remind the Committee of what we said in paragraphs 227 and 228:
“The Bill does not give the sifting committee(s) power to strengthen the parliamentary control of an instrument, only to recommend that it be strengthened. We recommend that committee(s) should be empowered to decide the appropriate scrutiny procedure for an instrument, subject to the view of the House, in order to provide the necessary degree of parliamentary oversight”.
The report continues:
“In our view, the Bill as drafted proposes scrutiny measures that are inadequate to meet the unique challenge of considering the secondary legislation that the Government will introduce once the Bill is passed”.
The amendments that have been put forward meet the balance that is necessary in order to deal with the volume that will be coming to us but in a way that strengthens the House in relation to the Executive. They achieve some degree of the recalibration that is necessary in the Bill.
I have considerable sympathy for Amendment 238, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, but the amendments that have been moved strike the right balance and I hope that the Government will look favourably on them because, if they do not, we may have to move more in the direction of the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Hodgson.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I confess that when I first came to your Lordships’ House I never imagined that I would be speaking at 12:15 am on the exciting subject of statutory instruments. That is partly because this House has always taken a greater interest in statutory instruments than the other place.
Looking at the amendments before us this evening, it seems to me that what we are all trying to do is grasp the problem mentioned by my noble friend Lord Adonis. He hit the nail on the head when he said that it is the volume and scale of the statutory instruments that will come before Parliament and how we can deal with them, understanding and recognising the Government’s commitment that EU law should be transposed into UK law while at the same time ensuring the accuracy of those statutory instruments—so many issues, so little time. It is finding the balance that meets the objectives of the legislation without creating serious problems that the lack of scrutiny will bring. The accuracy of these SIs and orders is vitally important.
We started this debate last week when the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, responded about publishing the draft instruments. I have brought forward two issues time and again. First, we need the resources to do this job properly and, secondly, we need wider consultation on draft amendments prior to them being laid before your Lordships’ House or the other place. When we had the debate last week, the noble Baroness said that it was not possible, and I am still struggling to understand. I hope at some point that things will become clear because her point was that to publish all SIs in a draft form,
“could inadvertently expose our position at an inappropriate moment if we were engaged in sensitive discussions about particular issues”,—[Official Report, 12/3/18; col. 1467.]
in negotiations. I struggle to understand how discussing a statutory instrument can possibly impact on negotiations, given the Government’s commitment to bringing all issues into UK law. That aside, the crucial issue is the volume.
I hope that the Leader of the House will say something today about how the Procedure Committee has already looked at this. We are taking things slightly out of sync but it is helpful to the House. I am grateful to her for discussions that we have had in the Procedure Committee and through the usual channels about how we can best give effect to what is currently in the Bill. I hope that she will say something today about how that will be addressed when appropriate to do so. I am grateful to her for suggesting that. We are trying to look at the fine-tuning of that process and make sure that we get it right.
On the specific amendments, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, did a fine job of trying to bring order and I am grateful to him for that. It would be helpful if it were not the subjective decisions of Ministers alone. The involvement of Parliament would be greatly welcomed.
I am surprised that some noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches invoked the Strathclyde report. If noble Lords recall, I take the view, as I think does the majority of this House, that when we declined to accept the tax credits amendment and suggested transitional measures to the Government, it was not a rejection of that SI but an opportunity for the Government to reconsider and think again, which the Government gratefully took and accepted. The Strathclyde report was then a response to that, but it also tried to clip the wings of your Lordships’ House in how we deal with SIs, so I am not sure that I would rely on the Strathclyde report as a good way forward.
I understand what noble Lords are seeking in Amendment 237A, and the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, has tried to bring some order to that because of course we cannot send something back to the other place if it was not sent to us from the House of Commons. I would be interested in the Government’s response to that.
Lord Sharkey
Perhaps I can help on the point about whether the Commons can reconsider something that it has not actually considered. I hate to have to refer to the Strathclyde report again, given what has been said, but there is a suggestion in the report of exactly how that is taken account of. The two committees could easily agree a sequence for consideration so that it was already possible for the Commons to reconsider something. We simply have to introduce a slight delay to make that happen.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I understand the point the noble Lord makes, but if we remember the reasons it was brought forward, this is not the process we have at present.
The other point about stating the reasons, as set out in Amendment 239B, for why an SI is urgent is very helpful in this regard. All of these amendments are trying to bring some order to the process which at the moment seems to be complicated and difficult and raises concerns about accuracy.
I hope that the noble Baroness can respond positively to these amendments. I will not go into further detail because that has been provided by the noble Lords who have spoken to these amendments, but this is a serious issue and I suspect that if we do not receive an appropriate response from the Minister, we will return to it as the Bill proceeds.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, before responding to these amendments in turn, I should like to take this opportunity to expand on the remarks I made at Second Reading. As I said then, I wanted to find a way to build any new sifting procedure into the existing scrutiny structures which this House has developed so successfully over the years. On 5 March, as the noble Baroness has said, the Procedure Committee agreed to my proposal to incorporate the same powers as those of the new Commons sifting committee into the terms of reference of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee as well as conferring the power to appoint sub-committees. This will allow the sub-committees to recommend within 10 sitting days that the House’s consideration of specific negative instruments related to this Bill should follow the affirmative procedure.
As the House will expect, the SLSC’s existing role in scrutinising the merits of all instruments will continue as before, with the sub-committees fulfilling this function alongside their new sifting role in relation to the SIs flowing from this Bill. The main committee will have responsibility for determining the allocation of policy areas between the two sub-committees as well as maintaining oversight of the scrutiny process in general terms. If it wishes to do so, this will allow it to meet as a whole to conduct its own inquiries into the overall management of secondary legislation, as it has done in the past. The 10-day period for allowing the sifting committee to make a recommendation was originally suggested by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House and was endorsed by the Procedure Committee in the Commons. The Government are content to agree to this timeframe, and that is why the sub-committee will have the power to report directly to the House, to award it greater agility in conducting its sifting role without unrealistic constraints on the time to report.
The agreement reached regarding the SLSC’s new role is, I believe, an example of the House coming together on a constructive basis to strengthen our important scrutiny role, and I am grateful to other members of the Procedure Committee, including the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for their support in reaching this decision. I am also grateful to the chairman of the SLSC, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, his clerk and advisers for their constructive engagement in the development of this proposal. I am pleased to confirm that the SLSC will receive additional resources both in terms of expert advice and additional members, including the ability to form two sub-committees, in order to fulfil its new sifting role. I know that noble Lords on all sides will want to ensure that the new arrangements are a success. The House will be invited to agree the proposed arrangement when the Procedure Committee presents its report. That is expected to be when the passage of this Bill is nearing completion, as of course the report may have to reflect any relevant changes to the Bill that are agreed by both Houses.
In the meantime, and as the Bill progresses, I am clear that both Houses must be treated equally regarding the proposed sifting arrangements under the Bill. In this respect, the Bill, as introduced to this House, only makes reference to the House of Commons in the relevant paragraphs of Schedule 7. The Government will therefore introduce amendments to incorporate equivalent references to the House of Lords where appropriate.
I hope I have explained to noble Lords the new proposed arrangement, so I will now turn to Amendment 237, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Lisvane. Noble Lords will know that the sifting committees, as currently provided for in the Bill, cover only the main powers in the Bill, rather than any consequential and transitional provisions made under Clause 17 where the negative procedure is stipulated. Making such consequential provisions through SIs is already a standard approach in legislation—even in significant constitutional legislation, such as the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, the Scotland and Northern Ireland Acts and the Government of Wales Acts. We have already published a draft example of consequential provision that we will need to make under the Bill—the European Communities (Designation Orders) (Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018—but we intend to publish further such examples before Report. I hope these will reassure noble Lords that the negative procedure is being used appropriately. In relation to the comments of the noble Baroness about draft SIs, we intend to publish them where possible and appropriate. As I have mentioned—I will mention a few more—we have already published some illustrative drafts and will continue to do so to support the debate in this House.
The proposed powers of the SLSC, as the Bill stands, will not allow it to make the sort of binding decision proposed by noble Lords. We believe that this is consistent with how this House’s committees conduct their scrutiny work in other areas. Ultimately, it is up to both Houses to decide whether a Government are using appropriately the delegated powers Parliament has given them when they come to consider an SI. It is right for this House to consider these instruments in the light of the expert advice of its committees, but we do not believe that it would be right for those committees to make binding decisions about the use of delegated powers independent of the whole House. The amendment, as proposed, would also see the Government bound by a decision of the sifting committee of one House, even when the other disagrees, and only the recommending House would be able to reject the recommendation. Currently, no mechanism for the resolution of such disagreement is provided in the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, mentioned the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act, the Public Bodies Act and the Localism Act. All of those Acts combine a sifting mechanism with the form of the super-affirmative procedure. We do not believe that the super-affirmative procedures are suitable for the instruments to come, particularly given that they can take up to six months, but as I hope I have set out, we have taken steps to create a sifting process in the Bill.
I understand noble Lords’ concerns that, as Ministers are not bound to accept the committee’s recommendations, they may choose to exercise discretion; however, if both sifting committees were to reach the same—well-considered, no doubt—and persuasive recommendation, I assure your Lordships that the Government’s expectation is that such recommendations are likely to be accepted. Where the two committees disagree, the situation would of course need to be carefully considered on its merits. On the occasions—hopefully, very rare—when the Government did not agree to a recommendation to use the affirmative procedure, we would expect to justify fully our reasons to the committee concerned.
Furthermore, when the House chooses to delegate a scrutiny role to its committees—as is the case in other important policy areas—it is important for it to have confidence in the committee’s expertise and judgment to make a persuasive recommendation for the House to consider. I fear that making the committee’s recommendation binding, then building in an explicit provision to allow the House to reject such a decision, as the amendment seeks to do, could undermine the well-established confidence that the House has in its committee structure.
The amendment would also—unnecessarily, in my view—increase the sifting period from 10 to 15 days. As noble Lords have already said, we expect time to be in short supply as we prepare to exit the EU. As I have already stated, the changes to the SLSC’s powers, agreed to by the Procedure Committee, will seek to maximise the sub-committee’s ability to conduct its important scrutiny work within that 10-day period.
Lord Beith (LD)
The situation that the noble Baroness described, in which the sifting committee has made a recommendation that the Government have rejected, is surely not one in which the confidence in the committee will be undermined. It is for the Government then to see whether they can persuade the House as a whole that the committee’s recommendation is unnecessary or undesirable. That is the scenario, not the one that she presented.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I did say that it would indeed be for the Government to justify their position in that situation, although I also hope that I have made it clear that where both committees agree and both Houses put forward—I have no doubt—strongly argued reasons for a change in the procedure to be used, our expectation is that the Government would accept such a recommendation. The noble Lord is absolutely right: it would be for the Government to have to justify their position if that is not the case.
Moving on to Amendment 237A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, I believe that, despite its well-intentioned deference to this House, it is unnecessary. If either House were to feel especially strongly that a particular instrument should use the affirmative procedure, they could choose to table a Motion to that effect and make a recommendation to the Minister regardless. As with the sifting committees’ recommendations, I am sure that the Government would respond to such a resolution with the weight it deserved.
For similar reasons, I believe that Amendment 239A in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Lisvane, is also unnecessary. The Bill adheres to the House’s established procedures for the scrutiny of statutory instruments and the proposed change would mark a significant departure from the standard SI procedure. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, pointed out the similarity of the system proposed in the amendment to that proposed for all SIs by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. We believe that making such a change would represent a significant change to the balance of the relationship on SIs between the two Houses.
We also feel this would be insufficiently sensitive about the time constraints that I have already articulated. As noble Lords know, the task at hand of correcting the statute book must largely be completed before exit day. The majority of SIs that will be made to address deficiencies and make corrections, barring potentially some relating to provisions which have no practical application and can be addressed in the period after exit day, must be passed and ready to come into force on exit day to ensure the continuity of the UK’s legal system.
The Government therefore expect to be laying and ensuring a steady flow of statutory instruments before Parliament for scrutiny by this House from when the Bill receives Royal Assent until shortly before exit day. As noble Lords have rightly alluded to, we estimate that between 800 and 1,000 SIs will be introduced during that period relating to our exit from the EU. As I explained in my evidence to the Constitution Committee in December, and, indeed, as my noble friend Lady Goldie outlined in the last debate, the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee is now overseeing secondary legislation in much the same way as it manages primary legislation. This is partly because we want to improve the quality of SIs—indeed, the noble Baronesses highlighted the importance of that—but we also want to ensure that the flow of SIs is steady, rather than in peaks and troughs, to allow Parliament to do its job more effectively by allowing adequate time for scrutiny.
I can reassure noble Lords that we absolutely understand what is coming before us. We as a Government are making every effort to ensure we are working effectively to try to make sure this House and the other place have the time to deal with the SIs that will come before us effectively. I will continue to work with my parliamentary colleagues to make sure we do our very best on this.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 239B from the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, which seeks to require the Minister to make a statement of the grounds for urgency in the case of urgent SIs made under the “made affirmative” procedure. “Urgent” is a term without definition in the Bill, but I hope that the requirement for each “urgent” SI to contain a declaration of urgency in the body of the instrument will reassure noble Lords on that point. The Government have already promised that Explanatory Memoranda will contain an explanation by the Minister as to why they considered the SI to merit the urgent procedure. Nevertheless, I promise that the Government will consider this issue further before Report to see whether we can provide further assurances to your Lordships on it.
I hope my response to these amendments demonstrates that the Government continue to take this House’s scrutiny role seriously and that we do not consider it—
Lord Sharkey
On the urgent procedures, why in the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill is there a 60-day period, whereas for SIs generated urgently by this Bill there is a 28-day period? The Minister has talked about the necessity for speed. I do not understand why one Bill has 60 days and the other has 28.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The procedure, including in EU exit-related legislation such as the customs Bill, must reflect the specificities of the Act. Where certainty and the nature of tax legislation require provisions to come into force rapidly, it is important that there is time to arrange for debate and scrutiny, so there will be different timings relating to different legislation. I am happy to seek further information and write to the noble Lord if that would be helpful.
I hope that I have managed to allay some of your Lordships’ concerns and that I have explained the process that we are setting out. I hope, too, that noble Lords will understand that we are taking this matter seriously. We will obviously reflect on the debate; there are a couple of issues in particular that I have said we will take back, but I hope that, at this point, noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Sharkey
Yes, I feel able to withdraw my amendment, but want to make one comment before I do so. The Minister has pointed out that the proposal for a reconsideration period marks a major change. She is quite right about that, because the circumstances seem to require exactly that change. I think that we will come to discuss this matter again, but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lisvane
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Leader of the House for setting out in such detail what is proposed in terms of sifting and scrutiny. They are often combined as a single concept, but sifting as to importance, and so the procedure to be attached, is a rather separate concept from the scrutiny of what results. I am sure that noble Lords will want to study with considerable care the amount of detail—which we are very grateful for—that the noble Baroness has given us.
She saw Amendment 237 as being difficult to work because of the time involved, but the amendment is not linked to super-affirmatives and it is possible to craft something—it may well be between now and Report—which deals with one House dictating to the other in terms of the highest common factor that I referred to earlier and of the time limits involved; the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, made a very good point about the distinction between 28 days and 60 days. If we are already talking in those terms, those are in parliamentary time quite extensive periods.
I did not really understand the logic of the argument that if the House rejects a committee’s view this is in some way to downgrade or demean the committee—here, I endorse what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Beith. Committees are subordinate to the House which appoints them. Any House can take a view on what a committee says to it. That seems a perfectly ordinary parliamentary relationship. Rather less acceptable—although I appreciate the lengths to which the noble Baroness went to set our fears at rest—is that Ministers will still be able to choose which procedure applies to which instrument. When under Clauses 7, 8 and 9 that includes the use of Henry VIII powers which may be subject to negative procedure, that will remain concerning. These are matters that I think noble Lords will wish to reflect on between now and Report. The application of creativity and inventiveness may take us some way along the road to agreement, but somewhere—it is an overused phrase in the current Brexit situation—a red line will need to be identified. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Parliamentary committees to sift regulations made under section 7, 8 or 9 and the super-affirmative procedure
3A_(1) This paragraph applies if a Minister of the Crown—(a) proposes to make a statutory instrument to which paragraph 1(1), 6(1), or 7(1) applies, and(b) is of the opinion that the instrument should be subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament (“the affirmative procedure”). (2) Before laying a draft of the instrument, the Minister must lay before both Houses of Parliament a memorandum setting out the reasons for the Minister’s opinion that the instrument should be subject to the affirmative procedure.(3) The affirmative procedure applies unless, within the relevant period, either House of Parliament requires the super-affirmative procedure to apply, in which case the super-affirmative procedure applies.(4) A House of Parliament is taken to have required the super-affirmative procedure to apply within the relevant period if—(a) a committee of the House charged with reporting on the instrument has recommended, within the period of 10 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the memorandum was laid before the House, that the super-affirmative procedure should apply, and(b) that House has not by resolution rejected the recommendation within a period of 5 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the recommendation is made.(5) For the purposes of this paragraph—(a) where an instrument is subject to the super-affirmative procedure, it may not be made unless the procedures set out in paragraph 3B have been followed,(b) “sitting day” means, in respect of either House, a day on which that House sits.(6) Section 6(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (alternative procedure for certain instruments laid before Parliament) does not apply in relation to any statutory instrument to which this paragraph applies.”
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, this is the graveyard shift, but graveyard shift or not I shall speak also to Amendment 239. It is my first contribution in Committee on this Bill and when one finds one’s amendment sandwiched between ones being moved by such luminaries as the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and my noble friends Lord Norton of Louth and Lord Lexden, one needs to proceed with a certain degree of care. In these amendments I return to an issue I raised at Second Reading; namely, the weaknesses of the procedures for scrutinising secondary legislation, which the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, talked a great deal about very fluently in his contribution a few minutes ago. In my view, in the very special circumstances that prevail with respect to this country’s departure from the European Union, I was concerned that, maybe inadvertently, there could be what is vulgarly called a power grab by the Executive during this process of redrawing our relationship with the EU and refocusing our legal and regulatory structure on a UK-centric basis.
In part, these amendments may serve to address some of the issues, and concerns raised in earlier debates; notably by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe in Amendments 249 to 251, which we were debating in the early hours of last Tuesday morning. As I say, my fundamental concern remains the weakness of our procedures for scrutinising secondary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, referred to what he graphically called the nuclear option, which is really the only option open to us. Not surprisingly, while Members of your Lordships’ House will finger the nuclear button—sometimes even lovingly finger the nuclear button—they have proved rather reluctant to press it. I am not a lawyer, nor am I an expert on parliamentary procedure, so I need to place on record my great thanks to the Public Bill Office of your Lordships’ House for helping me give legal form to my practical objections. Therefore I do not pretend that Amendments 238 and 239 are perfect: they are of course at this stage probing amendments, not least because I expected that my noble friend the Leader of the House would have some words to say today about the evolving position of the scrutiny of Brexit secondary legislation.
None the less, the purpose behind my amendments is to give the Committee a chance to discuss a possible new procedure that might be described as a sub-nuclear option; a new super-affirmative procedure to be available for use where particularly significant statutory instruments are being discussed. In establishing this new procedure I have sought to achieve a balance between, on the one hand, the need of the Government to have a reasonable chance of getting their business through—as we have heard in earlier debates tonight, it would surely be irresponsible for us not to have the proper legal practice in place on D-day, therefore the Government need some protection against capricious behaviour—and on the other hand, to give either or both Houses of Parliament the means to require the Executive to think again, and to do so over a timescale that allows public and other opinion to be aroused, discerned and tested, thereby reducing the possibilities of mission creep.
Finally, the think-again option should be limited to regulations concerning this country’s withdrawal from the European Union, so it has an in-built sunset clause. My thinking has been informed, to some extent, by the time I served as a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House. So, with that, to horse!
Lord Beith
My Lords, the amendments in this group all seek to address a long-standing problem with statutory instruments: that for the most part, they are incapable of amendment. That is not absolutely always so because, many years ago in the other place, I moved an amendment to a statutory instrument arising from the Census Act but few bits of primary legislation allow one to do that. This is not an occasion on which those of us who have long been concerned about that are trying to use this legislation to improve a long-standing defect. It is peculiarly relevant to what we are considering because major matters will be dealt with by way of statutory instrument—a theme throughout the debates in recent days—and they may well include things which ought to be susceptible to amendment, such as details about the creation of public bodies, their powers and remit. To take one example, and there will be others, there are the ways in which new bodies can be held to account when they are created to replace European bodies.
We would be left in a situation where it would be said in the House of Commons, “Take it or leave it—this is the only statutory instrument you’re going to get and we clearly need to address this issue, therefore you must accept it in this form”. I am afraid that in this House, it would be, “Take it or face unspecified constitutional consequences”. Either we agreed to the statutory instrument in its present form or did something we should really not be doing at all, according to members of the Executive. That is an absurd position to put this House in, when what would be at issue would be some fundamental defect in the way the statutory instrument sought to transpose existing European processes into the British domestic statute book. The Government have to address the plea that all these amendments raise: to have some way to do something which falls short of wanting to reject a statutory instrument but insists that if it is to go through, it must be amended in some way.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 247, which seeks to do precisely that. I am delighted to have secured the support of the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Dykes. I took great comfort from the words of my noble friend Lady Goldie earlier this evening when she said that the Government welcome scrutiny. I hope that she will not regret those remarks.
My starting point this evening was paragraph 215 of the report by the Select Committee on the Constitution, which states:
“We do not consider that it is appropriate for the Henry VIII powers in this Bill to be exercisable by the negative procedure, particularly as they might be used to make legislation of substantive policy significance”.
In Amendment 247, what I seek to do is precisely that: to enable a statutory instrument to be amendable.
While this may seem radical or even revolutionary, it is not as there is a precedent. To appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, who I know likes some precedents but not others, the precedent here is the Civil Contingencies Act, which legislated precisely for statutory instruments to be amended. Under that Act, specific examples would be required. In my view, there should not be a blanket provision to amend but in the specific circumstances where a statutory instrument in relation to the Bill before the Committee legislates on what amounts to a substantive policy change, it should be open to both Houses to be able to amend the statutory instrument. That is the procedure that I have set out here, once again with the expert advice of the Public Bill Office. At Clauses 19 and 20 of the Civil Contingencies Act, there is a power to make emergency regulations if certain conditions are met. These orders stand unless negated or amended by Parliament, so the power to amend the statutory instrument does exist, although I accept it is not used very often.
Further, in Clause 29, the emergency regulations should be made by statutory instrument. Statutory instruments can be made by either negative or affirmative resolution of the Houses of Parliament. Whether negative or affirmative is set out in the regulations, which will already have been agreed by Parliament, and committed and put into operation by the Government, unless later rejected or amended by Parliament within the seven-day period set down in that clause.
I am sure that my noble friend, in summing up the debate on this small group of amendments, will say that it is not appropriate to amend statutory instruments in these circumstances. I put it to your Lordships in Committee this evening that in those very specific circumstances where the Government seek to make and propose a substantive policy change by way of statutory instrument rather than by an Act of Parliament, that is simply not appropriate and outwith the actual remit of the Bill before us this evening. I therefore hope that Amendment 247 will find favour with the Committee this evening.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I am delighted to support Amendment 247 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to which my name is attached. This is a pragmatic amendment, intended to make the provisions of the Bill more workable. As such, it should be acceptable to noble Lords on both sides of the Brexit argument, and perhaps even to the Government. Given that so much legislation is moving over to being enacted by statutory instrument, the case for looking into the ways of making instruments amendable now becomes an urgent challenge and will become increasingly so as the Bill goes forward.
As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, spelled out the detail of the amendment, including very helpfully the precedents, perhaps I could just give an example of where the power to amend SIs would be useful. Take, for example, Clause 7(6)(b), which enables Ministers to establish new public bodies to undertake functions now carried out by the EU. The provision of such a power by order would require the relevant SI to specify precise details for the workings of the new body, such as its objectives, duties, powers, members, resources and accountability. Parliament might be happy for such a new body to be established but might want to change some of those details, which it could not do under our current procedures and which could only be triggered by rejecting the SI in its entirety, thereby subjecting the process to potentially long delays—exactly what the Government want to try to avoid. Having a process to allow amendment would be swifter and provide more acceptable legislation.
These powers would be used in exceptional circumstances, and it is not proposed that they should cover other Brexit legislation—although a strong argument could be made along those lines. But given the ominously growing use of unamendable orders to force legislative change through Parliament, there is a case for undertaking a far more rigorous review of the statutory instrument system. Since this facility could save time, which may be of the essence in regard to Brexit legislation, I would have thought that Amendment 247 should appeal to both sides, to Brexiters and remainers alike. I commend it to the Committee.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 248 in my name. Because of the lateness of the hour I will speak briefly, but throughout these debates the Committee has repeatedly expressed concern about the scope and nature of the SI procedure. Time and again, noble Lords in Committee have said, “This is not amendable. We cannot change what is proposed. This is government by fiat and declaration”. The noble Lord, Lord Beith, and I spent many years in the House of Commons, where we lamented the fact that statutory instruments could not be amended. It is a great defect in our constitutional process. Statutory instruments are a form of legislation; in fact, they are a form of legislation by fiat or declaration—and that is an extraordinary thing in a parliamentary democracy.
The amendments that I have tabled have just two objectives: one is to assert the primacy of the House of Commons, which must have primacy in these matters, and the other is to say that legislation should be amendable. As two propositions, they are wholly unobjectionable. What are the objections, if there be any? Actually, they are the objections of the Executive throughout the centuries: it makes life for the Government rather more difficult. As a parliamentarian, I am bound to say that I do not find that a very impressive argument.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, I have to say that I have been called many things in my life, but the appellation by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, of a “parliamentary anaesthetic” is a first. As we approach the last contribution from the Government on today’s business, though, maybe a metaphorical sleeping draught is appropriate as noble Lords contemplate their slumbers.
As I have stressed, the Government are committed to full and proper scrutiny of the statutory instruments that will come under the Bill. The sifting process seeks to provide transparency where there has been ministerial discretion in choosing the procedure that will apply to an instrument, and it is therefore extended to the main powers under the Bill. All instruments under the Bill will be subject to an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. We have also provided for additional explanatory material to ensure that there is a proper level of transparency for all the instruments and that Parliament is fully informed and can properly sift and scrutinise all the secondary legislation that is to come. If noble Lords do not approve of their contents—and sometimes that happens—the proper way to express that is to oppose the instruments and ask the Government to come back with an alternative proposal.
Nothing in the Bill is intended to be an alteration to the long-established and, in this House, well-functioning procedures for the scrutiny of secondary legislation. The Government understand the concerns around the powers in Clause 17, and I have listened closely to what your Lordships have been saying. We will consider how we might be able to provide reassurance and address concerns when we reach that clause, as we shall imminently do.
The amendments in this group raise similar issues to those in earlier groups, but I shall address—in, I hope, sufficient detail—my noble friend Lord Hodgson’s Amendments 238 and 239 concerning the creation of a new super-affirmative procedure for the scrutiny of statutory instruments under the Bill.
I cannot shy away from the fact that a significant number of statutory instruments will come before us under the Bill. I reassure your Lordships once more that a very significant element of what needs to be done will be strictly technical, making de minimis changes such as the adjustment of reference to EU law or to retained EU law. Procedures such as that suggested by my noble friend, which were described as “turbocharged” procedures, are simply disproportionate to these changes, and a procedure of the kind mooted by my noble friend is simply unnecessary. The powers in the Bill can be used only for limited purposes and are themselves subject to a number of restrictions.
For the types of major policy change that a number of your Lordships appear to be concerned that the Government might seek to make under the Bill, we do not shy away from parliamentary scrutiny. The proper means for scrutiny of such changes is primary legislation—rather than seeking to design, at pace, a new, bespoke super-affirmative process.
I know that some of your Lordships are wary of relying on assurances from the Dispatch Box but, in this case, we have acted on those assurances already, as can be seen through the passage of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill and the sanctions Bill. I understand noble Lords’ wish to ensure that Parliament can give the SIs to come consideration which is akin or similar to the consideration given to primary legislation, but I suggest that there must be some delineation—there always has been—between things that merit such full consideration and those that do not. Frankly, the alternative is legislative logjam: a complete constipation of the process.
For each of those categories, the Government wish to use the well-established procedures that Parliament has already set down. I have to say that all precedent suggests that procedures such as those suggested by my noble friend can take six months to a year or even longer. Quite simply, in the context of what we are engaged in, we do not have that time. Adopting a super-affirmative procedure would therefore prevent us from being able to deliver on a key objective of the Bill: making timeous and necessary change to maximise certainty for businesses and individuals by ensuring continuity through a functioning statute book in time for exit. In my opinion, that would be a grave failing.
My noble friend Lord Hailsham’s amendment, Amendment 248, crosses similar ground to Amendment 247 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh. They bring us to a discussion of some of the fundamental assumptions of the debates we are having today, have had on previous days and shall have in regard to other Bills, about secondary legislation. I understand the concern of my noble friends, echoed no doubt by others in the Committee, that this is a framework Bill and that the detail, wherein the devil always lies, will be available only in secondary legislation, with which we can only declare ourselves content or not content. However, I must make it clear that the Government cannot support these amendments as a solution to this problem.
It is by the processes involved in passing primary legislation that the House can amend law as it passes before Parliament. That process involves long and detailed scrutiny and debate, with the Government given an opportunity to explain their case in great detail and others given an opportunity to challenge and test that over multiple stages and in both Houses in sequence.
Lord Beith
I should like the Minister to envisage that she is responding on behalf of the Government to a debate on a statutory instrument which the House in general is saying that we need to have but which has a fundamental flaw that has been identified by many noble Lords. At that point, is she really going to say to the House, “The proper course for you to take is to reject this instrument, and then I will be forced to take it away and come back with a corrected instrument”? Or will she say, “We’ve no time for that now, you will just have to accept it as it is”?
Baroness Goldie
That would of course entirely depend on the circumstances of the instrument, the extent of the change being effected by the instrument and what was an appropriate response to the concerns being raised. I am certain that the Government would respond in a sensible manner if that situation were to arise.
I repeat that it is for primary legislation to set a policy direction and establish the framework in which government may operate. Secondary legislation has a different place in our legal framework. The Hansard Society, which many in the House will accept as an expert source in this area, has said that the power to amend SIs would be,
“essentially undermining the principle of delegation”.
If wider review of the legislative process is proposed—as a number of noble Lords would like—this Bill is not the place to do it. I note the recommendation of the Constitution Committee, in its report The Process of Constitutional Change, that substantial constitutional change should be clear when a Bill is introduced. This Bill is substantial in its repeal of the ECA, but that was clear even before the Bill was introduced and I do not think a change of this type would be appropriate for a Bill which has already completed its passage through the other place.
In the other place, my right honourable friend Dominic Grieve proposed a triage mechanism and both he and the Government accepted the sifting mechanism proposed by its Procedure Committee. This will increase the transparency surrounding secondary legislation, but will not change its nature. Secondary legislation can be scrutinised and debated and, indeed, can be of great importance. However, its purpose is to fill in the spaces where Parliament has set a course under primary legislation and empowered the Government to provide for the details in subordinate instruments. As has already been said, if Parliament is not content with an SI, it can be rejected and the Government can consider and return with another. To open statutory instruments to amendment would essentially be to create a new kind of legislation, without the scrutiny afforded to primary legislation but, at the same time, conferring on the new kind one of the essential qualities of primary legislation.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
If the Government are not minded to accept an amendment to statutory instruments under these circumstances, where there is a substantive policy change, would they be minded to bring back that proposal as an Act of Parliament, so that all the proper scrutiny procedures could be undertaken?
Baroness Goldie
I respond to my noble friend as I did to the noble Lord, Lord Beith. That hypothetical situation would depend entirely upon the practicalities of the situation confronting the Government if and when such a situation arose.
Lord Wigley
A moment ago, the Minister said that we would effectively be according to statutory instruments the role of primary legislation. However, throughout the Bill we are having the amendment of primary legislation by order. In other words, the statutory instrument system is being used—excessively to my mind—in the primary legislative system and we cannot get away from that.
Baroness Goldie
I have tried to make it clear that we are not attempting to equate delegated legislation with primary legislation. I have been trying to clarify when the Government consider primary legislation is appropriate and should be used—for policy change, for example. However, we are in an extraordinary situation, as all noble Lords acknowledge. It is beyond argument that the Government are having to contemplate the transfer of a body of law of huge volume and massive complexity. We owe it to the people and businesses that rely on that law to make a good fist of getting it transferred from A to B by the critical point of exit day.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh mentioned the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which is one of the very few examples of where statutory instruments made under an Act can be amended by Parliament. The emergency regulations made under that Act are very unusual instruments. The nature of the situation with which they are intended to deal is self-explanatory. It is in a state of emergency and is such that Parliament cannot scrutinise these instruments before they are made. None of the normal scrutiny procedures of this House applies. That is intrinsic to the very unusual approach under that Act, drafted for unusual and extraordinary circumstances. Noble Lords may be interested to note that in the history of the Civil Contingencies Act no Government have ever made any emergency regulations.
We are not proposing in this Bill anything of the sort of action envisaged by the Civil Contingencies Act. I cannot think that allowing amendable SIs is the solution to the concerns expressed by my noble friends. Nor, I repeat, is reform of the legislative process the role of this Bill. It is merely intended to provide continuity and certainty in our statute book.
The amendments would not only fundamentally alter the nature of secondary legislation but imperil the Government’s programme of secondary legislation and Parliament’s opportunity to scrutinise it. If this legislation is subject to continued movement back and forth, we run the risk that crucial provisions are not in place in time to allow businesses and individuals to prepare for exit, and that so many SIs would become bunched at the end of the process that they would not be properly scrutinised. I have endeavoured to deal—I hope—fully with the very important points raised by colleagues in the Chamber, and I hope that my explanation reassures noble Lords and the noble Baroness. I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I was wondering whether my noble friend had any special comment on proposed new sub-paragraph (4) in Amendment 248, which seems to have nothing much to do with the amendments and seems in conflict with what the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, was saying earlier.
Baroness Goldie
At this time of night my reading qualities are not at their most alert. May I look at that in more detail and revert to my noble and learned friend?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply. She short-changed herself in only one sense: that was that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, described her as mellifluous. Never was she more mellifluous than in dealing with the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh. The hour is late; we have had a long and helpful contribution from my noble friend the Leader of the House which demands careful scrutiny, so all that I would like to do now is to thank all those who participated in this short debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 21st March 2018
(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 79-IX Ninth marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 218KB) - (19 Mar 2018)
Lord Hope of Craighead
“( ) Sub-paragraph (4)(b) does not apply to regulations made under this Part by the Scottish Ministers or by the Welsh Ministers with regard to matters that are within their devolved competence.”
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 266, which is in my name, is in a series of groups dealing with devolution. It is in the first of five groups dealing with rather technical points arising out of Schedules 2 and 8. They precede a lot of government amendments which are in the group following my groups. I suggest that the main discussion about devolution and its consequences is best reserved for the government amendments which are focused on Clause 11 and other clauses. I am afraid my groups are rather boring, because I am dealing with a whole series of little technical points which need adjustment to some extent in the light of progress that is being made in discussions with the devolved authorities, among other points.
The theme that runs through all my amendments is the need to respect the devolution settlements in Scotland and Wales. I am confident that the Government share that sentiment. It is all a question of how the matter is worked out in points of detail. The basic rule following our withdrawal from the EU, I suggest, is that returned EU competencies in the devolved areas should be distributed among the devolved authorities in accordance with the devolution statutes. That means that what falls within devolved competence should be treated as devolved, with all that that means, and what falls within reserved matters should be treated as reserved, with all that that means.
The statutes that form the foundation for the devolution settlements—the Scotland Act 1998 and Government of Wales Acts, the latest of which was in 2017—were all built on the foundation of our membership of the EU. In each of these statutes, it was taken as accepted that it would not be within the competence of the devolved Administrations to legislate on matters relating to EU law or indeed to take executive action in relation to these matters either.
What we have in the Bill, in place of EU law, is a new creature called “retained” EU law, which is the law that comes back to us either because it is already present in the United Kingdom or is direct EU law that is coming back to us and is not yet built into our laws but requires being built in using the mechanisms described in the Bill. In the original drafting of the Bill, retained EU law is treated as simply a mirror image of EU law, so that in that original drafting—which can be seen in Clauses 11(1) and (2)—the same restriction on competence which applied in relation to EU law is applied to retained EU law. I am delighted to see that, in developing their thinking on this matter, the Government recognise that this really is not acceptable within the devolved arrangements. A much more nuanced approach to that topic can be seen in the government amendments that we will come to later this afternoon.
What I seek to do in the preliminary groups is to draw attention to various other passages in the Bill that need to be corrected in order to be compatible with the devolution settlements. In some of the groups—but not in the first—it is already clear from the government amendments that they are in almost the same position as I am as to what needs to be done.
I turn to Amendment 266, in the first of these groups, and also mention amendments 278 and 292, which raise exactly the same point in relation to different parts of the Bill. Amendment 266 deals with the power to deal by regulation with deficiencies arising from the withdrawal from the EU, which is the subject of Clause 7. It appears in Part 1 of Schedule 2 in the form that is appropriate for the activities of the devolved institutions in carrying out the exercise to which Clause 7 refers.
Amendment 278 deals with the power by regulation to prevent breaches of international obligations, which is the subject of Clause 8. The devolution mechanism for this is dealt with in paragraph 13 of Schedule 2. Amendment 292 relates to the power by regulation to implement the withdrawal agreement and the mechanism for the devolved Administrations is set out in paragraph 21 of Schedule 2.
The point to which these three amendments draw attention is a qualification that is to be found in each of these contexts on the power of the devolved authority to make provision by regulations regarding these three matters. The particular provision that I am concerned about is found in paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 2:
“Regulations under this Part, so far as made by a devolved authority … (b) may not confer a power to legislate (other than a power to make rules of procedure for a court or tribunal)”.
At first sight that qualification cuts across the concept of devolution, the effect of which is that if a matter is within devolved competence, it is for the devolved authority to take its own decisions as to how to deal with that matter, in whatever way it regards as appropriate. Under the devolution statutes, the qualification that we find in this provision and its equivalents in paragraphs 13 and 21 is new: in my experience it has not been encountered before. To an extent, therefore, these three amendments are probing, to enable the Minister to explain why this qualification has been inserted in these paragraphs and, if no reasonable explanation is given, to suggest to her that maybe the qualification should be removed, on the ground that when it comes to exercising powers within the devolved area, it should not be there.
It is right to add that Part 1 of Schedule 2, for perfectly understandable reasons, contains qualifications. For example, paragraph 2 states that:
“No regulations may be made under this Part by a devolved authority unless every provision of them is within the devolved competence of the devolved authority”.
That is a perfectly sensible provision, and consistent with the devolution scheme. What troubles me is why the qualification that I have mentioned should be there. My question is: should it be there at all? And if it should not be there, should it not be taken out? I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, the Committee is indebted to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for his detailed analysis of the Bill as it originally stood, and the points arising. My name is on the amendment, but I would be happy to deal with the important issues of principle that prompted me to sign some of these amendments, in an attempt to honour the spirit of the original devolution settlement, when we deal with the group containing the government amendments. Obviously, however, I support the amendment that the noble and learned Lord has moved.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I too support the noble and learned Lord’s amendment, and I entirely agree with his approach—that it is best to focus on a couple of larger debates rather than going through all the minutiae at this point. However, it is important to underline the principle—that matters coming back from Brussels that deal with devolved subjects should go to the devolved authorities. It is on that principle that I hope we shall concentrate as we move forward.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I too thank my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead for introducing this set of amendments, to which I have added my name, so concisely and well. I start the afternoon by placing on record my thanks to Ministers, especially the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and the Secretary of State for Wales, who have been trying to keep us—certainly me—up to date in relation to Wales. I have had correspondence during the morning. I hope that the spirit of the debate today will recognise the importance of the devolved competences, and the need to respect them and find a way forwards. Like others, I will reserve my main remarks for later, in the larger debates.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, I too support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and I too will reserve my remarks until we come to the government amendments. This is new ground; it needs an explanation, and unless the explanation is reasonable I will certainly oppose the provision.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, this debate will be an easy one for the Minister to respond to. I entirely agree with what has been said, and all I want to add is that although these are technical changes, they need to be dealt with in the spirit that we shall move on to later. Our worry, particularly at the beginning, was that it took some time for the Government to recognise that the expectation that not everything retained was devolved was a legitimate one from the devolved Administrations. Perhaps now there is that willingness to engage. We may regret that it took a little time but we seem to have got there. Perhaps one of the issues was that the Joint Ministerial Committee has not worked in the way we might have expected in the past. Brexit showed that up in a sense, but this is bigger than a Brexit issue. Therefore, any changes to the status of that body are probably not for this Bill to deal with. However, I hope that at some point the Government can revisit whether it needs to be given either statutory authority or some greater authority in the future. Although these amendments may be technical in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, with his, as ever, diplomatic use of the phrase, “They need adjustments”, I think he means that we want the Government to move on them. I hope the spirit that I think is now abroad will enable us to do that.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I do not agree that these are simply technical amendments. The issues arise from Clause 7, headed, “Dealing with deficiencies arising from withdrawal”, which gives a Minister of the Crown power to,
“make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate to prevent, remedy or mitigate”,
deficiencies. Clause 8 of the Bill that we have discussed at such length deals with a Minister of the Crown making regulations as he considers appropriate,
“to prevent or remedy any breach, arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom … of the international obligations of the United Kingdom”.
Clause 9 is headed, “Implementing the withdrawal agreement”, and similar powers are given to a Minister of the Crown. Schedule 2 is headed, “Corresponding powers involving devolved authorities”. Part 1 of that schedule deals with deficiencies and Part 2 with international obligations. Part 3 is headed, “Implementing the withdrawal agreement”. One would have expected corresponding powers for Welsh Ministers and Scottish Ministers in those areas within their own competences, but each of those parts of Schedule 2 says that regulations may not,
“confer a power to legislate”.
Therefore, unlike the powers granted to a Minister of the Crown in the UK Parliament, the powers to legislate are withheld from Ministers in the devolved Assemblies. That is the critical issue, which is a matter of principle and not at all technical.
Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield (CB)
My Lords, I regret that I was unable to speak at Second Reading. I promise that I shall not make up for it this afternoon; I shall be very brief.
With the clauses before us this afternoon and evening, we have reached a truly load-bearing piece of the Bill. In my more anxious moments I sometimes think that the very weight of the kingdom is resting upon it, and that, if it is misjudged, the chances of the union eventually crumbling would be worryingly greater.
I do not doubt the Government’s good faith in the negotiations within the Joint Ministerial Committees but, as other noble Lords have already mentioned, the devolutionary spirit of 1998 needs to suffuse the discussions in those committees’ deliberations, and, indeed, ours in both Houses of Parliament.
If the European question infects and envenoms the union question, the country will suffer a self-inflicted blow of immense proportions. Of course, there is a need to retain an effective internal market within the UK. That is absolutely crucial, but the sustenance of the union—the essential quiddity of our nation—is paramount, which is why I express my wholehearted support for the thrust of the amendments in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, first, I both echo and reaffirm what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said: there must be respect for the devolved Administrations. I emphasise that as emphatically and cogently as I can at this Dispatch Box, and I confirm that the Government are wholly committed to demonstrating that respect.
As a number of your Lordships observed, the Government have tabled amendments to Clause 11, and we will give them our full consideration shortly. We have to acknowledge that the position we ultimately reach on Clause 11 will have implications for related policy on devolution in the Bill. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, acknowledged that. I can reassure your Lordships that we are mindful of the need to revisit the approach we have taken for the Schedule 2 powers in the light of that forthcoming debate on Clause 11. I therefore thank the noble and learned Lord Hope for instigating this debate on whether the devolved Ministers should be permitted to sub-delegate their Schedule 2 powers.
Amendments 266 and 278 would remove this restriction from the correcting power and the international obligations power for Scottish and Welsh Ministers and for Northern Ireland departments. Amendment 292 relates to the withdrawal agreement power and would have a wider effect, but I understand that the intention is the same. I should be clear that we do not oppose in principle the idea that these powers should be able to be sub-delegated to and by devolved authorities where appropriate cause is shown. This is already evident in the Bill. Noble Lords will see that this restriction—for instance, in paragraph 1(4)(b) of Schedule 2—is already qualified to allow for the sub-delegation of a power to make rules of procedure for a court or a tribunal. This ensures that the power can be sub-delegated where appropriate to ensure judicial independence. We have invited the devolved Administrations to offer any examples of where sub-delegation would be needed, and we have made clear that where they identify such examples we shall consider drawing further exceptions to the restriction. So far, no examples have been given.
It has been our intention—this may surprise the Chamber—not to make the powers in this Bill any wider than is appropriate. Opening up the possibility of sub-delegation by devolved Ministers in all cases where no prior need has been demonstrated does not align with this intention. However, I have listened to the contributions made this afternoon and have heard the concerns that your Lordships have expressed today. I have taken particular note of the question of respect as it relates to the perceived unfairness of a possible disparity between the devolved ministerial powers and the corresponding powers for UK Ministers.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I do not understand the expression “sub-delegation” that the Minister uses. Does she suggest that when powers are given to Ministers in the devolved Administrations, that is “sub-delegating”? I do not think that is the appropriate term.
Baroness Goldie
It is merely a generic description of the power to exercise delegated power-making by regulation, as encompassed by these provisions in the Bill.
I reiterate that I accept that these are serious points. They deserve serious consideration, and I can confirm that the Government are prepared to look again at where such a change may be merited for the use of the powers by the devolved Administrations in this way.
Lord Morris of Aberavon
May I pursue the intervention made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas? “Delegated” is not an appropriate term here; they are devolved powers, not delegated powers.
Baroness Goldie
I accept the distinction drawn by the noble and learned Lord. I am trying to address the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in the context of what the provisions do and his concern that they appear to cut off what he considers an entitlement of the devolved Administrations. I have tried to explain why, inevitably, these aspects are interlinked with the wider debate we will have on Clause 11.
The Government are prepared to listen to what has been said. I have indicated that we are prepared to look again at these provisions. I thank the noble and learned Lord for bringing forward his amendment, but in the circumstances I urge him to withdraw it.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her remarks. The use of the expression “sub-delegation” gives some insight into the thinking of the Government. As was pointed out, “delegation” is not an appropriate word to use where matters have already been devolved—by the statutes to which I referred earlier—to both Wales and Scotland. “Sub-delegation” is a very odd word to use. We are talking about a power within the devolved competencies for the devolved authorities to legislate, or confer a power to legislate, by whatever means they think appropriate. So I am encouraged by the fact that the Minister is prepared to look at this again. I think that she will agree with me that much of what we will be discussing in this little group of amendments is work in progress, as we try to work through the detail of the scheme that the Bill sets out. I am encouraged by her reply.
I also thank all those who have contributed to this brief debate. On the word “adjustment”, I refer to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, was saying. The Minister will remember, from her early days in the law in Scotland, that the word “adjustment” is sometimes used to take things out as well as to put things in. It is a word that came naturally to me as a means of dealing with bits in the statute that require to be trimmed, perhaps by removal, as well as by refining the language. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, for their emphasis that we are dealing with matters of great significance and importance. When I said that these were just technical points, I did not mean to suggest otherwise; rather, I was suggesting that the main thrust of our argument will be reserved for when we come to look at the Government’s amendments.
Lastly, on the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, I join in her tribute to the efforts that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, is making to discuss matters with us and to reach as much common ground as possible. I, too, have had useful meetings with him and I am grateful to him and to his team for the attention they have given to the points I have been raising. As I have said, this is work in progress; I am encouraged by what the Minister said and, in the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hope of Craighead
“( ) This paragraph does not apply to regulations made under this Part by the Scottish Ministers or by the Welsh Ministers with regard to matters that are within their devolved competence.”
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, this is the first of another group of amendments, all of which are in my name. Amendment 268 refers to a provision in paragraph 4 of Part 1 of the schedule, which states that no regulations made under that part by a devolved authority prevent it from conferring functions that correspond to functions under EU tertiary legislation. Amendment 296 relates to the same restriction which we find in paragraph 24. Amendments 280 and 294 deal with another restriction—that no regulations may be made under that part by a devolved authority which modify any retained direct EU legislation or anything which is retained law by virtue of Clause 4.
These are rather complicated matters to explain, but they are all examples of restrictions on the power of the devolved authorities to do what they are supposed to do under Part 1 of the schedule in the two respects mentioned in these passages. The whole point is the same one I mentioned before in regard to the previous group—that these are restrictions on actions which otherwise would be taken within devolved competence. The fact that there are restrictions at all is contrary to the philosophy on which the devolution system has been based. It is a given—as we have seen already in the passage I read out earlier—that, if the powers are exercised, they can be exercised only within the devolved area. There is no question of their moving into the reserved areas as that is not within their competence; if the matter is within their competence, the argument is that they should not be inhibited from doing what they consider to be right.
Tertiary legislation is an animal that has not been referred to much in our debates in this Committee. A fairly lengthy definition of it is to be found on page 10 of the Bill, but it is not obvious to me why the devolved authorities should not be able to deal with tertiary EU legislation in the same way as any other EU retained legislation. So, with that rather brief introduction, directed particularly to Amendment 268, I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, again I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for the way in which he has introduced this group of amendments. It is absolutely essential that we remember the principles of legislative competence and what has been devolved, and that we try to cut across the technicalities. It is also important to remember that the devolved Governments of Scotland and Wales should not be faced with any implementation framework in which they will have no decision-making power in negotiations and which intrudes on their area of competence.
Our withdrawal from the EU seems to be quite a tangled web. The job of those sitting in Cardiff and Edinburgh is to serve their constituents and defend the rights that they fought so hard to earn in the first place; it is not to return such rights in legislation to Westminster without being sure that it serves their populations well. That is why it becomes so important to make sure that there is an equality of voice in working out these different aspects of legislation.
When it comes to tertiary legislation, it is even more difficult to understand why there would not be such an equality of voice—I find that quite bizarre. I am afraid that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, the way that the Joint Ministerial Committee has worked to date has not been as good as it might have been, and I hope that today will mark a watershed and a complete change in those relationships.
It is important to remember that EU law was in place when we went to devolution. Therefore, as things come down from Europe, they should drop equally into the three Governments of Wales, Scotland and England, and, where they affect the whole of the UK, they should be looked at on a UK-wide basis. However, that does not mean that all of a sudden Parliament has a complete say over what goes on in the devolved Administrations. There is an equality of voice that must not be eroded by the process.
Therefore, these amendments are really important and I am glad that the Minister said that she will look at them carefully. It is very difficult to know which bit we should look at in great detail and tweak—although it will be more than tweaking; it will probably need a massive rewrite. It is not for the Committee to do that; it should simply raise the concerns, with the rewriting to be done afterwards. We will come to the main debate soon.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I want to reinforce the important points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I have spoken before in your Lordships’ Chamber about the importance of clarity in the devolution settlement and the difference that it has made to the relationships between the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament, the UK Government and the UK Parliament over these last 19 years. The lack of serious or unresolvable dispute about where the legal powers lie has been the result of that initial clarity in 1998.
The one area where there were problems, particularly in the early years, related to the fact that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government had responsibility under the Scotland Act in relation to EU law. The difficulties and legal challenges, both inside Scotland and to the European Court in relation to the actions of the Scottish Executive, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, were in relation to that relationship.
Therefore, clarity is required as part of the debate and discussion on the Bill—perhaps not today, given the assurances from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, on the Government’s behalf, but certainly following the debate on Clause 11. It is vital that we have greater clarity and the right principles behind whatever replaces the current wording in the Bill on the matters raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Your Lordships should appreciate that the devolved Administrations can make law but have been constrained by EU law in the areas of their competencies. If EU law is taken away, we would expect the devolved Administrations to carry on without that constraint. Previously, there had been no constraint on their making law within their competencies from Westminster, only from Brussels. Taking away Brussels suddenly imposes Westminster constraints on the devolved Administrations in areas such as agriculture, which have been devolved to them, but it also means that the devolved Administrations cannot make any changes to the law at all—even when it is, for example, an agricultural matter. It is not simply taking away the constraint of Brussels, but imposing something entirely new. Westminster politics comes into it then; considerations that have not emerged into the arena before suddenly become important. That is why these are matters of principle and deeply difficult to resolve.
I was so pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hennessey, say that this was such a difficult area because I suggested in my Second Reading speech that we should have taken devolution completely out of the Bill. At that point, the Government would have had no problem in getting legislative consent from Scotland and Wales and could have sorted out devolution issues as a completely separate matter. Now, your Lordships are listening—in the context of the EU withdrawal Bill—to a very difficult issue.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I want to add to what my noble friend just said by making reference to the politics of all this. The reality is that powers that came from Europe were seen as politically very neutral, in a party-political sense; but once those powers and restraints are placed with Westminster, raw party politics immediately become a key issue. The tension therefore increases. The Minister will be aware of this from her own experience. Whereas a power that was passed from or constrained by Europe is seen on a pan-European basis—where party politics could not possibly be applied in a local sense—when it becomes a decision by Westminster, party politics are inevitably written into it, whether in favour or against. I am sure the Minister will understand the point I am making from the Scottish experience; it certainly applies to my Welsh experience.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for tabling these amendments. They would have a significant effect because they seek to remove the restrictions on the ability of these powers to modify direct retained EU legislation and to confer functions that correspond to the making of what is termed EU tertiary legislation. I am grateful for the thoughtful and considered contributions that have emanated from a wide range of experience, not least of the devolved Administrations. As noble Lords have noted in their speeches, this issue is again closely tied to the final policy position on Clause 11.
These amendments concern the question of parity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has just pointed out, between Ministers in the devolved Administrations and UK Ministers. They also address the matter of who should be responsible for fixing EU legislation in areas that intersect with areas of devolved competence which currently have uniform application across the UK. I apologise again for emphasising the point, but we need to consider how all of this will work in relation to the wider changes we have tabled in Clause 11. It is important to recognise that the answer we reach on that question in the subsequent debate will necessarily inform the answer to the questions posed in this one.
The Government have been clear that the powers are conferred on the devolved Administrations so as to ensure that we do not disrupt the common frameworks currently provided for by EU law in areas where a framework will need to be retained. That might be to protect our internal UK market, our common resources or any of the other criteria that we have agreed with the devolved Administrations and published in the Joint Ministerial Committee communiqué in October last year. These are laws that apply directly, exactly as written, across every part of the UK, and indeed at the moment across every part of every member state. As such, these are by their nature laws that the devolved institutions currently have no power to modify or to diverge from. As we consider where we shall and shall not need frameworks, it is clear that in many of these areas, competence will pass to the devolved Administrations on exit day.
However, I would suggest to noble Lords that before we get to that point, we have to ensure that these laws function properly. We owe that to our communities and businesses and to individuals—that there can be certainty as to the laws that will apply to all those groups on the day we leave the EU. Carving up the effect of these laws in different parts of the UK or expecting to have different laws to achieve the same effect for different parts of the UK might undermine that certainty. It is the Government’s view that where in the first instance these laws apply at the UK level, we should also consider the corrections to those laws at the UK level. But let there be no doubt that the devolved Administrations will be an integral part of this process. We shall consult them on any and every change to retained direct EU legislation in an otherwise devolved area made under the powers in this Bill. We shall need to reflect on this alongside the debate on Clause 11.
Whatever the outcome in relation to devolved competence more widely after exit day, at a minimum we must retain this limit in those areas where, working with the devolved Administrations, we have identified that we need to retain a framework. Otherwise, we put at risk some of the issues to which I have referred, such as the internal market, the management of our common resources and even our ability to strike the best possible trade deals.
I hope that this provides some reassurance to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that we are alive to the interaction of this policy with Clause 11. We are considering it in parallel as our discussions continue with the devolved Administrations. The end result must be that both Clauses 10 and 11 dovetail and that they are not in conflict. On that basis, I commit to continuing to keep the noble and learned Lord and this House up to speed on how our policy thinking is developing in these areas. In those circumstances, I would ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her very helpful reply. Perhaps this is an example of another kind of adjustment—to return to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, picking up my use of that word. Rather than taking out or adding in, it is a case of refinement. I appreciate exactly what the noble Baroness meant in her reference to frameworks. In regard to tertiary legislation, it might be that a slightly less blanket provision could be used; that is, replacing the blanket restriction on competence with something more targeted to the particular needs to create and preserve the internal market that we are all looking forward to within the UK. What I take from what the Minister has said is that she will look carefully at this and consider to what extent she can come back on Report with something which meets the points that I have been making.
The noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord McConnell, referred to the reasoning behind the reference to EU law in the original statutes. EU law shared something in common with rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. In both cases, when the Scotland Act was being designed, it was appreciated that the obligations which gave rise to convention rights and rights and obligations under EU law were based on treaties. So far as those treaties were concerned, in the framing of the Scotland Act and the Wales Act it was thought necessary to preserve the obligations that the United Kingdom had under the treaties and make sure that they were protected in the way that we found in the statute as originally framed; in other words, there was no competence to deal with matters which were the subject of those important treaties. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, was that once we leave the EU, that treaty fetter disappears completely; what we have is retained EU law, which is a completely different creature from EU law as we know it today. That is why it is important to appreciate that retained EU law is not a mirror image of EU law, although the subject matter and the detail are no doubt exactly the same.
I shall come back to that in the next group of amendments, to which I shall speak in a moment, because they raise the same issue. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hope of Craighead
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, this is the first amendment in a very much larger group, not all of which is composed of amendments in my name. Although the matter is lengthy and rather complicated, I can deal with it comparatively briefly and, I hope, in a way that is intelligible to your Lordships and in particular to the Minister.
Amendments 274 and 275 are related to paragraphs 9 and 10 in part 1 of Schedule 2, the former dealing with Scotland and the latter with Wales. I am concerned about the provision which states:
“A provision is within the devolved competence of the Scottish Ministers for the purposes of this Part if … (a) it would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament (ignoring section 29(2)(d) of the Scotland Act 1998 so far as relating to EU law and retained EU law)”.
As I understand that provision, it excludes from competence provisions relating to retained EU law. That is a theme that runs through most of the amendments in this group. It is exactly the same point as we have been discussing in the earlier groups, the question being whether it can possibly be right that the devolved institutions should be prohibited from dealing with retained EU law when they work through the exercises with which part 1 of Schedule 2 is concerned. All the amendments in this group that are in my name raise that issue, except Amendment 363, which I will come back to in a moment. Some of them will require to be superseded in light of the Government’s amended version of Clause 11. I would have thought it was a fairly simple exercise for the Minister and her team to go through these various amendments, which I need not enumerate, just to be sure that the various passages to which I have drawn attention are corrected in light of the revised version of Clause 11.
Amendment 363 relates to the right of the Advocate-General to take part as a party in criminal proceedings so far as they relate to an issue as to whether legislation or an act of a Scottish Minister is incompatible with convention rights or EU law. Of course, the interest of the Advocate-General, if he wishes to enter the proceedings, is to ensure that the devolved institutions act within their competence in relation to these matters. What we have in paragraph 18 is a simple substitution of a reference to “retained EU law” for the reference that is in the statute at the moment to “EU law”. The competence restriction on EU law will of course be removed when we leave the EU, but once again I make the point that simply to substitute a reference to “retained EU law” is not the right thing to do: it is not a mirror image of EU law. Indeed, the fetter that applied to EU law should not apply to retained EU law. The amendment is simply designed to delete from the relevant section of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, which would no longer have any relevance. I leave that point with the Minister to look at along with all the others.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
I have been listening very carefully. Can the noble and learned Lord explain again, in simple terms, why retained EU law on a particular area, such as agricultural support, is different from current EU law? I do not understand why he says it is different.
Lord Hope of Craighead
In a sense, retained EU law is simply repeating what is to be found in EU law. The point is that the treatment of it, from the point of view of the competence of the Parliament and the Ministers, is different. Under the Scotland Act as it is, Ministers have no power to legislate or deal with EU law, because that is subject to the restriction in Section 29 of the Scotland Act, and also in Section 53, so far as Ministers are concerned. My point is that that restriction disappears because we are no longer bound by the treaty arrangements that gave rise to the restriction in the first place. I think the noble Lord is pointing out that much of retained EU law is already part of our law because it has already been built in to our legal system. The point is that I am suggesting that the Parliament and the Ministers should be able to deal with retained EU law in the same way as they can deal with any other domestic law, as long as it is not reserved.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I understand that—these debates are very useful. However, I am getting worried: as the noble and learned Lord knows, I am a strong devolutionist and a former Member of the Scottish Parliament, but in the last hour I have come to understand and sympathise with what the UK Government are arguing, which is a bit worrying.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
No, it is a serious matter. Surely there are areas that are dealt with now by the European Union because we have all thought that it was right to have standards for the European Union Common Market. Are the UK Government not arguing that if we have a UK common market—which we will in certain areas—it is sensible to have the same standards throughout the United Kingdom? Is that not a valid argument?
Lord Hope of Craighead
If the noble Lord will forgive me, I was suggesting that we deal with that issue when we look at Clause 11 and the government amendments. The noble Lord raises a very important point, but it does not really relate to my amendments. I think it is much more fundamental and we will need to discuss it in light of the discussion of the reform of Clause 11. I hope I have answered the noble Lord’s question. There is a basic difference between the competence arrangements relating to EU law, which does not apply once we leave the Union, and retained EU law, either domestic or direct, as it comes in under Clauses 2 or 3.
Having digressed somewhat in my reply, I again thank the Minister for her helpful reply. I will be happy to withdraw the amendment in due course; however, there are others in the group that others may wish to speak to.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I will strike a different note as I put forward what are perhaps the substantive arguments—as we see them—in relation to these issues.
Amendment 304 has for some reason been grouped with these amendments, which does not make an awful lot of sense. It stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hain, and is based on one of the key amendments drafted by the Welsh and Scottish Governments ahead of the Bill’s passage through the other place. That amendment is also covered by part of Amendment 303, which surprisingly will not arise until very late tonight. None the less, Amendment 304 goes to the heart of the widespread criticism of Clause 11 as it currently stands—I am aware that amendments may come forward later—and lifts the restriction it places on the devolved parliaments in relation to EU retained law.
My fear—and that of all parties in the National Assembly—is that giving UK Ministers control in the EU withdrawal Bill over areas of retained EU law relating to matters which fall under devolved competences will, in effect, tend to normalise direct rule from Westminster in these areas. Given the powers under this and other recent legislation which enable Ministers at Westminster to amend devolved legislation by order, this will, in effect, undermine Welsh sovereignty in areas which are devolved to Wales and blur the responsibility of the National Assembly. Furthermore, there is a fear that this will set a precedent for this and future UK Governments, who may well be tempted when a devolved Government act in a way with which they disagree, to find a justification to intervene. This would be particularly galling if it were on issues where Welsh interests were seen to be in conflict with England’s perceived interests—perhaps validly so. The Prime Minister has, of course, pledged never again to “devolve and forget”. That can be interpreted in more than one way, and in this context it has generated quite a few ripples of unease.
In order to persuade the devolved parliaments to agree to legislative consent orders—which are currently not forthcoming from either the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly—the UK Government have tabled a set of amendments to Clause 11 which we will consider later. The Government’s proposals would provide a power to make regulations in certain devolved areas currently subject to EU law, and would prevent the devolved legislatures from taking action in the areas covered by those regulations. Whether noble Lords in this Chamber like it or not, this is regarded by members of all parties in the National Assembly as reflecting a growing approach by the UK Government—namely, in areas where devolution may be a nuisance or a hindrance to the UK Government’s agenda—to roll back devolution, or at the very least to attenuate it, and to centralise certain powers in London. The Welsh and Scottish Governments share this fear. That is why, in the Senedd—thanks largely to the lead of my inspirational colleague Steffan Lewis AM—the Welsh Government have introduced a continuity Bill to safeguard Welsh devolution. That Bill is currently progressing through its legislative steps with all-party support. Assembly Members are taking such a step not as a threat but as a safeguard: they still hope that there may be a meeting of minds between them and Westminster, and I understand they have even drafted a sunset clause which could be triggered if such an agreement were achieved. They look to this Chamber today to take a stand in facilitating that meeting of minds and to ensure that the centralist direction to which they feel they are being subject is brought to an end.
Alongside the amendments which the UK Government have tabled, they have published a list of 158 areas of intersection of devolved competences with EU law, noting that they envisage regulations temporarily restricting devolved legislatures’ competence—in advance of more substantive arrangements in primary legislation —in up to 24 of those areas. Taking such steps is, rightly or wrongly, widely perceived as a power grab. These 24 areas, all of which apply to both Wales and Scotland, cover a significant part of devolved responsibilities, including agricultural support, fisheries management, environmental policy, public procurement and food standards. These areas are vital for industries and businesses in Wales, and for the Welsh economy. The amendments would allow the UK Government to make regulations in any or all of these devolved areas.
Lord Wigley
Indeed—the very point that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, was making earlier; I agree. Given the current role of EU law regulating action in all parts of the UK in such subjects, partly to facilitate a single market with a level playing field—the point that the noble Lord was making—and partly to ensure that in matters which by their nature cannot be constrained by political borders, there is a coherent common approach. I accept this. Indeed, last week I proposed an amendment to provide a framework agreement for environmental policy—which, quite amazingly, the Government rejected. However, if there are to be such frameworks, the devolved Administrations and the devolved legislatures, whose legislative competence is being constrained by such frameworks, must surely agree the proposed steps jointly with the UK Government. I have tabled an amendment to an amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, providing a mechanism to this end. That will be debated later so I will not anticipate that debate now.
Let us be clear: unless there is agreement between Westminster and the devolved Governments on these matters, the continuity Bill will be enacted by the Assembly and will take precedence in Wales. Surely it is time for the UK Government to reconsider what is seen as an obdurate stance and agree a sensible, balanced and respectful way forward.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate because in many respects government Amendment 302A answers the initial point of concern—that the current limitation on competence in the Scotland Act under European Union law would be replaced by a restriction on retained EU law. Of course, under the new amendment that has gone, but there is a wider point on which the Minister could perhaps assist the Committee, which arises from the draft agreement on the transitional period.
As I understand it, during the transitional period basically the acquis will still apply. I have looked at Articles 4 and 82 of the draft agreement. Article 4 says:
“Where this Agreement provides for the application of Union law in the United Kingdom, it shall produce in respect of and in the United Kingdom the same legal effects as those which it produces within the Union and its Member States”.
Article 82 says:
“The Court of Justice of the European Union shall continue to have jurisdiction for any proceedings brought before it by the United Kingdom or against the United Kingdom before the end of the transition period”.
We will have a lot of debates this afternoon about whether UK Ministers, Scottish Ministers or Welsh Ministers will be exercising powers after exit day, but can the Minister indicate how the United Kingdom Government see the position? If we are going to have to abide by European Union law having the same legal effect as it produces in the Union, is there any room for movement at all? How is effect going to be given to that if, under Clause 1 of the Bill, the European Communities Act 1972 has been repealed?
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I cannot allow the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, to continue with his heresy that the Government are right in what they are doing. I noticed the shock that passed over the face of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. What I think the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, does not appreciate is that the proposal of the Government is to introduce frame- works into this country to save the internal market of the UK, whether or not the devolved Administrations consent. All they are prepared to do, as the noble Baroness the Minister said in response to something earlier, is to consult—they are not necessarily seeking agreement. That is where he has it wrong.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
No, I have it absolutely right. I know that that is precisely what it is. I have said that on previous occasions. But, with respect, it was the couple of speeches that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, made earlier on that moved me in the Government’s direction.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I am obliged for all the contributions at this stage of the debate. I appreciate, as do other Members of the House, that when I move the government amendment to Clause 11, we will embrace a debate about the consequences of that amended clause and the significant change it makes to the way in which we are going to deal with, among other things, devolved competences. But as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, observed, his amendments are consequential in a sense on what is going to happen with regard to Clause 11. In that context, I point out that we had already indicated our intention to move the amendment to Clause 11 and then withdraw it, in order that the consequences for the schedules to the Bill can be addressed more properly when we reach Report. However, there is a more fundamental issue underlying this, which has been highlighted by the use of the terms “consult” and “consent”. It is really rather fundamental. Because these are probing amendments, I will just outline the Government’s thinking with regard to this area of the Bill and how it will work. I am sorry if I am going to appear somewhat repetitive about some matters of history that have been touched upon already, but perhaps your Lordships could bear with me, if but for a moment.
In 1972, the UK Parliament of course transferred certain competences to the EU. Having done so, it limited its competence to legislate for the United Kingdom. When it came to the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 2006, that Brussels competence, as I will term it, had already gone. When it came to considering the scope of the divorce settlement, the matter of the powers held by the European Union in Brussels was not in scope for consideration as part of devolution. They had gone, by virtue of an international treaty implemented in domestic law pursuant to the ECA 1972. The devolved settlement was determined by reference to the competence that remained in Westminster in 1998 and in 2006.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am going to elaborate on what happens to the competences in Europe. I wonder whether the noble Baroness will bear with me just for a moment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
But I wanted to challenge what the Minister just said. The competences were not actually removed from us. We agreed to operate within the framework, but the idea that we actually gave up those competences in the way described would perhaps not be accepted, as such. We agreed that the EU had rights to make laws in certain areas, but that is not the same as saying, “This is no longer our responsibility”.
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect, pursuant to our international treaty obligations, we bound ourselves at the level of international law to allow the EU to exercise competence in areas where previously the UK Parliament would have exercised it. That was then implemented in domestic law by virtue of the 1972 Act. Of course a sovereign Parliament is always able to repeal the 1972 Act, as it is now doing, but so long as it remained in place, and so long as we remained party to the relevant treaty—which became treaties—we were bound in that context. I do not entirely agree with the analysis, but I do not believe it is material for the present purposes, if I may respectfully say so.
Once Brussels had certain competences, it then exercised them. It was important that Brussels should exercise them in one area in particular, which was the development of the EU single market, as no one else could have exercised jurisdiction over a single market in the EU. The idea that 12—now 28—individual jurisdictions could have maintained the single market is self-evidently untenable, so Brussels exercised that jurisdiction, for very good reason. When we leave the EU, we will find ourselves in the position where we want to maintain an internal single market in the United Kingdom; the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, referred to that, while the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said we are looking forward to the internal market in the United Kingdom. We have to bear that in mind. What Parliament is in a position to legislate for a UK single market? The answer to that is the Parliament that has jurisdiction for the whole United Kingdom. I will come on to the issue of devolved competence in a moment, but generally speaking if you are going to maintain a single market you need a legislative power that is able to do that for the single market.
Lest anyone interrupt just yet, I add that of course by their very nature the devolved Administrations, parliaments and assemblies have responsibility for devolved powers in their respective nations. We respect that, of course, but there is an issue here that has not yet been mentioned. We identified, on the basis of analysis that was carried out with the devolved Administrations, that there were some 153 areas of competence where—
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
Before the Minister moves on to the detail of those competences, I want to challenge the analysis that he has given about the comparison between the UK single market and the EU single market. No one would have suggested at any time in the last 26 years that the relationship between the United Kingdom and the EU single market, and the decision-making around the EU single market, would have been such that the decision-making on the EU single market would have been left solely to the European Parliament and the European Commission. It was not. The decision-making around the EU single market was done primarily by the Council of Ministers, and in the Council of Ministers some aspects of that single market were determined by absolute consent, where the UK had a veto, while some areas were determined by qualified majority voting. We cannot replicate that arrangement with one that leaves the sole decision-making power after consultation, without consent, with the UK Parliament and the UK Government in relation to areas where currently the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Northern Ireland Assembly would have legislative competence.
Lord Keen of Elie
I do not entirely agree with the noble Lord’s analysis but for the present purposes I am not sure that it is particularly relevant. What is relevant is this, if I can continue: we have identified about 153 areas in which, upon our leaving the EU, competences will return and touch upon areas of devolved competence. These are areas that the devolved parliaments and assemblies previously had no engagement with because they lay in Brussels, but they are coming back and touching upon these areas of devolved competence and we recognise that.
However, some of these areas of competence are critical to the maintenance of a single market in the United Kingdom, as I will illustrate in a moment. Those therefore had to be addressed. We did that by engaging with the devolved Administrations and assemblies in the context of the Joint Ministerial Committee negotiations. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter: there may be criticisms of that process but I respectfully suggest that that is not for this Bill. It is important to notice the achievements made by that committee in this context. In particular, noble Lords may have received a copy of the communiqué of 16 October 2017 from the Joint Ministerial Committee, which was attended by Mark Drakeford, a Cabinet Secretary in Wales, and Mr Russell, a Minister from the Scottish Government, among others, including senior civil servants from Northern Ireland in the absence of their Executive. I shall quote briefly from it, although some aspects are referred to in some of the proposed amendments:
“Ministers noted the positive progress being made on consideration of common frameworks and agreed the principles that will underpin that work”.
The definition of those principles includes the line:
“A framework will set out a common UK, or GB, approach and how it will be operated and governed”.
Then there is a list of principles:
“Common frameworks will be established where they are necessary in order to … enable the functioning of the UK internal market”—
for example, to,
“ensure compliance with international obligations; ensure the UK can negotiate, enter into and implement new trade agreements and international treaties; enable the management of common resources; administer and provide access to justice in cases with a cross-border element; safeguard the security of the”,
United Kingdom.
Lord Keen of Elie
No, perhaps I can finish this point. I am just trying to explain why in these 24 areas it has been identified as very material that we should retain and then develop frameworks.
Lord Wigley
I just wanted to intervene on this very point about pesticides. The Minister will be aware that the Welsh Government did in fact legislate on the question of genetically modified crops, and it was forecast that the roof would fall in. It did not; it was quite possible to have a different regime in Wales from that in England. As he addresses the rest of the points that have been raised, will he tell us how the regime will be allowed or not allowed to work in the context of agricultural support? Sheep farmers may well want and be entitled to get support from the Welsh Government. The Welsh Government may want to give them that support but, if it is argued that that distorts the UK market, they would not be able to do so. That is the sort of issue that causes concern.
Lord Keen of Elie
As regards agricultural support, that is another subspecies of agriculture. I am dealing with those matters that fall within the 24 identified areas where we find it necessary to retain and operate the single internal market. Not all areas within those 24 competencies are going to have to be retained for the purposes of that market. There are areas which we will devolve.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
The Minister is making a very strong case for how a single market can operate effectively. Does he not believe that the United Kingdom could operate under a frictionless trading or regulatory arrangement with managed divergence across the four nations?
Lord Keen of Elie
That is not what is in contemplation, and that is why I am trying to explain the Government’s thinking with regard to maintaining effectively a single market, not frictionless borders between nations within the United Kingdom, which is a different issue altogether and one that does arise in a different context.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
I will not take this opportunity to contest some of the points that have been made about, for example, fertilisers, although I think there is a debate to be had about the way in which the Government describe that issue. It is not helpful to the heat generated around this debate when the examples the Government give for the need to retain the power imply that decisions that would be made in Scotland or Wales would be stupid. The Government need to think hard about the fact that when they describe the need for these single market frameworks in the UK, they should do so in a positive way in terms of the UK having regulations that work together.
On the substantive point about the frameworks, the issue is not the list of 24, but how they will be agreed and who will have the ultimate decision-making power. It is not about what is or is not on the list. That is a matter for negotiation and determination within the existing settlements. The issue here is who agrees the frameworks, how they are agreed and who ultimately has the power to veto them or otherwise. That is the substantive issue I would ask the Minister to address.
Lord Keen of Elie
I wholly reject the implication that we are suggesting that any of the devolved Administrations are going to proceed to legislate, with any of the competencies returned to them, in a way that would be regarded as stupid or unacceptable. That is a most unfortunate gloss to put on the matter. It is, however, very helpful that the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, has raised the question of how we are going to deal with the issue in this context. The framework agreements have been the subject of ongoing negotiation among all of the Administrations, but in order to achieve that it is necessary to retain competencies in those areas so that there is not the prospect of legislation within the devolved areas which impacts upon areas outwith their competence. To give a simple example in that context, the Scottish Government are entitled to exercise devolved competence and powers within Scotland for the Scottish people, but if we allow all of the additional competencies to go back to the Scottish Government and they legislate in an area such as food labelling, that impacts on the people not only of Scotland but of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is therefore, in a sense, a veto over proposals for the internal market, with one devolved Administration saying, “No, we don’t like your proposals on food labelling. We know everybody else likes them but we’ve decided we don’t like them, we’re not going to consent to them, so you can’t have them.” That is the problem that we want to ensure does not arise.
Coming more particularly to the point that was made about how this is decided, we do ring-fence, as it were, the 24 competencies—or elements of them—that have been identified following the consultation process with the devolved Administrations and which are reflected in the principles that I quoted from the Joint Ministerial Committee on 16 October last year. Then, we have to formulate framework agreements, essentially, in each of these areas for the United Kingdom.
Taking up the noble Lord’s point on how we are going to implement those, we will do so by way of primary legislation. And where do we find ourselves? Back in the relevant devolved legislation, which says that we will not normally legislate in respect of these devolved areas except with the agreement of the relevant devolved Government. So the relevant safeguard is exactly the same as the one that exists at the present time. What we propose will not intrude on the devolved competence in Scotland, Wales or indeed Northern Ireland. It retains 24 areas that are coming back from the European Union in order that we can work out what is required for the purposes of maintaining a single UK market. However, what would alter the devolved competencies quite fundamentally would be a provision that said that we could retain those areas of competence only with the consent of each of the devolved Administrations. That would give them a veto over matters that went beyond their present devolved competence and a veto over matters that impacted on England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland, depending upon who was doing it. That is why we have set out matters in the way that we have. When we come on to the amendment to Clause 11 in due course, I hope that, having essentially flipped Clause 11, we can reflect on the great progress that we have made to date in these areas. It is in that context that I simply invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
We will return to these matters under reference to the government amendments but I wanted to set out, I hope with a reasonable degree of clarity, the Government’s thinking in this area. This is not, with respect, a power grab—on the contrary: if we consult, if we agree and if we achieve this, there is no question of a power grab. It is certainly not a derogation from devolved competence. A great deal of competence will be laid on the devolved Administrations, because so many of these competencies coming back from the EU, and under the amended Clause 11, are going straight to the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I just tempt him? He has given a very clear exposition of the Government’s position and why it is in the interests of the devolved Administrations and the United Kingdom as a whole to proceed in the manner that the Government describe. He has also talked about the great efforts that have been made by the officials and the work that has been done. Why, then, do we have such opposition, in particular from the Scottish Administration?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am not going to rehearse the rhetoric that has been used by some members of the Scottish Government to feed populism. Terms such as “power grab” may have their place, but they do not have a place in the context of our looking at this legislation. Of course, it has been asserted that consultation is not enough—even though it may lead to agreement—and that there has to be consent and only consent. But if it is consent, that is, let us remember, a very material change to the devolved settlements. That will result in the devolved Parliaments and Governments being able effectively to veto matters that impact upon those outwith their area of devolved competence.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
The Minister used a phrase—which is used also either in the Explanatory Note or in a letter, I cannot remember which—about the retention of this for the purpose of the internal market. It might be helpful if that wording appeared on the face of the Bill.
Lord Keen of Elie
I note that comment. The noble Baroness will appreciate that the amendment to Clause 11, which I will move in due course, seeks to ring-fence these powers to ensure that they are limited. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, has also tabled an amendment regarding a sunset clause in that context. It is perfectly clear from the proposed amendment to Clause 11 that they are meant to have a very limited function—but I note what the noble Baroness said and I will take it forward.
Lord Wigley
Does the Minister not realise that the Labour Government in Cardiff feel as strongly as the SNP Government in Scotland about this matter? This is not a matter of party politics; it is a question of where power lies. That is why the term “power grab” has arisen. When he says how outrageous it would be if Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland had a veto, does he not realise that the structure that he is advocating gives England a veto? It gives Westminster a veto; that is what is causing so much trouble.
Lord Keen of Elie
One moment. I am terribly sorry, Archbishop, but I must reply to that. This does not give England a veto. Essentially, England has no voice. This is the United Kingdom Parliament: it legislates for the United Kingdom.
The Archbishop of York
The point I was going to make is exactly the same. As I have listened to the debate, it seems to me that the issue is probably what the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, tried to address. When we leave the EU, the state of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland will still be the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. Therefore, there are areas that are for all four nations and others that are just for one nation. Devolution was a good thing, but it does not mean that powers that affect other nations can simply be devolved. I have listened again and again, and I think the point is that, of all the powers that are coming back, 23 have been identified which, if they were simply handed over without clear legislation, would leave us in a real mess. There would be no coherence, no sense that this would be the United Kingdom; it would be something else. So may I plead with those who come from nations with devolved Governments to realise that, for the benefit of the whole of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, there are some areas that affect all of us together, not separately, and that those need to be retained? Of course there could be negotiations and conversations—but I get a little concerned that the message is not getting through. This is not grabbing power: some areas are returning to the United Kingdom and we must sort out which bits really need to go straight to the devolved Administrations. The 23 areas that we have heard about require very careful consideration; otherwise some might think that leaving the EU equals independence for them.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am not going to indulge in party politics at this stage; I do not think that that is necessary. We all know the ultimate objective of the Scottish National Party. It is not to have a United Kingdom; it is to break up the United Kingdom and have an independent Scotland. Although Scottish nationalists talk about all these powers coming back from the EU, let us remember that they do not want them. If they get them, they want to give them back to Brussels, because they want Scotland, as an independent country, to remain in the EU—and, if it leaves, they want it to join EFTA and the single market. Therefore they will return all the powers they are talking about if they get their ultimate aim.
Lord Morris of Aberavon
The noble and learned Lord has distinguished between “consult” and “consent”, and has described consent as a veto. Does he not accept that over the years the normal use of “consent” by both the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly has been exercised responsibly, and that there is no basis for that fear? How would he define the word “consult”? What does it mean?
Lord Keen of Elie
Consultation has been going on in the Joint Ministerial Committees on a regular basis since October of last year. As regards respecting the constitutional settlement on devolution, I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord—with one qualification. A convention has arisen out of the memorandum of understanding between the Scottish Government and the UK Government about how we ensure that legislation put before the Scottish Parliament is competent. That convention has operated since 1999 and involves an exchange of a note of competence. Prior to a Bill being introduced to the Scottish Parliament, a copy is passed to my office—the Office of the Advocate-General for Scotland. That is always done.
I then confer with the Lord Advocate and his officials—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, will be familiar with this—and we iron out any differences and come to a view on what is competent and what is not, and consequently these matters are resolved. For the first time in nearly 20 years, that convention was departed from by the Scottish Government in respect of their EU Continuity Bill, which I first heard about after it was introduced to the Scottish Parliament. They did, however, give it to the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament in time for him to take legal advice. Therefore, while I accept the generality of the point the noble and learned Lord made, particular exceptions have arisen very recently.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
I was the Minister who negotiated the memorandum of understanding. I think I am the only Minister involved in the negotiation at the time who serves in your Lordships’ House. I agree that the Sewel convention and the arrangements for considering the competence of legislation have worked very well. That concerns the point I made earlier—two debates ago, I think—about the clarity of the legislation and of the memorandum of understanding, which have worked well over many years. I am encouraged by the Minister’s comment that these frameworks would all be subject to the Sewel convention. It would certainly be very helpful for the debate that we are about to have on Clause 11 for the Minister to say that, if these 24 areas are indeed the final 24 areas that are agreed for common frameworks, in each of the 24 areas the establishment of the common frameworks would be subject to the Sewel convention, as I think he hinted at a few minutes ago.
Lord Keen of Elie
In so far as they are carried forward by primary legislation—and I rather anticipate that that will be the case—they would engage not only the Sewel convention but the provisions of DGN 10, the devolved guidance note, because there may be areas where these matters impact on the competence of Scottish Ministers. That is what is anticipated and I have no difficulty with that.
I keep trying to answer a question raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, about what happens with regard to the transition period. Clearly, that will have to be addressed in the context of the withdrawal agreement Bill—and that, as has been indicated before, may result in some amendment to the existing provisions of this exit Bill.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
As I understand what the Minister is saying, ultimately everything has to be settled by primary legislation, so there will be a single market in the United Kingdom that is settled by primary legislation—for which legislative consent will be sought and no doubt given. What we are talking about is an interim period when Ministers take powers to themselves. Over a temporary period they will in effect dictate what the framework agreement will be until there is a final agreement in a number of years—that is what I understand the Minister to say.
Lord Keen of Elie
With great respect, I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has understood what I said. It is not a case of us dictating anything to the devolved Administrations; it is a case of ring-fencing these limited competences until we have reached agreement with the devolved Administrations as to what the framework agreements will be. They will then be put forward for the purpose of legislative consideration in the usual way. But it is not suggested that we are going to start regulating agriculture in Scotland in the meantime—that is not what is comprehended by this at all. I do not know whether I asked this earlier, but will the noble and learned Lord withdraw his amendment so that I can sit down again?
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Before the Minister does, how long will this ring-fence last? I believe the Barnett formula was temporary; how long does the Minister envisage the ring-fence will last before there is a proper legislative framework?
Lord Keen of Elie
It will last until we have managed to implement all of the framework agreement. That will be a finite period—there is no question about that. Indeed, if the noble Lord looks at the proposed amendment to Clause 11, he will see that there are various checks and balances, including the requirement that Ministers report to Parliament if they retain the powers for any longer. So that is already addressed.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, this debate has ranged a good deal wider than was necessary for the Minister to deal with my points on this group of amendments. With respect to him, he has not given me the kind of reassurance that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, gave me on earlier groups. My point is that this very disparate group contains a number of points that I raised with regard to Schedules 2 and 8, which need to be reconsidered in the light of the reformed Clause 11. A simple example is on page 56, where there is a reference to a fetter on the power to,
“make, confirm or approve subordinate legislation”,
which extends to the wording of Section 57(4) of the Scotland Act as in the Bill. However, that section is reworded by the proposed new Clause 11.
Lord Keen of Elie
I just remind the noble and learned Lord that I said that when we come to Clause 11, we will move and withdraw the amendment. We appreciate that although we want Clause 11 in its present form, to put it forward in a form that covers all these matters we will have to address the impact it has on Schedule 2 in these contexts.
Lord Hope of Craighead
I am grateful for that. Not every one of my amendments is a Clause 11 point—there are other points of detail which need to be looked at. If the Minister would be kind enough just to say that these will be looked at, I will be happy to withdraw my amendment. Can he give me that assurance?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am content to indicate that we will look at these points.
Lord Hope of Craighead
On that basis, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw Amendment 274.
Lord Hope of Craighead
“( ) This paragraph does not apply to regulations made under this Part by the Scottish Ministers or by the Welsh Ministers with regard to matters that are within their devolved competence.”
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, this is the last of my little groups of amendments. I will also speak to Amendments 284, 298 and 300 in this group, which all relate to what one finds in Schedule 2. This point goes back to what we discussed a little earlier about the difference between “consent” and “consult”. In the existing provisions in paragraph 16 in Part 2 and paragraph 25 in Part 3, which deal with the power of devolved authorities to make provision,
“for the purpose of preventing or remedying any breach of the WTO Agreement”,
that power may be exercised only with the consent of a Minister. The simple point I make in my amendment is—I am sorry: it is rather important that the Minister hears what I am going to say. I will be happy to wait for a moment, if the noble Lords would like to confer. Would it help? I can wait for a second.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
Please continue. We have said all that we need to say.
Lord Hope of Craighead
Thank you very much.
I want to explain to the Minister that the point is a very simple one about the difference between “consent” and “consult”, which we have already been discussing. I do not need to elaborate on the point that each of these amendments seeks to substitute in a revised formula a consent mechanism in place of the provision in the Bill, which is all about consultation. In a sense it is a probing amendment because I do not see why, for the moment, the existing situation where these things are done with consent should not operate in these contexts too. I moved the amendment so that the Minister can explain the position—I hope quite briefly—so that we can move on to what we are all looking forward to: his amendments on Clause 11. I beg to move.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I will respond briefly, without repeating what I said on the immediately preceding group, but this raises essentially the same issue. On these provisions, the circumstances in which consent applies to the powers—which are the obverse of some of the others—are those where the devolved Ministers could use powers in ways that have implications outside of their devolved jurisdiction, for example when making provision regarding the World Trade Organization obligations. That is why we have framed it in this way, but it raises the wider point made by the noble and learned Lord and I appreciate that that might be addressed in more detail when we come to Clause 11 and the government amendments. I wonder if, in these circumstances, the noble and learned Lord will, at this stage, withdraw his amendments.
Lord Hope of Craighead
I am glad we have not provoked a longer debate on this group of amendments. There is a reason for being concerned about this; the provision I am concerned about deals specifically with something within competence—in other words, it deals with regulations made for the purpose of preventing or remedying any breach of the WTO agreement. It does not deal with the WTO agreement itself; it simply exercises the power given under paragraph 7(2)(b) of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 to deal with these matters domestically. Since it is within competence under the Scotland Act, it is hard to see why the position should be regulated in the way proposed. However, I have listened to what the Minister has said and—on the understanding that we can look at all this again when we get to the revised formula for Clause 11—I am happy to withdraw this amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Ullswater) (Con)
The Question is that the House be now resumed. As many as are of that opinion will say Content.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Not Content. As we are all here, we might as well get on with it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I think I will put the Question again. The Question is that the House be resumed. As many as are of that opinion will say Content.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, perhaps I may explain. An Urgent Question has to be repeated at about 6 pm. Rather than have that at a ridiculously late hour, we will adjourn the House until 6 pm. That will provide an opportunity for noble Lords to get refreshment and then we will be able to deal with the next group in toto and without interruption. I think that is the right way to go about it. I have discussed it around the Chamber, as the noble Lord will know.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My point is that we are all here. We have been taking part in a debate. Everyone who wants to take part in the next group is here and it seems sensible to continue. I do not understand.
Lord Hope of Craighead
The Chief Whip did not discuss the matter with me but I support the position he is taking because it is very obvious that, once we get into Clause 11, we will be discussing it for some considerable time. I would have thought that the sensible thing would be to break now and to come back and deal with it in one go, rather than break up the debate, which we will be forced to do otherwise.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, as a party of one, I do not expect to be consulted on these matters—I realise that there are limitations. However, on Monday night we sat here until after 1 am, and I spoke after 1 am. Earlier we had a break of 20 minutes for food. Why on earth, when there is time available now, can we not carry on with the Bill, certainly if the implications are that we might go on until late again tonight?
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 6 pm.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 21st March 2018
(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 79-IX Ninth marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 218KB) - (19 Mar 2018)
Lord Keen of Elie
“(1) In section 29(2)(d) of the Scotland Act 1998 (no competence for the Scottish Parliament to legislate incompatibly with EU law) for “with EU law” substitute “in breach of the restriction in section 30A(1)”.(2) After section 30 of that Act (legislative competence: supplementary) insert—“30A Legislative competence: restriction relating to retained EU law(1) An Act of the Scottish Parliament cannot modify, or confer power by subordinate legislation to modify, retained EU law so far as the modification is of a description specified in regulations made by a Minister of the Crown.(2) But subsection (1) does not apply to any modification so far as it would, immediately before exit day, have been within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.(3) In addition—(a) a Minister of the Crown must (unless the regulations only relate to a revocation of a specification) consult the Scottish Ministers before laying a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations under this section before either House of Parliament, and(b) see paragraph 6 of Schedule 7 (duty to make explanatory statement about regulations under this section).”(3) In section 108A(2)(e) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (no competence for the National Assembly for Wales to legislate incompatibly with EU law) for “with EU law” substitute “in breach of the restriction in section 109A(1)”.(3A) After section 109 of that Act (legislative competence: supplementary) insert—“109A Legislative competence: restriction relating to retained EU law(1) An Act of the Assembly cannot modify, or confer power by subordinate legislation to modify, retained EU law so far as the modification is of a description specified in regulations made by a Minister of the Crown. (2) But subsection (1) does not apply to any modification so far as it would, immediately before exit day, have been within the Assembly’s legislative competence.(3) In addition—(a) a Minister of the Crown must (unless the regulations only relate to a revocation of a specification) consult the Welsh Ministers before laying a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations under this section before either House of Parliament, and(b) see section 157ZA (duty to make explanatory statement about regulations under this section). (4) No regulations are to be made under this section unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”(3B) In section 6(2)(d) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (no competence for the Northern Ireland Assembly to legislate incompatibly with EU law) for “incompatible with EU law” substitute “in breach of the restriction in section 6A(1)”.(3C) After section 6 of that Act (legislative competence) insert—“6A Restriction relating to retained EU law(1) An Act of the Assembly cannot modify, or confer power by subordinate legislation to modify, retained EU law so far as the modification is of a description specified in regulations made by a Minister of the Crown.(2) But subsection (1) does not apply to any modification so far as it would, immediately before exit day, have been within the legislative competence of the Assembly.(3) In addition—(a) a Minister of the Crown must (unless the regulations only relate to a revocation of a specification) consult the relevant Northern Ireland department before laying a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations under this section before either House of Parliament, and(b) see section 96A (duty to make explanatory statement about regulations under this section).(4) In subsection (3)(a) “relevant Northern Ireland department” means such Northern Ireland department as the Minister concerned considers appropriate.(5) Regulations under this section may include such supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision as the Minister making them considers appropriate.””
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to the other government amendments in this group. We have put forward these amendments to facilitate scrutiny of the Government’s current position on Clause 11. They reflect the status of our discussions with the devolved Administrations, and noble Lords will be aware that our discussions with the Scottish and Welsh Governments are continuing. We remain convinced that this Bill is the right vehicle for providing legal certainty across the UK and that we should reach agreement with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. As such, the Government do not seek a vote on these amendments today and we will withdraw or not move them at the conclusion of the debate, but we will reflect seriously on the points made and incorporate them into our discussions.
The Government have been clear that the Bill is about continuity, certainty and control. That applies equally and without exception to people and businesses across all parts of the United Kingdom. Our approach has always been guided by two principal aims; namely, that we have a fully functioning statute book on exit, and that there are no new barriers to people living and doing business across the United Kingdom. These amendments have been tabled, in line with our commitment made in the other place, to address the concerns raised regarding the current Clause 11. They represent a substantial movement from our original position and reflect the sincerity of our commitment to finding a mutually agreeable position.
We have had lengthy discussions on this issue at official and ministerial level, including at the Joint Ministerial Committee. Noble Lords will well know that the Scottish and Welsh Governments have not yet agreed these amendments, but we will continue to work with them to try to find a way through. I am confident that all parties to this discussion are invested in trying to reach that agreement, as was demonstrated by the constructive tone set at the JMC by the Prime Minister and the First Ministers. This is a crucial piece of legislation in the national interest. It must work for all parts of the United Kingdom and we are sincere in our hope that we will find a way for us all to come together in support of it.
Noble Lords spoke at length at Second Reading and in previous debates of the importance of the “presumption of devolution” and have debated the principle that if there is not a good reason for a matter to be held in common, it should be devolved. That is what these amendments aim to deliver. They would take the existing Clause 11 and effectively turn it on its head. Their effect is that by default on exit day any decision-making powers currently held by the EU in areas that are otherwise devolved would pass directly to our devolved institutions without first being diverted through Westminster. The amendments then give UK Ministers powers to apply targeted and temporary limitations on competence to modify retained EU law, which would in essence have the effect of maintaining existing UK frameworks. We envisage that they will be used in those specific areas where we have identified that a future framework for the United Kingdom may be needed. That would ensure that in those areas the current common approaches established by EU law will continue to apply until we—the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations—can together determine the form that the new bespoke UK framework will take, if one is ultimately required for the benefit of both our communities and our businesses.
I should be clear that the limits that would be applied by these powers are not new limits or constraints. They would merely preserve existing competence in relation to EU law after exit as it stood in relation to EU law immediately prior to exit. Therefore any decision that the devolved institutions could take before exit day will continue to be a decision that they can take after exit day in areas where they have exercised their powers. There is no encroachment into existing devolved areas, and of course in areas where we have not exercised these powers there will be an immediate and significant increase in the decision-making powers of the devolved institutions upon exit. I should also be clear that these limits apply to an area only to the extent it is covered by EU law and not to the entire subject matter. They will not limit competence to make any provision in relation to a subject matter where this does not involve the modification of retained EU law. I urge noble Lords to refer to the Government’s frameworks analysis, published on 9 March, to see the kind of areas where we envisage that the temporary powers may need to be exercised.
Noble Lords will also want to be aware of the additional limits placed on the exercise of these powers. Not only would the powers be subject to the affirmative procedure but the amendments also apply a reporting duty, a duty to consult the devolved Administrations and a duty to produce explanatory statements.
Ministers will be under a duty to report at regular intervals on the steps taken to implement future frameworks; the way in which the framework principles that underpin that work are applied; steps taken to apply or remove restrictions on devolved competence under the powers; the progress towards removing restrictions and repealing those powers altogether once they have served their purpose; and any other information they deem relevant. All this serves to demonstrate that this mechanism is a temporary means to achieve our end state on frameworks.
Before laying an instrument under these powers, UK Ministers will also be required to consult the relevant devolved Administrations and make a statement on the effect of the instrument and any representations made by the devolved Administrations in response to consultation. Further, since these limits are but a temporary means to preserve existing EU frameworks until they are replaced by a UK framework, the amendments also provide a power to repeal the constraining powers so that they will not be retained for longer than is necessary. Ministers would be under a duty to consider periodically whether it is appropriate to repeal the powers. In doing so, they would be required to have regard to the intended temporary nature of these arrangements and to any progress in putting lasting arrangements in place.
Through this, we have sought to emphasise that these powers and restrictions are not to exist in perpetuity or as a permanent feature of the devolution arrangements. Rather, they provide a short-term fix for our longer, more detailed work on the development of long-term future common arrangements. I note in relation to this the amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, which would subject the current Clause 11 and any regulations made under the new Clause 11 power relating to Scottish legislative competence to a sunset limit. I understand why that suggestion has been put forward; we have of course been clear that these are temporary arrangements and I am interested to hear the debate on this point.
I must be clear that the temporary nature of the constraints is not the same as proceeding to a fixed timetable. We need to ensure that these complex matters are given due consideration, and there is a risk that the creation of a sunset merely prolongs the cliff edge.
Lord Beith (LD)
Might noble Lords be referring to the mixed metaphor they have just heard?
Lord Keen of Elie
May I proceed to split an infinitive?
The new arrangements must be achieved in partnership with the devolved Administrations. Crucially, that takes time to work through.
We must proceed with caution in considering any form of sunset which would change the purpose of our discussions from designing and implementing frameworks that are fit for purpose to ones that can be achieved in the time allowed. Our priority must be to continue to provide legal certainty on how these laws will work in that interim, but this could risk uncertainty where the provisions may lift before their replacement is known.
This is a substantial and significant amendment to Clause 11. It reflects the progress that we and the devolved Administrations have made on frameworks and in our discussions on Clause 11. It strikes the right balance, delivering for the devolved Administrations and for businesses and people across the United Kingdom. I am grateful for the consideration that this House will provide on this offer as we continue to refine and consider the policy in coming weeks.
The amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson, Lord Griffiths and Lord Thomas, would amend elements of the amendments that we have put forward. We have heard much on the question of the consent of the devolved institutions for the use of the proposed new Clause 11 powers that would “freeze” existing UK frameworks. As I indicated earlier, I wish to be clear on two fundamental points. The first is that this will be a collaborative process. There is no suggestion or intention that we want to cut our devolved institutions out of these decisions. We have put in place a set of shared principles that the Scottish and Welsh Governments have agreed and which guide our work on frameworks—I referred earlier to the statement following the Joint Ministerial Committee in October last year that sets out those principles in detail. Departments across Administrations are now working together to consider frameworks. Devolved and UK Ministers continue to discuss these matters regularly at Joint Ministerial Committee meetings. The limits on the powers make it clear that the views of the devolved Ministers must be heard and the United Kingdom Government in exercising the power must set out what those views are for Parliament’s consideration. That is not a power grab. As we have heard today, this Parliament will rightly hold us to account on how the Government act on devolution policy. The second point is that we must be clear about the implications and outcomes of this work. These decisions affect every part of the United Kingdom. It is the United Kingdom Government and the United Kingdom Parliament that are responsible for matters that affect the whole of the United Kingdom.
We must therefore be very careful about the impact of a hard-edged legal requirement, not because we do not want the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government and, once restored, the Northern Ireland Executive to be part of these decisions but because it cannot be for an Administration in one devolved nation to exercise what amounts to a veto over something that would be in the interest of the other nations of the United Kingdom as a whole. That is not and never was the purpose of the devolution settlement.
I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay and the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Wigley, for their proposals to bring the United Kingdom Government and devolved Administrations together. These are constructive suggestions for a middle way that deserve serious thought. I am encouraged by the effort being made to reach agreement.
At present, we believe that the JMC will be the right forum for engagement, working under the principles agreed for the work on frameworks in October last year, but I would like to take away the ideas that have been brought to the table here today by way of the further proposed amendments and consider how these matters might be incorporated into our policy thinking, while continuing to meet our two stated objectives on legal certainty and respect for the devolved settlements.
I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern for his amendment, which seeks to find a way forward in the context of Clause 11 and the frameworks. Again, it is an attempt to ensure engagement between all the interested Administrations to achieve consensus at the end of the day. My noble and learned friend’s amendment highlights the importance of clarity as we develop frameworks. As we have discussed during earlier debates, the work on frameworks will have to be a collaborative effort designed to ensure maintenance of a single internal market for the United Kingdom after we leave the EU. Our intention remains to reach agreement with the devolved Administrations. However we approach it, we have that as a goal.
The approach that we have put forward for Clause 11 in these amendments is, I venture, an entirely reasonable proposition. By default, and unless further action is taken, the returning EU powers in the 153 areas identified will become devolved matters. We should perhaps take pause to remind ourselves that these are entirely new powers for the Scottish Parliament and National Assembly for Wales, expanding devolved competence into areas previously held and exercised by the EU and, prior to that, by the United Kingdom Parliament.
We believe that what we propose addresses the points raised by the Scottish and Welsh Governments in their legislative consent memorandums. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that we have moved a considerable way on this, but that we continue to see the importance of providing as much certainty as early as possible for businesses across the UK in order that we can avoid, or indeed manage, divergence between the individual nations of the United Kingdom. While we have not yet reached agreement with the devolved Administrations, discussions will continue and we are extremely keen to maintain our engagement with them. But we consider that it is right that noble Lords have the chance to consider these amendments—the Government committed to that on Report and we brought them forward for consideration by this Committee. I hope noble Lords whose amendments are in this group will feel able to withdraw them at this stage; we, as I indicated earlier, will do similarly with the government amendments at the end of this debate. I beg to move.
Amendment 302B (to Amendment 302A)
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 302B I shall speak also to Amendments 302C and 302G, which seek to amend the government amendments to Clause 11 and Schedule 3.
I recognise and appreciate the tone of the Minister’s speech, as well as the letter that I received this morning from the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth. Clearly a great effort is being made, and we acknowledge that. Perhaps it will not be a surprise that it is my task—and I consider it my task—to look at those areas where we have perhaps not yet reached agreement, but it is significant that efforts are being made. Yet I must make the point, in sorrow rather than in anger, that the way in which the Government have handled the whole issue over months of inactivity from the autumn onwards leaves much to be desired. Indeed it would not be wholly inappropriate to describe it as lamentable. There was a lot of time lost there.
There is no doubt that we agree on the two main points—indeed, my own interventions earlier in these debates said so very explicitly. We know that a Bill must be enacted and that we must avoid chaos in our legal system. On day one, things must work. As the leader of my party has said more than once, we are totally committed to achieving that. The Welsh and Scottish Governments made it clear as long ago as the White Paper on what was then known as the great repeal Bill that they could not and would not give consent to the approach embodied in the original Clause 11: an emasculation of the devolution settlements by upsetting the balance of the distribution of powers between the UK and the devolved institutions.
There are some in this Committee who will attribute any criticism of the way things have proceeded to a narrow, political sectarianism on the part of an SNP Government in Scotland and a Labour Government in Wales. In my view, such opinions will be more likely to emanate from the narrow, political sectarianism of those who give voice to them, for the repeated expressions of good will from the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales, working together for a satisfactory outcome to these questions, are entirely in line with a whole host of opinions coming from highly respected sources of a totally objective nature. I handpicked just a few for illustrative purposes in an earlier contribution, but I list them again now: our own Select Committee on the Constitution, the Bar Council, the Delegated Powers Committee, the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, and the list could go on. Add to that the eloquent contributions from, among others in an earlier debate, the noble and learned Lords, Lord Morris of Aberavon, Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Hope of Craighead, and it should be clear that we can state with confidence that the case being made has widespread and expert backing. But the Government for months stuck their head in the sand and just ignored the growing chorus of voices that has echoed this concern. Indeed, as we have noted insistently and repeatedly, despite the Secretary of State for Scotland giving an assurance in Committee in the other place that an agreed amendment to Clause 11 would be put forward on Report there, far from realising that modest objective, discussions on the matter with the devolved Administrations did not begin until the new year. Now, after all this time, we are presented with an amendment, or set of amendments, that has still not been agreed by the devolved Administrations.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, a nice, approachable man who serves a decent cup of coffee, has proved himself a master of spin. He has told the whole world about the great success he has had in bringing the peoples of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland out of their wandering times in the desert to the very edge of the Promised Land. Perhaps I should remind him that the leader in those wandering days died before he could enter the land flowing with milk and honey. There is still a distance to travel, for Mr Lidington’s skilful PR onslaught fails to address the fundamental issue at stake—the issue of consent, which was referred to in the speech we have just heard from the Minister, and which our amendments seek to underline.
Even if amended as now proposed by the Government, Clause 11 would give Ministers of the Crown very wide, unilateral powers to use regulations to place new constraints on the legislative competence of the devolved legislatures. The claims of the Government that this would entail no restrictions on the scope of the legislatures to act that are not now in place ignore the fact that the current EU law restriction falls away on exit day, as does the constraint on our own freedom to pass laws in contradiction of EU law. Let there be no doubt: Clause 11 allows for the imposition of new restrictions, ones that will, if the Government have their way, be controlled and policed by Whitehall. We have heard plenty of discussion of the possibility of this in earlier debates. This is a very different constraint to the one that currently applies to the whole of the UK to respect EU legal frameworks painfully negotiated by 28 member states, with a clear role for the devolved Administrations in developing the UK negotiating position.
The amendments as drafted do not even contain the safeguards that the Government would have us believe. While they say that the restriction will apply to areas where future UK frameworks would apply, and have tried to throw sand in our eyes by simultaneously publishing a list of such potential framework areas, the regulation-making power they seek is not circumscribed in this way. In theory at least, Ministers could simply specify all of those areas of retained EU law that would otherwise be in devolved competence. Of course, I would hope that our House, presented with the requirement for an affirmative resolution to support such regulations, would refuse. But can it possibly be right that it is only Parliament that would have any input into this decision, not the legislatures whose rights would be circumscribed? I mean, it is only the Executive that would have Ministers, not the legislatures. The only requirement in respect of the devolved institutions is one to consult the devolved Administrations.
What the Government have brought forward at this late stage is far too weak.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I am following the noble Lord’s argument very carefully. Will he explain why he is content with the position under the current arrangements by which these matters are determined at European level? The Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament do not have a veto and their consent is not required for Ministers’ negotiating positions in the Council of Ministers, which, after all, can respond only to regulations or proposals brought forward by an unelected Commission.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port
While I will have a word to say in a moment about the use of the word veto, I will not claim to know the detail relating to the Council of Europe, to which reference has been made.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port
I beg your pardon. I think the mistake is evidence of the fact that I am not qualified to answer that particular part of the noble Lord’s question.
Lord Hain (Lab)
With due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, not for the first time he is wrong about this. Welsh Ministers, for example, and Scottish Ministers often attend the Council of Ministers with the permission of our own UK Government to make sure that their voice is heard. It has been done on a collaborative basis and is nothing to do with his anti-Europeanism: it is actually about how devolution has worked.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port
I am delighted to receive that help from behind me, and also to hear from alongside me that, when my noble friend used to attend such meetings, he did not feel part of the furniture or not very welcome. Perhaps that in some way goes towards an answer.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
What the noble Lord, Lord Hain, is saying is perfectly correct. My question to him was why they were content with a system where people were consulted and involved but which did not require their consent as to the United Kingdom’s position, which is exactly what is being proposed here.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port
I thank the noble Lord. I have long since learned that perfection is not my strongest suit. I remember once asking everybody in a congregation of mine if anybody was perfect and a man at the back put his hand up. I did not believe him, and he said, “No, it’s not me; I am speaking proxy for my wife’s first husband”.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Perhaps I could help the noble Lord. In the circumstances my noble friend Lord Forsyth expresses, consent is given when the devolved legislature applies the directive and implements it there.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. Because I am where I am, I am equally certain that the points being raised will be addressed later in this debate.
What the Government have brought forward at this late stage is too weak. If the purpose is, as the Government claim, simply to give breathing space to negotiate new UK frameworks, which is fair enough, where it is agreed by the devolved Administrations that these are necessary—that is an important part of it—then we should be sure that the devolved legislatures agree that these are indeed the policy areas where restrictions are needed. It does not seem to be very difficult to come to these conclusions. Indeed, there has been no attempt to engage with the proposals put forward by the Welsh Government in their policy paper Brexit and Devolution some nine months ago, arguing for a system which would address precisely this issue. Perhaps the Minister could explain this egregious omission.
Over the last week, I have come across an intriguing poem by Waldo Williams, one of the dominant Welsh writers of the last century. He asks a series of questions and gives succinct, almost gnomic answers to them. As I conclude my remarks, I cannot forbear from quoting one couplet in Welsh, in order to forestall an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—though he might surprise me yet again. I will quote it with a translation by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Williams of Oystermouth—I do not want to frighten the Hansard horses. Just listen:
“Beth yw trefnu teyrnas? Crefft
sydd eto’n cropian”.
That is:
“What is it to govern kingdoms? A skill
still crawling on all fours”.
We must urge the Government to stand up, to withdraw their amendments and to go back to the discussions with the devolved Administrations before returning with an approach which gives an appropriate role to the devolved legislatures to agree the areas—indeed, perhaps to go further and to put a list of frameworks into a schedule to the Bill—in which new restrictions on their legislative competence will operate. This may well turn out to be a test of whether the Government have the competence to lead us out of the mess they have so tidily put us in. I wish to move the amendments.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 318A is in this group. As your Lordships know, I am a lawyer, but I have already got limited support from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who has repeatedly explained that he does not suffer from this disadvantage—I will do my best to take him along with me.
As I have indicated, I was first introduced to this matter in a discussion with a very distinguished SNP Member in the other place, when we were travelling together from the north. I mentioned to him that I had had no briefing of any sort from the Scottish Government. The next day I got a message from the Scottish Government to say that the Lord Advocate and Mr Russell, the Minister, were very willing to speak to me. I was able to speak to the Lord Advocate that afternoon and to Mr Russell in the early afternoon that Wednesday. I was very emphatically assured by Mr Russell that the Scottish Government were keen to reach an agreement. I am quite satisfied that there is no indication in the attitude of the Scottish Government that this is an attempt to further their ultimate political aim, and that they are seeking to solve this matter in a way that accords with the dignity of the Scottish Government. I said that I did not want to do or say anything that would impede agreement, and I now hope to show how agreement can be reached.
Before I explain the amendment, I will say a word or two about the law that lies behind it—I will take Scotland as an example, as the other Administrations have similar provisions. The devolution settlement in the Scotland Act is subject to EU law. That considerably restricts what the Scottish Administration can do at present, but when Brexit comes along that limitation will disappear. Included in those limitations are the legislative powers of Brussels to legislate in the United Kingdom. From one point of view, it is wise to analyse these powers in this way: a power that can be made effective within a single area of legislative competence in the United Kingdom should go straight to that level—in other words, to the devolved Administration. That is, if the power does not require more than one of our legislative areas in order to be effective, it should go straight to the devolved Administration.
But there are EU powers which can be effective only when they cover more than one of our legislative areas. The one that is of most relevance in this connection is that which provides for the single market. As your Lordships know, and as the Scottish Government certainly know, the single market is quite an important feature of the present negotiations. Part of that single market is the single market in the United Kingdom. It is 100% obvious that, if you are going to legislate for the single market in the United Kingdom, it is legislation that affects all of the countries within the United Kingdom and the legislatures that support them. Therefore, it is absolutely plain that the ultimate power to settle the single market provisions lies with the United Kingdom Parliament.
But—and this is an important consideration—it is extremely wise to proceed by agreement where it is at all possible. A good deal of agreement has already been reached. As I said, I was assured by Mr Russell when I first spoke to him—and again when he later saw my amendment, which he welcomed subject to qualifications such as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, will propose—that the Scottish Government are very anxious to reach agreement.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am very interested in this concept, which my noble and learned friend is putting forward, that powers which affect the single market that is the United Kingdom should be taken at a United Kingdom level. Does he see that operating both ways? For example, the Scottish Parliament has the power to set unit pricing for alcohol, which of course affects the single market that is the United Kingdom. Does the proposition that powers which affect the single market should be taken at the UK level mean that, as well as the powers which will come from the European Union when we leave it, powers might also be returned to Westminster from the Scottish Parliament? He might find that Mr Russell is less enthusiastic about that.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I am not suggesting that for a minute. I am suggesting that what is required is a single market which is the necessary concomitant of having cross-border trade. I do not think that the price of alcohol in Scotland would necessarily affect that. It might be wise for me, if I wanted to buy alcohol, to do it when I was here rather than in Scotland. I may say at once that I am not particularly keen to do that either. That is not an example of the need for there to be no obstacle at the border, because if I have to pay for the whisky in Scotland, I can take it with me, subject to not coming on an aeroplane, I suppose. It is a matter of what is required.
It is realised by various people who were at the meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee that framework agreements will be required in certain areas. That is because, for the single market in the UK to be effective, there must be agreement across the legislative areas. It follows, as night follows day, that the legislative vehicle for dealing with a market which is across the whole of the UK is a vehicle which has jurisdiction over the whole of the UK. It cannot be otherwise. That seems to be common sense and you do not need to be a lawyer to think that.
My next point is the “but” I was coming to before I was helped by my noble friend. I stress that it is highly desirable, when you are seeking to get a single market, to get the agreement of the components. They have different interests, but there is a very strong pressure to secure a single market. I am sure the Scottish traders do not wish to have something at Berwick-upon-Tweed which requires them to pay out money to English customs. It is absolutely clear that there is a very good pressure to reach agreement. As I say, I am assured by the White Paper that the Welsh Government put forward some considerable time ago, which was referred to earlier. I say in passing that that paper addresses itself to wider constitutional issues about future government in the United Kingdom and how it is not working very well and what-not. But I need something that will work now for the very limited purpose of getting the single market arrangements secure before Brexit comes into effect.
I have suggested in my amendment that there should be set up a group which consists of representatives of all four countries. I think it is wise to specify who they are. I have also specified, to try to reach agreement, that the chairman of the group should be decided on by the group. The Lord Advocate mentioned to me that one of the features of the present committee is that it is always a UK Minister who presides. There will be a certain amount of interest in the skill of the chairman in reaching agreement. It is often quite an important position—I have not been chairman of many committees that have not reached agreement—and it is an important aspect of the matter. I have therefore suggested that.
Of course, the details of this are very much matters for your Lordships to consider, but that is the ultimate thing: that the group should look at all these questions. If, as I am assured, they are very keen to reach agreement, I have no doubt whatever that there is a very high prospect that they will reach agreement—I emphasise that—when you consider that new rules must come into operation at the point of Brexit or the end of the implementation period, whichever is the later, and that if there was failure to reach agreement it would require the action of the United Kingdom Parliament. I am prepared to limit the amount of time for that to three months to emphasise my confidence that agreement will be reached and that therefore a formal legislative enactment in the United Kingdom with full consent from all four members of the committee would be the result.
This is a simple way of dealing with the matter, which is dealt with in a rather complicated way by the government amendment. The government amendment appears to inject powers into areas which may be devolved in fact. Mine makes it absolutely clear that the devolved powers are to be immediately made available to the Governments of the devolved legislatures; it is only the single market power that I consider needs to be reserved.
My very good supporter, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has suggested in his amendment that there should be some extraordinary—I do not mean that in a pejorative sense—tribunal to decide when there is disagreement. I certainly hope that there will not be disagreement, but I have provided that if there is disagreement the group itself must specify what that disagreement is, to make the issue for the United Kingdom Parliament as small and definite as possible. In my analysis, the single market is within the legislative competence of the UK Parliament. All the four countries are represented there. I remember that the Scottish party that got many seats in the 2015 election said that one of the purposes was to provide a strong voice for Scotland in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. I have no doubt there is a pretty strong voice for that purpose. Having all four countries represented is as good as any kind of remarkable thing with Speakers. I am not sure if my noble supporter has asked the Speakers whether they want to take this on, but I think that is not in their competence. That is a job for the legislative assembly of the United Kingdom which is set up under our constitution and which I believe would reach a very good agreement on this point, if it had to. In the meantime, I sincerely hope it will not be necessary for it to do anything except legislate with a form agreed by the four constituents.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I tabled Amendment 318AA as an amendment to the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. I did so with due deference and with considerable temerity to be trampling on the legal pastures in which he has such expertise and I am a layman. None the less, I confirm that I have had conversations not only with Mr Mike Russell, to whom the noble and learned Lord referred, but with people from the Welsh Government—and, as he raised the question with me, yes, I have discussed it with the Presiding Officer of the National Assembly, Elin Jones, who sees no difficulty at all with such a mechanism.
With that prelude, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, for tabling Amendment 318A, which he did following the earlier debates in Committee. Those debates pointed to a crying need for a sensible mechanism to be found for dealing with the vexed issue of securing agreement between Westminster and the devolved legislatures regarding those matters which the UK Government feel must be handled on a UK level, even though they deal with areas that may be of devolved competence.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Will the noble Lord allow me to remind him that the Scottish Parliament had great difficulty in passing that legislation, because it was contrary to the European Commission’s views on the single market?
Lord Wigley
I have no doubt it had difficulty in passing it. None the less, the objective was a very valid one—to address the problems perceived in Scotland with regard to the level of alcohol consumption et cetera. The proposal was supported by many people in the social sector who wanted to see that sort of change. This is arguable, but the point is that you can have different tax regimes within a single market, as you have within the European single market. You can within the UK single market.
Lord Wigley
Not only do I agree with my noble friend but I will surprise the Committee by reminding him that Penderyn whisky was in fact formulated as a result of devolution itself. It was on the evening of the setting-up of the National Assembly that people came together and thought, “Now we have to start doing something to help ourselves in Wales. What shall we do?” They concluded that a whisky would be one way forward. As they say, the rest is history—a very enjoyable and successful history. I thank my noble friend for reminding me of that.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, correctly said that the European Commission objected. But in fact the Court of Justice of the European Union found that the Scottish Government’s proposals were actually consistent with the rules of the single market, principally because the minimum unit price was based on health reasons.
Lord Wigley
Indeed—which shows the importance of the health and social agenda that underpinned the initiative.
Lord Grabiner (CB)
The amendment includes the proposition that if the panel “consider it necessary”, they may refer the matter to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. I am not aware that there is any mechanism that could possibly enable that to happen. Moreover, even if it were possible, I suspect that the court would not be very grateful to receive what essentially would be a highly political rather than a purely legal question. If I may respectfully say so, it is rather an unrealistic proposal.
Lord Wigley
I note what the noble Lord says. All I would say in response is that, in the context of a single market such as the European single market, it has been necessary and sometimes highly useful to have the legal mechanism there in order to resolve difficulties that have arisen—as we heard from the noble and learned Lord a moment ago. My amendment is a constructive attempt to ensure that the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is acceptable to the devolved legislatures, which I believe it can be. I believe that it needs to be tweaked, if not by this wording then along these lines.
The core of the argument that the noble and learned Lord is putting forward in his amendment is very important indeed—and I think there is a similar amendment coming forward from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. The fact that these amendments are coming forward from different sides of the House is in response to the need to resolve this issue. We cannot have this going on and on in the way that it has. It has gone on for far too long now. There needs to be a resolution that is recognised and accepted by all sides and seen to be even-handed. I believe that there is, as he himself has indicated unofficially, a feeling in both Cardiff and Edinburgh that, if the amendment could be incorporated, along with my proposed addition or something along those lines, it could be seen as breaking the logjam. For that compelling reason, I invite the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, to accept Amendment 318AA, and then for the Committee to accept his amendment.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 318B, 318C, 318D and 318E, which, it does not take a lot of working out, follow on from Amendments 318 and 318A. In fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, it is interesting that what I suggest in three of those amendments in many ways corresponds exactly with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, suggested—as amended by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. Yet we came to the conclusion separately. We may have been inspired by the same people, the same thinking and the same ideas, but we came to draft them separately, which is interesting.
It is also really helpful that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has said quite clearly that the Government are willing to look at these amendments and at some way of getting out of the impasse in which they find themselves. That is a really helpful way forward. However, the Government are the architects of their own misfortune. As my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port said, the Joint Ministerial Committee should have met more frequently and earlier. We were sent just the other day details of the fifth ministerial committee—on 16 October. It is extraordinary that we had only four ministerial committees dealing with this issue before then. It really is a dereliction of duty by the Government, which I think comes from the fact that, within Whitehall—as I found when I was a Minister—there is no understanding about devolution and what it involves. The Minister responsible was perhaps Oliver Letwin or Chris Grayling, so you can understand why they did not understand—but what worries me is that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has been the Advocate-General for some time, and he should have alerted the people around Whitehall and others to this problem a lot earlier. Indeed, the Secretary of State, David Mundell, who I will concede is a very nice man—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
In spite of being a Tory; that is right. He has been constrained by Whitehall in getting decisions. I remember well sending notes around every Whitehall department to try to get some agreement. It is very difficult. However, I would have hoped he would have flexed his muscles a little earlier.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, the noble Lord is clearly very expert on this process and when these meetings were held. Could he tell us how many of those meetings were cancelled by the Scottish Government?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I have no idea; maybe the Government can help. What I can tell the noble Lord is that when I was Minister of State for Scotland we had a number of meetings. As my noble friend Lord McConnell can confirm, there were a lot of bilateral meetings between the Scotland Office and Ministers in the Scottish Government. That is the kind of thing that should have been happening but has not been.
I am not known for praising the Government, as Members who have heard me from time to time, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, know only too well. However, we should acknowledge— I say this as a strong devolutionist and a former MSP who really believes in devolution and argued for it for years, long before other people in Scotland were arguing the case—that the UK Government have moved on this. We have to concede that, under pressure and looking at the argument, they have moved.
We also have to be realistic. I say this to some of my Labour colleagues from England and, with respect, from Wales: the SNP has a clear agenda. It is concerned with only one thing, and we have to remember that. If it sees that it is to its advantage to concede then it will, and it may be able to make it to its advantage, but let us not be naive about what the SNP is up to—and let us hope that Welsh Labour is not naive about that either.
There is an advantage in the UK single market having the same kind of regulations on some of these issues, some of which the Minister has mentioned, and we ought to recognise that. We have an institutional and constitutional problem in the UK in that our devolution is asymmetrical. I have said on a number of occasions that this creates problems in a range of areas, and we can see that it does here. This Parliament has to speak for England as well as the UK and that creates structural, philosophical and other problems. Some of us believe in a federal UK—the Liberal Democrats certainly do, as do a number of Labour people such as myself—and in the longer term I hope we will deal with that. In the meantime, though, we have to recognise that it is a dilemma for the Government to be able to look after the interests of England. The Minister pointed out, and this is something that we have to take account of, that decisions made by the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly can have an impact on England. We have to accept that and look after the interests of England as well as the whole of the UK. The Minister has said there is an advantage in a number of aspects being uniform throughout the whole of the UK, and I concede that. I was going to mention some more examples but I am conscious of the time.
I turn to the amendments. Serious thought needs to be given to the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and I have tabled. We need some form of mediation and that is what we are suggesting in these amendments—certainly in my first three. I am suggesting something similar to what is suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay: a ministerial council that would deal with that. Then, as a fallback if it could not come to an agreement, I have suggested an advisory panel, and have suggested that it should be the Speakers and the Presiding Officers who would set it up so we would get to a very similar conclusion. Some Members opposite will be pleased to hear that I do not refer to the Supreme Court.
For once, I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I suggest in Amendment 318E that there should be a sunset clause. He and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, have suggested two years and I have suggested five, and that is open for debate, but it would be very good to have such a clause so that all sides would know that it had to be resolved by a particular time.
I hope, and I think the Minister indicated this at the start, that the Government consider these to be positive suggestions. If I can recognise that the Government have moved after all the awful things I have said about them over the last few days, months and years, I hope others will recognise that as well and give them at least just a little credit.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 302BA, 312 and 318 in my name, but I shall start by speaking more to the generality by responding to the government amendments moved by the Minister. It is fair to acknowledge that much has happened since Second Reading when I and many others criticised the architecture of the original Clause 11, not least because it showed scant regard for the spirit and structure of the original devolution settlement. It had a system of conferred powers that was totally alien to how devolution had performed and been structured until this point.
However, I give credit to the Government for tabling these amendments. They have thought to recast Clause 11 and the related schedules, and I think it was acknowledged earlier that there is more work to be done. When you get legislation like this and new situations arise, it is amazing how new words come into the vocabulary. The Government have claimed that most of the powers at the so-called intersects will go directly to Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast on exit day, subject only to relatively few remaining—they emphasise that this will be temporary, though I shall return to that—to secure the UK single market until such time as that framework is put in place.
As has been acknowledged, that is a welcome step. It shows a lot of progress and, I think, a lot of good will towards seeking an agreement. However, it has clearly not yet been sufficient to allow the Scottish and Welsh Governments to recommend the Legislative Consent Motions to their respective Parliament and Assembly. Indeed, the letter from the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales to the Lord Speaker that was circulated to all Members of your Lordships’ House says:
“In being asked to give legislative consent to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill on this basis”—
that is, on the basis of the new amendments—
“the devolved legislatures would be being asked to agree to the creation of this power with no certainty about where frameworks will be established, how these will work, how they will be governed and how we will go from temporary restrictions to longer term solutions”.
It is also arguable that the amendments do not do precisely what the Government claim they are seeking to do. The Government have said—indeed, the Minister has said today—that the intention is that the vast majority of powers identified at the intersects will go directly to the devolved institutions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, rightly said that that is the proper thing to do. However, if one looks at the amendments before us, while much has been said about a figure of 24, one sees that there is nothing in the Bill that restricts it to 24. Technically, and I think this was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, all 158 could be subject to this freeze and this restriction. They could all be subject to regulations made under the powers in the revised Clause 11 and there would be no provision for consent from the Scottish or Welsh Ministers, let alone from the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly.
It would help considerably if, in the body of legislation, it was made clear in some way which powers would go directly, or if there was a schedule concerning which powers would be the subject of framework agreements. I do not doubt for one minute that there will be some negotiation about what should be in frameworks and what should or should not be a UK framework. That is perfectly proper for negotiation. I welcome what the Minister said earlier: agriculture is set out as a broad heading but he accepts that agriculture has to be subdivided and not all aspects of it would be the subject of frameworks. Indeed, it is worth noting that NFU Scotland identifies in a briefing paper animal welfare and traceability, public health, pesticides, regulation and food labelling as examples of overarching areas of regulation that would be best suited to being managed on a commonly agreed framework basis. There is lots of scope for talking to stakeholders about what the framework should be, but it would be very helpful if that could be in the Bill.
I do not underestimate for one moment that there will be work to do, but we should perhaps reflect that it will be at least four weeks until we come to deal with these issues on Report. It is worth reminding ourselves that the House of Commons Select Committee on Scottish Affairs recommended back in November that there should be clarity on this before the Bill reached Third Reading in the House of Commons. I do not take away from the work that has been done by officials, but if there is a will to get there, I am sure it could be done.
One other reflection on this point is that earlier today, in response to an intervention from me, the noble and learned Lord said that, given that we are now to have a transition period, we will have to accommodate that transition period in future legislation, a withdrawal and implementation Bill, so we may not need these frameworks until 31 December 2020 or 1 January 2021, which provides further time to sort out what should be in later legislation. But I would rather strike while the iron is hot and seek what can be done in this Bill.
It has also been said that these measures are temporary. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster went out of his way to emphasise that in the letter that he sent to all Peers. The Government have, to their credit, included several extra provisions to buttress their position that they should be temporary by reporting requirements, and these are all welcome, but, unlike some other parts of the Bill, there is no sunset clause. That is why, in Amendment 312, which was tabled before the new amendments, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and I recommended that there should be a sunset on the whole power after two years and, in Amendment 302BA, I suggest that any regulations brought forward under the new powers should themselves lapse after two years. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, said that it should be five years. We could have a debate about that but, again, the principle is trying to build confidence to get an agreement between the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the UK Government, and to have a sunset clause would go a considerable way to help that.
As we have heard in the previous three contributions, there could be dispute about the frameworks. Our Amendment 318 would put the Joint Ministerial Committee on European negotiations on a statutory footing. In October 2016, to much fanfare, we were told that this new committee had been set up,
“to ensure that the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom are protected and advanced, and to develop a UK approach and objectives for the forthcoming negotiations”.
That has probably been more honoured in the breach than it has in practice. We know that in recent weeks there have been more concerted efforts in the committee to try to gain agreement on what we are discussing tonight, but there might be a lot of advantage in putting it on a statutory basis so that there could not be any backsliding on when it meets, as has happened before.
I welcome the initiative taken by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and the amendments proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, because they constructively try to address how we resolve some of the difficulties. There clearly are difficulties and differences, and we must try to start thinking outside the box and creatively. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, picks up very well one difficulty: the United Kingdom Parliament is also the Parliament for England—England does not have a separate legislature, as Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland do.
I was reminded of my colleague Mr Ross Finnie, Minister for the Environment and Rural Development in the first Scottish Administration. His experience of meeting counterparts from Wales, Northern Ireland and Defra was that some Secretaries of State saw their role as to be the UK chair of the meetings, with the English Minister of State arguing England’s case, whereas other Secretaries of State could not see the difference between an English position and a UK position. He said that, clearly, they made far more progress when they had a Secretary of State who saw him or herself as holding the ring as the UK Minister with an English Minister of State arguing the English position.
We must recognise that, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said, it is asymmetrical.
Lord Dykes (CB)
I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. He referred to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who said in his speech that he hoped that one day there would be a federal constitution and, I think, implied that the noble and learned Lord supports the same idea. There are other Members, including Cross-Benchers, who feel that that is a very good idea.
The tragedy is that with the constant muddle we have, with our inability to have other than fairly chaotic governance for various reasons, including the lack of a written constitution—which most people would not agree with, of course, but I think is a growing field of thought—how does one get that without first having a constitutional convention to launch it, and how on earth would you get agreement on a constitutional convention in Britain?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
There are lots of questions there from the noble Lord, Lord Dykes. First, as a member of a party that has supported some form of federal United Kingdom since the days of Asquith, I have no difficulty in saying that I believe in federalism. Equally, I do not diminish the difficulties and challenges in getting there. I rather suspect that, with what we have at the moment, we do not have time for a constitutional convention. That is why, as with so many other aspects of our constitution, we must move incrementally.
A lot of this has hinged on consent. Interestingly, the report from your Lordships’ European Union Committee on Brexit and devolution states:
“Any durable solution will need the consent of all the nations of the United Kingdom, and of their elected representatives … A successful settlement cannot be imposed by the UK Government: it must be developed in partnership with the devolved Governments”.
The Scottish Affairs Committee also referred to the fact that it would require the consent of the devolved Administrations.
On the issue of legislative consent Motions, as the noble and learned Lord the Advocate-General for Scotland knows, there is concern that frozen areas of EU retained law might well be seen to be beyond the legislative or executive competence of the devolved institutions, and therefore no legislative consent Motion would be required, at least under the enunciation formulated by Lord Sewel in the Scotland Act. I accept that devolution guidance note 10 could kick in. I think that the Minister said something to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, in a previous debate, but it would be very helpful if he could clarify that, in the event of subsequent primary legislation in pursuance of the common UK framework, legislative consent Motions would indeed be expected.
Finally, we are moving into uncharted waters. Arguably, if we had not been in the European Union in 1998, the Scotland Act would have been constructed differently. The single market of the United Kingdom, which I certainly value and numerous other Members of your Lordships’ House have said they value, has been maintained since 1999 by the single market of the European Union. We are now into new territory with, for example, trade agreements. Negotiating international agreements is a function of the United Kingdom Government, but the detail of these trade agreements could well impact on devolved competences. How will that be accommodated? Canada, for example, when it negotiated its agreement with the European Union, had representatives of the provinces and territories in the room at the table during those negotiations. It would be very welcome if the Government were to make a similar commitment. That, again, would be a confidence-building measure.
At a later date, we will no doubt have to consider how frameworks operate when we have them. I welcome the suggestion of the Welsh Government of a council of UK Ministers with qualified majority voting to operate the frameworks. That would take us much further down the road towards federalism. In the meantime, the challenge is to find workable arrangements in the interim.
We do not really have a concept of shared competence. Perhaps that is something that we should work up. It was something which we discussed in the Calman commission back in 2008-09. It did not have much traction then, but we are in a new situation.
There is also the question of consent and trust. It has been said that constitutional propriety does not really allow for anything like consent. Those of us who argue for a written constitution are often told of the benefits of having a flexible, unwritten constitution. We are in a new situation. The Government responded to the campaign for English votes for English laws by bringing out a new device which, arguably, undermined the sovereignty of Parliament, because the House of Commons and the House of Lords can vote for an amendment, but if English MPs, a subset of one House of Parliament, say no, it does not become law. That is a move away from the sovereignty of Parliament.
Those who were in the Chamber earlier today heard my noble friend Lord Alderdice talk about the Good Friday agreement. He talked about the need to be adventurous and creative and suggested that if that process had involved some of what we have been hearing in the EU debate—people not willing even to entertain the idea of any differences or of how you work with sovereignty—we would never have had the Good Friday agreement. I would encourage the Government to be adventurous and creative; to be willing to think outside the box; to be willing to compromise; and to be willing to seek pragmatic solutions, even at the expense of 100% constitutional purity. What we are discussing, at the end of the day, is not about institutions. It is about people, businesses and the certainty they want in the law and their rights when we move out of the European Union. We should keep that firmly in our minds. In that spirit, I hope that the Government can come to successful negotiation with the devolved Administrations and that, by the time we come to Report, we can have amendments that we can all support.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I have been very critical of the way that both the Government and the Scottish Government have conducted these discussions over the past 12 months, but I want to start by being very positive in your Lordships’ House this evening. I think the Government have moved considerably; I think the reversal of the principle behind the new clause is very welcome indeed; and I think it is now very likely that we are close to an agreement on the different categories of responsibility and competence in the different sections. I very much welcome the assurances from the Minister in the earlier debate that legislative consent Motions will be required for any primary legislation that would enact these new frameworks. I also welcome the tone of the debate tonight and the fact that the Minister is welcoming the different amendments that have been put forward and the ideas that have been suggested and is willing to look at them with his team over the coming weeks, before we get to the stage of having to vote on any specific proposals.
However, I want to make one specific point, in the interests of brevity and concentrating on what I think is most important here this evening. The way in which these frameworks are established is perhaps critical to getting the agreement to the stage of the frameworks in the first place. Whatever opinions each of us might have about the taking back of control to the UK from the European Union, in that exercise of taking back control to the UK I think the Government could be much more ambitious in setting out a new way of working inside the United Kingdom. Frankly, the joint ministerial committees have never worked, from the very first year. They were chaired by UK Ministers; they were sometimes consultation exercises; they were more often a brief, cursory discussion around a table. They were very occasionally brought together to reach agreement on a specific item, but those agreements were always much better reached in other forums or bilaterally. Tony Blair and I both tried to get rid of them. We did not succeed, but I wish that we had.
The Government need to think way beyond the joint ministerial committees. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, has started to point us in the right direction for a way in which we can build a new relationship among the four Governments. What we need to look at is not a joint ministerial committee but a new form of ministerial council within the United Kingdom that might perhaps have a rotating chair, rather than being chaired by the UK Secretary of State, and that would have some sort of procedure for resolving disputes. It obviously could not use qualified majority voting, and it might or might not have a veto, but at least each case would be agreed properly among the different sets of Governments. If the Government could do some radical thinking on this over the next few weeks, before we get to the stage of finally voting on this Bill and agreeing the way ahead on frameworks, then I think they would be on much firmer ground to get agreement on the individual competencies and then to get consent. Although not necessarily required legally or constitutionally, it would be better for the United Kingdom if consent is acquired for this Bill and for the subsequent actions that will take us forward to the next steps. I urge the Government to think more ambitiously about the way these frameworks will look in the future, while I welcome the steps that have already been taken to put in place restricted time scales, which might yet include a sunset clause—that might be very wise—to be clear about the reversal of the principle; to devolve things unless they have to be reserved; and to be willing, tonight, to listen to all the amendments.
Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)
My Lords, after roaming around the various amendments to the government amendment, I would like to steer us back to the government amendment itself, which I support and which I hope will form a pathway to getting this matter resolved. I am afraid my remarks will be mainly focused on Scotland, where the battle has been fiercest, but I will refer to the other devolved Administrations in the context of the generality.
We have got here by a tortuous route of JMC meetings, consultations, arguments and a lot of delay. I acknowledge the willingness of the Government, in particular, to try to follow this approach of constantly being willing to participate in discussions and consultations. Much reference has been made in earlier debates to the spirit of devolution, to which the intergovernmental relations paper published by the Constitution Committee some time ago referred—indeed, we argued for many things, including some just referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell. Given where we are in this farrago of committee meetings and consultations and rebuffs and demands and arguments about “consent” and “consult”, it is a relief to have an amendment to the Bill which we can debate and, I hope, remove the deadlock.
I prefer to start by reference to a component of the debate that seems to have been notable by its absence in discussion until my noble and learned friend Lord Keen raised it in the last debate, namely the Sewel convention. When the Scotland Act 1978 was going through Parliament, I asked my lamented and good friend Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish what it was all about. It was not called the Sewel convention at that stage. He said, “Oh, it’s a good-will measure. When we and the Scottish Government both want to legislate on the same subject, we’ll offer to do it for them to avoid duplication”. If only. The spirit of devolution may have been alive then, but it has taken a battering since. The finished version has turned out a bit differently. Far from being a good-will gesture to foster harmonious relations, it has become a battleground on which Parliament seems under constant challenge, with one visit already to the Supreme Court and another allegedly brewing. That is not the spirit of devolution.
The Government deserve credit for endless trust and courtesy, but their patience has gone unrewarded. It seems that they are left with no alternative but to act as they now propose. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who I am glad to see in his place, said in an earlier debate that it is a pity that devolution has got tangled up with the Brexit Bill. I absolutely agree with him—I wish they could have been taken separately—but it obviously is not possible. We are where we are. In the much larger arena of the Brexit negotiations, the challenge of this Bill is full of difficulties and complex issues. No solution is easy, but the Government have to make progress to keep to the timetable. In that context, I think reference to the Sewel convention makes clear that Parliament can legislate on devolved matters. That is an important point to remember and one that could have been prayed upon at the very outset as an alternative route to securing a satisfactory conclusion. Of course it is not something to do lightly, but we in the devolved Administrations need a solution. The word “normally” offers a key to this. There can surely be nothing less normal in the world of law-making than legislation to retrieve to our shores from the European Union over 40 years of legislative activity against a tight deadline and in advance of the moment of transfer—a retrieval that is vital to the maintenance of the rule of law as Brexit takes place. If that is not abnormal as an event, I do not know what is.
The Scotland Act and the Wales Act, as amended, and the convention are the nearest we can get to a stable base on which the devolution settlements can have some hope of harmonious survival, provided all parties respect that base. Enoch Powell’s dictum that power devolved is power retained has to prevail or the centre cannot hold, but sovereignty can be courteously delivered and received. The Government’s record on that is good. The Bill respects it and the guarantees that the Government have given. It specifically guarantees that no existing devolved power will be changed. Everything already devolved stays devolved. The area of dispute is a narrow, temporary and reducing one. As the Government’s amendment concerning EU powers being brought into the UK for the first time demonstrates—under the EU treaties, those powers must be transferred to the nation state in the first instance—the vast majority will go straight through to the devolved Administrations. Only those powers temporarily reserved that affect national frameworks, on which the devolved Administrations reached agreement in principle as long ago as last October, will be frozen en route until the frameworks can be decided upon. My noble and learned friend the Advocate-General covered that matter very effectively in his speech in the previous debate.
I respect the principles advanced by noble Lords and their sensitivity over matters that they point out are devolved, but there are other factors that again, in the spirit of devolution, could be deemed worthy of some movement by the devolved Administrations. These competencies and my noble and learned friend’s speech were very helpful on this—indeed, it makes my own speech almost redundant from now on, but I will make it anyway. These competencies coming home from the European Union were not ours to devolve before and do not necessarily fit in under the headings of what is claimed as devolved. They were not ours to devolve before; they are in many ways new and additional and reflect the changed legislative priorities that have evolved over the past 40 years. I just give one simple example of that change in agriculture: 40 years ago, we had a Ministry of Agriculture; now we have a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—a very much changed animal. Virtually all these new powers will as soon as possible end up with the devolved Administrations.
I do not know how the Government could do more without jeopardising their obligations to the United Kingdom as a whole. This Parliament is the only one that can negotiate the Brexit deal—the outcome will after all form part of an international treaty—and this Parliament is the Parliament of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as of England and the United Kingdom. I sometimes think that Scotland’s First Minister occasionally forgets that the Prime Minister is also her Prime Minister and that the Westminster Government—as the SNP derisively refers to us, as though we were a foreign power—are also Scotland’s Government as well as that of the other parts of the UK. It is the Prime Minister who can protect the First Minister from herself by ensuring that Scotland remains in the UK, as its people decided only three years ago, and thus in the United Kingdom’s single market, which is the mainstay of Scotland’s economy. As I think all your Lordships now know, it takes four and half times more exports than the entire European Union does.
Yet still they rage against the light. The intransigence shown by the Scottish Administration was always likely to emerge. I diverge here from my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern—though fortunately not on a legal point—as I believe it was always going to emerge, and it is what the Scottish Government mean by “negotiation”, because they are working to a different agenda, an agenda with only one item on it: independence. Everything in every area of government in Scotland is subservient to that, hence the neglect that we see of education, the economy and all the other matters that are their responsibility. If they can find of way of turning everything that happens into a source of grievance, they will do so. Grievance is their default position. They would make a grievance out of a ray of sunshine if they thought it would help their cause. Where in that Administration is the spirit of devolution? There is no power grab in the measures proposed in the government amendment, quite the reverse; it is a power bonanza. The devolved Administrations should welcome it as a ray of sunshine.
Lord Hain
Even accepting the noble Lord’s criticism of the nationalist Government in Edinburgh, can I just remind him that the Welsh Government—a Labour Government and a pro-union Government—are just as critical of the stance that the Government of the UK have taken up to now? His remarks do not take account of the depth of feeling that there is in Wales and the Welsh Government about this matter and I caution him about that point.
Lord Lang of Monkton
I take note of what the noble Lord says, though I have to say that I have heard information from other sources which suggests that the opposition in Wales is nothing like as strong as it is in Scotland, but it feels obliged to go along in the wake of the Scottish attitude. We will have to disagree on that.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
With respect, I am saddened to hear the noble Lord get on to this grievance and feeling against the Scots nationalists. They are elected by the people of Scotland. He has to accept the voice of the people there. They represent the interests of the people of Scotland and if they act against those interests they will be kicked out. Maybe he wants that—maybe we all want that—but the tone that is being struck by him just at this moment, after a very constructive speech, unhappily does not help to resolve the outstanding issues. I join the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in saying that that is not the feeling that one should have, certainly with regard to the attitude taken by the Welsh Government. I believe that they represent the feelings in Wales that there is a suggestion that the United Kingdom Government may enter into a position that we would regard as unfortunate. It is unfortunate that this anti-Scots nationalist—they are not represented in this House at all; maybe that is their fault that they choose to do that—language should be used.
Lord Lang of Monkton
My Lords, I too regret having to refer to the behaviour of the Scottish National Party and its constant attempts to find issues on which it can exercise grievance, but that is what is happening. It is because of that attitude that we are where we are now and that the consultations that were allegedly going extremely well throughout the earlier months have run up against a time limit. We are blinding ourselves to reality if we do not take account of the fact that the Scottish Administration have a completely different agenda from this one—notwithstanding the bonhomie of Mr Russell, which my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern was fortunate enough to encounter. I regret having to say it, but it has to be said, otherwise we are blinding ourselves to reality.
I do not dismiss the Government’s past willingness to consult patiently and, again, I respect their willingness to withdraw this amendment so that it can be further debated and discussed. That is entirely in line with the path that they have pursued, which is creditable and desirable. How I wish the other participants in these discussions could unanimously take the same approach. It is a tribute to the constitutional proprieties that we all like to see, seeking as the Government did to negotiate in good faith, to find a route that would not require them to assert the sovereignty of this Parliament. But it did not work in this context and I do not think it was ever going to work. In the end, the supremacy of the union must come first, as another Constitution Committee report, The Union and Devolution, recently suggested.
Lord Beith
My Lords, the noble Lord is a former chairman of the Constitution Committee, but he is perhaps doing a disservice to its present members by not reflecting that the committee felt that progress had to be made in this area, not least because the parliaments in both Edinburgh and Cardiff, across the parties, were unhappy with the Government’s original proposals.
Lord Lang of Monkton
I agree that progress has to be made, but progress is not made by constantly agreeing to give legislative consent on so many different issues, as so many amendments that we have debated in the last few days suggest. That is not progress; that goes towards unsettling the existence of the devolution within the United Kingdom parliamentary structure. We have to be realistic about these matters.
The Government’s approach of endless patience and consultation did not work. In the end, the supremacy of the union must come first. So I support the government amendment. By protecting the sovereignty of this Parliament we are best able to deliver the overall outcome, both for the devolved Administrations and for the United Kingdom to which they belong.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I am slightly confused. He said that he supports the government amendment, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, said that he would not press his amendment; he is going to withdraw it and look at some of the other proposals. Does the noble Lord not agree with his Front Bench?
Lord Lang of Monkton
Of course I agree with my Front Bench, and I have already commended it for its willingness to withdraw the amendment. It was tabled so that it could be discussed and Ministers could hear soundings from the Committee. I have given my sounding; perhaps the noble Lord would like to add to that by giving his. He spoke about his own amendment, but I hope that in the last resort he will support the amendment that the Minister will bring forward.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
I shall speak briefly to the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I do not do so because I once enjoyed the privilege of being one of his deputies when he was Lord Advocate for Scotland—as did the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Cullen, both of whom are in their places this evening. I do so without detracting in any way from the amendment in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness. What attracts me to the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is its simplicity and practicality. It is easily understood, and coming, as it were, from a Scottish source, it pays due regard to economy. For those reasons it is well worthy of consideration. Its simplicity makes it easily capable of being understood not just by those who will have responsibilities under it, but by members of the public.
It is for those reasons that I am, with due deference, rather doubtful about the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. The problem with it is that, apart from the reference to the Supreme Court turning into some kind of court of arbitration, and I know of no process or procedure that would allow for that—
Lord Hope of Craighead
Will the noble Lord allow me to take the opportunity to say that, as he will remember, there is provision in the Scotland Act and in the Government of Wales Act for a reference to the Supreme Court on issues of law—about the competence of legislation and whether something is within the competence of the legislatures? The problem with the situation that we are contemplating now is that the issues that remain in debate are not really issues of law, and I do not see how the Supreme Court could possibly deal with them. In fact, it is very anxious not to get involved in politics. There was a germ of good sense in the scheme suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, but it breaks down at that point. I am sorry to intervene, but it is worth mentioning that issue.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
The noble and learned Lord’s intervention is most helpful. Of course, the language of proposed subsection (17), in Amendment 318AA, to,
“refer any question to the Supreme Court”,
supports the view that the use of the Supreme Court in such circumstances would be, to put it mildly, doubtful.
My difficulty with the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is that it is bound to encourage delay. His amendment says:
“The Panel may call witnesses or take legal advice”.
If witnesses are called they may have to be cross-examined, and if there is to be cross-examination there may have to be representation by counsel, or something of that kind. It is not difficult to imagine what is proposed in the amendment turning into something of a full-blown hearing, rather like, for example, industrial tribunals.
Under suggested subsection (15)(a), regard must be had to whether something,
“is reasonable, in all the circumstances”.
As soon as the concept of reasonableness appears in a statute, it opens up the possibility of judicial review. Even if it were not to be granted, none the less an application for judicial review could obviously, and unfortunately, delay the outcome of a decision that might be of considerable economic as well as political importance. For those reasons, however well intentioned the noble Lord’s proposal is, I do not think it stands any proper comparison with that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. I therefore urge the Government to give serious consideration to that, for the reasons the noble and learned Lord set out, which I have tried to follow.
Lord Wigley
I concur entirely, in that I hope the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, gets the attention it deserves and that it is adopted. However, does the noble Lord not accept that in order to assuage some of the feelings that, perhaps unfortunately, have been built up over recent months about there being a will here to impose solutions, we need a mechanism that people at both ends of the telescope can see as balanced and even handed?
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
It is a question of judgment. The mechanism that the noble Lord suggests may achieve the objectives that he sets out, but it will almost certainly encourage delay, and perhaps even more controversy. What is required here is very quick resolution, in an uncontroversial way, of issues that lie at the very heart of the economies, perhaps, of the United Kingdom—and those of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It seems to me that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has pretty well hit the target.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I feel a bit like somebody from Relate. I am a Cross-Bencher, I am not a lawyer, and I do not now have an interest in Scotland—although I do have an interest in Wales. I just want to make a few brief comments, to assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, that I tried to write a schedule for the Bill to set out the frameworks—but for all kinds of reasons I did not, and felt it would be a waste of massive effort to try to achieve something that I could not. However, I think the idea is commendable that we should put on the face of the Bill the matters that will go to the devolved Administrations, which would then not be for dispute. That may go a long way to assuaging some of the concerns.
I remind the Committee that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, spoke about the need to be even handed, based on what has gone on before. The amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is an enormous step forward. The fact that the Government have agreed to invert Clause 11 is also a major step forward, but there is still more to be done. We need to look at what will happen in the event of deadlock. Having a rotating chair, which has been suggested, would certainly help to establish some sense of equality. The frameworks need to include some sort of equal partners in resolution. I hope that some of the negativism of what has gone before may be laid to rest, because we have to move forwards into the new world. At least we have had some positive suggestions tonight. I repeat my thanks to those who have been communicating with us to try to achieve that—but we cannot just say, “Right, we’re there”. There is more work to be done.
The suggestion of a sunset clause could be helpful too, because that would concentrate the mind, and would provide some reassurance. I had put my name to Clause 11 stand part, but it is now to be replaced anyway, which is a great relief. I hope that we shall recognise, and not forget, the need for equality of voice and equality of representation. The failure to do that in the past should be a lesson to us as we go forwards.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I have never known a Government make such efforts to meet the arguments that have been put against their first intentions. If it had been up to me I would not have tabled an amendment at all; I thought the Bill as it originally stood was perfectly able to provide for what was required. Instead the Government have listened to the representations from Scotland and Wales. I think the representations from Wales have been a little more constructive than those from Scotland, for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Lang spelled out. I agreed with every word in his excellent speech, although it unsettled one or two people.
I have enormous respect for my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, and I usually agree with him. I do not know whether he, like me, is a fisherman—but if he were, I would say that the fly he cast should be called the federalist option. What he is proposing is to change our constitution. This is a Bill to put in place the powers that have been lost to the European Union; it is not a Bill in which we should be remodelling our constitution, or reassessing the devolution settlement that was agreed, in the case of Scotland, in the latest Scotland Bill. Therefore, I do not support the amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I have noticed that those people who would like to see a federal arrangement and would like us to remain in the European Union have endorsed it with great enthusiasm, and I can see why.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
That is an open admission of it. As I look at the amendment, I think, “Who will speak for England?”.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My noble and learned friend says that it tells me. Yes, it tells me that it is the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State’s responsibilities are for the whole of the United Kingdom, not for England. To suggest that there should be a rotating chair, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, did, is a nonsense in terms of our constitution. Ministers in the Government have a responsibility to act for the whole of the United Kingdom.
I have to say that I thought that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, was absolutely hilarious. Here he was making an impassioned plea for democracy in Wales while at the same time arguing that all the powers that he was concerned about should remain in Brussels, where the ability to bring forward legislation rests with an unelected Commission and where our ability to influence it is one of 28 in the Council of Ministers. It is a complete distortion of the word “democracy”. What is being offered here to the Welsh Parliament and the Scottish Parliament by the Government is the ability to take back control of a whole range of issues and policies over which they have hitherto had no influence at all.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, say on several occasions in these debates on Brexit in your Lordships’ House that other noble Lords around this House have tried to revisit the arguments around the referendum, that that is wrong, that time has moved on and that it is time to debate the process of withdrawal and not revisit those debates of two years ago. However, it seems to me that he does exactly the same thing on devolution. To take fishing as an example, the reality is that the Secretary of State for the United Kingdom Government is responsible for fishing in England and the relevant Minister and the First Minister in Scotland are responsible for fishing in Scotland. We have an equality of representation, duty and competence. That is what should be reflected in any common framework for decision-making. It is not the case that the United Kingdom retains an overarching power over these. There may be a constitutional hold over sovereignty at the end of the day, but the reality for 19 years has been that, once these powers were devolved, the Ministers in the UK Government became the Ministers responsible for the way in which those responsibilities were exercised in England, not in Scotland, or, on many occasions, in either Wales or Northern Ireland.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble Lord is talking nonsense—codswallop in fact—in the context of fishing because the position has been that the Secretary of State with responsibility for fisheries, agriculture and everything else had no authority whatever to determine these matters; that rested in Brussels. I have been to Fisheries Councils, which are always held near Christmas and always go into the middle of the night, where we struggled to get a deal, and where we were invariably overruled by other member states. Then clever people such as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who I am not sure is in his place, would write press releases explaining how the talks had been a triumph and we had secured a brilliant deal for the United Kingdom. But we did not have the power to determine that.
As to the point about the position of the Secretary of State in the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Ministers with responsibilities in respect of fisheries, the noble Lord makes my argument for me. The position is pretty clear: once we have regained control of our waters and our fishing policy, we will make international agreements with other parties. That has to be done on a United Kingdom basis. Despite the noble Lord’s efforts to advance the cause of the nationalists in Scotland, with disastrous results for his own party, his former leader now says that he regrets having done devolution at all. The noble Lord shakes his head. If he reads Mr Blair’s own autobiography, he will find that he lists two things that he regrets doing, and devolution is one of them. Devolution has had a disastrous effect on Labour in Scotland, as he well knows, because Labour has sought to appease nationalism and refused to stand up for the role of the United Kingdom in the way that my noble friend Lord Lang argued so brilliantly. When we regain power over fishing and so on, the Secretary of State will be responsible for organising and arranging access to our waters for fishermen throughout the United Kingdom on the basis of international treaties which can be made only by a sovereign state, and that is the United Kingdom. It is not Scotland, it is not Wales and it is not Northern Ireland.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
Plenty of countries around the world that enter into international treaties have internal mechanisms which allow different parts of those countries to come together to make a decision by either consensus or a formal agreement, so there are plenty of examples around the world of where that works in practice. It should be able to work in this country as well. I correct the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth: there is no evidence that the former Prime Minister Tony Blair regrets bringing in devolution in this country. In fact, it is one of the things he is proud of having done for this country and is a major constitutional change that made a real difference. If the noble Lord reads the book properly, he will understand that.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I will return to my copy of this important text and will be in touch with the noble Lord in that respect. I completely agree with his point that there are plenty of countries where people are able to consult on these matters. However, there is a difference between seeking to consult people and seeking their consent. This is where this debate has gone off the rails in that people have confused consultation with consent. Consent, in effect, gives a veto, as has been explained by my noble and learned friend Lord Keen and by my noble friend Lord Lang. It has been explained that, if we have a situation where one devolved legislature is able to have a requirement for consent, as opposed to being consulted, we have one part of the United Kingdom able to use its veto to subvert the wider interests of the rest of the United Kingdom, and that was never ever part of the devolution settlement.
Lord Wigley
Does the noble Lord accept that some of the frustration that has built up, certainly in Cardiff, and, I can well imagine, in Edinburgh, arises where there was supposed to be consultation but often that was no more than a letter and the reply was ignored? Unless there is meaningful consultation that leads to a coming together of minds, it can be just a façade for there to be continued rule from London ignoring the needs of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I do not know the detail. I do know that a number of the joint ministerial meetings were cancelled, but not by the Secretary of State or the UK Government. I am entirely prepared to accept that the process could be improved. Certainly, when I was a Secretary of State and we had differences of view on policy in respect of Scotland compared with other parts of the United Kingdom, we had a joint ministerial committee, sorted out the issues and reached agreement, not always to our advantage but sometimes to our advantage and to the disadvantage of others. I had an amendment down, which I have withdrawn in the interests of making progress, which suggested that there should be some kind of statutory arrangement for consultation. I can see that. But I am seeking to argue against the noble Lord, who wishes to elide consult with consent.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
May I just answer the noble Lord before I deal with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas?
I understand that. If I were a Welsh nationalist, or someone who did not accept the result of the referendum, I can see why I might table amendments of this kind and cause maximum disruption to the Government’s programme.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
The noble Lord has just outlined a dispute resolution system of which he was part. He said that the council would get together and it would thrash out an agreement. Is that not precisely what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is suggesting?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
If the noble Lord had listened to the first part of my speech, I explained who would speak for England, and that this is a matter for the United Kingdom. The difference, of course, when I was Secretary of State was that there was one Government and one party in power. I do not speak for Wales but the difficulty we have in Scotland is that the party in power is determined to destroy and break up the United Kingdom. That is its agenda. As my noble friend Lord Lang said, every single issue is turned into a constitutional crisis and is a source of dispute.
If I may, I will turn to the substance of the government amendment. I started by saying that I have never seen a Government work so hard to try to achieve consensus and agreement. They have tabled an amendment which turns on its head the original proposals in the Bill to reflect the architecture of the Scotland Act. They should be given great credit for that. I welcome the conversion of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who is not in his place; I do not know which road to Damascus he has been on, but it is good to see his conversion and that he now sees that what the Government are trying to do is sensible. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, also responded positively to this, and made some quite interesting suggestions as to how the amendment might be improved. It is to the Government’s credit that they have brought forward this amendment—and not just brought it forward; as everyone around this House knows, the Secretary of State, David Lidington, has gone to great lengths to meet people, despite all the other things on his agenda, to take this forward. Nobody can say that the Government have not tried to move forward in the interests of getting an agreement.
My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay says that he has had a generous conversation with the Scottish nationalist Minister, and that he thinks he will take a positive and constructive view. Anyone who had that attitude of mind would see that this was a huge leap forward and would embrace it. The Government have not only tabled an amendment which meets any reasonable person’s aspirations but have even said, “We’re not actually going to move the amendment; we going to withdraw it in order for people to have a further opportunity to consult on it”. I cannot think of another occasion when that has happened on a matter of such substance.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I hear tittering in the background. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
It is a huge step forward, and we should all support the way in which my noble and learned friend Lord Keen—there are so many lawyers in this debate—has explained the thinking behind that and the Government’s ability to try to meet the anxieties, which have been stirred up unnecessarily, in a constructive and forward-looking manner while maintaining the integrity of our United Kingdom constitution.
It is a matter of regret that agreement has not been reached with the Scottish nationalists and the Welsh. I hope that the Welsh Government will take a different view. I doubt very much that the Scottish Government will want to do anything other than continue this dispute, and if that happens, my advice to my noble friends on the Front Bench is to get on with it, because they have gone as far as any reasonable person could expect them to go. I very much welcome this government amendment.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, I will make a few comments in this somewhat bizarre debate on the government amendments that the Government propose to withdraw. I have no experience of this situation; it must have happened before, but it is rather unusual, to say the least. I have emphasised before, and will not repeat, the need for “consent” as opposed to “consult”. That is what the Welsh Government want and what all the other parties in Wales want. I already dealt with the history of the Government’s excessive slowness to agree to legislative consent at all in my speech on Clause 5, and I do not wish to repeat that. But I ask the Government: what does “consult” mean? What is the definition? Is it a chat on the telephone or a face-to-face meeting between the First Minister and the Prime Minister? I think that we would like to know before the end of this debate so that we can consider where we go from here and what the Government’s intentions are regarding “consult”.
On Wales, Carwyn Jones has been trying diligently—he is a good advocate—to reach an agreement with the Government. I welcome very much the fact that, in addition to the meetings with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, he has had a face-to-face meeting with the Prime Minister. That is how it should be. These are now grown-up Governments in Cardiff and Scotland, and it shows how redundant the role of the Secretary of State now is, because Prime Ministers deal with First Ministers—and likewise, on Treasury matters, it is Treasury Ministers who should seek an agreement.
Lord Hope of Craighead
I do not want to detain the Committee for very long; I will make just one or two points. First, I congratulate the Government on the steps they have taken to amend the original structure of the Bill so that it fits better with the architecture of the devolved statutes. If you look at the list of amendments, there are not just one but 22. That gives an idea of the scale of the exercise that has gone into preparing what we are discussing this evening. I congratulate the team that has been working behind the scenes to put this together. There are one or two loose ends, as I mentioned earlier this afternoon, but this has gone a very long way and—apart from on the one issue of consent, about which perhaps enough has been said—I support entirely the structure and wording of these amendments.
As far as the solution put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is concerned, one feature that is worth noting is paragraph 11, which is the requirement that, if there is disagreement—a failure to reach unanimous agreement—reasons must be given. I have sat for a long time in court where, if you want to dissent, you have to explain yourself, and it is quite extraordinary; once you start writing these things out, you begin to wonder whether the dissent was justified. It is an extremely good discipline, when somebody is in disagreement, to force them to sit round a table and express themselves in writing as to what the nature of the disagreement is. The disagreement may remain, but at least it focuses the mind and makes it easier for the dispute to be resolved by the final body that has the responsibility of resolving the issue.
Regarding the three solutions offered as to how we might deal with this, there are three different solutions for resolving the issue. I have already suggested that the solution put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, would not work because the Supreme Court could not deal with that kind of issue. As for the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, I believe that the panel he is talking about has four members, three of whom are from the devolved institutions and one from the United Kingdom. It is a simple majority decision and the United Kingdom would be in the minority—and I am not sure that that is an entirely satisfactory solution to have arrived at. So I am brought back to the solution offered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, which, at the end of the day, is to refer to the United Kingdom Parliament. I am not quite sure what procedure would be adopted, but it seems to offer a fairer and better solution than the other two. Broadly speaking, I endorse the thinking behind what the noble and learned Lord suggested.
We have made a great deal of progress. My final point is to comment on the fact that the Government have undertaken to withdraw the amendments. I was arguing for that some days ago, because it seemed to me that if we had to vote on it tonight that would give a rather different flavour to the debate. It is a way of enabling us to talk around the subject and the way in which we on the Back Benches have to operate all the time. It may be unusual but it is part of the constructive way in which the Government are approaching this issue and I commend it.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, we sit here week after week and, wherever we started our careers, we cannot help but look at them now from the Westminster and London perspective—the UK perspective. As I have been sitting here this evening, I have done a head count. More than 10 of us in the Chamber during this debate have been Members of the devolved legislatures as well as here. We have First Ministers, Deputy First Ministers—a huge band of people here who have experience of seeing these things from the devolved perspective. It is important to bear in mind—and I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Lang, who said that there had been much too much emphasis on the importance of legislative consent in these debates—that legislative consent is the firm foundation on which confidence in the devolved system lies, in the absence of a full federal system, which of course we do not have in this country. I am a fierce unionist, but demonising the SNP does not help to bind the UK together. I assure noble Lords that there is a firm cross-party determination in Wales to insist on significant improvements to this Bill. The Government’s amendment is extremely welcome—but, so far, it is too little. It is a great pity that it is so late, because it means that people have not been able to give the full attention to it that it deserves. But I am sure that it is a good foundation upon which to build.
As noble Lords may remember, nearly two hours ago the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, intervened to ask the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, why the devolved legislatures and Administrations had been content to accept EU power but were not content to accept the UK Government’s power on these issues. I can assure the noble Lord that I went to a number of JMCs and, sitting as a Minister in the UK Government, there was never a time when I felt for one minute that the devolved Administrations did not question the need for more power to go to them. They have persistently and determinedly asked for greater powers and a greater say in negotiations with the EU. This is not something that has come out of nowhere; it is a persistent requirement from the devolved Administrations and legislatures that they should have a stronger voice. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, devolved Ministers could go to those meetings—and, indeed, often go to meetings of the European Council. I give way.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am grateful. I think the noble Baroness might have misunderstood me. The point I was making was that, in the case of Wales, Welsh Ministers have been consulted and involved, but United Kingdom Ministers did not need to seek their consent. They were consulted, but the responsibility in the European Union rested with UK Ministers. She is quite right that sometimes Ministers from devolved areas would go to European Council meetings, but the difference is that whereas then we were one of 28 Members, now we will have all of that power, which will be transferred to Welsh and Scottish Ministers, as the Government have made clear. So it is a huge opportunity. It is not a power grab; it is a huge power injection into the devolved Administrations. The point I was making is that people who are opposed to us leaving the European Union are deliberately misrepresenting this and, characteristically and unfortunately, arguing that they want more power for the devolved Administrations while at the same time saying they wish that power to remain in Brussels. That is the point I was trying to make.
Baroness Randerson
I resist the idea that I ever deliberately misrepresent anything. However, I am very aware that, although the numbers are different, the principle has always been that the devolved Ministers press the UK Government to require their agreement to a stance that the UK Government take in the Council of Ministers rather than simply consult them. That is not new.
I want to move on to the Minister’s statement in support of his amendments and shall speak, first, about the principle of consent. I believe that consultation is inadequate and that what is needed is consent from the legislatures, not from the Administrations. It is important that the power should lie with the legislatures and not just with the Governments in the devolved Administrations. It is also essential that the list of powers where legislative competence is to be constrained is defined in the Bill. Those powers are not specified in these amendments. The Government must know what powers they have in mind. I accept that there is perhaps some work to do in turning them into a tidy list but they need to be specified.
I I support the calls that have been made for a sunset clause. The Minister said that this is a temporary situation but he also said that he could not be specific about the timescale. A sunset clause would certainly be realistic in that context. Such clauses appear elsewhere in the Bill and there is no reason why the Government should not specify what they regard as a reasonable period in which to deal with this issue. We need the effective powers specified in the Bill as a schedule, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said.
I I have a question for the Minister—and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. Where does England fit into all this? We are speaking at great length about introducing a pause on most of the devolved powers of the devolved Administrations, but will there be a parallel pause in relation to England or will things go ahead there on a different timescale?
Finally, I turn to putting frameworks into law. In principle, in the absence of agreement on the future framework for, let us say, agricultural support, the UK Government could seek to enact a framework and argue that, because agricultural support has been specified by regulations as being outside devolved competence, the devolved legislatures’ consent is not required. I believe it should be made clear in the Bill that the specification of areas of retained law as being temporarily beyond devolved competence does not remove the application of the Sewel convention to new primary legislation. Is that interpretation the same as the Minister’s?
I ask the Government to discuss this issue again with the devolved Administrations. I believe that real progress has been made and I am very pleased to see the amendments, but I believe that a further step is needed.
Lord Dunlop (Con)
My Lords, the hazard of speaking late in a debate is that, in the interests of brevity, you have to shred your speech; none the less, I hope that what I am about to say is still coherent.
It would be hard to deny that since 2010 significant powers have been devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As more powers are devolved from Westminster, it becomes ever more important to attend to the glue—the institutions and arrangements that hold together the United Kingdom—and Brexit brings that imperative into sharper relief.
At the heart of the Clause 11 debate is an apparent tension: on the one hand, the powers of the devolved legislatures should not be changed without their consent and, on the other, one part of the UK should not have a veto over legislation to protect the interests of the UK as a whole. I accept that resolving that tension is not an easy matter. Therefore, Clause 11 addresses a very real issue that needs to be recognised and dealt with. The status quo ante cannot simply be asserted because there is no status quo ante. Our exit from the EU creates what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, recently described in a devolution debate in your Lordships’ House as a “void”, and he spoke of the need to create something new. If that is the case, it seems entirely sensible to pause and put in place a temporary mechanism for avoiding legal and regulatory divergence while the void is filled and new frameworks are discussed and agreed. Indeed, if I read it correctly, our own EU Committee recommended something similar in its Brexit devolution report. That is what Clause 11 is intended to achieve.
Of course, the clause could have been handled differently, and I think the Government have tacitly accepted that by agreeing to amend it. As has been recognised on all sides of the Committee this evening, real progress has been made. It has already been mentioned that the Joint Ministerial Committee has agreed six principles for establishing where common frameworks are necessary. Last Wednesday’s Joint Ministerial Committee agreed that intergovernmental structure and the devolution memorandum of understanding should be reviewed to ensure that they are fit for purpose as we leave the EU. I think that everyone accepts that revision is overdue. The MoU was last updated in 2013 and has been under review since 2014, and some firm conclusions are now urgently required. I hope, therefore, that the Government and the Minister can help build confidence that this latest review will lead quickly to concrete results by going as far as they can to spell out the process and timetable for completing this work.
The other welcome development is the publication of the Government’s own analysis of where common legislative frameworks may be required. To date, this has been a theoretical political debate, and greater transparency can only help to stimulate a practical debate in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, informed by real businesses and individuals whose livelihoods depend on trade across the UK.
The Government have now tabled their own amendments to Clause 11 and Schedule 3. Again, I welcome their willingness to go the extra mile to find a resolution. Those amendments are not just tweaks; they represent a significant rewriting of Clause 11. Yet the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales say that they still cannot give their consent to the Bill on the basis of the Government’s current amendments to Clause 11. They seek further amendments and reassurances. It is surely within the realm of possibility to bridge the remaining gap.
In the interests of striking a deal, what further reassurance can the Government provide to the devolved Administrations in the following areas? My noble and learned friend helpfully confirmed earlier that the Government anticipate that the existing consent conventions will apply for any subsequent legislation brought forward to implement common UK legislative frameworks where they engage devolved competence. Can he also confirm that the Government will observe what I might describe as a “self-denying ordinance” not to legislate pre-emptively for England in those areas where it is agreed that common UK legislative frameworks are necessary? To do otherwise would seem to defeat the objective of avoiding regulatory divergence and the very purpose of the Government’s “holding pattern”.
I ask the Government to look closely at the case that has already been made for applying a sunset clause of suitable length to Ministers’ regulation-making powers in Clause 11. This would allow sufficient time for the frameworks to be agreed while providing the devolved Administrations with the backstop safeguard against the risk of powers becoming stuck indefinitely in the holding pattern.
I conclude by saying that there are two sides to every agreement and I hope the devolved Administrations will play their part by showing a willingness to compromise as well. A number of noble Lords have tabled amendments requiring Ministers to obtain the consent or secure the agreement of the devolved Administrations before exercising their regulation-making powers under Clause 11. This seems a step too far and, as the Minister set out so clearly earlier, to go beyond the current devolution settlements. It risks turning the Sewel convention from a political commitment into a legal obligation. Let us not forget that the Sewel convention has been faithfully observed for 20 years. This would represent a significant constitutional change and would surely have implications for the sovereignty of this Parliament. It would also seemingly cross another important constitutional line, namely, as the Minister said, that one devolved institution could exercise a veto over the development of legislation affecting other parts of the United Kingdom.
I welcome the efforts the Government are making to secure a deal. Clearly, there is a balance to be struck here. All parties to the framework negotiations need similar incentives to reach agreement. Of course the devolution settlements need to be respected, but the unique responsibility of the UK Government and the UK Parliament is to guard the interests of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland—not just individually, but taken as a whole. That needs to be respected too.
Lord Hain
My Lords, I think that many in your Lordships’ House will welcome the interesting and constructive contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop. I welcome the stance adopted by the Minister in his speech; it has made for a very different debate, as others have observed.
As the author of the 2006 Government of Wales Act, when I was the Secretary of State, I have been deeply alarmed by the Government’s high-handed approach—hitherto at least. It seems to risk reversing the deepening of devolution, which the Government have progressed in their recent legislation, ironically. The principle at stake, which I hope the Minister and the Secretary of State, David Lidington, will adopt and take forward, is that the Government must not legislate in this area, provoked by Brexit, without the consent of the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government, in the sad absence of a Northern Ireland Government. I know that my noble and right reverend friend Lord Eames shares that frustration and sadness, as do my noble friends who represent the DUP. There is a serious crisis in Northern Ireland, which sometimes this Parliament takes too casually, to be perfectly frank, but that is another matter. If consent is not obtained, we face a real constitutional crisis, which should not be underestimated. The noble Lord, Lord Lang, spoke about the Scottish nationalists. The problem with the Government’s approach until now—I welcome the fact that it seems to have changed—is that it feeds the separatist appetite.
I observed in the first incarnation of this Bill, and to some extent in the amendments on the Marshalled List, what I saw as Secretary of State for Wales, even under the last pro-devolution Labour Government, which was what I would call the “virus of Whitehall-itis”. It was especially the case in the Home Office, but one saw it in other departments as well. The default position was that, when a new piece of legislation involving devolution was brought forward, there was a sense of needing at the official level to resist any real progression of the devolution process. As I say, that was the default position and it has crept into this Bill as well.
Lord Lang of Monkton
My Lords, I am glad to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hain, on the point that he has just made. It was reflected in a Constitution Committee report that came out a few years ago. We have to do more within departmental activity in terms of co-operation and cross-policy referencing between us and the devolved parliaments. The noble Lord also referred to what feeds the appetite for separatism. What feeds that appetite is the constant drip-feed of ceding further powers, which makes them hungry for still more.
Lord Hain
At this late hour, that is probably a debate for another occasion, but I welcome at least the first part of what the noble Lord said. As a passionate devolutionist and federalist, I believe that the unfinished business of devolution is the failure to give England a proper voice of its own at the regional level, with the exception, of course, of London. However, that is another matter.
I give a cautious welcome to the letter that I received just before coming in to the Chamber for this debate from the Secretary of State for Wales, Alun Cairns, which has been sent to me and, I would guess, to other Welsh Peers. I shall quote part of it, because it is interesting:
“A small number of returning powers in devolved areas will need legislative frameworks in order to safeguard the UK internal market and enable the UK to strike international trade deals. These areas will be placed into a ‘temporary hold’ until the UK Government and devolved Administrations agree the detail of the framework and legislation is enacted to implement the framework”.
He goes on to make an important point:
“The consent of the devolved legislatures will of course be sought for any provisions in parliamentary Bills creating frameworks that are within devolved competence”.
In welcoming that, I stress, at the risk of repeating myself—I will not take too long about it—that until now the Welsh Government have themselves been passionately opposed to the approach of the UK Government in this area. It is not the case that this is only the Scottish Government position. The Welsh Government want to achieve an agreement and the Scottish Government have said the same. We will see in the future, but certainly the Welsh Government want agreement and they have the support of Plaid Cymru, the Liberal Democrats and, I think, some Conservatives in the Welsh Assembly. That is a serious development. In the last few days, the Welsh Assembly have been taking through its continuity Bill, but I am not sure whether it has received assent at this point. However, it has certainly taken the Bill through, which is proof of the deep concern.
Lord Hain
With the help of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, we can put on the record the fact that the Bill has received assent. That is a serious situation. There is the potential for direct confrontation, which I hope we can avoid. I also welcome the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, which deserves serious attention.
In supporting the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lord Griffiths and Lord Stevenson, which again stress the need for consent, I want to highlight an alternative and perhaps more constitutionally appropriate way forward, which reflects a point touched on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. It is a way forward that would not give the Government yet another wide-ranging regulation-making power. We should ensure that a schedule is appended to this Bill containing a list of areas where the Government and the devolved Administrations agree that frameworks are needed, as they are, and hence where devolved competence needs to be constrained while such frameworks are negotiated. By doing this, the Government would be able to gain the legislative consent to this Bill of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales, and in future I hope the Northern Ireland Assembly, which they rightly regard as essential to avoiding a major constitutional crisis.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
I welcome the proposal just made by my noble friend Lord Hain, because two versions of it have been suggested during the debate, albeit perhaps not deliberately. One would specify in the Bill or a schedule to it those areas that will be part of the competence frameworks; the other would specify those areas that were devolved, which would be counter to the devolution settlement. It is important that we specify those areas that are not devolved rather than those that are. My noble friend’s proposal is the right one. I hope that the Government will take that seriously and that the other option will not be taken forward.
Lord Hain
I completely agree with my noble friend; he spelled it out very clearly.
At the same time, this approach would provide transparency about the areas in which devolved competence would be affected, which is sadly lacking in the approach embodied, until now at least, in the Government’s amendments. It would also enable the Scottish Parliament and the Assembly to agree to the list of retained powers—reinforcing my noble friend’s point—through the very act of providing legislative consent to the Bill. Such an approach would thus reassure the devolved institutions that the regulation-making power proposed by the Government could not be used to specify areas of retained EU law not requiring frameworks. That is a very important point.
If the schedule idea is potentially a magic bullet, why might the Government resist it? I am informed that the first argument is that it cannot be done in time for Report. I am not sure that I buy this argument; Report does not take place until well after Easter, which is many weeks away. We are told that significant work has been done on potential framework areas and the list published recently by the Government—though not agreed with the devolved Administrations, I understand—comes fairly close to defining legally which current EU law restrictions may need to be continued while frameworks are negotiated. Surely if the Government need to specify these areas in regulations, they will need to do so sooner rather than later in any event.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
Perhaps I may reinforce what the noble Lord said. He said that Report stage was still some time away. I am sure that it would be possible for the Government, if the will was there, to put down a marker at that stage and, if it needed another two weeks, to come back at Third Reading and fill in the gaps. I support him in saying that in those areas where they want a UK framework a schedule could be a constructive way forward and give reassurances.
Lord Hain
I welcome what the noble and learned Lord has said. If it really is not possible to work up such a schedule before Report—for the reasons that he has explained, I do not see why it should be the case—might not the Government find another legislative opportunity to do so? We know that in the autumn we are likely to have to consider a withdrawal agreement implementation Bill. That might provide an opportunity, although it would be better to do it in this Bill.
The second objection that the Government might make is the need to account for unforeseen circumstances. Since Brexit appears to be a process where every stone turned over reveals yet another problem lurking beneath it, there is some validity to this argument. But if, exceptionally, a new area where a framework is required is identified even after the passage of this Bill with the proposed schedule, there is an easy solution that is wholly consistent with the approach to devolution adopted to date—namely, a power to amend the schedule by Order in Council with the express agreement of Parliament and those devolved legislatures affected. That could be included in the Bill as well.
In reality, if the Government resist this proposal, we would be right to suspect that they have an ulterior motive in wishing to press ahead with such a wide regulation-making power as that encapsulated in the current amendment, although I accept that it is about to be withdrawn. I commend to the Government the idea of putting in the Bill a list of areas agreed with the devolved Administrations—I stress, agreed—where the constraint on devolved competence will apply and ask them to consider bringing forward an amendment that does that at Report stage.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I applaud the spirit in which the Government have brought forward the amendments before the Committee this evening and the eloquence with which they were brought by my noble and learned friend Lord Keen. However, on balance I think that Amendment 318A, brought by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, has much to commend it.
There are a number of points I would like to raise in the hope that my noble and learned friend Lord Keen might reflect upon them before Report. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern explained, the regulation-making power in these amendments would appear to be intended to be used only where the United Kingdom Government consider that it would be necessary for the purpose of protecting the UK common market. My question therefore is: would it not be clearer if that was expressly stated in the Bill? The explanatory statement could also explain why the regulations are required for this purpose. Also, do the Government envisage the power in new Section 30A in the government amendment being used only once, or do they intend it to be used more than once? It would be helpful for the Committee to know.
Although it is stated that the regulation-making power is intended to be temporary and that Ministers are required to have regard to that fact, there is nothing presently in the Bill that expressly provides for the regulation-making power to be temporary. Would it not therefore be helpful if such a provision made that clear? I believe that that is covered in my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay’s Amendment 218A.
Does it not also make sense that the Bill be amended so that the regulations and restrictions set out therein take effect at the same time that the new Section 30A comes into force? While it is expressly stated that the regulations are subject to the affirmative consent of both Houses of Parliament, there is nothing in the amendments that expressly requires the consent, as expressed by so many noble Lords this evening, of the Scottish Parliament. This contrasts with the accepted way of making amendments to the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament through an Order in Council under Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998. I respectfully ask my noble and learned friend Lord Keen that the Bill be amended to require Ministers to explain the need for regulations under new Section 30A.
On the question of consent, I was trying to help the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, earlier by stating, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, set out, that Ministers from devolved Assemblies currently sit next to the Ministers at meetings of the Council of Ministers and advisers. I also suggest that consent is currently expressly given by the devolved Assemblies and by their Ministers when the EU directives are agreed and then implemented by the devolved Assemblies. The point I was trying to make is that it is consent at both levels that is being removed.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
I absolutely endorse the description by the noble Baroness of the way consent works in that situation: whether or not devolved Ministers lead the delegation, sit on the delegation or are consulted in advance of the delegation to the Council of Ministers, it is the case that the responsibility for implementing the directives agreed transfers directly to them, not through the UK Government, and they then implement those directives. The noble Baroness is right when she says that that means that the consent is given, but it also reinforces the argument that that responsibility lies there and not through the UK Government any more—that is the result of the devolution settlement.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
That is the point I am trying to make. It may be helpful if I conclude by asking the Minister a question: he talked about all retained legislation being primary legislation—if the Committee were to agree that, would it not resolve many of the difficulties we have been discussing?
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, the veterans of devolution legislation—and I have sat through all the Acts, both Scottish and Welsh—know only too well that the architecture of devolution takes two forms: conferred powers and reserved powers. For many years, Wales had conferred powers; that is to say the power was held in the centre and handed down to the Welsh Assembly. Scotland has always had the reserved powers model, whereby it has all the powers subject to those that are retained. Clause 11, as it was originally drafted, had the flavour of the conferred powers model—namely, that powers would be taken back from Brussels and handed down piecemeal. What is so encouraging is that the Government have in this amendment put forward something that has the flavour of the reserved powers model; in other words, everything goes to the devolved legislatures, and the Government want to hold back or recover some of those powers through the machinery set out in the amendment. The essential feature of the reserved powers model is that the powers that are reserved are spelt out. That is why I support the suggestion that there should be a schedule setting out precisely what powers Ministers wish to retain or recover for the UK Government. This point was first raised by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, and has been repeated by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace.
Parliament can legislate on devolved matters, and has indeed done so, but always with consent. My amendments suggest that when the UK Government wish to bring back powers from the devolved Administrations, that ought to be with consent. We have a strong common interest in a UK single market. There will be divergence, no doubt: a Welsh Government may want to support lamb and a Scottish Government barley—I do not know what they will want to support, but there all sorts of possibilities of divergence; that is what devolution implies. But we have this strong common interest, and if we work at it and show some trust, which has been so lacking in the negotiations that have taken place so far, then we may come to a solution. That is why I protested at the attacks made upon a democratically elected Scottish Government. I have great Scottish interests and do not support the SNP in any way at all, but nevertheless the Scottish Government, rightly or wrongly, represent the voice of the Scottish people and should be treated with respect—you have to treat them with respect if you are to deal with them.
I urge the Government to take the necessary steps to put some trust into these institutions, and to try to gain the consent of the devolved Administrations for what they want to do. If ultimately consent cannot be obtained, let us have as a safeguard a mechanism such as that proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, which resolves any disputes. Ultimately, the final decision could be left to the United Kingdom Parliament, as the noble and learned Lord’s amendment suggests, but surely there are many steps to which the devolved Administrations can and will want to consent before we ever got to that stage. I urge the Government to put consent and a positive dispute resolution mechanism into the Bill.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I know the Committee wants to move on but I will make just a couple of brief points—in support of the Government moving on this issue; on the contributions made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness; and on the anxiety that perhaps yet again we will be making constitutional measures on a temporary basis late in the day as a result of decisions by two Executives. While we have to take the Government at their word that these will be temporary measures, many procedures in this House and many elements of our constitution started off as temporary measures but have become almost permanent features of our constitution. In the absence of some changes which will provide a sunset element, we may well be in a similar situation.
Two years ago I brought a Bill to this House for a British constitutional convention, as a result of the Scottish referendum, to try to proactively discuss some of these issues. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, said, we are where we are now with this Bill so we have to address what may be constructive ways forward. I think the contributions made so far are good suggestions for what is a very complex situation because we are extracting ourselves from a single market at the same time as seeking to create one with the powers that will be coming back from the European Union. By definition, many of those powers are designed to be cross-border.
Many elements of European legislation are as a result of international agreements that the EU itself has made to implement global agreements, such as on climate change or safety in aviation. These are complex. Interestingly, as the Government’s own framework paper shows, most of that legislation has come into place since devolution. The evolution of the markets within the European Union does not entirely predate 1999. Whether on animal welfare, safety or aviation, many have developed not only since we established devolution in the UK but since the single market has developed. These are going to be very important for our future trading relationships, not only between us and the EU but in our arrangements with third countries.
Most of those areas concern non-tariff barriers, regulations and legislation in domestic law. These are going to be relevant for every single trade agreement that the UK will negotiate and will be at the heart of our relationship with the European Union. Although I have a degree of sympathy with the Government on a temporary basis, we will have to come back not only to the legislation for the implementation period but to that for the new relationship with the European Union. That adds even more weight to the fact that the discussions taking place now will have to be time-limited.
We are also discussing blind how we would expect a framework or a common market to operate within the UK. In many respects, you would argue that we do not have that at the moment. If you drive from where I live in the Borders to London and if you are selling cigarettes or bringing animals, you will be operating under three different road traffic systems. If it was cigarettes, you might have a different packaging system in Scotland. Certainly in Scotland, not only the language of road signs but road traffic speeds are legislated for differently. We operate within many barriers. The question is how damaging those barriers would be to the functioning of the United Kingdom.
That leads on to my second point. This is not simply going to be a relationship based in law; it is also about how the different component parts of the United Kingdom will operate. Since 1999, as noble Lords have said, there have been major changes to that legislation—changes that previous UK Governments said should not be made because they would be counter to the effective operation of the United Kingdom—and Governments have changed their position, usually as a result of consensus and cross-party negotiations.
Where I did slightly disagree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lang, is that there have been now more than 150 LCMs in the Scottish context, and in many respects devolution has been working extremely well when you take away the rhetoric of the wider nationalistic argument. But it does show that there needs to be a degree of flexibility within this set of arrangements. That flexibility will have to come not just with a government-to-government relationship but also with the other elements that are necessary to determine how effectively a common market operates. Who provides the statistics? What is the dispute resolution mechanism? Who provides the data? We saw this in all the discussions that the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, had during negotiations on the fiscal framework between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. In the end, many of the discussions were not about the legislative element but about the non-legislative element, such as who provided the information, whether there was an independent source of data on fiscal revenue and who did the forecasting going into the future. These are all going to be very important.
Noble Lords perhaps thought I was making a glib comment in the previous discussion when I intervened on the Minister and spoke about managed divergence, but that is part of the parlance in our discussions with the European Union. We have that within the UK, and the question is how divergent we can be in the UK for that common market to operate effectively. Part of this discussion will have to be about the existing offices that consider the markets within the UK—our office for energy, our office for communications, the Competition and Markets Authority—which are now going to have to be covered.
That leads me to my final point, which in a way is to address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. The choices that we have made about our relationships within the UK—whether nations were consulted and whether or not consent was provided—have been addressed by our European colleagues in different ways. The noble Lord referred to consent in the German federal structure, under which the Bundesrat provides, under the constitution, a decisive opinion when the federal Government bring forward measures that would impact the interests of the Land parliaments. This House is not a federal House; the House of Commons is not a federal Chamber. We will have to have some forms of institutions which bring this together.
In the first instance, however, I strongly support this legislation and the temporary measures being time limited. We will need a schedule of the specific areas which are, in effect, reservations, because we will have to make sure that those areas are resolved before we go over to the next stage. We will be in a kingdom of divergence and will need new institutions. It is not just about frameworks, but a new relationship across them. As many noble Lords have said, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in his Second Reading speech, all of this will have to be underpinned by trust. It is the non-legislative relationships which in many respects will be more important than the legislative relationships in this Bill, in the next Bill, in the final agreement Bill and in all the different measures that come subsequent to it.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly indeed, in strong support of the government amendments, to make one observation and one point.
My observation follows on from something that the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, said in his speech concerning the memorandum of understanding. The current memorandum of understanding, which is dated October 2013, is only a draft—it was never finally signed off. Since that date, of course, we have had the Scottish referendum and very serious Bills in this House that have given more and more powers to the devolved Administrations. I have said before in this House, as others have, that it is frankly not fit for the purpose of acting as the constitutional glue that the structure it controls should be. A well-functioning memorandum of understanding would breed a healthy atmosphere and the ability for the differing nations of the United Kingdom to talk together. Instead of the C words that we have been discussing today, “consult” and “consent”, there may even emerge—from my experience of international companies, where quite often you have the French arguing with the Germans or whatever—a third C word, “consensus”, which would be enormously helpful in this situation. My observation is that this situation is much to be regretted, and I hope the Government are going to put a lot of weight behind getting it resolved and getting a proper memorandum of understanding structure sorted out so that we are not in the position that we are in today where we have a fractious and pretty horrible discussion going on about these issues.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The noble Earl may know that the Scottish Parliament rejected my suggestion that it should have a house of lairds.
The Earl of Kinnoull
I did. I will send my job application in.
I feel that we must have regard to that issue. I have been through the document pretty carefully, and I feel—this is why my support for the government amendments is so strong—that a good balance has been struck in those amendments regarding the point that I have just made. There is a chance that the devolved assemblies can exercise those powers properly, but if we tip too many in then I feel we will be letting down the citizens of Wales and Scotland.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem
Before the noble Earl sits down, I would like to pick up the point that was made to him at lunch. He will be aware that when the Scottish Parliament was established, a great deal of store was set by the form of the committee system, which it was hoped would be independent and would provide the kind of scrutiny that a second Chamber would afford. I do not think it is challengeable that the committee system has unfortunately become very political, to the extent that it is very difficult for Members on the committee to strike the kind of independence that we sometimes see in Select Committees in the other place and here. A consequence is that an effort to introduce a principle of “holding to account” has not been maintained in the way that it was in the beginning. If that continues, it makes the case for a second revising opportunity—I do not describe it as a Chamber—overwhelming.
The Earl of Kinnoull
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for making a jolly good point very well. At the lunch, that was hinted at, with rather less force. I wholly accept his reasoning and agree with what he said.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I join many noble Lords in congratulating the Government on the way they have handled this issue and reinforce what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth: I have not seen any such movement from any Government in my time here in terms of trying to reach out to the points being made and accommodate them. That is terrific; long may it last. The test will be whether the noble and learned Lord in fact withdraws his amendment before the end of tonight—but I trust him in this case.
I also think that the idea of a probing government amendment is pretty good. It is nice to know that there is an open mind on the other side, and no better way of showing it than saying: “We haven’t got the faintest idea here, but here’s something you might want to consider and discuss and we will listen hard and take away the best bits”. It is good in the sense that it builds trust and engages debate. We have had a terrific debate—possibly a little overlong, but it has been very interesting—and I am sure that many points will take us forward. I recognise that the idea of probing your own ideas may not work unless we can actually come up with some ideas, so it behoves us all to think very hard about the advice that we want to give to the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues.
What do we want? There are five things that I would like to see in revised amendments. We should be looking for an agreed amendment among the various interests around the House as much as possible. There has been enough evidence about where the central points are—we may differ on the nuances, but there is enough there. It would be really good if we could have some informal discussions and meetings before Report—and Third Reading, if it goes that far. By that stage, I hope that we will have a firmer view of what we are going to do in Northern Ireland. I agree that the situation is beyond the power of this House to do anything about, but it is a real gap when we are trying to address our longer-term constitutional position. If we have nothing to say, that says more about us than about the situation in Northern Ireland. I hope that that will be taken into account.
My first point is a negative. The Bill has raised debates, ideas and thoughts that are really important, but they are far too time-rich and need more discussion before they go into the Bill. The Bill is at heart limited to ensuring that we have a legal framework if and when we leave the EU—as the noble and learned Lord said, a fully functioning statute book. We are wrong to try to overload it with too much. I hope that, in offering our advice either privately or in meetings, we will focus on the minimum necessary to get the Bill on the statute book in a way that will be effective and efficient, and will achieve what we are trying to do.
On the other hand, the debate should not be curtailed by the question of what is and what is not in the Bill. We must accept—some noble Lords were ahead of me on this point—that transfers of this amount of responsibility to admittedly mature Parliaments and Assemblies will start a new chapter in the devolution story, and it would be remiss of this House if we did not think through some of the implications of that.
I have no particular remedies here, but it is inconceivable that the current arrangements, under which we determine through a Board of Trade how we conduct trade policy, can accommodate the new arrangements. They will have to be expanded and thought through again. We will have to think about how we deal with treaties and how our ongoing relationship with the EU and its regulatory and other official operations will continue in a devolved situation where trade responsibility and policy is at a level other than national. There may well be a set of rules that will accommodate that. They will not fit into this Bill, but they need to be considered as we go forward.
We have to think also much wider—certainly much wider than this idea that somehow this paves the way to independence for any or all of the parts of the United Kingdom. We have to think about the opportunities that will exist as these things are devolved in terms of such matters as what happens to state aid rules when they are changed. This will raise a lot of concern and interest much more widely than in this House. We will do ourselves a disservice if we do not take that into account as we think this through. For the moment, though, let us think very narrowly about this Bill.
At the heart of it, we want an agreement that, on the face of the Bill, the underlying principle in play is that everything is devolved unless it is reserved. We also want a clear understanding of why certain things are reserved. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, gave a very good example of one way into this argument by saying that it was a question of when powers were in consideration which applied in more than one geographical area; however, I put it to him and to the Ministers who are working on this that this is not quite the full story. If you look at the note on the common frameworks that accompanied the full list of them, it goes much deeper than that. These are principles, as I understand it and as I think the noble and learned Lord confirmed, that were agreed by the UK, Scottish and Welsh Governments at a meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee in October 2017, so they are not in dispute. The principles make clear that,
“common frameworks will be established where they are necessary in order to: … enable the functioning of the UK internal market, while acknowledging policy divergence;”
—the coda about “acknowledging policy divergence” is really important, and we need to know more about that—
“ensure compliance with international obligations;”
—I think that is fairly clear—
“ensure the UK can negotiate, enter into and implement new trade agreements and international treaties;”
—I have already said I do not know whether that will necessarily be the only way into that debate—
“enable the management of common resources;”
and then two rather important issues that we have not touched on but that surely have to lie at the heart of this:
“administer and provide access to justice in cases with a cross-border element;”
and,
“safeguard the security of the UK”.
It has always been the case that national security is the primary concern of all governments, but surely that plus the geographical “bite”, as indicated by the noble and learned Lord, give us—together with the other points I have raised—a much richer context within which the decision to reserve an item can be placed. It is important that this is on the face of the Bill. That is the key issue. There must not be a sense that something has been hidden or held back. We have to be open and trust those who are concerned about this that this will be the way forward. I hope that when the Minister comes to respond, he will be able to confirm that this is an issue that he might look at with some sympathy, because I think it will be the key to it.
I also think, as suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and others, that we should see the 24 policy areas included as a Schedule to the Bill. The point made by my noble friend Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale is very important: we are talking about those things that will have to be reserved for a reason. We should list them, and we should also understand the reasons why they are reserved.
There are two smaller points—in the sense that they are less full of implications; they are still very important—that I will tag on to the end of this. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, raised a number of points that will need to be picked up and that we must not forget, because the change to the existing Clause 11 will affect other aspects of the area. He made that point well. There have also been calls from all around the House for a sunset clause, which I absolutely support. That is the right thing to do. If that all comes together, however—and I think we are confident that it is possible—what we are signing up to is an agreement to agree on process, but that agreement will be able to get the consent of the devolved Administrations. That combination is vital to the way forward, and I recommend it very strongly to the Ministers.
Finally, if we are going to avoid the veto problem, which I think is a real issue that we have not really bottomed out, we are going to need a dispute resolution mechanism. There is no doubt about that. You cannot just go into this hoping that it will somehow be all right on the night. We need to know what happens when one area, for whatever reason—whether it is a political reason or truly an issue of conscience—wants to put down a veto and hold out. I do not think there has been any dispute, but we have not said it enough: at the end of the day the UK Parliament has to have a backstop power to legislate in cases that meet the criteria for why things are reserved. I think we should keep saying that until it has become part of the fabric of our lives. It is not said enough, as the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, mentioned.
But we also need to achieve the consent that is necessary to establish the agreements that will underpin trust and support for this in the long run. I absolutely think that the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has something in that regard. I am grateful that the Minister has said that he will take this away; we need to workshop it—what we should have is a hackathon—in order to work out together where we might go with it.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, are you sure? I do not think there is any need to rush this. We have covered a lot of ground and we have a lot more ground to cover now.
This amendment was put forward as a catalyst, and there has been a reaction. I leave others to judge whether it was contained or uncontained. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, just observed, this is not the vehicle for major constitutional change in the United Kingdom. If we attempt to bolt that on to this Bill, it will sink without trace. Some may prefer that that should happen; nevertheless, that is not a sensible way forward. I am obliged to all those who have contributed to this debate, because it was our intention in putting forward this amendment to judge the mood of the Committee with regard to the quite radical change and approach that we have taken with this proposed amendment. It may be that I approach the matter with an open mind; it may be that I approach it with an empty mind; but at the end of the day we will have to make a decision that works for the whole of the United Kingdom.
I will take up one or two points. There is an appreciation—it may not be universal, but it is almost universal—of recognising the benefits of maintaining a single market in the United Kingdom. We already enjoy that single market by virtue of our membership of the EU, and it is something we want to retain after we leave the EU. In order to do that, there has to be agreement in principle as to the areas that underpin such a single market. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, alluded to the principles set out in the Joint Ministerial Committee minute of 16 October 2017. That is essentially what underpins our seeking agreement; there was consensus. That is what we need to do.
Ultimately, if we are to have a single market for the United Kingdom, we require a body to have jurisdiction over that single market. Again, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and others have acknowledged, that ultimately has to be the Parliament of the United Kingdom. There is no other way of addressing that issue. If we look to the issue of consent, rather than consultation, let us be clear that it is not a question of trust but of constitutional propriety. If we have a black and white, sharp-edged consent mechanism for the devolved Administrations, then we have the basis for what has been termed the veto problem. We have the situation in which, beyond the existing devolved competence, any one of these Assemblies could—it is at that level that it must be judged; not would, but could—proceed to legislate within its devolved competence in a manner that impacted upon those in another country within the United Kingdom, whether it be England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. We cannot go down that road. That would be a fundamental change in the devolved competence that we created in, and have indeed developed since, 1998.
It appears that we have, at times, merged two issues. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, apart from criticising Ministers for not getting on and doing any work on this, pointed out that there had to be a breathing space. Indeed, that point was developed by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, when he quoted the letter from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales. Just to put that into context—and if I may briefly go back to a point I made in an earlier part of the debate—the first stage of this process is to identify those competences coming back from the EU that will be required to operate a single market in the United Kingdom and to effectively ring-fence them on a temporary basis; thus the breathing space that the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, referred to.
That is all that is involved in the first stage. That process has carried on in great detail since the principles were established last October. It has been the work of officials not only in Whitehall but in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. They have all come together to do what is termed in Civil Service-speak as “deep dives” into these matters. The product has now been published. It is the table that identifies 24 areas where it is considered there will have to be some temporary ring-fencing so that we can establish the next stage of the process for the single market—the framework agreements that will then form the basis for that single market.
Let us be clear: that is a separate stage. The ring-fencing is merely to hold those competences for the time required to put the framework agreements in place. We have agreed the principles on which the competences can be identified, and we have now carried out a process that identifies those competences. There is an element of disagreement about that, but only in two or three areas, so far as the Scottish Government are concerned. State aid is one of them. We regard it, for reasons I find fairly obvious, as a reserved competence, but they say it touches on a devolved competence. We will therefore have to address that, and potentially have a framework agreement in those areas as well. That is why there are a further 12 areas of competence that we are confident are in reserved areas, but which may be open to debate. None the less, there is a very substantial element of agreement on the ring- fencing.
Now let me go to the next stage. We then require the framework agreements. To the extent that those agreements will be implemented by primary legislation—it is anticipated that in many of the areas that will be the case—the primary legislation will be carried on in accordance with the constitutional conventions that we already have, and with the respect for the devolved settlement that we have always shown in the past. That includes the Sewel convention as now expressed in the Scotland Act 2016, which amended the Scotland Act 1998. It also includes those areas where, pursuant to DGN 10, such matters will touch upon the competence of Scottish Ministers.
That is where we seek the true element of consent—but ultimately, of course, if we cannot get agreement, we have the Sewel convention. Normally we proceed with the consent of the devolved assemblies, and that remains the position. That is the political understanding that underpins the devolved settlement, and has done for a very long time.
Can we just remove that dichotomy of consultation or consent? I know that within some Administrations, for reasons we do not have to explore, there is a determination to push for consent. Consent, as such, is constitutionally very difficult; I indulge in understatement when I say that. But there is still room for agreement, and the process overall should result in what somebody termed consensus—that is, a belief that we are all doing the same thing for the same reasons, with an expectation of the same result. That involves an understanding of what these frameworks are.
It has been suggested that the 24 areas of competence that require to be ring-fenced on a temporary basis should be expressed in a schedule to the Bill. I hear what is said about that, but whether it can practically be done in the context of the Bill may be another matter. As was observed, I believe by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that may have to be expressed elsewhere. We can look at that, but in the first instance we have to understand what needs to be ring-fenced for the purposes of the framework agreements.
A sunset clause has been suggested, and I have already expressed a view about that. Clearly, we are listening to the idea that a sunset clause might run for five years. But the more we have gone on about this, the more we realise that what it all comes down to is two questions. One: can we have an appropriate forum in which to negotiate agreement with the devolved legislatures? Yes; that has been carried on in the joint ministerial committees. They have been criticised, but they have been successful, as can be seen by the agreement in principle in respect of these matters. Can we achieve that? The answer is yes.
Secondly, can we then express, in a manner that will satisfy the devolved Administrations, what the framework agreements will be? The answer to that is again yes because we will follow the normal and usual constitutional principles that involve embracing the Sewel convention in cases where primary legislation is required.
I hope that goes some way to reassure noble Lords that we are making progress here because underneath the concern about consent versus consultation there has been considerable movement. We not only have the principles that we will apply to the ring-fencing of competences but we will also have the means to bring forward framework agreements in a manner that will satisfy the devolved competence, as I say. It may be that it will go beyond the 24 areas already identified but work can continue on that matter. What is ultimately of importance is that we retain the means for uniformity of regulation in those critical areas that touch on the principles enunciated in October 2017. That is what has to be achieved. There may be more than one road but ultimately they all lead to Rome, and that is where we want to be at the end of the day, so with that—
Lord Keen of Elie
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that the roads do not go to Brussels any more. However, he is welcome to go and hack a path there, if he wishes. With that, I seek to withdraw the government amendment.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 26th March 2018
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 79-XI Eleventh marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 81KB) - (26 Mar 2018)
Lord Tyler
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and at his request, I will move Amendment 305 in his name and speak to the other amendments which he has tabled in this group.
The noble Lord is chairman of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, on which I also serve. He is involved today in important discussions in Edinburgh in that capacity and very much regrets this clash of commitments. He had anticipated that the group would be reached last Wednesday but it was not to be. My role as the nominee from the substitutes’ bench enables me to emphasise two points in support of the amendments. First, although they may seem primarily concerned with the devolution implications of the Bill in its current form, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, might have referred to his Scottish connections, these issues are in fact of more general UK constitutional significance. As a Cornishman and fellow Celt, I agree with him. Secondly, his request to me—I hope other members of the DPRRC enthusiastically endorse his suggested amendments—underlines the unanimity with which this non-partisan, cross-party committee advises the House on these important issues.
Although the amendments in this group refer to the proposed treatment of retained EU restrictions in devolution legislation in Clause 11, and to executive competence in Schedule 3, it is the strong contention of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the DPRRC, that wider constitutional precedents are in play here.
To reinforce these points I refer Members of your Lordships’ House to the main arguments we advanced in our third report of this Session, but since it was published as long ago as September 2017 and others may not recall all the detail, I wish to refresh some memories. The Government’s delegated powers memorandum described Clause 11 as a transitional arrangement to provide certainty after exit day and allow intensive discussion and consultation with devolved authorities on where lasting common frameworks are needed. As regards the power to prescribe exceptions by Order in Council, the memorandum asserted that its purpose is to provide an appropriate mechanism to broaden the parameters of devolved competence in respect of retained EU law. It adopts a similar approach to established procedure within the devolution legislation for devolving new powers: for example, Section 30 orders in the Scotland Act 1998. Without the power, it would be necessary for the UK Parliament to pass primary legislation to legislate the consent Motions from the relevant devolved legislatures in order to release areas from the new competence limit.
Our committee doubted the validity of those precedents and whether that was the best way to deal with them in any case. We said in our report at paragraph 54:
“We doubt whether the powers in clause 11 and Schedule 3 are analogous to existing procedures in the Scotland Act 1998, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 2006 (as amended in 2017)”.
The lists of reserved matters in the devolution enactments are, for the most part, relatively straightforward, but this is not the case with the concept of retained EU law, which is defined in Clause 6, as follows:
“anything which, on or after exit day, continues to be, or forms part of, domestic law by virtue of section 2, 3 or 4 or subsection (3) or (6),
of Clause 6,
“(as that body of law is added to or otherwise modified by or under this Act or by other domestic law from time to time)”.
I think all Members of your Lordships’ House will agree that that is complex, obscure and something of a moving target in view of the words in brackets at the end of that definition. Therefore, there may well be significant potential for disputes after exit day between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations about what does or does not constitute retained EU law. It might ultimately require resolution by the Supreme Court. There is a warning note for us all.
The committee was also puzzled by the memorandum’s description of Clause 11 as a transitional provision. It is not drafted in those terms and could remain indefinitely. The Government in their advice to the committee and to the House appear to envisage that the Order in Council procedure will distribute competences returned from the EU to the devolved institutions, following negotiations with them, but the memorandum gives no convincing explanation as to why it is considered appropriate to implement any agreement following these negotiations by delegated legislation rather than by primary legislation—a separate Bill. Revisions to the three devolution settlements in the light of EU withdrawal will be of considerable constitutional significance. The committee anticipates that both Houses of Parliament would wish to closely scrutinise proposed legislation amending the settlements and to have the opportunity to amend it, as has happened with all major changes to devolution since 1998.
I quote paragraph 59 in full. It states:
“On an issue as important as this, we regard it as unacceptable for Parliament to be presented with a draft Order in Council and given a simple choice of ‘take it or leave it’. The Government should instead bring forward a separate Bill. It is, of course, not for us to express a view as to which competencies returned from the EU should be devolved to Belfast, Cardiff or Edinburgh. We are concerned only with the issue of whether it is appropriate for this to be done by delegated powers. In our view, it is not”.
Then our recommendation at paragraph 60 states:
“The Order in Council powers in clause 11 and Schedule 3 are inappropriate and should be removed. Separate Bills should be introduced in Parliament to provide for the conferral on devolved institutions of competencies repatriated from the EU”.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has been forthright in arguing the case presented by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. He asked me to say:
“I am totally committed to the amendments and my absence should not be regarded as any lack of support for them … whatever the powers are then they should be in primary legislation as were all the devolved settlements”.
I beg to move.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, I endorse everything that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has said in moving Amendment 305 in the unavoidable absence of the chairman of the Delegated Powers Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I know, the noble Lord being absent on parliamentary business, how much he regretted the unavoidable clash of commitments at this time. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, was much too modest in his mention of the substitutes’ bench a moment or two ago.
In their delegated powers memorandum the Government have sought to make comparisons with procedures already established in the devolution legislation. I can be very brief, given the conspectus that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has given us. The sweeping effect of Clause 11 and Schedule 3 is to reserve to Westminster all returning competences unless the position is changed by Order in Council. The Delegated Powers Committee distils the problem effectively in paragraph 31 of its later, 12th report. The Government have said that the purpose of the Order in Council procedure is to provide an “appropriate mechanism”—there is that word “appropriate” again—to broaden the parameters of devolved competence in respect of retained EU law. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, made clear, the concept of the definition of retained EU law is anything but straightforward. The fundamental point is that something as important as the distribution of competences should not be left to take-it-or-leave-it statutory instruments. This is something for primary legislation and the much-enhanced scrutiny that it would receive.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I sought to explain in reference to the amendment I moved last week my belief about the simplicity of the real issue in this area. It seems absolutely clear that all the devolved Administrations—and the UK Administration themselves—are subject to EU law. However, on Brexit day that will all disappear and there will be the powers—these are the ones I am particularly interested in—that were kept to the EU. I said last week, and nothing I have heard since has persuaded me to change my mind, that all the powers which are effectively exercised within a single devolved area should be devolved immediately. That is the result of the EU no longer being in charge of our procedures. In addition, those powers the EU has which to be effective require to operate in more than one of the devolved areas should go to the UK Parliament. I thoroughly believe that that is the only way in which this can be properly accomplished. The idea of doing it with some form of legislation other than primary legislation is doomed to failure. So far as I am concerned, for example, the amendment tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope, which we will come to later, relates only to the idea that something of this kind can happen by statutory instrument. There is no power which creates statutory instrumental authority for this kind of thing. Therefore, what has happened is what Bishop Berkeley once said about the philosophers:
“We have first raised a dust and then complain we cannot see”.
That may have affected other areas of our national life.
This is a simple matter, and the simpler it is, the better what we are trying to do will be understood by ordinary people—the people who read the papers. Otherwise, we will be arguing away about what I certainly cannot understand and I venture to think that, if I cannot understand it, it is likely that one or two others will not understand it either.
Lord Morgan (Lab)
My Lords, this is one of a number of issues where it seems that the Government have created extraordinary difficulties for themselves—a quite unnecessary threat to the cohesion of the union in the long term—as well as the other problems introduced by this legislation.
I am a member of the Constitution Committee; the chairman of that distinguished body is sitting behind me. I am not speaking on behalf of the committee, but for myself. The committee has already noticed that the provision about EU-derived measures is quite inappropriate. It ignores the devolution settlement. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, explained, these powers should automatically go to the devolved legislatures—where they belong—but they are given no powers of redress or scrutiny. There seems to be very little consultation. I do not understand why such a high-handed and frankly colonial attitude is being adopted toward the legislators of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Needless complications are being caused. In Wales, which has had a growing accretion of reserved powers under the Government of Wales Act, unnecessary animosity that is not relevant to the Act is being created. It is a form of centralism that goes against the spirit of recent legislation and the consensual spirit in which this has taken place. Much of that consensus is owed to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. It is comforting to see him sitting on the Government Benches; I hope he can suggest the reversal of this.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I join in the tributes to my noble friend Lord Bourne. One thing I hope he will take on board is that the amendment was tabled by my noble friend Lord Blencathra—it has been explained why he cannot be here, and we completely understand—but it was moved, most eloquently, by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. Nobody could accuse them of being on the same side of the Brexit argument, which underlines the fact that, as our Constitutional Affairs Committee said in its report, the Bill is deficient and the deficiencies are recognised equally by those on both the remain and leave sides. I hope that this will command unanimous support among your Lordships and that there will be no need to put the amendment to a vote at a later stage. I hope that my noble friend Lord Bourne will take on board the virtual unanimity of concern here and give us an encouraging answer.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I apologise for taking my seat after the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, started but I heard most of what he said from outside the Chamber. I add my voice in support of the comments that have been made. There is an old saying in Wales: you can lead a Welsh workforce through hell and high water but once you start driving them, woe betide. I think we should bear in mind the psychology of this situation. If these amendments are made to the Bill, I do not think that they will undermine the main purpose in any way. I hope the Government can look again at the Bill between now and Report.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, I respectfully agree with the sentiments articulated by the noble Lord. In relation to Wales, a totally new attitude has been taken toward reservations. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, suggested that reservations were somewhat limited on the whole in devolution legislation. That is not so; in the Wales Act there are 197 separate reservations, believe it or not. Some are massive; some apply to sovereign powers that should belong to the mother Parliament; others are very trivial. For example, dangerous dogs, sharp knives and axes, prostitution and half a dozen similar situations are included. Why they were ever included in that context I know not, but there they are. Therefore, the area that has been reserved regarding Wales is massive and comprehensive.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I rise only to make it clear that the unanimity comes also from the Front Bench. My noble friend Lord Morgan may not be on the Front Bench but on this occasion we are absolutely as one with him.
It would perhaps be helpful if the Minister feeds back what he has heard from the devolved Administrations in his discussions with them on these amendments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who participated in the discussion on these amendments. In opening, let me say that I fully understand the absence of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. I am very grateful for his careful consideration of the Bill and that of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which he chairs.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I knew that my noble friend Lord Blencathra was not going to be here and I tried in vain to find out who would be his substitute so that I could have had a word with them earlier. However, I am very happy to meet the noble Lord afterwards at any convenient juncture to discuss this. In fact, I had heard at a previous stage that the substitute would be the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, so I encourage him to ignore the several messages he has received from me.
I will respond first to the general points made and then pick up some of the specifics. I want to make it clear that the amendment that the Government have tabled to change how the Bill deals with devolved competence would, as part of that change, remove the Order in Council procedure from Clause 11 and Schedule 3. In the light of this, my noble friend’s amendments would no longer be necessary on that specific point. However, I will address the substantive point that my noble friend Lord Blencathra sought to make, and which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, in his stead, on the modification of the devolution statutes—namely, the Scotland Act 1998, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 2006—by secondary legislation.
I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler: that the Order in Council powers contained in Clause 11 and Schedule 3 are unsatisfactory substitutes of those contained in Section 30 of the Scotland Act and Section 109 of the Government of Wales Act. I accept that there is merit in my noble friend’s argument that there may be a difference in the function of these powers and that we may wish to consider the need for a different procedure. As I said, I am very happy to discuss that point with my noble friend Lord Blencathra, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and others.
I do not agree that it necessarily follows that secondary legislation can never be used to modify devolved competence or the devolution statutes more widely, and that this should only ever be achieved through primary legislation. For example, we used the procedure in 2013 to amend the Scotland Act 1998, and we used an order in 2007 to amend the Government of Wales Act 2006. There are previous examples and, more recently, we saw the Treaty of Lisbon (Changes in Terminology) Order made under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act. It has sometimes been a convenient way to proceed, by consent of the devolved Administrations.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for raising the point that she did. We have been discussing these issues with the devolved Administrations and continue to do so in a perfectly constructive way. I have to say that there is no agreement yet, but we are looking at how this should be used going forward.
I will pick up some of the particular points made. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, was making general points, but, as I say, the specific issue mentioned will not arise in the light of the amendments we have put down. However, I appreciate that it was, as he said, the unanimous view of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I thank the committee for its third report and constructive and dispassionate work on these issues. I served on that committee for a time and I know it looks at these issues constructively.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, I apologise to the Minister that the news that I was the nominated understudy on this occasion did not reach him. I thought I had informed everyone who needed to know.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, will be delighted not only by the views expressed by other noble Lords but by the fact that the Minister is listening regarding the way this important matter should be treated. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. Given his experience and expertise, when he says that something is so complex in this sensitive area that it is doomed to failure—I think I quote him correctly—his colleagues on the Government Front Bench should listen carefully to that advice.
The Minister accepts that there is some merit to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s argument. The committee will welcome that and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and those of us on the committee will be pleased to enter into discussions on the issue. However, we need to do it quickly because the matter should be dealt with on Report: we do not want it dragging on to Third Reading. All parts of the House want these matters to be considered carefully and quickly so that the other House can see where we are taking this important issue in the context of devolution, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said.
There is unanimity in the House, as there was in the Delegated Powers Committee. I am grateful for the responses today—not least from the Minister—and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) This section and Part 1 of Schedule 3 will cease to have effect after the end of the period of two years beginning with exit day.”
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, at the request and with the consent of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, I shall move Amendment 311. For clarification, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, did not wish me to move Amendment 310 because he felt it had been superseded by our discussions last week. I shall be brief in moving Amendment 311 because a number of amendments were grouped for our wider debate on Brexit and devolution issues last Wednesday that related to sunset clauses, and this is another example.
It appears that here, as in a number of other areas of the Bill, particularly when powers are to be conferred on United Kingdom Ministers, a sunset clause is attached to them. However, for those in relation to devolution and the exercise of powers by UK Ministers in respect of making orders on the devolved settlement, there is no such sunset clause. As has been said by others, not only in regard to this Bill but on other occasions, there is nothing as permanent as a transitory provision. Although this is intended to be just a temporary move pending the solution of the arrangement between the powers that will go directly to Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast and those where we may wish to follow up on what was debated last week with regard to the UK frameworks, it nevertheless appears that there should be some incentive to get on with it and have a time limit.
We debated these issues last week, particularly whether the period should be two, three, four or five years, which is a matter for further discussion, and it is fair to say that this is more about the principle of having a sunset clause. When we debated it last week, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, helpfully indicated in his reply that the Government’s mind was not closed on this matter and there could be an opportunity to put in some form of sunset clause in relation to this and the other amendments that we look forward to seeing on Report. I hope this amendment allows the Government to give further thought to what was said in our debate last week, and I would certainly encourage that positive thinking with regard to a sunset clause. I beg to move.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 313 in this group, which is in my name. The amendment again returns to the question of making progress by consent. The words in the amendment in the context of Wales provide that the relevant provisions will not come into effect until,
“the National Assembly for Wales has passed a resolution approving the provisions in subsection (2)”.
The convention of gaining legislative consent is of course flawed since it is held to be just that—a convention and no more. This amendment attempts to rectify that flaw, albeit just for one clause of what is in so many ways a problematic Bill. None the less, given our debates earlier this afternoon and last week, it appears that the Government are starting to become a little more sensitive to these issues and may be thinking of finding a way to bring people together on them.
As I say, the proposed new subsection would require the UK Government to seek consent from the devolved legislatures before implementing Clause 11, which may help to break the negotiations deadlock. It may help the devolved legislatures to regain some trust, and this is very much a question of trust. It could go a long way towards proving to Wales and Scotland that their voices matter in these issues.
There are clear constitutional problems with the Bill, which over recent months have been raised vociferously by both the Scottish and Welsh Governments. The UK Government have conceded that the Bill inevitably overrides the devolution settlement. I understand that in the conceptual context, but it is only right that the sitting devolved legislatures are given a statutory legislative opportunity to sign off the final product. The UK Government have rationalised our leaving the EU with the unforgettable soundbite “Taking back control”. Surely to deny the sitting devolved legislatures their fair say on Clause 11 goes against that very reasoning.
Lord Morgan
My Lords, I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said. This might appear to introduce a somewhat belligerent note in the discussions between the devolved assemblies and the Westminster Parliament, but it has been forced upon the devolved legislatures. They have been so excluded while these debates have been going on that it is essential for them to have a failsafe mechanism for asserting their views. Again, as I remarked a moment ago, it is very sad to see an element of discord needlessly introduced into what has been a very fruitful period of collaboration quite recently. It is important for the Assembly in Wales, the Parliament in Scotland and the authorities in Northern Ireland to have this power. If they do not, devolution will be flouted. We will be turning our backs on now nearly 19 years of history, which I do not believe anyone wants to do. In that spirit, it is essential and necessary for the devolved legislatures to have the powers included in the amendment.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
I support and agree with everything that has been said. After all, devolution is not a dainty little sympathy; it is a fundamental right accepted as part of the constitutional inheritance of all the people of the United Kingdom. On that basis, the words spoken are the very heart of truth and common sense.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, for speaking to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I appreciate the intention behind the noble Lord’s Amendment 311 in seeking to apply a “sunset” to the Clause 11 arrangements. I recognise the aim to provide a clear guarantee that those areas in which frameworks are not needed will pass into devolved competence. In fact, the effect of Amendment 311 would no longer be required if we take the kind of approach adopted in the amendments to Clause 11 that we debated last week. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, was good enough to acknowledge that.
As we indicated on our amendments, we think it preferable that those areas where we know that frameworks are not required will never be subject to the constraint at all. I hope your Lordships will also be reassured by the proposal of a power to repeal the effects of Clause 11 to make clear that it is a temporary means to limit competence where we are considering the need for a framework, not an ongoing mechanism for altering that devolved competence. We have proposed an obligation to report to Parliament every three months on the progress we had made towards repealing the restrictions and implementing the new arrangements where needed. As has been acknowledged, this will increase the impetus behind the frameworks processes. Following last week’s debate on Clause 11 and the extent to which this interconnects and relates, I urge the noble and learned Lord not to press Amendment 311.
I will briefly address the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, which would enshrine in law a requirement for the Government to seek legislative consent Motions from the devolved legislatures. We have said, and I shall say again, that we want to make a positive case for legislative consent for this vital piece of legislation and to work closely with the devolved Administrations and legislatures to achieve that. We have put very considerable effort into securing agreement on the changes to Clause 11. I hope that the amendments we tabled for debate last week show the extent to which we have moved to address the concerns raised by the clause. I want to reassure the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Morgan, about that.
I regret that we have not yet been able to secure that agreement. It is important to remember that we have sought legislative consent for the Bill. The amendments that we have tabled and the ongoing dialogue are reflections of the Government’s sincere intention to secure that consent. I hope that, with good sense around the table, agreement can be reached. The noble Lord, Lord Morgan, said eloquently that we do not want to turn our backs of 19 years of devolution history. Having been part of that history in Scotland, I could not agree with the noble Lord more.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
What is the Government’s view of the proposed continuity legislation, from both Wales and Scotland?
Baroness Goldie
My understanding is that that legislation has been enacted by the devolved Administrations for what they perceive as a necessary protection of their positions. The Government hope that we can supersede that legislation by coming to good sense around the table and hammering this out—which I think is what all parts of the United Kingdom want.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I thank all who have taken part in this short but important debate, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for responding. I think it fair to say that in all our debates that have touched on devolution, reference has been made to the importance of securing the agreement not just of Ministers but of the devolved legislatures in Scotland and Wales. One prays for the time when it will be the case also in Northern Ireland. That was reflected in the first report of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee of this Session, which recommended that,
“the UK and Scottish governments continue their efforts to secure agreement on those clauses of the Bill which affect devolved areas of responsibility”.
It is important that we reiterate the importance of that. The Minister has indicated that the Government are seized of that, but there is no harm in reinforcing it. She referred to the import of the Sewel convention into both the Wales Act 2017 and the Scotland Act 2016. As we know from the decision in the Miller case in the Supreme Court, the convention is just that: it is a convention and does not have the force of the law. It is important that we reiterate the need to get agreement.
On the proposed sunset clause to which I spoke on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, the Minister seemed to suggest that, once the new proposals come through, this might not be necessary. I tabled a very similar amendment last week, which I had thought of attaching to the amendment brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. When I discussed it, I was assured that it was not necessary because, due to the way in which the Bill was set out, it would not have been superseded by pre-emption even if the noble Lord’s amendment had been accepted, so such a clause is still pertinent. It is important that some time limit be set, even for establishing the frameworks. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, made some interesting and constructive proposals as to how the frameworks might be achieved. While the return of many of the powers at the so-called intersects would be pretty imminent on exit day, a number would still have to be resolved. Therefore, I encourage some positive thinking with regard to a timeframe within which that might be done. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hope of Craighead
“UK-wide frameworks
(1) A Minister of the Crown must lay before each House of Parliament proposals for replacing European frameworks with UK ones.(2) UK frameworks may be proposed only if they are necessary to—(a) enable the functioning of the UK internal market,(b) ensure compliance with international obligations,(c) ensure that the UK can negotiate, enter into and implement new trade agreements and international treaties,(d) enable the management of common resources,(e) administer and provide access to justice in cases with a cross-border element, or(f) safeguard the security of the UK.(3) Ministers of the Crown may create UK-wide frameworks only if they have consulted with, and secured the agreement of, the affected devolved administrations.”
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, although we have left Clause 11, this amendment is closely related to the topics we discussed in the two previous groups. It seeks, first, to require a Minister of the Crown to lay before each House of Parliament proposals for replacing the European frameworks with UK frameworks, and it lists the particular items which are thought to be the subject matter of the frameworks that are needed. More importantly, proposed subsection (3) in the amendment seeks to provide that:
“Ministers of the Crown may create UK-wide frameworks only if they have consulted with, and secured the agreement of, the affected devolved administrations”.
So the issue of consent, perhaps more narrowly focused than in the previous discussion, is raised by this amendment as well.
The amendment was drafted some considerable time ago, when what was on offer in Clause 11 referred to the creation of these measures by Order in Council and made no mention of either consent or consultation. What we had before us, until it was withdrawn, was an amendment which reformed the machinery that Clause 11 is to provide by referring to the need to lay a draft of a statutory instrument containing the regulations under the section after consultation with the Scottish and Welsh Ministers. That is certainly a step forward, but what is sought by the amendment is one step further, which is the need for consultation.
In the discussion on Amendment 305, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, made the point that the safest way to deal with UK-wide frameworks is by primary legislation. I find it quite hard to understand how a UK-wide framework can be created by using the Section 30 power in the Scotland Act or the Section 109 power in the Government of Wales Act. Those are powers that are designed for dealing with the devolved Administrations separately, whereas the UK-wide framework of course involves the entirety of the United Kingdom, and I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord that primary legislation would seem to be the proper way to go about it. Of course, if we are presented with primary legislation, the Sewel convention will apply and my point about consent will be satisfied simply by the machinery that has been used to create these frameworks.
We are of course dealing with something that is work in progress and we do not know quite what further discussions are going on in darkened rooms up and down the country where these matters are being debated. However, if by any chance the decision is that that has to be done by statutory instrument—I take it that this is not by Section 30 powers or Section 109 powers but by a UK statutory instrument—then the issue of consent is again raised, because the Sewel convention does not apply. I would like an assurance from the Minister that the principle behind Sewel will apply whichever mechanism is created. Of course, as I said a moment ago, the primary legislation will bring Sewel with it, but it would seem very odd if, by resorting to delegated legislation, the Government can bypass the Sewel convention. I do not believe that that is really what the Government want to do. I hope they will be prepared to say that they will be looking for consent as the mechanism which would precede the framing of any delegated legislation if it is decided to go down that road. But I stress that I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that the proper way to create a UK-wide framework, which is what my amendment is talking about, is by primary legislation, in which case the issue of consent does not arise. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am a cosignatory to Amendment 314 and I associate myself with the eloquent comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in moving it, and, in turn, the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. In the debate at the conclusion of business last Wednesday, a number of us put this specific point to the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, which could have ended the concern that certainly I still have that we should proceed, for the reasons given, by primary legislation and that it would be inappropriate to proceed by delegated legislation.
I would also like to raise the timing of the framework agreements. In summing up the debate on Wednesday, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, said:
“It is the table that identifies 24 areas where it is considered there will have to be some temporary ring-fencing so that we can establish the next stage of the process for the single market—the framework agreements that will then form the basis for that single market”.—[Official Report, 21/3/18; col. 403.]
It has been very firmly expressed by the Law Society of Scotland and others that there should be a timeframe for how long this arrangement will last. I pray in aid farm policy, which I understand is one of the 24 areas that have yet to be agreed, and point out that 85% of Scottish land currently has “less favoured area” status and attracts specific European grants accordingly. I also understand that Wales receives 10% of the farm funds. There is a concern that once we come back to having only a UK single market, both Scotland and Wales will receive less in farm support. My understanding is that Scotland would like to see a framework created and the powers devolved immediately, whereas the Government wish to take control to create the framework and then devolve it subsequently. So there are very real issues in specific policy areas over the timing and content of these framework agreements.
That brings me to this question of consent that keeps coming up. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, said:
“Can we just remove that dichotomy of consultation or consent?”.—[Official Report, 21/3/18; col. 404.]
The problem we face is that the devolved Administrations clearly feel that currently they have consent at three levels. One is through the Sewel convention. The second is that when EU policy is agreed at the level of the Council of Ministers normally it is the Farming Minister who attends, accompanied by the Ministers of the devolved Administrations. The third level is when the devolved Administrations, in their own devolved legislation, implement the directives in the form they think most suitable.
We are very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, for setting this out so clearly. It appears so straightforward that our starting point is that in future the UK Parliament legislates for all matters relating to the single market of the United Kingdom. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said on Wednesday, it would be best for this to be implemented by agreement wherever possible. We seem to be edging towards that. In response to the earlier debate, the noble Baroness responded that there is not yet agreement but we are getting close to one.
When we take our oath and are introduced here, we swear allegiance and we are told that we have a voice. My concern regarding this amendment and Amendment 318, which was debated earlier, is that the voice of the devolved legislatures will simply not be heard in that interim between the framework agreements being agreed and subsequently devolved. That is why I support this little amendment and would like to hear more about why we could not proceed along the lines that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has set out in Amendment 314.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment and I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Hope for the way that he introduced it and for the remarks which have subsequently been made. It is very important that we follow up on what the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said: we must find a way forward by the time we get to Report.
In previous debates, we have discussed common frameworks and there was the suggestion of creating a new schedule to the Bill—indeed, I said that I would try to draft one—to clarify the intersection between EU law and the devolved legislative competences. There are, though, areas that remain for dispute. Like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I suggest that there is not simply a dichotomy between consultation or consent, but that there is a phase of needing negotiation and trying to reach agreement between the Governments concerned. I refer the Government to a Welsh government document which I do not think has been referred to previously in our debates, Brexit and Devolution. It was produced some time ago but it has a section on what happens,
“if agreement cannot be reached at all through normal procedures”,
and lays out the need to recognise,
“a backstop arrangement as part of the overall operating procedure”,
and that it may need “independently managed arbitration”.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has proposed a very elegant potential solution to move forwards. Some reservations were expressed about that last phase, which was that if there could not be an agreement reached there would be another problem linked to that: that there needs to be an overall responsibility for a UK-wide market and governance responsibility for the way in which things are conducted. Ultimately that will have to rest with one person, who I venture to suggest will be the Prime Minister because that is the overall and overarching point of responsibility. That does not mean that we would go from one to the other without many stages of careful negotiation in between and on the way.
The contents of this amendment were referred to in annexe A of a letter that was sent to me, and I think to other Peers, by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, on 21 March, signalling a wish to move forwards. Following the question about the continuity Bill, I would like to put it on record that I received a letter on 23 March, last Friday, from David Rees, the Assembly Member who chairs the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee. He says in that letter:
“We appreciate the UK Government’s willingness to propose a solution to the impasse we currently face on the treatment of devolved areas of competence once EU law restrictions are lifted from them”.
He goes on to point out,
“the failure to acknowledge a role for the Assembly in the control of powers for which it is responsible”.
That was a problem but, he says:
“We note that the amendments were debated before being withdrawn or not moved in the House of Lords on 21 March … and hope that further progress can be made in the coming weeks”.
I wanted to quote from that letter because there is an atmosphere of good will and a recognition that there needs to be a way forward. I hope that this amendment will contribute towards the Government’s move—it was debated at some length last week when we debated the frameworks—and that we can find a way forward, but it will need dispute resolution processes to be clearly laid out because, even though the EU competencies may fall centrally or to the devolved legislatures, there will still be difficulties at the intersection of many of those broad headlines. We have already had the very helpful table set out by the Government following the deep drives into the legislation but, with all due respect to everyone looking at this, I suggest that we should formally consider laying out some form of dispute resolution so that we do not revisit the impasse we had.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I strongly support the call by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, that primary legislation should be used to form the necessary frameworks. I made that point at Second Reading when I suggested that Clause 11 and all devolved matters should be taken out of the Bill altogether. It might then not have required any consent from the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, the whole matter would have been considerably simplified and the focus could have been put on the very difficult issues that arise with devolution. The original architecture which the Government put forward, which of course they have changed now, was that the powers that were to come back from Brussels—or, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said, the restraints upon the devolved Administration, which is a simpler way of looking at it—should go to the UK Government and then be parcelled out and conferred upon the devolved Administrations. Which powers and when—the timing and the nature of those powers—would be virtually at the whim of the Minister who would decide what was appropriate. It would be done by secondary legislation, either statutory instruments or Orders in Council. We have had debates about that.
The conferred powers model has never been used in relation to the Scottish Parliament. It has always been reserved powers. That is to say that in specific cases of policy, all those powers go to the Scottish Parliament, save those that are named, enumerated and held back— reserved—by the UK Government. Precisely that reserve powers model is about to be employed in Wales under last year’s Wales Act. It is to commence in April. To come forward with a scheme in which, in effect, powers are conferred not by the UK Parliament but by a Minister merely by statutory instruments, which cannot be amended, or by Orders in Council, was clearly inadequate and has given rise to a great deal of difficulty and angst, certainly in Wales.
I shall quote from the evidence that appears in the report of the Committee on the Constitution. It was given by Professor Richard Rawlings of University College London, who has given very valuable advice, in Wales in particular, on devolution issues. What he said about the original architecture was that,
“this process does not establish positive duties on the part of the UK Government to devolve. Legally-speaking, suggested ‘transitional’ elements could so easily become permanent features”.
That is the which and the when. He continued:
“Nor need one be an expert in game theory to appreciate the way in which clause 11 stacks the cards in favour of the centre when negotiating the different design choices with common frameworks”.
If the devolution of powers is simply within the control of the Minister of the UK Government, then the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly have lost their bargaining power in the creation of frameworks. The point was made that while UK-wide frameworks will be necessary in a number of policies, they should be agreed on a parity-of-esteem basis between the Governments and legislatures of the United Kingdom, not imposed by the UK Government even on a time-limited basis.
I hope that indicates what the real, critical matter is. It is not just Welsh, Scottish and possibly Northern Irish people whingeing or seeking to stand up for their own individuality—it is nothing like that. It is that they should have equal bargaining power with the UK Government in the construction of the UK frameworks, which everyone agrees are necessary. I wholly support the amendment.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I have listened with great attention to these debates on devolution and found them extremely interesting. However, I have to say that the longer I have listened, the more concerned I have become about the threat that Brexit poses to the unity of the UK. There is a lot of glib talk about processes, agreement and consent, but in fact we are dealing here with some highly political issues that were not greatly controversial as long as we were members of the EU, but could become of considerable controversy between the nations of the UK, given the different political balance in each of those nations.
I shall make three points to illustrate what I think the threat is. First, the European single market is not a complete single market; it is the deepest single market in the world but it is not complete. One of the differences is that tax rates vary between member states. There has never been a completely harmonised tax system; customs vary, as do business taxes. Once we start talking about a UK single market, the debate will be raised to a new level: about whether tax rates can differ in areas where they presently do not between the nations of the UK. That raises fundamental political choices—between those who believe in higher taxes and higher public spending, and those who do not—and you get people going in different directions.
Secondly, issues such as competition, state aid and public procurement will become highly political and divisive, and it is quite likely that the Welsh and Scottish Governments will wish to take a different approach to these issues from a Conservative-led UK Government. That would lead to a lot of tension. Thirdly, in the area of trade, the beef farmers in the north-east of Scotland and Welsh hill farmers who export their sheep, for example, will be greatly alarmed that the UK Government are prepared to sacrifice these interests in order to complete trade agreements with the rest of the world, and they would have no say whatsoever in those agreements. So on all those grounds I believe we are dealing here not just with processes but, potentially, with highly difficult political questions. Consent is absolutely fundamental. The idea that the solution to these problems could be imposed by a UK Government runs the risk of leading ultimately to the break-up of the UK.
My final point is that a lot of these problems—some 90% of them—would not exist if we stayed in the European single market. That is what many of us on these Benches want to do. The simplest way to prevent these divisive issues that threaten the unity of the United Kingdom is to stay in the single market, where we all stick with a set of common rules.
Lord Morgan
My Lords, I respond with considerable enthusiasm to what my noble friend Lord Liddle just said—and, if I may say so, with considerable pride, because a long time ago I once had the privilege of teaching him. Everything he said about introducing possible discord is profoundly true. I just make two points. This is trying to impose a static uniformity on a United Kingdom whose pluralism has increasingly been made manifest. It is simply the wrong approach: a heavy-handed, imperial approach which is inappropriate. We heard so much during the campaign about “take back control”. Well, control for whom? It was established in the courts by that courageous lady, Mrs Gina Miller, that it should be control for Parliament, because ours is a parliamentary democracy, but the clutch of issues we have been discussing this afternoon raises the additional point of control being vested not merely solely in the Executive, but in the Executive in Westminster, in a situation of pluralism and partnership. At this time, with other tensions emerging all over the European continent, it is very important that the Government get this right.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, it is important to remember that this debate is about a fairly limited matter. No doubt it has consequences, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said, but my principal concern is to get a procedure which is adequate and reasonably simple. As for differences in taxation, the noble Lord will know that for taxpayers in Scotland, there are differences already and even more to come—which may not altogether suggest that he should come to live in Scotland.
This committee has started looking at individual areas of devolved policy. It has come up with a tremendous number and has tended to look at them from that point of view. We now gravely need to look at things from the point of view of the ultimate result. The framework agreements are described in the documents as intended to promote the single market, and that is how I see them—trying to ensure the continuation of the single market which presently exists in the United Kingdom and which everyone, as far as I can see, would like to continue.
That approach has led to people saying, “This area is okay. You do not need a framework”—because of minute descriptions which I shall not attempt to recite—“but if you need a framework, the United Kingdom Government must create some form of control which enables them to lay out such an agreement”. That is the idea of the power to select 24 areas where statutory framework agreements were necessary; and there is another group where memoranda of understanding were thought to be necessary.
That way of looking at it is bound to be complicated, and you have to have some power to hold the devolved area that is to be subject to the single market requirement in order to put the single market requirement into effect. That is the purpose of this rather remarkable proposed new clause: giving Ministers power to hold for a time that particular policy area. Once that happens, I can see that some form of time restraint will be necessary, because you do not want to be waiting too long.
My suggestion, which I put forward in relation to my amendment last week, is that you forget all that and remember that the areas of devolution are defined by the areas which are presently controlled in Europe but which can effectively be legislated for in one of the devolved areas. Scotland cannot legislate for Wales, much as it might like to, and nor can Wales legislate for Scotland. Scotland can legislate only for itself, so it cannot set up by its own legislative authority a single market. Therefore, if the single market is to be legislated for, it has to be done by the Parliament of the United Kingdom—and all devolved areas are appropriately represented in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. We must not forget that.
I suggest that the committee should be defined as a group in the way that I have sought to set out, looking for consent for all the necessary provisions to enable a single market, as far as it is agreed to be required, in the United Kingdom. I sincerely hope that that will be agreed because, as I told your Lordships last week, when I spoke to the Minister from Scotland, he was very insistent that the chances of reaching agreement were very high—so I am working particularly on that assumption. It does not absolutely need to be fulfilled, for a reason that I will come to in a moment, but I certainly hope that it can be. That is why I think we should have a group in which the four different countries—three of which are devolved—should be more or less equally represented. That is what the proposed group is for—it is proposed only for this special purpose. I am not seeking to incorporate this into the Government of the United Kingdom for the future, as some people have suggested. I am thinking only of a group to solve this present problem, which is quite urgent, quite important and not too difficult.
We should remember that a single market exists in the United Kingdom already, so we do not have to invent it all. We may need to make modifications, but there is a kind of plan available to look at—so I think the chances of this group reaching agreement are very strong. If so, what I believe should then happen is that the things they have agreed should be incorporated in a United Kingdom statute. If they are all agreed, the sole convention should provide that there be statutory consent. I see no need for any kind of system for dealing with disagreements at that stage. The United Kingdom Parliament has a responsibility and will have to deal with it on its constituents.
I have also tried to make sure that the group is as united as possible, so I have provided that, where there is a disagreement, it should state precisely, in an agreed form, what it is, so that the Parliament of the United Kingdom—if it had to come to that—would have only that question to determine. I think that this is a better system than anything that starts from the bottom and seems to come up. Consent would come in the group right across the whole field and, if that works, as I hope it will, there is no difficulty whatever. If there is any difficulty, the Parliament of the United Kingdom will have to try to solve it and then the Sewel convention will apply to that United Kingdom Parliament. That is my solution—and, of course, the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, would then not arise. That is a much better system than trying to work up from the individual in 24 areas, or whatever it is.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, again. I welcomed very much the points that he made last week with regard to looking for a mechanism. We can split hairs about the detail of it, but the need for a mechanism to be there is clear.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for proposing this amendment and, particularly, for proposed new subsection (3), which states:
“Ministers of the Crown may create UK-wide frameworks only if they have consulted with, and secured the agreement of, the affected devolved administrations”.
I personally believe that it is much easier to look at an issue like this if one looks at a specific aspect and asks oneself how it would work out in practice. I referred in an earlier debate in this Committee to agriculture, which is one of the areas which at present is under the common agricultural policy at a European level, but with devolution with regard to the working of agriculture in Wales and Scotland.
The nature of agriculture in Wales—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, mentioned this—is different because of the sheep meat regime. We have 12 million sheep in Wales—four times more sheep than we have people. The sheep meat regime is massively important in Wales, and more important relatively than it is in other parts of the United Kingdom. Within the European context it has been possible to find ways of enabling Wales to follow its own policies in some regards within the overall framework of the CAP for Europe. Indeed, at times there have been opportunities for Welsh Ministers to speak in Brussels on behalf of the UK, when there was something relative to a specialist interest in Wales, such as sheep, on the agenda.
The fear in Wales now is that, if the power over agriculture is in London primarily, the ability to fine-tune and develop new policies in Wales that has been exercised up to now will become more constrained—things such as the agro-environmental schemes that have been developed in Wales, for example. The fear is there because the nature of agriculture in England, and the dominant role of those interests in England, are very different to those in Wales. Therefore, if one is trying to secure a single market within the UK, which is obviously common sense, there has to be some mechanism of give and take. It may be all right for a regime in Wales to work in a way that gives added benefits to the Welsh sheep farmers, provided that is bringing them up to the overall level and not giving them unfair competition in the marketplace over other people—but the initiatives for those will need to be developed in Wales, within the context of Welsh circumstances.
That is why I believe that it is essential, whatever the final Bill contains, that it has this element not only of consultation but of agreement. My belief is that, with most things, there would be immediate agreement—and, if there is no immediate agreement, another problem will come and hit us down the road in a year or two, which will build up the type of tensions to which the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, referred. It is far better that we have this model working by agreement between the devolved Administrations, and it might come as a considerable surprise to find how willing people were then to work together.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
To follow on from what the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has said, I am tempted by the reverse approach of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and the mechanism that he has described. I have just one point to add to the debate: I am worried about the emphasis on the single market—the internal UK market. There was a debate in Europe, following the Cockfield White Paper 30 years ago, about how much uniformity was needed in a single market; how much you could rely on mutual recognition; how much you did not need to standardise at all and how much you could harmonise. Noble Lords will remember that that debate became quite controversial at times. Some of us argued that the Commission took a more expansive view of the need to harmonise and standardise, rather than to recognise diversity. In my view, devolution inherently means a recognition of diversity. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, that the Government have an evil, malign intent here. However, the way that this dossier has been handled has created suspicions in Scotland and Wales of such an intent.
Looking at the criteria set out in the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, there is no difficulty with a common framework in areas necessary to,
“safeguard the security of the UK”,
or,
“provide access to justice”,
or,
“enable the management of common resources”,
or,
“ensure compliance with international obligations”,
obviously. I pause on,
“new trade agreements and international treaties”,
because there are suspicions that the fox might get into the hen house. The real suspicion arises over the first item:
“enable the functioning of the UK internal market”.
I do not think “enable” is a transitive verb. As all noble Lords recognise, “ennoble” is, but “enable” is intransitive. However, that is not the main reason that I object to this section of the amendment. The phrase,
“the functioning of the UK internal market”,
could be interpreted very widely, and there are those in Scotland and, presumably, in Wales who assume that the Government might want to interpret it widely.
We do not have a single market in the UK now; it is variegated, as are the views on the extent to which it needs to be further harmonised or advanced. I wonder whether it would not be better if the Government could drop from their presentation on this dossier, on Brexit and devolution, the references to the UK internal market. There would be very few areas where it needed to be used and they would all be covered by one of the other criteria in the noble and learned Lord’s amendment.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I will pick up what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, has just said. The criteria set out in this amendment—and in one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, to which the noble Lord and I both put our names but which was not moved—reflect a set of principles for common UK frameworks agreed at a Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations last October. They are certainly a basis for moving forward and already have a buy-in from the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales.
When creating United Kingdom frameworks, we do not want to find a situation where, when we come out of the European Union, there is something which impedes a Scottish beef producer freely selling their beef in Wales or a Welsh sheep producer selling lamb in Belfast. These benefits predate our entry into the European Common Market. It is also important to remind ourselves that the restrictions on the Scottish Parliament relate not only to reserved matters or EU law, but to what is in Schedule 4 to the Scotland Act. That specifically constrains the Scottish Parliament from doing anything which modifies Articles IV and VI of the Union with Scotland Act 1706 and the Union with England Act 1707. If one reads these two articles of the Acts of Union, drafted 280 years before the Cockfield report, one finds not a bad model, in the language of its time, for a customs union and a single market which have served us well over three centuries.
I also note that as well as the criteria that have been agreed, the Scottish Government themselves, in their legislative consent memorandum to the Scottish Parliament in September last year, said at paragraph 19:
“The Scottish Government has made clear, repeatedly, its willingness to negotiate UK frameworks in certain areas previously covered by EU law. This could be, for example, to support the functioning of UK markets, or to facilitate the management of common environmental resources”.
Therefore, I believe there is a basis for reaching agreements here, but it is important that these are not imposed.
In giving evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee in the other place last year, the Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr Mundell, stated at paragraph 21 of that committee’s first report of Session 2017-19:
“The Secretary of State for Scotland agreed that any common frameworks should be agreed with the devolved administrations, stating:
A UK framework is not a framework that the UK Government imposes; it is a framework that is agreed across the United Kingdom”.
It is important that we approach this issue with that in mind. That is why I think the amendment suggested and spoken to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is helpful. Indeed, that Select Committee went on to recommend that:
“Any common framework must require the consent of the governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where relevant”.
It is important to have a dispute resolution mechanism, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, because there is potential for some disagreement in setting up these frameworks—I hope not as much as is sometimes thought—for which a dispute resolution mechanism is required. One assumes that once these frameworks are established—that goes beyond the ambit of this Bill—they will not be static but will develop. It might be useful at some stage—not in this debate or in this Bill—to get an indication from the United Kingdom Government as to how they see these frameworks working after they have been established. Do they want to see common standards apply across the United Kingdom, but have diversity within that as to how they are implemented in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, or in England through the United Kingdom Parliament? That too will require some form of dispute resolution mechanism. The Select Committee, to which I have referred, recommends that,
“the UK Government and the devolved administrations agree a mechanism by which disputes can be resolved in the event that common frameworks cannot be agreed”.
I think that that is a two-stage process. First, there is the establishment of the common frameworks, where the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is very pertinent, and, as we move forward, there is the issue of how we look at the operation of the common frameworks, which I believe will also need some form of dispute resolution mechanism. However, it is important that we move forward with the common frameworks. The amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, certainly reflects agreements that have already been reached between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I wish to add a couple of points. First, are discussions progressing on the possible inclusion in the Bill of a schedule detailing these areas of concern? Secondly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, said that a solution should be agreed, not imposed. We should heed those words. I again ask the Minister: as regards reaching agreement on these issues, to what extent does he have in mind involving the legislatures rather than just the devolved Governments?
The Minister has had notice of my next point. I would like to correct something that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, said in the House last week. He said that there were,
“about 153 areas in which, upon our leaving the EU, competences will return and touch upon areas of devolved competence. These are areas that the devolved parliaments and assemblies previously had no engagement with because they lay in Brussels”.—[Official Report, 21/3/18; col. 334.]
I have since written to him because that it not completely the case. As it works, the memorandum of understanding provides that, in matters of devolved competence, the UK Government consult the devolved Administrations to agree a common UK position on matters before the Council of Ministers, and then defend that position in the Council. Indeed, as we just heard, occasionally devolved Ministers will do that and represent the UK. However, whether it is a UK Minister or a devolved Minister there, they speak in this case for an agreed UK position, not just a UK government position. It may therefore be helpful if the Minister confirms that understanding, which is undoubtedly how the devolved Governments see it. What has been said is right: the spirit to reach accord is there. However, perhaps for clarity, it would be good if that could be confirmed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
Perhaps noble Lords will forgive me for a moment or two while I stretch my back, which is just a little bit tight. Now I am fighting fit. I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that it is because I am carrying the heavy weight of Brexit on my shoulders.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for bringing forward this amendment, and all noble Lords who have introduced some interesting debate into the discussions today. It will be useful for us to begin by looking at the deep-dive process itself, whereby the devolved Administrations together with the UK Government have pored over the various 150 or so areas to which my noble and learned friend Lord Keen referred. They have been guided, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, noted, by a suite of agreed principles, which indeed from time to time make reference to such concepts as the UK market itself, trade and various other obligations. I understand that each of your Lordships should have had in their postbox or email in-tray a series of emails from my noble friend Lord Bourne which set out the principles themselves and the areas in which they intersect with the policy matters.
It may be useful if I give a flavour of that. It struck me, as I was discussing with various officials in my department and others, that we have perhaps not done that before to give your Lordships a sense of the sheer scale and magnitude of the engagement thus far undertaken. There is a certain sense sometimes that we are quite dismissive of the devolved Administrations, when nothing could be further from the truth. To give your Lordships just a flavour of that, in the area of fisheries there have been six full days of discussions between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government—17, 18, 23 and 24 January, and 6 and 7 February. On environmental quality, to take another example, there was a whole-day discussion on ozone-depleting substances and fluorine gases on 31 January, and two full days at the end of January were spent examining chemicals and pesticides. It is useful to recognise that this approach is unprecedented. Its purpose is, again, one of respect. I can see that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, is ready to jump up. He is welcome to do so—it will give me a chance to sit down.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
What the Minister is saying is encouraging. For the sake of argument, let us take fishing. Have any of these meetings between UK officials and officials from the devolved Administrations involved members of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation? Stakeholders obviously have a practical view on where some common arrangements are useful and where they are not.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I wish I could answer that question in the affirmative, but the answer is no. Before each meeting the devolved Administrations, with the UK Government, have engaged in direct consultation with stakeholders. However, the stakeholders have not been inside the room. None the less, what they bring to the table is very much understood. I develop upon these parts because, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, pointed out, it is important that when we consider the question of agriculture there is no suggestion that, although agriculture itself is one of the headings, everything in agriculture will remain part of that. To some degree, what noble Lords had in their in-boxes, which was simply entitled “Agricultural funding”, was a little unhelpful. Underneath that rests each of the areas where there is expected to be a necessary common framework, and indeed a whole range of areas where there would not need to be a common framework because it would be fully devolved from the get-go. To some degree, there can be a result of some misunderstanding contained in that approach. Again, that is why it is imperative that we examine every single aspect when we have these deep dives, which are ongoing; they have not finished yet.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
Can my noble friend confirm that it is the Government’s intention that this should happen by primary legislation?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
Yes, that is the intention. We will move forward with this through primary legislation in each of the common framework areas. On that basis, I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate and to the Minister for his few words in his response. Of course, legislation may contain enabling powers but we do not know yet what the legislation he is promising will look like. If it is simply a Bill with a lot of Henry VIII powers in the area concerned, it will not advance the argument at all.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, for enlarging on the points he made last week. I am glad that my amendment has given him the opportunity to emphasise again the points he has made and his valuable contribution to our debate. He said that if his approach is correct then my amendment ceases to have any purpose. Of course, he is right, because my amendment does not look at primary legislation; it looks at the procedure that would be followed if the mechanism to be used is to be by delegated legislation, in which case we are talking about the consent not of the legislatures but of the Administrations—that is, of Ministers. At the moment, we have in the amendment that was before us last week—the amended form of Clause 11—a promise of consultation. Many noble Lords who have spoken in support of my amendment have emphasised the importance of consent, which is the crucial matter. As the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said after his careful analysis of what we are really talking about: consent is fundamental. That is the background to what I am submitting.
There are one or two scattered points which I might mention. On the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, was absolutely right. Proposed subsection (2) of my amendment is based on an agreement reached in October last year at the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations. The wording is exactly as it was framed in the agreements, and that is the point from which we are moving forward. One could debate the language, but I think that the time for doing so has passed.
I thought that the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, about the attitude of the sheep farmers was very helpful, and we have heard similar remarks about the position as regards fishing. I do not think that the position of the hill farmer in Scotland is very different from that which was described by the noble Lord. However, there could well be differences in the way that sheep are managed in England and the way that they are bred and moved south in Scotland and east in Wales—they are moved across the United Kingdom before being exported somewhere else. I can see, therefore, that there could be detailed disputes about what the Welsh, Scots and English would want in framing a UK-wide market for the handling of sheep stock. To attempt to create uniformity in areas as sensitive as this may be a mistake, and it may be that that is where the sticking points are in the discussions. I hope very much that one can get to the point where these matters can be agreed without resorting to dispute resolution.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, also pointed out, in a few years’ time, when we move beyond the Clause 11 procedure and the time limit has disappeared, we do not want to have to start these arguments all over again. We want to resolve this at the beginning in the creation of the market.
It is difficult to take the point further because we do not really know the detail of the disagreements before us. However, I suggest to the Minister that it would be a great help if, before Report, a letter could be passed to those who have taken part in the debate explaining the procedure that the Government intend to use in the creation of these frameworks. I would be very pleased if they were to adopt what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has suggested, and it would be very helpful to know that that is what they propose before we start looking at this again on Report. If they do not propose to do that, we need to know what the alternative is and how consent is to be built into it. In the light of the very helpful response from the Minister, and of what I have said so far, I will leave the matter there for the time being. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
“Saving of acquired rights: Gibraltar
(1) Nothing in this Act is to be construed as removing, replacing, altering or prejudicing the exercise of an acquired right.(2) Any power, howsoever expressed, contained in this Act may not be exercised if the exercise of that power is likely to or will remove, replace or alter or prejudice the exercise of an acquired right.(3) In subsection (2) a reference to a power includes a power to make regulations.(4) In this section an acquired right means a right that existed immediately before exit day whereby—(a) a person from or established in Gibraltar could exercise that right (either absolutely or subject to any qualification) in the United Kingdom; and(b) the right arose in the context of the United Kingdom’s membership of the EU and Gibraltar’s status as a European territory for whose external relations the United Kingdom is responsible within the meaning of Article 355(3) TFEU and to which the provisions of the EU Treaties apply, subject to the exceptions specified in the 1972 Act of Accession.(5) Nothing in this section prevents the use of the powers conferred by this Act to the extent that acquired rights are not altered or otherwise affected to the detriment of persons enjoying such rights.(6) In this section, reference to the “1972 Act of Accession” is reference to the treaty concerning the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland, the Kingdom of Norway and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the European Economic Community and to the European Atomic Energy Community.”
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-chairperson of the All-Party Group on Gibraltar. I add that the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, who has attached her name to the amendment, is very sad not to be here but she is currently on business in Geneva.
I tabled this amendment just after Second Reading, at a time when I was particularly concerned about the potential threat of Spain’s veto over Gibraltar—Spain was discussing exercising its veto over the transition period. Some weeks before I tabled the amendment I asked a supplementary question at Oral Questions about Gibraltar and the threat from Spain and received a rather surprising reply from the Minister that it was most unlikely that Spain would exercise its veto because Spain and the United Kingdom were on good terms. That answer caused astonishment both in the House and particularly, as one can imagine, in Gibraltar. So although I was aware of the helpful discussions continuing at that time between the United Kingdom Government, the Gibraltar Government and, in particular, the Department for Exiting the EU, I tabled this amendment as a precaution. Now I am glad to inform the House that there have been fruitful discussions between the UK Government and the Gibraltar Government and the situation has changed significantly.
The Gibraltar Government are now entirely happy with the reassurances they have received and believe that the progress made is substantial, that the United Kingdom Government are engaged in good faith, that the transition period is now protected, and that it is the unshakeable objective of the United Kingdom Government to ensure the seamless continuation of the existing market access into the UK and to enhance it where possible.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
I received a copy of a letter from the representative of the Gibraltar Government which indicated that they wanted the noble and learned Baroness to withdraw her amendment. I was surprised at the nature of the comments in that letter. All they seemed to be concerned about was internet gambling and maintaining their rights to provide it to the United Kingdom. If there is one thing many of us would not want them to maintain, it is the right to internet gambling. They did not seem to be concerned about the rights of workers in Gibraltar going over to Spain or workers in Spain coming into Gibraltar, of people travelling, tourists or anything else. I wonder whether the agreement the noble and learned Baroness is lauding is of benefit to ordinary people in Gibraltar or of benefit only to the internet gambling syndicates.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
I have a feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has not seen as many of the documents as I have.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is many things, but he is not a ventriloquist.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
I apologise. I was looking one seat further to the right. However, I feel that the noble Lord has not seen as much of the documentation as I have. I have the strong impression that the Gibraltar Government are extremely concerned about the movement of people, particularly between La Linea and Gibraltar. The agreements between the United Kingdom and Gibraltar Governments on the transition period go far beyond gambling—I am not the least bit interested in gambling—and include all the other areas of interest to the ordinary people of Gibraltar, including education. One of the agreements between the United Kingdom Government and the Gibraltar Government enables Gibraltarians who want education in this country to have it on the same terms as they have always had it and to be treated as if they were UK citizens. That is the kind of thing which is going on.
Lord Wigley
It really is me now. The noble and learned Baroness mentioned market access, which links in to the point the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, made a moment ago. Can the assurances she has got be projected as single market access/participation? If so, does that not necessarily run way beyond the links between Gibraltar and Spain and into the generality of our relationship with the European Union?
Baroness Butler-Sloss
I do not know the answer to that because what I have been told by Gibraltar House, in particular by Fabian Picardo, the Chief Minister, is that there have been careful discussions with various Ministers, particularly the Minister for Exiting the EU, and that there will be protection during the transition period. There are also careful negotiations between Gibraltar and the UK on what happens after Brexit takes place. Those are not finalised, but the Gibraltarians are confident that they will get what they want because the Government have said that they wish to ensure the seamless continuation of the existing market access into the UK and to enhance it where possible.
Perhaps I may move on. The UK Government have been clear and insistent in stating that they are negotiating for the whole of the UK, including Gibraltar, and are standing shoulder to shoulder with the Gibraltarians in their unswerving commitment to the UK/Gibraltar relationship. However, I would add that the threat from Spain is real and continuing. Only in the past week or 10 days, another threat has come from Madrid about the exercise of the veto. However, the Gibraltar Government have accepted the assurances of the United Kingdom Government that the existing market access arrangements between the UK and Gibraltar will not be affected by the exclusion of Gibraltar in any sort of veto exercise by Spain during the transition period. Moreover, as I have said, there are continuing discussions about the position post Brexit and there remains, I have to say, a continuing threat from Spain. Perhaps unlike the noble Lords across from me in the Chamber, I would like to congratulate the Government on their approach to Gibraltar and how they are working with the Gibraltarians.
Gibraltar is a strong and faithful friend of the United Kingdom—it is important to remember that—and it deserves to be looked after properly. I can assure the Committee, however, that everything I have seen leads me to believe that the United Kingdom is acting entirely fairly and correctly. It is doing its best, and it is a good best, to make sure that the arrangements for Gibraltar during the transition period—
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
I am most grateful to the noble and learned Baroness for giving way. I shall speak in support of the amendment before it is withdrawn, but if I have understood the noble and learned Baroness rightly—I have also received a letter from the representative of Gibraltar in London—everything she has said relates solely to the relationship between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom. I have to say that that is not the heart of the matter. The relationship between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom has existed for 350 years and is not affected one way or the other by our membership of the European Union, so the Government are generously giving the Gibraltarians back what they already have.
What I should like to know is whether the noble and learned Baroness, because she is much better informed than I am on this matter, is aware of what has been agreed for the transitional period and the period beyond on the relationship between Gibraltar and the rest of the European Union.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
I can be corrected on this, but I think I am right in saying that much of what was arranged between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom on the business between the two countries was directed by the EU, and consequently it is important that the arrangements between the United Kingdom and Gibraltar make it absolutely clear that all trade between the two countries would continue unimpeded. I know no more about what is being said about Gibraltar and the EU than, I suspect, anyone else in the Chamber other than the Minister, because I assume that all of this is subject to the negotiations. But the United Kingdom Government have promised that they will stand by Gibraltar and that they will make sure that they are negotiating for Gibraltar as well as the whole of the rest of the United Kingdom.
I am not in a position to say any more than that, but the amendment was necessary when I tabled it. It is clear that it is not necessary now, but I was not asked to withdraw it. I would not have dreamed of accepting such a request. I was told that it was not necessary for it to go to a vote and that the Gibraltar Government would prefer us not to vote on it, for perfectly obvious reasons. If relations between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom Government are as good as I am told they are, I do not have the slightest desire to rock the boat. I do not propose to take this amendment any further beyond Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, I added my name to the amendment after Second Reading, as Members will realise. It has been fascinating listening to some of the debate so far, but I go back to what Amendment 315 would do. It would make it clear that the EU (Withdrawal) Bill does not permit the,
“removing, replacing, altering or prejudicing the exercise”,
of Gibraltar’s acquired rights with reference to the 1972 Act of accession. That is what the amendment says. Some of the comments made so far have been very interesting, but they are not soluble.
The amendment has been tabled because, sadly, it became necessary following Spain’s repeated verbal aggressive claims, and not just those relating to the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. Those of us who have studied Gibraltar’s interests over the years will know that it is a repeated problem in our dealings with Spain over Gibraltar’s rights. It has become necessary because of that behaviour from Spain, particularly the claims to which the European Council and Commission have given unwarranted credence and encouragement. There is no legal validity to paragraph 24 in the European Commission’s Brexit guidelines, proposing a right of veto for all 24 EU members on negotiations over Gibraltar. The inclusion of paragraph 24 in the guidelines detracts from driving a good result for all of the EU and for the UK with Gibraltar. This is why we have tabled the amendment.
In the meantime, I agree with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that it is quite right that a wide package of measures has been agreed by the joint ministerial council of the UK and Gibraltar that covers university fees, health, transport, the environment and fishing—much the same as exists already. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, made that point very well. The agreement also includes guarantees on continued reciprocal rights for Gibraltar’s citizens on accessing key services.
As a member of the All-Party Group for Gibraltar for more than a decade and a previous vice-chair, I share the view that Gibraltar must be included in the implementation and future agreements, not just in the negotiations. Over the years, the people of Gibraltar have demonstrated how much they cherish their British sovereignty, which has been well deserved for more than 350 years, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, mentioned. In response to correspondence from the chair of the All-Party Group for Gibraltar, the Prime Minister has given her assurance in writing that the Government are forthright and resolute in their support for Gibraltar. They are determined to defend the interests of the people of Gibraltar in their negotiations with the EU. But it is early days. As many people keep saying about the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Amendment 315 seeks to reinforce in every way the resolve of our Governments and our Parliaments.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Very easily. I have been listening to the noble Lord very carefully about the assurances from our Prime Minister. How do they change in any way the claims and the challenges by Spain, which will continue? Do they reduce them in any way whatever?
Lord Chidgey
My Lords, who can say? That is the point of this amendment: to try to protect the interests of the United Kingdom and Gibraltar within the framework of the EU withdrawal Bill. It would put down a marker that we are not giving away those rights by virtue of the withdrawal Bill.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
All that the noble Lord and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, spoke of were agreements between the United Kingdom and Gibraltar. They are easy to get, but they do not deal with the continued claim and challenge from Spain. As I understand it, there are those outwith Spain in the European Union who would support Spain on that. How would the amendment make the problem of Gibraltar in coming to a final decision on Brexit any easier? It does not seem any easier because of this agreement.
Lord Chidgey
I can only say to the noble Lord that it is quite obvious that we have a long way to go to reach an agreement between the United Kingdom and Spain. It is worth remembering that the issue of the sovereignty of Gibraltar, which is with the UK, has been set in stone and not necessarily agreed by Spain. The offer of any talks about Gibraltar’s future with Spain are set in stone to be entirely dependent on the agreement of Gibraltar. However, further than that we have not gone.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, I declare an interest in this matter because I was a part of the accession negotiating team rather a long time ago and responsible for the conditions that related to Gibraltar. Subsequently, in the early 1980s, I was sent to Madrid by the then Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe, Lord Hurd of Westwell, to ensure that the Spanish Government opened the border before they tried to get the British Parliament to ratify their treaty of accession. So I have had a little bit of experience of this.
We should be absolutely clear that Gibraltar’s status depends automatically from our membership; it was not negotiated or negotiable, because Gibraltar was a European territory for whose foreign affairs we were responsible. There is no question of it being negotiated—I have to admit that it was slightly easier that Spain was not a member of the European Union at the time we joined. Where we wished not to apply the treaty as it was drafted in 1956 to a European territory for which we were responsible—namely, the sovereign base areas in Cyprus—we had to negotiate an opt-out because, otherwise, they would have been automatically included in all the provisions of our accession treaty.
It follows from this, I think, and this is where I turn to the Minister, the fount of all wisdom, that on the day we leave—not the end of the transitional period—Gibraltar’s status within the European Union must cease. It will no longer be a European territory for whose external relations a member state is responsible, because, if the Government have their way, the United Kingdom will not be a member state of the European Union on 30 March 2019. I support the amendment because it is still pretty necessary, but can the Minister tell us how the transitional provisions, which relate to a United Kingdom outside the European Union—that is the determined wish of his Government—will be affected from 30 March? Which provision in the agreement on the transitional period reached in Brussels last week—a very welcome agreement—will cover Gibraltar, which is the dependent territory of a country which is outside the European Union?
Going slightly wider, we have to look beyond the relationship between Gibraltar and the UK, important as that is and welcome as the Government’s assurances to the Government of Gibraltar are—they are extremely welcome—to the relationship between Gibraltar in the future and the European Union as a whole. That will not be easy, frankly. Anybody who thinks it will be easy to negotiate ain’t seen nothing yet: it is not going to be easy, it is going to be very problematic.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I support this amendment, which focuses on the acquired rights of those in Gibraltar. They, of course, voted overwhelmingly to stay in the EU and their desire to remain part of the United Kingdom is also extremely strong. I am glad that the United Kingdom has now apparently made a commitment to protect Gibraltar’s acquired rights. I am glad also to hear that the Government have promised what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the Gibraltar Government have described as “a seamless continuation of UK market access”. Maybe that seamless market access model should also be applied to the north and south of Ireland.
However, there are other rights that those in Gibraltar risk losing if Brexit occurs. These have not been satisfactorily addressed by the Government, and they must be—the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is absolutely right. I realise that the Government of Gibraltar may fear fighting on several fronts and this is reflected, possibly, in the letter that several of us have received. They may fear upsetting the apple cart of the arrangement they may have reached with the United Kingdom. We have to recognise that Gibraltar is in a very weak position. It has less vocal support than has Northern Ireland. Thank goodness that Ireland, north and south, has that support. Less has been heard about Gibraltar, but it needs that support just as much as Ireland does. Gibraltar’s status, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has been assisted by both Spain and the United Kingdom being inside the EU. Now the EU is likely to support Spain, as a member state, not the UK if it leaves the EU. That leaves Gibraltar’s position very precarious.
The UK agreed principles of joint sovereignty with Spain in 2002 but dropped these after the referendum in Gibraltar. Spain still seeks either sole sovereignty or joint sovereignty with the UK over Gibraltar. The European Commission has stated:
“After the United Kingdom leaves the Union, no agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom may apply to the territory of Gibraltar without the agreement between the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom”.
That would still seem to imply a Spanish veto.
Therefore, in some ways the easier part—the UK guaranteeing Gibraltar’s rights vis-à-vis the UK—seems to have been tackled, but nothing has yet dealt with Gibraltar’s position of having a border with the EU, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out. How is this to be managed when so many pass back and forth easily every day? How are disputes to be settled? It is all very well saying that Gibraltar has continued access to the UK’s banking system but suppose the UK’s own banking arrangements with the EU are seriously curtailed—what are the implications for Gibraltar? Gibraltar’s ability to passport its financial services to the rest of the EU through the UK, and directly as part of the single market, would be affected. What is more, nearly a third of the jobs in its financial sector are held by workers who cross the frontier. In fact, 40% of jobs in Gibraltar are filled by “frontier workers”—people who cross the border from Spain to work there. What happens to that ease of movement?
The UK Government are not proposing that the UK should seek to stay in the single market. This means that after Brexit, unless there is a specific agreement on the border, free movement will not apply between Spain and Gibraltar; Spain will be able to close the border and establish border and passport controls. How is this being addressed? Some 95% of Gibraltar’s goods come from Spain. How is that being addressed? Then there is the airport. The isthmus on which the airport is built is part of Spain’s sovereignty claim. Spain asserts that it was not ceded to Britain under the Treaty of Utrecht. This position has been an obstacle to the adoption of EU aviation legislation and Gibraltar’s airport is currently excluded from EU air liberalisation measures. Spain has signalled that it would block UK access to the EU’s single aviation market unless the terms exclude Gibraltar International Airport. Can the Minister say what conclusions were reached at the summit on Friday? Does he think that the position of Gibraltar will need to be resolved before any deal is agreed between the EU and the UK?
The statement on Friday from the European Council indeed says that,
“nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”.
Actually, that immediately follows mention of Gibraltar and,
“the territorial application of the Withdrawal Agreement”,
here as elsewhere. I asked the Library to find out what was said at the summit on Friday. It has reported to me that it has been unable to find any further mention of discussions relating to Gibraltar in the European Council’s account of the meetings on 22 and 23 March. That does not sound like Gibraltar was a high priority.
The acquired rights of those in Gibraltar may have been secured with the UK but many more of their rights are under challenge. I look forward to the Minister’s reply and hope that he does not say simply that this is all up for negotiation. As I say, it does not sound as if Gibraltar was even mentioned on Friday. There needs to be a proper plan and we do not have that yet.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I do not want to repeat what has been said but the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, seems to have asked the key question. Amid all the detail perhaps we might precis the fundamental question.
I was here when the members of the Government of Gibraltar were sitting in the Chamber when Gibraltar first came up on our agenda. It seemed that promises were being made by the Government which were not in the Government’s gift to make. This is still the heart of the question that is being raised here. Can the Minister clarify what is in the UK Government’s gift and what is not, in order that we do not make promises that cannot be fulfilled? It seems to me that we can make promises in relation to the UK’s relationship with and commitments and obligations to Gibraltar but not those of the EU. That is where the fault line lies, which seems as clear a fault line as that between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
Lord Luce (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former Governor of Gibraltar. I support very much the amendment moved by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey. I find myself in total agreement with all the speeches that have been made so far.
Without any doubt, the people of Gibraltar have as a whole been suffering great anxiety over the last several months about their future. It is essential that we find ways to assure them of their future. Let us remind ourselves that during the referendum, 96% of them voted in favour of remaining in the European Union. Why? Because it enabled them to expand their financial services through the passporting system and, through the internal border, the Commission could give some form of protection to a smooth flow—in so far as there has been one—across that border. But under Brexit, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, so rightly said, it would immediately become an external border with all the consequences which would flow from that.
A very important element is that 90% of Gibraltar’s business with the EU is with the United Kingdom, principally in financial services. It is essential that they have that reassurance so they can retain that access, making it easier for them to do business with the United Kingdom. Hence this amendment, which is designed to give reassurances to the people of Gibraltar about their acquired rights as corporations and individual citizens.
Events have moved in a better direction in the last couple of weeks, and the verbal assurances given by Ministers have been transformed into a concrete package, which was announced on 8 March as a result of the joint ministerial council meeting. It assures Gibraltar of continuity with the United Kingdom, with mechanisms which are now in place to secure trading and commercial links with the United Kingdom until the end of 2020—that is to say, for the transition period. But as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out, it is not clear whether this transition period applies to Gibraltar’s relationship with the whole of the European Union. I hope the Minister will give a clear answer on that question at the end of the debate.
My concern then flows to the post-Brexit period for Gibraltar, and I agree entirely with the comments that have been made. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, there have been assurances and very important commitments to design a modernised agreement based on high standards of regulation and enforcement. That means further regulatory alignment between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom. There are long-term commitments to have growing market access for financial services to the United Kingdom and strengthened relationships on the health services, environment and transport. As I am Chancellor of the new University of Gibraltar, I am very glad of its commitment to develop reciprocal relations between students in Gibraltar and the United Kingdom.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
Does the noble Lord know whether the Government of Gibraltar are in favour of a referendum on a final withdrawal treaty and, as a former Governor of Gibraltar, does he think that is a good idea?
Lord Luce
I am not going to be drawn on that but, if I may, I will end my remarks by emphasising the need for words not just of caution but of hope. On caution, I refer to clause 24 of the European Union’s negotiating procedures, which gives Spain a right of veto. That remains a matter of profound anxiety regarding the negotiations that are going to take place in the next six months. It is in the hands of Spain whether it handles Gibraltar like Catalonia, or in a more sane fashion. I can say only that in terms of hope, what is required is a sustained dialogue between the UK and Spanish Governments, which I hope is now taking place, involving very strongly the Government of Gibraltar. The purpose should be to work in a positive and statesmanlike fashion to achieve an agreement on economic co-operation across the border between Gibraltar and Andalusia, bearing in mind that 13,000 people a day cross that border—40% of the workforce of Gibraltar. It would be profoundly to their mutual advantage to achieve that, if Spain has a positive attitude, but beyond that Spain has got to be positive about its future long-term relations with Gibraltar. There is still a long way to go.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, we are extremely fortunate to have in this House the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who has such intimate knowledge going back over 30 years and more, and my noble friend Lord Luce—I must call him that as we sat together in the other place—who was such a distinguished Governor of Gibraltar and who still maintains his interest as Chancellor of its new university.
I do not want to be at all critical of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who made a very generous speech, but we have to be careful about the epistle that we who are reckoned to be friends of Gibraltar all received. It was, effectively, a written sigh of relief that at least the UK Government had stepped up to the mark and said that that they were committing themselves to Gibraltar. That commitment is clearly crucial and it is equally very welcome, but it does not solve the problem about which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and my noble friend Lord Luce have spoken so eloquently. As the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, it is in effect a Northern Ireland situation in miniature, because this is the other border between UK territory and the European Union. People have talked about 350 years, but it is not 350 years, as it is since the treaty of Utrecht in 1713, just over 300 years ago, that we have had this commitment to and legal possession of Gibraltar, which has been continually—or perhaps I should say intermittently—challenged by successive Governments of Spain.
In his speech a few minutes ago, my noble friend Lord Luce made graphically plain what is at stake for the people of Gibraltar. Obviously, I hope that when he replies my noble friend the Minister will reiterate the agreements referred to in the letter we all received, but I hope he will go further and indicate that the UK Government will not sign up to any final agreement that leaves unprotected the people of Gibraltar: nothing is agreed until everything is agreed—the mantra that is repeated again and again. A country should be judged by how it treats its weakest citizens, and by how it treats those parts of its territory which are wholly dependent upon it. The people of Gibraltar are wholly dependent upon the Government of the United Kingdom. There must be no agreement with our European friends and partners—I hope and pray that there will be an agreement—that puts Gibraltar in a precarious, indeed dangerous, position after the end of the transition period.
We talk fairly glibly about the transition period. Of course it is necessary, and we all welcome the progress that was signalled last week and about which we will hear a little more when the Statement is made to your Lordships’ House later this evening; but we are not there yet, and we are a long way from being there over Northern Ireland and Gibraltar. Let us, of course, support the withdrawal of the amendment tonight. I am very glad that there have been no votes in Committee during the long hours we have been debating this Bill, but we may well have to consider another amendment on Report, unless we are utterly confident that there is no question at any time of a sell-out over Gibraltar.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the debate this afternoon has amply demonstrated why in today’s Statement the Prime Minister refers to the particular challenges that Brexit poses for Gibraltar. Staying in the single market would mitigate some of those challenges, particularly the economic ones, but there would still be the risk of political problems from Brexit itself.
There has been much talk from Brexiteers about global Britain and even Empire 2.0, which is pretty gruesome, but the damage to Ireland and Gibraltar—I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and others who have drawn an analogy there—from Brexit belies the claim that Brexit is not focused on a rather little-England perspective and instead has a broad and internationalist one. It would be a terrible betrayal of Gibraltar as well as Ireland if the Government do not have those territories in the forefront of their mind.
The Government of Gibraltar told the House of Lords European Committee that Brexit presented,
“few opportunities worthy of mention”,
and that losing access to the single market in services would be a “severe blow” to Gibraltar’s economy—reflecting the fact that it has been a fundamental tool in Gibraltar’s economic development. It is therefore no wonder that, as others have said, 96% of Gibraltarians voted remain.
The point has been strongly made that Gibraltar depends on the free movement of workers. I was very interested to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Luce, is chancellor of the University of Gibraltar, because it gave evidence to the EU Select Committee inquiry and said how valuable the free movement of staff and students across the border with Spain is to it. It also said that the social welfare system is significantly dependent on the income tax paid by cross-border workers in Gibraltar—and a related point is that Gibraltarians will potentially lose access to healthcare facilities in Spain. So there are so many areas of damage to Gibraltar and the residents of the Gibraltar.
Tourism is another element in its economy that would be profoundly harmed by any border problems. The European arrest warrant was described by the Government of Gibraltar as,
“a blessed relief because it took the sovereignty dispute out of the equation of extradition”.
As it involves mutual recognition between judges, it does not depend on Government-to-Government agreement.
The Government of Gibraltar are particularly worried about the possibility of no deal and a cliff-edge scenario. I believe that the Brexiteers have been cavalier in envisaging this possibility. I have to reproach the Minister in this respect, because he mentioned it again last week to the committee—as did his colleague in the other place Robin Walker. Reviving the “no deal” prospect is breathtaking in its irresponsibility to a territory such as Gibraltar. The Government of Gibraltar suggested that it could result in their frontier being severely disrupted or even closed, which would be “potentially disastrous”. It might mean the UK Government having to step in to support Gibraltar’s economy, as they did in the Franco era. I wonder whether British voters have been told about such a possibility, given that they know, or at least have been told, that Britain’s economy is set to deteriorate if we leave the single market—the Prime Minister has said that—and their incomes might well be squeezed. So there could be quite interesting political problems for a Government defending subsidies to Gibraltar.
Lastly, as has been pointed out, Brexit means that Gibraltar will depend on the good will of Spain. It will no longer have EU law there. That law has not been perfect and there are still some issues, but Gibraltar has looked, with justice, to the EU to arbitrate and defend it in disputes with Spain. But it will not have that protection if we Brexit, and the onus will be on the UK to take action. So, like other noble Lords, I think this is a very important issue and I look forward to the Minister telling us exactly how the Government are going to look after Gibraltar, in the same way that there is huge feeling in this House about the maintenance of no internal border in Ireland. I think that the Government have a lot of explaining to do.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, we have had an excellent debate. I appreciate the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Luce. He has initiated debates in this Chamber about Gibraltar, separate from Brexit, and although I did not speak at Second Reading of this Bill I have spoken in a number of those debates. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is absolutely right about the process, and the history lesson that has been given is quite important for understanding the way forward. I did not act as governor-general in Gibraltar like the noble Lord, Lord Luce, but I was a union official there representing workers in a period when the border was closed. In fact there were 6,000 Moroccan workers operating in Gibraltar. They were housed in the old naval dockyard barracks in conditions that we would not find particularly acceptable, but it certainly gave them gainful employment in a way that helped their families in Morocco.
In Spain’s accession process we were able to reach a practical accommodation that served the economic interests of Gibraltar and the people who lived around it, particularly in the Andalusia region of Spain. I have to declare an interest or two here: my husband is Spanish and from Andalusia. The fact is that the people of Andalusia know very well that Madrid does not have them very high up on its agenda either, so these are really important issues to understand. The reason why 96% of the people voted in favour of remaining in the EU is that they know full well that the political and economic conditions that prevailed with membership of the EU are vital to their continuation as a viable society.
The Opposition support the amendment and understand the need for it. Several noble Lords have spoken today, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who posed very specific questions. We believe that at the end of the day the question that will determine the survival of Gibraltar will be the UK Government’s efforts to ensure that it is able to continue to have a relationship with the rest of the EU. That is the question that we want answered but we know full well that we are not going to get one today.
Lord Dykes (CB)
In that conjunction of events and facts, was the noble Lord, like colleagues in the other place, disconcerted by the very aggressive and jingoistic references to Spain that were made by some people there—unnecessarily so, because there was no question of the UK abandoning its total support for Gibraltar? The tone adopted on Spain was really rather unacceptable, including by some Members of this House. I think I remember the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, saying we might have to go to war with Spain, and even Daniel Hannan, a right-wing Tory MEP, refuted that. Does the noble Lord, particularly because he has declared his interest of a Spanish husband, which was a very interesting point, feel that the balance was right or that there should have been more intelligent access to the ideas of Spain, bearing in mind the pressures that it has over Catalonia?
Lord Collins of Highbury
To be clear, the Opposition believe—as do I personally, as someone who has worked in Gibraltar over the years—that the position of Gibraltar should be a matter for the Gibraltarians. There should be no doubt about that, and we are committed to it. They have had a referendum and we will completely stick to that.
I was about to come on to my comments relating to what the noble Lord, Lord Luce, said. At the end of the day, we want to ensure that we make economic relationships and economic development a high priority. I do not think we should restrict this to comments about the viability of Gibraltar; we should be focused on how we can support a friendly country in developing an economy in the south that has been so difficult to establish over many years. British tourism has been very important to that, but it is also in terms of new industries and finance sectors that could be expanded and developed. I like the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Luce, that we should be talking positively about economic development in relation to Gibraltar and to how important that is.
To be frank, we cannot rely on Madrid. We should understand the nature of the Spanish psyche here: no matter what the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht were, there is a claim by the Spanish nation over sovereignty and, whichever political party is in power in Spain, socialist or conservative, this issue unites them across the political spectrum. I do not think we are going to resolve that—we cannot tell the Spanish what their views should be—but we can give very clear commitments to Gibraltar and its people, and we should maintain those commitments. What we need to hear from the Minister today is that it is not simply about commitments regarding Gibraltar’s relationships with the UK but that the Government are committed to ensuring that Gibraltar can have a positive economic relationship with the rest of the EU, and that in any final appendix or agreement to the transitional period Gibraltar’s needs are properly considered and there is a positive case. Not only would closing the border be a disaster for Gibraltar but, as people have said in this debate, it would be an incredible cost to this country as well.
In the 1960s we had a very big MoD base in Gibraltar and there was employment. That is not the case any more. It is a different sort of industry and employment that we have to address.
Will the Minister answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, about what is next under the transitional agreement? What will Gibraltar’s relationship economically be with the rest of the EU? To take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Luce, what commitments will we give for a positive relationship with Spain to ensure the economic future of Gibraltar and its people, and the people of Andalusia?
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
Let me first agree with the noble Lord, Lord Collins: it has indeed been an excellent debate on an extremely important topic. I also thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for raising the issues, but we do not believe that the new clause is necessary. It posits the need to protect the rights of persons and businesses either from or established in Gibraltar operating in the UK, but none is directly affected by the Bill.
As I begin, I say that we are steadfast in our support for Gibraltar, its people and its economy. Let me directly address the issue put to me by the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Luce, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, about the implementation period.
The territorial scope of the draft withdrawal agreement, including for the implementation period, explicitly includes Gibraltar. That is right, and consistent with our view that we are negotiating on behalf of the whole UK family. We want to get a deal that works for all, including for Gibraltarians. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked me to be specific, and it is in Article 3, section 1, paragraph (b) of the draft agreement.
In legislating for the United Kingdom, the Bill seeks to maintain, wherever practicable, the rights and responsibilities that exist in our law at the moment of leaving the EU, and the rights in the UK of those established in Gibraltar are no exception to that. We respect Gibraltar’s own legislative competence and the fact that Gibraltar has its own degree of autonomy and responsibilities. For example, Gibraltar has its own repeal Bill.
We are committed to fully involving Gibraltar as we prepare for negotiations to leave to ensure that its priorities are taken properly into account. As has been mentioned, we are working closely with Gibraltar, including through the dedicated Joint Ministerial Council on Gibraltar EU Negotiations.
The Bill, however, is not the place for legislation about Gibraltar. The Bill does not extend to Gibraltar, except in two very minor ways: that, by virtue of Clause 18(3), the powers in Clauses 7 and 17 can be used to amend the European parliamentary elections legislation, which of course covers Gibraltar; and the Bill repeals some UK legislation that extends to Gibraltar.
However, we understand the concerns being expressed through the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. In response to those concerns, I hope that I can reassure the Committee that access to the UK market for Gibraltar is already protected by law, and my ministerial colleague at the Department for Exiting the EU, Robin Walker, agreed a package of measures at the last Gibraltar JMC on 8 March that will maintain, strengthen and indeed deepen UK-Gibraltar ties.
In financial services, where UK-Gibraltar trade is deepest, this is granted by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Gibraltar) Order 2001 on the basis of Gibraltar’s participation in EU structures. We have agreed that the UK will guarantee Gibraltar financial services firms’ access to UK markets as now until 2020, even in the unlikely event of no deal being reached. We will design a replacement framework to endure beyond 2020 based on shared high standards of regulation and enforcement and underpinned by modern arrangements for information-sharing, transparency and regulatory co-operation.
Obviously, I always hate to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, but when it comes to online gambling, the UK has provided assurance that gambling operators based in Gibraltar will continue to access the UK market after we leave the EU in the same way as they do now, and we are working towards agreement of a memorandum of understanding which will enable closer working and collaboration between gambling regulators in Gibraltar and the UK. This work is already under way, so we consider that the amendment is unnecessary.
In this way, we will deliver on our assurances that Gibraltar will enjoy continued access to the UK market for Gibraltar business, based on the Gibraltar authorities having already agreed to maintain full regulatory alignment with the UK.
We will of course keep Parliament informed of progress. Gibraltar is regularly discussed in Questions and in debate: for example, in Oral Questions on 30 January and on Second Reading of this Bill on 31 January.
I hope that I have addressed the noble and learned Baroness’s concerns, and I urge her to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Cormack
Before my noble friend ends, could he assure the Committee that it will be an absolute aim of negotiations to ensure that Gibraltar continues to enjoy commercial intercourse with the rest of the European Union?
Lord Callanan
I am very happy to assure the Committee of that. As I said, we are working closely with the Government and people of Gibraltar. They are at the forefront of our consideration; they are our fellow citizens and our allies. We are working with them, we are co-operating with them and of course, alongside the rest of the negotiations, that will be one of our priorities.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Perhaps the Minister will give way. He mentioned online gambling and financial markets, perhaps looking after the interests of people who are already quite well off. What about the workers who travel across from Spain to Gibraltar and vice versa? What about the tourists? What about ordinary people? There seem to be no guarantees. It all seems to have been done to look after the financial interests of the gamblers and the financial markets.
Lord Callanan
I am sorry that the noble Lord has a retrograde opinion on these matters. It may shock him to know that many ordinary people take part in online gambling and indulge in financial services. In fact, many of the workers that he refers to work in those areas, so perhaps he should not apply to everyone else the same prejudices that he has. They are successful industries that employ a lot of people. They are perfectly legal and people have a right to engage in them.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I do not know whether the noble Lord sits in on any of our debates other than those on the Bill. I have been sitting in at Question Time and other debates—it is good to see three Bishops here today—where concerns have been expressed about online gambling and the effect that it has on ordinary people who get caught up in and become addicted to it. If the noble Lord does not understand concerns about that, he is missing an awful lot of the debates that go on in this House.
Lord Callanan
Of course I understand those concerns and why the industry needs to be properly regulated. That is being done and we are working with Gibraltar to ensure consistent regulation across the two territories. But of course that is not a matter for the Bill, I am pleased to say.
I hope that, with those reassurances, I have addressed the noble and learned Baroness’s concerns—
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way, but he has left us—and, through us, the Gibraltarians—in a degree of uncertainty. I imagine he will have difficulty replying to this, but presumably he does not think we can negotiate better terms for Gibraltar’s access to the EU 27 than we negotiate for ourselves. That would be a pretty startling victory for the Government, which might just be beyond their powers. If that is so, and as the Prime Minister admits that our access to the European Union 27’s market will be less good after the end of the transitional period than it has been while we are a member, presumably Gibraltar will have to take a hit too.
The second question, which the Minister has not addressed at all, concerns the movement of people across the border between Gibraltar and Andalusia. What does he envisage for that? Presumably, the immigration Bill, which may one day cease to be a mirage floating out there, always several months away from us but never quite attained, will one day be sitting on our Order Paper and will have to regulate how Gibraltar treats migrants or other people crossing that border who currently and during the transitional period are covered by free movement. What are the Government’s plans for that?
Lord Callanan
I will give the noble Lord the answer that I have given when he has asked similar questions previously. This is a matter for the immigration Bill. Of course, we will need to discuss the matter of the frontier between Gibraltar and Spain with the Spanish authorities, which we will do in full consultation with the people of Gibraltar. We will be sure to let the noble Lord know when we have an outcome to those negotiations. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel free to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
Have Her Majesty’s Government given any consideration to a matter that I understand was raised about 15 years ago—granting dominion status to Gibraltar? Dominion status is so supple, varied and wide that it could legitimately and properly encompass the constitutional aspirations of Spain, the United Kingdom and the Gibraltarians themselves.
Lord Callanan
I am not an expert on the legal ramifications of dominion status, so if the noble Lord will forgive me, perhaps I may write to him on that.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this debate and the Minister for his partial reply. I recognise that nothing is decided until everything is decided. I concentrated on the business arrangements between the UK and Gibraltar because they are one of the major concerns. Of course, there are many other major concerns for Gibraltar, which is stuck in a very difficult position, but the one thing it has is good trade relations with the United Kingdom and a lot of business. That needed to be in at least the first stage of what would be done. It is not just gambling; it is also education, tourism and the other things that the noble Lord, Lord Luce, set out in his speech today.
It is good that, at least as between the United Kingdom and Gibraltar, there are clear guidelines and Gibraltar has protection. We know—I am very grateful to other speakers for having raised these issues—that the position of Gibraltar is extremely precarious vis-à-vis the EU. In relation to migrants, I understand that Gibraltar wants as many as come across the border daily, mainly from La Línea, to work. It is up to Spain whether it lets them come through. It is not up to the Gibraltar Government, who welcome them. As has been said, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Luce, 13,000 people a day go through, 10,000 of whom are from Andalusia and are Spanish workers. It is very much to the detriment of Spain if it does not allow them through. It was, of course, La Línea and the southern part of Andalusia that really suffered when Spain closed the border for some 15 years.
So, there are reasons why Spain might be sensible. One hopes that the positive discussions that go on may have a good effect. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Luce, and I have said, there are dangers of the threat to Spain. All of us enjoy Spanish holidays and many of us have Spanish relationships, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, has, so we want to be fair to Gibraltar. Gibraltar is part of us but we want to continue to have good relations with Spain. I very much hope that, having got to the first stage—business relations, education and other relationships between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom—we will continue to battle on behalf of the whole of the United Kingdom, including Gibraltar, in whatever arrangements happen during Brexit. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, it is worth the wait. We need to be clear that these amendments—which return to the Bill its original flexibility over exit day—are not about overturning the decision to leave. They are about removing the straitjacket the Government inserted at the behest of some ardent Brexiteers more anxious to earn their spurs than help the Government in their delicate negotiations. Importantly, the amendments enable the Bill to fulfil the task set for it: to provide a functioning statute book and legal certainty as we withdraw from the EU.
A fixed, immutable date undermines this, which even the Government acknowledge as the Bill contains a get-out in Clause 14(4)(a). The two drawbacks of the fixed date are: first, it undermines the transition period, which is rather vital for our departure; and secondly, it undermines the Government’s negotiating strength. Indeed, it appears to make it illegal, without the use of Clause 14(4) for the UK to extend the Article 50 negotiations period by even a single minute—even if the EU 27 unanimously agreed to do so, and even if it were in our country’s best interests.
With regard to the transition, assuming it will be on current terms, the ECJ would continue to have some hold under those. Therefore, triggering Clause 6(1) to end its jurisdiction on 28 March next year is a nonsense. This needs to be delayed until the end, not the beginning of the transition phase, or, in the case of EU citizens, whom we have promised can access it for eight years, a later date, as may also be needed for our continued participation in Euratom or other agencies.
Turning to the negotiations, as our EU Committee says:
“The rigidity of the Article deadline of 29 March 2019 makes a no deal outcome more likely. For the Government to compound the rigidity of Article 50 by enshrining the same deadline in domestic law would not be in the national interest”.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that it is a question not just of rigidity but of parliamentary sovereignty that Parliament should not agree the date of withdrawal until we see the withdrawal treaty? The flexibility to which she refers in Clause 14(4) is flexibility only at the behest of the Government because they have to move an amendment to the date, whereas it should be Parliament in the driving seat. Parliament should not agree a Brexit date until we see and have approved the withdrawal treaty.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I think that that is what the amendments seek to achieve and, as this House has said again and again, the whole idea was meant to be to bring back decision-making to Parliament.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is right about this, because the noble Baroness’s amendment would give power to Ministers by regulation to extend or vary the exit date. What the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is saying, and what I must say I agree with, is that the power should be in the hands of Parliament and that Back Benchers should have the opportunity to trigger the process.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
There is a series of amendments in the group, and I hope that when we get to Report we will have one that does exactly what is clearly felt will be needed. The importance of our amendment is to get rid of this absolute fixed date that is there at the moment—and not in the original Bill. It was introduced in one of the few amendments made in the Commons, not for the national interest but for a slightly more partisan reason.
Article 50 provides:
“The Treaties shall cease to apply … from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification”—
unless, of course, the 27 agree to extend the period. Thus the UK would not automatically leave after two years if, for example, the final deal had not yet come into force.
It could be that that itself sets a later date; it could be because the European Parliament had vetoed the deal in January. What would happen in that eventuality? I think it unlikely, but the Government always tell us that we must be prepared for any eventuality, and we should be prepared for that, given the red lines that the European Parliament has been setting down. Guy Verhofstadt told Andrew Marr on television that it meant that, if it did veto the deal, we would leave with no deal—in other words, as we have all said a number of times, trading on WTO terms, with no transition and no safeguards for citizens.
I doubt very much that, should the European Parliament decide that it did not want to agree with the deal, the Governments of the 27, let alone the Government of the 28th, would simply settle for that and say, “We give in—come out on WTO terms, with no concern for EU citizens”. My guess is that there would be rapid and rather complicated negotiations, which is particularly important given that in January next year we know jolly well that when it comes to our customs at Dover, our procedures for registering EU nationals, new VAT forms, agreements on aviation and the export of live animals, and checks on foodstuffs and all manufactured goods, none will be ready by the time of March next year—let alone the situation in Northern Ireland being resolved.
So undoubtedly at that stage, if the European Parliament did vote it down, we would definitely need a period of breathing and talk to get things back on track. If just another week or two would make a difference, surely that should be possible without having to live with the date written into the Act. What could also happen, even without the European Parliament, is that discussions could be going on and agreement could be very close—just days away—and we surely would not want the Act to stop those discussions taking place. Setting that date in stone must be unhelpful to say the least.
The Government think that they can agree the substance of our future partnership with the EU before October this year, but the report from the other House from the exit committee said that,
“it is difficult to see how it will be possible to negotiate a full, bespoke trade and market access agreement, along with … other agreements, including on foreign affairs and defence”,
by October. It suggested that,
“the Government should seek a limited extension to the Article 50 time to ensure that a Political Declaration on the Future Partnership that is sufficiently detailed and comprehensive can be concluded”,
before we enter the transition period. The same report states:
“If a 21-month transition … period is insufficient time to conclude and ratify the treaties/agreements that will establish the Future Partnership or to implement the … technical and administrative measures along with any … infrastructure at the UK border, the only prudent action would be for the Government to seek a limited prolongation to avoid unnecessary disruption”,
and that the withdrawal agreement should therefore,
“allow for the extension of the transition … period … with the approval of Parliament”.
We can do that only if the date is in our hands and not fixed in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who is not in his place, has said that saddling yourself with deadlines is crazy. Had he been here, I would have said that it was not as crazy as writing Article 50 itself—but, as he is not here, I clearly would not say that. The date was put in the Bill to satisfy some Back Benchers who had no involvement with these detailed talks or with the task of implementing the final deal. So let us get it out of the Bill now, untie the Government’s hands and give them a better chance of negotiating a satisfactory way of extraditing ourselves from what is otherwise, I fear, a looming nightmare. I beg to move.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, I support this amendment, which is in my name, too, and also Amendment 343, which contains more of the same objective. The purpose of the amendment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has said, is to remove from the Bill the date of 29 March 2019 for its entry into force. Putting that date in the Bill is neither necessary nor desirable—and that, clearly, was the view of the Government when they tabled the Bill because, as the noble Baroness said, there was no mention of that date in the Bill at all when it was tabled last April. It was subsequently inserted—for reasons that I shall not dwell on, because I do not particularly want to speculate about dealings within the Government’s party; they were clearly something to do with that—only at a later stage, at which point there was a lot of rejoicing from those who believe that leaving the European Union at any cost is a good and noble objective. The formulation was then watered down a bit by the House of Commons before it sent it to us—but I suggest that it should be removed altogether.
The Government have basically dealt with the issue of whether the date is necessary. It is perfectly clear that it is not necessary, otherwise why did they table a Bill without it? But is it desirable? On desirability, I would argue strongly against it, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. For one thing, it risks closing off one option that exists under Article 50 and will exist all the way through to 29 March: namely, that the EU 27 and the UK might, by common accord, wish to prolong the two-year cut-off date from the time of notification of our intention to withdraw. I do not intend to speculate under what circumstances such a wish might arise, because they are manifold. It could be for a very short period of a purely technical kind due to an absence of time to conclude all the work that needed to be done, or it could be for a longer period, which would obviously have rather more important implications. The Brexit committee in the other House has raised that possibility; it has canvassed it and I do not think that it is wise for us to put in this Bill something that contradicts it.
The point at issue is not whether such a postponement of the two-year deadline might or might not be in the national interest. We will only know that when the debate on it takes place. I argue that to foreclose the option now, so as to make it difficult—probably impossible—to proceed in that way is not sensible; rather, it is irresponsible. I have no doubt that the Minister will tell us that the Government have no intention whatever of making use of the postponement option. Her script can be easily imagined—and it is of course the Government’s entire right and privilege to say that. However, that is different from trying to bind Parliament to say it, which is what they are seeking to do with this provision: to lock us all into the Brexit tower and throw the key out of the window. That is never usually a very good way of proceeding.
So I hope that, on further consideration, the Government will agree. All they are being asked to do is revert to the original form of the Bill which they themselves introduced last July and to have no reference in it to the date of 29 March.
The Duke of Wellington (Con)
I support Amendment 334, a cross-party amendment to which I have added my name, and which goes with Amendment 343. As other noble Lords have said, it is a modest amendment which simply restores the original wording of the Bill. As has also been said, here and in the other place, the Bill is about process not outcome. The amendment makes no attempt to delay the date on which we leave the EU. I believe that we will be told by the Government that one justification for putting the date in the Bill is to remove uncertainty. There are many uncertainties ahead of us, post Brexit, but there is surely no uncertainty about the date on which we leave the EU. It is clear that, under Article 50, we leave the EU on 29 March 2019 unless it seems at the time to be in the national interest for the Government to request a limited extension or delay in order to complete the process of withdrawing.
It could be that the withdrawal and implementation Bill has not yet passed through both Houses of Parliament. The European Parliament may not yet have passed it. There could still be matters to negotiate. There could be various reasons, but the point is that it could be in the national interest, at the time, to seek a delay. I am sure that a small delay would be granted by the other 27 member states if we were near the end of the process. I am aware that an amendment tabled in another place by Sir Oliver Letwin gave Ministers the power to change the exit date. However, I believe it is right—this is the fundamental point of the amendment—for this House to ask the other place to think again about the necessity of putting the date in the Bill. Is that necessary? Is it expedient? This amendment and the related amendments are intended to give the Government, and Parliament, greater flexibility. I hope the Government will accepted them in the spirit in which they are intended.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, the noble Baroness needs to be very cautious about taking on the noble Duke, of Wellington in a debate. I hope that she will be able to agree with her ducal colleague. There are two key points here: one is fundamental, the other pragmatic. The noble Duke made the pragmatic one, which is compelling. There could be reasons, perhaps to do with the final ratification processes, why it is in the public interest to delay and we should not put obstacles in the path of that. There is also a reason of fundamental constitutional principle why we should not agree to this. We are being asked to agree to a date for leaving the European Union, and to put it in statute, before we know what we will be doing after we leave. Until we have the withdrawal treaty, we will not be aware of what the terms of withdrawal are—
Lord Liddle
I do not think we are going to know what the terms of withdrawal are even when we get that treaty. All we are going to get is a political declaration. It is clear that everyone in Brussels thinks that the British Government want to fudge that as much as possible because that is the only way the Prime Minister, Mrs May, can get an agreement through the House of Commons and her own party.
Lord Adonis
My noble friend makes very good points, which will be a subject for discussion when we see the proposed withdrawal treaty. However, this is all the more reason why Parliament should not commit itself now to a date in advance of knowing the basis on which we are going to withdraw. The arguments for taking the date out of the Bill are compelling. It is not sufficient that only a Minister has the power to change the date. It is crucial for Parliament itself to be in charge of setting the date, once it has agreed the terms of departure.
I am always an optimist in these matters. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, did the noble Baroness on the Front Bench a great disservice when he said that he knew in advance what she was going to say. We know that the noble Baroness is highly emollient and listens to debates in the House. She is not her noble friend Lord Callanan, who just reads from the script and is totally unresponsive to the mood of the House. We have great confidence that the noble Baroness will say that she has listened to the compelling arguments which have been put to her, particularly from her ducal colleague; that she is going to depart from the words in her script; that Her Majesty’s Government will consider this matter on the basis of the overwhelming weight of arguments which have been put in this Committee and that she will be delighted to accept the amendments on the Order Paper this afternoon.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 344 and 346 in my name. First, however, I find overwhelming the arguments in favour of Amendment 334 which have just been articulated by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, my noble friend and other noble Lords. It is a grave mistake to put the exact date of departure into statute. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, rightly said that that was not the Government’s original position. Amendment 346 is brought forward with a rather different motive and is broader in its purpose. Not only do I want to give Parliament the decisive say on the exit date; I want to give Back-Benchers the decisive ability to trigger that process. I simply do not trust the Front Benches on this matter. If Back-Benchers in the House of Commons want to stop a hard Brexit; if they want to stop Brexit; if they want to stay in the European Union—which is my position—I want to enable them to put down a resolution which requires a debate on precisely those terms. That is why Amendment 346 expresses, perhaps clumsily, the idea that at least 150 Back-Benchers could table a Motion requiring the holding of a debate on exit. My purpose is simply to enable Parliament to say no to Brexit if that is its wish. By giving this decision on the date to Parliament, we are strengthening the arsenal available to parliamentarians to stop this unhappy process coming to the final end of Brexit. I believe that is a national disaster and Parliament should be able to stop it. It is in that sense that I speak to the amendments in my name.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 335 in this group, which stands in my name. I agree wholeheartedly with the comments of the noble Viscount and, indeed, of other speakers in this debate.
My amendment would leave out,
“29 March 2019 at 11.00 p.m.”,
and insert,
“the day concluding any implementation period or transition period agreed between the UK and the EU”.
The question that arises is: why was 29 March put in in the first place? The only justification, other than the party political ones, is to give some certainty. That certainty disappears by virtue of the fact that we now have an amendment to the Bill that can change this date in any case. Businesses and others may take 29 March 2019 at 11 pm as gospel, and take decisions on that basis. They would clearly be wrong to do so, and we would mislead them by including that time and date in the Bill. It would be far better to have the flexibility afforded by one or other of these amendments.
I have referred to the,
“implementation period or transition period”,
for a specific reason: either those words mean something or they do not. The concept of an implementation period means that implementation is at the end of that period, which means that is the point at which we would leave all the institutions of Europe, the treaties and their implications, and all the rest. Transition means the same thing. If it does not mean that, what does having those periods mean? The Government’s intention needs to be clarified. When it comes to the final decision, Parliament should be aware of as many of the details that have come out of the negotiations as possible, so that taking a decision is as clear-cut as it can be. However, we will not know that until the very last moment, perhaps because nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. We know how some of the negotiations in Brussels have gone on. It could be the 23rd hour when that decision comes together. Flexibility must be built into the Bill by one or other of these amendments to enable Parliament to take the final decision.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)
My Lords, I support this group of amendments, particularly Amendment 345 in my name.
My noble friend Lord Bridges, who I am glad to see in his place, told the House, when he was no longer the Minister for exiting the European Union, that entering a transition period could risk stepping off the “gangplank into thin air”. He is right. To reach 11 pm on 29 March next year and exit the EU without being fully aware of where we are going is foolhardy in the extreme. Advocates of the transition period—I guess we have to believe that “transition period” means transition period—claim that it gives business the certainty it craves, but the exact opposite is the case. Businesses would be left hovering in the thin air to which my noble friend referred, without any idea of where to go afterwards. The status quo would be preserved for a few months longer, near enough, but what would come next? Therefore, I support these amendments with their option of extending the Article 50 period while negotiations continue. That way, once the final terms of exit are clear, the country would not be forced off that gangplank come what may, as others have already said. Parliament would have the choice whether to take that course of action or not. It could simply revoke the Article 50 notice. These amendments are about Parliament taking back control of the Brexit process. That has to be desirable. We should not endorse the Government slamming the stable door before the horse has even entered.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I very strongly support these amendments. I stress that we are locking ourselves into leaving the European Union on a specific timetable which is coming up very soon, given that nothing much will happen in the summer and that it will take some time to get ratified whatever interim withdrawal agreement is agreed by this October. We are up against a very short deadline. The reasons why this is a mistake include that the Government lost a great deal of time unnecessarily in negotiations within government and the Cabinet, and with their own right wing, before they got down to the detail of the negotiations to which they are now committed.
As the Government negotiate, we are discovering a substantial shift of tone. The Prime Minister’s Mansion House speech made it clear that she wants to stay associated with a very large number of European Union agencies. There is talk of a large and ambitious new security treaty between the UK and the European Union, and Commons committees and committees of this House have said that it is absolutely in Britain’s interests that we remain associated with Europol, data sharing and a whole host of other things which only EU membership gives us.
Lord Dykes
Is the situation not actually worse than that? The noble Lord referred to the Government’s position after the election but, of course, I am sure he would agree that the Government completely lost their mandate to pursue these negotiations anyway in that election result, due to the effect of the result coupled with a dodgy alliance with the DUP. Does he agree?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I am not sure I would say that the Government completely lost their mandate. They emerged from the election a good deal weaker than they were before. Unfortunately, I am not sure that anyone else had a mandate at the end of it, either. I give way to my noble friend, I should say.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I am most grateful to my noble friend. On that basis, did the Liberals lose their mandate to call for a second referendum?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I have indeed said that none of us gained a mandate from the election. That is precisely the position in which we all find ourselves. We should therefore be modest and moderate in the way in which we attempt to interpret the confused and disengaged opinion of the British public, with which we now struggle.
In the Statement the Prime Minister has just given in the Commons, which is about to be repeated in this House, I was very struck by the warmth it attaches to our co-operation with our European partners, the solidarity we gain from other members of the European Union with whom we have “shared values and interests”, and the assumption that we need to continue to co-operate with them on major issues from resisting President Trump’s tariffs and Russian threats to a range of other areas from which we will absent ourselves in March 2019 under the current arrangement. Therefore, as these negotiations move on, we need to continue this process of discovering where our interests lie, how we will continue to co-operate with our neighbours and partners if and when we leave, and not to leave until we are sure that we have a worthwhile alternative arrangement agreed.
We know why this measure is in the Bill: the hardliners in the Conservative Party and the Government have reached a point where they are prepared to accept all sorts of concessions that the Prime Minister may make to the European Union so long as we leave. The most important thing for them is that we leave what they consider to be the hated domination of the European Union. They have no thought of shared values and interests because they want to be out of the European Union. They want to be out even if we have a transition period of a further 21 months in which we continue to accept and follow all the rules and regulations of the European Union without being present around the table.
It is absolutely against the national interest for us to leave the table until the end of the transition period or to do so until we know—and Parliament has agreed—what our future relationship with the European Union will be in a range of economic, foreign policy, defence and internal security areas. We must not be stuck, as other Members said, because we have a fudge in October and a general political agreement without much content, and, following the Foreign Secretary saying to us, “You’re all too pessimistic about this. Let’s just be optimistic”, we then jump in, splash, and hope that the water is deep enough.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, this is the only intervention I will make in Committee, and I shall do it rather less contentiously than my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. However, I agree with the underlying thrust of what he said, just as I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington.
At the heart of these amendments is a matter of trust. Initially, the change was put into the Bill, as a number of noble Lords said, because there were people in this party and in the Government who doubted the Prime Minister’s and the Government’s resolve to take us out of the European Union. I do not think that anybody can doubt her resolve on that point now, or doubt the resolve of the Government. The negotiations are moving ahead, and, whether or not one is quite as optimistic as Mr Davis was on television yesterday, clearly they are moving ahead better than many people at one time expected, and a deal looks a likely outcome. Therefore we do not need to worry about giving credibility to the Government’s ambition; we need to worry about making sure that we are in a position to secure the best deal we possibly can.
Anybody who has been involved in a negotiation, whether international or commercial, or to buy a house, knows that if one puts a gun to one’s head, one puts oneself at a great disadvantage. It seems extraordinary that we should be confronted with the proposition in a Bill of this sort that puts our negotiators at a disadvantage. Then there is the other point, which my noble friend Lord Hailsham and others have raised, on parliamentary sovereignty. The Bill takes the decision out of the hands of Parliament, because the curtain comes down at a particular point. Again, that makes it harder than it need be for us to secure the best possible deal.
There has been a large element of unanimity in this debate. Although I recognise that my noble friend on the Front Bench is no doubt operating within tight guidelines, I hope that she will be able to indicate that, having heard the contributions to this debate and having registered the unanimity, she will be able to undertake to go away and think about it and try to find some means to ensure that we do not put a gun to our negotiators’ heads.
Lord Bowness (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 343, to which my noble friend the Duke of Wellington has already spoken.
The Government frequently tell us from the Dispatch Box that they require flexibility in the negotiations, despite at the very beginning having ruled out the customs union, the single market and anything to do with the Court of Justice. Almost every single day brings to the forefront new problems that have not been recognised to date. Whether it is Gibraltar, Northern Ireland, the motor trade or pharmaceuticals, the difficulties are enhanced by our inability to contemplate the arrangements that we have already ruled out. I fear that the Government still refuse to tell people that the method of executing what they apparently see as a binding instruction to leave is deeply flawed. It would be possible to leave and remain in the customs union and the single market and recognise the Court of Justice for certain purposes. Indeed, this is being recognised in the proposed transition or implementation agreements which are being talked about.
Lord Dykes
My Lords, I will briefly add words of support for this bunch of amendments. It is no surprise that there is a large collection of amendments on this subject, because of the importance of making sure that there is flexibility on the date. In that context, I also particularly commend the last amendment on the list, which contains the proposed new clause tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in considerable detail, and particularly the possible linkage between the decisions of the House of Lords and those of the House of Commons in proposed subsections (5) and (6) of that new clause. I welcome proposed subsection (2), which states:
“A motion for a resolution for the purposes of this section may be made in the House of Commons only if … 150 Members of the House of Commons are signatories of the motion”.
I agree with those who keep saying in these debates, but particularly in this one, not just on the date, that because so much of the content of the negotiations has been different from what we expected—not least, for instance, the proposed adhesion of the Government to a number of important EU agencies, and a number of other things—and because of the scope and nature of the transitional period, which certainly was not anticipated as such in the way it has now materialised, once we know the detailed outcomes of the negotiation we should as a Parliament be entitled to have the final say, which of course also means rejecting it if it is an impossible deal. I very much agree with the powerful words of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who said that the whole thing is a national tragedy anyway, and one has to keep saying that in the background. I know that the Bill deals with the technicalities, but it is important to repeat that thought as an ominous forewarning of what will happen when these difficult decisions are made. After all, we remind ourselves that the 2016 referendum was a judgment on a Government as if in an election, but without knowing what the Opposition were suggesting, and the Opposition have gradually made more suggestions as time has gone on.
The whole atmosphere and background and the detailed content thereof in British politics have changed enormously as time has gone on. That therefore affects the flexibility on the date, and the Government need to be laying out all the options as time goes on from now on. I have little confidence that they will be able to do that successfully, therefore we have to stick to our last on this matter of insisting that, with its renewed sovereignty, Parliament—which decided on the Second World War, joining NATO, having the atom bomb and the UN, all of which happened without referendums—insists on a proper flexibility on time.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
It seems from what the noble Lord is saying that the purpose behind these amendments is to keep open the possibility of preventing or reversing Brexit, which is very different from the purpose that my noble friend Lord Tugendhat outlined, of getting a better deal for Brexit. Will he clarify that difference?
Lord Dykes
All the amendments are designed, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, inferred, to improve the technicalities of the Bill, despite people having different views on our future membership or not of the European Union. There may be a stronger content in, for example, some of the suggestions made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, which I fully support, but that is perhaps the only such example in that cluster.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I have one simple message: do not tie the hands of those negotiating on your behalf.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
Will my noble friend at least acknowledge that if his concern is that the Government will be boxed in, he should be aware that the Bill allows Ministers to extend the date by order?
Lord Cormack
Yes, but it is therefore contradictory to have a specific date written in the Bill because the Government are answerable to Parliament and Parliament is sovereign, as we have said many times over the past few weeks; it seems like an eternity. The one message we should convey is that we should not seek to tie the hands of those who are negotiating. We will do so if we put a particular date in the Bill. Failure to reach agreement by that date will then be trumpeted abroad as a failure. None of us wants that. There must be flexibility.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
With respect, my noble friend has not dealt with the point made by my noble friend Lord Lamont. He says that Parliament must have sovereignty but the House of Commons amended the Bill to allow Ministers to change the order if necessary. That would require the approval of Parliament, so what is he talking about?
Lord Cormack
Very simply, I am talking about the fact that the Bill, as it is before the Committee, has a specific date in it. The purpose of these amendments—tabled by my noble friend the Duke of Wellington and others—has been to give the flexibility that the Bill does not allow at the moment. I am surprised if my noble friend cannot see that. I am not arguing against the prudent and excellent speech made by my noble friend Lord Tugendhat. He made the point as effectively as anybody could. Therefore, let us try to unite on Report around an amendment that will give the additional flexibility that changes in the other place have not given.
Viscount Hailsham
Does my noble friend assent to the proposition that Back-Benchers in the House of Commons should be able to trigger the process, as well as Ministers?
Lord Cormack
Parliament must have that ability and most Members of Parliament are Back-Benchers, so it is axiomatic that that is the case and I hope that we will come to an agreement on Report that will, in effect, satisfy the purpose of these different but complementary amendments.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, as a co-signatory to Amendments 334 and 343, I support them and the thrust of the debate. It can be summarised in a sentence from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who said that it was neither necessary nor desirable to have 29 March in the Bill, which was why that date was not in the Bill in the first case.
Noble Lords on different sides of the argument have suggested why there may be a need to be flexible at the end. Can the Minister help me to understand the draft agreement, published last week, which seems to admit of one of them? In Article 168—entry into force and application—a paragraph is printed in yellow, which means that the negotiators have agreed on the policy objective. So, the Government have agreed the following policy objective:
“This Agreement shall enter into force on 30 March 2019. In case, prior to that date, the depositary of this Agreement has not received the written notification of the completion of the necessary internal procedures by each Party, this Agreement may not enter into force”.
That seems to admit of two possibilities. One is that there is a slight delay until the depositary has received the necessary notification of all parties to the agreement, including the European Parliament as well as this one, having gone through those procedures. The other potential meaning—I cannot believe that it is the meaning but it is not clear—is that if by, say, 1 April the European Parliament has not notified its agreement to the agreement, the agreement would fall. I cannot believe that that is the meaning. I thought that the meaning must be that if the formalities of the parties of the agreement have not been completed, the agreement is in abeyance until they have been. It raises the interesting subsequent question as to how the two-year period in Article 50 is interpreted. Can the Minister attempt to explain that position and what the Government understand by the meaning of Article 168 to me?
The bigger point I seek to make is that there are a number of reasons why it may be in everybody’s interests to slightly change the date on which our exit is triggered. The way in which the Bill has been amended does not facilitate that process and it should therefore revert to its original drafting.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, I first thank all noble Lords who have participated in an interesting and very spirited discussion. I know that the issue of exit day in the Bill is important to many in this House. That was certainly the case in the other place, where—as a number of your Lordships have mentioned—multiple alterations were made to the original drafting of the Bill. I hope noble Lords will indulge me in a bit of scene-setting.
Initially, the Bill gave full discretion to the Government on the setting of exit day for the purposes of the Bill, subject to no parliamentary scrutiny procedure. It was also technically possible for Ministers to set multiple exit days for different purposes. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred to that. For some parliamentarians, this mechanism was not acceptable because it gave rise to uncertainty as to whether the exit day appointed by the Bill would correspond to the day that the UK actually leaves the EU at the end of the Article 50 process, which had always been the Government’s intention. Therefore the Government brought forward amendments to set exit day in the Bill as 11 pm on 29 March 2019. That was to bring the Bill in line with the calculation of the estimated date and time of exit under Article 50.
However, as the Bill progressed through the other place, some Members highlighted that our first set of amendments did not fully represent a technical alignment with our legal options under international law. To align fully, we would have to provide a mechanism for exit day in the Bill to change, corresponding to the detail of Article 50.3 of the Treaty on European Union. Let me make clear to your Lordships that this is a mechanism that the UK does not have any intention of using. None the less, this anomaly had been highlighted, so a technical amendment to the Bill was tabled that allows the Government to change exit day as defined in the Bill, but only if the date at which the treaties cease to apply to the UK changes from its currently envisaged moment on 29 March 2019.
Any such regulation changing this date in the Act would be subject to the affirmative procedure. I stress that the Clause 14 power does not have access to the “made affirmative” procedure, so the normal timetabling process would apply to any regulations made to amend exit day. That is where we are now with the drafting of the Bill, and I suggest to your Lordships that there are a number of reasons why this position should not change.
First, this issue has clearly been scrutinised heavily in the other place. Indeed, it was possibly one of the most politically salient areas of the Bill, and certainly one of the most amended. Secondly, a sensible, mutually agreeable position was reached in the other place. It was not earmarked as an issue to come back to; it was a settled policy position and it commanded a comfortable majority. Finally, and most importantly, the Bill now matches the reality of the UK’s position under international law. This is the key point: exit day within the Bill should not be significant in and of itself, as it merely mirrors the actual moment at which we leave the EU under international law. Importantly, exit day is the clearly defined pivot on which this Bill turns. With the greatest respect to noble Lords, I therefore cannot support the amendments that seek to alter or undo the compromise reached in the other place.
Let me now try to analyse and comment on the specific amendments.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She seems to have overlooked the fact that the Government will be perfectly capable of putting a date into the implementation Bill, which they have told the House will be brought forward before 29 March and which will be after the conclusion of the negotiations, and that will not present the same problems as doing it now. She also, if I may say so, has not dealt with the fact that it is frankly irrelevant whether, when the Government tabled the Bill, the non-mention of 29 March left it all to Ministers or left it all to Parliament. What is relevant is that the Government did not see the need to put 29 March in the Bill at all.
Baroness Goldie
Turning to the last point first, I have, for the sake of the noble Lord, tried to clarify where the Government were—as he rightly indicates—where they went, and why they went to that position. I cannot add to that: that is why we are in the position that we currently are. I will cover his other point about the connection with the implementation Bill, and I hope he will show me forbearance and let me deal with it.
I turn to Amendments 334 and 343, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, which seek largely to bring the Bill back to the state of its original drafting. However, as I have already set out, the Bill was not acceptable to the elected Chamber in that state. Instead, an acceptable compromise was reached that does two things: it simultaneously diminishes the power of Ministers in exercising delegated powers and increases the role of Parliament. It also introduced flexibility in varying the date, if required. It is not the case, as the noble Baroness suggested, that it is a straitjacket. That fear of rigidity and inflexibility was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in relation to the hypothetical extension of the Article 50 period. If that were to happen, exit day would then be linked to when the treaty ceased to apply, and the flexibility to vary the date is then expressly provided for in the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, was worried that the insertion of a specific date in the Bill would somehow prejudice the Government’s ability in the negotiations. However, it is the very flexibility that is now in the Bill that enables the Government to respond sensibly and responsibly to whatever the negotiations may produce. That was also a fear on the part of my noble friend Lord Tugendhat and others, but the Government argue that, far from the flexibility prejudicing the negotiations, it facilitates and provides elasticity in the conduct of the negotiations. Given that, I regret that I am unable to support the noble Baroness and the Opposition Front Bench in attempting to overturn the existing provisions of the Bill. We believe that what emerged from the other place strikes the right balance.
I understand that there are concerns regarding the interplay between the implementation period and exit day. However, as I will reiterate shortly, this is not a Bill designed to legislate for the implementation period.
I move now to Amendment 345A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, which would remove part of Clause 14(4)(a). It always distresses me to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, but not only am I not departing from my script—as he was speaking, I was busily adding to it. With his amendment, if the date at which the treaties cease to apply to the UK is different from the date we have put in the Bill, Ministers could amend the definition of exit day to any new date and not just the new date on which the treaties will cease to apply, as the Bill currently prescribes. The Government are conforming to international law, and we want to keep the Bill in line with that position. That is why we are unable to accept the noble Lord’s amendment.
Amendments 344 and 346, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hailsham, take a different approach, including seeking to insert a new clause which would make the exercise of powers under Clause 14(4) subject to a parliamentary resolution. Paragraph 10 of Schedule 7 already provides explicitly for a parliamentary vote on any changes to exit day. This was part of the compromise reached in the other place and is, I suggest, an appropriate level of scrutiny.
Amendment 334A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, attempts to shift the setting of exit day into the statute enacted for the purpose of Clause 9(1) of this Bill. I understand the noble Lord’s amendment to mean that he wishes exit day to be set in the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill—something to which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred a moment or two ago. With respect, I think we are familiar with the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, when it comes to leaving the EU, and I appreciate that within this House he is not alone. However, with regards to Clause 14, the failure to set an exit day for the purposes of this Bill has no bearing on whether or not we leave the EU, but such a failure certainly affects the manner in which we leave. If we cannot set an exit day, many functions of the Bill which hinge upon it—such as the repeal of the European Communities Act and the snapshot of EU law—would simply not occur. That would render the Bill largely redundant, preventing us from providing a fully functioning statute book and creating a void leading to total legal uncertainty when we leave—but we shall still leave.
Amendment 335, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, attempts to set exit day at the end of the implementation period. I can appreciate the argument made here, which has been mirrored by some of the contributions made today. However, it is not the role of this Bill to legislate for the implementation period; that is for the forthcoming withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill. To do so in this Bill would link its operation inextricably to the ongoing negotiations, which is not the intention of this Bill. This Bill is intended to stand part and is—I have used the phrase previously—a mechanism or device whereby we avoid the yawning chasm which would occur if a huge bundle of very important law disappeared into a black hole. We cannot allow that to happen.
I accept that Amendment 345, tabled by my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft, is well intentioned. However, I suggest that it is unnecessary. I believe that the intention behind this amendment is to ensure that exit day can be changed if Parliament resolves to instruct the Government to request an extension of the Article 50 process—this was the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, referred. But as I pointed out earlier, if the Government were to make such a request, and that request was granted, the power would be engaged by virtue of subsections (3) and (4) anyway, so it is covered. I also reiterate a point made in an earlier debate that, fundamentally, it is our belief that we should not extend the Article 50 period and that this Bill is not the vehicle to raise questions of whose role it is to act on the international plane.
I finish by quoting directly from the Constitution Committee’s report on the Bill, which I know we all hold in high regard. It said that, on exit day:
“The revised definition of ‘exit day’ in the Bill sets appropriate limits on ministerial discretion and provides greater clarity as to the relationship between ‘exit day’ as it applies in domestic law and the date on which the UK will leave the European Union as a matter of international law. It also allows the Government a degree of flexibility to accommodate any change to the date on which EU treaties cease to apply to the UK”.
I realise that I may not have persuaded all of your Lordships of the Government’s position but I would at least hope that noble Lords will have some regard to the committee’s assessment of this issue. On that note, I hope the noble Baroness will agree not to press her amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked a pertinent question. He said that the Government have indicated in the draft agreement published recently that certain provisions apply, and he referred to a particular paragraph. I merely remind him that the Government have said before that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, and the exit day power gives the Government the flexibility to reflect whatever is agreed in the final text of Article 168.
Lord Newby
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that. I agree that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, but that document states on the front of it that the Government have agreed the policy in it when it is marked as a yellow paragraph. Given that the Government have agreed that policy—there is no trick here—I want to work out what it means.
Baroness Goldie
It is a statement of very healthy and good intention. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, but it is certainly a signpost as to where we hope to go.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, one of the questions asked earlier was: what would happen if the European Parliament refused to give its consent? I have a note here from the European Parliament—it advises me that it is not legal advice and is not binding—which certainly says:
“if Parliament”—
that is, the European Parliament—
“refused to give its consent to a draft agreement negotiated by the European Commission, the Council would not be able to conclude the agreement with the withdrawing state”.
That is quite a serious thing to be reminded of.
Someone said earlier that there have been strong views across the Committee on this issue. As the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said, it would be a grave mistake to put the date in statute. However, I disagree with him that the purpose of the amendment—certainly from our point of view—is to halt or up-end everything that is going on. Its purpose is to help the Government to get a better deal. The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, put it very pragmatically: he said that we may not be ready for this yet. He also said that we might not yet have got through what I call the “Withdrawal (No. 2) Bill”. However, we have not yet had the immigration Bill, the fishing Bill, the agricultural Bill, the customs Bill or the trade Bill—and there may be a VAT Bill as well. We may find ourselves in a position where we are not ready as a Parliament by the date written into the Bill. That is not a sensible way forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said that we should not leave until a worthwhile arrangement has been agreed. This is all about giving us time to do that—and that is certainly what we have been looking to do.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I reinforce what the noble Baroness has said. We may well face a legislative logjam in both Houses in the autumn of this year. Given the number of Bills that are waiting to come into this House and the possible complexity of an implementation Bill, one of the problems we may face is a simple lack of parliamentary time. Perhaps the Leader of the House might, at some point in the near future, give a preliminary statement on how she thinks we will manage the number of Bills on which we still have to provide scrutiny.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am not sure whether the back of the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, or my voice will give up first if we have to deal with all those Bills and we are here all night. We will take money on that one, I think—but there is a real problem there.
The noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, who I think knows more about negotiating than some people, said that we need to be able to secure the best deal we possibly can and that putting a gun at one’s head puts us at a disadvantage. I am sure no one wants to do that. Others used different language. The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, said that we must remove this self-imposed fetter and that if we can get the date off the Bill the Government will have the flexibility that they say they want.
I wish to make two other points. First, on the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that we should not worry about this because Ministers could change the date if it proved necessary, at that stage it would be obvious all round Europe that we had had to do it, which does not look like strengthening our hand. Technically, of course, he is correct, but I am not sure it would be the best way forward in PR terms.
The Minister said that fixing the date provides elasticity in negotiations. I do not understand how that would work. To fix a date would take elasticity away. I am also not persuaded by her view that it could not be put into the second Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said. The words “exit day” could be in this Bill, but the specific date could be put in once we know what the withdrawal deal is. We will also know how many hurdles we have to get over and how much extra legislation we might need. I do not think that I am the only one who is not persuaded but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 26th March 2018
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 79-XI Eleventh marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 81KB) - (26 Mar 2018)
Lord Jay of Ewelme
““final terms of withdrawal” means the same as “withdrawal agreement”;”
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, Amendments 337 and 341 are in my name. They have a simple aim: to ensure that if there is a breakdown in the negotiations leading to a no-deal Brexit, the position should be fully and properly considered by Parliament before any final decision is taken.
I am encouraged by all that the Government have said about their intention to ensure that there should not be a breakdown in the negotiations. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House has just reiterated that position to us this evening and I noted in particular that David Davis said, over the weekend, that it was “incredibly probable” that a deal would be reached—an odd formulation, but we get the general drift. As I say, I have absolutely no doubt about the Government’s intention to seek a deal which is in the interests of the United Kingdom. But a breakdown of the negotiations cannot be excluded, whether because the Government toughen their position to the stage where the European Union breaks off the negotiations or the European Union toughens its stance to the point where the Government break them off, or because both sides simply run out of time.
The implications of no deal are potentially extremely serious, as the EU Committee of your Lordships’ House recognised in its recent report, Brexit: Deal or No Deal. Much attention has rightly been given to the implications of no deal for our trading relations, for the impact on cross-border supply chains and on specific sectors, including financial services, agri-foods and aviation. Just as serious would be the impact of a breakdown in negotiations and a no-deal scenario on UK-EU co-operation on issues which are vital to our national interest and national security: counterterrorism, police, justice and security matters; nuclear safeguards; and aviation. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has set out clearly this evening the potential implications of no deal for Gibraltar. Even more immediate and perhaps more serious would be the effect on British citizens living in the EU and EU citizens living in the UK. With no deal, the agreements reached so far, which are so enormously important to British citizens living in the EU and EU citizens living in Britain, would, as I understand it, fall away.
The implications of no deal, however slight such a prospect is, would therefore be extremely serious. It is surely inconceivable that an outcome of such gravity would not be put to Parliament before it becomes a reality. This is not least because when reality begins to dawn on people, one of the first questions they will surely ask is: “What was Parliament’s view and to what extent has Parliament taken responsibility?” Taking back responsibility seems to me to be as important, and more difficult, than taking back control. I simply cannot see that the argument that the electorate had, or should have had, all this in mind when the referendum took place would carry any weight at all when the consequences of no deal became apparent. These amendments therefore seem essential and I very much hope that the Government will be able to accept them. I beg to move Amendment 337.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I strongly support this amendment, to which I have added my name. I fully agree with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme. Perhaps being a mere politician, I am a little more cynical than he is. The February 2017 White Paper on leaving the EU contained statements that gave considerable comfort, including an assurance of the Government’s strong intentions to get a deal. They said, for instance:
“Our fundamental responsibility to the people of the UK is to ensure that we secure the very best deal possible from the negotiations … The Government will then put the final deal that is agreed between the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of Parliament”.
When the Government gave their assurance in the other place in February last year, at about the same time as the White Paper, the Minister of State for Exiting the EU said,
“the vote will cover not only the withdrawal arrangements but also the future relationship with the European Union’.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/17; col. 264.]
As we know, there is an issue about what that actually means. It will not be any more than a political declaration.
All this sounded quite reassuring. The trouble is that in the year since then, we have heard too many threats of no deal—not that, as the Brexit Secretary David Davis said over the weekend, it is like an insurance policy, in that you have to be aware that it could happen, but the overwhelming likelihood is a deal. That sounded quite benign, but I am afraid that we have had a rather more celebratory approach to the prospect of no deal from other personalities in the Government. They think that threatening it is a good negotiating tactic. Many of us think that that is not the expression of a committed partner. I do not recall that when the United States was negotiating a possible TTIP agreement with the EU, it kept stressing that it might instead have no deal. It might have made all kinds of comments about the adequacy or otherwise of the EU offer, but we did not hear that sort of rhetoric, and we are not used to it in a trade or political negotiation. These statements have come too often. They are perhaps fewer now, but they still come sometimes and with too great a frequency for there to be total trust in the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, said earlier in another context, there is a fundamental issue of trust as to what the Government’s intentions might be. Therefore, it is necessary to try to dot the “I”s and cross the “T”s on this matter.
The first amendment in this group might have been inspired by my noticing that in one context, the phrase used was “final terms of withdrawal” but in another it was “withdrawal agreement”, which raises the question of whether the Government mean exactly the same thing with those two phrases. That accounts for Amendment 337, in which we say yes, they mean the same thing.
Amendment 341 says that “withdrawal agreement” also means the absence of a withdrawal agreement. It is necessary to spell that out because I am afraid the Government have not always given full grounds for total confidence and trust in their intentions. We need to close off any nefarious options that might still be floating around and make absolutely sure that we pin down the Government on what Parliament will supervise, and that there are no nooks and crannies through which they can duck and weave. That is what the amendments are about: total clarity in order to ensure that the Government act with total trust and in good faith.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)
My Lords, I put my name to these amendments because I believe it is essential that Parliament should have a chance to consider a “no deal” scenario. As others have said, that is not the likely outcome; there is every reason to believe that the Government are doing their best to pursue a deal. However, we have to be prepared for all eventualities. We have heard that no deal is better than a bad deal and that no deal has to be considered, so it is important that we avoid any ambiguities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has just spelled out, there are sufficient vagaries about the terminology for it to be important that we now try to clarify that Parliament should have a role in considering a “no deal” scenario. As the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said, it is time for Parliament to reclaim its responsibilities, and looking after the country is surely the responsibility of Parliament.
The noble Lord referred to the problems that will be faced by those companies with cross-EU supply chains. Privately those companies are voicing their fears, but it is not surprising that publicly they are loath to speak out about the horrors that lie before them should there be no deal. Their supply chains will be in tatters, but they are not going to go public right now shouting that it may be the case in a year’s time that their supply chains will break down and they will not be able to fulfil orders,. That would not really do wonders for their business at the moment; the orders would just not be put. So at the moment they are making their fears known privately, and I hope the Government are listening to them. For them, it is essential that a good trade deal is established, and quickly. That is why I support the amendments. I do not think there is anything more to be said, but I wish them well.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I am in favour of the amendment. I shall also add a bit of history that has not been mentioned so far. This time last year we were considering the Article 50 triggering Bill. An amendment was moved by a number of us that was designed both to produce a meaningful process for the end of the negotiations and to include within it the circumstances in which there was no deal. That amendment was passed by a very large majority in this House. It was sent to the other place where it was rejected in a pretty perfunctory way by, of course, the Parliament that was sitting before the general election, and in which the Conservative Party had an overall majority. So it is no good saying the Government are not opposed to a parliamentary statutory decision-making process if there is no deal. They are opposed to it; they opposed it only a year ago. So if this amendment is being brought forward now, it is because the Government have form on this matter.
I would like the Government to recognise that, having lost the vote on the meaningful process in the other place to Mr Dominic Grieve’s excellent amendment, it is more sensible to accept the statutory process for dealing with any outcome to the negotiations, whether that be a deal or no deal or whether it is the case, as I rather suspect now, that the Government have stood their mantra on its head and are now saying a bad deal is better than no deal. But whichever way we look at it, let us be quite sure that Parliament has its say. That is why I support the amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Jay, was a little modest, because it was he who was chairing the European Union Committee at the time when it produced its excellent analysis of what it would mean for there to be no deal and for us to leave on WTO terms. We would have to rapidly set up customs posts around our market. Indeed, as he said, it would also mean no protection or continuation of residence, work or health rights for UK citizens living in the EU or, indeed, for EU citizens resident here. In the latter case, of course, we could pass domestic legislation to safeguard their position but we could not do the same to help UK nationals abroad because no deal would also mean no transition period.
I am sure that for business, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, has just spelled out, that would be a catastrophic outcome. It would mean that in addition to what it would mean for their order books—a rush to set up customs, VAT and all the other stuff that goes with that—I maintain that it would entail a jolt to our economy that would make 2008 look like a kiddies’ party. So a decision to depart from the EU in those circumstances is one to be taken by Parliament, not by the Prime Minister nor even by her Cabinet. The amendment is aimed to ensure that any such decision—coming out without a deal—would be made by Parliament, and bring the no deal scenario within the ambit of the amended Clause 9(1).
We accept that the Government are working very hard to ensure that we do not depart without a deal, and I trust that in those circumstances, they will accept the amendment.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
Does the noble Baroness share a concern regarding UK citizens on the continent? She mentions transition. Does she recognise that there may be a problem for Parliament? The Dutch Government have appealed against a ruling by a Dutch court on 7 February to refer a case regarding a UK citizen to the ECJ. The ECJ agreed to take the case, the Dutch Government then appealed and the ECJ is waiting for confirmation whether it will be put back to them. The problem is that if the ECJ takes its fast-track route on adjudication, it will be a four-month process; if it takes the normal time for the ECJ to consider the issue, it will be 15 months, which potentially plays havoc with the issue of UK and EU citizens and their acquired rights within the European Union. Does she recognise that problem?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I absolutely recognise that. There are a number of issues which we hope will be part of the agreement. In business, there are what are called goods already on the market, which I believe the transition agreement will cover. There is the arrest warrant. A number of countries forbid any of their nationals being extradited to a non-EU member state, so we could find that if someone who commits murder here hops off to a member state, unless we have this all agreed in the transition deal, they would be free. I understand that the negotiations will say that where a case has started on its track towards the ECJ, let it finish.
There is a raft of things where, if we come out with a bump in the night, and wake up on 30 March with no deal, it will not just be a fall from the bed, it will be a substantial disadvantage. That is why I am confident that we will have a deal, but therefore I am confident that the Minister will accept the amendment.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her contribution.
I have presumed for the purposes of this response that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, are intended to ensure that a statute, specifically that provided for in Clause 9(1), is required to approve a situation in which the UK fails to negotiate a deal with the EU.
With the greatest respect, the amendments do not achieve the desired outcome. The statute specified in Clause 9(1) is intrinsically linked to the exercise of the Clause 9 power, which is itself dependent on the existence of a withdrawal agreement. Therefore, in a no-deal scenario, the Clause 9 power and all provisions within it would be unavailable, because there would be no withdrawal agreement.
The amendments would also leave other areas of the Bill inoperable. For example, Clause 7(7)(d) sets out that the power cannot be used to implement the withdrawal agreement. Changing the definition of withdrawal agreement to include the absence of an agreement would therefore leave us unable to use Clause 7 in a no-deal scenario. Vital corrections could not be made in that case and we would be left with many inoperabilities on our statute book.
Of course, I remind the House that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and others have said, we are confident that the UK and EU can reach a positive deal on our future partnership—
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
If the Minister is saying that the amendment does not technically achieve what they want, if we can word it in a way that they want, will the Government then accept it?
Lord Callanan
I cannot give the noble Baroness that commitment. I am explaining the amendment and will come to the other implications in a second.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
Perhaps the Minister can give an easier commitment, which is that the Government will use the period between now and Report to draft a provision which has that effect and catches a no-deal situation. I am sure we should be delighted. He has a whole team of draftsmen at his beck and call, so perhaps he could make good use of their Easter recess.
Lord Callanan
I am delighted to hear that I have all these people at my beck and call; it seems to have escaped my notice.
I remind the Committee that we are confident that the UK and the EU can reach a positive deal on our future partnership, as we believe that this is in our mutual interest. However, a responsible Government must be prepared for all possible outcomes. To invalidate the Clause 7 power in the absence of an agreement would eradicate a crucial part of our preparations. Putting the issue to one side, I respectfully disagree with the intention of the amendment—that parliamentary approval should be required to leave the EU without a deal. There should be one fundamental fact sitting behind all these debates: the UK is leaving the EU. As noble Lords have heard me say before in Committee, and on which I have been questioned at length, the decision to hold a referendum was put to the electorate in the 2015 general election. That decision was then put into statute in the European Union (Referendum) Act. The referendum was held and delivered a majority in favour of leaving the EU. Parliament then consented to act on that verdict through the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act.
I do not normally read the Observer, but as Keir Starmer had given an interview I thought it would be appropriate for me to read what he had to say on behalf of the Labour Party. It had some interesting quotes. He said:
“Article 50 was triggered a year ago. It expires in 52 weeks and a few days, and I don’t think there is any realistic prospect of it being revoked”.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Article 50 also says that there will be a withdrawal deal which will include the framework for our future arrangements. Article 50, which we triggered, does not say that we are giving notice that we are leaving and that we are leaving without a deal.
Lord Callanan
We are giving notice of our withdrawal. The title was in the Bill that we passed to trigger it. Keir Starmer also said:
“Having asked the electorate for a view by way of the referendum, we have to respect the result”.
I agree with him.
I say again only to remind noble Lords so that they can understand my point of view that there has been a legitimate process, marked at intervals by the consent of both Parliament and the electorate. As I said in an earlier debate, amendments that could be perceived as a means to delay or disregard the referendum result carry with them their own risks—people’s faith in their democracy and its institutions. With that in mind, I do not think that it would be right to add an express mechanism within this Bill which might prevent the referendum result being acted upon.
The Prime Minister has been very clear: we are leaving the EU at the end of March 2019. That is not a question of domestic legislation; it is now a question of the EU treaties. While the detail of our future relationship with the EU has yet to be negotiated, I believe that remaining in the EU is the only outcome which cannot be reconciled with the decision taken in the referendum. I do not think that it would be in the interests of either the EU or the UK to open the door to an ever-continuing negotiation process with no certainty that the UK will ever reach a new, settled relationship with the EU. I was going to finish there but I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, is itching to ask a question.
Baroness Ludford
I thank the noble Lord for anticipating my question. He referred to there being a problem with Clause 7(1), which says:
“A Minister … may by regulations make such provision as … appropriate … arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU”.
If it is “may”, it could also mean “may not”. If there are no regulations to be made because there is no deal, and therefore there are no deficiencies in retained EU law to remedy, and that is the Government’s position, that subsection does not need to be invoked.
That is surely different from Clause 9. I do not see the parallel. Clause 9(1) refers to the parliamentary enactment of whatever the final terms are. We are talking about a scenario where there is no deal. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, if you are maintaining that it is unworkable in this situation, the Government need to come up with something that they consider a workable formula. The Minister must surely understand that the point is to make sure there is not wriggle room over where parliamentary responsibility and rights reside, and not to be able to dodge Clause 9(1) by saying, “Well, it’s not really final terms of withdrawal because we are crashing out without a deal”.
Lord Callanan
We hope not to crash out without a deal, as I have said. If we do not have a withdrawal agreement, there is nothing to implement in Clause 9—therefore, Clause 9 would not be necessary. As I have said many times before, our position is that we are leaving the European Union on 29 March 2019, because that was what was authorised by Parliament when it authorised the Prime Minister to submit the notification under Article 50.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
Does my noble friend truly believe that the British people voted to leave the EU with no deal, with all the implications that that has for the livelihoods and business prospects of this country? That was not on the ballot paper. We have respected the British people’s vote by triggering Article 50 and negotiating with the EU but, if it comes down to the point where we cannot get a deal, surely Parliament must be in control of what happens to the interests of our country in that scenario.
Lord Callanan
I believe that the British people voted to leave the EU and we are trying to negotiate the best possible deal to ensure that we leave the EU. To go back to our original argument for all the reasons against the amendment, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, will consent to withdraw it.
Lord Jay of Ewelme
My Lords, I am grateful to those who have spoken in this short debate. I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and for reciting the history, but I simply disagree on the substance of the issue. There is no question of these amendments seeking to countermand the result of the referendum; they are simply to reaffirm the role of Parliament and what I and others believe would unquestionably be the desire of the British people in the event of no deal—that Parliament should take its responsibility and consider these issues before the final decision is made.
There is perhaps a difference of nuance between some of us who have spoken on the likelihood of no deal. I think that David Davis spoke of no deal as a sort of an insurance policy, in case there was a no deal. But I do not think that there is any disagreement among those who have spoken tonight on the consequence of no deal, with the exception of the Minister, or of the need for Parliament to be consulted. I have no doubt that we shall return to this issue at Report, but meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
The debate that I seek to initiate is on the ability to increase fees and charges by delegated or sub-delegated powers. It is a straightforward matter of proper parliamentary oversight that that should not happen.
Having said that, my role in this debate is one which I am now performing regularly in this Committee—to act as John the Baptist to my good noble friend Lord Lisvane, who is probably the greatest expert in the history of Parliament on the procedures which are adequate and necessary for raising fees and charges. I now make way for the authorised version to be given to the Committee.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, there are few better warm-up men than the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, but I fear that I will disappoint your Lordships. As the Question formally before the Committee is whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill, I will speak to Amendments 348 and 349 rather than moving Amendment 348. The amendments are in my name and those of my noble and learned friend Lord Judge, my noble friend Lord Pannick and the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I can be very brief, even at this refreshingly early hour of the evening, as the issues in both amendments have already been considered by the Committee in one way or another. It may indeed be that we have had a sneak preview of the Minister’s response on both issues.
Amendment 348 would prevent fees or charges to be levied by tertiary legislation. At an earlier stage, I expressed concern that this Bill, already proposing to confer sweeping powers upon Ministers, should go even further and permit the making of the law of the land by persons and bodies authorised by a Minister. The authorisation would, as the Minister said in an earlier debate, be subject to the affirmative procedure, but once that authorisation had been made, the law made under it would be under no sort of parliamentary control and, unless in the form of a statutory instrument—which it would not be—would not even be required to be published.
The arguments against tertiary legislation become even stronger when the powers being given to persons and bodies would allow them to levy fees and charges which might well be used to gold-plate their functions. Clause 14(1) defines “public authority” by reference to Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, and Section 6(3) of that Act, in turn, defines “a public authority” as including a court or tribunal—which is fine—but also,
“any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature”.
That spreads the net very wide indeed.
Amendment 349 returns to the issue of ancient principle that taxation should be by primary legislation, not by statutory instrument. When this was considered by the Committee earlier in its proceedings, your Lordships were supportive of the proposition that it should be for the House of Commons to impose taxation by primary legislation, not for Ministers to do it by regulations. In a sense, we are possibly getting a little punch drunk as we see power after power after power being arrogated to Ministers. This is one which should not be.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I was not able, for unavoidable reasons, to be here when the issue of tertiary legislation was addressed in the course of the debate on this Bill, so I want to add something. I do not think that even those who do not see eye to eye with me would accuse me of being an ardent advocate of secondary legislation: I am not. I spoke about this at Second Reading and have been extremely reticent on the issue in Committee, but I shall return to it in much greater detail on Report.
I support my noble friend Lord Lisvane. The provision we are considering—I will take it quite slowly, because this is how I see it—would vest powers in a Minister to use secondary legislation, with negligible proper scrutiny, if any, to bestow lawmaking powers on a public authority, with even less scrutiny. It amounts, in effect, to scrutiny being diminished to extinction. In that process, we as lawmakers are not doing right. We are simply handing power over to people who should not have it. This tertiary form of legislation is, therefore, even more questionable than secondary legislation, for the same reasons and—I add, at this time of night—with knobs on.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, I endorse the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and draw attention to the work of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, on which the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and I sit. One of the things the committee found most uncomfortable was the extent to which Ministers have played games with words in their explanatory memoranda. We were particularly critical of the reference in Schedule 4 to tax-like charges. The committee stated:
“A ‘tax-like charge’ means a tax. Taxes and tax-like charges should not be allowed in subordinate legislation. They are matters for Parliament, a principle central to the Bill of Rights 1688”.
It is not so late and therefore I shall indulge in some further remarks. My only really respectable connection with your Lordships’ House is that of my ancestor, the great Bishop Jonathan Trelawny, the Cornish folk hero who was one of the seven bishops to defy James II’s attempts to impose rules upon this country without Parliament’s acceptance. His portrait is in the Peers’ Guest Room—he is the one at the end with the Beatles haircut.
I make that point because I am amazed and ashamed that Members of the House of Commons have not seen the dangers in this part of the Bill. I speak as a former Member of the House of Commons. This issue goes back to not just the Bill of Rights and the Glorious Revolution of 1688, but far earlier. Reference was made to the Bill of Rights in previous exchanges in Committee. The short-circuiting of the most basic responsibility and role of the House of Commons of approving taxes seems to me an extremely important issue. We should not allow this precedent to be pursued in this Bill. It is the historic role of the House of Commons. I recall that when we had exchanges about tax credits, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr George Osborne, sought to short-circuit and get round the normal process by which the House of Commons decides financial matters. I remember at the time that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, referred, I think, to ship money and Charles I, saying that the last time a member of the Executive sought to short-circuit Parliament, he lost his head.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I shall add a very quick word because so much has already been said. There is an irony in Schedule 4 which may interest the Committee: namely that the power to provide for fees and charges has been handed to Ministers by means of either secondary or tertiary regulation, depending on which part of this measure you are looking at. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 states:
“A Minister of the Crown may only make regulations under paragraph 1 with the consent of the Treasury”.
The irony of that is, frankly, extraordinary because it shows where the Government intend the power of the land to lie. We have always suspected that the Treasury is handed some of the greatest powers that are denied to Parliament. If it is considered fit for the Treasury to be able to intervene in fees and charges, then surely it is Parliament’s right to be able to intervene, scrutinise and monitor those fees and charges.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, was threatening to cut the right reverend Prelate’s head off because of this. However, what may have been a threat to the Minister was to me a great delight: the promise of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, that he will do this with knobs on when we come back on Report. I look forward to that.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for this commendably brief debate at this not so late hour, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for his commendably brief opening statements. I was delighted to see that he made his way up to Newcastle yesterday but, unsurprisingly, he forgot to ask me to meet him for a drink while he was there to speak to his 200 or so Brexit-disliking supporters.
Lord Callanan
The noble Lord is right—I am sorry.
I will try to give a relatively detailed explanation. For any policy to be complete, it must have a practical answer to the question of how it will be funded. Clause 12 and Schedule 4 are that answer here. I hasten to add that they are not the answer to all money matters in relation to Brexit. The withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill will provide the statutory underpinning for paying our negotiated financial settlement with the EU and any other financial matters related to the withdrawal agreement. Before I proceed, I make it completely clear that I have heard the principled and eloquently expressed concerns about the powers in Schedule 4 and their scrutiny, and we will look closely at this ahead of Report. I regret to say that I am unable to provide too much detail on that at the moment, but we will carefully consider this issue.
Clause 12 and Schedule 4 provide that all the money which might flow into and out of the Exchequer as a consequence of the Bill is made “proper”, in line with the rules governing public expenditure and as laid down between the Commons and the Treasury in the PAC concordat of 1932—which I assume even the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, was not around to take part in. Maybe his maiden aunts were around at the time to take part—who knows? These are obviously provisions relating to spending and charges on the public and were closely examined by the other place, which has privilege in financial matters, before the Bill reached us.
It is evident that the process of taking on new functions from the EU, and in the future running them, will cost money. Some of this will be public measures funded from general taxation—and, I hope, more efficiently than they were funded at the EU level. Some will be paid for by users of services to ensure that taxpayers, both corporate and individual, do not end up unfairly subsidising specialist provision. Where the line will fall is clearly a matter for debate in some cases, and I expect that as SIs come before Parliament for scrutiny, that question will, in a handful of cases, be relevant to the discussion. These provisions of the Bill, however, are key to ensuring that the rest of the Bill can be given real-world effect. I hope noble Lords will agree that without funding, the essential EU exit preparations enabled by the Bill could not be put into practice.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane and Lord Tyler, for Amendment 348. The Government, as has been said at other times and in other places, are aware of the risks and concerns posed by any legislative sub-delegation to public authorities, but we remain convinced that conferring powers on public authorities other than Ministers to allow them to make provisions of a legislative character can be an appropriate course of action. I stress that, like any other form of sub-delegation under this Bill, any transfer of legislative power must be approved by both this House and the other place following a debate. It will not be possible for an SI to pass through this place, under the eyes of noble Lords, without a thorough and reasonable explanation of how any sub-delegation will be exercised in practice.
In this exceptional Bill, it is right that, although we must address all the issues that we discussed at Second Reading and which will arise under the Bill, Parliament also keeps a close and strict eye on all matters where any financial burden can be imposed on individuals and businesses. However, I remind noble Lords that this power is only available if the public authority is taking on a new function under the Bill and that the fees and charges must be in connection to that function. This is not a general power for the Government or any other public authority to raise moneys as they please.
The Government envisage sub-delegating this power in limited circumstances—for example, where Parliament has already granted to a public authority the power to set up its own rules for fees and charges of the type envisaged by this power, and, for good reasons, made it independent of the Government.
Lord Tyler
Will the Minister clarify one point? As I understand it, the affirmative procedure would apply to secondary legislation under Schedule 4 where there is a new fee or charge, but only the negative procedure would apply in subsequent regulations modifying those fees. That is an important qualification of the assurances he was giving to the Committee just now.
Lord Callanan
The noble Lord makes a good point. I will answer his question later. In line with the Bill’s aim to provide continuity, Parliament should have the option of approving the ability of authorities such as the Financial Conduct Authority and the Bank of England to independently make fees and charges for firms that will, after exit and under this Bill, fall under their regulatory remit.
Amendment 349 comes to the heart of the purpose of these powers and I thank the same noble and learned Lords for tabling it. This power is designed to ensure that those using specialist services transferred from the EU to the UK pay for them. This involves providing for fees and charges which, though not taxes in the common sense of the term, are at least tax-like. For the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, let me clarify what we mean by tax and tax-like charges in this context. Under the guidance laid down by the Treasury, although fees and charges for services that are set on a strict cost-recovery basis are not taxes, any fee or charge that goes further than direct cost recovery is likely to count as taxation or to be tax-like. This would be the case if it cross-subsidises to construct a progressive regime between large multinationals and small enterprises, if it is a compulsory levy in a regulated and surveilled sector, such as banking, or if it funds the broader functions of an organisation not directly part of the cost of providing a service, such as enforcement.
I hope we can all agree that, as part of providing continuity, this Bill should enable the Government to continue to fund public services in an appropriate manner. Because the Government have directly prohibited the increase or imposition of taxation, including tax-like charges of the type I have just described under other relevant powers in the Bill—particularly Clause 7(1)—we require the ability to do so under this power. To give an example, without this the Bank of England would not be able to bring trade repositories—a vital piece of financial market infrastructure currently supervised at the European level—within the scope of its levy-based funding regimes. This House approved the creation of those delegated regimes through the relevant legislation and I hope that, with the proper information before it, it will approve the relevant power in this Bill, subject to the use of the affirmative scrutiny procedure.
Having said all that, let me repeat what I said at the start. We are looking closely at this matter ahead of Report. We will try to see how we might provide appropriate reassurance to a number of the fairly reasonable concerns that have been raised by noble Lords. Even with that caveat, I recognise that noble Lords may still have concerns but I hope that I have given some insight into the Government’s position and satisfied the House of the honourability of the Government’s intentions. I hope that noble Lords will agree, therefore, to not press their amendments or object to Clause 12 standing part.
Lord Adonis
I congratulate the Minister on what was, I thought, an excellent response to the debate. After 10 days in Committee, he has learned from the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, how to charm the House and we have seen a new side to him that we were not aware of before: his conciliatory and emollient side. He may even, in due course, convert to the anti-Brexit cause at this rate of progress—maybe with another 10 days in Committee we would get there.
However, the Minister did the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, a great disservice. It is a well-known fact that the noble Lord drafted Magna Carta.
Lord Adonis
So the idea that he was not aware of the various provisions that the Minister mentioned is, of course, a great calumny.
In conclusion, I apologise to the Minister that I did not give him advance notice of my appearance in Newcastle yesterday to campaign against Brexit. I did think of extending an invitation to him to appear alongside me, but decided that he would probably be so busy preparing his compromises on the amendments he was presenting to the House today that he would not be able to fulfil the engagement.
I have spoken for so long only because the Chief Whip, who has now come in to check, said that we would conclude our business this evening by 9.15 pm—and indeed we will; I did not want him to be disappointed. On that basis, I shall not oppose Clause 12 standing part.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 28th March 2018
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 79-XI Eleventh marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 81KB) - (26 Mar 2018)
“( ) an EU directive;”
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, my amendment would add EU directives to the list of relevant instruments that the Queen’s printer must make arrangements to publish. I briefly flagged the point of the amendment when we debated recitals with regard to interpretation and Clause 6(3) on 7 March. Anyhow, in those previous exchanges, and since, in the letter of 13 March from the Solicitor-General to Robert Neill MP, it has been confirmed that recitals have an ongoing role in interpretation of retained EU law. There are several interesting points in the letter and footnotes, but for the benefit of the House I will read out just a small part, which says:
“For example, the Treaty base of EU legislation, its recitals, and the working papers prepared in advance of its adoption, may all be referred to at the moment. Our courts are well-versed in this, and in dealing with the differences that exist between the interpretation of domestic law and EU law. As such clause 6(3) of the Bill should not disturb the existing approach taken by our courts”.
I still have an ongoing concern that I raised regarding post-Brexit loss rights of challenge in court, and on which I have written to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, but from the interpretation point of view it is clear that recitals and other parts of directives are available for interpretation. On that basis it seems to me that directives are not just any old other EU instrument; they should have a rank prescribed in the Bill and not left to the possible halfway house of it being done at the discretion of the Queen’s printer or for there to be special rules about their admissibility.
Recitals and indeed whole directive texts and their empowerments will not only be a last resort to reference by the court; it is quite likely that, post Brexit, a lot more notice will be taken of them than previously, especially in those areas where any kind of regulatory alignment is sought. I understand from a ministerial meeting that the Treasury is certainly thinking that way.
What happens if there is no automatic publication by the Queen’s printer? As I said, it could be that the Queen’s printer does it under paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 5, but that is not certain, or under part 2 on rules of evidence in Schedule 5, and in particular paragraph 4, where it would be necessary for there to be regulations to enable documents that were not published by the Queen’s printer to be admissible, and they would have conditions around them. It may just be for certification, of course, but that does not reflect the status of this important category of EU instruments from which a great deal of retained EU law derives.
Directives need to be added to the list of relevant instruments, as I suggest in my amendment, or some other provision should be made in Schedule 5 for this important category of documents. If there is a need to make exceptions to publishing some directives or parts of them, those powers exist in paragraph 2, and I agree with the amendment in the next group that it should require regulation to make that exception, but directives should be of a category that is in unless taken out, rather than out but can be opted in. I beg to move.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, there seems to be a great deal of sense in the amendment, partly because of the provisions of Clause 6, and partly because it is important that the businesses that will be trading into the European Union have ready access to all relevant documents. They will be regulated by directives which set out the principles with which they must comply. The noble Baroness is quite right to move the amendment. Unless there is some compelling reason—which cannot be cost, because that must be very small—I hope it will get a favourable reception from my noble friend.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, it is indeed striking that directives are not included in Schedule 5, part 1, paragraph 1(2). The reason may be that directives are given a very odd status under Clause 4(2)(b), which we debated on a previous day. Under Clause 4(2)(b), retained EU law does not include rights which arise under an EU directive when they are,
“not of a kind recognised by the European Court or any court or tribunal”,
in this country,
“in a case decided before exit day”.
We debated the complexities, the uncertainties and, as I see it, the unsatisfactory nature, of the clause. Is that the reason why directives are not included in Schedule 5, part 1? If not, what is the reason?
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s valuable amendment. I wonder whether the Government are being as transparent as they ought to be. After all, there have sometimes been well-founded suspicions of gold-plating of directives and, in contrast, of not entirely full or accurate transposition of directives. I am sorry to repeat myself, but I gave the recent example of the European investigation order, which was not transposed in regulations last December with exactly the wording in the directive. The European Convention on Human Rights has been substituted for the charter, which is in my opinion a breach of the accurate transposition of the directive.
Not only during the transition but well into the future, businesses and all citizens will be obeying a lot of the acquis of EU law, if the Prime Minister’s emerging strategy of staying plugged into many EU policies and agencies one way or another comes to fruition. Therefore it is right for businesses and individuals to be able to see how EU law in directives, which unlike regulations, does not have direct effect, has been translated, transposed into UK law, so that they can track its accuracy. This is a long-running theme in the European Parliament, as my noble friend will know. Indeed, the Minister will know that there was an attempt to campaign in the European Parliament to have what was known in the jargon as “correlation tables”. It was possible to see exactly how EU law had been translated into national law in all EU states.
Funnily enough, the member states never wanted that to happen. They got away with a bit of smoke and mirrors of people not understanding where law had come from at the European level, or where it had not. Where something had been added at national level that was sitting in some dusty drawer in Whitehall and this convenient vehicle of an EU directive came along, they said, “Right, we’ll just slap into that things we’ve long thought about and no one will realise that it didn’t come from Brussels”. Well, people need to know whether it came from Brussels or not. The kind of transparency that my noble friend is seeking would be extremely useful.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, it may not be possible to answer my question today, but it is an important one. I would have put down an amendment at the end of Amendment 354 to use two additional words: “in English”. Once we leave the European Union, there will not be an English-speaking country that chooses English as its language. The Maltese have accepted Maltese as the language, the Irish chose Gaelic. It is only the United Kingdom for which English is the language.
In future, for all sorts of reasons, it will be interesting to know whether the Government will ask or, I hope, negotiate that English remains for the production of EU documents. For myriad reasons, not least business, we will need to know that. If the Minister cannot answer my question about negotiations now, it would be useful if she could report at some point in the future.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, may I first of all, in English, thank all who have contributed to the debate? I know that to some it may seem anorak territory, but knowing where to find law and being able to access law are matters of fundamental importance. Before coming to the specifics of Amendment 354 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, it may be useful to provide some context for the debate.
Part 1 of Schedule 5 serves an important purpose, which was picked up by, among others, the House of Lords Constitution Committee and the Bingham centre. Specifically, it is a recognition of that vitally important factor of the law being publicly available and accessible after exit day. Part 1 therefore provides for a combination of duties on and powers for the Queen’s printer to help to ensure that this happens.
I will be clear about what the provisions involve. There are differences between how part 1 of Schedule 5 is sometimes described and what it actually does. It is designed to ensure that retained EU law is sufficiently accessible but it does not, for the avoidance of doubt, impose a duty on the Queen’s printer to identify or publish retained EU law itself, or any subset of it. Instead, it imposes a duty on the Queen’s printer to make arrangements for the publication of the types of EU instrument that may become retained direct EU legislation, being regulations, decisions and tertiary legislation. It also requires the publication of several key EU treaties and confers a power on the Queen’s printer to publish other related documents.
I recognise the important issue the noble Baroness seeks to highlight by her amendment. Directives are an important part of EU law at the moment, and may be relevant to retained EU law in some cases, but they are not covered by the duty to publish which I have just outlined. That duty is focused, as I explained, on instruments that may become retained direct EU legislation, which of course in terms of the Bill directives cannot.
Viscount Hailsham
People trading in the European Union need to know the status of the requirements that they have to adhere to when they are trading into the European Union. Directives can be relevant to that.
Baroness Goldie
I was about to come on to that point, as it was raised also by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. Directives have been implemented in domestic law—they are already there—so they do not need retaining in and of themselves, which is a distinction that I am trying to make in terms of how the Bill is drafted, but they remain available for the purposes of interpreting retained EU law. They are available for that purpose no matter what the Queen’s printer may do.
That said, sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 1 also allows, but does not require, the Queen’s printer to publish certain other documents and instruments. Since the noble Baroness tabled her amendment, work has progressed further, and I am happy to confirm that the National Archives, which exercises the functions of the Queen’s printer, intends to make pre-exit day directives available online. I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness and ask that she withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
I thank noble Lords who have supported the amendment. If something is present in the National Archives, I wonder whether that means that it can then automatically be relied on in court without there being any necessity for certification or other requirements. If that was the case, it would fulfil the point that I was trying to make—there are other points that noble Lords have referenced. I did not want it to be that, in order in a court proceeding to reference a directive or draw the judge’s attention to it, one had to remember to go through the certification process, especially if there were a lot of them.
Baroness Ludford
My noble friend is much more an expert than I am on these technicalities, but other noble Lords as well as I have talked about more general accessibility for citizens and businesses. Someone like me knows that I can just put the number of the directive in Google and, hey presto, I get the Official Journal. However, it being in the National Archives is not as good as it being in whatever series is published under Schedule 5. If this is to be done in some voluntary capacity, why is that good enough? Why cannot it be in the Bill? It seems a very British solution: “Oh, well, it’ll be in the National Archives”. No one will be able to find it because they do not know that it is there. It might or might not be okay for the technical purposes that my noble friend is talking about, but it will not be squarely there in a series that can be made known. I cannot understand the Government’s logic.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
I thank my noble friend for that intervention. She also made some important points earlier about what has come into our law allegedly from directives. I must say that, since I have been looking at this withdrawal Bill, I have become astonished by what has been done under the European Communities Act, which I do not think I would have wanted if I had gone back and made the European Communities Act again—but that is a digression.
There are two outstanding points: whether you need to do anything to get it into court for technical purposes; and what the visibility is for citizens. I must say that anybody who thinks that our legislation is at all visible should go on to the government website and wander around it. If they are hoping to find out what the current law is, the first thing they will see is that the site is not up to date. I find it a far sight easier to find up-to-date European law, but again, I digress.
With the proviso that it may be necessary to return to this—possibly the Government will bring forward an amendment or provide further explanation—I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lisvane
“(3) Any direction given under this paragraph must be contained in regulations.”
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, this amendment is in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Pannick, my noble and learned friend Lord Judge and the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. It is grouped with Amendment 355ZZA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, which I venture to suggest has a great deal of merit.
Amendment 355 may appear to address a minor matter but it is an important matter of principle. The exception from the duty to publish provided by paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 5 depends on a Minister being satisfied that a relevant instrument, as defined in paragraph 1(2) of the schedule, has not become or will not become on exit day retained direct EU legislation. I entirely appreciate the argument that, in that case, there may be little point in publishing some or all of it. However, where the argument goes off course is that, while paragraph 2(2) allows a Minister to give a direction to the Queen’s printer not to publish a specified instrument or a category of instruments, paragraph 2(3) allows this to be done by mere ministerial direction.
The Delegated Powers Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and I are both members, was critical of this. At paragraph 49 of its 12th report, the committee said:
“Amending the law by direction … is highly unusual. The delegated powers memorandum”—
that is, the Government’s delegated powers memorandum to the committee—
“justifies this on the ground that it is a ‘limited administrative power’. Even so, to allow Ministers to amend the law by a mere direction, with no associated parliamentary procedure, sets an ominous precedent. Such a direction is what Henry VIII might have called a proclamation”.
It does not matter that this power is proposed to be used in relatively uncontroversial circumstances and that the identification of any instrument or category of instruments may be relatively straightforward. The important point is what the Delegated Powers Committee calls an “ominous precedent”. This may seem a little Cassandra-like, although I think that the Delegated Powers Committee is believed rather more often than was Cassandra with her repeated nul points, but, right on schedule, along comes the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, which makes much use of the unwelcome concept of making law by public notice—in effect, by proclamation, with no role at all for Parliament.
In the referendum campaign, much was made of parliamentary sovereignty, and it has been a recurrent theme of our debates in Committee. I suggest that we should be sharply aware of procedures or processes that tend to diminish or extinguish the role of Parliament in favour of that of the Executive. I beg to move.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment and I agree entirely with what my noble friend Lord Lisvane has said. I simply add that sub-paragraph (3) is also objectionable. It states:
“A Minister of the Crown must publish any direction under this paragraph”.
However, it does not even say how or where the Minister is to publish. It gives complete discretion to the Minister.
I also have a wider concern about paragraph 2: that is, the power for the Minister to create an exception to the duty of the Queen’s printer to publish retained direct EU legislation. The Minister recognised in the previous debate, and appropriately so, the importance of the law being publicly identifiable so that everyone knows what the corpus of retained EU law is. However, paragraph 2 contradicts that. To give a discretion to the Minister to exclude something from the material that is to be published by the Queen’s printer if the Minister takes the view that a relevant instrument will not become direct EU legislation leaves matters completely uncertain. I suggest that a much more sensible approach is that, if the Minister takes the view that a particular instrument is not becoming retained direct EU legislation, the Minister should have a duty to ensure that it is not included in the material that is to be published by the Queen’s printer.
What we want, and what the public are entitled to have, is a body of material that in the view of the Government constitutes the retained direct EU legislation that is to become part of our law. These matters should not be left to the discretion of Ministers.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, as a co-signatory to the amendment, I want to make a short contribution in support of the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, to the work of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and to pay tribute to our legal advisers, who are not only expert and experienced but amazingly diligent. The noble Lord referred to the committee’s work on the Bill, but he did not make direct reference to paragraph 93 of our third report to the House, the last sentence of which reads:
“The Statute of Proclamations 1539, which gave proclamations the force of statute law and later gave rise to the term ‘Henry VIII power’, was repealed in 1547 (after the King’s death earlier that year)”.
I have not been able to do the necessary follow-up research but, as I understand it, our 16th-century predecessors put around the statute of limitations some additional restrictions that are not in this Bill. As a former Member of the other House, I think that it would be extraordinary if the two Houses of Parliament allowed this to go through. It may seem a minor matter, but in terms of precedent it is extremely important. If we let it through, it seems that we will not have done our job as well as our 16th-century predecessors.
The work that is done by the Delegated Powers Committee is well respected in your Lordships’ House and I am delighted that that is the case. In saying that, I want to make sure that Members of the House know that we have the advice of some extremely assiduous lawyers. I think that the advice that we give the House usually benefits from that. I am not always a huge fan of lawyers, but in this respect I think that we are very well served.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, we come to the next stage of the slow journey of this Bill through the House. I shall look at Clause 9 again and address the issue of what the Act of proclamations provided, but just as a footnote I remind the House that the statute provided in categoric terms that a proclamation could not overrule a statute. One tends to overlook that. Everyone is absolutely riveted, are they not? Schedule 5—what an exciting topic to come to first thing in the morning. The problem, though, is that tucked away in this schedule, as frequently happens, is an issue of principle. That issue is, simply, and I support what the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, says, that we are giving an unnecessary, or inappropriate—I do not mind which word we use for these purposes—surrender of power to the Executive. We really must break that habit.
Baroness Ludford
My Lords, to go slightly beyond the terms of the amendment, as foreshadowed in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the issue of principle appears to extend to giving the Government the power not only to decide whether something is to be published but to decide whether they are satisfied that it is retained direct EU legislation. Following the debate on the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, about clinical trials regulation, there have been exchanges and meetings.
Apparently, I am wrong about that. I am told that at some point I will get a blow-by-blow explanation. The Minister sighs, but no one has actually explained. There is a contradiction between the drafting in the Bill and the Explanatory Notes. The Minister is looking at me as if I am stupid. I am sorry about that, but we need to know the criteria by which the Government will precisely decide whether an EU measure is retained EU law and, preferably, have a list of those measures. That would be transparent. We need both the criteria and the list. We cannot just leave it to the Government to decide not only whether they publish but whether an instrument is retained EU law. This has massive consequences in the real world, as does the clinical trials regulation. Researchers are leaving the country because they do not know whether we are going to continue to apply EU law. This is not nothing; it is an important matter.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, this is very important and the noble Baroness is entirely justified in getting a little worked up about it. I spent 40 years, almost to the day, in the other place. I never had a ministerial office and I was always deeply suspicious of Ministers exercising arbitrary power and of any measure that extended the opportunity for Ministers to exercise such powers. My noble friend Lord Hailsham intervened in the debate earlier this week to remind me—not that I needed reminding—of the importance of the Back-Bencher. The Government must always be answerable to Parliament. Giving a Minister an extra arbitrary power, be it in ever such a small degree, enables them to evade answerability to the elected House.
We are fortunate to have committees—the Constitution Committee and the committee of which the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane and Lord Tyler, are members—that act as watchdogs on behalf of this House and Parliament. As this Bill leaves our House, which it will do in a month or two, and goes back to the Commons, it must have been tightened up in as many particulars as possible so as to guarantee as much power as possible to the elected House.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
My Lords, I will speak to the amendment in my name, in case other noble Lords want to come in on it. It relates to Part 2 of Schedule 5, on the rules of evidence. It is about regulations again, but in a different part of the schedule. I am sensitive to powers that potentially change what may or may not be available as evidence. This is a constitutional point, especially if it means disappearing cases or defences. I therefore find the provision in paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 5 too wide. It permits regulations under paragraph 4 to modify any provision made by or under any enactment made up to the end of the Session in which this withdrawal Bill is passed. That is basically all legislation until then.
I have tried to work out why this provision is needed and what it could do if abused, for that is the standard that we must measure against. In many discussions on wide powers, Ministers have protested good faith. Many of your Lordships have not doubted them but have still wanted safeguards, while others of your Lordships, including distinguished privy counsellors on the government side, have warned—or maybe confessed—that Ministers will abuse powers and have likewise suggested safeguards. This is all part of the “appropriate” versus “necessary” argument.
I was struck last Wednesday that, when the boot was on the other foot, the Government were less keen on having to rely on trust. About devolution, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, said:
“If we look to the issue of consent, rather than consultation, let us be clear that it is not a question of trust but of constitutional propriety”.—[Official Report, 21/3/18; col. 403.]
I accept that the context is different, but the point that many of us have been trying to make about many powers in the Bill is just that: it is a matter of constitutional propriety between the Executive and Parliament and, indeed, the freedoms of the people.
Here we have another such power, even if it is small. It does not seem right that rules of evidence for admissibility could be changed, maybe quite widely, by amending any Act of Parliament, not necessarily limited to the consequences of Brexit. I have suggested adding a limitation, which would not allow use of the power for reducing the scope of what is admissible except for the purpose of replacing EU references with domestic ones. I thought that limitation was additionally relevant because the power to amend all pre-Brexit legislation seems to be perpetual. I was first inclined just to delete it, but I hope that my amendment will give the Minister an opportunity to clarify the kind of circumstances that are envisaged for the power, why it should be perpetual and whether some limitation could be envisaged to address my concerns.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, I have a brief observation on Amendment 355. I agree entirely with the points of principle that have been articulated by my noble friend Lord Cormack, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. Let me make a practical point. If the Minister makes an exception and gets it wrong, people dealing with the European Union may find themselves non-compliant with regulations that are in force and thereby exposed to some form of penalty or disadvantage. The advantage of the amendment is that it would reduce that possibility by a small degree. It is worth guarding against the risk if we can.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Minister remarked that the previous amendment was slightly nerdish and that we were dealing with technical issues. That is absolutely the role of this House. We are intended to deal with the details of Bills. We have already spent more time on the Bill, before we have reached the end of the Committee stage, than the House of Commons spent on all stages. That is appropriate—and necessary.
We should not underestimate how far these technical, constitutional, nerdish issues have resonance outside. I have seen the term “Henry VIII powers” in the columns of the Yorkshire Post. I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that I found myself last Saturday addressing several thousand people in Leeds on a Stop Brexit march. In a short speech, I mentioned in passing that the House of Lords had just defeated the Government on a question relating to Euratom. A great cheer went up from the crowd. Until that point, I would have thought that there were at most 200 people in Yorkshire who understood what Euratom was—most of them medical doctors of one sort or another. If several thousand people think that the question of Euratom is important, we should not underestimate the public and those who care about detailed issues in the Bill, in particular executive control versus parliamentary sovereignty and the extent to which the Government may be taking powers in the Bill that a future Government of a different complexion might use and abuse. These are not entirely nerdish and technical matters; they are actually rather important politically.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, I thank all who have contributed to this debate; very important points have been raised. This subject may be academic and technical but the issues are important—and to me, they are actually very interesting. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that I think there are a lot worse ways of spending a wet Wednesday morning than looking at these issues.
In responding to Amendment 355, I would like to take the opportunity to explain the Government’s approach, and explain why we do not consider it necessary or practical to require the making of secondary legislation. Taken together, paragraphs 1 and 2 mean that the Queen’s printer has a duty to publish all relevant instruments in respect of which it has not received a direction. The direction-making power, therefore, is already clearly limited in its scope. I acknowledge the concern, as articulated by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, that the direction-making power in paragraph 2 is akin to allowing Ministers to change the law by proclamation. The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, colourfully referred to that. However, the Government respectfully disagree with that characterisation. The power in paragraph 2 to exempt the Queen’s printer from the duty to publish in relation to certain instruments or parts of instruments is, I would submit, a targeted, common-sense provision to enable the Minister to narrow what is—as I hope I have explained in my previous remarks—the necessarily wide task of the Queen’s printer.
This power does not enable a Minister, by decree, to determine what is or is not retained EU law, nor is it designed to prevent some aspects of retained direct EU legislation being published. I would remind the House that any directions under paragraph 2 must be published. So there is no secrecy here; the process is transparent. I did note the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that there was an absence of detail on the mode of publication. I have no specific information about that. I would imagine that it would follow existing practice. However, I shall certainly undertake to write to him about that aspect.
The National Archives is already looking at how the various directions to the Queen’s printer will be made available on legislation.gov.uk, to make access to them easier still.
Accordingly, the Government do not consider that this direction-making power can fairly be characterised as an alarming extension of executive power, or as setting an ominous precedent for the future. The law needs to be made publicly available—that is a given—and we need a proportionate way to achieve this. A targeted, carefully circumscribed power for a Minister to give directions in relation to a body is not unprecedented or harmful. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, was deeply concerned about the operation of this provision, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, was, I think, predictably suspicious. So let me try to provide an illustration.
For example, under Section 92 of the Energy Act 2013, the Secretary of State may direct the Office for Nuclear Regulation as to the exercise of its functions, generally or specifically. In 2017, the Secretary of State did make such a direction as to the supply of information in relation to the nuclear safety of civilian nuclear installations. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that that direction was published online, so it was readily visible and accessible. The alternative option put forward in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, would be to require any such directions to be made in secondary legislation. Such an approach would in our view be unnecessary and potentially counterproductive. It would also impose an added burden to the volume of regulations which we can anticipate following from this legislation.
Viscount Hailsham
If it has to be done by regulation, it gives this House and the other place at least a theoretical possibility of saying that the Minister should not make the exception, because the regulation or directive is, in fact, retained EU law. The citizen must be in a position to have access to what is relevant retained EU law. If it is not done by regulation, there is no way of challenging the Minister’s decision on that point. Surely, is that not objectionable in principle?
Baroness Goldie
This is all about trying to ensure that the statute book does not become cluttered with material which is irrelevant, not competent under the Bill and not within the scope of retained EU law as we have defined it.
Lord Beith (LD)
We would all agree with the principle that the noble Baroness has just advanced—we shall adduce it when trying to remove some other bits from the Bill later today. However, she seems to be advancing the proposition that it is for a Minister to say that something is not part of the law, because of something that the Minister judges makes it invalid. The constitution has never given that role to Ministers. Courts decide what the law is if the matter is in doubt, not Ministers. To say to the people at the National Archives, whom I visited on one occasion—a small and diligent group huddled over computer screens which have replaced scissors and paste—“Do not print it”, is not an answer to a question of doubt about the law.
Baroness Goldie
If we can set to one side any concept of malevolence or malign intent on the part of the Government or a Minister, perhaps we can accept that this is a genuine attempt to provide simplicity. If a Minister in a department perceives that an instrument or one of the elements of EU retained law is no longer applicable and is not going to fit in with the new body of law, it is desirable that clarification can be provided in the swiftest possible way and that it should not make its way to the Queen’s printer. I appreciate that there are deeply felt views about this, and I am certain that we will come to this again on Report. I am merely trying to indicate to the Committee what the Government think is not just a sustainable position—
Lord Tyler
I am full of admiration for the way in which the noble Baroness appears to be trying to avoid the suggestion that it is executive expediency that is going to determine how this issue is going to be addressed. I think she knows that if she had used that phrase, people all over the House would have said: “We are not into that business”. Perhaps she could be a bit clearer about what considerations she thinks would be in the Minister’s mind to take this particular action.
Baroness Goldie
It is a little difficult to predict specific examples. Many of your Lordships have had experience of ministerial positions. I imagine that if an anomaly were brought to the attention of the Minister that something was not going to apply; it was no longer relevant; it did not fit in the new framework of what will be a body of UK law, the Minister would be reasonable in trying to ensure that that element, whatever it was, did not appear to make its way via the Queen’s printer on to what is perceived to be the body of law for the UK.
Some may argue that that is inherently flawed and a deeply suspect way for any Government to behave. In the extraordinary situation in which we find ourselves— I suggest that outside of wartime this situation is unprecedented—common sense has to be applied. There has to be a proportionate way of balancing legitimate interests in the constitution with the practical need to make sure that we do not create nonsense in the statute book.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
Surely this comes about when the Government are dealing with the so-called deficiencies and then coming out with the statutory instruments to make those right. Why can you not identify it at that stage and make it part of the regulation? That is the point at which the comparison with what does not work in EU law is made. Why cannot it be part of that regulation? Whether it is under Schedule 5 or something else as the empowerment does not really matter, if it is properly done.
Baroness Goldie
The noble Baroness is quite right: there may be an overlap of issues where there is the desire to legislate positively about something as well as taking into account something that is no longer relevant. What I am saying is that where there is a patent misfit because something no longer applies to UK law, I think it is sensible in those circumstances to let the Minister try to ensure that there is no confusion, in that it does not make its way into what is in public view as representative of the body of law.
Baroness Kramer
Surely there is nothing wrong with a Minister proposing that something is not relevant and appropriate, but to make the final decision on that with no capacity for challenge is completely out of order. That is not a responsibility that should be placed on any member of the Executive.
Viscount Hailsham
Before my noble friend responds to that, I wish to make a similar point. If a direction is published, that is after the event; whereas if it has to be done by regulation, that in effect gives everyone the right to say that the Minister has got it wrong. That would be prospective rather than retrospective. Does the regulation procedure not have that advantage? It gives people the right to say the Minister has got it wrong.
Baroness Goldie
Well, I have listened with interest to these contributions. We will certainly reflect on what has been said. I understand the desire of the Chamber to get some whiff or wind of what the Minister might be contemplating and I can certainly undertake to look at what the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and my noble friend Lord Hailsham have said. I was going to go on, if I may be permitted to do so, to try to cover the point about secondary legislation, if I can pause for breath to do that.
Lord Pannick
The Minister is being very patient. I would like to add to what the noble Viscount has said. A real disadvantage of what the Government are proposing—that is, there is publication with no opportunity for the matter to be debated before it is decided—is that there is a means of challenge, and that is in court. It would be most unsatisfactory if the procedure that the Government adopt is that Ministers make a decision and publish a direction, there is no opportunity for debate in either House and then anyone who is aggrieved takes the matter to court. Surely it would be far better for this to be done by statutory instrument, and then any concerns could be properly debated.
Baroness Goldie
I hear the noble Lord, and I shall certainly reflect on that observation, but if I may be permitted to advance what the Government consider to be the case in relation to the proposition that this be dealt with by secondary legislation it might enable the Committee to understand why the Government have adopted the view that we have. The alternative option to require that any such direction is to be made of secondary legislation would arguably be counter- productive. The task of identifying instruments that will not become retained EU law will be a continuous one, and our awareness of such instruments will grow over time. I understand and respect the motives behind the amendment. I have to suggest that it would seem rather paradoxical to require the Government to legislate repeatedly in order to avoid the publication of irrelevant EU legislation, but maybe I am being perverse in looking at it that way. The legislation required to ensure that our law operates effectively after exit day will be significant, and I respectfully suggest that we should try not to add to that task in this case. As I have said, though, many useful points have been raised on this complex question, and I shall reflect on all the contributions made. However, on the basis of what I have been able to say, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Newby
The Minister started her speech by saying one of the principal reasons why the Government were opposing this amendment was that what it proposed was “impractical”. I have been listening very carefully, but I do not think she has explained why it is impractical. She has explained a number of other objections that the Government have, but surely it is not impractical. It is perfectly possible to do it. It is just that the Government do not want to do it, for other reasons.
Baroness Goldie
I disagree with the noble Lord. I was using “impractical”—if I did use it, and it is so long ago that I started my speech that I cannot remember what I said—in the context of what is reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances.
I turn to Amendment 355ZZA—sounds a bit like a pop group—in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. If I have understood the amendment correctly, the noble Baroness is concerned about regulations being used to diminish the evidential value of certain matters or documents. I agree that this is an important area which we want to get right. Part 2 of Schedule 5 ensures that the rules of evidence, currently in Section 3 of the 1972 Act, can be replaced and properly reflect the legal landscape post exit. The power in Part 2 of Schedule 5 enables a Minister to make provision about judicial notice and the admissibility of specified evidence of certain matters. For clarity, judicial notice covers matters which are to be treated as already within the knowledge of the court and so are not required to be “proved” in the usual way.
The power in part 2 of the Schedule covers a limited and technical, though important, area, and subparagraphs (2) to (5) of paragraph 4 set out the scope and limits of that power. While I understand the noble Baroness’s concern, and share her desire to ensure that the effective administration of court proceedings continues after exit, I hope I have reassured her that the regulation-making power is designed to do exactly that. In addition, regulations made under this power are subject to the affirmative procedure, as provided for in paragraph 9 of Schedule 7, so there will be a debate and a vote in this House before any new rules are provided for. On that basis, I would ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I query the comparison with war time. This is a very sensitive issue in the debate on leaving the European Union. After all, the leave campaign depicted the European Union as a continental—or German—tyranny, from which we would be escaping. Yesterday, Jacob Rees-Mogg talked about remainers as being like Japanese soldiers who had not yet realised that they had been defeated and liberated by the Americans. The Prime Minister’s Mansion House speech takes us in a very different direction. She talked about leaving, but recognising that our values and interests remain the same as those of the European Union; that we will remain closely associated with the Union. That is not something which one can compare with war time. It is a complicated disengagement process in which we are not entirely disengaging. It is not helpful to the public, or to the continuing debate, to make these comparisons.
Baroness Goldie
I hear the noble Lord. I did not in any way wish to draw a specific comparison between the two. I was simply describing the magnitude of constitutional challenge which is confronting the country. I had no wish to conflate the two situations in any way. The noble Lord is quite right that there are profound differences. If it caused concern, I apologise.
Lord Lisvane
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her lengthy and very detailed reply. I am also grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and expressed supportive views. Particularly telling were the twin points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The first was about the availability of the corpus of legislation and clarity and certainty on that point. His subsequent point, made in an intervention, was about the risks of challenge in the courts. The Government would clearly wish to avoid that. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, made the helpful point that an enhanced process would allow it to be judged whether Ministers had got it wrong and for that judgment to be made in time.
The Minister answered the issue very much in terms of administrative practicality—pragmatism, if you will. She quoted some precedents—we have traded precedents on successive days in Committee, and some have been good and some have been less so. But an army of embryo precedents—if such a concept can be allowed—is about to march towards your Lordships’ House from the other end of the building in the form of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, which I referenced in moving the amendment. I think we need to be very cautious about rather distant precedents contained, for example, in the Energy Act.
As I say, the noble Baroness answered very much in terms of administrative convenience, practicality and so on. She talked about the volume of the regulations. I do not think that a sensible solution is beyond the wit of man and woman to devise in this case. Could there not be a cumulative list of ministerial decisions on items of legislation that have been identified as falling within this provision on the DExEU website, so that everybody knows what is coming, which could be wrapped up in one SI every month or every six weeks? That would seem to me to reduce the burden.
The Minister was very kind to be concerned about the burden on the Queen’s printer and the National Archives. However, I am sure that, given their experience and resources, that is a burden which they are well capable of carrying.
Powerful as the Minister’s reply was on these administrative matters, I do not think that the volume of legislation—or transactions, if you will—is enough to outweigh the issue of principle that lies behind this. I know the noble Baroness will forgive me for this image, but when she touched, fairly briefly, on the issue of principle, I seemed to hear the desperate scrabbling of fingers on a rather treacherous cliff edge. She was much more certain on the issues of administrative feasibility.
The Minister did make one prediction with which I completely agree: this is an issue which is bound to arise once again at Report. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful for this opportunity to probe the contents of Schedule 5 and debate whether it should be agreed. We have been told throughout the Committee proceedings that this is a technical Bill making arrangements to transpose existing EU law instruments such as regulations, decisions and Court of Justice case law which already exist on exit day into UK law. The two debates we have had today demonstrate the point that I would like to make: we have never embarked on an exercise of this scale and I do not think the Government are aware as yet what the scale of the exercise is.
I begin with one quick question. Paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 5 says that the Queen’s printer “must” make arrangements for the publication of each relevant instrument and so on. Yet under sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) of paragraph 1 we are told that the Queen’s printer “may” make arrangements. I wonder why there is a difference there. Under sub-paragraphs (3) and (4), who will exercise that discretion? For the purposes of this Bill, what are the instruments, how many are they and where are they?
With a number of other noble Lords, I was fortunate to have a meeting with my noble and learned friend Lord Keen, where I asked where these instruments could be found. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that. It is rather surprising to learn that there is no central depository for such instruments in this country at this time. We are referred to websites to see what the range of instruments is. The first website is that of the Queen’s printer—the National Archives—and we see a blank screen. We have first to search through all the legislation; we have to have the title of the legislation, the year in which it was agreed and its number. We also have to know the type of the legislation and go through various categories. The only specific reference to EU legislation that I could see in the short research that I did was in respect of UK statutory instruments.
The second website to which we are referred is EUR-Lex, which is a widely used European legal search engine and the EU’s legal database. There again, you are faced with a screen in which you need to type in the document number, the year it was adopted, the type of instrument—regulation, directive, decision, European court case—and the body which issued it. That is what you have to enter before you can do any further search.
On the scale of the exercise, it is very clear from the Explanatory Notes that we do not know how many instruments there are—our preceding debates today have magnified that. We are told in the Explanatory Notes that, while there is no single figure for how much EU law already forms part of domestic law and how much will therefore be converted by this Bill, according to EUR-Lex, the EU’s legal database, there are currently more than 12,000 regulations which it defines as directly effective EU laws and more than 6,000 EU directives which will have been transposed and enforced across the EU. Additional research from the House of Commons Library indicates that in addition to that—I assume that it is in addition—around 7,900 statutory instruments have been made in the UK which have been implemented as EU legislation. There are a further 1,302 primary UK Acts of Parliament between 1980 and 2009, excluding those which have later been repealed, with 186 Acts in addition exhibiting a degree of EU influence, which means that they are UK law emanating from EU law.
If I was back in practice, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and a number of other noble and noble and learned Lords are, and I wished to advise a client for the purposes of this Bill which instrument or decision is to be transposed, my understanding is that we simply would not know. Tomorrow, it will be only one year until we formally leave the European Union. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will agree that this is a massive exercise. I want to put two simple questions to her. First, are we right to conclude that there is no centrally depository or archive for such instruments at this stage in this country, but that the information is held in the archives in Brussels? Secondly, can the Government put a figure on the number of decisions and other such instruments to be transposed for the purposes of this Bill into UK law as part of this exercise?
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh for her comments. In response, I will need to be fairly brief. Clause 13 gives effect to Schedule 5, which is a technical but important part of the Bill. Quite simply, Schedule 5 seeks both to ensure that our law is sufficiently accessible after exit day and to provide for rules of evidence replacing those currently in the European Communities Act. I acknowledge my noble friend’s intention to oppose that Schedule 5 stand part of the Bill and will try to persuade her otherwise.
Paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 requires the publication of relevant instruments defined in the schedule as those that may form part of retained direct EU legislation and the key treaties likely to be of most relevance to, or to give rise to directly effective rights et cetera forming part of, retained EU law under Clause 4. My noble friend will understand that, after a period of more than 45 years of membership of the EU, a huge body of law has developed. Without wanting to seem patronising, that is exactly why this Bill before us is so vitally important. We want to make sure that all the protections, rights and benefits that our citizens in the UK have enjoyed under that huge body of law will flow seamlessly on exit day into our UK domestic law.
On the specific question that my noble friend asked about whether there was any central archive, I am not aware of any specific central archive, but I shall certainly have officials look at that and I shall undertake to write to my noble friend.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
Could the Minister also deal with the question of Scotland? As I understand it, the Queen’s printer applies only for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. There is a separate Queen’s printer for Scotland, under Section 92 of the Scotland Act 1998, who is responsible for Acts of Parliament for Scotland. Does not that create some problems in relation to the drafting of Schedule 5?
Baroness Goldie
I do not have a response to that specific point, but I shall certainly undertake to write to the noble Lord and provide more detail.
I revert to my noble friend Lady McIntosh, who I think sought a figure for the number of instruments or individual components of law. I am unable to provide that; I do not think that such a figure exists. Obviously, a lot of work has been done across departments to ascertain what is likely to affect the activities within departments and what is likely to become part of retained EU law post exit day. Again, I shall double-check that and, if there is any more information that I can give in that connection, I shall do so.
The remaining provisions of paragraph 1 provide for the power to publish other documents, such as decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union or anything else that the Queen’s printer considers useful in relation to those things. It also ensures that, in accordance with the snapshot, anything repealed before exit day, or modified on or after exit day, does not have to be published. This is supported by the targeted and what I have already described as common-sense power in paragraph 2 to enable Ministers to narrow the task of the Queen’s printer by ensuring that instruments that are not retained EU law do not have to be published. We have had an interesting debate on that and I have given certain undertakings to look at the contributions from Members.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I have another query. We are all talking about the Queen’s printer. As I have said, that is the Queen’s printer applying for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Can the Minister tell us who the Queen’s printer is? As I understand it, the Queen’s printer has responsibility—and it is a good job that we have two Bishops here—for printing the Bible, I think in the King James version. I have just had a nod from a Bishop, which is very exciting. I think that the Queen’s printer may currently be Cambridge University Press, but I may be wrong on that. Everyone including the Minister is talking about the Queen’s printer, but hands up who knows who it is? There are not even hands up in the Box. I know that the Minister is the fount of all knowledge, so who is the Queen’s printer?
Baroness Goldie
I can always rely on the noble Lord to lighten the proceedings and introduce an element of light relief. I do not imagine that the Queen’s printer is some inky-fingered individual stabbing away in a dark basement. If the Queen’s printer is as busy as the noble Lord implies, the less we give them to do, the better. That is why I think that the direction to exclude things from the Queen’s printer would be very timely. I shall of course find out more information for the noble Lord.
Lord Lisvane
I wonder if I could, as they say, be helpful. I think that the Queen’s printer is the Keeper of the National Archives, who also holds the title “Queen’s Printer”.
Baroness Goldie
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. As the late FE Smith, said, I am no wiser but I am certainly better informed.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, becomes the Queen’s printer, because he is far more knowledgeable about these matters than anyone else in the country.
Baroness Goldie
I do not wish in any way to diminish the talents of the Queen’s printer, whoever that person or group of persons is or wherever they dwell, but I think that the noble Lord belongs in this Chamber making the powerful and important contributions that he does.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, has been helpful to an extent by saying that the Queen’s printer is the Keeper of the National Archives. However, that raises the question: who is the Keeper of the National Archives?
Lord Lisvane
If it assists the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, he is also the Queen’s printer for Scotland.
Lord Beith
I recommend that the Minister and other Ministers pay a visit to Kew, which is a very nice place, and have a look at the small but diligent unit that tries to maintain an accurate record and account of what the law of this country is.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, if we do not get through this debate, I will not be visiting anywhere. I must thank a group of your Lordships for their fascinating contributions, some of which have eliminated my need to write to anyone about anything. Still, I shall look at Hansard.
In the view of the Government, the mixture of defined duties and specific powers provided for in part 1 of Schedule 5 strikes the right balance. I say to my noble friend Lady McIntosh that it is comprehensive, flexible and accountable.
Part 2 of Schedule 5 ensures that after exit day questions about the meaning or effect of EU law can continue to be treated as questions of law and so can be determined by our courts when determining that such a question is necessary in order to interpret retained EU law. As I said earlier, it also contains a power, subject to the affirmative procedure, to make provision about judicial notice and the admissibility of evidence of certain matters.
I hope that my remarks have provided sufficient explanation of the rationale behind, and indeed the importance of, Clause 13 and Schedule 5 and why it is imperative that that clause and schedule stand part of the Bill.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, this has been an entertaining and illuminating debate. I am grateful to those who have pressed the Minister for answers.
I do not quite understand why there is a discretion in sub-paragraphs (3) and (4) of paragraph 1 of Schedule 5 for the Queen’s printer not to publish the instruments in question, because it would be difficult to find out what they are if they are not published. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how many there were in the last year—if we ever get a final answer. Could she also respond on the issue of why there is no discretion under sub-paragraph (1) when there is a discretion under sub-paragraphs (3) and (4)?
The Minister has confirmed the scale of the exercise that we will all be involved in. It was not my intention that Schedule 5 should not be part of the Bill; it was purely my intention to explore the fact that there is no archive and we do not know how many instruments of this type there will be.
Lord Wigley
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 355A, standing in my name, I shall speak to Amendment 357A. Both of these are paving amendments for the substantive Amendment 358A, also in my name, to which I shall address most of my remarks.
The amendment goes to the core of the Brexit referendum in 2016 and relates to a campaigning issue which undoubtedly swung many voters to support the leave campaign. This is to do with the amount of extra funding which would, supposedly, be available as a result of the UK decision to leave the EU. The amendment also addresses the guarantees that were given to Wales—and to Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom—that all the funding coming from the EU would be replaced by UK Treasury funding so that, in this context, Wales would not miss out.
Amendment 358A proposes that this Act does not come into force until the UK Government have laid a report before Parliament, and the National Assembly for Wales, outlining how the money currently provided to Wales through the EU will be provided after Brexit. Such a statement in the Bill is needed in order to demonstrate to the electors of Wales that they were not led up the garden path in the referendum and that the Government do indeed intend to keep the promise, made by the leave campaign, that this level of funding will be maintained. I would be obliged if noble Lords will bear with me as I address those promises in greater detail.
I start with the outrageous £350 million a week that was promised to be channelled into the NHS as money returning from Brussels. That was a central part of the Brexit deal, equivalent to a manifesto commitment in a general election. It is a pledge which the Government, in signing up to deliver the other parts of the Brexit manifesto, are duty-bound to honour. If they feel obliged to deliver Brexit on the basis of the referendum vote, they must do so on the basis on which that vote was secured. That commitment was as applicable to Wales as it was elsewhere and it no doubt had an impact in Wales where the public services devolved to the Assembly are funded by the notorious Barnett formula. The NHS in Wales, as elsewhere, desperately needs additional funding. Indeed, Conservative Ministers—including the present Prime Minister—have derided the Welsh Government for not providing as much money to the NHS as was being provided in England. For a time that was true, but this was partly because the overall cake was inadequate. If an increase in health funding in Wales was the same as that in England, other services such as education would have been even harder hit. It was partly because of a decision by the Welsh Government to redirect some of the funding increase to social services, for the justifiable purpose of enabling hospital patients to return home earlier, thereby reducing the pressure on hospital beds. Whichever way, there was and there is a pressing need for additional funding for healthcare in Wales.
The vote to quit the EU was undoubtedly augmented, in part, by people swallowing the outrageous propaganda that £350 million a week would be coming to the health service. Even on the basis of the restrictive Barnett distribution, the NHS in Wales could therefore have expected something like £18 million a week more funding—£1 billion a year. That is a promise which was made and which the people of Wales expect to be fulfilled. My helpful amendment enables the Government to explain to the people of Wales how they intend to fulfil their pledge.
Lord Cavendish of Furness (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he accept that those of us who live in Cumbria have watched with huge envy the largesse that has been directed at Wales?
Lord Wigley
I have no doubt that Cumbria has its problems, and I have no doubt that people from Cumbria will speak up on its behalf. I support entirely that Cumbrian needs should be answered on a needs basis; we are arguing for exactly that for Wales. The current Barnett formula, as this House has recognised, does not provide that needs-based system for funding. So I accept entirely what the noble Lord says.
The point that I was making was that, back in 2000, the Treasury claimed that it already funded ambitious regional economic projects and that the European cash would be gratefully received as a contribution towards such spending. I sought clarification from officials at 10 Downing Street, but no clarification or assurance was forthcoming. In March 2000, I went to Brussels and met the EU regional commissioner, no less than a certain Monsieur Michel Barnier. He just could not believe what I was saying, since the EU funding was provided on the basis of additionality. He asked his officials—yes, those much-derided Brussels Eurocrats—whether what I said could possibly be true. They confirmed my account, and Mr Barnier asked me to give him a couple of months without making political capital on the issue, in which time he would do his best to sort it out.
The eventual outcome to this incredible episode was, as I may have previously mentioned, that as part of his spending review in July 2000 the then Chancellor Gordon Brown announced that the UK Government would be making a payment of £442 million to the Assembly to settle the account. Thereafter, Wales received the money from Brussels, which it had a right to expect.
So please do not tell me the nonsense about Wales being able to trust the Treasury in London more than it can trust Brussels. Such a claim flies in the face of our bitter experience. Unless we have safeguards built into law, there is no reason for us to believe that we can trust the UK Treasury or its Ministers with our future financial well-being. That is why I have proposed amendments to the Bill. If Wales, in the wake of Brexit, is to be thrown back at the mercy of Whitehall, God help us. I beg to move.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of Amendment 358A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and I thank him for tabling it.
Since 2000, the area of west Wales and the valleys has been in receipt of funding from the European Union. Everywhere one looks in west Wales and the valleys, one finds examples of the benefits arising from this—from the newly transformed Ponty lido to the upgraded railway stations in Aberystwyth, Carmarthen, Llandudno and Port Talbot, where we see the effects of a £21 million cash injection of EU funds. From the National Waterfront Museum on Swansea marina to the regeneration of south Wales valley towns, we see the benefit of millions of pounds from Europe.
We see schemes creating employment, breathing life into communities and improving the quality of people’s lives. In my own area, I have seen EU funding being used to build a new rural development centre, to convert an old mill to a teaching centre and an old school into a community centre and, perhaps, the project that is closest to my heart, for the upgrading of Nant Gwrtheyrn, the Welsh language and heritage centre on the Llyn peninsula. We have also seen major road improvements. The stretch of the A465 from Brynmawr to Tredegar, for example, saw £82 million of EU funding being poured in to help with its construction, helping to improve both safety and connectivity.
These are just a very few examples of the impact of EU funding on west Wales and the valleys. All this has been achieved with the aid of the main funding streams. It may be useful to remind ourselves of the aim of three of the streams and inquire of the Government how they intend to replicate them. The European structural funds have been used to support people into work and training; have supported youth employment, research and innovation projects and business competitiveness in the SME sector; and have overseen renewable energy and energy efficiency schemes. These funds are worth £2 billion from 2014 to 2020. What will replace them in two years’ time?
The common agricultural policy, as the noble Lord has already referred to, is, as those of us who live in Wales know, an essential £200 million-a-year scheme, providing payments to more than 16,000 farms in Wales to help to protect and enhance the countryside. What assurances can the Minister give about how these funds will be allocated in future, and on what basis?
The third scheme that I want to talk about is the Welsh Government Rural Communities—Rural Development Programme 2014-2020. It is a £957 million programme supporting businesses, farmers, the countryside and communities in rural areas and has been essential to areas such as the Conwy Valley, where I live. Could the Minister outline how the Government intend to support rural communities in Wales after 2020?
All this is in stark contrast to the dire lack of funding that came to Wales from the UK Government prior to 2000, which led to west Wales and the valleys being designated as one of the poorest areas in the EU and therefore eligible for objective 1 funding. I am sure that noble Lords will understand my scepticism about future funding commitments if, or when, we leave the EU.
The UK Government’s record on funding to Wales hardly fills one with confidence. It has been proved beyond doubt that the Barnett formula, by which Wales has received its funding for the NHS, education and so on, has been disadvantageous to Wales, yet no Government of any colour have been prepared to address the issues and reform the formula itself to ensure fair funding on a permanent basis. My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, have already spoken about this. In earlier debates on the Bill my noble friend Lord Thomas drew the House’s attention to the disparity in funding under the Barnett formula and voiced his fears that future funding to Wales will perpetuate the situation. As he has so clearly pointed out, the weakness of the Barnett formula in relation to Wales is that it is based on a crude population count, whereas EU funding has always been based on need.
It is certainly time for Ministers to be crystal clear about the amount of funding that will come to Wales—remembering, of course, that we were promised “not a penny less” during the referendum campaign. We need to know the basis on which the funding will be determined and the methods which will be used to distribute it.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, I usually sleep quite well, but last night I had a sleepless night. It was because I received a Written Answer yesterday from Defra about exactly how much farming support came from Europe. It stated:
“Across the UK £3.95 billion is provided a year under the Common Agricultural Policy. Of this, around 93% is funded from the EU, with around 7% being national funding under rural development programmes”.
So 93% is from Europe. If Brexit goes through, it could well devastate the Welsh agricultural industry. It is a catastrophic move for Welsh agriculture. We know that it already struggles. We have had years of blight in Welsh agriculture, but now we have a scheme going through that we do not have to approve: this House can stop it and, by so doing, stop that death blow to Welsh agriculture.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I add an English voice in support of the amendment—a northern English voice and a Cumbrian voice. In deference to the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, for whom I have great regard because of the work he does in Cumbria, I think that European funds have made an enormous difference to our prospects in the north. In our debates on the Bill, we have heard a lot of the voices of Wales and Scotland about how they should be treated in the light of Brexit, but we have heard very little about how the north of England should be treated. This reflects the fact that federalism in this country has not advanced far enough. We do not have a proper devolved system of government. It is an object lesson in how the interests of large parts of England are completely forgotten in a lot of our deliberations.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is absolutely right that the £350 million a week claim on the bus played an enormous part in the leave victory. I remember giving out leaflets on the streets of the ward I represent on the county council in Wigton in Cumbria. People came up to me and said “Roger, you know, we’re not going to vote for you on this because we’re just wasting all that money”. I tried to explain to people that the £350 million that they were talking about was a gross figure of UK contributions to the EU, from which we got back substantial amounts of money which went to Cumbria in a big way.
Let me cite some examples. There is not just the agricultural support, which I know is a great concern of the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish. We would not have broadband in Cumbria if we had not had special EU support for it. We would not have had the regeneration schemes for the ports of Maryport, Whitehaven and Barrow if we had not had EU structural funds. We have had huge support for regeneration.
One other interest that I should declare is that I chair Lancaster University, just outside my native county, which is presently building a health innovation campus that would not happen without EU structural funds—and this for an excellent university, which is top of the league in the Sunday Times this year, if I can plug it in the Lords Chamber. It is a vital investment for the university’s future.
The truth is that, if the £350 million claim that the leavers made was to be met, all that spending would have to be scrapped—all the spending on agriculture and the regions and all the spending on culture, science and innovation would go, because that was the gross contribution. Clearly, therefore, there is great embarrassment on the Benches opposite as to their present intentions, because they cannot tell the Foreign Secretary that he was lying throughout the campaign. But the truth is that that was what he was doing. He was lying about the £350 million. The fact is that, if these programmes, the agriculture support and structural fund money is to continue, there is no £350 million. There might be a lesser sum from the net contribution, but when you are thinking about the net contribution, you have to think about the impact of Brexit on our economic growth and therefore on tax revenues. It is already the case that, whereas we were growing before the referendum at the top of the G7 league, we are now growing at the bottom of it, and the Chancellor’s own forecasts for the next five years suggest that we will continue to be in that position and will suffer a considerable loss of potential growth and tax revenue.
This is a very serious issue. I would like clear answers from the Government as to what promises beyond 2020 they are prepared to make on agriculture and structural funds. That matters greatly to the future of the regions of this nation.
Lord Adonis
I endorse everything that my noble friend Lord Liddle has said. Always when the House debates a Bill at length, certain themes appear, and the themes and patterns can often be of some significance. One of the most significant themes that has appeared in your Lordships’ consideration of this Bill is how weak the voice of England has been in our debates compared with the voice of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
There has been only one substantive debate about the interests of England after EU withdrawal and how it is handled, which was the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley—significantly, a former leader of Newcastle City Council—on 19 March. It was a very significant debate in the form that it took. What came through very clearly in the debate was that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and other leaders of local authorities in England, including the noble Lord, Lord Porter, who sits on the Conservative Benches and is the leader of the Local Government Association, had far more confidence in the EU’s processes of consultation through the Committee of the Regions than they did in any institutional arrangements for consultation between Her Majesty’s Government and local authorities in England.
I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, in his place—I think that he may be responding to this debate. In his characteristic way, he made a very constructive response to the debate, saying that the Government were considering consultation arrangements post-EU withdrawal with local authorities in England. I took it to be a very significant statement when he said that that might involve new consultative machinery, including possibly a new consultative body between the Government and local authorities in England. I have to say that the fact that it takes EU withdrawal for Her Majesty’s Government to produce proposals for formal institutional consultation between the leaders of local authorities in England and the Government is a pretty damning commentary on the state of our constitutional arrangements in this country. One of the themes that comes through very strongly from Brexit is that English local government and the regions and cities of England are essentially government from London in a colonial fashion, in much the same way as Scotland and Wales were before devolution. One of the very big issues raised by Brexit is that whatever happens over the next year, whether or not we leave—and I hope we do not—Parliament is going to have to address with great seriousness in the coming years the government of England as a nation but also the relationship between this colonial-style government that we have in Westminster and Whitehall and local government across England as a whole.
The one telling exception to this pattern is London, because London has a directly elected mayor and the Greater London Authority. As a former Minister, I know that the whole way that London is treated is radically different from the way that the rest of England is treated because it has a mayor and the GLA. When the Mayor of London phones Ministers, sitting there with 1 million votes—somewhat more than my noble friend has as the county councillor for Wigton; I know he has done very well but he does not sit there with quite so many votes—I assure noble Lords that Ministers take the Mayor of London’s call.
I remember vividly that when I was Secretary of State for Transport I met the then Mayor of London, who is now the Foreign Secretary, and he did not know who the leader of Birmingham City Council was. It only happens to be the second largest city in England. That is a very telling commentary on the state of the government of England. How England is going to be treated is massive unfinished business in our constitutional arrangements, and Brexit has exposed a whole set of issues relating to the government of England that will now have to be addressed.
Lord Cavendish of Furness
The noble Lord is making an important point about devolution, with most of which I agree. Does he accept that this Government have really gone out of their way to try to devolve power and that in many cases, as I think he would accept, it is the people on the ground who have refused and rejected it?
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I am not seeking to make party-political points in this debate; this issue is going to embrace us on all sides of the House. I note, though, that at the moment we still do not have proper arrangements in place for what is going to happen over the mayoralties in the great county of Yorkshire, which is a hugely important set of issues. There is massive disagreement taking place between different cities in Yorkshire and the Government about how this should be handled. At the moment we still do not have strong powers for any of the mayors outside London. The treatment of the counties of England that are not going to be embraced by the new city mayors is very problematic in the current arrangements, partly because it is genuinely problematic. We have never been able to resolve the issue about how you devolve to local government in England outside the major cities.
This is going to be a big ongoing source of debate, and rightly so. As these debates have demonstrated, we have done much better by Scotland and Wales in recent years, not least because they now have their own devolved Parliament and Assembly. We have done our very best to ensure consensual power-sharing government in Northern Ireland although, to our great regret, the Assembly is not sitting at the moment. Before long we are going to have to start giving equal attention to the government of England.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I hope my noble friend Lord Adonis will forgive another Scottish voice, but I completely agree with every word that he has just said. Is not one of the ironies that our asymmetric devolution, which is the problem, is something that we could be tackling now with legislation in this Parliament if we were not preoccupied with this futile Bill and the other eight Bills that are going to follow it, which are totally unnecessary? We would have the time to deal with it.
Lord Adonis
I entirely agree with my noble friend; he is completely right. However, it is rather a sad commentary on our politics at the moment that we in this House need to be frank and accept that, but for Brexit, a lot of these issues would not have been flushed out. I do not think that, but for Brexit and the Brexit referendum, we would be addressing them.
At the moment, I am spending a lot of time travelling around the country, particularly to places which voted to leave. Most of these places are remote from London. There is an almost direct relationship between the distance from London, particularly the time it takes by train to get to places, and their likelihood of having voted to leave the European Union. What comes through so powerfully from the people I am meeting there is a massive sense of isolation and alienation not just from Brussels, although that is an issue, but from London and our Government and Parliament here. That is not a stable state of affairs for the future of government and democracy in this country, and it will have to be addressed.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I completely agree. I feel so frustrated because for the past three years, I have been trying to persuade the leader of our party to consider a constitutional convention or to discuss the issue even within our party. I agree that we need to come back to that, but I turn to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Wigley. I call him my noble friend because, especially on this Bill, we agree on so much. I am grateful to him for tabling it. Although it applies to Wales, as others have said, it could apply equally to England and Scotland.
As others have also said, I am pleased that it is the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, who will reply to the debate, because I have had dealings with him, as he will testify, on a number of occasions both before he was a Minister and since, and he looks at these things carefully, seriously and sympathetically. I expect that he will do the same again today.
I will not go through the whole list, but in Scotland we will lose structural funds, scientific grants and the Social Fund, and the Erasmus funding is in doubt. There is the European Investment Bank, which has funded roads, railways, hospitals and many other things. None of this can be continued when we leave—if we leave: the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, is absolutely right. I should always use the phrase “if we leave”, because it has not yet been finally decided, we are going through a process. It was the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, who said it, not the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys. I am getting completely mixed up. As we go through the process, we are seeing more and more problems that will be created by Brexit.
I do not know whether any of your Lordships have visited the Falkirk Wheel, now one of the great tourist attractions in Scotland but also one of the great engineering attractions. Again, it was partly funded by the European Union. The Scottish Parliament estimates that more than 40,000 jobs have been created with European funding. As I said, I do not want to list them all—I could go on at length if that were appropriate, but I will not.
We have had vague promises that funding will be continued if we leave the European Union. We need, if not today then in the near future, more detail, more specifics. We need to know exactly what kind of funding there will be. Will each of the funds lost be replaced? What will replace the common agricultural policy? What will replace the regional development fund? What will replace the scientific grants? What will replace the Social Fund? It needs to be more specific. It is exactly like the immigration arrangements, which get put off, put off and put off. We have been promised them again and again but they have not been published. We do not even have a White Paper, let alone a Bill.
People need to know. If, as I hope, we will have a final say, if the British people will be given a final say, they will need to know whether these funds are to be replaced, how they are to be replaced and whether they will be replaced pound for pound, pound for euro, or whatever is appropriate. I hope the Minister will give such an assurance.
It is also ironic, as I said earlier when I was having an exchange with my noble friend, Lord Adonis, that we are wasting a lot of time in this debate.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Thank you very much. There was a huge measure of support there, principally from the Cross Benches. I do not think I have done anything to offend the Cross Benchers; quite the reverse, I was keeping them amused earlier on.
However, this is a serious point. Not only are we taking a lot of time dealing with the Bill, including Wednesday mornings, but we are spending a lot of money. My honourable friend in another place, Stephen Doughty, got an Answer recently that stated that £395 million has been transferred to the Home Office just for dealing with Brexit. Just the process is taking up a lot of money. In fact, we ought to have more Questions and Answers about exactly how much is being taken up by the actual physical process of dealing with this, including civil servants and travel. I understand that Mr David Davis does not like to travel by Eurostar so takes charter flights to Brussels, so the costs are mounting day by day and week by week.
My last point is more general. We now know that the leave campaign has been guilty of fraud and continues to be under investigation by the Electoral Commission. We now know that money was transferred illegally from the leave campaign to the BeLeave organisation, and that unfortunately some of my colleagues and former colleagues in the Labour Party were involved in that because one of them, a former MP, was a director of the Leave campaign. I think it is particularly reprehensible that she was involved in that.
That brings me back to the point made not by the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, but by the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, about if Brexit goes through. People are becoming increasingly disillusioned by the way in which we were duped during the referendum campaign, and that strengthens the case for having a new look—
Lord Cavendish of Furness
The noble Lord will remember from an earlier debate that it seems that Euratom was understood in detail in Yorkshire by not tens or hundreds but thousands of people. I think people were probably not duped.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
That is a matter of opinion. More and more research is being done, including recently by an organisation whose exact name I am trying to remember which carried out some work, about which I had an email this morning, showing that people who voted leave did so for a whole variety of reasons, unconnected in some cases to the whole question of the EU. That is one of the problems of referenda generally, as we have discussed before. Still, as we discussed earlier, if the decision was made by the British people, there is a very strong argument that it needs to be undone by the British people. We need to look at that again as the arguments become even stronger.
To return to the amendment, I hope we will get some specific promises and details from the Minister. As I said when I started, he has been known for his credibility, sincerity and honesty. I hope we will see that again today.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I have a specific question for the Minister: do the Government accept the proposition, put forward so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, in introducing the amendment, that they are bound by the promises made by the leave campaign? They say, “It is the voice of the people that we are following”. The Government had a number of choices that they could have made, but in fact they have chosen to follow a model that must bring great delight to the most extreme Brexiteers. If they do that, they are bound by those promises, I submit—I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said.
It is suggested—this is the weak and feeble argument put forward by the leave people these days—that it did not make any difference, and that what they said really had no impact whatever. Before the people spoke and before we heard the voice of the people, the people listened. And what did they listen to? They listened to a universal lie about the National Health Service, that it would receive £350 million a week. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has referred to this as “lying”, but I prefer the word “cheating”, which has been used elsewhere in this building this week. The campaign, we now learn, was prepared to send out contradictory messages to targeted people. We do not know what those messages were and we do not know who the people targeted were, but that was cheating. So when the people spoke, they had listened to the lying and cheating propaganda that had been put forward.
Let me be more specific about Wales, where specific promises were made. Wales has been the net recipient of £650 million a year from European funds. That is not something to be proud of; it is because Europe recognised the needs of Wales, and gave money in structural funds and agricultural support that addressed those needs. I will not enumerate precisely what they are, because my noble friend Lady Humphreys has already covered that ground quite fully.
There is a moral imperative about this Government: if they are going to campaign for the sort of Brexit that the most extreme Brexiteers want, they should fulfil those promises, and make it clear in the report that the amendment calls for. In Wales it was said by leave campaigners, in terms, “You will not lose a penny”; that was said widely, across Wales, in all the campaigning that took place.
Lord Cavendish of Furness
By whom were these promises made? One problem about a referendum, the principle of which so many of us disagree with, is that it is not a case of a Government making promises that they then have to honour. I do not remember being told about not receiving a penny less. Also, I think that the noble Lord might desist from the extraordinary use of the word “extreme” Brexiteer. You cannot be 52% in the European Union; you are either in or out under this absurd and very unpleasant system of a referendum.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I have the greatest respect for the work that the noble Lord does in Cumbria. Indeed, I feel very much for Cumbria and the north of England for the problems that they have, but they did not have made to them the specific promises that campaigners in Wales made. The Government have picked up the mantle, however you look at it, of the leave campaign. As I have said, they had choices. They could have stayed within the single market and campaigned for the customs union, but have chosen not to. That is why I wholly support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Foulkes described this as a futile Bill. He may be right, but it is the Bill that we are discussing. Similarly, many quite prolix arguments have been made about a number of matters that are of great importance but are not directly a consequence of the amendment before us. If we look at that, we might need to do so in a particularly poignant way.
First, I commend the terrier-like activity and concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who has worried away at this subject like a dog with a bone over 11 days —it astonishes me that there is still some marrow in the bones, but it has been necessary. Others have talked with regret about the fact that other parts of the United Kingdom have not received the same attention that Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have. We can all regret that, but we can see exactly why they have received more attention, because the Bill as drafted dealt with the devolved Governments’ established institutions in a way that many people in authority felt was not fair, or just, or constitutional or whatever. Consequently, we needed to deal with the irregularities that the Bill generated in respect of these institutions, and that is what we have spent quite a lot of time doing.
I look at what has happened in Wales since 1997 and recognise the building of confidence in the institutions that now govern the Principality. I see the three different ways in which powers were gradually passed over to the Assembly: first, in a hand-me-down sort of way from this Parliament; secondly, by statutory instrument; and, finally, only very recently, through primary legislation-making powers.
I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, across the Chamber, given the constructive part he played, as the leader of the Conservatives in Wales at that time, in bringing about the referendum and the agreed settlement that gave us the Assembly as it is. Let there be no doubt about it, the Assembly in Wales began in a situation of chaos—with a plain piece of paper on which many potential plans and outlines were scribbled as the various parties for power struggled between themselves to find the right shape.
At the minute, I am dealing with the family of the late Lord Richard of Ammanford, because I will be officiating at his funeral. As I look at his life, the interesting thing to note is the part played by the Richard commission, which put before the people of Wales a number of steps, just about all of which have now been incorporated into legislation which I believe will soon come into being and will govern affairs henceforward—a posthumous tribute to him. The important thing was that it commanded the confidence of all parties in Wales. Those who have typified the contribution of the Welsh voice to this debate as being merely a mouthpiece for Labour in Wales are wide of the mark. The widespread support for the institutions is acknowledged—and the part played in that by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, has to be recognised.
Here we are on the 11th day of Committee, but this is not the end of it—for goodness sake, there is a lot of entertainment yet to come. Where else would I get the kind of discussion that we have enjoyed about the Queen’s printer? Was it dot matrix or what? Because Her Majesty likes Tupperware, perhaps she likes old-fashioned ways of printing—I do not know, but it was a very illuminating and enlightening debate. We have had esoteric and philosophical principles adduced, constitutional and political positions established and fought for, and all the rest of it. At the end of the day, is it not wonderful that, with all these things in the ether—all this magnificence of idea and thought—it is money that constitutes the core of the amendment before us? We heard reference earlier in the debate to the practical arrangements that we need to face—well nothing is more practical than money.
Wales can legitimately point to the difference between the kind of economic activity that it was able to enjoy and take forward while administered, as it were, from Westminster and the kind of support that it has received subsequently because of membership of the European Union. We should hear from our debate the plea to distinguish between the infelicities of a Barnett formula which applied crudely to Wales and what will happen if it is applied crudely to Wales after we come out of Europe—if we come out of Europe. It will lead once again to a cap-in-hand approach from Wales to its financial masters here in London.
“Needs based” has been a tectonic plate, it has been a quantum leap to go from the Barnett formula to that. The needs of some of the run-down and rural areas in Wales are very desperate indeed. So I hope that we have heard, through all that has been said, the need for us to look again at the principle of how to financially support this institution.
The word “consent” was used earlier and was disputed greatly. Consenting adults is a concept that I am very familiar with. I would have hoped that instead of consent being interpreted, as it has been, as requiring a level of support that cannot be given for legal and other reasons, we would remember that consent between consenting adults is reciprocal. I do not want to think that the devolved Governments are holding a gun—a veto power—to the head of the United Kingdom Government. But Wales feels that, in the way the Bill is drafted, that is exactly what the United Kingdom Government are doing to Wales: holding a potential veto to its plans, which in certain circumstances they might use.
It all drives us back to that one word which the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, mentioned this morning: trust. There has to be trust. How we rejoiced at the possibility that framework arrangements—the list of 24 has been referred to in previous debates—might be written into a schedule to the Bill, as amended, so as to give confidence to the people in Wales that there is a shape going forward. Some sort of consent to that list could indicate all that is necessary for us moving together as partners. The Government in Wales do not need to be treated in an infantile manner in these matters. Trust is possible, and in my opinion it is necessary.
We can read for ourselves all the details in Hansard, but this amendment has put out the case. Once we are through this process and into the legal situation that we will arrive at, on the shores of Canaan, having have crossed the river Jordan—
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port
I was hoping that that was an intervention—I am better prepared for interventions than I was last time.
I simply hope that, when all is said and done, the fact that this is about money—even if the guarantees and figures cannot be given in a debate such as this—will indicate the desperate need felt in Wales for some support and encouragement. There must be a promissory note for adequate support that will be met once we are no longer in Europe for the activities that up to now Europe has helped us with so generously.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for tabling these amendments and all who have participated in what has been a free-wheeling, free-ranging debate covering an awful lot of important areas, some which I perhaps in all fairness could not have anticipated when I read the amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, is absolutely right that in debating something geared specifically to Wales we should recognise the enormous contributions made by Lord Richard and Lord Crickhowell, both of whom sadly died recently. Sometimes in similar ways but in differing ways in other respects, both made enormous contributions in Wales and to devolution. Lord Richard is certainly massively missed. He made an outstanding contribution on the Richard commission in relation to devolution but in so many other ways in public life as well.
I will first turn to the amendments and then try to do justice to the many wide-ranging points made during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, was described as “terrier-like” and as getting the last bit of marrow out of the bone. As someone who has often broken bread with him, I thought that conjured up an extraordinary vision of him. For many years, he has certainly fought hard for many issues in public life, not least for Welsh principles and rights, both here, in the Commons and in the National Assembly for Wales. I think that is acknowledged across the political divide and by people with no politics at all. He continues to make an extraordinary contribution.
The amendments would require the United Kingdom Government to produce a report outlining how EU funding provided to Wales will be replaced once we leave the EU. They would mean that the entire Bill could not be brought into force pending the publication of such a report.
While I understand the desire for as much clarity as possible—I shall say something about cohesion funding shortly—I do not consider such a step necessary in view of the considerable funding assurances the Government have already made to all parts of the United Kingdom. I recognise that there is an issue here that goes broader than Wales. There are certainly issues relating to Cumbria, as has been mentioned during the debate, Cornwall, Merseyside, Scotland and so on—this affects many parts of the United Kingdom, although the amendments are for understandable reasons addressed to the needs of Wales, which I can strongly identify with.
The agreed implementation period to the end of 2020 will see the UK participate in 2014 to 2020 EU funding programmes until their closure. In the case of some of those projects, that will mean the end of 2023. It will not be beyond 2023, but it could mean funding for those programmes that remain open during that funding programme until the end of 2023. The projects would receive their full allocation of EU funding during that period—that is an agreed position as things stand.
This approach ensures that projects are not disrupted and no community misses out. The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, was there at the start of the Assembly as were the noble Lord, Lord Wigley and I, and saw the benefit of such funding—I fully recognise many of the examples that she gave. In the area that I represented in west Wales, there were massive benefits. No community would miss out. British businesses and potential investors have certainty and stability up to the end of projects running to 2023.
In the longer term, the Government have further committed to maintain cash farm funding until the end of this Parliament, taking us beyond 2020, which provides the sector with more certainty than in any other part of the EU as things stand. The Government will also create a UK shared prosperity fund to reduce inequalities between communities across the United Kingdom and deliver sustainable, inclusive growth. The Government intend to consult on the design of this United Kingdom-wide fund during 2018. That will of course, quite rightly, mean engagement with the Welsh Assembly through the Welsh Government and, similarly, the Scottish Parliament through the Scottish Government and with others who would expect to be consulted in that process.
Lord Liddle
Can the Minister tell us anything about the timing of consultation papers on the shared prosperity fund? When are they likely to appear? Particularly in relation to the debate on Brexit, are we likely to see what is proposed before the final decisions that we have to make at the end of this year?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
The noble Lord makes a fair point. I do not know the specific answer, but I will cover it in a letter to all Peers who have participated in the debate on these amendments, and place a copy in the Library.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Perhaps the Minister can answer this question. Is the UK prosperity fund—which I think was in the last Conservative manifesto—intended to be administered or distributed on the basis of need or a population count?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, it certainly was in our last manifesto. As I have just indicated, it talks about reducing inequalities, so the noble Lord has that comfort. Again, I will ensure that any points not dealt with in my answers will be covered in a letter to all Peers who have participated on these amendments, a copy of which will be placed in the Library.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, made some points about cohesion funding, which dates back to 2000. I remember when the noble Lord was leader of the opposition in the Assembly and I was leader of the Welsh Conservatives—I later became leader of the opposition. I too went out to Europe and fought for this with Michel Barnier. I also remember the struggles that we had with the Treasury; that was accurately reflected. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, on this point, which the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, made in the Assembly on many occasions. Such funding was not a badge of pride: it was coming to Wales because of the poverty that was experienced in west Wales and the valleys. It was not limited to Wales: Cornwall, Merseyside and so on were also involved. This was something that we did not really want to qualify for. There will be another round of funding from 2021 to 2027 and I will look at how that pans out. It is not guaranteed, even in European terms, that Wales will qualify. We were somewhat surprised in the last round of funding—it was very marginal—that Wales just managed to qualify. In one sense we were pleased, because to just qualify rather than just miss was welcome. We have to remember that there is no automatic right to it. It is based on 75% of average prosperity throughout the European Union.
There were some free-ranging points made about the referendum campaign—I remember the campaign in Wales as a campaigner for remain—but I will focus on the parts of the debate that were more central to the amendment and the legislation. First, however, I will touch on some of the funding that is coming to Wales. As a Welsh Office Minister, I know that we are participating very much in mid-Wales growth deals, north Wales growth deals and city deals. Stuff is going on which is helping projects in Wales now and engaging with the NFU, the FUW, the CLA and so on. Many things are happening in Wales that I am sure noble Lords across the Chamber would be pleased about.
Points were made about the Barnett formula. Lord Richard would have had much to say on this and we come back to it on many occasions. However, the issue exists independently of Europe and it is not made better or worse by our position in Europe. It does need addressing. In fairness, as part of the coalition in the previous Parliament, we ensured that the formula was ameliorated by the application of the Barnett floor, which benefited Wales. That said, I recognise the points about the historic position of Wales, unlike Scotland which benefits from the Barnett formula. I will leave that for another day, if I may.
The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, was there at the start and very much engaged with ensuring that we got the benefits of Objective 1 into Wales. In parenthesis, the giving of taxation powers to Wales, which was part of the coalition Government and the Silk commission and is now in process, should help to incentivise growth in Wales and is part of the added powers that have been given to the National Assembly for Wales. We should not fail to recognise that a lot of these issues are things that the National Assembly now can, and I have no doubt will, ameliorate.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, made a valid point about Welsh agriculture being much dependent on agricultural funding. I hope he takes comfort from what I have said about the agricultural budget up to the end of the Parliament. He is right that we have to focus on it. In fairness, it is not just a Welsh issue but, as he rightly recognises, it is central to a lot of Welsh life and many areas and close to the hearts of people in Wales.
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, mentioned the Cumbrian situation and touched on federal issues. I can promise that just as I would take a call from Sadiq Khan, I would take a call from the noble Lord. If he wants to ring on any issues, I would be very keen to do that. I think Wigton is extremely important.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, referred appositely and correctly to the weak voice of England in our structures. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, by inference touched on the incomplete part of the jigsaw in that we do not have regional voices for England, or not in the same way that exist in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
I perhaps take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, about the unknown mayor of Birmingham. I think that would be a surprise to many people. Many people know that it is Andy Street, just as we all know Andy Burnham. I do not think it would be quite right to refer to them as colonial governors, either.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I was referring to the then Leader of Birmingham City Council who is now also a Member of your Lordships’ House.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
And a very able one. I take that qualification and thank the noble Lord for it.
It is also worth saying that there were attempts to extend regional government to England. I am sure we all remember the referendum in the north-east, which was pretty decisive. I accept that there are issues to address there. This Government have done more for city mayors than has been done for a long time in terms of devolved power and not just in the big cities of the UK. We have looked at other areas—Cambridgeshire, for example. However, there is incomplete work—including in Yorkshire, it is fair to say.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that the Falkirk Wheel is well worth visiting. I also agreed with him on other issues that he mentioned in relation to the unaddressed issues about government in our country—some points well made.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his contribution and agree that we fought for money for Wales. It was not a matter of pride, it was a matter of getting money that was needed. I agree that in many ways the money is still needed because of the relative poverty in Wales—sometimes a poverty that is not obvious. The grinding poverty that exists in the Valleys is obvious, but the poverty in the rural communities of north-west and south-west Wales is not necessarily as obvious.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, for his contribution and for re-focusing us on some of the issues that matter. He referred to the history of some of the devolution process in Wales—the 1997 referendum, the 2011 referendum and much work that was done in-between. He is right that there is a money issue. I do not think it is just a money issue; it is also an attitude issue that has existed prior to this Government and probably the previous Government. In short, I think it is ameliorated. There is an attitude of: “Let’s not forget Wales, let’s not forget Scotland”. It has become lot better; it is plugged in. That is not to say that we are there yet. It is not just a money issue, though money is important too.
The noble Lord mentioned the Barnett formula. A lot of good work has been done in the past by Gerry Holtham and the Holtham commission, but there are issues which remain to be addressed—that is no doubt true. He went on to talk about the consenting process, and I take it that he means the process referred to in Clause 11. I agree that this is a partnership and, in fairness, the Prime Minister is very much aware of that. She met the First Ministers of Wales and Scotland very recently, and I think progress was made. More work needs to be done and is being done. We are not there yet. I think that anyone who is fair minded would acknowledge that we have made considerable progress on this but, as I say, we are not there yet.
I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, may regard this as half a loaf—it is not everything he wants—but I am happy to talk to him between now and Report and to find answers to some of the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, about the timing of this process. I hope that helps the noble Lord: I thank him for bringing this important issue to the House. I thank other noble Lords for their part in this. While the present team and I remain at the Wales Office, we are determined to ensure that Wales gets a fair deal. I am sure that applies to the Scottish and Northern Ireland teams in relation to Scotland and Northern Ireland. We have to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom are taken care of in this. We do not want this to be x versus y: everybody has to be fairly dealt with. On the basis that I am happy to try to find more information for the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and others, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wigley
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which was rather longer than I expected. Perhaps I set the wrong precedent in my own speech. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Liddle, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, Lord Adonis, the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, of course, as well as the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, and the Minister, for their comments. I am grateful for the acknowledgment of the importance of the issue. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, whose interventions I followed with interest, I recognise, as we all do, that other parts of the UK have specific needs which should be addressed as well. We need a mechanism to do that. In the context of the current round of European funding, on top of the CAP, there is a particular impact on Wales, which was what I wanted to highlight.
I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, that, in the fullness of time and having thought a bit more about this and discussed it with his colleagues, the Government might be minded to bring forward a White Paper, or a publication of some sort, laying out how funding coming from Europe will be replaced. This would not be just for Wales but for other areas as well, and not just for the period from now until 2019 or 2021—whichever is the end of the transition period—but their ongoing intention after that. As the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said, the timing is important. I identify with the comments made about the late Lord Richard and the late Lord Crickhowell who, in their different ways, both made considerable contributions to Wales. I am sure that, if they were here today, they would be taking an active interest in these issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, knows enough about the feelings in the National Assembly about European funding to realise that this is a real issue that can make a difference, not just a political football. We can certainly argue about how the money is used and how it is used in Merseyside, south Yorkshire or Cornwall, where it is used in different ways, sometimes with better results. We need the resources because we are not going to get them elsewhere. They have to be replicated somehow. The question of trust has arisen in a number of contributions. Before the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, entered the Chamber there was another issue regarding money from the Treasury—the aggregated capital funding that Wales was accumulating in the National Assembly to avoid the wastage of year-end expenditure and put it into capital projects. That money was taken back by the Treasury on the basis that we had no right to aggregate money from other headings to fund capital projects. That is the sort of breakdown of trust that we are talking about, and we have to make sure that those attitudes are not exemplified in the ongoing period.
I hope that over the coming two or three weeks it will be possible to see whether a different formulation of this amendment can be tabled on Report, bringing in other parts of the United Kingdom and perhaps other parties. I invite the Front Benches of the various parties and individuals on the Cross Benches to consider whether that may be possible, and to do so with the positive intention of achieving a meaningful step forward as a result of the debates here that will help Wales and all other parts of the United Kingdom to find a way through the consequences of leaving the European Union. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 28th March 2018
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 79-XI Eleventh marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 81KB) - (26 Mar 2018)
Lord Wigley
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I shall move Amendment 355B standing in my name and speak to Amendment 357ZA, also in my name, both of which are paving amendments to the substantive Amendment 358B, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Clancarty— I mean the noble Earl—to which I will also speak. I hope that he will also speak to that amendment in a moment.
Amendment 358B states:
“None of the sections of this Act may come into force unless it is an objective of Her Majesty’s Government, in negotiating a withdrawal agreement, to secure continued EU citizenship for UK citizens”.
This amendment comes after our earlier debate on this subject area, but it is none the less worth revisiting the matter in the light of the publication of the withdrawal agreement and subsequent announcements by both the UK Government and the European Union.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I added my name to an amendment in this group. I spoke at length to a similar amendment, my own Amendment 210, earlier in the Bill, so I will be fairly brief.
I fully support everything the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has said. It is important that we should understand that the loss of EU citizenship would affect British citizens resident in the UK as well as those living abroad. That is a huge number of individual citizens whom the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, avoided referring to in reply to my own amendment but who are aggrieved at that potential loss of individual citizenship. In that same reply, the noble and learned Lord said:
“Let us be clear that EU citizenship is linked directly to citizenship of a member state”. —[Official Report, 7/3/18; col. 1081]
I do not argue with that. The court case begun in Amsterdam is to determine the nature of such linkage and whether a citizenship, once held by a citizen, cannot be taken from them against their will whatever actions are taken at the national level.
It is young people who will feel the loss of EU citizenship most keenly, not just the principle of European citizenship; it is young people who feel most European. Also they will feel the real practical effects of that loss, particularly if we also leave the single market. As others have pointed out, young people have found a strong voice in the group Our Future, Our Choice—one of whose founder members, incidently, was a leaver who changed his mind. We have all learned a lot since the referendum; that is something that, as a country, we should freely admit.
In the EU citizenship debate in the House of Commons on 7 March, the Immigration Minister, Caroline Nokes, said:
“We are content to listen to proposals from the EU on associate citizenship for UK nationals”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/3/18; col. 351]
So I ask the Minister: has there been any development on that front, bearing in mind that such a citizenship, according to Voelker Roeben, would not depend on revision of the founding treaties? I warmly support the amendment.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I completely understand the motivation of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and I am of course entirely with him in wanting to stay in the European Union, but I am at a complete loss to understand how it is possible for British citizens to continue having European citizenship after we have left the European Union. I simply do not understand how it is possible to have citizenship of an organisation of which we are not a member. The specific issue of what happens to European Union residents in Britain, given that the Government have already committed that their rights will be guaranteed for a further seven years, is a completely different point. Assuming that the noble and learned Lord will be replying to the debate, will he tell us what the precise relationship will be between the European Court of Justice, European law and the seven-year guarantee of the rights of EU citizens currently resident in the UK?
Lord Wigley
The noble Lord understandably challenges the point, and he is right to do so, and I too would much prefer we were not leaving the European Union. But there are precedents—I quoted the example of Greenland—and there is also the parallel question of associate citizenship, which has been raised as a possibility by people with a background in international law as a perfectly viable option.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, my understanding is that Greenland became independent of Denmark, so the situation was very different from the one we are talking about here.
It is very important that we do not offer people false hope. It is important over the next year that people understand the full gravity and consequences of the decision the Government are proposing to impose on the country. There are no halfway houses. What does this thing called associate citizenship amount to? It amounts to a row of beans. There is no point offering people the prospect that we can somehow have the benefits —it is a classic case of having our cake and eating it. It is important that those who are in favour of staying in the European Union do not somehow think there are all kinds of halfway houses, which might give us all the benefits without staying in the European Union. It seems to me a very simple proposition: if people want to enjoy the benefits and rights of citizenship of the European Union, there is only one way to do it and that is to remain a member of the European Union.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. Like the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, I thought that the founding idea of European Union citizenship in the Maastricht treaty, which goes back to 1993—so I was not sure how it was applicable to the case of Greenland, which left in 1986—was that you had to be a citizen of an EU member state in order to have EU citizenship. However, my new understanding is that, as Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union reads that,
“citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship”,
this might give a little more wriggle room. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that policies of having cake and eating it are not necessarily desirable. However, we are in a debate about the withdrawal Bill. This morning I thought that perhaps we were so keen on having another Second Reading debate and thinking about the referendum all over again that we had lost sight of the Bill.
Lord Adonis
My noble friend Lord Murphy has just made an ingenious suggestion. Under the Good Friday agreement all residents of Northern Ireland are able to apply for Irish citizenship, which of course also gives them citizenship of the European Union. Perhaps if we allowed all citizens of Britain to apply for Irish citizenship by extending the Good Friday agreement, we could get the benefits that the noble Baroness is seeking to achieve.
Baroness Smith of Newnham
My Lords, I was intervened on and had not finished—in fact, I had barely started. The point is that many people feel that we have talked a lot, absolutely rightly, about the rights of EU citizens who are resident in the United Kingdom, and we have talked a bit about the rights of UK nationals who are resident in other European countries, but there has been very little discussion about those people who are not overtly exercising their rights, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said. When we have considered UK nationals resident elsewhere, we have tended to think about people living—retired, working or studying—in other countries. Here I declare an interest: my day job is as a lecturer in European politics. On an almost daily basis I consider that I am exercising my rights as an EU citizen by being able to get on the Eurostar and go to Brussels without having to think about visas or visa waivers. There are all sorts of ways in which we are able to exercise our rights as citizens on a daily basis.
I suspect that the Minister will say, “This is absolutely not possible”, but will he at least say that the Government are thinking about the rights that British citizens might retain? So far, much of the debate on withdrawal has been about regulations and whether we retain laws, but do we also retain rights, and do the Government wish us to retain rights?
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, for the first time in these debates, I am, sadly, going to have to disagree with my greatly respected noble friend Lord Adonis. It is quite a serious matter to deprive people of one of their citizenships. I feel that quite strongly because I feel very European. I feel European, British and English, and even partially Welsh because my ancestors, I am proud to say, came from the Principality. I have never seen any contradiction at all in those different identities and loyalties, and I find it very insulting that someone should suggest that there is such a contradiction or that I have to give up one of those affiliations. That is the suggestion, although of course it will not affect my loyalty or my sense of identity or my sense of who I am.
These things are subjective, and the actions of third parties—even of Governments or parliaments—do not affect them. That is also the verdict of history. One thinks of Poland, which ceased to exist as a country between 1795 and 1918. That did not stop the Poles feeling very Polish. In the case of Ireland, the British tried for about 800 years to stamp out any sense of separate Irish identity and nationality but completely failed. At the end of 800 years I think that the Irish were more patriotic and conscious of their nationality than they were at the beginning. Therefore, I do not think that this will change the psychological or subjective notion of who I am and where I stand; nevertheless, it is offensive.
There is a quite separate matter in my mind, which is the loss of important benefits: the right to work, the right to vote and the right to take part in various programmes, such as educational exchange programmes. We have already debated these things in full. These are very important rights and liberties, which we will give up if we leave the Union. However, I do not see why, in addition, we should be told that we have to give up our sense of citizenship.
I recognise that the Brexiters in this Chamber and in the country as a whole see no virtue in the European Union or in having the rights that come with being in the EU, and they certainly see no virtue in European citizenship; indeed, they may wish positively to give it up for reasons of their own—perhaps the exact mirror image of my own position. However, I hope they will agree, as I hope all rational, liberal people will do, about the Pareto principle—that if you can do something in life that improves the happiness of a number of people without damaging the interests or happiness of anybody else, you should do it. On that basis, I hope that the Government will not want to stand in the way of those of us who want to keep our European citizenship. Of course, it is a matter for the European Union to decide whether to continue to give us European citizenship; it is not a matter for the British Government. However, I am asking the British Government not to impose obstacles but to positively help those of us who wish to achieve that purpose, which I think we can do without causing any damage to our fellow citizens who wish to go in a different direction.
Of course I agree totally with what my noble friend Lord Adonis said about leaving the European Union. That is a disaster. I have made it clear in these debates that that has been my view all along. Much the best solution in all these circumstances and to all the problems we have been airing in the last few weeks would be to stay in the European Union. I agree about that. But I do think that in life if there is going to be a complete disaster, if the ship is going to go down, it is better to get a place in a lifeboat than just going to the bottom. It is on that basis that I appeal to colleagues taking both points of view about the European Union to be generous and to try to help those of us who wish to preserve some physical manifestation and demonstration of our European citizenship, to which most of us—on our side, anyway—attach strong, personal importance.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, but my head says that this will not work and that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is absolutely right. Citizenship is defined in the treaty as being a citizen of a member state. When we cease to be a member state, we all lose our citizenship, unless we are lucky enough to live in Northern Ireland or to be born in Northern Ireland. I do not think the Greenland precedent works, on the grounds of chronology. It was not actually Greenland seeking independence, and it preceded the concept of citizenship emerging in the European Union in the Maastricht treaty.
Lord Wigley
Does the noble Lord not accept that although it happened chronologically before the treaty of 1992, the rights continue afterwards and therefore are respected?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I am afraid it does not apply to 60 million of us. It did apply to 40,000 Greenlanders a long time ago. My concern is that we should be careful in what we ask the Government to do. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said that this is purely a matter of political will, and that the Government could fix this if they chose to. I am afraid that this is not the case.
I would like to ask the Government if they could construe for us the missing paragraph 32 from the draft withdrawal agreement of 28 February. The Minister will remember the Leader of the Opposition’s question on the Statement on Monday. Paragraph 32 was in the draft of the withdrawal agreement of 28 February. It read:
“In respect of United Kingdom nationals and their family members, the rights provided for by this Part shall not include further free movement to the territory of another member state”.
It seems to me that the Government should exercise political will here and carry on negotiating. I was encouraged to see that the paragraph had dropped out, because it limited the rights of UK citizens living in continental Europe after we leave, if we leave, to the particular country in which they live. It seemed to me that these rights ideally should be portable, so that somebody living in France could live in Italy or Spain and retain these rights. I have always thought it a little harsh of the European Union side in this negotiation to take the opposite view. I was encouraged to see that prohibition on the rights extending to residence in another member state had dropped out of the text that was looked at in the European Council.
I hope this means that the Government have either succeeded in killing that prohibition or, perhaps more likely, are themselves continuing the fight to try to get rid of that prohibition. It would be very useful to know. I think that leaving the European Union will be a disaster for all of us. I resent the fact that I will no longer have any rights as a citizen. But it seems to me that it is particularly awkward for those people whose legitimate expectations when they chose to live in France, Italy, Spain or wherever will be reduced. They will still be able to exercise their rights when they live in the country to which they chose to move, but they will not be able to choose to move to another country and retain these rights. I would be glad if the Minister could elucidate the answer to the Leader of the Opposition’s question on the Statement on Monday.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, it might be helpful if I, as a half-Dane, set out the position of Greenland. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, raised the interesting point of what the status of UK citizens will be when we leave the European Union but continue to benefit in some places from it. Greenland is an autonomous Danish dependent territory, with only limited self-government and its own Parliament. It withdrew from the European Union but nevertheless is now associated with it under the Overseas Associated Decision and is eligible to benefit from funding from the EU’s general budget through the EU-Greenland partnership. That begs the question of whether the Government are minded to apply for such associated status so that citizens from parts of the UK can benefit in the future.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for not being here at the start. I will say very briefly that one aspect has not come under consideration: namely, UK citizens who have their prime residence on the continent. If a UK citizen has restricted access to the country in which they have their residence and the situation arises where the spouse is not allowed to enter the UK—of which I have first-hand knowledge, as my colleague the Minister is aware—that could mean separation for many people and it will further complicate this whole arena.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, I will intervene very briefly. Since the Maastricht treaty, 18 million people have been born into European citizenship. They have not acquired it—it is their right from birth. What right have we to strip them of this citizenship? I am proud of being Welsh, proud of being British and proud of being a European. A person is usually stripped of citizenship as a penalty for having done wrong and for being an undesirable. How on earth am I going to tell the children—and they are not only children now—who have been born since the Maastricht treaty into European citizenship that they no longer have that right?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, in the words of those who tabled the amendments and their supporters, we hear the cry of millions who feel the loss of what they believe has been, or has become, their birthright—European Union citizenship.
We see this in many different ways. Half a million holders of UK passports have already applied for Irish passports, often by virtue of their parents’ or grandparents’ status; 30,000 EU citizens—double the number we saw before the referendum—who live here are now applying for British nationality; and many Britons are taking up membership of an EU member state so that they can preserve their EU citizenship. There is an even greater number of people who, like me, would love to continue to hold a purple passport. I have no nostalgia for my old passport—I think it is black rather than blue—and do not want it back; I would like to keep my purple one.
Apart from the emotional attachment, there are pragmatic reasons why people would like to continue with that. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, even with the withdrawal agreement we are not certain that it will allow Brits who are living abroad to do more than just remain in the country where they find themselves at the moment. It may not guarantee them the right to move or work elsewhere.
I heard recently from a British national, Nick Gammon, who at the moment is living in Holland—he has lived in France and Ireland—whose children absolutely identify as citizens of Europe. He is a translator and even at the moment his work is done not only in Holland but in Belgium, Germany and Britain, and indeed all over the place. But of course, after exit, while he will be able to carry on living in Holland, he will not be able to continue to live and work in one of those other places if it is not included in the final withdrawal agreement—although it would be nice if we could hear that it is going to be.
Of course, Nick is not alone. A few days ago we talked about the designers, architects, performers, sports men and women, nurses and all sorts of people who move around for their career, very often as freelancers, as well as for their personal lives. We heard from our EU committee earlier about how tourists moving abroad now risk losing their European health insurance card, the EHIC. Obviously this does not apply to many noble Lords in the Chamber, but if you happen to be more than 90 years of age or you have a pre-existing ailment, it will become very hard to get health insurance if we lose the EHIC. So there are enormous problems with continuing the movement across Europe that we know.
So there is undoubtedly an ache for the EU passport, with its ongoing residence and other rights. Perhaps I may briefly tell one more story. In my husband’s family, his cousin’s husband will I think be known to many: Nick Ross, whose Jewish grandmother and father arrived here from Germany in the 1930s. Nick has just taken German nationality. He has done so for a number of reasons, including how Germany has changed—although he does not necessarily want to go and work there. Following his lead, his sons, nieces and nephews have also applied for German passports, which says quite a lot. I gather that it is taking the youngsters rather longer because there is now a long queue of people doing just that.
That is a reflection of the world in which the current generation lives. Young people have more in common with friends, colleagues and partners across the continent than our parents would ever have imagined. It is the world that EU citizens residing here have also come to assume. Some are still in shock after the June 2016 decision, which will bar their automatic right to stay here, work and bring their family over. Even with all the promises we have been given, we know that there are great worries about how the system for settled status will continue.
I return to the amendment. Of course we cannot acquire stand-alone EU citizenship. It does not exist but is an add-on, even in the words which we have just heard quoted. It is an add-on for the nationals of EU member states. The EU 27 nations are no more going to give passports to all 65 million of us than we would give British passports to the 500 million citizens across the European Union—so I am afraid that we are not likely to get passports from another EU member state, and therefore, sadly, we will lose our EU citizenship.
But what we can do is ask the Government to ensure that at every stage of the negotiation they prioritise the movement of people around the continent in the way that a generation has learned to enjoy and value. Whether it is over the negotiations on staying and working with Euratom, Erasmus or the medical or other agencies, everything we do should help to preserve the free movement across the continent which youngsters in particular have come to expect. I think that we would like to see, if I may use the phrase, a continental Brexit, and I hope that Ministers will press for it so that people will be kept at the centre of all the negotiations, which will help them to continue to feel European—even if we revert to the old black passports.
The Earl of Clancarty
I detect an elegiac and rather defeatist note in what the noble Baroness is saying. Has she read the report by Professor Volker Roeben? If so, what is her response to it?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Not only have I looked at that report and a number of other documents, but the noble Earl will have observed that I have one of the major legal advisers sitting on my right, from whom I take great strength.
I would love to believe the noble Lord but, alas, I also believe what it says in the treaty: EU citizenship is an add-on for citizens of a member state. That is why noble Lords have heard me say before that I was born in Germany but, sadly, in a British hospital, so I was born British. For a long time, I thanked my parents for getting me into a British hospital so that there were no complications. They are long dead, but I am now really cross with them for not having me in a German hospital so that I could have a German passport and keep it. My wish is there, but my brain tells me that it is just not possible.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, at one stage I thought that, for the first time in many days, I was going to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, but then he went and spoiled it.
Many people—today, yesterday, a year ago—wanted to remain EU citizens, but more people decided that they did not. That is where we find ourselves today. I do not seek to elaborate on that. I understand the strength of feeling from many people who did not want to see us leave the EU, but the reality is that we will. The consequence of that is clear and has been made clear by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Kerr: pursuant to Article 20, EU citizenship is an addition to the citizenship of a member state.
Lord Dykes (CB)
I apologise for interrupting at this juncture because the Minister has only just begun his interesting speech. He asserted that people voted decisively in favour of Brexit and therefore also against being European citizens. As far as I recall, that did not really come up in the campaign, so how many of those people would have known about EU citizenship arising from the Maastricht treaty a long time ago?
Lord Keen of Elie
It is so utterly basic to the issue that it is difficult to conceive of many, if any, people who did not understand the nature and consequences of Brexit, so I will not elaborate on that.
I want to come back to remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, in an earlier debate. We have debated this already in Committee in the context of another amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, mentioned Northern Ireland. Clearly, where one meets certain residency tests in Northern Ireland, one is eligible to apply for a passport from the Republic of Ireland Government. By that means, membership of an EU state can be retained and one can remain an EU citizen. As I indicated in an earlier debate, there are two areas of opinion in Northern Ireland: there are people who are perfectly happy—indeed, anxious—to secure a passport from Dublin and people who have no desire to do so.
Lord Adonis
I am afraid I must disappoint the noble and learned Lord because I think we are continuing to agree. However, I asked him why he will not extend the right to apply for an Irish passport to those of us on the mainland.
Lord Keen of Elie
It is not in my gift. It would be a matter for international treaty negotiation between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. It is for Ireland to decide who it will admit as citizens of the Republic; it is not for us to demand. That is the answer to the noble Lord’s point.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
As a point of interest, perhaps one should recommend to all pregnant mothers in Great Britain that they might consider going over to Northern Ireland to have their babies.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am not going to indulge in an issue regarding maternity at this stage. Let us try to keep focus on the amendment, shall we?
We are all aware of the issue and we are also aware of the agreement that has been entered into to protect the rights of EU citizens and their family members living in the UK and of UK nationals living in the EU until the end of the implementation period, set at 31 December 2020. During the implementation period, individuals will still be fully covered by the EU acquis. UK nationals will be able to continue to move around the EU 27 member states and will have the freedom to move to another member state to live and work, as long as they do so before the end of the implementation period.
That reminds me of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, about Article 32 of the withdrawal agreement. The position is this: what was proposed in Article 32 was removed as there was no actual agreement on that point. Therefore, there was no reason to have a legal text covering a point that was not the subject of agreement. The United Kingdom pushed strongly for the inclusion of ongoing movement rights during the first phase of the negotiations, but the European Union was not yet ready to include them. Of course, it remains an issue that we wish to pursue. We have already made that clear.
To come back to the amendment itself, it is simply not feasible for us to set upon a course of negotiation that is doomed to failure. We cannot secure EU citizenship for citizens of the United Kingdom after we leave the EU. That is the short point to be made. Therefore, the amendment would set the Government on a course of negotiation that would effectively prevent the present Bill—
Lord Keen of Elie
I shall just finish the sentence, so will the noble Lord please sit down? It would effectively prevent the present Bill getting on to the statute book and achieving its intended purpose: to ensure legal certainty at the point at which we leave the European Union.
Lord Wigley
I am very sorry to hear that this would prevent the Bill reaching the statute book. Notwithstanding those feelings, I ask the noble and learned Lord to address the point I raised in my earlier comment about the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties that that convention,
“will be binding on all remaining Member States, the UK, and the EU itself post Brexit”.
Does he accept that the convention,
“ensures that the status and rights of those EU citizens resident in the territory of the Union and those resident in the UK will continue”,
after Brexit?
Lord Keen of Elie
I hope the noble Lord did not pay good money for that opinion. He will perhaps elaborate on the position in due course, but I do not accept that proposition.
Lord Wigley
I will not come back after this intervention, but has he read the document to which I referred, or have experts in his department done so?
Lord Keen of Elie
I have not read the opinion in question, but I am not unfamiliar with the terms of the Vienna convention on treaties.
Lord Wigley
If between now and Report he or his advisers have an opportunity to read that opinion and, having done so, feel that what has been said in a Chamber does not fully reflect the situation, will he be prepared to come back at a later stage?
Lord Davies of Stamford
I will take up a point that the noble and learned Lord was making before he took the very sensible and helpful intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. We all accept—I explicitly accepted it in my remarks—that EU citizenship is not within the Government’s gift. I accept, too, that there is no practical possibility of the Government negotiating it in foreseeable circumstances with the EU. What I am asking for and what I hope the noble and learned Lord can offer on behalf of the Government is that they will place no obstacle in the way and will do anything that appears possible to facilitate and support any move by any of us to try to achieve from the European Union some recognition of the fact that we are European citizens and we will continue to feel that way even after Brexit, if Brexit, unfortunately, takes place.
Lord Keen of Elie
The reality is that if Brexit takes place we will not continue to be EU citizens.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I am very grateful to everyone who has participated in this short debate, particularly to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, who I am sorry I relegated in my earlier reference. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, with whom I usually fully agree on these matters, although it was encouraging to hear that there may be alternatives by not pursuing this Bill. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith, Lady McIntosh and Lady Hayter, and the noble Lords, Lord Davies, Lord Kerr and Lord Roberts of Llandudno, for their comments. I think I have got as far as I am likely to get on this. I was grateful to the Minister for saying that he is prepared to look at the opinion to which I have been referring. I can ask no more than that, and on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Goldsmith
“( ) If the United Kingdom agrees transitional arrangements with the European Union, a Minister of the Crown may not appoint a day on which section 6 is to come in force unless this day follows the expiration of those transitional arrangements.”
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to prevent Section 6 coming into force until after the expiration of any transitional arrangements agreed with the Union. Clause 6, somewhat innocently and perhaps misleadingly named “Interpretation of retained EU law”, does more than simply offer canons of interpretation for retained EU law. Its apparent purpose is to bring to an end in a number of respects the role of the European court, the CJEU. Once Section 6 is in force no court or tribunal would be bound by any principles laid down or any decision made on or after exit day by the CJEU. Moreover, it would bring to an end the ability to refer matters to the European Court. As the Committee will be well aware, one of the ways in which the uniformity of Union law is preserved is through the ability of national courts to refer questions of interpretation and so forth to the European Court for decision. That means that our courts can get authoritative rulings on European law from the top European court to help our courts make their decisions. Moreover, of course, while we are members of the Union we are bound by Union law as interpreted and laid down by the European Court.
Of course, because certain law will be retained as EU law after exit, if the Bill goes through, the shutters cannot and should not come down completely even after exit. Subsections (3) to (7) of Clause 6 provide how the courts and tribunals are to interpret retained EU law after exit. As one would expect, even after exit day retained EU law will need to be interpreted in the light of decisions of the CJEU on those very provisions, although at that time our most senior courts—the Supreme Court in England and Wales and the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland, in its appellate role—would have the power to depart from those decisions. It is not, however, that aspect of continuing arrangements that this amendment primarily concerns. This amendment is concerned to ensure that, so long as we remain bound to follow EU law under transitional arrangements, the judicial arrangements, including the role of the CJEU, will continue to apply. That makes sense because, until the transitional arrangements have come to an end, EU law will continue to apply.
I have looked, as many noble Lords will have done, at the colourful draft agreement for withdrawal published recently. I say “colourful” because we can see the green parts that show what has been agreed at negotiator level and the yellow parts showing what has been agreed as policy objectives. As for the proposals for judicial procedures, none of that is green or indeed yellow; it is white at the moment so, as I understand it—the noble and learned Lord or the noble Baroness, whoever is replying, will explain—the current position is that we simply have, in this text, the negotiating position that the European Union wants to put forward. That is dealt with in Title X and Articles 82 to 92, particularly Articles 82 and 83. As I understand them—again, this could be confirmed or otherwise—the current proposal of the European Union is as follows.
First, the European Court will continue to have jurisdiction in any proceedings brought before it by or against the United Kingdom before the end of the transition period. So in one case its jurisdiction would remain, if that proposal were ultimately accepted.
Secondly, the European court would continue to have jurisdiction to give references or preliminary rulings from our courts referred to it before the end of the transition period. In any case, if the current draft of Article 85 from the European Union is accepted, the judgments and orders of the Court of Justice handed down before the end of the transition period, as well as those handed down in proceedings by or against the United Kingdom, will have,
“binding force in their entirety on and in the United Kingdom”.
I believe, although it would be helpful to have confirmation, that the European Union intends that, if this negotiating position is ultimately accepted, rulings and preliminary references brought before the end of the transition period will also be binding.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
My name is to this amendment, but I have little to say because the case for the amendment has been brilliantly put forward by a lawyer, and I am no lawyer. It seems to be a common-sense amendment. If, as I think will be the case, the European Union side in the negotiation continues to insist that, if we want a standstill period in which we act as if we were members of the customs unions and the single market until January 2020, the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice as the umpire of the single market must continue. It seems to me we have to accept that if, as I expect, the European Union insists on taking the position it is now taking. In that case, as explained by the noble and learned, Lord Goldsmith, Clause 6 would have to be struck out. Clause 6 is in flat contradiction to what is going to be agreed on the standstill agreement. Therefore, it seems sensible to avoid having to repeal part of the law that we would have passed for us instead to introduce this small amendment that simply says that Clause 6 does not come into effect until the end of the transition period.
The concept of a standstill transition is extremely unsatisfactory. It is necessary but it is insufficient to deal with the huge problems that British industry and business will face. It is inconceivable that by January 2020 we will have negotiated a full agreement with the European Union covering the full gamut of our future relationship, including trade. That is just not feasible. Even if we had done that—if we had achieved the impossible—we would have a mixed agreement which would require national ratification in all capitals. All the standstill agreement does is give us the position for 21 months that we will accept and operate under laws that we have not written, on which we have had no votes; with no judge in the court but the court having jurisdiction; with no Members in the European Parliament but the European Parliament writing our laws, with the Council; and with no one in the Commission. I find that ignominious and insufficient because all it has done is move the cliff edge out to 1 January 2021. We will not have the long-term, permanent successor relationship defined in treaty form in a ratified treaty at the end of this period.
Moreover, it is my judgment that for legal reasons it will not be possible to extend the period. It seems to me that one cannot use Article 50, which is about withdrawal, to produce an extended period of future relationship. There are other articles in the treaty which define association agreements and relationships with third countries. I do not think the lawyers will allow us to use the withdrawal agreement as a treaty base for an extended period of new relationship. Therefore, although it is absolutely necessary to have a standstill because otherwise the cliff edge is very close, it does not solve the problem of the cliff edge but merely postpones it for a bit. But the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, must surely be right. It does not make sense to have a lengthy Clause 6 explaining a relationship which will not actually be the relationship we follow during the standstill period.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, I am mystified as to why there is any controversy at all on this matter and why the Government have come forward with a Bill that includes Clause 6 in its present form. After all, it is us who have asked for some withdrawal or transitional arrangement, and very necessarily so—I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr; the whole matter is extremely unsatisfactory from many points of view.
Although our position will change constitutionally in March next year if we go ahead with Brexit, and we will not have been involved in the legislative process and so forth, the whole purpose of the transitional arrangement as I and I think everybody has understood it—that is the way the European Union has understood it, because after all, it is our request—is that the regime affecting all economic agents, traders and so forth, will be completely unchanged. They will carry on after March next year until January 2021 in exactly the same way. The rules they operate under will be the same. Their contracts will be interpreted in the same way as before. Their obligations to the state and so forth will be interpreted in the same way and therefore they will know exactly where they stand. They will not need to have any new regime introduced during that period. If that is the case, surely the legal regime must not be subject to any change—quite obviously so —because if it is going to continue as it presently is, the judgments of the courts which oversee that must be the same as they otherwise would have been.
Therefore, I am completely mystified as to why the Government have proposed that Clause 6 should come into effect on Brexit rather than at the end of the transitional period. I just hope that we will have a satisfactory and credible explanation from the Government. They might even admit that they have made a slight slip on this occasion and accept the amendment which is now before them.
Baroness Smith of Newnham
My Lords, I rise in the absence of my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who has also put his name to this amendment. I want to raise a point that he has already raised with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and a couple of my own.
First, my noble and learned friend asked how EU law will take effect, given that under Clause 1, the European Communities Act 1972 will be repealed. It may be that ensuring Clause 6 has effect only after the transition period gets around that, but there is a real question about the United Kingdom implementing EU law from the day we leave—30 March next year—through to the end of December 2020. During that period, we will be subject to the European Court of Justice but, in principle, will have no representation—that is the point the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made in passing: we will not have a judge. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House was asked whether the United Kingdom will still have a judge on the Monday. We assume it will not, but is that the case? Have the Government discussed it? In addition, will we have an Advocate-General? My understanding is that the current Advocate-General believes she is in an ad-hominem position.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who pressed this point. The answer we received was that this would be a matter for negotiation, the suggestion being that we would somehow negotiate the presence of a UK judge on the court. Rather like the point about nationality, having looked at the treaties, I think it is almost impossible to see how this could be arranged. I think we have to accept that we will not have any representation on the court because we will have no Members of the European Parliament.
Baroness Smith of Newnham
I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. In a sense, that puts us in an even more difficult position. Surely, one idea was that by taking back control we would be able to legislate and use our own courts. We will have 21 months in which we do what the European Union requests without having a say. What are the Government doing to ensure we have at least some sort of seat at the table?
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
I had a son who worked in the European court. As far as I understand it, if an issue comes up which is relevant to the United Kingdom, it is unlikely that a United Kingdom judge would be part of the panel asked to rule on it.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
There will be no United Kingdom judge: when we are not members of the European Union, we will not be entitled to have a judge at the European Court of Justice. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is absolutely right, I am afraid.
Lord Vinson (Con)
My Lords, the ECJ works at a snail’s pace. There will be a massive amount of undigested legislation one way or the other at the end of the transition period—how does this affect the issue?
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment. One of the primary purposes of the Bill is to promote legal certainty: I cannot understand how it can be anything other than destructive to legal certainty for Parliament to enact a Bill that includes Clause 6, which removes the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union from exit day—defined as 29 March 2019—when the Government’s own intention, and that of the European Union, is that there should be a transitional period during which the Court of Justice will retain jurisdiction, and during which we will agree to that jurisdiction.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I too support this amendment. I will be very brief. It seems that if the Government try to maintain the text as it is they are basically marching Parliament up to the top of the hill in order to march it down again—they are also marching Parliament to the top of the hill to defend a position on which they themselves ran up the white flag some weeks ago. Frankly, this is not a sensible way of proceeding. It will make a mockery of Parliament if it is asked to legislate something which it knows not even the British Government want to happen. Surely, the right answer is to remove Clause 6, as the amendment proposes.
If by any chance everything collapses or changes, or the Government somehow persuade the European Commission to draft the text in a different way, it will be perfectly possible for the Government to put it in the withdrawal and implementation Bill that will come forward after the conclusion of negotiations. Meanwhile, we should start with the standstill as it has been agreed and without this provision.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for raising the issue of Clause 6 in the context of the implementation period that is referred to in his amendment. Reference is made repeatedly to the transition period; yes, we recognise that there is to be an implementation period, as it is termed, if that and everything else is agreed. But nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, so we do not yet have that implementation period. We desire it and recognise that the EU also sees its significance. That is why we were able to express matters as we have in the March text—the multi-coloured text to which the noble and learned Lord referred. I agree with his reference to Articles 82 to 85 in that context and the point that they are on white, because they express a proposal and not a concluded agreement on those points. That is what I want to underline at this stage.
As I have said during Committee on a number of occasions, this Bill is to ensure that there is a functioning UK statute book on day one, regardless of the outcome of negotiations. In his speech on the implementation period, the Secretary of State was clear that it will allow—if it is finally agreed—a strictly time-limited role for the European Court of Justice, in keeping with the EU’s existing structures.
I am sensitive to the fact that unlike some other amendments, the provisions of this amendment are conditional upon the implementation period being part of the withdrawal agreement. Accordingly, they do not fully prejudge the outcome of negotiations and I acknowledge the delicacy of the drafting of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, in that respect. However, that does not change what we have asserted consistently: that the details of the implementation period will be legislated for in the withdrawal agreement and the implementation Bill. We have always been clear that the major elements of the withdrawal agreement will be implemented in that Bill and not in this Bill.
Lord Dykes
Presumably that means, too, that because there are so many gigantic individual subjects to be agreed in the implementation period, it would be perfectly feasible for the Union and the United Kingdom in further negotiations to agree on a longer period in order to get through all the complicated material, which the Government still say will be easy to do but will be extremely difficult.
Lord Keen of Elie
The Government’s objective is to conclude a withdrawal agreement by October of this year. That has been stated on a number of occasions and it is in that context that we intend that the present Bill should deal with the situation, whether or not there is a withdrawal agreement or an implementation period. As and when a withdrawal agreement is concluded, it will be dealt with in the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill. Clearly, if we enter into an international treaty with the EU 27 in respect of these matters, we will respect that international treaty and our obligations inherent in it and, in accordance with the duality principle, draw down those obligations into our domestic law, using the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill. I suggest that it is inconceivable that we would not seek to do that.
Lord Beith
The noble and learned Lord has been quite clear that it will be the withdrawal Bill that is the mechanism. Is he saying that it will be that Bill and not the use of the statutory instrument powers to be found elsewhere in this Bill which will enable him to modify or repeal its sections when it is an Act?
Lord Keen of Elie
We have been clear that the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill will legislate for the withdrawal agreement. That may involve us amending the terms of the present Bill, but we should remember that the present Bill is intended to accommodate the situations where there is a withdrawal agreement and where there is no withdrawal agreement and therefore no implementation period. It is to bring certainty to the statute book in that context. Clearly, there may be a situation in which we have to bring forward amendments to the present Bill in the second withdrawal agreement Bill. I recognise that.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
The Minister has just been paying tribute to the delicacy of the drafting of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, whose language in this amendment copes with both eventualities. It sets out the contingency that there is a transitional agreement. I do not see the difficulty.
Lord Keen of Elie
It is not a question of difficulty; it is a question of how we have decided to approach dealing with this in a legislative manner. The intention is that the present Bill will legislate for legal certainty whether there is or is not a withdrawal agreement. In the event of a withdrawal agreement, we will legislate to ensure that in the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill the terms of the present Bill will be brought into line with the terms of the withdrawal agreement in order that we can discharge our international legal obligations. We have consistently pointed out that that is the approach being taken to legislation in this context. It is really quite inconceivable to suppose that the Government are going to enter into a withdrawal agreement and then not implement that international legal obligation in our domestic law. That is the intention. It is simply a question of the order in which these things are being done, and it has always been maintained, and will be maintained, that it is not for this Bill to deal with the eventuality or the prospect of the implementation period.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Does the Minister not appreciate the absurdity some of us feel? As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out, we are being marched to the top of a hill that the Government have already abandoned. We are being asked to legislate in terms that are contrary to government policy and strategy in the Brexit negotiations, which leaves one feeling in a somewhat surreal position.
Lord Keen of Elie
I sympathise with the idea of being left in a somewhat surreal position. As I said at the outset of my remarks, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, so while we have the anticipation and desire to secure an implementation period, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Does my noble friend not think of Sir Thomas More:
“I trust I make myself obscure”?
Lord Keen of Elie
I often think of Sir Thomas More, but not on this occasion.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I find it rather hard from the Cross Benches and as a non-politician to make this point, but I wonder whether the Minister has considered what the Government are proposing to do. They are proposing to offer in an Act of Parliament signed into law by the Queen something which they know is not going to happen. They have offered that up; their supporters will, no doubt, rise cheering to their feet; and then, three or six months later, they will repeal that part of the Act, at which point there will be cries of betrayal and perfidy—and those are probably rather mild words compared with the ones that will be used by the Daily Mail and others. Have the Minister and his colleagues not given any thought to that? Is not the simple thing to do to accept the amendment, and then there will be no betrayal and no perfidy, or if there is it will have been done already?
Lord Keen of Elie
There is no betrayal and no perfidy, but I feel misrepresented by the noble Lord because he said “knowing that there will be an agreement”. We do not know for certain that there will be an agreement. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Of course, we have an aspiration; we seek to secure the implementation period, and when we do we will then legislate for that in the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill. Meanwhile, this Bill is designed and intended to accommodate the situation in which there may not be such an agreement.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I hate to add to the surreal nature of this, but the formula “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” seems incompatible with negotiating a transitional agreement during which we recognise we will agree only a small number of things and carry on negotiating. It seems to me that the Government should now drop the mantra that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, because we are actively pursuing, if I understand the Government’s case, a transitional partial agreement, during which a number of commitments will be made but a number of the fundamental issues of our future relationship with the European Union will remain entirely unclear and will be negotiated in the two or perhaps three or more years afterwards.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, we are engaged in a bilateral negotiation; it has not yet concluded. This Bill is designed to accommodate the situation in which there may not be a conclusion to that negotiation, as well as a situation in which there may be. In the event of the latter case, the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill will bring the legislation into line with the statute book.
Baroness Altmann
Will my noble and learned friend clarify for the Committee, if nothing is agreed until everything is agreed and we may not go into a transition period, how it can possibly make sense to have 29 March written into the Bill?
Lord Keen of Elie
Because that addresses a distinct issue, which is the exit date from the EU. It is quite distinct from the question whether we are able to finally conclude an implementation period, which it is our intention to do. Let us be clear about that. The EU has also indicated its intention to do it as well. But we are engaged in a bilateral negotiation.
Lord Pannick
It is plain and obvious that nothing is agreed, but can the noble and learned Lord be clear with the Committee about the Government’s position in relation to negotiating this transitional implementation period? Do they now accept that they are no longer seeking to impose any red line relating to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice during that implementation period?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am not sure I agree with the term “red lines”; it is not one that I am inclined to use. I am never quite sure what they are. Our position is that during an implementation period, if and when finally agreed, we will accept that there is a role for the European Court of Justice. Indeed, it is outlined in the EU’s own proposals for the agreement at Articles 82 through to 85. As the noble and learned Lord indicated, that is not yet the subject of final confirmation between the two parties but it is what is anticipated.
On a related point, during that period, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that as we cease to be a member state we will cease to have the right to have a judge in the Court of Justice of the European Union. That must follow. However, we will have the right to make interventions in cases that pertain to the United Kingdom.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, there have been moments during the 11 Committee days that we have had so far on this Bill when I felt a little sorry for the noble and learned Lord opposite for the positions that he was being expected to argue by those behind him and in other places, but never more sorry than I am today. This is the most absurd situation. We have offered him an amendment and I am grateful for the description given by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, as delicate. It does not presume even that there are transitional arrangements. It simply says that, if there are transitional arrangements, this is what will happen. I cannot understand why it is not accepted. I had hoped on this 11th final day of Committee that we would have a breakthrough.
Lord Goldsmith
The 11th hour of the 11th day, as my noble friend Lady Hayter says. If we had had a breakthrough, we would have been able to say we had finished Committee with a concession—not much of a concession, it would have to be said, because it is so obvious that this ought to happen, but at least it would have been something that we could build on as we move towards Report where we hope we will have a degree of constructive engagement.
This really does not make sense at all. We all know, and the noble and learned Lord knows—indeed, he accepted it—that there will be a role for the European Court of Justice after the magic exit day, whatever day we end up with. If there is not, this amendment does not operate. It is very straightforward and simple: to suggest otherwise is cloud-cuckoo-land or Red Queen land.
The noble and learned Lord’s final recourse is to legal certainty. We all accept the importance of legal certainty, and that that is what is behind the Bill. However, there is complete legal certainty if this Bill, when it becomes an Act, says, “If something happens, this provision does not come into effect until the end of that period”. I will not quote Latin again, but we know there are principles which say that those things are certain which can be made certain, and it will be certain because we will know whether or not there is such an arrangement.
Lord Pannick
Lord Pannick
My Lords, this amendment is in my name and those of three other members of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee: the noble Lords, Lord Norton of Louth and Lord Beith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton.
Amendment 358C and Amendment 360A, with which it is grouped, address the powers tucked away in Schedule 8 to modify retained direct EU legislation by the use of delegated powers that relate to subordinate legislation. A power to modify is an important matter because “modify” includes a power to repeal—see Clause 14 (1).
This Committee has debated on previous days the surprising omission from the Bill of any provision that identifies the legal status of retained EU law. Is it primary legislation, secondary legislation or something else? The powers in Schedule 8, in paragraphs 3(1) and 5(1), which we are now addressing, have attracted the attention of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee because those provisions treat retained EU law as analogous to secondary legislation for the purposes of powers to modify. That is a surprising position for the Bill to adopt, certainly in relation to that part of retained EU law which confers important rights: for example, in the fields of employment, the environment and consumer protection. It means that, in addition to the other powers to modify retained EU law, which the Bill will confer and which we have debated in detail—Clauses 7, 8, 9 and 17—there is yet another set of powers recognised by Schedule 8 that will give Ministers the power to modify the retained EU law, on important subjects, which is brought into domestic law.
My concern is not reduced by paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 8 saying that these powers can be used only,
“so far as the context permits or requires”,
and paragraph 5(1) says that the powers may be used,
“unless the contrary intention appears”.
These statements are opaque in the extreme and certainly do not provide any degree of legal certainty.
I therefore look forward to hearing from the Minister why these powers are needed at all in addition to the other extensive powers which the Bill confers, and I look forward to hearing from him what these powers say, if anything, about the legal status of retained EU law. I beg to move.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I am glad to be associated with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in supporting this amendment to seek some clarity. I will simply add two further points, having said that this distinctly lacks clarity at the moment.
First, I draw attention to paragraph 3, which says:
“Any power to make, confirm or approve subordinate legislation which, immediately before exit day, is subject to an implied restriction that it is exercisable only compatibly with EU law is to be read on or after exit day without that restriction”.
A little gloss on that from the Minister would be helpful. The second thing that needs clarifying is the impact on the devolution aspects of the Bill. The Government’s Explanatory Notes say that,
“in relation to the devolved administrations these pre-existing powers”—
that is, the powers that can be used under the clause we are discussing—
“are subject to the devolution provisions described in paragraphs 36 to 41 of these notes, meaning powers in pre-exit legislation cannot be used to modify retained EU law in a way that would be incompatible with EU law as it existed on exit day until the relevant subject matters are released from the interim limit on their competence”.
I imagine that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, pricked up his ears at that phrase, because it goes to the heart of the argument we have been having about the impact of the Bill on devolution and the idea that powers will be released to the devolved Administrations only once the UK Government are satisfied with the way they will deal with the framework provisions. The appearance of the phrase,
“until the relevant subject matters are released from the interim limit on their competence”,
in the Explanatory Notes is quite worrying. The provisions are of course there because some of the provisions here relate to existing devolved powers. The devolved Administrations must have the capacity to take this kind of action if the UK Government have the capacity to do so. However, it is subject to this rather extraordinary restriction: the Government hold on to the powers until they are satisfied that they can be released. For the benefit of clarity, I hope that the Minister can help us.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, I support the amendment. There is not much to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said about what the amendment does and why it is necessary, nor to add to the questions he asked or to those then added by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, which in particular picked up issues with regard to the devolved Administrations.
We know that a major theme in your Lordships’ House, rightly, has been how powers are to be exercised, recognising that there may be circumstances in which they have to be exercised. Notwithstanding that, on the whole this Committee has rightly taken the view—or we hope that we will see it take the view, certainly from the interventions and contributions that have been made throughout the Committee—that this is a matter where proper parliamentary scrutiny is required. There may well be a role for certain delegated legislation, but please let us not add to it with still yet another way in which things can be done which avoid that full parliamentary scrutiny.
I hope that the Minister, when he responds, will be able to say something reassuring, both answering the questions posed by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Beith, and saying why we need not be concerned and that the Government will content themselves with relying on those delegated powers that will be specific to the Bill, once this Committee and the other place have determined just what those delegated powers should be.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to noble Lords. I begin by making two observations. These amendments are linked closely to the issue we have already debated in Committee of the status of retained EU law and how we deal with it in the context of its status. As has been indicated previously in Committee, the Government have been listening and considering that, and we intend to come back to the House on the matter before Report. I mention that because it is a relevant backdrop to what we are considering at this stage.
On the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, essentially, the powers in paragraph 3 of Schedule 8 are, first of all, designed to remove what I might term the shadow of European law from what will be domestic legislation. However, more particularly, the noble Lord raised a point about the devolution issues and quoted from the Explanatory Notes. I understand that the section of the Explanatory Notes that he refers to addresses Clause 11 prior to its recent amendment. I appreciate that we then withdrew that amendment, but the Explanatory Notes should be read in that context. Essentially, therefore, we have moved on because of the decision to flip Clause 11—I think that was the term used—so I ask the noble Lord to look at the proposed amendment to Clause 11 to understand the context in which we now want to deal with this point.
Lord Beith
The noble and learned Lord is being reasonable, but he is inviting us to presume that we have moved on when we have not yet done so. The Government have indicated a willingness to look further at the Clause 11 issues and come back with something new. However, when we compare that discussion to the one we just had, it is a bit odd now to be invited to behave as if something has happened which has not happened yet.
Lord Keen of Elie
I understand the noble Lord’s point. He appreciates the statements of intent that we have made with regard to Clause 11. Although we withdrew the amendment to Clause 11, it was tendered and withdrawn for a particular purpose, in order to ensure that it could be finalised before Report. I hope that that addresses the noble Lord’s concern about the terms of the Explanatory Note that he quoted.
We have discussed on previous occasions in Committee the risk of ossifying the statute book and how that has to be balanced against checking the ability of the Government to propose changes to retained EU law. Clearly, as I indicated, the Government have heard the debates on the question of how we should treat the status of retained EU law, and we intend to come back on that. However, we must make provision for how delegated powers outside the Bill will interact with retained direct EU legislation. To do nothing would create uncertainty and potentially—by putting it beyond the reach even of Henry VIII powers that can modify Acts of Parliament—risk placing retained EU law on a pedestal of protection beyond even the elevated position of primary legislation. That is why I say that the two issues are linked: how we deal with the status of retained EU law but also carry on with our domestic powers to deal with the entire scope of our domestic legislation, including that which is going to be defined as retained EU law.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, since we have returned to the subject of Henry VIII powers, I would like to inform the Minister that, after this morning’s discussion on the Statute of Proclamations, I looked up the Wikipedia entry—my historical memory of this being relatively limited—and discovered that Thomas Cromwell’s original proposals for the Statute of Proclamations passed through the House of Commons unamended, but they were amended in the House of Lords. Does the Minister think that is a relevant precedent?
Lord Keen of Elie
Of course, our constitutional position has altered over the last few years—say, the last 500—and, at the end of the day, we see ourselves as, essentially, an amending House. I understand the noble Lord’s point but, in that context, we also understand the precedence of the other place with regard to the final passage of legislation. Therefore, our primary tasks in this context are scrutiny and comment.
The Government have always said that this Bill is not the place for radical policy change. Essentially, what we want to do at this stage is preserve the existing domestic powers to amend legislation pursuant to paragraph 3 of Schedule 8, in order that we can address issues with regard to retained EU law. But the manner in which those powers will ultimately be deployed will depend on the outcome of our consideration of the question of what status we confer on retained EU law. Given that that is an ongoing issue, I invite the noble Lord at this stage to withdraw his amendment. He may, of course, choose to return to it once he has seen our proposals with regard to retained EU law, but it appears to me that the two issues are inextricably linked.
Lord Goldsmith
Before the noble Lord announces the fate of his amendment, I have a question for the Minister. He said several times that there is a connection here with what will happen to EU retained law and what status it will have. We have had full debates on that, as he rightly says. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles; we have heard from the Constitution Committee; we have heard a rather different proposal from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, who is not in his place at the moment. My question is simply: when will we know what the Government’s decision is? I hope that they will not stick—because they cannot stick—to the idea that it will be simply for Ministers to decide as we go along the status of a particular piece of retained law. When will we know the Government’s position? That might enable us to advance not only on that point but on points such as the one being debated at the moment. Can the Minister give us an answer as to dates?
Lord Keen of Elie
I cannot give the noble and learned Lord an answer as to dates, but clearly we are concerned to ensure that any proposals we have to make are in place in time for consideration by the whole House before Report.
Lord Pannick
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, who I have always regarded as a true Renaissance Minister in all respects. I am very pleased to hear him confirm that the Government are seriously considering the issue of the legal status of retained EU law. The Committee of the House will look forward to seeing amendments from the Government in that respect. I am far less persuaded of the need to include in this Bill paragraphs 3(1) and 5(1) of Schedule 8, in addition to all the other extensive powers which the Government—and Ministers—will be giving themselves to amend retained EU law, under Clauses 7, 8, 9 and 17. The question is: why is it necessary also to include these powers in Schedule 8?
The concern, as the Minister will understand, is that future Ministers may decide that it is much more convenient to use the extensive, unrestricted powers in Schedule 8 than to comply with whatever restrictions are imposed by this House, by the other place—by Parliament—on the powers to modify under Clauses 7, 8, 9 and 17. So we might need to come back to this matter on Report.
I was also interested to hear the Minister say in his reply that the Bill is not the place for “radical policy change”. I will remind him of that when we debate the amendments—which no doubt will be put forward on Report—to take out the provisions in the Bill that remove from retained EU law the European Union charter of rights. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lisvane
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, I can hear the strains of the “Farewell” Symphony as we prepare to tackle the penultimate amendment to be debated in Committee, and how appropriate it is that the very final amendment should be in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.
Amendment 365 is in my name and the names of my noble and learned friend Lord Judge, my noble friend Lord Pannick and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and it is very sharply focused. The Committee has already considered the issue of tertiary legislation, with Amendments 110 and 135 as vehicles. Those amendments combined the issue of the principle of tertiary legislation with that of sunsetting. Amendment 365 is about only sunsetting, so I need not trouble the Minister to revisit the general defence of tertiary legislation, which he made at cols. 1473 and 1474 at an unearthly hour on Monday 12 March, although it was then what the rest of the world knew as Tuesday 13 March.
On that occasion, the Minister also made a defence of the exemption of tertiary legislation from sunsetting. He said:
“Where sub-delegated or transferred legislative powers are crucial to the functioning of a regime, it would not be appropriate”—
how often that word “appropriate” recurs—
“for those powers to be subject to a sunset”.—[Official Report, 12/3/18; col. 1475.]
If one accepts the principle of bodies such as the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority exercising tertiary powers in their role as continuing guardians of a regime—and the Minister made a very good case for that in his speech on that occasion—it also makes sense for them to continue to do so after two years have elapsed from exit day. Indeed, I feel that I am now starting to make the Minister’s speech for him. However, there remains a serious point, because if bodies responsible for the functioning of a regime are to continue to exercise their powers without a sunset, it is crucial that those powers are tightly drawn in the first instance, as there will be no opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of the subsequent exercise of the powers that have been delegated to those bodies.
Therefore, perhaps the most helpful thing the Minister could do in replying to this debate would be to give your Lordships a clear assurance that the tertiary powers will be carefully circumscribed, and that when affirmative instruments delegating those powers come before Parliament—because the actual delegation will be subject to the affirmative process—they do not simply prescribe some general subject area in which the body is to operate and which is to be its responsibility, but are rather more specific and indeed constraining. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, I support this amendment and am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, for bringing it forward. I am also grateful to him for reminding the Committee that, when we sit past midnight, it remains the same day. I wonder what the noble Lord’s nervous maiden aunts would have made of this never-ending night. The amendment raises an important point and is yet another example of how we have to be careful and circumspect in the use of delegated powers. It is now really for the Minister to answer that question and to see whether he is prepared to give us the reassurance that the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, asked for.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, for introducing this amendment, which stands also in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I am glad to have the opportunity to address it.
First, I reassure noble Lords that the strength of feeling around the exercise of delegated powers by those not immediately accountable to Parliament has been heard, as I said the other evening. The Government are looking very closely at the issue of transparency before Parliament, and we will of course hold that at the forefront of our minds as we consider our position ahead of Report.
At the heart of this Bill is the repeal of the European Communities Act, including Section 2(2) of that Act. As noble Lords on all sides of the Committee know, that provision has been the vires used for many statutory instruments made by many Governments in recent years. This Bill does not replace that power. Although there are several broad powers in the Bill, with some approaching the breadth of Section 2(2) of the ECA, they are, unlike that power, time limited. The Bill is not an assault on Parliament but, rather, the means by which this Parliament will take back control to itself.
Lord Lisvane
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister and to his Opposition shadow for what they have said in this very short debate. It may be a good moment to pay tribute to the stamina of the Minister and his ministerial colleagues. We are on day 11—it must seem to them like day 43. They are no doubt musing on some parliamentary version of what used to be said of King Philip II of Spain: that if death came from Madrid, we would be immortal.
The Minister’s reply rather put the onus on to your Lordships to look at the affirmative instruments that would delegate these powers and decide whether they were sufficiently constrained. I think that might be the second-order question. The first-order question—and I know the Minister accepted this point, even though he did not reflect it in what he said—is for the Government to think very carefully about how these powers should be constrained in order to avoid any controversy in your Lordships’ House. If that message has been taken on board, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Adonis
Lord Adonis
My Lords, it appears to fall to me to move the 372nd and last amendment to the Bill. By my calculations, some 236 noble Lords have so far taken part in the deliberations on this Bill, which is more than the entire membership of your Lordships’ House for the first six centuries of its existence. I believe, from a quick scan of Hansard, that we are now in our 115th hour of deliberations on the Bill, which is time enough for two and a half circumnavigations of the globe—which I am told is roughly what Dr Liam Fox has so far undertaken in search of trade treaties to succeed the European Union. It has also enabled the Minister and me to forge a deep and special partnership, but the maiden aunt of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, need not be too alarmed because we have had witnesses present for the entire duration.
This amendment would prevent the repeal in this Bill of the European Union Act 2011, which provides for referendums in the case of significant changes to the treaties regulating the European Union. I do not want to go into the substance of the legal issues involved—I refer noble Lords who wish to understand those issues to the entry on 4 July 2016 of the blog by Pavlos Eleftheriadis, who is professor of public law at Oxford University, where there is a substantial subsequent debate. However, these matters are before the courts at the moment. There is a case which is pending, and the courts will decide these issues. I do not think I can add much to those deliberations.
My reason for bringing this amendment to the attention of the Committee is that there is an important constitutional principle at stake. The European Union Act 2011 was of course passed by both Houses of Parliament. It was passed by an emphatic majority of the House of Commons, where on Second Reading it was passed by a vote of 330 to 195. Yet there was no express vote or debate in the House of Commons on the issue of repealing this 2011 Act when the Bill went through the House of Commons. Indeed, it is not even clear from the debates that most Members of the House of Commons were aware of the fact that this Bill does repeal the European Union Act 2011, since there was no reference whatever to the Act in the deliberations of the House Commons. The issues which have become controversial in recent weeks since the legal actions started were not matters of public debate when the Bill was going through the House of Commons.
The European Union Act 2011 was regarded as a flagship piece of legislation in the 2010 Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Hague of Richmond, who was then Foreign Secretary and who proposed the Act told the House of Commons:
“The Bill makes a very important and radical change to how decisions on the EU are made in this country … It marks a fundamental shift in power from Ministers of the Crown to Parliament and the voters themselves on the most important decisions of all: who gets to decide what”. —[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/10; col. 193.]
It was a significant piece of legislation, not a minor piece of legislation. My contention is simple and straightforward: that on a matter of this gravity, where Parliament is repealing a significant piece of legislation, it is not too much to expect the House of Commons to debate, deliberate and vote on that repeal. There has been no debate, no deliberation and no vote on the part of the House of Commons. It seems to me to be an absolutely appropriate exercise of your Lordships’ power to ask the House of Commons to consider matters properly, and that this House should ask the Commons to have an express debate and vote on the repeal of the European Union Act 2011. I beg to move.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I have listened with admiration to the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, throughout this Committee. They have been exemplary examples of scrutiny. But on this occasion, I am afraid, I am not persuaded. The reason I am not persuaded is that the 2011 Act imposed a referendum condition which applied in a series of circumstances, and they were all circumstances in which the powers of the EU and its institutions were extended. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill which became the 2011 Act made very clear that its purpose was to implement the commitment of the coalition Government —I quote from paragraph 11 of the Explanatory Notes —that,
“there is no further transfer of sovereignty or powers [from the UK to the EU] over the course of the next Parliament... Any proposed future treaty that transferred areas of power, or competences, would be subject to a referendum on that treaty”
The plain fact of the matter is that there is no transfer of further powers or sovereignty to the EU from the UK. On the contrary, this Bill is very simple. The agreements being negotiated are designed to achieve exactly the opposite, whether we like it or not—the return of powers to the United Kingdom from the EU. The 2011 Act simply has no application and it is entirely right and proper that if this Bill repeals, as it will, the 1972 Act, it should also repeal the 2011 Act.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to intervene briefly to support my noble friend Lord Adonis, and I do this in defence of your Lordships’ House. When the 2011 Act was debated here, I was speaking on the Opposition Front Bench with my noble friend Lord Triesman. I think we gave it six days, possibly seven, in Committee, and three days on Report. We did our best to scrutinise this piece of legislation. It seems to me that the idea that it should be repealed in a schedule without any debate in the House of Commons is, as my noble friend Lord Adonis says, a bit of a constitutional offence.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, makes very good points, as he always does. Can I be allowed to make a political point in return? He says that there is no transfer of powers involved in what is going on now. Let me assure you that there is a big transfer of powers to Brussels. Brussels is going to be able to legislate, during the implementation period that we have now signed up for, without any British Minister taking part. We are asking for opt-ins to various pieces of Brussels legislation as part of the negotiations and British Ministers will have no say over those policies—no say on policies on goods trade or on financial services. We will be trying to maintain equivalence with a regime over which we have no say. As to the idea that this Bill is taking back control to Britain, it is in fact handing control in large parts to the EU, where British Ministers and the British Government will have no say at all. We on this side of the House should point out this position and explain that the way to deal with it is to stay in the EU, and that is what we should fight to do.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I understand that that political point can be shortly made and it would dispense with all our consideration of this Bill altogether.
I played quite a part in the 2011 Act—along with the noble Lord—in stating what the position in law was for EU law in this country. I was keen to point out that the treaty did not of itself have that effect. It became an argument later when the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, argued about these and other matters in the Supreme Court. However, the point was that the authority for EU law in our country is the 1972 Act. This House affirmed that and the House of Commons accepted it.
The important thing about the 2011 Act is that its repeal is consequential on the repeal of the 1972 Act and our departing from the European Union. Matters that are consequential are usually covered in schedules. If noble Lords wish to discuss purely consequential legislation, so be it, but it is not necessary. As the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said, we have used it quite a few times and, given the amount of time we have spent on this Bill, it is appropriate that this provision repealing the 2011 Act should be in a schedule.
Lord Adonis
My understanding is that it is not consequential that the repeal of the 2011 Act under this schedule will take place when this Bill becomes law at a point determined by a Minister, whereas we only repeal the European Communities Act 1972 on Brexit day, 29 March next year, or later under Clause 14(4) if a Minister chooses to extend the date.
My understanding—it is important to tease out these issues because we are a revising Chamber—is that this is being done deliberately by the Government. They want to forestall any cases coming under the 2011 Act as soon as possible. I assume they have read the legal opinion which raised doubt about the interpretation of the 2011 Act and do not want them rumbling through the courts before the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 takes effect.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
That does not prevent the repeal of the 2011 Act being consequential on the main provision in this Bill.
Lord Dykes
My Lords, one has distinct memories of the European Union Bill and it then becoming an Act. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has done a great service by referring to it, although his objectives in so doing might be somewhat different from noble Lords in other parts of the House. That Bill was introduced at the beginning of the coalition period. I have always thought that the coalition was agreed too quickly. Both leaders, understandably, were keen to get going with it and some aspects of the agreement were left vague and unresolved. There was a great deal of excitement about the initial period of this unusual and first-time type of coalition. For those of us who pompously describe ourselves as good Europeans—rather than just fairly keen on the EU— this was a painful moment. Given the celerity of the agreement of the coalition at the beginning, the contents of the Bill were never properly gone into or discussed, despite the substantial vote in the House of Commons to which the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, referred. Again, that was because it was the beginning of the period of this new exercise of the interesting and fascinating coalition.
I believe David Cameron was not much interested in the legislation. He regarded it as a routine inclusion in the incipient contents of the coalition’s programme—not the things that appeared later on—but for the Liberal Democrats it was important. I remember it being described by a senior colleague who was then a member of the coalition representing the Liberal Democrat portion of it—I will not say who—as, “Just routine smoke and mirrors, old boy, don’t worry about it”. However, it was not easy for people to accept it in that sense and I remember vividly a substantial rebellion within the Liberal ranks in the Lords on this matter. There may have been a small one in the Commons as well—I cannot exactly remember those details—but in the Lords there was a substantial rebellion led by Baroness Shirley Williams and others in the team who were not members of the coalition Government because they objected strongly to the contents of the Bill.
The contents were elusive, vague and cynical, That is what put off people who regarded themselves as enthusiastic members of the European Union—members of the club—unlike some other people in Britain who were only half-hearted members of the club, including politicians. For example, a transfer of powers to Brussels had to be accompanied by a referendum and could take place only if the Government got the authority of Parliament to do so. However, the Government could suggest that something was too minor a matter to bother about and just leave it aside.
An extraordinary, ironical conclusion of one of the important items was that the enlargement of the Union would not be included in the Bill. In those days there was a rumour that Turkey was going to join at some stage—there were endless discussions about that possibility—and yet that would not have been part of the matter discussed in the democratic Parliament of the United Kingdom, particularly in the House of Commons. There were other anomalies which looked like opportunism. The rebellion was substantial among the Liberal Democrat ranks here, and the legislation was then forgotten and buried.
I always thought that rather than object to the repeal—I can understand why the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is suggesting it—the infamous 2011 Act should be repealed as quickly as possible. That needs to be on the agendas of both the Lords and the Commons for the future. At the moment, therefore, I am torn between agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for the reasons he has enunciated, and saying that it would be a mistake and that this should be included in the total repeal list. After all, getting rid of that obnoxious legislation would not be a precursor to any other anticipated legislation following the same theme later on.
Baroness Altman (Con)
My Lords, the 2011 Act was introduced by the elected Chamber for the express purpose of safeguarding major constitutional changes in respect of our relationship with the EU and I support the amendment, to which I have added my name.
The Act, among other matters, provides for a referendum throughout the United Kingdom on any proposed EU treaty or treaty change which would transfer powers from the UK to the EU. Parliament voted for this power in order to protect the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and it is this aspect of our constitutional framework that it is important for the Committee to be mindful of as we negotiate our future relationship with the EU. Surely the proper time for the 2011 Act to be repealed is when we conclude our relationship with the EU. However, the Bill as it stands allows a Minister to repeal it at any time after Royal Assent.
The Conservative Party manifesto in 2010 led to this Act. It is worded not in terms of transfers of power but in terms of the extension of the competence or objectives of the European Union and decrease in the voting power of the United Kingdom. If we go into a transition period, there will be a new form of treaty relationship with the EU, one in which the UK has surrendered powers to the EU. The transition or implementation phase is a subordination of power to the EU 27 and binds us to them with fetters in a new international treaty. I contend that even if one believes wholeheartedly in leaving the EU there are strong grounds not to repeal this Act before we have actually and finally departed. Parliament does not yet have the terms of any deal for Brexit, nor will it have before Royal Assent. I therefore believe that it is vital that the 2011 Act is not repealed in this Bill as that would remove a safeguard which currently exists to protect the United Kingdom and our constitutional position. Parliament enacted that legislation for a specific purpose and Ministers should not be allowed to repeal it at will without proper debate and discussion unless we have already concluded our exit terms.
The other place did not have an opportunity to debate this amendment and it seems to have been missed, or perhaps honourable Members might have assumed that the repeal of the Act would apply only on the date of exit, but it turns out that it could be before that date by ministerial diktat. Given the uncertainty that still surrounds this Bill and the entire Brexit process, as well as the lack of clarity on our future relationship, I urge my noble friend the Minister to agree to this amendment. It safeguards the constitutional position enacted by Parliament in 2011 and maintains the sovereignty of Parliament over the Executive to protect the UK from deleterious treaty change that has not received prior approval from Parliament or the people.
Baroness Ludford
My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this the last debate of the Committee stage, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for providing the opportunity for it. The noble Lord, Lord Dykes, took us down memory lane. I am sorry to say that I was deprived of the delights of participation in the debates on the 2011 Bill, as I was exiled to the European Parliament at the time. Obviously, I was denied a most enjoyable opportunity.
There is an arguable case that the 2011 EU Act referendum requirement could apply on the grounds that the standstill transition and/or the future relationship removes powers from the UK relative to the EU. There is much legal argument, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, noted, about whether it could apply, and indeed litigation is taking place on that very question. It would therefore be premature to abolish the Act either while the litigation is progressing or before it is clear whether the relationship between the UK and the EU during the standstill transition and beyond that into the future entails a loss of sovereignty such as to trigger the need for a referendum under the Act. The standstill transition most certainly does entail a loss of sovereignty, as we discussed earlier today. We will be mere rule takers who are obliged to obey with no say; that is already clear. It is a clear transfer of power to the EU.
The Government’s emerging Brexit policy, as articulated in the Prime Minister’s Mansion House speech, suggests that their plan is for us to take our instructions on the facts from Brussels for many years to come and indeed into the long-term future, so the Act ought to be retained in the tool-box and abolished by Parliament only as and when it is genuinely no longer needed. Certainly it should not be repealed before exit day or subject only to ministerial regulations.
Members on these Benches make no bones about the fact that a further vote for British citizens on the Brexit deal is justified in its own right. That is our major argument for a further opportunity for the citizens of this country to have their say on Brexit. It would be a wholly different exercise from the 2016 referendum because citizens would be able actually to evaluate what kind of Brexit we are going to get. Is it the kind of Brexit that some have advocated, or is it Brexit in name only? There have been no lesser advocates than Jacob Rees-Mogg for having a two-stage process. In 2011, he said in the context of one or other of the plans to renegotiate our membership:
“Indeed, we could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed”.—[Official Report¸ Commons, 24/10/11; col. 108.]
For that, one can substitute the Brexit negotiations.
I recall my noble friend Lord Newby quoting recently that a majority of Conservative voters want to have a referendum on the final Brexit deal. In London, that figure reaches 61% to 25% opposed, and the support for people to have the chance of a vote on the deal is growing all the time. So the major case for that to happen rests, as I say, on substantive rather than procedural grounds.
Until things are clear, it seems to Members on these Benches that there is validity in retaining the possible use of the EU Act, which is about the loss of sovereignty and the transfer of powers to the EU. That is precisely what we are going to be faced with.
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, this is a piece of political opportunism. The context of the 2011 Act, as those who were in the House well remember, was that there was very strong opposition in your Lordships’ House to there being referendums as the result of relatively minor transfers of powers and competences. That was rejected as being unnecessary and being a sop to the Eurosceptic wing. However, there were, incidentally, quite a few occasions on which it was conceded that all was far from perfect in the European Union, which is not something we have heard much about in the debates during the course of this Committee stage. To say that we should rely on a Bill that was most unpopular with many Liberal Democrats and a good number in the Labour Party in order to hold another referendum is really not what this is about.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, it must be unprecedented to have such a long and well-attended debate on what is almost the final repeal in the last schedule to a Bill. Given that this is the last debate that we will have in the Committee stage, perhaps I may, as the person who happens to be responding from these Benches, pay tribute to the quality of the contributions that have been made by all sides of the Chamber, including from my noble friend Lord Adonis. I have to say that anyone outside who says that we have been spoiling or somehow wrecking the Bill would not be able to maintain that charge in the light of the clarity and detail of the scrutiny that we have given the Bill.
As to the amendment, I admire the ingenuity which brings it forward. It is clear that the purpose behind it ultimately would be to trigger the referendum-requiring provisions set out in the 2011 Act. There are two ways of looking at that. One is to consider the political nature of the 2011 Act and compare that with what is happening at this stage, where one might well say, if I dare, that it was simply a staging post to the position we find ourselves in now. Many of us find the position of exit an unhappy one, but it would be a staging post to that and it has now passed. There is a legal question which is quite different: whether in fact the conditions in the 2011 Act are triggered. From what the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has said, there are legal proceedings which may challenge that, and I do not think it is right for me to venture an opinion from this Dispatch Box as to whether those are right or not.
However, I will venture a political opinion from my position, which is this. We are well aware that there are some in this House, in particular on the Liberal Democrat Benches—we fully respect their views, even if we may not share them—who would like to see a further referendum, and many in the country would like to see that. If that is going to happen, one might say that the way for it to come about is through a direct vote on whether a referendum should be taking place rather than what might seem to be a side wind. And that is my problem with the proposed amendment, even though it is ingenious. I have reason to believe—indeed, I suspect, from what the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said—that this House will have an opportunity on Report to express its view directly, full-throatedly and openly about a further referendum. The House will give its view, but I am not convinced about doing it through this route.
Lord Adonis
Can my noble and learned friend give his view on whether it is appropriate that the 2011 Act should be repealed in advance of the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972?
Lord Goldsmith
It is perfectly appropriate, although I do not like the word “appropriate”, as we all know. Perhaps the answer is that it is not necessary, but it may be appropriate.
I fully respect what the noble Lord is doing. It is not easy to say this but, politically, the 2011 Act was a staging post on the route—as it turns out—to full Brexit, even though some people still hope that we will not go that far, and it has therefore served its purpose. I am not making a legal analysis of whether the conditions in the Act apply because I can see arguments why they may and why they may not; I am explaining why, if there is a suggestion that this House will vote for a referendum, it would be better to do it on an amendment or a Motion that directly raises that question. It can then be fully debated and we can all have our say. For those reasons, I very much regret to tell my noble friend that I cannot support his amendment.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, after 115 hours of Committee debate, as observed by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, it is somehow appropriate—that word again—that the last and 372nd amendment should be tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. He referred to our deep and special partnership; I think that is probably going a bit far, but to mark the occasion, I thought I would get him a gift to celebrate his perseverance. The Adonis nut bar is available in all good health shops. He is welcome to collect it later.
In responding to Amendment 372, I want to be very clear about what the European Union Act 2011 does. The Act contains a recent mechanism for two principal goals—first, to provide that where Ministers participate in certain types of decisions, those decisions are specifically approved in the UK. This normally happens via an Act of Parliament. The Act passed last year to approve the decisions—which allowed the participation of Albania and Serbia in the work of the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights and the conclusion of an agreement on competition law between the EU and Canada—is an example of this. Secondly, the Act also provides that where there is a revision to the fundamental treaties of the EU, akin to the treaties of Lisbon or Maastricht, there should be an Act of Parliament—and, in certain circumstances, a referendum in the UK—before the UK Government could approve those changes.
I invite noble Lords to cast their minds back, as some Members have done, to 2011 and the context in which this Act was passed. Sadly, I was not a Member of your Lordships’ House then; I was with the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford—not directly; we were Members—in the European Parliament. The Act was drafted in the context of its time in response to new EU methods of approving treaty changes and calls for more public and parliamentary involvement in such decisions. Its purpose was to regulate decision-making on the UK’s relationship to the EU treaties in the context of the UK as a member state. At that point, the idea of holding a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU was far from the Government’s mind, let alone undertaking the most complex negotiation in history to recast that relationship with the UK outside the EU treaties.
Of course, everything has changed since then. We are leaving the EU. The 2011 Act is redundant. It is appropriate to repeal redundant legislation. It may even be necessary to repeal the 2011 Act. Amendment 372 would prevent the Bill from repealing the 2011 Act. From previous statements made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, I understand that he intends to use the Act in an attempt to secure a second referendum—no surprise there. I will not revisit the positions that we have already covered extensively in debate about the merits or otherwise of holding a further referendum as part of the process of our exit from the EU; no doubt the Liberal Democrats will enable us to return to this matter on Report. We have covered that at length in this Committee; suffice it to say that the Government think, first, that a second referendum is not appropriate and, secondly, that it is most certainly not for this Bill to provide for one.
Lord Adonis
If I could have a last celebratory intervention on the Minister in Committee, can he indicate to the House when the Government intend to use the powers they would get under this Act to repeal the 2011 Act?
Lord Callanan
I do not want to give the noble Lord a precise date at this time. We will wait until the legislation is on the statute book before deciding such things.
Crucially, a second referendum is not provided for by the 2011 Act. As I hope I have set out, that Act could never have been intended to achieve that goal.
Lord Adonis
Is the Minister indicating that the Government may repeal the 2011 Act in advance of the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972?
Lord Callanan
I will not comment any further on the repeal date, I am afraid, no matter how many times the noble Lord asks me.
I refer noble Lords to the first sentence of the first part of the Explanatory Notes to that Act. Acts of Parliament or referenda are required by the 2011 Act,
“if these would transfer power or competence from the UK to the EU”.
We are leaving the EU. That process is neither governed by the types of decision referred to in the 2011 Act, nor involves a change to the treaties on European Union or the functioning of the European Union. Those treaties will go on without us, governing the EU and its institutions, for which we wish only the greatest of success. Moreover, I hope it is unquestionable for the Government to pursue a withdrawal agreement that will transfer power to the EU; it is the nature of leaving the EU that it must involve a transfer of power back to the UK. Therefore, I say with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that it is disingenuous of him to mislead others outside this House that the 2011 Act is an instrument to deliver a second referendum on our membership of the EU.
We are progressing towards establishing a future relationship with the EU as an independent third country. As part of this, we will require new processes for approving our new relationship with the EU. The Government are committed to giving Parliament a vote on the final deal of our withdrawal agreement negotiations.
Lord Liddle
The Minister is saying things that directly contradict what the Prime Minister has said: that we will have an implementation period in which we will follow the laws set by the EU without having any say over them. In her Mansion House speech, she said that we wish to maintain regulatory alignment with the EU in a large number of areas. That means following EU laws without having any say in them. Will the Minister accept that point?
Lord Callanan
I will not accept that point. We have not agreed anything yet. We are still to have those negotiations.
Lord Liddle
Is the Minister saying that he rejects what the Prime Minister said in her Mansion House speech?
Lord Callanan
Of course I am not saying that. I am saying that we are in the process of conducting a negotiation. We have said that when have concluded that withdrawal agreement, we will return to this House with the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill. The noble Lord will be able to make all his points—at great length, no doubt—over and again during that process. He has made those points many times in the course of this Committee, so if he will forgive me I will make a bit more progress and then we can all go out and have an enjoyable evening at the end of this stage.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I am immensely grateful to the noble Lord for the gift of the Adonis nut bar. I tried to buy one online and was told that the site is pornographic—the parliamentary internet is very well policed—but I could refer the matter to my supervisor if I wished to take it further. I toyed with referring it to my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition but I thought she would be very keen that I did not eat the nut bar, because she thinks I have far too much energy at the moment in any event in pursuing these matters in the House.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
I found one of these nut bars the other day. It has lots of impenetrable small talk and carried a health warning. I think it was suitably named.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I have always disregarded health warnings on the grounds that one would never eat anything at all if one proceeded down those lines.
The debate has been disappointing in that I do not think the two key points I made have been responded to. I have huge admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, but they have not addressed the point that, in the way the Bill is framed, the repeal of the 2011 Act is emphatically not consequential on the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. Rather, it is consequential on the enactment of the Bill and it will take place well in advance of Brexit day and the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. If it was indeed consequential on the repeal of that Act, which I fully accept it should be because we would not be a member of the European Union at that point, I would have no difficulty at all with the repeal in Schedule 9. It is because it is being deliberately accelerated in advance that there is an issue.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
It cannot happen until immediately after Parliament has passed a Bill fixing a date for leaving the European Union. The 2011 Act has no substance or content at all apart from the European Union treaty, so this idea that it has to be consequential in time is an extra. It is consequential in its subject matter. That is what is really important.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, we might not leave the European Union next year. We have not enacted the legislation to do so. At the moment there is no treaty. The 2011 Act would be repealed under the terms of the Bill. The two are clearly not consequential.
Baroness Ludford
Does the noble Lord agree that there is no relationship between exit day and the repeal of the European Communities Act? Clause 19 says that the repeal, inter alia, of the 2011 Act, is a provision of the Bill that will,
“come into force on such day as a Minister of the Crown may by regulations appoint”.
It has absolutely nothing to do with exit day or the ECA.
Lord Adonis
That is the precise point. The big question that the Minister would not answer—I do not think he wanted to give me the answer—is why the repeal of the 2011 Act is being accelerated ahead of Brexit day and the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. The Minister has not given an answer, nor has he given the Committee any indication of when that repeal would take place. My understanding is that the Government would seek to repeal the 2011 Act as soon as they can after the enactment of the Bill, which will mean that its terms would not apply for the period between that repeal and Brexit day, but it is of course perfectly possible. Who knows what will happen in the next 52 weeks? As Harold Wilson famously said, a week is a long time in politics, so goodness knows what will happen in the next 52. The Act would not apply. It may well be that my noble and learned friend is right that there is not a substantial legal argument here, but that is precisely the issue the courts are there to determine. They will not have the opportunity to do so because the Act will have been repealed.
Lord Goldsmith
To clarify, I did not say that. I deliberately did not express a view as to whether that argument would legally succeed precisely because I understand it is the subject of legal proceedings. I would not want for a moment to pre-empt them.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, those legal proceedings will by definition cease if the 2011 Act is repealed soon after the enactment of the Bill.
The second point that was not addressed, which is a matter of some substance, is that, on an issue of this gravity, surely it is not too much for the people to expect of Parliament that the House of Commons itself should expressly vote on the repeal of the 2011 Act. Because of the guillotine Motion in the House of Commons and the limited opportunities there were for debate in the Commons the matter was never debated, let alone voted on. That is one of our responsibilities.
My final point on the final day and the final amendment on the Bill, with such a magnificent attendance by noble Lords on the Conservative Benches, is to address the final point made by my noble and learned friend about taking a decision expressly on the issue of a referendum. I agree that it is a matter we should expressly take a decision on. The point of the 2011 Act is that it is existing statute law and should be repealed expressly only by the House of Commons.
It is clear that the dominating issue that will preoccupy us over the next six to nine months is whether the people themselves should have a say on the terms of the withdrawal treaty. What is already lurking behind the debate—it is, I am afraid, an issue of intense debate in my own party, but I suspect it will spread to other parties—is whether the people should be allowed that final say. It is clear that many people, I suspect including my noble and learned friend and maybe my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition, at the moment do not think that a referendum is the right course. What is happening is we are having a charade of big debates about what are essentially second-order issues in the House while the consensus is rolling on that, maybe to avoid too big a division of public opinion, we should allow Brexit simply to roll on next year.
That will be the dominating issue of British politics in the next nine months: whether Brexit is a done deal, whether Parliament will debate, with the option of rejection, the Prime Minister’s withdrawal treaty and whether—in considering what is the biggest and most significant issue that has faced Parliament in this generation—before we take the final plunge into the unknown and engage in Brexit, we will give the people a say on the terms of withdrawal. That is a very big and weighty issue to raise at the very last moment of the debate in Committee, but in two weeks’ time we will regroup and start Report. We can rehearse all these arguments again. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 18th April 2018
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 79-R-I(b) Amendments for Report, supplementary to the marshalled list (PDF, 84KB) - (18 Apr 2018)
17:11 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 348 / Noes: 225 - Amendment 1 agreed.
19:00 - Division on Amendment 11 - Ayes: 314 / Noes: 217 - Amendment 11 agreed.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
“(1) Subsection (2) applies if, and only if, the condition in subsection (3) is met.”
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, the Eugene O’Neill play “Long Day’s Journey Into Night” is very good, but it does go on a bit. We have already had 13 long days and 372 amendments, which at least enables us to be quite brisk and brusque at this stage. The arguments have all been advanced already, and it falls to me to speak to Amendment 1, in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Ludford. The amendment is a call to the Government to explore a customs union.
I intend to distil simply five points out of our previous debate—five arguments for a customs union. The first argument is that made by manufacturing industry, and it does not need repeating: it has been made very clearly in our debates and in public debate, and has been supported strongly by the CBI and the TUC. We know what Airbus Industrie thinks and we know of its worries. We know about the motor industry’s worries. We know that 60% of a UK-built motor car consists of components that come into our country. The motor industry believes that, if those components came across a customs frontier, its costs would rise by between 5% and 10%, which is serious. We know from the Government’s economic analysis that the hit on manufacturing would represent, over time, 1% of GDP. That case does not need to be explained any more.
Secondly, the case for export to the European Union explains itself too. Fifty per cent of our exports go to the European Union—indeed, 70% of our agricultural exports. The Government are rightly concerned not to introduce new frictions in this trade, but a customs frontier is an inevitable friction; the delay, not just at the Irish frontier but at Dover and elsewhere, would be considerable and would have considerable costs. The Government are right to minimise frictions, not just for that reason but because to replace trade with the European Union with trade further afield will not be an easy task. A further 20% of our exports go to countries which have preferential arrangements with the EU or are negotiating them, including 60 free trade agreements, 32 of which are with Commonwealth countries. To simply replicate such preferential arrangements when we are out on our own, representing a smaller market—offering the concession of access to a smaller market—will not be child’s play, as the Australians and New Zealanders have already demonstrated to us through their demands on agricultural quotas. If we look at America—which accounts for 15% of our exports today—and the TPP, TTIP and NAFTA sagas, or listen to the inaugural speech with its paean for protectionism, we can see that that will not be easy.
The further afield you go, the more difficult it gets. The population of Canada is three times the population of Switzerland but we sell twice as much to the Swiss because they are closer. The ineluctable rule is that as distance doubles, trade halves. I am talking about trade in goods, but it is a fairly standard rule. So it is well worth looking further afield, but it will be hard not to see a fall in overall exports if our trade with the European Union is made more complicated, and it will be much more complicated if we do not have a customs union. We must try to limit the damage of leaving our largest, because closest, market.
My third point is about the nature of customs union, and here I will admit the downside of customs union. It is about goods, not services, and it would prevent us abolishing our tariffs on imports into this country. It would prevent us doing what Professor Minford wants to do, and that is, for some, a serious downside. I do not believe that the Government intend to follow Professor Minford’s prescription. I do not think the Government intend to take us to a tariff-free, low-welfare, low-tax, low-regulation, low-standard sweatshop economy. The Prime Minister has been pretty clear that she is not planning to do that.
More importantly, as I said, the customs union is only about goods—it is not about services. It would leave us entirely free to go on doing our trade promotion, as we do now, but also to negotiate new arrangements for trade in services, investment protection, remittance of profits, intellectual property, data protection, access to government procurement—all the new ideas and new issues which are now much more important in trade negotiation than tariffs. Therefore, there is very little economic downside to customs union. It would stop us doing what no sane Government would want to do and would in no way inhibit us from doing what every Government would want to do.
The fourth issue is the Irish border. Even if cross-border trade is tariff free, as I hope and believe it will be, rules of origin, phytosanitary and other checks will require a hard border. They will make that inevitable unless we have a customs union. A customs union is not in itself a sufficient condition for an open or soft border—there will still have to be a degree of regulatory alignment, particularly in the agricultural sector—but it is a necessary condition for an open border.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
At paragraph 4 of their guidelines, they say that it is the UK’s positions,
“which limit the depth of such a future partnership”,
and that:
“Being outside the Customs Union and the Single Market will inevitably lead to frictions”.
But they also say at paragraph 6 of their guidelines that if the UK’s positions on the customs union and the single market,
“were to evolve, the Union will be prepared to reconsider its offer”:
in other words, to improve its offer. We do not know how far-reaching such improvements would be but, if we go on refusing to allow our negotiators to explore the idea of a customs union, we will never find out, and that in my view will be irresponsible—hence the wording of the amendment. I do not recall at the time of the referendum any debate about a customs union.
Lord Grocott
I say yes. I think that the noble Lord has agreed to give way and I am very grateful. My point is specifically about the amendment. Are we not allowed to intervene with a question on the amendment?
Lord Grocott
What I have to say may affect the decision as to whether or not to move it. My question is specifically about the wording of the amendment, which says—
The Countess of Mar (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord should be allowed to develop his arguments. The amendment is not on the table yet—it has not been put by the Speaker. So I ask the noble Lord, out of courtesy, to let the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, finish speaking.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
Perhaps I may continue. I recall no debate at all at the time of the referendum on a customs union. The country voted narrowly to leave the European Union, but no one can argue that it voted knowingly to leave the customs union with the European Union.
The red line was laid down in October 2016 in the “citizens of nowhere” speech. One hears that there had not been much discussion in the Government; there certainly had been no discussion with Parliament. One wonders to what extent the economic consequences of the decision on customs union had been fully assessed and analysed within the Government; I have no idea. Other red lines have since been sensibly blurred; in my view, it is time to blur this one.
The House knows that I was and remain a keen remainer. I believe that, when a deal is struck, the country should be given a chance to say whether it is what it wants. That would be fair, but it is nevertheless our duty to help improve the deal and see how it could be made better. If in the end we do leave, it should be in a way that limits the damage to the country’s well-being and to the future of our children. That is why I believe that it makes sense for the Government to be asked to explore customs union. I beg to move.
Lord Grocott
I simply wanted to ask for information on the wording of the amendment, which requires the Government to put a statement to both Houses about the contents of an agreement on a customs union. I simply want to ask this: if such a statement is presented to both Houses, as his amendment requires, and if the House of Commons says yes and the House of Lords says no, what happens next?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
Am I allowed to respond? I thank the noble Lord for his question. The Government would be required to negotiate for a customs union and make a statement about the outcome of the negotiations, which would be before the withdrawal implementation Bill came to the House. It seems to me that the requirement on the Government is simply to negotiate. I may be wrong about the willingness of the other side to envision a customs union—we cannot require the Government to come back with a customs union—but we can require the Government to explain how hard they have tried and what kind of customs union they think might be available.
Lord Patten of Barnes (Con)
I am delighted to second the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and I will seek to do so as briefly as he did, partly because he was so comprehensive in the arguments for a customs union and partly because we chewed over many of these issues in Committee and we plainly should not deal with them again. So I will not go into the issue of Northern Ireland’s border with the Republic of Ireland, because I spoke twice on that in Committee.
I assume straightaway, because I have a regard for his intelligence, that the Minister responding to this debate is not going to suggest that the referendum result or the Conservative manifesto disqualifies us from proceeding in the direction suggested by the noble Lord. If I am wrong about that, I would be delighted to come back to it later. But there is one point made in the manifesto that I will dwell on for a moment—and, as clergymen occasionally say at the end of sermons, share with you all—because it allows me to bridge to the main argument we have today, which is about trade and trade opportunities for this country.
I confess to the House straightaway that I used to make my living helping to write manifestos, and so I have a certain regard for these things. The manifesto said at the beginning:
“People are rightly sceptical of politicians who claim to have easy answers to deeply complex problems”.
So I ask the House to turn its attention to what we have been promised on trade.
We are told by the Secretary of State for International Trade that a free trade agreement with the EU will be one of the “easiest in human history”. He also told us that, by the end of March 2019, the Government will have put in place or drafted or agreed up to 40 trade agreements with other countries. That is the backdrop. It seems to me that those propositions invite a little scepticism, and in a moment or two I will suggest to the House why that is the case.
I have a degree of expertise in this area for which I do not seek to make extravagant claims—I do not know as much about trade as the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, does, and I know that expertise is a dangerous thing in the present climate. But I did, either on my own or with others, negotiate free trade agreements between the European Union and Mexico, Chile and most of the countries of the Mashreq and Maghreb region. We were part of the negotiation team for China’s accession to the WTO. We failed with Russia—for all sorts of reasons which the House will not be surprised about—and we made only limited progress with Mercosur, the San José dialogue and the Andean pact countries. So I know how difficult these things are, and some of the problems that will be faced in addressing the agenda mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr.
The first thing we have to do is secure our market in the European Union—50% of our trade. We then have to think about the 12% of trade with countries with which the European Union has concluded agreements already and the 8% with which it is negotiating trade agreements already. That adds up to about 70%. Of the remaining 30%, about half is with the United States, a quarter with China and Hong Kong, and the rest with everyone else.
How are we going to manage with the countries with which the European Union has negotiated deals already? I spent a particularly dreary afternoon on Maundy Thursday looking through the European Union-South Korea trade deal. It was dreary not because it is not a good deal—indeed, it is such a good deal that the Foreign Secretary not long ago boasted about the great increase in British trade with South Korea—but because it is even longer than a long day’s journey into night. It runs to 1,400 pages, 900 of which just list tariffs. The idea that you can simply Snopake the words “European Union” and insert “United Kingdom” and grandfather that trade agreement in nanoseconds—even nanoyears—is absurd.
First of all, the South Koreans know that we are the demandeur. They will know that we have a trade surplus with South Korea at the moment, which might make them a little resistant to being as helpful as they were with the European Union, which is, anyway, a much bigger market than the United Kingdom—500 million to about 65 million. There are technical issues as well that will be particularly demanding. I will not try to explain to the House—because I have only a vague notion of what it means—the problem with trigger volumes preventing surges of agricultural imports to a country. But that issue is one that will involve not just negotiations with South Korea but tripartite negotiations between us and the European Union as well as the South Koreans.
Even more important are rules of origin—something that used to be well understood by the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. Not long before the Foreign Secretary made a speech saying that there was no reason why we should not, after leaving the European Union, stay in the single market, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union pointed out that, on balance, he was in favour of staying in the customs union because, even though you would not then be able to do independent trade deals on your own, the issue of rules of origin was so important that we had to stay within the union so that that did not present problems for us.
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will forgive my confusion about a technical matter. The amendment states:
“Page 1, line 2, at end insert”.
However, line 2 on page 1 comes immediately after,
“The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day”.
Can noble Lords make clear what exactly we are debating? The amendment states:
“Subsection (2) applies if, and only if”.
The amendment does not seem to fit the Bill.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I support Amendment 1, moved so persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and Amendment 4. I want to speak briefly to Amendments 2 and 5 in my name, which are coupled with them and essentially seek the same goal.
Noble Lords may remember that in Committee I moved the very first amendment on the issue of maintaining a customs union with the EU after our membership ceases. We had an excellent debate at that stage so I will not repeat the detailed arguments, save to remind the House of one central point: having tariff-free trade in goods with the European Union and the 56 countries with which the European Union has an agreement is fundamentally important—not only to Wales but throughout the UK—to our manufacturers and farmers. It also opens the door to resolving the Irish border question, as has been said.
I accept—reluctantly—that we are leaving the European Union. That is not the issue in this debate. The question is how we leave without weakening or severing our vital trade links. By passing either of these amendments, we give MPs an opportunity to return to this central issue. Without such an amendment, they will be unable to do so. They need such a facility because so much has changed in the time that has elapsed since they passed this Bill last year. We must enable them to fine-tune the Bill to meet the requirements of exporters, manufacturers and farmers. MPs will have the last word, and rightly so, but by passing either amendment we give them the opportunity to endorse a better Bill that is fit for purpose and more acceptable to those whom it affects. I urge colleagues on all sides to unite in passing such an amendment and I urge the Government to accept the outcome.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, both the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and my noble friend Lord Patten made extremely powerful speeches. Both of them referred to trade with the EU representing 50% of our exports. I think that the figure is actually a little lower than that, nearer 45%; I make that point not to argue over the absolute figure but the direction of travel.
One of the points that was not made in either speech is how the pattern of our trade has been changing and a much higher proportion of our trade was with the EU 10 or 15 years ago. This is because Asian markets and other countries—I agree that they are all small markets at the moment—have cumulatively been growing as a share of our trade. The question in considering the amendment is, which is better for the future trend of our trade: remaining in the customs union or the Government’s alternative—which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, did not really put forward—of a free trade agreement with the EU? We are talking not just about the customs union, but the customs union while being outside the EU—that is, being in the customs union but not an EU member—which is a very different matter, for reasons that I will come on to.
We have to be clear in our minds about the difference between a customs union and a free trade area. A customs union has free trade between its members but an external tariff and rules against non-members. A free trade area has reduced or zero tariffs between its members but allows individual members to have differing external tariffs and non-tariff controls on imports from non-members. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, referred to the question of rules of origin—that is, goods that come from outside the free trade area but which have to qualify to go into other countries by having a certain percentage of the content being made locally. The EU is a customs union but has free trade relations with European states outside the EU, such as Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein. This means that, despite being inside the single market, they have control over external tariffs and the administrative costs are greatly reduced by modern customs procedures, such as electronic pre-clearance and trusted trader arrangements.
In his speech on the customs union, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, concentrated just on what happens at the border. I would argue that a customs union is not just about tariffs; it has implications for the single market. It is related to the whole issue of the rules and definitions that make up the single market. This is made very clear on the European Commission’s website, which defines the customs union like this:
“The Customs Union is a foundation of the European Union and an essential element in the functioning of the single market. The single market can only function properly when there is a common application of common rules at its external borders … These common rules … go beyond the Customs Union as such—with its common tariff—and extend to all aspects of trade policy, such as preferential trade, health and environmental controls”,
agriculture and fisheries,
“the protection of our economic interests by non-tariff instruments and external relations policy measures”.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I listened to the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Patten, with much interest and even pleasure. They are virtuosi—but as I sometimes find when I listen to virtuosi, they are not entirely convincing. Amendment 4 is simply too vague for us to send it to the other place. If those who tabled it insist that the Government should seek to negotiate membership of a customs union, it behoves them to be specific about the features of the customs union that they believe would be appropriate in the interests of our country.
Let us be clear that we all want continuing free movement of goods between this country and the European Union. That is not in contention; it is a major objective of the Government in their negotiations. Those who support the amendment, which refers to “a customs union”, not to the existing customs union, should explain how the alternative customs union that they envisage would differ from the existing customs union.
For example, how would it differ with regard to the common external tariff, which the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, has just mentioned? At what level do those who tabled the amendment think the CET should be pitched? A common external tariff is protectionist, and as such is bad for the efficiency and productivity of our industries. It puts up the prices of goods imported from outside the European Union into the United Kingdom, to the disadvantage of our consumers and our producers: 21% of household incomes in this country are, on average, spent on food, clothing and footwear. Indeed, a higher percentage is spent by less well-off households. The existing customs union puts high tariffs on these essentials: 26% on food, 11.8% on clothing and 11.4% on footwear, on average. Also objectionable about the common external tariff is the fact that, as a barrier to imports from developing countries, it impairs their economic development. The European Union’s average external tariff is 5.1%. That is high compared with the USA’s external tariff of 3.5%. Noble Lords insist that the Government should state their precise objectives in negotiation. Will they state theirs? What should the common external tariff be? Do they envisage a customs union without a common external tariff? That would be very good, but is it in the realm of possibility? Is it not, in fact, better to seek to negotiate a free trade agreement?
If the new customs union to be negotiated differs from the existing customs union, how would it solve the problem of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic? Noble Lords should explain that. How would the two sets of rules of the new customs union and the existing customs union of the EU interact? What dispute resolution mechanism do they intend?
Do they think that the European Union would accept a radically liberalised form of customs union with the United Kingdom and allow us such enhanced freedoms? It would be lovely, but it seems unlikely. However, unless they do and can say how their alternative customs union would work, we have to conclude that the amendment is tabled simply for tactical reasons, a device, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, candidly acknowledged, to enable the House of Commons to have a debate and vote on a customs union. Actually, what they clearly want is for us to stay in the existing customs union.
If we send an amendment to the other place, it will be amendable. Amendments to a vague amendment could go anywhere. Some noble Lords—I certainly exonerate my noble friends on the Opposition Front Bench—entertain the hope that a cross-party combination of remainers could force the Government to commit to staying permanently in the existing customs union, with all the disadvantages that the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and others have described, including our inability to strike free trade agreements with other countries. As the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, reminded us, a customs union is in practice inextricable from a single market and from compliance with a whole mass of European Union rules on which we would have no say. I fail to see how that is reconcilable with our democratic values.
Only today in the Times it is reported that there is just such a manoeuvre of Members of Parliament to form a cross-party alliance and to force this issue. Noble Lords who support this amendment should come clean and say what the game is. It is not appropriate that we should write into statute vague amendments and tactical devices.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Howarth and Lord Lamont, have given the other side of the argument to what the noble Lords, Lord Patten and Lord Kerr, have proposed. Of course, the European Union is not perfect; of course, with the customs union, there will be disadvantages and advantages, but the bottom line is this: whether free trade between the UK and the EU is 50% or whether it is declining and is now approaching 40%, it is still by far the biggest element of our trade. To have duty-free free movement within that customs union is a huge advantage—that is point number one, before you look at anything outside the European Union.
Then there is this whole talk about going global. What a lot of nonsense. We have always been a global trading nation; we have always been an open economy, an open market, and respected for it, which is why we are a recipient of among the highest levels of inward investment in the world. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Patten, about this taking time, the Canadian free trade deal, CETA, took eight years; it is also, to my knowledge, thousands of pages’ long. It is nowhere near as good as the free trade agreement that we have at the moment with the European Union. Our other 53 agreements representing almost 20% of our trade beyond the European Union are good but nowhere near as good as that with the European Union. We cannot just substitute them. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, gave as just one example the South Korean deal, where they say, “Don’t expect us just to roll over—65 million versus 500 million. No, it is a different deal altogether”.
CHOGM—the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting—is taking place here. I would love to do more business with the Commonwealth— 2.4 billion people; India has 1.25 billion people. What is our total trade with the Commonwealth at the moment? It is 9% of our trade—9% versus the 50% that we have with the European Union. Let us get real. We would love to do more with India—I am the founding chairman of the UK India Business Council. How many free trade deals does India have with any country in the world on a bilateral basis? It has nine, and not one with a western country. Here is the crux of it; I know this from the horse’s mouth—Prime Minister Narendra Modi is over here in the UK today. If you ask India what its priority is, an EU-India free trade agreement or a UK-India free trade agreement, you will be told that an EU-India agreement is much more important to India and it has been working on it for several years.
On the referendum and the point about the manifesto, when people voted to leave, they did not vote to leave on any basis. They did not vote, saying, “Please leave the customs union”. The red lines of leaving the single market and leaving the customs union were put down by the Prime Minister, not by the people who voted to leave: they did not say on what basis to leave. Our job as Parliament, what we are trying to do here, is damage limitation. This amendment is about damage limitation, because the best thing by far is to remain within the customs union—for our economy, for our businesses, for our citizens and for our country.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, many of the arguments we have heard on these amendments almost boil down to saying that nothing can ever be changed for the better. This is, indeed, a peculiar psychological quirk of human beings, but it is not borne out by history. As my noble friend Lord Lamont said, if this amendment is passed and we are in a customs union but not in the European Union then the UK will be obliged to operate a system of external tariffs with no say in setting them. The UK would not be able to enter into new trade agreements with other countries around the world and would be bound by the rules and standards of the European Court of Justice—and that would apply even in the domestic economy. The UK would be significantly worse off than it is today.
A customs union is, by definition, a form of discrimination. Ricardo, Cobden, Gladstone: those great liberals would be spinning in their grave at the thought that their descendant party today is in favour of this form of trade discrimination. The answer to growing protectionism in the world is not to retreat inside a protectionist bloc of slow-growing countries that constitute just 10% of the world’s future economic growth, but to seek free trade opportunities wherever we can find them. The answer is not to discriminate against African and Asian economies, but to be open to all. It is not to turn our back on our friends in the Commonwealth, eager to do trade deals with us in this week of all weeks. It is not to yearn to,
“keep a-hold of Nurse
For fear of finding something worse”.
It is to embrace a model not of harmonisation and identical regulation designed to prevent and extinguish innovation, but one of mutual recognition, to learn how to achieve better ends by better means. It is not to rely on a wall of protective tariffs to keep the world at bay, but to play to our strengths as a common-law, English-speaking, scientifically advanced nation of shopkeepers and entrepreneurs. It is not to be parochial and regional, but to be ambitiously global. And it is not to listen to millionaire loveys and Trekkies gathering in Camden.
I am genuinely surprised that some in the parties opposite want to discriminate against Africa, with an average agricultural product tariff of 14.8%, 25% on sugar refining, 20% on animal products and 31.7% on dairy products.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I just want to ask the noble Lord where he gets his idea that being in a customs union with the European Union will mean imposing tariffs on Africa when the European Union has zero tariffs on all African countries.
Viscount Ridley
The European Union has an external tariff. It applies to not all products from Africa, admittedly, but to a considerable number. It also applies to Caribbean and Asian countries: there is a 20% tariff, for example, on tomatoes.
I beg those who have not yet made up their minds how to vote to recognise this amendment for what it is. It is an attempt to wreck the Bill and to prevent Brexit.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
I defer to the noble Viscount in his knowledge of millionaires. Maybe he is right, maybe he is wrong, but I do not think that they particularly enter into it. It is ordinary, hard-working people who will, of course, suffer the consequences if our trade collapses, and they are the people we should have at the front of our minds. However, on the point about trade with the wider world, almost two years ago a very thorough analysis of our trade and trade policy was made by a prominent politician in a speech. This is what she said:
“It is tempting to look at developing countries’ economies, with their high growth rates, and see them as an alternative to trade with Europe. But just look at the reality of our trading partnership with China—with its dumping policies, protective tariffs and industrial-scale industrial espionage. And look at the figures. We export more to Ireland than we do to China, almost twice as much to Belgium as we do to India, and nearly three times as much to Sweden as we do to Brazil. It is not realistic to think that we could just replace European trade with these new markets”.
That was the current Prime Minister speaking on 25 April 2016, and I do not think anything has changed since.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I am not quite sure exactly what this amendment means, in spite of the eloquent speeches by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and my noble friend Lord Patten. It would require the Government to lay before Parliament a statement outlining the steps taken to negotiate an arrangement which enables the UK,
“to continue participating in a customs union”.
I do not think this is at all helpful to our negotiators. Even if remaining in a customs union were one of the Government’s possible objectives, which it is not, the amendment does not even set a condition that such negotiations must be successful. I expect that those of your Lordships who believe that we should remain in a customs union, which I believe is now the policy of the Labour Party, will not wish to support this amendment in its present form.
I believe that noble Lords who think that we should stay in a customs union are misguided because it would prevent us establishing our own tariff schedules at the WTO. As my noble friend Lord Lawson mentioned, we would be in an unenviable position similar to that of Turkey, which is bound to accept imports from third countries, agreed to by the EU at similar tariffs to those decided on by the EU. Turkey, however, does not even benefit from any preferential tariff rates for its own exports to such third countries which become available to EU countries through agreements made by the EU with third countries.
It is essential that the UK, after the end of the implementation period, should be free to implement bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements with third countries. Failure to be able to do this would negate the whole upside potential of recovering our sovereignty in international trade matters and it would be pointless for the UK to leave the EU on such a basis. A major benefit of leaving the EU will be acquiring the freedom to reduce and ultimately eliminate tariffs on essential products, which represent a high proportion of the budget of poorer people, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, my noble friend Lord Ridley and others.
One of the two possible customs arrangements the Government have said they are considering is a customs partnership with the EU, under which the UK would mirror the EU’s requirements for imports from third countries where their final destination is the EU. It seems to me that if such a customs partnership required the UK to retain a high degree of regulatory alignment with the EU, it would make the UK unattractive as a potential trade partner for third countries and prevent us becoming a powerful advocate for free trade around the world and exercising our considerable influence on ensuring that developing global—rather than European—standards represent best practice in consumer protection in a way that does not inhibit innovation, as excessively bureaucratic regulatory regimes tend to do. I look forward with interest to hearing what my noble friend the Minister has to say about the Government’s current thinking on the option of customs partnership. In any case, the inclusion of any of these amendments in this Bill, which is largely technical in nature, would unnecessarily tie the hands of our negotiators in a manner detrimental to the UK’s interests.
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may correct briefly my noble friend who has just sat down. When he referred to what I had said, I do not think he was showing great prophetic qualities; I think he intended to refer to my noble friend Lord Lamont.
I will be brief because I know the Minister wishes to reply to this debate very soon. Let me make just one or two comments. First, this whole thing has had something of an Alice in Wonderland nature. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, whom I have known for many years and whose company I enjoy, said that nobody said during the campaign that leaving the European Union meant leaving the customs union. That is complete nonsense, with great respect to the noble Lord. I was, for a time, chairman of Vote Leave, which was recognised by the Electoral Commission as the official leave campaign, and we made it absolutely clear that leaving the European Union meant leaving the customs union and the single market. It was not just us. On the other side of the debate, the then Prime Minister and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer made it explicit that leaving the European Union would mean leaving the customs union and the single market, so it is nonsense to say that this was not put clearly to the British people.
This is really a political debate. I can see that there are political reasons for wanting to remain in the EU. I accept that. I think the political reasons for leaving the European Union are very much stronger, but it is absolute nonsense to suggest that there is an economic case for what is being put forward in this amendment. Quite apart from the political problem my noble friend Lord Lamont and others on our side of the debate have pointed out, what is being proposed is that we should not be in the European Union but should be within the customs union. In other words, we should have a quasi-colonial status. That is not something that I or, I think, the British people as a whole will give houseroom to.
What is even more nonsensical is the idea that one cannot trade without a trade agreement. I hope we can conclude trade agreements, but one can trade without them. The rest of the world is not in the European Union. Most of the world does an enormous amount of trade with the European Union. Most of the world is growing a great deal faster, which is rather more important, than the European Union is. If the customs union and the single market were so wonderful, the European Union would be the most dynamic part of the world economy, which it certainly is not. As it is, our trade with the rest of the world is growing far faster than our trade with the European Union. It is not merely greater than our trade with the European Union, but it is growing faster. Indeed, to some extent, my noble friend Lord Patten gave the game away when he pointed to German success in exports to China. There is no trade agreement involved in that. It is a fallacy to believe that bilateral trade agreements are as important as trade. It is trade that matters, and within trade it is the Word Trade Organization system that is overwhelmingly important.
This is basically a political argument. I accept that there are arguments on both sides. I happen to feel that the political arguments for leaving the European Union are greater than the political arguments for remaining in. This is a political argument dressed up as a trade argument, and the trade argument has no substance whatever. I therefore urge the House to reject what is in essence a wrecking amendment.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I am a signatory to the amendment and would like to speak to it. The Government’s paper of last August on future customs arrangements proposed two customs schemes as the alternative to being in the customs union, one based on technology, described as “innovative”, the other with the UK acting as an agent for the EU for EU-bound goods, described as “unprecedented” and “challenging”. Those are words that, if in Jim Hacker’s vocabulary, would have attracted congratulations from Sir Humphrey for the Minister’s bravery.
The issues for manufacturing industries such as cars and aerospace have been covered by the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Patten. They are to do with supply chains, border checks and rules of origin. That all sounds like very dry stuff but it boils down to costs, delays and red tape affecting investment decisions and jobs. Staying in the customs union is an economic and industrial issue. The Freight Transport Association estimates that an even an extra two minutes checking every truck during peak hours could result in queues of almost 30 miles at border points.
The chief executive officer of Airbus, Tom Enders, has summed up the problems for his company. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that Tom Enders sees leaving the customs union, not staying in it, as very damaging. He points out that during production parts of his company’s wings move between the UK and the EU multiple times before final assembly. This is typical for all our UK-assembled products and why the lack of clarity around the customs union and trade is hugely worrying. We think that across our operations and supply chains Brexit will affect 672 sites. Hard borders and regulatory divergence risk blocking trade, creating supply-chain logjams and causing our business to grind to a halt. This is not some esoteric question. Of course, being in the customs union does not solve all the problems; for example, it would be great to have participation in regulatory convergence as well. However, staying in the customs union is a necessary part of preserving the simplicity and streamlined nature of the manufacturing industry. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, is right that remain is the gold standard, but let us at least go for silver.
As for the argument that being in a customs union would constrain our freedom to conclude third-party trade deals, the ones that we have by virtue of EU membership are far more valuable. Our food, animal welfare and environmental standards could be compromised by third-party agreements. Many potential partners will want immigration concessions, which has proved difficult. As has been noted by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, you do not need a trade agreement to export, hence Germany exports four times as much to China as we do. That country has not been inhibited so why have we? That is something that we can do inside the customs union. As reported yesterday, China’s top diplomat in Brussels, its head of mission to the EU, has said that a UK deal with the EU is a precondition for trade talks with China. The Chinese need us to have a decent arrangement with the EU before they want to talk about it. If there is not a Brexit deal, they say, there will not be things to talk about. They need to know exactly how we are going to operate with the EU. I add that no member of the Commonwealth has wanted us to leave the EU, so praying that in aid is totally inappropriate.
Not only did people not vote in 2016 to leave the customs union—that was not on the ballot paper—they did not vote to lose their jobs, either. We should protect those jobs by pressing for Britain to stay in a customs union.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I will keep my remarks very brief. Whoever sent me the briefing for Labour Lords, I thank them and I am happy to pass it on to any other Member of the House who would like to see it. I found it extremely useful because I was rather puzzled by this amendment and others in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and was also puzzled when looking at the Amendment Paper to see a number of other amendments supported by noble Lords from all parties. On reading the briefing for Labour Lords, the explanation became clear. What we are witnessing here is an attempt to create division and confusion in the House of Commons with a view to preventing Brexit going ahead. That is what is going on, and it is carefully orchestrated, as set out in the briefing to Labour Lords.
I was puzzled by this amendment because, like the noble Countess, Lady Mar, I wondered what it had to do with the Bill. The Bill is a simple, technical Bill which sets out to ensure that European law is translated into UK law when we leave the European Union. The amendment makes the commitment that Clause 1, which is the repeal of the European Communities Act, which was central to what the British people voted for, should be subject to some conditions about a customs union, or whatever. The Bill has nothing whatever to do with a customs union. What is going on here is an attempt to get the House of Commons to look at this issue again and create division among those people who wish to support the views of the British people.
I say to colleagues in this House: have a care with what we are doing. We are an unelected House, and this amendment and the other amendments are part of a campaign which is putting Peers against the people—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Yes, it is. The people set out very clearly that they wished to leave the European Union, which meant leaving the customs union as well. As my noble friend Lord Lawson pointed out, it was central to the whole campaign. What is going on here is an exercise by remainers in this House—who are the majority—who refuse to accept the verdict of the British people, and I believe they are playing with fire. I hope that, on reflection, the amendment will not be carried.
Perhaps I may just pick up one point which was made—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
This is a debate. If I may, I will pick up one point as a point of information to my noble friend Lord Ridley, which was the suggestion that the customs union does not discriminate against African countries. Why is it that Germany exports more coffee than the whole of Africa? Answer: because there is a tariff barrier on any finished products. If African countries wish to export coffee beans, that is fine, but if they wish to turn them into an added-value product and create jobs and industries, they are subject to, I think, a 7% tariff. I would have thought that the noble Lord, with all his experience, would have known that, but it is typical of the way in which this campaign has been organised by the remainers: misleading the British public and trying to overturn the decision which the people made with the full knowledge of everything involved.
The noble Lord says, “Calm down”, but I believe in this House. I believe it has an important duty to carry out and it is quite outrageous that people are trying to use this House to overturn the wishes of the British people.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I am so delighted that I gave way to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, because he has exposed that it is not the Labour Party, nor is it this House, spreading disarray over Brexit: the Government are doing that quite well by themselves in the other House. We are saying that the Bill is a part of what started with Article 50: looking at how we leave the European Union. As we know, a part of what will come at the end will be our future relationship with the European Union. That is why it is absolutely correct that this House discusses it in this Bill.
On the particular amendment—of course the meat of it is Amendment 4 rather than Amendment 1—it is right for us to cover it, and it is right for us to support it today. It is right for the country. It is demanded, as we have heard, by industry and by trade unions. It is vital for the future of Ireland—although not repeated again today, we have heard that before. It will also get the Government off a hook of their own making: their adoption of the red line of leaving the customs union, which was taken without any impact assessment, without any consultation with business, investors, farmers, exporters or importers, and when the Prime Minister had a Commons majority. Come election night in 2017, soon after 2 am, David Davis admitted on air that the Government might have lost their mandate to exit the customs union. As he said,
“that’s what we put in front of the people, we’ll see tomorrow whether they’ve accepted that or not”.
They did not. There was no majority for that red line. There was no mandate for a hard Brexit.
This amendment is good for the governance of this country. It reflects the rejection of that part of the Government’s manifesto. It would save the economy £24 billion over the next 15 years, which ejection from the customs union would otherwise cost. The amendment would allow full access to European markets, no new impediments to trade, no reductions in standards, no tariffs on goods traded with the EU and common tariffs on goods imported from other countries. This presents no problems for increasing trade outwith the EU; as the noble Lord, Lord Patten, has already said, Germany exports more than we do to China. Even Liam Fox admitted that a customs union self-evidently does not prevent us from increasing bilateral trade with countries such as China. The CBI, as we have heard, stresses that the EU is businesses’ preferred market by far. Three-quarters of exporting companies are selling into the EU and the vast majority of them are SMEs. We have already heard the Japanese ambassador warning that Japan’s firms will leave Britain if Brexit makes it unprofitable to stay—that is a real risk with new tariffs, if we are outside the customs union. As we have heard, there is a high level of integration between the UK and EU supply chains, so checks, delays, and VAT charges all challenge the bottom line. Rules of origin, which we have heard about, could cost up to 15% of trade.
There are also physical challenges. The British Ports Association says that, with 95% of imports and exports handled by its ports, if we have anything like the customs checks that we now have on non-EU imports, it could take 45 minutes per lorry. A quarter of trade between the UK and continental Europe goes through the Channel Tunnel, as indeed does most of the Republic of Ireland’s road freight into mainland Europe. Folkestone—there is a bad joke coming—would look more like stone than folks. We had to have one—I warned your Lordships it was bad.
Last year, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the British Chambers of Commerce, the EEF and the Federation of Small Businesses all called for tariff-free goods trade between the UK and the EU, in preference to the Government’s slightly weasel words of “as tariff-free as possible”. The CBI stresses that frictionless trade with the EU is businesses’ number one priority and that some form of a customs union is necessary to ensure frictionless trade and no hardening of the Irish border. We have heard already about Airbus, Boeing and Rolls-Royce all saying that a customs union would best support the free flow of goods. Ford, the biggest car manufacturer, argues that any sort of border restrictions or customs friction will be an inhibitor for us continuing to trade the way we have done. The Food and Drink Federation wants a tariff-free customs union. And so it goes on.
We have heard it from industry, we hear it from trade unions, we have heard it from Northern Ireland, and indeed southern Ireland, and it is the same for our regions. Those particularly identified by the Government’s impact assessments will be of interest to the Minister: the north-east and the West Midlands. Those are the areas that will be most affected by Brexit if we have more customs and less trade. They are major exporters of cars, food and other goods.
This amendment is not about us playing politics; it is not about us unscrambling Brexit: it is about how we leave the EU. It is about our future relationship once we are outside. All it asks is for the Government to seek to negotiate our participation in a customs union with the EU. We will support this for the sake of the economy and for the sake of the country.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure for me to resume our debate after the Easter Recess. I hope that all noble Lords enjoyed a good break. I spent most of it studying amendments to this Bill. I hope that some doubts about how seriously the Government take these debates have now been dispelled, as noble Lords will have seen that the Government have already tabled many amendments on key aspects of the Bill. Further amendments will follow, relating to the provisions on delegated powers and on devolution. It is our firm and consistent desire to find consensus in this House on the contents of the Bill wherever possible, and I hope that our debates can proceed on a reasonably collaborative basis.
Unfortunately, as in Committee, we start our proceedings with some amendments to the Bill that the Government cannot envisage accepting—or indeed any variant on them. That is not, of course, to impugn the motivation of those supporting the amendments or to deny the importance of the subject matter. Put simply—this will probably surprise nobody in the House—the Government simply do not agree with the proposed approach.
I am, of course, grateful to all those who have taken part in this debate on the vital issue of our future economic relationship with the EU. As the Prime Minister stated in her Mansion House speech, we are seeking the broadest and deepest possible partnership, covering more sectors and co-operating more fully than under any free trade agreement anywhere in the world today. The Government have been clear that the UK, in its entirety, is leaving the customs union. For the sake of clarity, a customs union—as has been pointed out by many noble Lords—has a single external border and sets identical tariffs for trade with the rest of the world. International trade policy is consequently an exclusive competence of the EU, to avoid the creation of different customs rates in different parts of the EU customs union.
The nub of the issue is this. If the UK were to remain in the customs union and be bound by the EU's common external tariff, it would mean providing preferential access to the UK market for countries that the EU agrees trade deals with, without necessarily gaining preferential access for UK exports to such countries. Alternatively, we would need the EU to negotiate with third countries on the UK’s behalf. This would leave us with less influence over our international trade policy than we have now, and would not, in our humble assertion, be in the best interests of UK businesses.
By leaving the customs union and establishing a new and ambitious customs arrangement with the EU, we will be able to forge new trade relationships with our partners around the world and maintain as frictionless trade as possible in goods between the UK and EU, providing a powerful and positive voice for free trade across the globe. There are real opportunities for the UK from increasing our trade with fast-growing economies around the world. The EU itself predicts that 90% of future world GDP growth is expected to be generated outside Europe—a trend expected to continue over the next five to 10 years.
In assessing the options for the UK’s future customs relationship with the EU, the Government will be guided by what delivers the greatest economic advantage to the UK, and by three key strategic objectives. First, we want to ensure that UK-EU trade is as frictionless as possible. Secondly, we want to avoid a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland—a commitment that was solidified by December’s joint report. Thirdly, we want to establish an independent international trade policy.
Last year, in its future partnership paper, the Government set out two potential options for our customs arrangements with the EU. These were reiterated by the Prime Minister in her speech at the Mansion House earlier this year. I will give a few more details of those options.
Option 1 is a new customs partnership between the UK and the EU. At the border, the UK would mirror the EU’s requirements for imports from the rest of the world whose final destination is the EU—including by applying the same tariffs and the same rules of origin as the EU for those goods. By following this approach, we would know that all goods entering the EU via the UK would pay the correct EU duties, removing the need for customs processes at the UK-EU border. But, importantly, we would also put in place a mechanism so that the UK would be able to apply its own tariff and trade policy for goods intended only for the UK market.
The second option would be a highly streamlined customs arrangement under which, while introducing customs processes between the UK and the EU, we would jointly agree to implement a range of measures to minimise frictions to trade, together of course with specific provisions for Northern Ireland. This option would include measures to simplify the requirements for moving goods across borders; it would reduce the risk of delays at ports and airports; and it would see the continuation of existing levels of UK-EU customs co-operation, with mutual assistance and data sharing.
Of course, the precise form of any new customs arrangements will be the subject of negotiation, and this will form a key part of our future economic partnership with the European Union. The Government have formed this policy not arbitrarily but because we do not believe that a customs union is in the best interests of the UK and of UK businesses.
I understand that many noble Lords disagree with our analysis, or believe that our goals are unreachable. However, we cannot support Amendments 1 and 4, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and Amendments 2 and 5, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, which would have the effect of requiring the Government to make a Statement to Parliament on the steps taken towards the delivery of an objective the Government have clearly ruled out.
We in the Government are trying to seek the best possible future arrangements for the UK. I am confident we will succeed, and the progress we have made already in areas that many thought impossible demonstrates how all sides have been willing to break new ground in order to move forwards. We have set out our two potential options for a future customs relationship with the EU, but these amendments would send a signal that the Government will not seek to negotiate them, and instead pursue an outcome that the Government have ruled out.
I hope that noble Lords will accept our sincerity in our negotiating goals. I will also add, before noble Lords make a final decision, that I do not seek to give false hope that the Government will reflect further between now and Third Reading. I therefore hope that the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Wigley, will not press their amendments.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this fascinating debate. Some made speeches that were more predictable than others, and the Minister’s was a classic restatement of the position that the Government have explained all along; I am grateful to him for repeating so clearly what he has said so many times before.
I ought to pay tribute to my past—my various masters from the past—who are marking my homework so harshly. I owe the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, an apology. I am sure that he explained to the country at large the truth about the customs union and that he did it every day, morning, noon and night, but I am not sure that the country was listening. What I remember is the man who is now the Foreign Secretary telling the country, “Nobody is even talking about leaving the single market”. He published that the day after the referendum, having said it throughout the referendum campaign. So I exonerate the noble Lord—I have to; he was my boss.
As for the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and a number of others, including the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, I ask them to please read what the amendment says. We are not asking for Britain to stay in the EU customs union—we cannot. As a non-member of the EU, we cannot be a member of the customs union. We are asking for an arrangement that enables us to participate in “a” customs union, and I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, that it does not follow that we can only get the deal that the Turks got. At the time, Turkey’s main concern was the export to the EU of its walnuts. I do not believe that that would be the principal concern if the Government were to act on this and start negotiating for a customs union. I cannot answer the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, but he is much better informed about Labour Party policy than I am.
In the course of my speech I was very worried to see the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, nod enthusiastically. I hesitated, but I realised that it was only because I had cited Professor Patrick Minford. I will know not to do it again.
Although the Minister’s response was a beautiful restatement of government policy, it did not deal with any of the arguments advanced by those of us who tabled the amendment. The best argument made in the debate was that of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. The customs union was not fully debated in the House of Commons as it dealt with this Bill. It is the job of the House of Lords to give the House of Commons the opportunity to debate whether we should seek a customs union. There are plenty of customs unions of various kinds between various countries around the world, and they are all sui generis. I do not know what terms we could get but we will never know unless we find out. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
The Earl of Sandwich
“(2) Regulations bringing into force subsection (1) may not be made until the Secretary of State has laid before both Houses of Parliament such procedures as have been agreed with the EU for continued coordination of international aid and development policy, including association with the EU’s European Development Fund, ECHO, humanitarian aid missions and similar institutions, and these procedures have been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, in proposing Amendment 6, I would like to remind noble Lords that in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, moved an important amendment, Amendment 12, on foreign policy and security. International development was mentioned only in passing, so I wish to make up for that today and I am grateful for the support of colleagues who have experience of development. I intervened only briefly in Committee and I promise not to take up more than a few moments of valuable time on Report.
International aid used to be an also-ran subject in Parliament, but the Blair Government and the Cameron-Clegg coalition changed all of that, although some are still restless about the 0.7% target. Foreign policy, security, trade and aid are all closely joined up these days and the aid programme now involves several government departments.
I believe that this country has enjoyed a long and beneficial period of EU membership, during which we have developed close ties with several European aid agencies, the most prominent of which are the European Development Fund, ECHO, the humanitarian fund, and the Commission’s own aid instrument. We have been paying considerable amounts into these funds and we have worked alongside them in our own aid programmes around the world. DfID has a significant EU department which manages these relationships over here, in Europe and in the many countries that benefit. As you would expect, these aid programmes are monitored by committees of both Houses such as our own EU Committee, which I hope we shall retain, as well as by watchdogs like the National Audit Office and the Independent Commission on Aid Impact. How are we going to continue to be associated with these EU programmes after Brexit?
I know that during the passage of the Bill there have been continuous hopes of association with all kinds of things European, but the Government are full of empty reassurances. That is why we have to keep reminding Ministers that they are important, even in a withdrawal Bill. In the words of the amendment, we need,
“continued coordination of international aid and development policy”.
I am sorry for those Peers with distinguished foreign policy backgrounds who spoke on Amendment 12 because they got next to nothing back from the Front Bench except honeyed words. For instance, my old friend the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, wanted to ensure that the UK is a full participant in the formulation of foreign and security policies, while others like my noble friend Lord Hannay warned that it might already be too late for the Government to set up any alternative framework for our future foreign and security policy. Why should we wait so long? The main excuse offered is that we would be showing our cards too early. Do we have to wait for the very final deal or beyond that to transition, or even no deal? How can Monsieur Barnier be expected to negotiate when there is nothing but air to negotiate with, and why should our sovereign Parliament have to wait in the meantime?
If you read the Lancaster House speech made in January 2017 or the partnership paper from last September Foreign Policy, Defence and Development, you might believe that the Prime Minister was already satisfied with our relationship with the EU and our present association with many EU institutions—and perhaps she is. From the vote we have just had, I believe that so are the majority of us here in Parliament. Yet she still delays, and despite all the talk of partnership, what you do not get is any sense that this fine association is going to continue. Instead, you get woolly phrases such as:
“The UK would like to offer a future relationship that is deeper than any current third country partnership”.
I would like to think that the Commission is already making contingency plans for some kind of association agreement between the UK and the EU development agencies. However, the Minister may well say that it has enough trouble already in rethinking its own aid programmes, which is true. However, sitting at the edge of a table is not as good as sitting at the table, especially after you have somewhat ostentatiously kicked back the chair and given up your place.
Moreover, what about the people engaged on the ground—the aid workers and managers of aid programmes; what can they look forward to? Many aid agencies in this country which are receiving grants from various EU budgets are unable to plan ahead. What is being done to help them through this transition, because they cannot expect DflD to pick up the tab at short notice?
Another area is development education, a subject about which we have already heard a lot during the course of the Bill. A wide variety of NGOs are drawing on EU central funding to interpret development issues abroad through events and exhibitions about Africa and subjects in Asia. The Bond organisation has done a lot of work on future collaboration of civil society organisations in the EU which may help Her Majesty’s Government with their plans.
In conclusion, as I said at Second Reading, EU member states form the world’s largest source of development funding and, taken together, they make a huge contribution to poverty reduction and help to defeat epidemics. They are currently interlocked through the various aid organisations and, despite the UK’s prominent position in the EU during these two years of pre-Brexit meandering, we still have no idea how the structures can be dismantled and replaced. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and I was happy to add my name to the amendment. I want just to reinforce the point that currently the UK delivers £1.5 billion a year of its aid through EU institutions, and indeed 15% of the European Development Fund comes from the UK, so it is in the interests both of the UK and the EU that we should continue to co-operate.
Much more practically, in the two multilateral aid reviews that have been carried out by the Department for International Development, the delivery of aid by EU agencies has been described as “Very Good” in terms of the “Match with UK development objectives” and operational performance, so it does deliver for us. It is also the case that it is entirely consistent with the EU for non-member states to contribute to European development funding because both Norway and Switzerland contribute to the European Development Fund.
The other issue that is causing concern if there is no continuing engagement is the Caribbean and Pacific regions, whose relationship with the EU they value very much, but which has been strongly championed by the UK as a member. If we continue to participate, they will be reassured by knowing that our voice will have some influence on ensuring that their interests are safeguarded.
A final point made by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, was that many of our NGOs—our development contractors and specialists—are involved in helping to deliver EU programmes. It would be very much in their interests, as well as those of the EU, if they were able to continue to be part of a European objective which—it is important that the House understands this—delivers aid and development in parts of the world that the UK does not reach because it does not have an operational presence where the EU does. I support the amendment; it is entirely consistent with our record in the past and would be a very positive development for the future.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I added my name to the amendment because it is very much in the interests of both donor countries and the countries that receive that aid. I agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, as well as those made earlier by my noble friend Lord Sandwich in moving the amendment —in particular, his last and hugely important point about co-ordination and continued partnership, building on what we have already got.
I will not labour those points at all. I want to make just one additional and very practical point. For years, recipient countries have received aid from different countries with different monitoring arrangements and different conditions—or, if you like, with different strings attached. This is costly; indeed, it is wasteful because it puts an unnecessary burden on those countries. The international community has tried over many years, with some success, to align or harmonise these arrangements so as to reduce this wasteful burden and, by doing so, make sure that it gets the best value possible from its donations.
Of course, there are also advantages in countries aligning their priorities to have as big an impact as possible, which is helped enormously by the global priorities set out in the sustainable development goals. However, having made those points about alignment, this amendment does not constrain the UK in its future decision-making in any way. It merely seeks to ensure that, wherever possible—I stress that—there is alignment between its donations and those of our neighbours and that they can be made as efficiently as possible. The UK can, of course, choose to diverge from its neighbours, but this amendment would merely require it to do so in full knowledge of what it is doing.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment on behalf of the Opposition. As we have heard in the debate so far, in the words of the Government’s own review of their actions, the European Development Fund is one of the most efficient and effective global agencies. The point being made is that, through action in concert and working co-operatively, we amplify our actions. We get more for our buck as a consequence of working with others. Certainly, the European Union has been key in delivering effective development support.
When we had a discussion about both the multilateral and bilateral review documents, and when we had Oral Questions on the subject, the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Bates—acknowledged all these points. He said, “Well, these are matters for negotiations”. He was even questioned on how we can deal with transition. If we simply stop and say, “Well, these things will come back into our control”, we do not deal with the question of the long-term funding arrangements that are currently in place. We need to know the answer to these questions. It is simply not good enough to say that they will be dealt with eventually. These matters are too important to be left to some eventuality in the distant future.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to Amendment 6—tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp—concerning the co-ordination of international aid and development policy once we have left the EU. This matter is important and I hope to respond with some adequacy to the points that have been made.
As noble Lords know, the Government have committed to meet all the financial obligations that we have to the European Development Fund and other EU development instruments up to December 2020, when both the implementation period and the current EU Multiannual Financial Framework will end. As a world-leading development donor, we will continue to honour our commitments to the world’s poorest and seek to shape how the EU spends those funds through all the means available to us after exit. Once we have left the EU, the EU will remain one of the largest development spenders and influencers in the world, as will the UK. Let me assure your Lordships that we want to retain a close partnership with the EU in the future. It is in the interests of both the UK and the EU that we work coherently together—a point rightly emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Collins—in response to specific crises overseas and in helping the world’s most vulnerable people. Importantly, we share the concerns and values of the EU, and the commitment to the sustainable development goals, Paris climate change agenda and Addis Ababa agreement on financing for development. We share a commitment to the 0.7% contribution and to testing new and innovative approaches to financing the “billions to trillions” agenda.
The EU’s development priorities are closely aligned with the UK’s; indeed, they have been shaped to a considerable extent by the UK during our EU membership. For example, our approach to addressing the root causes of migration and meeting humanitarian needs from the outset in a way that prepares for longer-term crisis response are based on our common experiences and joint shaping of best practice in development programming. Where we hold these shared commitments and objectives, it is in our mutual interest to find ways to continue working together, on a case-by-case basis, to ensure that we can collectively draw on expertise and resources, achieve our global development objectives and deliver the best value for money. As the Prime Minister said in her Munich speech,
“if a UK contribution to EU development programmes and instruments can best deliver our mutual interests, we should both be open to that”.
In September last year, we published a future partnership paper setting out our desire for future co-operation with the EU on development that goes beyond existing third country arrangements and builds on our shared interests and values. As we enter a more forward-looking phase of negotiations with the EU, we look forward to discussing what this partnership will look like.
However, while we have clearly signalled to the EU our openness to a future partnership on development, that partnership will be contingent on the current discussions between the European Commission and member states on how the EU will finance international development after 2020. Put simply, the EDF will not exist in its current form after 2020, and nor will the other instruments that currently fund development programmes through the EU budget. The European Commission and member states are engaged in ongoing discussions about how the EU will fund its development priorities in the future, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. It is not at all clear currently whether the EU’s future development finance instruments will allow participation by non-member states. The current set of instruments—including ECHO and the EDF—are open to contributions from members of the EU only. We are encouraging the EU to design a more open and flexible enabling framework within which it can work with its partners to tackle global development challenges and build a secure, stable and prosperous world. We envisage that holding these development financing instruments open to third countries would enable the UK to work through the EU on a case-by-case basis where we judge our development impact would be amplified.
Finally, assuming that the EU designs a set of future development instruments that is open to non-member states to participate in, we would of course need to be satisfied with the terms of such participation. In particular, we would need to be assured of adequate governance arrangements to allow us to track and account for our spending and the results we deliver. We are also clear that the UK’s world-class development sector should be eligible to implement EU programmes to which the UK contributes. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that in this context, I think I can say that while the Government are in agreement with the spirit in which the amendment is offered—the spirit of a future partnership with the EU on development—we do not agree that it would be appropriate to legislate at the moment for a future partnership that as yet, we know so little about, or indeed that relies on EU instruments that will be obsolete by the end of the implementation period.
I said at the beginning that I wanted to try to provide a response of some adequacy because this is a very important issue. Very good ongoing work is taking place. I hope that this provides your Lordships’ House with the reassurance that the UK is closely engaging with the EU to shape that vital future relationship and, in those circumstances, that the noble Earl feels able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Sandwich
I thank the Minister very much for her response. I am obviously not going to put the amendment to a vote—it is a sort of respite period between the other votes—but I maintain that it is an important subject linked to many other existing big issues. Aid is a mightier weapon than most people realise. I would like to see it get a higher status. I was a bit disappointed that no Bishops joined in the debate, but there we are.
Global priorities were rightly mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and some by the Minister. I am glad that she went forward to talk about what might happen in the European Union, because changes are afoot. We have to work alongside those when we reach the point of association. I know that the Government recognise that there are shared values. We are all still Europeans and we share similar commitments and objectives. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Status of EU directives adopted, but not implemented, before exit day
(1) Unless already part of retained EU law under any other provision of this Act, all EU directives adopted but not implemented before exit day, including those listed in subsection (4), remain binding in domestic law, as if the United Kingdom had not left the EU.(2) In implementing any EU directive under subsection (1) after exit day, a Minister of the Crown may use any power set out in the European Communities Act 1972 as if that Act had not been repealed.(3) If, through implementing a directive under subsection (2), a situation arises which would be considered a deficiency had it arisen in retained EU law, a Minister of the Crown may use any of the powers set out in section 7 of this Act to remedy that situation as if that directive had been implemented before exit day.(4) EU directives adopted, but not implemented, before exit day, include—(a) Recognition of Professional Qualifications Directive (2017/2397);(b) Fraud (criminal law) Directive (2017/1371);(c) Accessibility of websites and mobile applications Directive (2017/2102);(d) Legal aid (suspects, accused persons and those under European Arrest Warrant proceedings) Directive (2016/1919);(e) Rail safety Directive (2016/798);(f) Rail interoperability Directive (2016/797);(g) Safeguards for child suspects in criminal proceedings Directive (2016/800);(h) Trade marks Directive (2015/2436);(i) Financial instruments Directive (2014/65);(j) Cost-effective emission reductions and low-carbon investments Directive (2018/410);(k) Environmental assessments (genetically modified organisms) Directive (2018/350);(l) Maritime workers Directive (2018/131);(m) VAT Directive (2017/2455);(n) Health and safety (exposure to carcinogens or mutagens at work) Directive (2017/2398);(o) Passenger ships (safety and standards) Directive (2017/2108);(p) Passenger ships (passenger registration) Directive (2017/2109);(q) Passenger ships (inspections) Directive (2017/2110);(r) Hazardous substances (electronic equipment) Directive (2017/2102);(s) Tax dispute (resolution mechanisms) Directive (2017/1852);(t) Hybrid mismatches (third countries) Directive (2017/952);(u) Weapons (control and acquisition) Directive (2017/853);(v) Shareholder engagement Directive (2017/828);(w) Maritime workers (International Labour Organisation) Directive (2017/159);(x) Tax Avoidance Directive (2016/1164);(y) Mayotte (status) Directive (2013/64).”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 8, which stands in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and Amendment 32, which is consequential to this amendment, I wish to press the Minister, my noble and learned friend Lord Keen, who replied to the debate last time. My starting point is that, despite urging my noble and learned friend and following his response to the debate that we had in Committee and subsequently in the cross-party meeting held between Committee and Report, we have seen no movement on this. Since Committee I have revised the amendment to include a list of those 23 directives that we know from a House of Commons briefing paper will fall into one particular category: directives adopted but not implemented before exit day. For clarity, I have attached that list.
However, it is important to point out that this list is not comprehensive. There are a number of other directives of which I am aware, such as the environmental directives relating to water. As has been brought to my attention by the City of London Corporation just today, there are further examples such as the second payment services directive 2015/2366, which will be implemented before exit day, but the regulatory technical standards underpinning its operation will not.
A second category of directives falls within the remit of this amendment, which are broadly packages of directives such as, for example, those referred to in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, to whom I am very grateful. This has been brought to our attention in a briefing from the Law Society of England. It is particularly concerned that there is no legal basis or mechanism as yet for Ministers to bring any measures into UK domestic law that are part of a package of EU legislation into which the UK will have had input as an EU member state and to which we agree. It is its recommendation that Ministers should be given powers to bring certain types of EU legislation into domestic law if it forms part of a package as this will reduce the impact on businesses and help them to prepare better.
There is then a third category that I believe falls into Amendment 9, which we will consider after this little group. Within that category there are regulations that fall to come into effect after exit day, but the main regulation will have been adopted before that. Again, the City of London gives the example of the prospectus EU regulation 2017/1129. The regulation itself, which is directly applicable, will have been in force since 20 July 2017, but the majority of the regulation will not apply until 21 July 2019, which will mean we will no longer be in regulatory alignment with the European Union after that date.
To sum up the little debate we had on this in Committee, my noble and learned friend Lord Keen, who I am delighted to see in his place, was rather brutal and frank. He said that there might be directives that have been adopted that have not been subject to implementation by the exit date because the transition period extended beyond the exit date. He went on to say:
“There is no legal basis for doing so. With great respect to my noble friend, her amendment would not actually provide one; that is perhaps an aside”.
The central point is that,
“directives that have been adopted but not implemented by the exit date, and which have a transition period that goes beyond the exit date, are not part of domestic law, and for the purposes of the Bill they will not become part of domestic law or EU retained law. Therefore, we will not be taking them into our domestic law by way of an implementation that takes place after”,—[Official Report, 28/2/18; col. 689.]
that date.
My purpose in bringing forward the amendment is simply to request that my noble and learned friend brings forward a legal basis today. When we had our meeting, for which we are extremely grateful, he said that it would be open to the Government at a future date to decide that a directive that fell into this category—adopted but not implemented—could be transposed by primary legislation and become part of retained EU law in that way. The question I put to my noble and learned friend is simple. This is very odd. Either it would lead to at least 23 pieces of primary legislation— 23 separate Bills—or one Bill giving individual effect to all the separate pieces of legislation, not just the 23, but the others to which I have referred, in which case it would extend Henry VIII powers beyond those we have already identified. My further question to the Minister would therefore be: what precedent is there for this, and where would the parliamentary scrutiny fall?
In speaking to these amendments, I hope for further clarification, and a commitment and an undertaking from my noble and learned friend to give legal certainty about these two categories of legislation where directives have been adopted but not implemented before exit day.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I too have added my name to the amendment. It has been suggested that some amendments may be attempts to subvert the will of the people. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, suggested that to discuss a customs union was somehow to go outside the purpose of the Bill. Amendment 8, however, speaks to the heart of the Bill, which, as I understand it, is intended to do two things. It will repeal the European Communities Act 1972, and it will ensure that on the day we leave, the United Kingdom has a full statute book and there is full regulatory alignment with the European Union.
There are clauses that deal with regulations, retained law and directives, and a clause to deal with regulations that currently have direct effect. But there is an anomaly in relation to directives that have been adopted but not yet implemented. There are two particularly important points in the title of the new clause in the amendment. The first is the fact that the directives have been adopted. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, suggested that things could change. But if the directives have been adopted they are already EU legislation—legislation in which the United Kingdom has participated. It seems somewhat strange that directives that we have been part of, and which we have implemented and enshrined in UK law, should continue to be part of our law, but that we are not transposing, nor looking for any way of transposing, other directives that we have agreed to, and which will be important as part of regulatory alignment when we leave.
The second important point in the title of the new clause is the idea that the directives will have been adopted before exit day. Exit day will, we believe, be 29 March 2019, unless subsequent amendments change it. We assume that there then will be a transition period to the end of 2020. During that time the United Kingdom will not be in the EU institutions and will not be party to any further directives. It therefore makes sense that we would not be party to directives adopted after exit date, during the transition period. For those that have already been adopted, however, there appears to be a period of limbo.
I would be grateful if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, could explain how the Government intend to deal with these 23 directives. Are we simply saying that they do not matter—that somehow, directives agreed before the referendum are fine but we are not quite sure about those agreed later? What sort of certainty does that give to business? If the aim of the Bill is to give legal certainty, we have at least 23 directives, plus others that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, mentioned, on which there is no certainty. This is an important amendment, and I shall be grateful if the Minister can explain what the Government plan to do with the directives to ensure that, on the day when we leave the European Union, there is certainty. Surely taking back control should include all areas from the point when we leave, following full regulatory alignment on exit day—and surely that needs to include these directives.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I intervene briefly to support Amendment 8, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, which also stands in my name. I spoke on this matter in Committee so I shall not repeat the points I made then. We were seeking greater clarity at that stage—and as far as I can see we still need that from the Minister—on the status of EU directives adopted but not implemented before exit day. I seek an assurance from the Minister that if an amendment of this kind is not accepted for inclusion in the Bill, the loose ends that will undoubtedly exist will be tied up by some other process later, whether in the implementation and withdrawal Bill or by some other device. Clearly some very valid issues have been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and we need to be sure that they have been looked after in the legislative process.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, as has been said, this is an issue for which the Government simply have to produce a solution. For once I am quite glad that I am at the Dispatch Box on this side of the Chamber so it is not my problem—but I do know that it is a problem that the Government absolutely must solve. Let us consider some of the subjects covered by the list in the amendment: safeguards for child suspects in criminal proceedings; the recognition of professional qualifications, which will be extraordinarily important for business; health and safety; and the trademarks directive. We cannot afford to have gaps, particularly with something such as trademarks. This list covers issues that are already our policy and have been adopted with our consent, so we need to find a way of getting them into our legislation. How that can be done, I hope the Minister will now tell us.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I begin by apologising to the House, and to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for not having been in my seat when she moved the amendment. I can attribute that only to my oversight, and to a disappearing group of amendments.
We addressed this matter in Committee. As has often been said during the passage of the Bill, it is intended to create a snapshot of EU law as it applies in the United Kingdom immediately before exit day, and then to retain it in our domestic law following our departure. That has always been the necessary mechanism. It is crucial that this snapshot is taken accurately and with certainty, to ensure that, as far as possible, the law we have before exit will be the same as the law after exit. This is not merely a dry technical or legal point. It is fundamentally important to people, businesses and other organisations throughout the country that we should have that degree of certainty.
Keeping that in mind, I turn first to Amendment 8 and the questions that have been raised in that context. Unlike other EU law such as regulations, decisions, and tertiary legislation, EU directives are not intended to form a part of a member state’s domestic law. Instead they require member states to bring forward their own national measures within a certain period of time, in order to implement their intended effect domestically. It is these domestic measures which are part of our law, and will be saved under Clause 2.
Questions have been raised about a series of directives that have been adopted, which have been helpfully listed by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, suggested that there was an anomaly in the situation when directives had been adopted at EU level but not implemented. However, with respect, where they have been adopted, so be it. Where they have been implemented we have a different scenario: they form part of our domestic law.
There are two developments that I wish to mention, because they impact on the amendment and the questions that have been raised in this context. First, the Government have reached agreement with the EU—subject to everything having to be agreed before anything is agreed—regarding an implementation period that will begin on 30 March 2019 and last until 31 December 2020. It is proposed and agreed that for the implementation period the United Kingdom will continue to follow and implement EU law, and that the existing EU mechanisms for supervision and enforcement will continue to apply. The proposed final agreement with the European Union will include the implementation period and its domestic effect. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, anticipated, that will be provided for by the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill. That has an impact on the series of directives to which the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, refers in her Amendment 8. Before I turn to those directives, I should observe that at least two of them are directives in respect of which we have opted out; in other words, as member states can do, they can secure an opt-out from a directive and it is never implemented in their national law, nor is it intended that it should be so implemented. Those directives in the noble Baroness’s amendment are: at paragraph (d), the legal aid (suspects, accused persons and those under European arrest warrant proceedings) directive; and, at paragraph (g), the safeguards for child suspects in criminal proceedings directive. In respect of those, there is already an opt-out in place; it was never intended that we would opt in and implement those directives—that is simply the position at the present time.
On the remaining directives listed in the amendment, there is a confusing reference to the websites and mobile applications directive, which I believe should be a reference to a 2016 directive. However, putting that to one side, I can say that all but two, or possibly three, of these directives will be implemented during the implementation period running up to 31 December 2020. That will be provided for by the withdrawal and implementation Bill, which is the instrument that will be employed for that purpose. Those directives will be addressed. There are exceptions. There are instances, for example, in which a directive can have a divided implementation period, where it may be only partially implemented before the final implementation period date of 31 December 2020. Essentially, we must come back to the fundamental requirement for an identifiable point at which we have ring-fenced and identified retained EU law. That is subject to what will go into a withdrawal and implementation Bill in the event of the implementation period agreement being implemented. That will cover all such legislation.
Amendment 32, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, would amend Clause 7 so that it would extend the correcting power of Ministers to include legislation arising after the snapshot had been taken. As set out before, Clause 3 seeks to convert direct EU legislation—regulations, decisions and tertiary legislation—as it applies in the UK immediately before our exit from the EU into our domestic statute book. This provision is a reflection of the snapshot approach taken by the Bill and is to ensure that our law stays as similar as possible following our departure to what it was immediately before our exit.
While most direct EU legislation will apply shortly after it is adopted, certain provisions within the legislation may be stated to apply in a staggered way on different dates. If the date falls after our exit from the EU, these provisions will not be retained by the Bill in our domestic law. That cut-off provides the necessary clarity for individuals and businesses to understand what the law is both pre and post the exit date.
Instead of seeking to change this clear cut-off point, the noble Baroness’s amendment would amend how such staggered implementation within direct EU legislation may be treated for the purposes of the correcting power within Clause 7. As will be discussed in much greater detail on later days, the power contained in Clause 7 is designed to correct the “deficiencies” arising within retained EU law as a result of our withdrawal from the EU, thereby helping us to provide a functioning statute book from day one. As I understand it, the noble Baroness’s intention in tabling Amendment 32 was to widen the definition of “deficiency” to include the provisions within direct EU legislation which are stated to apply after our exit from the EU, thereby giving Ministers the ability to use Clause 7 to bring them into our domestic law. That is currently prohibited by Clause 7(4).
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
That is a very tempting offer. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for their contributions. I am sure that my noble and learned friend meant no disrespect to the House and those of us who have spoken to and supported this amendment by being late and, perhaps because of his lateness, being unable to address many of the arguments that were put. I am disappointed in particular that he did not respond to my question whether he intends to have 23 or more Bills if the directives are to be transposed into EU law, as he undertook to do at a private meeting—obviously it was a private meeting; it was not a matter of record—that we had in the Chamber.
To my noble and learned friend’s point that the UK has opted out of two of the directives, as he has said on two occasions, it is quite within the wit of the Government to opt in at a later date, so that is not a compelling argument. I welcome his placing on the record that the category of regulations that we are considering may fall in the transition period. It is my clear understanding—and, I think, the understanding of the House—that the European Union has agreed to a transition period. The Government perpetuate the myth that we are going to embark on an implementation period. It would be helpful to the House to be given clarification at some point as to what the different understandings of a transition period and an implementation period may be. It is my firm intention not to let this matter go, because it does fall within the scope of later groups of amendments, including those to be considered, as my noble and learned friend said, under Clause 7. I also understand that he has given a very clear commitment to the proposer of Amendment 9. Against that background, I thank those who supported this amendment and spoke to it and at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Patel
“( ) For the purposes of this section, the Clinical Trials Regulation (2014/536) is deemed to be operative immediately before exit day, and therefore it forms part of retained EU law.”
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I thank those who have put their names to my amendment: the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Judge, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. Many others wanted to add their names but were unable to do so: I see several nodding on either side and I thank them all. I also thank all noble Lords who spoke in Committee. There was strong support across the Committee, including, surprisingly to some perhaps, from the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Lawson, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, who cannot be accused of being strong remainers. Since then, we have had some very fruitful meetings with the ministerial team—the noble Lords, Lord Callanan and Lord O’Shaughnessy, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen. I am grateful to them and their officials for meeting us all on two occasions. One was just yesterday and I apologise for my discourtesy in getting cross yesterday—I am sorry about that, it was for other reasons.
The amendment seeks to secure a commitment from the Government that they will align the UK with the clinical trials regulation. It is important to the research community, pharma and, indeed, the EU institutions that the UK strongly wishes to collaborate in clinical trials across the EU, and it is important to do so, particularly as we begin to develop medicines that are more precise—precision medicines for individuals. I hope that we will get some commitment from the Government to do so. That is as much as I am going to say. I beg to move.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, it may help if I speak now and then allow other noble Lords to comment: that might help elucidate the situation. This is a very important issue and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for providing me with the opportunity to make clear the Government’s position on the UK’s future clinical trials framework and to provide clarity on the introduction of the new EU clinical trials regulation.
As the noble Lord knows, the MHRA is working towards the implementation of the new clinical trials regulation. The new regulation, agreed in 2014, is a major step forward. It will enable a streamlined application process, a harmonised assessment procedure, a single portal for all EU clinical trials and simplified reporting procedures, including for multi-member state trials. The UK has been involved in developing the new regulation and this has been widely welcomed by the research sector, including medical research charities and industry.
I pay tribute to the perseverance and interest in this issue of the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Kakkar, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. Points raised in Committee were helpful; they were very instructive and assisted the Government. Indeed, a most useful meeting was held yesterday, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, mentioned, at which the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Kakkar, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay were most constructive in their approach. I thank them for that, because it greatly assisted in reaching what I think is a resolution of this matter. This means that today I can provide noble Lords with the strongest possible reassurance on the UK’s commitment to implement the CTR. If the CTR comes into force during the implementation period, as it is currently expected to do in March 2020, it will apply to the UK. If this opportunity does not come to pass, the Government will seek to bring into UK law all relevant parts of the EU regulation that are within the UK’s control. I shall expand on that shortly.
The Government have been consistent that a key priority through the negotiations is to ensure that the UK remains one of the best places in the world for science and innovation. Noble Lords will be aware that the life sciences sector in the UK is world-leading. It generates turnover of more than £63.5 billion per annum and the UK ranks top in the major European economies for life sciences foreign direct investment. Importantly, there are more than 5,000 life sciences companies in the UK, with nearly 235,000 employees. The Government are determined to build on this success as we leave the EU. Of course, it is not just UK industry that benefits from a thriving life sciences sector. More importantly, UK patients benefit from having access to the most innovative and cost-effective treatment available. It is in the interest of patients and the life sciences industry across Europe for the UK and the EU to find a way to continue co-operation in the field of clinical trials, and for continued sharing of data and information, even if our precise relationship with the EU will, of necessity, change.
As the Prime Minister outlined in her Mansion House speech, the UK is keen to explore with the EU the terms on which the UK could remain part of EU agencies that are critical for medicines. For example, membership of the European Medicines Agency would mean investment in new innovative medicines continuing in the UK, and it would mean these medicines getting to patients faster, as firms tend to prioritise larger markets when they start the lengthy process of seeking authorisations. It would also be good for the EU, because the UK regulator assesses more new medicines than any other member state.
It is only fair that I deal with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. The amendment asks for the EU clinical trials regulation to be deemed operative immediately before exit day, in order that it forms part of retained EU law and is therefore part of the UK statute book after the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. While it is true that the new clinical trials regulation was adopted at EU level in 2014, article 99 of the regulation states that it will only apply six months after the Commission publishes a notice confirming that the relevant EU database is fully functional. This is not expected to happen until after exit day. It is this stated date of application that is relevant to whether the EU law is incorporated by Clause 3 of the withdrawal Bill, and that is why it is not captured by Clause 3. As I have said, today I can offer noble Lords the strongest possible assurance of this Government’s support on the following.
If the clinical trials regulation comes into force during the implementation period, as it is currently expected to do in March 2020, it will apply to the UK. The withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill will give effect to the implementation period in domestic law and will allow regulations to continue to apply in the UK for this time-limited period. If this opportunity does not come to pass, we will give priority to taking the steps necessary to bring into UK law, without delay, all relevant parts of the EU regulation that are within the UK’s control, so that those planning clinical research can do so with certainty. The two key elements of the regulation that are outside the UK’s control, and therefore not covered by this guarantee or pledge, are, first, the use of a shared central IT portal and, secondly, participation in the single assessment model, both of which require a negotiated UK-EU agreement regarding UK involvement post-Brexit. We cannot pre-empt these negotiations and we do not wish to do anything that might disadvantage the negotiating position of the UK by giving any further guarantees at this time.
In short, the Government are committing to being as aligned with the new EU clinical trials regulation as we possibly can be, subject to the negotiatory aspects that I have mentioned. I was anxious to elucidate the position to assist the Chamber and contributors as to the Government’s position and I hope that the noble Lord can accept my reassurances.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I have had the privilege of being involved in this sort of question for some time. Clinical trials need to be in a system which makes it relatively easy to set them up. The new regulation to which this amendment relates has very much simplified the system. Unfortunately, for fairly technical reasons to do with the portal, it has not come into force yet but the assurance that the Government have given in relation to this seems the best that they could give. It is entirely in accordance with the agreement that we came to yesterday; namely, that the Government will do all they can to bring the regulation into effect. Of course, if it happens during the implementation period then nothing more is required but if, unfortunately, it does not come into force during that period the Government will do everything possible to avoid delay and give certainty to those who plan clinical trials. As your Lordships know, planning clinical trials is not something that happens the day before they start; there has to be a good deal of planning so that such trials may be effective. I think the Government have done all that can be done in this situation to give effect to the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Patel.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very full response to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Patel. She has given a powerful reassurance that the important elements of the European clinical trials regulation that can be applied independently of the European Union to improve the situation for the conduct of clinical research in our country will be brought into force. That is vital, as the Minister said, for ensuring that those who plan clinical research can do so with absolute certainty over a period of time prior to implementation. I, for one, am most grateful to her for this reassurance.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I join everyone in thanking the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie—and indeed the other Ministers who have been involved in the discussions. I thank them for the meetings we have had. I am sorry that I was not at the meeting the other day, but I thank her for sharing with me what she was going to say today. I am very happy that the Government have recognised the importance of this matter. Who would not be honoured to be on an amendment with the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Judge and Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and if they say that they are content, who am I to say that I am not? What will be necessary from now on is for the Government and all of us to reassure the medical professions and the researchers that this is exactly what will happen, so that they can plan with confidence clinical trials for the future.
Lord Patel
My Lords, briefly, I thank everybody who has spoken but particularly the Minister for the way in which she presented the solution. I say by the way to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that we used the brains of the two noble and learned Lords for medical knowledge, not their legal knowledge. I thank them, as this will reassure the research communities, pharma and even the EU institutions of our commitment to collaborate with EU nations on clinical trials. I thank the whole ministerial team and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Enhanced protection for certain areas of EU law
(1) Following the day on which this Act is passed, a Minister of the Crown may not amend, repeal or revoke retained EU law relating to—(a) employment entitlements, rights and protection,(b) equality entitlements, rights and protection,(c) health and safety entitlements, rights and protection,(d) consumer standards, or(e) environmental standards and protection,except by primary legislation, or by subordinate legislation made under any Act of Parliament insofar as this subordinate legislation meets the requirements in subsections (2) to (5).(2) Subordinate legislation which amends, repeals or revokes retained EU law in the areas set out in subsection (1) must be subject to an enhanced scrutiny procedure, to be established by regulations made by the Secretary of State.(3) Regulations under subsection (2) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(4) The enhanced scrutiny procedure provided for by subsection (2) must include a period of consultation with relevant stakeholders.(5) When making regulations relating to the areas of retained EU law set out in subsection (1), whether under this Act or any other Act of Parliament, a Minister of the Crown must—(a) produce an explanatory statement under paragraph 22 of Schedule 7, and(b) include a certification that the regulation does no more than make technical changes to retained EU law in order for it to work following exit.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I hope that perhaps we might get some more concessions like that one. No? I thought it might be one of those nice little things.
As noble Lords will see, Amendment 11 has support from across the House. It would basically ensure that there can be no reduction in the laws we are bringing over into domestic law under the Bill without primary legislation. This amendment should, of course, have included the words “human rights” which appear in the Marshalled List in Amendment 11A, so elegantly suggested in that amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Low. I may need some help here; I was going to say mea culpa for not having put the words in, but I do not know what the plural of mea culpa is. No Latin comes to mind. However, I express our apologies, because clearly the same arguments apply here to human rights as they do to the other rights: the things that we are bringing over and transposing on Brexit date should not then be vulnerable to subsequent change by secondary legislation. That is clearly as true in the field of human rights as for the other rights we have mentioned.
In getting on for half a century in the EU, we have seen great improvements in the quality of our environment—those clean beaches, rivers and air—and in consumers’ and workers’ protection. Some of these improvements, particularly on the environment and consumer protection, require international action—but some are there to ensure a level playing field for industry. They are driven by fair competition objectives, although they happen also to benefit workers and consumers.
Hitherto, all the areas covered by Amendment 11 —employment, equality, health and safety, consumer protection and the environment—have been safeguarded, or ring-fenced if you like, thanks to EU membership requirements. We now need to bubble-wrap those protections for what we bring into our law to safeguard them from meddling hands—because, without any protection, those standards could be weakened by secondary legislation. That could happen without consultation with stakeholders and even without a Bill going through Parliament, where MPs and Peers could interrogate the rationale, cost and benefit of any change.
I hope that no Government would ever want to sweep away such protections. We heard earlier about the importance of manifestos and the 2017 Conservative manifesto promised not to change the protections. It said:
“Workers’ rights conferred on British citizens from our membership of the EU will remain”.
However, there are other parts of the Government who appear a bit more deregulation-obsessed. Liam Fox has said that protections make it “too difficult” to fire staff, and that:
“Political objections must be overridden”,
to deregulate the labour market. Michael Gove boasted at one point that the Government,
“now have the potential to … if necessary rescind”,
employment protections. Boris Johnson has described EU workers’ rights as “back-breaking”. Others have contemplated scrapping the working time directive, the agency workers’ directive and the pregnant workers’ directive or even tearing up the precautionary principle under which traders have to prove that something is safe before it is sold—which is of course a key consumer protection.
The demands to deregulate do not emanate from industrialists or employers. We have had representations from architects, scientists, designers, insurers and testers, the CBI and the British Chamber of Commerce. The very businesses which operate EU rules at the moment, which want us to stay in the customs union, are all also content to keep those regulations.
Furthermore, there is widespread support for EU- derived consumer, employment and environmental protection, with only minimal appetite for deregulation among the public. Three-quarters of the public want us to retain the working time directive and two-thirds want us to keep vehicle emissions rules. An Opinium survey found,
“little to no appetite ... for reducing or removing EU standards”.
The figure was the same for remain as for leave voters. Trade unions warn against giving Ministers,
“wide-ranging powers to repeal, dilute or limit hard-won employment rights”,
regulations and standards, without such changes being made through an Act of Parliament.
The British Medical Association, along with 12 royal colleges and unions, wrote to the Prime Minister calling on her to stand firm against Brexiteers who want to scrap European laws and warning of the risk to patient safety since, in their words,
“fatigue, caused by excessive overwork, remains an occupational hazard for many”,
NHS staff. The Royal College of Nursing warns that,
“removing or weakening working time regulations would put patients at serious risk”.
Such protections are not just good in themselves; they matter for trade. Indeed, non-tariff barriers are a bigger hurdle for trade than customs duties, so even if the Government were not worried about patient safety, workers’ rights or consumers—although I am sure they are—they might listen to industry, on whose success our economy depends.
The British Chambers of Commerce stresses the importance of businesses getting their goods across borders as quickly as possible and calls for a pragmatic agreement between the UK and the EU that ensures that businesses face only one set of regulatory approvals to sell their goods across borders. Dairy UK, the NFU and 35 others signed a joint letter stressing that a successful Brexit for the food sector must involve free and frictionless trade, and that means keeping the same rules with no diminution of standards. The Urology Trade Association is just one of many trade bodies that came to see us. It wants the Government to ensure regulatory continuity, since any divergence could lead to changes in licensing arrangements and an increase in bureaucracy, which would reduce competitiveness and market penetration.
Our EU partners are already talking of a no-regression undertaking to promote fair competition and a level playing field, but also to reduce the checks and assurances that have to take place when rules diverge. Maintaining the standards that we are incorporating into UK law is supported by business, requested by the EU, demanded by environmentalists, strongly demanded by trade unionists, whose working days are affected day in, day out by these protections, and promised by the Prime Minister—so what is not to agree to? The Prime Minister said:
“This Government has committed not to roll back workers’ rights”,
and that,
“it would be for Parliament or the devolved Assemblies to decide on future employment law”.
We are merely seeking to put her words into legislation. I beg to move.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes (Con)
My Lords, it is not often in your Lordships’ House that I have been at odds with the noble Baroness—we usually make quite a good gang together—but I have to say that the very last thing that I want to remain after we leave the EU is a lot of these badly drafted regulations, which do not achieve their objectives in many cases and can be improved. I shall not detain the House by going into the detail now, but I have had many meetings with enforcers who are used to having to deal with the problems arising. The situation is that, the day that this Bill becomes law, it will be possible for us to draft or improve regulations which we do not think are helpful enough—not less helpful—or possibly a bit deceptive. This can be done quite easily after the Bill has passed by tabling new, different and improved regulations. It is not that I do not think they are necessary; I just do not think they are good enough or that they achieve what they are supposed to achieve under the present situation.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I rise as a co-signatory to this amendment briefly to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said. In Committee, she gave an extensive explanation and justification for this amendment. She has done so again today, and I shall not repeat those arguments.
The two words I want to emphasise are “vulnerable” and “future-proofing”. The areas covered in this amendment are particularly vulnerable to backsliding from the existing situation, which has often been hard won over many years. That is why they have been singled out for enhanced protection in this amendment.
The second word is “future-proofing”—there is a hyphen in there, so it is a second word. The worry is not about the position just after Brexit. This amendment is about ensuring that these rights and protections cannot be tampered with in future by the casual use of statutory instruments. For me, it is the way that the Government have gone about the Brexit process and the mood of reluctance to be transparent that have led so many people to distrust their intentions. That is why we have so many amendments like this down on Report.
When I was a boy, my dad used to take me to see the Lord Mayor’s show. I was always fascinated by the man at the back of the parade with his broom and pan sweeping up the horses’ droppings. On this Bill, I sometimes feel that your Lordships’ House is having to emulate that gentleman a little too often.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, as one of the signatories to this amendment and, indeed, a signatory to the previous amendment in Committee, I want to make a very short intervention in support.
I realise that we must look at this in the context of the overall position of retained law, and I know that the Minister has written to us and that at a later stage on Report—on Amendment 26—he will deal with the general question of the status of retained law and will deal with subordinate legislation on Schedule 8. Like the Minister, for many years I was engaged in the process of drafting some of these things in Europe. These matters have been picked because they are particularly important within the context of the protection that has been afforded to them under European law until the point at which this country leaves the European Union. They are sensitive areas. The one that I feel most interested in is environmental standards and protection. It is important that they are given some separate consideration. I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness said because they are also politically sensitive to the extent that, without some form of protection, they are very much at risk. Indeed, I would go further and say that, without some of these protections, maintaining the same characteristics and having that protection in our negotiations on our future relationship with the European Union would be at a severe disadvantage were these matters to be threatened or to look as if they were about to be threatened. It is therefore all the more important that we have a special approach to them.
The last time we raised this matter, in Committee, I received a very interesting response, as we all did. It was essentially very legalistic and referred to issues of hybrid approaches and so on. I know hybrid is the in word at the moment in relation to other things, but so far as I can see, the Government have not come forward with any particular approach which would satisfy those of us who are concerned about these matters. I am therefore looking forward with great interest to hearing my noble friend’s response to see whether the Government will perhaps understand the concerns and react to them in a positive way.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I am one of the signatories to this amendment. As other noble Lords have said, it is about protection and future-proofing. I was initially going to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, had said it all and perhaps I did not need to rise, but I want to support the point that Amendment 11A from the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, makes: that human rights protection is clearly also important.
I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, that this is not about saying EU legislation has to be enshrined in UK law in perpetuity entirely unchanged. The amendment says there are certain aspects of EU law that we believe are hugely important and it should not be possible simply to amend them by statutory instrument, nor for Ministers to engage in any sort of casuistry to change them. If Parliament wished to amend the legislation then it would be possible, but it would be subject to very strict guidance about the approach that it took. Surely the amendment would allow Parliament to take back control but also ensure that the protections we currently enjoy as part of the EU would be retained.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, all I would say is that the key words in this important amendment are simply “except by primary legislation”. That is why I am glad to support it, because it bolsters what the Prime Minister has already said and promised and it ensures that we cannot have, by sleight of hand, fundamental changes to things that concern so very many people.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, I did not move my Amendment 11A because the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, had already referred to it in such approving terms. I did not want to take up the time of the House unnecessarily but perhaps your Lordships might permit me a small indulgence to say something about the substance of the amendment. I am also grateful for the endorsement of my amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham.
If delegated powers are used to make changes, I underline the importance of construing the list of areas requiring the enhanced scrutiny procedure as including changes to human rights. As the Bill currently stands, such changes can be made without that added assurance. Many areas of human rights are currently protected by EU law, such as rights to privacy under the Data Protection Act 1998 and regulations made under it which give effect to EU law; children’s rights; and protection from trafficking. It is therefore essential that the list of areas requiring the protection of the enhanced scrutiny procedure is understood as including human rights protection in EU retained law.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, we now reach a point that has been of considerable interest throughout the Bill’s passage in Parliament: how retained EU law, once it forms part of our domestic law, will be amended and how those amendments can be scrutinised to ensure that rights remain protected. There is no doubt that retained EU law, including EU-derived domestic legislation, retained direct EU legislation and anything saved by virtue of Clause 4 will contain within it important rights and protections that are currently relied upon daily by individuals and businesses. As such, for the Bill to achieve its aim of continuity within UK law following exit day, it is crucial that these rights and protections are not diluted or weakened as we withdraw from the EU.
I believe that that is what the noble Lady, Baroness Hayter, aims to achieve with her Amendment 11, which seeks to put in place an enhanced scrutiny procedure for regulations made under powers that amend retained EU law in certain defined policy areas—both powers in the Bill and those that exist or will exist elsewhere. As we have heard, the policy areas covered are employment, equality, consumer standards, health and safety standards and environmental standards.
As I have said, I understand and support the noble Baroness’s intention to protect this law, and I and my ministerial colleagues have all repeated the Government’s commitment to effective parliamentary scrutiny and to maintaining the UK’s long-standing tradition of upholding the rights and protections in these vital areas. However, I believe the Government have already taken steps to address those concerns, potentially in ways that are even stronger than the noble Baroness’s amendment. Through the package of amendments that we tabled for Report, which will be discussed in more detail on a later day, the Government have actively and constructively responded to the concerns that have been raised in this House and have proposed putting in place suitable protections against the erosion of rights within retained EU law.
For example, by the powers contained in Clauses 7, 8 and 9, modifications to all retained EU law, not just in the specific policy areas listed in Amendment 11, will be subject to numerous scrutiny procedures, including where relevant the new sifting committees within both Houses. Ministers will also have to comply with a number of important statement requirements for each piece of secondary legislation, which will be published in the Explanatory Memorandum when the SI is laid, to explain fully why the instrument has been made for the consideration of Parliament and the public.
The Government, recognising and responding to the concerns on how retained direct EU legislation will be amended beyond the life of the Bill powers, have also tabled further amendments that address the use of existing and future delegated powers to modify this law. These amendments alter the circumstances and procedures concerning how it is or is not possible to amend retained direct EU legislation by other domestic powers, reflecting the hierarchy of EU law. EU regulations and rights that are saved by Clause 4, which are higher up this hierarchy and are likely to contain more fundamental rights, rules and provisions, will therefore be amendable in a way akin to primary legislation. EU tertiary legislation and decisions, on the other hand, which contain more technical and detailed provisions, will be amendable in a way akin to subordinate legislation.
I believe that in many ways those amendments can be seen to go a step beyond the noble Baroness’s amendment, in that they seek to protect all the rights and protections contained in EU regulations and those that are retained by virtue of Clause 4, not just rights within a particular policy area. I also believe the Government’s amendments represent a more effective approach. Referring to broad but undefined policy areas could produce unclear or differing views about which provisions of retained EU law would actually be covered. This would not only lead to uncertainty within our domestic statute book but risk creating significant litigation as individuals and businesses sought clarity about how retained EU law should be treated.
I look forward to discussing in detail the Government’s amendments on this subject during later days. I believe they strike the right balance between protecting retained EU law from erosion and allowing us sufficient flexibility to ensure that we can deliver an operative and stable domestic statute book. Having said that, beyond the Government’s amendment I cannot give false hope that I will reflect further on this issue between now and Third Reading, so if the noble Baroness wishes to test the opinion of the House, as I suspect she does, she should do so now.
Lord Elton (Con)
If this amendment is accepted, will it prevent the passage of the Minister’s amendment that covers the same ground?
Lord Callanan
No, I do not think they are mutually exclusive. I think the amendments can both stand.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I thank the Minister for his clear answer today. I wish the amendments he drafted were equally clear—I have had three very good lawyers sit and explain them to me. I have to say that they do not do what he says. There is not a hierarchy in status between EU regulations and EU directives, and the extra protection he has put in will not affect the directives. There are particular directives, such as the ambient air quality directive, the habitats directive and the working time directive, that are not covered by the government amendments. There is enhanced scrutiny for stuff coming over now, but for the future it does not cover those really important directives. I have had three different lawyers look carefully at his wording and, believe me, all three tell me that it does not meet the promise of the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister said that we will bring over everything, but after that it will be for Parliament—not a statutory instrument but Parliament or the devolved Assemblies—to decide whether there is any change to working time law. The same is true for the environment. It is, I am afraid, not good enough to leave this to secondary legislation. We need to make sure that these really important provisions are safeguarded and that only primary legislation can amend them. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Deben
“Saving for rights etc. under section 2(1) of the ECA
(1) Any rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures which, immediately before exit day, form part of domestic law by virtue of section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972 continue on and after exit day to be recognised and available in domestic law (and to be enforced, allowed and followed accordingly).(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies or procedures so far as they form part of domestic law by virtue of section 3.(3) Where, following the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU, retained EU law incorrectly or incompletely gives effect to any rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies or procedures created or required by EU law in force immediately before exit day, a Minister of the Crown must as soon as possible make regulations for the purpose of giving correct and complete effect to such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures.(4) This section is subject to section 5 and Schedule 1 (exceptions to savings and incorporation).”
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, the proposal here is to overcome the problem that arises under this present law, as presented to your Lordships’ House, which is that it does not include those elements of European Union law that are not specifically written down but are in the protocols and the like. I will not press this amendment to a vote, and I am sure my noble friends will be pleased about this. I make it clear now, however, because an amendment will be debated on Monday that I will want to press to a vote. In this circumstance, some of my colleagues may wish to press it, but I merely put the point to the House that the Government promised us something very simple. They said, “We are going to put into British law all that we now have in European law. Then, after that, if we want to make changes, we will be able to make those changes”.
Even those of us who are deeply disturbed by the Government’s decision to continue with the extremely damaging activity of leaving the European Union at least felt that we were then going to start with a situation where we were not automatically losing some of the protections provided by the European Union. What was more, we felt that, were we then to decide to change things, perhaps we would find that there were some advantages to our leaving the European Union. So far, I have not found any, but let us imagine that we were to do so. Then we would, in proper parliamentary order, decide on the changes. I say to my noble friends that the real issue for me here is that—and I say this, too, to those who are leavers—the Government have not carried through what they said they would. They have not put into the withdrawal Bill all those things that protect us and provide for our sensible behaviour in the European Union. They have also made it clear, by a number of parts of it, that they will not offer Parliament the chance in the future to make decisions in a proper parliamentary way. Indeed, they intend to do by subsidiary legislation a whole range of things that, in my view, should not be done.
We have just had a vote that has made it clear that this House believes in parliamentary democracy and this is another attempt to raise these issues. I say to my noble friends—particularly to my noble friend Lord Callanan, who is, of course, a leaver, so he has the disadvantage of believing in this Bill—that the Government have promised something, and I do not believe that they are carrying out that promise. Therefore, we sought in this amendment to encourage the Government to think to themselves that they should really take seriously the proposition that, in future, we would have in our law,
“the rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures which, immediately before exit day, form part of domestic law by virtue of section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972”.
These should continue and, after exit day,
“be recognised and available in domestic law (and to be enforced, allowed and followed accordingly)”.
Even if my noble friends do not like this fact, we need this because the public, our businesses, our organisations and our voluntary organisations need it too. They need certainty and I do not see why they should not have it. We have managed to have all this for a very long time. I cannot say we have had all of them for 40 years, because some of these things were brought in in the meantime, but we have had them for a very long time and it has not destroyed our nation. Why can we not continue in this way until we decide, in a parliamentary manner, that we want to change it? That seems a perfectly sensible attitude. Therefore, we have tabled this amendment, which is designed to ensure those protections.
Many people will feel that this is the right amendment to support. I hope that they will also support the amendment on the environment that we have tabled for Monday, with the enormous support of people from across the House, particularly the Liberal Democrats, who have been very helpful in understanding what this is about. We have an amendment that covers much of what we are trying to say here, but I still think this is the Government’s opportunity to explain a simple thing to us: why do the Government not want to ensure that what they said they would do is in fact done? If the Minister says that there is something wrong with the amendment, I understand: we are all amateurs at writing amendments. Of course, it is quite possible that there is some fundamental reason why this is not the way to do it. If that is the case, I would like the Minister to say, “We will take this away and, in the excellent manner that we have in the House of Lords, come back at Third Reading with an amendment that simply does what we promised”.
I have been in politics for a very long time and was a Minister for 16 years. I have always thought that Governments should do what they promise. I have always been as critical of my own party when they did not do it as I was of coalition parties and the Opposition. I do not like promising things and not delivering, so I hope that as a result of this amendment my noble friend will say, “Yes, you have a point here; there are some things we have left out. Can we sit down and talk about what those things are and can we produce an amendment that will meet that requirement?” Can we also guarantee that, if in the future we wish to change those things, we will do so with proper parliamentary procedure and not with something that we all know is a means by which the Executive imposes things on the people?
This Parliament—elected or not elected—is here to protect the people against the overuse of executive powers. That is what we are here for. I am afraid that some of my noble friends are not here, but I am appalled by some people who get up and say that the reason why we are proposing these things is because we do not want to leave the European Union. We know perfectly well that we do not want to leave the European Union, but the reason we are proposing these things is that, if we do leave the European Union, we do not want to lose some of the things that are beneficial to us. I object to people insulting me, saying that I am trying to stop the Bill. I am trying to make the Bill acceptable to the British people. People did not vote to muck up their whole future, to get rid of things merely to enable some rather extreme people to run the country in a way that is unacceptable. They voted to maintain the good things and they did not want to remain a member of the European Union. I am sorry that they decided that, but I do not see why I should not try to make this the best Bill that I can. I object to being insulted by saying that I am trying to do something else. I am trying to make this a good Bill. Therefore, I say to my noble friends: “Will you help me make this a good Bill? If this is the wrong amendment, then will you please promise to produce the right amendment?” I am very happy—and I am sure my noble friends will join me—to help the Government to produce the amendment that would do what we want to do here, if this is not the right way to do it. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 12, to which my name has been added, and the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Deben. The amendment follows the concerns expressed by the Constitution Committee over the current wording of Clause 4. These were extensively debated in Committee and the case was powerfully made by the noble Lords, Lord Krebs—who unfortunately cannot be with us this evening—Lord Pannick and Lord Carlile, among others, that existing Clause 4 creates legal uncertainty, not least by its determination that provisions in directives must have been tested in a court prior to exit day.
What is more, existing Clause 4 fails to deliver the promises made time and again—promises that we have heard again this evening—that the withdrawal Bill will apply the same rules and laws after we leave the EU as existed before exit day. This is because there is no mechanism built into the Bill to address any omissions or powers incorrectly or incompletely transferred. Instead, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, suggested that we would have to rely on correcting mistakes or omissions through domestic legislation, without an obligation on the Government to do just that. Therefore, our amendment addresses this challenge head on. In order to ensure that environmental protections—and other protections, because this is not just about the environment —are not weakened by omission or design, it will place a duty on Ministers to correct that error.
To achieve this comprehensively we have drafted a new clause to replace Clause 4 which makes clear those obligations on Ministers. The new clause removes the problematic prescriptions in Clause 4(2)(b) concerning the need to have the rights predetermined in a court of law. This never made sense, as many environmental rights are accepted either as common-sense policies or have such huge public support that they could not realistically be challenged through litigation. It then makes it clear that the Minister has a duty to act and make a remedy where rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and so on are incorrectly or incompletely transferred.
Lord Puttnam (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, but I will comment briefly from a slightly different angle. During the 1980s, I spent seven very happy years as president of the Council for the Protection of Rural England—a title which I suggest would thrill even the most ardent Brexiter. It was a marvellous organisation. Founded in 1926, it was the pioneer of environmental protection—both urban and rural—here in the UK, and many of its policies were copied by other European nations. Since our accession to the European Union, they have in fact been enhanced within the EU. It would be quite extraordinary if there were any possibility that we would reverse out of those environmental benefits that have accrued over the years—pioneered, I repeat, by a British organisation, the CPRE. Any legislation that would go some way towards securing, developing and building on what we have would be entirely welcome, but anything that would endanger that I would oppose vehemently.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to this amendment, to which I have added my name. There is little I can add to what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said so eloquently. The current Clause 4 is unsuitable, so we have submitted a proposed new Clause 4, which covers a much broader area than the environmental concerns. However, because so much environmental legislation stems from the EU, it is particularly important for the Government’s environmental commitments that we carry these forward.
The amendment aims to preserve more comprehensively than the existing Clause 4 rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures, all derived from EU law and incorporated into domestic law via the ECA. Where such rights are incorrectly or incompletely transferred it imposes a duty to remedy this, and we feel that it is important that the Government take this duty on board. There will be transition gaps and incomplete transfers. Examples of transition gaps which put environmental protection at risk include, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, the requirement to review and report on adequacy and implementation of laws such as the air quality directive and the habitats directive. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, if we are not doing this in the right way, will the Minister please tell us which way we should be doing it? I fully support this amendment and I will support the amendment that comes forward on Monday.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, in supporting this amendment also, I start by just noting one thing we have learned during the passage of the Bill so far: how very complicated the process of exit will be. That is important, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, rightly reminded us, the purpose of the Bill is to enable us to leave, but with the same rights and obligations, and the same protections, the day after exit as the day before. The Prime Minister made that promise very clear. This amendment would help to make sure that this promise can be kept. If one looks at the way the Bill currently deals with rights that are being passed over, one can see the complication in the provisions as drafted.
I will not repeat the arguments that were raised in Committee, nor indeed repeat those that have been so well made by my noble friends Lady Jones and Lord Puttnam and by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. However, one thing is clear: if there is a defect in what the Government are doing and if the provision will not pass across into our law the day after exit those things it should, the amendment simply says that this is a mechanism by which they can be brought in. I think the Government would want to welcome that, because it means they could achieve what they want to achieve in what is, as I said, a complicated area in which it may be difficult to be sure that everything has been done as it should. Of course, if it is unnecessary because all the rights have been passed across, in those circumstances there will be no need for the clause to operate. However, it will be there to achieve what is required.
I will make one other point, because it may look to some slightly paradoxical to use a ministerial power of regulation to achieve this when so much concern has already been expressed in this House, and will be on amendments to come, about the overuse of delegated powers. This differs from the other powers that concern has been expressed about. It is not a discretion of the Minister to use the power but an obligation to do so if certain conditions are met: if in fact—and it is an objective fact which can be verified or not—retained EU law does not give effect to,
“rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies or procedures created or required by EU law in force immediately before exit day”.
Therefore, it makes sense to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, made the sensible suggestion that if this amendment does not quite do it the right way, the Government can and should come back with an alternative method at Third Reading. However, that they should do something to make sure this gap is plugged seems a strong and correct argument, and for that reason I support the amendment.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, in absentia for her Amendment 12 and to my noble friend Lord Deben for speaking to it on her behalf. I note that this amendment is very similar to an amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, to which the noble Baroness was a signatory. As was the case with that amendment, Amendment 12 seeks to amend what EU law is retained through Clause 4.
As this House is aware, and has been said earlier within the debate, one part of EU law that the Bill does not convert into our domestic law is EU directives. The reason for this is clear. As EU directives as such are not a part of our domestic law now, it is the Government’s view that they should not be part of our domestic law after we leave the EU. Instead, the Bill, under Clause 2, is saving the domestic measures that implement the directives, so it is not necessary to convert the directives themselves. This is not only a pragmatic approach but one that reflects the reality of our departure from the EU. As an EU member state, we were obligated to implement those directives. When we leave the EU, those obligations will cease.
However, the Bill recognises one exception to this approach. Where, in a case decided or commenced before exit day, a domestic court or the European Court of Justice has recognised a particular right, power, liability, obligation, restriction, remedy or procedure provided for in a directive as having direct effect in domestic law, Clause 4 will retain the effect of that right, power, et cetera within UK law.
That seems to the Government to provide a clarity which it is important for this Bill to achieve, and it is why we believe that Clause 4 as currently worded strikes the right balance—ensuring in respect of directives that individuals and businesses will still be able to rely on directly effective rights that are available to them in UK law before exit day, while also providing clarity and certainty within our statute book about what will be retained in UK law at the point of exit.
I shall explain to my noble friend Lord Deben what we see as a difficulty. This certainty would be undermined by the amendment, placing both businesses and individuals in the difficult position where they are uncertain about whether the rights they rely on will change. It could also create practical difficulties for our courts following our exit. There could be new litigation about whether implementing legislation correctly or completely gave effect to a pre-exit directive, and whether Ministers had fulfilled the duty in the amendment’s proposed new subsection (3) to make implementing regulations. This could continue for years after our exit from the EU, effectively sustaining an ongoing, latent duty to implement aspects of EU legislation long after the UK had left the European Union.
I think it would be acknowledged that it would be strange for Ministers to be obligated to make regulations to comply with former international obligations which the UK is no longer bound by. Although Ministers might find that they were obliged to make regulations under the amendment, it would presumably still be open to Parliament to reject the instrument and either require it to be revoked or decline to approve it, depending on the procedure involved, yet the Minister would, under the terms of the amendment, remain under a legal obligation to make regulations. I think that this gets to the heart of the problem: how is that tension to be resolved?
Therefore, I say to my noble friend Lord Deben that, although I understand that the genuine intention behind the amendment is to give confidence and certainty, in practice I do not think that it would necessarily achieve this, and I respectfully suggest that the real consequence would be confusion.
Furthermore, the amendment specifically implies that the Government would have to undertake a thorough investigation, as soon as possible, of all the EU directives that have been domestically implemented over the course of this country’s 40-plus years of EU membership to ensure that they have correctly and completely implemented them all.
Baroness Ludford
I apologise for interrupting the Minister and thank her for allowing me to do so. Would it be so terrible if there were to be an audit of whether the UK had correctly implemented EU directives? The Government are marking their own homework if they say, “We’re not implementing the directives; we’re only going to freeze the domestic implementation”. However, if there is something wrong in the way that we have implemented a directive, then the Government are judge and jury of what will be retained.
At the risk of boring everybody—I will probably mention it again on Monday—I have cited before the directive on the European investigation order, which is about summoning evidence or maybe a witness to give a statement. It is the parallel to the European arrest warrant. The directive says that someone could challenge this in, say, a British court on the grounds of a breach of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The Government have substituted for the charter the European Convention on Human Rights, which, as we know—we will be discussing it on Monday—is a bit narrower than the charter. Therefore, they have wrongly transposed the directive. Whether the European Commission is going to do anything about it, I do not know, but I remind myself that I want to find out. What happens if the Government have wrongly implemented the directive? What happens to people’s rights?
Baroness Goldie
Perhaps I can, with my next contribution, enlighten the noble Baroness about her concern. However, I point out that the Government’s observation about the practical obligation of reviewing 40-plus years of EU membership to ensure that they have correctly and completely implemented directives is merely part of the reason why we cannot accept the amendment.
Perhaps I may continue and shall try to address the noble Baroness’s point. Although the Government believe that successive Governments have always sought conscientiously to implement EU legislation in accordance with our obligations as a member state—that is where we are—such a review as required by the amendment could throw doubt on certain domestic implementation, again potentially creating confusion within well-accepted and relied-upon parts of our domestic law. That is the anticipated and foreseeable consequence of that part of the amendment. Given the wide scope of EU law that will be retained by Clause 4—not just directly effective provisions arising from EU directives—this would also present a huge practical and resource-intensive challenge to the Government. I suggest that the effect of such a duty as we leave the EU cannot be ignored.
The effect of the amendment would be to profoundly undermine the Government’s clear and coherent position on retained EU law. We have previously talked about how the Bill must take a snapshot at some point, otherwise there will be complete ambiguity, confusion and uncertainty as to what is being transferred, and I believe that that desire for clarity would be very seriously affected by the amendment. As such, I ask my noble friend Lord Deben to withdraw the amendment. I should add that I cannot give any false hope that I will reflect further on this issue between now and Third Reading, so if my noble friend wishes to test the opinion of the House, he should do so now.
Lord Deben
I am sorry to have heard what my noble friend—especially this particular noble friend—has said in reply. She may say that, mayn’t she? But nobody else thinks that. Everybody else who has looked at the circumstances says that we should retain the rights that we have now and that if we want to change them, we should do so in a proper parliamentary way afterwards. That is all we are saying. We can talk about a lack of confidence and people not quite knowing where they are, but I have to say to my noble friend that people do not know where they are at the moment because the amendment is not something that the Government are taking up.
My noble friend then mentioned the word “snapshot”. I am a little tired of that word. If you want a snapshot, that is what this amendment is. It is a snapshot of where we are now, and we are saying that we stay where we are until we—the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom—decide to change that. Instead of that, we have not a snapshot but a fuzzy picture that has bits in it. They are the bits that the Government have decided are suitable for us and not the bits, some of them in the background, that are important for us.
I say to my noble friend that there was a time when I would have taken her arguments rather more seriously. Then I got the message that some of the promises that the Government made about taking care of what they do on the environment once independent and outside the EU do not seem to be forthcoming. All those things we were told about something parallel to the Committee on Climate Change do not seem to be coming forward as we were told they would be. This is at least a way of making sure that the Government continue to do what they have had to do under European Union law, until such time as they ask Parliament to change it.
I want to address two other things that my noble friend said. Do not talk to me about resources. This whole Bill is going to cost the British taxpayer more than anything one can possibly imagine. That is why, every time I ask how much this costs, the Government do not answer. This is the only Bill I have ever seen in front of Parliament that is uncosted in every detail. I declare an interest as chairman of an organisation that represents people who give financial advice. We have just looked at the cost to the financial industry of changing everything because we are leaving the European Union. I am merely saying that the resource costs of this Bill are enormous. So please do not tell me that we cannot have an audit of what we are implementing, making sure that they are the right things, because of resources.
The last thing I want to say is this. My noble friend said that there were a number of things here that, for one reason or another, are not quite what she would like even if she were prepared to help us. She has said that she is not going to help us, so I might have to be more unhelpful myself in the future. I want to say one thing about this that is not about Parliament but about the world outside. Increasingly, people are becoming very cynical about what the Government have in mind for the protections of our human rights, our environment and the other things that we hold dearest. They are beginning to think that preparation is being made for arrangements with other countries that will make it difficult for us to protect all those things, from animal welfare to human rights, which we hold dear. My noble friend may think that that is an unfair approach, and I am not suggesting that it is a true one; I am merely saying it is a perception. When a perception like that becomes as universal as it now is, it is up to the Government to remove it.
One of the ways they could do that is to make sure that nothing that now protects us is removed, except by parliamentary activity. That is what we ask for here. Although I will not press this amendment, I say to the Government that there is a political issue here. As a Conservative, I want to say that this Government will undermine their position unless they make sure that all those who care about these issues do not think that the withdrawal Bill will undermine their rights and protections. This Government have to recognise the seriousness of the position on those issues.
“Maintenance of rights in the area of family law
(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, a Minister of the Crown must publish a report outlining the ways in which the rights afforded by EU family law continue to exist in domestic law.(2) The report provided for under subsection (1) must include—(a) the steps, if any, taken by Ministers of the Crown to negotiate the continuation of reciprocal arrangements between the United Kingdom and member States in the field of family law;(b) the nature and duration of these reciprocal arrangements, if such arrangements have been successfully negotiated; and(c) a declaration from the Minister of the Crown outlining whether, in their view, the rights of individuals in the area of family law have been weakened.(3) The Minister of the Crown must lay the report before both Houses of Parliament.”
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, many Members of this House will remember that I have raised the issue of matters concerning family law arrangements that cut across the whole of Europe. I chair the EU Justice Sub-Committee of the European Union Select Committee and we published a report for this House, which dealt with issues of maintaining the mutuality that exists across Europe for matters concerning family law, business and commercial disputes, and individual rights.
The concern that we have is that we want it to be clear that, in the negotiation, the Government should be mindful of the ways in which current arrangements have been carefully crafted over many years. A number of directives exist, which I know the Minister is only too aware of: directives on which court will take control of a particular issue if there is a dispute between parties based in different nations; the ways in which family law matters can be dealt with where there is divorce and a breakdown of families, or where there are issues concerning access or maintenance arrangements for children. Those are dealt with by Brussels regulations I, II, IIa and the maintenance regulation, and they are found to be of incredible value in these areas of law. I wanted to raise this again because I would like some assurances from the Minister that these are going to be included in any negotiated settlement with Europe in the future, because the loss of these legal arrangements would be detrimental to the rights of individuals, businesses, people running businesses and others.
Those are the matters raised by me; we want to have monitoring of the ways in which the Government might proceed. It is similar to the position that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, just now. I am raising this because I want assurances and I hope to receive them from the Minister before deciding what to do. I beg to move.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I start by apologising for arriving a moment after the noble Baroness had started speaking. I did not know what had happened to Amendment 13. I want to speak briefly in full support of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. I do not propose to rehearse all the arguments that we made at Committee at some length, but want to make four very brief points.
First, no one suggested in Committee, on behalf of the Government or anyone else, that the family law provisions contained in the European regulations Brussels I, IIa, the maintenance regulation and the arrangements for the enforcement of obligations and co-operation were not a considerable benefit to the citizens of the UK as well of other member states. Secondly, no one suggested that any benefit would flow from our not continuing to have those regulations applied in the United Kingdom. Thirdly, no one suggested that we could achieve reciprocal protections for UK citizens and citizens from other member states of the EU without negotiating for their continued protection. Fourthly and finally, all that could be said and was said by the Minister for the Government was that it was all a matter for the negotiations, but it would be possible to negotiate arrangements whereby we could continue to benefit from the regulations without accepting the role of the Court of Justice of the European Union in overseeing their implementation.
It is on that point that I take issue with the Government, because I ask why the EU 27 should agree to a set of arrangements affecting private law rights—these are disputes between citizens of different member states, by and large—whereby citizens of those other member states have obligations that are enforceable in their courts at the instance of citizens of the United Kingdom, while the United Kingdom could refuse to honour such obligations unless the courts of the United Kingdom approve their enforcement. In other words, a different set of rules could be said to apply to the UK from the rest of the Union.
The Government’s obsession—and I use the word without embarrassment—with the direct effect of CJEU decisions in cases involving treaty rights threatens to scupper the whole system of family law protections that is so important to our citizens, as well as to the citizens of other member states. The noble Lord said that it would be easy to negotiate other agreements for non-binding decisions. That, I suggest, is simply impossible to achieve. I do not see any difficulty with our accepting, in the case of private law rights between citizens, the binding nature of decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union. That way, we could commit, and commit early, to continuing to have all the rights and benefits for all citizens bound by the regulations for the foreseeable future.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I am certainly interested in family law, and have been for some time, but this amendment strikes me as rather otiose and ineffective. It says:
“Within six months of the passing of this Act, a Minister of the Crown must publish a report outlining the ways in which the rights afforded by EU family law continue to exist in domestic law”.
It has nothing to do with reciprocity in the sense of other people’s laws; it is that they will continue to exist in domestic law. As I understand it, this Bill transforms into our law all existing EU law to this effect—that is what the Bill is supposed to do. And if it is deficient in that respect, it is for the noble Baroness, with all her expertise, to point that out. So far as I have understood it, all law that applies here on Brexit day will become part of our law, and therefore there is nothing to report in respect of that because that is what EU law was before—which would now be the law here.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
I do not know whether I am entitled to interrupt someone who speaks subsequent to me, but I want to explain. We are introducing this into domestic law, but take, for example, the current position for a wife divorced from an Italian spouse. She can go to her local court here in Britain and obtain an order which is then—because of reciprocity and the special arrangements—enforceable in Italy against her ex-husband, who lives there and has not been paying maintenance for his children. It is the business of reciprocity that is problematic. I am sure the noble and learned Lord knows that very careful arrangements have been made as to which court in which country takes cognisance of a case and where the matter is dealt with if there is conflict. All those rules, which have now been set down in regulations, need to be settled with our partners in Europe. It is not enough to introduce it into UK law; we have to have the component of the other party and the other court in agreement. That has to be part of the negotiations. Bringing this into UK law will not do it on its own.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I think the noble Baroness has demonstrated the truth of what I am saying: namely, that she is concerned with the rights afforded by EU law in this country. The fact that those rights will continue to be enforced in this country is what the Bill is about. Therefore, I do not see any possibility of this amendment having any effect. The noble Baroness has just mentioned its operation in Italy, if the husband is there. That depends not on the domestic law of this country but on the law of Italy, and that is not part of what we can do in this Bill.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
I am terribly sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord when he has already been interrupted, but the point is that these provisions are all about reciprocity. They are about the mutuality of enforcement in other member states and in the United Kingdom. Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause seeks to address the problem with reciprocity. It says:
“The report provided for under subsection (1) must include … the steps, if any, taken by Ministers of the Crown to negotiate the continuation of reciprocal arrangements between the United Kingdom and member States in the field of family law”.
The point of that reciprocity is to ensure that United Kingdom citizens can enforce rights in other members states under the regulation in the same way as member state citizens—or former member state citizens as they would be—can in the United Kingdom.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I take what the noble Lord is saying, but such a report would not be dealing with subsection (1). That is my point. Subsection (1) is the operative subsection and it deals with domestic law, and reciprocity is not a matter that can be dealt with by domestic law. The only thing we can do, as I said on the last occasion on which we discussed this, is make sure that our arrangements are suitable for reciprocity and, if the reciprocity comes, that we have the right arrangements to deal with it. That is our domestic side of reciprocity. The rest of the reciprocity belongs to the rest of Europe, and I hope it will see the benefit of this as much as us. However, as far as we are concerned, we are bringing the whole of EU law that refers to family matters into our law by virtue of this Bill, and a report about that would be otiose.
Lord Inglewood (Con)
My Lords, if I may, I want to make a brief comment that I should like to have made in Committee but the time was not appropriate. Like a number of your Lordships in the Chamber, I was a Member of the European Parliament for 10 years. Looking back on my experience, the most distressing aspect of the job was dealing with problems relating to family law. I make a plea to everybody concerned with this: the personal unhappiness and anguish that surrounds these circumstances is severe, and when dealing with this the Government should please remember that we are talking not about money but about people. They must find a way—I am sure they can—to resolve these horrible circumstances in the most humane way possible.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Kennedy is simply asking that the Minister publish within six months of Royal Assent a report outlining how the rights currently enshrined in EU family law will continue to exist after exit day. That is a very modest ask.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws for a characteristically impressive summary of the challenges facing us in relation to family law post Brexit. I should also like to place on record my appreciation of the work done by the EU Justice Sub-Committee, which she chaired so ably, and the very helpful report it produced last year entitled Brexit: Justice for Families, Individuals and Businesses?. These issues are of huge importance to a significant minority of our citizens, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for underscoring just how much personal pain can be at stake in individual cases and how important it is that we get this sorted as soon as possible.
In Committee, we had a wide-ranging discussion on a number of amendments related to the post-Brexit family law landscape, so I will not go over that ground again. I am grateful to the Minister for subsequently meeting a number of us who spoke in Committee, along with some family lawyers. I hope very much that that dialogue can continue as we discuss these matters further.
In replying to me in Committee on 5 March, the Minister confirmed that the Government wanted to,
“agree a clear set of coherent common rules about: which country’s courts will hear a case in the event of a dispute—that is choice of jurisdiction; which country’s law will apply—that is choice of law; and a mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments across borders”.
That is what is at stake. The Minister continued:
“We believe that the optimum outcome for both sides will be a new agreement negotiated between the UK and EU as part of a future partnership which reflects our close existing relationship”.—[Official Report, 5/3/18; col. 854.]
That is what we all want. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, is that almost nobody disputes that what we have at the moment is the Rolls-Royce of family law provision. But time is very tight indeed. I understand that Ministers would like to negotiate a deal for the implementation period but that does not leave much time, even if it is forthcoming, to get a deal in place by the time we leave the European Union. If we crash out without a deal, things get very serious indeed. My noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws is asking for reassurance that the Government are determined to do this: to get a full, properly reciprocal deal in place; to make a priority of it; and to find a way for Parliament to be kept informed about how those negotiations are going.
I understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern has two different objections. I think he suspects that we are trying to press the Government to do something that they cannot do, which is to deliver reciprocity on their own. We would contend that we know that and that is the problem. One of the difficulties about this very situation is that the way the Bill has been framed means that, in the case of family law, because it is English and Welsh family law or Scottish family law that we retain, simply bringing that in does not mean that things stay the same. It means that things change in precisely the way my noble friend Lady Kennedy explained. With that family of a British man and an Italian woman, if the Italian woman were to take the couple’s son away to Rome and he pursued a British court for an order to have the child returned, whereas at the moment the court in Rome would have to recognise that, in future it would not. Under this arrangement, however, this country would have to recognise an Italian order for a child to be returned if the situation were reversed. That is the reciprocity that we cannot get around.
I fully accept that the Minister and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, may not like the wording of this amendment about the report. I honestly do not mind very much. All I would like to see is some means by which the House can be reassured that the Government are making progress, that they will keep us informed and that we will find out in good time how the problems for families described very movingly by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, will be solved. Will the Minister please give my noble friend and the House the reassurance that we seek this evening?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, for raising this important issue. We discussed it at some length in Committee and I will not repeat the points I made at that stage. But, as the Government outlined in their position paper published in August last year, we are committed to continuing civil judicial co-operation with the EU once we leave. That of course includes the area of family law as covered by Brussels II and Brussels IIa, as it is clearly in the interests of all individuals and families both in the UK and throughout the rest of the EU that there should be an effective area of civil judicial co-operation for these purposes. Of course, that will be the subject of negotiation.
Amendment 14, while clearly well intentioned, is potentially burdensome and I venture to suggest is not necessary. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern pointed to what is potentially a deficiency in the drafting of subsection (1) of the proposed new clause, but I do not take issue with that. I understand the point that is being made about the underlying principles of reciprocity and its importance in this context.
To suggest a six-month period for a report is of course an arbitrary deadline, which makes no reference to the position of the negotiations between the EU and the UK at that stage, or to any other steps that have been taken by the Government in regard to these issues. The Government are concerned not only with the final agreement reached in negotiations but in addressing what will be done with regard to retained EU law, including retained family law. Ultimately, any agreement that takes place between the United Kingdom and the EU to reflect not only our domestic position but the need for reciprocal enforcement will be the subject of the upcoming withdrawal agreement and will be legislated for in what is proposed to be the Withdrawal Agreement and Implementation Period Bill—so it is not something that will be the subject of the present Bill.
But I stress that the Government share the view expressed by the noble Baroness and others in the House on the importance of maintaining an effective system for resolution of cross-border family law disputes once we leave the EU. It will be an important part of the partnership that we seek to maintain with the other EU 27 countries. The Government certainly believe that intergovernmental co-operation and mutual recognition is of benefit to all parties. This is not an instance in which the EU has one particular interest and we have another. We all understand that the individuals and families concerned are affected right across the EU. We have made it clear that civil judicial co-operation in respect of family matters will be part of our future relationship with the EU.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I want to make clear the purpose of both these amendments—Amendment 14 and Amendment 20. The idea was that they would create a safety net because we are concerned, as are many practitioners who deal with family law matters that cross borders in Europe, that somehow—as can happen—when the negotiation is complete, we will find that there are glitches and things have fallen between the slats. It will not be a perfect solution in the way that is imagined. That is because, in creating law, we often do not imagine the very particular circumstances of a family. That is what we have been anxious to look at: how to create some kind of safety net if the negotiations do not satisfy the needs that people have when it comes to family matters.
That is why having a requirement to produce a report within six months is not, I suggest, an onerous demand on the Government. It would say, “This is what will happen in those circumstances”. The report would be able to deal with how the Government envisage the arrangements working in practical terms. It would be neither otiose nor unnecessary because there are concerns about the whole business of reciprocity and how it is going to work.
I have heard the Minister mention Lugano before as his example, but as I am sure he knows, Lugano is only about commercial matters. If a person in Norway is in a family dispute with someone in another part of Europe, they will not have the reciprocity that we are talking about. We have to make sure that, in the design of some eventual court that will deal with conflict on trade or commercial matters, it would also be able to deal with family matters because Lugano does not do that. Lugano is specifically a commercial court dealing with commercial matters. It does not deal with family issues, and families complain about it. If someone here has a problem with someone in Switzerland over maintenance or access to children, I am afraid that they have to get lawyers in Switzerland at great expense in order to deal with the Swiss courts, which do not operate on quite the same set of rules as we have here in Britain or, for example, with the same commitment to the rights of women. I suggest that there are legitimate concerns here.
The idea behind Amendment 20 is to retain some way of getting to a court which would have, if you like, an overarching role for a limited period of time. The suggestion may seem clunky, but it is really about creating a safety net. As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said, we are talking about families involved in some of the most miserable of circumstances when they break down. People want to maintain relationships with their children into the future and so on.
I have heard what the Minister has said and I am grateful for his reassurances that this issue is going to be taken seriously in the negotiations, but I can assure the noble and learned Lord that I will be snapping at his ankles, as will others in this House, if we do not see a proper kind of reciprocity in the final arrangements. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 23rd April 2018
(7 years ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 79-R-III Third marshalled list for Report (PDF, 247KB) - (23 Apr 2018)
17:31 - Division on Amendment 15 - Ayes: 316 / Noes: 245 - Amendment 15 agreed.
18:36 - Division on Amendment 18 - Ayes: 285 / Noes: 235 - Amendment 18 agreed.
18:51 - Division on Amendment 19 - Ayes: 280 / Noes: 223 - Amendment 19 agreed.
Lord Pannick
“( ) The following provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights are not part of domestic law on or after exit day— (a) the Preamble, and(b) Chapter V.”
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 15 is in my name and in those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I will speak also to Amendments 18 and 19 in this group, which are in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Beith.
Amendment 15 seeks to include the European Charter of Fundamental Rights as part of retained EU law, with the exception of the preamble and Chapter V. The preamble contains no substantive provisions and Chapter V confers rights such as the rights to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament, which plainly will have no application once the United Kingdom leaves the European Union.
Noble Lords will know that the charter sets out a number of important legal rights, from the rights of the child in Article 24 to the rights of the elderly in Article 25. It recognises the rights of persons with disabilities in Article 26, the right to healthcare in Article 35 and the protection of the environment in Article 37.
There are three reasons why I commend this amendment to the House. The first is that the Government’s purpose in bringing forward this Bill has been made very clear from the outset. The Prime Minister wrote in the foreword to the White Paper that the Bill seeks to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 on exit day and to convert into our law the body of EU law which applies at that date. Amendments to the body of retained EU law are for another day. As the Prime Minister said in the White Paper,
“the same rules and laws will apply on the day after exit as on the day before”.
The reason for that is very powerful. As the Prime Minister and her Ministers have repeatedly explained, it is to ensure certainty and continuity at exit date. That has remained the Government’s general position in relation to this Bill. On the 11th and final day in Committee on the Bill, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, made the same point. He said:
“The Government have always said that this Bill is not the place for radical policy change”.—[Official Report, 28/3/18; col. 876.]
I agree.
Clause 5(4) conflicts with—indeed, it frustrates—that central purpose of the Bill. It would exclude an important part of existing law from the law which applies at exit date. In doing so, it would cause precisely that lack of certainty and continuity which the Bill is designed to avoid. Clause 5(5) would add to the uncertainty because it says that, although charter rights will not be part of retained EU law, fundamental rights and principles that exist in EU law irrespective of the charter will be retained. This is, quite simply, a recipe for confusion, especially when European Court of Justice judgments, which will become part of retained EU law on or after exit date, themselves rely on charter rights.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships one practical example of the problems that this will pose: the case brought by Philip Morris, the tobacco company. It challenged restrictions on tobacco labelling and packaging. In its judgment dated 4 May 2016, the Court of Justice in Luxembourg relied, in dismissing the claim by Philip Morris, on Article 35 of the charter, which confers a right to a high level of human health protection in EU law. That is an absolutely fundamental right.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I should inform the House that if this amendment is agreed to, I will be unable to call Amendment 16 by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said about the charter in his Amendment 15 and I agree with him in Amendment 19, to which I have added my name. I want to refer to Amendment 18, which deals with yet another area of legal uncertainty that will be created by this Bill. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Bill asserts that there will be,
“no right in domestic law on or after exit day to challenge any retained EU law on the basis that, immediately before exit day, an EU instrument was invalid”.
That was also quoted by the noble Lord a moment ago. However, having snatched away a citizen’s right to seek redress through the courts, paragraph 1(2)(b) of the same schedule states that in some circumstances the Executive might allow you into the court with your challenge. A Minister can make regulations to provide for that, but on what criteria and when will the regulations be made? My attempts to get clarification have yielded incomplete results. In a Written Answer to my Question of 29 March, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, referred to the fact that individuals and businesses may be individually affected by an EU instrument—indeed so. He added:
“This power could be used to enable a right of challenge in domestic law to the validity of retained EU law in such circumstances”.
How will those circumstances be defined? I am particularly concerned about the repeated reference to “individual circumstances”. Is the Executive to decide on a case-by-case basis which individual cases merit a judicial hearing and make regulations specific to individual cases? That is a quite extraordinary thought. Are Ministers to choose who is allowed the key to the courtroom?
There is a possibility that regulations which deal narrowly with an individual case could be challenged by another individual or organisation with a similar case but which did not fall within the regulation. It would be claimed that the regulation was hybrid. This House provides special procedures to protect and give a fair hearing to parties affected by hybridity in statutory instruments—parties who want to argue that they are being dealt with in a different way from others who are in the same circumstances as they are. However, these protections are removed by a provision in paragraph 23 of Schedule 7, which states that hybrid regulations under the Bill are to be treated as if they were not hybrid and that their hybridity is to be ignored.
The upshot of all this is yet more legal uncertainty. Companies and individuals claiming to be adversely affected by a retained EU law whose validity was open to challenge will not be able to take that challenge to court unless they are lucky enough to be covered by exempting regulations, but they cannot know that in advance because the regulations will not have been made or even published in draft. The Government made it clear in the same Answer to which I referred earlier that they have no plans to publish any such regulations at this stage. Parties will have no way of knowing which areas or issues might be exempted. It is not even clear whether there will be any regulations, since the Government could decide not to use this purely permissive power at all.
Given that, absent any criteria in the Bill for the scope of these regulations, I do not believe that the power to make them should remain in its present form. I would rather we solved this problem by permitting legal challenge, thus providing potential revenue for abused rights. If the general prohibitions on legal challenge were to be retained, which I would regret, Ministers should come back at Third Reading with an amendment that properly defines or provides the criteria for their potential scope so that they are not wholly subjective and Executive-controlled. If, however, noble Lords agree to Amendment 15 and are similarly disposed to agree to Amendment 19, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to which I have added my name, I would suggest that this amendment becomes a necessary consequential amendment. With the scope for appropriate legal challenge reinstated, there will be no reason for the Executive to have powers to remove the prohibition in selective circumstances of their own choosing.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I am a remainer, but I am one despite—not because of—the charter. To leave the EU but nevertheless retain the charter as part of our domestic law would be the worst of all possible worlds, the very opposite of Panglossian.
Before explaining why I oppose Amendment 15 so strongly, let me acknowledge that getting rid of the charter represents an exception to the broad principle that the Government have stated as the central objective of this Bill: ensuring that our laws will be the same on the day after Brexit as on the day before. I accept that, in certain limited respects, the charter confers rights not available under either the European convention—to which we remain and intend to remain party—or our own, ever-dynamic, common law on human rights. Perhaps the best—certainly the most often cited—example of this is the Watson case, to which the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, David Davis, lent his name at one point. The case held that one part of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 breached a particular charter privacy provision, which was found to go further than Article 8 of the convention. That has now been corrected in the Data Protection Bill, which is currently before the other place and will shortly come back to us on ping-pong. It is to that Bill, not the charter, that we will henceforth look in terms of data rights protection. Watson points up another aspect of the charter: although it applies only to the implementation of EU law—a real problem that I will have to come back to—where it applies it goes wider than the convention because it requires the courts here to strike down and disapply our primary legislation. I regard that as a minus, not a plus; it is a flaw, rather than a virtue, in the charter and it is of course inconsistent with the Human Rights Act approach.
Besides being a remainer, I am also a strong believer in parliamentary sovereignty and the supremacy of Parliament. Twenty years ago, when the Human Rights Act was enacted, the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg—who I am happy to see in his place today—incorporated, very wisely and skilfully, the rights accorded by the convention into our law on the explicit basis that if our legislation is shown to be inconsistent with a convention right, the courts can and will declare so. They can make a declaration of incompatibility, leaving it to Parliament to adjust the position as it thinks right and proper. However, our courts cannot strike down primary legislation. That constitutional arrangement was carefully decided on; indeed, it has helped to keep our judges out of the firing line and out of conflict with Parliament. It is unlike the position in the United States where, as noble Lords know, Supreme Court Justices are highly politicised figures. Here, Parliament remains sovereign—but not in those rare cases where the charter applies.
The other case, besides Watson, that best illustrates this point is the Benkharbouche case, which has been mentioned once or twice in our debates and was decided by the Supreme Court here just 18 months ago. I shall briefly summarise. Two north African nationals, one of whom has given his name, Benkharbouche, to the case, following their dismissal from employment by two north African embassies here in London, brought claims against those states in the employment tribunal. Some of those claims were based on our domestic law—unfair dismissal, non-payment of wages, refusal of holiday pay—but others, particularly under the working time directive, were based on EU law.
On the face of it, all claims, domestic and EU, were barred by the State Immunity Act 1978—primary legislation—which denied claimants the right to sue embassies in this country. Barring access to a court is, unsurprisingly, a breach of the right to justice and therefore a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights at Article 6 and of the charter at Article 47. The result of the case, which I suggest was deeply unsatisfactory, was that the EU claims succeeded—the State Immunity Act was disapplied in their case—but the major domestic law claims of unfair dismissal and so forth failed because the court, under the Human Rights Act, declared simply that the State Immunity Act was incompatible with the convention.
This curious and regrettable anomaly in our law and its effect on the position of the judges has attracted very little attention because until recently the charter itself has been little noticed in litigation in this country. When, in a brief intervention in Committee on 26 February at col. 544, I put this problem to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, he suggested that the charter could be appropriately amended after this Act by delegated legislation. Opinions vary on whether that is possible but, either way, does it really make sense, given that we are now leaving the EU—regrettably, as I have indicated I feel—to carry over into our own law an instrument designed specifically for use only in the EU context, which, on occasions, requires our judges to disapply our legislation?
Thus far, I have focused on just the constitutional incongruity of the charter given the Human Rights Act, but there are other very powerful objections to our domesticating the charter. I will briefly touch on two real objections. I hope others hereafter will expand on these. One is the striking vagueness of the charter’s many articles. Some of course provide for real rights and those almost entirely and substantially overlap and mirror the convention rights that we have anyway, but much of the charter is merely aspirational—statements of broad principle. Indeed, Article 52(5) of the charter makes the distinction between principles and rights, and limits the legal effect of the principles—not that that distinction is by any means clear. Many legal commentators have described it as entirely confusing. For example, the so-called rights of the elderly are given as an example of a principle as opposed to a right. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, suggests that certainty and clarity would be advanced by his amendment. I respectfully suggest, on the contrary, that they would be very far from advanced. This would be wonderful for the lawyers, but frankly, for few others.
The other central objection is that the charter, as I indicated, can only ever be used when “implementing EU law”. That in itself is a notoriously uncertain concept. The boundary between what is domestic law and what is the implementation of EU law is one that we are now sensibly intent on simply sweeping away. In response to another intervention of mine in Committee, at col. 549, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, suggested that the charter would continue to apply just to EU law, which he identifies as all the law which is to be retained under this Bill. What if that law comes to be amended by Parliament or by secondary legislation, as some of it surely will? For example, if we were to consolidate all employment law provision so that in future Benkharbouche-type cases all claims would fall under a new UK statute. I suggest that it would be nothing short of absurd to perpetuate the distinction between EU law and domestic law, a distinction that will recede ever further into history, simply to continue to provide an area of law in which the charter would operate.
In short, I agree with everything that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, had to say back in 2009 when seeking to keep the charter out of the Lisbon treaty. But at least then the charter had the merit of constraining the exercise of legislative power by EU institutions, which were not subject to the constraints of the European convention. At least, too, we were then a member state and our citizens were citizens of the Union. What folly it would now be, as we leave the Union, quite unnecessarily to incorporate the charter as part of domestic law. I urge your Lordships to reject the amendment.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, two main arguments have been put forward today and in Committee for writing the Charter of Fundamental Rights into our law. One is that we must bring the charter across into our domestic law because it would be anomalous not to do so; it would be inconsistent with the Government’s purpose in this Bill of transposing the whole body of EU law that presently binds us. It would be offensive for me to pray in aid Ralph Waldo Emerson’s dictum,
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen”,
and peculiarly inappropriate when the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is the most ardent advocate that consistency should be our guiding principle here, supported by his distinguished co-signatories. Nevertheless, consistency is a poor justification for incorporating the charter. Schematic approaches will not serve us well in these impassioned and volatile political times.
I recognise the compelling practical reasons for transferring existing EU law into our domestic law, so that we are not sucked into a legal void at the moment we cease to be a member of the EU. However, it does not seem a necessary or desirable consistency to include in that transfer a charter which does not have value as the fountain-head of human rights and whose title, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, portentously symbolises the very jurisdiction that the people of this country have voted to reject and which will be a diminishing element of our law as they are progressively released from it through their Parliament’s future legislative work.
The other main justification offered is that we need to hold on to hard-won and precarious human rights. That is a good motive, which I share, but it does not follow that we should transpose the charter. People who want to do so say that our constitution has saddled us with an elective dictatorship, that Parliament cannot be trusted in these days of political extremes, and that the charter should be valued as a foundational document in a developing written constitution. It is suggested that we need more checks and balances, not so much against the Executive as against Parliament itself. Happily, for those of this cast of mind, the judges are available. They, it is hoped, will imbue our polity with a higher wisdom than that of the people’s elected representatives, disapply statute when Parliament gets it wrong and rescue us from ourselves and our tendency to excess.
Have we, as parliamentarians, entirely lost confidence in the institution that we have the honour to serve and of which our country was once so proud? As we debate Brexit it sometimes appears that for many remainers almost anything is preferable to resuming full responsibility for our own decisions in our own parliamentary democracy. “Yes”, they say, through gritted teeth, “of course we respect the vote of the people on 23 June 2016, but actually it would be safer to stay in a protectionist customs union and a single European market in whose governance our elected representatives will have no say, and with Parliament trammelled by unelected judges constrained to follow the developing practice of the European Court of Justice”. If parliamentarians do not trust Parliament, why should the people do so, and then what happens to our democracy? I say gently to my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith that this is not about ideologically driven hatred of the European Union, as he suggests in today’s Guardian, but about commitment to the renewal of parliamentary democracy.
Lord Cavendish of Furness (Con)
My Lords, if I may, I will give another non-legal observation. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, whose speech I agree with—and how very eloquent it was.
It is a regret of mine to live in an age which is so much obsessed with human rights and so little concerned with human responsibilities. Saving their presence, I rather think that the spiritual Bench below me might reflect on how little it has succeeded in teaching the parable of the good Samaritan and similar stories. Collectively, those stories almost do away on their own with the provisions of the absurd CFR. My point is that the good Samaritan behaved as he did of his own volition, not because he was told to by a bunch of lawyers and professional politicians. We tend to look at social problems through the wrong end of the telescope: we need a change of culture, not another set of often duplicated rights.
Specifically, as has been mentioned, the charter is EU-specific and EU-centric. It would therefore need extensive retailoring to fit in with our own laws. To a layman, a major defect—as again has been mentioned—of placing CFR into UK law is that it would empower courts to disapply Acts of Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, tried to deal with this, but he did not deal with it accurately; I will, however, leave that to other lawyers. To disapply a law is different from us changing a law when it comes on to our statute book in due process. It strikes me as inevitable that such a move would conflict with the Human Rights Act, the ECHR, our own common law or all three.
The charter has come in for criticism over the years from Tony Blair, Alastair Campbell, the noble Lord, Lord Hain—who is, sensibly, not in his place—and, most notably, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. It was also eloquently attacked by my right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke. Why was there a change of heart? It was never explained before, and I look forward to hearing why there is a change of heart now.
Some of the provisions are so woolly and aspirational as to render them unsuitable and even dangerous if incorporated into our own law. They include the right to respect for physical and mental integrity and the right to pursue an occupation and a guarantee of a high level of environmental protection. Those are not the sort of things that ought to appear in this sort of document. Such vagueness is surely an invitation to what has been described as judicial adventurism in the courts.
I have no intention, of course, of putting in jeopardy the livelihood of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, although I strongly disagree with him that his amendment adds certainty. The charter mounts to virtue signalling on an industrial scale. Governments need to govern, not to rehearse constantly how virtuous they are. It is time that we destroyed this amendment and voted it down.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment and would like to return to three points that I raised in Committee that Ministers have not adequately addressed.
First, I have asked four times how the fundamental requirement in the Good Friday agreement for an equivalent level of human rights protection in Northern Ireland and the Republic will be maintained if citizens of Northern Ireland can no longer look to the charter. The only substantive response that I have received so far was the irrelevant and erroneous point that, because the Good Friday agreement preceded the charter, it will not be affected by it. That is entirely to miss the point, because as I and other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, have said time and again the point is about equivalence. For the fifth time now, how will the foundational Good Friday agreement principle of equivalence of human rights protection be maintained in the absence of the charter? I can only conclude that I still have not received a convincing answer because there is no convincing answer.
Secondly, I asked the Minister in Committee whether he rejected the analysis of the Joint Committee on Human Rights of the Government’s right by right analysis, which identified a number of rights that will be lost in the absence of the charter. I draw attention in particular to children’s rights, to which we will be returning later at Report. It is a particularly important matter. The JCHR analysis said:
“Article 24 of the charter sets out the rights of the child. The Government states that the source of this right is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is not incorporated into domestic law and therefore does not confer enforceable rights upon individuals”.
The Minister’s response was:
“We have considered that analysis, and that is why I indicated that we were still looking at this. As I said, if rights are identified which are not in fact going to be incorporated into our domestic law in the absence of the charter, we will look very carefully at ensuring that those are not lost”.—[Official Report, 26/2/18; col. 570.]
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has already referred to the fact that certain rights will be lost. What has happened to this careful look again? I have not seen the government amendment which will ensure that we keep these rights. Not only the Joint Committee on Human Rights but the Equality and Human Rights Commission, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, the Bingham Centre and many others have identified a series of rights that will be lost. Does the Minister reject the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ analysis, the legal opinion given to the Equality and Human Rights Commission and everything that the highly respected Bingham Centre has said on this? What are the Government going to do about the rights that we will no longer have if we lose the charter?
Thirdly, in response to a claim by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that the Government have made clear that they have no intention of repealing the Human Rights Act, I quoted the last Conservative manifesto—bedtime reading for me, of course—which stated:
“we will consider our human rights legal framework when the process of leaving the EU concludes”.
I asked the Minister for an assurance about the Conservative Party’s long-term commitment to the Human Rights Act, but answer came there none. If the Government are planning to consider the human rights legal framework post Brexit, surely that is the time to look at the charter so that Parliament—I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Howarth, although he is perhaps not quite such a friend at this moment—can look at the whole human rights landscape holistically. That is when we should consider what happens to the future of the charter.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, there are good legal reasons to oppose this group of amendments. I will be brief. I shall not go into equivalence; for example, we already have child protection in English law.
First, we never intended to adopt the charter and did our best to opt out. It has never been analysed, debated or adopted by this House or indeed the other place. It entered our law only in 2013 after being rejected as unnecessary and confusing. It is badly drafted with its references to principles and other rights. Article 3, which refers to the prohibition of eugenic practices and the selection of persons, whatever that means, could be used by those who oppose embryo and stem cell research to block our leadership in that field. The wording in that article is more suitable for the much more conservative, unregulated and, indeed, backward European practices. The articles relating to dignity and scientific research are vague and woolly. Its scope and application are uncertain and meant for European institutions, not individual rights. Interpretation of the charter, if retained, would be a bonanza for lawyers involved in litigation. I can see decades of lucrative litigation stretching ahead, and I point out that I am not a practising lawyer.
Secondly, it offends against the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty, in that it would allow our judges to invalidate British law, not just to declare it incompatible with human rights or to treat other laws as having priority but to set it aside and nullify it. If you believe in parliamentary sovereignty now and its full recovery after Brexit, if you believe that this House should make and unmake laws, while judges interpret and apply them, then the power to set aside our laws is unacceptable. It is in Article 51(1) of the charter and has been used on at least one occasion—with unfortunate results, as my noble and learned friend Lord Brown has just pointed out. The charter’s continuance would elevate judicial policy views over the elected Parliament and give judges the very contentious interpretation powers that they have indicated they do not wish to have in relation to EU law. This is the reason for opposing the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. Although one can understand where he is coming from, the interpretation of scope would be a nightmare, and cherry picking, as both amendments do, is surely not allowed in European areas.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
The noble Baroness just gave a number of instances where she said the charter was of no use. That is for the very good reason that the charter applies only to EU institutions or member states’ implementation of EU law. If she is arguing that the charter should have gone further and deeper into national law that has nothing to do with EU law, that is a very debatable point, but it does not.
Baroness Deech
The noble Baroness makes a very good point as to why the retention of the charter would not be of any use once we have left Europe.
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, the arguments in favour of the amendment seem to come down to two. One is that we are leaving the EU so we need all the rights that we can possibly get, and we need them as protected as widely as we possibly can. The second seems to be, “Why pick on the charter if you are retaining the rest of EU law?” I will not repeat all the arguments that we have already heard, and I will endeavour to be brief.
I have studied the Government’s analysis of the various rights contained in the charter, and almost all of them seem to be covered by our law in statute, by common law or by the European convention that is now part of our law by the Human Rights Act. Indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, was right all those years ago when he said that the charter added nothing. Important though rights are, and ensuring their protection must be a fundamental part of what we do in this House, we should not presume that every convention, charter or other aspirational document must necessarily result in justiciable rights—that is, rights that you can sue on. If the amendment is passed, I will be able to bring a claim on the basis that my dignity has been invaded. Of course dignity is very important, but if we had thought that it was something that ought to give rise to a claim for damages then over our long legal history either our judges would have invented such a claim or Parliament would have done so. We seem to have got on reasonably well without it. How are judges supposed to make sense of this to make it legally coherent?
Many noble Lords may have noticed that the amendment specifically excludes the preamble to the charter and Chapter V—understandably, because Chapter V is to do with European elections. But the preamble frames the charter and explains what it is all about. It is quite a lengthy part of the charter, and begins:
“The peoples of Europe, in creating an ever closer union among them, are resolved to share a peaceful future based on common values”.
So the whole charter is premised on membership of the European Union.
Let me take just two further examples from the charter. Article 16 confers,
“freedom to conduct a business in accordance with Union law and national laws and practice”.
Article 36 states:
“The Union recognises and respects access to services of general economic interest as provided for in national laws and practices, in accordance with the Treaties, in order to promote the social and territorial cohesion of the Union”.
We are leaving the European Union. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said, the charter specifically deals with EU institutions acting in the scope of the EU law. How we are supposed to have it in our law to be relied on—justiciable—after we have left the European Union does not seem to me to make much sense. Much good law has come from Europe, I entirely accept, but we should not take a theological attitude towards it and assume that it has some greater status than anything passed by our legislature.
My final concern is that the amendment would directly frustrate the purpose of the Bill, which is to provide legal clarity as we leave the European Union. Profitable litigation is far more likely to flow if the charter is a part of our law; not the other way round.
I have an amendment to the clause, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, pointed out. The charter, a relatively recent document, was supposed to reflect the jurisprudence of the European court, and I do not quarrel with it as a summary of the way in which the court has approached various issues. It was in those circumstances that I thought it might be helpful to suggest that when one was interpreting a particular piece of retained law, if and in so far as the charter was part of it, one might look at the charter. We certainly do not want to be bound by the charter in future. My noble and learned friend may tell me that the answer to my amendment lies in Clause 5(5), although I have read that more than once and find it somewhat difficult to understand.
Suffice it to say that if we have the charter as part of our law in future, it will make very little sense. Who will interpret the charter? Of course, it is the European Court of Justice, with all the shortcomings pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. This would be a great mistake.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I may offer a slightly different opinion on our discussion. It is really interesting as a member of a minority. Over the years, generations of lesbians and gay men and others of different minorities have stood before Parliament and requested equality—requested a life without discrimination. The arguments have gone back and forth, and laws went ahead that denied us equality and participation as equal citizens. We often then had recourse to the courts. Before the Human Rights Act, that was often painful, expensive and outside the choices of most ordinary men and women.
As a gay man having, at the age of 67, lived virtually all of my life without equality, it is interesting to hear the different legal arguments for a charter that enforces my right, among others, to non-discrimination, which does not exist anywhere else in UK domestic law. That it widens it further into the principle of non-discrimination and into every country of the European Union, where I would have freedom of movement and protection in those countries, is something that I welcome.
For me, the charter is a repetition of many rights that currently exist, but actually the formulation of some rights that hitherto were not listed and enumerated. For me, the repetition of a right does not weaken that right, especially when we are seeking equality and equal protection. The repetition of a right reinforces it. I care not if it is repeated again and again—from convention to charter to charter—because ultimately, if we seek equality and equal citizenship, we should have as many legal instruments on which to argue as we can.
I commend the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on moving this amendment so eloquently. I welcome the arguments he outlined: to look again at a charter that lists your rights. To be able, within that charter, to know that you are either a victim or being denied a right offers a simplicity that brings with it, I believe, accountability—accountability of parliaments and accountability through the courts. I too am suspicious of the Government, and I say that to some of my friends who are in government. I have watched time after time as members of the Conservative Party in the European Parliament have voted against equality and non-discriminatory measures. That worried me for the 15 years I was there. I worry, too, that the Conservative manifesto 2015 said that it would scrap the Human Rights Act. I also worry, as my noble friend Lady Lister outlined, that the Conservative manifesto 2017 said:
“We will not repeal or replace the Human Rights Act while the process of Brexit is underway but we will consider our human rights legal framework when the process of leaving the EU concludes. We will remain signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights for the duration of the next parliament”.
When it comes to the European convention and the charter, I want commitments beyond Parliament.
These rights are not for the Government to ditch. Indeed, the Government have no mandate to detach the Charter of Fundamental Rights from the rights that we have achieved in this country, and no mandate to detach the charter from the EU retained law. I believe that maintaining the charter brings greater legal certainty, not less. The Government’s declaration that the Charter of Fundamental Rights is not necessary is disingenuous. They cannot say on the one hand that it is not necessary and then argue passionately against its inclusion. That makes no sense whatever, but maybe I have not been in your Lordships’ House long enough.
Within the charter, rights exist that do not exist elsewhere in the European Convention on Human Rights: the inviolability of human dignity, the non-discrimination, the right to be forgotten, the rights of the elderly, data protection, and so on. Ministers and others have argued that it is not necessary to reaffirm the rights in the charter. I ask simply: why not? Why not reaffirm rights? We need reassurances for our rights and their protections now more than ever. This country has never been more divided and more hostile to the opinions of others. Discrimination and victimisation are not diminishing; they are on the increase. We face great challenges and unprecedented change, so we need more certainty and reassurance, not less. Reassurance is absolutely necessary if we are to embark on a journey whose destination is unknown, and the journey there needs to unite this divided country, not imperil it.
The rights are codified into a simple charter, and they come with a long history of the denial of rights and out of the commitment of a group of nations never again to return to the horrors of the past. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said, they cannot do all things with all situations—but, even if it is aspiration, what an aspiration to laud and support. The horrors of the past were faced by individuals and individuals who made up minorities, who were seen as different, as outsiders, and were defamed, misrepresented and made unpopular. They were painted as unworthy of equality, a threat. Those times and sentiments never disappear; they hover, waiting for the political opportunity, and wait they still do.
Baroness Deech
Can the noble Lord explain why the Equality Act 2010, with a very comprehensive list of non-discrimination, is inadequate?
Lord Cashman
Because in rights newly achieved we can never have too much challenge or support for a principle that came out of the treaty of Amsterdam of 1997, which for the first time gave a legal basis to the Community to take action based on non-discrimination on the grounds of race, ethnicity, religion, belief, age, disability and sexual orientation. Arguably, the very rights to which the noble Baroness referred came out of the treaty of Amsterdam of 1997.
I finish on this—on other generations of the past and their sacrifices by defending the charter, along with the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights, both of which, as I have said, have been singled out rather worryingly in the 2017 Conservative Party manifesto. Let us retain the charter and reassure those generations that, when it comes to the defence of human rights and equalities, our arsenal is not depleted but well stocked and ready.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, of course we should recognise those who have made sacrifices for us in the past, and at the same time we should not forget how many of them were British.
We have had some very eloquent speeches in this debate, and I have perhaps made the mistake of listening to all of them. I hope that no one in your Lordships’ House would question my commitment to human rights, nor question my commitment to staying in the European Union—and I have spoken to that effect many times in your Lordships’ House. I very much hope that, if Brexit comes to pass—as I fear it will—it will be a soft and understanding Brexit. But I have been persuaded this afternoon by the very eloquent speeches not of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who nearly always persuades me, but of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and my noble friend Lord Faulks.
The fact is that we are—deeply as I regret it—moving away from the European Union. I hope that we will indeed be able to move out with the deep and close relationship about which the Prime Minister is always talking. But we are moving out, and when this particular document was being adopted no one argued more eloquently against its generalisms than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. He did not see why we should sign up—but we did. If we were remaining in, we would of course remain signed up; it would be the right thing to do. However, as we are moving out, we have to dismiss the preamble and Chapter V.
We also have to ensure that this country, which through the centuries has been both a bastion and a beacon of liberty and human rights, honours its own history and continues to give an example to others. At the end of the Second World War, people looked to us and we, more than any other country, helped to put Germany together again as a democratic nation leading not only in Europe but in the world. We have not forgotten all those things, nor given up all those abilities and techniques—and we will have to exercise them again in the future.
Last week, without any hesitation, I voted for two amendments. I know that I shall be voting for others, because I think they are essential. In doing so, I shall be voting for the other place to reconsider and think again, although I have always acknowledged—and do again now—that the ultimate power rests at the other end of the Corridor. However, I have been persuaded this afternoon that this amendment is something that we do not have to do. Although I came into the Chamber rather thinking that I would abstain, which is an honourable course but not a comfortable one, I will not support this amendment, because I do not think that it is necessary or realistic. The powerful speeches which the House has heard this afternoon from those who are learned in the law do on balance, in my mind at least, outweigh for once—it is an unusual if not unique occasion—the forensic ability and marvellous eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I hold the legal profession in high esteem. However, in Committee, it was obvious to me as a lay person—a person on the Clapham omnibus—that the lawyers disagreed and kept disagreeing. That was very upsetting for me, because it meant chaos instead of clarity—and the same thing is happening again. When I support this amendment, all I can do is apply my intelligence and political knowledge and think about what the safest thing to do is.
In Committee, we heard some noble Lords on the Government Benches insisting that the charter was some sort of bureaucratic bogeyman created by the EU to destroy parliamentary sovereignty and create a whole load of new rights that were fundamentally opposed to the British way of life. Now, later, other noble Lords, including the Minister, assert that the charter does absolutely nothing of significance and that all the charter rights exist elsewhere. Both those points of view cannot both be right—and in fact neither of them is right.
I am not convinced that what we heard is a fair representation of what exists. If two views are so opposed, what are we to believe? We are losing rights that are fundamental to our modern way of life. Very many people outside your Lordships’ Chamber think that Brexit is nothing more than an attempt by elites—that is us and others like us—to tear up everyone’s rights and freedoms. I voted for Brexit, but that was not the Brexit that I had in mind. If we lose the Charter of Fundamental Rights today, I will feel that I have been complicit in doing exactly that. I will leave it to other more learned Lords to try to work out what the exact effect would be of retaining or losing the charter. However, on the Clapham omnibus it feels as if we are spinning round in circles.
I will ask a very simple question. If I am unusually kind and give the Government the benefit of the doubt and accept that the charter rights are all in our law elsewhere, one question would remain. Why would your Lordships’ House replace a simple codified charter with a complex and diffuse legal mess? I simply do not understand that. The general trajectory of good law- making is to take complexity and make it simpler and more elegant. This House often takes a chaotic mix of case law, statutes and treaties and rewrites them in codified statutes which put them all together in one place and make them easier to understand. I cannot think of another example in this or any other Bill where this House has been asked to take a simple legal situation and make it infinitely more complex while seeking to achieve exactly the same thing. It simply does not make sense to scrap the Charter of Fundamental Rights. It is our duty as a revising Chamber to make sure that people outside understand exactly what we are trying to preserve, which is fundamental rights and freedoms.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I will say a few words about this amendment. First, it is important to notice that the charter applies only when the EU law is implemented; therefore, the non-discrimination that the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, talked of is applicable only when EU legislation is implemented. There is a recent case in the Supreme Court which says exactly that. It did not allow claims of non-discrimination in a case where the law which was being implemented was not EU law. Therefore, this charter is very restricted in that respect. In addition, while we are in the EU we are implementing EU law, but there is a serious question as to whether we will be implementing EU law at all after Brexit. This is a matter of how you interpret the idea of bringing EU law into our law on Brexit day. However, it is extremely important that the whole charter is being incorporated by this amendment, including these serious restrictions, which are not easily applicable in Northern Ireland or elsewhere. I was interested to hear in Committee about the situation as regards Northern Ireland. The implementation of the charter in its present form in our law would be extremely defective.
Secondly, once we are out of the EU, surely the fundamental part of our constitution should be respected—that is, that the courts of Westminster Hall, as they were, and the courts of justice of our land have no jurisdiction to set aside Acts of Parliament. One of the fundamental aspects of this charter is that it professes to give the right to set aside Acts of Parliament when they are in breach of these particular responsibilities. In my submission it has been a fundamental part of our constitution for many years that Acts of Parliament cannot be set aside by the judiciary. That is nothing to do with the qualifications of the judiciary; it is to do with setting a reasonable control in a democracy in the hands of the elected representatives. You have only to look at the United States to know how different it is where the Supreme Court has the ultimate authority over the constitution of the United States and what the House of Representatives and the other aspect of its legislature can pass.
Lord Judge (CB)
I very rarely disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and there is a very good reason for that. On every occasion when I have had to give a judgment in a case which he has argued, I have found against him, and on every occasion when he has appealed my judgment he has succeeded. That is more or less accurate.
The issues that arise here can be very briefly summarised by reference to Article 50. It is not a point I would have made if the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, had been sitting in her place. In 2003, the previous Labour Government brought forward a provision that did away with the prohibition on a second trial—the ancient common law principle of double jeopardy. Faced with the prospect of new and compelling evidence, for example by further research through DNA and the like, with which we are familiar, the Act was passed. Article 50 prohibits that provision that was made in primary legislation. The result would have been that two men now serving imprisonment following conviction for murder of that innocent boy would never have been prosecuted to conviction.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I put on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, with whose arguments on Amendment 15 I entirely agree, for his long-standing championing and reaffirming of disability rights both in this House and in the other place.
However, I have a question that I am struggling with and it relates to the brilliance of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, of which we have just heard. I might be disheartened by the noble Lord’s arguments but his genius fills me with confidence that Parliament is well able to assert itself and to advance and protect rights after Brexit. Do we not believe in ourselves and in our proud history of championing rights? I believe that we have much to be proud of, and I personally have much to be grateful to our Parliament for, and your Lordships’ House in particular, due to the invaluable help it has given me and the charities I had the privilege of working with for almost 20 years spent in the voluntary sector.
I recall the crucial support that your Lordships’ House gave the Royal British Legion’s Honour the Covenant campaign when I was its head of public affairs. As a result, David Cameron, to his lasting credit, enshrined the principles of the Armed Forces covenant in law. I remember vividly the pivotal role that your Lordships’ House played in saving the crucial position of the chief coroner during the passage of the Public Bodies Bill, thereby securing long-overdue reforms to the coroners service to the great benefit of bereaved Armed Forces families and, indeed, bereaved families in general. However, I do not recall that those campaigns and changes to the law took place at the behest of the EU, the ECJ or the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. Indeed, the EU, as I recall, barely got a mention.
As a child, my condition meant that I was for ever breaking my legs. I lost count of how many times I had to learn to walk again. You would think that you would remember something so basic, but you do not—not after months in bed with your leg in traction and not when you are afraid to put one foot in front of the other for fear of a fracture. You forget how to walk. I fear that we too have forgotten how to walk, and we need urgently to remember. We need to remember how to walk tall.
We need to reflect the simple fact that the people have spoken and they have chosen, by a clear majority, to leave the EU and to take back control of our laws. The UK is their country, not ours; the UK Parliament is theirs, not ours. We may have been their masters once; we are not now. We are their servants. They are the masters, and they have spoken in a once-in-a-generation referendum.
We do not need this charter. We in this great British Parliament set the benchmark for human rights. That was not done by the EU and certainly not by the ECJ, whose judgments, as we have already heard, are informed by the centrifugal force of everything that emanates from the rejected EU political project of ever closer union.
I conclude by agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that a vote in support of Amendment 15 would be a vote of no confidence in Parliament and in your Lordships’ House. It would be a vote of disdain for the clear majority of the British people, who voted to leave the EU. I urge noble Lords not to support the amendment.
Baroness Ludford
My Lords, I must have explained myself poorly in my intervention on the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, or else the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has misunderstood me. I think I said that the charter did apply when national law implemented EU law, not just when it is EU institutions, and this Bill is meant to freeze EU law. I do not think there has been a response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick: why, uniquely, should the charter be the only element that is left out? As one commentator, Professor Steve Peers, has said, taking the charter out of the case law is like trying to take the egg out of the omelette.
The charter is the key to the rest of retained EU law and its exclusion runs counter to the claim of continuity and certainty that this Bill is meant to deliver. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill say that:
“As a general rule, the same rules and laws will apply on the day after exit as on the day before”,
and that one of the four main functions of the Bill is that it,
“converts EU law as it stands at the moment of exit into domestic law before the UK leaves the EU”.
It will then be for Parliament, and where appropriate the devolved legislatures, to make any future changes. Why should the charter be different from the rest of EU law which is retained under this Bill?
It is perfectly possible to retain the charter and deal with any redundant sections after exit, just like for every other part of retained EU law. If the charter genuinely adds nothing useful, then that can be sorted out in the same way as for other EU law provisions. The arguments can take place later. Yet the only exception to the Government’s general approach is Clause 5(4), which provides that the charter will no longer apply in UK domestic law after exit day. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said in Committee and now, that position is simply unsustainable.
The Government’s rationale that it is not necessary to retain the charter because the rights it contains can all be found elsewhere in domestic law, and consequently that there will be no loss of rights, is disagreed with in advice from Jason Coppel QC for the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. He highlights that there will be gaps in protection—for instance, in relation to children’s rights, data protection and non-discrimination.
Various articles of the charter have been referred to in the debate so far. Article 1, providing that “Human dignity is inviolable”, was objected to, but it has been used by the European Court of Justice to help protect LGBT asylum seekers from inappropriate psychological tests and in cases concerning the extradition of individuals to countries where they would face unacceptable detention conditions. That is not some airy-fairy right that we should not care about.
Mention has been made of Article 8:
“the right to the protection of personal data”.
I find it a bit rich that this was relied upon until the Secretary of State pulled out of what was originally the David Watson case, in his successful challenge to DRIPA. Article 8 will not be fully and clearly replicated after withdrawal, even with the retention of the general data protection regulation.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, I think that we are probably reaching the end of the debate.
Baroness Ludford
I am just concluding my remarks. I want simply to support what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about the importance of the Northern Ireland issue. You cannot have differing rights on each side of the border. The European Commission has said that the Good Friday agreement requires equivalent standards of protection of rights on both sides of the border. I simply remind noble Lords that Jacob Rees-Mogg has opined that EU sanctions for breach of the withdrawal agreement would go against the EU’s own charter of fundamental rights. The irony and hypocrisy of that statement require no elaboration from me.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, I take the sense of the House to be that the Front Benches should now speak. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has spoken, I shall speak, then the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and then the amendment will go back to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. We debated the position of the charter quite fully in Committee, but it is interesting that the charter has cropped up time and again in other amendments, which indicates how important and pervasive this issue is to many people. Noble Lords have repeatedly raised the position of the charter in areas such as general equality, non-discrimination, the rights of children, workers’ rights and the rights of the elderly. Moreover, the concerns that have been expressed in this House are mirrored by concerns expressed by civil society in the form of distinguished non-governmental organisations and many others. My personal postbag has contained more about the charter than any other aspect of the Bill.
I want to say a word about the development of human rights. Of course, I fully accept that this country has played an important and proud role in that. We were very much a part of the drafting of the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly after the Second World War. However—this is part of the genesis of the charter—the convention is essentially limited to classic civil and political rights, such as the right to association and the right to a fair trial. As was demanded when it was brought in, the charter deals with not only those rights—because it is intended to be comprehensive—but many other, more modern, economic rights, which mean a great deal to many people in this country.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, for meeting with my noble friend Lady Hayter and I to discuss this issue. However, I have to tell him that he has failed to persuade me that the Government’s reasons for excluding the charter from the EU laws that will be downloaded on exit day are good. I am not alone in that. Your Lordships have heard about, and been reminded of, what was said by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and by the distinguished Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law. They said that it was clear beyond doubt that this decision would result in a diminution of protection. Others have made the same point; the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to the well put together opinion of Mr Jason Coppel QC.
As the debate has progressed, I have sensed movement. Whereas in Committee, a view appeared to be put forward on behalf of the Government that the charter did nothing, I now detect that that is not the position; it is accepted that the charter does something, as said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, but what it does is not liked. That is a very different position. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who is not in her place, put it very well: this is a debate between lawyers. That is not what we should be dealing with at this stage. The question now should not be whether this provision of EU law alone should be excluded from the EU law download, and it should not turn on nice, detailed legal argument, particularly argument that is contentious. Even if the charter does only a little, if it does something—the view of many people is that it does a lot more than a little—then, in accordance with the Government’s promise, that should be incorporated into domestic law at this stage like every other provision of EU law. Its removal or modification, if desired, should be done through the process that this House and the other place decide is the right way for us to modify retained EU law—whether that is primary legislation, which would be our preference and was the preference of this House when it voted last week on certain rights, or some other process of delegated legislation. The key point is that if the Government want to modify how the protection of the rights of workers, citizens, the elderly and children appears in the charter in any way, it should be through that process.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, reminded us, rightly, at the beginning—because it is what this is all about—the Government’s position is that the Bill is intended to be straightforward and to put on the UK statute book, on exit day, the provisions of EU law currently in force. Thereafter, radical policy changes and choices will be made—there will be occasions for that—and once the scrutiny of the Bill in this House and the other place is complete, we will know whether those routes are to be solely through primary legislation or through delegated legislation. There will be a process for that if we think it should happen.
For now, the issue is simple: should the promise from the Government—indeed, from the Prime Minister herself—in the foreword referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that the rights on the day after exit will be the same as those on the day before, be respected or not? As has been said more than once, including by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, what is unique about this issue that means we apply a different process to it from that applied to everything else? That is the point I invite noble Lords to consider as we vote, as I hope we will, although it will be for the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to say.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
On the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, not assisted by the fact that the charter applies only to EU law and that the law on murder is not Union law?
Lord Goldsmith
It is always good to have a second argument when you are in front of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge.
Lord Judge
Perhaps, then, we had better find out what “the sovereignty of Parliament” means.
Lord Goldsmith
I come back to the central point I want to make. The Government made it clear and promised that rights would remain the same on exit day, but they could then be subject to change through the processes agreed and determined by this Parliament. Of all EU laws, the charter alone is being excluded. That drives one to question why that should be. Is it an ideological reason? Is it not wanting to see something that has “EU” attached to it? Or is it—which will be even more sinister and would worry me enormously—that there is an unhappiness and suspicion about fundamental rights? If there is any element at all that what lies behind this is a suspicion about fundamental rights and a suspicion that people should not be able to exercise those rights, that would be deeply unsatisfactory and a very good reason for not accepting the Government’s exclusion of this.
Baroness Deech
Would the noble and learned Lord agree that what is special about this is that the judges of the ECJ, whatever sort of court he estimates that to be, will keep interpreting those rather vague principles on and on, decade after decade, and that all those interpretations will have to be brought back here, unforeseeable and maybe irrelevant as they are? That is what is different about it.
Lord Goldsmith
I am advised that that is not a request for clarification which is appropriate on Report. I have dealt with this question before. After exit day, it will be British judges who interpret the EU retained law. There are questions about regard they will have to decisions which relate to the same law afterwards—those we will debate at another time during Report—but the idea that, if the charter is included, there will be references to the Court of Justice of the European Union is simply not right.
I have been driven, and I apologise for it, to the view that it is an ideological reason, and we have heard one or two speeches which seem to support that, but the people outside here—it is delightful that we still call them the people on the Clapham omnibus in court and in this place—will wonder what it is. They will look at the charter; they will see the rights in it, all of which they would think are very good things to have—they would not perhaps understand all the details as when they apply and when they do not—and wonder what the Government are doing in saying that it alone is excluded. There has never been a good answer for that. I do not anticipate that we will get it now either. The noble and learned Lord asks why not. It is because he and I have spoken about this several times and I have not heard it yet.
Lord Goldsmith
I will listen attentively to what the Minister says, of course, but I do not anticipate that we will hear anything new. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, will ask the House to state its opinion. I will be glad to go in the Lobby with him then, as I hope will many Members of the House.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all your Lordships for an interesting debate which has addressed some of the issues in considerable depth. In a short but telling address, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, noted that he was not a lawyer, but he exhibited a depth of understanding and a delicacy of touch in respect of our constitutional settlement that is absent from many lawyers, including, I fear, one or two who have spoken in this Chamber.
Lord Keen of Elie
Why should I say that? Let us be clear: the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union applies only to a member state where it is directly implementing European Union law. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern observed, that point was reinforced in a judgment of the United Kingdom Supreme Court just a few months ago, when it said that it is not enough to address something within the scope of EU law. The charter has applicability only where a nation member state is directly implementing EU law. That has to be borne in mind.
When we leave the EU, whether you wish it or not, we will not be a member state and we will not be directly implementing European Union law. We will have a body of law brought into our domestic law under the heading “retained EU law”. It is a body of law which will diminish over time and diverge from European Union law over time as the latter develops.
What do we find in a document, the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union, that will assist us after exit, and on what constitutional basis are we to maintain it? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, helpfully referred to the explanatory notes to the charter. It is worth bearing those in mind, because the preamble to the charter, which I appreciate the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, would exclude from his amendment, tells us that,
“the Charter will be interpreted by the courts of the Union and the Member States with due regard to the explanations prepared under the authority of the Praesidium of the Convention which drafted the Charter”.
So the charter is a living document because it is subject to explanations, which, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out, may assist in our approach to the charter itself. But it goes further than that. We may decide, as is suggested by the amendment, to ring-fence the charter within that body of law referred to as retained EU law. But, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, observed in Committee, if that was to be attempted, the charter,
“will have to be largely rewritten if we introduce it into our law, but it is not designed for the kind of situation we are facing after Brexit. It is designed for use within the Union and to be interpreted by the CJEU”.—[Official Report, 26/2/18; col. 544.]
In that respect he was entirely correct.
However, just saying that the charter is going to be ring-fenced into domestic law is not even half the story. One has to have regard to the content of the charter itself—something that will apply only to a member state implementing EU law. If I am a little tedious on this point, I apologise in advance, but it is worth noticing some of the terms of the articles within the charter itself; one or two were referred to by my noble friend Lord Faulks. In the context of non-discrimination, it is to be looked at,
“within the scope of application of”,
the treaties. In the context of workers’ rights to information and consultation, it is to proceed not only under the conditions of “national laws and practices” but,
“under the conditions provided for by Union law”.
We will come back to that. In respect of the protection in the event of unjustified dismissal, it is to be considered not only in the context of national law but,
“in accordance with Union law”.
Article 34, with regard to social security and social assistance, is to be addressed,
“in accordance with the rules laid down by Union law”,
not just national law; that also applies in the context of social and housing assistance. With regard to economic interest, under Article 36, the objective is,
“to promote the social and territorial cohesion of the Union”.
Environmental protection is to be,
“integrated into the policies of the Union”.
Consumer protection is concerned with “Union policies”. The right to an effective remedy and a fair trial refers to everyone,
“whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated”,
so again we have to have regard to the law of the Union. Within the field of application itself, we have already noted that the charter applies only when a member state is directly implementing Union law.
What do we mean by “Union law”? Well, it is not international law and it is not national law. The Government, exercising the royal prerogative, can enter into international treaties at the level of international law. That is precisely what they did in 1972. That has no impact on domestic law. It is only when this Parliament decides to draw down those international treaty obligations into national law that those laws become binding upon us. That is where Parliament has to decide. So what is union law? Since at least the decision of the European Court of Justice in Van Gend en Loos in the 1970s, it has been stated repeatedly by the courts of justice in Europe that EU law is not a species of international law. It represents a new legal order for the members of the Union. That is Union law. In a sense it is a form of federal law: a law that applies to all the member states of the Union.
Lord Keen of Elie
There we go.
The next stage is to say that we as a Parliament do not trust our ability to hold the Executive to account. Then we go on to the next stage to say, of course, that we do not trust the electorate to return a Parliament that is capable of protecting their fundamental rights. What happened to the mother of Parliaments? What happened to the concept of the sovereignty of this Parliament? We are apparently prepared to abandon it in favour of a body of foreign law because we no longer trust ourselves to protect our own fundamental human rights. Is that what we have really come to? It is a shocking dénouement: whether you wish to leave the European Union or you do not wish to leave the European Union, the idea that we are going to have to cling on to a body of foreign law in order to maintain fundamental human rights in this country is simply astonishing. As I indicated before, it would reflect not only a constitutional outrage but a total abdication of our responsibilities.
Looking to Amendment 15, what is it actually going to do? It is going to bring into our domestic law a charter that relies upon union law—a developing body of foreign law going forward. Are we going to monitor this, because we are not ring-fencing the terms of the charter if we bring it into retained EU law? It will be subject, going forward, to the Explanatory Notes; it will be subject, going forward, to the development of Union law; and on the back of that, where we are supposed to be directly implementing EU law—and I can only infer that the intention of the amendment, although it is not stated and cannot be found there, is that this applies to retained EU law rather than EU law itself—the intention is that we should therefore be bound to watch while primary legislation of this Parliament is struck down on the application of a foreign body of law. We need to wake up to why the charter in its present form does not sit with our future constitutional settlement after we leave the EU and why it does not fit with the body of retained EU law that is referred to in the Bill.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
If the charter is incorporated, does it not become retained EU law? Therefore, it would be subject to the mechanisms that are set out in Clause 7 of the Bill, which would enable Parliament, or Ministers—however we decide—to change it afterwards, with proper debate. What is going to happen to the rights contained in the charter which are above the rights that we have at the moment, as he has conceded and as has been conceded by other people? What is going to happen to those rights? They will fall away; they will not become part of retained EU law and therefore will not be part of the law of this country.
Lord Keen of Elie
With great respect to the noble Lord, just because the charter is made part of retained EU law in terms of the Bill does not mean that Union law, which is the linchpin and anchor of the entirety of the charter, is then retained EU law. Union law remains Union law. Therefore the charter will continue to develop. Even though it is ring-fenced within retained law, the body of the charter will be subject to Union law. You cannot have it both ways.
The noble Lord also mentioned the loss of rights. As we indicated, we have done an analysis of rights, which has been published. We have indicated that if, once this Bill is passed, it is apparent that any substantive rights are lost, we will address that. With great respect, it appears to me that the noble Lord misses the fundamental point, which is that we are effectively going to be submitting to a body of foreign law after we exit the EU if we proceed in this way. I am afraid that is the case. We cannot say we are going to be directly implementing European Union law when we are no longer a member. We will not be. It amounts to that.
I accept that various views have been expressed by various parties about the scope of the rights that will be retained after we leave the EU without the charter, and there is a lively debate about that, but let us remind ourselves again that the charter has application only when we are directly applying EU law. My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern made the point. What happens to the right to dignity in circumstances where we are not directly applying EU law? Of course it still exists. We recognise that. We would have no difficulty in recognising that, and we do not require Article 1 of the charter for that purpose. In these circumstances, noble Lords have indicated, quite rightly, that to incorporate, or even to attempt to incorporate, the charter, particularly in the form of this amendment, is to do serious damage to our entire constitutional settlement, particularly post Brexit. I hear someone say, “Outrage”, and I agree with them.
I now come to Amendment 18, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Beith. He suggested that his amendment would be a necessary consequence if Amendment 15 is carried, but I do not accept that it is a necessary consequence in those circumstances. His amendment, which seeks to remove the power in paragraph 2(2)(b) of Schedule 1 and the related provisions in sub-paragraph (3), is not appropriate. Schedule 1 generally ends the ability to bring challenges on EU law validity grounds to what will become retained EU law after we leave. After exit, individuals would continue to be able to challenge EU decisions before the CJEU and to have them annulled, in so far as they apply in the EU. The converted form of the decision would, however, remain in force within the United Kingdom. Domestic courts currently have no jurisdiction to annul an EU measure or declare it invalid, and we do not think it would be right to hand them a wide-ranging new jurisdiction which asks them effectively to assume the role of the CJEU. The noble Lord’s amendment does not alter that general exclusion.
Where we differ is that the Government recognise that, in some circumstances, individuals and businesses may be individually affected by an EU instrument which has been converted and should have a right to challenge it. For example, it would be strange if after exit a UK business were able to challenge and have struck down an EU decision which prevents it carrying out certain trading activities within the EU but would not have any equivalent right of redress in relation to the form of that decision which has been retained as part of UK law. It is for that reason that provision is made for this power. I note the noble Lord’s observation that it may be exceptional and may never be used. I accept that, but it is felt that it should be there as a safety measure. I urge the noble Lord not to insist on that amendment.
With regard to the position of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I ask him to think again about Amendment 15. I ask him to think very carefully about the form of it and what he is actually attempting to bring into domestic law, because it simply does not fit. It is in those circumstances that I invite him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, this has been a powerful and passionate debate and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, whether they have supported Amendment 15 or opposed it. In particular I thank the Minister, even though he thinks I lack—what was it?—the delicacy of touch that is appropriate in these circumstances. I am going to go away and work on it.
I shall attempt—briefly, because we have had a long debate—to answer the main points that have been made against the amendment. The noble and learned Lords, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and Lord Mackay of Clashfern, expressed concern that the charter of rights will enable courts to strike down legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, expressed a similar concern: “What about parliamentary democracy?” was his theme. The Minister put his case very high: he said it was “shocking” and a constitutional outrage that we should be bound after exit by a body of foreign law. I have to ask him to read his own Bill because under the Bill, if a statute enacted before exit day is inconsistent with any part of retained EU law, the statute gives way. It is the supremacy of retained EU law—see Clause 5(2). So a concern about parliamentary sovereignty is no basis for excluding the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights from retained EU law. Legislation that is enacted after exit day will take priority over all retained EU law, which, if the amendment is passed, will include the charter. That is how the Bill asserts the sovereignty of Parliament, together with Clause 7, so this is a complete red herring. Amendment 15 has nothing whatever to do with the sovereignty of Parliament. The Bill deals with the sovereignty of Parliament in a perfectly acceptable way. It maintains the sovereignty of Parliament. We can do what we like after exit day, whether or not Amendment 15 is approved.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, criticised the drafting of the charter. However, in the context of a Bill that is designed to secure legal continuity on exit day, it cannot be right for noble Lords to point to individual provisions in the charter that they do not like or which are poorly drafted. The reason is that noble Lords could carry out the same exercise on every regulation or directive that is to be part of retained EU law and is being read across. Again, that is no basis for singling out the charter.
Then there were complaints from the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, expressing concerns about judgments by the European Court of Justice. Under Clause 6 of the Government’s own Bill, though, it is only judgments handed down before exit day that are binding, and only up to the level of the Supreme Court. Judgments that are given by the Court of Justice in Luxembourg after exit day are simply not binding on our judges; it is up to our judges whether they follow what the Luxembourg court may say in future. I emphasise a point I made in opening this debate: neither the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, the Minister nor anyone else has given any examples of judgments given by the Court of Justice in Luxembourg on the charter to which they take exception.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness, told the House in a striking intervention—I hope I quote him correctly—that the good Samaritan did not need a bunch of lawyers to tell him what do. I say to him and to the House that, unfortunately, government and other public bodies often need to be told by judges what to do. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, that Parliament has often failed to protect fundamental rights. Without enforceable human rights, the victims of injustice and discrimination can and do go unremedied in the context of employment, equality or property rights. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, and others on his Benches that if a Labour Government under Mr Corbyn were to be elected, they would be glad of the ability of courts to listen to human rights cases to secure remedies against arbitrary state action. They should think about that point, which I put forward as a Cross-Bencher.
As I said in opening this debate, to exclude the charter from retained EU law is unprincipled and unjustified. The House has heard no coherent defence of the Government’s position. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 15 having been agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 16 due to pre-emption.
Amendment 17
“Future provisions relating to family friendly employment rights, gender equality and work-life balance for parents and carers
(1) A Minister of the Crown must, as soon as reasonably practicable, report to both Houses of Parliament whenever new or amended EU law in the area of family friendly employment rights, gender equality and work-life balance for parents and carers would have amended provisions or definitions in domestic law had the United Kingdom remained a member of the EU or the European Economic Area (the “EEA”) beyond exit day.(2) Having reported to both Houses of Parliament, the Minister must consider whether to seek to incorporate those amended provisions or definitions into domestic law, in order to ensure that there is no material reduction of gender equality and employment rights as a result of the United Kingdom exiting the EU or EEA and that those working in the United Kingdom have at least the same gender equality and employment rights and protections as they would have had if the United Kingdom had remained in the EU or EEA.(3) New or amended EU law for the purposes of this section includes but is not limited to—(a) any future EU directives relating to family friendly employment rights, including but not limited to rights for pregnant workers and employees, and those returning from maternity, paternity and parental leave; (b) any future EU directives relating to gender equality;(c) the proposed directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on work life balance for parents and carers.(4) Reports presented under subsection (1) must include—(a) an assessment of how such amendments to domestic law would have impacted gender equality and work life balance in the United Kingdom had the United Kingdom remained a member of the EU or EEA beyond exit day, and(b) an assessment of how not implementing amended provisions or definitions in domestic law will impact gender equality and work life balance in the United Kingdom.”
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, Amendment 17 simply requires the Government: first, to report to Parliament on developments in EU law in the areas of family-friendly employment rights, gender equality and work-life balance for parents and carers which would have affected UK legislation had we remained in the EU; and then to consider whether they should incorporate these changes into domestic law to ensure that such rights are not diminished or are no less than they would have been were the UK still a member of the EU. What it does not do is bind the UK into implementing future EU law. It is supported by a number of organisations, in particular Working Families, whose assistance I am grateful for.
In Committee, I warned that I might want to return to this issue because, for all the Minister’s very positive words about dilution of existing rights in this area, and in particular his very welcome assurances on the working time directive, he gave no argument why the Government could not accept this amendment, or something on similar lines. Yet, from everything he said last time, I can see nothing in this amendment with which the Government might disagree. Of course, it does not mean that future Governments cannot also look elsewhere for policy inspiration, but given that this Bill is about what happens when we leave the EU it is only right that the amendment is confined to future developments in the EU. Moreover, we remain a member of the European family, which has always been a leader in such matters.
Noble Lords will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to repeat the substantive arguments I put in Committee, other than to produce two new pieces of evidence in support. The first relates to the discussion we had around the extent to which the UK has been a leader or follower in this area. It is a newly published analysis of the development of the EU gender equality framework conducted by two leading scholars from Manchester University. It challenges the rather rosy picture painted by the Minister in Committee and in a subsequent letter, for which I am grateful. I am also grateful for the meeting that we had earlier today, which was very helpful. In summary, the researchers note that,
“far from being a pace setter in the area of European gender equality law, the UK has usually sought to stall, dilute or divert legal measures”.
They conclude that,
“decoupling from the EU’s equality framework due to Brexit will harm the pursuit of gender equality in the UK”,
and risks,
“a more insular approach to policy design”.
This amendment is designed to avoid just such an outcome, and it could be of particular significance in Northern Ireland, where there could be real problems if employment rights diverge in future across the island of Ireland.
The second piece of evidence is the recent report of the Women and Equalities Select Committee, Fathers and the Workplace, which provides strong support for the kind of improved parental leave provisions for fathers contained in the draft work/life balance directive. I accept that the directive is still at proposal stage, as the Minister pointed out in Committee, but that does not invalidate the case for considering it once we have left the EU. Indeed, it makes it more likely that it will be too late for us to be bound by it.
In Committee, the Minister summed up fears that the Government will use the opportunity of Brexit to cast rights aside with the metaphor of scraping,
“the barnacles off the boat to allow the ship to move faster”.
He then assured the Committee that these rights,
“are integral parts of the engine of the ship and we shall not be discarding them”.—[Official Report, 5/3/18; col. 953.]
That was very welcome. But this amendment is not about existing rights, crucial as they are. It is about where we go from here. Surely we want to keep the engine fine-tuned in future so that it keeps up with other ships in European waters on these issues, the importance of which he himself underlined. Indeed, it is difficult to see why the Government would not want to appear forward-looking and open-minded when steering the ship into post-Brexit waters, especially in view of recent public attitudes research by the IPPR that indicates strong public support for continued alignment with the European economic and social model.
I therefore seek two further assurances: first, that the Government will undertake to meet the spirit of the amendment after we have left the EU and, secondly, that in particular they will give serious consideration to whatever emerges from current negotiations on the work/life balance directive, and give Parliament an opportunity to consider it. If the Minister is unable to give those very modest assurances, I ask him to give a clear explanation as to why not. As it is, I am afraid that the Government will send a very negative message to the parents and carers of this country who are struggling to balance paid work with their caring responsibilities, and to the many organisations looking for reassurance about the country’s future direction on family-friendly employment rights, gender equality and work/life balance for parents and carers. Refusal would also cast doubt on the Brexit Secretary’s recent claim that Britain will remain a dynamic and open country and that we will lead a race to the top in global standards. Those are fine words; this amendment will go some small way to turn them into deeds. I beg to move.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
I underline my noble friend’s point about the enthusiasm with which the Minister told us in Committee that there would be no dilution of these rights and that it is the Government’s intention that these rights would be the foundation for an ever-developing family-friendly agenda that they want to advance. Yet the Minister did not give my noble friend or any of us involved in that Committee any idea why the Government do not want to monitor evolving EU law in this area. Surely, if we want to be in the vanguard of EU law we have to be able to monitor it. Why can we not do that? It is such a modest ask.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
I shall speak to the amendment, to which I have added my name. I urge my noble friend the Minister to give us the reassurances that we seek. I believe that the Government want this country to be at the forefront of equality rights, work-life balance, improvements for parents and carers and family-friendly employment. I hope he can reinforce the commitment to aspire to the race to the top in these protections for what are such important rights in terms of equality.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
My Lords, the contributions from my noble friends Lady Lister and Lady Crawley and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, have made the case quite clearly for why we need this proposed new clause, as laid out in Amendment 17. It explains in detail the importance of including this in the Bill, and would require the Minister to report to Parliament whenever there are new or amended EU laws in the area of family-friendly employment rights, gender equality and work-life balance for our parents and carers.
As the other noble Baronesses have explained, there is concern that the UK could fall behind the EU on gender equality and employment rights if we do not automatically, in a sense, have to follow EU laws. The amendment would allow Parliament to be informed on EU laws and consider whether to incorporate them into UK laws. I am sure the Minister, like the noble Baronesses who have spoken, believes that there should be no weakening of maternity or paternity rights, adoptive parental rights or the rights of pregnant and breast-feeding women, which we discussed in Committee.
I hope that the Minister will give guarantees tonight in relation to the amendment. Equality rights need continual progress and amendment. That is why it is essential that we look at what the EU is doing and whether that is something we could, and would want to, incorporate into our laws. We are asking tonight for reassurance from the Minister that equal rights, which have been hard fought for over many years, will not be watered down in any way. The amendment would continue to offer protection, as well as ensuring that women’s equality rights do not fall behind those in future EU laws. I hope the Minister will give a positive reply.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I thank the noble Baronesses for their contributions. I believe, and am comfortable saying, that when we exit the EU the corpus of EU law on which we will build our foundations will be a strong one. At our last gathering, I was able to give assurances on the working time directive, which I hope were welcomed on all sides of the House. The key aspect here is simple: we should not solely be looking towards the EU as we consider what is happening on the wider question of family-friendly employment.
I had a pleasant discussion earlier today with the noble Baroness on the key elements of the amendment. She knows that I am not able to give the words of comfort that she is looking for, but I am able to give different ones. They are not specific to the Bill but are, more broadly, about what the Government intend to do and how we will do it. I will iterate those in due course. For example, the work-life balance directive is at present in its very early stages in the European Union. Because of where it is in the process, there is every prospect that it will not have secured enough progress before the European Parliament rises for the elections. Thereafter it will have to be retabled and greater time spent bringing it back to its current state. I would much prefer that the elements contained in that directive were taken forward by the Government in good time and good order. Post Brexit, it must be our ambition not to await what others are achieving but to see the direction in which they are facing and move as quickly as we can. Your Lordships’ House, and the lower House, must be at the forefront of these endeavours.
I spoke in Committee about these policies not being barnacles on the boat. It is absolutely clear to me that they do not drag us back; they are integral to the engine that drives us forward. Equally, it is important that the committees of both Houses recognise their roles both in holding the Government to account and in casting their eyes as widely as they can to initiatives, policies and case studies that make a difference across the globe. There is much that we can learn, not just from the EU but from its member states. For example, it is not the EU itself but some member states inside it that are driving forward wider LGBT issues. Malta and the Netherlands are pushing far beyond where the EU stands, as are we ourselves. Looking at some of the wider gender equality issues, I would never paint where we are as rosy. Until we have reached absolute parity and certainty, there are not enough roses in the garden to say that. It is always a journey and we need to be moving toward that. We can learn lessons from examples across the globe. I hope that committees of this House and the other place are able to act as the antennae, seeing and hearing what is out there; to develop invaluable reports; and to hold the Government to account for recognising what those reports can achieve as we cast our eyes more broadly.
I cannot give the words of comfort on the amendment that the noble Baroness would like. In some respects, I am disappointed that I cannot. However, I commit, on behalf of the Government, to meet the noble Baroness, and to write to her and other noble Lords, setting out clearly and exactly what the UK Government intend to do in this area, where we are, what the rights are that we need to move forward on and how we intend to do that. I suggest that that happens regularly, not just once. The regularity and frequency has yet to be determined but I suggest that we have a dialogue about it. The noble Baroness will be aware that I am not the lead Minister on this, just the lead Bill Minister in this area, but I am committing, on behalf of my colleagues in the Government, to fulfil that obligation. I hope that will give some comfort. This is a journey and we are not yet far enough along. I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness on this occasion, but I cannot give her the words of comfort she would prefer to hear on the specifics of her amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I am very grateful to those who have spoken in support of the amendment, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, from the Benches opposite. They all used the word “reassurance” and, as he said, the Minister does not feel able to give me the reassurance I was seeking. I understand that, but welcome the fact that he has tried to go as far as he can. In a sense, he has implicitly acknowledged the case, even if he is not giving me reassurance. At the outset, I made it clear that this in no way stops us looking to other countries as well as to the EU, but we are—and will still be—a member of the European family. I will always be a European, as we all will, and that is where we should look first.
I welcome the Minister’s commitment on behalf of the Government. It is not just about meeting with me. I suggest a formal or informal all-party grouping of Peers who have supported the amendment, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and organisations such as Working Families, to take this forward. Once the Bill is out of the way, perhaps we could have a meeting to discuss the appropriate mechanisms to do that. None of us can speak on behalf of committees and so forth, but if we are able to map out a possible way it would give us something.
I am disappointed, but I did not expect that much. I take a few crumbs of comfort from what the Minister has said and I am grateful to him. I hope that, once the Bill is out of the way, we can use those crumbs to build something of a loaf. With that dreadful metaphor, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Warner
“Public health protection
Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, so far as it requires a Minister of the Crown or a public authority to have regard to the principle that a high level of human health protection must be ensured in the definition and implementation of all policies and activities, forms part of retained EU law.”
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I will move Amendment 17A in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jolly and Lady Finlay. The purpose of the amendment is to improve the legal protections of public health post Brexit. It does that by ensuring that those parts of Article 168 of the Lisbon treaty that are concerned with public health are part of retained EU law after exit day. I will try to explain briefly why this is an important matter of such concern to so many people involved with public health who have briefed your Lordships throughout proceedings on the Bill.
Clause 4 of the Bill includes within retained EU law directly enforceable provisions of the EU treaties. The legal advice that I have been given by three professors of European law at the Universities of Sheffield, Essex and Cambridge is that it is not clear whether it includes other provisions of the EU treaties, such as Article 168 of the Lisbon treaty. As far as I can see, the Government have been unwilling to say that it does cover those other provisions. So far on the Bill, Ministers have simply asserted that the amendment is unnecessary because our public health policies are excellent and often better than many in the EU. That, of course, fails to answer the exam question: is Article 168 part of retained EU law under the Bill? The latest letter to Peers from the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy—whom I am glad to see in his place—which incorporated Jeremy Hunt’s article, still fails to tackle the exam question.
Why am I making so much fuss over Article 168? I will not repeat all I said in Committee. However, I will remind the House of Mr Justice Green’s High Court judgment on 16 May 2016, on plain packaging of tobacco products, in which, at paragraph 441, he emphasised that Article 168 places public health,
“at the epicentre of policy making … and how ‘all’ EU policies must ensure a ‘high level of human health protection’”.
This was a significant element in his finding in favour of the Government, and Mr Justice Green’s findings were further endorsed by the Court of Appeal, rejecting the tobacco industry’s appeal in its judgment dated 30 November 2016. At paragraph 201 of the Court of Appeal’s judgment it says:
“The judge was entitled to place the weight he did on the public health objectives of the Regulations: his approach was in line with the high level of human health protection provided for in EU law”.
It is one of life’s little ironies that this Government have benefited from these EU protections. Two clear and reasonable inferences can be drawn from the Court of Appeal judgment. First, the public health protections in Article 168 should be regarded as part of retained EU law after Brexit, and secondly, the EU legal public health protections may well be more robust than those in UK law.
I turn briefly to the level of public health support for this amendment. The uncertainty caused by the Government’s approach has united the Medical Royal Colleges and wider health community, all of whom have given consistent support to this amendment. To date, 52 organisations, including the Royal College of Physicians, the Faculty of Public Health and many major charities such as Cancer UK, Diabetes UK and the Alzheimer’s Society are backing the amendment. They do so, in my judgment, because they fear that after Brexit, hard-won legal protections for public health will be sacrificed in a rush to do trade deals. Given the speeches of some Ministers, who can blame them?
The simplest way to satisfy all these concerns is to put matters beyond legal doubt. We are well past the time for further warm words from the Minister. Matters need to be made clear in the Bill by an amendment along the lines of Amendment 17A. I provided the Minister with a little more time to think about this at our meeting last week by deferring consideration of the amendment until today. I hope that he has used the time wisely and that he can now agree to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I have some points which may be helpful to make at this moment, before the full discussion gets under way, and I may seek to clarify our position. However, I will of course respond to the wider debate in due course—I am not trying to cut off any of the points which might be made. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, was indeed kind to me last week; we sat down and he agreed to allow me a greater amount of time. I will therefore say words which may bring him some comfort with this point in mind.
Public health is a vital issue—there is no doubt about that. I accept that we have not thus far provided sufficient assurance to the noble Lord or to his noble backers on the issue of public health. I am therefore grateful that we have had this extra time to look at the issues that underpin the matters before us today. I have used that time wisely in meeting with both the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I thank them both sincerely for their time.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I had the privilege of hearing the noble Lord, Lord Warner, explain the position in Committee. When I heard him speak, it roused in my mind the thought that the decision in the packaging case was extremely important. In particular, the doctrine that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, seeks to establish must have been relied upon by the Secretary of State to defend that decision; important rights of the tobacco companies were at issue as well, such as complicated trademark legislation. When I looked at this, I thought it was absolutely clear that Mr Justice Green was relying upon Article 168 and the principle of the high value of human health in his judgment in favour of the Secretary of State. Therefore, that must have been part of our law at the time when Mr Justice Green was deciding the case, which was in 2016. If it was part of our law then, it will remain part of our law in light of the provisions in the Bill when Brexit comes along.
I was not privy to the earlier situation which the noble Lord, Lord Warner, described, and there may have been some difficulty in having this clarified. Mr Justice Green was deciding this in the High Court. The case went to the Court of Appeal, where in one judgment given by three judges—they say that they all contributed to the judgment—they absolutely affirm that the judge was right and that his approach was in accordance with EU law. That is EU law as it was; part of the law of the United Kingdom in 2016. Therefore, I consider that it must be preserved by the retention of the EU law that we have here. In my view, what the noble Lord the Minister has now said makes it clear that the Government now accept that position. It does not depend so much on the Government’s word as on the fact that the courts recognise this principle as part of EU law applicable in 2016. I cannot see any answer that can be given to try to rule it out. Therefore, I am content with what the Government have come out with and glad they gave me the opportunity to discuss this with them this afternoon. There were quite a number of members of the department there and we had a fairly frank discussion which has, I am glad to say, produced what I think is a reasonable result.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, it is most helpful that the Minister has given a reassurance and further clarified the position. However, I have a lingering concern about what happens if we do not have Article 168 in the Bill. If a trade deal and negotiation end up going to court, something has already gone terribly wrong. The advantage of having this stress on public health in the Bill is to strengthen the arm of the Government to make sure that public health is not inadvertently compromised.
I found a recent review of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, which looked at the health impact in the context of trade negotiations. Particular areas of concern related to food labelling, alcohol labelling, tobacco control and the cost of medicines. As this House knows, we have a major problem with obesity in this country. If people are to make real, sensible choices over what they are buying, they have to know that food labelling covers all aspects of food safety, including exposure to toxic pesticides, herbicides and so on, and animal husbandry methods, which have been of concern.
Our producers may not want that degree of labelling because it may damage their profits. I can see that in negotiating trade deals there will be, at times, a balance between profits and establishing the trade deal and holding back in some areas because of public health. The same may happen with atmospheric pollution. and so on. So while I fully accept the intention of the Government to make sure that as, in that article, public health protection and health improvement will remain unequivocal and at the centre of things, I have a lingering concern that there may be drift over time and difficulty in negotiations if we do not have this formally in the Bill.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly. I totally agree with what the noble Baroness has just said. This debate seems very much like the one we had during the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill about parity of esteem for mental and physical health. We were told by the Government that we did not need to have it in the Bill; we could assume that they would treat mental and physical health equally. That patently had not been the case. You might wonder whether they are treated in the same way now but the intention to treat them the same way was put in the Bill and so is on the record. This is very similar. The Government are saying: “We do not need this. You can trust us”. We might possibly trust the current Government. I see no reason why in most instances we should not trust them, but there are Governments coming down the track who may not be as reliable and trustworthy as the current one. So my instinct at the moment is to listen to what the Minister says when he winds up the debate on this amendment, but I would rather that it was in the Bill than not.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a short but very interesting debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, really put her finger on it when she talked about trust. It seems to me that there are two threads running through the argument. The first is the legal one, about which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has spoken so eloquently. Then there is the issue of trust in the Government on public health. In a sense, the two run together.
The Minister is not a Health Minister, and I have to say to him that the reason for the lack of trust is the Government’s record. First they transferred public health in England to local government and then they slashed the budget, which means that even essential public health services are struggling to be performed effectively. Secondly, there is the Government’s reluctance to legislate in the areas of public health, preferring voluntary agreements with the food and drinks industry and so on to deal with things such as alcoholism, obesity and other public health issues. Thirdly, there is the fear about future trade deals—when it comes to it, the Government will be so desperate for trade deals with countries such as the US that public health and farming interests will be swamped by the desperation to reach a deal. That surely is one of the risks.
None the less, this is a debate on the terms of the amendment. I found the Minister’s intervention very helpful. I also found the intervention by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, helpful. However, this has only just come and I would like time to consider it. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, will make his mind up as to whether he pushes this to a vote tonight. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister would indicate that if we ask for time to look at the detail of his intervention, we could bring it back at Third Reading. That would be a constructive and very helpful outcome to the debate.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
This has been a short debate but an instructive one. I am somewhat sorry that we have not had longer to share with noble Lords the remarks that I made this afternoon. The key thing about the statement I made earlier, and I suppose it was one of the aspects at the heart of the concluding statements from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was about the notion of trust. I am tempted to say, as I used to say many years ago, “You can trust me. I’m a doctor”. but my doctorate is in palaeontology so I am afraid that that is perhaps not quite as useful in this regard. The important thing is not that noble Lords trust the Government or, indeed, any Government, but rather that the case law itself can be used to hold that Government to account.
In the case cited, the UK Government were the principal beneficiary across the entire EU when it came to the packaging of tobacco products. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, confirmed, we did not explain well enough that these particular rules and aspects of Article 168 are and will be available post Brexit. They will allow for the Government—if need be—or others, to be challenged, drawing on the elements of Article 168 as they stand today and as they will stand after Brexit.
In truth, the Government are broadly neutral on the concept of the amendment, primarily because we recognise that the functionality of Article 168 will not be undermined by what happens as we go forward. For that reason, I am afraid that I am not able to give greater comfort on this occasion. Indeed, should the noble Lord wish to test the House, I shall in due course suggest that he does so.
However, before I get there, it is important to stress that the UK Government were a principal beneficiary of the Article 168 approach and the concept of public health being at the epicentre of law-making. Due to the broadly established case law and, ultimately, the interpretation that will rest in the hands of the domestic courts, I believe that we are in a strong position. I know that matters of wider trade were raised, and there will be opportunities to discuss those as we look at these questions at another time, but as far as the amendment is concerned, I believe that as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay affirmed, we are now in a good position to offer certainty, which is worthy.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Perhaps I may ask the Minister to clarify what he said about providing no comfort. Speaking for the Official Opposition and, I think, for the Lib Dems, we have not had sight of the intervention that the Minister made this afternoon. I found that intervention helpful, as was the interpretation given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. I am suggesting to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, a way forward. If the Minister agrees that this matter can be brought back at Third Reading, we will have time to read that intervention. I think that that is a constructive response from the Opposition Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, will have to decide what to do but clearly, if we are not allowed to come back to this at Third Reading, we will probably have to test the opinion of the House. It seems to me that a sensible, consensual way forward is to give us time to look at what the Minister said.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, perhaps I may break the rules of Report and intervene. The Government have said repeatedly that they cannot do anything about this or that. They have said, “If you want to vote on this, you have to do it now and not at Third Reading”. However, this is a rather different situation in that their position has been made clear rather close to dealing with this amendment, and it is only reasonable that the House should be given an opportunity to study it. I do not think that that would be a breach of the general rule that we try to get rid of everything before Third Reading, and I do not anticipate that those who have tabled the amendment will want anything else.
An important point is that the amendment has raised an issue which I think the Government now accept is covered by the terms of the Bill as it was—the principle of the value of human health recognised in EU law. They have accepted that and the Bill carries it forward. It is only right that those who have brought forward the amendment should have the opportunity to study what has been said. I know that that is not in accordance with the general rule that the Government have set for Ministers but I think that this is an entirely exceptional circumstance, and I will certainly be very disappointed if, instead of getting an agreement, which I believe we have, we have an unnecessary vote.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
I very much agree with the point that the noble and learned Lord has made. It may not be within the normal rules of a Report stage debate to have the kind of circular arguments that we have had but, without having the Companion in front of me, I am pretty certain that I am accurate in saying that this is precisely the kind of occasion when it is appropriate to consider a matter again at Third Reading. The rules on when you can bring forward amendments at Third Reading are quite restrictive but, where the Government effectively announce a change of policy or, at the very least, give a further clarification which this side of the House has no opportunity to consider in detail, I cannot see that anyone loses any face whatever. It is entirely consistent with the way in which Third Reading operates for the Government to say, “We may or may not be able to accommodate it but we’ll look at it again at Third Reading”.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
For the good of my own health, we will reflect on this matter and we will be able to come back to it in due course. In the meantime, we will ensure that the intervention is circulated widely so that noble Lords can see exactly where we stand on this matter. I hope that that is helpful.
Lord Warner
Well, my Lords, if you just sit here, things work themselves out. I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention and I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, for all the help that he has given behind the scenes and to me personally on this matter.
What I have to say to the Minister is aimed not so much at him as at a few of his colleagues. They have been a bit slow in coming to the party. These legal judgments have been around for quite a long time and one would have expected DExEU to have mastered these things at an earlier stage. However, in the circumstances, and with my thanks to the Minister for showing flexibility while he was on the Bench, as well as in his interventions, we will come back to this at Third Reading. I will make sure that all the backers of the amendment have time to read everything, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beith
Lord Beith
I beg to move an amendment that I regard as, in broad terms if not technically, consequential on our earlier decision.
Lord Pannick
Lord Pannick
My Lords, we debated Amendment 19 earlier. I remind the House that it would remove the provision in Schedule 1, paragraph 3, which says that although the general principles of EU law are to be part of retained EU law they cannot provide a cause of action. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Pannick
“(2) A court or tribunal may have regard to anything done on or after exit day by the European Court, another EU entity or the EU where it considers it relevant to the proper interpretation of retained EU law.”
Lord Pannick
My Lords, Amendment 21 is in my name and those of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Goldsmith and Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. It concerns the powers of courts and tribunals to have regard to judgments of the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg handed down on or after exit day.
When we debated this topic in Committee, there was widespread agreement that Clause 6(2) needed to be amended to give clear guidance to the judiciary. I and other noble Lords have had many meetings and discussions with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and with the Solicitor-General. I thank them on my behalf and that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who cannot be present for this debate, for the care with which they have considered this important topic. I am very pleased that the Government have tabled Amendments 23, 24 and 25, which I think will remove the main concerns about Clause 6(2). Government Amendment 24 removes the opening words of the existing Clause 6(2), which suggested a default position of the court or tribunal not having regard to judgments or decisions given on or after exit day. Amendment 25 removes the requirement that courts or tribunals should ask themselves whether it is appropriate to have regard to judgments or decisions given on or after exit day. The amendment rightly states that the criterion is whether the court or tribunal considers the material relevant to the matter before the court. I am content with government Amendments 23, 24 and 25, subject to four points on which I would welcome assurances from the Minister.
First, Amendment 23 introduces new opening words for Clause 6(2) which make the subsection subject to Clause 6(1) and (3). Some concern has been expressed that these opening words somehow negate the substance of Clause 6(2). I do not believe that is so, but it is the Minister’s view that matters. Can he therefore please confirm that those opening words are intended simply to reinforce the duty of the court or tribunal on or after exit day to follow the detailed requirements in Clause 6(3) and to reinforce the duty under Clause 6(1) to interpret and apply retained EU law without being bound by anything decided in Brussels or Luxembourg on or after exit day, by contrast with what the courts have sometimes suggested is the obligation to follow the case law of the European Court of Human Rights under the Human Rights Act? But—this is the important point—the new opening words are not intended to affect the power of the court or tribunal, given by the substance of Clause 6(2), to have regard to judgments and other decisions in Luxembourg and Brussels given on or after exit day when domestic courts and tribunals interpret retained EU law.
Secondly, Clause 6(2) refers only to,
“anything done on or after exit day”.
Anything done before exit day will of course be part of retained EU law, subject to the limits stated in the Bill. However, it is possible to think of cases where a judgment of the European court given before exit day is relevant to the issue before the domestic court, even though that judgment is not part of retained EU law. Let us suppose, for example, that Parliament enacts new legislation on medicinal products to replace the existing law. If there is a dispute about the meaning of a section of that statute, the court may consider relevant a decision of the European court given last year on similar requirements.
It is also easy to envisage cases where a judgment of the European court handed down on or after exit day may be relevant to an issue in our courts which is not an issue about the interpretation of retained EU law. I therefore ask the Minister to confirm that Clause 6(2) is not intended to prevent a court or tribunal having regard to decisions of the European court handed down before or after exit day in cases not concerned with the interpretation of retained EU law, just as our courts may consider it relevant to have regard to a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada or the High Court of Australia.
Thirdly, your Lordships’ Constitution Committee recommended in paragraph 142 of our report that Clause 6 should state that in deciding what weight to give to judgments or decisions of the European court or other European bodies given on or after exit day, our courts and tribunals should be able to take into account the terms of any agreement between the UK and the EU that the court or tribunal considers relevant. I moved an amendment to that effect in Committee. I see nothing in Clause 6 to prevent courts or tribunals taking such material into account if they consider it relevant to the issue before them. Does the Minister agree and will he confirm that this would be a matter for the judgment of the court or tribunal?
Fourthly and finally, the Minister knows that the attention given to the wording of Clause 6(2) has in part been because of concern to protect the judiciary against criticism that it is making a policy choice if and when it decides to have regard to judgments of the European court on or after exit day. The Supreme Court will also have to make judgments under Clause 6(3) as to whether to depart from judgments of the European court which are part of retained EU law. After the abuse directed at the Divisional Court following its judgment in the Gina Miller case in November 2016—I declare my interest in the case, not in the abuse—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, was clear and forceful in his speedy defence of the independence of the judiciary, unlike the then Lord Chancellor. Can the Minister assure the House that when judges exercise their powers under Clause 6, the Lord Chancellor will see it as his role to defend the independence of the judiciary against any repetition of such abuse? I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I should inform the House that if either Amendment 21 or Amendment 22 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 23, 24 and 25 for reasons of pre-emption.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I wonder whether, with the permission of the House, I might respond to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I appreciate that there may be other contributions, which I will seek to answer, but it may help the House if I indicate the Government’s position on the four propositions put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, so that we can be clear on the way forward. I shall seek to move government Amendments 23, 24 and 25, which directly address and respond to the concerns raised by many noble Lords when your Lordships last debated the matter in Committee. I hope that noble Lords will support those amendments; I note in passing that they bear a striking resemblance to Amendment 21, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and Amendment 22, tabled by my noble friend Lord Faulks, whom I cut across a moment ago.
For the avoidance of doubt, I want to make clear that the provision in Clause 6(2) does not seek to legislate to give effect to the content of a withdrawal agreement or implementation period. If there is a role for the Court of Justice as part of that agreement, as has been set out in the joint report on citizens’ rights, it would be legislated for under the separate withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill. I reiterate that Clause 6(2) has always intended to make clear that, after exit, UK courts will no longer be bound by future judgments of the Court of Justice. Instead, our courts will be free to take them into account when making their decisions, just as they would also be able to consider anything done by another EU entity or the EU itself. This approach reflects the Government’s core belief that our domestic courts are best placed to consider whether, and to what extent, to have regard to post-exit Court of Justice case law.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, the genesis of this debate is at least in part the evidence that the former President and current President of the Supreme Court gave to the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House. We had a good debate in Committee. It is clear that the judges wanted clarity as to how they should approach decisions of the European Court of Justice post Brexit, perhaps not least because of the difficulty they had relating to the Human Rights Act in determining what “taking into account” meant. Clarity would certainly have followed if they were told either to follow or to ignore the decisions, but that would not have been sensible or what the Government wanted.
As a result, we were engaged in something of a struggle to find the right formulation. The word “appropriate” in the original Bill received an almost unanimous no. “Relevant” is clearly important, but in some senses it is hardly necessary because the court will not take into account a decision that is irrelevant. I tabled an amendment, which is before the House, saying “relevant and helpful”. I readily concede that “helpful” is not a word that often finds its way into statute. However, I was quoting precisely what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, recently said about how the court would regard, for example, foreign law and whether it would follow it because the reasoning was persuasive, rather than because it was bound to follow it.
Therefore, “relevant” on its own is, frankly, suboptimal, but I have been nevertheless persuaded by what my noble and learned friend said. It is the result of a number of heads being put together and the best conceivable solution being found. I was particularly reassured by his answer to the four points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, not least his answer to his fourth point about the position of the Lord Chancellor, which I am sure everybody in this House would support.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I will make one or two observations, having raised this matter at Second Reading. I am very grateful to the Minister for his amendment, which certainly brings about clarity and certainty. But, having discussed the matter with others, I want to make sure that the certainty and consequences are clearly understood.
The draftsmanship is elegant, because although under subsection (2) a court may have regard to decisions made by the European Court of Justice after exit so far as they are relevant to any matter before the court, making that provision subject to subsections (3) to (6) means that a court could do so only to clarify the meaning or effect of retained EU law as at the date of exit. It therefore has the effect of confirming what I describe as the ossification of retained EU law as at the date of exit. Only the Supreme Court is permitted to depart from any retained EU case law under the test set out in subsection (5).
Although certainty is therefore brought about, it is at the price of ossification, other than by appeal to the Supreme Court. Ossification is a principle alien to the common law, which, while it has always sought certainty, has also always allowed a significant degree of flexibility to enable the law to develop and adapt to changing times. The principles of common law development are thus denied in the application of retained EU law to any court other than the Supreme Court.
A further feature of the clause is that the Supreme Court is given no guidance as to how it may exercise its right to depart from decisions of the European Court of Justice, save by reference to the 1966 practice statement and the subsequent case law. I think it right therefore to remind the House that it is giving the Supreme Court a very considerable degree of untrammelled power, subject, of course, to the right to reverse any such decision. I am very grateful to the Minister for the assurance he has given that if, in the exercise of that power, decisions are made they will be fully defended, but it is a considerable power.
I will make two further observations. First, a consequence of confining the power to depart from European Court decisions to the Supreme Court may well mean a significant increase in the case load of the Supreme Court. As we know, it has much else to do. I therefore ask the Minister if he would reconsider amending subsection (5) to permit the Courts of Appeal of England and Wales and of Northern Ireland, and the Inner House in Scotland, to be given a similar power. Not only would that alleviate the burden on the Supreme Court, but the experience of many sitting in the Supreme Court has shown that it is generally greatly assisted if it has a prior judgment of the Court of Appeal or Inner House on the question before it.
The final observation I will make echoes what the Minister said. As was often said in Committee, the Bill seeks to provide for a functioning statute book on exit in the event that there is no agreement with the EU. It has also been said there will have to be significant amendment by at least one further Bill in the event of agreement. If, for example, it is agreed that certain fields of our law or regulation must remain aligned for the purposes of non-tariff barriers, it will be necessary to ensure that the courts can take this into account in interpreting retained EU law and therefore have regard to subsequent European Court decisions to ensure that the law or regulations remain completely aligned. It is therefore, I regret to say, a matter that, in the event of an agreement, we shall have to return to at a subsequent stage. Again, I emphasise my thanks to the Minister for the discussions he has had and the certainty and clarity he has brought about.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, we have the luxury of having three different formulations for a possible amendment to Clause 6(2) thanks to the ingenuity of the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Faulks, and the Minister. For my part, I prefer the Minister’s version, which seems to be, in a subtle way, a little more generous than the formulation of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, which is:
“A court … may have regard to anything done … after exit day … where it considers it relevant to the proper interpretation of retained EU law”.
The government amendment says,
“relevant to any matter before the court or tribunal”.
I suspect that most of these issues will be issues of interpretation, but it is perhaps wiser to have the broader formulation just in case the formula in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is too tight to include something else.
As for “relevant and helpful” from the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, one can regard something as relevant and unhelpful as well as helpful. Therefore, I am not sure that it really adds very much. Obviously, a court would not do anything with it if it is unhelpful. I suspect that those words are surplus to what one is really talking about.
I have two other points. So far as Amendment 23 is concerned, the additional words:
“Subject to this and subsections (3) to (6)”,
are necessary because of the change from the prohibition in the original formula—that is,
“need not have regard to”—
to the new formula, “may”. When you use “may” it is as well to have the cautionary words just to make it clear. There is another view: that the amendment is unnecessary because the court will, of course, look at the entire section in understanding what it is supposed to do, but it does no harm to put those words in. In the interests of clarification, it is helpful to have them there.
Finally, I add a word of support to the point the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, made about allowing the Court of Appeal and the Inner House, as well as the Supreme Court, to consider themselves not bound by retained EU case law. One has to bear in mind that the only way these issues will reach the Supreme Court under the formula in the Bill is by means of an appeal. It is not suggested that there would be a direct reference to the court. I am sure the court would not want that, because it would wish to have the issues properly focused by proceedings in the lower court.
I may be corrected if I am wrong, but I suppose that use can be made of the “leapfrog” procedure: if something comes up at first instance, it is possible to leap over the Court of Appeal direct to the Supreme Court. That may be a useful avenue in urgent cases. Usually, the Supreme Court is helped by the decision of the lower court. If the argument is focused at the lower court, it may not agree with it but it will at least have flushed out points that need not trouble the Supreme Court when dealing with the issue at the later stage. There is therefore something to be said for allowing the appeal courts to take up the same position as the Supreme Court in this field.
I simply endorse what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said as something that the Government might like to consider. I do not know whether they are considering discussing the matter with the President of the Supreme Court to get her view, but there might be something to be said for that as well.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, it was obvious from contributions at Second Reading and in Committee that this was a particularly thorny and sensitive issue. It is to the credit of the Government and not least to that of the Minister that they have been in listening mode and that a sensible arrangement has been reached. I heard what he said in response to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, not least his affirmation of the independence of the judiciary. We have reached a satisfactory point. There is nothing I can usefully add. I will prove the point by not continuing to speak but by resuming my seat.
Lord Spicer (Con)
My Lords, I shall give a brief lay man’s perspective. Being brief, I shall follow the advice of the late Cecil Parkinson, who said to after-dinner speakers, “Get up, say you’re very proud to stand before them and sit down”. I shall be a little longer than that, but not very long.
I think that we can all agree on one thing: that pretty well all of us had a fixed view on Brexit before this Bill even reached this House. Tactics is a different matter. I am very interested in the remain tactics so far as the generality of the Bill is concerned; I shall come to the specifics in a moment. They seem to be along the lines of: “We absolutely agree that we are coming out—no, we’re serious; we agree we’re coming out—but we’re coming out to a new single market backed by a strengthened court in such a way that it is quite indiscernible that we have come out in the first place”. This debate is about the court and what part it is going to play in all this. I think that it is generally accepted that the court is not only very powerful but foreign—my noble and learned friend brilliantly summed up the foreignness of the law being introduced—and different. It is based on politics rather than on precedent in law.
I first came to this in 1992. On 3 June of that year, I tabled an Early Day Motion which started the rebellion against the Maastricht treaty, so I have some form. What is the relationship between a debate which was then concerned with the single currency and today’s debate and amendment? There is a close relationship with matters to do with the currency. As Henry VIII recognised, the currency is immensely important. “This Realm of England as an Empire” was all about changing our currency back to gain control over it. The currency is vital, and the question is what the relationship between it and today’s debate is. If we did not come out of the European Union, I would not rely on us retaining our currency and our control over it. It is unimaginable that the European court would decide to run a competitive trading arrangement with the one country left to manage its own economy. It is therefore of enormous importance not only to the future of this country but to this amendment.
We debated earlier whether it counts for anything that we have become so deeply embroiled in foreign law. I suppose that where I differ from lawyers is that I believe that there are things in politics that matter as symbols, even if the lawyers can prove otherwise. It is therefore vital that we kick out Amendment 21 today.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Spicer, has made a very interesting observation, but it seems to go wider than the amendments which the House is being asked to approve, so I shall not say anything about the issues that he has raised. He referred to the “remain tactics”. I am not aware that there are any remain tactics in relation to this amendment. On the basis that we are leaving, all the amendment is about is making sure that it works properly. That has certainly been the guiding principle as far as I am concerned.
On the formulation of the amendment, I do not want to use the word “helpful”, because that is the one word that I do not like—the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, knows that. The problem with “helpful” is that it is a little subjective. A noble Lord, who is not in his place so I shall not identify him, told me in the previous debate that he was going to say something. I said, “Okay. Is it going to be helpful?” He said, “You might think so”. Let me tell you that it was not helpful at all. He might have thought it was, which is the problem with “helpful”. In any event, I do not imagine that the courts will have regard to something that they do not think is helpful for the purpose of the issue before them, so I am happy with “relevant”. The important point is that it will not be perceived as a political decision being made by a court in wanting to follow a decision from the European court. That is the point that we were making in earlier stages on this part of the Bill, and I thank the Minister and his department for dealing with it.
That leads to the fourth question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, which was about the protection, safeguarding and upholding of the independence of the judiciary. We raised that on the previous occasion; it is hugely important. I join the noble Lord in congratulating the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, on coming out and supporting the judiciary at a time when others in government sadly were not. The assurance on that sought by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is important, and I am grateful that the noble and learned Lord has succeeded in answering it already—it was slightly out of turn, but it was good. I shall ask him to go a little further, because the obligation to uphold the independence of the judiciary does not rest just on the Lord Chancellor. I believe that the Constitutional Reform Act which set that out imposes that obligation on the whole of the Government, and it is important that it should. We cannot have a situation in which one Minister, in perhaps one of the more political jobs, is able to say unhappy and unhelpful things about the judiciary and think it okay because the Lord Chancellor will stand up and say, “We shouldn’t really be doing that; we should be protecting them”. It is important to recognise that it is the whole Government. I would single out as well the Attorney-General as one who should uphold the independence of the judiciary. When I was in that office, I certainly regarded it as part of my job, although the Lord Chancellor was in that primary position. I would be grateful if the Minister when he replies for the second time could touch on that point and see what assurance he can give.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, raised an important point about ossification, as he put it, which is the one worry I have. As this structure works, so far as the Government are concerned, I think that the effect is that, in the areas to which the subsection would apply, the lower courts will be bound to follow decisions within that scope and it is only the Supreme Court that will be able to depart from them. That leads to the risk that the law will ossify and that cases will have to go to the Supreme Court which really do not need to because they are not that important—although it is important to clarify the law. The noble and learned Lord’s suggestion that the Government should look at the possibility of widening this so that the courts of appeal in different parts of the United Kingdom would be able to depart from what would otherwise be binding law is a good one.
I think that this suggestion would also be welcomed by some others—although I have not specifically raised this with them—who are worried about this provision. They are aware that there are rights—for example, in the field of workers’ rights—where there is some movement in EU law and are concerned that, as it stands, the retained EU law that we will have will lag behind what happens in other jurisdictions, which we all hope will still be partners, although not partners in the same Union. They are concerned that if this has to go to the Supreme Court it may create an unhappy difference between them. There may be circumstances where we all know that a particular piece of law is right for consideration by the top court, but it takes time to get there and it may not always get there.
I was going to ask the Minister whether he could give any assurances about how the Government would assist, at least where they are the other party, in getting cases to the Supreme Court where there is good reason to think that a relevant decision will be departed from. But it seems to me that opening this up to the courts of appeal would actually be a neater and more traditional way of doing that. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that. I should have mentioned at the outset that my name stands on the original amendments as well.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I am obliged to noble Lords for the contributions that have been made. With respect to the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, about the position of the Lord Chancellor and the rest of the Government, perhaps I might repeat what I said earlier: I assure the House that the whole Government, the Lord Chancellor especially, steadfastly defend the independence of the judiciary. I believed I had said that before but I am happy to repeat it.
On this question of the ossification of the law, which has been raised, particularly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas—indeed, it is a matter that we have discussed—we have to remember that until exit only the Court of Justice of the European Union is in a position to see us depart from a previous decision of that court. The timeline for taking a case through the CJEU does not bear scrutiny in comparison with the timeline for taking a case to the United Kingdom Supreme Court. The feeling of the Government is that if we are removing the Court of Justice of the European Union, it is appropriate to put in its place the United Kingdom Supreme Court in that context, and that is what we have sought to do and what we intend to do.
That is a policy decision, I appreciate, and there is a suggestion that perhaps it can be brought down to the Inner House of the Court of Session, and the Court of Appeal. That has been considered, but we do not feel at this time that that is the right way forward, so I cannot give any reassurance that we intend to revisit that point. I feel that the decision we have made is the appropriate one in the circumstances but clearly we will have to consider in due course whether that gives rise to any difficulties with respect to the reference of cases to the Supreme Court.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, is aware, it is open to the Supreme Court to, in effect, accelerate cases that it considers to be of particular materiality of importance. Therefore, that facility is already available. But I have discussed this matter with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and it is not our intention to revisit it before Third Reading. I hope that noble Lords will be able to support the government amendments.
Lord Pannick
I thank the Minister for giving the assurances that I sought on each of the four points that I raised. He has been exceptionally helpful in addressing these issues under Clause 6 which have caused great concern, and Clause 6 is much improved by the government amendments. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 21.
Lord Keen of Elie
Lord Callanan
“Status of retained EU law
(1) Anything which—(a) was, immediately before exit day, primary legislation of a particular kind, subordinate legislation of a particular kind or another enactment of a particular kind, and(b) continues to be domestic law on and after exit day by virtue of section 2,continues to be domestic law as an enactment of the same kind.(2) Retained direct principal EU legislation cannot be modified by any primary or subordinate legislation other than—(a) an Act of Parliament,(b) any other primary legislation (so far as it has the power to make such a modification), or(c) any subordinate legislation so far as it is made under a power which permits such a modification by virtue of—(i) paragraph 3A, 3C(3)(a) or (4)(a), 3F(3), 5A(3)(a) or (4)(a), 5B(2)(a) or 5C(3) of Schedule 8,(ii) any other provision made by or under this Act,(iii) any provision made by or under an Act of Parliament passed before, and in the same Session as, this Act, or(iv) any provision made on or after the passing of this Act by or under primary legislation.(3) Retained direct minor EU legislation cannot be modified by any primary or subordinate legislation other than—(a) an Act of Parliament,(b) any other primary legislation (so far as it has the power to make such a modification), or(c) any subordinate legislation made under a power which permits such a modification by virtue of—(i) paragraph 3A, 3C(2), 3F(3), 5A(2) or 5C(3) of Schedule 8,(ii) any other provision made by or under this Act,(iii) any provision made by or under an Act of Parliament passed before, and in the same Session as, this Act, or(iv) any provision made on or after the passing of this Act by or under primary legislation.(4) Anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4 cannot be modified by any primary or subordinate legislation other than—(a) an Act of Parliament,(b) any other primary legislation (so far as it has the power to make such a modification), or (c) any subordinate legislation made under a power which permits such a modification by virtue of—(i) paragraph 3A, 3C(3)(b) or (4)(b), 3F(3), 5A(3)(b) or (4)(b), 5B(2)(b) or 5C(3) of Schedule 8,(ii) any other provision made by or under this Act,(iii) any provision made by or under an Act of Parliament passed before, and in the same Session as, this Act, or(iv) any provision made on or after the passing of this Act by or under primary legislation.(5) For other provisions about the status of retained EU law, see—(a) section 5(1) to (3) (status of retained EU law in relation to other enactments or rules of law),(b) section 6 (status of retained case law and retained general principles of EU law),(c) section 13(2) and Part 2 of Schedule 5 (status of retained EU law for the purposes of the rules of evidence),(d) paragraphs 8 and 9 of Schedule 8 (status of certain retained direct EU legislation for the purposes of the Interpretation Act 1978), and(e) paragraph 19 of that Schedule (status of retained direct EU legislation for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998).(6) In this Act—“retained direct minor EU legislation” means any retained direct EU legislation which is not retained direct principal EU legislation;“retained direct principal EU legislation” means—(a) any EU regulation so far as it—(i) forms part of domestic law on and after exit day by virtue of section 3, and(ii) was not EU tertiary legislation immediately before exit day, or(b) any Annex to the EEA agreement so far as it—(i) forms part of domestic law on and after exit day by virtue of section 3, and(ii) refers to, or contains adaptations of, any EU regulation so far as it falls within paragraph (a),(as modified by or under this Act or by other domestic law from time to time).”
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the way in which retained EU law will be treated in our domestic statute book—what has been termed the “status” of EU law—is undeniably an important issue. It has been one of the key themes of our debates on the Bill, and the Government’s attempts to deal with it are woven throughout the Bill. The Government have always recognised the importance of getting this right—above all, in the context of the question of amendability.
These amendments, which deal with the amendability of retained EU law by secondary legislation, are to a large extent about ensuring its enhanced protection. As noble Lords will know, the House debated one way of giving enhanced protection to some parts of retained EU law last Wednesday, when it agreed to add a new clause to the Bill. Before setting out the government amendments, I will take a moment to explain to the House why the Government consider that the approach adopted last Wednesday is not the answer.
Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, carried last Wednesday, prevents crucial corrections being made in time for exit day. By failing to define key terms, and by introducing into the Bill arguably undefinable concepts such as “technical changes”, it introduces a high level of risk to attempting to take forward even the most uncontentious of corrections by secondary legislation. We have always been clear that most corrections, however innocuous and benign, require some limited policy choices.
Those corrections are how we ensure that current protections continue to operate. Our analysis is not complete but we believe that a very significant proportion of the planned secondary legislation programme, if made, would be at real risk of legal challenge, so the result of that amendment could be an enormous increase in the volume of needless primary legislation, which this House would then have to consider before exit day. In the end, we might be unable to achieve our core objective of ensuring a functioning statute book on exit day.
The volume of legislation required to keep pace with developments is already too great for it all to be done through primary legislation and this is likely to increase when we take on the legislative responsibilities of the EU. It is incumbent upon all of us to ensure that we put in place a balanced system. That system must enable the House to fully scrutinise the most significant changes to legislation and maintain the existing protections that we all value, while allowing for flexibility to keep pace with a fast-evolving world. It would be a dereliction of our duty to put in place a system which leaves Parliament unable to make important changes or updates which would enhance existing protections, such as the regulating of new hazardous chemicals or extending standards to new marine contaminants.
Parliament has debated at great length the speed at which our legislation should diverge from that of the EU but, whatever that pace, we must not leave Parliament hamstrung. The Government’s approach is to respect the balance between maintaining protections and the flexibility to reflect developments.
I know some noble Lords were in favour of deeming elements of retained EU law converted under Clauses 3 and 4 that are not already part of our domestic legislation to be one or another type of domestic legislation. Unfortunately, it is not that simple. For example, to deem an EU regulation primary legislation has all sorts of impacts, ranging from the problematic to the bizarre, such as requiring it to be printed on vellum and stored in the Queen Elizabeth Tower. Some noble Lords also wish to treat all retained EU law that is not already domestic legislation as if it were primary legislation. I recognise that noble Lords who have advocated this have the best of motivations, but it would leave the law so rigid and inflexible as to be virtually inoperable. The EU adopted just under 500 amending pieces of tertiary legislation in 2017. If this Parliament takes on the role of doing the same when those powers are returned to this Parliament by primary legislation only, we face a serious risk of these regimes ceasing to function.
I know the House loves examples, so let me provide one. Say that the Commission adopts delegated Acts under the biocidal products regulation to restrict active substance entry to the market. This is clearly an important public health matter which should continue to be adjusted rapidly and without primary legislation. Incidentally, that is also something that Amendment 11 would prevent. There are many similar examples in EU legislation and they vary as much as our domestic delegated powers. Therefore, instead of treating all direct EU legislation as domestic primary legislation for all purposes, the Bill sets out how retained EU law is to be treated in a number of specific situations, such as for the purpose of the Human Rights Act. Our amendments to the Bill for several of those purposes draw a similar distinction to that which the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, has drawn in her Amendment 39. That is that EU measures adopted under co-decision or ordinary legislative procedure are to be treated as primary legislation.
We have proposed, broadly, that EU regulations and Clause 4 rights should be treated as primary legislation for the purpose of amendability and that tertiary legislation should be treated as subordinate legislation. Regulations and Clause 4 rights will therefore be amendable only by primary legislation and the very limited stock of powers to amend primary legislation on the statute book. Even then, those powers will operate only where the context will permit. This will ensure that the frameworks of retained EU legislation are maintained and can be adjusted only in the same way Acts of Parliament can, but that the technical matters underneath them can be adjusted by subordinate legislation to react quickly to the changing circumstances of the day, as now.
Our amendments provide that, in the future, Parliament will need to agree any new delegated powers to amend a specific regulation, or regulations. This House will be the gatekeeper that ensures there is no bonfire of EU regulations. This will include all the powers that we are transferring under the Bill from the Commission to UK Ministers and authorities. These are generally very tightly drafted and it will have to be clear to the House where and how they can amend regulations. If Ministers cannot justify this to noble Lords, they will not be granted these powers. However, I hope your Lordships will agree, for example, that the Secretary of State should be able to adopt measures such as the wine oenology implementing regulation to ensure that our wine producers are not left behind the rest of the world as technology advances. I know that would be a subject close to many noble Lords’ hearts.
Beyond amendability, there are a limited number of other places where matters turn on whether a law is found in primary or secondary legislation. This is the case in relation to the Human Rights Act, where the remedies available in response to challenges are different in different cases. We have therefore also reflected the distinction that EU regulations are to be treated as primary and EU tertiary legislation as subordinate for the purposes of the Human Rights Act. This will mean that, as with primary legislation, claimants will be able to receive a declaration of incompatibility in the event of a successful challenge to an EU regulation. I should point out that this is a very rare measure, which I am not aware that Parliament has ever ignored. For challenges against amendments to EU tertiary legislation, our courts may, if appropriate, strike down the legislation.
We have addressed in the Bill the areas of importance where matters turn on the distinction between primary and subordinate legislation. Our discussions outside this Chamber, including with academics and others, have not identified any other such matters. I am happy to return to the issue at Third Reading if other areas are raised in debate.
I have not yet addressed directives, which I know the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is very interested in. Directives, of course, do not form part of our domestic legislation. They have already, over the years of our EU membership, been implemented in primary legislation and under a range of delegated powers but principally in regulations made under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act. The status of these regulations is clear. They are and should remain statutory instruments. I know that these regulations contain important protections which some noble Lords wish to ensure cannot be easily eroded, but it would be constitutionally deeply questionable and practically unnecessary to attempt simply to declare these instruments to be anything different.
All regulations made under Section 2(2) of the ECA will be preserved following the repeal of that Act by the Bill. There will then be almost no powers on the statute book; I cannot be absolutely definitive, but my officials have found only a handful which, within the scope of the policy area, might be able to amend regulations made under Section 2(2). Therefore, almost all of these regulations will need to be modified by primary legislation or new powers, which this House would of course have to approve. Nevertheless, the Government have heard the concerns raised in the House about the level of scrutiny of modification of these regulations. We are committed to ensuring that the protections provided in regulations made under the ECA are maintained throughout the process of exit, and that any future modifications as the Government continue to build on these protections are properly scrutinised.
The Bill already provides for statements in relation to the SIs under it, so government Amendment 112A therefore requires Ministers and other authorities making statutory instruments under powers outside this Bill after exit day to make statements explaining the “good reasons” for any changes to regulations made under Section 2(2) of the ECA and the effect of the amendment or revocation on retained EU law. There will be no escaping the scrutiny of this House.
I am sorry for the detailed explanation, but I hope I have provided an appropriate explanation of why these amendments both give clarity to the status of retained EU law and are the right way to protect it as we transfer it on to our statute book. I recognise that the status this legislation should hold is a particularly complex issue, on which legal and academic minds have differed. I pay tribute to all noble Lords who have applied themselves to the task. We have listened and I appreciate all the contributions that have been made. Our amendments reflect a sensible approach, one that recognises and reflects the existing hierarchy within EU laws, balances the need for effective parliamentary scrutiny while giving Parliament the flexibility it needs to amend an extremely large body of legislation, and allows this place to truly take back control of our laws. I beg to move.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, your Lordships’ Constitution Committee recommended at paragraph 51 of our report—HL 69—that the Bill should address the legal status of retained EU law; that is, whether it has the status of primary legislation, secondary legislation or something distinct. I am pleased that the Government have considered this matter—I am grateful to the Minister—and have produced the amendments in this group. My understanding is that they address the problem by ensuring that any domestic law which becomes retained EU law under Clause 2 continues to have the same legal status that it has at the moment: it is either primary legislation or secondary legislation.
In relation to retained EU law under Clauses 3 and 4, the amendments do not so much confer a legal status as address the problem by reference to the circumstances in which the retained EU law can be modified. The provisions are complex, and, I fear, necessarily so, given the inherent difficulty of the exercise.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, my Amendment 39 is buried among the government amendments in this group. I will speak to it and in doing so elaborate some questions I have concerning the government amendments. I thank the Minister—the amendments sounded better when he explained them than when I read them. I liked that he kept repeating that it will require primary legislation to change what I shall describe in a shorthand way as policy-making legislation, which is what my amendment is about.
My amendment is short and concerns life after Clause 7—life after implementation of the Bill—which is this Parliament’s legislative future. I hope this group of amendments paves the way to ensure that Parliament has a principal role, which is not how I took it when I read them. As the Minister said, my amendment provides that retained EU law enacted in the EU by co-decision—the ordinary legislative procedure—may be modified only by an Act of Parliament. I know that the Minister knows that “the ordinary legislative procedure” is just the new name for co-decision under the Lisbon treaty.
I selected that legislation, which is a subset that I spoke about in Committee, quite simply because the European Parliament had a full scrutiny and amending role in making the legislation and in any amendments to it, and I do not see why in future this Parliament should be in a lesser place than the European Parliament. The Minister has perhaps gone some way towards pointing out that that might be the case, but I will read what he said carefully to make sure. I have covered the full range of matters covered by co-decision. They are things such as company law, financial services and other issues that were not in the sensitive areas that were covered in Amendment 11 which we voted through last Wednesday. My amendment covers directives as well as direct EU regulations. It is important that policy-making legislation is not changed too easily. Again, the Minister may have sown seeds to put my mind at rest on that, but I want to examine what he said more carefully.
Another reason why it is very important for this legislation to come to Parliament to be changed is that, despite the good efforts of the EU committees, there are quite large swathes of legislation about which this Parliament is relatively ignorant. I do not say that disparagingly; it is just the way the law was made. As we go forward, it is very important that this Parliament clearly understands laws that affect major industries, even if subsequently it chooses that some of them are to be delegated to regulators. We have a system of delegation. Sometimes there is regrettably rather too much delegation, but it is very clear that if any of that is going on, it needs to have full scrutiny.
My final point relates to where we are going to use existing legislation to amend retained EU legislation after it has been converted. The legislation that we might use was not made to cover legislation that used to be done in the EU because it was well known that those policy areas were reserved to the EU. Extending the scope of that legislation so that policy-making legislation can be amended by secondary legislation is extending it further than was contemplated, and it may go beyond the reasonable expectations of that legislation. Constitutionally, that gives me a problem. Perhaps some members of the Constitution Committee can mention this. I have circled paragraph 3 of Schedule 8, which refers to powers on subordinate legislation before exit day,
“as being capable of being exercised to modify … any retained direct EU legislation”.
I submit that none of that existing legislation could have been made in contemplation of amending that type of legislation. Unless it was clearly elaborated that that was the case, I am unhappy with that provision as it originally stood and as it now stands. I am a little more unhappy with the amendment to Schedule 8 because it has been stretched to cover the rights that are going to be retained by virtue of Clause 4, which was not in the original paragraph 3 of Schedule 8. I am a little worried about having rights taken away by legislation that was not made in contemplation of taking those rights away. Those are the reservations I still have and I would welcome the opportunity to discuss with the Minister whether we can sort them out and return to this at Third Reading.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I thought the Minister was a little harsh on the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and on the amendment which the House passed by a very large majority last week, but let that pass for the moment. I am grateful to my noble friend for making a genuine attempt to understand some of the concerns which can be summarised very briefly. This House is very concerned that taking back control means Parliament taking back control, not the Executive amassing more power to themselves, so he must understand that we will all want to read what he said. Some of it seemed very helpful but we will want to look very carefully at what the Government are actually proposing. It seems a gentle move in the right direction but, just as we have to consider carefully what the Minister has said, I say to him with great respect that he has to reconsider what the House decided last week, because it decided by a very large majority.
A final word of thanks to my noble friend: he has been dismissive of a number of pleas that some matters should be returned to on Third Reading. One understands why, but at least he has been emphatic tonight in realising that we will have to come back to some matters on Third Reading, and for that I thank him.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, I think three things emerge from that. First, there is a recognition, with thanks, that the Minister and the department have accepted that their previous approach to how you identify the status of retained EU law is not acceptable. That was the primary point made in the reports that we discussed at earlier stages of the Bill, and that is the first point that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made. I entirely agree that that is undoubtedly a step in the right direction.
The second point that emerges is the one made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that this touches on the amendment passed by the House and moved by my noble friend Lady Hayter, and the Government therefore have to take account of what this House has said. That leads to the third point, which is that this is very complicated, which was apparent from what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and it is perhaps difficult for us all to completely grasp the implications. Under normal circumstances it would have been enormously helpful if the Government had tabled something like this at an earlier stage so that it could have been considered by our very expert committees, the Constitution Committee and perhaps the Delegated Powers Committee. It makes it more difficult for us. However, the Minister has recognised that more needs to be said about this and more needs to be discussed, which is why he proposes that—as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, says, perhaps alone of the matters that we have discussed—this issue can come back at Third Reading.
I am not quite sure at the moment exactly what the Minister has in mind. Does he want to press these amendments today and then discuss them—or just leave them until Third Reading, which would be very welcome? I am glad that he is giving a nod that that is what he has in mind, which is what I would hope. In those circumstances, meetings with noble Lords, and indeed noble and learned Lords, can be organised to consider the matter further. Obviously we will read what he said very carefully in Hansard, and if there is any further information that the Minister can give before the meetings then that would be helpful as well. On that basis, we express qualified support for the principle of the movement that the Minister has indicated.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I can be very brief in the light of the debate. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. I express particular thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for tabling her amendment, which has resulted in this helpful debate.
As I said in opening, I recognise that the state of this legislation is a complex and vexed issue. As a non-lawyer, I have been struggling to get my head around it all as well. The approach that we have taken is one of pragmatism, recognising the existing hierarchy within EU law and seeking to balance effective scrutiny with the need to ensure that the law continues to function. This has not been an easy task but obviously I believe that the solution that we have arrived at is the right one. I accept that the remarks I made earlier were long and detailed and Members will want to reflect on them, so I shall repeat what I said: we think we have addressed the areas of importance where matters turn on the distinction between primary and subordinate legislation. Our discussions so far with many both inside and outside this Chamber have not identified any other such matters, but I repeat that I am happy to return to the issue at Third Reading if other areas are identified.
I thank my noble friend Lord Cormack for his contribution. I hope my remarks were not seen as dismissive of the House’s amendment the other day; of course we accept the decision that was made, but I thought it helpful for us to outline our initial thinking on the possible effects of that amendment at the earliest possible occasion. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his remarks. I am happy to confirm that either I or officials are happy to meet any other noble Lords who have concerns once they have had a chance to read the remarks that I made earlier today. With that, I hope I have convinced the House that our approach is the right one, and I beg to move.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I thought that when my noble friend nodded in assent to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, he was indicating that he would be bringing back something a little more extensive at Third Reading following conversations that were going to be held.
Lord Callanan
I wanted to move the amendments now. I am happy to reflect further if any points are identified in the meantime that can be brought forward at Third Reading, but I still want to move the amendments.
Lord Goldsmith
I was asking the Minister whether he was prepared to leave these amendments to be moved at Third Reading or whether he wanted to proceed with them and then allow amendments to them. I had understood from the body language that was exchanged between us that he would move them at Third Reading, which would allow time for discussions and possible tweaking or perhaps something more radical. If he is going to move them now, though, it is important that he confirms he would not have a problem if amendments to his amendments were put forward at Third Reading, because that at least would mean that whatever was required could be dealt with then, rather than him moving his amendments now and for us to be told at Third Reading, “Sorry, too late, that amendment has been passed. You can’t bring it back”. Could he confirm that? Again he is nodding but I am reluctant to interpret the nod without an element of verbal assurance. Perhaps he can help with that.
Lord Callanan
Yes, I am happy to provide that assurance. As I said, it was a long and detailed speech on this area, and Members will want the opportunity to read it in detail and reflect further on it. I think I want to move my amendments now while indicating that, if there are still concerns, we would be prepared to return to the issue at Third Reading.
Lord Goldsmith
Forgive me; would he accept that amendments could be made even to these amendments? I am not suggesting that he will accept our amendments, but does he accept that they can be made?
“Maintenance of EU environmental principles and standards
(1) The Secretary of State must take steps designed to ensure that the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU does not result in the removal or diminution of any rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures that contribute to the protection and improvement of the environment.(2) In particular, the Secretary of State must carry out the activities required by subsections (3) to (6) within the period of three months beginning with the date on which this Act is passed.(3) The Secretary of State must publish proposals for primary legislation establishing a duty on public authorities to apply principles of environmental law established in EU law or on which EU environmental law is based in the exercise of relevant functions after exit day.(4) The Secretary of State must publish proposals for the establishment before exit day of an independent institution with the purpose of ensuring compliance with environmental law by relevant public authorities.(5) In making proposals under subsection (4), the Secretary of State must include proposals to the effect that— (a) the chair of the independent institution must be appointed by the Secretary of State with the agreement of the first ministers of the devolved administrations and the approval of a committee of either House of Parliament charged with approving such an appointment;(b) the independent body must receive funds judged by the Comptroller and Auditor General to be sufficient for it to carry out its functions;(c) the independent body must report annually before 30 June on compliance with environmental law by relevant public authorities, including the Secretary of State’s compliance with the terms of the Statement of Environmental Policy published in accordance with subsection (7); and(d) the Secretary of State must publish a response to such a report annually before 30 September.(6) The Secretary of State must publish—(a) a list of statutory functions that can be exercised so as to achieve the objective in subsection (1); and(b) a list of functions currently exercised by EU bodies that must be retained or replicated in UK law in order to achieve the objective in subsection (1).(7) The Secretary of State must before 1 January 2020 lay before Parliament a Statement of Environmental Policy which sets out how the Government will give effect to the principles set out in subsection (8).(8) The principles referred to in subsection (3) include—(a) the precautionary principle as it relates to the environment,(b) the principle of preventive action to avert environmental damage,(c) the principle that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source,(d) the polluter pays principle,(e) sustainable development,(f) prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources,(g) public access to environmental information,(h) public participation in environmental decision making,(i) access to justice in relation to environmental matters, and(j) full regard to the welfare requirements of animals as sentient beings.(9) Before complying with subsections (3) to (7) the Secretary of State must consult—(a) each of the devolved administrations;(b) persons appearing to represent the interests of local government;(c) persons appearing to represent environmental interests; and(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.”
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
My Lords, I move this amendment on behalf of the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Inglewood, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and myself. The protection and improvement of our environment is critical to our health and well-being, to our economic growth and for future generations. The Government recognise the importance of this, as we have been reminded on several occasions during the Bill. The Prime Minister has stated that this will be the first Government to leave the environment in a better state. The Environment Secretary, the right honourable Michael Gove MP, has announced a consultation, first some months ago and repeated subsequently, on the establishment of a world-leading environmental watchdog to replace and indeed improve on the current EU role in compliance. The intent is clear, and very welcome.
However, nothing has happened, so the risk is growing that on exit day there will be a serious environmental governance gap. There are two major elements of this gap. The first is that the Bill does not adequately retain the key roles of EU environmental principles—that is, interpreting the law, guiding decision-making and as a basis for legal challenge, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, highlighted on Amendment 12 last Wednesday. The second is that the Bill does not provide a replacement for the role of the EU in holding the Government to account on environmental issues—for example, when key air or water quality targets are missed.
Action to address the governance gap is needed urgently, because exit day is less than a year away; because the implementation period is not yet a certainty; because consultation can be delayed, especially when, as it appears, some departments, including the Department for Transport and the Treasury, would not welcome an independent environmental watchdog to hold the Government to account; and because establishing a new watchdog in law and appointing its members will not be quick.
The amendment aims to reduce the risk for the Government that leaving the EU will lead to failure to achieve their stated goal—that of maintaining and improving the environment. To this end, it requires the Secretary of State to publish proposals to establish before exit day an independent environmental watchdog; proposals for primary legislation establishing a duty on public authorities to apply EU environmental principles in the exercise of relevant functions after exit day; and a list of functions currently exercised by EU bodies that must be retained or replicated in UK law. This is urgent, so it requires the Secretary of State to publish this within three months of the date of this Act being passed.
The amendment reduces the risk to our environment of EU exit and helps the Government to deliver on their strong and welcome environmental commitments. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood (Con)
My Lords, as much as by anything else, I was prompted to sign the amendment because I was unclear as to precisely what the Government’s plans might be in this area. As we all know, one of the basic principles of the Bill is to parachute existing EU law into domestic legislation so that on Brexit day minus one and Brexit day plus one, the rules to be adhered to will be the same—albeit that the constitutional framework and administrative structures around them may be quite different—so that, in the real world, it is a seamless transition.
Failure to bring that about will not only breach the principles behind the Bill but, probably at least as important, it is likely to bring chaos. One attribute of environmental law—I generalise—is that it is principles-based in its operation, involves a whole range of bodies and is in turn integrated with a whole lot of laws of different kinds around the world. I am concerned that the way that this sector works could mean that the seamless transition that we are looking for and discussing will not work in this context in accordance with the principles behind the Bill, because of recent political discontent echoed about some aspects of it. I am looking for reassurance.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, the Government have been very clear in their promises, and this has helped many in their consideration of the Bill. I know that the Minister and I do not always agree, but I must say that I have been very impressed by the way the Secretary of State for Defra, with whom I also do not agree on the subject of the European Union, has been determined to ensure that our exit from the European Union will not mean that the protections we now have for the environment would be lessened. He has made that clear again and again.
I am indebted to a noble friend who pointed out that the Secretary of State nodded vigorously when the right honourable Sir Oliver Letwin said in the House of Commons:
“I am now confident that the Government will bring forward proper new primary legislation to create an independent body outside the House with prosecutorial powers that will replace the Commission as the independent arbiter to enforce environmental rules and to ensure that the Government are taken to task in court without the need for the expense of class action lawsuits”.
I think the whole House can accept that, wherever else we may disagree, we have come to the conclusion that the Government are serious in their intention in this area.
As chairman of the climate change committee, I have been very happy to celebrate recent decisions by the Government about the environment. The request for us to advise on how we might implement the decisions of the Paris agreement to move towards the goal of 1.5 degrees is welcome to all of us. I therefore want to see the promises made by the Secretary of State for Defra and the Government as a whole carried through. I am sure my noble friend understands why we have tabled the amendment: because of the urgency and uncertainty to which the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, referred.
Sir Oliver Letwin was very clear about this. He said:
“I am delighted to say that we have talked sufficiently to Ministers to be confident that they will be bringing forward both the consultation and the legislation in time to ensure that it is in place before we exit the EU. Of course, I would also want to wait until January to see the consultation to ensure that that engagement is fulfilled, and I am sure that the other place will want to look at what is said in the consultation and to assure itself that the new statute is coming forward before it consented to allow this Bill to proceed”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/12/17; col. 227.]
That is why we have tabled the amendment. I know that my noble friend will accept that it contains only what the Government have said they wanted to do. It has done so in a way that, as nearly as possible, reflects the Climate Change Act, which has been so successful, and which the Government have been foremost in celebrating in this, the 10th year of it having been passed. What we want is to engage the Government in their own assertion. In this, I have to say that we have been supported right across the House. The Liberal Democrats, for example, have done a great deal to press this. The Cross-Benchers, the Labour Party and the Conservative Party have united in seeing this, as have Brexiteers and non-Brexiteers. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Spicer is not in his place, but this is no plot of remainers; it is only a reflection of what the Government have promised to do.
I finish by saying to my noble friend that the reason we want this in the Bill is that it is crucial for people concerned about the environment to know in detail that this is protected. The problem with the environment, as my noble friend Lord Inglewood said, is that its protection is often not in individual laws but in the acceptance of the precautionary principle that we should not do anything that damages the environment. It is those things that make the difference.
I was converted to all this as a very young man when I first read Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring. It reminds us that there was a time when people ignored all this. They did not think about it or believe that it mattered. We have moved from that to a point at which these principles are accepted. If we leave the European Union, there will be no way in which that is included within our legislation because the protocols, preambles and indeed, the generalised acceptances, are removed from this Bill.
This therefore is a reflection of what the Government say they want and adds nothing to it. I very much hope that they will feel that this is a moment when, however different we may be—I have sometimes been rather tough on the Government’s views—this at least is something that can be wholly accepted because it will carry through what the Government themselves said they would do.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 27 and to fully support the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, and the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Inglewood. As noble Lords from all sides know, this amendment was strongly supported on the Liberal Democrat Benches in Committee and it should be key to the environmental principles of all in this House
Given the time, I do not wish to rehearse all the arguments deployed in Committee, but I emphasise strongly the importance of proposed new subsection (4). It is vital that an independent institution is set up before exit day to ensure total compliance with environmental law by all public bodies. If a public body is not responsible to, and monitored by such a body, how can the public expect that private bodies will uphold environmental law?
The public at large have now taken the state of the environment to their hearts. They wish to see our lands and oceans preserved in a fit state for both animal and human habitation. We in this House have a duty to ensure that we do our utmost to make this happen for them. The Secretary of State for Defra has given a commitment to setting up a monitoring body, but we have yet to see the detail. There is talk of an environmental Bill in the future. Given the current parliamentary timetable, this crucial Bill could be some way away.
We cannot afford to leave this matter to chance. We must ensure that at the point of exit in March next year, the public, politicians and all those who care about the environment will know that an independent body is in place with the sole purpose of monitoring compliance with environmental law, as it stands today, and is not watered down to suit the interests of others. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he wishes Britain’s environmental watchdog to be a world leader. We should help him to achieve this by passing this amendment and ensuring that there can be no wriggle room for those wishing to avoid the principle of the “polluter pays”. This issue is too important to be confined to party politics. Should a vote be called, I urge all Peers across the House, along with those of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches, to support the amendment. In the meantime, I wait to hear what the Minister has to say on this matter.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, there are plenty of people around to go into the Lobbies tonight, so it is terribly important that the Minister responds very clearly to my noble friend Lord Deben and the others who have spoken.
We must not be complacent about this. We are a land not without litter; we are a land which still has polluted waterways; we are a land with beaches that are, frankly, a disgrace. Much has been achieved, and much that has been achieved has been because of standards laid down by the European Union. We wish to go not backwards but forwards. I made two long journeys yesterday: I drove from Lincolnshire to Staffordshire and from Staffordshire to London and, as always when I am driving, I was deeply depressed by the amount of litter in our countryside. We want a body to be set up that has real teeth, we want regulations and real penalties, and we want a land that we can all be proud of, even those who believe that mistakes have been made over the whole issue of the European Union.
As my noble friend Lord Deben so eloquently said, this ought to be an issue on which we can all unite. The amendment is extremely good, and I hope the Minister can assure us that something very like it will be in the Bill before we send it back to another place.
Lord Smith of Finsbury (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to give strong support to this amendment and assert the need for an independent environmental institution. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, this is entirely in accord with what Ministers have said they want. However, it is really important that, when the actions are put on to the words, we get the real protections that we require.
I well remember when the coalition Government came in in 2010; I was chairman of the Environment Agency at the time. The then Secretary of State for Defra made it very clear to me that she welcomed private advice from the Environment Agency about the condition of the nation’s environment, but she did not want us to make waves in public—she did not want us to give public, independent advice. It is absolutely crucial that, whatever body is established after the Bill passes, it will give public, independent advice and be effective in holding the Government’s feet to the fire to make sure our environmental protections are safeguarded.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
I think it is obvious that I rise in support of Amendments 27, 28 and 41. In Committee, there were so many noble Lords who wanted to put their name to the amendment that I was not able to. Of course, they have my wholehearted support and I agree with everything that has been said so far. The Government are well aware that the public care very much about the environment these days, and not accepting this amendment will be a real problem for the Government. They will hear a lot from the public.
I was speaking to a Conservative Peer last week, and that Peer was shocked and surprised that the Government were not bringing over all EU law into UK law as they promised. I shall save that Peer’s blushes by not revealing a name. I then asked that Peer if they ever listened to anything I said in the Chamber, and they said no. But the point is that that person was shocked because it was believed that the Government would honour their promise to bring over all EU law, but they are not doing so. I do not want to go on again about that, but I feel very cheated, quite honestly, and the Government have to understand just how angry they have made a lot of people who voted to leave. They feel cheated as well.
I have to repeat the very serious point that, of all the issues that lose out with this Bill, the environment is the biggest loser, and we have to make changes to the Bill to make sure that that does not happen. The EU’s environmental principles and standards are the cornerstone of environmental law in this country. Successful legal challenges have been brought, and there are ongoing cases in our courts that seek to apply the environmental principles further. As the Bill is currently worded, we risk losing huge chunks of environmental law and the crucial enforcement role currently undertaken by the EU. The Government have admitted that there will be a problem when we leave the EU. The Secretary of State for the Environment seems to be promising a new Bill every week, in stark recognition that a wide field of environmental law must be retained and improved.
We were promised an update on the consultation before Report, and we have not had it—another broken promise. The consultation is supposed to feed into a Bill that is supposed to make sure that there is a new body. I have the list of EU Bills here—the guide to EU exit Bills—and I cannot see that Bill on the grid, so where is it? It is already going to be incredibly difficult to produce all the Bills that have been promised and get them through before exit day. I simply do not believe it can be done; the Government would have to perform a miracle, which is not something they are famous for. The consultation could anyway lead to nothing, or to a much weaker, unsatisfactory proposal. We just do not know.
These are not special interest amendments, trying to get something better than what already exists. They do nothing more, and nothing less, than ensure that environmental law in our country will be the same on 30 March as it was on 28 March. This is the seamless transition to which the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, referred. The Government have had the opportunity to address all our concerns but so far they have chosen not to. They have left this House with no choice but to amend the Bill yet again.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 41 is in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Judd and Lord Wigley. I had a dilemma as to whether I should group it with these other amendments or return to a list of agencies to which the UK is at present a party and which are important in enforcing laws on the way we trade and on how our industrial and agricultural processes work. I have been banging on about the post-Brexit relationship between the UK and the EU agencies from the beginning of this Bill and I have yet to get a satisfactory answer from the Minister or any of his colleagues on how they see relations with those agencies—if at all—beyond exit day or, indeed, into the transition period. A slightly higher authority has given me a bit of a hint. The Prime Minister herself has said that we need to maintain a relationship with, for example, the European Chemicals Agency, which is referred to in this amendment.
My amendment interrelates with Amendments 27 and 28. If the independent environmental body to which Amendment 27 refers has full scope; if it is genuinely independent, as my noble friend—ex-friend—Lord Smith underlined; and if it has the powers of prosecution of other public bodies, which is vital, it will be able to replace some of the powers which are currently within the Commission and other European agencies. However, we do not know what that body looks like. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, it was hinted pretty heavily that the basis of that body, at least, would be presented to the House before the end of the Bill. It is vital that the Minister gives an indication tonight, and a detailed report prior to Third Reading, as to what that body looks like and whether it can actually fulfil the functions currently fulfilled by European agencies, some of which are referred to in my amendment.
This is not just a question of how the UK manages its own environment beyond Brexit. Every bit of industry, and every one of our agricultural and land-use processes, has an important trading dimension with Europe. Hitherto, the standards, and how they are enforced, have been set by Europe. In some cases, this is by particular agencies, in other cases by the Commission. It is therefore not just that this sceptred isle will have a Michael Gove-type, high-powered environment agency to oversee what happens within these shores, but that almost everyone within them trades with the outside world one way or another. The environment does not respect boundaries.
An example is our arrangements for, for example, the chemicals industry and the REACH processes. The European chemicals industry could not function without that being centralised at European level. Many of the companies concerned are multinationals which transfer substances internally within the countries of Europe and follow European standards. The same is also true of many other sectors. The agencies listed in the amendment need an effective replacement which also has a continuing relationship with the agencies of the remaining 27 EU countries. Since the beginning of the Bill, I have asked the Government how those relationships are going to operate.
The Prime Minister, in her Mansion House speech, said that she was looking at associate membership. That is an important move, but will not necessarily deliver us much influence. Generally speaking, associate membership in European institutions does not give you a vote. It is therefore important that we have a clear idea of what the relationship will be with these agencies here and with many others of the 40-odd agencies that exist within Europe, some of which I will return to later in the Bill. It is also important that we have a relationship which replaces the Commission’s power to enforce—for example, on air quality and on land management standards, partly through cross-compliance against CAP payments, which is a pretty effective form of enforcement. Unless we get answers or at least the outline of answers as to how that will happen after Brexit, I am afraid we will have to return to these matters. Tonight the Minister needs to spell out how that will happen.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly associate myself with what my noble friend just said, which is why my name is on his amendment.
I cannot say how glad I am to see this amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, and the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on the Marshalled List. It would be a sad day if, in our preoccupations, we were so absorbed with the constitutional and legal dimensions of the issues before us that, by default, we let go of our responsibilities as guardians of our natural and environmental inheritance and our responsibility for what we bequeath future generations. I am therefore fully behind the main amendment we are debating. My own amendment deals with a special aspect: biodiversity. Just this morning, the urgency of the situation was clearly brought home when we were reminded that the recent report on the state of the world’s birds shows that one in eight bird species is threatened with extinction. That includes puffins, snowy owls and turtle doves.
The role of the European Union has been important. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee put it clearly, as I explained in Committee. It said:
“The EU plays a crucial role in developing policy and legislation to protect the environment and meet its objective for sustainable development. The EU has specific targets for biodiversity conservation with legislative protection for key habitats and species … The EU and global biodiversity targets are partly delivered through a range of legislative measures, which place obligations on Member States to protect biodiversity and the natural environment. The EU and Member States have shared legal competence—shared responsibility—in forming and implementing legislation for the environment”.
As I said, the committee makes a third point about,
“the great importance of the directives on the conservation of wild birds and on the conservation of natural habitats and wild fauna and flora”.—[Official Report, 7/3/18; col. 1130.]
Can I just for a moment put some flesh on the issues before us? To give one important example, the balance between trees, pests and pathogens is fragile and vigilance is needed to monitor and correct imbalances where they occur before they reach an irreversible state. Invasive non-native species and pests can be at an advantage in new environments where trees have not evolved alongside them and developed the necessary biological defences or cultivated the necessary predatory species. Where this happens, the results can be devastating economically and ecologically. Trees are important in their own right and are the foundation of pieces of woodland, providing a scaffold for entire ecosystems. Beyond woods themselves, they are a vital connective habitat for numerous species to move through in response to other drivers of change, such as climate.
Through European Union membership as it stands, we already have free-flowing information sharing with our fellow member states in the area of biosecurity. These connections should surely be maintained and indeed strengthened, not least because human agency is often the cause of tree pests and pathogens moving to new areas. If we are to protect the UK from future threats—
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. I think the House would welcome specific attention to the amendment in the context of his remarks.
Lord Judd
With great respect, I am, of course, speaking to my own amendment. If we are to protect the UK from future threats, such as emerald ash borer, then we need to maintain existing protective measures. The issues before us cannot be overemphasised and all I want is that we get an absolute assurance from the Minister that whatever happens in terms of the withdrawal Bill, we will have the same safeguards and certainty that is beginning to be generated by the international co-operation we have been achieving under the European Union.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I support Amendment 27, as moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, Amendment 28 on biodiversity, to which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has just spoken, and Amendment 41, addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to which I have my name. I will be very brief. Amendments 27 and 41 propose new clauses and partly cover similar grounds. I acknowledge that Amendment 27 has one advantage in that it would establish in its proposed new subsection (4) a new governmental environmental body to enforce standards. That would be in place of the work undertaken at present by the ECJ and the European Commission. This is something which the Secretary of State, Mr Gove, has announced—and noble Lords have welcomed it tonight—but which, I understand, seems to be opposed by the Treasury and even by other departments.
The consultation, which has been announced in principle, has still not materialised, as we heard earlier. Amendment 27 would require the Government to act on this matter. Perhaps the Minister will indicate the Government’s good intent by accepting the amendment or by committing to bring something forward themselves by Third Reading. Amendment 27 also has the advantage of putting into statutory form through proposed new subsection (6) the EU’s environmental principles. As with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, these are not laws and so do not come within the Government’s idea of “retained EU law”. Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 41 would leave things more open concerning what the new arrangements should be, but the wording in subsection (2) is narrower and more specific about what the new arrangements should cover. It also gives an emphasis relating to the devolved regimes, to which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred a moment ago, and of course I greatly welcome that.
I very much support the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, on the question of membership of EU agencies. If, somehow or other, we can retain full membership, that will be ideal, but if it has to be associate membership, it has to have real bite and involvement and should not be membership on the fringes. These bodies matter. They matter on a day-to-day basis to industries, working people and companies throughout these islands, so I strongly support the practical points that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, made and I hope that the Government can respond to them.
I would be happy to see either of the new clauses proposed in Amendments 27 and 41 going into the Bill. I certainly hope that something in the Bill can be changed to ensure firm commitment by the Government and not just warm words.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 27. There is a stark warning before your Lordships’ House in the form of the recent report from the post-legislative scrutiny committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, on what has happened following the passing of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act. Its comments on how Natural England has been starved of funds, run down and generally depleted under this Government, with its advice on planning issues not taken up, are a stark warning. Can we really, in good faith, rely on a Government who have treated Natural England like that? The subsequent effect on biodiversity has been catastrophic and I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd. We now do not have a watchdog with sufficient teeth to make any impact. That report says it all.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 27. I feel some sympathy for the Minister but it is slightly bizarre that the Government have announced that they want the principles and the environmental watchdog, yet their consultation has not yet emerged. They said that it would take place in the spring. We must all admit that, in view of the weather, spring has been a little late this year but we are rapidly getting into summer and perhaps the Government need to act.
The consultation appears to be mired in politics. We are running out of time. If the consultation does not start soon, we will not have a clear legislative proposal coming forward. We need legislation for the environmental watchdog. There will then be all sorts of practical considerations, such as finding some poor sod of a chairman who is willing to put his neck on the line to speak out against power and report openly on behalf of the public in favour of the environment, as indeed the Environment Agency did in the eight years prior to the noble Lord, Lord Smith, taking up his chairmanship. We still managed to get away with it in those glorious days of the 1990s.
I want to press the Minister on what happens next. The Government cannot go around saying that they want to leave the environment in a better state than they inherited it if, in fact, they are not going to come forward with very positive proposals to safeguard the basic environmental legislation and governance from which the environment has benefited in a major way over the past 30 years. We have to have government consultation well in advance of Third Reading or—what I would prefer, quite frankly—a government amendment which does the same job as this one: to take those government commitments and put them into primary legislation in a simple way.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 27 and will speak to Amendment 41. I will explain, as my noble friend Lord Judd knows, our slight concerns about his amendment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brown, along with a number of other noble Lords from around the House, spoke very eloquently on this issue. In their own way, they have all reinforced the point that this amendment is necessary to ensure that the current environmental protections exist after exit day with the same certainties and enforcement which have helped us shape our world-class environmental standards up to now. We have rehearsed before the importance that the EU has played in setting those standards. To deliver this certainty, we need the same core principles that apply to EU law to be transposed in full, and, more importantly, we need a new organisation to replace the enforcement powers operated by the EU Commission and the Court of Justice, which guarantee the standards that we currently enjoy.
When we debated similar amendments in Committee, they received widespread support from around the Chamber. That has been echoed this evening, and I very much hope that the Minister has heard those calls. In his response to that debate in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, tried to reassure us and told us not to worry too much. He said that a number of environmental principles were also included in international treaties, such as the Rio principles, to which the UK will continue to be a signatory. Of course, it is true that some of those environmental principles do exist in other forms, but they are not all covered in the same range and depth as exists in the EU, and we do not have the same recourse to challenge breaches of these principles and demand compliance as we do within current EU structures. If we did, we would have been more successful, for example, in stopping the decimation of the Amazon rainforest, which sadly is causing enormous climate change problems across the globe. The existence of other international treaties is not sufficient grounds for the Government to back-track on this issue.
This brings us to another argument that the Minister used in Committee—that our amendments were not necessary as Michael Gove had already accepted the need for a new comprehensive policy statement setting out the Government’s environmental principles. So far, so good, but in a follow-up letter to a meeting we had with the noble Lords, Lord Callanan and Lord Gardiner, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, wrote to us to say:
“The withdrawal Bill will preserve environmental principles where they are included in existing EU directly applicable environmental regulations and case law”.
Our argument is that this definition does not cover the full scope of environmental principles as they currently exist. If we just use that definition—the definition that is currently in the Bill—we will lose out. That is why a promised new set of environmental principles is so important. But, as we have heard, time goes on and there is no sign of the Government’s statement or a timeline for implementation which would ensure that the new principles were in operation by March next year. Our amendment fills that time gap by setting out the key environmental principles currently in operation in the EU which should apply until we are able to agree a more comprehensive package of the kind that we have consistently been promised but which has not yet materialised.
Even more worrying is the governance gap, to which a number of noble Lords have referred. If we do not have an independent body to hold the Government to account after exit day, we will lose out. Michael Gove has acknowledged the need for such a body and has said that he intends to consult upon it but, again, no details have been published and the clock is ticking. It has also become clear that Michael Gove’s ambitions for such a body are not necessarily shared by Ministers in other departments—for example, Transport and Treasury Ministers are on record as saying they have a much narrower view of the remit of the watchdog.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to the report on the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act, which not only looked backwards but, helpfully, forward. It mentioned post-EU structures and the great advantages we have had from being in the EU, which we have all rehearsed. It went on to refer to the UK watchdog and said that it needed to be independent and accountable to government, with diffuse sources of funding and the ability to deal with issues raised by individuals and NGOs, including taking government and other public bodies to court. That is the kind of package we are looking for.
However, as noble Lords and my noble friend Lady Young have said, these things take time to set up and, again, the clock is ticking. It is hard to see how this body is going to be up and running by Brexit day. If it is not, our protections will be diminished. We hope the Minister has heard the strong arguments that have been put forward on this.
On Amendment 28, my noble friend Lord Judd knows that I agree with everything he said. The reason we did not put it forward as one of the amendments we wanted to have at this stage as an environmental principle is because it is not currently seen as an EU environmental principle. Therefore, while I agree with everything he said, it might be a battle that we have to fight another day.
We wholly support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Whitty. It had considerable support from around the House when it was debated the first time round and we have heard the same comments echoed this evening. When we debated it before, for example, my noble friend Lord Rooker made a compelling case for our continued involvement in the EU’s rapid alert system for food and feed, which provides a 24-hour alert to all EU countries on serious health risks from contaminated products. On that issue, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, was only able to say that this would be subject to ongoing negotiation.
Similarly, when my noble friend Lord Whitty probed on the issue of REACH—which he again referred to today—the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, was only able to say that our involvement was the subject of live negotiations but that we could not remain a member of REACH. She sought to reassure us and told us not to worry because work was starting on a new IT system to oversee registrations and regulation. That prospect should strike fear into all Ministers if they expect that new IT system to be up and running on time.
The amendment of my noble friend Lord Whitty is crucial. Food and chemicals are global industries which need shared standards, shared safety levels and shared risk procedures. If we do not use those shared methodologies we are in danger of a massive duplication. Apart from the unnecessary costs, this would also have implications for animal-testing data because we would be in danger of having to duplicate research on animals, with the resulting unjustified impact on animal welfare. This is an important issue.
I hope the Minister has heard the strength of feeling on this—we have been made promises which have not materialised—and that he is in the mood to reach out to us today and provide reassurance. Otherwise, I hope noble Lords who have proposed amendments will be prepared to press them to a vote when the time comes.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, we welcome the sentiments behind Amendment 27, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and Amendment 41, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. While the Government welcome the amendments as being well intentioned, as I have said before, we believe them to be ultimately unnecessary and in some elements they go beyond the existing environmental regulation that is in force today.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, reminded us, when the Prime Minister launched the 25-year environment plan on 11 January this year, she said:
“Let me be clear, Brexit will not mean a lowering of environmental standards”.
We have already taken firm steps towards that goal, as my noble friend Lord Deben remarked. Our recent announcements include an increase in recycling rates in order to slash the amount of waste polluting our land and seas, a consultation on a deposit return scheme later this year and a ban on the sale of plastic straws, drinks stirrers and plastic-stemmed cotton buds. In line with this commitment, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced on 12 November our intention to create a new comprehensive policy statement setting out our environmental principles, recognising that the principles on which we currently depend in UK law are not held in one place. It is intended that the new policy statement will draw on current EU and international principles and will underpin future policymaking, underlining our commitment that environmental protection will be enhanced and not diluted as we leave the European Union.
At that time, the Secretary of State also announced our intention to consult on a new, independent and statutory body to advise and challenge government and potentially other public bodies on environmental legislation, stepping in where needed to hold these bodies to account and being a champion for the environment. I can confirm for noble Lords that it is our intention to publish the consultation in time for the Third Reading of this Bill. The consultation will explore, first, the precise functions, remit and powers of the new statutory and independent environmental body and the nature, scope and content of the new statutory policy statement on environmental principles. It is of course important to gather the views of many stakeholders in this area before coming to any conclusions. Amendments 27 and 28 would prejudge the outcome of the forthcoming consultation by setting requirements in legislation now.
As my noble friend Lord Inglewood remarked, the purpose of the EU withdrawal Bill is to convert and preserve the law so that, after exit, the laws which we have immediately before exit day will, as far as possible, be the same as those we have now. This includes the wild birds and habitats directives, transposed through to domestic legislation, as well as the protection and enhancement of biodiversity as requested by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in Amendment 28. I am sure that the noble Lord will be reassured to know that the UK is already a signatory to many of the multilateral environmental agreements that underpin such regulations, and that will continue to be the case after we have left the European Union.
The environmental principles are framed in the EU treaties as general objectives for the EU rather than having a direct, binding effect on the delivery of EU measures by member states. Amendment 27 goes further than that, in particular by placing a duty on all public authorities to apply the environmental principles listed in the amendment. This duty does not currently exist either in EU or UK law, and it is not appropriate for this Bill to introduce new powers of that kind.
In addition, a significant proportion of environmental policy and legislation is of course devolved. We need to take account of the different government and legal systems in the home nations as well as the different circumstances of the different parts of the United Kingdom. Amendments 27 and 28 risk compromising consideration of these important issues, as well as the wider devolution settlement, by requiring the UK Government to take UK-wide action. This includes requiring the UK Government to publish UK-wide proposals for governance and principles. Our starting point is that the new statement of principles and environmental body should cover England and environmental matters that are not currently devolved. If the devolved Administrations would also like to take action on these issues, then of course we are open to co-designing the proposals to ensure that they work more widely across the United Kingdom.
Finally, Amendment 27 would require the creation of both a list of statutory functions that can contribute to the protection and improvement of the environment and a list of functions currently exercised by EU bodies that must be retained or replicated in UK law to protect and improve the environment. SIs made under the correcting power in the Bill will be presented to Parliament for scrutiny. They will set out which UK body will perform functions, such as regulatory ones, currently performed by EU bodies. It therefore seems unnecessarily bureaucratic to require by law the creation of lists of functions.
Lord Whitty
Before the Minister moves on from the issue of future relations with the agency, can he address one point? The EU’s position is that we will cease to be a member of those agencies less than a year from today. Would the Government at least indicate that they are looking to an arrangement during a transition period where we continue to participate in those organisations, because we will be following their rules and procedures, but, according to the EU’s negotiating position, we will not be party to that? Would he please address the transition period as such?
Lord Callanan
That is not part of the amendment we are discussing, but I am happy to provide the noble Lord with that reassurance. Yes, we are discussing the exact nature of our participation in the various agencies during the implementation period.
I hope the commitments that I have made, in particular on the fact that the consultation on environmental principles will be published ahead of Third Reading, are sufficient for your Lordships to feel able not to press the amendment.
Lord Deben
I am very pleased with what my noble friend said about the environmental principles and the like, but will he confirm that, if the House feels, when those principles are published, that they are not sufficient and that we need to bring at least part of what we tabled here into the law of the land in the Bill, it will be possible for an amendment of that kind to be brought forward on Third Reading?
Lord Callanan
Yes, we are saying that we will be able to address this issue again after noble Lords have had a chance to look at the consultation on the statement of principles and the consultation on the new environmental body.
I hope my reassurances are enough to enable noble Lords not to press the amendment and that they will take the opportunity to consider the contents of the consultation before we get to Third Reading.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge
I thank the very many noble Lords who have spoken and contributed to the debate, all supporting the amendments, which again emphasises that this is an issue of deep concern across the House—one where everybody agrees that urgent action is necessary. As the Minister has now highlighted, it is one where the House is asking very strongly for assurance. I thank the Minister for his detailed response, in particular, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has highlighted, the commitment that we will have a policy statement and the consultation on a statutory body in time for Third Reading. I hope that they are in good time for Third Reading, so that we will have plenty of time to discuss them and consider their implications.
Indeed, we would hope to see commitments not only to the policy statement and the consultation but to a legislative timetable, so that there is no governance gap when we leave the EU. It will be good to have a further clear statement from the Prime Minister on the Government’s commitment to deliver the independent watchdog with teeth. We will look to see what is in the policy statement and the consultation on the statutory body with great interest. I am pleased that the Minister has been able to reassure us. We do not yet know what will be in these—we will get them before Third Reading—but the implication of that, he has confirmed, is that if the House still does not feel adequately assured, we can bring this issue back. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 27.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“Co-ordination of foreign and security policy
The Secretary of State must ensure that before exit day all necessary action has been taken to continue co-ordination of foreign and security policy with the EU, including association with the EU’s military staff and the European Defence Agency, and to integrate all relevant EU law and regulations into UK legislation.”
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, in moving this amendment I stress that the EU’s useful and largely intergovernmental structures for the co-ordination of foreign policy, international security and defence have not been imposed on the UK by a hostile, imperially minded Brussels—what Dominic Lawson describes in today’s Daily Mail as “the vengeful EU”, the threatening continent from which we must escape. British Governments, British Prime Ministers and British Foreign and Defence Secretaries have played a central part in developing the framework, from James Callaghan and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to Geoffrey Howe and, yes, Margaret Thatcher. When our current Prime Minister repeats, as she often has, that, “We are leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe”—a phrase I am sure we all understand in detail—we have to assume that she intends somehow to maintain close co-operation with those structures after Brexit.
In her Mansion House speech last month, the Prime Minister noted that the outcome of the referendum,
“was not a vote for a distant relationship with our neighbours”.
She went on to promise that, after we leave, her Government would work to build,
“a new beginning for the United Kingdom and our relationship with our European allies”.
This amendment would require the Government to tell us what that new beginning might look like and what the Government want to build. We cannot expect our neighbours to build an entirely new structure just to suit the British alongside the main multilateral framework that has now been created, within which European states now consult on international issues, work together to manage crises in Africa and the Middle East, and deploy military and civilian resources to those regions and the seas around them. What arrangements for continued association do the Government propose?
Our amendment does not explicitly extend to international development, the focus of the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and others which the House considered last Wednesday, but the same principles and questions apply to that additional aspect of Britain’s role in the world. The history of European co-operation and development policy has also been shaped by British participation and influence.
Dominic Lawson and those who think like him would be happy for the UK to follow Switzerland’s example, as again he said this morning, back to proud independence and minimal global influence, but our Prime Minister and our current Foreign Secretary want Brexit to mark a renaissance in Britain’s foreign policy—a global Britain striding the world diplomatically and militarily. The Foreign Secretary gives the impression that his image of global Britain excludes Europe, that we will walk tall alongside the Americans, China and India—and, of course, the rest of the Commonwealth—and leave a declining Europe behind, but our Prime Minister knows that this is nonsense, that British foreign policy has always started from managing relations with France, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands and Denmark and that this remains the bedrock for any global role for Britain today.
The most recent European Council, with its solidarity with the UK in the face of Russian invasion of British sovereignty, was a demonstration of the value to Britain of this multilateral framework. However, in less than 12 months we will be leaving the European Council, the Foreign Affairs Council, the 40 to 50 working groups within which officials consult on and prepare common positions, the EU military staff and the European Defence Agency. Parliament is therefore entitled to ask the Government how they propose to manage when we are no longer within those networks and what future relationship they would like to negotiate with them. We are entitled, too, to ask them to give us an answer soon.
We all know why the Government have not yet spelled out their objectives here. It is because they are divided between those within the Government and on the Back Benches in the Commons who want nothing more to do with those nasty continentals and those who accept what the Prime Minister in her Mansion House speech described as the hard realities: that we need continued close co-operation in these vital areas. It would be an act of national self-mutilation in foreign policy to cut ourselves adrift from the networks that we have done so much to build up and to retreat into a new form of splendid isolation in pursuit of an entirely independent foreign policy.
The Prime Minister, in her speech to the Munich Security Conference in February, indicated that she would like to agree a new framework now. She said that she endorsed,
“distinct arrangements for our foreign and defence policy cooperation in the time-limited implementation period, as the Commission has proposed. This would mean that key aspects of our future partnership in this area would already be effective from 2019. We shouldn’t wait where we don’t need to”.
She went on:
“But where we can both be most effective by the UK deploying its significant capabilities and resources with and indeed through EU mechanisms—we should both be open to that. On defence, if the UK and EU’s interests can best be furthered by the UK continuing to contributing to an EU operation or mission as we do now, then we should both be open to that. And similarly, while the UK will decide how we spend the entirety of our foreign aid in the future, if a UK contribution to EU development programmes and instruments can best deliver our mutual interests, we should both be open to that”.
She called specifically for a close association after Brexit with the European Defence Fund and the European Defence Agency. She did not go so far as to propose a separate new treaty in this field, as she did on co-operation on internal security, but the implication from her speech is clear that that is what is needed.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 29 is also in my name. I would like to say that I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Wallace—and in many ways I do; I agree with the sentiment of everything he said—but I am a little puzzled. He is suggesting that there must be some document somewhere in Whitehall, that the Prime Minister has a plan, and that all we need is for her to give the Minister permission to tell us what is in that plan. I do not think that that plan exists. It might be nice to believe that there is a blueprint of a future EU-UK foreign and defence co-operation policy but I do not believe it yet exists.
When I was doing my homework for today, I was not rereading the collected speeches of the Prime Minister; I happened on the report of the European Parliament from last week. In one-minute summaries, each of the leaders of the groups in the European Parliament responded to the European Council meeting. Obviously, President Macron had also been present. One of the speakers was therefore the chairman of the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, the Conservative MEP Syed Kamall. He was talking so positively about the future and the existence of EU-UK security and defence co-operation that I thought he could almost be a Liberal Democrat.
I thought that I should perhaps make a note of what Dr Kamall had said, but I could not find a transcript, so I went a little bit further into the internet and discovered something that he had been writing on ConservativeHome. He was so positive about what the Prime Minister had achieved at the European summit meeting. He pointed out that she had pulled off a diplomatic coup by securing unprecedented support from EU leaders for her tough stance against Vladimir Putin. He noted that the Prime Minister had persuaded the Council to toughen up its summit conclusions. This extraordinary solidarity, he continued,
“sent a strong signal to Moscow and once again highlighted Britain’s influential role on the international stage. It has also brought into focus the importance of our post-Brexit security and defence relationship with the EU”.
Indeed it has, but the point is surely that the reason that the Prime Minister was able to pull off a diplomatic coup was that she was in the room.
As a member of the European Union, the United Kingdom has a seat at the table. The Prime Minister is present at every European Council meeting; the Foreign Secretary is present at every Foreign Affairs Council and we have people in the room every time there is a discussion about European foreign policy. However tight a relationship we seek to have when we have left the European Union, one fundamental change is inevitably going to have taken place: we will not have a seat at the table.
Therefore, while I completely agree with my noble friend Lord Wallace that we need to have clarity on what the Prime Minister is anticipating in relation to foreign and security co-operation once we leave the European Union, there is a more fundamental question: what arrangements are the Government making to strengthen our relationships with our bilateral partners—to strengthen relations with each of the member states—so that we will at least have a direct contact in each of the member states? If we do not have a seat at the table, we will have to put far more effort into our bilateral and multilateral diplomacy. So far, although the Foreign Secretary, when he gave evidence to the International Relations Committee, suggested that the Government had improved their representation in bilateral embassies, there is no clarity on what the Government are doing in hard, practical terms.
Finally, there is a second aspect to this. It is not just a question of what the Government want: it is a question of what the EU 27 are willing to concede. The House of Lords Library briefing on the proposed UK-EU security treaty points out that the European Council has stated that,
“the EU stands ready to establish partnerships in areas unrelated to trade, in particular the fight against terrorism and international crime, as well as security, defence and foreign policy”.
However, the briefing goes on to say that the European Commission has stated that,
“while the EU aims for a partnership with the UK on security and justice, the EU’s interests must be protected, a non-member state cannot have the same rights as a member state, there must be a balance of rights and obligations and the EU must continue to have autonomy in making decisions”.
That applies particularly to internal security, which we will be moving on to, but if you talk to the Norwegians, they will tell you that, however much they want to be associated with EU foreign policy, they do not have a seat at the table. They might be able to tag along when the EU has decided what it wants to do in relation to foreign policy, but the idea that they have an equal partnership is for the birds.
To get beyond fantasies, can the Minister tell us whether the Prime Minister has a plan? Is it hiding somewhere in Whitehall and is he going to be able to reveal it before Third Reading? It is not only on environmental policy that we need to have a sense of what the Government plan and what they are seeking. It is on that most fundamental aspect of the state: the defence of the realm. At the moment, although I believe that the Prime Minster wants to have a close relationship with the European Union in this area, we need to have some clarity on how she intends to get there.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I thank our noble friends on the Liberal Benches for having put this amendment forward. It seems self-evident in its logic. Indeed, not to respond to what it calls for would be to forgo the responsibility of government to put the defence and well-being of our people in Britain first and foremost. I have had posts in defence and in the Foreign Office and it seems inconceivable that in any significant conflict in which we would be involved we would not want to work with our allies and friends. It is much better to prepare for that and to have the arrangements in place to make sure that we make the best of it. This is not just a matter of fixing something when a crisis arises; it is a matter of having a culture of co-operation in which people feel they have a shared responsibility, that they want to develop that responsibility together, they understand each other and their training and organisation are geared to co-operation with others. From that standpoint, this is a wise amendment and I hope the Minister will respond positively.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, in 1982 the amazing unanimity of the Security Council in favour of the British position when the Falkland Islands were invaded was the result of discussion led by President Mitterrand in Europe. Mitterrand was the first to ring Thatcher to assure her of his support. The remarkable performance of our Prime Minister at the last European Council on the Skripals, Salisbury and sanctions against Russia deserves high praise. As has just been said, it will be very difficult to replicate the kind of contacts, co-ordination and pressure that can be brought about when you are a member of the club. When you are outside the club, that is going to be more difficult.
The Prime Minister has made two very good speeches this year on this theme. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, tellingly quoted from the Mansion House speech. I was in Munich and heard the February speech in which the Prime Minister made it absolutely clear that our commitment to the security of our allies and friends, partners and ex-partners-to-be, was absolute and was in no way conditional on any kind of outcome of the current negotiations. That was a very important statement. Some thought that the Lancaster House speech had created doubt on that score. I thought that was unfair, but certainly it was settled in Munich.
I do not think we need any more speeches. I do not think we need great papers and plans. I think we need wiring diagrams. I think it is in everybody’s interest that we should stay plugged in. It is in the European Union’s interest as much as it is in our interest. This is not a zero-sum negotiation. It has been a mistake that throughout the withdrawal negotiations we have tended to negotiate on their papers. We have not put forward our own papers. This is a locus classicus for a UK proposal, and I do not think it should be a grandiose proposal—they have been made in speeches. It should be an architectural blueprint. We should be proposing joint assessment staff and co-ordination cells. These things are not glamorous. We should be proposing a calendar of meetings and a joint crisis management procedure. That is the kind of wiring diagram that is needed now.
This is an important amendment because it asks for arrangements to be set in hand. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, is quite correct that are we are now talking not about the end of the transition period but about the end of our membership, and if that comes in March next year, something has to be ready. I do not think it is terribly difficult to do, and I do not think the Government need fear, as I think they have done regarding a number of files in this negotiation, that if they put forward a proposal but did not get all that they had proposed then the Daily Mail would attack them. This dossier is a bit different because it is not zero-sum; it is possible that the kind of architecture that would come out at the end of the day might be slightly different but no one is going to kill anyone for that. The case for putting forward a down-to-earth, practical series of proposals quickly is very strong because the 27 will need to take a view, as will the Council Secretary. This is primarily not Commission business but the Commission will take a view, and the European Parliament will take a view. If we do not start soon then it will not happen by March, so I support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace.
Lord Wilson of Dinton (CB)
The noble Lords who have tabled this amendment have an important point. I want to add a postscript to the very wise words of my noble friend Lord Kerr. In the 1960s, half a century ago, when we were moving in the other direction, I was privileged to be present at a discussion about whether we should apply again to join the Common Market after we had been rebuffed by General De Gaulle. The discussion involved the former Prime Minister, Mr Macmillan, and the man who had led the Treasury team that made the first application, Frank Lee. All I want to say is that they were agreed that the main reason for applying to join the Common Market was defence, security and being in the room. Of course there were a huge number of economic and other arguments, but they saw Britain as isolated. They thought that we would be more valuable to the United States if we were in the room in Europe; that we had a lot to offer and that Europe would want to have it; and that it was important for the prosperity of this country that we should play our part in the room, in alliance with the rest of the European union. That was probably the most important factor in applying to go in. As we leave, we have to think how we protect ourselves. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is absolutely right and the noble Lords opposite have an important point, which is why I support their amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, there is always something very special about hearing history from those who are not reading it from books but were there.
Given the overriding importance of the security of the nation and remembering, even further back, that the EU was born out of the desire to end war, bring peace and establish co-operation across Europe—that was not simply the reason for us being there but, even before that, the reason for its creation—we simply cannot risk just slipping out of the EU’s foreign and security policy, which we helped not to fashion at the beginning but to fashion in its development, without a serious debate in Parliament.
In Committee, regrettably, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, who I think will also respond this evening, claimed that she was “a very lowly mortal”—I doubt that in any circumstances—and was,
“not privy to the detail of the negotiations”,
so she could not report on the progress of talks on this vital issue. I have to say I do not think that is good enough, either for this House or for the Bill. I said at the time that Clause 9 refers to the withdrawal deal. It is our fervent hope that before we sign off on that deal—for me, this should be included in that deal—there will be a satisfactory outcome regarding our future co-ordination with the EU on foreign policy and defence. It is still possible that the Government will try to remove Clause 9 but, until they do, the deal is pertinent. It is not good enough for the Minister this evening to repeat her earlier reliance on the so-called meaningful vote on the final deal, which has been promised by the Government. That was her excuse for saying that the Bill was,
“not the appropriate forum to raise these concerns”.—[Official Report, 26/2/18; cols. 502-03.]
There are two reasons why that argument is at fault. The first is because, at the moment, there is no such thing as a meaningful vote; to the contrary, there is only a meaningless vote, as it will be on a Motion with no legislative consequence. It will be a bit like the Motion that will be in the House of Commons on Thursday on the customs union, which the Government are so afraid of losing that they will not even vote on it. They are going to abstain and when that vote is won, they will ignore it. At the moment, that is the only vote that we have been promised on the deal. Secondly and, I guess, more importantly, I do not think we should be sending the Bill back to the Commons unless we are sure, in the way in which the amendment provides, that the Government are already working on and will take the necessary action before exit date to secure an ongoing continuation of security and foreign policy with the EU. It is no good to say that we can wait until the withdrawal deal—our vote on that could be weeks before we leave—or that it is not for us to discuss it.
In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, we need a diagram or a plan. I have a better suggestion for the Minister: she should just get the noble Lord to write it for her, because we might then have something that would take us forward. We need to know what is being discussed and, assuming that there is a plan—I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, is wrong and that there is something on paper—we need to know what it is, so that we have confidence that this will be fully in hand and workable on the day that we leave.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for bringing attention to this important issue in his Amendment 29 and I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government’s position in this vital area.
I begin by emphasising that the UK is unconditionally committed to European security. We want to continue working closely with our European partners to keep all—all—of our citizens safe. There is mutual benefit in such proximity of relationship; frankly, to think otherwise would be plain daft.
As the Prime Minister underlined in her Munich speech, this is not a time to inhibit our co-operation or jeopardise the security of our citizens. We want to find practical ways to continue working with the EU to protect our citizens and safeguard our shared values and interests. That speech, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, suggested, set out the new deep and special security partnership we want to develop with the EU, including our ambition to retain the co-operation we already enjoy with member states and to go further to meet new threats.
The Government are clear that we must do whatever is most practical and pragmatic to tackle real-world challenges. I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who acknowledged the importance of what the Prime Minister was saying in her speech. As an example of our ambitions, the UK aims to continue to develop capabilities to meet future threats. On defence, that means agreeing a relationship between the UK and the European defence fund and the European Defence Agency.
It is important to observe that our security interests do not stop at the edge of our continent. As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, a leading contributor to NATO and the United States’ closest partner, we have never defined our approach to external security primarily through our membership of the EU. On leaving the EU, it is right that the UK will pursue an independent foreign policy, but the interests which we will seek to project will continue to be based on shared values.
Amendment 29 seeks to do something else: to ensure that the Government endeavour to secure future co-operation in the field of foreign and security policy. As I have set out, this is a top priority for the Government. The amendment also seeks to ensure that relevant EU law and regulations are integrated into UK legislation. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that this is unnecessary in the face of the Bill’s explicit provisions. The Bill will incorporate EU regulations and decisions applying in relation to the UK, and any directly effective rights, obligations, powers, liabilities, remedies, restrictions and procedures arising under treaty articles at exit day. Our approach is one of maximum continuity. No further provision is needed to ensure that the Bill can fulfil this vital aim.
It is for those two reasons that this amendment, I would argue, is unnecessary. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw it. I clarify that this is not a matter to which the Government propose to return at Third Reading.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I regret that that is an extremely unsatisfactory answer. To say that shared values will continue to link us to the European Union after we pursue our independent foreign policy means nothing, more or less. Shared meetings and shared intelligence are what we need. We have close co-operation with France, which we have had since 1998—reinforced in 2010—and a defence treaty for collaboration; we have co-operated with the Netherlands and others; and we are currently in command of one of the military operations at Northwood, Operation Atalanta. All of that is going into thin air, but apparently we will continue to share values, and that will do. It will not do, and I suggest strongly to the Government that this issue will not go away. It will become more embarrassing as the months go by if the Government do not begin to clarify what they have in mind, particularly given that Ministers cannot agree among themselves what they want to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is absolutely right that we need to make some proposals. We would gain enormously in terms of the trust of those with whom we are negotiating if we made some proposals. The Prime Minister’s Munich speech implied that we would be making some proposals. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, was right, and I was wrong to suggest that there is a plan: no such plan exists.
When I was studying history, I used to think that the Conservative Party was about strong foreign policy and strong defence. However, on this fundamental issue, the Conservative Party appears to be about holding itself together, not about strong defence, which these days necessarily means working closely with others. We cannot afford to be an independent military power any longer. We are in a much darker international environment than we were in 2016 when the referendum was fought. We need our friends and partners, and we need to work closely with them.
This is an issue that will not go away. I do not intend to ask to divide the House at this late hour, but the resonance of this issue will grow rather than shrink. It will embarrass the Government and the Conservative Party more and more as we slide towards March 2019 without any clear idea. I regret that on this occasion, unlike when we discussed this issue in Committee, the Foreign Secretary has not been able to join us at the Bar. Never mind—I trust a report will go back to him. I did not recognise he was there at that time.
I will therefore withdraw the amendment, but the Government have to think a great deal more carefully about what they want in the area covered by the Treaty on European Union, rather than by the treaty on the implementation of the European Union. I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, when she suggests that the withdrawal Bill is only about the treaty and therefore does not cover that issue. Look at Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union and the various things which cover foreign policy and defence co-operation. If we are going to have close co-operation, including on intelligence and military deployment, there have to be formal structures and agreements. So I wish to withdraw this amendment, but we and others will have to return to this issue with increasing urgency if the half-promises made by the Prime Minister in her Munich speech turn out to be half-promises and nothing more.
Baroness Ludford
“Internal security, justice and police co-operation and counter-terrorism
The Secretary of State must ensure that before exit day all necessary action has been taken to continue the United Kingdom’s participation in EU measures to promote internal security, justice and police co-operation and counter-terrorism to the extent that—(a) the United Kingdom has opted in to those measures,(b) they will be incorporated into UK law as retained EU law, and(c) they will not remove or diminish any rights of the individual in the criminal justice process.”
Baroness Ludford
I find myself in a similar position, in moving this amendment on behalf of myself, my noble friend Lord Paddick and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, to my noble friend Lord Wallace in moving his amendment on foreign and defence policy and external security. This is about internal security, where, in theory, we are rather further forward in designing the wiring diagrams that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, talked about.
In her speech at the Munich Security Conference, the Prime Minister said a fair amount about these issues of extradition, Europol and data access and exchange. But there are a few little problems on the way. I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister some concrete answers about how a UK-EU security treaty will be taken forward and how it will address some of the problems identified so far. One concerns extradition. The Minister will be aware that in article 168 of the draft withdrawal agreement there is a facility allowing that the EU,
“in respect of any of its Member States which have raised reasons related to its fundamental structures, may declare that, during the transition period, that Member State will not surrender its nationals pursuant to”,
the European arrest warrant framework decision, and then the UK could declare similarly that it will not surrender its nationals.
I have to say that when Ministers from the Ministry of Justice and DExEU came to the EU Justice Sub-Committee four weeks ago, they did not appear to know what this article meant. It meant that some countries would not be able to extradite or surrender their nationals to the UK because they would have to change their constitutions. The one we all know about is Germany, which changed its constitution to be able to extradite its nationals to a fellow EU state under the European arrest warrant, but that did not apply to non-EU states. One reason why the surrender agreement with Norway is still not in force 17 years after negotiations began is that I understand there are 88 pages of declarations and notifications surrounding it, a lot of which will be to do with non-extradition of nationals. That would be a very serious omission from an extradition agreement.
Do the Government know which member states have already indicated that, for constitutional reasons, they would refuse to extradite their nationals to us or would find it impossible or politically difficult to change their constitutions, which in some cases might mean a referendum—perhaps no Governments like referenda—either during the transition or as part of the future relationship? What is the extent of that problem? If we are not going to be able to rely on the European arrest warrant, what is the situation in terms of falling back on bilateral agreements or the 1957 Council of Europe convention? How many member states have maintained in their national law the provisions for extradition outside the European arrest warrant and would they be willing to bring things back in just for us?
On Europol, are we looking at something like the Denmark model? Denmark has an opt out from all justice and home affairs measures, even though it is an EU member state and has no option to opt in on a case-by-case basis, so it is a third country for the purposes of Europol, with no decision-making powers and no access to the Europol database. Do the Government seriously expect to do better than Denmark on participation in Europol?
On enforcement and dispute resolution, is it conceivable that it would not be a requirement of a future UK-EU extradition arrangement for the UK to take account of CJEU case law and charter rights post Brexit? For instance, what is the Government’s analysis of the Irish court’s refusal to extradite to the UK and make a reference to the CJEU because of concerns about lower protections here post Brexit? These difficulties are not just going to arise after next March: they are arising already because of fears that our safeguards and protections are not high enough. I am sure that the Government are extremely grateful that they are being pushed to take these matters into account by this Chamber as well as by the European Council guidelines. Three months ago, the European Commission made a presentation of the main issues affecting police and judicial co-operation with the UK after Brexit. Two very pertinent factors were, first:
“Respect for fundamental rights, essentially equivalent data protection standards”,
and, secondly:
“Strength of enforcement & dispute settlement mechanisms”.
Those similar factors were stressed in the European Council guidelines of 23 March.
Norway, Switzerland and Iceland must not only make contributions to the EU budget to participate in Schengen laws and policies but also accept the supremacy of the CJEU over their national courts in Schengen matters. How do the Government intend to maintain access to one of the most important databases, the Schengen Information System—at the moment, we have access for the policing side though not for immigration—if they neither contribute to the budget nor accept the supremacy of the CJEU? There is no precedent for a non-EU, non-Schengen country having access to the SIS. Do the Government believe that they can, none the less, manage to gain such access? In her Munich speech, the Prime Minister said that,
“when participating in EU agencies the UK will respect the remit of the European Court of Justice”.
However, in the very next sentence, she said that,
“a principled but pragmatic solution to close legal co-operation will be needed to respect our unique status as a third country with our own sovereign legal order”.
That rather seemed to undermine respecting the remit of the ECJ. So which is it? Are we going to respect the remit of the ECJ or insist on our own sovereign legal order? I assume it cannot be both.
On the exchange of data, the Government have not, to my knowledge, confirmed that they will seek an adequacy decision from the Commission under the GDPR. They talked in the partnership paper last August about,
“building on the existing adequacy model”,
as if we could do better, and then the Prime Minister referred in the Munich speech to a “bespoke arrangement”—a term we have become quite familiar with. Would the Government not find it helpful to accept the retention of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which we have tried to assist in today, when they try to demonstrate that they are upholding high data protection standards?
One of the issues, to which we have referred several times in this Chamber, is that our data processing for national security purposes will come under the spotlight in a way that does not happen while we are an EU member state, because national security is outside the competence of the EU. However, once we are outside the purview of the EU, our Investigatory Powers Act and other provisions—including quite possibly our co-operation with the United States on intelligence data matters—will be scrutinised as to whether they sufficiently safeguard privacy. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, who is sitting next to the Minister who will reply, will know as much as I do from our experience from 2013 how difficult those issues can be. The Court of Justice struck down the safe harbour agreement because of worries about data transfers and data access by security agencies in the United States.
I hope I have given the noble Baroness the Minister a few small questions—or rather the noble Lord; I am sorry, it is difficult to keep up—which deserve quite meaty answers. There was no beef in the response on security and defence policy, but the Prime Minister herself has been much more explicit about the possible arrangements on internal security. I draw attention to the wording of the amendment, which includes showing how the measures,
“will not remove or diminish any rights of the individual in the criminal justice process”.
We participate in some procedural rights—not as many as some of us would like—but we need to uphold the rights of defendants and victims in the criminal justice process as well as to enable the police to catch criminals. I therefore look forward to learning from the Minister some quite explicit and specific details about how the UK-EU security treaty is advancing. I beg to move.
Lord Judd
My Lords, in warmly supporting this amendment, I will make only two points. First, crime is now global and international; trafficking, drugs and terrorism know no frontiers. When I was serving on the Home Affairs Committee and we looked into these matters, I was impressed by the way in which one person after another who had front-line operational responsibility said how important the European dimension was to them, how any diminution in the effectiveness of co-operation with Europe would not be in the interests of the protection of the British people, and that we needed our colleagues in Europe. When asked, “But what about those elements of Europe which might not be as well equipped professionally and in other ways to undertake the tasks as we regard ourselves as being?”, the answer was, on the whole, very firm. They said, “We had better help them to become as effective and not walk away from them because we shall need them”. This amendment is therefore very important and I commend it to the Minister.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I support Amendment 30, which seeks to ensure that before exit day all necessary action has been taken to ensure that we continue to co-operate on issues of internal security and law and order with our closest neighbours. It is timely, since fears are growing that the UK could become a more dangerous place as a result of our leaving the European Union. It is also timely because time is running out.
The sharing of intelligence and co-operation between countries will remain as vital in understanding the movement of criminals and domestic and international terrorism in the future as it is now. Security policy is threatened by potential damage to the European police office, Europol, which contributes to more than 13,500 cross-border investigations every year. It could be crippling. Leaving the EU will also make it difficult for agencies such as Eurojust to offer joint investigation teams to tackle a range of crimes from terror to child abuse.
There is considerable worry as to whether the UK will, after Brexit, still be part of the European arrest warrant agreements that allow for the most wanted criminals to be returned promptly. These provisions were introduced in 2002 in response to the growing threat from international terrorism and a recognition that extradition procedures were complex and time consuming.
Another aspect relates to cybercrime, which is the biggest emerging crime problem that we have. It has spread across Europe and indeed across the world and we need international co-operation to tackle it. We seem to be potentially on the brink of another cold war with Russia. We need access to years and years of shared data and resources to ensure robust safeguards. Europol was formed in 1999 and integrated into the EU in 2009, and one of its main functions is cybercrime co-operation.
I am particularly worried about the possible loss of the European arrest warrant, which currently means that most wanted criminals can be returned promptly. Before the European arrest warrant, extradition arrangements could take up to 10 years, whereas now we are talking about people being able to be transferred within a matter of weeks. That has to be maintained. There is a huge amount of legislation to be worked through as a result of the Brexit vote but it is vital that security and policing are given priority by the UK Government.
Furthermore, Brexit is a cause of anxiety for smaller ports in the UK. The North Wales Police and Crime Commissioner, Arfon Jones, is concerned that the new flexible approach to counterterrorism could see resources concentrated in the ports of the south of England, whereas Holyhead and other Welsh ports are underresourced and understaffed. Holyhead is in fact the second busiest ferry port in the UK and handles 2 million passengers each year.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, warned back in 2002 that the underpoliced ports were the soft underbelly in the war on terror. It is inevitable that the common travel area will be abused by criminals trying, illegally, to get into the UK. They will find the soft spots to come into the country and we must be prepared and ready to address that issue. We need some clear guidance from the Government as to how the smaller ports will be resourced, especially those with links across the Irish Sea. All these issues are important and they all need early answers to make sure that if Brexit happens according to the schedule that has been planned, at least there is preparation undertaken to meet these vital concerns.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to this amendment, to which I have added my name. I have spoken to former colleagues, particularly in the National Crime Agency, who have particular responsibility for European co-operation and they are very concerned about the potential consequences of our leaving the European Union. Clearly, in terms of counterterrorism intelligence, most arrangements are bilateral and therefore will not be affected, but bringing those people identified as terrorists to justice very much relies on European Union co-operation.
No doubt the Minister will say that this is an absolute priority for the Government. I have run out of fingers on which to count the number of absolute priorities that this Government have as far as leaving the European Union is concerned. Whichever Minister responds will say that of course it is in the interests of the United Kingdom and the European Union to maintain current levels of co-operation on these issues, but the important point that my noble friend has already been made, particularly in relation to the constitutional issues around Germany and extradition, is that the UK and the European Union may want the current arrangements to continue as far as possible, but the question is what is legally and constitutionally possible if the United Kingdom becomes a third party country and is not a member of the European Union.
There is one other issue related to the previous amendment, and that concerns the fact that we will no longer have a seat at the table at Europol. At the moment, the United Kingdom is central in directing the operations of Europol and in having influence over what Europol does, but it is not possible for a third party country to have that degree of involvement in, or that amount of influence over, Europol. Therefore, clearly British interests will lose out following any exit from the European Union.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to explain how these legal and constitutional obstacles will be overcome and how we will be able to be as influential and effective as we currently are in working with our European neighbours if we no longer have a seat at the table.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, it is really hard to overstate the importance of the issues raised this evening or, indeed, to understate the lack of government progress on them. It was in February of last year that the Government recognised the importance of the issues. Just so, but what action have they taken and what thought has been given to them since then? There was the welcome commitment to negotiate continued or enhanced co-operation in Munich, but what does that mean? We have heard little or nothing.
This evening we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, about Europol, about Eurojust from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, about the European arrest warrant from everyone who has spoken, about European criminal records and about the Schengen Information System. These are networks that help to keep our people safe. It clearly cannot undermine any negotiations that the Government are having for us to know what they want to achieve, because we assume that they have already shared this with the EU 27. I wonder whether what they worry will undermine the negotiations is their obsession with the red line around the ECJ or their relationship with their own Back Benches. If not, why are we not hearing more?
I want to concentrate on the issue that is perhaps easiest to understand, which is the European arrest warrant, and not simply from the point of view of where the countries named by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, might have a difficulty with it. Are we going to recognise any arrest warrant from the other countries? We do not even know that yet. What access will our law enforcers have to the checks, records and intelligence sharing that they use not simply day by day but hour by hour? As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, says, time is running out. We need some answers to that.
The amendment would ensure that the Government prioritised these issues over their concern with hard Brexiteers, who seem willing for the country to pay any price, even dropping out of the EAW, simply so that they can say, “Yeah, we’re shot of them”. That is a price that is too high to pay. It would put our security and justice outside an organised, functioning European system—one that has given us great confidence that we are being properly protected. This is an area where the Government need to give some leadership and come up with real proposals that can be implemented to keep all our people safe.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for raising the important issues dealt with in her new clause proposed in Amendment 30, as it provides me with an opportunity to set out the Government’s position on internal security, law enforcement and criminal justice.
I want to begin by reiterating the Government’s commitment to securing the best possible outcomes for the UK in our negotiations with our European partners. As the Prime Minister made clear in her Munich speech, the UK is unconditionally committed to maintaining Europe’s security, now and after our withdrawal from the EU. The UK has been instrumental in developing many of the tools which the EU has at its disposal, and is a significant contributor. For example, the UK is in the top three of member states that contribute intelligence each day to the different databases within Europol. We want this to continue in a way that works for both the UK and for Europe so that we can respond quickly and effectively to the changing threats that we face, including from terrorism and serious and organised crime. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for raising this important issue in Amendment 30.
The intention of this Bill is to create a snapshot of EU law as it applies in the UK immediately before exit day and then retain it within our domestic law following our departure. The UK has a long-standing tradition of ensuring that our rights and liberties are protected domestically and of fulfilling our international human rights obligations, which will continue irrespective of exit. The decision to leave the European Union does not change this. However, noble Lords will forgive me for repeating it, but the exact nature of our future relationship is a matter for negotiation. I assure noble Lords that the Government are already taking extensive action to prepare the ground for these negotiations.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, is not in her place, but she has tabled Amendment 66 in this group. I do not think that any noble Lords referred to this amendment, but it covers some areas that have been mentioned and so I will say a few words about that and about our objectives. Our Security, Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice partnership paper published in September last year outlined how we are seeking a relationship that provides for practical operational co-operation, including the European arrest warrant, facilitates data-driven law enforcement and allows for multilateral co-operation through EU agencies, including Europol and Eurojust. We believe that the UK and the EU should work together to design new, dynamic arrangements as part of our future partnership to continue and strengthen our close collaboration.
The Prime Minister has been clear that we are proposing a new treaty to underpin our future internal security relationships. With reference to paragraph (c) in the new clause proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, such a treaty will require an effective and independent means of resolving disputes that is respectful of the sovereignty of both the UK and the EU’s legal orders. The appropriate dispute resolution mechanism and the relationship between our courts will depend on the substance and context of the agreement, and so is a matter for negotiations and not for this Bill.
Let me address briefly some of the questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, asked me, about extradition from the EU using the European arrest warrant and, in particular, the implementation period. We certainly want to continue to be able to use the EAW to extradite people from the EU during the implementation period. The relevant provisions on this in the withdrawal agreement were not agreed and are hence marked as yellow, and discussions are continuing on this as we speak. However, we believe that it is in the interests of both the UK and EU member states that current capabilities are preserved during the implementation period, and we continue to make that case.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
The Minister has answered only one part of the question—whether it would be possible that we would be able to extradite from other countries. I asked whether we were willing also to respect an arrest warrant from another country and to exercise that here.
Lord Callanan
It is certainly our intention but, as I have said, these are bilateral relationships and the discussions are continuing. That is one part of the withdrawal agreement that was not quite finalised and so, literally, discussions are continuing on it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, also asked me about databases and the use of EU data on UK databases and vice versa. This is also a matter for negotiations. Our aim is to ensure that we and our EU partners continue to share and use personal data where there are clear benefits to public safety, subject of course to the appropriate safeguards.
For all of those reasons, and given the Government’s clear intentions to continue and strengthen our close collaboration on security, law enforcement and criminal justice after we leave, and given that the new clauses exceed the purpose of this Bill, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. For the sake of clarity, I should say that the Government will not reflect further on this amendment and so, if the noble Baroness wishes, she should take the opportunity to test the opinion of the House this evening.
Baroness Ludford
I am quite cross, really. With all respect to the Minister, that is a disrespectful response. Twenty-one months after the referendum, there was not even as much detail in the Minister’s reply as there was in the Prime Minister’s Munich speech. For instance, the Minister said that a new treaty will require respect for legal sovereignty. As I mentioned to him, the Prime Minister said:
“when participating in EU agencies the UK will respect the remit of the European Court of Justice”.
What does that mean? The Minister has enlightened me not a jot on that, nor on the follow-up phrase about,
“our unique status as a third country with our own sovereign legal order”,
which was the only one he talked about.
It is farcical that the Prime Minister can make a speech containing more detail than the Minister is prepared to give in response to an amendment in this House. We are being treated as of no account whatever. The way in which Ministers are responding on this is disrespectful. It is obvious that there are major challenges in getting a UK-EU security treaty. Many commentators are writing about it, with various opinions and insights, but the Government are not among them, at least when it comes to telling us in Parliament. Even though we are the unelected House—I am not aware that they are telling the elected House in any more detail either—it seems poor that this is what we have become and have been reduced to when we seek knowledge about how Parliament will take back control of our future relationship with the EU post Brexit.
We will have to reflect on another way in which to take this issue forward. I hope the Minister will understand that his reply was not worth the paper it was written on. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Equality and discrimination
(1) The purpose of this section is to ensure that the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU does not diminish protection for equality in domestic law.(2) Rights under equalities legislation are not to be removed or diminished.(3) In this section “equalities legislation” means the Equality Act 2006, the Equality Act 2010 and subordinate legislation made under either of those Acts.(4) In any proceedings in which a court determines whether a provision of primary legislation is compatible with subsection (2), if the court is satisfied that the provision is incompatible it may make a declaration to that effect.(5) Subordinate legislation is not law if and to the extent that it is incompatible with subsection (2).(6) Subsection (5) does not apply to a provision of subordinate legislation if made in the exercise of a power conferred by primary legislation which prevents avoidance or removal of the incompatibility.(7) In any proceedings in which a court determines whether a provision of subordinate legislation is compatible with subsection (2), if the court is satisfied that subsection (6) applies the court may make a declaration of the incompatibility.(8) Section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (power to take remedial action) applies in relation to a declaration of incompatibility under subsection (4) or (7) of this section as it applies in relation to a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 of that Act.(9) Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (statements of compatibility) applies in relation to compatibility with subsection (2) of this section as it applies in relation to compatibility with the Convention rights.”
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 30A in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett. I know it also enjoys the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. Today’s proceedings on the Report stage of the Bill started with a debate on the Charter of Fundamental Rights and we finish with a debate on equality and rights of a slightly different nature but no less important, albeit that the number of Peers in the Chamber does not quite reflect that. However, that is more likely to do with the time of day.
I put on record my thanks and those of the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, who took time last week to meet us together with an official from the Equality and Human Rights Commission regarding the protection of equality rights after we leave the European Union. It was a constructive meeting but we nevertheless feel that this amendment remains necessary. It is often said that one of the three great promises is, “I am from the Government and I am here to help”. This is the other way around; although we are in opposition, we are here to help the Government. The Government themselves said in last year’s White Paper about what was then referred to as the great repeal Bill, but which has rather diminished in its title since then, that all the protections covered by the Equality Act 2006, the Equality Act 2010 and the equivalent legislation in Northern Ireland will continue to apply once the United Kingdom has left the European Union.
That is what we seek to secure by way of this amendment. The first subsection of the proposed new clause states:
“The purpose of this section is to ensure that the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU does not diminish protection for equality in domestic law”.
The equality directives currently provide a set of minimum standards in relation to equality rights, and the requirements of these directives are reflected in the Equality Act 2010. It is fair to say that over the years there have been occasions when the European Union has set minimum standards and UK Governments of various descriptions have gone further than those standards, while on other occasions we have required the European Union, as it were, to push us along in securing equality rights. However, the primacy, as we have it today, of European Union law means that domestic laws implementing EU rights-enhancing directives, including those in the Equality Act 2010, cannot be removed while the UK remains bound by EU law, except by agreement at the EU level.
Those equality directives include the race directive of 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin. The framework directive 2000/78 established a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. The gender goods and services directive of 2004 implemented the principle of equal treatment between men and women in access to and supply of goods and services, while the recast gender directive of 2006 saw the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation. In addition to these specific equality directives, also relevant is Article 157 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which establishes the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, something that has not been far from the headlines in recent weeks. The directives to which I have referred, together with Article 157, collectively provide a set of minimum standards of protection against discrimination at work on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin, sex, religion or belief, age, disability and sexual orientation. The race and gender goods and services directives provide protection against discrimination on the grounds of race and sex in accessing goods and services, while the race directive also extends to social protection and healthcare, social advantages and education. As I have said, the requirements of these directives are reflected in the Equality Act 2010.
However, despite the Government’s political commitment not to reduce these protections after the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, there is nevertheless a risk that without embedding the principle of non-regression within the Bill, these rights could be undermined in the future once the minimum standards set by EU law are no longer binding on the United Kingdom. For example, while the right to equal pay for work of equal value and many of our protections from discrimination cannot be removed while the United Kingdom remains part of the EU, they could be removed after we leave.
This matter was addressed by the Women and Equalities Select Committee in the other place. In its report published last February, the committee concluded that,
“ensuring protections are maintained is not simply a matter of transposing existing EU law. In order to protect rights, the Government needs to take active steps to embed equality into domestic law and policy. The steps we recommend would entrench equality into the UK legal and policy framework and would ensure that the UK retains a strong, undiminished record of equality after it leaves the EU”.
What we see in the Bill is a transposition of existing EU law. The Select Committee said that we had to go further than doing simply that and entrench equality in the United Kingdom legal and policy framework. This amendment was prepared in consultation with the Equality and Human Rights Commission and we believe it does just that by providing that existing rights under the Equality Acts 2006 and 2010 will not be removed or diminished. It sets out two mechanisms to do so, mirroring those in the Human Rights Act 1998, by requiring a Minister to state when new legislation is introduced to Parliament whether it is compatible with the requirement not to reduce existing protections, as well as by allowing UK courts to assess the compatibility of new laws with this requirement. We believe that this is in line with the recommendation in the Women and Equalities Committee’s report that there is a need to empower Parliament and the courts to declare whether legislation is compatible with UK principles of equality.
The proposed new clause would provide equivalent protections for equality rights after exit day as before because it replaces the foundation of the rights currently provided by EU law with an equivalent domestic underpinning. I assure the House that, in drafting the new clause, attention was paid to concerns raised by the Government in Committee about an earlier proposal to create a new, free-standing right to equality. In response to that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, stated:
“The bottom line is that substantive new rights are not consistent with the intended purpose of the Bill, which is about maintaining the same level of protection on the day after exit as before”.—[Official Report, 7/3/18; col. 1168.]
The proposed new clause would maintain equivalent protection for equality rights after exit day by simply replacing the foundation for our equality rights currently provided by EU law with an equivalent underpinning in our domestic law. In doing so, we respect the United Kingdom’s constitutional position by applying the same approach as the Human Rights Act and we respect parliamentary sovereignty because the proposed new clause would limit the role of the court in relation to primary legislation to making a declaration of incompatibility, rather than invalidating or striking down primary legislation, as is currently the case under EU law. In that sense, it is a somewhat weaker underpinning than the current level of protection, but we believe that this approach would strike an appropriate balance between ensuring non-regression of equality rights after we leave the EU and returning control to Parliament to have the final say on our laws after exit day.
Having been a Minister in both the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government, I know that there has to be compatibility in the United Kingdom with the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights; in fact, it is wider in Scotland in that there has to be a declaration of compatibility and being within competence. That focuses Ministers’ minds and, very often, things are changed. No one is saying that a deliberate attempt would be made to undermine what in that case would be human rights but in this case would be equality, but when the tests are applied and people are obliged to look at them, they may find things there that would reduce rights. Therefore, it is a very good test because it ensures that equality rights are not eroded, even through the unintended consequence of a particular provision.
I do not believe that this is fanciful. As a member of the coalition Government between 2010 and 2015, I put my hands up: concerns were expressed that parts of the Red Tape Challenge could have eroded some equality rights during that period. Indeed, in its January review of sex discrimination law, the Fawcett Society stated:
“Without the backstop of the EU … There are good reasons to believe that this presents a real risk to equality legislation. For example, the 2011 Beecroft report, commissioned as part of the ‘Red Tape Challenge’, included proposals to cap discrimination damages awards. This was prevented by the Court of Justice of the European Union, which had ruled in 1993 that damages for sex discrimination could not be limited. That report also proposed a number of other retrograde steps, including opt-outs of equalities requirements for small businesses”.
I commend this proposed new clause to the House. It will send a positive signal that we still wish to be at the forefront of protecting equality rights once we have left the European Union. We seek here a robust underpinning of these equality rights, as currently guaranteed by the European Union. I beg to move.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, despite the Government’s political commitment that equality rights that currently come from Europe will continue once the UK leaves the EU, there is a risk that without embedding the principle of non-regression in the Bill, these rights could be undermined in the future once the minimum standards set by EU law are no longer binding on the United Kingdom. The Women and Equalities Select Committee recognised this risk and recommended that the Bill should explicitly commit to maintaining current levels of equality protection.
The proposed new clause would respect the UK’s constitutional position by applying the same approach as in the Human Rights Act 1998, as we have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace. In particular, it respects parliamentary sovereignty because it would limit the role of the court in relation to primary legislation to making a declaration of incompatibility, rather than invalidating or striking down legislation, as is currently possible under EU law. In that sense, what the new clause proposes is in fact weaker than the current level of protection for equality rights derived from EU law.
What rights might be at risk? While we in Britain should be proud that we have some of the strongest equality law in the world, and in many areas have gone before and beyond what EU law required, some of our important current protections have been driven by developments at European level. Even those that originated in domestic law are often underpinned by EU law. For that reason, they cannot be reduced while we remain in the EU. So when the underpinning of EU law is taken away, there is a real risk that a future Government could seek to chip away at our existing protections. We have already seen this in the Red Tape Challenge, which the noble and learned Lord referred to, under the coalition Government, when the existence of the EU safety net protected much of the Equality Act 2010, but we still saw provisions outside the EU directives being attacked and, in some cases, repealed.
Some of these protections, particularly those that are perceived as financially costly or burdensome to business, might be more vulnerable to repeal under a future post-Brexit Government. Risks that commentators have identified include: the reintroduction of a cap on compensation for discrimination at work; undermining aspects of the prohibition on unfavourable treatment related to pregnancy, which currently reflects the EU position; and chipping away at aspects of equal pay legislation post Brexit. The Beecroft report, which the noble and learned Lord referred to, which came forward as part of the Red Tape Challenge, repeatedly refers to the constraints imposed by EU directives. It recommended that compensation for the loss of earnings part of an award for discrimination dismissal should be capped and that small businesses should be able to opt out of a whole raft of employee rights, including unfair dismissal, the right to request flexible working, flexible parental leave and equal pay audits.
It is possible to anticipate objections that can and might be made to the amendment we are bringing forward—I can almost hear them in my ears before the Minister gets up to speak. The Bill is already transferring or preserving all the equality rights from EU law, so there is no need for this clause—I can hear that being said. The Bill does not transfer the underpinning of these rights currently provided by EU law. At the moment, the rights cannot be removed or diluted except by agreement at EU level. Maintaining the equivalent protection after the UK leaves the EU requires replacing this underpinning with protection in domestic law. That is what the proposed new clause would do.
Secondly, it might be said that this is a new right and that it is not the purpose of the Bill—how many times have I heard that?—to create new domestic rights. The proposed new clause would not create enhanced protection over and above the current position in the UK as a result of our membership of the EU; in fact, it is weaker, because it permits only a declaration of incompatibility rather than the striking-down of incompatible domestic primary legislation, as is currently the case.
Thirdly, it might be said that the clause would create confusion. I can think of two kinds of confusion that might be alleged, the first being that it created a new right which overlapped with the rights in the Equality Acts. However, it would create no such rights; it would merely provide that existing rights could not be removed or diminished. Neither a court nor a Minister introducing a Bill to Parliament should have any difficulty determining whether a new legislative provision removes an existing right in the Equality Acts. It might further be suggested that confusion is caused by introducing a Human Rights Act mechanism normally applicable to convention rights, but the Human Rights Act is not a convention mechanism; it is a domestic law mechanism carefully crafted to strike the right balance between respect for fundamental rights and the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. It is therefore entirely appropriate to adopt the same balancing approach in protecting equality rights.
Finally, it may be said that the proposed new clause will not work because some changes will need to be made to the Equality Acts, but it will not prevent technical changes being made to the Acts such as those referred to by the Government in their paper, Equalities legislation and EU exit. That paper confirms:
“No planned changes to the Equality Acts 2006 and 2010 or secondary legislation under those Acts, using the powers under the EU (Withdrawal) Bill will substantively affect the statutory protections provided for by that equality legislation”.
Such changes can therefore be made without removing or diminishing rights and will not be prevented by this clause. If in the future more substantive changes are required to the rights in the Equality Acts, it remains open to Parliament to make them in accordance with the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. I am entirely convinced of the value of the amendment and am very happy to support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Lord, Lord Low, have made a strong case. I am perplexed as to what possible argument the Government could make against writing in the principle of non-regression of equality rights, given the numerous assurances they have given to us on their commitment to such rights and given that, as already explained, the amendment was modified to take account of objections raised by the Minister in Committee. I can only think that the Government want to retain some wriggle room for the future.
That suspicion was strengthened when I read in today’s i that the International Trade Secretary has pledged to cut bureaucracy and red tape to promote free trade post Brexit. As we have heard, the Red Tape Challenge removed some equality rights and would have removed even more if our membership of the European Union did not prevent it doing so. As the noble Lord, Lord Low, has pointed out, the Beecroft report, which was part of the Red Tape Challenge, repeatedly referred to the supposed constraints imposed by EU directives. Is it surprising that we are rather suspicious that when those constraints are removed, a future Government might wish to resile from some of these equality rights?
Finally, I will go back to something I have referred to more than once because I think it is so important. At Second Reading, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds asked us,
“at the end of this process, what sort of Britain … do we want to inhabit?”.—[Official Report, 30/1/18; col. 1386.]
That is a question that we really must keep coming back to. For me, the principle of equality is absolutely central to the kind of Britain that I want to inhabit when we have—unfortunately—left the European Union.
Lord Cashman
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment but too late for it to be printed in the Marshalled List. I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, on the way he moved this extremely important amendment. He referred to our earlier discussions on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, when the House was nearly full, and this connects directly to that debate.
There are deep concerns, not only within the House but outside, among respected and established non-governmental organisations and, indeed, the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I would expect the Government to clutch this amendment with open hands and embrace it to their chest, but I have worked with the Minister in the European Parliament and I know that I am not about to see that happen—although, as my noble friend Lady Lister said, the amendment puts into words the assurances offered by the Government and Ministers.
As I said earlier, there are real, deep concerns that rights will be attacked once we leave the protection of the charter and the treaty establishing the European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Most of these rights arise out of Article 13 of the treaty of Amsterdam, which gave the European Union a legal basis upon which to act on the grounds of race, ethnicity, religion, belief, age, disability or sexual orientation; gender was covered elsewhere. They define the very societies and countries in which we choose to live.
I look forward to the Minister replying and surprising me by saying that the Government take this amendment on board and will embrace it. If I am not surprised, I will return to this issue. Others outside the House will return to this issue. I believe that it defines the kind of country we want to be post Brexit. Now more than ever, we need to offer reassurances not merely within the two Chambers of this Palace but within the Bill.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, one of the privileges I had when I served as Attorney-General was to be able to see government proposals, to consider them, to see where they were compatible with our obligations and sometimes to use incompatibility as grounds for persuading Ministers not to go down a particular path.
In considering this amendment, it is important to understand what is meant by underpinning because it risks concealing the important proposition that there are certain things that the Government simply cannot do at the moment—nor can other Governments who are members of the EU—because of the commitments that have been made. A directive has to be complied with. We cannot override it overnight. In these circumstances, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, is right to raise this hugely important point: what will be the underpinning in the future?
Lord Callanan
I thank noble Lords for their time and consideration on the important issue of how we maintain our equality protections as and after we leave the EU. There really is no difference between us in our commitments to these important issues. Amendment 30A, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, follows on from the debate we had in Committee in that it seeks to reflect in statute the political commitment that the Government have already made in this area—that is, that we will maintain the existing protections in and under the Equality Acts 2006 and 2010 after our exit from the EU.
I must, however, be clear with the noble and learned Lord that we have three concerns about his suggested approach. First, there is the issue of language, context and potential for conflicting rights. Put simply, the language of a political commitment does not translate to the statute book. Therefore, let me say to my good noble friend Lord Cashman that while our commitment to existing equality protections works perfectly well politically—we are committed to them here and in the wider world outside this place—it must be noted that terms such as “protection” and “diminish” do not have a sufficiently clear and precise meaning for the purposes of statute. As a consequence, the amendment runs a very real risk of creating tensions for real people, with real interests that may be difficult to resolve between existing and potential future rights that we may wish to legislate for.
To give an example, noble Lords may be familiar with the experiences on buses of some passengers who use wheelchairs, and the difficulty that they have sometimes had in accessing the space theoretically available to them when it has been taken by people, often parents with young children in pushchairs. The question arises as to whose rights take priority, especially as, arguably, both parties are covered by “protected characteristics” provided for in the Equality Act 2010. This particular example of potentially conflicting rights is being resolved, following a court judgment that passengers who use wheelchairs have priority. However, I trust this helps illustrate the risk of future developments in equality law being, in effect, struck down in the courts because, while they might benefit certain groups, these benefits might come at the expense of rights in retained EU law secured under this Bill. As has been noted, the Equality Act 2010 is lengthy, detailed and specific in order to avoid questions of competing or conflicting rights. Setting it in stone against any future equality issues we or future Governments may wish to provide for runs fundamentally against the grain of the Act and our developing and dynamic approach to equality rights in this country.
Our second concern is closely related in that we fear this new clause would create considerable legal uncertainty. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord has recognised this by including proposed subsections (4) and (7) which describe what a court may do when faced with an issue of the compatibility or otherwise of new provisions and existing equality rights. I hope he will understand when I say that, especially in the context of our exit from the EU, we think it is vital to keep to an absolute minimum any legal uncertainties that may arise for the good of businesses and individuals, so a new clause that seems positively to embrace such uncertainty is not an attractive prospect. It is not at all clear what businesses or individuals are supposed to make of any rights and obligations that might apply to them pending the emergence of the case law that the new clause anticipates.
Finally, there is the relationship between the proposed new clause and the Human Rights Act 1998, the architecture of which reflects the existence of the European convention. The noble and learned Lord’s text uses key concepts from the HRA, notably declarations of incompatibility and their consequences, and proposed subsections (8) and (9) directly cross-refer to sections of the HRA. This simply is not appropriate. Indeed, at the risk of echoing my earlier point, we believe these linkages would lead to uncertainty and confusion. There is, for example, no explanation of what the effect of declaration of incompatibility would be in this context. Would the primary legislation continue to have effect or not? There is clearly potential for gaps and contradictions to develop between challenges and actions based on the new clause as opposed to the HRA and its existing reference to the prohibition of discrimination under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
I have already alluded to our clear public commitment to maintaining existing equality protections, and I am very happy to repeat that commitment now. While I understand the noble and learned Lord’s best intentions in this area, I must gently suggest to him that the interests of equality rights on our statute book are not well served by his proposed new clause and I hope that he will feel able to withdraw it. For the avoidance of any doubt, the Government will not be reflecting further on this matter, so if he wishes to do so, he should test the opinion of the House this evening.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The Minister should not tempt me. I am grateful to him for his reply, which was probably a bit more substantive than ministerial replies to the previous two debates, although it was, equally predictably, negative.
I do not think that the Minister’s arguments bear too much scrutiny. He complained about the language used in my amendment and said that it is difficult to put a political commitment on to a statutory basis. He was challenged by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. If the wording here is not right, what are the Government proposing to do to give underpinning? I do not think that at any point in reply to this debate did the Minister indicate that there is no need for a proper underpinning of the equality rights we have. Indeed, given the Government’s commitment to maintaining them, one assumes that the Government believe that they should continue and be underpinned. If the wording proposed is not right, there is a deafening silence from the Government’s side about what words they would use. The Minister raised the declaration of incompatibility and whether that meant striking down. I think I made it clear, as did the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, that we do not mean striking down. What we seek in this amendment is to make it consistent with the principle of parliamentary sovereignty after we leave the European Union.
It is said that the clause conflicts with the Human Rights Act. I confess that my party and I have argued many times for a written constitution for the United Kingdom, but we are always told that one of the benefits of the unwritten constitution is its flexibility. So we introduced into our constitution a Human Rights Act with some very good provisions; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, indicated some of the focus of attention and consideration that that Act places upon Ministers when they consider compatibility. If we have that, what is wrong? What is the constitutional fault in using that good practice to extend into another area where we are talking about something fundamental?
That is the concluding point because this is a fundamental question. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, reflected on what kind of country we want to be. The Government set out in their White Paper last March that they want to respect and cherish equality rights. There is common ground on that. What we have not seen from the Government is a way in which they can ensure that that is underpinned as we go forward, so that we can ensure that that characteristic of what kind of country we want to be can be maintained without threat. I find it very regrettable but the night is a bit too late to test the opinion of the House, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 25th April 2018
(7 years ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 79-R-III(a) Amendments for Report, supplementary to the third marshalled list (PDF, 127KB) - (25 Apr 2018)
16:27 - Division on Amendment 31 - Ayes: 349 / Noes: 221 - Amendment 31 agreed.
19:33 - Division on Amendment 40 - Ayes: 169 / Noes: 211 - Amendment 40 disagreed.
Lord Lisvane
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 31 I shall speak to the other three amendments in the group, which are to the same purpose and are also all tabled in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Cormack, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. The first point to make is that the powers to make regulations proposed to be given to Ministers in Clause 7 and Clause 8—although I am glad to say that Clause 8 is to be removed from the Bill—and Clauses 9 and 17 are heavyweight. With the exception of the matters listed in Clause 7(7), which are to be modestly extended by government amendment, regulations can do anything that an Act of Parliament can do—including, of course, the wholesale amendment or repeal of statutes that have passed through the far more exacting process of primary legislation.
I am grateful to the Minister and his officials for their generosity with their time and explanations, and I know that I speak for other noble Lords—but on this issue I do not think that our points of view have come significantly closer. I see that the Minister is kindly indicating confirmation of that. On Report I must not hark back too readily to what occurred in Committee, but it is worth recalling that when an identical amendment was moved compellingly by my noble friend Lord Wilson of Dinton, out of the 16 noble Lords who contributed to the debate, the only noble Lord who spoke against the amendment was the Minister.
There have been several rounds of detailed exchange between the Government and the Delegated Powers Committee, of which I am a member, and the committee has reported on these issues in its 12th, 20th and 23rd reports. I will spare noble Lords a detailed recapitulation. The issue is this: if a Minister may exercise these powers when he or she thinks it appropriate, I suggest that this subjective test is inadequate. These amendments would not simply replace the word “appropriate” with “necessary”; they would also remove the words, “the Minister considers”, so that we would be left with a statement of objective necessity. The Government have argued strongly that this amendment would unduly constrain Ministers so that they might not be able to do things that needed to be done because they would not be confident of being able to demonstrate necessity. I accept that “necessary” is a high bar—but “appropriate” is a bar so low that it would challenge even the most lithe and determined limbo dancer.
The Government have sought to make the use of “appropriate” more acceptable by requiring Ministers to give “good reasons” and show that they are pursuing a “reasonable course of action” via government Amendment 83C. But this does not cure the problem. The good reasons and the reasonableness of a course of action are still only in the opinion of Ministers. In its 23rd report, the Delegated Powers Committee points out:
“The requirement to state good reasons is a very low threshold. We would always expect Ministers to have good reasons before doing anything, and certainly when making new law in secondary legislation”.
The committee goes on to say:
“It does not advance matters for Ministers to commit to lay a document that merely confirms their belief that they are acting lawfully”.
Finally, the committee said:
“The test for political decision-making is not simply whether there are good reasons. There may be good reasons for doing something and better reasons for not doing it”.
There is also the point that under paragraph 22(6) of Schedule 7, if a Minister “fails to make a statement” of good reasons, he or she has only to “make a statement explaining” why this has not been done—so, not a high threshold, then.
I have heard it said that, were your Lordships to agree to the amendments in this group, it would make the Bill unworkable. It is of course a practice of very long standing to describe the likely results of unwelcome amendments in apocalyptic terms, up to and including the onset of plague and asteroid strike. However, in this case the problem is easily cured. Clause 7 contains a lengthy definition of what constitutes or does not constitute a deficiency in EU retained law. Indeed, the definition runs to 39 lines. With this example before us, it would be a relatively simple matter to gloss “necessary” in order to include the things that Ministers may indeed need to do.
For example, they may want to avoid unnecessary public expenditure, ensure that there is no inert or irrelevant material on the statute book or avoid legal uncertainty, as the Delegated Powers Committee suggested. I would be both surprised and disappointed if parliamentary counsel were not able to draft a form of words so that the common sense things that Ministers will need to do as part of the repatriation process fall—and are clearly seen by Ministers, Parliament and the courts to fall—within the definition of “necessary”.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I was very glad to add my name to the amendment and the others in this group. I am sure that I speak on behalf of many Members of your Lordships’ House in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, for moving the amendment so concisely and convincingly.
I suggest that is it necessary that we pass the amendment. Whichever side of the Brexit argument one is on—the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, has already touched on this point—one can still believe that it is of fundamental importance that the powers of Ministers should be contained in a sensible and democratic manner by Parliament. Ministers are answerable to Parliament for all that they do, and they should not be able capriciously to decide what is appropriate and what is not.
The word “appropriate” is itself extremely unsatisfactory. It may well be that no one in your Lordships’ House has any doubt about the way in which Ministers in the present Government would behave—that we can trust them implicitly to exercise judgment and discernment in all issues, just as my noble friend Lord Hailsham did when he was a Minister—and by Jove he needed containing from time to time, as he readily admits.
Seriously, this amendment places no real obstacle in the way of any self-respecting Minister. We were reminded in Committee that we are dealing with well over 100 individuals. It means that he or she will act with regard to what is necessary and not to a subjective analysis, as far as the Minister is concerned, of what is appropriate. If agreed by your Lordships’ House, the amendment will not in any way inhibit the overall desires of those who are passionate for Brexit. Nor will it particularly advance the cause of those, like me, who are very sceptical about the benefits of Brexit. What it will do is make every Minister—all 100-plus of them—if given the opportunity to make an executive decision, examine with precision and be able to justify that his or her decision is governed by that word, “necessary”. I hope that we will have a brief debate and a conclusive outcome—unless my noble friend rescinds his nodding of a few minutes ago and accepts, as he should, the impeccable logic of the amendment.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, suggested in his admirable speech, taking back control should not be a licence for the Executive to arrogate to themselves new arbitrary powers, and Parliament should not permit them to do so. It is entirely appropriate that your Lordships’ House offers this advice to the other place. No self-respecting MP would think otherwise. I very much hope that the other place will agree with us.
Lord Skelmersdale (Con)
My Lords, I have never been a self-respecting MP, nor am I ever likely to be one. The amendment would leave us in total limbo. The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, in introducing it, made reference to the phrase:
“A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make”.
He needs, in this amendment, to change the emphasis on the reason for which he does it. Unfortunately, the amendment would leave out the role of the Minister of the Crown. It is Ministers the Crown who make regulations. They always have and presumably always will. Therefore, who will make these regulations under whatever auspices? How is this supposed to work and improve the Bill?
Lord Spicer (Con)
My Lords, I enter one word of caution. The choice might not be between Parliament and Ministers, but between Ministers and civil servants. To change it to “necessary”, one has to use judgment about that word just as much as the previous one.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, I make a small contribution, having been at the birth of the Bill—if one can be a midwife to a Bill. I always saw the purpose of the Bill as delivering the orderly withdrawal of this country from the European Union and ensuring that we have a coherent statute book on the day we leave. I do not want to detain your Lordships, but as I said at Second Reading and as I still believe, it is imperative that we get the balance right between the powers of the Executive and parliamentary sovereignty. As the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, so rightly said and others have commented, if we take the view that the referendum vote was about Parliament taking back control, it hardly seems right that excessive control be given to Ministers of the Crown.
I had many misgivings about this issue, and I am most grateful to noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, for sparing the time to talk to me about it. I have considered it. Your Lordships need to consider it in the round—the round being all the other limitations that currently exist on Ministers—and, most importantly, the amendment my noble friend the Minister is making to this point, which I believe addresses many of the concerns. All I ask your Lordships at this point is to consider this: are the Government acting in a reasonable way to ensure they have the powers necessary to deliver a smooth and orderly Brexit? That is the simple question in my mind. I believe that the Minister has moved enough and that he should be given our support. I completely understand the views of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and my noble friend Lord Cormack on this point. I fear we just differ now on how far the Government have moved.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)
My Lords, I chair the EU Financial Affairs Sub-Committee of this House. We have been having a lot of conversations with regulators about appropriateness, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, has rightly pointed out. But words matter. The distinction in legal terms between “appropriate” and “necessary” is quite profound if you are a regulator—both EU and UK regulators—that has a duty to put in place a workable legal framework. While I completely agree with most of what the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, said, and I understand that he rightly wishes to bring power back to Parliament, there are instances where regulators need to adapt and to have legal certainty to adapt.
I will give the House one small example. I should say that I am speaking for myself as the chair of the committee because the committee has not come to a settled view on this, having had discussions very recently. But we are told that the amendment would lead to increased litigation and therefore legal uncertainty in relation to the meaning of “necessary”. This would impact a large number of different areas of financial services regulation. It may be hard to argue that it is strictly “necessary” to extend protections but if, for example, you take securities collateral held within the EU, absent an FTA—if we have to revert to WTO rules—we would need to treat collateral held by UK firms in EU systems in the same way as collateral held by UK firms in systems outside the EU. If you took away discretion from the Minister and you had to define this as “necessary”, you may have to restrict the protection to collateral held in UK systems only. That would put UK firms at a disadvantage.
Finally—this is slightly technical—redenominating values and thresholds from euros to sterling may be appropriate in a UK regime because most UK firms’ balance sheets are denominated in sterling. However, it could be argued that it is not “necessary” to do so ahead of the UK’s exit from the EU. Litigation would take time while the courts determined whether the Minister had acted under “necessary” or “appropriate”, but in financial crises time is not something regulators have at their disposal. I just ask noble Lords to bear that in mind. I have not come to a definitive view myself but it is important to put that on the record.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I serve as the legal assessor to regulatory panels and in the course of that, we have to address the meaning of the word “necessary”. The panels that I work with, as a general proposition, have no difficulty in identifying the meaning of that word. It is also used as useful protection for people because it is a higher threshold than “appropriate”, “desirable” or a range of other words that are used. I say to the noble Baroness that in my experience as a regulator, “necessary” does not constitute a difficulty along the lines that she has suggested.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
I completely accept the long experience that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, has. I referred specifically to time in case there is a financial crisis. That is when regulators have to resolve institutions fairly quickly in co-operation with one another. That is a danger that we face at this point—10 years into the last one.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, I want to emphasise and back up what my noble friend Lord Lisvane has said. In essence, this “necessary” versus “appropriate” is about taking back control for Parliament. Since the referendum, we have seen the Government trying to bypass Parliament time and again. Starting with Article 50, Parliament was bypassed until that had to be taken to court. Going back to the Strathclyde review in 2015, we were told very clearly that it is a convention that this House does not challenge statutory instruments. So by agreeing to this “necessary” we are saying that they can be used but only if necessary.
The Government argue that they need the flexibility if it is appropriate to tidy things up. Who is taking the decision on whether something is appropriate? Today it is Theresa May as Prime Minister. Tomorrow it may be Jacob Rees-Mogg, Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn. This is about the Government, the judiciary, the legislature and, without a written constitution, the very delicate balance that needs to be respected. We need to protect that, which is why we need this amendment; otherwise, we will keep hearing threats from Jacob Rees-Mogg saying that we are burning down this House. That is the wrong way to go. This is not about Henry VIII powers or the Government getting power; it is about power coming back to Parliament and actually giving power to the people.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, as a signatory to this amendment and the others in this group, I encourage Members to look at the words of the amendment and how they will alter the Bill. The Bill currently reads:
“A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate to prevent, remedy or mitigate”,
and so on, so the Minister still has the initiative. It is the criteria by which he takes that initiative that are important. Our amendment would simply take out a phrase so the Bill would read: “A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as is necessary”.
I shall go back to where the Government led us at the beginning of this process in a moment, but, first, when the Minister responds to the debate, which in Committee and to some extent this afternoon has been characterised by some support for this group of amendments, I plead with him not to rely on the rather flimsy arguments contained in his correspondence with our Delegated Powers Committee. Frankly, they are not worthy of him.
The same goes for his justification in Committee for government Amendments 83C, 83F and 83G to Schedule 7. We will deal with them in detail later, but they are an attempt to derail the formidable arguments for insisting on the relatively objective “necessary” instead of the blatantly subjective “appropriate” throughout Clauses 7, 9 and 17, which are the subject of this group.
As the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, set out when moving this amendment, all the amendments in this group would replace “the Minister considers appropriate”—what could be more personal than that, where the Minister personally decides that something is appropriate?—with the strictly more objective test of “necessary”. That is the salient difference. That was the subject of much discussion in Committee, and other speakers have emphasised it this afternoon.
Frankly, the Minister’s arguments in his correspondence with the committee do not face up to this issue. For brevity, at this stage I will confine myself to just one or two examples. He asked us to explain “necessary for what purpose?”. The answer is to be found in his Bill. In Clause 7(1), by substituting “is necessary” for the phrase “the Minister considers appropriate”, it is clear what the regulation would do and why it would be necessary. I shall read it in full,
“such provision as the Minister considers”,
necessary,
“to prevent, remedy or mitigate … any failure … or … deficiency arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU”.
It is absolutely clear. Instead of asking why we think something is necessary, he should look in his Bill. That is precisely what Amendment 31 would secure.
The Government have further suggested that there is no material difference between “appropriate” and “necessary”. Why are we having this discussion if there is no difference? Our cross-party, non-partisan committee, which is answerable to your Lordships’ House, has unanimously disagreed. “Appropriate” means suitable, proper and apt, and other words which could be used; “necessary” means that it is judged objectively to be needed.
We should recall that the original position of the Government, when they set out what they intended to do with the Bill, was that only changes needed to make retained EU law work after exit day would be implemented. This amendment fulfils their promise. When it comes to the belated attempt to block these amendments, the Government’s reliance on a statement of “good reasons” for subjective ministerial decisions is totally inadequate, as the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, has already said.
I return to my original point: the Minister has failed to persuade the cross-party, non-partisan Delegated Powers Committee, which looks very carefully at these issues on behalf of your Lordships’ House, and which has now reported to this effect to your Lordships’ House. So far, it would seem that many Members are similarly unpersuaded.
I hope I will be forgiven for sounding a little bit like Little Lord Echo, but speaker after speaker, at every stage of the Bill, has emphasised that this must not be used as an opportunity to turn the Executive into an elective dictatorship. It is the British Parliament that must take back control, not a minority Government. As a former Member of Parliament, I hope that the Commons will concur with your Lordships’ House and the Delegated Powers Committee on this point. Are the Government really going to go into the last ditch in defence of this apparently indefensible position?
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I am trying to clarify what the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, said. I think the issue is not “appropriate” versus “necessary” but “the Minister considers”. I believe the point the noble Baroness was making is that, if something has to be “necessary”, that leaves it open for a court to say whether or not it was necessary. If you say “the Minister considers it”, then the issue is whether the Minister genuinely considers it.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, and what is wrong with that?
In Committee, in a most powerful speech, the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, with his vast experience from inside the Civil Service, from knowing just what civil servants and Ministers would like to do, gave your Lordships the advice that,
“in this case, I think the scale of the powers proposed is so extensive that we should lean against giving Ministers plump cushions of legal protection”—
a very telling phrase. He continued:
“it should be the strict discipline of an objective test of what is necessary”.—[Official Report, 7/3/18; col. 1180.]
I respectfully completely agree with that. It is absolutely the case that, in circumstances where great powers are being given, one needs to be very clear where the discretion lies. Here it is not just Ministers but civil servants. We have been told that there are 109 Ministers, but under the Carltona principle—I have made this point several times and no one has yet contradicted it—many civil servants themselves in effect exercise these powers in the name of the Minister.
So Ministers and civil servants do what they think is appropriate. That is very different from things that are necessary in order to achieve the objectives set out in the clause. As a practising lawyer, I have no difficulty with the concept of what is necessary, but I believe—to use the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, in a different context—that there is a profound distinction between saying, “You can do what you as a Minister consider appropriate”, and saying, “You can do only what is necessary to achieve these objectives”. If this House has a responsibility, I respectfully suggest that it is to ensure that we do not give the Executive more power than is necessary in order to achieve their objectives. The amendment would achieve that. If the Government want to come back with further clarification on the meaning of “necessary”, although I do not believe that is necessary at all, they can do so.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
I intervene to ask the Minister whether he agrees with this. Although —and I support the amendment—it is right to say that “necessary” involves a degree of objectivity, the clause would actually be applied in court on any challenge, and it would be a judicial review challenge to the making of regulation, on the basis that it is, in the reasonable opinion of the Minister, necessary. That is how the clause as amended would be applied on a challenge in court. Would he agree?
Lord Goldsmith
I am delighted to be described as a Minister in that question—not a role that I am eager to take on—but it may be that the question was intended for the Minister himself when he comes to respond.
The important point, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, made clear, as did other speakers, is that, as the Bill stands it is subjective and imposes a vague, low test. It is subjective because it is what the Minister considers, and it is a low test because it is what he considers appropriate.
As I told your Lordships previously—I will repeat it just this one last time—as someone who has spent a life as a practising lawyer, a court advocate, advising Ministers and being a Minister, I know that there is all the difference in the world between saying, “You can do this if you consider it appropriate”—nobody can second-guess that—and saying, “You can do this if it’s necessary”. It introduces an objective test, and that is what matters. This is what we invite the House to say to the Government is necessary in these circumstances. That is the only power they should take, and I hope that when the noble Lord presses the amendment to a vote, it will be supported by many Members of this House.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I first thank all those who have contributed to today’s relatively brief debate, and the many noble Lords I have either spoken to or exchanged letters with between Committee and Report. The scope of the delegated powers in the Bill has, rightly, been one of the most intensively scrutinised areas, and I do not for one moment doubt the best intentions of many of those who have spoken against the Government’s position today. However, I hope noble Lords will listen to my remarks with an open mind, as I hope to offer some new content that we did not cover in Committee.
Let me start by addressing the specific proposition of the amendments on the Marshalled List—Amendments 31, 42, 86 and 87, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. As has been said, they would remove from the main powers in the Bill the discretion of ministerial judgment on appropriateness, and permit action only where it “is necessary” in the context of the specific power. This has been touted as a change from a subjective test to an objective one. But I hope to demonstrate that this is not the case, as I would question what exactly “necessary” means.
For example, in the context of Clause 7, would the course of action a Minister takes have to be no more than necessary to correct the deficiency? Or must it be necessary to correct a deficiency for the power to be engaged in the first place—and if so, necessary for what purpose? Let me address these different scenarios in turn. First let us say, hypothetically, that a court interprets the amendments to mean that a course of action taken by Ministers must be necessary to correct an identified deficiency. It might follow that Ministers could follow only the course of action that does no more than is strictly necessary to correct that deficiency, rather than the course of action that is most sensible.
I know the House likes concrete examples, so let me give an example of how I think this would lead to worse policy outcomes. Take, for example, Section 105B of the Communications Act 2003—with which I am sure all noble Lords are completely familiar. This includes an obligation for Ofcom to notify its regulatory counterparts in other member states, as well as the European network and information security agency, when Ofcom is made aware of a security breach that affects a public electronic communications network or service, and Ofcom thinks it appropriate to make such a notification. It could be argued that it is not strictly necessary to delete the obligation at all. Let us assume, however, that a court accepts that some action is needed in this scenario. A test of necessity could then be taken to mean that the Government should take the minimum action possible to address the deficiency. That might be simply to remove the requirement to share information.
However, the Government's preferred policy, which this House would surely support, is to change it into a discretion that makes it explicit that Ofcom may make notifications of this kind if it wishes. This is intended to support proportionate information-sharing about security matters after EU exit. That amendment is appropriate but arguably not strictly necessary, and might fall foul of the increased restriction offered by the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. I understand the notional appeal of permitting Ministers to act only where it is necessary. But here I agree with my distinguished predecessor, my noble friend Lord Bridges, the midwife, as he put it, to the Bill. It should not be the role of a Minister to be a statutory firefighter, dousing deficiencies in the statute book only where it is absolutely necessary. Instead, I would argue that a more proactive role is the only way that we can ensure the best possible outcome for the statute book.
Lord Tyler
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. How can what he is arguing be reconciled with the White Paper, which stated that,
“legal and policy changes would be made under the Bill only when it was necessary to ensure that the law continues to function properly after exit day”?
Lord Callanan
I think I have addressed that in my remarks, but I have some more comments to make which I think will address the noble Lord’s concerns.
However, as we have said throughout the passage of this legislation, we will give due consideration to all amendments that do not undermine the fundamental operation of the Bill. That is why we have accepted the recommendation of the Constitution Committee and tabled government amendments to ensure that, where the powers in Clauses 7(1), 9 or 17(1) are used, a statement must be made as to why there are good reasons for the instrument and the provision made is a reasonable course of action. Of course, we are going further with Clause 8 and propose to remove it from the Bill in its entirety. These amendments will be dealt with in a later grouping on Schedule 7, but they are key to set the context of this debate. They demonstrate the Government’s willingness to accept additional scrutiny if that scrutiny is appropriate.
Lord Goldsmith
I wonder whether the Minister would kindly consider this question: is he saying that he would want Ministers—and indeed, civil servants—to have the discretion to make policy changes from EU retained law without reference to Parliament?
Lord Callanan
The powers in this Bill cannot be exercised by civil servants; it has to be Ministers who make the decisions. We have said on a number of occasions that defining a policy change is quite hard. A pure correction can involve a slight policy choice—for instance, whether to designate one agency or another. It can still be a technical correction but it is a policy choice about what to do. But we are clear that we are not trying to make substantive policy choices through this secondary legislation power.
I will refrain from making the full case for the government amendments as they are not on the Marshalled List today, but I will quote the Constitution Committee in justifying our position. It said that such amendments,
“will require explanations to be given for the use of the power which can be scrutinised by Parliament. It will also provide a meaningful benchmark against which use of the power may be tested judicially. In this way, the Government can secure the flexible delegated powers it requires while Parliament will have a proper explanation and justification of their use that it can scrutinise”.
That, to me, sounds like a sensible solution.
Before I finish, let me add the words of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who I am sorry to see is not in his place.
Lord Callanan
I do apologise; he is behind the Bar, so he is not quite in his place. I hope he will not mind if I quote him. When comparable amendments were added by the Government to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill, and when speaking in support of government Amendment 9, to which he signed his name, he stated:
“I am satisfied that this will impose a real discipline on the Minister, backed up of course by the prospect of judicial review”.—[Official Report, 15/1/18; col. 439.]
That amendment passed without a Division—and I am sure the noble Lord will be supporting us in the Division tonight.
I know that I have offered new information in my speech today. In doing so, I hope that I have demonstrated that this is not simply a case of risk-averse Ministers erring on the side of caution. I can say with complete sincerity that the amendments on the Marshalled List today would necessitate a significant review of our secondary legislation programme and would surely lead to worse outcomes. In this, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner. To avoid such a situation, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment. If, however, as I suspect, he wishes to test the will of the House, I suggest that he do so now, as this is not an issue the Government intend to return to at Third Reading.
Lord Lisvane
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate—especially for their concision and brevity. I am in a position to help the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, as I apprehended that his concern was that if the amendment were agreed, Clause 7(1) would be without a subject. But that subsection begins with the words:
“A Minister of the Crown”—
so it is quite clear who will be exercising the powers.
I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, and I hope that the difference of opinion which still remains between us is a demonstration that two reasonable people can disagree without either one being unreasonable.
I also listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, who had the great courtesy to mention her concerns to me earlier. It seemed to me that her particular concern was the matter of discretion and the amount of time that would be required to make orders. I respectfully suggest that neither “appropriate” nor “necessary” will have an impact on time. There will be a great deal of pressure to produce the delegated legislation in the time required, but I do not believe that whether the word is “appropriate” or “necessary” will impact on that. In terms of ministerial discretion, there is still of course a substantial amount of discretion to be given to Ministers. The debate we are having is about the degree of constraint that there should be on that discretion.
The suggestion I made in moving the amendment, which the Minister was kind enough to recall, was reflected in the Delegated Powers Committee’s 20th report: namely, that some form of sensible definition, or at least the parameters of what could be done without going beyond the bounds of “necessary”, would be of great help to Ministers. If we are talking about avoiding legal uncertainty—and here I was most grateful for the intervention of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, from his extensive professional experience—I do not think that adopting “necessary” would be necessarily an obstacle.
The Minister played the bowling in a very determined way, but the wicket has worsened substantially since Committee. He actually used the phrase about a course of action being “most sensible”—which seems to me to be at the heart of this. If one has some sort of expanded indication of what “necessary” can encompass, that seems to me to be exactly what is required. Nobody wants to stop Ministers doing things that are sensible—certainly I do not—but let us at least have them doing them on a canvas whose bounds are reasonably clear.
When he got on to “torturing” the English language, I felt that that really was a little hyperbolic. You do not torture a concept simply by telling people how you would like it interpreted. That seems again to me to be at the heart of the amendment.
The Minister’s Ofcom example was new material and very helpful, but it started to get into the area of whether there could be more than one solution to “necessary”—and, of course, there can, because, if there is a deficiency, there is not a single solution that is going to assuage that deficiency. There may be several of equal merit, and when they assuage that deficiency they demonstrate their necessity. So I did not really think that that was a particularly compelling example.
Of course, if we are to expect that significant policy changes will be made, the right route for making those changes is primary legislation, and there will be—as with a certain sense of foreboding we are well aware—a number of vehicles for such provision.
So I think that the Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that, despite a dogged defence of his wicket, I shall ask noble Lords to indicate their views, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Callanan
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments standing in my name on the Marshalled List relating to the creation of public authorities.
I am pleased to say that the Government have listened to the discussions on this issue and have consequently tabled these amendments, which remove the ability to create public authorities from the Clause 7 power and also from the power in Clause 9. As noble Lords will have seen, the Government intend to remove Clause 8 in its entirety from the Bill.
We explained during Committee that, when Clause 7 was originally drafted, we thought it would be only sensible for the sake of contingency to include within its scope the ability to establish new public authorities to insure—as many amendments in the other place sought to do—against losing any important functions as they are transferred over from the EU, as no such public authority may currently exist in the UK.
Since then, the Government’s analysis of the transfer of functions with exit has progressed to a stage where we now consider that the establishment of a new public authority will be necessary only in a very limited number of cases. In the event that no appropriate public authority currently exists in the UK to take on functions transferred from the EU, the Government will instead bring forward the appropriate provisions under primary legislation.
As noble Lords will be aware, at the end of last year the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced plans to create a new environmental body to advise and challenge government and potentially other public bodies on the environment. It is still the Government’s clear intention to create this new environmental body but, instead, it will now need to be delivered through a separate legislative vehicle. As I informed the House on Monday evening, the consultation on the environmental body will be published ahead of Third Reading on 16 May.
In order to maintain consistency between the powers given to the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, the restrictions preventing the establishment of public authorities in the UK after exit will also apply to the devolved Administrations. We discussed this with the devolved Administrations in advance of tabling these amendments and gave them the opportunity to consider what impact this might have on their preparations for exit day. We are not aware of any circumstances where they were anticipating using the power in this way, and they have not raised any concerns about the restrictions applying to the equivalent Schedule 2 powers.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, for pursuing this issue and I am pleased to say that his Amendments 33 and 35, seeking to remove this ability from the Clause 7 power, are now not necessary, as the Government’s amendments cover this and more. I hope the noble Lord feels satisfied by these amendments and will accept them. I also hope that this demonstrates the Government’s commitment to narrowing the scope of the powers wherever practical without threatening the Bill’s core purpose to deliver a functioning statute book on exit.
I turn to the noble Lord’s Amendment 103, which seeks to restrict subdelegating fees powers under Schedule 4 to public authorities taking on new functions. This matter will be discussed further, later on during Report stage, when we will address similar amendments. Therefore, for now, I will remain brief in my response. I hope the noble Lord feels reassured by the amendments on subdelegation tabled by the Government that will ensure that, where a power is exercisable by a public authority without further direct reference to Parliament, that authority must continue to inform Parliament about the exercise of the power. This will allow Parliament to maintain oversight of the use of delegated legislation-making powers. In anticipation of the later discussion, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
I beg to move the government amendments. In doing so, I want to inform the House that this is not an issue to which we intend to return at Third Reading.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I have to inform the House that if Amendment 32B is agreed to I cannot call Amendment 33 by reasons of pre-emption.
Lord O'Donnell (CB)
My Lords, briefly, I would like to thank the Minister and his officials for their work on this and for their constructive approach. I am very happy to drop my amendment.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister—I fear that that will not necessarily be very common, so I am pleased to be able to do so now. I am sure he will agree with me that these amendments are sensible, appropriate and necessary.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I commend the Government for these amendments, which respond to and accept the arguments made in Committee. As I argued then, and there is a reason for me repeating this, the very way that we set up quangos—how they are appointed, funded and run, and particularly their reporting structures and independence from both government and any other organisation they happen to be regulating—is key to how they work, hence the need for primary legislation so that we can interrogate all these things. That is why I very much welcome what has been said.
I am afraid, however, that I am led to make one comment, which is aimed not at the Minister but at friends of his in another place. After the vote last week on the customs union, we read in the Sun that the Government were going to remove those Conservative Peers who had voted for a customs union from their various positions on public bodies. I am absolutely certain that those threats, although mere briefings, did not emanate from anyone in this House. That is simply not the way that I have seen those on the Government Benches here work. They recognise the role of the Lords and that it is our job, on occasion, to ask the Commons to think again, even if sometimes that is a bit inconvenient when it comes from their own side. However, it was rather disturbing to learn that there are certain people around No. 10 who could, even for a moment, think that it would be right to undermine the independence and arm’s-length nature of such bodies, as is often written into their statutes, simply because Members of the House of Lords voted in a certain way. Everything I know about Ministers in this House means I know that not only were they not involved in this but they were probably as shocked as I was. Perhaps the Minister would like to take the opportunity to distance himself from such threats and reaffirm what I know to be government policy: that any appointment to such bodies is done without fear or favour and nobody would be taken off them for a choice that they made in this House.
On the essence of the amendment, and particularly given the role of the Minister and his officials, we are happy to support the government amendments.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. There were relatively few but I thank them and I hope these amendments satisfy the concerns that have been previously raised in the many discussions I have had with noble Lords about this matter. It is proof that, despite the accusations that have been made, we are listening and will respond appropriately if we deem something to be necessary and it improves the legislation, which on this occasion we do.
I am not going to comment on every press article. Precise recruitment criteria are set down for these posts. I am sure that those criteria will be followed and that all appointments will be made on merit.
I hope noble Lords welcome the reassurance that these amendments provide and recognise that this reflects the sincerity of the Government’s commitment to narrowing the scope of the powers wherever practicable without compromising the purpose of the Bill.
Lord Callanan
Lord Callanan
My Lords, it is my pleasure to lead on this group of amendments. They are simple, short and, I hope, demonstrate again that the Government are listening to debate in the House.
The Government’s clear intention has been to make bespoke provision in relation to all financial matters in the Bill. It was introduced with a specific power to make provision in relation to fees and charges in Schedule 4. I know that that power is not without controversy and we shall debate it in full later on Report.
The powers in clause 7(1) and (9) could never, even if it were appropriate to remedying a deficiency or implementing the withdrawal agreement, make provision for a charge, as such measures contain an element of taxation prohibited in the exercise of these powers. That distinction is the distinguishing feature of a charge and why, at the time of our accession to the EU, specific provision for charges was included in the Finance Act 1973. The Government are tabling these amendments to prohibit the powers in Clause 7(1) and (9) from imposing or increasing fees, so as to provide clarity on the distinct purposes of these powers and those in Schedule 4.
The powers in Clause 7(1) and (9) will still be able to repeal fees regimes that are no longer needed, reduce fees and make amendments to pre-exit powers to provide for fees and charges. An example would be correcting a deficiency in an existing fee-setting power, such as a reference to a directive which is no longer appropriate. They will not, however, be able to impose or increase a fee or charge themselves.
These amendments respond to amendments and questions which were raised in debate in Committee. As I have said, we have reflected on this and taken steps to ensure that the stringent scrutiny provisions we are applying to Schedule 4 cannot be circumvented. This was never our plan but I can feel the mood of the House and I know that the word of a Minister only goes so far. I hope that these amendments demonstrate that we are keen to put questions beyond doubt where we can. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
This is another opportunity to thank the Minister because some peace of mind will now be provided about the structure of Clause 7. We understand now that the Government have stepped away from any capability to introduce new or increased fees.
I also thank the Minister for clarifying what a charge is. Many in this House have been trying to understand exactly how it could be framed. I hope the fact that he has now described it in the House will, in effect, put that definition on the record so that no future Government will attempt to use the word “charge” in order to circumvent these various constraints. Again, on this occasion, I thank the Minister.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
To make sure that the Minister blushes fully, we, too, will take the opportunity to say again that we think that this is a good improvement. We thank those who have been involved in the drafting of the amendment and we support it.
Lord Callanan
Again, I thank noble Lords for their brief contributions. As I said in moving the amendment, this group comprises simple amendments and I hope that I have convinced the House to accept them in the spirit in which they have been tabled.
Lord Judge
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, the issue that these amendments give rise to is quite an important constitutional one. This will not be a great moment after having had the excitement of a vote involving 500 or more Peers, but if we could add up to 100 it would be very successful. There are two reasons why there is no great interest in this issue, and one is that we have become habituated to the creation of criminal offences by regulation. It happened under the last Labour Government and the coalition Government, and it happens under this Government. Over the past 20 to 25 years there has been a proliferation of these clauses. Constitutionally, that is an aberration. We should not be creating criminal offences that can lead to an individual being imprisoned by regulation that, for the reasons we have discussed over the past few weeks, is controlled only by negative or affirmative resolution, which, as we have seen, is no sort of control at all.
The constitutional principle was upheld during the debates on the sanctions Bill. Those noble Lords who were here will remember a very significant vote in favour of an amendment to that Bill which would have deleted the ability of a Minister of the Crown to create criminal offences by regulation. There was cross-party support for the amendment and, as I say, the Government were defeated. The end result was that I had a series of meetings with the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, who is not in her place. We then met with the Treasury Minister, with the Bill team and twice with parliamentary counsel to argue about how best to preserve constitutional certainty in relation to the creation of criminal offences. It was not easy. One significant point was made that certainly affected me: there will be occasions when it may be necessary—to use the word we now have—to allow for an offence to be created by regulation. A compromise was put forward and was accepted. It was put before the other place and, on this particular issue, that Bill will now proceed.
Faced with that, it seemed to me that we had to reflect again on the absolute nature of this amendment. I see that the Government have put forward proposals in government Amendments 83C and 83G which coincide with the suggestions made by the Constitution Committee, of which I am a member. I am speaking today only for myself, of course, not for the committee. The Government have recognised that there needs to be a significant increase in the element of parliamentary scrutiny and, if I may say so, proposals to encourage ministerial hesitation before proceeding by way of regulations to create criminal offences.
I really am not suggesting more than this. This is a start. It is a pullback from a process to which, as I said, we have become habituated. It is a process; it is an advance. It had not been made when the present Bill came before the House. The Bill has now come before the House, and we have discussed it. We have debated it in Committee, we have now discussed it again and ministerial amendments have been made. I welcome those, as I said at the start. I welcome the proposal that these amendments should be made. Ultimately, it is not my decision whether Amendments 83C and 83G should be supported in the House. If they were, that would provide a significant improvement to the current arrangements. There is nothing more I can usefully say. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, we have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, an indication of where the Government have arrived on this issue and that there will in future be a document stating why this measure is needed and what necessitated it, according to the Minister.
The Government’s changes, which I welcome, do not go as far as Amendment 34 and the others in the group, but they insert an element of both written explanation and scrutiny of the use of these powers. I still doubt the need for these powers. Since the Bill was introduced in the Commons—not even when it came here—I have been asking for examples of where such new offences might need to be created. Finally, after numerous times of asking, the Government this week were able to provide just one example; that is all. It related to the marketing of medicine where it is an offence to produce false or misleading information in applications for approvals. After six months, that was the only example they gave of where such a new criminal offence, imprisonable for up to two years, might be needed, so I am still not entirely persuaded. However, given the new procedure that will come up later in the Bill, it should include the written statement as part of the Explanatory Memorandum and say that such powers will be available only in relation to our exit from the EU anyway. If the Minister could confirm that they are also subject to the timings of sunset clauses, we would see the Government’s amendments as a great improvement.
Finally, these will be orders that the House could not simply debate or put down a regret Motion about. However, if necessary, there is a backstop so that if we were not persuaded by the written statement, we would still be able to ensure that the orders did not go ahead. I hope that will never happen. I hope that they will not be used that much; clearly, there is no plethora of examples where the Government feel the need for them. Given where the extra scrutiny has now been inserted, given that there is a sunset on these powers—I think I am right in saying that—and given that they will be used only for the purpose of exiting the EU, we would certainly be content with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, withdrawing his amendment.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, it is important that we have returned to this issue after our debate in Committee, during which many noble Lords raised concerns about the creation of criminal offences through secondary legislation. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for Amendments 34, 44, 54 and 97, which seek to prevent the key powers in the Bill from creating criminal offences. I think we are all in agreement that the power to create criminal offences, above all things, is not to be taken lightly. These decisions can have huge impacts on people’s lives. Therefore they are decisions that the Government take very seriously. Parliament is absolutely right to give full scrutiny to proposals of this kind.
The Government listened very carefully to the debate we had in Committee and respect and understand the concerns raised. I pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for his constructive approach to this matter. The Government believe that serious omissions or weaknesses to law enforcement could arise if the Bill did not include a capacity to create criminal offences in certain circumstances. It is therefore the Government’s view that the ability of the key powers to create criminal offences must remain in the Bill, for reasons I shall endeavour to explain. I realise that the noble and learned Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, are very conversant with these issues, but perhaps other noble Lords would welcome a slight expansion of the Government’s approach to this.
Before I endeavour to expand on these reasons, I take this opportunity to highlight the amendment tabled by the Government—to which the noble and learned Lord referred and of which I am sure noble Lords are all aware—requiring a statement to be made alongside all instruments made under the main powers that seek to create a criminal offence. The statement will be made in writing by a Minister before the instrument is laid and then usually published in the Explanatory Memorandum to inform the deliberations of committees and the House. I am happy to talk with the noble Baroness further about the form in which the statement will be made to the House. One option might be to deposit the statement in the House.
The statement will explain why, in the relevant Minister’s opinion, there are good reasons for creating the offence and for the penalty provided in respect of it. This is in line with the approach taken in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill, and it will increase the level of transparency, ensuring that where the Government seek to create a criminal offence the Minister’s reasoning is clear and justified to Parliament. Of course, if either this House or the other place feels that these reasons are not good enough, I expect MPs and certainly noble Lords to vote against the instrument—I remind noble Lords that all statutory instruments made under the main powers in the Bill creating criminal offences must be affirmative. If noble Lords did not wish to take that dramatic option but wanted to express their dissatisfaction with the proposal, I hope they would avail themselves of other options to express this such as regret Motions, inviting the Minister to give evidence before the sifting sub-committee of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, or asking for the Minister to justify himself or herself before a committee of this House or of the other place, such as the Exiting the European Union Committee or other relevant departmental Select Committee.
I understand the amendment will be discussed in detail once we reach the debate on Schedule 7. I shall be happy to go into further detail then. However, I will say that the Government have tabled the amendment to increase the scrutiny of the main powers, rather than to reduce their scope or remove the power completely because of its important function. The Bill does, of course, limit the ability to create criminal offences with the sunsets on both the correcting power, which is sunset at two years after exit day by Clause 7(8), and on Clause 9, which is sunset at exit day as set out in Clause 9(4). I stress to noble Lords that these are the only powers—other than Clause 8; I hope the House accepts the Government’s amendment to remove that clause—that could create a criminal offence.
Upon exiting the EU, existing criminal offences that relate to the EU may require amending to ensure that previous criminal conduct remains criminal—for example to correct deficient references to the EU, EU bodies or EU legislation. If these are left unaddressed, the protections provided by having an offence in place will fall away. The reality of this would be a green light for criminal behaviour to go unpunished, leaving businesses and individuals unprotected from what was previously deemed so unacceptable that it was made criminal.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, asked about examples. Some examples were given in Committee but there may be further examples that she is not aware of—if she is, I ask her to indulge me—where it might be appropriate, depending on negotiation outcomes with the EU, to amend existing offences or to create new ones. Certain financial services firms that are regulated at an EU level may need to be brought into the UK regulatory regime. HM Treasury is therefore considering amending the offence of misleading a regulator to include trade repositories misleading the FCA and third-country central counterparties misleading the Bank of England, if their regulation is transferred from the European Securities and Markets Authority. Without this, these important City operators, unlike other firms already supervised in the UK and within our regulatory perimeter, would not be subject to a criminal penalty when misleading the regulators which ensure their good conduct and the stability of our financial system. I cannot believe that any noble Lords would want this.
Lord Judge
It is very tempting but I will not. The reason that I have been prepared to compromise with an interference with what I regard as a fundamental constitutional principle is that I recognise that there is a continuity required. We cannot suddenly not have criminal offences which exist on 31 March but which we no longer have on 1 April. I recognise that. I am also persuaded to act against my instinct by the fact that this is a sunset provision.
I shall in a moment seek leave to withdraw the amendment but may I urge the Government and, in due time—time will undoubtedly produce it—a Government who are from the current Opposition, as they now are: can we please stop this sticking into primary legislation of provisions which casually create criminal offences punishable with imprisonment? As I said earlier, it is a constitutional aberration. Notwithstanding my doubts about my own position, I am prepared to take the course that I am now but I assure the Minister that I would not necessarily take it if, in the course of the next few Bills we have to deal with, we have clauses such as this just put in. But for the time being, with gratitude to the Minister for her explanation to the whole House, I seek leave to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Callanan
“( ) establish a public authority,”
Lord Callanan
Lord Callanan
My Lords, the Government recognise the vital importance of our devolution settlements and the Acts that give effect to them: the Scotland Act 1998, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 2006. We have considered the concerns raised during Committee about the potential for the Government to use the Clause 7(1) power to amend those Acts. The Government have consequently brought forward amendments that mean this power cannot be used to substantively alter those Acts.
As noble Lords will agree, we must ensure that any deficiencies that would arise within those Acts by virtue of our leaving the EU can be addressed, so that these crucial pieces of legislation continue to work appropriately on and after exit day. We have sought to make the majority of corrections to deficiencies that arise from EU exit to those Acts in the Bill, so that we can be transparent about what corrections need to be made and the extent of those changes. Noble Lords will see from those corrections already included in Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the Bill that they are essentially technical corrections to ensure the proper functioning of these Acts.
At the time of the Bill’s introduction, outstanding corrections to the Scotland Act and the Government of Wales Act were still being discussed with the Scottish and Welsh Governments, and in the case of the technical standards reservation with the Northern Ireland Civil Service as well. As a result of our discussion with the devolved Administrations, we have now agreed the means through which the remaining deficiencies in these Acts will be dealt with and can confirm that the correcting power will not be needed to make any of those changes.
In the light of our commitment to Parliament that we will not take powers in the Bill that are broader than they need to be and to provide reassurance to the devolved institutions, we can therefore remove the ability of the correcting power in Clause 7(1) and in Schedule 2 Part 1 to amend the Scotland Act and the Government of Wales Act. We can also remove the exemption from the protection for the Northern Ireland Act that would allow the power to amend paragraph 38 of Schedule 3 to that Act, the so-called technical standards reservation. These protections are applied by our Amendments 34B, 34C, and 34D.
Given the further protection for the Northern Ireland Act, the correction of the deficiency in the reservation of technical standards can now be achieved only through primary legislation. Amendment 92F therefore adds that correcting provision to the Bill. Since the reservation is consistent across the three devolution settlements, Amendments 92B and 92E make the corresponding corrections to the Scotland Act and to the Government of Wales Act.
Although this is a technical correction, I wish to take a moment to talk through this in detail, as I hope noble Lords will appreciate, given the complexities of this matter and the fact that it relates to a reservation. I can also confirm to noble Lords that the drafting of the amendments has been shared with, and agreed by, the devolved Administrations, and I would like to express my gratitude to officials in the devolved Administrations for their input and constructive approach in helping us to develop these amendments.
The current reservation applies to:
“Technical standards and requirements in relation to products in pursuance of an obligation under EU law”,
except in areas that are specified as exempt. The provision can be found in paragraph 38 of Schedule 3 to the Northern Ireland Act, Section C8 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act, and Section C7 of Schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act as amended by the Wales Act 2017. It is our express intention that, in ensuring the reservation continues to operate as intended once we leave the EU, we should preserve the current boundary between devolved and reserved competence.
The effect of the amendments before noble Lords today is, therefore, that those standards subject to the current reservation will continue to be a reserved matter, including as they may be modified from time to time. It is the Government’s view—shared by the devolved Administrations—that a standard should not cease to be reserved simply because it has been updated. I would also like to assure noble Lords that the revised reservation will not apply in those areas where the devolved institutions currently have competence.
Let us take, for example, the case as it currently stands in relation to cigarette packaging. The obligations under EU law apply certain standards—for instance, in relation to the inclusion of health warnings on the packaging. The current reservation requires that the devolved institutions cannot legislate in relation to those standards, but it does not preclude them legislating to provide additional standards to cigarette packaging where they would be compatible and within an area of devolved competence. That will continue to be the case under the amended reservation. Indeed, when the UK Government brought legislation before Parliament to introduce plain packaging for tobacco products across the whole of the UK, we sought and received LCMs from the devolved legislatures because it would have been within their competence to make those provisions themselves.
Similarly, the devolved institutions could choose to extend those standards to products within their competence that are not specified by the relevant EU law. The reservation will also not apply to brand new standards that arise post-exit—for instance, to a new product that has been brought to market but is not currently subject to EU standards. Those would not have arisen in the UK in pursuance of EU law, even if the EU chooses to legislate on those matters after we have left, so would not be covered by the current reservation or the revised reservation. The exemptions that apply to the current reservation—for instance, in relation to food, agricultural and horticultural produce—will also continue to apply so standards in those areas, as now, will not be reserved.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, these are very helpful amendments, in that they reassert respect for the constitutional importance of the devolution legislation. They are part of the context that we will return to next week when we try to sort out other devolution aspects of the Bill—perhaps with greater ease in relation to Wales than Scotland, but that is for another day. Some of them are technical and tidying-up, and have been achieved with agreement. All that is welcome.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, it falls to me to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Beith, has said, and to thank the Minister for moving the amendments and for the explanations that he has given. I hope he will agree to convey to his departmental colleagues our congratulations on their very hard work, the results of which are now before us. Of course, we should recognise that this is the calm before the storm, in the sense that Clause 11 is coming along. If there are some very simple technical amendments here, there are 16 pages of amendments to Clause 11, so there will be fun and games when we get to it. Still, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, has said, this respects the devolution arrangements between us.
I wonder if noble Lords will be patient with me if I use this occasion to express my gratitude for the work of Carwyn Jones, the First Minister of the Welsh Assembly, who has announced that he intends to stand down. The steadiness of his hand on the tiller, and indeed his involvement in the discussions that have yielded these amendments, has been considerable. Wales, its parliament and the people of the UK owe him a great deal, and I would like to place this short tribute on the record.
So I think we are sitting pretty with this one. I know King Henry VIII was a Welshman, and he might even have voted with the Government on this one too. Without further ado, we have no problem with this at all.
Lord Callanan
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Beith and Lord Griffiths, for their contributions to this short debate. These are important amendments and they reflect important progress. It has never been the Government’s intention to use the correcting power to change our devolution settlements, and I hope noble Lords will agree that the amendments put the matter beyond doubt. I hope they welcome the reassurance that the amendments provide and recognise that this reflects the sincerity of the Government’s commitment to the devolution statutes.
Lord Callanan
“( ) diminish the protections in relation to “protected persons” set out in Part 3 of the Criminal Justice (European Protection Order) (England and Wales) Regulations 2014 (SI 2014/3300).”
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment relates to the incredible collaboration that takes place across Europe relating to violence towards women and girls—and, indeed, boys as well as girls. Here we are talking about the ways in which this kind of violence, which we know exists in our society, can now travel across borders. There has been real co-operation between the nations of the EU in creating orders that protect people who are vulnerable to abuse and violence, and that work has been essential progress towards the creation of better societies. It has certainly provided a great deal of protection for very vulnerable people.
Noble Lords will see that in the amendment, in which I am supported by others, I have called for this House to ensure that the Government in no way introduce law that would diminish the protections in relation to protected persons that are set out in our own legislation where we adopt European protection orders. I am going to speak about this amendment in relation to two other amendments that also bear my name, Amendments 67 and 69, which also deal with the issue of tackling violence against women and girls.
The special protection orders that have been created across Europe have been very important in the area of domestic violence, particularly where there are marriages, partnerships or relationships across borders where, after the breakdown of relationships, there can often be pursuit of victims who have returned to their families living elsewhere. That could be British women returning to Britain or in the opposite direction, where they are fleeing the kind of trolling and pursuit that is put in place by partners who will not accept the end of relationships and who inflict violence upon women and their families. Protected persons orders have been hugely important in dealing with this across borders, and because of mutual recognition they can be enforced in other places apart from the place in which the order has come into being. We are anxious that the regulations that have created that should not be vulnerable to change without the scrutiny of Parliament because they are so important to protection.
I turn to the other matters that link to this. In Amendment 67, I have sought to do something that I have done in other cases too. Many of us who are lawyers and who see how the working of law across borders has been so effective are anxious that arrangements may be made where it is possible that we will see that they are not working only in the aftermath, in the period immediately afterwards. We need to have some kind of safety nets, particularly where we are talking about vulnerability to violence. We need those safety nets to ensure that matters can be brought back into review and monitored carefully after we leave Europe.
Therefore, in Amendment 67 I call for a reporting back to monitor the effectiveness of whatever is put in place of what we have now—which I hope will follow closely what we already have. The concern is that we cannot legislate for reciprocity; we need something else to ensure that reciprocity is working. There may be a commitment to it, but we must ensure that it is working. That is why we are calling for, within a month of the passing of the Act and then every calendar year thereafter, the laying before Parliament of a report on the continued co-operation with the European Union on tackling violence against women and girls.
I remind the House that what we are talking about here is maintaining common rights of victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse who move across borders—and that includes trafficking. We are also talking about reducing female genital mutilation, which is one of the areas on which we have had very close co-operation because of the movement of girls to other parts of Europe and sometimes then outside Europe. Even within Europe people have been taken across borders to places where female genital mutilation frequently happens. The orders are also used to reduce child sexual exploitation and to enable data sharing between agencies about this kind of abuse. We should monitor to ensure that we do not let this work fall between the slats once we have left and simply rely on good will and co-operation, which may not actually work in the aftermath.
Amendment 69 deals with the funding for ending violence against women and girls. Again, colleagues and I are calling for a report to be made to both Houses of Parliament by the Secretary of State, within a month of the passing of the Act and thereafter once a year, to let us know about the position with regard to the loss of EU funding. The loss of that funding will have serious consequences for the work done in this area. European money goes into very real research, service provision and other activities relating to the ending of violence against women and girls. I have seen this up close, in the academic world but also in organisations that do that important work. If the money is not going to come from Europe, I want to know whether there will be comparable resources for all those elements that we have been working on. Will there be funding from the Government for that? There will be an awful lot of calls on government funding, and it is important that money is not taken away from this area.
Half the population care about this sort of stuff. They care about preventing violence towards women and girls, and they want to see that work continue. It is best done in collaboration with other countries, so I would like to hear from the Minister what is planned for the future, and whether there could be a commitment to reporting back on a regular basis so that we can keep these matters within our sights. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend, and will speak in particular to Amendment 69. In Committee, I asked a number of questions about the future of domestic abuse funding, and when the Minister did not answer them in her wind-up speech I asked if she could write to all who had spoken in the debate—but letter came there none. So forgive me if I repeat those questions now.
First, what criteria will be used to decide whether future structural fund commitments will be met up to 2020, so long as they, as the Government put it, represent value for money and align with “domestic priorities”? Surely domestic abuse projects must align with domestic priorities, given the proposed domestic abuse strategy—even though the consultation document on that strategy says nothing about the future of EU funding. Can the Minister confirm that they will be considered to be in alignment with those priorities, so they will be protected until 2020?
Secondly, will the Minister give an assurance about the future of the Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme, which supports progress on equality and human rights, including through front-line services for people experiencing domestic abuse? At the end of her speech, she gave some crumbs of hope when she said that she would look at Hansard and see whether the Government could provide any further comfort on the back of the debate we had then. I hope, too, that she might have been able to read the debate on the recent Question for Short Debate on domestic abuse, in which most speakers from all parts of the House emphasised the importance of adequate funding for domestic abuse, and expressed fears about current proposals for reforming the basis of that funding.
That is the context for this amendment. If the Government are not willing to accept, in particular, Amendment 69, which is incredibly modest in what it asks for, that will send out a negative message to survivors of domestic abuse, and to the organisations such as Women’s Aid that work with them.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I have no wish to detain the House unnecessarily, as we have already discussed this, but it is worth emphasising the importance of the European protection order that grants victims of violence protection against the perpetrator across the EU. Because we are leaving, this will no longer be available to UK citizens. The ability to share data on perpetrators, as well as a whole host of other measures aimed at tackling human trafficking and FGM, enforcing child maintenance orders and preventing the sexual exploitation of children is also at risk. It is disappointing, therefore, that violence against women and girls has not appeared in any of the Government’s Brexit-related policy papers.
It is in all our interests to ensure that the tremendous work and collaboration that we have enjoyed until now with our EU partners should not be lost. Vulnerable women and children must never be used as a bargaining chip in anyone’s negotiation— and of course, funding this work is hugely important. We stand to lose really important funding streams such as the Daphne fund, the rights, equality and citizenship fund and the European Social Fund, which supports a wide range of research and other services dedicated to tackling violence against women and girls in the UK.
We are not asking the Government to commit to anything specifically, just to report on how they intend to replace the lost EU funding that supports tackling the fight against violence against women and girls. Nobody wants to see the most vulnerable, most persecuted members of our society lose out as a result of our leaving the European Union. I look forward to hearing what words of comfort the Minister can supply to assure the House that under no circumstances will the Government allow that to happen.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I have just a few brief words to back up those who tabled the amendments. I was in the European Parliament when the European protection order directive was passed, a mere seven years ago, under co-decision with the European Parliament, when MEPs considered it a very important measure. I believe that the first European protection order in the UK was passed just over two years ago, so it has not had the chance fully to show its value, but it is about ensuring that a restraining order, for example, follows the victim wherever they move in the European Union—rather like a European arrest warrant follows the criminal, although I would not otherwise draw an analogy between the EPO and the EAW. These measures are hugely important.
Of course, the development of mutual recognition in both civil and criminal law in the EU has been a counterpart to the free movement of people, but we will not see an end to considerable free movement of people after Brexit. We have learned enough about the Government’s post-Brexit EU movement plans to know that a large volume of people will still be moving between the UK and member states of the European Union and the EEA, for all kinds of economic and social reasons—although the Government keep kicking the can down the road in terms of telling us exactly what their plans are. To say that we will be ending automatic free movement rights to live, work and study in another EU state is not a good argument that we do not need to continue with these cross-border mechanisms.
A good answer from the Government on how funding from EU programmes that support vulnerable women and girls and victims of domestic abuse will be replaced is extremely important, but so is how they intend to continue co-operation to replace those mechanisms, such as the European protection order and, I add, the victims’ directive, which has supported people and enabled them to enjoy a similar level of protection wherever they move around Europe. The need for those mechanisms, as well as the funding, will not go away. I hope that the Government will offer a substantive and substantial response on these matters.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Kennedy for tabling the amendments. Yesterday, not only were female Members of this House having our photograph taken to commemorate 100 years of women being Peers—being able to be Members of your Lordships’ House—many of us also went to see the unveiling of the statue of Millicent Garrett Fawcett, at which the Prime Minister spoke eloquently about the rights of women and how important they are, and we commemorated and celebrated the work of Millicent Garrett Fawcett. Would it not be a tragedy, therefore, if an unintended consequence—I think it would be an unintended consequence—of Brexit were that somehow we reduced the protection available to women and girls from violence in any way? The points made by my noble friends and noble Baronesses on the Liberal Democrat Benches in support of the amendments are valid.
The Minister may recall that on Second Reading, my noble friend Lady Sherlock illustrated the complexities that could come for child protection and family law when we leave the EU. Her experience and understanding of that is reflected in the comments of my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws today. From experience, she can say how the European protection order, which guarantees mutual recognition of legislation across the whole of the EU, adds to the protection that we all wish to see for women and young girls. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said, we hope for a substantive response from the Minister on this issue today.
The ability to share data on perpetrators, as well as a host of other measures that tackle human trafficking, FGM, the enforcement of child maintenance orders—an issue raised by my noble friend Lady Sherlock previously—and the sexual exploitation of children could all be put at risk. I was reminded by my noble friend Lady Gale, who has a huge reputation on these issues, that the Minister referred in Committee to the Istanbul convention, which should offer much-needed protection. Can she tell us when it will be ratified?
Will there be a gap between exit day, when we lose the EPO, and when the new Act will be on the statute book? What cover will allow us to ensure that all aspects of what we have now under the EPO will be enshrined in our legal system?
Another issue raised by my noble friends is funding. Although the Government’s previous commitment of £100 million is needed to keep the sector going, it will not plug the gap left by the loss of EU funds. The loss of those funding streams threatens to push small, specialist providers, which receive a significant amount of their funding from the EU, into a position where they can no longer operate to ensure the protection that women and girls need.
All that is being asked for is a report and information so that we can identify where the problems are and understand the Government’s response. I was disappointed to hear from my noble friend Lady Lister that she still has not had a response from the Minister to the issues that she raised. The whole point of the gap between Committee and Report is to ensure that the Minister has time to respond to questions from noble Lords. I hope that the Minister will say today why she did not respond at the time and what can be done to rectify that, because it is not satisfactory to raise issues in Committee and have to raise them again on Report because answers have not been received.
I am sure that the Government’s intentions in this are honourable, but we need to know in practice how these commitments will be met to ensure that we do not put women and young girls at risk of violence in a more difficult and precarious position than they are at present. I hope that the Minister will give a substantive response today on how the Government will address this.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, in responding to this debate, I begin by reiterating how important the issues we have discussed in the debate are. We have had today a clear, and, I suggest, impressive reflection of that importance, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and other noble Lords for their contributions.
I start by addressing Amendment 37, about continued recognition of European protection orders made after we leave the EU. The European protection order regime, established by the EU directive of the same name, is essentially a reciprocal regime. It requires the relevant designated authorities in the different member states involved to act and communicate with each other in the making of an order and in its recognition and enforcement. It is not possible for us to regulate from here to require the relevant authorities of remaining member states to act in any particular way. As such, if we are not in a reciprocal regime, we will no longer issue European protection orders to remaining member states, as it would be pointless to do so; and nor will the authorities in those member states issue them to the UK for the same reason.
In short, absent our continued participation in the European protection order regime or some proximate reciprocal agreement in its place, the regulations will be redundant—they do not work unilaterally. The amendment therefore pre-empts the outcome of the negotiations. I am happy to be clear, however, that if the ongoing negotiations produce an agreement to continue the UK’s access to the regime established under the directive, or something like it, appropriate steps in legislation will be brought forward to implement it at the time.
Baroness Ludford
I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but I think she said something like, “absent a proximate system”. She is being asked to say whether the Government will seek to find a solution to the present reciprocal mechanism. After all, we know that the Government will be seeking a UK-EU security treaty. When I moved an amendment on Monday about internal security, justice and home affairs, I was not very happy that there was no substantive response from the Government. Surely the Minister can tell us what the Government plan to try to secure.
Baroness Goldie
I hear the noble Baroness, and I was just about to expand on what the problem is. I know that it is frustrating for noble Lords, but at the heart of what she and others want to achieve are the negotiations. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, I was going to say that a number of the important issues she raises are directly related to our ability, having left the EU, to continue with reciprocal regimes if that is what we can negotiate. That is what we would obviously very much like to do. I have to disappoint noble Lords who are looking for more specific comment at this time because I simply cannot provide that.
The protections to which I was referring and the access to the regime established under the directive, or something like it, and my reference to appropriate steps and legislation being brought forward to implement these at that time, is what we can—and I very much hope we can—negotiate. That will comprise the protections for protected persons. We will, of course, consider all that at that point. But this Bill cannot pre-empt our negotiations on these matters. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, will empathise with that position, and understand the difficulty confronting the Government in relation to the Bill and will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Regarding Amendments 67 and 69, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, the Government are taking forward a range of work to tackle violence against women and girls. If noble Lords will permit me, I will set out the Government’s position on current and future international co-operation on these issues. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I feel that I have been chastised. I apologise because I can say that I read Hansard and endeavour to ensure that outstanding points are addressed. Why that did not happen in consequence of our Committee stage in relation to these matters, I do not know, but I certainly undertake to investigate and can only apologise for the noble Baroness’s request being met with silence.
I reassure noble Lords that ending violence against women and girls, and protecting and supporting victims, remains a key priority for the Government, and our cross-government Ending Violence Against Women and Girls strategy, as many noble Lords will know, is underpinned by increased funding of £100 million through to 2020. We have put in place a range of measures to tackle the issue, including: the criminalisation of forced marriage; two new stalking laws; and a new offence of domestic abuse covering controlling and coercive behaviour. We are very pleased with that progress; it is good progress to have made, but we know there is more to do. We do not dispute that. That is why we continue to build on this work, driving forward our Ending Violence Against Women and Girls agenda to further address these injustices. We have launched a public consultation to support our commitment to publish a landmark draft domestic abuse Bill, and we are supporting the introduction of a new civil stalking protection Bill to protect victims at the earliest possible stage.
This House will also be aware that we already have clear mechanisms for reporting on our progress, and we are already required to lay annual reports in Parliament on this issue in the context of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence—the Istanbul convention. The coalition Government signed that convention in 2012 and this Government have made absolutely clear our commitment to ratifying it. Many will be aware that the convention sets forth obligations on parties to take a co-ordinated, coherent and cross-border approach, and highlights the need for more effective international and regional co-operation.
This Government supported the Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Act 2017 which again places a duty on the Government to provide annual reports to Parliament on progress towards ratification. The first of such reports was published on 1 November 2017, and sets out the steps which the Government and the UK’s devolved Administrations—they have an important role to play in all this—have taken to tackle violence against women and girls since signing the convention, and the remaining steps required as we progress toward ratification.
In addition, once the UK has ratified the convention, we will be required to provide updates to the Council of Europe on compliance. This will not only further stimulate international co-operation but enable international benchmarking in tackling all forms of violence against women and girls. That is very important. It may sound just like dull text, but the ability to measure ourselves against what others are doing is very valuable and can undoubtedly be a catalyst to make improvements or do better if we identify areas where we are not doing as well.
I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, on this Government’s commitment to tackling violence against women and girls in all its forms, and that we are already bound by clear existing legislative requirements to update the House on our work in this area. In these circumstances, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
As always, the noble Baroness speaks very warm words, and I am sure the intentions are honourable. But I am concerned, as are others in this House, that this is one of those issues that will be of second order. This is always what happens to women’s issues, such as violence against women and the experience of women. It goes far down the agenda when it comes to the reality of something like trade and other serious matters. This is serious too, so it is regrettable that we are getting only warm words.
I know that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have been great speakers on the subject of dealing with violence against women, so it is particularly disappointing that amendments being addressed to matters which they have made their own special concerns are being dealt with so dismissively. It is not taking the issue seriously enough, and it is serious. I had hoped that there would at least have been a promise to come back and put before the House something soon after leaving Europe to say how it was going, and what was happening on this front. That is a disappointment, I must say. I would have thought that it would have been possible before the end of this year, and before we get to the actual crunch time, that the Minister would call a meeting of interested parties to consider where we are now, and what the way forward is looking like, so that we could have a clearer sense of that. The women in this country might feel very disappointed if this is not dealt with in a negotiated outcome.
I will not press the amendments just now, and I do not intend tabling them again before the House, but I want to say forcefully that I hope and expect to hear word from the Minister before the end of the year indicating that there will be a meeting for us to gather together those who are concerned about these issues, to consider what is being presented as the way forward and to see whether that is adequate.
“( ) amend or vary the provisions of the Immigration Act 1971 relating to passport control procedures on journeys within the Common Travel Area.”
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
My Lords, Amendment 38 has been grouped with Amendments 45 and 55, all of which are seeking to do much the same thing. The amendment is to prevent regulations under these provisions being used to undermine the common travel area, and to introduce what concerns many of us who are involved with human rights and civil liberties about the ways in which there could be abuse of processes that might be introduced.
To explain, much of the focus of the debate on the Irish land border and the movement between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK has focused on the freedom of movement of goods rather than people. In relation to people, the United Kingdom’s Northern Ireland and Ireland: Position Paper is limited to ruling out routine passport controls within the common travel area. I want to remind this House that the common travel area came into being a long time ago, immediately after the civil war in Ireland, and was an attempt basically to secure the confidence of people who had family on both sides within Ireland, in the north and south—but also in England and Scotland, like myself. My four grandparents came from Ireland, three from the north and one from the south. The common travel area is used by people who are proudly living here in the UK but who maintain relationships in Ireland.
The common travel area has made it very clear that arrival in and departure from the United Kingdom on a local journey from or to any of the islands, including the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man, or the Republic of Ireland, shall not be subject to control. That was put into statutory form in the Immigration Act 1971. Attempts have been made since to erode that—indeed, an attempt was made in 2008, and it was this House that prevented any erosion. Even if it was an unintended consequence, there was a possibility that a change in the immigration legislation in 2008 might have led to sterner controls.
I remind this House that, in Committee, Ministers committed the Government to the whole business of continuing the common travel area, saying that it was the ambition and policy of the Government that there should be no land border checks and no racial profiling. Racial profiling is one of the matters that concerns many of us. How do you distinguish between people living in the United Kingdom and travelling into Ireland and Irish people coming here and those persons who may come from the wider European Union? How do you distinguish them from people coming from elsewhere, and how do we manage those distinctions without risking the introduction of racial profiling? Concerns about racial profiling have been highlighted recently by a number of high-profile cases; they are an existing problem that may be exacerbated by increased controls in the Brexit context, even if there is not going to be routine checking—even if it is non-routine checking, which means that you would have mobile units or pick people out from queues of travellers.
The increased role of the United Kingdom Border Force also means regression in the arrangements for law enforcement in Northern Ireland set out in the Patten commission report. The United Kingdom Border Force is not accountable to the Northern Ireland Policing Board, and the Home Office has twice launched and had to withdraw recruitment exercises recently, trying to draw more people in to enhance the border control and border forces. The ways in which recruitment was attempted very clearly meant that it would be open to only one section of the Northern Ireland community. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, is not here, but I am afraid that the Patten commission report really dealt with policing and did not extend to border controls, when we would argue that it should.
As I have mentioned, the stated strategy of the Home Office is to use in this country “hostile environment” powers—and we have debated the whole business recently. It has been introduced into the way in which the Home Office runs its affairs with regard to immigration, which has caused very real anxiety over how the issue of controlling the common travel area will operate into the future. Among law enforcement bodies there has already been a vowing of intensification of campaigns in relation to immigration in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has warned that Northern Ireland is a country in which document checks have more sensitivity perhaps than elsewhere, and they should not be more onerous than they are in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, speaking as a former chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in another place, I think that we should all thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, for raising this issue. I hope that we will have a sensitive response from my noble friend the Minister. Knowing his track record, I am fairly confident that we will. But if ever we needed reminding how important it is that we handle these matters with sensitivity, we only have to say the words “Windrush generation” and remember the deeply shaming facts of the last few weeks. In an empty Chamber last night, we had a Statement on that, but although the Chamber was virtually empty, every single Member of your Lordships’ House who spoke said, effectively, the same thing.
We are dealing with the movement of people and, particularly, we are dealing with people who have for many years—in some cases, 30 or 40 years or more—had all the rights and privileges of the British citizen. As we know, there is real concern in the rest of the European Union among those who are sad about what happened with your Lordships’ verdict last year that we should give an unconditional guarantee from the word go. They are now apprehensive and, although I believe that it is entirely unnecessary for them to worry about the Windrush effect, nevertheless they are worried. So I hope that, when responding to this debate, which I trust will be brief, my noble friend will be able to give comfort not only to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, but to Members in all parts of your Lordships’ House, in all parties and on the Cross Benches, who share her concern at these important matters.
Baroness Ludford
My Lords, from these Benches, very briefly, I just say that we share the concerns expressed in the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. There are just two points that I would ask the Minister to respond on. First, what is the meaning of “routine” in the Northern Ireland position paper of last August? There was a pledge that:
“The development of our future immigration system will not impact on the ability to enter the UK from within the CTA free from routine border controls”.
A lot hangs on that adjective; can the Minister please elaborate on what that means and on what border controls will be allowable?
Secondly, the draft withdrawal agreement requires the UK to ensure that the CTA,
“can continue to operate without affecting the obligations of Ireland under Union law, in particular with respect to free movement for Union citizens and their family members”.
How will it be ensured that the free movement rights of EU citizens that Ireland is obliged to secure will be respected post Brexit?
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I do not think it should go unremarked in this short debate, where there is a Northern Ireland connection, that in neither House of this Parliament are there any representatives of the nationalist community and yet, in this House, we have members of the DUP who never, ever give a view. They claim to represent the majority in Northern Ireland—the leader today has threatened the Prime Minister, if she deviates, with deselection—but, at the same time, there is something wrong with the debate, because we are not fully representative. Why do we have these people in this House who never give a view, and yet their views are important? I just think it is worth putting this on the record.
Lord Dykes (CB)
I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has made that point, because it is noticed and it is not said enough that there is a gap there which really makes the Chamber awkward from the point of view of these issues. I also support what my noble friend Lord Cormack said and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, for raising these matters. It will be quite alarming if there is an erosion of the common travel area arrangements, which are historic since 1923, just because other things are happening in a geopolitical sense regarding new legislation for leaving the European Union. The psychological aspect is important too, because creating that common travel area so long ago, as a unique and special example of co-operation between countries, was a way for the British to make up to the Irish for what had happened in the past and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, a way of promoting economic co-operation and activity. People came towards Britain, mostly, rather than the other way round, but increasingly, as the Irish economy developed in the post-war period, people also went to Ireland for work and travel.
The present situation is that there should literally be no erosion or changes; it should be exactly as it was. Yet, one hears these stories of what is happening—the wrong kind of attitude on the part of certain officials, and so on; I will not go into more detail than that. This arrangement is very important, because it is a miniature Schengen between just two countries and, partly for that reason of course, both countries decided not to join in the full Schengen arrangements, although there were also other reasons connected at the margin. It is a very precious aspect of the wider picture of there being no change at all to the Irish border arrangements, which is so important for both this legislation and the future of our relationship with the European Union. This of course means, effectively—yes, we have to say it—staying in the single market and customs union, and why not? In the meantime, this arrangement is crucial and I hope that the Government will reassure us tonight that there is a commitment to keeping the purity of the CTA and that there will be no erosion.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, there is little I can add that is new to this debate. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws for raising these issues and I hope the Minister will make use of his customary courtesy to the House. When he responded at Second Reading and in Committee on these issues, there was a sense that he understands the concerns that were raised then, and indeed the issues raised today. When he spoke on 14 March, he was clear that there will be no impediment at the land border to the movement of people—no checks and no profiling, full stop. That was the first time that the Government had given that degree of clarity—I think my noble friend Lady Kennedy would recognise that—or sought to emphasise that. This is important, and the Minister will understand the great concerns being raised. We still have no clarity on the border issue. This House has already expressed a view on the customs union and I am sure that, as we debate Northern Ireland issues later on Report, we will deal with those further.
I hope that the Minister is able to address the concerns that have been raised about the common travel area and movement of people. He has a sense of deftness and understands these issues, so if he can address them today we would be grateful.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, for introducing this topic and other noble Lords for their contributions. I had a very pleasant cup of tea with the noble Baroness yesterday and I was pleased to learn that she hails from the Kennedys of Fermanagh, which was an interesting discovery. But it was not just a pleasant cup of tea; it was more important than that. We touched on what I believe are some of the key elements that have motivated these amendments, and they are, at heart, necessary to confront. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, somewhat surprisingly, reminded me that I was indeed apparently the first person to give clarity on this issue, but I am very happy to reinforce the clear statement that there can be no racial profiling at a border, whether it be routine, quixotic or even accidental. That cannot be the policy or the direction; there cannot be even a hint of that going on at the border. I am hopeful that those further words might again give some contentment in that regard.
If I may turn to the amendment itself, the December joint report, at paragraph 54, confirms that the UK and Ireland can continue, as now, to work together on the movement of people. Building on this, the relevant chapter of the Commission’s draft withdrawal treaty text is green, confirming the policy is agreed. The key thing here is that the common travel area with Ireland is protected after the UK has left the EU. It is important to emphasise that this agreement is not just what we would like to see happen but actually what we have agreed so far. As a number of noble Lords will have noticed thus far, getting agreement is not always as straightforward as we would like. The Government are committed to turning the relevant chapter of the withdrawal treaty into legally binding text, so we will be doing that. This means that in the future, as now, the UK will not operate routine immigration controls on journeys within the common travel area. There will be no checks whatever for journeys across the land border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, nor between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. As I said earlier, this includes any aspect of what those checks might look like or be interpreted to look like. That is not what will be happening.
To touch on some of the elements raised, I think it is important again—and I will commit to writing to the noble Baroness—to set out the elements of the withdrawal agreement treaty and how they protect the common travel area. I will place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House so that all can read it and see exactly what we are stating.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
Forgive me, this is not facetious, but the words that the Minister is using are so much clearer than those that have been used by his colleagues in government that I just wonder if there might be an internal seminar, so that we can get some of this clarity on the record more often.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I will await that promotion when it comes. I hope that I am being as clear as I possibly can be. To be equally clear, these words do indeed represent the view of the Government. I am not an outlier in this regard; I am indeed speaking on behalf of the Government.
If I may, I will draw on some of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, about the historic element of the common travel area. It is an extraordinary outcome when you think about what had just taken place on the island of Ireland. To then create a common travel area, with all that that represents—a common travel area that survives to this day, albeit within the wider freedom of movement of the EU—is an extraordinary achievement, both for its time and for its longevity. It is a long-standing agreement; it protects unhindered the movement across the land border. I am also aware that it is also an integral element—not a symbolic but an integral element—of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That should not be underestimated.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made it very clear, from the original Article 50 letter right through our position paper in August on Northern Ireland to her speech in Florence, that preserving these arrangements and a unique relationship between the UK and Ireland is a priority for future negotiations as well. The common travel area has proven to be resilient over the years, withstanding legal challenges, to which the noble Baroness referred, and new policy and political developments. It is a well-crafted arrangement—and in some respects, if only all legislation that we created could be as well crafted, we would be doing some service to the nation. It has been staunchly protected by all its members, not just the United Kingdom but Ireland—and it has been welcomed by the Crown dependencies as well. I have no doubt that it will continue to be so.
The high level of collaboration with Ireland and the Crown dependencies on border security, on strengthening the external border of the common travel area and on promoting legitimate travel within this special travel area will continue. The UK’s future approach to immigration controls for EEA nationals will be compatible with the common travel area, just as our approach to non-EEA nationals is now. Our approach to the common travel area is, of course, not reliant on our membership of the EU itself. These arrangements can be maintained after the UK has left the EU without express provision in the Bill. The common travel area was formed long before our membership of the EU and, I suspect, will exist long after.
The Government made clear during the Bill’s passage in the other place that the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill will uphold the agreement we reach, including the protection of all the Northern Ireland and Ireland commitments in the joint report. That is, of course, a matter for the future Bill rather than the one we have before us today. However, I nonetheless hope that some of the elements that I have stated today will be clearly reflected in that future Bill.
Individuals travelling to the UK through Ireland will always be required to meet the UK’s immigration requirements. However, our excellent co-operation with Ireland helps to ensure that those who seek to abuse arrangements are not able to gain entry at any point in the common travel area, no matter which element we might be discussing.
I have just been handed a very helpful note, and I turn to the point raised by the noble Baroness. The word “routine” does not have a special meaning in the paper that was cited. It was not seeking to add any additional burden. It is simply saying that these are the methods that we have been using thus far and will continue to use. It is not seeking to add or put in place any additional elements. To the second question raised by the noble Baroness—the question of the obligations that fall upon Ireland itself—arrangements that we have within the common travel area will not interfere with those obligations which the Republic of Ireland has to its own citizens or to the citizens of the EU, but the nature of our future immigration status will depend on that second Bill, to which I referred a short while ago.
I appreciate that this has been a short debate, but it was an important one nonetheless. We recognise that the common travel area is not just a useful asset; it is a vital one. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, reminded us, the family commitments that stretch across those borders of long standing are very important. There is nothing that we will do that will interfere with that: that would be wrong and we will not be doing that. On that basis, and with the promise that we will send a letter and lodge a copy in the Library, I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
My Lords, I was very grateful to my noble friend Lord Blunkett for drawing attention to the great skills of this particular Minister and to his clarity. It is always a pleasure to hear him at the Dispatch Box.
I just wanted to express my appreciation of his agreeing to meet and discuss this matter because—I am sure that the rest of the House does not know this—in his day he worked for the Refugee Council. The noble Minister has a noble past, and he brings that experience to bear on the role that he is now playing. I, like my noble friend Lord Blunkett, look forward to him holding high office so that we can have the benefit of all that experience. Why should references from the Labour Benches from my noble friend Lord Blunkett and myself not be of assistance? We have probably killed the poor man’s career.
I am grateful for the commitment to maintain the common travel area in the way that the Minister described. I understood him to say that routine passport controls are being ruled out and that racial profiling is also being absolutely ruled out. I say to the Government that they will be held to those commitments and promises in whatever arrangements are forthcoming. On the basis of what the Minister has said, I express my gratitude and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, in moving this Motion, may I suggest that proceedings on Report should begin again not earlier than 7.10 pm?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am slightly puzzled as to why the House would seek to rise at 6.36 pm for a break. The normal time for a dinner break would be around 7.30 pm. I appreciate that we have made swifter progress than anticipated, but it is inappropriate for the House to adjourn at this point. We should continue with the business before us. I am grateful to the usual channels for giving us a dinner break today; that is helpful. However, the normal time of after 7.30 pm would be more appropriate.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
There is a proposition before the House that we adjourn debate on Report. I took the trouble of having a word with the Opposition Chief Whip in order to ascertain when it would be suitable to have a dinner break, and we felt at that stage that this was the right time. I now realise that circumstances have changed. We had agreed to a sort of dinner break—a gap in proceedings—because previously we found that the evenings were too long. I was asked by both the Opposition Chief Whip and the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip to consider having a break in the evenings, because they thought that proceedings would go better if that were the case. That is not the situation. The proposition before the House is that we should have a dinner break—that we should adjourn the House on Report at this stage—and I feel that we should at least put that to the House.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I am grateful to the Chief Whip. It is a very wise and sensible move to have a dinner break during long proceedings—but I am not very hungry yet, and I suspect that other noble Lords might have had a late lunch as well. I appreciate that there is a Motion on the table and I am grateful for his suggestion of a dinner break. I assume that the next group of amendments would take us to around 7.30 pm, which would be a more appropriate time for a break. If he insists on putting this proposition to the House, I would ask noble Lords not to support the Government.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, just said. It is 6.40 pm. It would be unprecedented to break for dinner at this time. I do not suggest that there is anything other than concern for your Lordships’ stomachs in the mind of the Government Chief Whip, but I ask him to reconsider whether he wishes to put this matter to a vote.
Lord Cormack
We can negate it with our voices—we do not need to go into the Lobbies.
Lord Newby
I suspect that the mood of the House is to negate it—and the quicker we do it, the better.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am mindful that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is in his place this evening. I do remember him getting extremely hungry.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
Perhaps it was. Part of the difficulty here is that we had agreed via the usual channels to have a break, and had agreed more or less where we would have it; it was going to be before the consideration of the amendments which we are now at. I do not want to defy the majority view of the House, and I have to accept that the numbers suggest that the will of the House is to carry on with proceedings. With that in mind, I suggest that we move on to the next group of amendments. However, I will ask the usual channels in future to be much more specific about what they intend when they ask for these facilities.
Lord Trees
“EU Protocol on animal sentience (Article 13 of Title II of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU)
(1) Ministers of the Crown and the devolved administrations must pay due regard to the welfare requirements of animals as sentient beings in the formulation and implementation of public policy.(2) In this section—(a) “animals” means vertebrates, other than man, and cephalopods, whether under the control of man or living in a wild state.(b) “Ministers of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 and also includes government departments.(3) It is for Parliament exclusively, in the exercise of absolute discretion, to hold Ministers of the Crown to account for the discharge of their duties under this section.(4) It is for the Scottish Parliament exclusively, in the exercise of absolute discretion, to hold the Scottish Government to account for the discharge of their duties under this section.(5) It is for the National Assembly for Wales exclusively, in the exercise of absolute discretion, to hold the Welsh Government to account for the discharge of their duties under this section.(6) It is for the Northern Ireland Assembly exclusively, in the exercise of absolute discretion, to hold the Northern Ireland Executive to account for the discharge of their duties under this section.(7) The Secretary of State must submit a report annually to Parliament relating to the formulation, implementation, and effectiveness of policy relating to animal welfare to reflect the duty of subsection (1).(8) The Scottish Government must submit a report annually to the Scottish Parliament relating to the formulation, implementation, and effectiveness of policy relating to animal welfare to reflect the duty of subsection (1).(9) The Welsh Government must submit a report annually to the National Assembly for Wales relating to the formulation, implementation, and effectiveness of policy relating to animal welfare to reflect the duty of subsection (1).(10) The Northern Ireland Executive must submit a report annually to the Northern Ireland Assembly relating to the formulation, implementation, and effectiveness of policy relating to animal welfare to reflect the duty of subsection (1).”
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I begin by thanking your Lordships as I am very hungry to get on with this debate. However, if it lasts very long, I may request a private break for other purposes.
I declare my interest as a former president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and a current co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare. I hope that that makes it clear that my motives for bringing this amendment are purely about animal welfare.
This amendment seeks to fix a problem and plug a gap in the legislative protection that will be afforded to animals when we leave the EU. It seeks to embed in UK law the principles in Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, notably that the Government should pay due regard to the welfare of animals as sentient beings in developing and implementing policy. In that regard, putting an onus on government, it complements and augments our current Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Your Lordships may be aware of the history of this animal sentience issue but I will briefly remind the House of it. An amendment of this type was tabled by Caroline Lucas in the other place to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill towards the end of last year, and your Lordships may remember that it was defeated by a government majority. That resulted in a substantial public and media backlash and criticism that the Government did not care about animal welfare. Many people, including myself, felt that that criticism was unjustified, as subsequent events have indicated.
The Government’s response was to bring out a draft animal welfare Bill in 2018—a very short Bill, half of which basically embodied the principles of Article 13. That was followed by an inquiry by the EFRA Committee, which reported at the end of January 2018. That applauded the spirit of the government animal welfare Bill but severely criticised its execution, and Defra is now reconsidering. We are in a bit of a pickle. There is a high level of agreement about where we want to go but no certainty about how to get there. Adoption of this amendment or a similar amendment would enable us to get to where we want to be.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 40 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, to which I have added my name. We had a very full debate on this in Committee, and the issue was also debated at length in the other place, so I will not rehearse previous arguments.
The Government have made a commitment to the intentions behind Article 13 of the Lisbon treaty and have brought forward a draft animal welfare Bill, which went out to consultation, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said, on 12 December last year. The consultation closed on 31 January this year. I understand there were 9,000 responses, many criticising the Bill for its lack of breadth and for being open to possible misinterpretation. I can sympathise with those who made such comments. The consultation document consisted of 20 pages, only two of which were the actual Bill. When I read it, I found it hard to believe that the Government could be using taxpayers’ money on such a pathetic draft Bill.
Secondly, a huge amount of parliamentary business will need to pass through both Houses to underpin the Brexit Bill and ensure that legislation does not fall through black holes. This means that it would be wiser and safer to enshrine this amendment in the Bill at this stage of its passage.
Much discussion has taken place on what “sentience” means. The RSPCA, a widely respected and trusted organisation, defines it explicitly as,
“the capacity to have positive or negative experiences such as pain, distress or pleasure”.
While the Government’s animal welfare Bill 2018 was originally to be welcomed, it did not go far enough and leaves a gap in legislation. It is important that the UK is able to achieve trade agreements in livestock and livestock products with the countries of the EU and the rest of the world. In order to achieve this, the public and the farming community will seek reassurance that animal welfare has not been compromised by Brexit. They will need this reassurance now and certainly next year.
I understand that the Minister has hinted that the Government might bring forward a second draft animal welfare Bill. Is he able to give a commitment that this will be before 29 March 2019 and that the new draft Bill will have considerably more substance than the last one?
The Minister must be aware of the depth of feeling and concern around this subject among the public, interested businesses and organisations throughout the UK. Now is the time for him to concede that animal welfare is a key issue and to support this amendment. If he is unable to do so, I and my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches will support the noble Lord, Lord Trees, in the Division Lobby.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak in support of Amendment 40, to which I have attached my name, and will also be speaking to my Amendment 41A.
The two amendments are complementary. Amendment 40 addresses some of the objections raised by the Minister in Committee and helps to bridge a gap in the current law and in the law that the Government may wish to see in their future Bill—a Bill that seems to be receding further and further into the future. Amendment 40 helps us to move towards the ideal but Amendment 41A follows up as a backstop to ensure that at least we do not lose what is already there. The Government cannot say that Amendment 40 goes too far and that Amendment 41A does not go far enough. In the absence of their own Goldilocks amendment which sits happily in the middle, we believe that it is incumbent on them to introduce an animal welfare Bill as soon as possible, and definitely before Brexit day.
In Committee, the Minister responded to my amendment by saying that,
“the purpose of this Bill is to provide continuity by addressing any deficiencies in law as we leave the EU. It is not about improving EU laws that the Government think could be better”.—[Official Report, 5/3/18; col. 880.]
I completely agree, and that is entirely the purpose of my amendment. It is specific and limited: it does no more and no less than is required to achieve the continuity of this Bill.
I was surprised in Committee to see that the only Member of this House to speak against the amendment was the Minister. He said that the Government want to bring forward an animal sentience Bill which goes further than Article 13, which is what we are trying to retain. I am very glad that the Government want to do better. I too want them to do better—much, much better—but I am afraid that at the moment they are absolutely failing. They are failing to hear what is being said in this House and they are failing to hear what people outside this House want. People do not want a lessening of animal welfare. That would be totally against any British feeling about animals and how they are handled.
I ask the Minister whether the next steps for the animal sentience Bill have been published. I do not believe that they have. If not, what does the Minister think can be done in place of that Bill? I believe that the only thing that can be done is to agree to this amendment.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I am very much in favour of the idea that lies behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and Amendment 41A, which the noble Baroness has just addressed us to. However, I have a technical problem with the amendment. In making this point, I wish to make it absolutely clear that I am not in any way criticising subsection (1) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 40 or the idea that lies behind it. My point is directed at proposed new subsections (4), (5) and (6), which, as I think the noble Lord hinted at, are designed to exclude judicial review as a means of holding Ministers to account. As the amendment is worded, it is for the Parliament,
“exclusively in the exercise of absolute discretion, to hold”,
Ministers to account. I think that the word “exclusively” is there to make it clear that there is to be no other remedy except to raise the matter before Parliament.
I recall arguments about 15 or 20 years ago when there was a real risk that the Government of the day would put provisions into Bills excluding the possibility of judicial review. There were occasions when the judges made their position clear and they were very unpopular as a result. There was a real risk of the Government taking that measure, and I think that that risk was diminished through various representations made through the Lord Chancellor and others. Eventually it was established as a convention that the Government would not seek to exclude judicial review. They might limit it in some respects, as they have done, by the length of time that can elapse before a petition is brought, and there have been other ways in which the opportunity for judicial review has been narrowed, but they have never excluded judicial review, because it is one of the essential protections of individuals against the state.
We are talking here not about people but about animals, and I can quite see that there is room for some difference, but I respectfully suggest that it would set an unfortunate precedent for us to pass a measure that excluded judicial review. If that were to be picked up later by a Government in areas where individual rights were involved, I think that we would greatly regret it.
I am sorry to raise that technical objection. I wish that we were not on Report but in Committee, where this matter could be sorted out. However, I feel it necessary to make that point clear at this stage.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I intervene briefly in support of the amendment moved by the noble Lord on the question of animal sentience. I should declare an interest. I am an honorary associate of the BVA and I want to underline the representations that it has made—I think that a number of noble Lords will have received them at various times. It feels very strongly that steps need to be taken prior to Brexit to include provisions for animal sentience in UK law. When representations of this sort come from such a respected body as the BVA, I think that we are duty-bound to take good notice of it, and I hope that noble Lords on all sides of the House will act accordingly tonight.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
My Lords, I want to follow up on what my noble and learned friend Lord Hope said. He referred to proposed new subsections (4), (5) and (6), which deal with the devolved Administrations, but of course Clause 3 deals with our central Parliament and thus the English position, and exactly the same point arises.
My further concern is that, assuming that we did not have that apparent bar on any question of judicially reviewing Ministers of the Crown, it would be very difficult to see by what sort of touchstones any legal challenge would work. Proposed new subsection (1) says:
“Ministers of the Crown and the devolved administrations must pay due regard to the welfare requirements of animals”.
Heaven knows, I hope that I am as anxious as the rest of the House about the welfare of animals—certainly, my cat would never forgive me if I were not—but, as I understand it, the only substantive provision in this proposed new clause is subsection (7), which requires an annual report, although that is obviously a separate and discrete obligation. However, I am not quite sure how judicial review in this context would work or, without it, what is envisaged in the way of Parliament exclusively holding Ministers of the Crown to account. It is all rather abstract and I am a little unsure of how it is intended to work.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, has introduced the amendment in his characteristically persuasive manner. He has an exemplary record in the area of animal welfare. As a senior veterinary surgeon, he has enormous professional knowledge and, above all, personal courage in being prepared to speak up about what are often controversial matters. I have had the privilege of working with him on a number of areas of welfare: the welfare of animals at the time of killing, or WATOK, regulations; meat labelling; the export of live animals and so forth. Therefore, I like to think that my commitment to an appropriate standard of animal welfare is not in question, and I believe that a reading of Hansard would show that.
However, as I have told the noble Lord, I am afraid that I cannot support him this evening. We are discussing the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which is focused on the process of disentangling this country from the European Union, not on the shape of policy post Brexit. Special issues such as animal sentience, important and vital though they are, are not really part of that withdrawal process. However, I can promise the noble Lord that when we come to discuss animal sentience and welfare in legislation focused on the policies of the new world, I shall be right there with him to ensure that there is no diminution, weakening of or sliding away from proper standards of animal welfare. On that, the noble Lord, Lord Trees, can count on my full support. But not, I am afraid, on this amendment this evening.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes (Con)
My Lords, I am very sympathetic to this amendment’s aims, and have been ever since we joined the market. It relates to an issue that was one of my strongest concerns when making up my mind to vote against going in in the first place, which I did: the question of all the animal welfare measures, little and big, and the worst measure of all, which sees animals waiting overnight and longer at the docks—for perhaps two or three days—without any care. That alone would be good enough to make me Brexit for life, if I was not already. This debate allows me to bring to the cause a little good news. I understand that the animals which were being held at the ports because they had to be delivered alive in France have now been given help. The local animal welfare departments have removed them from the ports and are giving them water and food while they wait. That is only a small thing, but it is important and it is taking the lead.
I too am concerned about the judicial review. I do not want to see the whole issue bound up by complicated legal matters when the kind of thing that is necessary is available in a much less complicated way—and because it is less complicated, it is easier to police and to maintain. I hope that those moving this amendment, with whom I have great sympathy, will look again at these provisions. I want us to get this right. I do not want us to regret it. When the time comes, I want us to be able to say of this big achievement that what we have done is acceptable, enforceable and very badly needed.
Lord Judge
My Lords, I want to add my voice and underline, if I may, how serious the issue arising under subsections (3) to (7) is. There are many executives that would be desperately pleased to have provisions such as these in primary legislation. There is no reason whatever why Parliament should not be able to deal with any issue arising in the context of sentient animals—there is no exclusion about that. However, to exclude the possibility of somebody seeking a remedy before the court would be an astonishingly dangerous principle to put into any legislation. The fact that it arises in this very sensitive issue relating to animals is one thing, but a lot of citizens, and individuals who happen to live in this country, rely on the possibility of taking the Government or the local authority to court to make them account for the exercise of, or failure to exercise, their powers. This would set an alarming precedent.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, the subject of animals is an extremely important one and I have great sympathy with the spirit behind both the amendments in this group. However, this subject needs to be properly dealt with in a statute of the United Kingdom. I know that criticism has been made of the attempts so far, but there is always room for improvement, and constructive suggestions have been liberally made in the consultations. As far as I am concerned, it would be much better to have a good United Kingdom statute for these animals than to try to do it through adapting part of an EU treaty.
The technical question of judicial review is quite difficult. I am not sure just how crucial it is to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Trees, but, years back, skilful Lords of Appeal—Lord Reid, a Scottish judge, and Lord Wilberforce from this jurisdiction—developed a theory that makes it next to impossible to prevent judicial review in an Act of Parliament. They did so by saying that what Parliament has protected is the judgment that is supposed to be come to, but, if the judgment that is come to has been falsified by some mistake or lack of proper process, then it is not a judgment protected by these provisions—Anisminic was the case. As was said by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Judge, at the end of a long process, the attempt to restrict judicial review was eventually torpedoed by these judges, with support of course. It is for that reason that the Government decided some considerable time ago not to put such protected clauses into legislation, because it is apt to mislead the public—they think that these clauses are, at face value, worth while, but when Lord Reid and Lord Wilberforce got on to them, they were not worth the paper they were written on.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to these amendments. I am one of perhaps three or four people in the Chamber today who took through the original Animal Welfare Act 2006, so I am supportive of anything we can do to make sure that animal welfare is top of the agenda. As an associate member of the BVA and the royal college, and as somebody who has had animals on the farm, this is a key interest of mine.
I have talked often with the noble Lord, Lord Trees, about the fact that although I am 100% behind what he is trying to do, I am not sure in my mind that this amendment is the right vehicle. I apologise if that is a disappointment to him. I am grateful for the observations of the noble and learned Lords, which were above the understanding I had before the debate started. It is very clear that the Government have tried to rectify a problem that was raised in the House of Commons by bringing forward a draft Bill. I think they realise, in hindsight, that that Bill is not sufficient to do what they wish it to. As others have said, it is quite difficult to deal with this on Report because we have to wait and then we cannot come back. However, I am hopeful that the Minister will be able to give us much greater clarification than we have had up to now as to the Government’s thinking about where we stand. While we are not fully behind the wording of the amendment, I hope no one thinks that we in any way do not believe in the full commitment we should have to animal welfare. Although I have no idea what the Minister is going to say, I hope he will bring us up to date on where we are and what the Government’s thinking is.
I say to my good friend the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and others that I am grateful to them for bringing forward this amendment. It has given the House another chance to reflect on an issue that some people might think is not important but which, I say to my noble friend the Minister, is hugely important. I hope his words will give greater resolve to those of us who wish to see this welfare issue taken forward in a meaningful way.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 40 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, to which I have added my name.
The noble Lord made an authoritative contribution explaining why this issue is important, as have a number of other noble Lords. It followed the excellent debate in Committee, which had widespread support from around the House. At that time the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, confirmed that animals should be regarded as sentient beings. The question we are debating now is how best to enshrine that in UK law.
We can all agree that the rushed Animal Welfare Bill was not fit for purpose. As the Commons’ Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee said in a scathing report on that Bill, animals,
“deserve better than to be treated in a cavalier fashion”.
As we have heard, the closing date for the consultation on that flawed Bill was 31 January. We are still waiting for the Government’s response. It is now April and we do not have a revised animal sentience Bill or a commitment in this Bill to recognise animals as sentient beings. This is the worst of all worlds.
During the debate the Minister tried to reassure us. He said that the Government would publish their summary of the consultation on the Bill and the next steps in due course and, hopefully, before Report. Indeed, he went further and said that if that was not the case, he would look at what could be done in its place. We still have not got the information that the Minister said—I would not say promised—he hoped to give us before Report. We are therefore left with the dilemma of how to plug that governance gap.
Time is going on. We are leaving next year and, if our amendment is rejected today, we will not have that commitment in the Bill as it stands and we will not have anything in its place. Our amendment provides that stop-gap. It provides reassurance to those in this Chamber and outside it who care about this issue that the recognition of animal sentience will transfer over and will apply from day one.
We await with interest the Government’s future plans to extend the application of animal sentience—they may answer all of the issues raised today—but we do not have that before us and I venture that we will not have it on the statute book before next March. A report on the next steps of a draft Bill, which the Minister may offer today, is not the same as delivering primary legislation before Brexit day.
As time ticks by, the number of Defra Bills promised but not delivered is stacking up. While I do not think that deliberate on anyone’s part, the fact is that the Defra Secretary of State is losing control of his promises and of the scheduling. Perhaps his civil servants are finding it hard to keep up with him or he might be embroiled, as we read in the papers, in the battle for his priorities with other Cabinet colleagues. I am not going to go there. However, I know that the timetables for other Bills are slipping. Any separate animal sentience legislation will need to take its place behind other Defra Bills, including Bills on agriculture and fishing. We have been promised a Bill on the environment and primary legislation is needed for a ban on ivory sales. So an animal sentience Bill will have to take its place in that queue.
A number of noble Lords have said that they want to get this right—I understand that; we all want to get it right—and when the new version of the animal sentience Bill is published and we see it, we will want to get that right too. We do not want to be rushed to agree it; we want to take time on it. The sensible thing to do today is to agree a simple amendment now which sets recognition of animal sentience as a duty in UK law. That is our holding position and our amendment will deliver it. We can then take time to craft a new animal sentience Bill which delivers Michael Gove’s promise of improving animal welfare post Brexit.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, asked whether this Bill was the right place for this issue. Yes, it is, because it is an important environmental principle. We have been promised that before and after exit day, rights and protections will be the same. However, if we do not put it in this Bill in this form, those rights will not be the same the day after Brexit. This is the right place to put it.
In the absence of a government amendment, which is where we find ourselves today, I hope noble Lords will agree that this is the right way forward and, given the dilemma in which we now find ourselves and lacking any other way of plugging this gap, will see fit to support our amendment.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My noble friend is making a powerful speech but will she deal with the important issue of judicial review that has been raised during the debate. We have to attend to that. Will she also give her view on the merits of Amendment 41A in the name of her namesake, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I am always loath to argue with noble and learned Lords on technical legal matters.
Lord Rooker
Perhaps I may suggest a reply to my noble friend. I am being practical now. We are in charge of our own procedure in this House, so what would be the problem, if the House wants to pass this amendment, in passing a technical drafting amendment to remove four words exclusively on Third Reading? That is the end of the problem.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
As ever, I thank my noble friend for his helpful advice. He must be right.
We of course support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. It is another option but, on the basis of the debate we have had so far, I hope noble Lords will support Amendment 40 as it stands.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, let me start by being crystal clear about the Government’s commitment to animal welfare as we leave the EU. As the Prime Minister said in another place on 22 November,
“we already have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, and as we leave the EU, we should not only maintain, but enhance them. We have already set out our proposals to introduce mandatory CCTV in slaughterhouses; to increase sentences for animal cruelty to five years; to ban microbeads, which damage marine life; and to ban the ivory trade to help bring an end to elephant poaching”.
The Prime Minister went on to explicitly confirm:
“We also recognise and respect the fact that animals are sentient beings and should be treated accordingly. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 provides protection for all animals capable of experiencing pain or suffering which are under the control of man”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/11/17; col. 1038.]
The following day my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs set out in a Written Ministerial Statement in the other place that:
“This Government will ensure that any necessary changes required to UK law are made in a rigorous and comprehensive way to ensure animal sentience is recognised after we leave the EU”.
But, as he further noted,
“The withdrawal Bill is not the right place to address this”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/11/17; cols. 35WS-36WS.]
In this respect I agree with my noble friend Lord Hodgson. The Government’s commitment to legislating in this area is in no doubt. I can confirm to the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Bakewell, and to my noble friend Lady Byford, that not only have we made that commitment but we have begun work on drafting and developing that legislation.
In December, the Government published draft legislation to address the recognition of animal sentience through the Animal Welfare (Sentencing and Recognition of Sentience) Draft Bill. The public consultation on the draft Bill closed on 31 January. We have received over 9,000 responses, which the Government are analysing. The magnitude of the response highlights not only the importance and complexity of animal sentience in and of itself, but also the manner in which it is recognised in legislation.
On 1 February, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee in the other place published its pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill, and the Government’s response to that was published earlier this week on 23 April. I do not know whether that is the consultation which the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said she had not seen yet, but if that is the case, I will be happy to get my officials to send her a copy. However, we have responded to that consultation. In its report, the committee highlighted a number of concerns about the draft Bill, which once again serves to underscore further the complexities of the issue and why it is so important that we get this area of the law right, a point that was well made by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay. That is what we all want, but I am afraid that the amendments before us will not achieve that, as I will outline shortly.
As previously stated, there is no question but that the Government regard animals as sentient beings. As we said in relation to this issue during the Committee stage of this Bill, we certainly agree with the underlying sentiments of amendments such as that tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and of course the noble Lord, Lord Trees. However, as we also said in Committee, we cannot support them.
In order that there can be no ambiguity regarding the Government’s resolve on this matter, let me be clear again that the Government intend to retain our existing standards of animal welfare once we have left the EU and, where possible and practical, to enhance them. My noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes set out some important areas that we would want to consider in this respect. Perhaps I may also be clear that the Government fully recognise the level of support for our commitment to maintaining and enhancing our high standards of animal welfare as expressed not only in this Chamber and the other place but also among the general public. The groundswell of feeling on this matter is surely a testament to the UK as a nation of animal lovers who share a proud and long history of legislating to protect animals from cruelty and suffering, much of which of course predates our accession to the EU. As we move towards a new relationship with Europe and the rest of the world, we are absolutely determined to maintain our high animal welfare standards, to improve on them where appropriate, and to legislate to do so where necessary.
However, as has been said, the purpose of this Bill is to provide continuity by ensuring that we have a functioning statute book upon our exit from the EU. As I am sure noble Lords appreciate, in relation to the European Union and EU member states, Article 13 creates an obligation to have full regard to the welfare requirements of animals when formulating and implementing EU policies on the basis that animals are sentient beings. However, the underlying requirement to consider the needs of animals contained in Article 13 is limited to a small number of EU policy areas. The resulting impact of Article 13 on domestic law is therefore minimal. At its conception, Article 13 was considered by many to be a symbolic step change in our relationship with animals that would drive radical improvement in animal welfare across Europe. In reality, its impact has failed to materialise. Simply transferring Article 13 as it stands into domestic law would be a disservice to the cause of animal welfare and is not in keeping with the Government’s aim for the UK to be a world leader in this area.
The draft Bill that I mentioned earlier sets out a possible method to better enshrine the principles of animal sentience in domestic law. Notably, and unlike Article 13, the draft Bill does not seek to restrict the recognition of animals as sentient beings to specific policy areas, a change that we hope noble Lords will agree is a significant improvement. The draft Bill also imposes a clear duty on Ministers of the Crown to have regard to animal welfare.
Given the complexities that I touched on earlier, it is crucial that this issue is given the consideration and effective legislation that it deserves to avoid replicating the issues contained in Article 13. For this reason, I regret to say that we cannot support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. The amendment appears to seek to transfer the obligations contained in Article 13 to domestic law. However, this clause applies only to the formulation, rather than to the formulation and implementation, of law and policy. It is the Government’s view that this clause would further reduce the already limited scope of Article 13.
I would like to reassure noble Lords—and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, is particularly interested in this fact—that the Government and the EU have reached agreement on an implementation period following our exit from the EU until the end of December 2020, and Article 13 would continue to apply during that period.
Turning to Amendment 40, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Trees, the proposed new clause seeks to place a duty on Ministers of the Crown and the devolved Administrations to pay due regard to the welfare requirements of animals when formulating and implementing public policy. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his contribution, and as other noble Lords have indicated, he does of course have much experience in this area. I am also grateful for the constructive engagement that he has had with the Government, and I was pleased to meet with him earlier this afternoon.
The clause also seeks to prevent judicial review for failure to comply with that duty, instead requiring the Secretary of State to account to Parliament and requiring the devolved Administrations to account to their respective legislatures. This appears designed to address concerns raised by the Commons EFRA Committee about the need to avoid an unnecessary and costly burden being imposed on the courts in the pursuit of replacing Article 13. However—and this reflects on the points made by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Judge—due to the constitutional significance of legislation to this effect, very clear wording is required to remove the availability of judicial review. The current drafting of the amendment is not sufficiently clear, meaning that it is likely that policy decisions could still be subject to judicial review for failure to comply with the duty to pay due regard. Here I bow to the superior wisdom of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay on this subject.
In addition, the Secretary of State and the devolved Administrations would be accountable to their respective Parliaments for their compliance with the duty and need to report on an annual basis on the formulation, implementation and effectiveness of policy related to animal welfare. Subsection (3) states that it is for Parliament to decide how the duty has been properly discharged. However, it is likely to be argued by some that subsection (1) creates a distinct duty that can in fact be used to judicially review policy decisions.
We are carefully considering how to take forward the recommendations made by the EFRA Committee and others during the consultation. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trees, for his proposed formulation and will consider it carefully as we decide how to take forward the measures that we have set out in the draft Bill.
I again reiterate that the aim of this Bill is to provide a framework which ensures that our impending exit from the EU occurs in an efficient and timely manner. It will urgently provide the reassurances needed in order to plan for day one as we leave the EU. As part of that function, this Bill will retain the existing body of EU animal welfare law in UK law, ensuring that the same protections are in place in the UK following our EU exit.
I hope that what I have had to say provides reassurance to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness on the Government’s firm stance on animal sentience and that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. However, I cannot give any false hope that I will reflect further on this issue between now and Third Reading, so if the noble Lord wishes to test the opinion of the House, he should do so now.
Lord Trees
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this stimulating and interesting debate, and I hope that it has provided food for thought. Above all, I hope that it gives the Government an impetus to solve this problem. Perhaps I may address some of the points that have been raised.
The point about adding specific issues to a general Bill of this type was made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and others. I have huge respect for the noble Lord, who is a great fighter for animal welfare. I will answer in two ways. Normally I would totally agree with the point, but these are not normal times; rather, we are living through extremely extraordinary times, and I think that extraordinary times need some special and novel remedies. The second point is that we are seeking to enable a very specific and defined issue through making a modification to the EU withdrawal Bill.
With regard to the technical objections raised on proposed new subsection (3), I absolutely defer to the expertise of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope, Lord Judge and Lord Brown. We sought to give Parliament authority to have oversight of how proposed new subsection (1) would operate. Parliament could define the mechanisms and the definitions, getting over some of the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, said, it does not absolutely exclude the possibility of judicial review. It certainly reduces the possibility, which was a recommendation of the EFRA Committee report, but it does not exclude it, as the Minister acknowledged as well. We seem to have been criticised for excluding judicial review; on the other hand, perhaps we are not, so although that is an important issue it clearly needs further clarification.
No one would be more pleased than me to see the text of the amendment improved further. It could be done by the Government and tabled as an amendment on Third Reading. I had written that down before the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made his helpful intervention, for which I thank him. No one would rather see this improved than me. I am very happy to take criticism; I am an academic of long experience and used to lots of criticism. Let us get it better but let us get it done.
Finally, turning to the main issue, I do not doubt one bit the sincerity of the Government and the Minister in wishing to see this sorted but, as has been pointed out by several noble Lords, it has already taken a long time to get this rectified. A vast tsunami of legislation is coming along the tracks, which will demand a slice of a finite amount of parliamentary time. In particular, Defra has a huge burden of legislation and adjustment to make around Brexit. While I am in no way questioning the sincerity of the Government’s desire, stuff happens. Ministers come and go. Other priorities emerge. It is particularly disappointing that the Minister has made no commitment to when we might see an improved animal welfare Bill.
Our negotiators will shortly go into battle to negotiate the trade of livestock and livestock products. They need assurance behind them so that they can argue that our welfare legislative standards are absolutely the equal of those of the rest of the EU, and so on. If we wait, I fear that we will be waiting for Godot. Noble Lords need no reminding that Godot never came, so it is with a heavy heart that I feel I must test the opinion of the House.
Lord Lisvane
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
“( ) impose or increase taxation,”
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Amendment 43 is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. It would add to the prohibitions in Clause 8(3) a prohibition on increasing or imposing taxation by regulation. There are already similar prohibitions in Clauses 7 and 9 that you cannot impose or increase taxation by regulation made under these clauses.
Noble Lords might have noticed that my fox is ever so slightly shot by the admirable Amendment 47A from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, which proposes the dropping of Clause 8. I welcome it and many of the government amendments in the group. It is clear that the noble Lord has been listening hard and I am very grateful for the changes he proposes. However, I want to say a word about Amendment 104, which is lurking in this thicket of government amendments and is also in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. It would insert the same prohibition against making new taxes or increasing taxes by regulation in paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 4. Schedule 4 is about fees and charges, not taxation. The idea of the amendment is to add a prohibition on eliding from fees and charges into taxes.
When I was young, irresponsible and committing multiple misdemeanours I was sentenced to five years in Her Majesty’s Treasury—a sort of borstal or juvenile detention centre. Now that I am old, irresponsible and committing multiple misdemeanours I have very few memories of the Treasury, but one that stands out clearly is of being in the Box behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I was a private secretary—at the time of the Budget speech. At the end of the Budget speech there is an interesting ritual that takes place in silence in the House of Commons, where the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the leader of the Opposition stand up and sit down three times. They are passing the Motions that permit the instant changes of taxes that might be pre-empted. The Chancellor can say something like, “So the price of petrol at the pumps will go up by 5p at 5 pm”. When you go home and look, by God, they did go up. It is an astonishing thing. That is because since 1913, I think, it has been clear that it is not possible to increase taxes or to create a new tax other than by legislation in the House of Commons. That is what happens in that ritual immediately after the Budget: they are passing new taxes for a limited period of three to five months maximum while the Finance Bill goes through the House. The Finance Bill contains these changes and in due course becomes law.
I worry about Schedule 4, which creates the power for Ministers to create public authorities and confer on them the power to impose or create taxes. It seems a fairly fundamental breach of the principle that only Parliament may create or change tax. I am reinforced in this view by the excellent reports from our Delegated Powers Committee, which takes serious exception to the powers in Schedule 4. It points out in its 12th report of this Session, published on 31 January, that the powers are “very wide” and notes that the delegated powers memorandum submitted by the Government spells out that they would enable,
“the creation of tax-like charges, which go beyond recovering the direct cost of the provision of a service … including to allow for potential cross-subsidisation or to cover the wider functions and running costs of a public body”.
The committee comments:
“A ‘tax-like charge’ means a tax. Although regulations under clauses 7 and 9 cannot impose or increase taxation, regulations under Schedule 4 may do so. Not only can Ministers tax, Ministers can confer powers on public authorities to tax. Indeed, they can do so in tertiary legislation that has no parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever”.
The committee concludes:
“Taxation, including ‘tax-like charges’, should not be possible in fees and charges regulations made under Schedule 4. Fees and charges for services or functions should operate on no more than a full cost-recovery basis. Taxation should be a matter for Parliament, a principle enshrined in Article 4 of the Bill of Rights 1688”—
a powerful case, which persuades me.
The Delegated Powers Committee has reported again this week, in its 23rd report, having looked at the government amendments, which I have just welcomed. It remains of the view that,
“taxation, including ‘tax-like’ charges, should not be possible in regulations made under Schedule 4”,
and spells out three or four reasons for that, including the fact that it would offer,
“little consolation to be told that one is being taxed under Schedule 4 rather than under clause 7 or clause 9”.
The prohibitions are clear in the Bill in Clauses 7 and 9, although there was a prohibition that we would have added in Clause 8, had Clause 8 been there, by way of Amendment 43.
However, Amendment 104 seems to make a very valid point which I think the House should hear more about, so I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answer on it. Why do the Government feel it is right to confer on themselves and whatever public authority they wish the power to levy taxes or increase taxes, against what is usually thought to be a fairly fundamental principle of parliamentary control? I beg to move Amendment 43.
Baroness Ludford
My Lords, we on these Benches support the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who is arguing for consistency throughout the Bill that taxation or “tax-like charges” should be imposed only by primary legislation. That is all I need to say at this stage.
Lord Cormack
As my name is on the amendment, I merely endorse what my friend the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the noble Baroness have said. We want consistency. We are glad that Clause 8 is to be taken out of the Bill, but the point that he made about Schedule 4 is very important indeed. I know we cannot vote on that amendment tonight but I hope that my noble friend Lady Goldie, who I am delighted to see will reply to this debate, will be able to give us an assurance that this matter has been taken on board.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, it seems appropriate for me to speak to Amendment 47, in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, for the simple reason that government Amendment 47A seeks to remove Clause 8 from the Bill and the purpose of Amendment 47 is to amend Clause 8 by adding the words as printed on the Marshalled List.
I tabled this amendment for Report because, in my view, my noble friend the Minister’s response in Committee lacked clarity. Since then, of course, we have had a vote on an amendment requesting that the Government negotiate a customs arrangement, which was agreed in this House by a substantial majority. Of course, when that amendment goes to the other place it could be rejected, so I would just like to raise a number of issues on Report which will be helpful at Third Reading or in any future altercation between here and the other place if the amendment seeking a customs union does not find favour there.
On 21 February, my noble friend Lord Callanan explained that, in his view,
“the regulations of the EEA will continue during the implementation period. For the period after the implementation period we will seek to negotiate an ongoing relationship with the other three member states of the EEA”,
and that this approach would mean that,
“we seek the continued application of the EEA agreement for the time-limited implementation period to ensure continuity in crucial elements of our trading and non-trading relationship with those three EEA states”.
The lack of clarity came, I believe, when the Minister went on to say:
“Participation in the EEA agreement beyond the implementation period would not work for the UK. It would not deliver on the British people’s desire to have more direct control over decisions that affect their daily lives and it would mean accepting free movement of people … We will instead seek to put in place new arrangements to maintain our relationships with those three countries: Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein”.—[Official Report, 21/2/18; col. 180.]
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
Can the noble Baroness confirm that seed potatoes are part of the problem? If they are sown on both sides of the Irish border, they will not be able to be taken across unless they are subject to specific checks.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
The noble Lord has the advantage over me. I was not thinking so much of potato seeds but the fact that the Secretary of State has said that we are to have higher standards of animal hygiene, animal health and animal welfare, which I welcome. That follows on from the little debate we have just had. There will have to be physical checks. There cannot be checks managed by technology, in which case potatoes and their seeds could effectively fall within that category. So the noble Lord has actually made and developed that point very neatly for me.
In the context of Amendment 47, I urge the Minister to maintain Clause 8 in the Bill and to keep an open mind as regards potential membership of the European Economic Area or applying to join the European Free Trade Association.
Lord Beith
My Lords, notwithstanding the noble Baroness’s arguments, I want to address this group from a different standpoint: that of government Amendment 47A, which is to leave out Clause 8. It may be because I have a suspicious mind, but, while the removal of Clause 8 would be quite welcome to the Constitution Committee, which had considerable concerns about its breadth, I am worried that in removing it the Government have satisfied themselves that there is nothing they could do under Clause 8 that they could not do under Clause 17 and its broad powers. What is more, there are things which the Government can do under Clause 17 which they are prohibited from doing under Clause 8. When we come to Clause 17, we will perhaps have to look more carefully at it than has been done so far.
It would be helpful if the Minister could set out the Government’s argument for deleting Clause 8. I am quite sympathetic to that, even though I understand the standpoint from which the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, was arguing. But were we able to get the Government to move seriously in the direction of having a customs union-EEA, as our vote last week showed that the House wants to do, I am quite confident that ways could be found to do that with or without Clause 8. I would be only too glad to assist if that happens—but I am concerned about the reliance on Clause 17, which may lie behind the removal of Clause 8.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly about Clause 8 but, like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, I have signed Amendment 47. That amendment would become obsolete if Clause 8 disappears. Like my noble friend Lord Beith, I am perhaps a little suspicious to see an amendment in the names of the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. To see the Government and Opposition Front Benches agreeing makes one a little suspicious but anyway, as my noble friend suggests, perhaps the Government think that they do not need Clause 8.
One of the issues I want to raise briefly is a genuine question because I have read different things by academic colleagues on where we are in terms of the EEA from a legal perspective. Amendment 47 refers to remaining a member of the European Economic Area. Before the Minister shakes his head and says, “No, no, no, we’re leaving the EEA”, there is a question about our membership. We are a member of the EEA as a member of the European Union. All EU members are members of the European Economic Area. My understanding is that we are individually members, not just as part of the EU 28, so do we legally have to resign from the EEA? The assumption is that we are there automatically as a member of the EU. That was my genuine question. A slightly more facetious question would be: given how keen noble Lords who favour Brexit are on free trade, should we perhaps be thinking about going back to EFTA where we started off way back in the 1950s?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
It is late at night and I cannot resist it. For the Liberal Democrats who were in coalition with the Conservatives for five years to be suspicious about my name on one amendment is a bit rich. On the whole I resist doing this, but I am afraid I was led into it. I thought the Minister would enjoy that.
There are two debates here. On Amendment 43, to which I also have my name, as does the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer—but I hope that does not give the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, too many worries—I associate myself with what was said by the no longer young but, I gather, still irresponsible noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I particularly look forward to the answers to the serious questions raised about Schedule 4, which is referred to in Amendment 104.
I very happily put my name to Amendment 47A. Were any of the things on the international agreement arising out of the withdrawal deal to come to pass, the clause could be in the withdrawal and implementation Bill, which is probably a much better place because it would be much more specific. I am not in favour of wide powers just in case. We have too many just-in-case powers in the Bill as it stands, so the deletion of Clause 8 is an improvement to the Bill.
Since Amendment 47 has been moved into this group, it is probably right that I should say a word about the Opposition’s position on it. Since the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, is an academic and much better read than I am, I am sure she is familiar with the House of Commons briefing on this. It is clear that the vast majority of legal advice, certainly that which I had when I was in Brussels and elsewhere, is that the EEA combines EFTA and the EU—there is an even more expert head nodding. So, it was a nice try, but it is a red herring, and one of the things that we do not want to do is to give people false hope that there is a way out of the mess that this Government got us into—sorry about that.
That is why I shall a word about rejoining EFTA. I worked for an EFTA organisation many years ago. It was a very nice, friendly body at the time, but it was larger than it is now. There is an idea that we could just rejoin and that it would accept us. The Prime Minister of the largest EFTA country has already said, “Ahem. Hang on a moment. This is going to be a little more difficult and complicated than you think”. There are fewer than 14 million people, I think, in the EFTA countries. That is more than in London but not bigger than London and Wales combined. There are serious questions about whether structures that suit their economies, size and way of working in marketing and in other things would suit our economy with 66 million people. I worry that people think there is a nice, easy option. On this side, we are not persuaded that it would be easy or necessarily correct for us.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate as well as those who have worked very constructively with the Government behind the scenes to reach the position we are in today. This is an important group of amendments and, if noble Lords will excuse the football metaphor, I can say that this is an amendment grouping of two halves. In the first half we have Clause 8, where I believe the Government and the opposition’s thinking are aligned, and in the second half we have Schedule 4, where there remains some disagreement.
I will begin with Clause 8, perhaps specifically in response to the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Beith. The Clause 8 power was originally included in the Bill to ensure that the UK’s withdrawal from the EU did not affect its reputation as a nation which honours its promises and respects its international obligations. The power also includes the ability to prevent breaches of international obligations outside retained EU law and to meet any existing obligations requiring an imposition or increase of taxation. This element of the power, in particular, has been the subject of much debate in both Houses, as Amendment 43, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, demonstrates.
We were concerned that this power might be necessary to ensure that the UK could continue to comply with all its existing international obligations. As the Bill has progressed through Parliament, the Government have continued to plan for multiple scenarios and it has become clear that there are better and more effective ways to ensure that the Government’s international obligations continue to be met than through the use of Clause 8. Therefore, in line with our policy to take delegated powers only where there is a clear and present need for them, the Government have tabled amendments to remove Clause 8 and the corresponding power for devolved authorities in Schedule 2, Part 2. I am grateful to noble Lords who have indicated that the Government’s proposition has found favour.
Any measures still required to remedy or prevent breaches of our international obligations will be made in other primary legislation—perhaps that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Beith—or under other delegated powers where that is permissible. I think we have now managed to reassure noble Lords that the Government are very sensitive to the points which have been raised in debate in Committee and on Report. As a consequence, the Government do not now think that there is a need for an entirely separate clause in this Bill, hence our amendment to remove Clause 8. Given that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, will be happy to withdraw his amendments in light of the Government’s proposed offer. I hope that this offer demonstrates that the Government are willing to act on the constructive discussions that take place in this House. We try to consider all amendments carefully as long as they do not undermine the primary purpose of the Bill and, where we can, we act upon them where appropriate.
I turn briefly to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering’s Amendment 47. It has rather interposed itself into this group so I am doing a bit of shuffling of notes here. I might begin with a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith: my understanding is that once the implementation period ends, the EEA agreement will no longer apply to the UK. I also understand that in triggering Article 127 our legal position remains unchanged. Article 127 does not need to be triggered for the agreement to cease to have effect. I hope that clarifies the points that my noble friend sought clarification on.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I agree with the reading by the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, of whether one has continuing membership of the EEA after one has left the EU: one does not. However, I am struck by what the Minister has just said about the moment when one leaves. I am not sure that it is at the end of the transition period. I think it may be at the moment when we leave the EU—in other words, in March next year, not 21 months later. I am not quite sure why the lawyers in the EEA, EFTA and the EU should accept that once we have left the EU we still remain in the EEA.
Baroness Goldie
Or offer up a prayer, one or the other. My noble friend Lord Callanan says we are seeking to continue these international agreements, and I presume that is forming part of the negotiations.
I turn to Amendment 47 specifically because my noble friend Lady McIntosh deserves a response. Initially it was in a group of its own and my noble friend Lord Callanan was going to respond in detail, but I shall try to deal with the substance of the amendment. I must begin by repeating that the Government’s intention is to end our membership of the single market because remaining in it would fail the first test for the future economic partnership that the Prime Minister set out at Mansion House: it would fail in delivering control of our borders, law and money and would mean the UK accepting the four freedoms, including freedom of movement. That simply would not deliver the result of the referendum. As the Prime Minister set out in her Mansion House speech, the Government are instead seeking the broadest and deepest possible partnership, covering more sectors and co-operating more fully than any free trade agreement anywhere in the world today. Given those objectives, I cannot support the amendments that seek to keep the UK in the single market.
My noble friend seeks in particular to include any obligations or legal requirements arising from continued membership of the EEA or of EFTA, should agreement be reached on remaining part of the EEA or rejoining EFTA, in a definition of “international obligations” for the purposes of Clause 8. As I have said, the Government have tabled an amendment to remove Clause 8 from the Bill and, as has been made clear, we are not seeking to remain in the single market through the EEA agreement.
For clarification, the Government have no plans to rejoin EFTA because leaving the EU offers us an opportunity to forge a new role for ourselves in the world, to negotiate our own trade agreements and to be a positive and powerful force for free trade. It is also worth mentioning that membership of EFTA would not necessarily be a quick and easy solution, as some have argued; all the EFTA states would have to agree to us rejoining and, even if they welcomed us back, we would not have immediate or automatic access to their free trade agreements. Our entry into each one would need to be negotiated individually with the third countries involved. Similarly, if we were to seek longer-term participation in the EEA agreement, we would have to first join EFTA.
It is not proper for Governments to legislate contrary to their policy intention. We cannot bind future Parliaments and therefore do not need to purport to legislate to leave the door open. Future Governments can of course bring forward whatever legislation they choose to. In any event, joining the EEA or EFTA would give rise to new obligations and the implementation of such new requirements would not be possible under the Clause 8 power, which covers only existing obligations. I hope I have satisfied my noble friend as to why the Government cannot accept her amendment, and in the circumstances I ask her to withdraw it.
Baroness Ludford
I apologise if this is not quite the right moment to ask the Minister to clarify something; I do not know if she has finished on the EEA. In case she has, will she write with the answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr: how can it be possible that we stay in the EEA in transition if the Government’s legal case is that the Article 50 notification covered both the EU and the EEA? When we leave the EU next March we must also leave the EEA, so it cannot be possible that we stay in the EEA during transition. It cannot be both; it is one or the other.
Baroness Goldie
We are seeking to remain part of the international treaties to which we are party, through negotiation. I will certainly undertake to write to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, because I have no more information beyond what I have been given and I would be straying into very uncertain territory if I tried to be more specific.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
Would my noble friend comment on one more point? The clarification that I was seeking relates to the Hansard column where my noble friend Lord Callanan clearly said exactly what my noble friend has just said: it is the Government’s intention that we remain in the EEA until the end of the transitional period, and it is then the Government’s intention to negotiate new arrangements with the three member countries of the EEA. I seek clarification today on something that was not in Hansard: at what point will those negotiations either commence or be concluded? The whole of Clause 8 relates to maintaining our international obligations. I would like to know what our obligations to the EEA will be after December 2021.
Baroness Goldie
I am reluctant to disappoint my noble friend, but that is all germane to the negotiations and I have no more information I can add at this point. I want to make progress with the rest of the amendments in this group, which cover a range of aspects on the important issues of imposing or increasing taxation. With regard to the second half of the group, I note that the position of the Government and that of the noble Lords who proposed them are much closer to each other than they were, and I hope that we may have reached a point at which we could agree to disagree.
In responding to Amendment 73, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Cormack, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Hayter, I wish first to point to the Government’s amendments that we shall consider later on Report. I shall not pre-empt that debate, but I wish to make clear that the Government and noble Lords are not so very far apart. The Government have heard the concerns raised in Parliament and recognise the significance of the question of how Parliament approves fees and charges on the public. Indeed, this has been a question of great historic importance in the development of this institution and of the relationship between this House and the other place.
The Government agree that delegated powers, particularly in this sensitive area, should be subject to close scrutiny by Parliament. The Bill as introduced provided that any statutory instruments made under the powers in Schedule 4 which established a new fee or charge regime, or which sub-delegated this power, had to be subject to the affirmative procedure. In other cases, Ministers held discretion to choose between the affirmative and negative procedures as appropriate. I understand, however, that noble Lords considered that was not a satisfactory position, so the Government have reflected further.
The balance we have sought to ensure is that there is a level of scrutiny of the exercise of the powers in this Bill which satisfies the needs of Parliament without unduly expending limited parliamentary time on a great morass of minor instruments better suited to the negative procedure. We are therefore proposing amendments that require all SIs under Schedule 4 to be subject to the affirmative procedure unless they are adjusting fees or charges to account for inflation. This will ensure that where the Government wish to lower a charge, restructure a fee from daily to hourly, or increase a fee to reflect a change in how it is provided, that must be debated and voted upon by both Houses. Despite this, the Government believe that allowing inflation-related adjustments to be subject to the negative procedure is proportionate. Such a measure reflects no change in policy, or in how a service is provided, but simply reflects developments outside this place and changes in what we have termed “the value of money”. Even this, if appropriate, could be brought before your Lordships’ House for a debate and a vote. I hope noble Lords will accept this as addressing their concerns and will not press these amendments.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I thank the noble Baroness for her response and I look forward to a letter on the EEA/EFTA membership point.
I am left a bit concerned about Amendment 104. There is clearly major disagreement between the Minister and the Delegated Powers Committee on the issue. For me, there is a bigger issue than that here. The European Communities Act 1972 is absolutely explicit that it cannot be used as a basis for taxing. When we take back the powers conferred in the 1972 Act, if we are allowing Ministers under Schedule 4 to set up public authorities that may tax and Ministers themselves to tax, we are doing something new. It is different. I am puzzled about that. I am sad that this amendment, which seems to me to raise a rather important issue, has been placed in a wider group with many other amendments. I wonder whether the Government would like to think a bit further about this before we come to Third Reading.
If the Government are happy with the prohibition in Clauses 7 and 9, why can it not also, for consistency, be in paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 4? It is a very long time since I was in the Treasury—I served quite a short sentence and got let out for bad behaviour—but I still feel that there is an unsatisfactory feature here which we have not quite got to the bottom of. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Callanan
Lord Whitty
“Transport connectivity
(1) The Secretary of State must within two months of the passing of this Act lay before both Houses of Parliament a report indicating the manner in which continuity and safety of transport is to be maintained following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU.(2) The report referred to in subsection (1) must include proposals to maintain a relationship with the deliberations and operational activities of the EU’s transport Executive Agencies, whether by continued participation in the European Agencies in some form or by establishing an effective equivalent within the United Kingdom or by other means.(3) The Agencies referred to in subsection (2) include—(a) in respect of civil aviation, the European Aviation Safety Agency;(b) in respect of maritime transport, the European Maritime Safety Agency; and(c) in respect of rail transport, the European Railway Agency.(4) A Minister of the Crown must seek approval for the proposals in the report under subsection (2) by means of motions in both Houses of Parliament.(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument provide for the implementation of any proposal approved by both Houses of Parliament under subsection (4).(6) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 48 is in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lord Judd. I have often remarked, in my long years in this Chamber, that the attendance in the Chamber is often in inverse proportion to the range of interests in the population and economy as a whole. I am glad we have the additional attendance of the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg. This is a very important issue to a large proportion of our population and a large chunk of our industry—everybody who is ever a traveller, a tourist, an importer or an exporter, or who buys those imports or sells those exports, everybody who works in the international transport sector and the whole of the aerospace and other manufacturing industries which support all those sectors.
Ministers will recognise that I am returning to my favourite subject in the Bill: the future relationship with the EU agencies. Frankly, I have at no point received clarity from the Government—nor have the industrial sectors—as to their aim in the negotiations and what they would like the future relationship to be between our industries in those sectors and the EU agencies of which we are currently full members.
I was encouraged in this view only yesterday. As noble Lords will know, I am a member of your Lordships’ EU Select Committee. This was in public proceedings, so I can reveal it. We had before us yesterday among our witnesses the director-general of the CBI. We asked her what were the practical problems for her members that were being brought to her, of the uncertainty and lack of clarity over Brexit. The very first thing she mentioned was that there were so many sectors that did not know what their future relationship with those agencies and the processes under those agencies would be—in other words, the very terms of trade and the terms of the relationships under which they will operate. That underlines the Government’s failure to explain what they are after.
We had some glimmer of light from no less a person than the Prime Minister herself. In her Mansion House speech, she referred to having to have continued relationships with the aviation agencies. She referred to associate membership. I have said before that associate membership does not bring the kind of rights and influence that we currently have, but nevertheless it is a step forward on anything else the Government have said. On the rest of the agencies—there are not only the three mentioned in the amendment, but roughly 40 other agencies that affect different sectors of our economic and cultural life—we have no glimmer of what the Government intend.
Transport is a vital sector. I would hope that Ministers could give at least as clear an assurance as I think the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, gave on Monday in relation to my equivalent amendment on the environment and food safety agencies. He said that, because the Government were committed to bringing forward a new statutory authority for environments, before we reach Third Reading greater clarity will be shed by the Government on the role of the environmental agencies. I would hope that we could have at least a glimmer of such hope with regard to the transport agencies.
The aviation industry is probably the most acutely affected by this, as not only British airlines and European airlines but also American and third-party airlines do not know what they will be selling in a year’s time. We do not know what the landing rights will be; we do not know how British-based airlines will operate, even through the transition period. At the moment, in the transition period, if we understand the EU’s position clearly, they will no longer be members of those agencies. EASA, to take the most important example in this amendment, has been greatly influenced by British presence, expertise and regulation. The British aviation industry is the biggest single such industry in Europe, and the tourist industry in Spain and several other Mediterranean countries depend on it continuing to be so. If we are no longer full members of EASA, the airlines themselves will be in difficulty in knowing quite what they will sell to their customers—passengers —in less than 12 months, and even more so beyond 2020.
I am not entirely sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, or the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, will reply to this debate. I do not mind who says it, and hope that they are all agreed, but I would like a bit more hope that we can get greater clarity on these vital transport agencies, which are key to connectivity across Europe. We ought to have clarity before we complete the passage of the Bill, and the Government have only a few weeks to provide that clarity. I beg to move.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, it is always good to support my noble friend Lord Whitty. He invariably brings to our deliberations well-argued, well-analysed speeches that in the end boil down to common sense. His arguments are absolutely irresistible, and I cannot imagine that the Government would not want to be positive in their response, in one way or another.
One of the opportunities that you get when living in Cumbria is that when you have clear skies—and we have clear skies more often than the cynics suppose—one sees the indispensability of British airspace to European traffic, using the Arctic routes to North America and beyond. There are mutual interests at stake here, which is partly why this is so urgent. We cannot scramble something together at the last moment as a consequence of the action that we have taken constitutionally; we must plan now for how we are going to guarantee effectiveness in meeting the challenges of that mutual interdependence.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I support my two noble friends who have spoken to this amendment. I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group and a member of the board of the European Rail Freight Association. They are absolutely right in the worry that these agencies will not be able to accept us after Brexit. I know the European railway agency people very well, and they would love us to stay, obviously, and would love to work with us, but of course they are forbidden from doing so by the European Commission, because that is part of the regulations. But the consequences, as my noble friends have said, are actually very serious. The manufacturing issue is not just about how we are going to take the components back and forward—it is the standards to which they are created and built and the safety certification that has to go along with it, which cannot easily after Brexit cross between us and the rest of Europe.
The issue also occurs on the railways, partly with manufactured items and partly with the operation. We do not yet know whether the train drivers that go across in the tunnel—Eurostar or rail freight—will have to have separate licences. The one good thing that the European railway agency started off doing was to try to get a common standard for red tail-lights across Europe, because each member state had its own standard, and when you got to a frontier somebody had to walk to the back of the train and change the lights. Mercifully, that is a thing of the past—but, unless all these issues are sorted out and the necessary drivers and other staff get the proper training, there will be no trains through the tunnel, and there may not be any flights, if my noble friend’s comments on the air service are correct.
We really need to get on with this. Everybody is waiting for a decision and, if we do not, we can expect to have very little traffic on the railways when we leave the EU. I do not think that the same will apply to the ferries across the channel, but we do not know. How all that affects the transport between the north and south of Ireland and across the Irish Sea, we had better leave to another day—but I hope that the Minister will have some positive response to my noble friends’ questions.
Baroness Smith of Newnham
My Lords, we have been told frequently that this Bill is about providing legal certainty on the day that we leave the European Union. We have already heard from three noble Lords a whole range of issues that will be extremely difficult in the transport sector when we leave the EU. If we cannot stay in the European agencies, are the Government doing to do at least as much as proposed new subsection (2) suggests and establish,
“an effective equivalent within the United Kingdom”?
If we are to have legal certainly, it is not enough simply to enshrine EU law into United Kingdom law. We need to know what the standards will be on the day that we leave. This is not something that is just hypothetical; this is not about widgets—it is about how our transport system functions on the day we leave. So far, we have not had sufficient answers on this, so I hope that the Minister might be able to tell us something that goes beyond the idea that this is simply going to be about the negotiations.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I look at this amendment and note that it is about the continuity and safety of transport. I have fewer fears than my colleagues about the matter of safety, because the industries concerned were moving towards standardisation decades before the EU was formed. The area where I am very alarmed is the whole issue of traffic rights. I spent 22 years in aviation, 20 of them working for BOAC and British Airways and, towards the end, as the number 2 in British Airways’ marketing department. That was the world pre-open skies and pre-EU, and it was horrific. Literally every city pair had a different agreement about it. All of them had to be agreed. Those were the days when Hong Kong was a colony, which was a golden card in negotiations. The idea of having to start from scratch and do all 134 city-pair negotiations is very difficult to understand.
Similarly, we have the same problem on the roads. The professionals who talk about the port of Dover say that the slightest delays through the port will cause chaos to the point where we have to worry about fresh food getting to our plates. The noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, laid on for interested Peers a meeting with the Secretary of State. He gave a very smooth presentation, which I would précis as, “It’ll be alright on the night”. He justified this by saying that it would be in both parties’ economic interest to conclude sensible and rational agreements. I think he is a bit heroically naive; I have spent most of my professional career in negotiations, and I have always found rationality to come a rather poor third place after emotion and power. The reality of these negotiations is that they will be conducted by politicians and bureaucrats.
The great thing about the EU is that it is refreshingly transparent. Perhaps more people should read what it produces more frequently. From time to time, in this negotiation, it produces guidelines. The first sets of guidelines were more or less delivered as agreed by the Council, and the latest set was agreed on 23 March. A six-page document was published with those guidelines adopted by the European Council at the meeting on 23 March; one paragraph says that,
“the European Council has to take into account the repeatedly stated positions of the UK, which limit the depth of such a future partnership. Being outside the Customs Union and the Single Market will inevitably lead to frictions in trade. Divergence in external tariffs and internal rules as well as absence of common institutions and a shared legal system, necessitates checks and controls to uphold the integrity of the EU Single Market as well as of the UK market. This unfortunately will have negative economic consequences, in particular in the United Kingdom”.
They are very clear about just how firm their position is. One has to recognise that they are representing the EU 27. They are there to meet their demands, and every member has a veto on this agreement. We have left the club: they are not looking after us anymore; that is not their responsibility.
So where do we stand? We have an emotional battle to fight—emotional or political, call it what you like—and we also have a power battle to fight. Do we have any cards? One card that we have with the EU is money, but we more or less agreed that anyway, so that one goes away. The other thing that we used to fight on over the decades after World War II when establishing air rights was reciprocity. That means, “You can’t come to our airfield unless we can come to yours”. The problem with that is that we are a bit of everybody else’s aviation activity. For us, the world is where we need to be and the world, at the moment, is determined and available through the European Union. If we cannot have access to the world, then our industry will be seriously damaged.
I hope that my pessimism is not justified, but I think that getting a better deal than the status quo is, sadly, highly unlikely. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that the energy is there to try to achieve the status quo, because otherwise it will damage us and it will damage our EU friends, but it will damage them a great deal less than it will damage us.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, we have bags of energy here; let me try to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that there are bags of energy in the negotiations.
Lord Tunnicliffe
That statement implies that the negotiations have started. If so, it would be good to have some refreshingly open details of them in the transparent way that the EU works.
Baroness Goldie
That was a general observation, not a specific comment; I referred to the general process of negotiations as they have been taking place.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for raising this important issue, because it provides me with the opportunity to reassure the House about issues of transport connectivity and safety. The noble Lord has helpfully brought this before the Chamber and I shall try to provide some reassurance.
The Government are considering carefully all the potential implications arising from our exit, and that, of course, includes implications for the UK’s transport connectivity and for our future relationship with the European Union agencies. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, rightly referred to the significant numbers of people and groups of people who rely on that connectivity. He referred to importers, exporters and tourists, and he was absolutely correct. We are committed to getting the best possible deal that we can. We are focused on securing the right arrangements for the future so that our transport industry can continue to thrive and so that passengers can have opportunities, choice and attractive prices. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that, in particular, we want to secure continued connectivity for transport operators and users and we want to maintain the safety of international transport operations. These are obviously extremely important objectives.
We are absolutely committed to maintaining high standards of safety—another very important objective. The Bill is part of that because it allows the Government to be clear that we are committed to ensuring that exit will not jeopardise a harmonised safety system that benefits both the UK and EU networks and maintains high safety standards. We strongly believe that it is in the interests of both the UK and the EU to ensure continued productive co-operation on safety and standards in the future, regardless of the outcome of negotiations. We want to ensure a smooth and orderly transition to new arrangements, while maintaining and developing the current levels of transport connectivity between the UK and the EU.
The Government fully recognise the central role that transport will play in supporting our new trading relationships as we leave the EU—in short, transport will be essential. That is why we are committed to avoiding disrupting trade or imposing additional regulatory burdens on industry in the UK or the EU.
Specifically on the UK’s continued participation in the European Aviation Safety Agency, the European Maritime Safety Agency and the European Union Agency for Railways as a third country, I know—I accept that it is frustrating—that I will disappoint some noble Lords when I reiterate our position that participation in these agencies is a matter for the negotiations. Our participation in European Union agencies is of course something that the Bill cannot legislate for.
However, I will try to provide some comfort because, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, acknowledged, the Prime Minister in her Mansion House speech in March clearly confirmed the Government’s ambition to seek continued participation in the EASA system. There are provisions in EU legislation which allow non-EU countries to participate in the EASA system, as Switzerland, Norway and Iceland currently do. The Prime Minister acknowledged that an appropriate financial contribution will be necessary, and that there will be a role for the Court of Justice of the European Union. We also value information-sharing with other countries through the EMSA and the EUAR.
After our exit from the EU, we will ensure that UK agencies and operators have the tools they need to manage UK services as effectively in the future as they do now. For instance—this is probably of particular interest to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—Britain’s railways are among the safest in the EU, and railway safety standards will continue to be safeguarded by an independent safety regulator, the Office of Rail and Road. In fact, it is historic UK practice that the European safety framework largely reflects. We should bear that in mind. For decades we have worked closely with our European partners to develop a regime in transport safety and standards that reflects UK practice.
I make it clear—and in doing so, I hope that I may offer some comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe—that, whether or not we remain part of the EU, executive agencies and EU safety regulations will be incorporated into domestic law by the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. Importantly, this means that on exit the same safety rules will continue to apply.
Again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for his informed interest in this important area. I hope that I have satisfied him that we understand the importance of maintaining the continuity and safety of our vital transport links.
Lord Berkeley
Could the Minister just explain something on the question of railway safety? The present system is that the European Union Agency for Railways can give approval for the manufacturing and bringing into operation of rolling stock in any member state, including our own. Will that continue, or will we have a separate agency and then have to get separate approval to operate in France and elsewhere? If that happens, we will go back 20 years in interoperability.
Baroness Goldie
The noble Lord raises an important point. Again, I have to say that yes, that will be part of the negotiation process. It is all to do with what the Government seek to achieve, which I have tried to outline. However, I think the noble Lord will fully understand that I am unable to say whether this or that will happen or be possible, as it is entirely subject to what we are able to negotiate.
It is important that, as negotiations proceed, your Lordships are kept as fully informed as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, was good enough to refer to the meetings which have been taking place; he was perhaps a little dismissive of their value, but it is important that Ministers engage with your Lordships, and I and my noble friend Lady Sugg will certainly continue to do that.
Lord Tunnicliffe
I was dismissive not of the value of the meetings but of the level of assurance.
Baroness Goldie
I thank the noble Lord for his clarification. This issue will continue to be an important factor as we engage in the negotiations. I have endeavoured in so far as I can to set out for your Lordships the current situation, what the Government’s objectives are and how the Prime Minister anticipates the way forward. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, to withdraw his amendment and observe that the Government do not intend to return to this matter at Third Reading.
Lord Whitty
My Lords, the noble Baroness was doing quite well until her last sentence. I take a limited amount of comfort from what she says are the Government’s desired outcomes. I am sure that we all subscribe to those outcomes on safety and co-operation and so forth. However, these entities have provided the basis on which European railways, European maritime contacts and European air contacts have operated with increasing closeness over the last few decades. The situation is similar with roads. At least yesterday, with regard to haulage, the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, provided a necessary but not complete basis for activity to replace the European Community licence system. In these areas, the industries feel uncomfortable that they do not know what is happening and do not know how to plan ahead. That has been underlined to us from time to time and Ministers must have had the same kinds of approaches. Therefore, it would have been helpful if the Minister had given us a promise—in writing, if necessary—that the objectives would be spelled out in a little more detail.
We are in an asymmetrical position. We know what the EU has said. In its guidelines for the negotiations, it has said that not from December 2020 but from March next year we will no longer be a member of those agencies and will be invited only at its request for particular reasons. That is the EU’s negotiating position. We are not clear what the Government’s negotiating position is in relation to these or any other agencies. The Prime Minister has, admittedly, said slightly more about aviation but, even there, she referred at one point to continued participation and at another point to associate membership, which have rather different connotations.
Therefore, despite the noble Baroness’s efforts and some of the reassurances that she has given us, which I appreciate, I am no clearer about which way we are going. If I am not clear, I suspect that those who run our airlines, railways, maritime services—the ferries in particular—and roads are not clear either. On transport depends the rest of our industry and our society. If those industries are not clear, that bodes ill for how we respond economically to the shock of Brexit.
I will beg leave to withdraw the amendment with some regret—I had hoped for better from the Minister—but the issue remains, and I certainly advise Ministers to address that issue with the industries as rapidly as possible.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 30th April 2018
(7 years ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 79-R-V Fifth marshalled list for Report (PDF, 409KB) - (30 Apr 2018)
16:41 - Division on Amendment 49 - Ayes: 335 / Noes: 244 - Amendment 49 agreed.
18:34 - Division on Amendment 50 - Ayes: 202 / Noes: 260 - Amendment 50 disagreed.
19:26 - Division on Amendment 51 - Ayes: 270 / Noes: 233 - Amendment 51 agreed.
22:08 - Division on Amendment 59 - Ayes: 205 / Noes: 181 - Amendment 59 agreed.
Viscount Hailsham
“Parliamentary approval of the outcome of negotiations with the European Union
(1) Without prejudice to any other statutory provision relating to the withdrawal agreement, Her Majesty’s Government may conclude such an agreement only if a draft has been—(a) approved by a resolution of the House of Commons, and(b) subject to the consideration of a motion in the House of Lords.(2) So far as practicable, a Minister of the Crown must make arrangements for the resolution provided for in subsection (1)(a) to be debated and voted on before the European Parliament has debated and voted on the draft withdrawal agreement.(3) Her Majesty’s Government may implement a withdrawal agreement only if Parliament has approved the withdrawal agreement and any transitional measures agreed within or alongside it by an Act of Parliament.(4) Subsection (5) applies in each case that any of the conditions in subsections (6) to (8) is met.(5) Her Majesty’s Government must follow any direction in relation to the negotiations under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union which has been—(a) approved by a resolution of the House of Commons, and(b) subject to the consideration of a motion in the House of Lords.(6) The condition in this subsection is that the House of Commons has not approved the resolution required under subsection (1)(a) by 30 November 2018.(7) The condition in this subsection is that the Act of Parliament required under subsection (3) has not received Royal Assent by 31 January 2019.(8) The condition in this subsection is that no withdrawal agreement has been reached between the United Kingdom and the European Union by 28 February 2019.(9) In this section, “withdrawal agreement” means an agreement (whether or not ratified) between the United Kingdom and the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union which sets out the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU and the framework for the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union.”
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that I am in danger of repeating myself, in the sense that I now rise to move this new clause—which I am glad to say has attracted support from many parts of this House. This amendment is designed to ensure that the future of our country is determined by Parliament and not by Ministers. The Prime Minister and other senior Ministers have promised Parliament a meaningful vote; and in a parliamentary system of government, parliamentarians, and in particular Members of the House of Commons, have a right and a duty to determine what is meant by “a meaningful vote”. When the negotiations are concluded, both country and Parliament will be asked to consider the outcome, terms or no terms. The question that will then arise is what should be the role of Parliament, and in particular that of the House of Commons. My view is as follows.
If terms have been agreed, the choices available to Parliament, and in particular to the House of Commons, should obviously be to accept or to reject those terms. If the decision is to reject the terms, Parliament should have the right to suggest further negotiations—I should be rather chary about that, but it should have that right; or to determine that we leave the European Union without terms—that is, to crash out; or to determine that we stay in the European Union on the existing terms. In the event that no terms have been agreed, the same choices should be available to Parliament: that is, to accept that the country should leave the European Union on no terms; or to determine that the country should stay in the European Union on the existing terms; or to request further negotiations, although I am chary about that. In other words, whatever the outcome, terms or no terms, this country’s future should be determined by Parliament, ultimately by the House of Commons, and not by Ministers. In a parliamentary democracy, that is what ought to be meant by “a meaningful vote”.
So, we need to ask ourselves: what is on offer from the Government? Those who were present in Committee will have heard my noble friend Lord Callanan set out the Government’s position. He did so frequently and with clarity and we are indebted to him. On 14 March, my noble friend Lord Patten of Barnes—I am glad to see him in his place—asked this direct question:
“Perhaps we are not being as intelligent as we should be. In the phrase ‘a meaningful vote’, what does the word ‘meaningful’ mean?”
Noble Lords may think that that was a very sensible question. He got rather a curious and surprising answer. The Minister said:
“We have never used the term ‘a meaningful vote’”.—[Official Report, 14/3/2018; col. 1650.]
He was, of course, mistaken. The phrase “a meaningful vote” has been used by the Prime Minister, Mr Davis and other senior Ministers on many occasions. I am indebted to the House of Lords Library for examples, which I would happily share with my noble friend should he require them. However, given that my noble friend has, throughout these debates, always adhered very strictly to the script in his ministerial folder—he is not a Minister who goes off-piste—his response troubles me. The Government must not be allowed to dilute or in any way move away from previously given commitments, however meagre they may be.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, this amendment also bears my name and the names of other noble Lords. I will focus my brief remarks on the eventuality of the United Kingdom facing the prospect of leaving the EU in March 2019 without any deal having been reached between the EU and the UK on the terms of a withdrawal treaty, or on the framework for a new relationship between them. I will, too, set out a pretty compelling case for this eventuality to be covered if a parliamentary approval process is to be genuinely meaningful.
This House is no stranger to debate on the no-deal situation. When we considered the Bill authorising the Government to trigger Article 50 before the end of March 2017, we voted by a substantial majority for a meaningful process that covered the no-deal eventuality. The other House, where at that time the Government had a single-party majority, rejected that amendment, and we did not insist. We must, however, face the fact that this Government have never made any commitment to give Parliament any say on a no-deal outcome, although they have committed themselves—rather inadequately—to giving Parliament a say if a deal is struck. The rest of this amendment deals with those circumstances. In the no-deal scenario, there is a void—a vacuum. That is not really tolerable for such an eventuality.
I do not intend to speculate about what circumstances might give rise to this eventuality—that would be a bit of a mug’s game six months before the end of a negotiation. The Government seem to have put away their rather foolish mantra that no deal is better than a bad deal, which I welcome. Suffice it to say that until the final moment of the Brexit negotiations, no deal remains a possibility and needs to be provided for in any meaningful process of parliamentary approval.
On the substance of no deal, I say only that there is now a much wider understanding of the fact that it would be seriously damaging to our economy, as we fell back on WTO terms. The Business Committee of another place brought that out very cogently as recently as last week. There are plenty of other disadvantages outside the trade field if we were to find ourselves going over a cliff edge in March 2019, but this is not the occasion nor the time to have that debate about what the consequences of no deal would be. What needs to be debated today, and I hope decided, is to set out the fact, as subsection (8) of the proposed new clause provides, that Parliament and not the Executive needs to be the ultimate arbiter in such circumstances. I hope that we will establish that in this House at the end of this debate.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, my name is also on this amendment, and I wish to speak briefly on the role that this Chamber needs to play. We are a revising Chamber and we have spent some time looking at the detail of this extremely complex and important proposal to leave the European Union. We also have to be concerned with constitutional propriety, and we are rightly concerned that a referendum which was partly won on an argument to restore parliamentary sovereignty should not be allowed to lead to greater executive power.
As the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said, the Prime Minister has promised that Parliament would be allowed a meaningful vote on negotiations once they are completed. The Secretary of State for DExEU has promised that the resolution presented to Parliament will cover both the withdrawal agreement and the terms for our future relationship with the EU. That should provide some reassurance against fears that most difficult issues are likely to be left for further discussion after the UK has formally the EU.
This amendment puts those promises into legislative form. It spells out the deadlines required to ensure that Parliament is permitted to scrutinise whatever is agreed in good time before the end of March next year. The amendment requires Commons approval by November 30 and Royal Assent by 31 January, and provides a backstop for ensuring parliamentary sovereignty if no agreement is reached by the Government by the end of February. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is quoted in today’s Daily Mail as saying that these are “false deadlines”. I hope that in replying as the Minister he will tell us, if these deadlines are to be disregarded, how the UK will get through the constitutional requirements for leaving the EU by the end of March 2019 and what deadlines he might propose instead.
We are acutely aware of divisions within the Cabinet and the Conservative Party about what form of customs arrangements ought to be acceptable. That is a fundamental issue which is not yet decided but which the Government ought to have resolved, at the latest, by the time that they triggered Article 50 some 18 months ago. In her Mansion House speech two months ago, our Prime Minister admitted that it is in Britain’s national interests to remain associated with many of the EU agencies that hard-line Brexiteers wanted to break away from. She promised in that speech a new security treaty with the EU, to ensure continuing co-operation in combating organised crime and counterterrorism, and a close partnership in foreign policy and defence. But we have been told almost nothing more since then about such important issues or about the compromises of sovereignty in the national interest which they would require. We risk a backlash from all sides when the terms for leaving are sprung at the last minute on an uninformed country.
Ministers have repeatedly assured us that negotiations are well on track, even though they will not tell us what they are doing, and that an agreement can be reached by October—in less than five months’ time. If that is true, this amendment offers no difficulties for the Government; if it is not true and the likelihood is that all that will be agreed by October is a loose statement of principles, with the hard details of our future relationship kicked down the track to be sorted out in the implementation period—as the Government like to call it—after we have left the EU, then Parliament needs to intervene. Leaving the European Union without a clear and detailed agreement on the future relationship would be a disaster for our economy, our foreign policy, our relationship with Ireland and our internal and external security. This amendment guards against that unfortunate outcome.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
Will the Minister address one point when summarising? Has consideration has been given to the wording of the meaningful vote? If so, what will it be?
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, I have great respect for all the proposers of this amendment. It makes me all the more astonished that they should put forward a clause which could, and very probably would, lead to not one but several constitutional crises. I am reluctant to draw the conclusion that that is the purpose of the new clause, that that is the intention behind the new clause, that so determined are its movers to thwart the will of the British people to leave the European Union that they wish to provoke a constitutional crisis, but that is the perilous outcome to which this new clause opens the door.
My noble friend made a very fine speech, but the new clause which stands in his name goes far beyond the fine sentiments which he addressed. I shall concentrate on just two of its consequences. First, the new clause gives your Lordships’ House a veto on any agreement which the Government have reached and which the other place has endorsed. It is instructive to compare the wording of subsection (1)(b) of the new clause with subsection (3). We have not heard very much so far from the movers of the new clause about its precise terms, so it falls to me to draw your Lordships’ attention to those terms.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
The noble Lord is giving us the speech he gave us in the Article 50 Bill, when it was indeed the case that the amendment then moved did not differentiate between the Lords and the Commons. If he looks at this amendment with care, he will see that there is a very clear differentiation and that it is only the Commons that has the right of decision; we have the right of consideration.
Lord Howard of Lympne
If the noble Lord waits until I have concluded my remarks, I think he will be better able to form a judgment about how careless I have been.
Subsection (1) of the new clause provides that the Government may conclude an agreement only if the draft has been approved by the House of the Commons and has been subject to the consideration of a Motion in your Lordships’ House. The Minister may have something to say about the circumstances in which such a Motion might be considered. It is not a point I intend to dwell on, although there is clearly a possibility that your Lordships may vote not to consider such a Motion.
Subsection (3) of the new clause provides that a withdrawal agreement may be implemented only if it has been approved by an Act of Parliament, and subsection (7) provides that that Act must have received Royal Assent by the end of next January, so the new clause expressly contemplates a situation in which the Government have reached an agreement with the European Union, the House of Commons has approved that agreement, but your Lordships’ House, simply by delaying the passage of the Bill beyond next January, could defy not only the will of the people but the will of the elected Chamber of Parliament. If that would not provide a constitutional crisis, I do not know what would.
The new clause goes on to provide a prescription about what would happen if such a situation were to arise. It proposes that the negotiations should be taken out of the hands of the elected Government of our country and be decided on a resolution of the other place and the consideration of a Motion in your Lordships’ House. I had the great privilege of serving in the other place for 27 years—not quite as long as my noble friend, but almost—and I have the greatest respect for it, but it is not a negotiating body. I do not believe it has ever taken that role upon itself, I do not believe it wants it and nor should it have it. I need hardly add that if this new clause were to become law, the situation would arise that it would immeasurably weaken the Government’s negotiating position with the EU and would make our Government and our country a laughing stock.
The truth of the matter is that, while a great deal has been spoken about the House of Commons—my noble friend talked about the House of Commons—at the end of the day the House of Commons will have its say and the House of Commons will have its way. The House of Commons does not need to be given any guidance by your Lordships’ House as to how it should go about its business. There are many ways in which the House of Commons can achieve that objective, and the House of Commons will do so.
This new clause is thoroughly and fundamentally misconceived. I am afraid that it illustrates the appalling lengths to which die-hard remainers are prepared to go to achieve their aim, and I urge your Lordships to reject it.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, as an answer to what the noble Lord, Lord Howard, has just said, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said in moving the amendment that this was all about “Take it or leave it”. Is “Take it or leave it” a meaningful vote? Throughout Committee, the main answer given by the Government was, “We are implementing and executing the will of the people”, while every single day the press says, “Implement the will of those 17.4 million people”. But, as the noble Viscount said, “Leave, whatever the terms”—is that what the people actually said? Is that what is in the national interest?
At the heart of this issue is the fact that in the other place at the time of the referendum two-thirds of MPs, on all estimates, thought that the best thing for this country would be to remain, and right here in this House about 75% thought the same. Yet when the referendum took place, hundreds of those MPs’ constituencies voted to leave, so the MPs are caught in a trap. The confusion is whether they see themselves as delegates or representatives of their constituencies. Are they making these decisions in the best interests of their constituents and country or of their party? Are they managers or leaders? The difference between a manager and a leader is that a manager does things right but a leader does the right thing. Do they have the guts—the guts of the so-called mutineers such as Nicky Morgan, Ken Clarke, Dominic Grieve, Jonathan Djanogly and Tom Tugendhat, and I could go on—to stand up when the time comes to do the right thing?
We discovered in Committee that whether we were discussing borders, education or movement of people, no argument was made. The Government were like a stuck record, simply saying: “The will of the people”. The amendment would give MPs in the other place and this House the power to stand up to do the right thing for the country. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, talked about a constitutional crisis. What constitution do we have where a Government bully Parliament and say, “Take it or leave it”? It is Parliament that should be supreme, in the best interests of the people and the country. Thanks to this amendment, Parliament would have the ability to stop the train crash that is Brexit.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, is absolutely right to draw our attention to the constitutional dangers that lurk within the amendment. It goes too far to bind the Government.
I think it is time that we drew breath. We have had a very exciting couple of weeks but it is time to think about the respective roles of the Executive and Parliament and of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, as other noble Lords who have spoken have done. Parliament is not the Government and it should not try to usurp their role. Of course the Government emanate from Parliament and are accountable to it, the Government should be advised by Parliament and are invigilated and sustained by it, and if they lose the confidence of Parliament then they fall, but the Government are not the same as Parliament and Parliament is not the same as the Government. We have a separation of powers. The Government are the Executive, and Parliament neither can nor should act as the Executive.
It was improper and inept for the Government ever to suppose that they could bypass Parliament in dealing with Brexit. Of course there must be a meaningful vote, but it is for the Government to negotiate, listening all the time to Parliament—Parliament constantly proffers its advice—and then eventually to submit the deal that they have negotiated to Parliament for its approval or otherwise. You can call it a take-it-or-leave-it vote, but nobody could say that that is not a meaningful vote.
Dominic Grieve, someone for whom I have the greatest respect and the warmest regard, justified his amendment to Clause 9, requiring that the final terms of the deal should be approved by a statute, on the basis that it was essential to prevent the Government exercising the biggest Henry VIII power ever. That was an understandable and legitimate motive, but to require that the deal should be approved by the laborious process of statute seems to me to go too far in an inappropriate direction. Parliament cannot negotiate. Parliament certainly cannot negotiate by legislation or amendment. It cannot change the deal, it cannot bind the European Union. It can bind the Government in an excessively narrow straitjacket, and that would be an extraordinarily unhelpful thing to do in the national interest. The process of legislating such a statute would serve only to prolong the uncertainty about which everyone complains.
Amendment 49 would develop the Grieve amendment and take it further. It repeats the requirement for a statute already in Clause 9, but doubles up with the requirement for a resolution. It then goes further. Proposed new subsection (5) states that if the House of Commons does not approve the draft terms, the Government “must follow any direction” given by the House of Commons. That seems to me the most extraordinary provision. Of course, legislation routinely binds Governments for the future, but it does not tie their negotiating hand. It should not, specifically, tie this Government’s hands as they seek to perform this particular complex, sensitive, immensely difficult, crucial set of negotiations.
The resolution could say anything. It could say, “Go back to the negotiating table”. It could stipulate that the Government deliver what is undeliverable. It could rescind Article 50. It could call for a general election or another referendum. These are exceedingly important matters where the Government should listen to Parliament, but the Government should lead and Parliament should respond.
If we reflect on the relationship between your Lordships’ House and the House of Commons and our respective responsibilities, surely it is our responsibility to advise the House of Commons, to advise the Government. In the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, it is to suggest, to argue, to explain. It is no part of this House’s responsibility to seek to manipulate the House of Commons or the Government, to seek to choreograph future proceedings of the House of Commons, and certainly no part of our responsibility effectively to pull the rug from under the Government.
If we pass this amendment and some of the others on the Marshalled List today, I fear that we shall be getting too big for our constitutional boots, and many of our fellow countrymen feel the same.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hailsham made an eloquent and powerful speech. If I had closed my eyes, I might have thought I was listening to his father. However, despite his eloquence, he did not go very deeply into the detail of his amendment. I wish to support what the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and my noble friend Lord Howard said.
The first part of the amendment, proposed new subsections (1) to (3), it might be argued, roughly and broadly mirror what the Government themselves have outlined: a resolution in the House of Commons, the withdrawal Bill, primary legislation and trying to get a vote before the European Parliament has voted. But my noble friend Lord Hailsham then inserts a series of triggers with rigid dates. If the vote of approval has not taken place by 30 November, if the Act of Parliament has not received Royal Assent by 31 January, and if the withdrawal agreement has not been agreed by 28 February, a whole lot of things happen. As the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, highlighted, what happens is that the House of Commons or Parliament effectively takes over negotiations and can impose conditions. This is a most extraordinary thing. It has never been the case before that Parliament has dictated how a Government should negotiate a treaty, but this is what would happen under the provisions of the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, said, Parliament could dictate all sorts of things: it might dictate that the Article 50 notice be withdrawn or it might dictate, although it would perhaps be subject to dispute, that Article 50 was extendable. This would be for Parliament to assume extraordinary powers in a way that has never happened before. It would be a major constitutional innovation.
Lord Howard of Lympne
It is a question, and my noble friend has not finished.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
Are we learning the lessons of history? Sometimes it is very valuable to see what has happened in other countries when similar steps have been taken. We remember the reluctance of Mrs May to allow Parliament to be involved. She wanted the Government to be in charge. My mind went back to Berlin in March 1933 when the enabling Bill was passed in the Reichstag, which transferred the democratic right from the Parliament into the hands of one man—that was the Chancellor, and his name was Adolf Hitler. Perhaps I am seeing threats that do not exist, but they are possible. Who would have thought before the 1930s that Germany, such a cultured country, would involve itself in such a terrible war?
Let us take the warning. What we are doing here must involve Parliament. I would like to see it involving the people as well, but it must certainly be in other hands. We cannot let an enabling Act of the United Kingdom possibly lead to the catastrophe that took place in Berlin in 1933.
Lord Blackwell (Con)
My Lords, I have listened very carefully to those noble Lords who have proposed this amendment but I have concluded, on the basis of the other arguments which have been set out, that it is fundamentally flawed, for both constitutional and practical reasons. As the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said, the constitutional argument is that it risks completely confusing the roles of the Executive and the legislature. We have a system in this country where the separation of those is very clear. The Executive can command authority so long as they have a majority in the House of Commons. Their role is to bring proposals to Parliament; Parliament’s role is to be the legislature. You cannot have a negotiation where a Parliament seeks to be the negotiating partner: that is an impossible situation. Subsection (5) in the new clause proposed by the amendment allows Parliament to try and direct the details of the negotiation. That is constitutionally inappropriate—that is the role of the Executive. The Executive are accountable to Parliament but it is their role to negotiate and bring their proposals to Parliament.
On a practical level, even more importantly, and as other noble Lords have said, it would completely undermine the Government’s negotiating position if they did not have the opportunity to walk away. A negotiation has to involve compromises by both sides. If the European side of this argument knew that, however onerous they made the conditions, the Government would come back to Parliament, which could tell them to go back and concede some more, we would simply be offering the opportunity for one side of the negotiations to keep pursuing its case rather than compromise. That would completely undermine the practical basis on which negotiations have to be held between two sides which have the authority to negotiate, with proposals brought back for approval by the House.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I have a couple of observations, one specific and the other more general. The specific observation relates to subsection (1) in the proposed new clause, which talks about the way in which a withdrawal agreement would be approved or otherwise by Parliament. This issue has been raised several times in the past by me and other noble Lords. If you require parliamentary approval, what happens if one House says yes and the other says no? This is particularly serious in relation to anything connected with the ratification or otherwise of agreements between the Government and the EU 27. Either House saying no—in this case it would probably be the House of Lords—would, in effect, be a veto on the whole process. To be fair, there is an attempt to deal with this problem, because proposed new subsection (1) requires approval,
“by a resolution in the House of Commons”,
but the simple,
“consideration of a motion in the House of Lords”.
My simple, factual and specific point is just this: we do not need an Act of Parliament in order for us to consider a Motion. We can do that any time we want to, pretty well, on any subject we choose. That is not any kind of control or limitation whatsoever. I would say, “Good, but what on earth is subsection (1)(b) doing in an Act of Parliament?” It is absolutely unnecessary—otiose may be the word, I am not sure, but it is irrelevant and we should not clutter the statute book with points such as this which are of no value whatsoever. My more general observation is that we are putting ourselves in a bizarre circumstance. We are saying that we, the unelected House of Lords, should pass an amendment which effectively tells the House of Commons how to hold the Government to account. Essentially, it is instructing the House of Commons. A lot of noble Lords have been in the House of Commons. That House holds Governments to account day in, day out. It does that by a multitude of different mechanisms: by debate, adjournment debates, emergency resolutions, questions to Ministers, and Bills.
The function of Parliament in general and the House of Commons in particular is to hold Governments to account. We are simply saying to it by this amendment, “We think you should have additional powers to hold the Government to account”. If the House of Commons wants to exercise control over the way in which the negotiations proceed, it does not need any advice, still less any extra powers given to it by us—it has them already. Government is subject to the House of Commons. The House of Commons is not the servant of government in a parliamentary democracy, to quote the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, but ultimately it is the other way round: the Government is the servant of the House of Commons.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
If my noble friend is right in every case, why did Gina Miller have to take action in the High Court?
Lord Grocott
My noble friend was not present at the time, as a number of us were, but if he is in any doubt whatever about the ultimate authority of the House of Commons, he should have been in the House of Commons in 1979—
Lord Grocott
I am sorry; it was later. My noble friend missed the boat by a few months. That was when the House of Commons—just before my noble friend enriched it with his presence—threw the Government out. I can think of no more substantial control than throwing the Government out of office and calling—
Lord Grocott
Yes, sadly, they were a Labour Government, and my vote was not enough to enable them to survive. If anyone is in any doubt whatever about the capacity of the House of Commons to do what it needs or wants to do in respect of this or any other piece of legislation, those powers exist already. It does not need any advice from us.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
The House of Commons is not in control of the legislative canvas—the Government are. This amendment, sent to the Commons, would provide it with a canvas on which it can operate. It can change it or modify it if it does not like bits of it and send it back, but without this canvas it cannot operate in the way my noble friend is describing.
Lord Grocott
I have never seen the word “canvas” in Erskine May—I do not know quite what my noble friend refers to. However, we know that the House of Commons can pass legislation if it wants to; it can be introduced by a Private Member’s Bill if required, although obviously not on a matter like this. Legislation can be introduced—
Lord Cormack (Con)
Surely if we in this House pass this amendment, the House of Commons can send it back, and no serious-minded Peers in your Lordships’ House would seek to resist the power of the House of Commons. It is being given a chance, and if it does not like it, it can tell us where to get off.
Lord Grocott
I hope all noble Lords were listening carefully to that. A lot of noble Lords were saying, “Hear, hear”, so should the House of Commons send this back to us, I very much hope that what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said is correct, and we would press the matter no further. Undoubtedly, the House of Commons can send amendments back or not as it chooses.
The related point I want to make—apart from stating what I think is the obvious in a parliamentary democracy, that Parliament, or the House of Commons, is supreme—is the reference that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, made to his concern: if the Government’s conclusion of its negotiation with the EU 27 were rejected, what would happen next? If the Government were to lose any vote on the cardinal element of their raison d’être since the general election—namely, implementing the decision of the people that was made in the referendum—that would be the end of the Government, unless the whole constitution is rewritten and turned on its head. The Government would have to resign if that were to happen. How could they possibly continue? We keep hearing about the number of Bills that are related to our departure from the European Union. If that were to happen, how on earth could the Government remain in office? Of course, that may be a good or a bad thing.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
The constitutional position has changed radically with the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act. My noble friend is implying that no Government would be prepared to suffer the embarrassment of staying in power. But on the record of this Government, they might be quite prepared to stay in power.
Lord Grocott
My noble friend knows perfectly well that the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act provides for a vote of no confidence in the Government. It would be the equivalent of a Motion of no confidence in the Government if they lost the support of the House of Commons for their central legislative plank.
The Countess of Mar
Noble Lords may get up only once, and the noble Lord has already done so.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, the interventions reflect what we have known throughout the passage of this Bill—and, indeed, politics since the general election. The overwhelming majority of Members in both Houses voted for remain in the referendum and, through all sorts of different mechanisms, they want to either delay or stop the whole Brexit process. It is Parliament’s right to do that, and if the House of Commons decides to do so, that is what will happen. I personally strongly recommend against it in the light of the referendum, but that is what parliamentary democracy means and that is how it operates.
My final point is in response to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. I have heard on a number of occasions that, somehow or other, if we query in any way the relationship between the Government and Parliament, we are denying the central argument of the people who want to leave the European Union: to enable Parliament to restore its authority, which it lost in substantial measure with the passing of the European Communities Act 1972. My answer to that is this. Quite simply, if anyone in this House, or the other one come to that, is deeply concerned about parliamentary sovereignty—and indeed if they love parliamentary sovereignty, as I do—the best thing they can do is to make sure that the European Communities Act 1972 is repealed as rapidly as possible. That is far greater a restriction on the authority of Parliament, and on the House of Commons in particular, than anything the amendment to hand attempts to remedy.
I am not going to be accused of in any way challenging parliamentary democracy because I do not think that this is a terrific amendment, but I will not lose any sleep if it passed, for the reasons that I have said: Parliament can do what it likes and the House of Commons can do this in any case. However, we must not miss the wood for the trees. As far as the sovereignty of Parliament is concerned, the problem comes from the European Communities Act 1972 and not from any amendment that this or any other House can pass.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, it had not been my intention to take part in this debate because I read in the newspapers a forecast of what the result would be. That suggests that, for most of your Lordships, the decision has already been taken. However, having listened to the debate so far, I thought it was right for me to say a word or two.
I have never been a Member of the House of Commons, but by the constitutional arrangements that then existed I was given a very senior position in Her Majesty’s Government, which lasted for almost 10 years. One of my fundamental approaches to the matter of discharging that office was to respect the views of Members of the House of Commons who were members of the Government. There are colleagues of mine here who know in practical terms that that was so. On the other hand, it was always possible to suggest ways in which their policy could be implemented with less danger to the community than otherwise might have happened.
I had the privilege of nominating my noble friend Lord Hailsham to be a silk. Her Majesty the Queen graciously accepted that nomination. But I did not have the opportunity to exercise power that would have enabled him to have the title “learned” in this House. That does not in any way derogate from the force of what he had to say except that, from my point of view, it is arrogant in the extreme for Members of the House of Lords, together or otherwise, to tell the House of Commons what to do.
I learned in the course of my experience as Lord Chancellor that it was very wise for Members of the House of Commons to be given what they wanted so far as possible. I am sorry to say that my colleague, the lady Speaker at that time in the House of Commons, is not in her place, but I remember that in relation to arrangements for things in which we were both involved it was universal that her wishes were implemented. There is an arrogance in our House telling the House of Commons how to go about its business. I agree entirely with what the noble Lords, Lord Grocott and Lord Howarth, said about that. As I said, I had not intended to speak, but I feel that this House needs to think about its attitude to the powers and discretion of the House of Commons.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I find myself torn between pragmatism and principle—the principle of parliamentary democracy and upholding and preserving the constitution; and on pragmatic terms, the ability the Government need to manage the process we are in. But I keep hearing in this debate the language of “telling the House of Commons what to do”. Call me ignorant, but I did not think that that was what we were doing. I thought the role of the House of Lords was to scrutinise, improve and ask the Government to think again. That is what we are called to do and that is where the principle applies. Then it is up to the House of Commons and the Government to decide what they do with the arguments put forward from this place. Not to do that is to deny the appropriate role of this House in doing its job.
Lord Spicer (Con)
My Lords, if this amendment is passed, this day, 30 April, should be called hypocrisy day because the overt objective is the opposite of the covert objective. The overt objective is apparently to give greater powers and a greater say to Parliament. The covert objective, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, will be to do the opposite. If one wanted examples or specific reasons why one says that, we need only look at the Factortame case a few years ago, when Parliament was clear that it wanted its way on a European shipping matter, and our courts eventually came down in favour of the European Court having the final say. There is no question but that if we stay in the European Union, Parliament will be one of the worst sufferers.
The acquis communautaire is another example. It is the basis of what the European Court does and is entirely to do with the centralisation of power away from national institutions and organisations such as Parliament. The proposers of this amendment may argue that they are in some way strengthening Parliament, but exactly the opposite would happen in the end.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
We all know what the intention of the amendment is: not to improve Brexit but to impale it. What does “meaningful” mean? A meaningful vote seems to be one that somebody has won; then, it is meaningful to them. Otherwise, it appears in certain quarters that “meaningful” is meaningless unless you have won. Was the referendum meaningful? Was the last election meaningful? Apparently not. Was the election to this House of the noble Viscount meaningful? I am sure that it was—although perhaps in hindsight we on these Benches might have done well to have inquired a little more deeply into his passions. It would have made for some fascinating hustings.
The Government have repeatedly promised a meaningful vote. Clearly, if words mean anything, that commitment is inescapable. Let us imagine for one moment that the Government broke that promise and tried to offer an unacceptable vote—or no vote at all. What would happen? There would be fury. There would be uproar in the Commons and all sorts of turmoil in the tea rooms. Your Lordships would beat their noble breasts. Speaker Bercow would be brought to bear. I have no idea whether the rather rude sticker about Brexit that was on the back of his car is still there—I cannot possibly repeat it—but I think we can guess that he would leave no parliamentary stone unturned.
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was right. The House of Commons has any number of different means to raise this subject. If all else failed, we could surely rely on Mr Corbyn. I know that the prospect terrifies some Members on the Benches opposite; I can see their tight lips and I felt a frisson of anxiety as I mentioned his name. But surely they could rely on their leader to slap down a Motion of no confidence, as happened time and again in 1978 and 1979, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said. In other words, the Government cannot under any conceivable circumstances avoid a meaningful vote.
So the amendment is utterly irrelevant. It is also deeply—and, I believe, deliberately—damaging. It is designed to undermine our negotiating position—to confuse, to cause chaos and to give encouragement to EU negotiators to contrive the worst possible outcome, in the hope that some new vote, parliamentary decision or referendum will force Britain into retreat or even to hold up its hands in surrender.
Lord Dobbs
I am glad that the noble Lord is still awake. I take it as a compliment. In 2016, Mr Clegg said clearly that we,
“have to abide by the instruction to quit the EU”.
Note the wording: not “advice”, not “recommendation” but “instruction” of the people to exit the EU. There are those in this House—decent, principled people—who hate the idea of leaving the EU. I understand those feelings. But there are also those in this House who have vowed to do everything they possibly can to destroy Brexit. That is a matter not of principle but of abuse of privilege—a direct attempt not to secure the best for Britain but to drive Brexit on to the rocks. This a wrecker’s amendment and I wish it ill.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am not a natural ditherer. I am very—perhaps overly—decisive. However, I did hesitate on some of the amendments that are coming up today. But I decided that, in the interests of democracy—which did not stop on 23 June 2016—that I would vote for them. However, the speeches in favour have turned me against this amendment. Clearly, there is more of an agenda than just allowing more of the people’s will, more of their say and more parliamentary control in the process. So I will not vote for the amendment now.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
My Lords, as somebody who has not so far spoken in one of these debates, I want to make a brief contribution. One sees how this debate has gone, with the Brexiteers on one side and the remainers on the other. I speak as somebody who has already spoken in this House as a remainer. I campaigned to remain. I now find myself in, as I would put it, the weakest of positions: a reforming remainer. We have had the referendum, the decision was taken and we are now embarked on the negotiations. My view on the amendment before the House is that one of the beneficiaries could be Monsieur Barnier.
My worry is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, we are cutting the feet from under the Government. In the present situation—which I did not choose and where I see many problems for the Government—we have to see how we can at least stand together to try to get the best possible deal for our country in this difficult situation.
Having said that, we will then get towards the end of the negotiations without being tied down by some of the very difficult dates included in this amendment. I agree with my noble friend Lord Howard in his reference to the unnecessary inclusions and the difficult constitutional crises that might be involved in it. We should come to the end of that process. I have never been in any doubt—having been in this building, I am appalled to say, for 48 years at one end or the other, with terrible consequence—that in the end Parliament is going to decide. Any suggestion that we must have this amendment with all its flaws to make sure that it happens, I regard as quite unnecessary, unwelcome and unhelpful. Everybody here, I hope, on whichever side—as I say, I am a remainer, but Brexiteers as well—wants to get the best possible deal and then Parliament will decide whether it is sensible to go forward. I stand for the sovereignty of Parliament. That is why I believe that this amendment should not be approved.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I think we have now heard, especially if what has been said is true, that the House will be more in favour of the amendment than against. The balance of speakers now is possibly to allow one speech in favour of the amendment.
It is a bit of a shame as I wanted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, because it is always such fun. The only disadvantage of him being in the House is that he is not writing another television play. Please go back to doing that. The uproar in the Commons which the noble Lord mentioned—I am afraid he cannot stand up again—can be in another play.
These are serious issues and I cannot agree more with what the previous speaker has just said. It is about allowing for the deal to be negotiated—the best deal for this country, we hope—and then for it to come to Parliament. This is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said, about creating a constitutional crisis; nor is it about asking the Commons to become a negotiator, as someone said. It is to ask the Commons and Parliament to decide whether the outcome of the negotiations is good enough for the country. That does not seem too much to ask.
As for the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, worrying that it will somehow affect the negotiating timetable if our negotiators have to come back to Parliament, that, of course, is exactly what is happening on the other side because the negotiator Monsieur Barnier has to go to his Parliament—the European Parliament—to get it through there. We could see that one side has to go to a Parliament to get the deal approved but not ours. I really do not see that the timetable is quite a problem.
We always feel very sorry for the Minister—and me—on these long days because we do not get any lunch. Today I gather he got absolutely none because he was on the radio at lunchtime. What did he say? He said that the amendment was about overturning what the people decided in June 2016. That is not what it is about. It is about asking the Government to put the results of their negotiations to Parliament. It is quite hard to see why the Government, or the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and the others, are so worried about it. What do they have to fear—that the deal will not be good enough?
We support the amendment, which is quite simple but has to be written quite complicatedly because we are trying to get it right. It is to put into law the undertaking that the Prime Minister gave that both Houses of Parliament would have a vote on the outcome of the withdrawal negotiations. There are five reasons for supporting it. First, as with Article 50—but this time without having to go to court—it is to ensure that the withdrawal agreement is put into statute by Parliament because a mere Motion, which is what we have been offered, has no force of law. In fact, I doubt that it is even, in the words of Article 50(1) of the treaty, in accordance with our “own constitutional arrangements”, which is what is required.
Secondly, the votes in Parliament must be meaningful. That means that they need to be effective, but also that there must be a real choice and that the outcome must be binding on the Government. Particularly for the House of Lords, it would be meaningless, if the Commons voted yes to the deal, if we were then asked to vote. If we wanted to vote no, we would know that it would not be binding and that the Government were going to ignore it—it would not matter what we did, so we might as well follow the Commons. Or, if it was binding on the Government, we would be in the difficult position outlined by my noble friend Lord Grocott. If, as an unelected House, we wanted to vote no, we would risk overturning the elected House. My judgment is that in those circumstances we would have to vote yes regardless of what we thought of the deal. That would be a meaningless vote.
Thirdly, the votes in both Houses must offer a reasonable choice. It would, I suggest, not be meaningful to vote either to exit on a deal if we think it is poor, or else to crash out on no deal—that is, on even worse terms: WTO terms, no safeguards for UK citizens abroad or, indeed, EU citizens here, a hard border in Ireland and no transition period. That is Hobson’s choice. It is true that last week David Davis suggested that there might be a third option—perhaps extending Article 50—but without it, if we simply have the deal on the table or a cliff edge and off, that is not a meaningful vote.
Fourthly, as has been said, the promised vote is currently only on a negotiated withdrawal deal. It gives no role to Parliament over a decision by the Government to walk away without a deal—again, with WTO terms, no safeguards for our UK citizens living in EU countries nor EU citizens here, a hard border in Ireland and no transition period. That cannot be something that the Government decide without Parliament.
Lastly, the promised vote says nothing about the consequences of a rejection of the withdrawal deal, or of the no deal that we heard about earlier. As we have heard, the amendment, in its different ways, answers all those shortcomings. It puts the vote into law. It removes a Lords’ veto that would otherwise make our vote meaningless. It extends the vote to a no-deal situation, and it signals what must happen should the deal be rejected or there is no deal; that is, the House of Commons must then decide the next step. I commend the amendment to the House.
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, with all courtesy to the noble Lord, perhaps he would get the feeling of the House, which is to have the Minister stand on his feet.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, I thought this amendment was about Parliament having a say. It is unreasonable not to allow a noble Lord who gave way to the noble Baroness opposite to have a say, so we should hear him.
Lord Fairfax of Cameron
I am grateful, but I am not surprised by the reception because this House is of course a cosy cabal of remain.
As your Lordships have heard from my noble friends Lord Lamont and Lord Howard, this is a wrecking amendment, designed to delay, frustrate and ultimately block Brexit. For all the protestations of my noble friend Lord Hailsham and others, it is a wrecking amendment in substance. Those proposing and supporting it are playing the role of a fifth column for Monsieur Barnier and the EU negotiators. I am sure he is very grateful; they are doing his job for him, as my noble friend Lord King pointed out.
The amendment would tie the Government’s hands in the negotiations, in both time and content. It seeks by disguised means to overturn the referendum result and would make our negotiators’ already difficult job even more difficult. It is therefore against our national interest. There are many in Germany and elsewhere in the EU who would like us, as they see it, to come to our senses and reverse Brexit, not least because they see us as one of the few sensible people in the room with them. The proposed new clause would work towards that goal.
Of course, its proposers will deny any such intention. It would be more admirable if they were transparent about their intentions, even if they cannot accept the referendum result. At least, the Liberal Democrats are open about their intentions; not so the Labour Party. But the 17.5 million people who voted to leave, including many Labour voters, are watching and noting the manoeuvres in this House.
The proposers and supporters of this new clause are perfectly entitled to do as they are doing, but we are perfectly entitled to call them out for what they are doing: acting as a fifth column for Brussels by undermining the Government from inside.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I support this amendment. I feel that several of my noble friends have exaggerated its aims and intent. This is not about frustrating Brexit, nor is it about overturning the referendum; it is merely about fulfilling our role, which is to ask the other place to reconsider. It is about asking the other place to ensure that there is a meaningful vote on whatever the Government manage to negotiate. It is not intended to undermine the negotiations. We are asking the other place to consider whether the vote being offered is meaningful. If the other place is satisfied and it comes back to us, that is another matter, which we will not overturn.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank all the contributors to this debate. It is right that we have taken the time to discuss it at length, because this amendment has potentially serious implications for delivering a successful Brexit. Of course, I understand why this amendment might look notionally appealing, at least—it triggers a greater role for Parliament should any of the deadlines set by the amendment pass without their terms being met—but let me be very clear; this is not an innocuous, measured amendment. It contains a number of constitutional, practical, legal and political difficulties, all of which we should seek to avoid if we are to leave the EU with the best deal possible, which is what the Government want to achieve. Indeed, this amendment would create a profound constitutional shift in terms of which branch of the state holds the prerogative to act in the international sphere, a point so well made by my noble friends Lord Lamont and Lord Howard and by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, from the Labour Benches.
I do not suppose that those who are proposing this amendment are making this suggestion lightly, but I cannot support such a move, as I do not believe that it is in the best interests of the country to redefine the nature of our democracy in this way. It is a well-established feature of our constitution that the Executive represent the country in international diplomacy, and this constitutional arrangement exists for very good practical reasons. In any negotiation, there are judgments to be made as to what can reasonably be achieved. Those judgments can be made only by those engaged on the detail. It would be impossible for negotiators to demonstrate the flexibility necessary for an effective negotiation if they are stripped of their authority to make decisions. That will do nothing but guarantee a bad deal for the UK, which is something I hope we all wish to avoid. If the UK is to be a trusted and effective negotiator, with the EU or anybody else, the Executive branch must be competent to negotiate, just as they are competent to act on their own judgment in other areas of international relations. I speak in strong terms, because I want to demonstrate the seriousness with which the Government take this amendment, its implications and the precedent it will set.
The drafting of the amendment itself is of further concern. It states that a draft of the withdrawal agreement must be approved by the Commons before it can be concluded, but it is not clear what “conclude” means in this context. This may seem a lesser point but noble Lords will understand that we need legal certainty to ensure that the vote occurs at the right time in relation to the process of withdrawing from the EU. We would not want to end up in a perverse situation in which a vote must be offered while negotiations are ongoing, for instance. The vote must happen once the final text has been agreed. Until that point, there would be nothing for Parliament to vote upon, given that ultimately, of course, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, I ask the noble Lord to be careful. He is a Member of the European Parliament and knows perfectly well what “conclude” means: it is the moment at which the two parties to an international agreement, having fulfilled all their constitutional requirements, notify one another that the thing can be brought into effect. There is no doubt about that.
Lord Callanan
I was a Member of the European Parliament, but I also know that the vote of the European Parliament is in effect a take-it-or-leave-it vote. They do not seek to bind the hands of the Commission negotiators either.
I also question the implications of this amendment on the public’s confidence in our democratic institutions. The scope of proposed new subsection (5) is extremely broad, giving Parliament the power to direct the Government on anything in relation to negotiations: casting back to last week’s debate, it does not even add an “appropriate” or “necessary” restriction. That means directions do not have to be just about negotiating tactics or objectives but could feasibly encompass delaying or thwarting our exit completely, which I believe is the motivation of many of the supporters of this amendment. We should think very carefully about how that could be perceived by the electorate. Such a situation would not be compatible with either the result of the referendum nor the commitments given by many parliamentarians to respect the result. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lamont that this amendment would set a range of arbitrary deadlines and milestones after which Parliament may give binding directions to the Government, up to and including an attempt to overturn the referendum result itself.
Does this give the Government the strongest possible hand in negotiating a good deal? I am afraid that it does not—in fact, the opposite: it would create a perverse negotiating incentive for the EU to string out the negotiations for as long as possible. It is not in the UK’s interest to hand the EU negotiators a ticking clock and the hope that the more they delay, the more they can undermine the position of the UK Government and create damaging uncertainty and confusion. I agree with my noble friends Lord Blackwell and Lord King, who made precisely this point. The amendment would bolster those who wish not to secure the best deal with the EU but rather to frustrate Brexit altogether—a point that was well made by my noble friend Lord Howard.
However, I do not wish my response to be misinterpreted. I do not make these arguments because I think that the Government are somehow not accountable to Parliament. Of course we are. We have made a number of assurances on this matter. For example, there are some who have argued that this amendment is necessary to ensure that there is a vote on the final deal after the negotiations have concluded. I disagree. As my noble friend Lord Dobbs observed, our commitment to that is very clear and is in the best traditions of Parliament. It was made at the Dispatch Box and confirmed in a Written Ministerial Statement and has been repeated many times since.
I will make that commitment once again: the Government will bring forward a Motion in both Houses of Parliament on the withdrawal agreement and the terms of our future relationship as soon as possible after the negotiations have concluded. In reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, this vote will cover both the withdrawal agreement and the terms of our future relationship, but we have not settled on the precise wording.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Will the Government confirm also that that Motion will be amendable in both Houses?
Lord Callanan
I am not going to dictate what Parliament might want to do with that Motion or any other. Members will be free to table amendments to the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Will the Minister answer the other question: will it be binding on the Government?
Lord Callanan
Of course it will be binding on the Government. If Parliament rejects the deal we have negotiated, of course it cannot be implemented.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
I ask the Minister to clarify one other point, which we did clarify in Committee: if Parliament rejects this agreement, is the only alternative that the Government are offering leaving with no agreement at all?
Lord Callanan
If Parliament rejects the agreement, there is nothing for us to legislate further on. It has been rejected. The Article 50 process that Parliament voted for will then kick in: we will leave on 29 March 2019. I repeat that we expect and intend this vote to occur before the European Parliament votes on the deal. If Parliament supports that Motion, we will bring forward the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill—a piece of primary legislation to give the withdrawal agreement domestic legal effect. Of course, that will be amendable. This is in addition to the ratification process that is a requirement under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
Additionally, the Government will introduce further legislation where it is needed to implement the terms of the future relationship into UK law, providing yet more opportunities for further and proper parliamentary scrutiny.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
Returning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, I thought I heard David Davis suggest in a Select Committee the other day with regard to the meaningful vote in the House of Commons that the resolution might be amendable. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments.
Lord Callanan
I have not seen David Davis’s comments but I am sure what he said was true and appropriate.
This is in line with our belief that primary legislation is the appropriate vehicle for major policy changes, as is evidenced by the fact that we have already introduced Bills on sanctions, customs, trade, nuclear safeguards and road haulage.
These are serious commitments. As recently as last week, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union took detailed questions on the vote on the final deal at the Exiting the European Union Select Committee. He said:
“The Government is unlikely to put a vote to the House that it does not intend to take properly seriously”.
Perhaps that answers the noble Baroness’s question. To discount these assurances is to go against the convention that assurances to Parliament can be relied upon.
Finally, in addition to the problems and complexities I have outlined, the amendment is unnecessary because it is a simple legal fact that, following the amendment made to Clause 9 in the other place, there is no mechanism by which the Government can give the full final withdrawal agreement domestic legal effect without introducing primary legislation.
To summarise, whether intended or not, the drafting of this amendment is problematic. Some of the policy choices in it need to be rethought. Ultimately, large parts of it are simply not fit for purpose. While I suspect that I may not be successful, I strongly urge noble Lords to think again about this amendment.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, I have a very strong sense that this House wants to move to an early decision. I confine myself, therefore, to making one substantive point. It is to my noble friend Lord Howard, because what he said underpinned many of the arguments articulated by other noble Lords. He said, “The House of Commons will have its say, the House of Commons will have its way”. It underpins his argument, but it is not government policy—that is the point. The Government’s policy, as was brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is “this agreement or no agreement”. That it is not letting Parliament have its say. The truth is, if we want Parliament to have a truly meaningful vote, we have to insist on it. That is what this new clause is about, and I wish to test the opinion of this House.
Lord Newby
“Parliamentary motions on a referendum
(1) A Minister of the Crown must move a motion in each House of Parliament to provide for the option to hold a referendum on whether the United Kingdom should accept the outcome of the negotiations between the Government and the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, or seek to remain in the EU by revoking the notification of withdrawal from the EU under Article 50.(2) Such a motion must be moved prior to the enactment of any statute to implement a withdrawal agreement and as a precondition to making regulations under section 9, irrespective of whether either House of Parliament has previously considered or approved a motion relating to the outcome of the negotiations under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union.(3) If both Houses of Parliament approve the option of a referendum, the Secretary of State must not commence any statute nor make regulations under section 9 to implement a withdrawal agreement, but must bring forward proposals to hold such a referendum, and the Government must seek such an extension of the Article 50 period as may be necessary for this purpose.”
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, your Lordships’ House has just passed an amendment to the Bill that gives Parliament a meaningful vote on any Brexit deal. This amendment, standing in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Butler and Lord Wigley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is about what happens next. It says the Government must put forward the option of a referendum on the deal, a people’s vote to determine whether the people as a whole approve the outcome of the negotiations or seek to remain within the EU. It would not require a referendum to be held in all circumstances but only if Parliament—the Commons in particular—voted for one. In what circumstances might the Commons choose to do this? I think it might well choose to do so if it had rejected the deal that the Government had negotiated, and that is a perfectly plausible outcome.
I have had the privilege of listening to almost all the 16 days on the Bill—some 120 hours of debate—and the dubious pleasure of hearing virtually every word uttered by Ministers during the process. Whether we have discussed clinical trials, family law, environmental protection, police co-ordination or international security, the position of the Government has been virtually identical: they wish us to have arrangements as close as possible to those that currently obtain, to the extent of being prepared to submit to the rulings of the hated European Court of Justice in respect of key regulatory bodies, while accepting that we will not have the benefits nor the influence that we enjoy today. In area after area, they accept that we will be powerless rule-takers. The alleged sunny uplands of being in a more favourable position in any of these areas have, to put it mildly, been shrouded in fog. On the key issue of the customs union, vital to the future of Northern Ireland and our trade more generally, and faced with the brick wall of hard reality, the Government’s response is simply that of petulant defiance.
If the Government reach an agreement based on their current negotiating stance, I believe that it will be obvious that it leaves the country poorer, less influential and less secure—as the Prime Minister predicted it would before the referendum. A large majority of MPs and members of your Lordships’ House know this, but may yet vote for it. Why? Because the 2016 referendum vote has become sacrosanct, and the expressed will of the people two years ago holds people under its spell. It is as if it has frozen attitudes in a way alien to the democratic principle, which allows people to change their minds.
There is only one way in which this spell can be broken; there is only one way in which MPs can be liberated to vote for what they know is in the country’s best interest and in line with their beliefs; and that is giving the people the final say. The spell cast by the previous referendum is so powerful because it reflects the political reality that a vote in the Commons to reject a Brexit deal could not be the end of the matter. In those circumstances, the country would demand a final say.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, put it at Second Reading, such a vote would mean that he had,
“no option but to take to the streets”,—[Official Report, 20/2/17; col. 144.]
because he could not get representation in Parliament. I suspect that he is not alone in that view. To save him from a potential criminal record and in order to give the people, who started the Brexit process, the chance to determine how it should be concluded, a vote on the deal should then be held.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
As the noble Lord mentioned my name, the Liberals were very reluctant to accept the result of the first referendum, so why will they accept the result of the second one if it goes against what their interests are?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the first referendum was a mandate to the Government to negotiate Brexit. At the end of the process, a decision has to be taken on whether that mandate has been adequately fulfilled. The only question is whether the Commons alone or the Commons supported by the people should take that final decision.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
With due respect to my noble friend, the first referendum was in 1975, overwhelmingly in favour of the European Union.
Lord Dobbs
I point out to the noble Lord that in 1975 the European Union simply did not exist. He keeps coming out with all this imaginative stuff. I wish we could get back to the facts.
Lord Newby
My Lords, as I was saying, many noble Lords are opposed to referenda, and I have some sympathy with that view, but I am afraid that on this issue the pass was sold when Parliament, including your Lordships’ House, approved the 2015 European Union Referendum Bill. On Brexit, Parliament gave the initial decision to the people; it is in no position now to take a stand on the concept of its own sovereignty on this issue.
Lord Grocott
The noble Lord referred to an initial decision. Could he point to any phase in the passing of the referendum Bill when it was emphasised that this would be just an initial decision by the public?
Lord Newby
Well, during the referendum Bill, all sorts of things were said, including by many people that it was an advisory referendum. That soon fell by the wayside, did it not?
Lord Grocott
This is a point of clarification. The noble Lord said that it was an advisory referendum in 2016, a point often made by my noble friend Lord Foulkes. Can he answer this simple question? Is the new referendum that he is considering an advisory one or a binding one?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I said that during the debate that was said. The truth is that, if you ask the people to have a vote, Parliament, having given them a mandate to have a vote, politically cannot come back and say, “Thanks very much, you’ve had your vote but, actually, we are going to ignore it”. Everybody knows that that is not realistic politics.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
Does the noble Lord remember that in 2008, when other people were not advocating a referendum and there was no renegotiation, Nick Clegg put forward the idea that there should be what he called a real referendum—an in/out referendum? If that had come to pass, what would the Liberals have done if the people had voted no and wanted to leave, and there was no renegotiation? Would that have been binding or not?
Lord Newby
My Lords, that was in the completely different context of the Lisbon treaty. In previous debates in your Lordships’ House, a number of noble Lords have thrown at me what former leaders of my party have said. I would just ask the noble Lord, as we are talking about former leaders, whether he agrees with his former leader, Sir John Major, when he made a speech earlier this year and said, of this debate:
“Peers must ignore any noises off, and be guided by their intellect and their conscience”.
To revert to the point that I was attempting to make, on Brexit Parliament gave the initial decision to the people; it is in no position now to take a stand on parliamentary sovereignty on this issue. On Brexit, the horse has well and truly bolted.
It is sometimes argued that people are fed up with Brexit and want to leave it to Parliament and get on and implement it, but that is simply not the case. All recent polling shows that a majority of people now want to have a final say. A poll by YouGov earlier this month, for example, showed that by a majority of 44% to 36% there was support for such a vote. So this is not just the remoaners and, with figures like that, sadly, it is not just the Liberal Democrats. It is a view very widely shared, including by government supporters. In a recent poll of Conservative voters, by a majority of 43% to 34%, almost identical to that of the country as a whole, they said that they now wanted a vote on the issue.
So, what are the objections to the proposed amendment? First, it is argued that it is too soon to put such a provision into legislation. However, just look at the timetable. This Bill will receive Royal Assent sometime in June at the earliest. The Government believe that they will negotiate a withdrawal agreement by the end of October, a claim confirmed by the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU before a Commons Select Committee last week. If we take the Government at their word, this means that the approval resolution, provided for in the amendment which the House has just passed, could be brought before Parliament within 20 weeks of the Bill gaining Royal Assent and before any further legislative opportunity to provide for the referendum option had presented itself.
Far from being premature, this amendment is extremely urgent. It is argued by some members of your Lordships’ House that, if the Commons were to reject a Brexit deal, the correct next step should be a general election, rather than a referendum. However, this is a poor alternative. As last year’s general election showed, the issues which dominate a campaign at the start are sometimes very different from those which do so at the conclusion. At that election, polling showed that, in the last crucial days of the campaign, Brexit was supplanted by terrorism as the most important issue in many people’s minds. In any new election, health, education, jobs, housing, the qualities of the rival leaders, and issues which unexpectedly flare up in the campaign itself—as terrorism did in last year’s—would determine how many people voted. An election is, therefore, an extremely unsatisfactory mechanism for taking the people’s view on any single issue.
It is argued that a referendum would be too divisive but, in the circumstances of the Commons voting against a Brexit deal, to deny the people a final say would be even more divisive.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
Will the noble Lord answer the question asked by my noble friend Lord Grocott? I understand that he speaks for his own Front Bench and that what he says is, therefore, the formal position of his party. In the event that this referendum were to take place, would the Liberal Democrats accept its result as binding?
Lord Newby
Whatever the legal words, it would be politically binding, by which I mean that the Commons would not seek to overturn it. That is the precedent set by this referendum. We know that, at the time, the vast majority of Members of the House of Commons opposed the outcome of the referendum. They accepted it, though, because that was the political reality, whether it was technically a binding referendum or not. However the people vote if there is a further referendum, that will be taken by the Commons as a binding mandate from the people.
We have to accept that, whatever the outcome of the Brexit process, the country is now very deeply divided. Anybody who has been out canvassing in recent weeks will be only too well aware of that. Many Members of your Lordships’ House will know how keenly their children and grandchildren feel on this issue. All of us who are engaged in public life have a duty to reduce this division in the years ahead, but that great challenge now confronts us, referendum or no referendum.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
The noble Lord just made an important point: there is no certainty that that would be granted. Why does the noble Lord believe that it will be? Surely that is a matter for the ECJ, or may become one. What is behind the noble Lord’s remark?
Lord Newby
It would be a matter for member states acting unanimously. Not surprisingly, those of us who might wish for an extension of the Article 50 process have taken advice from Members of your Lordships’ House, from representatives of institutions and from other Governments, and we have formed the view that they would in those circumstances allow a limited extension of the Article 50 process to enable a referendum to be held.
This amendment complements the one we have just passed. It provides for an option, not a requirement, for Parliament to decide to hold a referendum when we see the terms of the withdrawal agreement. It would give the people who started the Brexit process the chance to have a final say in its outcome. I commend it to the House.
Lord Cavendish of Furness (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, could he tell us what the question would be in his referendum? Would it be in essence his speech?
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am glad to support Amendment 50, to which I have added my name, which was moved so effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I will add a few comments of my own to explain why it is essential that a provision along these lines is incorporated into the Bill we send back for further consideration to the elected Chamber.
I make it clear that I have a great dislike of referenda as a tool for sanctioning complex legislation. A referendum may be all right for approving a simple, transparent, binary issue which cuts across traditional party divides, such as opening the pubs on Sundays in Wales, as was mentioned in Committee. The more complex the issue, the more inappropriate a referendum is. However, the genie is already out of the bottle. There is a valid question as to whether a decision taken by referendum can—or perhaps I should say should—be overturned by a vote by Members of Parliament or by a general election, and certainly not by Members of an unelected House. None the less, those MPs who at last year’s election gave their constituents a pledge that they would do everything in their power to ensure that the UK remained in the European Union are duty-bound to redeem that pledge by the way they vote, as are MPs who committed in the opposite direction.
By this amendment we would facilitate MPs having a choice at their disposal when the Bill goes back to them—and in fact, they would have two choices. The first is the fundamental one: that MPs can return to the question of whether the Bill should be amended by them to provide a referendum in circumstances where they deem that appropriate. If we reject this amendment tonight, we would in effect prevent MPs giving further thought to that issue. When circumstances change, sensible MPs may want to change their minds. However, unless we give them the hook on which to latch any initiatives relating to a referendum, we essentially lock out the question of a referendum in any circumstances whatever.
The second area of choice we would facilitate by this amendment relates to the circumstances in which a referendum may be required. I believe that if the Government were able to negotiate a deal which enabled the UK, while leaving the EU, to continue to have a customs union relationship with the EU, and which enabled our industry and agriculture to participate in the single market, as outlined in the Welsh White Paper put forward by the Welsh Government and opposition parties last year, that should be endorsed by MPs without a further referendum. Not least, such an option would resolve both the Ireland and Gibraltar issues, which would be as good a compromise as we are likely to achieve. If, however, the Government fail to reach a satisfactory agreement which protects the interests of exporters and those who depend on the availability of EU workers to meet their needs, and if they secure no agreement at all and we face the utter disaster of a cliff edge prospect, MPs must be allowed to revert the issue back to the people. If voters then endorse a no-deal exit from the EU, with all that that means, so be it.
Some noble Lords may well argue that the decision at that stage should be taken by MPs and that they, if they are so minded, should have the option of overturning the referendum outcome. There are, of course, two basic reasons why this may not be possible. The first is that the Government have repeatedly—and again today—stated that the only option other than the negotiated settlement will be to quit the EU without agreement; essentially, on world trade terms. The Government continually refuse to give MPs or this Chamber the option of being able to reject a hard Brexit. In these circumstances, I believe that MPs should be allowed the option of considering a confirmatory referendum as one outcome. This amendment gives them that option. It allows them the maximum flexibility: it does not instruct them to hold a confirmatory referendum but it allows MPs to go down that path, if circumstances so dictate.
It is for these reasons that I implore colleagues, even if they share my dislike for referenda, to pass this amendment tonight and, by so doing, to enable MPs when this Bill returns to them shortly to keep the referendum option open and, in the fullness of time, to use it if, in their judgment, that is the only way to ratify or reject a worst-case scenario of leaving the EU without agreement. I commend the amendment to the House.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment. Although I have always maintained that the people ought to have the opportunity of a referendum on the terms of our leaving the European Union, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley said, this amendment does not mandate such a referendum. It gives Parliament the option of a referendum if, and only if, Parliament believes that the terms secured by the Government would be more damaging to our country than staying in the EU.
I supported the amendment that the House has just passed. Of course Parliament should be allowed a wider choice than the choice which, as the Minister admitted, the Government intend, and of course we must hope that the Government secure a good agreement. But Parliament should not be limited to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, described as a Hobson’s choice between a bad agreement and no agreement at all. For that reason, I will also support Amendment 62 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Cormack, Lord Reid, Lord Deben and Lord Balfe.
Although no one relishes the idea of a further referendum—I certainly do not—I believe that Amendment 50 is the logical consequence of the one that the House has just passed, which says that, if Parliament withholds approval of the withdrawal agreement, the Government must follow any direction approved by the House of Commons and considered by the House of Lords. I have considerable sympathy with the arguments advanced by the noble Lords, Lord Howard and Lord Lamont, against Parliament giving instructions to the Government. However, I believe that there will, in effect, be no choice for anybody about the instructions that would have to be given. About this, we have to be realistic. Whatever agreement is reached will be the result of long and painful negotiations. We cannot realistically expect the EU to be willing to reopen the negotiations and give us better terms at the behest of the UK Parliament—that is simply not a possible prospect.
It is in this respect that Amendment 50 goes further than Amendment 49. It recognises, in keeping with my view, that the only alternative to an unacceptable agreement is no agreement at all. That is not acceptable. The only other option is to withdraw our notice under Article 50. We must be honest that that is what a rejection of the agreement would entail. At the same time—
Lord Green of Deddington
I have listened very carefully to the noble Lord, but what would be the terms? We do not know for sure that we can lift our Article 50, but nor do we know—and nor would we know if a referendum were called—what terms we could return on. Would we get the same rebate? Would we have to undertake to join Schengen or the euro and so forth? Surely, we cannot assume that 27 countries will give us a completely clean return. Therefore, it would be rather difficult to know what the two options for the referendum were.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
That is precisely the point that I am making. We certainly cannot be sure that, if the agreement were rejected, the EU would give us better terms. I do not believe for a moment that it would. In that case, the only other alternative is to think again about our notice under Article 50. That is what we need to face up to.
The amendment acknowledges that, since the decision to leave the EU was taken by the British people, a decision to withdraw our notice could also be taken only by the British people. That is where a further referendum comes in. It is not ignoring the will of the people but submitting to it. I realise that those who believe that the United Kingdom should leave the European Union oppose submitting the view of Parliament to a decision of the people. But I find it difficult to see why they regard themselves as more democratic than those who favour giving the people the final say.
Amendment 50 is also realistic about the timetable, as the noble Lord the leader of the Liberal Democrats in this House has said. An agreement even in broad terms will not be reached until this October at the earliest. If Parliament rejects the agreement, time will be needed to legislate for a referendum and hold it. That would, in all likelihood, be impracticable before March 2019. So the amendment requires the Government to seek an extension of the Article 50 period for that purpose. It would, as has been acknowledged, be up to the EU partners to decide on whether such an extension should be granted, but if there is a prospect that it could enable the UK to stay within the EU, I believe that it would be granted.
Those who have reservations about a further referendum should not feel that they would be committing themselves by supporting this amendment tonight. It would be an option if, and only if, Parliament finds the outcome of the negotiations unacceptable. At that point, it would be the only option. But the amendment ensures that Parliament would at least have that option, and I urge the House to support it.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment. It is increasingly clear that the public want a vote on the final deal. Perhaps it is not surprising that, asked whether the public or politicians should have the final say, a majority is very clear that it should not be the politicians. They feel that they have been let down by the politicians. The Brexit that was dangled before them no longer seems to be on offer—the land of milk and honey that came with no bill attached was never going to be a reality and the people are waking up to that now.
Earlier this month, I attended the launch of the campaign for a people’s vote on the deal. I confess that it was the first time that I had been inside the Electric Ballroom in Camden, but it was an upbeat and optimistic gathering. By contrast, according to the pollsters, the category of optimistic leavers is shrinking very fast. At the Electric Ballroom, there were eloquent speeches from people who are not the usual suspects. The actor Sir Patrick Stewart talked passionately about his fears for a country that was headed in the direction that this one is. A leading surgeon spoke of the damage that Brexit is already inflicting on the NHS, with doctors and nurses leaving. People working with student unions stressed how strongly young people feel about having a vote on the deal; I know at least one person in this House who was vigorously opposed to the idea of a referendum who has changed his mind because he says that his grandchildren would never forgive him if he did not support the amendment.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment and, along with many of my noble friends, I will vote for it.
Few of us would have started from here. Most of us are in the position of the now-famous maiden aunts of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, who turned up at the Odeon next to the Electric Ballroom on 23 June 2016 to find that only two films were showing: “Reservoir Dogs” and “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre”. I am now in a position to tell the House what happened after they went to the cinema. They have been in touch and told me that they decided to return home without watching either film. With the noble Lord’s help, they put a DVD on. It was Alfred Hitchcock’s “Psycho”. They are still watching it in slow motion. To their horror, the point they have reached is that of Janet Leigh about to go into the shower—or, to be more precise, she goes into the shower on 29 March next year, in 333 days. The big question facing your Lordships and the country is this: is there a better ending to the film, knowing—as we do—that the British people will suffer serious harm if Brexit proceeds, but equally that we are a democracy and believe in the will of the people?
The only way I can see of deciding Brexit democratically, with a real option to reject it, is a referendum on Mrs May’s withdrawal treaty after she presents it to Parliament this autumn. Like many noble Lords, I am not a fan of national referendums for all the reasons that Churchill and Attlee banned them in post-war Germany. The imperative for a referendum on the Brexit deal is that we currently have a Government in office who believe that they are operating under an instruction from the British people two years ago to withdraw from the European Union. If that view turns out not to be supported by a majority of the Members of the House of Commons when they consider the exit treaty in the autumn but the Government present the treaty as a matter of confidence—which they surely will, and must, given its centrality to government policy—the only constitutional course is for the people to judge whether the Brexit treaty is their considered will or their considered will is to stay in the European Union. This could take the form of a general election but we have already had two of those in the last three years so a referendum looks like a highly credible option.
I want to make three quick points. First, I say this to my noble friends: the amendment straightforwardly supports Labour Party policy. The resolution on Brexit, passed unanimously by our conference last year, stated:
“Unless the final settlement proves to be acceptable, then the option of retaining EU membership must be retained. The final settlement should therefore be subject to approval, through Parliament and potentially through a general election or referendum”.
That is party policy and what the amendment enshrines in law.
Secondly, it is important not to be distracted by subsidiary issues. Is the time ripe? In my experience, the time is never completely ripe, but this is probably the only chance we will get before the withdrawal treaty so there is not much time left and we should seize it. What about the referendum question? Parliament will decide on that; of course, as said by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, it will be a decision between the treaty and staying in the EU, because if the majority of MPs are for a referendum, that is the choice they will want to put before the country. Is a referendum too divisive? Well, it will be, but nothing like as divisive as when Brexit goes badly wrong, there is a search for scapegoats and we have to try to get back into the EU after we have left.
Finally, I want to make a point about abstention, which, to my great regret, is my party’s whip. On the great issues of life and politics, it is hard to abstain with dignity and self-respect. All of us will be asked what we did. I for one do not intend to say, “I abstained”. I will say, “I voted for the British people to be in control of their destiny at a moment of supreme national crisis”.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I abstained on the last vote because I thought that many of the arguments against that amendment were very powerful and it was, in many ways, a defective amendment. However, I strongly support this amendment. I have no such doubts. I support it even though I readily recognise that it is entirely possible—many people think, highly likely—that in a further referendum, the vote would again be in favour of leaving. This time, I suggest there is much to be said for making the next referendum, unlike the first, legally binding, with no question of “neverendums”.
Of course, the public have already voted, and certainly that vote—although not legally binding—made it imperative that we give an Article 50 notification. We have done that and continue to explore what terms for leaving the EU are available to us. The public cannot yet vote on those available terms, but why should they not eventually be allowed to do so? Surely not even the most fervent Brexiteer would argue that a further referendum would not present the public with an altogether clearer, and better informed, choice than last time. Why would that not be properly regarded as giving them a further choice and further respecting, rather than betraying, the earlier expression of the popular will?
I have struck out a great deal from what I was intending to say because much of it has already been said by others. However, I should deal with one further point. An argument, which I confess initially troubled me against a further referendum, is this: because the other 27 countries would prefer us to remain, as I think most people believe, if there is a further referendum, they will make the terms of leaving as unattractive as possible to maximise the chance of the public rejecting the deal on a further vote. So, it is said, a commitment to a further referendum would compromise our negotiating position. But I have concluded that, ultimately, that is a completely unreal objection.
In the first place, given that a further vote could very well still, as I say, be to leave, and that if, finally, we were to do so, then it is patently in the interests of all the EU states that we leave on mutually beneficial terms. I do not believe that the proposal of a further referendum would, in truth, worsen those terms. But put that thought aside. The plain fact is that, in any event, there is an obvious and powerful reason why the remaining 27 will not wish to allow us too favourable a deal—namely their concern to discourage from leaving any other state which is possibly inclined to exit the Union as we now propose.
One other point I will touch on is that made by my noble friend Lord Green of Deddington. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, quite appreciated it. What I think my noble friend Lord Green said is: how do we know that we will not, if we vote to remain, lose the rebate and our right not to be within euroland? The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has made it plain—there is nobody better able to do this—that, in his view, a right to withdraw our notification must inevitably leave us in the same position as we started in. I support that view too. Again, given that the other 27 would want the vote to be to remain, I think that they would readily make that clear.
In short, the case for the public to have the final vote on this really most momentous of issues, perhaps in many of our lifetimes, now seems to be overwhelming and I urge your Lordships to support it.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, this amendment is reckless. It is peculiarly reckless proposed in an unelected House. It would be reckless if it were to be entertained by the elected House. The 2016 referendum generated bitter divisions in our country. To rub salt in those wounds and fan the flames of that anger by offering this option, raising hopes of a further referendum, seems to be most unwise. My noble friend Lord Adonis, in his Hitchcockian script, truly made my flesh creep.
The 2016 referendum exposed depths of mistrust and resentment against the political establishment and against what has broadly been the policy orthodoxy of recent decades. The appropriate response to that, surely—even if you deeply disagree with the view that was taken by the majority then, even if you consider that people were voting against their own best interests—is not to say, “You are stupid, bigoted and ignorant. You are wrong. You should think again and get it right”. That is how it will be perceived.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Yes, it will. Rather, we should seek to understand the nature of this public discontent and the depths of this anger and offer something better. I give way to my noble friend.
Lord Winston (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Would he not concede that the political resentment against political figures occurred before the referendum rather than afterwards?
Lord Howarth of Newport
Indeed it did, and what we saw in the vote at the referendum was an extremely disturbing expression of that. As I say, we should not fan those flames.
In any case, there is no sign that those who voted to leave have changed their minds. A recent ComRes poll, which took a rather larger sample than the occupants of the Electric Ballroom in Camden, found that 68% think that remainers should show respect for the majority for leave, and that we should get on with it and end the uncertainty. Instead of which, however, there is a proposal for a big campaign in support of a second referendum. That would be a bad use of time, energy and money.
I believe that the result would be the same because the European Union is unreformed. It remains in relative economic decline. It is undemocratic in its processes and it has completely failed to grip the problem of migration. There is deep popular discontent still with the EU. The only proposal for reform that is around is that of President Macron for deeper integration. In the unlikely event that that comes to pass, the UK would find itself even more marginalised.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Does the noble Lord think that dissatisfaction with the EU has grown greater since the stance it has taken on the negotiations?
Lord Howarth of Newport
There is a great deal of national grumpiness, and when the British people get grumpy, they are a force to be reckoned with. The dispossessed rejected the status quo and were unimpressed by Project Fear, and my advice to my noble friends is to stop digging.
The false simplifications, the distortions and the mendacities on both sides in the referendum campaign were a degradation of our politics. I believe that the nation’s heart would sink at the thought of another bout of all of that. The second referendum would inevitably intensify the divisions and the bitterness of the first one. There would, I fear, be ugly episodes. The losers would demand a third referendum, whatever the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Wigley, say.
We are not immune in this country to the neo-fascism that has so deeply, disturbingly possessed swathes of central and eastern Europe. We are fortunate that the most sinister figure to present himself as a leader of the far right in this country was Nigel Farage. If we were to have a second referendum, I greatly fear that a far more charismatic and sinister leader might emerge on the far right.
In any case, referendums are alien to our constitution, and the issues that would fall to be decided at a referendum, if and when the people were asked to judge the terms of the deal the Government had negotiated, would be immensely complex technical issues about trade, financial services, immigration, security, environmental protection and so forth. These complex issues should be determined by indirect democracy, by the intricate processes of parliamentary government, not by the crude instrument of a plebiscite.
I am always a little unsure of myself when I find myself disagreeing with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, because I have huge respect for his judgment. He calls for one last referendum. But the Constitutional Committee of your Lordships’ House advised us that referendums should occur only rarely, but were appropriate when a major constitutional issue needed to be decided. That is what happened in 2016. There was a referendum on the great constitutional issue of whether we should leave the European Union and reclaim the sovereignty that we had lent to it. That great constitutional issue has been decided. Strictly, of course, as noble Lords have mentioned, in legal terms that particular referendum was advisory, but politically it was binding.
Noble Lords may recollect this document. The Government sent it to every household in the country. It was sent to 27 million households and cost £9.3 million of taxpayers’ money. In it the Government said:
“The referendum on Thursday, 23 June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union … This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide”.
We have to live with the results of our democratic choices. If Parliament and the Government were to renege on the commitment made by the Government in that document, I believe there would be a very serious crisis in our country.
Great political turning points in the national life are inevitably uncomfortable for the establishment. The political genius of the British establishment has hitherto been to accommodate itself, however reluctantly, to big, uncomfortable changes: Catholic emancipation, the Great Reform Act 1832, repeal of the Corn Laws, death duties, reform of the House of Lords in 1911, the welfare state and the loss of empire. The latest such challenge is leaving the European Union. Your Lordships’ House and the people who take the big decisions in government and public administration on behalf of the people should now be similarly prudent, constructive and magnanimous. We should not waste our energy in seeking to overthrow the democratic decision of the British people to leave a European Union that is discredited in the eyes of the majority and perceived as failing because of mass youth unemployment, deep inequalities and its undemocratic nature.
It is for the left to rediscover the generous patriotism of JB Priestley and George Orwell. Agitating for a second referendum is displacement activity. The real challenge is to revive the centre left and to get beyond the intellectual and political bankruptcy of social democracy in the period since 2008 and the global financial crisis. But if all the centre can now offer, 10 years after that moment, is to remain in Europe, voters will say, “These politicians don’t understand us, they don’t respect us and they have nothing useful to offer us”, and they will move to the extremes. If the respectable politicians do not engage with voters on these matters of the deepest possible concern then disreputable politicians will take our place. I heard a former Commissioner of the European Union on the “Today” programme criticise his former colleagues, saying that those in Brussels tend to live in something of a bubble. I hope that will not be said of your Lordships’ House.
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, I will not go into the virtues of remaining in the European Union or leaving it, but simply concentrate on the amendment. I was one of the Minsters who had the privilege of taking the referendum Bill through your Lordships’ House. As many noble Lords will recall, there were debates about the extent of the franchise, among other matters, but there was no suggestion by any of the major parties of a threshold, let alone a second referendum. One can only imagine the response there would have been following the results if it had been the other way around and there was an attempt then to have a further referendum—surely what is sauce for the goose.
It must be remembered that the Bill went through Parliament when a general election was looming. Any party, or combination of parties, could have formed the next Government. Surely it was incumbent on each party to make clear that it would not honour the result of the referendum without a further vote or the option of one.
There are a number of uncertainties about the amendment. Can we revoke the notification of withdrawal under Article 50? I know that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, says that we can, but, with the greatest respect to him—I really mean that—that is ultimately a matter that could be determined only by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. We cannot predict with any certainty what the outcome might be. Similarly, we do not know whether we would be able to seek an extension of the Article 50 period, which is also a necessary part of the amendment as provided by proposed new subsection (3), although I know the noble Lord, Lord Newby, has had some secret soundings. But the whole premise of the amendment is legal uncertainty—precisely the opposite of what the Bill is intended to achieve.
There is yet another unsatisfactory aspect to the amendment. If a further referendum were held, it would give two options: acceptance or revocation of the notification of withdrawal, which would lead to our remaining in the EU should there be agreement by all parties or—this is uncertain—the ECJ rules that we are entitled to revoke unilaterally, notwithstanding the objection of any or all of the other 27. But what about the option in the event of a referendum that we should leave the EU without a concluded agreement? This is the no deal scenario. I—and, I suspect, most of your Lordships’ House—would much prefer that we did not leave without a concluded agreement, but there must surely be an opportunity for those voting in this referendum, having been informed by the lengthy and highly publicised process of negotiations between the Government and the EU, to conclude that they do not wish to remain in the EU and nor do they want to accept the deal that has been concluded. The proposed referendum in the amendment precludes that option.
If Parliament now denies voters a chance to leave the EU, except on onerous terms imposed by a combination of parliamentary fetters and/or unreasonable conduct from the EU, surely we should not deny the people the chance to leave without a deal. That would be treating people with contempt, and would be inconsistent with the EU referendum Act passed by both Houses of Parliament and what was or was not said by all the parties when the Bill went through Parliament. I do not need to elaborate on how divisive a further referendum would be—the first one was quite divisive enough.
Finally, is it not time that the Labour Party made clear what its approach to a second referendum is? If it thinks that voters should have an opportunity to think again, should it not say so rather than hover waiting for some political advantage?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I shall speak briefly on two technical points. First, the noble Lord, Lord Green, asked whether we would have to pay a price if we chose to withdraw the Article 50 letter. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, asked whether we are confident that we could withdraw the Article 50 letter unilaterally. The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Green, is that given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. Of course we could not be charged a political price if we withdrew the Article 50 letter during the period of the two years’ negotiation because we would never have left. We would have exactly the rights of a member because we would never have given them up. There would be no question of opt-outs or rebates being taken from us. Of course, the converse would apply if, having left the European Union, we decided that we wanted to come back. There would then be no chance of securing opt-outs or rebates. But, as a member in good standing, operating under the normal voting rules—the rebate is removable only by unanimity and I rather suspect we would not vote for its removal—there is no question that we would be paying a political price.
On the question of whether we would legally be able to withdraw the letter unilaterally, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, who is a much better lawyer than I am—I am not a lawyer at all—said that that would be a matter for the ECJ. With respect, I do not think so. If the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom appeared in the European Council and said that, as a result of an election or a referendum, there had been a change of view in the United Kingdom and that we would like to stay in the European Union, there is absolutely no doubt what the European Council’s answer would be. It is on the record. The President of the Council, the President of the Commission, the President of the Parliament, the President of France and the Chancellor of Germany are all on record as saying that, although they respect our plan to leave, they would rather we changed our mind and stayed. There is absolutely no doubt that the European Council would say yes. It is conceivable that, three years later, a case might go to the European Court of Justice. Were the European Council correct and intra vires when it agreed that the British might take back their Article 50 letter, I have absolutely no doubt how the ECJ would rule in that case when it came up.
The second point I want to touch on is whether an extension of the two-year negotiating period would, if we sought it, be obtainable. This seems very relevant to the amendment we are considering. If the House of Commons were to choose to adopt the option—it is only an option in the amendment—of putting the deal to the people, it would require an extension. It would be impossible to do that before 29 March. We do not have a referendum law in our statute book; we would have to pass one. There would then have to be a campaign. Realistically, we would be looking at June or perhaps September. We would be looking for, say, a six-month extension.
Would we secure the necessary unanimity in the European Council for that extension? It is a matter of judgment. In my view, it would depend entirely on the reason we gave. If, for example, we said, “We’d like an extension to carry on negotiating. We’d like to send David Davis across for a few more months”, it is conceivable that we might not get the necessary unanimity. If, on the other hand, we were to tell 27 democracies that we needed an extension because the House of Commons had voted in a way that meant there had to be a referendum, or an election, there is no question but that we would get the necessary unanimity—in my view; that is only a judgment. The option in the amendment, and it is only an option, therefore seems reasonable, foreseeable and possible, and I shall vote for it.
Lord Green of Deddington
My Lords, would we still be members of the European Union for the period of the extension and therefore have all the rights of a member?
Lord Dobbs
My Lords, I shall be brief, but I do not expect it to make me many friends. I cannot believe how many noble Lords have said, “I hate referendums, but I want another one”. It is like falling down the rabbit hole and landing on our heads. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, said that a second referendum would be decisive. I suggest that it would not be. If there is a second referendum, why not a third referendum or a fourth? A second referendum would not settle the issue; it would only prolong the agony. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has just explained clearly how extended that uncertainty and agony might prove. Which of those referendums—the second, the third or the fourth—would be, in today’s parlance, the “meaningful” vote?
I have to take the noble Lord, Lord Newby, slightly to task when he responded to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, about the words of Mr Clegg that he waved in front of him. They had nothing do with the Lisbon treaty. I will quote Mr Clegg. He said:
“It’s time for a real referendum on Europe … Only a real referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU will let the people decide”.
He also asked voters to sign a petition, to give the people “a real choice”. There was not a squeak, not a little chirrup, about a second referendum—no ifs, ands or buts, and no suggestion that people might change their mind.
While we are talking about Lib Dem policy, it is interesting that, in 2011, they forced through the AV referendum Bill. It was their Bill, their policy. I voted against it—I got myself into terrible trouble with my Whips, but I think the noble Lord sitting on the Front Bench has forgiven me. It was a binding vote; it was obligatory. There was no suggestion that we could change our mind. It was, I believe, the only binding referendum in our legislative history. There was no chance of Parliament, let alone the people, changing their mind. That until now has been Lib Dem policy, and I do not believe they can have it both ways.
I talked earlier about Mr Clegg’s position on the instructions of the electorate, so perhaps I may briefly wrap up—
Lord Dobbs
I am glad to see that the noble Lord is still awake. All I require now is his attention.
Mr Cable spoke 18 months ago, in September 2016, and used these words:
“There are people in the party”—
the Lib Dem party—
“who don’t accept the outcome, who feel incredibly angry and feel it’s reversible, that somehow we can undo it. The public have voted and I do think it’s seriously disrespectful and politically utterly counterproductive to say ‘sorry guys, you’ve got it wrong, we’re going to try again’, I don’t think we can do that”.
I agree with him.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, it may surprise people who follow anything that I say in this House—there do not need to be many—that I am not opposed in principle to a further referendum. How could I be? I was on the losing side once in a referendum vote, in 1975, and I was very keen to have a second referendum. I certainly got one, but it took 41 years. I therefore have no objection to people who say, “Things can change; circumstances can alter, and maybe we should have another referendum” But to have another referendum in two years stretches it just a little. I shall not say, “Wait till 2057”, which would be a direct comparison with precedent, but it certainly needs to be much longer than two years. Anyone seriously arguing for this needs at least to be able to answer yes to one question, which is this: was that made clear when the referendum Bill was going through this House? I sat through nearly all of it—Second Reading, Committee and Report. I must have missed the speech of someone who said, “If this referendum that we all voted for”—we did; there was no opposition to the Bill at Third Reading—“results in a leave vote, we will need to have a second referendum in a couple of years’ time”. Anyone who said that, please ignore the rest of my remarks—I did not hear it. I shall happily give way to my noble friend, who I know is a very reluctant remainer.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
I was, until I saw the mess the Government are making of these negotiations. My noble friend makes a very good point on the referendum, but it would not be a second referendum on the same proposition. It is not just the facts that have changed; it is the proposition on which people will be asked to vote that will have changed in the light of the deal.
Lord Grocott
I am really grateful to my noble friend for pointing out that, if circumstances change, there is a case for a further referendum. During the 41-year gap between the 1975 referendum and the further referendum, the European Union became unrecognisable in comparison with the institution that was voted for in 1975. It went from nine members to 28; it introduced the single market; the powers of the Commission changed beyond all recognition, as did the circumstances in which the European Parliament met. Once again, if there was anyone in this House who during that period said, “Really, things have changed quite dramatically; it is now a different proposition”—to use my noble friend’s expression—“and we ought to have a second referendum now to see whether the people still agree with what they said in 1975”, I did not hear that. It is another speech that I must have missed; I keep missing speeches. There was no acknowledgement, so far as I could see, that, because circumstances changed between 1975 and 2016, there should be a referendum. On the contrary, every time a further referendum was raised, any remainer—if I can describe it in those terms—was vehemently opposed to it. Now we have the irony of people who are opposed to one referendum wanting two.
The argument frequently used—I do not know whether this was what my noble friend was getting at—is that when people voted leave, they did not really know the full details and consequences of what they were voting for. I have had the privilege of representing two parliamentary constituencies, both of them very large. I have spoken to thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of people. I never found anyone in either of those parts of the country who got confused by the meaning of the word “leave”. Yet for some strange reason, in the immediate vicinity of Westminster there are large numbers of able people for whom the meaning of the word tortures them. They go into paroxysms of uncertainty about precisely what is meant by leave.
I know what leave means: at the very least it means you do not have to continue to obey the rules of the organisation you are leaving. I would also argue that if you leave an organisation you do not have to carry on paying the subscription. My noble friend Lord Adonis supports me in the words I am saying: he left the Liberal Democrats and joined the Labour Party—an excellent move; I commend him for that decision—but I very much doubt whether he continues to pay a subscription to the Liberal Democrats. When you leave an organisation, you do not pay the subs and you do not obey the rules; it is pretty simple.
Lord Adonis
It is true that I do not pay £39 billion to the Liberal Democrats; that is going to be the cost of exiting under the agreement that Her Majesty’s Government have reached. Would my noble friend refund the voters that £39 billion as part of his arrangement for leaving?
Lord Grocott
That £39 billion is a lot less, of course, than the amount we would need to pay in if we remained in for a further 41 years—the figure 41, he may remember, is of particular interest to me.
The other thing I have noticed about so many of these discussions—I have to tie myself down and not jump up every time it is mentioned—is the psychic powers of the remainers, which I am really in awe of. Hardly any remainer I have come across does not know precisely why the leave voters voted the way they did. We keep being told that people definitely did not vote to leave the customs union. People definitely did not vote to leave the single market, we are told. I do not know whether that is true or not—I do not possess these psychic powers—but I can say as a matter of fact that we definitely did not vote to remain in the European Union. That is a certainty as a result of the last referendum.
People say it is not really a second referendum; they are different questions. One question remains on both the referendum we have had and the one that is being proposed. The option to remain is there, so if you did not vote first time to remain, you get a second chance to remain. You do not get a second chance to leave, in a straightforward decision. So I find it increasingly unconvincing that the motives of those seeking a second referendum are an ardent desire to recheck the views of the British public. I think that such an amendment, such an attempt to have a second referendum within two years of the first, is no less than what we all in this House know, remainers and leavers—it is an attempt to reverse the decision of the first referendum. That is unacceptable and we should vote against it.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Newby, spoke to Amendment 50, he spoke about a spell. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, that there is one reason why we need this amendment: as he made very clear on the last amendment, the Government are giving us the option of deal or no deal—to crash out on WTO rules. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, said that that was not acceptable. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, how it can be fair to give people a yes/no vote. The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, compares it with the AV referendum: that was a very simple result; this is a yes/no, leave on any basis. There is no way that the people would have agreed to that on 23 June 2016 with four months’ notice. It is said that people know the reasons why they left with four months’ notice. We in this House are all in the thick of it, still learning almost two years later. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, said we are all more informed. A year from now, on 29 March, people will be even more informed.
The Government have given people the impression that there is no other option. When I give speeches, such as the one I gave this morning at Imperial College, I ask the audience, if you were given a chance to remain, would you remain? They say, “Do we have a choice?” And all the hands go up saying they want to remain. Yet the Government are driving this Brexit juggernaut off a cliff. When it comes to the British people having a choice as to whether to go over that cliff, the Government say, no, you have no choice, you are like lemmings who will have to follow us over that cliff. Is it fair to the British public? Is this respecting the will of the people? I say that it is disrespecting the British people.
Lord Campbell-Savours
My Lords, if there are those outside this House who, on the basis of the Division list this evening or what they have heard in this debate, believe that they are getting a fair reflection of opinion in support of a second referendum, then they are mistaken. There are many of us who support a second referendum, and have done for several years, who will be abstaining because we believe that this debate is premature. We believe that it interferes with the Government’s negotiating position and that later on this year will be the relevant time to have that great debate. At that stage, I hope it will be approved by Parliament.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I shall keep my remarks very short. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, hinted at the elephant in the room, which is respect for the clear majority who have already spoken in a once-in-a-generation referendum. He referred to the result of the referendum as being sacrosanct. Yet this amendment sticks two fingers up at the majority who voted to leave in that once-in-a-generation referendum. It tells them that we as a Parliament may have passed a law giving them the final say, confident that they would vote to remain, but that they did not repay our confidence, they failed the exam, and now there needs to be what amounts to a resit. But the once-in-a-generation referendum was not an exam and the 17.4 million people who voted to leave did not fail it. If we pass this amendment it will be Parliament that fails to respect the people. We need to respect the majority vote in that once-in-a-generation referendum as sacrosanct. Any noble Lord who truly respects the people and the fact that they have already spoken should oppose this amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, we have heard the case that, having seen the terms of our withdrawal, Parliament should have the option of deciding whether to put those terms to a referendum, with the choice between yes to the terms and yes to stay in; with no other question on the ballot paper, such as better terms; and with the decision to hold a referendum to be taken by both Houses of Parliament, which of course gives the Lords a veto. Having only two options on the table may not be the best suggestion for what is now being called a people’s vote, but let us put that to one side for a moment. I want to question the wisdom of asking the Commons to vote on an amendment to the Bill at this stage, which opens up the issue of whether we hold another referendum, given the implications of such a discussion right now for both our national debate and the negotiations with the EU.
On the former, what would it mean here at home? I see a divided country. The referendum may not have divided us, but it certainly provided evidence of that divide. London and Scotland feel quite a different nation from most of the UK on the Brexit question. Views are sharply divided—not helped by the Government, I am afraid. In June 2016, one might have expected a Prime Minister to reach out to the whole nation, including those hurt by the outcome, to bring the country back together. Sadly, instead, David Cameron walked away and the new Prime Minister, in her approach to the negotiations and the sorts of relationships we want to have with the EU after we leave, instead of trying to reflect the fact that nearly half the voters would have liked to stay in, took what I consider an overhasty decision to focus on a particular type of exit, which is really anathema to those on the losing side. Regrettably, she continues to listen only to those on the winning side—those who called for a referendum, who campaigned for us to come out, who won the vote and who now want the hardest of Brexits: a go-it-alone version, leaving behind the very successful trading relationship we have now. This House has voted against coming out of the customs union, but the Prime Minister is still failing to bring the country together and build a wider consensus. She is turning a deaf ear to business, which is crying out for a better sort of Brexit.
I therefore wonder what will happen to the national debate about the sort of Brexit we want if, quite unnecessarily at this moment, we insert into the Bill the potential of a new referendum, with all the division that that will cause. It is unnecessary because the amendment we passed one hour and 25 minutes ago does not close off the possibility, though nor does it trail it. It gives the option as a potential, as indeed the Labour Party conference agreed some time ago, as my noble friend Lord Adonis reminded us, but my concern is that moving the current discourse on to the issue of a second referendum, when the real question before Parliament is the sort of deal we should be seeking, will foster more division and distrust, and it will let the Government off the hook about their disastrous negotiating strategy and the formulation of that strategy.
The external consequences of the amendment have already been mentioned. It is possible that the introduction of a new element of uncertainty—that the deal might need to go to a referendum—could make the necessary compromises in the current negotiations with the EU harder to achieve.
We do not rule out any form of democratic engagement, but we are not persuaded by this call now. We are not sure what exact question the referendum would ask because, if it is only out on the terms negotiated or out with no deal, that would be meaningless; out on the current terms or staying in may also not be the full range of options. We are not persuaded that this is the debate that Parliament or the people want at this moment. In the words of my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, it is premature.
There is a further issue. For the referendum to be accepted by the electorate, it would have to be supported more widely than just by those who favour a particular outcome; otherwise, it will be seen simply as a device to stop Brexit rather than a serious poll on the terms negotiated. At the moment, with just one exception—Nigel Farage—only one side is campaigning for a new referendum. Therefore, that is how I fear it will be seen.
We will abstain on the amendment. But more than that, I ask colleagues across the House to think twice before supporting a referendum now, given that that might further divide the country, rather than unite it; given that the option is always there anyway; and given that that would take the attention off the negotiations at this critical moment.
Lord Adonis
Why does my noble friend think that opinion will be less divided in October than it is today?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
It may or may not be, but that will be an issue for then. The issue for now, surely, is the negotiations that are taking place and the maximum input and effect that we can have on them.
We need to use every bit of our persuasive powers to change the objectives that the Government seem to have set their red lines on. Not everyone will agree with me on that, but that is where the public debate should be at the moment. I have heard the arguments for a referendum. This is not the time to get the public debate back on to that rather than on the subject of the negotiations. I urge that we abstain on this amendment.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I do not know if the noble Countess, Lady Mar, is in her place but I note that the Companion to the Standing Orders makes it clear that:
“Arguments fully deployed … in Committee of the whole House … should not be repeated at length on report”.
I therefore face a challenge today, as did my noble friend Lord Bridges during the passage of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill, because we seem to have heard it all before. As he said then and I have said and the Prime Minister has said, our position remains unchanged from the time of the referendum that we will respect that result.
When voters walked into the polling booth on 23 June 2016, they were asked:
“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”.
This question was put to the public as a result of an Act of Parliament passed by both Houses. The question was not, “Should the United Kingdom negotiate to leave the EU and put the terms of that departure to a further referendum?”—a point that was well made in the excellent speeches of my noble friend Lord Faulks and the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, on the Labour Benches.
Some noble Lords—possibly the Liberal Democrats—may wish that that had been the case, but it was not. The public, in the largest democratic exercise ever conducted in the United Kingdom, voted on that simple question and that simple question alone—a point made well by my noble friend Lord Shinkwin. Both sides in the referendum campaign pledged to respect the result; once the outcome of the vote was clear, that meant to leave the European Union. The public voted to leave and they expect the Government to deliver on that, not try to judge what they may have wished the question was. This promise was repeated in last year’s general election in the manifestos of parties commanding more than 80% of the vote and to which more than half the noble Lords in this House are affiliated. It is on the basis of that commitment that we are here today: the Bill is a necessary component of delivering a successful Brexit. Fundamentally, it is about providing legal certainty, for businesses here and abroad, and for citizens in both the UK and EU—which was also a point well made by my noble friend Lord Faulks.
How would the amendment fit in with that purpose? Inserting a requirement for a second referendum would have exactly the opposite effect. This House will be all too aware that a second referendum would require a further Act of Parliament. What would that process look like? What would the question be? What conditions would be attached? Would there be provision for a further referendum if the Liberal Democrats still did not like the answer? How long would it take to get the referendum legislation through the House and what would happen to business, industry and citizens in the meantime?
Furthermore, while we in this House, and in the other place, debate these issues, businesses and individuals will suffer from the uncertainty that it will bring, when what they really want is a continuation of the certainty provided by our successes in the negotiations so far. There would be legal challenges, I am sure, and perhaps clamour for a third referendum, maybe even a fourth—points well made by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and my noble friend Lord Dobbs. If we commit to continually looking over our shoulder, to holding a second referendum, we cannot be a strong or reliable partner in the negotiations.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The Minister is making his case by asking for clarification on what the question would be for ratifying the agreement. I ask the Government, however, for the same clarity: what will the question be in the Government’s Motion on a meaningful vote in the House of Commons?
Lord Callanan
I outlined what the Motion would be last time: it would be to accept the deal or not to accept the deal. No simpler question can be asked.
I am grateful to noble Lords for allowing me to present the clear government position again. I ask the noble Lord, possibly without much hint of success, to withdraw his amendment. He will not be surprised to know that this is not a subject on which we will be reflecting further before Third Reading.
Lord Newby
My Lords, it has been an extremely serious and good debate, and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. I will make just two comments on points that have been made.
First, a number of noble Lords have said that it would be treating people with disrespect, or contempt, if we gave them more power. I am sorry, but I have difficulty with this concept. It would be treating people with disrespect for a Government to try to ram a solution through the Commons without full opportunity for all the options to be debated and voted on. We have slightly dealt with that issue. In circumstances, however, in which the Commons voted against any deal, to say then that you are treating people with disrespect by letting them have a say seems—to put it mildly—a very curious argument.
Secondly, in response to the argument that this amendment is premature, I repeat what I said in my opening speech: from when this Bill becomes law to a possible final vote in the Commons—and in this House—is a period of approximately 20 weeks, during which there will be a six-week summer recess. In that interim period, there is—as things stand—no legislative vehicle proposed in which such a provision could be inserted. Far from being premature, therefore, this is an extremely timely decision.
I repeat the nub of our contention: if Parliament believes that a Brexit deal is not in the best interests of the country, it should have the courage of its convictions and vote against it. In those circumstances, there should be an option for the British people to have the final say. I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Monks
“(a) approval by Parliament of a mandate for negotiations about the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the EU; and(b) ”
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, it is time—indeed, over time—that Parliament exerted influence on the conduct of the talks about the future relationship between the UK and the EU. I am talking about the relationship after Brexit. This is not some attempt to reverse Brexit; it is about applying our minds to what that future relationship will be. To bring this about, Amendment 51 proposes an earlier, extra step that would be additional to the vote already referred to in Clause 9 and Amendment 49.
Amendment 51 would provide that our negotiators work to a mandate approved by Parliament to guide them in the talks—not a straitjacket or a corset but a device to make sure that the Government come clean about what they are trying to do in the negotiations. We know a few things already: as we heard earlier, the Government aim to have a deal on the divorce ready for the autumn that would, I think, cover the money, the reciprocal rights of citizens, the Irish border and the transition agreement. It would also cover the future relationship with the EU—but only, I understand, in very general terms in a concluding section.
The talks on this crucial aspect are only just getting under way. Indeed, it was not until early March that the Cabinet, meeting at Chequers, managed to patch up some elements of a common position to take into this phase of the talks. This position seems to rely on selecting what we like and rejecting what we do not as though it is some kind of à la carte menu—the product, by the way, of a lot of wishful thinking with some of the measures which we have been made aware of. This approach appears, unsurprisingly, to be getting short shrift in Brussels, which is just not good enough for a country like ours in this very serious situation.
The amendment seeks a parliamentary vote on the main principles of what Britain would like that future relationship to be. In fact, no one outside the innermost court of the Prime Minister really knows what the UK is trying to achieve, except in the most general and vague terms. Perhaps even members of the innermost circle do not know; maybe they and others will learn a bit more after the meeting of the Cabinet that I understand is to take place on Wednesday.
From my trade union experience, I learned that if you enter talks without a clear idea of your objectives, you tend to end up negotiating more with your own colleagues than with your opponent. There are certainly signs of that happening in the Cabinet at present, if the Sunday papers are any kind of accurate guide.
The slogan, “It is time to take back control” was effective and powerful in the 2016 referendum. Surely it is now time for Parliament to recall that phrase and exert a measure of control over the British approach to talks about the future. It cannot be left just to fudges designed primarily to pacify different wings of the Conservative Party.
Critics of this proposal will certainly say that for Parliament to establish a mandate is unconstitutional. They will quote the convention that the Government cannot be instructed on how to conduct themselves when they are involved in international negotiations. However, this would not in fact be unprecedented. Parliament has stepped in and intervened in recent years regarding military interventions in the Middle East and Libya.
The decision on our future relationship with the EU is just as momentous as a declaration of war and too important for Parliament just to stand tamely on the touchline and play the role of spectator. It is too important for jobs, for prosperity and for peace in a continent with a troubled history. To give one example of how momentous this decision will be, a Canada-style free trade agreement, which is where the EU is currently heading, could on the Government’s own figures cut the UK’s GDP by a massive 5%. That would result in a smaller, poorer nation.
I do not know where a meaningful vote in Parliament on a mandate would lead. It is quite possible that it could endorse the Government’s position, whatever that is, except that they are very clear that they are ruling out membership of the single market and the customs union and any continuing role for the European Court of Justice. It could happen that that position would be endorsed, or a meaningful vote could perhaps lead to the insistence on a sharp, clean break and a switch to WTO rules. Or it could, as I would prefer, aim for the UK to stay in the European Economic Area, perhaps via membership of a strengthened EFTA, thus retaining membership of the single market and the customs union. That is not an ideal position, but with our size we would certainly be more than rule takers. In my view, it is the best option available among some rather unpalatable ones that are consistent with observing the outcome of the referendum.
Whatever the outcome of a meaningful vote on a mandate, Parliament would have spoken on the future relationship and not left these matters solely in the fumbling hands of the Cabinet. After such a vote, it would be incumbent on us all to get behind the decision for better or for worse and to try to make it work for both the UK and the EU. So my message to the House today—and particularly perhaps to the other place—is: assert ourselves, do our democratic duty and uphold the sovereignty of this Parliament before it is too late to influence affairs. I beg to move.
Baroness Wheatcroft
My Lords, Parliament needs to know what the Government are trying to achieve in their negotiations. The original vision of having the benefits of EU membership without any of the perceived downsides has evaporated. For the second time this afternoon, I shall quote Sir John Major, for I can put it no better than he did. He said that,
“every one of the Brexit promises is—to quote Henry Fielding—‘a very wholesome and comfortable doctrine to which (there is) but one objection: namely, that it is not true’”.
If “cake and eat it” is off the menu, what is it that the Government are aiming to achieve in our future relationship with the EU? This amendment seeks to give Parliament some say in what the future relationship would look like before it is too late.
We will no doubt be told that it is foolish to try to tie the hands of the Government in their negotiations—but the noble Lord, Lord Monks, has more experience than most of conducting negotiations, and he convincingly introduced this amendment. My experience comes from the other side of the negotiating table, but it leads to the same conclusion: being able to say “my members” or “my board” or “my Parliament” would never accept such and such strengthens rather than weakens the hand of the negotiators. It would surely help the Government to have some idea of where the red lines are as far as Parliament and the House of Commons, in particular, are concerned.
This afternoon the Minister once more made very clear that the Government would like to deprive Parliament of a meaningful vote on whatever deal or no deal they negotiate. This House has demonstrated its objection to that, and I believe that the Commons will uphold that vote. Our system of democracy demands that Parliament should take back control of the Brexit process. Insisting on a meaningful vote is progress. This amendment goes one step further. It endeavours to give Parliament an input into the shape of the deal. We are led to believe that there are differing views within the Cabinet on whether the UK should have a customs partnership with the EU. But if there is a majority of MPs who insist on a customs partnership, would it not make sense for the Government to be aware of that while there was still a chance of negotiating it? If a majority of MPs believe that the country needs to be in the equivalent of the single market of the 27, would it not be sensible to establish that sooner rather than later? It sometimes seems that the only mandate in which the Government have an interest is that granted by the Daily Mail. Parliament surely should be granted as much say in the Brexit process as the tabloid press. This amendment would give Parliament the power to strengthen the hand of the Government in their negotiations with the EU and I urge the House to support it.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, is it not quite clear that what the Government have to seek to do is restore self-government with a minimum of economic dislocation? I do not see any point in Parliament denying the Government freedom of manoeuvre as they seek to achieve that.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, it is often said that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, but I rather think, after our proceedings today, that repetition would not achieve the same objective. I have the advantage of following, yet again, the succinct appreciation of these issues by the noble Lord, Lord Monks, and wish to add only a few thoughts of my own. I will make a contemporary reference. The resignation of Amber Rudd from the Cabinet has not just had consequences for the Home Office but is generally regarded as having had very severe consequences for the balance of opinion within the Cabinet, which leads me to a point that has already been made by the noble Baroness. The requirement to state the terms of mandate might once and for all force the Cabinet to clearly indicate precisely what they are seeking to achieve. A mandate based on principles would not tie the hands of the Government. It would not put handcuffs on the Prime Minister or even, for that matter, Mr Davis. It would set out in a clear and unequivocal way precisely what the objectives were. That, as the noble Baroness has already indicated, would create an opportunity, emboldened by authority. It therefore cannot be argued on behalf of the Government that the passing of this amendment would in any way detract from their ability to carry out an effective negotiation.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
I was not really intending to get involved in this debate. However, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, has gone on about the canard that we do not know what the Government want out of the negotiations. He then explained to us what the Government want out of the negotiations: as easy a deal as possible. It is quite straightforward what the Government want. They want a free trade deal. They want to go on doing business with the EU in the way that they have in the past, with as little change as possible.
I hear your Lordships say, “But we’re not going to get that”. That is probably true, but that is because the EU is not prepared to give us that. It is prepared to suffer when it comes to its trade in goods—as it sells so much more to us—for the benefit of punishing this country, because for some reason the EU is such a wonderful organisation that you have to punish people who want to leave it. We voluntarily joined the EU; why can we not be allowed to leave it voluntarily without being punished? That does not say much for it, does it? This is one of the problems that the Remain campaign had during the referendum: what was the narrative that was so wonderful about staying in the EU? The fact that no narrative could be produced was one of the reasons why the Leave campaign won.
So let us not mandate the Government to doing x or y, as the amendment suggests. It is quite clear what the Government want. They want a bespoke free trade deal that carries on business as we have done in the past. It does not look as if we will get it but that is what the Government want, and mandating it will not make the slightest bit of difference.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom. He spoke in rather a different tone from the previous speakers, my noble friend Lord Monks, the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, who have brought to this discussion what I might call a mature, thoughtful approach to a crisis facing this country that will become even more stark when we get to October.
A lot of people have mentioned today the relationship between the Lords and the Commons. I draw the House’s attention to a creative opportunity that we have right now in the light of the report published on 13 March by the Brexit Select Committee of the House of Commons, chaired by Hilary Benn MP. By a majority in some cases but unanimously in others, it has produced something pretty much like the sort of remit that I imagine will make sense in terms of the detail that one would present to Mr Barnier, who has his own remit. Perhaps I may pick out one or two points from it to give the flavour.
The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, says it is obvious, and everyone knows, what the Government want. I think that, on a scale of one to 10, we know about only two or three out of 10 what is in the negotiating mandate. If we were to make a constructive contribution then, first, there would have to be something in the mandate because otherwise on what criteria would anyone, including ourselves, judge the outcome of the negotiations? I return to the analogy that my noble friend Lord Monks drew with trade union negotiations. The two things are analogous in some ways, though not totally. What you do not do is go into cloud-cuckoo-land at the start and say to the employer—on an industry basis or a company basis; it does not matter at the moment—“Here is our claim: double the pay, double the holidays, halve the hours and double the pensions”. There are two reasons why mature trade unions do not go down that route. First, you will not get what you have asked for, and what do you do when you come back to the executive? Does it call a strike? That would be a fantasy and it would not get anywhere. The second reason, of course, is that that trade union would not be taken seriously on the other side of the table. I know some trade unions can be satirised in that way, but then I suppose I could satirise Boris Johnson quite adequately if I put my mind to it.
With regard to the degree of specificity that is needed in a mandate at the moment, I shall read one or two of the proposals in the report of the House of Commons Select Committee. If the House of Commons is to be part of looking at a mandate, it does not matter who writes it down. The Government have yet to respond, by the way, to the report, which picks up a couple of points made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. I shall read just one or two:
“The border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland must remain open, with no physical infrastructure or any related checks and controls, as agreed in the Phase 1 Withdrawal Agreement”.
That is very difficult to implement, and things follow from it to do with the customs arrangement and the single market. If we are to get somewhere between cloud-cuckoo-land and the specificities, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, that there is no button to press that says, “Take back control. Job done”. This has taken two years of an educational exercise—we are in the middle of a huge educational exercise. Whether or not people argue in the pub about it—and some people do—the fact is that it is a very complicated matter, and it is now understood a lot more than it was at the time of the referendum. Let us try to see how people could understand it a bit better. Surely it would be good if there could be more transparency from the Government. I am sure they would get more respect in Brussels, Paris, Berlin and the rest if they could be franker than they have been so far—although we know the reasons why they cannot easily be franker at the moment and why Parliament needs to give them a nudge.
To give another example, on crime and terrorism, the report says that,
“arrangements must replicate what currently exists in operational and practical cross-border co-operation. In particular, the UK must retain involvement with Europol and the European Arrest Warrant and continue to participate in the EU’s information-sharing systems including SIS II”.
It goes on:
“Institutional and decision-making frameworks must be identified to ensure that the UK is able fully to participate in foreign and security co-operation with the EU, to meet the challenges it shares with its neighbours in the EU-27”.
Another example is:
“In respect of trade in goods, there must be no tariffs on trade between the UK and the EU 27”.
There are a dozen such propositions that would be highly desirable in an adult democracy, which has been a democracy for 1,000 years, or whatever it is. Surely that is the minimum that we can expect: a little more transparency, please. Then people would know that they were being treated as adults and take it from there. We have a huge problem with the credibility of where we are all headed in the continued mention of October this year. I am not saying that the idea that we can get to this place by October is impossible, but it stretches one’s imagination to see how all this will be done. A mark of our seriousness could be to make a proposition.
It is not a risk-free exercise for anyone, whatever their views, to put up a comprehensive proposition. The only way we can describe the arrangements from which we have to select is that they are all different trade-offs, or different package deals. Some people have seen a paper that a trade association produced on the different trade-offs on offer. The maximum at what you might call the remain end of the market would be something that does not look very different from where we are. Another, mentioned by my noble friend and increasingly the position of many industries, is to stay within the European Economic Area by moving from pillar 1, which is the EU, to pillar 2, which is EFTA, of which we were a member from sometime in the 1960s to sometime in the 1970s—a long time ago. It is an organisation that, on trade, works. No one doubts its position in the world. We must look at these practical alternatives. If we were to adopt the amendment, the House of Commons would find it a very constructive way forward to reach some accommodation, not only between the Lords and the Commons, which is a consideration, but between the Government and the people, as mentioned many times today. The amendment will provide constructive input, if the House will support it today.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, in one way, it is difficult to imagine a more pertinent week for this amendment to arrive in this House. It is true that perhaps it would have been better if we had included it in the Article 50 Bill: if when, as we authorised the Government to fire the starting gun on our departure from the EU, we had laid down at that stage the requirement for the negotiating mandate which would have set out our future relationship with the EU and asked for it to be approved by Parliament.
As it turns out, that would have been good for the Government as well as for the country, as it would have forced the Prime Minister at that stage to fashion a mandate to find favour with Parliament: avoiding a further year of disputes, lobbying and, dare I say, manoeuvring within her Cabinet. Indeed, the Government’s dithering and internal party arguments have held up parliamentary work on, for example, the Trade Bill, with 12 wasted weeks’ delay on a crucial Commons vote—the equivalent of a 10th of the time allocated for the Article 50 negotiations. Such uncertainty has left the EU scratching its head as to what exactly the UK wants.
It must also drain the Prime Minister’s time and energy as she seeks to reconcile the irreconcilable within her party rather than putting the country’s interests first. The prime, perhaps the central, job of any Prime Minister is to defend and promote her country’s interests. That is what she should be doing, rather than acting as a nursery teacher controlling unruly youngsters.
That behaviour rolls on. On the one side, she is under huge pressure from within her Cabinet to abandon even consideration of a customs partnership, with, we read, senior Brexiteers “preparing for a showdown” at this week’s Brexit sub-committee. Incidentally, the showdown is in part led by Liam Fox who, in 2012, called for a new relationship with the EU based on,
“an economic partnership involving a customs union and a single market in goods and services”.
At the same time, David Davis was saying that his preference was to remain in the customs union. So their former selves were looking towards that, and your Lordships’ House, by its view on the customs union, has expressed a fear about a physical and regulatory break from our largest trading partner.
We also hear that from businesses, trade unions, environmentalists, those speaking about Northern Ireland and, possibly, from a majority in the House of Commons, where, in due course, there will have to be a crunch vote on the shape of the customs union relationship, in particular. The Prime Minister will not be able to postpone that indefinitely. As the saying goes, “You can run, but you can’t hide”. Part of the reason that that is happening now is because we did not have parliamentary approval for the negotiating mandate at the start of the process.
The amendment demands that the articulation of our future relationship—what the Government want to achieve from the negotiations—should be spelled out and put to Parliament. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, is right in what he says about what that will spell out and what the mandate would include, but why not have it endorsed by Parliament?
We support the amendment, which would ensure that that negotiating mandate, which would cover trade and our future relationship with the EU, is approved not just by what is a rather divided Cabinet at the moment, but by Parliament, which is where the decision should lie.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I begin by making it clear that Parliament has a critical role in scrutinising the Government’s negotiating position. It is our responsibility as a Government to provide both Houses with ample opportunities for scrutinising both the approach we are taking to exiting the EU and any implementing legislation—and we are doing so.
The Secretary of State for Exiting the EU has provided an Oral Statement to the House after every negotiation round. He has provided evidence to the Select Committee on Exiting the EU five times, and has appeared before the Lords EU Committee four times. On 29 occasions to date, DExEU Ministers have given evidence to a wide range of committees, from Environmental Audit to Science and Technology. As my noble friend Lord Hamilton observed, the Prime Minister has laid out her intentions for the future economic and security relationship between the UK and the EU in several speeches, most recently in those made in Munich and in London’s Mansion House. Her intentions were also made clear in the seven future partnership papers, where the Government set out their negotiating objectives across a number of areas, including customs, science and innovation. Government Ministers have made a series of speeches laying out their intent for various aspects of the future relationship between the EU and the UK.
The scrutiny received during these parliamentary appearances, and in the multitude of reports from the committees of this House and the other place, have been of great value, and have done much to help inform the Government’s work so far. There has also been a wide range of engagement activity by government with key stakeholders across business, civil society and other interested groups. While there are some who think that Parliament should have a greater role in setting the terms of our negotiations, we simply cannot hold up the already tight negotiating timeline by providing for a further approval process prior to negotiations ending. It must be for the Government, not Parliament, to set our goals for the negotiations on the UK’s exit from the EU, and to conduct them.
As I said in my response to the first amendment that we considered today, the Government have been clear from the start that Parliament will get a vote on the final deal, when Parliament will have the final say on the withdrawal agreement and terms for our future relationship, as soon as possible after the negotiations have concluded. Only if Parliament supports that Motion will the Government bring forward the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill to give the withdrawal agreement domestic legal effect. The Government will then introduce further legislation where it is needed to implement the terms of the future relationship in UK law, providing yet further opportunities for proper parliamentary scrutiny.
Debates in this place and the work of the committees of both Houses represent valuable forums and opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny, and we have used Parliament’s input to shape our approach to negotiations so far. Indeed, I conclude by quoting some wise words from our own House’s EU Committee’s fourth report of 2016-17, titled Brexit: Parliamentary Scrutiny:
“Parliament should not seek to micromanage the negotiations. The Government will conduct the negotiations on behalf of the United Kingdom, and, like any negotiator, it will need room to manoeuvre if it is to secure a good outcome”.
My noble friend Lord Boswell will no doubt not let me ignore the fact that the report goes on to call for the avoidance of “accountability after the fact”, but I hope that the House will agree that the right response is not to go to the extremes of micromanagement by Parliament. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment tonight.
Lord Monks
My Lords, I thank all those who took part in this debate, which has continued the theme of this afternoon and early evening about the relationship of the Executive to the legislature. This amendment goes to the heart of that relationship. The fact is that we are in a position where we know what the Government are ruling out very clearly; what we do not know is what they are ruling in. In fact, the debates taking place in the Cabinet, as I understand, this coming Wednesday, show that the Government are all over the show about the objectives that they have in the negotiations about the future relationship.
This amendment seeks to provide the means for Parliament to put pressure on the Government to come up with some clarity. There has been activity, yes—and the Minister laid out the wide range of things that have been going on in Parliament about Brexit—but the crucial issue of the future relationship of the UK to the EU is still vague or wishful thinking or a combination of the two. I think that the Government can do better than that and owe it to Parliament to do better, and this amendment is a way of putting pressure on our Executive and the Prime Minister to do something about that.
I will make a quick reference to the punishment scenario painted by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. There is a range of things on offer from the European Commission, including membership of the single market and the customs union—many things that would make it business as usual, such as in the EEA and so on. It is our Government who are ruling out those kinds of things, which would provide as much continuity as we possibly can, which seems to be the objective of what the noble Lord was saying.
With all those points in mind, and bearing in mind the hour, I would like to test the opinion of the House on this amendment.
Lord Cormack
“( ) It is an objective of Her Majesty’s Government to make every endeavour to facilitate the enactment of the statute described in subsection (1) prior to the ratification of the withdrawal agreement by the European Parliament.”
Lord Cormack
My Lords, Amendment 52 is grouped with Amendment 62 and I will address most of my remarks to the latter. Although I hope that my noble friend Lord Hailsham will not be cross with me, Amendment 52 deals rather more succinctly with the subjects that were dealt with in Amendment 49. As your Lordships’ House has already passed that amendment by a substantial majority, and has therefore emphatically accepted the need to have a meaningful vote, and enshrined that in the Bill, it would be tedious of me to repeat the arguments or to ask your Lordships to vote. At the appropriate moment, I will say the appropriate words.
Amendment 62 is very important. It is a logical consequence of Amendment 52 or, now that we have put it in the Bill, Amendment 49. The meaningful vote must be underscored with a meaningful process. There is a great deal of uncertainty around what the meaningful vote will look like and what the consequences would be should Parliament decide—as I hope it will not have to—to vote against any agreement. Amendment 62 seeks to address the current uncertainty in the Bill around this process. It is possible that, if the withdrawal deal fails to get through Parliament, the UK could leave the EU with no deal at all and fall back on WTO terms, which the Government’s own assessment shows would be the worst option, reducing growth, according to some estimates, by 8% over 15 years. Parliament must therefore have the right to request that the Government get back to the negotiating table for a better deal if that is the outcome. Amendment 62 would ensure that, if Parliament declines to approve the Government’s Motion on the withdrawal deal, the UK would retain our current relationship with the EU and the Government would be required to request an extension of Article 50.
Amendment 62 is therefore a common-sense amendment, which would strengthen Parliament’s ability to consider the withdrawal deal effectively, both in good time and in a position to send the Government back to the negotiating table while providing a degree of continuity and stability for our economy. This is very much a common-sense amendment, and if it is not pushed to a vote later this evening, because it will not be reached for some considerable time, I hope that we will have the opportunity to look at these issues again. It is important that we have a good deal, and it is crucial that we do not have no deal. This amendment is therefore a constructive one, and I very much hope that the sentiments behind it will commend themselves to your Lordships’ House at the appropriate moment. I beg to move.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
My Lords, I will speak in favour of Amendments 52 and 62. Given the strictures on repetition, I will not rehearse again anything on Amendment 52, which would allow the British Parliament to have its say before the European Parliament is asked to approve any deal. I already made plain my views on that in Committee so I will stick to Amendment 62. With this amendment we are seeking to safeguard Parliament’s ability to have a “meaningful” vote. It would have been handy if it had been linked with Amendment 49, but I realise the conflicting pressures that are on the Front Bench to decide the groupings. Nevertheless, Amendment 49 has taken a huge stride tonight in underpinning a meaningful vote. However, it is by no means perfect, and it has gaps.
Parliament’s consideration of the withdrawal agreement will be a serious task—we all know that. Our debates this evening alone have shown the level of complexity and sheer number of issues which the withdrawal agreement will have to address in detail. Yet as the clock ticks onwards that exit day comes ever closer—it is now within a year—and if there is no withdrawal agreement, we lose guaranteed access to our biggest market, certainty on the Irish border, and confidence for British citizens living and working in the rest of Europe and for the European citizens who are here. Given the timescale, those are immense risks.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
What evidence does the noble Lord have that you get a better deal when you go back to the table than the deal you have already got?
Lord Reid of Cardowan
The noble Lord may be able to predict whether it will be better or worse, but any deal that is acceptable to the British Parliament would be better than the disastrous situation of no deal at all. But that may need time. Why have an artificial deadline cutting us off from the conclusion of a deal, which may be there in the bones or, in the famous words of the Brexit Secretary, as a “platform”—and deny ourselves the opportunity of having the alternative of a cohesive deal rather than no deal, which I think would be the worst of all worlds? This is an opportunity that we should take.
A lot of the debate on Amendment 49 was about the ideological motives of those who are handling this. As my noble friend and occasional protagonist Lord Grocott keeps pointing out, I was a reluctant remainer. I was sceptical about the eurozone and the bureaucracy and unaccountability of the European Union, but on balance I wanted to stay in because all the challenges that we face are global: cyber, terrorism, trade and the environment. Being part of a larger bloc is, on balance, worth it. Therefore, my approach to this is pragmatic, not ideological. I admit to being confused by the ideological positions of the leaders of the major parties. We appear to have the leader of one party who is ideologically inclined to remain in the European Union but doing her best to get us out of it, and a leader of the other party who is ideologically inclined to remove us from the European Union who appears to be doing his best to keep us in part of it. I am confused about the ideologies that are supposed to be driving this on all sides of the House.
I believe that we should take what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, called a common-sense position. It is possible that the vote on the final deal could be little more than a deal or no deal choice, where a rejection of the Government’s Motion would mean the UK exiting the EU with no deal on WTO terms, which would be the worst possible option for the UK. That is not according to me, in my lack of wisdom, experience, depth and analysis, but according to the Government’s own impact studies. I believe that we must insure against that, which is what Amendment 62 seeks to do.
The Secretary of State told the House of Commons that the agreement will deliver the “exact same benefits” as our EU membership. That is basically what the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, said our objectives were. As it happens, that is also the commitment of the Opposition Front Bench, which has adopted it as one of its six tests. Amendment 62 simply safeguards this commitment by guaranteeing that we keep our current benefits until a withdrawal agreement has been reached that can match our objectives. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, it is a common sense, pragmatic amendment. It has no political motivation and no ulterior motive, other than the objective of preserving the best for this country. That is what this whole debate is supposed to be about.
It is my great pleasure to support Amendment 62. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for indicating that, if time constraints prevent us pushing this to a vote later tonight, we may come back to it at another stage.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I do not think that this is really about the European Union. This is about parliamentary sovereignty. I have to say that I do not understand why it is that the Government do not want Parliament, in the end, to be in a position to make the decisions which these two amendments make possible. It seems to me, in any case, that that would be valuable to the Government in negotiation, because it would enable them to say that a deal, if both sides want a deal, is one that has to get through Parliament. However, I do not want to go down that route. I want to go down the route of parliamentary sovereignty.
This is the most important decision we have made for a very long time—perhaps the most important peacetime decision that we have made ever. There are people in this House on either side of the debate and I would not be able, even if I wished to, to pretend that I was not absolutely committed to one side. But I am also a parliamentarian, and it is clear to me that there is no reason why Parliament should not make sure that it is able to make a proper decision on this issue and to make a decision that does not leave the nation in an impossible position. All that these two amendments really do is to ensure that there is a sensible programme into which Parliament is “properly”—I use that word in almost a technical sense—conjoined.
Why should one not want this? Well, one might not want it because it is not properly drafted. Of course, the technique of Governments of all kinds is to say that they would be very happy to go along with something but unfortunately there is this or that technical reason why it does not work. Maybe that is so, but I would therefore ask the Government this: if it is technically wrong, would they come before the House with the amendments that would make it technically right? If they do not, they are saying that in this most important issue of all, the Executive are going to make the decision, and that they wish to leave themselves open to making the circumstances in which Parliament cannot make a sensible decision. They would be saying to Parliament, “Vote for us or total disaster and collapse”. This is the technique of dictators down the ages: “Me or chaos; me or something much worse”. This House should insist that the decision is in Parliament’s hands. That means avoiding circumstances in which it is possible for the Executive to say, “However bad this is, anything else would be very much worse”.
My noble friend Lord Hamilton is also arguing from a clear, previous position—so we are in the same situation. He asks whether we have any evidence that going back for a further negotiation would be better. I have been in business since I was 22, except for when I was a Minister, and I have never started by saying that if the negotiation was not successful I was not prepared to go back and see if I could do better. That is how you run businesses and make money. It is how you improve the circumstances. I do not know in advance whether I can achieve something better, but I would never say that I would never go back and put myself into a position in which I could not negotiate again.
So I say to my noble friend that all this amendment says is that if Parliament decides that a negotiated agreement is not satisfactory, then, and only then, the Government will have to go back and seek something better.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
Is the negotiation with the EU not somewhat unique, because you are negotiating with 27 different countries?
Lord Deben
It is unusual to negotiate with 27 different countries, but I have negotiated with large numbers of different people on the other side. That is one thing that we just have to accept. It is, like anything else, a negotiation. If we think that it is so unique that we cannot do it, we should not have started the negotiation in the first place. It does not make any difference if you have a second negotiation: it is the same position that you had with the first negotiation. The fact that it is with 27 different countries makes no difference because it does not change from the first negotiation to the second. I do not think that my noble friend has a point on that.
The real issue is the fundamental fact: the amendment does not operate unless Parliament has voted in a particular way. The Government’s answer to the amendment must therefore be that they have a reason not to let Parliament continue to be involved after such a vote. The Government do not think that Parliament will take such a decision. They are very sure—and I have listened to government speakers again and again—that they will produce a result that will be cheered by Parliament. We will all be thrilled with what they have been able to achieve. I would be very suspicious if the Government’s answer is that they do not think they will get that sort of result and therefore do not want to get themselves into a difficult position. I am assuming that, whatever agreement they have, it will be a good one and this amendment will never come into operation.
The only reason for the amendment is to be a backstop for the circumstances in which the Government do not achieve what they tell us they can achieve and they therefore produce something that is so unacceptable that Parliament decides that it cannot accept it. The Government have to say, “What happens then?”. Unless they accept the amendment or some technically different one that suits them, their only answer can be, “We the Executive will decide”. That is why this is not about the European Union. It is about the powers of Parliament and it is why I am surprised at my noble friend Lord Hamilton, who was chairman of the 1922 Committee, who protected and defended the rights of Members of Parliament and who believes and believed in the nature of Parliamentary democracy. It is why I do not understand why this divides the House.
This should be something that both leavers and remainers—and those who wander between and those who are confused—all of us, should accept that we want Parliament to be in a position to accept and to decide. This will not work unless Parliament has decided that it does not want the agreed solution. The amendment will not come into operation unless that happens. Surely it is not too much to ask that the Government say, if we get to that point, that Parliament should have the right to ask the Government to go back and try again.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I am a great admirer of my noble friend Lord Reid and therefore, if he presses this to a Division later on in the evening or at whatever hour of the night we get to it, I will of course support him. I have nothing against the contents of the amendment because it is clearly desirable that, if we cannot support the Government’s treaty, the default should be that we stay in the EU unless the House of Commons has a better set of propositions that it wishes to agree to.
However, my concern is that there is a certain element of unreality to the proposals to try to bind the hands of the House of Commons as to what it may or may not do in the autumn. One of two things will in fact happen when the Prime Minister presents her treaty. The House of Commons will either vote for it or vote against it. There are no other alternatives. If the House of Commons votes against the treaty, that is, to all intents and purposes, a Motion of no confidence in the Government. There has not been an incident since Gladstone’s Home Rule Bill in 1886, which was rejected by the House of Commons, where the central plank of a Government’s policy was rejected outright by the House of Commons. The idea that there could be a further negotiation after that is entirely unrealistic. The negotiation would have been concluded with the European Commission and the Council of Ministers, and ratified or not by the European Parliament and so forth. It is not realistic in the real world to expect that there would be further negotiation.
In the eventuality that the treaty is rejected, there are only two things that could conceivably happen. Either there will be an election because the Government have been defeated on what is in effect a Motion of confidence—it might take a formal triggering Motion under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act to produce it—or there will be a referendum, which we discussed earlier. A referendum could happen if the House of Commons itself resolved that there should be one immediately after the defeat or perhaps as an amendment to the Motion that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has said would be tabled. Everything else beyond that seems to be superfluous. The policy of the Government will then be the outcome of the referendum or the outcome of that election. A Government will have to be formed after the election, which will have to have a European policy and that will then be the policy of the Government that they would seek to negotiate in Brussels. There would either be some amendments to the treaty, if that is possible or—as I hope there is a Labour Government—there will be a decision not to proceed with Brexit, or there would be a referendum and we would proceed with the outcome of that referendum.
I say all that mainly to my noble friend on the Front Bench and her colleagues in the other place. There is no point in engaging in this displacement activity at the moment and making it sound as if we are being very tough on Brexit by placing ever more elaborate manacles and handcuffs on what might or might not happen in the vote in October. The only thing that really matters is the attitude of the Labour Party when the Government present their treaty. Either we are in favour of it or we are against it. If we are against that treaty, I can assure my noble friend that everything else will take care of itself. If we are against the treaty and vote against it, we do not need all the protections in this Bill. One of two things will happen. Either there will be another referendum or there will be an election. If there is an election, what matters is the policy of my party in that election. Will we or will we not proceed with Brexit if we win the election? Very simple facts of political power come into play.
What happens in Parliament after that will depend on those decisions. Ever more elaborate provisions in this Bill are, I say respectfully, entirely beside the point because they miss the reality of political power. That is that there has to be a Government, they have to have a policy and that can come from only one of two ways. Either a new Government are returned if this Government are turned out on the treaty or there is a referendum that will determine it.
I am entirely in favour of everything in my noble friend’s amendment and I hope that it will be warmly welcomed from the Front Bench, but what really matters, I say to my noble friends, is the policy of the Labour Party when the Prime Minister presents her treaty. If we are against the treaty and we are successful, there has to be either an election or a referendum. I am afraid that there are no alternative options on offer.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
With the leave of the House—and the noble Countess, Lady Mar, if she is in—I want to say something. I used to say to a friend of mine—he was an acquaintance, really—in the Militant Group that I wished I was as sure of one thing as he was of everything. There is an unusual hint of that in what my noble friend just said. It is not true that you can ordain in the future in politics the inevitability of one or two courses. In the wise words of Harold Macmillan, when asked what he was most frightened of, “Events, dear boy, events”. I would therefore be very cautious about taking that view—although my noble friend is perfectly entitled to ask the Labour Front Bench what the party’s position is—on the inevitability of history. Great philosophers have made that mistake before. If I am correct and he is wrong, it would be wise to have some form of plan or safeguard for each contingency. All we are trying to do, in a non-ideological and non-partisan fashion, is say, “Let us have a common-sense plan for the contingency that Parliament votes this down”. There is a huge complexity about what might happen afterwards and none of it is unavoidable or predictable in advance.
Lord Adonis
My noble friend makes a very good point, but all of those further eventualities would be so much clearer if my party’s policy were clear in the first place.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to agree with people from the Labour Party. I certainly agree with that final remark: it would be nice if the Labour Party’s policy were a little clearer. I have known—I would not say that I have had the pleasure of knowing—the Leader of the Opposition all the time he has been in politics. I cannot recall a single occasion, from the referendum in 1975 through all the treaties, when he has supported anything to do with Europe. I suspect that part of the reason for the difficulties of the Opposition today is this squabble at the top. The feeling among one or two leading Members of the Labour Party is wanting to stay in the European Union—certainly in the customs union—and the feeling right at the top is, “over my dead body”. I ask the Opposition to start supposing; that would be a big step forward.
I rose to speak because I put my name to both of the amendments. I want to look at the role of the European Parliament in particular. We talk about parliamentary sovereignty but two Parliaments are involved in this. I listened to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, but we are negotiating not with 27 countries, but the European Parliament, which has a position, and the Council, which has a position and, through Monsieur Barnier, someone to pull that position together. Amendment 52 says,
“prior to the ratification of the withdrawal agreement by the European Parliament”.
Amendment 49 is slightly better worded, in my view, because it says,
“debated and voted on before the European Parliament has debated and voted on the draft withdrawal agreement”.
Although I put my name to Amendment 52, I concede that Amendment 49 has a better form of words. We cannot assume that the European Parliament will go along with the position of Mr Barnier. The European Parliament has its own rapporteur on withdrawal: Mr Guy Verhofstadt, whose job is to reach a common position in Parliament.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, the case has been made that should Parliament fail to approve the Government’s withdrawal deal, the Government should pause the Article 50 process and go back to the negotiating table. That might appear to be a sensible, common-sense—in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack—possibly even essential proposal. Indeed, it was one of the arguments we used when we urged the Government to remove the fixed date for exit in the Bill—we will return to that next week but I am sure they are aware of that—to give the flexibility they may need in exactly those circumstances.
However, I fear that the particular route of Amendment 62 runs counter to the whole thrust of what we have just agreed in Amendment 49. Should the Government’s deal be voted down, the consequences of that failure to negotiate a satisfactory outcome and to win the support of Parliament for it would indeed be extremely serious. Amendment 49 says that in those circumstances it should be the Commons rather than the Government which starts to take charge. The Commons may well decide to take the route suggested in Amendment 62 with a quick letter to the EU asking it to consider an extension. It might consider as an alternative that it wants a referendum. It might decide that it wants to withdraw the Article 50 trigger altogether rather than just extend it, as set out in the later Amendment 57 from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley.
However, today is not the time to speculate which of those would be the right outcome for the House of Commons in those circumstances. We cannot know now and we certainly should not try to second-guess the correct option if there is not a majority in the Commons for the deal that has been negotiated.
It would be a shame if in any way the amendment appears to put the initiative back into the hands of Ministers, rather than the Commons. Amendment 49 said it was for the Commons, not the Executive, to take the next step should we find ourselves in that position. On that basis, we will be abstaining on Amendment 62—assuming that it is dealt with tonight, rather than early in the morning. Our reason is that it is tangential or even superfluous—rather than objectionable—and could be seen to conflict with what we have just agreed at 5 pm today in Amendment 49. It narrows, rather than widens, the options the Commons would have should the final deal be voted down.
Lord Reid of Cardowan
I welcome the constructive nature of my noble friend’s criticism, if you follow me. I am not sure that the two are incompatible. I am not sure that the House of Commons can actually, in international relations, speak for a sovereign state the way that a Government have to speak for a sovereign state. I take it from what my noble friend said that she is not ruling out the idea but objects to the imperative nature of it and the apparent conflicts with what was passed earlier. In that case, I hope that she and the Government will engage in seeing how we could reconcile those apparent differences.
Lord Callanan
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I remain as confident as I was debating the first group that we will reach a positive deal with the EU and that Parliament will want to support it. However, the noble Lord proposes that, in the event of Parliament rejecting the deal, we should seek an extension of Article 50 and stay in the EU. An extension to Article 50 is not for the UK to decide alone. It would require the unanimous agreement of the European Council. This should not come as a revelation to any noble Lords, as this point was made clear before and during the passage of the notification of withdrawal Act.
I do not think it is by any means certain that in the event of having agreed everything, only to find that nothing is subsequently agreed, it would be in the UK’s or the EU’s interest to reopen, for an undefined and potentially endless period, our withdrawal negotiations. I know that many noble Lords take a great and affectionate interest in the European project. It is not right to seek to extend our negotiations and act as a block to the EU’s ability to address its priorities.
Here at home, this amendment touches on the points we discussed in the previous groups today. Again, it is not the role of the legislative branch to instruct the Executive on how to act on the international stage. I realise that EU exit might have changed some noble Lords’ minds on this position, but this would be a constitutional shift potentially larger than our departure from the EU and is not something to be entered into via an amendment at this stage of the Bill.
We are, however, absolutely committed to giving Parliament the final say and, in line with the request in the noble Lord’s Amendment 52, we will make every endeavour for this vote to be held before the vote in the European Parliament. Of course, this House and the other place will also want sufficient time to consider the deal and to debate it. The noble Lord’s statutory commitment to our political goal could place these in tension. As we cannot control the timetable of the European Parliament, if it chooses to rush to a vote faster than would allow this Parliament to properly debate the deal, we would not want to try to force this House to a vote before it is ready.
In reply to my noble friend Lord Balfe, we are engaging extensively with the European Parliament. Indeed, I have met with Richard Corbett, as well as many other MEPs. We have been engaging at a ministerial level, from the Prime Minister downwards. I myself have visited Brussels and Strasbourg and attended many meetings and discussions with numerous MEPs from all of the political groups. I am pleased to tell my noble friend that there is a lot of support for a good and constructive deal with the United Kingdom in the European Parliament. His point is well made. We are engaging extensively with it; I myself am doing so.
As noble Lords will know, the UK and the EU have the shared objective of reaching an agreement by October 2018. That ensures sufficient time for the vote to take place, in both this House and the other place, before the vote in the European Parliament and substantially before our exit day. This vote will have to be prompt to leave the requisite time for the passage of the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, to which we are also committed.
I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord of the Government’s commitment to delivering a timely vote and that a statutory direction to an extension to Article 50 is not appropriate. I therefore ask that he withdraws his amendment. Let me make it crystal clear that I cannot give him any false hope that I will reflect further on this issue between now and Third Reading, so if he wishes to test the opinion of the House he should do so now.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I have no intention of seeking to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 52 because we have already passed Amendment 49.
Lord Cormack
I do not know whether I am grateful for that or not, but I made it plain at the very beginning that I would not ask the House to vote on Amendment 52. The House has passed an amendment with similar intentions by a large majority. I trust that the Government will reflect on the implications of your Lordships’ views as expressed in the Lobbies earlier.
Before I seek leave to withdraw Amendment 52, I say to my noble friend that although we share his hopes that the deal will be a good one and we would love to be able to share his expectations, various things have happened that make us concerned. We wish him and his colleagues well in the negotiations. We hope that the House of Commons, in particular, and your Lordships’ House will feel able to commend them, but we do not yet know, and it is important that we have safeguards in the Bill. Although now is not the right moment to press Amendment 62—my noble friend does not give much hope for us on that—I repeat what I said and what the noble Lord, Lord Reid, said in his admirable speech, underlined as well by my noble friend Lord Deben and the noble Lord, Lord Balfe: this is a common-sense amendment which is a logical follow-up to Amendment 49. I am sorry that the Official Opposition do not feel able to commend a vote and therefore I do not think there is any point or purpose in having one tonight, but we shall seek methods by which we can keep this issue on the agenda and have occasion to return to it later on Report, because there are amendments where we can refer to these things again and perhaps at Third Reading, too. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 52.
Lord Judge
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I bring this amendment with support from all sides and wonder whether your Lordships would be kind enough to listen to me while I read to you the effect of Clause 9(1) and (2) taken together:
“A Minister of the Crown may by regulations … make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament (including modifying this Act)”.
By contrast with primary legislation, which has been through all the legislative processes in both Houses, with all the opportunity for discussion, debate, rethinking, amendment and, above all, scrutiny that are inherent in our processes to create primary legislation, this clause vests power in a single individual, a Minister, one man or woman, to promulgate new laws by regulation drafted in their own departments. What is worse, that single individual is by regulation empowered to override, repeal or amend primary legislation which has been enacted after both Houses have been through the processes which I have just described.
I have said before, and venture to repeat myself, that in a democracy that is a remarkable lawmaking power given to a single individual. Vesting such power in a single individual is a very dangerous constitutional habit. Clauses such as this are inserted into primary legislation with what I at best can say is casual indifference. It would be interesting to be able to know, and we never shall, when a Minister signing off proposed primary legislation questioned the inclusion of such a clause. Was it last year, 10 years ago or maybe 20? Even more, would it not be wonderful if a Minister not only questioned it but insisted on its removal? I cannot imagine anybody here thinks it happens very often. Such clauses go into Bills like confetti strewn about at a wedding.
What about us, Parliament? We have not been as assiduous as we should have been. As I have said before—I am sorry, it is a mantra that you will hear me repeating—the last time the Commons rejected a statutory instrument was in 1979, just about 40 years before exit day. There was a much more recent example in this House, as all noble Lords will remember, but the proper exercise of those powers by this House was treated as if it had created a constitutional crisis. It had not, of course, but many thought that it had. On the basis that the scrutiny process of regulations in the Commons has become obsolete, this power to make new law and override existing law by ministerial regulation is effectively synonymous with ministerial proclamation running the country.
The very same House of Commons which is said to have given that dangerous Henry VIII these powers would regard our efforts to control them, our distortion of our legislative processes, as at the very best pusillanimous. It is a remarkable feature of Clause 9(2) that it actually repeats words in that notorious Act of Proclamations 1539. The Act provides that royal proclamations were to be obeyed,
“as though they were made by Act of Parliament”.
That is why I read out what our current provisions are proposing to put in. I think that it is a shameful echo. For lawmaking purposes, it means that one man’s or woman’s word is equivalent to the entire parliamentary process. In 1539, that very same Commons—I regret that it was the Commons, not the Lords—did something that it is never given credit for. Remember that it was dealing with Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell. But the Commons expressly qualified that very wide grant of powers by making the provision that the words should not be understood to mean that anyone,
“of what estate, degree or condition soever”,
should have,
“their inheritances, lawful possessions, offices, liberties, privileges, franchises, goods … taken from them … nor that by any proclamation to be made by virtue of this act, any acts, common laws (standing at this present time in strength and force) nor yet any lawful or laudable customs of this realm … shall be infringed, broken or subverted, and specially all those acts standing this hour in force which have been made in the King’s Highness’ time”.
Occasionally one needs to reflect on the courage of the Commons to stand up to Henry VIII all those years ago. History has been unkind to it. The Speaker ended up in the Tower. It was on an almost certainly trumped-up charge of dishonesty and fraud, but that was where he ended up. Those noble Lords who think that Thomas Cromwell lost his head because Henry VIII did not find Anne of Cleves bonny and buxom in bed should think again. The reason he lost his head was that for the first time in the whole time when Henry VIII relied on him he did not get from Parliament what the King wanted. So let us remember the express qualifications in that notorious Act of Proclamations. They are magical words and we today have forgotten about them—we do not include them.
These particular Henry VIII clauses are about as pointless as they can ever have been anyway. They do not come into force before the “meaningful vote”—no further words from me on that—and they may not be exercised anyway after exit day, which is less than 12 months away. What is the point of them? The opportunity for exercising these powers, if Parliament chooses to give them to the Minister, are minimal, and such opportunity as there will be will be diminished by the requirement in Amendment 83C for the Minister to explain why it is reasonable for these powers to be exercised. I trust the Minister will accept, and indeed perhaps indicate to the House, that it is perfectly sensible, if the Minister is giving good reasons for any decision, for the Minister to explain which pieces of primary legislation it is proposed to amend, repeal, revoke or tamper with. Then at least the scrutinising process can say what it is we are looking at.
I am using a ridiculous example to make my point: the Statute forbidding Bearing of Armour 1313 says that you must not come within one mile of Parliament armed. Okay, we can get rid of that—I suppose—because we have modern Acts to deal with the problem. But I make this trivial point because we need to know what it is considered that we should interfere with before it is possible for us to say that there are good reasons for doing so. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, if Amendment 52A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 53 for reasons of pre-emption.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 53 in this group is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town and Lady Wheatcroft, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and—most recently and much to be welcomed—the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. In Committee I had occasion to speak about the legislative Damascus road so I am very glad that in respect of this issue at least the Minister has added this highway to his travel plans.
I respectfully commend my noble and learned friend Lord Judge for his excoriation of Henry VIII clauses. It is a very poor rejoinder to say that the exercise of these powers is subject to the way that Parliament deals with statutory instruments, whether they be affirmative or negative, because too often that is an occasion for merely perfunctory examination. Over a period of time—and I have looked at quite close quarters at the way that the threshold between primary and secondary legislation has moved upwards over the past couple of decades and more—it is ultimately subversive of the primary legislative process.
If my noble and learned friend presses his amendment, I will of course support him, but if he chooses not to do so or fails to convince your Lordships, I will fall back on my amendment, to which the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has so helpfully added his name.
Lord Rooker
My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate, which is way above my pay grade, but in answer to the question asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—which I invite the Minister to get briefed on—about how this has been allowed to happen and when, I say that it would not have happened in David Renton’s time. He was the Member for Huntingdonshire in the other place and was still active here at 92, taking parliamentary draftsmen apart on a weekly basis, under the Government of whom I had the privilege to be a member. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, recalls this. He was meticulous. He chaired a report in the other place in the late 1970s on the drafting of legislation. It was his life’s work. He could pick apart these issues. No one is doing that these days and it is allowing slipshod work by parliamentary draftspeople to get on to the statute book, and it is about time we did more about it.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, I am a signatory to Amendment 53, as the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, said, and I want to contribute one very small thought to your Lordships. Many of us will recall that at the outset of consideration of this Bill by your Lordships’ House, there were many attacks in anticipation that we might amend it. But the very fact that the Minister has signed our amendment indicates that your Lordships’ House is doing its job. That is the whole point of our presence in the legislative process.
Ministers were egged on and convinced by the more incendiary Back-Benchers in the other House, and the tabloid media, that it would be outrageous if your Lordships’ House amended in the tiniest detail this wonderful Bill that was going to be put in front of us. The Minister has now helped us do some amending. We have already had seven changes, I think, improving the Bill, with a large majority in some cases. So I plead with the Minister to recognise in future that we are doing our job when we improve this Bill. It did not come to us perfect. It will go back to the other place a great deal better than when it came to us. I hope that there will not be so many incendiary attacks on your Lordships’ House in future by curious Back-Benchers in the other House.
Incidentally, I yield to nobody in wishing to reform your Lordships’ House, as some noble Lords will know to their cost. I was a strong supporter of the agreed Cross-Bench 2012 Bill. I now find it rather odd that the people who want to reform this House, or indeed to abolish it, are the very people who stood in our way on that occasion.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Rooker for reminding us of the work of Lord Renton. Those of us who were privileged to serve in this House with Lord Renton, and others who served in the other House with him, will well recall what my noble friend said about his work. We would do well to remember it and so I thank my noble friend for reminding us.
As for the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, not to feel the force of the logic that he so powerfully expressed. As the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, said, it is not a very strong response to say that there are protections in the way in which statutory instruments will be presented to this House and the other House. I add to that the fact that there are other protections this House has said are necessary, at least in relation to certain changes, for example those which might affect elements that require—as this House has said—special protection when it comes to the use of the delegated powers this Bill is intended to provide.
Having said all that, there remains a strong logic in what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has said, and I think we all hope that is carefully considered by the Government, for both this Bill and future Bills. It is fair to say—like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—that at least this Bill has some restrictions on the way these powers may be used, and I commend his requirement—his request—that when Ministers give reasons for the use of these powers, we understand just what they have in mind. This House and the other place should look carefully at that. That said, we will wait to see what the noble and learned Lord will do with his amendment.
What is being said about Amendment 53 is to be welcomed. That should not be overlooked. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has added his name to this amendment. It is one of the few occasions—I think the only occasion—when one gets five names on an amendment: when a Minister sees the error of his ways and adds his name to the amendment. That remark may be churlish of me—the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, is nodding vigorously—but the important point is that we welcome the Government’s acceptance of that amendment. That was the most egregious part of the Henry VIII clause: that it should be possible to use it to amend even this very Bill, which your Lordships have spent so many hours and days debating. It is, therefore, good to see that go.
I ask the Minister—I think it may be the noble Baroness—to confirm one thing. Amendment 53 omits the words “including modifying this Act”, which currently appear in the clause. My belief is that those words were there because without them it would not be possible to use the power to amend the very Act in which the power appears. I believe that is stated in parliamentary counsel’s guidelines on clauses such as this.
I very much hope the noble Baroness will confirm that when she responds to the amendment. I know that attempts were made through the usual channels to make sure that whoever responded to the debate had notice of that question. I hope, therefore, that she has been adequately briefed on it. I think, however, that your Lordships will want confirmation that that is the purpose of this amendment. It was certainly the purpose when it was tabled: that it should take away this most egregious possibility of being able to use the power to amend the very Act itself. I will give the noble Baroness time to get clarity on that, but I can assure her that attempts were made through the usual channels to ensure that she was not taken by surprise by it. I do not know quite what happened.
In any event, we would certainly want Amendment 53, when we get to it shortly, formally moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and I look forward to supporting it then. In the meantime, I wait to see how the noble and learned Lord deals with his amendment.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, let me start on a positive note. My noble friend Lord Callanan was indeed pleased to add his signature to Amendment 53, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, which will remove the ability under Clause 9 to amend the Act itself. I note that this amendment is supported not just by the noble Lords in whose names it lies but by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of this House. It was one of that committee’s recommendations for the Bill and, given that the Government are happy to support this amendment, we are pleased to be in such illustrious and learned company. It is a heady experience, I have to say.
I am sure that noble Lords will welcome this amendment to a part of the Bill that has continued to cause concern to many throughout its passage. It is important to explain why the Government included such a measure at the time of introduction—this may partly address the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. When the Bill was first drafted, this provision was not an attempt to hold open a back door to circumventing or undoing any of the protections or constraints in the Bill. Rather, it was seen as a necessary step to provide the flexibility to respond to developments in negotiations. Indeed, the fact that aspects of the Bill may need to be amended, depending on the outcome of these negotiations, still remains. Our acceptance of this amendment does not reflect a change in that regard. Rather, the decision to introduce in due course a withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, which will give effect to the implementation period, the citizens’ rights agreement and the financial settlement, among other provisions of the withdrawal agreement, provides another door through which the Government may make all the changes required.
Without a strong justification for retaining Clause 9’s ability to amend the EU withdrawal Bill once it becomes an Act, the Government are indeed content to remove that ability. As with our amendment to remove Clause 8, I hope this shows the Government’s commitment to working with Parliament and I reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
Before the Minister moves on, can she clarify what the answer is to the question asked from the Opposition Front Bench? On the face of it, if the words “including modifying this Act” are removed, it leaves simply this sentence:
“Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament”.
Do you make a substantive change by withdrawing those words? It is not clear to me that you do.
Baroness Goldie
I listened with interest to that point, but I am not sure that I entirely agree with that construction of the change to Clause 9(2). Amendment 53 means that we will not be able to amend the Bill when it is an Act. It therefore restricts the scope of the power, which seems to have met with the satisfaction of those who have put their names to it. As I have said, that is a positive and, I hope, a helpful reassurance from the Government.
Lord Goldsmith
Can we just agree that, as far as the noble Baroness and the Government Front Bench are concerned, it is the belief of the Government that removing the words as proposed in the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, has put his name, would preclude the power in this clause being used to amend the Bill once it becomes an Act?
Baroness Goldie
In short, yes—with this caveat. The Government regret that we are not able to be signatories to Amendment 52A, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, because, as he has indicated, it seeks to remove Clause 9(2) completely, thereby removing the power to amend primary legislation. However, it is always a joy to listen to the noble and learned Lord’s eloquent and well-informed contributions.
Let me explain the Government’s position. Even with the introduction of the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, Clause 9 residually serves as a supplementary measure to implement the more technical elements of the withdrawal agreement that will need to be legislated for in time for exit day. These technical amendments may need to be made to primary legislation in exactly the same way as in secondary legislation, so we cannot accept limiting the power in the way sought by the noble and learned Lord. However, I say to him, as he specifically raised this point, that the new transparency procedures for such regulations would require the Minister to make clear in the supporting memorandum what legislation was being amended. I hope that reassures him.
The Government believe that whether a change is made to primary or secondary legislation does not always reflect the significance of the changes being made. Equally, the level of detail involved may be better suited to secondary legislation. I hope that noble Lords will understand the Government’s reasoning on this and will welcome the Government’s compromise through the removal of the ability to amend the Act. I repeat the categorical assurance I have given to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, on that point. This further demonstrates the Government’s commitment to restrict the scope of the powers sought wherever practical. I hope this amendment is enough to reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Judge
My Lords, we have made some progress. If the use of this extraordinary power—extraordinary in the sense of the power rather than extraordinary in the sense of the number of times it is used—will be limited to dealing with technical amendments, which will be explained by highlighting the legislation under consideration, we have made some progress and I shall not test the opinion of the House today.
However, Henry VIII clauses are unacceptable save in the most special circumstances. Although I shall not divide the House today, I shall watch as each new Bill comes before us, in connection not only with Brexit, to make sure that the Minister looking at the first draft of the Bill asks why it contains a Henry VIII clause, why it is needed and what it is for so that we do not suddenly find a whole cluster of Henry VIII clauses bursting through at the seams such that we are unable to control them. We have made some progress. It is not enough for the long term, but for tonight we have done very well. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lisvane
Baroness Goldie
Baroness Goldie
“( ) establish a public authority,”
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, before I call Amendment 55A I must inform noble Lords that there is an error in the Marshalled List. Amendment 55A should read:
“The condition in subsection 3(e)”,
and not 2(e).
Baroness Massey of Darwen
“(e) make any provision without giving consideration to Part I of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child ratified by the United Kingdom.(3A) The condition in subsection 2(e) is fulfilled if, and only if, a Minister of the Crown lays before both Houses of Parliament—(a) a Ministerial Statement committing to give due consideration to Part I of UNCRC ratified by the United Kingdom when carrying out duties and functions that were within the competence of the EU before exit day, or when exercising powers under this section or powers under section 7 to prevent, remedy or mitigate deficiencies; and(b) a comprehensive audit setting out how children’s rights will continue to be protected across the United Kingdom after exit day, particularly in areas where children’s rights are not currently protected under domestic law but were, before exit day, in EU law.”
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, together with many noble Lords, I have always fought for the rights of children, to protect children, to engage children and to empower children. I have to declare an interest now that I am chair of the Council of Europe Sub-Committee on Children. I am also active in children’s issues in the UK.
The amendment explores the potential impact of Brexit on children. I thank the Minister for Children, who along with his staff met me a couple of weeks ago. I hope the Government are listening today. I do not intend to call a vote on this amendment but I want to strongly draw attention to how important it is to consider children in all aspects of our discussions on Brexit. I hope that after this debate we will have further talks with Ministers about the rights of children, and that they will guarantee that children’s issues are monitored throughout the discussions.
Despite the Government’s stated commitment to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and their reassurances that children’s rights will not be affected by the departure of the UK from the EU, it is clear that both the foreseeable and unforeseeable impacts of the UK’s withdrawal on children’s lives have not been thoroughly considered in the Government’s proposals as contained in the withdrawal Bill. This has already been raised as a concern by MPs, Peers and children’s organisations alike, given that the legislation and protections derived from our membership of the EU affect so many aspects of children’s lives, from consumer and environmental protections to cross-border safeguarding and anti-trafficking measures.
We have already drawn attention to the need to ensure that we do not go backwards in the protection of children’s rights during and after Brexit. This is about preserving existing rights and protections for children and making sure that our exit from the EU does not erode or undermine them. We have heard many assurances from the Government that they are fully committed to children’s rights and protections and to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. They maintain that their ability to safeguard children’s rights will not be affected by withdrawal from the EU and that these issues will go into domestic law. However, it is a serious matter that we know that decisions taken at central government level, which have a significant impact on children’s lives and well-being, are not taken with the principles and provisions of the UNCRC in mind. For example, assessments of the potential and expected effects on children’s rights are not yet routinely carried out, and we know that in 2016 the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which monitors the implementation of the UNCRC, recommended that the UK ensure that all the principles and provisions of the convention be directly applicable in law in the UK, which is currently not the case.
That is why I have tabled an amendment requesting a government commitment, in the form of a ministerial statement, to consider the UN convention when making legislative changes as a result of EU withdrawal. Despite assurances to the contrary, our current domestic legislation is not comprehensive enough to ensure the full protection of children’s rights after our exit from the EU. The Human Rights Act and the Children Acts of 1989 and 2004 provide important but insufficient protections. While retaining the Charter of Fundamental Rights would be extremely useful and welcome, the amendment would ensure additional protection for children and their rights.
In preparation to leave the EU, as the statute book is amended, we should be wary of any changes that affect children in a contrary way. There is a real risk that children's rights will not be considered. That could have serious implications for children in a number of areas, namely data protection; cross-border co-operation in child safeguarding and anti-trafficking efforts; paediatric clinical trials; food safety and labelling; TV and media advertising; environmental standards and protections; the rights of migrant children to access healthcare and education; and cross-border family law.
Currently, under EU law, trade in goods and services between EU members has to ensure that children’s welfare is protected. Any new trade deals that the UK embarks on after Brexit must include adequate safeguards to ensure that children are not put at risk.
As things stand, the Government’s proposed delegated powers would allow them to make important decisions on EU withdrawal, decisions that could have a significant impact on children, with little or no parliamentary scrutiny. This makes it even more imperative to have a ministerial statement of commitment that government departments will consider the UNCRC in their EU-related decision-making during and post Brexit. Such a commitment would demonstrate and guarantee a clear willingness by the Government to ensure that there will be no going backward in children’s rights protections after leaving the EU.
Current efforts by the Department for Education to develop training for officials on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and UNICEF’s child rights impact assessment template to be used as a development tool across government departments are welcome, and represent a useful resource, but they are not sufficient by themselves. I also seek from the Government a guarantee that the training of officials on the UNCRC and the impact assessment tool on child rights will be used across government departments to secure and ensure that children’s issues will not be solely the responsibility of the Department for Education. Cross-departmental working is very powerful, but how will it be ensured?
A precedent for an audit to protect children’s rights has already been set by the Scottish Government. I urge the UK Government to do likewise. I hope to continue discussion with the Government about this and to convince them that this is an important issue which cannot be overlooked. I beg to move.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on having put the amendment before us. I am sure the Government will take it seriously; I cannot believe that they would do otherwise. I want to make only one point. The convention is terribly important. It is clear time and again that, in our affairs in the UK, it is not yet fully operative. If there are ways in which we have been enjoying the strengthening of its operation by our membership of the European Union, it is doubly important, following any exit from the European Union, that those issues are covered closely by our own arrangements. I am sure that an audit is a realistic and practical suggestion which also deserves attention.
Britain played a very important part, as it so often has in international affairs, in the construction and drawing up of the convention. Many distinguished Conservatives were behind the operation. Because of that commitment—it was not just a matter of getting something on paper; it is how it is actually applied—what my noble friend has proposed and the way she has emphasised it this evening shows that the Government need to give the issue serious attention and to give her the assurances she seeks.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, we discussed two key aspects of protecting children’ rights post Brexit in Committee.
The first is the need to guarantee that our present level of cross-border co-operation should not diminish. Here, my noble friend gave me an assurance, for which I am grateful, that the United Kingdom’s current security arrangements in Europe will continue; and, in particular, through the effective agencies now deployed, including Europol, the European arrest warrant, Eurojust and ECRIS.
The second matter, focused in the amendment before us, is that, post Brexit, UK domestic law and its deployment should manage to reflect and be guided by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. My noble friend also gave a commitment on this in Committee: that UK domestic law would always reflect and be guided by UNCRC. Following that resolve, it should not be necessary that UNCRC be incorporated within UK law. Yet perhaps my noble friend the Minister may be able to support what this amendment implies: that a Statement to the House should be made at another time, as convenient, setting out more broadly the Government’s commitment to children’s rights, while also indicating the work that is going on across government and in the United Kingdom to promote and protect these rights.
My noble friend the Minister might possibly agree as well that such a Statement such could usefully include an undertaking to offer on certain relevant policies impact assessments on children’s rights.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
I support the amendment, to which I have added my name. I shall speak for no more than a minute, or possibly a minute and a quarter, in view of the time. While the UK has been a significant advocate for children’s rights globally, our domestic legislative environment refers only scantily to the rights of children. The Minister must be aware that there are no legal financial sanctions in this country for non-compliance with some of the principles and provisions of the UNCRC. Ministers claim that, because we have ratified the UNCRC, we do not need the protections afforded through our EU membership—but there is no point in children having rights on paper if there is no way to enforce them.
The Minister will be aware of the case of Hughes Cousins-Chang, in which the High Court relied not only on the UNCRC but on EU laws, directives and guidance to challenge the Government when that person’s rights were inadequately protected domestically. What legal and financial sanctions and safeguards does the Minister have in mind for children in our future world? Will the Minister please respond to this point?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I simply want briefly to challenge the central plank of the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, in Committee that the Government remain fully committed to children’s rights in the UNCRC. He said:
“The rights and best interests of children are already, and will remain, protected in England”.—[Official Report, 5/3/18; col. 932.]
That is strongly contested by the children’s sector, which argues that that protection is piecemeal, inadequate and inferior to that in Scotland and Wales because there is no UK-wide underpinning constitutional commitment to children’s rights such as exists at EU level. In contrast to the rosy picture that the Minister painted, in its latest observations on the UK the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child,
“regrets that the rights of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration is still not reflected in all legislative and policy matters”.
It calls on the Government to,
“ensure that this right is appropriately integrated and … applied in all legislative, administrative and judicial proceedings and decisions as well as in all policies, programmes and projects that are relevant to and have an impact on children”.
Whereas the Minister claimed that incorporation of the convention is unnecessary because the UK “already meets its commitments” under it through legislation and policy, the UN committee recommended that the Government,
“expedite bringing our domestic legislation … in line with the Convention to ensure that”,
its,
“principles and provisions … are directly applicable and justiciable under domestic law”.
Far from meeting our commitments under the convention, refusal to accept this amendment would fly in the face of the letter and spirit of the UN committee’s recommendations and would be seen as a betrayal of children’s best interests by the children’s sector.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I was President of the Family Division. It is interesting that, as far as I know, in domestic family law, nothing whatever is said about rights for children up to the age of 16. There are some medical rights for children aged over 16. In the human rights convention, nothing is said about the rights of children, which makes the United Nations convention absolutely crucial.
I add just one further point. In 1988, I was the author of a report on the Cleveland child abuse inquiry. My second recommendation was that children ought to be viewed as people and not objects of concern, which is how our domestic law looks at children. It is a very serious matter. If we do not have the protection of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in its various articles, we will fall very seriously behind—and that is why I support the amendment.
Lord Storey
My Lords, on these Benches we also support this important amendment. It is easy to lose contact with this in the great issues of our time—trade, customs unions and defence—but children are really important. As has been said, and as the Minister herself will know from her Scottish experience, our devolved nations perhaps take this issue more seriously than we do in England. The Scottish Government have recently committed to undertaking a comprehensive audit, looking at ways to further embed the principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Government have previously said that they take children’s rights extremely seriously. It is now time to make this commitment clear, as we go through this unprecedented period of change. Let us please give our children and young people that reassurance.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, and other noble Lords. I want to concentrate on the area of online child protection because, as some noble Lords may know, I have followed this subject over the years and the EU has had an important responsibility for it. Child sexual abuse online affects children of all ages and backgrounds and is now perhaps the biggest challenge to our child protection authorities. A recent report by the NSPCC revealed that, in 2015-16, the number of police-recorded offences relating to indecent images increased by 64% in England, 50% in Wales, 71% in Northern Ireland and 7% in Scotland. In 2016, the Internet Watch Foundation identified over 57,000 URLs containing child sexual abuse images and in its most recent annual report found that two-thirds of child abuse content online is hosted in Europe.
Methods of engaging illicitly with children online are ever more technically sophisticated, and are perpetrated by extensive, highly organised cross-border criminal networks. While child protection is a devolved matter and each of the four nations of the UK has its own guidelines and definitions, it is an issue that can be effectively addressed only through strong cross-national co-ordination and collaboration. The EU has developed a harmonised legal response and facilitated cross-border co-operation to tackle this. In particular, the EU sexual exploitation directive introduced clear minimum standards for sanctions and measures to prevent abuse, combat impunity and protect victims. It includes provision for co-operation with Europol, supports constructive dialogue between member states and industry, and adapts criminal law to account for technological developments.
Many of these provisions have now been incorporated into UK domestic law, but legal responses are only part of the solution. We need continued investment in educational and technical resources and to be able to gather data and other forms of intelligence from the investigative authorities abroad. Maintaining co-operation with EU policing and criminal justice agencies and mechanisms is the best way to achieve this. We must not forget that the UK has played a significant and leading role in EU cross-border agencies, sharing our expertise and learning from others. As Peers will know, the outgoing head of Europol is British. My fear is that we may lose influence in these agencies. We have a lot to contribute to make sure that those agencies and mechanisms work effectively to keep children safe, not just in the UK but across Europe. Will the Minister tell the House how she plans to ensure that the UK will continue to use our considerable expertise to help shape EU policing and criminal justice agencies?
Online abuse comes in other forms too, including the widespread manipulation of children through exploitative online advertising, and the use and abuse of children’s personal data without their knowledge or understanding. Such practices affect children in potentially more profound ways than adults, and can significantly compound their vulnerabilities as they progress into adulthood. A strong commitment to a broader framework for children’s human rights, that promotes the rights and interests of children over and above those of commercial operators, is surely the best way of addressing this and other forms of online exploitation of children.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I briefly add my support for this amendment. It seems that much of the debate about EU withdrawal has been about economics, deals and trade, and we cannot speak of children in terms of deals or trade. Some of the most vulnerable people on our continent are children. Perhaps the most important thing is that they are the future as well as the present, and they will not forget how they have been seen and how they are regarded. So I strongly endorse the statement made by the noble Baroness earlier that children are people, not a project. I support the amendment.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an important short debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen on the way she introduced it and on her ongoing battle to protect the rights of our children, and I expect to hear much more from her on that many times in the future.
As we have heard today, at EU level a number of key legislative mechanisms work in conjunction with each other to ensure that children’s rights are protected when EU law and policy is being developed, applied and interpreted: the ECHR, the EU charter and, crucially, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. As we have heard, the key issue is that measures enacted at EU level, whether or not they directly target children, are interpreted and applied by member states in a manner that is consistent with international children’s rights standards. It is the loss of that that so many people inside and outside Parliament are concerned about. The inadequacy of domestic legislation in doing that job has been articulated so well by my noble friends Lady Massey and Lady Lister, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. The case is compelling.
This amendment would go some way to try to rectify that by ensuring that Ministers cannot make regulations under the relevant section of the Bill without reference to the parts of the UNCRC ratified by the UK. The Government would therefore have to commit to Parliament that they would give due consideration to Part 1 of the convention before using powers transferred from the EU, and, crucially, they would have to set out an audit of how children’s rights will continue to be protected in the UK after exit day. The importance of an audit and an impact assessment—a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee—cannot be understated. Or do I mean overstated?
We all share the same goal: that we should create and maintain a society in which all children are valued, safe and able to flourish. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds made that point clearly: children are people and are our future as well as our present. But as a society we have learned slowly that the risks to children’s safety are not always obvious, nor is it always obvious which are the actions that can pay positive dividends in helping them to flourish. If we do not intentionally look at the implications of generic actions for children, there will be unintended consequences. My noble friend Lady Massey gave some good and powerful examples of that, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, gave a good case of how international law has to be used to defend those rights. It is crucial that we retain appropriate mechanisms for ensuring that due regard is paid to children’s rights when policy and law are being developed.
The Minister will have heard the concerns expressed from around the House and that the Government’s previous reassurances have not served to reassure Members or key people outside. I have two simple questions for the Minister. Does she understand why people are so concerned about what will happen to the status of children’s rights in the UK after Brexit? If so, what will the Government do to ensure that, as the Bill brings EU legislation into domestic law and transfers powers from the EU to Westminster, fundamental rights for children are not weakened in the process, either deliberately or accidentally? I look forward to her reply.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, for raising the important issue of children’s rights through this amendment. I know that both the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady Meacher, met the Children’s Minister recently to discuss these matters. I fully accept that the intention behind this amendment is clearly an honourable one. However, it would in effect add no further value to preserving current safeguards on children’s rights within the Bill. This is because the amendment implies that the EU offers additional duties or functions to safeguard children’s rights above or beyond those that exist in the UK. That concern may stem from the Government’s proposal to not retain the Charter of Fundamental Rights, subject now to further consideration when this Bill returns to the other place. However, if the charter no longer applies once we exit the EU, this would not impact on the UK’s ability to protect and safeguard children’s rights, as I shall endeavour to explain.
The amendment also states that there are some children’s rights which are not currently protected under domestic law but are under EU law. Again, however, we do not accept their construction. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised the important point about what these rights are and what will happen to them on exit. Children’s rights are, and will remain, protected in England primarily through the Children Act 1989, the Adoption and Children Act 2002, and the Children Act 2004.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
As one of those who was involved in the drafting of the Children Act, my recollection is that it is entirely devoted to the welfare of children and their best interests. I cannot remember a single word about rights. Parents have rights and responsibilities, but not children.
Baroness Goldie
I defer to the noble and learned Baroness’s prowess in this area—I would not seek to usurp it for one moment. I am merely giving that Act as an example of part of the framework that currently exists in statute to protect children. If parents indeed have responsibilities under that Act, presumably that confers benefit on the children. Additionally—and I was interested that noble Lords did not refer to this—the European Convention on Human Rights as a whole offers protection of children’s rights, and this is implemented by the Human Rights Act 1998. Children are not excluded from these provisions.
I also want to make clear to the House that the overall package of children’s rights protections set out in domestic legislation can be challenged in the usual ways in the event of a breach of a specific provision of domestic legislation. This will continue to be the case following our withdrawal from the EU.
A number of contributors raised the interesting question of sanctions against breaches. I have no specific information on that but I will undertake to investigate and, if I can procure any information, I will certainly write to those who raised that specific aspect.
As has been stated during previous debate on this—and I thank those who have provided helpful contributions—the Government take very seriously the need to ensure that proper checks and balances are in place so that we continue to safeguard and promote children’s rights. The intention behind this amendment is clearly to create additional safeguards. However, I suggest that sufficient measures already exist which will not be affected by our withdrawal from the EU.
It is important to recognise that all state parties undergo rigorous periodic reporting rounds on the UNCRC, to which a number of contributors referred, consisting of intense scrutiny and challenge. The last reporting round concluded in 2016, with the United Nation’s concluding observations published in July of that year. In response, the Government reiterated their commitment through a Written Ministerial Statement in October 2016. In January 2022, the Government will submit their next UK periodic report for the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to the UN. This report will primarily address the UN recommendations that came from the last reporting round, which, as I say, concluded in 2016. In addition, next year the Government will be submitting a mid-term report to the UN Human Rights Council on the 227 United Nations recommendations, many of which relate to children’s rights. This report is a voluntary commitment of the UK, aimed at keeping all UN recommendations under review in advance of the next universal periodic review’s dialogue, expected in 2021.
Baroness Massey of Darwen
My Lords, I will not test the opinion of the House tonight, as I said earlier on. I simply thank all those who have spoken so passionately in this short debate about the protection of the rights of children. It is a pity that we have to be speedy because it is late, but I will certainly continue my pleas—and I know others in the House will continue theirs—to the Government not to forget children or treat them as projects or objects. Children are not small adults: they are children.
I thank the Minister for her reply, but I still need proof of the Government’s commitment to support the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I have noticed in debates on these issues that the Government tend to contradict themselves and sometimes indeed get things wrong. I do not know if the Minister is aware of the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that was severely critical of the attitude towards children and what was happening about them. As I said, I need proof that the Government are serious about this and will indeed make a Statement on it before long.
We need to get our laws in tandem with European and global laws on children. I have heard the same arguments from the Government which keep coming up. They say that we will cover this in domestic law. I have no proof of that and we should be very careful about making such statements. The devolved nations have a much healthier respect for this issue. I have examples of very good practice which I hope will be listened to.
We heard tonight some brilliant and condensed speeches and I repeat that the Government must take this issue very seriously. I hope that they will also commit to working in a cross-departmental way and not leave everything to one department. I hope that they will come up with cross-departmental awareness and a Statement on this. Will we really, finally implement the UNCRC, which has been critical of the UK in many instances? It has criticised our standards very often and we should take it seriously.
Finally, many of us have been looking at this for a very long time. Children’s rights and children’s protection are becoming more complicated. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, mention online issues. They are international problems, not just UK problems. Trafficking is an international problem. Child abuse and exploitation is an international problem. We cannot not be part of all this. We must move forward, with international bodies, to protect our children and our family laws. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wigley
“Failure to approve or agree to terms of withdrawal
It is an objective of Her Majesty’s Government to ensure that—(a) in the event of Parliament not approving the terms of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal, or(b) in the event of there being no agreement with the EU,notification of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU under Article 50 of the Treaty on the European Union be revoked.”
Lord Wigley
My Lords, the first objective of the proposed new clause is to test whether the Article 50 notice is revocable. If so, its second objective is to suggest that in certain circumstances the Government might avail themselves of that option. Clearly, that could be an issue if we find ourselves with a no deal Brexit or a breakdown in negotiations at the very last moment. We touched on aspects of this in an earlier debate.
There have been no rulings on the revocability of Article 50. It is widely assumed that the interpretation of the treaty could ultimately be a matter for the Court of Justice of the European Union, although I noted the qualifications outlined earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in that context. The parties to the Gina Miller case assumed that notice of withdrawal is irrevocable. However, a preponderance of academic opinion maintains that it is revocable. One attempt to refer to the CJEU for a ruling was dropped—the Dublin case—on the basis of costs, as I understand it. Another—the Edinburgh case—is in the process of being appealed.
There is considerable opinion that an Article 50 notice could be revoked. Professor Closa has raised a number of formal and substantive objections to the assumption of Article 50’s irrevocability; the most compelling one draws on a comparative assessment of international law and practice under which a withdrawing state is bestowed a cooling-off period, allowing it to change its decision. Furthermore, Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, has asserted in his political capacity that on conclusion of the Article 50 negotiation process, the status quo could be maintained, meaning that if the UK was not happy with the agreed terms of Brexit, it could opt to continue to be a member of the EU.
The interpretation of Article 50, if one were needed, would be a matter of EU, not UK, law. The EU treaty is silent on the matter of revocability, but under Article 267 of the TFEU, there could be a role for the CJEU in determining whether an Article 50(2) notice can be withdrawn if a member state that has served notice of an intention to withdraw changes its mind. There is a general principle of international law, set out in Article 68 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that a notification of intention to withdraw from a treaty,
“may be revoked at any time before it takes effect”.
This provision does not override any specific arrangements in a treaty, but are questions about the decision to trigger Article 50 under national constitutional arrangements relevant to the CJEU? If a court of last instance has some uncertainty as to the correct interpretation of EU law, it must refer a question on the interpretation of EU law or the EU treaties to the CJEU, but not, I stress, if the national court decides that something is clear “beyond reasonable doubt”. This is known as the “acte clair doctrine” and has been established in the case law of the CJEU. The courts have not ruled on revocability. I therefore contend that the amendment is both valid and necessary and I beg to move.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, for the reasons I have given before, the amendment restricts what we did on Amendment 49 so I have some queries about its wording. However, on the question of revocability, if we came to a point in Parliament where we were looking at the next steps, should the deal not be accepted, it would be important for Parliament to know as far as the Government do the advice on this.
There are examples of legal advice given to the Government being disclosed to Parliament where it has been relevant to an Act before it. Clearly, the Government will have got legal advice on the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley; can the Minister indicate whether that could be shared with Parliament?
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I understand the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. He is concerned, as are many other noble Lords, with the consequences of failing to reach an agreement with the EU or the equally unpropitious scenario of Parliament rejecting the terms of a deal that has been reached. The noble Lord’s amendment goes even further than that tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in that it dictates, rather than leaves open, what should happen next in the event that the UK and the EU do not reach an agreement on the terms of our withdrawal; or if Parliament does not approve the terms of the withdrawal agreement, our notification under Article 50 should be revoked.
As I have explained already today, it is not constitutionally acceptable for Parliament to dictate the conduct of diplomacy in that way. Moreover, we are confident that we will reach a positive deal with the EU which Parliament will support. This is indisputably in the mutual interests of both the UK and the EU. Parliament will have a clear choice: to accept the deal we have negotiated or move forward without a deal. Ultimately, if Parliament chooses to reject the deal then we will leave the EU with no deal in March 2019.
The Government have always been clear what the outcome of failing to reach a withdrawal agreement would be. We are leaving the EU and will leave with a deal or without one. It is not a scenario that anybody relishes, least of all me, but it is also not one that should come as a surprise. The UK voted to leave the EU, Parliament voted to trigger the notification of withdrawal Act and the Government are honour bound to deliver on that instruction. We have been clear throughout that as a matter of firm policy we will not seek to revoke our notice under Article 50.
I therefore hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. I cannot give any false hope that I will reflect further on this issue between now and Third Reading, so if the noble Lord—
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Do I take it from that that the Minister is not going to answer my question?
Lord Callanan
You can take it from that, yes.
I cannot give any false hope that I will reflect further on this issue between now and Third Reading, so if the noble Lord wishes to test the opinion of the House he should do so now.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Will the Minister please give an answer to the question posed by the noble Baroness?
Lord Callanan
I am not in a position to share confidential government legal advice on this matter.
Lord Wigley
Well, no doubt the House has taken good note of that comment and at some time in the future perhaps that information will become available. I am struck by the Minister’s supreme confidence that this course will be followed to an inevitable conclusion, as I am sure many noble Lords are.
As we heard in earlier debates, that may not be the inevitable conclusion. It may well be that the House of Commons in its wisdom not only rejects the deal that the Government have negotiated but in the process rejects the Government themselves. At that point, whether by a general election or some other process, the question may well arise as to the irrevocability of Article 50. Noble Lords have a right to know the advice that has been given because it would be very pertinent indeed in those circumstances.
However, having said that, I believe the question may well be tested in the courts and therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Maintenance of refugee family unity within Europe
(1) A Minister of the Crown must make appropriate arrangements with the aim of preserving specified effects in the United Kingdom of Regulation (EU) No. 604/2013 (the “Dublin Regulation”), including through negotiations with the EU.(2) “Specified effects” under subsection (1) are those provisions, and associated rights and obligations, that allow for those seeking asylum, including unaccompanied minors, adults and children, to join a family member, sibling or relative in the United Kingdom.(3) Within six months of the passing of this Act, and then every six months thereafter, a Minister of the Crown must report to Parliament on progress made in negotiations to secure the continuation of reciprocal arrangements between the United Kingdom and member States as they relate to subsection (1).”
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, this is a very modest amendment. Its aim is to maintain after Brexit one of the main existing legal routes to safety for unaccompanied child refugees—a route that has been working fairly effectively for quite some time. Of course, we know that in the absence of legal routes to safety the people traffickers have a field day, as was mentioned in the earlier debate on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. I have had a number of discussions with Ministers—the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams—in the last few days. We have not reached full agreement, but at least we know where we differ.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, my name is joined with that of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on this amendment. I think that if I was to make a lengthy speech in support of the amendment the House would not thank me. It is much better that we try to resolve the matter.
I want to thank the Minister for our meeting earlier today with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. It was very useful but also quite instructive. I think that we were agreed that we were not far apart in what we were both seeking to achieve. Where we differ fundamentally is that the noble Lord and I share the view that we should put such a provision in the Bill.
There was a lot of resistance when the noble Lord tried to do this with his original Dubs amendment. Some of the arguments then were exactly the same. They were: “This isn’t something you should try and commit to legislation”. Well, I think it is, because it sets a benchmark and a threshold, and it gives an instruction. The Government are often keen to tell us that they have been instructed on things, and we need from time to time to be clear about what we are trying to achieve in negotiations. This is one of those occasions.
We should not resile from our humanitarian commitment. This evening, by supporting the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, we will be fulfilling that commitment. I therefore hope that the House comes speedily to a conclusion in this debate, so that, if we have to, we can divide on it and give support to the noble Lord on a very important matter to which I think we all wish for a happy outcome.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I, too, have put my name to the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has pointed out, we are talking about the rights of children. This is not just a humanitarian question; it is about a number of children across Europe who have a right to come to this country at the moment because their family is here.
Having gone to Calais last summer and having with Fiona Mactaggart, the former MP, written a report on what was going on in Calais and Dunkirk, I know that the plight of children there who have not yet been processed is dire. The plight of children in the Greek and Italian camps is very poor. Therefore, the way in which Dublin III works is patchy, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has said, it works to some extent. Please let me repeat: we are talking about children with rights and not advancing arguments based exclusively on humanitarian grounds.
I was lucky, with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, to be at a different meeting from that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in which we met two Ministers, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Duncan. We had useful discussions. I entirely accept the genuineness of their offers to the noble Lord and me. They are trying hard to placate us. They have expressed good intentions which are, as far as they go, valuable, but they are aspirations as to what might happen at a later date. They are talking about the possibility of an immigration Bill and of another Bill later this year, or what they call in lovely general terms a vehicle into which this sort of thing can be placed. As far as it goes, that is good, but it does not go far enough.
I would like the House of Commons to have time to discuss this amendment if this House passes it, as I hope it will, so that, by that time, Ministers will perhaps have got their act together to be able to make much more concrete offers to the House of Commons. Therefore, it is important that we support this amendment at this stage so that at least the other House has the chance to consider it. I will therefore vote for the amendment if the House divides.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I shall say just a few quick words as my name is also attached to this amendment. In essence, what the amendment boils down to is that without the UK’s continued participation in Dublin III, which would be the case if Brexit were to happen, an unaccompanied orphan in Europe, among others, could no longer apply to be reunited with close family members while an asylum claim is being processed. Brexit is about many things but it is not about doing away with one of the very few safe and legal routes that exists to bring some of the most vulnerable children to the UK.
Since this amendment was debated in Committee we have witnessed the maelstrom that has raged over the inhumane treatment of the Windrush generation. Across the Commonwealth, how the Windrush scandal plays out is being watched with concern and our reputation is on the line. I say to the Government that at a time when we are trying to redefine our place in the world and looking for good will and support from friends across the globe, to be seen as a nation that is trying to isolate itself from responsibilities to people seeking sanctuary, some of them very young, will not do us any favours.
The Britain that the world knows and that the British people, by and large, recognise is the Britain that has always spoken up for values and principles that enshrine in international law the rights of vulnerable people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves destitute and place themselves at our mercy. We have a proud history of welcoming them and I should like us to continue to do so. So should the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, decide that the Government’s moves are not enough to satisfy him and wish to seek the opinion of the House, we on this side of the House will wholeheartedly support him.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dubs, in moving this amendment, described it as a modest proposal. It is modest in two respects. First, for the reason that he gave: all he seeks is to replicate the current arrangements, already approved by Parliament and in operation at the moment. That is not a great change at all from where we are. There is a second reason that it is modest: I pay tribute to his modesty in producing this amendment, having fought for the previous amendment, having persevered, and he is absolutely right to ask the House again to support it. I hope the House will.
It sounds as though the Government are entirely in agreement with the objectives. They agree on the need to protect the most vulnerable children and to provide this way of safety for them to claim asylum where appropriate. It sounds as if the only difference may be over the way to deal with it. Everybody, including my noble friends Lord Dubs and Lord Bassam, the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, whose names are on the amendment, recognises that this will require negotiation with other countries, because we cannot do it entirely on our own. Does the Minister agree that if this House were to say in a clear vote tonight what it thinks the Government should do, and put it in the Bill, that will actually strengthen the hand of the Government when they come to negotiate with other countries and others? They will be able to say, “This is what our Parliament wants”—assuming that the other place agrees. Those circumstances will make it much easier to negotiate; that may be the only point.
I am not going to take any more of your Lordships’ time: I think it is time either for the Government to accept the amendment, as I hope they will, or, if they fail to do so, for my noble friend Lord Dubs to divide the House, in which case we will strongly support him through the Lobby.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for moving his amendment and giving us an opportunity to speak about this further. We sometimes attach additional epithets to noble Lords in this House, such as “gallant” and “learned”. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, should be the “noble and compassionate” Lord. I appreciate what he is doing. It is for that reason that my noble friend Lady Williams and I have met the noble Lord and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, on a number of occasions. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that we must be clear about what we are trying to achieve. That has been the purpose of those meetings.
I will state very clearly what we are trying to achieve in the negotiations. The Government have been clear that when we leave the EU we will seek to maintain a close and effective arrangement, including practical co-operation with the EU and the member states on illegal migration and asylum. Combating illegal migration and having efficient and effective asylum systems will continue to be a priority on which we will work closely with our EU partners. As part of that arrangement, and subject to the negotiations, the UK will seek to agree with the EU a series of measures to enable unaccompanied children in the EU to join close family members in the UK or another EU member state, whichever is in their best interests. However, it is important to remember that any such agreement will require agreement and implementation by individual member states.
After the outcome of the negotiations is known, we will bring forward the appropriate legislation as necessary. At that stage this House and the other place will have an opportunity to be clear in their engagement with, and any desire to amend, that piece of legislation. The Government are very clear about what they are trying to achieve in the negotiations. We share the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that family reunification rights for the purposes of considering claims for asylum and the systems to deliver them should remain in place once we have left the EU. There can be no dropped ball, diminution or loss—there needs to be continuity, seamless in its effect. It can be nothing other than that.
In my discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, we spoke about the Dublin III approach. The sad fact is that in many cases Dublin III is simply not fit for purpose. That is perhaps the greatest tragedy of all. Across the EU we look to that as though it sets a benchmark when in truth it is doing nothing of the sort—indeed, quite the reverse. In some instances there is opposition within member states to the functioning of Dublin III. Of course, Dublin III will evolve into Dublin IV, but Dublin IV will not come before the next European elections. That is unlikely simply because of the timetable. It is not for me to draw your Lordships’ attention to what we might expect in those elections but we must be cognisant of them. We have seen in election after election a growth in parties whose views about the wider issues of migration are perhaps not to be applauded and which are quite the reverse of the welcoming approach that we in this Chamber might believe needs to be stressed.
The danger is that we are recognising a benchmark inside the EU that even the EU itself does not believe is fit for purpose. We need to go beyond that. That is why I like to think that we are not seeking to measure ourselves against Dublin III but rather setting in place very clear measures which are safe and sure and address the very matters that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has raised. If we seek to use the EU as a benchmark, we will do a disservice to the very people who would need to draw on these elements. That might seem an odd thing to say, but noble Lords who have spent any time attending to how the Dublin III measure are evolving will recognise that that is one of the central problems.
I am aware that there are challenges ahead as we enter into the negotiations. A number of noble Lords have asked why this is not therefore placed in the Bill. What we are saying is that at the appropriate point these elements will be front and centre of a Bill before the other place and this House, offering exactly the opportunities that your Lordships would wish to have—at the right time. To bring them forward and try to put them into the Bill now—into what is, in effect, a pre-negotiation settlement—will cause us difficulties. That is why we have sought to be as forthright as we can about our intention, our ambition and our method. We do not wish to see these rights undermined or lost; we wish them to be sure and safe. It is for that reason that we have moved in this way. I appreciate that there is a desire to return this to the House of Commons, perhaps with the idea that we can again emphasise how exactly we will take these matters forward. That is your Lordships’ prerogative. I would argue that in the other place the same discussions may lead to a very different result, and that might send a message that this House might prefer not to be sent.
It is a difficult issue, because we are sending, I hope, a very clear message: the UK remains committed to the very elements that the noble and compassionate Lord has brought before us on this and a number of other occasions. We remain committed to them. They will be front and centre in our negotiations, and we have engaged directly with the noble Lord on this matter.
We have also recognised that when that point comes—when legislation or appropriate vehicles are required—there will be an opportunity, in both this House and the other place, to address the very matters that the noble Lord has raised today. On that note, I hope and wish the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment, recognising that there will be further opportunities for the noble Lord to fight with the same passion on this matter, as I do not doubt he will continue to do in the future. I hope, therefore, that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dubs
My Lords, I am grateful for the support of Members of the House for this amendment. In a curious way I also thank the Minister for his support for the principle that I am trying to establish.
It seems to me that the clearest message of support for the amendment would be to pass it tonight. Anything else would look as if we were hesitating and not totally certain. I am sure the Minister and his noble friend Lady Williams are quite sincere in wishing to support the principle of the amendment. The signal we send, however, will be a different one. I do not see putting this in the Bill causing any difficulty. We ask only that the Government should have a basis for negotiating to achieve the end that we are talking about. If Dublin III gives way to Dublin IV, the Government will have the flexibility to negotiate on that basis. The proposition is clear, and I ask for the support of the House. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
The Earl of Clancarty
“Rights and opportunities of young people
It is an objective of the Government, in negotiating a withdrawal agreement, to ensure that the rights and opportunities of British citizens aged under 25 and resident in the United Kingdom are maintained on existing terms including—(a) retaining the ability to work and travel visa-free in the EU, and(b) retaining the ability to study in other EU member States, including through participation in the Erasmus+ programme, on existing terms.”
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 60 seeks to maintain opportunities for young people to travel, work and study freely within Europe and to ensure that these opportunities are not diminished. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for adding his name to this amendment. I should say now that I am not going to divide the House on this because of the late hour.
Consideration for the young people of this country should be a major—perhaps even, it could be argued, the major—consideration of the negotiations, because young people are the future of the country, a point that was made in a different context this evening. This amendment is fundamentally about equal opportunities for young people. If the Government cannot guarantee, or at least pledge to try to achieve as far as Europe is concerned, opportunities for our young people which are at the very least equal to those of the majority of young people in the rest of Europe, our withdrawal from Europe will be worthless on that count alone.
I was struck by the forcefulness of some of the comments that were made in Committee, and it is worth repeating a couple. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, who is in his place, said:
“The feeling of dismay and disappointment among young people is hard to overestimate”,
while the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, talked about her eldest grandson being,
“incandescent with anger that he is about to be deprived of the right to look for a job anywhere across Europe”.—[Official Report, 14/3/18; cols. 1741-42.]
I find those observations, which are representative of how young people feel—the huge uncertainty and, yes, the anger—difficult to square with the lack of urgency in the Minister’s reply in Committee in which he tried to conflate the wishes, as he put it, of young and older people. Those needs, rather than wishes, are not necessarily the same. For many young people, travel, work and study are bound up together as part of the experience of broadening horizons, of exploration as well as career development. It needs to be understood that, while the young have energy, they will very likely have neither the financial resources nor, as yet, the standing of established professionals. Of course professional people have their concerns as well, but if opportunities are diminished, including those afforded by Erasmus+, it will be young people from less privileged backgrounds who will be the first to suffer from increased costs, restrictions, bureaucracy and indeed the loss of those opportunities themselves. It has to be added that changing attitudes and expectations will invariably be reduced and narrowed if these opportunities are diminished.
I will not repeat the detailed and passionate arguments that we heard from many Peers in Committee about Erasmus+. I will say simply that we absolutely need to remain a member of a programme that is of benefit not just academically but for sport, apprenticeships, schools and even budding entrepreneurs—and, significantly perhaps, for the intercultural skills that all study, work and travel abroad at their best develop. I hope that the Minister will agree that we should continue to be involved in the development of Erasmus+ and not act as though this is something that we may be withdrawing from.
I have two questions on this for the Minister. If he cannot answer them today, perhaps he could put his answers in writing. First, universities, including in the Russell Group, are worried that the message that we are fully involved at least until the end of the 2020 programme, which the Government have said we will be, is not getting through to everyone, students at home and abroad included. The Government can be more proactive in spreading that message. Accordingly, will the DfE put out a document outlining its position on Erasmus+ akin to that put out in March by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on Horizon 2020? That would be extremely helpful.
Secondly, in reply to this amendment in Committee, the Minister said on participation:
“We will take a decision when we see what the successor programme is”.—[Official Report, 14/3/18; col. 1747.]
That was a very worrying answer. The Government should be helping to influence the shape of the programme to make it even better than the current one already is. Frankly, surely we know already that what it will have to offer will be well worth our participation. The universities know this, as does every expert in this House who spoke in the Erasmus debate in Committee. So will the Government now indicate when they will negotiate our participation to ensure the smoothest transition between the current programme and the next?
I repeat that travel, work and study for young people within Europe is a question of equal opportunities. I remind the Government that, despite the result of the referendum, 75% of under-24 year-olds voted to remain across every section of society. If Brexit is to be successful, we should realise that a Brexit that ignores the needs and demands of young people will be a failure and the Government ignore those needs at their peril. I beg to move.
Lord Judd
My Lords, I am very glad to support the amendment. The world is totally interdependent. Any future for Britain will depend on working out a relationship and practical participating role for Britain within that international, global reality. The young understand this, and this is why there is so much disillusion and disaffection among the young in particular with the whole process of Brexit. The young want to belong to the world and they want Britain to be part of the world.
If we are to have a future as a nation, our educational system depends—it is not an add-on—on the international dimension in which, from the youngest age through to postgraduate degrees, people understand that they are part of a world community and see the world dimension of the study that they are undertaking. The presence of students from other countries and their sharing of experience and perspectives is part of the educational process. It is not just a matter of whether there is more income for universities, it is a matter of the educational process itself and the quality of education. That matters.
Travel is terrifically important, because people want to form relationships. That must start with our immediate neighbours in Europe, and we want people in Britain who will understand and instinctively see the implications of what may be happening in Europe and how Britain can play a part in meeting the challenges that arise.
The amendment is vital in bringing home that reality about the young. The young have a great sense of betrayal—that is the word that has been used to me—by having their futures put, as they see it, in jeopardy as a result of what we are doing with the Brexit legislation. Here is a chance for the Government to redeem the situation, to redeem their reputation and to show that they will take second place to no one in their international commitment.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I was pleased to speak to a similar amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, in Committee, and I am equally pleased to support the amendment now. At this point in the evening, I do not intend to detain your Lordships longer than necessary, so my intervention will be short.
All that the amendment asks is that the Government, as part of the withdrawal process, negotiate a continuation of the EU rights that my generation has enjoyed for those under 25. The vital point at the basis of this issue is that the EU passport that we all hold is not just a passport, it is a visa. It is a right to live, work and study in any of the current 28 countries in the EU and to move between those countries at will.
The Government underestimate the frustration and anger that some young people feel at the removal of their rights to freedom of movement and, under Erasmus, to study abroad. On more than one occasion during debate today, Members of your Lordships’ House have referred to the divisions caused by the Brexit vote, but there is no greater potential division than that between the conflicting visions of our country’s future: our young people seeking to move forward in the openness of the EU and some older people seeking the comfort of the past.
Is it not time that the Government showed young people that they understand their concerns? The Government have recently been accused of institutionalised indifference on many issues. Perhaps the amendment affords them the opportunity to disprove that description.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Clancarty on Amendment 60, and speak specifically on the Erasmus programme. I speak as a university chancellor and chair of the advisory board of the Cambridge Judge Business School. The Erasmus programme is 30 years old, and I ask the Minister whether we are to throw away 30 years of that wonderful initiative. Employers—I speak as one—value the Erasmus brand. Hundreds of thousands of British students have benefited from it.
Are we committing to staying in the Erasmus programme well beyond the transition period? Are we committing to it permanently? Otherwise, what happened in Switzerland could happen to us. When Switzerland voted to restrict EU migration, it was taken out of the Erasmus programme. It had to spend extra money to put a new programme in place. Do we want to go through all that?
The most important thing about the Erasmus programme is that it is for everybody. It covers a wide variety of subjects and involves 725,000 European students—a huge number—and Britain is one of the most attractive destinations. Will the Government keep their promise to maintain and protect all funding streams for EU projects in the UK? Most importantly, it enables students who would not otherwise be able to afford it to go and travel and study abroad.
I reiterate what has been said. This is about our youths—and when I speak to students around the country in schools and universities, 100% of them want to remain in the European Union. The least that we can do is to ensure that the Erasmus programme is open to them and not take their future away from them.
Lord Puttnam (Lab)
My Lords, having not pressed my amendment on a very similar subject in Committee, I would like to speak briefly in making one point. The word “overwhelming” has tortured this House over the past many months—the notion that somehow or other the 52:48 majority was overwhelming. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, overwhelming equates to massive; it is not massive—it is narrow and marginal. What is overwhelming is the overwhelming support for remain from young people generally in this country, amounting to around 70% of all young people and 80% in the case of young people with graduate degrees.
The point that I would like to make to the Minister—and I hope very much that he might agree with this—is that those 80% of young people are the ones we will absolutely rely on to drive this country post Brexit to any form of economic success. We are going to absolutely rely on them, so do not diminish their feelings, emotions and belief in Europe by pretending that in any way, shape or form that the narrow victory in the referendum represents the views or wishes of the overwhelming majority of young people in this country.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Earl has done a great service in bringing this amendment back after a very good debate in Committee. Although much of the focus tonight has been on Erasmus, his amendment actually goes wider. However young people voted in the referendum, and whatever the outcome of the Brexit negotiations, the Government have said that post Brexit they want a closer partnership with the EU. Given that, there is a mutual interest in ensuring that young people enhance the opportunities that they have to work, enjoy, travel and get experience between ourselves and countries of the EU. The Erasmus programme is, of course, vitally important in that regard. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, can speak with great experience, and he will know that since its start 600,000 young people, mainly, from the UK have taken advantage of it.
The Minister was sympathetic in Committee; he made it clear that the Government would expect that opportunities that arise for mainly young people will continue in future. But I want to bring him back to the point that the noble Earl raised, which was that he said that the Government would need to see what the successor programme was to Erasmus before committing on whether to support it or not. Tonight’s debate is really about encouraging the Minister to say that, of course, first of all, we should be talking to the EU about the successor programme. Secondly, whatever the technical details, it would be inconceivable that this country, one way or another, would not wish fully to embrace the successor to the Erasmus programme. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to signify that because he took a constructive approach in Committee, he will go just that little bit further and give us that kind of commitment.
Lord Callanan
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for the opportunity to discuss these important issues yet again. However, the purpose of the Bill is to provide a functioning statute book on exit day, regardless of the outcome of negotiations. It is our intention that the planned withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill will implement the major elements of the withdrawal agreement, which will include the agreement on citizens’ rights. This amendment seeks to make it an objective of the Government to achieve a particular outcome in the negotiations on our future relationship with the EU, effectively tying the Government’s hands. It is focused on the withdrawal agreement, but these matters are for our future relationship with the EU, which this Bill does not seek to address.
We have been clear that, after our exit from the European Union, there will continue to be migration and mobility between the EU and the UK. We have agreed an implementation period based on the current structure of rules and regulations. This will mean that UK nationals will be able to live and work in the EU as they do now until 31 December 2020. Looking to the future, the Prime Minister has set out her vision for our deep and special future partnership with the EU. She acknowledged that UK nationals will still want to work and study in EU countries, just as EU citizens will want to do the same here, helping to shape and drive growth, innovation and enterprise. She made it clear that businesses across the EU and the UK must still be able to attract and employ the people they need, and that the Government are open to discussing how to facilitate these valuable links.
Our science and innovation policy paper, published in September, said that we will discuss with the EU future arrangements to facilitate the mobility of researchers, academics and students engaged in cross-border collaboration. It remains in our best interest to ensure that businesses across the EU and the UK continue to be able to attract and employ the people they need. As has been said many times in this Chamber, and in the other place, we recognise the value of international exchange and collaboration through both work and study placements abroad. That applies to students from the EU and from many other parts of the world as well. Increasing language skills and cultural awareness aligns with our vision for the UK as a global nation. We will continue to take part in the specific policies and programmes which are to the UK’s and the EU’s joint advantage, such as those that promote science, education and culture.
As the House will now be well aware, no decisions have yet been taken on UK participation in the successor Erasmus+ programme after 2020. As I said in Committee, this is simply because the scope of the future programme has not yet been agreed. In response to the specific questions from the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, we have made clear to Parliament our commitment to 2020 and this is detailed on the Erasmus website. I will write to the noble Earl with more detail on his other question. Future UK participation in such programmes will form part of the negotiations on our future relationship with the EU. The Government have been clear that there are some specific European programmes that we may want to continue to participate in as we leave the EU. This will be considered as part of the negotiations. Once again, I also reassure noble Lords that, whatever the outcome of those negotiations, we will underwrite successful bids for Erasmus+ submitted while the UK is still a member state, even if payments continue beyond the point of exit. Therefore, applications for funding from UK institutions should continue as normal—and they are.
For these reasons, I ask the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment, as I think he indicated he would do. However, I am unable to give him any hope that I will reflect further on this issue between now and Third Reading so, although he said he is not going to, if he really wishes to test the opinion of the House he should do so now.
The Earl of Clancarty
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this brief debate and the Minister for his reply. He gave the same reply on Erasmus as he has given previously and it is not good enough. We need to be in discussions now about shaping the new Erasmus programme; otherwise, I am worried that it is going to drift. I am sure that universities up and down the country are extremely worried about this. One thing the Government need to understand is that if opportunities for young people are diminished, we diminish the country as a whole. That is a major reason why we need to maintain these opportunities. These experiences, then, are not only for the sake of young people, important as that is, but society as a whole, because those experiences are brought back and reinvigorate us. We need to keep this going, and indeed expand it, not risk the possibility that we will shut these opportunities down. Young people need to have every opportunity in Europe to develop their future, and we need to allow them to do that. The Government cannot give that assurance. However, with regret, because of the late hour I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Berkeley
“Single market: frontier controls
If no agreement is reached with the EU on frontier controls, taxes and charges, the free movement of goods and services, the Digital Single Market, standardisation and the full involvement of the United Kingdom in European Agencies by the day on which this Act is passed, then the Government's negotiating objectives under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union shall be on the basis that the United Kingdom will seek to remain fully in the Single Market.”
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am moving this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bradshaw, who could not be here tonight, but the amendment is also in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria It is slightly different from some of the previous ones we have debated today. It suggests that, if no agreement is reached with the European Union on frontier controls and all the other things in the amendment, the Government’s negotiating objectives should be on the basis that the UK will seek to remain fully in the single market, which I and many other noble Lords see as an alternative to the hard or cliff-edge Brexit, or whatever we like to call it. The first Division that we won a few days ago on Report was on the customs union. That was a good start, but I invite the House to go a little further. Although the customs union is good, quite a lot of problems would still be attached to it, particularly on the jobs and frontier control issues.
On the economy, we read every day of fears of job losses, the economy going down, and of worries from many companies, large and small, about the effect of Brexit. I suppose that the motor car manufacturers are some of the most frightened. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders believes that that there will be a £4.5 billion additional cost in tariffs, let alone all the other bureaucracy I shall come on to, and the RICS reckons that there will be the loss of 200,000 construction jobs if we are not in the single market.
Many noble Lords will have read the recent leaked government analysis of the drop in the economy if we go for a hard Brexit—in the north-east a 16% drop, and in the West Midlands a 13% drop—whereas in the UK overall there would be a 1.5% drop if we remained in the single market and an 8% drop if we ended up on WTO terms. It is worth my saying before the Minister does that the Government do not recognise these figures, but we all get used to the Government not recognising the figures they do not like. We will see what happens.
On the issue of frontier controls, 38 cross-border agencies are involved. With some of them the checks have to be done at frontiers—I include the Northern Ireland-Republic land frontiers in these remarks—and the paperwork, even with a customs union, can be pretty horrendous. We could spend hours debating customs, food standards, food legislation, and the need for pallets to be disinfected when they come into the European Union. Seed potatoes cannot be taken from inside to outside, so I do not know what will happen if a farm straddles the border in Ireland and the seed potatoes in one half cannot be taken into the other half, which sounds interesting. Other issues, among many, include animal and plant health, rabies, foot and mouth and pharmaceuticals.
Just to give one example, there is a transporter that moves goods for Morrisons from here to Gibraltar. Every lorry has to be checked for the point of origin of the goods, each having its own document, before the Spanish authorities will permit the vehicle to leave the UK on its route to Gibraltar. Heaven only knows how that will improve when we have left.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, I put my name to this amendment and back up what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has said. In today’s economy, business is integrated and transactions are global, with goods moving across borders every minute of the day. Our biggest customers are right on our doorstep in the EU—27 countries and half our trade. It is not just finished goods, but ingredients and components. In food and drink, my industry, I can give an example. Bailey’s Original Irish Cream is made in Dublin and goes across the border into Northern Ireland. It is bottled there, comes back into Dublin and is exported to the EU and around the world absolutely seamlessly.
Some 2.5 million lorries pass through Dover. How will we cope if there is any disruption over there? Some 70% of the UK’s food imports by value are from the EU, and 60% to 65% of agricultural exports are to other member states. Any delays on these goods, many of which are perishable, would raise food prices. Some 1.5 million trucks go through the Channel Tunnel. The list of border operations is so complex. What preparations have been made if there is to be a hard Brexit to put up all the infrastructure required, prevent any delays and have a frictionless border?
Some 69% of freight transport goes to the EU as lorry traffic. The FTA has spoken out very clearly for the whole industry. It represents 50% of the UK’s lorries and 90% of rail. It has warned very clearly of 15-mile queues at Calais if border checks are introduced. We need to remember what happened in 2015 with the French ferry workers’ strike. If trucks coming from the EU are treated like non-EU trucks, the ports will be in permanent gridlock. Does the Minister agree? The other aspect is Ireland. From Ireland, goods go to Europe across the UK. It takes trucks 10 hours from leaving Dublin to get to Europe. If they had to go around, it would take them 40 hours, with considerable disruption.
I conclude with a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Yesterday, in the Sunday Times there was an article in which a company boss said:
“We suddenly caught Brexit blight”.
The article says that:
“A wrinkle in international trade rules is scaring away companies in Europe from British suppliers”.
It talks about a Bristol-based company where the customers which used to give orders well in advance—in Germany and Scandinavia—are suddenly stopping the orders because of rules of origin. The supply chain is worried about this. The local content will not be of 50% value. With many industries such as the car industry, components that are made in the UK are well below 50%. There are companies here that just do not have the capability to move from under 50% to 50% or 60%. It will take many years to be able to have that capability domestically, and we will not be able to do it competitively.
The article concludes by saying that companies like this one in Bristol,
“will gradually be ‘evolved’ out of the supply chains of EU manufacturers that do not want the hassle of providing paperwork for components bought outside the bloc”.
It will, says the company,
“be death by a thousand cuts”.
That is what we are facing. We had a vote on the customs union in this Bill and it is critical because it marks the frontier between hard Brexit and a soft Brexit.
In the Financial Times recently, one leading British political analyst was asked to predict what would happen. He said that Brexit will not happen because there is no version of Brexit that can get a parliamentary majority. There will be no parliamentary majority if we cannot handle this particular situation in this amendment.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, on their remarks. We know that the Government do not have a policy on this issue. We can read in the Financial Times that there will be a great debate tomorrow. The Minister smiles, but he knows perfectly well that it is true that the Government have not resolved the question of what customs model they will go for. This is an extraordinary situation. It is now 22 months since the Brexit vote and yet the Government have not got a policy on the fundamental point of how we will make Brexit work. It is a failure of massive proportions on the Government’s part. I want to hear an apology to business from the Minister for the fact that the Government’s political divisions have basically led to a situation in which business is facing a serious cliff edge. They call themselves the “party of business”. What serious claim have the Benches opposite to be the party of business, given the way they have behaved since the EU referendum?
I also say to my own side that I fully support the amendment we passed on the customs union. I was greatly cheered up by it. It is a breach in this wall of stupidity that the Government have erected, but it is not a complete solution to the business problems that people have talked about. It does not solve entirely the problem of customs checks because of rules of origin and issues with agricultural produce and all the rest. It certainly does not solve the Northern Irish border problem on its own. It does not address the fundamental economic point that it completely neglects services—the dynamic part of our economy where our exports are growing, where we have a strong surplus and which is our economic future. This is a terrible, woeful neglect on the part of the Government of the key, dynamic, entrepreneurial sectors of the British economy. How can they claim to be the party of business?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, the issue raised by the amendment is key to how we depart the EU. Indeed, the urgency of sorting out the logistics, costs and procedures of being outside our current trading arrangements has already been made clear. It should not need repeating that 44% of our goods exports go to the EU, with more than 50% of imports coming from the EU, making the mutual case for continued tariff-free trade unanswerable.
As the CBI says, should the current arrangements—a simple single form for our exporters—change to,
“a 12-page form for each batch of goods”,
where,
“Every consignment will also need a VAT registration and certificates of origin, declaring how much of each product has been made where”,
costs will rise disproportionally. Indeed, one major retailer foresees,
“a five- to ten-fold increase in border documentation”,
should Britain leave the customs union, with a possible extra 200,000 UK businesses having to make customs declarations for the first time.
As we have said, the high degree of integration between UK and EU supply chains means that any new friction—bound to be slow and costly—would force businesses to adapt the way they do business, including over choice of supplier and extra storage space for just-in-time models and such issues. We have already heard of the food and drink industry: 90% of imports and exports of food and non-alcoholic drink are with the EU or those countries with whom the EU has trade arrangements. For manufacturing, according to the EEF, agreeing a preferential set of rules of origin with the EU will be crucial given the complexity of the supply chain and the origin of component parts.
We know all that; we have heard about it in this House before and have heard it again this evening. What I did not know until last week—maybe the Minister can correct what is being said—is that not one single Minister from his department has been down to the Port of Dover to see the problems that will arise there. Lorries coming from outside the customs union are currently subject to about 45 minutes of checks and the same would happen if we were outside the customs union. We understand that neither he nor any of his colleagues has been down there to witness that. Perhaps he could put us right.
The concentration on solving the issues highlighted by the agreement are real ones which we support. Clearly, as I think those behind me know, we might have a little difficulty with some of the words in this amendment but the issues raised by it, which the Government must solve, are ones to which we clearly would add our support.
Lord Callanan
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. Amendment 61, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, but moved by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, seeks to maintain the UK’s participation in the single market if agreement is not reached in the areas of frontier controls, taxes and charges, free movement of goods and services, the digital single market, standardisation and UK involvement in European agencies. As a result of the significant progress made in negotiations, we are increasingly confident that we will secure a deal with the EU and that the prospect of leaving negotiations without a positive agreement has receded significantly.
I will say a little more about our objectives in the areas mentioned in the noble Lord’s amendment. First, on frontier controls, we have thought seriously about how our commitment to a frictionless border can best be delivered. Noble Lords will recall the Government’s clear position on this, which I touched on in my earlier remarks. On taxes and payments, the Government are committed to making cross-border trade as frictionless as possible after the UK leaves the EU and will take the necessary steps to ensure the UK economy remains strong in the future. On goods, a fundamental negotiation objective is to ensure that trade at the UK-EU border is as frictionless as possible. That means we do not want to see the introduction of any tariffs or quotas. To achieve this, we will need a comprehensive system of mutual recognition and the UK will need to make a strong commitment that its regulatory standards will remain as high as the EU’s. That commitment, in practice, will mean that UK and EU regulatory standards relating to industrial goods will remain substantially similar in the future.
As a number of noble Lords have mentioned, the UK’s services sector is a global success story. The Prime Minister has set out the Government’s objective of breaking new ground with a broader services agreement than ever before, with new barriers to trade permitted only if absolutely necessary. We want to agree an appropriate labour mobility framework that enables UK and EU businesses and self-employed professionals to travel to provide services to clients in person. We are open to discussing how to facilitate these valuable links. Given that UK qualifications are already recognised across the EU, and vice versa, it would make sense to continue to recognise each other’s qualifications in the future. An agreement that delivered these objectives would be consistent with the mutually expressed interest in an ambitious services agreement.
We have also been clear that, by virtue of leaving the single market, the UK will not be part of the EU’s digital single market strategy, which will continue to develop after our withdrawal from the EU. This is a fast-evolving, innovative sector, in which the UK is a world leader so it will be particularly important to have domestic flexibility to ensure the regulatory environment can always respond nimbly and ambitiously to new developments.
We will want to explore with the EU the terms on which the UK could remain part of EU agencies, such as those that are critical for the chemicals, medicines and aerospace industries—the European Medicines Agency, the European Chemicals Agency and the European Aviation Safety Agency. We are confident that a deep and special partnership is in the interests of both sides, so we approach these negotiations anticipating success.
In response to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, about Dover, Ministers have met representatives from the Port of Dover on a number of occasions, most recently on Monday 23 April. Furthermore, DExEU civil servants have an ongoing dialogue with the Port of Dover and Eurotunnel.
With that information, I hope I have provided a clear picture of the Government’s objectives for negotiating a deal with the EU in these areas and that the noble Lord will feel content to withdraw his amendment. I reiterate that I cannot give any false hope that I will reflect further on this issue between now and Third Reading, so if the noble Lord wishes to test the opinion of the House, he should do so now.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in this short debate. Apart from the Minister they all expressed concern about the state of the negotiations and where they are going. The Minister gave us a very positive view on how the negotiations were going, to such an extent that one is tempted to believe that by the time the Bill receives Royal Assent they will all be agreed. There is the slight problem that it takes two to agree. As we have heard on many occasions, it is not just the European Commission but the many other European agencies there. If the Minister is that positive and hopeful about all these agreements, it is tempting to argue that he should accept my amendment because it will not be necessary.
However, he did not say anything about the rules of origin, which the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, also spoke to at length—we both read the same paper at the weekend. It is a very serious issue, as he said. Without agreement on the rules of origin I do not think there will be much free movement of goods across the frontier. I do not think we will be able to agree rules of origin in a couple of months. It is a very long drawn-out issue.
I was also concerned when the Minister said that we are having nothing to do with the single market and the digital agenda. If we are outside the digital agenda, we shall have very serious problems in many sectors of trade with the European Union. I rather hope the Government will look at this again. The Minister mentioned the agencies. He did not mention the railways agency this time, but I am sure he mentioned it in previous debates.
I shall read carefully what the Minister said. I will not divide the House at this late hour because we will all fall asleep before we finish, but I know we shall come back to this. Talking to the people of Dover, the harbour board, Eurotunnel and everyone else is one thing; it is probably almost too late to make it work with the massive changes that could happen. I leave noble Lords with a thought: if you live in Kent, near Ashford, and you have continuous traffic jams of trucks on the motorway during Operation Stack, usually caused by either a strike in France or the weather, I cannot see that there will be many people voting for Brexit in Kent by the time this is all over. With that aside, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Replication of EU law: consultation on impact and equivalence
(1) This section applies to regulations (whether or not under this Act) which—(a) are designed to replicate a provision of EU legislation (with or without modifications), or(b) amend or replace legislation which was made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 or which was otherwise made for the purpose of giving effect to EU obligations.(2) Before making the regulations a Minister of the Crown must publish a statement that the Minister is satisfied that a draft has been published in such a manner, and for such a period, as to give persons representing interests affected by the regulations a reasonable opportunity to consider and make representations about—(a) the environmental, social and other impacts of the regulations, and(b) equivalence with EU legislation. (3) The period referred to in subsection (2) must not be less than 3 months, except where the Minister includes a statement that—(a) the Minister is satisfied that 3 months’ notice could not reasonably be given in the circumstances, and(b) as much notice was given as the Minister considers reasonably practicable.(4) This section ceases to have effect on 31st December 2021 unless the Secretary of State by regulation continues it.”
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Lisvane, have also put their names to this amendment. It is a variation on a similar amendment debated in Committee, but it now includes a sunset clause to restrict the scale of its application, which the Minister expressed concern about at that stage. It is, of course, put forward in a spirit of helpfulness to the Government, although I find that a bit difficult to say at this time of night. It encourages the Government to seek wider advice and assistance in spotting any errors in the large number of statutory instruments—between 800 and 1,000 in addition to the normal numbers—that will need to come forward as a consequence of the EU withdrawal Act. I am concerned about possible flaws in the statutory instruments because of the large number of them, the pace at which they will have to come forward, the lack of staff with sufficient experience in some government departments and the overall pressure of Brexit-related legislation.
It is important that the statutory instruments are available for scrutiny before being formally laid, as once they are laid they cannot be amended under either the affirmative or negative procedure. The only option then would be to seek to annul any flawed statutory instrument. That is the nuclear option which would run the risk of leaving gaps in the legislation on exit, which I am sure the Government would not wish.
I thank the Minister and his team for meeting me and the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, was quite rightly keen that consultation should not mean three months for all subjects great and small. The Government have now laid amendments and given formal assurances on this issue, as have some individual government departments. I welcome the pre-scrutiny proposed for the negative procedure statutory instruments, which would mean that they were published as “negatives in draft” and would give a 10-day window for commentators to express concerns about their substance before they were formally laid.
I understand that Defra, which is likely to have about 10% of the statutory instruments, is putting in place a high-level group of external commentators who will advise on the adequacy of the consultation process—a sort of consultation on consultation. It would be good if Defra and any other departments planning this mechanism could press forward so that we might see how this would work.
In their response to the Lords Constitution Committee’s report, the Government have undertaken to lay requirements on Ministers to make statements in explanation of statutory instruments in certain circumstances—for example, where a criminal offence is created or where an urgent statutory instrument is brought forward—but it is likely that such statements will be published only when the SI is laid formally and it is therefore too late, as I have outlined.
I am sure that the Government are committed to preparing this torrent of statutory instruments in as open a way as possible to make sure that the process of transfer of the snapshot of EU legislation into UK law is as uncontentious as possible. The amendment gives the Minister a real opportunity to flesh out this commitment and would place on the parliamentary record the full range of formal and less formal means of consultation and debugging planned by the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 64, which has been ably explained by my noble friend Lady Young. She has attempted to address one of the many practical challenges which will face us in the run-up to Brexit day. We know that we will have to process a large number of statutory instruments in a very short timescale, so how can we be assured that mistakes and oversights do not slip through the net in the rush to meet the deadlines?
We have a particular interest in this issue from an environmental perspective, especially as so many of the regulations will transfer environmental protections—but, obviously, the challenge spans all sectors. We know that civil servants in Defra are already under intense pressure. They are already working on a number of EU-related Bills, including on agriculture, fisheries, environmental standards, and animal welfare and sentience. They also face other pressures from the Secretary of State to modernise other animal welfare and environmental policies. Their number and expertise have been significantly cut and, although new staff have now been taken on to help with Brexit, they do not have the wealth of experience that previously existed. Without safeguards of the kind proposed by the amendment, mistakes in drafting will occur without any means to correct them.
In Committee and subsequently, the Minister took steps to reassure us that pre-scrutiny and sifting processes will be put in place, but the proposals to date have only a partial impact and do not address the more fundamental challenge of delivering proper scrutiny and ensuring that regulations are fit for purpose. So we very much welcome the proposals in Amendment 64. They would give space to allow those affected by the regulations, NGOs and parliamentarians to see the draft wording and have an input before the final version. This is about driving up quality and delivering good governance and I hope that the Minister will welcome the proposals in this spirit.
The amendment focuses on those issues that have a wider environmental and social purpose, where errors and omissions would be more keenly felt. As my noble friend has explained, a new sunset clause of 2021 has now been inserted so that this does not inadvertently become the new norm. I hope the Minister will take this proposal in the positive and constructive form that my noble friend has intended and that she will feel able to support it.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, let me say that the Bill does not in any way alter the Government’s long-standing commitment to proper consultation, a concern articulated by the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Jones of Whitchurch.
Amendment 64 would effectively place a statutory requirement to consult, for a period of three months, on all legislation which will affect EU-derived domestic legislation, whether from the Bill or elsewhere. This would effectively reduce the time available to prepare the regulation by three months. I suggest that that could be profoundly undesirable. As we have previously detailed in this House, departments are keen to engage with stakeholders on current matters and on the progress of the negotiations, and will continue to do so where this is possible and where it does not negatively impact on the negotiations in any way. To be fair, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, did acknowledge that.
The consultation process requires resources and time from government and stakeholders. To be frank, we want to focus the energies of those inside and outside government on the most important measures, rather than having them occluded by the sheer volume of consultations on minor matters that could arise under these amendments. I appreciate the concerns that we have heard throughout this debate, but I hope the House will accept at the least that a great many instruments will be technical and minor and designed to ensure continuity. A specific legal requirement to consult, as the amendment envisages, could affect our negotiations with the EU by forcing our legislative plans to pre-empt those discussions. It also risks consulting on a legislative proposal that does not accurately take account of ongoing negotiations.
The noble Baroness’s amendment focuses on the legislation we have made in the UK to implement our EU obligations and the changes that might be made to that legislation in the period immediately after our exit from the EU. This is a point I know many are concerned by and I know that some noble Lords have not yet been completely satisfied by the Government’s commitments on the protections that will apply to that legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to the government amendments: the amendments to Schedules 7 and 8 will ensure that the exercise of the powers under the Bill are transparent to Parliament and to the wider world. Indeed, our provision in Schedule 8 will also go further than the 2021 deadline in the noble Baroness’s amendment and will require, for all time, Ministers making amendments by powers in other Bills to explain any changes they make to regulations made under Section 2(2) of the ECA and set out the good reasons for them. These statements will have to be laid before Parliament and will have to explain the impact of the amendments and any relevant law, including EU law.
It is clear from this that there will be no evading transparency when future Governments divert or update the legislation they will inherit from our EU obligations. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that I think that that is a formula for very robust parliamentary scrutiny. I hope the noble Baroness understands why the Government cannot accept this amendment.
Lord Judd
My Lords, the noble Baroness has referred to the fact that many matters will be minor and technical. This is exactly the point. What may seem minor and technical to administrators and government may be very big issues indeed for some of those who will be affected, particularly in the environmental sphere, and whose co-operation in making a success of whatever is being done is vital.
I also ask the Minister: is it not true that the whole point about so many environmental issues is that they cannot be resolved within the context of the UK alone, but have an international dimension? Fisheries is a very good example. It is for that reason, which plays right into the community here, that we have to be very careful about referring to things as “minor” or “technical”. Sometimes they are life-and-death matters to people who really are on the front line.
Baroness Goldie
The noble Lord makes a perfectly valid point, with which I have some sympathy, but I am endeavouring to deal with the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, in the context of her amendment. I am pointing out that it is not that there will not be consultation or robust parliamentary scrutiny. There will be an opportunity for parliamentarians in both Houses to identify the very sorts of concerns to which the noble Lord has referred.
I have set out the Government’s position. I hope the noble Baroness understands why the Government are unable to accept this amendment, and I urge her to withdraw it. I confirm that the Government do not propose to reflect further on this issue between now and Third Reading, so if she wishes to test the opinion of the House, it would be appropriate to do that now.
Baroness Young of Old Scone
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who have had the stamina to stay this late to speak to this amendment. The Minister’s response was disappointing. The undertaking that departments will engage with stakeholders where possible does not give me a lot of confidence. I understand that consultation takes up time and resources and that it needs to be focused on the important rather than the minor. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has just said, many technical and minor amendments can have major impacts.
I am not convinced that the statements and the transparency promised by the government amendments to the later schedules will fit the bill because, if I understand correctly, they are very much about statements made at the time when the statutory instrument is laid, by which time it is too late to make further amendments. It really is into the nuclear option situation, where only an annulment can then happen.
I had hoped that the Minister would use this opportunity to reassure the House generally and the wider audience about the real commitment the Government have to trying to make sure that we get all these statutory instruments right first time. I only hope that the debates we have had on this proposition and the continuing discussions we have with government departments will reveal that that intention does exist, even if it has not been laid out in the parliamentary domain tonight. In view of the time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Smith of Newnham
“Rights of EU citizens
(1) A Minister of the Crown must by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision to maintain, preserve and protect the rights of any citizen of an EU member State who was lawfully resident in the United Kingdom immediately before exit day, and in particular to continue their right to be lawfully resident in the United Kingdom.(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the hour is late and many of our noble colleagues have already left. Your Lordships might therefore hope that I will finish quickly—but I am rather keen to raise certain issues and reiterate them yet again in your Lordships’ House for the sake of the millions of EU citizens resident in the United Kingdom whose rights and concerns over the past two years have not been met. They have not been reassured.
Immediately after the referendum, questions were raised in your Lordships’ House about the rights of EU citizens legally resident in the United Kingdom on the day of the referendum. Amendment 65, in my name and those of my noble friend Lady Ludford, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, raises again the rights of EU citizens.
When the matter was first raised there was cross-party agreement that the rights of EU citizens needed to be guaranteed. The only people who disagreed were, initially, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, who was speaking on behalf of the Government, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, then Leader of the Lords. The reasons they spoke against guaranteeing the rights of EU citizens immediately were associated with the fact that the then Home Secretary felt that the rights of EU citizens could not be immediately guaranteed. The then Home Secretary is now the Prime Minister, and it would appear that her views have not changed. The rights of EU citizens, then as now, are seen as bargaining chips in the wider negotiations.
Over the past two years we have heard again and again that there is not going to be a problem—that the rights of EU citizens will be assured. Once we have the withdrawal agreement, life will be fine. For many millions of people, however, that does not seem a likely scenario. As it is late, I will not quote at length from a book that I received last week, but it is worth reminding your Lordships of the sort of testimonies included the book, which is called In Limbo. In it, one German national says that she is one of the people inadvertently caught up in a problem. She came to the United Kingdom, married and had children. Then, however, she stayed at home as a homemaker—twice during the past decade. Nobody told her that a requirement for permanent residency was that she should have comprehensive sickness insurance—so she does not now know whether she will have a right to remain.
So far we have heard from Ministers in your Lordships’ House and the other place that the rights of citizens can be guaranteed. The assumption is that there will be a withdrawal agreement and that the rights will be guaranteed. As we have been told on so many occasions, however, the EU withdrawal Bill is meant to assume that we leave the European Union on 29 March 2019, and it will be fit for purpose whether or not there is an agreement—deal or no deal. The rights of EU citizens will, however, not be guaranteed in the absence of a deal. So far, the agreement that in December 2017 started to look at the rights of EU nationals is predicated on the idea that there will be a withdrawal deal.
I would be most grateful, therefore, if the Minister could further enlighten the House, the 3.6 million EU citizens resident in the United Kingdom, and their families: spouses, partners, children and parents. Altogether there are far more than 3.6 million EU citizens, all of whom are wondering what will happen in the event of no deal. Even if there is a deal, how will people demonstrate that they have the right to be here? What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to give security to those citizens? In particular, in the light of the Windrush debacle, what certainty can the Minister give to those EU citizens who have come to live and work here, thinking that they were wanted, just as those on the “Empire Windrush” thought that they were wanted? Unless we have an amendment like Amendment 65 on the face of the Bill, millions of people will continue to live in insecurity and uncertainty.
In summing up, I raise the question of the rights not just of EU citizens but of EEA nationals from Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein. They also have rights of free movement that are essentially consequent on the rights of EU citizenship. What thinking have the Government done about the rights of those citizens? Further, what are the Government doing about the rights of Turkish nationals, who also have rights associated with the Ankara agreement, which of course we are linked to as a member state of the European Union? Once we leave, what rights will those citizens have?
Finally, it has been brought to my attention that a Bulgarian MEP will be coming to the UK next week. He is in the process of trying to help Bulgarian citizens, because Bulgarian and Romanian citizens resident in the UK are less likely than their fellow EU citizens from other member states to have met the five-year residency criterion by the time we leave the European Union. They have had free movement rights only since the start of 2014, so there is a lot more insecurity for Bulgarians and Romanians. This MEP has tried to put together a portal to explain to Bulgarian citizens what rights they have. I am hoping that that portal will be rather more effective than the Government’s software and that it might even be readable on an iPhone.
What sort of information are the Government giving alongside their reassurance to these citizens? If those assurances cannot be given, can we be assured that some sort of amendment can be made to the Bill so that citizens’ rights will be guaranteed in the event of a deal or no deal?
Lord Judd
My Lords, the issues raised and, if I may say so, powerfully argued in her speech by the noble Baroness are grave. People came to live here in the expectation that they would be welcome, of course, and that they would contribute to our economy, which would be appreciated. But most importantly they came here in the context of European citizenship, understanding that as part of being a European citizen they had every right to move here and establish their lives here. We, by our moves to leave the European Union, have circumscribed the rights of citizenship. This is in history a dramatic and grave event. We really have a responsibility to ensure that what people did in good faith—and in terms of citizenship—is preserved. If we have any claim at all to being a responsible nation in the global community, citizenship must be regarded as one of the most precious elements in human life. The need to be certain beyond doubt about what the position of these people will be is therefore essential.
The other point is that we are already seeing the consequences of not having settled the issues. The health service is having still more problems because people feel unable to commit their families to living here. I am involved in several universities and there is evidence that people who wanted to come and make a contribution in our universities as academics are thinking twice about it because they are not sure what their status will be. That applies also and not infrequently to people who are already here and considering promotion or some other job within the university environment. These are just examples, but these matters are urgent.
I remember absolutely clearly that when we had just had the referendum, the response from the Government was quite encouraging because it was said by the Prime Minister and others that, without any doubt, this matter would be given priority above all others. Where is the evidence of this priority above all others? We really need some convincing answers from the Minister this evening.
Lord Berkeley
My Lords, I spent this weekend with a couple whom I have known for a long time. She is German and he is British. They have children and she taught at a European school for 20 years. She said, “You know, ever since the vote two years ago I’ve been looking for an answer. I haven’t had one and I’m just fed up”. She has lived in the UK for 20 or 30 years and her conclusion was that the Government are now so untrustworthy, so devious and so unwelcoming that she is thinking of taking her family back to Germany, or perhaps Holland or somewhere. That is a common message that we have heard from many noble Lords and it is disgraceful that these citizens have been used as bargaining chips for the last two years. I hope that the Minister will give us some comfort that this period of real worry for their families will soon come to an end.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, as has just been said, the price of the Government’s failure to accept the advice of this House and its EU Committee to offer a unilateral guarantee to the 5 million affected citizens is being paid by those citizens in anxiety, distress and distrust. As a result of taking the bargaining chip approach mentioned by several noble Lords, rather than a simple, light-touch, declaratory procedure, there are mounting concerns about the process, not least in the light of the Windrush scandal. There may be tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people in that group, but there are 3.5 million EU and EEA citizens here and 1.5 million UK citizens in the EU 27, so altogether that is 5 million people. What assurances can the Government give about the staffing and capacity of the relevant section of the Home Office that will deal with the settled status application process and about the testing plans? Those of us affected by the TSB fiasco are very conscious of the need for good testing and communication plans for customers.
My noble friend mentioned what is apparently the current plan, which means that people will not be able to apply online from Apple devices, such as iPhones, only from Android devices. Apparently Home Office officials told MEPs last week that people could borrow their friends’ Android devices to complete the process. That seems a little bizarre. Will an offline process be available for people without digital skills or access to computers? What are the plans for communications, appeal and redress? We know that the draft withdrawal agreement requires independent oversight of the process, but can the Government give us more of an idea of the practicalities and of how they plan to make sure that vulnerable people are not excluded? A report last week from the Migration Observatory expressed concern about people potentially being excluded. The Government have been ruled to be acting illegally in trying to deport rough sleepers, who are not necessarily in breach of EU free movement law. Is everybody to be included? Have the Government set a cost? Today’s letter from the representative of the European Parliament, Guy Verhofstadt, to the incoming Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, says that the European Parliament expects there to be a cost-free process for applicants and raises other systems issues. He also raises the crucial issue of the need for full rights under the new EU data protection law—the GDPR—to apply, not the Government’s planned exemption. Without these rights, if something goes wrong, people will not be able to find out and get their data corrected. That is a cause that these Benches have championed, and we look forward to others coming on board with that demand.
Can the Government clear up something that has been bothering me? What exactly are they saying about comprehensive sickness insurance? We have had evidence, and this has been said by Ministers in public, that there will be no need to demonstrate the holding of comprehensive sickness insurance as part of the application process for settled status, but the draft withdrawal agreement seems to imply that there will still be a requirement to hold it. So is there a difference between having to hold comprehensive sickness insurance and having to demonstrate it as an evidential requirement? Could the Government clarify exactly what will happen to people who in the past were told they needed CSI? What happens in the application process?
Could the Government clarify the omission from the draft withdrawal agreement of free-movement rights among the EU 27 for Brits who are settled in one of the member states? There is huge concern, particularly among people whose job requires them to move around. I see the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, in his place. He and I have depended in the past, as Members of the European Parliament, on the skills of freelance interpreters and translators. Not only do they move around between Brussels and Strasbourg but they might work for other international organisations or businesses, so they live in one member state but travel all over the EU. They need the right to work across borders within the EU 27. What exactly accounts for the gap in the withdrawal agreement?
We do not know what will happen about post-Brexit immigration but it looks as though it will be very similar to EU free movement, except with a lot more red tape, bureaucracy and cost, and less freedom. That is not a terribly good bargain. We are suffering a lot in the process of the Government’s Brexit demands on citizens, and I ask for some answers.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I would have hoped that the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady D’Souza, and my noble friends Lady Smith and Lord Judd would not have needed to table this amendment. It should have been self-evident that those living here who arrived with the reasonable expectation of their right to remain on the same terms would have had that guaranteed by the Government.
Sadly, though, it has proved essential that the movers table the amendment since EU residents retain a level of anxiety born not just of the referendum result but of the Government’s subsequent actions. First, at the time of the Article 50 Bill, the Government refused to guarantee their existing rights and chose instead to use them as bargaining chips, as we have heard, using their majority in the Commons to overturn your Lordships’ amendment. Secondly, more than a year later, there is still no cast-iron guarantee, despite Ministers promising early agreement on this. Indeed, the Government have failed to implement what the Prime Minister said in December would be on offer to EU citizens, and we therefore need to put it into law. That is a priority for the Bill. We cannot wait until December to give these people certainty. They have decisions to make—on schooling, jobs and homes, and perhaps on marriages and children—and need to know where they stand.
Thirdly, in Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, who is not in his place now, insisted that,
“you can only have the domestic law once you have the international treaty, because it is from the international treaty rights and obligations that you allow the domestic rights and obligations to be brought into our domestic law”.—[Official Report, 7/3/18; cols. 1078-79.]
I do not know if he was deliberately misunderstanding what we were asking but, in effect, he was saying that the withdrawal agreement must come first and that without it the Government would refuse to guarantee existing residents their existing rights. That is not necessary in the treaty. It may be a decision by the Government but it is certainly not the case in law. We are not asking that the Government wait until we hear from the EU 27 how they will react to our citizens living there. We are asking the Government to affirm now something it is in the UK Parliament’s gift to decide: what rights we will give to EU citizens currently living here legally.
Lastly, we need this because of the disastrous mishandling, which has just been mentioned, of another group of people also living here quite lawfully: the Windrush generation. Given their overwhelming right to be here, the length of time of their residency and the contribution they have made to the economy, is it any wonder that more recent—albeit equally legal—residents, EU citizens, question whether vague promises of concern will harden into legal guarantees?
The amendment is necessary, morally right and legally justified, so I hope that, even at this late hour, the Government will accept it.
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, let me make clear that the rights of EU citizens living in the UK are extremely important. I will address my remarks to the context of the amendment. Some broader questions outwith the amendment were asked; I do not propose to deal with them.
The amendment would do little to protect the rights of EU citizens lawfully resident here in the United Kingdom, and is actually less than what we have already agreed with the European Union.
We are in negotiation, we want a deal and we are straining every sinew to work towards a deal. There is now manifestation of progress on that front, because, following the March European Council, the EU and the UK have agreed to protect a broad range of rights that EU citizens and their family members who are resident in the UK on exit day currently enjoy, but also to extend that protection to those who arrive until the end of the implementation period. This agreement, which was published in draft on 19 March, provides them with certainty about their future rights and allows them to carry on with their lives much as they do now.
The Government have already committed that the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill will directly implement the withdrawal agreement—including the agreement on citizens’ rights—in UK law by primary legislation. To implement the citizens’ rights agreement, we are introducing a new settled status scheme in UK law for EU citizens and their family members covered by the agreement. We plan to open the application process on a voluntary basis in late 2018, so that people can get their new status at their earliest convenience. This does not require regulations to be made under this power, as the necessary provision can be made through Immigration Rules made under the Immigration Act 1971.
The UK settled status scheme will fulfil the part of our agreement with the EU under which member states can require people to apply to obtain a status conferring the rights of residence, as provided for by the withdrawal agreement, and be issued with a residence document conferring that right.
These individuals will have until June 2021 to make an application to obtain their new UK status. During this time, they will enjoy the rights to live and work freely in the UK as conferred by the withdrawal agreement. After that period, if no successful application has been made, no status will be held and they will not enjoy those rights. However, we have agreed with the EU that where there are reasonable grounds for missing the deadline, they will be allowed to submit an application within a reasonable further period. Any application that is made, but not decided, before the end of June 2021 will still be within scope of the withdrawal agreement protections.
As the House will be aware, we have now agreed with the EU a time-limited implementation period. The purpose of this is to avoid a cliff edge and give people, business and public services in the UK and across the EU the time they need to put in place the new arrangements that will be required to adjust to our future partnership.
It will take time to implement a new immigration framework, and the Government have been clear that there should be only one set of changes in the relationship between the UK and the EU, so it makes sense that the framework during this time-limited implementation period should be the existing structure of EU rules and regulations. During this implementation period, individuals will still be fully covered by the EU acquis. EU citizens and their family members will be able to come to the UK to live and work as they do now, but those who wish to stay here for longer than three months will be required to register. That registration will enable them to evidence their right to reside in the UK during the implementation period.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, specifically raised the point about Turkish citizens. I understand that DExEU is leading cross-government work to assess international agreements we have with Turkey, which may be affected by EU exit. I cannot be more specific about that at this point, but the matter is within consideration.
The proposed new clause, therefore, would do nothing to further or protect EU citizens’ interests. It would interfere with our ability to implement the withdrawal agreement and do nothing to improve on the Government’s policy that all EU citizens and their family members, resident in the UK before the end of the implementation period, will be protected under the terms of the citizens’ rights part of the withdrawal agreement.
I hope that I have been clear in setting out how this amendment would actually do little to protect the rights of EU citizens lawfully resident here in the United Kingdom. For that reason, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw it. I have to say that the Government do not propose to reflect further on this issue between now and Third Reading, so if she wishes to test the opinion of the House it would be appropriate to do so now.
Baroness Smith of Newnham
I am grateful to the Minister for giving us a fairly thorough answer, but I find it a little difficult to accept some of what she has just said. As a Liberal Democrat, I am supposed to be somebody with an optimistic turn of mind, so I should possibly hope that there will be an agreement—there will be a deal and it will be so wonderful that we can all live with it. There will be an implementation period, which maybe we would call a transition period, the rights of EU citizens resident here and UK citizens elsewhere in Europe will all be guaranteed, and life will be wonderful. But I am afraid that I was brought up to be a little bit cynical, and I am slightly concerned that what the Minister has said does not quite ring true. She has talked about a whole set of rights being guaranteed through the withdrawal agreement, but we have no guarantee that there will be a withdrawal agreement.
On several occasions this evening we have talked about the possibility of there not being a deal. If there were no deal, the discussion being put forward in the draft withdrawal agreement would lapse. In that event, the rights of the 3.6 million citizens would appear to vanish. On previous days at Report and, in particular, in Committee, we were told repeatedly that the Bill was to ensure legal certainty on the day we leave the European Union—not after some implementation period. I remain deeply concerned about the rights of EU citizens.
If it were not seven minutes to midnight, I would test the opinion of the House but, in the absence of any trigger from the Labour Chief Whip or, to my left, my own Chief Whip, it would be prudent not to do so. I understand that I cannot bring the amendment back at Third Reading, but we might expect an immigration Bill at some point, and many of these issues will be brought back again in that legislation. I am not satisfied that what the Government suggest really will guarantee the rights of EU citizens. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Burt of Solihull
“Co-operation with the European Union on child maintenance claims
Within one month of the passing of this Act, and then once in every subsequent calendar year, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report containing an assessment of how, following exit day, co-operation between the United Kingdom and the EU will replicate mechanisms which exist within the EU to enforce cross-border child maintenance claims, and will enable data sharing in relation to such matters.”
Baroness Burt of Solihull
My Lords, Amendment 68 is in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and myself. The amendment proposes a new, short clause which is similar in its intention to that proposed by Amendments 67 and 69, to which we also added our names and which have already been debated.
The clause relates to ensuring co-operation within the EU on child maintenance claims. The importance of cross-border co-operation between the EU and the UK on enforcing child maintenance claims is clear, and I will not detain the House at this hour by going into it. However, in post-Brexit times we need a mechanism to ensure that this cross-border co-operation is maintained.
The clause is very modest in its intention. It does not tell the Government how to do this; it merely requests a report showing how it is working, or not, as the case may be. This does not seem unreasonable to me, so I hope that the Minister will undertake at least to consider this modest request. Children and families who have already suffered the challenges of family break-up across the EU are depending on it. That is all I wish to say on this proposed new clause.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, EU family law provisions are tried and tested. There is a broad consensus that they work well, and with the advent of the Brussels II recast—as it is known in the trade—they will become more effective still. At earlier stages of the Bill, I set out in some detail the challenges for international family law post Brexit, so I will not rehearse those again. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, has said, this amendment is focused on what happens to child maintenance when we leave the EU.
Child maintenance matters because parents can separate or divorce but they do not cease being responsible for their children. Children have a right to support from both parents, even if one lives abroad. Maintenance plays a key role in lifting single-parent families out of poverty. Receipt of child support is also positively associated with single parents taking up work and with children maintaining contact with a non-resident parent.
This may be private law, but the need for it to work well and be enforceable is a matter of public policy importance. Even the UNCRC mandates, at Article 27, contracting states to take all appropriate measures to secure the recovery of child maintenance and, when a parent lives abroad, to promote accession to international agreements. So there are compelling reasons for Parliament to want to be assured that we will have a well-functioning system to enable the assessment and enforcement of child maintenance owed by a parent living in one of the EU 27. The Minister told the House that, during the implementation or transition period, the current reciprocal rules, including the key EU family law instruments and Hague conventions, will continue to apply as now. Beyond that, we do not yet know what the landscape will look like.
Ministers have signalled that they would like to continue to participate in the Lugano convention, but that is nothing like a substitute for the maintenance regulation, as that part of the EU family law provisions are known. The 2007 Hague convention would go some way towards assisting with the recognition and enforcement of maintenance obligations, but it too falls well short of the maintenance regulation. It has no general system of jurisdictional rules, and you cannot enforce spousal maintenance orders via the central authorities unless they are linked to enforcement of a child maintenance order. We are left hoping that the Government will be successful in negotiating a reciprocal deal that will serve our people well. Given the significant number of international divorces, these issues cannot be ignored.
Ministers are confident that comparable reciprocal arrangements can be achieved to replace the EU family law provisions. This amendment would simply require Ministers to tell us how. If Ministers do not smile on this amendment, perhaps they could tell the House how and when the Government will update us on progress. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Goldie
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for raising the important issue of child maintenance, which we recognise is of particular importance to many families across the UK. As the Government outlined in their position paper published in August last year, we are seeking a comprehensive future agreement with the EU on civil judicial co-operation that is based on the substance of the current EU regulations, including the maintenance regulation. I stress again that the precise nature of this relationship will be a matter for negotiation.
However, I assure the House that the Government are committed to working with our EU partners to agree the most effective rules in this area which reflect our close existing relationship on this important issue. This approach will provide confidence and certainty to families and individuals, ensuring they can continue to enforce cross-border maintenance orders efficiently and effectively in the future. As both noble Baronesses, Lady Burt and Lady Sherlock, rightly said, these orders are hugely important to the families involved.
Baroness Burt of Solihull
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her comments, particularly what she said about the ongoing work with our European partners to achieve a cross-border arrangement. It is hoped that the spirit of what she is saying and the desire to form these arrangements will be satisfactory to families. Although the Government may consider this not to be a huge issue in the great context of Brexit and everything that is going on, it is a big issue to those families who are similarly affected. The Minister is nodding, and I take comfort from that. With that, and given the lateness of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lisvane
Lord Lisvane
My Lords, as this amendment is consequential on Amendment 31, which was agreed by your Lordships on 25 April, I beg to move it formally.
Lord Callanan
“( ) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) after the end of the period of 10 years beginning with exit day.”
Lord Callanan
My Lords, in Committee many noble Lords raised valuable concerns regarding the use of the consequential power, or, I should say, the misuse of this power. In response to these concerns, and being conscious of restricting the scope of the powers wherever practical, the Government have tabled an amendment to sunset the power to make consequential amendments from 10 years after exit.
I would like to point out that it is unusual for such powers to be sunset. However, given the unique nature of this Bill and the concerns about future Governments abusing the power to make consequential amendments, the Government have taken the decision that it is right in this exceptional case to apply a sunset to the power. The Government arrived at the figure of 10 years as the consequences of the Bill may only come to light long after our exit from the EU. The fact that this period is longer than that afforded to the other powers in the Bill reflects this fact. While 10 years should ensure that the majority of consequential amendments can be made, there is still a risk that some amendments that it may prove appropriate to make could not be made if they were only discovered after this time. The Government believe, however, that the value of sunsetting the power outweighs those risks.
I know that there are other concerns about Clause 17, and the Government have tabled amendments to address those, in particular arranging for negative SIs proposed under it to be sifted. I look forward to debating these on a later day.
I hope that this amendment demonstrates yet again the Government’s commitment to satisfying the concerns of this House, and I hope that noble Lords will welcome this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I recognise that the Government have moved on this issue, even though 10 years is the longest sunset that I think I have ever heard of in any Bill—it has the quality of a north Norwegian, Arctic sunset, which pleasantly never comes. However, in this case, some date by which to end these rather wide powers is welcome. Of course, the Bill also has the limitation in Clause 17(2). It was the breadth of the powers that led us to table Amendment 85, which was not moved, and it was the Government’s willingness to move on this and some other amendments that made us feel that we ought not to press it. I hope the Minister recognises that any use of these consequential powers that appeared to go beyond what is genuinely consequential would raise the spectre that we had let through excessive powers. He will be well aware by now that this House has become increasingly vigilant about the breadth of powers granted to Ministers. In recognising that the Government have moved on this issue, we have not pursued other amendments.
Lord Lisvane
Lord Lisvane
My Lords, this amendment is also consequential to Amendment 31. I beg to move.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 2nd May 2018
(7 years ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 79-R-V(b) Amendment for Report, supplementary to the fifth marshalled list (PDF, 49KB) - (2 May 2018)
18:35 - Division on Amendment 88 - Ayes: 309 / Noes: 242 - Amendment 88 agreed.
Lord Patten of Barnes
“Continuation of North-South co-operation and the prevention of new border arrangements
(1) In exercising any of the powers under this Act, a Minister of the Crown or devolved authority must—(a) act in a way that is compatible with the terms of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and(b) have due regard to the joint report from the negotiators of the EU and the United Kingdom Government on progress during phase 1 of negotiations under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.(2) Nothing in section 7, 8, 9 or 17 of this Act authorises regulations which—(a) diminish any form of North-South cooperation across the full range of political, economic, security, societal and agricultural contexts and frameworks of co-operation, including the continued operation of the North-South implementation bodies, or(b) create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature—(i) physical infrastructure, including border posts,(ii) a requirement for customs or regulatory compliance checks,(iii) a requirement for security checks,(iv) random checks on goods vehicles, or(v) any other checks and controls,that did not exist before exit day and are not subject to an agreement between Her Majesty’s Government and the Government of Ireland.”
Lord Patten of Barnes (Con)
My Lords, a number of other noble Lords have added their names to my new clause. It is perhaps appropriate to say—as the number of Members in the Chamber is declining—that I have to begin with a confession. Some noble Lords might be rather surprised that what I say will sound remarkably like a statement of government policy. That is because it largely is. I have read very carefully the Government’s position paper on Northern Ireland and Brexit; I have read the other seminal documents—the Mansion House speech and so on—and my speech, I hope, will reflect what I understand to be the Government’s policy both on a frictionless border and on the relationship between the border and the Good Friday agreement.
If at the end of this debate the Minister, with his customary civility, says “What’s the problem? We’re going to do all this anyway. Why bother to put this new clause into the Bill?”, my response will be that while I totally expect him to honour his word and do what the Government have said, I think the Prime Minister and others, such as the Minister, need some support at this moment when a number of their colleagues and Conservative Party Members in the other place, who are very keen on the over-the-cliff, on-to-the-rocks Brexit, are making it rather more difficult for the Prime Minister to square circles than should be the case.
We have debated these issues. We have debated the relationship between the Good Friday agreement and the border on a number of occasions: at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. On Report we passed an amendment on a customs union, which has significant relevance to this. I am not going to go over all that ground again. The vote on a customs union led to the present-day custodians of constitutional propriety calling for fire and brimstone. They were fresh, of course, from their views on the independence of the judiciary, and I do not think any of us take any of that too seriously.
I will not go through all the arguments that were used in those debates. In the debate on the customs union, I will be telegrammatic. I think a number of noble Lords found it difficult to discern the cornucopia of trade possibilities that await us once we have left the customs union. I think it is also true that a number of noble Lords thought that we would have our work cut out to try to replicate some of the existing trade agreements that the European Union, with us as a member, has made elsewhere, for example, with South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Vietnam and others. I think it is fair to say that a number of noble Lords pointed out that there are 44 non-EU members of the Commonwealth which have trade agreements with the European Union and that 49 of the poorest countries in the world have access to European markets without any tariff or control over quotas.
During that debate we enjoyed this spring’s parliamentary game: hunt the virtual border. We travelled around the House, we looked under Benches, we looked under the Woolsack, but nobody could find the virtual border. We went from continent to continent looking for it. Since then, I have heard one or two people suggest that it has been discovered and is the border between Switzerland and France, two countries which, I am happy to say, have not been at war for 200 years. That has been referred to as a model of a virtual border for us. Well, if you look up the facts, you discover that the average minimum waiting time for a lorry going from France into Switzerland or the other way is between 30 and 45 minutes, that they have to go through customs checks and, in addition, they have to fill in two lots of VAT forms. Just to make the position absolutely clear, I am indebted—I think this is probably the first time he has been mentioned in this House—to Mr Cyril Kinsky of Wiltshire. He wrote to the Times last week about the frictionless border and noted that he had recently been in Switzerland and had travelled into France to shop at the local French supermarket. He had bought four chickens—poulet fermier, I am sure. He had brought them back into Switzerland, where he had been stopped and hit with a heavy fine. I hope the chickens were tasty. They were certainly not frictionless.
Why is there such a problem that we address in this new clause? There is a problem because, as the excellent Northern Ireland position paper makes clear, the current substantive position in Northern Ireland and the Republic—that is, the existence of a frictionless border—is not to be changed by Brexit. The Prime Minister, perhaps as well as or more than anyone, understands the problem. Two days before the referendum, she said, in effect, that you can be in a customs union and not have a border but outside a customs union you have to have a border. That situation is made much more complicated when you look at the provisions and rules of the World Trade Organization.
Lord Spicer (Con)
I rise having just torn up the speech that I was going to make, as a result of the very eloquent speech that we have just heard, made by the former Hong Kong governor and present chancellor of Oxford University, and a person with whom I entered the Conservative Party on the same day. We entered the research department together on exactly the same day in the 1960s.
It was a very eloquent speech, but it had one flaw. What I agreed with, and why I have torn up my other speech, is that my noble friend is quite right in saying that we cannot mess about with this question of whether we leave or not, or whether there is a border or not. He is absolutely right in saying that we cannot have a sort of fantasy border. If you leave, what it means is that you depart one set of rules and one market to go to another market. He is quite right in saying that at that point, you acquire a border. I absolutely agree with that.
The question is whether the whole future of this country is to be dependent, as his speech seemed to imply, on one issue—our relationship with the Republic of Ireland. Is our whole future to be dependent on that? I have to say that I do not think that it should be. There are ways around it, and they do not include having a fantasy border. For instance, if we have a border between two different markets and we do not go down the path, which was one of my noble friend’s alternatives, of the Republic joining us, what we must have, in the normal way in which these things are done, is a bilateral agreement between Britain and the Republic of Ireland. We should probably do that—make the final agreement—after we have come out, because we will then be totally in charge of our destiny and be able to make whatever agreements we want and the European Union, with which the Republic of Ireland will have to make its peace, will be less inclined to obstruct such a bilateral agreement.
There is no reason why we should not have a bilateral agreement—and there is no reason why we should be particularly nice to the Irish Republic, as it has not been particularly nice to us in recent months. It is absolutely right, however, that we should try to maintain the good will and the pleasant relationship that we have had in recent times, but we can do it in the normal way in which these things are conducted. We do not have to have the whole of our policy towards the European Union obstructed by this one element. My noble friend suggested that to do this, we should turn our backs on what the British people have asked us to do and voted for us to do, which would be an enormous decision for us to have to make and quite wrong, in my view. A lot of what my noble friend said is good sense in terms of the actualities of the border and us leaving a market, but I think that his conclusion is the opposite of the right one.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, in Committee, I and others spoke about the importance of paying attention to the voices and rights of the children and young people of Northern Ireland in our considerations, not least because they had no say in the referendum but will live with the consequences long after the rest of us. Indeed, just on Monday, my noble friend Lady Massey reminded us how important it is to consider children in all aspects of our discussions on Brexit. From a meeting that I and others had with some children and young people from Northern Ireland in March, and reading reports of conferences that they themselves had organised, it is clear that they are really anxious about their future rights as citizens of the island of Ireland and about how their lives will be affected on a daily basis if the border issue is not resolved. As one briefing put it:
“Children in NI, and not just those living close to the border, live their lives ‘across’ what has become an increasingly seamless border”.
We owe it to these children of Northern Ireland to provide the certainty of writing the rights and protections into the legislation.
More generally, I and others have also emphasised on a number of occasions the centrality of human rights protection to the Good Friday agreement and, therefore, the importance of ensuring non-diminution of human rights in Northern Ireland as a result of Brexit and the maintenance of the equivalence of rights between Northern Ireland and the Republic. On a couple of occasions, I have also raised the fact that civil society organisations in Northern Ireland have asked for movement on a Bill of rights, promised in the Good Friday agreement and subsequent agreements, as they believe that Brexit makes it even more important now than before. The Minister, who has always been extremely charming and helpful in his responses, has not responded on this point. If he is not able to respond today, I would be grateful for the promise of a letter from him on that. The Minister has otherwise been consistently positive and reassuring on the questions of the Good Friday agreement and the border, which is of course very welcome.
As the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, said in his marvellous opening speech, I do not think there is anything in this amendment that the Government could not agree with. But warm words in this context are not enough. The children, young people and civil society organisations of Northern Ireland are looking for something stronger. That must mean writing such commitments into the Bill itself. That has both practical and symbolic significance. That is why I believe it is crucial that we pass this amendment on behalf of our fellow citizens—children and adults—in Northern Ireland, who are looking to us for firm, legally binding assurances about their future rights.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, I put my name to a similar amendment in Committee and, as those who were there will recall, spoke very strongly in favour of it. However, when I saw the draft of this amendment, before it was tabled, I was unhappy about two things. One was that the commitment to entrench the principles of the Good Friday or Belfast agreement had been excised from it; I really do not understand why that is. It is referred to only in oblique ways, by referring not to the agreement but to the Act, which is not the same thing. I think that is a missed opportunity and I do not really see any good reason for it.
However, my main reservation about the amendment concerns proposed new subsection 2(b)(iii). It effectively suggests that one could not accept a requirement for security checks. The noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, has spoken about security and how it can be counter- productive if done in particular ways. I remember very well all the watchtowers and so on that he called to mind; I spent quite a lot of time flying round in helicopters watching soldiers taking them down. But this does not talk about watchtowers; it talks about security checks.
As legislators, we are not expected to be able to predict the future beyond what can reasonably be understood. Donald Rumsfeld advised us about “unknown unknowns”. But there are potential things that are not so unknown at all. Around the time we were coming up to mark the anniversary of the Good Friday agreement, Mr Gerry Adams was interviewed by the German magazine Der Spiegel. He was asked whether he felt that terrorism and politically motivated violence was ever justified now. He said that yes, he believed that it was, and Sinn Féin went on to defend him in that stance, some 20 years after the Belfast agreement. In the last month we have also seen a new organisation, the Irish Republican Movement, announcing that it wants to get operational again because it is not happy about how things are going.
I therefore do not ask myself what the situation is with security now, well before exit day, when thankfully we have peace and a considerable deal of tranquillity and agreement within Northern Ireland and between the north and south, which is marvellous. I ask myself how things might develop over the next year or two, when there are those who are unhappy about Brexit and those who want to promote it. That is not the Brexit we are talking about, of Britain exiting the European Union, but the Brexit that is Britain exiting the island of Ireland and leaving Northern Ireland. There are those who are still prepared to use physical force to bring that about. Do they have any significance?
We are likely to see an election in the Republic of Ireland in the next 12 months, between now and Brexit day, and it is wholly within the bounds of possibility that Sinn Féin will be a member of a new coalition. Possibly it would not be with Fine Gael—although who knows? Anybody who would predict politics in any part of the world at the moment must be a courageous individual. But with Fianna Fáil, that is entirely possible. So the backstop protective position is that if there are no security checks near the border, it will be okay because we will be able to negotiate that with the Irish Government; and if it were the current Irish Government, I rather suspect we would be able to do that quickly. But I would not feel the same sense of confidence if there were the possibility of a Sinn Féin coalition Government.
Of course, if there was a major outbreak of violence, it might be possible to sit down and have that negotiation. However, what would happen if our security services had good information that a real danger was coming from across the border, not just to Northern Ireland but to this part of the United Kingdom, and they needed to get into negotiations with the Irish Government to introduce certain kinds of security checks which had not existed for some years and do not exist now? Are we confident that that could be addressed promptly, and that Sinn Féin would say, “The British security services have said this—that is absolutely dependable; we know we should act with responsibility in that regard, and we will act promptly and immediately against other Republicans”? Maybe it would, but “maybe” is not sufficient.
In February 1996 a huge bomb broke the IRA ceasefire, here in this city, in Docklands. Two people were killed, 100 people were injured and £150 million of damage was done. Where did that bomb come from—the Home Counties, Wales, Scotland or west Belfast? No; it came from the South Armagh Brigade of the IRA, from the border area we are talking about. I simply want to have the confidence—and I do not see it in this component of this otherwise excellent amendment—that if our security services were clear that the Irish Republican Movement or some other organisation had decided to create a bomb to do damage in my part of the United Kingdom or in this part, they would be able to act freely and with the alacrity necessary to ensure that a disaster does not happen.
That is why—I say this with deep regret, because I support the spirit of the amendment—this wording is not entirely wise. I have talked to a number of colleagues, who say, “Don’t worry, John: it’ll be fine, because other legislation will let us get through that”. But that is not what it appears to say, and if there are other ways round it, it will simply justify in Irish minds that phrase “perfidious Albion”: we say one thing but we mean something different because we have a legal way round. That is why, with regret, I fear that I cannot support this otherwise excellent amendment.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, the amendment was moved with eloquent brilliance by the noble Lord, Lord Patten. I want to add a few words based on my nine and a half years’ experience as the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and the close interest that I have taken in Northern Ireland, and specifically the border, since then. Before I do, however, and with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, whom I admire greatly—I mean that genuinely—may I point out to him that he may have misunderstood the words of the part of the amendment that he just referred to? The amendment does not allow an intergovernmental requirement for security checks. There is absolutely no question that security checks will be required from time to time. I have been in security checks myself from time to time in Northern Ireland and they have been put in place and removed ad hoc extremely quickly. I have seen them happen at extraordinary speed within minutes. So I ask the noble Lord if he would not mind having another look at that part of the amendment before encouraging other noble Lords, if there is a vote, to vote against it or by voting against it himself.
I have spent time in Northern Ireland, including time with Sinn Féin Members of the legislative Assembly. I regret very much that Sinn Féin MPs do not take their seats in the other place. They could make a very useful contribution on the subject of Northern Ireland and Ireland in general. I disagreed with an awful lot of what they did before, but my observation from the time that I have spent with them, including, on one occasion, making the journey from Belfast down to South Armagh and observing how the person in question operated as an elected representative in that part of the world, is that they have committed themselves to the constitutional arrangements which appertain in Northern Ireland. That is because of one event: the Good Friday agreement and all that has flowed from it. A large number of institutions have been built as a result of that agreement. If we look at the membership of the legislative Assembly when it sits, particularly at the identity, experience and backgrounds of today’s Sinn Féin Members, most stand as elected representatives whose integrity could be compared to almost any other legislative body in Europe. We have come an incredible distance over those years.
On the present situation, I have heard all the encouraging words from the Government—and rather less encouraging words from the European Union—that there will be a resolution of the Northern Ireland situation. But it has not happened. In my view, we are no nearer to a solution being presented by the Government than we were in Committee or a year ago. The situation today, on Report, requires us to vote for this well-constructed amendment because this will tell both our Government and the European Union that this is a subject that cannot be neglected. Indeed, this subject should never have been part of Brexit. It is something that should have been negotiated in the first week so that we were not sitting in your Lordships’ House worrying—and this is the greatest worry of all—about Brexit as we approach, rather more quickly than we would have wished, 29 March next year.
We must give every bit of encouragement to an early solution of this problem that does not involve any of the difficulties that we have talked about time and again in this House. If the matter is put to a vote, I encourage noble Lords to go with the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and to follow his eloquence into the Content Lobby.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, a few weeks after the result of the referendum was announced, I ventured to suggest to your Lordships’ House that the question of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic would suddenly become crucial to the outcome of the Brexit negotiations. On that occasion, several noble Lords told me not to worry; I was told that, like all things, it would find its own place further down the line on a coming day.
With what I hope is self-imposed humility, my feeling now is “I told you so”—not because of a line on the map that could be easily seen in any atlas, but because of the symbolism of what that line stood for in the development of the island of Ireland, particularly Northern Ireland. That line is no longer our border; it is your border. It is our collective border with the EU, so some of the significance of what has worried us in continuous Brexit debates takes on a new light for one simple reason: the people of Northern Ireland are not on their own in worrying about the consequences of the border. It is of equal concern, as it should be, to the people of Scotland, Wales and England—the United Kingdom—and because of that, a growing apprehension is developing in Northern Ireland that, if I may say so, we will be left to carry the can. In the light of what has already been said, this is an extremely dangerous apprehension and situation. As has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Patten—not only today but previously —connection with the symbolism of the border touches on culture, politics, social media and education. It covers the entire breadth of the concerns of the people of Northern Ireland.
When I began my professional career more years ago than I care to remember, it would have been unimaginable to talk about the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic as we do today. Progress has been made, due not only to political understanding and growing maturity on both sides but, equally, to our having come through the chequered history of the past 30 or 40 years. There is a lot more hanging on this debate than simply the security and arrangements on the border. The reversal—or the danger of the reversal—of all that has been achieved is at stake. The peace process is still a growing infant. The absence of an Administration at Stormont makes it very difficult for one aspect of progress—the cross-border institutions—to work at the moment. A lot of us put faith in those institutions because they were doing practical things in practical ways but now, with the Administration at Stormont absent, it is difficult.
On first glancing at the wording of the amendment, I would have said, “I have no problem with that. I am delighted to support it because it’s saying the things that the people of Northern Ireland want to hear”. Then, I paused. I am still pausing because I have come to the debate in what I call a listening mood. I am listening not just for the constant, ongoing repeat of Her Majesty’s Government giving us assurances. That will not change. It is copper-fastened. It is not that assurance I am looking for from Her Majesty’s Government, but the assurance that says, “We understand that some of the institutions and achievements of your peace process are worth protecting, supporting, keeping in place and allowing to develop”. I want to hear that from the Minister. I do not want to hear the usual repeated reassurance, which, because it is repeated so often, loses a lot of its impact. I look to Her Majesty’s Government to say not just to this House but to the people in Northern Ireland that there are certain things we will stand over.
I turn to the words of the amendment. I ask myself: what is wrong with it? Why cannot I, with my experience over the years, say that this is marvellous, I want to support it and see it through and backed up? It is simply this. Just the other day, the chief negotiator of the European Union visited Ireland. I think he is still there. In the course of a press conference he said that the EU will not allow the conversations to go on until there is sufficient movement by the United Kingdom on the question of the border. I once tried to teach jurisprudence to those who were prepared to listen. As at least one of your Lordships will remember very well, I tried to get through to the students that the secret of success was often to look at the meaning of words. In any negotiation there has to be compromise and give and take. Did the chief negotiator mean that there will be a lot of give and take once we move on the border, or was he saying, “We will move if you move”? Was he going even deeper? Was he warning us that, “Unless certain requirements in the control and operation of our border are met according to our terms, we will not continue to help you to get Brexit”? This might be unimaginable to those who see the road to Brexit as paved with gold, but I suggest that there is a lot more to it.
I say to the Minister, who has impressed us all with the way he has handled the sensitivities of post-Good Friday Northern Ireland: reassure me. Tell me that I am worried unduly that there might be a gap in the words of the amendment from another person I greatly respect. What can he say to me, who has come through so much of the past with and among the people of Northern Ireland, as Primate not just of the Church in Northern Ireland but with responsibility for the whole of the island? I can honestly say that I know a little of what I am talking about.
I have one final point to add to the Minister’s growing vocabulary of life in Northern Ireland. There is a wonderful town, the town of my birth, called Lurgan. Out of that town have emanated a great many wise sayings. The one in my mind at the moment is: call a spade a spade. When you talk, call a spade what it is—a spade; when you talk, tell the truth, because you believe it; and when you pontificate, make sure that you do so with sincerity. So, Minister, I, for one, am listening.
Lord Trimble (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to listen to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames. I share his concern about some possible dangers in the situation, although not perhaps in quite the way he expressed it—but I shall come back to that later.
I recall a question that was asked of a leading member of the Social Democratic and Labour Party shortly after the beginning of the inter-party talks. The interviewer asked him whether he was confident that Sinn Féin and the republican movement would stick with the political process. The reply was: he trusted the circumstances that led Sinn Féin to that point. My interpretation of it was they were not necessarily coming of their own good will; they had not had a damascene conversion; they were coming because the circumstances left them with this option. I agree, too, with the comments about how Sinn Féin Members elected to the Assembly have carried out their functions and it would take a very unusual situation to move them away from where they are.
I point to these circumstances because I think that it is a mistake to link this process, this legislation, with the maintenance of peace in Northern Ireland. I do not see a connection in the terms that have been said and I am dubious about whether this should be addressed as any more than scaremongering, and scaremongering on a fairly limited basis.
However, there are things to worry about. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, referred to what Monsieur Barnier has been saying and saw various ways of interpreting that, the third of which was the bleakest and, I think, the nearest to the truth. That is because pressure has been coming from Brussels and Dublin for some time for a significant change to be made to how Northern Ireland is governed. The drive is there to get Northern Ireland into a special situation: linked permanently to the European Union and with the union with the rest of the United Kingdom to that extent weakened. That is what Barnier openly called for a couple of days ago; it is implicitly what Coveney said in a newspaper article a week or two ago, where he called on the British Government to abandon some of their red lines in pursuit of peace and prosperity—so the threat is there as well. If that goes down the way—here I should say that our own Government have rejected this proposal; some of it was published some time ago—there is a danger that the things being said today and how the vote goes may strengthen the hand of Barnier in his demands on us and weaken the hands of our own Government. There has to be careful consideration of that.
I have not yet mentioned the amendment. I had thought of going through it in a little detail, but I shall confine myself to just one bit, subsection (1) of the proposed new clause. That reads,
“a Minister of the Crown or devolved authority must—
(a) act in a way that is compatible with the terms of the Northern Ireland Act 1998”.
I am all in favour of that. I am all in favour of acting in accordance with the terms of the agreement; I have a personal affection for that agreement. I will not go into detail on that, because it would take too long, but it is something I would like to see.
Then we come down to the very last line of the amendment. It talks about various things,
“not subject to an agreement between Her Majesty’s Government and the Government of Ireland”.
What is missing? There is something very important missing. There is no reference to the people of Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Northern Ireland Executive. Do not dodge that by saying, “Oh, the Assembly is not sitting at the moment”. There is a very important principle here, which is at the heart of the agreement. The heart of the agreement contained what we call the principle of consent with regard to the people of Northern Ireland, their future and the institutions they create.
A long time ago, back in the 1970s, Governments tried to impose an arrangement on the people of Northern Ireland, through the Sunningdale agreement. Another long time ago the Anglo-Irish agreement was made, without reference to the views of the people of Northern Ireland. Both were huge decisions and big mistakes by the British and Irish Governments which prolonged the political instability, and the violence as well. When we got to the agreement, thankfully by then the two Governments had learned the lesson and the negotiations fully involved the people of Northern Ireland and we, collectively, took control of that—“ownership” is the term used. This amendment would deny us that.
Some people have gone around suggesting that Brexit might damage the Good Friday agreement. Brexit is not going to damage the Good Friday agreement; this amendment will, because it excludes the people of Northern Ireland. If future arrangements are to be made over the Northern Ireland border it is obvious that you have to have the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives closely involved in that. If not, you are going to make the same mistake.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
On that last point, surely the reference to the UK and Irish Governments contains the basic assumption that there will be extended talks with the Northern Irish Government, and it refers to the fact that the British and Irish Governments are the official guarantors of the agreement.
Lord Trimble
In the examples I mentioned, going back to 1985 and 1973, there was no consultation by Her Majesty’s Government with the unionist elected representatives. The Irish Government, of course, consulted closely with nationalists, so there was that imbalance. In any event, I come back to the amendment and I think that the proposed new clause has the wrong approach and should be looked at again.
I have one other point and it is simply this: we made the agreement 20 years ago; it was a bit rough at times for a short period afterwards but it has settled in. There are still some difficulties but I am quite sure that those difficulties will be overcome and these institutions will survive because they have the wholehearted endorsement of the people of Northern Ireland. In doing it, we also helped to change the relationship between Belfast and Dublin and, indeed, between Dublin and London to a certain extent as well: relations between them in recent years have been very good. They have been extremely good and I am delighted, but the behaviour at the moment of the Irish Prime Minister and Coveney, backed up by the European Union, is actually destroying that relationship and doing considerable damage to it. I know that we cannot directly affect that, but the message should go out very clearly to Dublin and to Brussels that they are not to continue to damage the basis of our institutions in pursuit of some petty objective, such as getting yourself elected as the head of a European body in Brussels.
That is where I want to stop. It is hugely important that the Government stand firm on this proposal to move to what is called the backstop and against a situation where Northern Ireland is to be moved away from the rest of the United Kingdom and permanently attached to Brussels, as far as these things are concerned. That is the wrong way to go.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I support this amendment, moved so compellingly by the noble Lord, Lord Patten.
The land border between the United Kingdom and Ireland is a state border—for tax, excise and legal jurisdiction. It is also a border across which public services connect, public agencies operate, people make their daily commute, livestock graze and goods flow back and forth without restriction. The levels of integration across the Irish border are among the closest in the world, bringing material economic benefit to the island—particularly to Northern Ireland—and, even more importantly, a remarkable transformation of a border that fewer than 20 years ago was a highly securitised boundary, close to which hundreds of people lost their lives. Soldiers, police officers, customs officials, farmers, factory workers, musicians and teenagers were all killed near the border because of a conflict about the border.
The 1998 Good Friday agreement and the Act that followed it, which is referred to in the amendment—I point that out to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice—brought that conflict to an end by making the border a point of co-operation, without raising questions about the sovereignty or constitutional integrity of either the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland. This was made much easier by the fact that common EU membership of the United Kingdom and Ireland had already removed many of the barriers to such co-operation and movement. This was because the EU came to form a customs union and create a single market, both of which transcended state boundaries. Thus from the quiet rural hamlets of Fermanagh and Monaghan to the busy border towns of Newry and Dundalk there is no need for customs controls, no tariffs payable, no need to pay VAT at the border, and no checks for quality, standards or regulatory compliance.
As a line of soft integration between the UK and Irish jurisdictions, the Irish border has faded into relative insignificance, allowing Irish and British citizens—nationalists and unionists—both to feel quite comfortable in Northern Ireland. Given the bitter sectarian and violent history, this is a remarkable achievement. But it is also a fragile one, and we ignore that at our peril. To withdraw from the EU is to remove Northern Ireland from the conditions that currently make the Irish border so frictionless. Finding a resolution to the border conundrum while respecting Brexit must somehow preserve those connections and protect those benefits of co-operation. This is an economic necessity as well as a political imperative.
In their joint report with the European Union of December last, the UK Government repeated their commitment to protecting the operation of the 1998 agreement and to the avoidance of a hard border. Indeed, they went so far as to preclude,
“any physical infrastructure or related checks and controls”.
The amendment would bring into legal effect the commitments the UK Government have already made to the European Union and to everyone. In Brussels, a means of doing so in legally operable terms in the withdrawal agreement is currently being negotiated. It is essential that we do likewise in passing this amendment to the Bill.
Any customs partnership must be tight and seamless enough to avoid such checks while ensuring that the border is not a back door into the EU’s single market. Any technological facilitation must not entail physical infrastructure, random checks or compliance checks at any point. The amendment will provide much-needed security and legal certainty, with no fudges, creeping barriers or sly erosion of the finely honed balance. It will ensure that cross-border movement, north-south co-operation and day-to-day, mundane integration will continue to happen unimpeded. It does not tie the Government’s hands on the precise solution, except to insist upon what everyone says they want anyway: namely, a border as free, open and invisible as it is today. In my view this can only mean reproducing in some form the customs, trade, rules of origin, standards and regulatory arrangements that we now have across it.
It is our responsibility to ensure that Brexit does not mean the emergence, at any level, of any new conflict about the border, because that would be both economically catastrophic and politically lethal. That is why this amendment is so vital.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Patten on a most impressive and, if I may say so, entertaining introduction to this subject. Having enjoyed listening to his speech, I think anyone who saw this amendment would say, “It’s all pretty obvious, isn’t it? There’s an overwhelming case and it must be right”. But then we had a little opening into the world of Northern Ireland in the contributions that came from one or two of those who are more closely involved directly with the Province and understand some of the background to it. The noble and right reverend Lord—a former Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of all Ireland—and the noble Lords, Lord Alderdice and Lord Trimble, have spoken and they have echoed some of my concern about this. Everybody wants to see the concept that is contained in this amendment; my concern is about putting it into legislation in this form.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, raised the details, as do I. We are back in the same country that we were in during our discussion on the proposed clause on the meaningful vote. That amendment got longer and longer as dates were added into it that would complicate it. My noble friend Lord Callanan shakes a rueful head as I say that. The complications introduced seemed to me to make the position of the Government in their negotiations increasingly difficult. I echo the surprise about the activities of Monsieur Barnier, negotiating with different bodies within the United Kingdom. I do not know whether he asked permission to do that and whether it was agreed but I thought that was open to question, in the circumstances.
Looking at the situation, the amendment has all this detail set down. Is it all exactly right? Will it all be held tight or will it be subject to legal challenge thereafter? All sorts of complications arise within this. I have devoted quite a few years of my life, both in Northern Ireland and in defence, to trying to see what we now see as the much happier, and hopefully continuing, life in Northern Ireland. I have written too many letters of condolence to people—there are others here who carried similar responsibilities and know what I am talking about—about those who stood to try to ensure a happier future for people in the Province and for everybody on the island of Ireland. I am therefore determined to see that, whatever comes out of Brexit, we do not undermine the important advances that have been made. However, then I look at the details of this amendment.
I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, glossed a bit over the arrangements and problems that I had over the Anglo-Irish agreement, which was of course the start of the peace process and led on to the further discussions in which we introduced the principle of consent. There was one item that I had to stand on continually. I was challenged by unionists who said, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, will remember well, that we had sold out to the Irish Government and no longer was Northern Ireland a part of the United Kingdom, a sovereign country. They said that we had let joint authority be introduced and that the Irish Government were able to rule part of Northern Ireland in that respect. All that time, with some personal embarrassment and threat to myself on certain occasions, I stood to make it absolutely clear that joint authority was not contained in it. We would listen with good will, attention and interest to any representations the Irish Government wished to make. They had a perfectly legitimate interest in the interests of the nationalist community of Northern Ireland but, in the final analysis, joint authority did not exist. The United Kingdom Government have the responsibility for the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and we maintained that position.
I am not a lawyer, so I tried to consult the Convenor of the Cross Benches on this. I see the last line of this amendment introducing something like a touch of joint authority. I spent a lot of my life persuading and assuring people in the Province that we would not have joint authority, but we seem to have it here. This is exactly the problem that I tried to raise on the meaningful vote issue and I raise it on this as well. Although the intention is good and the ambition absolutely right, we now start the complication of drawing up a very specific and long, detailed amendment. That is not the way to go. We make our position absolutely clear: I expect the Government to achieve those objectives, and I would look very hard indeed and wonder what my vote would be in the final analysis. There will be a final parliamentary vote at the end of these proceedings if we do not get a satisfactory outcome that we all wish to see for Northern Ireland, but this amendment is not helpful.
Lord Carswell (CB)
My Lords, I have lived all my life in Belfast. That is rather a long time: even longer than my old and valued, noble and right reverend friend Lord Eames has. During those years, I have been backwards and forwards across the border many, many times, without let or hindrance. That is why I want to focus—just for the purpose of my remarks this afternoon—on subsection (2)(b) of the proposed new clause. I am not going to touch on the rest of it: there are many good things in the rest of the new clause, but I will say nothing about them. However, one thing is very clear: people of good will all agree on the ideal of the smoothest possible operation of the passage of people, goods, livestock and vehicles across the border. However, that good will needs something more: it needs good sense. When that criterion is applied, I fear that it is rather more difficult to accept the portion of proposed new subsection of (2)(b) that deals with this. It would, in effect, have the consequence of fixing everything in aspic: not a stone to be moved, not a blade of grass to be bent unless the two Governments agree.
Recent history does not give us any great confidence in that. I say with regret that the approach of the EU negotiators to this issue has been rigid and intransigent to the point of being obstructive. I am equally sorry to say that the Government of the Republic have thrown themselves in line with that. That is most regrettable because their predecessors were taking a very much more constructive, co-operative and sensible line. When the present Government took over, they immediately reversed that policy to being equally difficult—if I may put it as politely as possible—as the EU.
What the amendment really appears to involve, if the Governments do not agree, is the status quo, which in effect means a full customs union: either the whole United Kingdom with the EU or Northern Ireland alone with the EU. I am afraid that I would find it equally impossible to support them. I hope that sense will prevail and that it will triumph over experience, but, as with all the old phrases about hope and experience, it is difficult to be entirely confident. If it does not, what will happen? I am talking about this imprecise and unfortunately misleading phrase of a hard border.
I ask your Lordships to look at three facts. First, it would not involve some sort of iron curtain. I lived through times, personally and professionally, with a real hard border during what we called the Troubles, with checkpoints manned by armed soldiers, border posts, watchtowers looming over the countryside—dreadful things—large numbers of roads closed off, bridges destroyed and roads cratered to stop access. There is no suggestion, and should never be, that we want to return to that or will do so. Going back before we joined the EEC as it was, I remember the border. It was an ordinary border between states. There were customs officers, you had to have a triptyque for your car and there were inspections, but they were not terrible obstructive or difficult to negotiate. With the greater volume of trade these days, we will want to do something better than that and, if possible, not return to that.
Secondly, the passage of persons has never been a problem—the common travel area sees to that. When I was a youngster in the 1940s and early 1950s, I rode my bicycle up and down to Dublin many times, and nobody looked sideways at me. In the 1970s and 1980s my dear late mother sat happily on the train travelling down to visit my brother who lives in Dublin. That is not a problem and should never be.
Thirdly, as noble Lords have mentioned, the Provisional IRA war ended 20 years ago, and it has stayed that way. Most of the perpetrators of dissident violence are dissident republicans who, in various manifestations, have been causing violence in smallish quantities compared with what it was, but it is still there. The source of discontent leading to violence in the first place was nothing to do with the border and its arrangements. It was a wholly different fons et origo. I am not going to go into it now, but it was focused on discontent which had many sources and many problems in it from other directions. I am sorry to say that those who talk up the risk of a resumption of violence are misguided. It is an emotive argument, another project fear, which was roundly described a few days ago by a highly respected, very experienced and very independent-minded commentator in the Belfast Telegraph as “quite simply scaremongering”.
We need to look realistically at what could be arranged even in the absence of agreement between Governments. Technology is advancing at a dizzying rate. The possibility of resorting to it has been dismissed airily by the EU negotiators, and I am sorry to say that the Irish Taoiseach has run along with that and dutifully repeated their sentiments by talking about magical thinking. One of the things I have seen practically no mention of during the whole of this affair is an important document which emanates from the EU itself. A report by Lars Karlsson, a senior customs officer in Sweden, was commissioned by the policy department of the EU Parliament. It goes into very great detail about possible technological devices and concludes that a border arrangement can be managed,
“that serves both sides of the border with maximum predictability, speed and security and with a minimum burden and cost for traders and travellers”.
The report says it could be done,
“using a combination of international standards, global practices and state-of-the-art technology”.
It is much too long and too complex to try to summarise now, but I commend that report to your Lordships’ attention. I am quite sure there could be an extended argument about its viability, and I would not dispute that, but it requires consideration.
I cannot say whether it received any attention during the negotiations with the EU, but it is the EU’s own document and it deserves attention. Perhaps ideally to get to the situation that the report suggests requires governmental agreement and we may be going round in a circle. Indeed, it might not produce as easy arrangements as many people would like. But it shows that it is not necessary to resort to the complete status quo and not necessary to adopt the customs union which would be, in effect, the result of this amendment. Perhaps we should all remember, in this aspect of the withdrawal as well as others, that the best is the enemy of the good. I cannot support the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I almost hesitate to take part in this debate because I do not have the specialist knowledge and understanding of many who have spoken about Northern Ireland. But I do know a little about sectarianism because I was born and brought up in the west of Scotland. Although there was never violence, none the less, there was deep division. Some of that may have been alleviated, but from time to time it still expresses itself, not least when two football teams play against each other.
I want to go back to the terms of the amendment, because I hope I may be able to alleviate the anxiety of my noble friend Lord Alderdice. It is important to consider the whole terms of the proposed clause. It begins by saying:
“In exercising any of the powers under this Act”—
so it confines its application to this Act and not to any other Act. Subsection (2) says:
“Nothing in section 7, 8, 9 or 17 of this Act authorises regulations”—
among which my noble friend picked out with anxiety subsection (2)(b)(iii) relating to,
“a requirement for security checks”.
It is only if a Minister of the Crown, with the authority and powers conferred on them by these sections proposes to act, that these other matters arise. That does not preclude in any circumstances, nor could it, the exercise of other powers for the purpose of security.
The noble Lord, Lord Trimble, knows more about this and was properly rewarded for his enormous contribution to the welfare of the people of Northern Ireland. He talks about the very last two lines of the amendment:
“that did not exist before exit day and are not subject to any agreement between Her Majesty’s Government and the Government of Ireland”.
Many individuals, like the noble Lord, argue fervently that the United Kingdom as a whole left, or proposes to leave, the European Union and therefore the reference to “Her Majesty’s Government” is entirely consistent with the position which says: “Irrespective of the views of the people of Northern Ireland, who after all voted to stay, none the less, it is the Government of the whole of the United Kingdom to which are accorded both the responsibility and the power”.
If this matter were easy, why has there not been a solution? I think I am correct in saying that I do not believe any of those who have spoken have offered a solution. We know that the Cabinet is divided. We know that that Robespierre, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, has already issued yet another of his threats. We know that the Government are deeply divided. If this is a simple issue, perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us precisely what the solution to this matter is that the Government now endorse. I think I can argue with some force that they have had plenty of time to get to that conclusion.
As has already been said, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, the Good Friday agreement is a fragile piece of agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Trimble, shakes his head. From time to time there are terrorist outrages in Northern Ireland, and were it not to be fragile in any way one would not have expected the kind of attacks that we have seen on prison officers and members of the police. I believe the agreement combined both symbolism and practicality, and I support the amendment because it does exactly that.
It is said that those of us who talk about risk are overstating the case. I want the House to remember for a moment how many people on both sides of the argument died, and how many people’s lives were materially affected by the Troubles. I have one illustration in mind, which is entirely personal; other noble Lords will have equally valid and compelling illustrations. I remember the three young privates of the Royal Highland Fusiliers who, on the promise of sexual favours, allowed themselves to be persuaded to go to a flat where they were executed by being shot in the back of the neck.
A huge price has been paid for this agreement, and nothing should be done that has the effect of undermining it. That is why I support the amendment.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, I rise with a considerable amount of hesitation because I am very conscious of the level of experience in this House on matters pertaining to Northern Ireland, not least my noble friend Lord Patten, who spoke with considerable eloquence in introducing his amendment.
I utterly reject the views expressed in some parts of the media that noble Lords, including my noble friend, should not be allowed to express their views on this issue. That is what we are here to do, it is what we should do, and we should not face the opprobrium of the media in so doing. The issue is whether we get the balance right between advising and scrutinising this important piece of legislation as opposed to blocking it and thwarting the will of the people. That is an issue that I am sure my noble friends have very much in mind as we debate this amendment and all others.
I stand shoulder to shoulder with all noble Lords who wish to see the Good Friday agreement remain intact as we leave the EU. None of us, whether we voted to leave or whether, like me, we voted to remain, wishes to see Brexit undermining that agreement, nor do any of us wish to see Brexit undermining the union of our nation itself. I would find it very difficult—I almost say impossible—to vote for any withdrawal agreement that contained a backstop whereby in the event of no deal a new border or unacceptable new barriers were to arise between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain. My fear is that come the autumn the agreement on the future arrangements will be fudge, but it must not and cannot be fudge containing the poison pill of that backstop. People voted to leave the European Union; they did not vote to break up the union that underpins our nation.
The doublethink of the December agreement, in which paragraph 49 says one thing and paragraph 50 another, cannot be allowed to seep into the final agreement, but there is clearly a risk that it might. Given that risk, if this House were to pass the amendment in the name of my noble friend, it would seem odd not to pass another one preventing this Government from creating such a border in the Irish Sea or creating new barriers to trade between one part of the United Kingdom and another in the event of no deal. For if we treasure the Good Friday agreement, as we all clearly do, surely we treasure the union just as much. Would it not be odd for Parliament to stop the Government from erecting new borders on the Irish border only to leave them free to erect them in the Irish Sea? After all, this too is government policy, and it would be unacceptable.
However, I argue that now is not the time to do any of this. We should not pass the amendment nor anything else on this sensitive topic for two simple reasons: first, the Bill is one of process; and, secondly, we must remember where the negotiations stand. We are hurtling towards a reckoning. The EU appears to reject the Government’s concept of a free trade agreement, rejects their approach to customs, is insisting on frictionless trade between Northern Ireland and Ireland and is committed to this dreaded backstop as a contingency. Meanwhile, our Government are rejecting membership of a customs union and rightly refusing to accept the EU’s definition of a backstop. As of Monday, this Parliament may be given the power to stop the UK leaving the EU without a deal.
We are approaching a deadlock. The Brexit negotiating chamber is, I fear, beginning to resemble the Little Ease in the Tower of London: so tiny that there is no room to move. As a remainer, I believe that we must honour the referendum result and negotiate an agreement to leave the EU that is in our national interest. The key word in that sentence is “negotiate”. As my noble friend said, in any negotiation there must be compromise. If your Lordships agree on that, it surely follows that we must give the Government room and space to make compromises. The more we put constraints on what the Government can and cannot do in any eventuality, the more it will hinder the Government’s room for manoeuvre.
Rather than put this into legislation, I simply ask your Lordships to think of this. Would it not be better to reserve judgment until we see what the negotiations actually produce? To vote against the amendment is not to vote for a hard Brexit, it is certainly not to vote against the Good Friday agreement, it is simply to vote to give the Government the space they need to negotiate, and then we can and we must decide.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, we are told that unless we remain in the customs union, there will be a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, which would be contrary to the Good Friday agreement and endanger peace in Northern Ireland. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, spoke to us illuminatingly just now about the reality of the historical border.
The future of Northern Ireland and of peace in Northern Ireland is of course hugely important, and we have very serious responsibilities with regard to Ireland, but the future of Britain, the future interests of Britain and the future economic opportunities for Britain are just as important—I would contend, more important, as the noble Lord, Lord Spicer, said earlier. The intransigence of Monsieur Barnier and of some remainers, and their ruthless exploitation of the border issue in order to coerce us into remaining in the customs union is inappropriate. Neither should we be coerced by the threat of hypothetical violence, should some border changes need to be made.
As someone who has had family members on both sides of the border and spent a great deal of my life in Ireland, I am fully aware of how terrible the Troubles were and of the extraordinary blessings of peace that the Good Friday agreement has brought about. One of the virtues of the Good Friday agreement is that, through it, the people of Northern Ireland have learned to live with complexity and uncertainty. With the spirit of compromise advocated by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, with pragmatism, good will and the smart use of technology, a workable solution can be found. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, was somewhat dismissive of the possibilities of creating a virtual border, but I understand that the Cabinet sub-committee is, quite rightly, looking at that very issue this afternoon. I think it would be wise of the Republic of Ireland to look equally seriously at that option, which would be very much in the interests of the economy of Ireland.
There are other possible solutions to this problem. This is perhaps not the moment to elaborate on them, but I just note—my noble friend encourages me. One possibility would be for us, when we are no longer members of the European Union and not in a customs union, to decide to abolish tariffs. That would be good for our own people and would very satisfactorily address the border issue.
Another solution—I would not wish events to play out in this way, but it would be entirely within the letter and spirit of the Good Friday agreement—would be for there to be a referendum in Northern Ireland, in which the people of Northern Ireland could decide for themselves whether they wished to be reunited with Ireland. After all, 56% of them voted to remain; it would be an opportunity to test how serious they are about that. If that was the decision that they took, that, too, would solve the problem of the border. I emphasise that it is not a resolution that I would like to see—but it is nonsense to say that there are no policy solutions other than staying in the customs union.
I finally note that it is a curiosity to me that Amendment 88 effectively gives the Government of Ireland a veto on the list of policy options in relation to the border that is set out in the amendment. Since this Government of Ireland take their instructions from the EU, it effectively gives a veto to the EU. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, mentioned in the debate on the customs union the other day that he has experience of international negotiations. I would just ask him whether he really thinks that it is wise to legislate to give to the people you are negotiating with a veto on crucial issues that you are negotiating on. I do not think that that is sensible, realistic or appropriate, and I do not think that we should support this amendment.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I rise briefly to comment on proposed new subsection (2)(a) and (b) of the amendment and to speak in the spirit of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. As a number of noble Lords have said, it is quite true that you could construct a backdrop, to use the phrase of the moment, which says that these amendments do not mean quite what they appear to mean. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, is much more serious in saying that it is the nature of Irish political culture that, if we do not at some future point live up to the terms of what apparently is in these amendments, with their strong hint of joint authority between the Irish Republic and Great Britain, we can be certain that Irish public opinion will take the view that, once again, we have betrayed them and raised expectations. You can be absolutely certain about that. I absolutely accept the good faith of those Peers who have said that, no, it does not mean that, if you read it this way—but it does not matter, because you are dealing in this case with Irish politics.
I want to disagree in one small respect with the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, when he said that a Fianna Fáil/Sinn Féin coalition was more likely than one with Fine Gael. Actually, most commentary in Dublin says that they are equally likely propositions. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, made the point that, if you know anything about Irish history, you will know that it is ridiculous, a Fine Gael/Sinn Féin coalition. But we are living in new times; history does not matter—it is the current moment. In the last few weeks, in the Irish press, an email correspondence has been leaked between the Taoiseach’s office in Dublin and Sinn Féin, on a most sensitive matter, showing an intimacy of spirit, which nobody would have believed possible from a Fine Gael Government, and which certainly would not have happened a few years ago, when the noble Lord, Lord Patten, was a distinguished Minister in Northern Ireland.
So we are now living in new times. I remind this House that the recommendation of our own Select Committee on Europe is that this matter should be dealt with by negotiations ongoing between British and Irish officials—that was going on under the previous Prime Minister in Dublin and was stopped by the new Prime Minister. When noble Lords ask why we are making so little progress in solving this problem, not the least of the reasons is that the recommendation made by our own Select Committee of quiet negotiations between British and Irish officials has been vetoed by this current and new Irish Government. We are living in new times, and historical considerations—much as I hate to say it as a former professor of history—are not actually relevant. This is the sharpness of the current moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, is also quite right to say that, although there is a great deal of spirit behind this amendment which one can fully respect, the failure to mention the actual Good Friday agreement as opposed to the Act is a problem, because the Act does not signal in a way that the Good Friday agreement does that the Good Friday agreement was dependent on the agreement between the parties. One great achievement of that agreement between the parties was, for example, the new north-south arrangements for co-operation in agriculture, and one of the most remarkable things about the current moment is the tacit and explicit acceptance by the Democratic Unionist Party, which opposed these things at the time and now accepts them. When they say that they do not want a border in the Irish Sea, they have no opposition whatever to the ongoing north-south co-operation that has carried on. It is, therefore, hobnail boots to put it into this amendment; it is unnecessary and over the top and, once again, has the flavour of joint authority. As the noble Lord, Lord King, says, the whole success of policy since 1985 has been based, at least partly, on separating out the British Government’s intentions from the concept of joint authority.
My final point is on technology. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and indeed other supporters of this amendment are very sceptical about the possible role of technology. I heard his witty reference to the non-frictionless chickens. Last year, however, Bertie Ahern—the former Irish Taoiseach with intimate experience of the peace process—said that the solution was technology on the border plus turning a blind eye to certain forms of smaller trade. That is the former Taoiseach, not a Tory Brexiteer. The Swedish former deputy head of customs, Lars Karlsson, who has been referred to already, gave evidence to the relevant Select Committee in the other place and said that it was possible not to have any infrastructure on the border—key to the technology report. I know that noble Lords dismiss this as magical thinking, but I am certain that there are noble Lords in this House who will have their lives extended by some technological operation that today is magical thinking. We live in a world that is transformed daily by magical thinking and new technological developments. The reason I say this is the vagueness of the phrase “border arrangements” in this amendment. I do not think there is a legal backstop to this. What do we mean exactly by border arrangements?
One possible technological solution, which has been discussed on both sides of the border, is that you carry out any check that may be necessary—which, by the way, would be a really tiny quantity, if you know the amount of checks currently carried out on all our borders—maybe 20 miles in on both sides. This may or may not be a good idea, and it may be the case that there is no technological solution. That is not my point. Does this amendment mean that we cannot discuss any possible technological solutions that may or may not be available? I think that those who tabled the amendment have to explain what they mean by border arrangements. Does it just mean something that happens on that narrow tiny span of the border, or does it cover other possible developments, some of which might be quite benign but might at any rate be worthy of consideration? It is the ambiguity of that term that worries me.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, I have my name to this amendment with considerable misgivings, but the misgivings will perhaps shed some lights on why I think it is nevertheless important. Very early on after the referendum, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said at a meeting at which I was present that there would be no return to a hard border. This has become a stock phrase, a mantra, but is deeply ambiguous. Some people imagine, “Oh well, at least we are not thinking of going back to the worst of the Troubles, with the particular sort of border there was then”. I am sure it did mean that, but when I asked the Secretary of State how, her answer was, “By passports”. We have been talking about goods and what may be installed at borders to deal with the movement of goods. I believe that, if we are thinking about the principles of the Good Friday agreement, it is the movement of people and respect for people that is really much more important. That answer of “passports”, illuminating as it was, does not tell us who has to have a passport or when they have to show it and to whom. We will need answers to these questions if that “no hard border” intention is to be redeemed. In short, I do not believe that the intention is adequately served by talking about technologies for observing the movement of goods. I am sure that they are interesting and revolutionary—and I am equally sure that we have many people in the island of Ireland who would know how to get round them and subcontract to people below the radar.
If we are to retain the confidence and esteem of people in the island of Ireland—in the north and in the Republic—the important thing is that people feel that the deeper things are honoured, which of course include what we still refer to as the common travel area, with the particular rights it gives to citizens of the Republic in this country. Those rights must be preserved. They are fundamental to the economy of the island of Ireland, and are woven into the fabric of our lives. These people are not foreigners. An old phrase from the former Soviet Union, “near abroad”, comes to mind. This is hardly “abroad”—it is very near abroad. We know these people. But here is the rub: “By passports”. Many of them live here, were born in the Republic and do not have passports, because when you go by boat you do not need one; or they have not been there in a while, or not by air. Passports, biometrically adequate ones, are quite expensive. We have to face the reality that many people will not be able to produce the documentation they need to exercise what amounts to almost dual citizenship. This is nothing to do with the fact that some noble Lords have taken out an Irish passport. I will myself, because I have a birthright to it, but I have never bothered—it has not been important. That is the situation, and we have to think about those people who cannot document that they are Irish. If Brexit happens, I presume that we will not wish to extend the same rights to work, to NHS treatment and to vote, which Irish people get here, to people from other countries who come perhaps via the Irish Republic.
Therefore, we need to have—I am sorry—passports or ID cards for everybody in this situation. This is the human rub that we need to think of before we start wondering about new technologies for the goods which, after all, do not move independently. So let us go back to thinking that the point of this amendment, ultimately, is respect for the principles of the Good Friday agreement, which has made such a difference to life in Northern Ireland, and which means respect for all the people who might be affected by change. We do not want another version of Windrush for Irish citizens living here.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, over a number of months we have listened to many speeches in this House on the Irish border. While I listened to them I wondered whether the speakers were serious about trying to resolve the issue or whether it was another way of stopping Brexit. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, opening the debate, and heard some laughter around the Chamber. I can assure noble Lords in this House that this is no laughing matter. The question of how the Irish border issue might be resolved is a serious one. If your Lordships listen to the Peers from Northern Ireland, there is almost unity of purpose today. We are on the ground in Northern Ireland and we know what people are thinking on this issue.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
Order. A large number of Peers still wish to speak and we should hear them.
Lord Robathan
Thank you. The vexed history of Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland is known very well by most of the noble Lords in this House. We have heard some very good speeches from the former Lord Chief Justice, the former Primate of All Ireland and former Secretaries of State. The whole history of Northern Ireland is scarred by bad faith, a lack of good will, which we heard about from the noble Lord, Lord Carswell, and by intransigence. No side in any debate in Ireland—and no Government indeed—has a monopoly on that intransigence.
We heard from the distinguished historian, the noble Lord, Lord Bew, a short time ago. I was going to mention him anyway. I am not sure if one is allowed to put in a plug for a book, but I will. I read his book Churchill and Ireland only last month. I commend it to everybody in this House. First, it is very readable. Secondly, it shows that, over a period of 50 years, intransigence and a lack of good will led to division, death and conflict. Today, again, we have intransigence in Northern Ireland, where there is no Assembly and where the two sides cannot come to an agreement. I have to say that I blame that on Sinn Féin.
Let us look briefly at the current situation with the border. We heard a little from the noble Lord, Lord Carswell, about bicycling down to Dublin. I spent the best part of a year of my life in Northern Ireland, often in uniform but subsequently working in the Northern Ireland Office for the previous Government. Just over three years ago, I went down to south Armagh with some people. Noble Lords may think that everything is normal in south Armagh, but I was in one car with armed police, I recall that there were four other cars around to check that there were no ambushes and there was a helicopter overhead. This is still bandit country.
I mention that because the big issue at the time was the smuggling of diesel and then the washing of the red dye out of diesel, which by the way causes the most appalling environmental damage. People smuggle diesel because red diesel is very cheap, especially in the Republic, and it is brought up to the north, washed and sold at a cheap rate in Armagh. Smuggling of fuel continues to go on—the diesel has slightly changed—and there is smuggling of cattle. I read that 10,000 cattle in the last three years were stolen in the Republic, smuggled across the border and sold in the north. Members of this House may know Slab Murphy, who was notorious in Northern Ireland. He was closely involved with the IRA. He was basically a racketeer who made a great deal of money. I am glad to say that he finally went to jail a couple of years ago.
To cross the border, there are already different currencies. There are variable duties in the south and north. There are customs officers who actually work on the border. They do not sit in posts, but they work checking things. There are random checks. I was on one or two with the police. There are no fixed posts and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hay, has just said, nobody wants fixed posts. We do not need them. But there are already, as mentioned in subsection (2)(b) of the amendment, security checks and random checks.
The head of Irish Customs, Niall Cody, said on 25 May last year that it is “practically 100% certain” that there will be no new customs facilities along the border. He added:
“We are not planning customs posts”.
He said that in the Dáil.
I am indebted to the son of my predecessor in the House of Commons—my noble friend Lord Lawson—who wrote an article recently and drew my attention to the following in an address by Michael Ambühl, who was Switzerland’s chief negotiator in its trade agreement with the EU. He said:
“We have a smoothly operating frictionless border with the EU, though we are not a member of the customs union. That is even though 2.2m people and 23,000 lorries cross the borders between us and the EU every day”.
So what is the problem? Perhaps some of the chickens pay a little bit of duty, I do not know. The problem is the lack of good faith and, yet again, intransigence. I am told, as we have already heard, that Monsieur Barnier is encouraging the Taoiseach in this enterprise. I worked with the Government of Enda Kenny, which was very much on the side of and emollient towards the UK. They wanted to work with the UK. I would say that Mr Varadkar is cutting off his nose to spite his face.
Nobody wants a hard border, yet the Government and the Labour Party have a manifesto pledge to leave the customs union. Why do we not get on with it, to the mutual benefit of everybody? Others may attribute motives, but Barnier has said in the past that he wants to educate the British people, which means teach us a lesson. I see bad faith in Barnier and I see intransigence. Surely it is not beyond the wit of man, with good faith and good will—unless you do not want a settlement, which I fear is the case with the noble Lords who proposed the amendment—to come up with a decent frictionless border.
Noble Lords who are tempted to support the amendment should consider, as has been alluded to, that we should not use Ireland and its history as a stick with which to beat Brexit or as a pawn. Let us instead give Ireland, north and south, and its good people—nationalist, unionist, whatever they may be—what they really want: co-operation, friendship, prosperity and the ability to trade and cross the border happily.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I will not detain the House for long. I want to make one or two points. First, my noble friend who has just spoken talked about intransigence and he exhibited it. I would remind him, very gently, that whatever happens after 29 March next year, the Republic of Ireland will remain within the European Union and we are therefore dealing with a very sensitive issue. I would also remind him gently that the majority of people in Northern Ireland voted to remain in the European Union.
I do not wish people to interpret from that that I am party to anything that the Daily Mail would refer to as wrecking the Bill. That is my final point, as touched on—gently but elegantly—a little while ago by my noble friend Lord Bridges. Your Lordships’ House is merely fulfilling its constitutional role in examining and scrutinising the Bill. We have every right to pass amendments. As those of us who seek not to wreck but to improve have said time and again, the ultimate decision will rest with the House of Commons. It is right and proper that the responsibility ultimately lies there, but that does not deprive us of our responsibility to scrutinise carefully. It does not recognise the reality of the British constitution to talk about playing with fire or to call for an elected second Chamber; think what impasse there would then be between the two Houses. It does not serve the constitutional debate to make threats of that sort, which have come up during the debate in both articles in the press and speeches in this House. We have a duty and we seek to perform it, as we should, but at the end of the day, the responsibility lies at the other end of the Corridor.
If your Lordships’ House did not vote against government measures from time to time, it would have no point or purpose. I say to some noble Lords on my side of the House, who have been cross with myself and others, that if we were dealing with a complicated Bill, brought in by a Government led by Mr Jeremy Corbyn, would we say, “Oh, we don’t want to vote against that”? I rest my case. I am sorry to have detained the House, but those points needed making.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Patten, introduced the debate with his customary excellence and good humour. However, while I took the points he made very well, I felt concerned about the direction of travel and the linkage between some of the points we were trying to debate. The amendment has a number of issues that concern me, the most obvious one, picked up by the noble Lord, Lord King, being the last line. With so much reference to the Belfast agreement, the four Members currently in the Chamber involved in that negotiation—I am one of them—will know that it is so sensitive because it challenges the fundamental principles of consent, which is one of the reasons why the referendum in 1998 was successful. We actually achieved that point. If we take a power that is currently exercisable only by the Government of the United Kingdom and share it with the Republic of Ireland, that will change the dynamics of the whole situation. Effectively, it would create a form of joint authority.
I have other issues with the amendment. It refers to:
“Continuation of North-South co-operation and the prevention of new border arrangements”.
Perhaps we will need new border arrangements to avoid the pitfalls we have all drawn attention to during the debate. I also feel we are in a unique situation. Everybody agrees with the ultimate objective. Therefore, it should be not a source of division in this House but something on which we can come together to send a clear message not only to the Government, but to our colleagues in the European Union and in the Republic.
During his visit to Northern Ireland and the Republic this week—which, incidentally, was announced to us through the press release of a Sinn Féin MP, not even a Sinn Féin MEP—Michel Barnier, according to Sam Coates in the Times, did the following:
“During a visit to Ireland, Michel Barnier urged Theresa May to reconsider introducing a border in the Irish Sea”.
We assume that that matter is resolved; I fear that it is not. Within the document agreed on 8 December and the subsequent agreement referred to by my noble friend Lord Bridges of Headley there is a fundamental conflict. We are saying on the one hand that we want regulatory alignment for Northern Ireland as this backstop and on the other that we do not want any difficulties between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Unless Brexit does not take place and we reverse our decision to leave the European Union, those two things will be mutually exclusive. We have to get our heads around that.
We have talked about the principles and the bigger picture. I worry about linking the Belfast agreement so closely with the discussions we have now because, quite frankly, there are risks attached to that. I will try to put into context the scale of the problem we face.
I believe that the solution lies with the United Kingdom Government, the Irish Government and Michel Barnier and his team sitting down at a table to deal with the details. The Benches opposite are filled with many people with trade union backgrounds. They will know, as everybody else knows from their own experience, that the only way to settle these things is to sit down and talk about them, however embarrassing and difficult it may be. Even if we are dealing with people with whom we would normally have no truck, the fact is that we have learnt that lesson and learnt it very hard; we have to sit down, to talk and to negotiate. We must also remember that we cannot successfully negotiate if the person with whom we are negotiating is flat on the canvas at the end of the negotiations, so it cannot be a 10-0 win; there has to be compromise and movement.
We use the term “the all-Ireland economy”. There is no all-Ireland economy. If we take the figures for the period 2005 to 2015 given to us by the Irish Government in their document on Brexit, which sets out clearly the relationship and the scale of it, we see that of the total exports of the Irish Republic to the rest of the world 1.6% currently goes to Northern Ireland. That has dropped in the period from 2005. It means that 98.4% of the Irish Republic’s goods go elsewhere. Most of them travel via the United Kingdom, because the border is not simply on the island; it is between Dublin and Holyhead and Rosslare and Fishguard—that is where most of the goods are going. Mainland Britain is the land bridge so the Republic can get its goods to the continent and the rest of the world.
Let us take imports to the Irish Republic from the whole of the world. From Northern Ireland, they have dropped in the period from 2005 to 2015 from 2.2% again to 1.6%. So the actual trade on the island is relatively modest. We are talking primarily about goods in transit, going to and from ports in Northern Ireland to and from Scotland and the north-west of England. So the trading relationship on the island is 1.6% of the Republic’s exports and 1.6% of its imports. That is the scale of the trade. It includes live animals and agricultural produce.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said in an earlier debate that he believed that one part of the solution could be a new treaty between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland which would be recognised by the European Union. Part of the solution could lie in the north-south bodies that we set up under a treaty which have certain specific functions. There is no reason why those bodies cannot change and vary over time. One of them, the SEUPB, which looks after special European programmes, will have to be dissolved. We may need to look at the functions that some of those bodies perform and whether the United Kingdom Government and Parliament might devolve to them specific matters where they could negotiate on details, particularly around agriculture, animal health and other issues, and where regulations—because we are one land mass—are better, on the same scale or equivalent. If we are looking at the way ahead, we have to look at solutions. That is one possibility, but the idea of a new treaty is something that we should look at.
Lord Empey
If the noble Lord is such an expert on the Belfast agreement, why is he not prepared to listen to somebody who lives there and was negotiating it? I can assure him that I have been used to dealing with fairly tough customers and I will have a say.
We are looking here at a problem which has been grossly exaggerated and at some risk, because we should concentrate on solutions. The best way to achieve that is for the parties to sit down together and negotiate.
I conclude where I started: with the comments made by Michel Barnier on Tuesday this week, where he said that he wanted the Prime Minister to reconsider a border up the Irish Sea for Northern Ireland. If that is his position when our Government go in to negotiate, the difficulty created by this amendment is that it would move the emphasis away from negotiating a settlement, removing one lever from the hands of the Government and placing it in the hands of those with whom we are negotiating. We should be united as a House in trying to get the right solution. It is a shame that we would be divided on something where the objective we all seek is the same. It is so unusual to get that—where two Governments and the European Union are all committed to the same thing. We are confusing the two arguments. This is a matter for detailed negotiation, as has happened before. There is no reason why it cannot be done. We can look for help. If we need unique solutions—we are good at those—let us have one; that is what a treaty could facilitate.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will address some of those points and indicate that the United Kingdom Government are prepared to sit down to negotiate, to re-emphasise that and to reissue the invitation, which sadly has been refused so far. Let us remember also that we are dealing with politics. Ireland is on the verge of a general election at any point. Sinn Féin, which was always an anti-European party, has got on to the bandwagon and now pretends to be a great pro-European party. It could have huge influence on the Irish Government if an election takes place. We have all these moving plates, but we must keep our eye on the detail and on the long-term objective, which is the preservation of as free a border as it is possible to achieve and the preservation of the institutions that were passed by referendum on both sides of the border. They should be used as part of the solution and not become part of the problem.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, well over two hours ago, this amendment was eloquently moved by the noble Lord, Lord Patten, so I want to make two brief points in response. The first point is about the Government’s own proposals to solve the issue of the border on the island of Ireland. They have produced no new detailed proposals since last August. Clearly, there is an ongoing, and perhaps heated, discussion taking place this afternoon at the Cabinet sub-committee which, for reasons of internal division, is unlikely to reach a conclusion. But at a certain point, the Government will have to take a position. Time is running out and they cannot keep kicking the can down the road.
The so-called technical solutions which many noble Lords have referred to are, at best, wishful thinking and almost certainly not viable for the time being. On the House of Lords EU Select Committee, we have heard numerous experts inform us that the required technology is, at best, five to seven years away. How can that work with the current timetable of December 2020? Does the Minister accept that the only alternative is to remain in some form of customs union?
Secondly, it is important to remember that the border issue is not just about economics, tariffs and trade. It is also about emotions and feelings. Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Alderdice and so many others who have spoken this afternoon, played a vital role in installing the principles of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement, principles that have done so much to remove borders, both physical and psychological. Many people would see any checks, even if efficient and unobtrusive, as a step backwards. It is the principle and symbolism of the checks themselves that is the issue.
My noble friend Lord Alderdice raised some objections and concerns about the amendment. I believe that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem explained that this is, perhaps, a misunderstanding of the amendment before us. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made a very firm and forceful point and I hope my noble friend Lord Alderdice may reconsider his position. The aim of the amendment is to put into the Bill the commitment that the Government themselves agreed in the joint declaration last December, so that the hard-won gains of the peace process are not reversed for future generations. That is why I urge all noble Lords to support this amendment.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a fascinating debate. I am the 20th speaker in it. The first speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Patten, made a wonderful speech—if he really wants to be viceroy of Ireland he has my unqualified support and vote.
It is 20 years since the Good Friday agreement was signed. A number of us in this Chamber were present three weeks ago in Belfast when we commemorated and celebrated that occasion. I know that the Minister, when he winds up, will say that both he and the Government fully support the principles of that agreement. But there are some, not just in his party but in others too, who now say that the Good Friday agreement is out of date and not relevant anymore. I wholly and utterly reject that assertion. We have had 20 years of peace in Northern Ireland. If noble Lords cast their minds back to what happened 20 years before we signed the agreement, 3,500 people perished in Northern Ireland and 30,000 to 40,000 people were injured, either physically or mentally, as a result of those Troubles. The principles which were hard fought for and hard won—there are noble Lords who have already spoken in the debate, including the noble Lords, Lord Trimble, Lord Empey and Lord Alderdice, who were present at those negotiations—are still utterly relevant to Northern Ireland, to the United Kingdom and to the Republic of Ireland as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Trimble, spoke about the principle of consent. In my view, there is no threat to that principle in the amendment that we shall vote on in some minutes. Parity of esteem for all people in Northern Ireland, from whatever community they come; a power-sharing Assembly and Executive; human rights; equality; a police service which was totally new; criminal justice; north/south co-operation on the island of Ireland and improved relations, to an unprecedented degree, between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom—much of that was underpinned by our common membership of the European Union. We belonged, as two countries, to the same club, and there is no question in my mind that the constant meetings between Ministers and between civil servants over those two decades and before—that constant arrangement and co-operation between Ministers and Governments in Brussels—meant a smoother transition to where we are today. It also meant, of course, that the border became blurred.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, rightly referred, in a great speech, to the fact that the border was more than simply physical infrastructure and that the blurring of it—the softening of that border, if you like—was very much the result of the agreement between the parties in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, in giving that very powerful list of what happened in that process, my noble friend has not mentioned the fact that southern Ireland also changed its constitution, whereby the claim it had always maintained to the six counties of the north was removed from the constitution of southern Ireland. In terms of symbolism, it was a huge change: we have to remember that it was not just the pragmatism of those in the north and in other parts of Britain, but also the pragmatism of those in the south who wanted peace too.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
My noble friend is absolutely right: it was a huge development, and of course all this was voted on in a referendum, north and south. In both Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland, there were big majorities for precisely that.
But Brexit does affect where we are in Ireland and affects the principles of the Good Friday agreement to a certain extent. In the first place, Ireland, of all the 27 countries left in the European Union when we have departed, will be the most affected by Brexit; of that there is no doubt. It also means that some unionists in Northern Ireland—not all—now believe that exiting the European Union will in some way reinforce their Britishness. Some nationalists and republicans—not all—believe that Brexit will bring a united Ireland closer. None of that helps because at the end of the day the agreement was about an agreed island.
The noble Lord, Lord Hay, talked about the need for balance in all this. He was absolutely right: that balance can be upset by what is happening as a result of the debate on Brexit—not necessarily Brexit itself, but the debate on it. The purpose of the amendment before us is to enshrine the principles of the Good Friday agreement in the Bill.
The Countess of Mar (CB)
My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that he has already spoken.
Lord King of Bridgwater
The noble Lord speaking for the Opposition held the office of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland with distinction. He knows that during all that time he never shared joint authority. Will he comment on why an amendment may be carried by a number of his noble friends that will, for the first time, enshrine in legislation—this is the proposal—that we change the policy, which has been agreed between parties during all these years, that we do not have joint authority in Northern Ireland?
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
No, no; I do not think for one second that this amendment refers to or is about joint authority. What it is about is the recognition that both the British Government and the Irish Government are joint guarantors in international law of the Good Friday agreement. That is what it is about. Also, the agreement itself set up the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, which meets from time to time in order to deal with matters of common concern.
To return to the amendment, it rejects a hard border. The word “hard” has been debated by a number of speakers. The Government themselves have attached the description to what they do not want. The Government do not want a hard border, the Opposition do not want a hard border, the European Union does not want one, the Government of Ireland do not and nor do any of the parties in Northern Ireland. None of them wants a hard border, and all this is doing is putting into the Bill what everybody actually wants.
The amendment protects the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which as it happens I steered through the Commons 20 years ago. That set up the Assembly and the Executive and dealt with rights and equality. The noble Lord, Lord Trimble, asked: should we not have the Good Friday agreement in the amendment rather than the 1998 Act? Of course, the 1998 Act incorporated a great deal of the agreement and was based on the principle of the consent of the people of Northern Ireland.
The other issue is that of the north/south arrangements. There is no question, in my view, that those are extremely important and need to be protected as a vital part of the agreement, and they actually deal with millions of pounds of European funding for cross-border projects. All the amendment is about is a guarantee that the integrity of the Good Friday agreement is enshrined in law and put into the Bill.
The actual, real threat to the agreement in Northern Ireland is the fact that there is no Assembly or Executive there. The institutions should be restored. Their absence is the real threat to the Good Friday agreement and one that I hope the Government will work intensely over the next weeks and months to resolve. As parliamentarians in both Houses, we need to protect one of the most successful peace processes of modern times, and I believe that the amendment goes a long way towards doing that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, I had a five-page speaking note when I arrived here. I have now written more than 10 pages myself. I am not sure my speaking note will do the debate justice so I will set it aside.
I will try to capture the key elements of this discussion. I will turn, as I often do in matters concerning Ireland and Northern Ireland, to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, who reminded us that we have heard the same words used many times about the Good Friday agreement, to the extent that earlier today we almost had to use a thesaurus to find a replacement for “steadfast” because we have said it so many times. As it happens, the word in the note is “unwavering”, if you are looking for a description of our support for the Good Friday agreement. But the noble and right reverend Lord is correct: we must give comfort and certainty to the people of Northern Ireland that they will not be abandoned, sacrificed, left behind, have their rights trimmed to suit a separate agenda or find themselves in a situation where what they thought they had they do not have at all. I had the pleasure of having a cup of tea yesterday with the noble and right reverend Lord and he spoke about what he called the Ballymena spade—where they call a spade a spade. We need to be clear that there can be no border down the middle of the Irish Sea. We simply cannot create a division between one part of our country and another.
Michel Barnier, the chief negotiator for the EU, has said that there needs to be some adjustment to particular rights and proprieties, that there needs to be some acceptance that we cannot have these things, and that some of the red lines themselves, as the Foreign Minister of Ireland has said, may need to be adjusted in the light of peace and prosperity. But they cannot be, that is the point. So if I was to give a message to Michel Barnier, it would be: “Ecoutez les deux communautés”—you must listen to the two communities in Northern Ireland. You cannot listen to only one of them. Both are integral to what we will be able to achieve on the island of Ireland, and any suggestion otherwise is fallacious and unhelpful. In truth, it risks creating greater uncertainty for this particular negotiation. I would advocate great caution on behalf of Michel Barnier in this regard.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
The Minister knows the respect in which I hold him and the job he is doing. I have no wish to have a border which differentiates Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom. But will he accept that the problem was not created by Michel Barnier? The promise to have complete alignment between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland was not made by Michel Barnier, it was made by the British Government. Michel Barnier is doing no more than holding the Government to the promise they made to Europe in the initial agreement, and it is not his responsibility that outside that the Government also promised the DUP—correctly, in my view—that there would be complete alignment between Britain and Northern Ireland. That is the essential problem, because if you have alignment between Britain and Northern Ireland, between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland, and between southern Ireland and Europe, you automatically have alignment between Britain and the European Union; in other words, staying inside the customs union.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I hear the noble Lord, Lord Reid. With the greatest respect, I recognise what he is saying, but the joint report did not have just one element in this regard, it had three elements. The important thing about the three elements is that each must be afforded the ultimate engagement to try to deliver a solution. If Michel Barnier has decided that the first and second are sacrificial elements and he must now focus only on the third, frankly, he is becoming part of a bigger problem.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Michel Barnier is negotiating for the other 27 member Governments. It is not a question of listening to the Northern Irish Catholic community but it is part of his job as negotiator to listen to the Irish Government, who are, after all, one of the 27 member Governments with whom we are negotiating. It is the Irish Government who—perhaps to the Minister—present the problem. We have to deal with the Irish Government, not just the two communities.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
If the negotiator Michel Barnier does not hear the people of Northern Ireland, he will be derelict in his responsibilities. He must hear both communities. He cannot listen only to one. It is for that reason that I say again to Michel Barnier: listen to both communities.
It is important to recognise where this journey began. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Patten, will forgive me for not beginning by thanking him for bringing this issue before us today. This is what the Government intend to do, as I am sure he will agree. Many of the elements of the amendment are exact statements of government policy, but the issue is very unusual and it needs to be iterated here. When we look at the lower elements of the amendment, the language is that of political statements, not legislative statements; they are not in the language of legislation. It is on those points that a number of noble Lords have been very clear that they leave a conspicuous ambiguity. It is important to recognise that it is the intention of the Government to return not with ambiguous statements which may or may not be subject to misinterpretation but to return in the appropriate Bill with the exact, detailed language which will give the absolute confidence that we must have in this law. That is why we are unable to support the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Patten, moved so eloquently and passionately. Indeed, all the speakers today have spoken with that passion. Of that I have no doubt.
I was drawn in particular to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. He was very clear in his assessment of those parts of the amendment I have spoken of. I know that a number of noble Lords have sought to correct him, but I do not believe that he needs correcting. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bew, said simply that it has a flavour of a joint approach. However you want to look at it, if individuals who live in Northern Ireland are looking at the amendment and expressing their deep unease with it, I would hope that noble Lords would recognise what message that is sending. That is why we must be cautious in the messaging that we send.
In truth, there are two elements to the Bill: the optics and the mechanics. The mechanics of the Bill mean that the Bill must function and give absolute legal certainty. That is its job. The optics of the amendment are wholly commendable in many respects. They are an affirmation and a recitation of the Government’s intention, proposals and policy. But, again, this is not the place for them to sit sensibly and with legal certainty. That is one reason why we have a great problem with the amendment. As a number of noble Lords have asserted, as they begin to look in detail at those elements they are uneasy.
Talking once again of the optics, if the noble Lords in here who have looked at those self-same provisions feel uneasy, imagine then what the message will be on the front page of the Belfast Telegraph when these particular elements are looked at if they are presented in such a fashion that they could be misunderstood or misinterpreted. That is why we are seeking, as we have always sought, absolute and utter legal certainty. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has been clear in all her utterances that we will deliver a borderless aspect on the island of Ireland but the point about this, and the reason why I emphasise it, is that this Bill is not where that will or can be delivered. I am almost channelling my inner Callanan when I say this but, in truth, this is not the right place to be doing that. There will be an opportunity to pick that up.
I shall return to some of the specific points raised. Once again the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has raised a point which I will be happy to respond to in writing. I will make sure that that is absolutely delivered. I hope that I have been able to give words of respect and comfort to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, so that he can take them away and be able to say to people that this is not a place where we can trim—where we can simply take out, manoeuvre or dispense with it.
I listened again to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, whose wisdom is welcome in this debate. He rightly described the fragility of the peace process, echoing the words of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames. It is in its infancy and we need to make sure that nothing whatever can interfere with that. However, I do not wish to see the two aspects here become entangled. That is why many noble Lords have spoken today about the impact these words can have when they are misunderstood—indeed, when they become weaponised in one fashion or another, so that where they land they cause destruction upon receipt. We cannot have that, for that in itself is ultimately destructive.
As I listen to the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, I am aware that there speaks an individual who helped to craft the Belfast agreement itself, as did a number of noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon. Each of them who spoke has echoed the same sentiment. That is worthy of pause and reflection because there is an element, in truth, in what all the Peers from Northern Ireland who have spoken today said: they are uneasy with this amendment. Whatever its optics or its intention, they are uneasy with its component parts.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
Can my noble friend reassure the House, then, that “no deal” is now off the table? In a no-deal scenario, WTO rules require a hard border. It is impossible to fulfil the Good Friday agreement if we crash out with no deal.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for her intervention. The clear thing here is, as I believe all sides in this discussion recognise, that if there is no resolution of the joint report’s component parts—A, B and C—then all will be the poorer and the weaker. All will suffer because of that, which is why the important thing here is to ensure that agreement is reached on those elements in the negotiation. It is absolutely essential that those parts are then returned to the other place and to this House for clear discussion and debate at that time. That will ultimately be the key to it.
As I listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Carswell, I was aware of him iterating the same issues once again. He brings his own experience to them, saying that particular elements of this amendment cause him unease. They cause him to see difficulties which might emerge. The last thing we need right now is for that to percolate through the situation in Northern Ireland, with all its incumbent troubles and all the difficulties which will be in play.
As I speak today, I am very conscious that we need to find the outcome that delivers for Northern Ireland and one that delivers for the Republic of Ireland. I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, expressing clearly the danger we have, however, in taking these important elements of where we need to seek agreement and somehow or other turning them into a threat—a method whereby we can seemingly upend or turn over the very things that we are all trying to achieve.
I think it is true to say that anyone who seeks to prognosticate on or forecast Irish politics will almost certainly always be disappointed. There are, no doubt, many greater minds in this Chamber than elsewhere who could do that but the point remains that irrespective of which Government are in power in Dublin, they have to be able to work to deliver an outcome which is good for the Republic of Ireland, just as we are able to deliver that self-same outcome for Northern Ireland, and indeed for ourselves. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Bew, it was imperative that, as he put it forward, there are elements that need to be addressed now.
I also note the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, who asked whether I can explain how the technology will work on the borders. The truth is that I am a geologist, I am afraid, and I really cannot explain that. I am not knocking geologists; I am fully aware that they know many things. What I am clear about is that this must be returned to the other place, and to this House, to deliver the very things which noble Lords seek. If they are not delivered, I do not doubt that the House will vote it down. That is a clear thing which your Lordships do and it is a prerogative which you will have in this House. That is how it will ultimately work.
It will be important to ensure that the methods which we put forward are understood by all. I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, touch upon the issue of passports and I would like to write to her on those elements, because I believe that they are appropriate to be discussed. There are costs inherent in biometric passports and so forth. If noble Lords will forgive me, I will have an offline discussion to take through some of those elements. In some respects I am conscious, as the noble Lord, Lord Hay of Ballyore, said at the beginning, that this is indeed no laughing matter. I understand that but, in truth, we need to recognise that in each of these elements we must be able to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland and for the rest of the island of Ireland.
I also listened to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, when he spoke of Louis MacNeice’s father, Bishop MacNeice. I am a passionate supporter of Louis MacNeice and a great lover of his poetry. I am aware of the line where he said:
“My father made the walls resound,
He wore his collar the wrong way round”.
He was an extraordinary poet but if your Lordships will forgive me, I will bring to you the words which I believe in this instance might be slightly appropriate, although very cryptic. They are from the poem by Louis MacNeice called “Snow”, in which he was confronting two seemingly difficult and different things coming together: broadly, large flowers in a window and snow outside. He simply said:
“The room was suddenly rich and the great bay-window was
Spawning snow and pink roses against it
Soundlessly collateral and incompatible:
World is suddener than we fancy it.
World is crazier and more of it than we think,
Incorrigibly plural”.
In many respects, as we look at the island of Ireland we need to recognise its plurality. We need to recognise how that island will continue but also, none the less, that this Bill is not the place for that amendment. We remain passionate and unwavering in our support of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It is enshrined in more than nine pieces of primary legislation and there it will remain.
There will be a negotiation on the joint report—on those three elements—and, in that, I hope that Michel Barnier will be able to respect the views not just of the Irish Government but of the communities of Northern Ireland, whose voices must be and need to be heard. In many respects, I hope that it will be appreciated—
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
The Minister keeps talking about Monsieur Barnier. Surely his job is to represent the views of the 27; it is the job of Her Majesty’s Government to represent the views of all communities across the United Kingdom, including the communities of Northern Ireland.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Baroness raises her point but I will be clear in my statement in response: it would be daft if he did not speak to both communities. Irrespective of whether he felt that he must speak to only one Government, the resolution in Northern Ireland will depend upon the two communities, not upon the will of two Governments ignoring those self-same communities. It cannot be done on that basis.
I return briefly to the point that we wholeheartedly agree on the sentiments underpinning my noble friend Lord Patten’s amendment. We recognise, however, that those elements towards its latter half are not workable in that form. They are political statements, which are not legally binding texts, but I must say one final thing. If the noble Lord decides to divide the House, I hope he will recognise that it must not and cannot be interpreted in any way such that either side is not willing to give its wholehearted support to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, but rather only to this amendment as it has been defined. Let there be no doubt whatever that the Good Friday/Belfast agreement has our unwavering and steadfast support.
Lord Patten of Barnes
Charitably, I can assure the House that I shall be very brief. I shall make only three points. First—I hope this will not finish his career—I congratulate the Minister once again. It makes a pleasant change to have a Minister at the Dispatch Box who quotes poetry; as ever, he responded with considerable civility. It is also a great pleasure that he does not make speeches that begin, “It says here”. He responded to the debate, and the whole House recognises that.
Before making two more substantive points—although being flattering to the Minister is substantive, as is inviting him to join me later in voting for the Government’s policy, which might make life a little awkward for him—I assure the House that I shall not go back through all the old arguments about a customs union. If I hear any more references to the wretched Karlsson report, I will go red in the face. It is like Das Kapital: it is more referred to than read. Most of the people who refer to it have never read more than two or three lines in the summary, and will not recognise the bits that talk about the necessity of an infrastructure or the necessity of those customs offices.
Of course, I respect everybody, but I particularly respect the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and my noble friend Lord King. The points that they made about security on the border were extremely well answered by the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Campbell. They should look carefully at what this proposed new clause actually says. They are probably also aware that co-operation across the border and security are probably better than they have ever been, with the joint agency task force between the Garda Síochána and the Police Service of Northern Ireland working together very effectively. The former Northern Ireland Justice Minister—when there still was one in the Northern Ireland Executive—said that she thought that these days, co-operation was saving lives in the island of Ireland. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will consider that.
The point that my noble friend made about a joint approach and joint authority was well responded to by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. He pointed out that what we are talking about is part of an international agreement. There are two sides to an international agreement; more than that, this is about the border, and most borders have two sides to them. It is therefore not surprising that the people on one side of the border need to talk to the people on the other side.
I would like to insert myself—an exciting prospect—somewhere between my noble friend Lord Bridges, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, the former Prelate of All Ireland, and the Minister. Bishops are not by nature suspicious, even though they have so much experience of the human condition. However, I hope that the noble and right reverend Lord and my noble friend Lord Bridges will not mind my saying that if I thought that this whole endeavour—this whole negotiation—was in their hands, I would be happy to withdraw my amendment. However, I listened to some of the things that were said, or murmured, about the Taoiseach in the Republic. I hear some of the blame that some people are trying to put on the Republic of Ireland. I notice that, in spite of all these months of intellectual effort, we still have not managed to define what the frictionless border will be.
Touching on the point made by my noble friend Lord Bridges about not having a border down the middle of the Irish Sea, I do not think I would have signed an agreement in Brussels that accepted that. I know enough about “one country, two systems” to keep me going until I drop dead. I hope that will not be for a bit and so does the University of Oxford. I have no doubt about what my noble friend says and where I hope my noble friend on the Front Bench stands. I suspect that the tone of the discussions this afternoon in No. 10 has not been entirely in line with their sentiments. In that slightly suspicious spirit, recognising that we are simply stating, in this proposed new clause, what the Government’s policy purports to be, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Keen of Elie
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, we are dealing here with truly technical amendments to ensure that the provisions of the Bill deliver the intended policy. They achieve two things. The first is to clarify how the requirement for regulations made by devolved Ministers under Schedule 2 to be within devolved competence interacts with the principle of severance applied by the courts.
The normal practice would be that when a Minister makes regulations that include, for instance, 10 different provisions, should one of those provisions be outwith the scope of the power, the courts would not strike down the regulations as a whole, they would simply sever the offending provision and allow the remaining nine provisions to stand as law. Some concerns were raised that the requirements in the Bill might imply that this standard practice should not occur. The amendments therefore make it clear that when a provision is outside devolved competence, only that provision would be ultra vires and not the whole instrument in which the provision is included.
The second purpose of the amendments is to allow for a devolved Minister and a UK Minister acting jointly to make provision that would not be in the competence of the devolved Minister acting alone. It has always been the Government’s intention that the Schedule 2 powers can be exercised jointly to allow us to work together in areas where we may need to make the same or related changes to retained EU law and so that, where appropriate, those changes can be subject to formal scrutiny and approval in both this Parliament and the relevant devolved legislature.
We believe it is right that, for instance, where a UK Minister and a Welsh Minister jointly make regulations in relation to a matter that concerns the England/Wales border, those regulations can include both the provision for England and the provision for Wales, even though it would not be within the Welsh Minister’s competence to make the provision in relation to England if they were acting alone.
We will also be bringing forward at Third Reading a number of further drafting changes to permit combinations of instruments beyond what is normally possible, reflecting the level of joint working that will be needed in relation to these powers. I will be speaking to the Government’s Clause 11 amendments shortly, when we reach the group beginning Amendment 89DA. I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that we have a number of further groups to get through on other parts of the devolution provisions before we reach that debate. The amendments provide what I hope to be welcome legal clarity. They reflect standard practice and the mechanisms for good, collaborative joint working between the Administrations. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation of these technical amendments. Can he say whether there is agreement among the devolved Administrations and the UK Government on these amendments?
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, at last we have reached this stage, although I find it a little off-putting that we are coming to consequential, technical matters before we look at the meaty issue; but that will come, as was said.
I would like to pay the respects of those on our Benches to the serious way in which the Government have contributed through the joint ministerial group to the success of the proposals, and thank them for bringing them to us now. I would also like to thank Mark Drakeford from the Welsh Government and Mike Russell from the Scottish Government for the part they played, even if the latter has thus far been unable formally to sign up to the inter-governmental process. As the Minister said, we are going to discuss Clause 11 and neither of us can wait for that. It is coming in more detail later this evening. However, we on these Benches recognise and appreciate the progress that has been made. We have come a long way since the Bill was published and it is against that backdrop that this and subsequent groups of amendments should be considered.
The Labour Party has always been the party of devolution. While we will be watching the Government’s treatment of the devolved Administrations very closely throughout the Brexit process—that is our job—we recognise the genuine progress that has been made and welcome the amendments in this group. They allow United Kingdom and devolved Ministers jointly to exercise powers in Schedule 2 in order to make provisions that could not be made by a devolved Minister acting alone. This clarifies the use of so-called composite instruments, as the Minister said, and we hope paves the way for collaborative working between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government.
Other amendments in the group improve the position regarding ultra vires provision within instruments made under Schedule 2. I believe that the devolved Administrations previously raised concerns with the Government as to whether the courts would permit those parts of an instrument that were within competence to remain law. We are glad that Ministers and officials have responded positively to the appeals from the devolved bodies and that the amendments provide greater clarity for all involved. The group amounts to just one piece in the jigsaw puzzle. I usually start my jigsaws with the edge pieces. This looks like putting a piece in the middle and working around it in due course. It is a piece that these Benches are happy to support.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, and note his comments. The amendments will provide not only clarity but a much needed flexibility when it comes to the application of the schedules.
With respect to the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, my understanding is that both devolved Administrations were content with the proposals. Indeed, much of the force for the first group of amendments came from them. I hope that satisfies noble Lords.
Lord Keen of Elie
“( ) No regulations may be made under this Part after the end of the period of two years beginning with exit day.”
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, since submitting this amendment, I note that Clause 7(8) covers the point and therefore I do not wish to move it.
Lord Keen of Elie
“3A(1) No provision may be made by the Scottish Ministers acting alone in regulations under this Part so far as the provision—(a) modifies any retained direct EU legislation or anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4 or confers functions which correspond to functions to make EU tertiary legislation, and(b) would, when made, be in breach of—(i) the restriction in section 30A(1) of the Scotland Act 1998 if the provision were made in an Act of the Scottish Parliament, or(ii) the restriction in section 57(4) of the Act of 1998 if section 57(5)(b) of that Act so far as relating to this Schedule were ignored. (2) No provision may be made by the Welsh Ministers acting alone in regulations under this Part so far as the provision—(a) modifies any retained direct EU legislation or anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4 or confers functions which correspond to functions to make EU tertiary legislation, and(b) would, when made, be in breach of—(i) the restriction in section 80(8) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 if section 80(8A)(b) of that Act so far as relating to this Schedule were ignored, or(ii) the restriction in section 109A(1) of that Act if the provision were made in an Act of the National Assembly for Wales.(3) No provision may be made by a Northern Ireland department acting alone in regulations under this Part so far as the provision—(a) modifies any retained direct EU legislation or anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4 or confers functions which correspond to functions to make EU tertiary legislation, and(b) would, when made, be in breach of—(i) the restriction in section 6A(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 if the provision were made in an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly, or(ii) the restriction in section 24(3) of the Act of 1998 if section 24(4)(b) of that Act so far as relating to this Schedule were ignored.(4) No provision may be made by a devolved authority acting alone in regulations under this Part so far as, when made, the provision is inconsistent with any modification (whether or not in force) which—(a) is a modification of any retained direct EU legislation or anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4,(b) is made by this Act or a Minister of the Crown under this Act, and(c) could not be made by the devolved authority by virtue of sub- paragraph (1), (2) or (as the case may be) (3).(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b), sections 30A and 57(4) to (15) of the Scotland Act 1998, sections 80(8) to (8L) and 109A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 and sections 6A and 24(3) to (15) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and any regulations made under them and any related provision, are to be assumed to be wholly in force so far as that is not otherwise the case.(6) References in this paragraph to section 80(8) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 are to be read as references to the new section 80(8) of that Act provided for by paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to this Act.”
Lord Keen of Elie
Lord Keen of Elie
“( ) establish a public authority,”
“(2) See paragraphs 27 to 29 for the meaning of “devolved competence” for the purposes of this Part.”
“23A(1) No provision may be made by the Scottish Ministers acting alone in regulations under this Part so far as the provision—(a) modifies any retained direct EU legislation or anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4 or confers functions which correspond to functions to make EU tertiary legislation, and(b) would, when made, be in breach of—(i) the restriction in section 30A(1) of the Scotland Act 1998 if the provision were made in an Act of the Scottish Parliament, or(ii) the restriction in section 57(4) of the Act of 1998 if section 57(5)(b) of that Act so far as relating to this Schedule were ignored.(2) No provision may be made by the Welsh Ministers acting alone in regulations under this Part so far as the provision— (a) modifies any retained direct EU legislation or anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4 or confers functions which correspond to functions to make EU tertiary legislation, and(b) would, when made, be in breach of—(i) the restriction in section 80(8) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 if section 80(8A)(b) of that Act so far as relating to this Schedule were ignored, or(ii) the restriction in section 109A(1) of that Act if the provision were made in an Act of the National Assembly for Wales.(3) No provision may be made by a Northern Ireland department acting alone in regulations under this Part so far as the provision—(a) modifies any retained direct EU legislation or anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4 or confers functions which correspond to functions to make EU tertiary legislation, and(b) would, when made, be in breach of—(i) the restriction in section 6A(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 if the provision were made in an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly, or(ii) the restriction in section 24(3) of the Act of 1998 if section 24(4)(b) of that Act so far as relating to this Schedule were ignored.(4) No provision may be made by a devolved authority acting alone in regulations under this Part so far as, when made, the provision is inconsistent with any modification (whether or not in force) which—(a) is a modification of any retained direct EU legislation or anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4,(b) is made by this Act or a Minister of the Crown under this Act, and(c) could not be made by the devolved authority by virtue of sub- paragraph (1), (2) or (as the case may be) (3).(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b), sections 30A and 57(4) to (15) of the Scotland Act 1998, sections 80(8) to (8L) and 109A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 and sections 6A and 24(3) to (15) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and any regulations made under them and any related provision, are to be assumed to be wholly in force so far as that is not otherwise the case.(6) References in this paragraph to section 80(8) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 are to be read as references to the new section 80(8) of that Act provided for by paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to this Act.”
“Meaning of devolved competence: Part 3
27_ A provision is within the devolved competence of the Scottish Ministers for the purposes of this Part if—(a) it would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament if it were contained in an Act of that Parliament (ignoring section 29(2)(d) of the Scotland Act 1998 so far as relating to EU law and retained EU law), or(b) it is provision which could be made in other subordinate legislation by the Scottish Ministers, the First Minister or the Lord Advocate acting alone (ignoring section 57(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 so far as relating to EU law and section 57(4) of that Act).28_ A provision is within the devolved competence of the Welsh Ministers for the purposes of this Part if—(a) it would be within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales if it were contained in an Act of the Assembly (ignoring section 108A(2)(e) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 so far as relating to EU law and retained EU law but including any provision that could be made only with the consent of a Minister of the Crown), or(b) it is provision which could be made in other subordinate legislation by the Welsh Ministers acting alone (ignoring section 80(8) of the Government of Wales Act 2006).29_ A provision is within the devolved competence of a Northern Ireland department for the purposes of this Part if—(a) the provision, if it were contained in an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly—(i) would be within the legislative competence of the Assembly (ignoring section 6(2)(d) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998), and(ii) would not require the consent of the Secretary of State,(b) the provision—(i) amends or repeals Northern Ireland legislation, and(ii) would, if it were contained in an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly, be within the legislative competence of the Assembly (ignoring section 6(2)(d) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998) and require the consent of the Secretary of State, or(c) the provision is provision which could be made in other subordinate legislation by any Northern Ireland devolved authority acting alone (ignoring section 24(1)(b) and (3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998).”
Lord Keen of Elie
“(1) In section 29(2)(d) of the Scotland Act 1998 (no competence for the Scottish Parliament to legislate incompatibly with EU law) for “with EU law” substitute “in breach of the restriction in section 30A(1)”.(2) After section 30 of that Act (legislative competence: supplementary) insert—“30A Legislative competence: restriction relating to retained EU law(1) An Act of the Scottish Parliament cannot modify, or confer power by subordinate legislation to modify, retained EU law so far as the modification is of a description specified in regulations made by a Minister of the Crown.(2) But subsection (1) does not apply to any modification so far as it would, immediately before exit day, have been within the legislative competence of the Parliament.(3) A Minister of the Crown must not lay for approval before each House of the Parliament of the United Kingdom a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations under this section unless— (a) the Scottish Parliament has made a consent decision in relation to the laying of the draft, or(b) the 40 day period has ended without the Parliament having made such a decision.(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) a consent decision is—(a) a decision to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft,(b) a decision not to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft, or(c) a decision to agree a motion refusing to consent to the laying of the draft;and a consent decision is made when the Parliament first makes a decision falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (c) (whether or not it subsequently makes another such decision).(5) A Minister of the Crown who is proposing to lay a draft as mentioned in subsection (3) must—(a) provide a copy of the draft to the Scottish Ministers, and(b) inform the Presiding Officer that a copy has been so provided.(6) See also paragraph 6 of Schedule 7 (duty to make explanatory statement about regulations under this section including a duty to explain any decision to lay a draft without the consent of the Parliament).(7) No regulations may be made under this section after the end of the period of two years beginning with exit day.(8) Subsection (7) does not affect the continuation in force of regulations made under this section at or before the end of the period mentioned in that subsection.(9) Any regulations under this section which are in force at the end of the period of five years beginning with the time at which they came into force are revoked in their application to any Act of the Scottish Parliament which receives Royal Assent after the end of that period.(10) Subsections (3) to (8) do not apply in relation to regulations which only relate to a revocation of a specification.(11) In this section—“the 40 day period” means the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which a copy of the draft instrument is provided to the Scottish Ministers,and, in calculating that period, no account is to be taken of any time during which the Parliament is dissolved or during which it is in recess for more than four days.”(3) In section 108A(2)(e) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (no competence for the National Assembly for Wales to legislate incompatibly with EU law) for “with EU law” substitute “in breach of the restriction in section 109A(1)”.(3A) After section 109 of that Act (legislative competence: supplementary) insert—“109A Legislative competence: restriction relating to retained EU law(1) An Act of the Assembly cannot modify, or confer power by subordinate legislation to modify, retained EU law so far as the modification is of a description specified in regulations made by a Minister of the Crown.(2) But subsection (1) does not apply to any modification so far as it would, immediately before exit day, have been within the Assembly’s legislative competence. (3) No regulations are to be made under this section unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(4) A Minister of the Crown must not lay a draft as mentioned in subsection (3) unless—(a) the Assembly has made a consent decision in relation to the laying of the draft, or(b) the 40 day period has ended without the Assembly having made such a decision.(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) a consent decision is—(a) a decision to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft,(b) a decision not to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft, or(c) a decision to agree a motion refusing to consent to the laying of the draft;and a consent decision is made when the Assembly first makes a decision falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (c)(whether or not it subsequently makes another such decision).(6) A Minister of the Crown who is proposing to lay a draft as mentioned in subsection (3) must—(a) provide a copy of the draft to the Welsh Ministers, and(b) inform the Presiding Officer that a copy has been so provided.(7) See also section 157ZA (duty to make explanatory statement about regulations under this section including a duty to explain any decision to lay a draft without the consent of the Assembly).(8) No regulations may be made under this section after the end of the period of two years beginning with exit day.(9) Subsection (8) does not affect the continuation in force of regulations made under this section at or before the end of the period mentioned in that subsection.(10) Any regulations under this section which are in force at the end of the period of five years beginning with the time at which they came into force are revoked in their application to any Act of the Assembly which receives Royal Assent after the end of that period.(11) Subsections (4) to (9) do not apply in relation to regulations which only relate to a revocation of a specification.(12) In this section—“the 40 day period” means the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which a copy of the draft instrument is provided to the Welsh Ministers,and, in calculating that period, no account is to be taken of any time during which the Assembly is dissolved or during which it is in recess for more than four days.”(3B) In section 6(2)(d) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (no competence for the Northern Ireland Assembly to legislate incompatibly with EU law) for “incompatible with EU law” substitute “in breach of the restriction in section 6A(1)”.(3C) After section 6 of that Act (legislative competence) insert—“6A Restriction relating to retained EU law(1) An Act of the Assembly cannot modify, or confer power by subordinate legislation to modify, retained EU law so far as the modification is of a description specified in regulations made by a Minister of the Crown. (2) But subsection (1) does not apply to any modification so far as it would, immediately before exit day, have been within the legislative competence of the Assembly.(3) A Minister of the Crown must not lay for approval before each House of Parliament a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations under this section unless—(a) the Assembly has made a consent decision in relation to the laying of the draft, or(b) the 40 day period has ended without the Assembly having made such a decision.(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) a consent decision is—(a) a decision to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft,(b) a decision not to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft, or(c) a decision to agree a motion refusing to consent to the laying of the draft;and a consent decision is made when the Assembly first makes a decision falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (c)(whether or not it subsequently makes another such decision).(5) A Minister of the Crown who is proposing to lay a draft as mentioned in subsection (3) must—(a) provide a copy of the draft to the relevant Northern Ireland department, and(b) inform the Presiding Officer that a copy has been so provided.(6) See also section 96A (duty to make explanatory statement about regulations under this section including a duty to explain any decision to lay a draft without the consent of the Assembly).(7) No regulations may be made under this section after the end of the period of two years beginning with exit day.(8) Subsection (7) does not affect the continuation in force of regulations made under this section at or before the end of the period mentioned in that subsection.(9) Any regulations under this section which are in force at the end of the period of five years beginning with the time at which they came into force are revoked in their application to any Act of the Assembly which receives Royal Assent after the end of that period.(10) Subsections (3) to (8) do not apply in relation to regulations which only relate to a revocation of a specification.(11) Regulations under this section may include such supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision as the Minister of the Crown making them considers appropriate.(12) In this section—“the relevant Northern Ireland department” means such Northern Ireland department as the Minister of the Crown concerned considers appropriate;“the 40 day period” means the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which a copy of the draft instrument is provided to the relevant Northern Ireland department,and, in calculating that period, no account is to be taken of any time during which the Assembly is dissolved or during which it is in recess for more than four days.””
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, to be clear, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, indicated that he was not going to move Amendment 89, but government amendment 89AA was to follow from that amendment so I would just like to address our amendment in order to avoid confusion. I am afraid that this is like one of those smart restaurants where you get a series of amuse-bouches before you get to the main course.
Amendment 89AA replicates the restriction that we have already applied to Clause 9 on the withdrawal agreement power in relation to imposing fees and charges for the corresponding power for devolved Ministers. This follows exactly the same rationale as the Clause 9 power. It has never been our intention for these powers to be used to impose fees; that is the preserve of the bespoke Schedule 4 powers, which are exercisable by devolved Ministers and should be subject to the limits that apply to those powers. This same restriction has already been applied to both the correcting power in Clause 7 and its Schedule 2 equivalent. The devolved Administrations were informed in advance of our intention to apply this restriction to that power and have agreed to its effect, so I hope noble Lords will support the amendment.
I turn to Amendment 89DA and the group that follows it. I thank noble Lords for their constructive engagement on this important issue during the passage of the Bill. The Government have now tabled a comprehensive set of amendments to Clause 11. We have worked with the Scottish and Welsh Governments to develop them, and noble Lords will recognise that we have drawn heavily on their consideration of our initial amendments in Committee. I put on record our thanks to this House, and to the Scottish and Welsh Governments for their endeavours in crafting these amendments. We are immensely pleased that the Welsh Government have agreed this approach and I am of course disappointed that the Scottish Government have not. I hope they will sign up in due course.
The intention behind Clause 11 as originally drafted was to provide maximum legal certainty across the UK to our communities and businesses after EU exit in areas that are subject to a common EU framework. As the Welsh Government aptly put it,
“it is essential to provide legislative continuity at the point at which the UK leaves the EU”.
We know, of course, that the EU has common legislative arrangements across a vast range of areas, but we must now decide in which policy areas we may need to continue those common arrangements legislatively, informally or not at all. To provide the time to do that work and provide assurances that there would not be immediate divergence across the UK, the original Clause 11 sought to freeze the law in all those areas.
We are all familiar with the views of the devolved institutions on this clause, and of course the Government have accepted the case for a more targeted and proportionate approach. This has been supported by the work that we have been doing with the devolved Administrations on assessing these current frameworks. Since we agreed the framework principles, which set out why common approaches may be needed across more than one part of the UK, our Governments have worked closely to analyse those policy areas that sit across devolved competence and EU law.
Noble Lords will recall that in March we published our initial analysis. It demonstrated that our work with the devolved Administrations indicated that legislative frameworks may be needed, in whole or in part, in only 24 of the 153 areas that had been identified, and 82 areas could be managed through more informal, non-legislative arrangements. The remaining 49 areas would likely require no further arrangements at all. We also agree that where common approaches are needed, they cannot all be designed and implemented by exit day. So it continues to make sense to maintain existing frameworks and provide certainty over which areas may be subject to change in the future, but we can and should do this in a more measured way.
Our amendments in Committee set out targeted mechanisms for doing so, following discussions with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. We have carried forward the basic proposition from Committee and have built on that in the amendments that we have put forward today. Our amendments would see powers returning from the EU in otherwise devolved areas pass directly to the devolved institutions. Where a common legislative framework may be required, we propose to freeze the current arrangements to provide the time to establish our own framework for the UK. This would apply only to those policy areas that have been explicitly frozen through regulations, rather than across all policy areas where EU law currently creates common frameworks. That was the proposal that we put forward in Committee and that we had been discussing with the Welsh and Scottish Governments. We withdrew our amendments because discussions with those Governments were ongoing and we were committed to continuing them. Our Committee proposal was a substantial, but not a final, offer. It meant that noble Lords were able to debate the very latest proposition and inform those discussions.
One theme raised here and by the devolved Administrations was consent. The devolved Administrations thought it right that there was a role for the devolved legislatures in deciding whether specific areas should be the subject of a freeze. We also heard that in the debate in this House. This House agreed that a role for the devolved legislatures was important in this process, but that it must be balanced against preserving the right—indeed, I would say, the responsibility —of the United Kingdom Parliament to act, where there may be a cross-United Kingdom impact. Only the UK Parliament can do that.
The Government listened carefully to the submissions on this matter and reflected them in discussion with the devolved Administrations over Easter. We have amended the Committee proposal. We shall seek to agree which areas should be subject to a freeze. This is part of the bigger frameworks question that we continue to progress.
We should also have the view of the devolved legislatures, not just the Administrations. Our amendments ensure that, before the UK Government may lay regulations in draft in this House, they must have sent them to the devolved Administrations and sought the consent of the legislatures. The devolved legislatures will have 40 days in which to decide whether to give or withhold consent for the regulations. Only after that decision is given or the 40 days have passed can the United Kingdom Government lay the regulations before Parliament. This process is built on collaborative working. It favours agreement for freezing areas, but also recognises that if agreement cannot be reached, it must be for the UK Parliament to decide what is in the interests of the UK as a whole.
We believe that this approach should minimise areas of disagreement, as we have also developed a comprehensive intergovernmental agreement that supports and complements the legislative amendments we are considering today. It emphasises that we will work on these regulations together and in advance of sending them to the devolved Administrations formally.
Where there is unavoidable disagreement and the United Kingdom Government consider that they must proceed in the absence of consent from a devolved legislature, UK Ministers would be under an express legal duty to provide this Parliament with a Statement, and, if provided, a statement from the devolved Administration on why consent was not being granted. The UK Minister will be under a duty to explain to Parliament why the Government consider that they must proceed without that consent. Parliament will decide on the case presented: whether it is indeed in the best interests of the United Kingdom to freeze a specific policy while we implement new arrangements.
I should also remind noble Lords of the additional reporting duties on UK Ministers. I do not wish to repeat the detail that I provided to the House on them in Committee. Needless to say, they ensure heightened accountability by providing transparency to the process of developing frameworks, the use of the regulation-making powers and where frameworks are maintained in the short term. They will also require us to report on those principles that underpin this work, the principles agreed between the United Kingdom, Scottish and Welsh Governments at the Joint Ministerial Committee in October last year. Through this, our work on future frameworks is open to the scrutiny of this Parliament and of the devolved legislatures.
The other key change to the amendments that I should mention, as compared to the proposals that noble Lords considered in Committee, is the addition of sunset provisions for both the new powers and the regulations made under them. This was raised explicitly by noble Lords in Committee. We have always said that any freeze under Clause 11 would be temporary. The amendments place that beyond doubt by making it explicit in law.
I am grateful to noble Lords for the constructive manner in which they have engaged with the question of sunsets. In particular, I must give due credit to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, for the tenacity with which he has pursued this, including by tabling his amendments. I hope that he will be satisfied that his concerns in this respect have been addressed and will feel able not to press those amendments.
The powers last for only two years from exit day. This aligns them with the other powers in the Bill and makes certain that they will not be an ongoing mechanism for limiting competence. The regulations will also be time-limited. We have had in-depth discussions with the devolved Administrations on how long is needed to determine and implement our future frameworks. We have settled on a period of five years from when regulations come into force.
Lord Hope of Craighead
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, before I introduce the series of amendments in my name, perhaps I can express my thanks to the noble and learned Lord the Minister for the very helpful way in which he has introduced his Amendment 89DA, and also pay tribute to the work that he and his Bill team have done since we began these discussions way back at the beginning of Committee. The Bill has changed very substantially since its original form. In many respects, I was concerned about the way in which it failed to recognise the structure of the Scotland Act. Considerable advances have been made to bring this Bill into line with the recognised approach to devolution in that Act.
There are 10 amendments in my name, grouped from Amendment 89DAA to Amendment 89DAE, then with Amendments 89DAG and 89DAH and two important amendments, Amendments 92BAA and 92BBA. These amendments come from a list of proposed amendments attached to a letter sent to the Lord Speaker by the First Minister of Scotland at the end of last week; in fact, I think that it arrived last Thursday. It is against the background of that letter that I have introduced these amendments for debate this evening. I shall quote short passages from the First Minister’s letter, because they set the scene for what she sought to achieve in writing to the Lord Speaker. Commenting on the amendments that the noble and learned Lord has introduced, she says:
“The amendments represent a considerable advance on the original position of the Bill, in its introduction to the Commons”.
She goes on to say:
“What is not acceptable to the Scottish Government is that these amendments would bind the Scottish Parliament in law in these areas, whereas the commitment on the part of UK Government is binding in political terms only”.
When she says “these areas”, she refers to the common frameworks to which the noble and learned Lord referred in his introduction. Near the end of her letter she says:
“Annexed to this letter are further amendments (with explanatory notes) which, if made, would resolve the concerns set out in this letter, and give the Scottish Parliament its proper place in the constitutional arrangements of the UK, during the challenging but necessary task of preparing our laws for EU withdrawal”.
For the First Minister to write to the Lord Speaker in this way is a very odd way to proceed, but it was probably unavoidable, due to the refusal of the Scottish National Party to nominate anyone for membership of this House. Before I develop a point on that issue, one ought to recognise the fact that the amendment introduced this evening has been awaited for a very long time indeed. Various Members in the House of Commons were pressing for an amendment before the Bill left the Commons. I am not attributing any blame whatever to the Government for the fact that they have only now come forward with these amendments. The fact is that it has taken a great deal of work and much careful negotiation and planning to achieve what the noble and learned Lord has achieved in the amendment which we see before us this evening. It is a long way from what was being thought about in the House of Commons, and it is just a misfortune of timing that we are facing the position that the amendment comes so late in the process of taking the Bill through Parliament.
That being said, I very much regret the absence of at least one member of the Scottish National Party in this House who could represent the views of the Scottish Government. There is no shortage of suitable candidates, I believe. Their position is all about ideology and their view of the principle of democracy; they refuse to have anything to do with an unelected Chamber. We are not short of people—I look particularly to my right, towards the Liberal Democrat Benches—who believe that this House should be an elected Chamber, but they take the view that, while the present system exists, it must be made to work, and they are content to sit here recognising that that is how Parliament as a whole works today. In a way, it is rather like a bicycle, which has two wheels to it; you cannot really get anywhere unless both wheels are attached. That is how this Parliament works. The House of Commons works in tandem, to use another analogy, with the upper House, and we all know that this House performs a valuable function—much valued by the Government, I may say, on behalf of the whole country—as a revising Chamber. We also know that the House of Commons always has the last word, and we never assert ourselves to the extent of insisting on our view when the Commons has made its view, if it contradicts us, absolutely plain. So it is a real shame that the Scottish National Party cannot accept how this place works. If it is to participate fully in what this Parliament does, it needs to make use of the whole machinery, as it is an essential part of the legislative process.
One could say that, for much of the period when the SNP has had large numbers of Members in the other place, their absence from this Chamber has not mattered very much, but we are entering a time when it is going to matter a great deal, and this evening’s debate is one example. Much of the delegated legislation that we are anticipating, which is going to come through the mechanism to which the noble and learned Lord referred, will refer to Scotland, and many other bits of delegated legislation will come through Clause 7, and probably Clause 9, which will affect Scotland too. Who, then, is to represent the views of the Scottish Government? Are we to have a succession of letters by the First Minister to the Lord Speaker, which somebody might possibly pick up, to achieve what she seeks to do? It is very sad that the ideology is so deeply rooted that there is no real prospect of its being changed. The public should know that Scotland is not being very well served by adhering to it as precisely as we see being done today.
Despite all that, it is important that we should look at and debate at least some of the amendments that the First Minister attached to her letter. There were two sets. The first set took a more radical view of the amendments that we are considering this evening than the second. It invited the Government in effect to remove the entire system, which Clause 11 is really designed to set up, by placing restrictions on the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament for a temporary period. It is far too late to engage in a debate fundamentally altering what we set out in the amendment before us, particularly having regard to the fact that the Welsh Government have agreed to what is on offer.
The second set is the one from which I have selected my amendments. I have not included all the amendments in that set, because I do not think that it is necessary to do that to put forward the basis of the argument which the Scottish Government seek to advance. I am taking my 10 amendments from that particular group. It may be convenient to start by addressing Amendments 92BA and 92BB, which refer to something called type C, with reference to Sections 30A(1) and 57(4) of the Scotland Act 1998.
Those not familiar with the systems might wonder what type C is all about and why my amendments seek to change type C to type A. The point is that Schedule 7 to the Scotland Act 1998 contains a table listing various provisions in the Scotland Act that are subject to treatment by delegated legislation, setting out in a table various types of procedure that are to be used to subject those bits of delegated legislation to scrutiny. The type C procedure requires that the measure be approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament; in effect, it is describing the affirmative procedure for dealing with statutory instruments, which we are very familiar with. The type A procedure has that too, but the essential difference between them is that type A requires the measure to be laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Scottish Parliament as well, so it seeks the agreement of both the devolved legislature and the United Kingdom Parliament. That is really the central point that runs right through all these amendments.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I will return to the points on the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, but first I endorse what has been said by everyone who has contributed to this debate so far—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope—in expressing gratitude, if that is the right word, to those who have laboured hard to try to move forward and get an agreement on the kind of structure we need for when EU law is, as it were, repatriated. I think there is common ground that the original Clause 11 proposals were not fit for purpose; that has been said on many occasions, and I will not rehearse all the arguments for that now. It is to the credit of the Government that they recognise that and have sought to address it —unfortunately, some valuable time was lost, but nevertheless they have done that in a constructive way. Indeed, I am grateful to both Mark Drakeford of the Welsh Government and Mike Russell of the Scottish Government for their efforts. What has been brought before us represents a considerable advance with much better arrangements for dealing with retained EU law after exit day. It is regrettable that the Scottish Government did not feel able to sign up, notwithstanding the considerable advances that had been made. One or two people have speculated that, if one is not satisfied with what the Government are doing, there may be an argument for voting it down. I pointed out that if you did that, we would be left with Clause 11, which no one seems to think we should give any house room to any longer. However, the progress made is welcome.
I listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said when he moved his amendment. I have been trying to work through it, because something about it was not quite right. It may be just my approach. He quite rightly drew attention to the fact that the “type A” Order in Council procedure is deployed when changes are to be made in the competence of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers, and specifically where there is a change to Schedule 5, which defines what is reserved, and to the restrictions which are currently set out in Schedule 4. Where I possibly have a difficulty is that of course these are not the only two restrictions; the noble and learned Lord himself pointed out that EU law, and for that matter the European Convention on Human Rights, is another restriction, as indeed is territoriality. As he acknowledged, we are dealing with a situation that was never foreseen when the Scotland Act was being drafted and taken through both Houses back in 1998, and that is a situation where, potentially, the restriction on the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament —namely, that it must abide by European Union law —will fly off, and we will be in what might be described as a sui generis situation. The question is whether the procedure which is for modification of Schedule 4 or 5 is appropriate for this one-off situation.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
My Lords, there is a provision in Section 29 of the Scotland Act that covers the thing that worries the noble and learned Lord. Section 29(2)(a) provides that it is outside the competence of the Scottish Government to apply,
“part of the law of a country or territory other than Scotland, or confer or remove functions exercisable otherwise than in or as regards Scotland”.
So this raises a great problem in the area he is talking about.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, if an Act of Parliament gives the Scottish Parliament power to say no and refuse its consent, what I am asking is whether that affects what might happen in other parts of the United Kingdom, so that you would not be able to get the common UK framework which people might otherwise think is necessary and desirable to be able to sustain a single market within these islands. At the moment, we have to some extent a form of competence at a different level—the European level—which is being brought back down to the United Kingdom. I ask these questions because it possibly means that there is a difference between the procedure which has been used if you wish to modify Schedule 5 or change Schedule 4 and one where we are returning the laws which hitherto have been subject to the European Union.
The amendments in my name, which I know are supported by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, are Amendment 89DAF in respect of Scotland, Amendment 89DAJ in respect of Wales and Amendment 89 DAK in respect of Northern Ireland. These amendments would, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, indicated, change the sunset—although it is not really a sunset in this respect—overall from seven years to five years, and they do that by changing the period during which the frameworks must be established from five years to three years. I did not seek to change the two-year period during which these orders have to be made, because that is consistent with other provisions in the Bill.
If my understanding of the situation is correct, if an order is not made that would identify the area for a framework and freeze, the power would automatically flow back to, let us say in this case, Edinburgh. Is it therefore to be expected that all these orders will be made, identifying the areas for freezing to establish common frameworks by the time we leave the European Union? Otherwise, it might appear that, within a period of days, weeks or months between our leaving the European Union and the order being made, there could be divergence between the different parts of the United Kingdom. After the order is made, I suggest that there should be a three-year period for the frameworks to be established rather than a five-year period.
I welcome the fact that time limits have been put in at all—that was a step forward, and the Government have obviously been listening on that. But I have not heard why it should be five years rather than three. That figure may have been plucked out of the air. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is not in his place, but he did have an amendment in Committee in which five was suggested. It may be that that commended itself to the Government because it came from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I would like to hear a rationale as to why five years is to be preferred to three. The noble and learned Lord said that they had agreement from the Welsh Government on this. It would be interesting to hear the Minister’s views on whether the Welsh Government thought that a shorter period of time would be ideal but they were prepared to accept this.
No one disputes the amount of work to be done but we are potentially in a Parkinson’s law situation, where work expands to fill the time available for its completion. If we say five years, it could take up to five years; if we say three years, it would focus the mind and we could possibly do it in three. That is not least because we are dealing with dynamic issues, and if we are to freeze retained EU law in areas where there might be need to update the law—I assume that in these circumstances we would seek to do so by agreement—three years would allow progress to be made faster.
Also in this group is Amendment 90, which again provides a sunset. However, I think it is superseded by what we are debating and so I will not seek to press it. But it is important that the Government give us a rationale as to why they have chosen this period of time.
On a very specific point, Amendment 92AD—on page 19 of the Marshalled List—talks about the reporting that is to be made by Ministers to Parliament:
“After the end of each reporting period, a Minister of the Crown must lay before each House of Parliament a report which … (b) explains how principles … (i) agreed between Her Majesty’s Government and any of the appropriate authorities, and (ii) relating to implementing any arrangements which are to replace any relevant powers or retained EU law restrictions, have been taken into account”.
I rather suspect that these are the principles that were agreed at the Joint Ministerial Committee back in October or November, which have certainly been discussed before. However, it is slightly odd to have reference to “principles” which, as far as I can see, will not actually appear in the Bill. Because we have debated this often enough, we perhaps know what the principles are, or at least know where they can be found, but to anyone coming to this fresh it would not necessarily indicate where these principles are. Will the Minister confirm that these are the principles that are being referred to—the ones agreed at the Joint Ministerial Committee—and explain whether there is any reason that they should not be added as an annexe to the Bill?
In conclusion, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, quoted a letter from the First Minister, which was very measured in its terms—slightly more measured than her writings in last week’s Sunday Herald, in which she said that the Tories would “completely demolish” Scottish devolution. I immediately thought of the many debates we had during the passage of the Scotland Act 2016, in which the Conservative Government extended devolution to cover almost all of income tax and a substantial amount of social security. This could be a very cunning plan, if they assume that the Scottish Government will—I was going to say “screw it up”, but I am not sure whether that is parliamentary—act in such a way that it would end devolution, but I do not think that that was the plan. This Government have shown a very strong commitment—and I say this from the opposition Benches—through the number of things that they have devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Take one example from the 24:
“EU regulations on the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures (CLP); the placing on the market and use of biocidal products (e.g. rodenticides); the export and import of hazardous chemicals; the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals (REACH); and plant protection products (e.g. pesticides)”.
I cannot honestly believe that trying to establish a common framework on that somehow undermines devolution, given that the Government transferred, almost entirely, income tax to the Scottish Parliament. It is a degree of hype that does not serve the debate well.
I rather hope that, as we go forward, we can recognise that what we are trying to do is seek a position so that, when we are no longer part of the European Union, we can in many important areas where it is thought necessary—indeed, the Scottish Government have accepted that in some areas it is necessary—establish a common framework throughout the United Kingdom. There will be further arguments as to the content of these frameworks, but for the moment we need to identify what they are. I would welcome a response to the points that I have made.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, in addressing Amendment 89DA, I will, as did the Minister, cover the broader ground contained in the amendments in the group. Some of my misgivings with the new proposed settlement dealt with in this group will arise in later amendments, 91 and 92, which for some reason have not been coupled with these.
While I welcome the progress that was made in the joint discussions on resolving some of the difficulties between Westminster and the devolved Governments—a welcome that has been expressed by both Mike Russell of the Scottish Government and Mark Drakeford, Wales’ Brexit Minister—I am acutely aware that not all the difficulties were resolved, and I beg the indulgence of the House for a few minutes in setting these issues in their context. I realise that some of my points may seem to be Second Reading ones, but in these amendments—there are 21 in this group alone—we have matters before us which were not in the Bill at Second Reading. I noted in particular the Minister’s invitation in his speech for us to contribute positive ideas in this context.
The adjustments before us tonight are in the context of what many people in Cardiff and Edinburgh, across party lines, regarded as a power grab—to use the term that was used then—by Westminster, in taking unto themselves powers returning from Brussels, including powers in what had previously been regarded as devolved functions such as agriculture. The fact that the Labour Government in Cardiff held out so long before agreeing reflected that fear; as did the fact that members of all parties in the Assembly—including initially Tory and UKIP AMs—supported having a continuity Bill to withstand that perceived power grab. The recent debate in Edinburgh reflected similar cross-party support for its continuity Bill. Rather than just scream “power grab” and hurl abuse at those we see as the authors of our difficulties, I will try to put forward what I see as a considered case and implore, even at this late stage in the Bill’s passage, that noble Lords appreciate the complexity of these issues—some of which have already emerged tonight—and rise to the challenge of finding a positive way forward, if not in this Bill then in some parallel or future legislation.
There have been calls from all sides for greater mutual respect in this process—for a mutuality that is not reflected by one side having a veto but other partners being denied that facility. The difficulty, repeated time after time by those involved in the recent negotiations over several months, is that there seems to be a basic lack of trust between Westminster and the devolved regimes. That is not so much a personal lack of trust but rather a lack of trust in the respective institutions.
Part of the lack of trust felt in Wales arises, perhaps, from different social values and from historic experience. There has been a growing lack of trust in Wales during my lifetime, emanating from difficult issues such as the Tryweryn Valley flooding in the 1960s, the S4C debacle of 1980 and, more recently, the Barnett formula. Devolution was meant to help avoid at least some such difficulties, but power devolved is power retained—a truism of which we have become acutely aware in these recent experiences. The underlying issues, which recent difficulties in the context of Brexit have highlighted, are not going to go away. They will continue to plague us until a proper constitutional settlement is reached. I suggest that the sunset clauses define a timescale within which this has to be sorted out.
In the wake of Brexit, the sorts of issues that will arise, and which will strain our constitutional settlement, perhaps to breaking point, include for Wales state aid for threatened industries like steel, the establishment in place of the CAP of a viable sheep-meat regime, and an acceptance that procurement rules can be used to ensure maximum community benefit from public expenditure. Sheep meat is an excellent example of the different perspectives of Westminster and Cardiff. Westminster tends to see it in terms of consumer needs; the Assembly sees it as the cornerstone of our rural economy and of local communities and their attendant culture. Quite frankly, I do not begin to see such considerations being addressed, and if Westminster insists on having a veto over such policies as agriculture, it will be seen as a constraint on devolved ambitions. There has to be give and take or the whole edifice will crumble under the strain of its own self-inflicted tensions. We are in fact trying to constrain the needs of a quasi-federal system within the straitjacket of a unitary state, and it just will not work; four into one will not go.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, this series of amendments, as the noble and learned Lord has explained, expresses the changes necessary to implement the agreement between Her Majesty’s Government and the Welsh Government. I immediately congratulate the Welsh Government on having gone the extra mile and skilfully reached an understanding. I also thank the government negotiators for their part. There has been a great deal of give and take on both sides. I make my comments generally on the agreement and I have given notice in my discussions with Ministers of some of my interests.
I also queried the five years mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace. Perhaps justification for that can be given. I will not repeat the concerns that I have already expressed, at Second Reading and in Committee, at the insensitive drafting of the original Clause 11. In short, there was a failure—nothing new in Whitehall—to take on board that there is a legally constituted Government in Cardiff as well as in Westminster. I will repeat only that, had the JMCs been working properly and regularly, a great deal of time and energy could have been saved. I welcome the promise of a collaborative process of working out the agreement and the development of frameworks in the JMC in the future. I hope it works much better in the future than it has in the past.
But have the Welsh Government missed a trick? The ghost that is missing—completely absent—from this feast is a reference to financial arrangements. Having spent half my life at the Criminal Bar, the overwhelming maxim in fraud cases with which I was involved was “follow the money”. There is no mention of money here. Agriculture and public procurement constitute a substantial amount of money that comes into Wales from Brussels. My interest in farming, with all my family in west Wales in that industry, is well known.
Agricultural support and agricultural matters constitute at least 10 of the 24 temporarily reserved areas. Public procurement deserves a detailed explanation. Why was it included? Could it mean the privatisation of the NHS in Wales through a Westminster input? These matters have not been explained and they are there in the agreement. I would like the Minister to explain the extent of what public procurement means in this context. Have the Welsh Government given away too much under these specified headings?
Mr Gove has promised the continuation of existing agricultural support until, I believe, 2020. Brussels subventions are generally based on need. In general, the present financial arrangements between Westminster and Cardiff are based on the Barnett formula. When I raised the issue with Mr David Lidington at a recent meeting, there was no reply at all on this issue, but it is crucial. What is the future, how is it envisaged and how will the payments be made to Welsh agriculture? Can I have a clear statement of the progress being made by Mr Gove in his negotiations, and what assurances have been given to the Welsh Government in Cardiff?
The implementation of these amendments will be the key to the effectiveness of the agreement between the Welsh Government and Westminster. Could it be confirmed that it is the intention, or at least the hope, that the number of 24 subjects in the temporary arrangements will be reduced in the light of experience? In my day as Secretary of State—I think after I took over agriculture—I had to sign personally all the regulations in addition to the Minister at Westminster signing them. So there were two Ministers signing each regulation. Heaven forbid that this involves the resurrection of such bureaucracy in the future. The agreement states:
“It is possible that some additional areas … will be reserved”.
What timescale is envisaged for this? It is such an open-ended commitment. I hope the Minister will be able to indicate what is meant by that particular term in the agreement.
In paragraph 3 of the agreement, the words “without prejudice” occur in two contexts. What exactly is the effect of those words in this area? Do the references to the Sewel convention and the words “not normally” mean what they say? There were protracted battles to get confirmation from the Government that there would be legislative consent Motions. That was dragged out of the Government. First there was the prevarication of the Prime Minister, then of the Leader of the House of Commons, and then eventually the Minister here agreed that legislative consent would be given. I hope we can have an explanation of how that will operate, and that there will be no further question about it in the future.
I have said before that once devolution is granted then, short of a Westminster intervention, devolved powers cannot be taken away. I hope, and I specifically wish for confirmation, that the effect of these amendments is that all powers and policy areas will continue to rest with Cardiff unless they are specified to be temporarily held by Westminster.
Lord Lang of Monkton
I say with great respect to the noble Lord that I think it is the turn of this side of the House.
Like other noble Lords, I welcome the progress that has been made in clarifying the clause as it originally appeared and I congratulate my noble friend and the Bill team on further refining the intentions in a way that I hope will make it much clearer at the end of the day. Their patience and diligence has caused them to go many extra miles and they should be warmly thanked for that. But we have now reached a conclusion that all people of reason and good will will surely welcome. I congratulate the Welsh Assembly Administration on their welcome for these changes. Sadly, the Scottish Administration have not done so. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, I regard that as regrettable. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, I truly wish that there were some Scottish nationalist Peers in this House to argue their case, answer our comments and explain their purpose and motives. Just because they are not here, however, that does not absolve us from the obligation to question and challenge their policies and make clear what we think of their motives and the way that they are trying to drive affairs.
Having expressed my views on this matter fairly clearly in Committee, and given the hour and the bulk of amendments that we still have to get through, I propose to cut what I intended to say in half and move on to other matters. So I shall spare the House half of what I originally intended to say.
I welcome the introduction of the new sunset clauses. In Committee, I suggested that the Scottish First Minister was capable of creating a grievance out of a ray of sunshine. On looking at her letter to the Lord Speaker, I see that she does not take too kindly to sunset either. She thinks that the sunset clauses are,
“not something I can recommend to the Scottish Parliament for approval”.
I think this a very good idea and an important improvement. The Constitution Committee has long argued for it, as have many others. I will be interested to see what my noble and learned friend the Minister says in his reply to the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, to shorten the extensive seven-year period to five years, which must have some arguments in its favour.
I particularly want to ask the Minister about the frameworks. I hope he can clarify the position on something that troubles me, here and elsewhere in the Bill: the possible accumulation of new provisions in legislation, arising from the Bill, that may not all evaporate when the sun eventually sets. For example, as I understand it, all frameworks have to be agreed, and legislation arising from them implemented, before exit day—or, at any rate, secured in some specific way if things stray into the transition period. Otherwise, they could accidentally be allowed to be devolved, to the great detriment of the United Kingdom and as a major change to the devolution settlement. Surely that creates a major time pressure in not just this Bill but those that will flow from it over the next few months. The 40-day cooling-off period adds to the pressure, although I welcome it as a measure. Given the propensity of the devolved Administrations to string matters out for as long as they can, can the Minister assure the House that provisions exist to ensure that all the framework-related legislation will meet the timing deadlines?
Secondly, the Bill would include legal commitments to consult the devolved Administrations on certain areas in future. As a matter of constitutional propriety, that should—and would—happen anyway; it already has, extensively, but now it will be enshrined in law. Given the propensity in some quarters to consider that to consult is to concede, and that consent is equal to granting a veto, can the Minister confirm that there is no question of consultation carrying such implications with it, that this dangerous route is closed off, that all the detritus that will be left after the Bill is implemented will have served its purpose because the measure is essentially transitional, and that such things will eventually fall by the wayside? With those queries and comments, I welcome the changes that have been made. I am confident that they are an improvement and I hope they will speed the Bill towards completion.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I also welcome the fact that the Government have moved so far from their original stance and that the Welsh Government have been able to agree to their proposals. It is a tribute to the force of the argument that united all parties in the Welsh Assembly—as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley—against the Government’s initial proposals, as well as to the negotiating skills of Mark Drakeford and his team.
As said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, the purpose of these provisions is to freeze the exercise of powers transferred from Brussels to Cardiff in 24 specific areas of policy, pending the negotiation and agreement of UK frameworks in those areas. There is a gap: what happens to the powers that are repatriated from Brussels between exit day and the making of these regulations? Where do they lie and are they exercisable by anybody? The noble and learned Lord asked for further guidance. I have looked at the amendment; it is not so much insensitive as tortuous. The machinery by which the restriction is implemented on the Welsh Assembly is contained in proposed new subsection (3), which introduces via proposed new subsection (3A) a new Section—109A—into the Government of Wales Act 2006. There are a number of steps to be taken to implement a restriction relating to retained EU law. It is important that both the principle and the mechanism be clear and understandable to the public and lawyers. I must confess, I found it difficult to understand; I am grateful for the help of the Minister, Chloe Smith MP, and her excellent legal adviser in guiding me through these provisions.
Step one of the process is discussions between the Government and the devolved Administrations. This is not in the new section at all. It is set out in paragraph 7a of the memorandum of understanding:
“Building on the ‘Deep Dive’ process, which has been a collaborative effort between the governments, discussions will take place between the governments to seek to agree the scope and content of regulations. This process will continue to report into JMC(EN)”—
that is, EU negotiations. Discussions will take place; that is the first step. The forum for those discussions and the means by which binding decisions are made is a very important topic, raised by Amendment 92A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I reserve further comments until then.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, it is appropriate that I should follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, on the Scottish amendments. The First Minister took the unusual step of sending these amendments to the Lord Speaker. I do not think she expected him to put them before the House.
I narrated in Committee how I had been invited to accept some briefing from the Scottish Government through Michael Russell, with whom I have had very pleasant and genial talks and communications since. I should acknowledge that he kindly said in a statement to the Scottish Parliament that he was grateful for the help that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and I had given, as well as many people in other parts of the House. Relations between us have been extremely good. I have communicated with nobody about it except for Mr Russell and the Lord Advocate. I have not sought to involve anybody else in these communications, except, of course, the Government of the United Kingdom, with whom I was authorised, if you like, to negotiate. I have enjoyed the best possible approach of the Government of the United Kingdom in the Minister responsible and the Bill team. The officials responsible for the negotiations have been extremely helpful. Like many others I am sorry that the Scottish Government have not yet found it possible to agree with the arrangements that have so far been made.
I will take a word or two to explain what I understand the new government Amendment 89DA amounts to. If EU law is removed from the Scotland Act, all EU law comes immediately either to Scotland if it is a purely local country legislation, or, if it covers more than one of the countries of the UK, to the UK Parliament. That happens on Brexit day unless something is done. From what I understand, the proposed new section before us in the amendment will suspend the application of the new arrangements until arrangements are made for the single market—or the internal market—in the United Kingdom. There are, as all of us know, provisions in EU law for that single market. They might require amendment in light of the fact that the EU is no longer the authority for the law, but it is important to keep them in place until it is possible to get them amended in a way that is satisfactory to the United Kingdom, including the devolved Administrations —I include Northern Ireland in that phrase. Therefore, a power is given in the proposed new section to suspend that part of the immediate operation of the Brexit treaty so far as it affects the law.
It is important to see that proposed new subsection (2) says that that kind of restriction does not apply to any modification of EU law so long as it was, immediately before Brexit day, within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. That restricts it to the kind of provision relating to the common market. That is what the amendment proposes in that situation, in the light of the discussions set out in the agreement—the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, spoke of that in a general way that applies to Scotland as well as to Wales. As far as I am concerned that is a reflection of the kind of amendment I proposed in Committee to try to get a better arrangement for negotiation. I am glad to know that such a memorandum of agreement has been accepted by the Welsh Government and, I hope, will be accepted by the Scottish Government.
Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)
My Lords, as many Scottish colleagues in the House are aware, over the last year or so my attendance in this place has been spasmodic and uncertain. I am sorry that I have not been able to make any contribution to this very important Bill until now, but I want to make two points, even at this late stage. The first is that it is the second time in 50 years that the country has had to ponder whether to remain part of the European entity. My mind goes back to 1975 when I was appointed to the committee of the Britain in Europe campaign, headed by Roy Jenkins and Willie Whitelaw. I was very much the junior member, the statutory Liberal stuck on this committee of the great and the good, but it was an amazing experience. We had huge public meetings. I remember one, in particular, in Edinburgh at the Usher Hall, where we must have had 2,000 people. I was simply the warm-up man for the great people who were going to speak; namely, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and Roy Jenkins. The end result was absolutely decisive, unlike this last occasion in 2016. It was two-thirds to one-third in favour of remaining in the then European Economic Community.
Some will argue that we had it easy in those days because there was no Assembly in Wales; Northern Ireland, then as now, was under direct rule; and there was no Parliament in Scotland, so it was a fairly simple, straightforward argument. But I thought then, as I think now, that the whole history of this country in relation to Europe has been one of running after the European bus after it has left the stop. I am very proud of the fact that I belong to a political party that, under the inspiration of my great predecessor, Jo Grimond, in 1955 divided the House of Commons on the issue of whether to take part in the Messina talks. They only got a handful of people in the Lobby on one side against the massed ranks of the Labour and Conservative Parties in the other, but they were right and ever since then we have been running to catch the European bus and we have never got near the driving seat. We were simply passengers going in the direction that it happened to be going.
At least in 1975 we were talking about the future of Europe and the kind of country we wanted to be in Europe, which was not the case in the 2016 referendum, when people were arguing about slogans on the side of a bus, money for the National Health Service, immigration and other issues which were not directly related to the kind of country that we wanted to see. One of the extraordinary results of the 2016 referendum was that the over-65s voted clearly to leave and that is a terrible condemnation of the way that the referendum was run, not just by the Brexiteers but by the remainers. It was not run by professional politicians, unlike in 1975, and the result was that people operated on slogans rather than dealing with the real issues. That is my first point.
Now we are in the reverse position of trying to get off the moving bus. People who try to get off moving buses sometimes have accidents and I think Clause 11 was a major accident, which has now been put right. This is my second point. When the Bill was first published, Clause 11 was greeted in Scotland with total incredulity right across the political spectrum. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, put it very well at the time, that it was as though the drafters of the Bill simply had not realised what had happened in 1998 with the Scotland Act. They assumed that powers from Europe would automatically come to London and that the Government in London would graciously consider whether at some future point they might transfer some of those powers to Edinburgh. That was not just wrong, it was totally the opposite of what the Scotland Act 1998 said: that when powers that were covered for Scotland by the EU were returned, they would go automatically to Edinburgh, not to London. I think the Government got it completely wrong.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, with so many lawyers speaking this evening, it is with some temerity that I stand to add a few comments. I emphasise that there will not be many.
We have an inelegant, lop-sided form of devolution. I will not spend my time analysing the amendments in detail because the lawyers have done that much better than I possibly could, but I will talk about the process. We would not design devolution like this now and I believe these amendments show how poorly designed our devolution is. Until now it has relied on the overarching EU presence to smooth things over—to take the politics out of the politics—and I think it will be difficult in the future.
The amendments are not ideal. Like my noble friend Lord Steel, I would prefer that Clause 11 had not been there but this is an acceptable compromise. The important thing from my perspective is that it is acceptable to the Welsh Government and the Welsh Assembly. As my noble friend Lord Thomas said, the amendments are complex and tortuous. I was relieved to find that he did not understand one particular phrase. I had been too timid to ask what it meant. My concern is that the Government’s attitude towards this has hampered progress. It has taken far longer to reach agreement than it should have done and I believe the grudging attitude of the Government has meant that they have backed themselves into a corner. I recognise the tremendous efforts that have been made in recent days and weeks to deal with this. Nevertheless, while I might be a passionate devolutionist I do not believe that it is honest or straightforward to try to shoe-horn into this Bill an expansion of devolution. I believe that that is the Scottish Government’s current position and I feel that it is necessary to accept these amendments, in the current situation, in order to be straightforward with the people of Wales and Scotland. This is about trying to represent devolution in the situation as it is at the moment. If we are to expand devolution, we need a full debate about it in the future.
I believe that it will be politically tricky in the future to manage devolution. Some very sharp edges are revealed in these amendments between the powers of the UK Government and the devolved Governments. For that reason, my final point is that I would very much like to see the position of the JMC properly and fully established. It should not be the occasional add-on at the Government’s convenience which it currently is.
The Duke of Montrose
My Lords, perhaps I may come in here to congratulate the Minister on how far the Government have got in solving this rather knotty problem. As I go with this, I feel that I should re-emphasise my authority for speaking as a Scot and as a nationalist, rather as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern did. Mine is founded rather more in history than in current experience, in that members of my family have fought and died for Scottish independence on a number of occasions. They were also responsible for sitting on the whole negotiation for the Acts of Union.
I am not sure whether I can fully accept what the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, said about all measures going immediately to Scotland. The provision that I tried to raise when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, was speaking is that what is devolved was devolved under Schedule 5, but Schedule 5 was subject to the earlier parts of the Act. In attempting to modify Section 29, we are in really novel territory because that provision has remained as it was put in the Act in 1998. This is the first time that we have had to take a hatchet to it but the remaining subsection says that the Scottish Parliament will exceed its powers if it tries to legislate for any provision which,
“would form part of the law of a country or territory other than Scotland”.
A great many of the powers that are coming back affect all parts of the United Kingdom and that element has to be sorted out.
It is very good to hear from the Minister how the agreement on dealing with the powers from Brussels has been achieved. However, it sounds—or rather, it sounded at the start—as if the Scottish Government had the same view as the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood: that all law should immediately be devolved to them. This is clearly not going to do. Accompanying a letter from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was a table, which explained the Government’s view at that point on sorting out what was, I think, a total of 167 measures that they had identified in EU legislation as needing to be addressed. Of these, at that point they had no problem with 12 that needed to be reserved and 49 that could be immediately handed over. Can the Minister give us an update on the Government’s view on how many of these laws could immediately be handed over now, as I am sure that they and such things have been subject to negotiation over the Easter period? At the same time, however, we would like to know what legislative process will be put in place to achieve the handing over to the devolved Parliament and Assemblies and how long it is likely to take for those measures.
One or two noble Lords have quoted from the letter of 26 April from the First Minister of Scotland. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has provided a very good outline of how Section 30 will work. I have no doubt that many of us have much to learn about that. I was slightly worried about the First Minister’s second suggestion in her letter, when she talks about,
“the existing constitutional arrangement where changes to devolved competence are to be made under Section 30 … by Order in Council subject to the approval of both the Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament”.
I was led to wonder whether an Order in Council, if passed by Her Majesty, was actually subject to approval by the Scottish Parliament at that stage, whereas I think that the amendments that are now in place are suggesting that approval would be sought and, with any luck, granted before the application was made for the order. If the Scottish Parliament were being offered the chance to turn down such a thing as an Order in Council that had already been made, a constitutional change in this order would need more than a memorandum of understanding, which is how the present system works.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I am comforted by the fact that all of the learned noble Lords who have contributed have acknowledged that this is an extremely complicated situation, one in which there are clearly differences of views. Indeed, the submission that we have had from the Law Society of Scotland took a similar view. However, I also recognise that it is just as well that it is complicated because Clause 11, in its initial format, was brutally simple and wrong. We therefore have got to a position where, after some time, we are now able to debate something that acknowledges the difficulties that Clause 11 originally contained.
Everybody has genuinely welcomed—and should rightly welcome—the progress that has been made, the spirit with which it has been made and the work that has been done to get to a situation which genuinely acknowledges that what we are trying to do is find a decision-making process that carries everybody with us, recognises legitimate interests, but is always left with the elephant in the room, which is, “Where does the buck stop?” Clearly, the buck ultimately stops with the UK because we are a United Kingdom. That, of course, is not entirely acceptable to people who do not believe in the United Kingdom and do not wish it to continue.
It is fair to say that Mike Russell in particular has, on more than one occasion, acknowledged constructive progress and engagement. Indeed, many of us have the view that, left to his own devices, the Scottish Government might have accepted where we are today. The First Minister clearly has not. She has not only sent a letter here to the Lord Speaker, but made fairly—shall we say—lively representations in the Scottish media as to what she thinks is intended. The trouble is that what she said might be legitimately attached to Clause 11 as it was, but it does not legitimately attach to where we are today. That is why the sentiment of this House—and I suspect the sentiment of those people in Scotland who think about it—is that the Scottish Government should be very careful that they do not over-push their position, because Scotland has voted to be in the United Kingdom, is part of the United Kingdom, and recognises that there are shared interests, where we will need to make decisions together. The issue is: how do we find a process that has the trust and confidence and the interests of everybody that can be taken on board?
We might eventually have to talk about a federal constitution; the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, was the only speaker to mention quasi-federalism. We are stumbling towards a federal United Kingdom and we may need to acknowledge that, because federalism would provide a legal framework in which the powers were clearly stated in law and disputes were resolved through a constitutional court.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
I have been following the noble Lord’s very interesting speech very closely. How would he propose to deal with England, which has not been mentioned at all in this very long debate, and its 53 million inhabitants in his federal constitution?
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
Of course I would wish to deal with England in a friendly and constructive manner, but the serious point is that many of us have recognised that ultimately, the United Kingdom is England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They are the entities. Within England there are lots of other entities, but they fall below the state level. I certainly have never had the difficulty other people have had in saying that a federal constitution would include England having its own voice, but that is for another day. All I am saying is that we have muddled along and now have elected mayors, metropolitan authorities, the London Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament—all with different powers, different terms of reference and different mechanisms. Although it is very British to maintain this pluralism and diversity, at some point or other we may need to try to find a slightly more coherent framework in which these matters can be resolved and in which people can know that where there is a dispute, there will an impartial resolution based on law, rather than the heavier political weight overruling the lighter weights.
The fact remains that the noble Lord’s intervention is entirely right: 85% of the population lives in England. England does not constitute 85% of the land area, but if we have a United Kingdom, there is a responsibility on those of us who live elsewhere than in England to acknowledge the weight of England. But if the English want the United Kingdom to continue, it behoves them to understand that they will have to give probably slightly more than they want to accommodate Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, because the price is holding the union together. That is what this debate has fundamentally been about. The argument I always make is that I wonder at what point, if ever, an ultranationalist would regard anything that left residual power with the United Kingdom as acceptable. If your objective is to leave, my only point is that once you have left, you will suddenly find that England is still there and you still have to deal with it. We have had that debate for the past several weeks—about Europe still being there and still having to deal with it. It is the same point.
This debate has been very academic, legalistic and process-driven. In the end, it is about politics and policy and what the Government believe is essentially determined by the UK’s national interest and where they believe that allowing the devolved authorities to block something would be contrary to the UK interest. I say that as somebody who acknowledges that there is sometimes a danger that if Scotland insists on its rights, it will be in the interests not of Scotland but of an ideological commitment to being Scottish, and there are people in Scotland who would rather be poor and independent than well off and sharing resources with the rest of the United Kingdom. We need to know where people are coming from. In a sense, in Scotland people are clearer about that than they were a few years ago. I suggest that support for the United Kingdom, with all its faults—and, by God, there are many and they are very conspicuous at the moment—is significantly stronger than it was a few years ago because people have seen the abyss. We are looking into another abyss right now, and I suspect opinion will change accordingly.
The sunset clause has been mentioned by many people. It would be helpful if the Minister explained why we need five years rather than three. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, made a point about what the sunset clause applies to. I thought it was to the period to which the process would apply, not to the decisions made under that process. That is a point for clarification. From the Government’s point of view, what does the sunset clause apply to?
My noble and learned friend Lord Wallace articulated that for a regulation on, for example, pesticides there would clearly be a UK agreement and it would be perverse for any component part to resist it. I shall give one final example because agriculture features quite strongly in these powers. We are about to leave the European Union. The common agricultural policy has been the basis of support for Scottish farmers. It has been based on an acquis which is focused on smaller, more marginal farmers in the less-favoured areas. The House will be well aware that most of them live in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, although I acknowledge that they also live in the Pennines, the Lake District and other parts of England.
There are debates in the Conservative Party about abandoning subsidies altogether. There is clear concern in the devolved areas about the impact of that. But we can look at it both ways. For example, somebody who sees Scotland as having twice as much, much more marginal agriculture than England, in most cases, would say, “We want to be able to continue to support our agriculture”. But they might also say, “But we think that is something the United Kingdom should help us with, so there should be a UK policy that helps to contribute to it”. The arch-UK nationalist point would be to say, “Well, you can have the right to support your farmers, but you will pay for it out of your own tax base”. I would suggest that questions the validity of the United Kingdom, and I will say that in friendly terms to Michael Gove and his team in due course.
The other area is social security, where we have decided that we want to transfer the power. I find it interesting that the SNP is saying, “No, no, we want more power”, having said, “We can’t quite accept responsibility for social security just yet, because we haven’t got the mechanisms in place”.
I think we have probably reached a settlement which is the centre of gravity of this debate for now. We now need to devise a process in the longer term whereby collective decision-making can be put into a context where all the component parts honestly feel that they are likely to get their voice heard and a fair and equitable decision, with some kind of external judicial review or appeal process as the final backstop, rather than it being based simply on weight of numbers.
Having said that, I think many of us who saw the beginning of this debate when Clause 11 was published are very grateful that we are now at the end of it and can actually see a way forward. I wish it was true of all other aspects of the Bill.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I am not sure that it is permissible for an English Peer to intervene in this debate. We have been going for two hours six minutes on Scotland. Earlier, I think we went on for two hours and 57 minutes on Northern Ireland, which reinforces one of the strongest impressions that these debates on the EU withdrawal Bill have left on me, apart from the tragedy of the withdrawal from the European Union itself: the lopsidedness of our constitution.
The United Kingdom is a state of 63 million people, of whom 53 million are in England. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said earlier that if Scotland were an independent state, it would be larger than 10 EU states. But if England were an independent state, it would be larger than 24 EU states. It would be fourth in the EU and the separation from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would make a difference of only one place in its ranking: it would be behind, rather than in front of Italy.
I only make these points because it is very clear to me that the future constitution of the United Kingdom is going to become increasingly debated and contested, particularly if we leave the European Union and one of its major existing planks is wrenched away. It is also clear to me that one of the reasons why we may be leaving the European Union—there is still a lot of water to pass under this bridge over the next 11 months—is that in England, politicians, particularly in the Conservative Party, which is the dominant political party of England now and historically, have huge difficulty with the notion of sharing power and of different tiers of government to which power is distributed.
By a very painful process, which has been graphically exhibited by all the procedures that have had to be gone through in this Bill—legislative consent Motions and all that—over the last two generations we have managed to reach an accommodation with Scotland and Wales which has enabled devolved government to be introduced. It was extremely painful. It took two lots of referendums, in the case of Scotland and Wales, to do it and we all know the difficulties that there have been in Northern Ireland. In England, we have not even begun seriously to go through that process of sharing power and establishing new tiers of government, with the partial exception of London.
London is very interesting because, like all the metropolitan authorities, it had a long-standing authority, the Greater London Council, which had previously been the London County Council for the best part of a century, but when it diverged from central government policy in the 1980s it was abolished, though it was re-established afterwards. However, that is the only real exception in terms of an authority with significant power in England. Attempts to establish regional assemblies have failed. We are still struggling in the early stages of establishing mayoral authorities but, significantly, the mayoral authorities outside London are partial and weak, and in many parts of the country it is still not even possible to devise what they are.
I simply put down as a marker—it may be that we continue this debate on the next group of amendments—that this is going to be an increasingly big and problematic issue for us. Indeed, if Brexit is accomplished in the next 11 months, because the unitary state of England, which effectively runs the UK, will be even more powerful in its own sphere than it is now because it will not even be sharing any of its sovereignty and power with Brussels, then I suspect this is going to become a still more difficult issue to address in due course. I was very struck by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, mentioning federalism. At some point this issue will have to be grasped, but at the moment no one has the faintest idea how England would be represented and be able to exert its proper role within a federal constitution. I cannot see that happening any time soon.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has an amendment coming up. The noble Lord has played a complete blinder through these debates. I have to say that Wales has been spectacularly well represented—in his person, for a good deal of the time, with a bit of help from one or two other noble Lords. If England had had a voice as powerful as his in this Chamber, I think we might have got a federal UK with a Government and Parliament of England a long time ago. He is doing a spectacularly good job.
I notice—this is very telling—that the noble Lord’s Amendment 92A on the Joint Ministerial Committee makes no reference whatever to England. The JMC is about the Government of the UK and then Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That sums up the huge constitutional deficit we have in the UK at the moment, which is the government and proper representation of England within the UK. I suspect that this issue will increasingly dominate our politics if we leave the EU.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port
My Lords, we come to the conclusion of this debate on Clause 11. Once again, it behoves me, I feel, to express appreciation for the very hard work and the deep diving that has been done by all those who have produced the state that we now find ourselves in. In presenting my concluding remarks, I want to set out one or two reasons why the party I belong to here, the Labour Party, has been more than happy to give its assent to the intergovernmental agreement—that is, the statement that culminates from the various strands of thinking that have gone into the making of it. For someone who is new to political exercise, and who was always taught that politics is the art of the possible, this seems to represent as good an illustration of that as I could wish to find.
I should like to set out why we on these Benches support the government amendments now. There are at least five reasons, and I will be very quick about them because it is a late hour already. As the Welsh Labour Government have recognised, so we want to confirm that this package represents a solution that protects devolution, which is very important, as fully as possible as we grapple with the myriad consequences of Brexit. First, as we see with the amendments in this group, it confirms the inversion of the Clause 11 brought before us by the Government in Committee. The original proposal would have retained all returning EU powers over devolved policy areas at Westminster and allowed only Ministers of the Crown to release them to the devolved institutions when they chose to the extent, and the timescale, that they alone determined. That has been reversed. All powers over devolved policy areas, except those in areas where it is agreed that UK frameworks are needed, will be held in Cardiff and Edinburgh and, at the appropriate time, we hope and trust, in Belfast. When the EU law restriction ends, that means the devolved institutions will be able to exercise them without the current requirements to operate within those EU frameworks. In these areas, devolved competence will increase. This model is therefore wholly compatible with the reserved powers model embedded in the Scotland Act and the Wales Act 2017, whereby everything is devolved except things specifically retained at Westminster.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am most obliged to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I am essentially moving a series of very complex and extensive amendments to the Bill, from Amendment 89DA through to Amendment 92AD, with consequential amendments from Amendment 89DB through to Amendment 117C. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, has moved his own amendments on sunsetting constraints, which I shall address; and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has moved extensive amendments from Amendment 89DAA through to Amendment 92BBA—and, indeed, could have extended his Motion for amendment further than that, I suspect.
At the heart of this lies a simple principle. The EU has developed and maintained a single market for the benefit of the members of the Union. As we exit the EU, we are anxious to maintain a single market for the benefit of the union of the United Kingdom. That is what it comes to. In doing that, we must of course respect the devolution settlement and the position of the devolved entities and parliaments, whether in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland—even though at present it is not sitting as an Executive, which we acknowledge.
I am not going to address the original Clause 11. Noble Lords have expressed their views on that and I do not need to either add to them or necessarily rebut them; we are anxious to move on, and to move this amendment. What are we intent on doing? Well, I would counter the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that this is a power grab. Such rhetoric has been thrown about before, of course, and I do not feel that it would advance matters to engage with that sort of rhetoric. I just remind noble Lords of the terms of the amendment itself. If your Lordships have the Marshalled List of amendments, at page 7—or, for the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, page 8, where it refers to Wales—I simply read out proposed new Clause 30A(1):
“An Act of the Scottish Parliament cannot modify, or confer power by subordinate legislation to modify, retained EU law so far as the modification is of a description specified in regulations made by a Minister of the Crown”.
We know that there is then an elaborate process for the making of those regulations; the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred to the stages that would be gone through in the making of those regulations. Let us then look at subsection (2):
“But subsection (1) does not apply to any modification so far as it would, immediately before exit day, have been within the legislative competence of the Parliament”.
There is no intention here to intrude upon the existing legislative competence of the parliaments. But of course, as powers come back, it is necessary to consider which of those powers have to be maintained in order that we can have a functioning internal market in the United Kingdom. That is the objective and what we seek to do. All powers pass to the devolved Administrations on exit day where no regulations have been made under the proposed amendment. That is the right policy outcome that we have agreed with the Welsh Government and which we still seek to agree— I emphasise still—with the Scottish Government.
That takes us on to the question of how the frameworks have been arrived at. Noble Lords will recollect that, at the Joint Ministerial Committee in October last year, the principles to be applied were agreed by all those attending: the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government. I just add in response to a point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, that where he finds reference in the amendments to “principles”, that refers to the principles that were agreed at that stage and are carried over in the agreements. At the present time, we have identified 24 areas of retained EU law—or what will be retained EU law—where we require frameworks to maintain an internal United Kingdom market. There is debate about some additional areas, which will have to be addressed in due course. We have focused our attention now on 24; it may be fewer at the end of the day, as we talk our way through them, because they apply only to particular areas of policy, not to one general area. We are not talking about agriculture or fisheries, we are talking about discrete aspects of these policy areas that are perceived to be necessary in order to maintain the UK internal market.
Perhaps before I move on, because a number of noble Lords have raised the point, I should address the question of how the regulations will operate. That can be seen from the proposed amendment, and there are two elements to it. Proposed subsection (7) says:
“No regulations may be made under this section after the end of the period of two years beginning with exit day”.
That is the first period of two years. If no regulations have been made in respect of what is perceived to be a necessary framework, no regulations will be made. Proposed subsection (9) says:
“Any regulations under this section which are in force at the end of the period of five years beginning with the time at which they came into force are revoked in their application to any Act of the Scottish Parliament which receives Royal Assent after the end of that period”.
Therefore, in so far as we have not taken that forward, these powers will then revert to the appropriate authority.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
It seems that we have an explanation. Were officials of the Scottish Government involved in that and, if in-depth work has been done, would the Minister help the House by publishing it?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am not in a position to say that such work would be published, because of course it has been on the basis of engagement between officials dealing with this. I do not believe that there is any official report to that effect; it is just a matter of the product of engagement between officials negotiating these matters. Therefore I cannot indicate that we will publish anything in that regard. That is to try to explain the position with regard to the sunset clauses in the regulations. I turn to the question—
Lord Thomas of Gresford
The Minister was about to tell us about the gap my noble friend introduced between exit day and the making of the regulations.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Lord. There may be a situation in which powers go to the devolved Administrations and yet they do not deal with those powers, and it may be considered that upon further consideration there are additional areas where frameworks ought to be based on a UK-wide determination and where regulations would be made. But as the noble Lord himself observed, that regulation-making process would involve us consulting the Scottish and Welsh Governments—and, I hope at that stage, a Northern Ireland Executive—so that we could secure their consent. Only if there was a failure to secure the consent would the matter go forward to this Parliament, with two clear safeguards. First, the Minister of the Crown would have to explain to Parliament why he was seeking to make those regulations without the consent of a devolved Administration, and secondly, there would be an opportunity for the devolved Administration to make their representations to this Parliament as to why they felt it appropriate to withhold their consent. But, as I said, there may be a period after exit when it occurs to parties that it might be appropriate to proceed in that way.
Turning to the question of where we are with the Scottish Government, I begin by saying that the door—
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Before the noble and learned Lord moves on, did I miss it or has he answered the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, on when the sun will rise before it spins across the sky for five years? When does it start? Is it with the particular regulation?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. My understanding is that the five-year period will commence from the point at which the regulation is made.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
So in practice we could be looking quite a long way ahead—it is five plus X.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am tempted to mention here the noble Countess, Lady Mar.
Lord Keen of Elie
But I will not. If the noble Lord wishes me to elaborate on the operation of the sunset clauses, I would be quite content to write to him. At this stage, perhaps I can continue—with the encouragement of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths—to address the question of the Scottish Government.
We are extremely grateful that we have achieved consensus with the Welsh Government and will be able to take this forward with their wholehearted agreement. I will come on to one or two points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, in a moment. As far as we are concerned, the door is still open for the Scottish Government, and we would be anxious to see them come through it so that we can take this forward with the agreement of all the Administrations in the United Kingdom. However, we are where we are at the present time. As regards their proposed amendments, they would, by different routes, result in a situation in which one of the devolved Administrations would effectively hold a veto over the implementation of UK-wide legislation for the maintenance of the UK internal market. That, I respectfully suggest, could not and would not be appropriate.
The exit from the EU raises complex questions with regard to the construction and application of the Scotland Act 1998 because, in 1998, such an exit was never contemplated. Reference has been made to Schedules 4 and 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 and the mechanisms for their amendment, but, as we were reminded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, those are not the only mechanisms that impact upon the competence of the Scottish Parliament. We have to look at the terms of Section 29 of the 1998 Act, which as the noble and learned Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Mackay, observed raises issues with regard to territoriality in respect of the competence of the Scottish Parliament. I do not want to go into the detail of that at present, but one notices that its competence is limited in that respect, and by reference to EU law as well. Therefore, we do not consider that, at the end of the day, we can appropriately accept a situation in which the devolved Administration can exercise a veto over the exercise of power by the United Kingdom Parliament in situations where it is being exercised for the benefit of the UK as a whole. I hope that that goes some way to explaining, without looking at the complexities of the 1998 Act, why we do not feel we are in a position to accept the position expressed by the Scottish Government on this point.
We simply regret the fact that, despite the very significant efforts—I underline “significant”—of the representatives of the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government in producing an outline agreement, it has not been possible to persuade the Scottish Government to join us on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, suggested that this might reflect a lack of trust. As I have observed on previous occasions, this is not an issue of trust. This is an issue of constitutional propriety. Whatever view one takes of the devolved settlement and of where we are with regard to the legislation on that, at the end of the day it is not appropriate to accept that one of the devolved Administrations could effectively exercise a veto over legislation for the benefit of the other members of the Union—namely England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Lord Wigley
I thank the Minister for the detail in which he is responding to this debate and the work that he has undertaken. None the less, there may be issues such as the sheep meat regime, which we have used in a number of circumstances as an example where the differential impact of policies in one area such as Wales may be much greater than the impact in other areas. To that extent, the wishes of the Welsh Government in that context should have a greater weight, in the same way as when Welsh Ministers represent the UK in the Council of Ministers to discuss the sheep meat regime. Is it not possible to fine-tune the Government’s proposals to enable that happen?
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect, I must say that it is our clear intention, which is reflected in the memorandum of understanding in the agreement, that we will engage with the devolved Administrations in the consideration of these framework agreements and their application. Of course, these matters will be taken into account at that stage. But I do not consider it appropriate to bring that sort of granular detail into this Bill, which is designed for a very specific purpose. I hear what the noble Lord says and, clearly, we wish to proceed on the basis of mutual respect and understanding with the other devolved Administrations.
In that context, I underline the point in response to a query raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, speaking, I understand, on behalf of the Scottish Government who are not otherwise represented in this House. There is no question of this process under Clause 11 being somehow the thin end of the wedge so far as the devolution settlement is concerned. The devolution settlement is a reality of our constitutional situation and one that we extended under the 2016 Act, really quite recently, in light of the Smith review. We continue to respect, understand and wish to apply the devolution settlement. But it is a devolution settlement that has to work for everyone in the United Kingdom. I return to the point that it cannot work for everyone in the United Kingdom if one devolved Assembly or Government assume that they have the ability to exercise what amounts to a veto over legislation that is relevant, pertinent and important to the entirety of the United Kingdom.
I move on to address one or two additional points raised by noble Lords in respect of these matters. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, referred to finance and whether the Welsh Government had missed a trick. I do not believe that they did for a moment. Indeed, they put themselves one step ahead by embracing this agreement and the amendment. But the noble and learned Lord raised a point about funding. He is right to point out that our agreement for the Welsh Government does not speak to funding but that is not to say that funding has been forgotten or put to one side. Clearly, it is a matter that will be addressed. We recognise the importance, for example, of the Barnett formula. We understand why there is concern, particularly about agricultural funding under CAP Pillar 1 under the current EU budget that runs to 2020. We have provided a degree of certainty by promising to continue to commit the same total cash funds for farm support across the UK until 2022. At present, the Secretary of State for the Environment is in close discussion with his counterparts in the Welsh and Scottish Governments on exactly how our agricultural systems should work outside of the EU. I stress that that is not a matter for this Bill. This is the Bill that provides for our exit and our exit alone, so I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept that. He raised the question of public procurement—again, these issues are not for this Bill but we are clearly conscious of them and they will have to be addressed.
The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, also raised the question of whether further areas might be the subject of reservation under the freezing provisions of the amendment. We have identified 24 areas for frameworks but a number of other areas that could be the subject of regulations going forward are still subject to discussion. I acknowledge that. Noble Lords may recollect that we published the list of frameworks and included not only the 24 areas I have referred to, but a further 12 where there is ongoing discussion about how they will be addressed and resolved.
I am conscious that I have not answered every question that has been posed. If noble Lords are concerned that I have not addressed a point that still concerns them about Clause 11, as amended, I would be content to receive their queries and write to them. In the event that I write to any noble Lords on this issue or any issue relating to this clause, I will place a copy in the Library. I seek to reassure noble Lords on that point. With that, I will formally move each amendment. I am sorry—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has to reply.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, it is for me to say what will happen to my Amendment 89DAA, which is an amendment to Amendment 89DA, moved by the noble and learned Lord the Minister.
I want to make a few short points. First, I want to pick up on a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that he will not accept the opprobrium that was visited on the Scottish Ministers for the way they conducted themselves in these negotiations. Having had discussions with Michael Russell and the Lord Advocate—like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern—the points I put forward in my introduction to my amendment were sincerely held. Those points were not made to cause trouble. The Lord Advocate in particular gave advice on his reading of the Scotland Act; Michael Russell, for his part, was entirely genuine in his points about principle as well. That should be clearly understood.
When I was in practice at the Scottish Bar, I was junior to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. As he pointed out, if I appeared with him, I would speak first; it would then be his function, as my senior, to speak second. Quite frequently, I found that when he spoke, he refined the kind of argument that I was attempting to put forward. It took on a slightly different—rather more attractive, perhaps—appearance after he had refined it. As he pointed out in his speech, the points that I made about the construction of Section 30 and the other sections do not really apply in the situation with which we are dealing here. I was grateful for his remark that the situation is unique and not seeking in any way to undermine the devolution settlement. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for making the same point that there is no question of this being the thin end of the wedge or in any way seeking to undermine the devolution settlement, to which he wishes to adhere. These remarks should help a lot in reassuring those in Scotland on how they should approach the continuing discussions. I was glad to hear from the Minister that the door is still open; I think that the Scottish point of view still regards the door as open too.
Perhaps this debate has refined things and shown that the purist argument—that of principle—does not really apply here. This is not about trying to construct the market that we were trying to construct in 1998, which was done by separating out the bits that mattered for that market into Schedule 5 so that they were clearly identified. We are dealing with a different, rather more subtle, situation in trying, as the Minister said, to create a functioning internal market with what has come back to us from Europe. That requires a rather more subtle approach that is not really dealt with in the Scotland Act, for understandable reasons. That being so, I hope very much that the way forward will be pointed by our discussion this evening. Without any further ado, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I intervene to raise a point that I have spoken to the clerk about. Noble Lords might recollect that earlier in the evening I gave a passing imitation of a rabbit in headlights. The reason for that was that it appeared to me that the amendments in group three had been moved and agreed without me speaking to them—which is absolutely ideal, as far as I am concerned. They are highly technical amendments, but I felt I should mention that to the House, lest any noble Lord wishes me to speak to them. As I said, they have been agreed, but noble Lords did not have an opportunity to hear my dulcet tones on the subject.
Lord Callanan
“(4A) Part 1A of Schedule 3 (which imposes reporting obligations on a Minister of the Crown in recognition of the fact that the powers to make regulations conferred by subsections (1) to (3C) and Part 1 of Schedule 3, and any restrictions arising by virtue of them, are intended to be temporary) has effect.(4B) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—(a) repeal any of the following provisions—(i) section 30A or 57(4) to (15) of the Scotland Act 1998,(ii) section 80(8) to (8L) or 109A of the Government of Wales Act 2006, or(iii) section 6A or 24(3) to (15) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, or(b) modify any enactment in consequence of any such repeal.(4C) Until all of the provisions mentioned in subsection (4B)(a) have been repealed, a Minister of the Crown must, after the end of each review period, consider whether it is appropriate—(a) to repeal each of those provisions so far as it has not been repealed, or (b) to revoke any regulations made under any of those provisions so far as they have not been revoked.(4D) In considering whether to exercise the power to make regulations under subsection (4B), a Minister of the Crown must have regard (among other things) to—(a) the fact that the powers to make regulations conferred by the provisions mentioned in subsection (4B)(a), and any restrictions arising by virtue of them, are intended to be temporary and, where appropriate, replaced with other arrangements, and(b) any progress which has been made in implementing those other arrangements.”
Lord Callanan
“(6) In this section— “arrangement” means any enactment or other arrangement (whether or not legally enforceable);“review period” means—(a) the period of three months beginning with the day on which subsection (4C) comes into force, and(b) after that, each successive period of three months.”
Lord Wigley
“( ) This section may not come into effect until—(a) the Scottish Parliament has passed a resolution approving the provisions in subsection (1);(b) the National Assembly for Wales has passed a resolution approving the provisions in subsection (2); and(c) the Northern Ireland Assembly has passed a resolution approving the provisions in subsection (3).”
Lord Wigley
My Lords, Amendment 91 stands in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Steel of Aikwood, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. It would require the consent of each of the devolved parliaments to be obtained before Clause 11 comes into effect.
Amendments 107 and 108, standing in my name only, provide that none of this Act, except for this clause, would come into force until the Prime Minister was satisfied that resolutions signifying consent have been passed by the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and, unless direct rule is in place, the Northern Ireland Assembly. Both amendments deal in different ways with the element of consent relating to the Act. Both would enshrine the Sewel convention in law. The Sewel convention dictates that the UK Government shall not normally legislate in areas of devolved competence without consent. Consent is sought through a legislative consent Motion. Very rarely do the devolved Parliaments withhold consent. It has happened I believe—I can be corrected if I am wrong on this—only once in Scotland and once in Northern Ireland since 1999. Ironically, it has been used seven times by the National Assembly for Wales. I am not quite sure what that tells us.
The point I am underlining is that withholding legislative consent is not used lightly. It is treated with caution and respect. It is the only constitutional tool available to the devolved Parliaments to challenge the balance of power across the British Isles. However, we know from the Miller case on the Article 50 Bill that the Sewel convention is merely that: it is a convention. The UK Government are wholly within their rights to override any decision made by the devolved Parliaments in relation to this Bill or any other Bill deemed within devolved competence.
I have spoken at length on previous occasions about the need for the Sewel convention to be enshrined in law in relation to this Bill. This is the most wide-ranging constitutional Bill since the European Communities Act 1972. I have spoken at length about the need for the devolved Parliaments formally to consent to Clause 11—I shall not repeat those arguments. I will, however, point to the most recent developments whereby the Welsh Labour Government have implied consent to the Bill, having accepted the amendment to Clause 11 laid by the Government, although time will tell whether that will carry through the Assembly. Those same amendments are insufficient for the Scottish Government and every opposition party in Scotland except the Scottish Conservative Party. The main sticking point for these parties is consent.
The UK Government have tried to devise a new meaning for consent in relation to the functions of Clause 11. They seem quite deliberately to be confusing “consent” with a consent decision. There is a difference, but I think that everybody who reads about this matter in the generality may not be aware of it. The UK Government can impose restrictions on the National Assembly for Wales’s competence as long as a consent decision has been made—not that consent has been obtained. The substance or result of that consent decision is immaterial. The UK Government can steam ahead even if a consent decision is not made. This, quite frankly, is a farce. I believe that there will be a lot of public discussion about that as matters move forward.
We have reached a point in history whereby the current constitutional arrangements, the political conventions underpinning the UK’s intragovernmental relations, are under pressure and in danger of unravelling. In the way that the UK Government are handling consent, they are making it a concept whose understanding among the public is in some doubt and it is causing severe mistrust across the four nations. I urge the UK Government to act, to listen to the Scottish Government and to come to an agreement on consent and a new UK constitution.
Amendment 91 should be grasped by the House today and the Government should accept it to resolve the position in Scotland and to get out of the unholy mess in which they have landed in Wales. I beg to move.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, I have put my name down in support of the amendment. The arguments which led me to do that are those which I set out when I was moving my amendment earlier this evening, so I need not take up the time of the House in repeating them. What I said earlier is the full explanation as to why I put my name down.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his amendments, which are pertinent given the different positions of the Scottish and Welsh Governments and the imminent timing of votes in their legislatures that will address consent.
The Government have been clear that they wish to make the positive case for consent for this Bill. We have not just talked about our commitment to making that case but have shown it. We have engaged in extensive discussions with the devolved Administrations and have now introduced the amendment to Clause 11 that we have just discussed at some length to try to meet the expectations of the devolved legislatures. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, will accept that our commitment to the legislative consent process is reflected in the agreement that we struck with the Welsh Government last week.
This is the legislative consent process in action. We have put forward policy objectives; we have worked through the differences, and we have found an appropriate compromise. As a result, the Welsh Government have recommended that the National Assembly for Wales grant legislative consent to the Bill when it votes on this matter, I believe, on 15 May. The Welsh Government agree that our amendments now strike the right balance between providing legal certainty and maximising assurances to the devolved legislatures on how we will jointly manage the process of powers returning from the EU in otherwise devolved areas. Of course we are disappointed that we have not been able to reach the same agreement with the Scottish Government, but this, I suggest, is not for want of trying. I stress again that time remains for the Scottish Government to join this agreement, so that we can all demonstrate that we have done what we consider to be the responsible thing in this context.
Lord Wigley
I ask for one point of clarification from the Minister. Does he not accept that there is a real danger of confusion in the public mind between allowing a consent order and actually getting consent? In other words, the process can be one where consent is given, is not given or is refused, but whichever of those three outcomes it is, the process can still go on for a parliamentary resolution here by order; and we know that orders, in the House of Commons and here, go through on the nod most of the time. Is that not a deception, giving the impression that there is a consent mechanism when, in fact, it is a pretty meaningless one?
Lord Keen of Elie
I simply do not accept the noble Lord’s characterisation of the matter. It is clearly the case that where consent, for example, was sought and not obtained, it would be necessary for the Minister of the Crown to address that, very clearly and specifically. There would be the opportunity, as there always is, for the devolved Administration to make their own views clear as to why they had declined consent. I do not believe that this is in any sense deceptive, misleading or a mirage. These are constitutional requirements that are adhered to and that will be adhered to. It would not be appropriate to introduce the sort of amendment moved by the noble Lord that would, in effect, tie the hands of this sovereign Parliament, so far as this exit process is concerned. Whatever view one might take about the merits of exit, that is neither here nor there. This is a constitutional principle with regard to the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom when it comes to legislate for the benefit of the entirety of the United Kingdom. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, and indicate that I would not expect to return to this matter at Third Reading.
Lord Wigley
I am very grateful to the Minister. I have heard that form of words from his colleagues in the past. Clearly, this is a matter on which there may be a difference of opinion. I realise the need for there to be coherence on a UK scale but there are matters which have a specific effect in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland where their interests need to be taken into account. Clearly, we are not going to make progress on this tonight. Therefore, on the basis of the discussion we have had, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wigley
“Joint Ministerial Committee
(1) The Joint Ministerial Committee is to consist of —(a) one member appointed by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; (b) one member appointed by the First Minister of Scotland;(c) one member appointed by the First Minister of Wales; and(d) one member appointed by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland,or, if it is not possible to appoint four members, the member appointed by the Prime Minister under paragraph (a) and two members appointed under paragraphs (b) to (d).(2) The persons referred to in subsection (1) may—(a) appoint themselves to the Joint Ministerial Committee; and(b) appoint different members for different meetings of the Committee.(3) The Joint Ministerial Committee must be chaired by the member appointed by the Prime Minister.(4) Where there is a proposal from any member of the Joint Ministerial Committee for a decision to be made on any question, that proposal must be approved only where—(a) in the case of there being four appointed members, there is an affirmative vote by at least three of its members;(b) in the case of there being three appointed members, there is an affirmative vote by at least two of its members.(5) No recommendation is to be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order in Council under the provisions of section 11 of this Act without its having been first approved by the Joint Ministerial Committee.(6) No UK framework providing for agreed action on matters which were, on the day immediately preceding exit day, devolved to Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland may take effect without its having been first approved by the Joint Ministerial Committee.(7) In this section, “the Joint Ministerial Committee” means the body set up in accordance with Supplementary Agreement A of the Memorandum of Understanding on Devolution between Her Majesty’s Government, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive Committee.”
Lord Wigley
The main purpose of Amendment 92A is to strengthen the position of the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations in relation to the creation of UK frameworks.
The amendment is by no means complete and may lack some technical finesse, which the Government could put right in the other place if they were to accept this proposal. It does, however, propose practical ways around the devolution deadlock. We must remember that, at least in the Scottish situation, the court has yet to come to its conclusion, and if it finds in favour of the Scottish Government, the Scottish continuity Bill could remain a block to progress on implementing this measure. The amendment proposes an alternative to the restrictions placed on the devolved Parliaments through Clause 11 and by the Government’s amendments to Clause 11. It proposes that we go beyond mere consultation rights for the devolved nations. I accept that this Bill might well not be the legislative vehicle we would choose to use to formalise such an important intergovernmental mechanism in law, but I want to draw the Government’s attention to the alternatives to Clause 11 as amended.
The JMC already brings together representatives of the Governments of the United Kingdom, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to discuss matters of common interest. However, at present the JMC has no power. It has no legislative underpinning. It is simply a discussion forum, for consultation and voluntary co-ordination. I remind noble Lords that no minutes are taken. It is an essentially informal arrangement. It meets on an ad hoc basis. There was no meeting last year for over six months. In the context of the European negotiations, that is totally inadequate.
As an alternative to Clause 11 to decide on areas which will require UK frameworks—a facility which the Government may well find they need—as things stand, the JMC is not fit for purpose. Strengthened and bolstered, however, it could provide a way of allaying the critics of Clause 11. It could provide a way of collaboratively deciding on areas that will require temporary legislative restrictions on devolved competences, including on England, which is not currently the case in the Bill—an omission which has already rung some alarm bells in Cardiff and Edinburgh.
This is not a new phenomenon. Dr Jo Hunt and Rachel Minto of the Wales Governance Centre have written extensively about the need for robust intergovernmental structures if the UK constitution is to operate effectively into the future. To achieve this, the JMC should be put on a statutory basis, with clear powers, membership and voting rights. This would replace the current—typically British—constitutional arrangement based on gradually evolving informal understandings.
The JMC should require majority voting. Having four members—appointed by the UK Government, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—would imply the need for an affirmative vote of three members, or two out of three if the Northern Ireland Executive is suspended, or if one abstains. This in turn implies that the UK Government would need to secure support from most of the devolved authorities in order to achieve a decision in favour of their proposals. They would no longer be able simply to consult and then overrule them. The JMC would then effectively become a council of Ministers for the UK’s own internal market.
Some colleagues may have noticed that when the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee visited Holyrood on Monday, Richard Leonard, leader of the Scottish Labour Party, William Rennie, leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, and the Green co-convener, Patrick Harvie, all expressed their objection to Clause 11 as it stands. William Rennie in fact alluded to needing a level playing field across the UK for the withdrawal Bill. He said:
“Westminster having the final say isn’t sufficient. There needs to be some kind of mechanism, perhaps around qualified majority voting of some sort”.
This concept is gaining ground and it might just result in consent.
This is a tool the Government need to get out of the predicament in which they find themselves. Even if it cannot be included in the Bill now, I hope the Government will look seriously at finding a greater role for the JMC and at some way of giving it a legislative underpinning. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, in my own profession when you make a mistake you stop, reflect and rectify. Fortunately, we have seen that happen with Clause 11 and I take this opportunity, having not spoken previously, to commend all players who have renegotiated the amendments that we have agreed to this evening. I pay particular tribute not only to Mark Drakeford but to Carwyn Jones, who has had a role in all this—much more quietly than Mark Drakeford, who has fronted it—and all the civil servants who have supported this process. I have certainly appreciated the interventions from the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, who has kept me up to date with some of the progress.
This amendment, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, takes us to the next stage because when you are in a completely new situation, you have to do the best you can. You have to learn from past mistakes and find a new way forward. We are facing a completely new, evolving situation. There really need to be new working arrangements between the devolved nations and Westminster, and they have to be on a much more level playing field than before. I can see that the way this amendment has been drafted is not for the Bill and I would not expect the Government to accept it. However, I hope that the principle of having a different framework whereby these discussions happen will be accepted and taken forwards. I also hope that, however the terms of reference for this group are written, they will be open for discussion and come out of discussion with all the nations involved, rather than being centrally generated and offered as something to be signed up to. There really is a need for ownership going forwards.
On rectifying what has happened as we enter the new partnership, which the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, spoke about previously, I thought it was telling that in the previous debate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, mentioned money. One way the Government might like to help re-establish some of the working practices is to build on the debate we had the other day about the Swansea barrage, consider asking the National Assembly for Wales what it would like to do, and help it achieve whatever it feels is best for jobs and the future energy supply of Wales.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and I agree with everything that she said. In the previous debate, I quoted paragraph 7.a. of the Memorandum on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and the Establishment of Common Frameworks. I will repeat it because it is worth repeating. It says:
“Building on the ‘Deep Dive’ process, which has been a collaborative effort between the governments, discussions will take place between the governments to seek to agree the scope and content of regulations. This process will continue to report”,
into the JMC on EU Negotiations. This amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, allows us to discuss the very important issue of how those discussions are to take place, what decisions are to be taken and how they are to be taken over the formation of the UK framework agreements.
Lord Adonis
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, on trying to rewrite the entire British constitution at 10 pm in one amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. In his defence, the Government are rewriting the rest of the British constitution in the rest of the Bill, and we have frequently been debating that after midnight, so I do not think that the Government can complain in principle about what he is seeking to achieve.
I shall make two observations on the noble Lord’s amendment and then I will have a question for the Minister. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, will be replying. That is part of the reason that I got to my feet, as I particularly want to ask him about consultation with local authorities in England.
My first point is that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley—he was quite open about it—is seeking effectively to introduce a formal federal constitution. Let us be clear: if this became law, effectively the devolved Administrations would have a veto over the United Kingdom Government in certain circumstances, depending on how the weighted voting worked. If that happened, this body would become a new second Chamber. We would then have two second Chambers: this body, which would act as one court of debate and veto over the United Kingdom Government; and the House of Lords as well. If we go down that route, which we may well have to go down eventually as we debate House of Lords reform and all the consequentials of Brexit, then we probably will at some stage end up with a proper federal second Chamber and a substantial rewriting of the United Kingdom constitution. I simply note that that is what the noble Lord is seeking to do, taking a significant step forward from the existing JMC.
The second point I am bound to make is that the word “England” does not appear in about 40 lines of proposed legislative change. Even though I am repeating this point at 10.23 pm, it is quite an important one. Some 53 million of the 63 million people who live in this state live in England. The one debate we have had in the entire proceedings on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill regarding how the government of England will be improved as a result of this Bill was on an amendment moved, I seem to recollect, by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on what the consultation and institutional procedures are going to be after we withdraw from the Committee of the Regions. I seem to remember the Minister saying that he was going to meet local authority representatives in England soon and that he did not rule out—I pressed him on it and got a slightly vague answer, but he was trying to engage—establishing some institutional mechanisms for the formal consultation of local authorities in England to replace the arrangements in respect of the Committee of the Regions, which is of particular importance to the regions of England because of regional development policies hereafter, when the Regional Development Fund ceases to apply.
I see the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, has her folder open. Is the noble Lord replying? He is. I wonder whether he could update us on how his consultations are going with local authorities in England. In particular, is it the Government’s intention to introduce some formal machinery for developing consultation with local authorities in England?
Lord Wigley
To clarify, the amendment, as the noble Lord will no doubt have noticed, refers to,
“one member appointed by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom”.
I imagine that would be someone representing England, the point being that there is no Prime Minister of England equivalent to the First Minister of Scotland, the First Minister of Wales and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, as specified in the amendment.
Lord Adonis
The noble Lord—I would like to call him my noble friend—gives the game away. He says that he imagines that this person might represent an English constituency. In fact, he might or might not. If the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, were Prime Minister, he comes, I understand, from Aberystwyth. He would then be the representative of the UK Government. In our lifetime, I served under one Scottish Prime Minister. I have never served under a Welsh Prime Minister, but there have been one or two Welsh candidates for that post in the past.
In England we are not very good at this rigorous constitutional thinking. Let us be clear, even if it were an English Member of Parliament or Minister, their role would be to represent the Government of the United Kingdom; it would not be their role to represent England, separate from the Government of the United Kingdom.
Finally, when the noble Lord produces his full draft of a new written constitution for the United Kingdom with his proposal for a federal senate, which I assume will be his next amendment on Third Reading, could he please suggest some arrangements for how England will play a part in his federal arrangements?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, we have a lot of sympathy for the amendment. We agree with its aims in so far as they put the JMC on a statutory basis. The formula is not one for this House to write, but undoubtedly the objective of putting that on a statutory basis is one that we support.
I think there were different Ministers at the time of the Article 50 Bill, but we had an amendment at that stage that would have required the Government to set out the relationship with the devolved authorities, particularly over Brexit, obviously. We included at that stage formalising the Joint Ministerial Committee and I think it remains a good idea. At Second Reading, or certainly since, we raised the issue in the context of the Bill.
So we are very sympathetic to the objective of Amendment 92A. Our reservation is about its form. I do not think it is in the right form, but that is not for us to do. Even more importantly, this goes well beyond the Brexit Bill and it needs looking at. We urge the Government to look seriously at the objective of Amendment 92A and to discuss it with the devolved Administrations. If this or something similar found favour and everyone thought it would be a good idea to put it on to a statutory basis, I am sure this side of the House would be very amenable to making such a movement possible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate; we all agree it is very late in the evening for such an important issue. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for bringing this to the attention of the House and putting his case very crisply. We have already debated possible structures for the UK Government and devolved Administrations to come together in consideration of common frameworks. I do not want to simply repeat those arguments, particularly at this time of the evening, so I will not.
It is important to note that the Government are currently reviewing the existing intergovernmental structures with the devolved Administrations, as agreed by the Prime Minister and First Ministers at the meeting of the JMC plenary on 14 March. It is important that the review closely aligns with our work on future common frameworks. That undertaking was given then, and it is something that we are looking at.
I note a certain irony in the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, that, had this been on the statute book, I presume he would have been championing our agreement with the Welsh Government and saying that it was effective because two Administrations out of the three had agreed to it. Nevertheless, despite that very handy point, I must say that I cannot accept what he is arguing for—not for that reason, obviously, but for others.
We have shown that we are flexible in responding to the devolved Administrations’ requests or concerns regarding the operation of the current structures, including on the management of meetings and the content of discussions. We have all benefited from that process. Why would we not want that to be the case? I believe the pragmatism and flexible approach that we have seen, particularly from the Welsh Government—but, yes, extending certainly to Mike Russell’s approach—is something that has benefited us all. However, we do not agree that the solution would be for intergovernmental relations to be placed on a statutory footing, as suggested by the noble Lord, particularly in this amendment. In all fairness, I think he anticipated this point in saying that he realised that it would not perhaps find total favour with the Government, a point on which he is correct.
That said, we hear much of the failures of our intergovernmental structure and no doubt it could be improved, but we do ourselves a disservice if we do not also recognise its successes. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, very much for her kind comments about the Government’s approach and about me particularly; I am very grateful for that. She noted that the JMC (EN) has been very effective. It now meets frequently under the chairmanship of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who has also continued to meet his counterparts frequently between meetings. Indeed, the committee has met today and has made some progress.
We should note that it is through the effective working of the committee that we have been able to make the progress that we have on Clause 11, and it is through this that we have reached agreement with the Welsh Government on the proposals before noble Lords today. Like other noble Lords, I place on record our thanks and our respect for Mark Drakeford, a competent Minister in the Welsh Assembly—not someone with whom I would agree politically on many occasions but he has shown a flexible, pragmatic and collaborative approach. This is grown-up politics in devolution days, and that is the way to move things forward. There was evidence of some of that approach in Scotland as well, to be fair, but ultimately, as we have noted, the JMC is not a decision-making forum. Its role is just to make an agreement that then goes elsewhere—for understandable reasons. That is something else on which I disagree with the noble Lord; I do not think it can be a decision-making body. I can see the use of bringing people together, which we are doing. It is flexible, and that is the way our constitution operates.
I note the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. Some I would agree with, but I cannot really think of anything more chilling than putting it on an inflexible statutory basis, other than the earlier prospect when the noble Lord talked about his appearance in Aberdeenshire in a kilt. That was probably somewhere along the same lines—somewhat chilling. On a serious note, though, I have to say that although I agree it is good to have bodies where we can discuss these issues, flexibility, as this has demonstrated, is of great use.
We must, as we are doing, foster a culture of collaboration, close working and, yes, compromise, which we have seen in the discussions. That is the way to move things forward in the sort of structure we have in our country, in the make-up of the four nations.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that England is the dog that does not bark—or has not so far. I agree with him on the absence of the word “England” in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. Obviously, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who, as we know with Gordon Brown, does not need to represent an English constituency, is Prime Minister of the whole of the United Kingdom. That perhaps exhibits the difference between me and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for whom I have the greatest respect. He perhaps let the cat out of the bag on that point: he or she is not Prime Minister of England but of the whole state.
That said, some important points that we will want to consider have been made this evening. I noted with seriousness the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and have sympathy with the need for some structure that underpins the union. As unionists, we would applaud that. I have always said that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is at the acceptable end of Plaid Cymru—he sees the sense of the workings of the union—and I thank him for his input, which I know is well made.
I turn to some points made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—off piste but I will happily pick them up—about the Committee of the Regions. Perhaps other noble Lords will confirm this, but I believe that I have written to noble Lords about a meeting that not I but my honourable friend in the other place, Rishi Sunak, had with leaders of local government. That meeting has taken place. If noble Lords have not received the letter yet, it means that it has not yet gone out, but it is certainly in the system. It indicates that it was a positive meeting and that there would be more.
Here we go into the devolved structures that are now very much part of our system. The noble Lord will appreciate that on devolved matters, the Welsh, Scottish and—when that part of the country is up and running with power-sharing—Northern Ireland local government leaders will be in discussion with the devolved Administrations. That is of course a matter for them to take forward. We are taking it forward with all local government leaders, but, in relation to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, only on those matters that are reserved to us. It was a positive meeting—the letter will outline the progress made—but there are to be more meetings. I cannot remember saying anything other than that, and that is all I am able to convey at this stage.
With that, at this very late hour, I thank noble Lords for their contributions on serious issues. I will ensure that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who made some very technical but, I am sure, valid points, gets a full response. I respectfully ask the noble Lord, who is my noble friend in personal terms, to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wigley
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. I take the opportunity to thank him for—
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for giving way. One thing I forgot to say, which I know he will be anticipating, is that we will not be coming back to this issue. I know that he was probably coming on to the fact that I had not said that, so let me say now that we will not be coming back to this at Third Reading, so if he wishes to press the issue, he should do so now.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, seeing the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, sitting next to the noble Lord, I took that as read at this stage of the debate.
I wanted to put on record my appreciation and thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, for the consultation and the opportunity to discuss various aspects of the Bill. I hope that we can take advantage of that in future. I also thank everyone who has taken part in the debate—the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who has stood up so effectively for England, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter—for their contributions.
I have just a couple of quick points. Of course, there needs to be thought about how England comes into any such structure, but the same argument exists now as it probably did 100 years ago: whether it is England as a whole or England on a regional basis, and how that interplays when you have national units elsewhere. That needs to be thought through.
I will obviously withdraw the amendment in a moment, but I hope that out of this debate, two avenues of thought can proceed on the post-Brexit situation. One is, what will become the equivalent of the Council of Ministers when we have a multinational United Kingdom as a single market? Thought needs to be given to that, and it may be something that can be pursued outside.
Secondly, if we cannot put the JMC on a legislative basis, how can we at least make it much more formal and therefore more effective, so that it plays the role it has the potential to play? As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, outlined, it has not always done so as effectively as it should. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, might be able to sow the seeds of thinking on that in other parts of government, and that we do not allow the water just to run into the sand from this short debate tonight. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Callanan
(5) But subsection (4) does not apply—(a) so far as the modification would be within the legislative competence of the Parliament if it were included in an Act of the Scottish Parliament, or(b) to the making of regulations under Schedule 2 or 4 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.(6) A Minister of the Crown must not lay for approval before each House of the Parliament of the United Kingdom a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (4) unless— (a) the Scottish Parliament has made a consent decision in relation to the laying of the draft, or(b) the 40 day period has ended without the Parliament having made such a decision.(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) a consent decision is—(a) a decision to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft,(b) a decision not to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft, or (c) a decision to agree a motion refusing to consent to the laying of the draft;and a consent decision is made when the Parliament first makes a decision falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (c) (whether or not it subsequently makes another such decision).(8) A Minister of the Crown who is proposing to lay a draft as mentioned in subsection (6) must—(a) provide a copy of the draft to the Scottish Ministers, and(b) inform the Presiding Officer that a copy has been so provided.(9) See also paragraph 6 of Schedule 7 (duty to make explanatory statement about regulations under subsection (4) including a duty to explain any decision to lay a draft without the consent of the Parliament).(10) No regulations may be made under subsection (4) after the end of the period of two years beginning with exit day. (11) Subsection (10) does not affect the continuation in force of regulations made under subsection (4) at or before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (10).(12) Any regulations under subsection (4) which are in force at the end of the period of five years beginning with the time at which they came into force are revoked in their application to the making, confirming or approving of subordinate legislation after the end of that period.(13) Subsections (6) to (11) do not apply in relation to regulations which only relate to a revocation of a specification.(14) The restriction in subsection (4) is in addition to any restriction in section (Status of retained EU law) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 or elsewhere on the power of a member of the Scottish Government to make, confirm or approve any subordinate legislation so far as the legislation modifies retained EU law.(15) In this section—“the 40 day period” means the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which a copy of the draft instrument is provided to the Scottish Ministers,and, in calculating that period, no account is to be taken of any time during which the Parliament is dissolved or during which it is in recess for more than four days.””
Lord Callanan
(8A) But subsection (8) does not apply— (a) so far as the modification would be within the Assembly’s legislative competence if it were included in an Act of the Assembly, or(b) to the making of regulations under Schedule 2 or 4 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.(8B) No regulations are to be made under subsection (8) unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(8C) A Minister of the Crown must not lay a draft as mentioned in subsection (8B) unless—(a) the Assembly has made a consent decision in relation to the laying of the draft, or(b) the 40 day period has ended without the Assembly having made such a decision.(8D) For the purposes of subsection (8C) a consent decision is—(a) a decision to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft,(b) a decision not to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft, or(c) a decision to agree a motion refusing to consent to the laying of the draft;and a consent decision is made when the Assembly first makes a decision falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (c) (whether or not it subsequently makes another such decision).(8E) In subsection (8C)— “the 40 day period” means the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which a copy of the draft instrument is provided to the Welsh Ministers,and, in calculating that period, no account is to be taken of any time during which the Assembly is dissolved or during which it is in recess for more than four days.(8F) A Minister of the Crown who is proposing to lay a draft as mentioned in subsection (8B) must—(a) provide a copy of the draft to the Welsh Ministers, and(b) inform the Presiding Officer that a copy has been so provided.(8G) See also section 157ZA (duty to make explanatory statement about regulations under subsection (8) including a duty to explain any decision to lay a draft without the consent of the Assembly).(8H) No regulations may be made under subsection (8) after the end of the period of two years beginning with exit day.(8I) Subsection (8H) does not affect the continuation in force of regulations made under subsection (8) at or before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (8H).(8J) Any regulations under subsection (8) which are in force at the end of the period of five years beginning with the time at which they came into force are revoked in their application to the making, confirming or approving of subordinate legislation after the end of that period.(8K) Subsections (8C) to (8I) do not apply in relation to regulations which only relate to a revocation of a specification.(8L) The restriction in subsection (8) is in addition to any restriction in section (Status of retained EU law) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 or elsewhere on the power of the Welsh Ministers to make, confirm or approve any subordinate legislation so far as the legislation modifies retained EU law.””
(4) But subsection (3) does not apply— (a) so far as the modification would be within the legislative competence of the Assembly if it were included in an Act of the Assembly, or(b) to the making of regulations under Schedule 2 or 4 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.(5) A Minister of the Crown must not lay for approval before each House of the Parliament a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3) unless—(a) the Assembly has made a consent decision in relation to the laying of the draft, or(b) the 40 day period has ended without the Assembly having made such a decision.(6) For the purposes of subsection (5) a consent decision is—(a) a decision to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft,(b) a decision not to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft, or(c) a decision to agree a motion refusing to consent to the laying of the draft; and a consent decision is made when the Assembly first makes a decision falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (c) (whether or not it subsequently makes another such decision).(7) A Minister of the Crown who is proposing to lay a draft as mentioned in subsection (5) must—(a) provide a copy of the draft to the relevant Northern Ireland department, and(b) inform the Presiding Officer that a copy has been so provided.(8) See also section 96A (duty to make explanatory statement about regulations under subsection (3) including a duty to explain any decision to lay a draft without the consent of the Assembly).(9) No regulations may be made under subsection (3) after the end of the period of two years beginning with exit day.(10) Subsection (9) does not affect the continuation in force of regulations made under subsection (3) at or before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (9).(11) Any regulations under subsection (3) which are in force at the end of the period of five years beginning with the time at which they came into force are revoked in their application to the making, confirming or approving of subordinate legislation after the end of that period.(12) Subsections (5) to (10) do not apply in relation to regulations which only relate to a revocation of a specification.(13) Regulations under subsection (3) may include such supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision as the Minister of the Crown making them considers appropriate.(14) The restriction in subsection (3) is in addition to any restriction in section (Status of retained EU law) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 or elsewhere on the power of a Minister or Northern Ireland department to make, confirm or approve any subordinate legislation so far as the legislation modifies retained EU law.(15) In this section— “the relevant Northern Ireland department” means such Northern Ireland department as the Minister of the Crown concerned considers appropriate; “the 40 day period” means the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which a copy of the draft instrument is provided to the relevant Northern Ireland department,and, in calculating that period, no account is to be taken of any time during which the Assembly is dissolved or during which it is in recess for more than four days.””
“PART 1AREPORTS IN CONNECTION WITH RETAINED EU LAW RESTRICTIONSReports on progress towards removing retained EU law restrictions
3A_(1) After the end of each reporting period, a Minister of the Crown must lay before each House of Parliament a report which—(a) contains details of any steps which have been taken in the reporting period by Her Majesty’s Government (whether or not in conjunction with any of the appropriate authorities) towards implementing any arrangements which are to replace any relevant powers or retained EU law restrictions,(b) explains how principles— (i) agreed between Her Majesty’s Government and any of the appropriate authorities, and(ii) relating to implementing any arrangements which are to replace any relevant powers or retained EU law restrictions,have been taken into account during the reporting period,(c) specifies any relevant regulations, or regulations under section 11(4B), which have been made in the reporting period,(d) in relation to any retained EU law restriction which has effect at the end of the reporting period, sets out the Minister’s assessment of the progress which still needs to be made before it can be removed,(e) in relation to any relevant power that has not been repealed before the end of the reporting period, sets out the Minister’s assessment of the progress which still needs to be made before it can be repealed, and(f) contains any other information relating to any relevant powers or retained EU law restrictions, or the arrangements which are to replace them, that the Minister considers appropriate.(2) The first reporting period is the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.(3) Each successive period of three months after the first reporting period is a reporting period.(4) A Minister of the Crown must provide a copy of every report laid before Parliament under this section—(a) to the Scottish Ministers,(b) to the Welsh Ministers, and(c) either to the First Minister in Northern Ireland and the deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland or to the relevant Northern Ireland department and its Northern Ireland Minister.(5) In sub-paragraph (4) “the relevant Northern Ireland department” means such Northern Ireland department as the Minister of the Crown concerned considers appropriate. (6) This paragraph ceases to apply when no retained EU law restrictions have effect and all the relevant powers have been repealed. Interpretation
3B_ In this Part—“appropriate authority” means—(a) the Scottish Ministers,(b) the Welsh Ministers, or(c) a Northern Ireland devolved authority;“arrangement” means any enactment or other arrangement (whether or not legally enforceable);“relevant power” means a power to make regulations conferred by—(a) section 30A or 57(4) of the Scotland Act 1998,(b) section 80(8) or 109A of the Government of Wales Act 2006, or(c) section 6A or 24(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998;“relevant regulations” means regulations made under a relevant power;“retained EU law restriction” means any restriction which arises by virtue of relevant regulations.”
“19A In Part 2 of Schedule 5 (specific reservations), in section C8 (product standards, safety and liability), for the words from “Technical standards and” to “EU law” substitute— “The subject matter of all technical standards and requirements in relation to products that had effect immediately before exit day in pursuance of an obligation under EU law.””
Lord Callanan
“Section 30A | Type C”.” |
Lord Callanan
““Section 57(4) | Type C”.” |
Lord Callanan
“21A_ After paragraph 5 of Schedule 7 (procedure for subordinate legislation: special cases) insert— “6_(1) This paragraph applies where a draft of an instrument containing regulations under section 30A or 57(4) is to be laid before each House of Parliament. (2) Before the draft is laid, the Minister of the Crown who is to make the instrument—(a) must make a statement explaining the effect of the instrument, and(b) in any case where the Parliament has not made a decision to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft—(i) must make a statement explaining why the Minister has decided to lay the draft despite this, and(ii) must lay before each House of Parliament any statement provided for the purpose of this sub- paragraph to a Minister of the Crown by the Scottish Ministers giving the opinion of the Scottish Ministers as to why the Parliament has not made that decision.(3) A statement of a Minister of the Crown under sub-paragraph (2) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.(4) For the purposes of this paragraph, where a draft is laid before each House of Parliament on different days, the earlier day is to be taken as the day on which it is laid before both Houses.(5) This paragraph does not apply to a draft of an instrument which only contains regulations under section 30A or 57(4) which only relate to a revocation of a specification.””
“24A_ In section 13(5) (power of the Welsh Ministers to make provision about elections etc.)—(a) omit paragraph (c) but not the “and” at the end of it, and(b) in paragraph (d) omit “, European Parliamentary elections”.”
“25A_ In section 16(3) (disqualification from being Assembly member) omit “(other than the United Kingdom)”.”
“36A_ After section 157 (orders, regulations and directions) insert—“157ZA Explanatory statements in relation to certain regulations(1) This section applies where a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations under section 80(8) or 109A is to be laid before each House of Parliament.(2) Before the draft is laid, the Minister of the Crown who is to make the instrument—(a) must make a statement explaining the effect of the instrument, and(b) in any case where the Assembly has not made a decision to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft—(i) must make a statement explaining why the Minister has decided to lay the draft despite this, and(ii) must lay before each House of Parliament any statement provided for the purpose of this sub- paragraph to a Minister of the Crown by the Welsh Ministers giving the opinion of the Welsh Ministers as to why the Assembly has not made that decision.(3) A statement of a Minister of the Crown under subsection (2) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate. (4) For the purposes of this section, where a draft is laid before each House of Parliament on different days, the earlier day is to be taken as the day on which it is laid before both Houses.(5) This section does not apply to a draft of an instrument which only contains regulations under section 80(8) or 109A which only relate to a revocation of a specification.””
“39A_ In Part 2 of Schedule 7A (specific reservations), in section C7 (product standards, safety and liability), for paragraph 77 substitute—“77_ The subject matter of all technical standards and requirements in relation to products that had effect immediately before exit day in pursuance of an obligation under EU law.””
“48A_ After section 96(4)(orders and regulations) insert—“(4A) Regulations under section 6A or 24(3)—(a) shall be made by statutory instrument, and(b) shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.”48B_ After section 96 (orders and regulations) insert—“96A Explanatory statements in relation to certain regulations(1) This section applies where a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations under section 6A or 24(3) is to be laid before each House of Parliament. (2) Before the draft is laid, the Minister of the Crown who is to make the instrument—(a) must make a statement explaining the effect of the instrument, and(b) in any case where the Assembly has not made a decision to agree a motion consenting to the laying of the draft—(i) must make a statement explaining why the Minister has decided to lay the draft despite this, and (ii) must lay before each House of Parliament any statement provided for the purpose of this sub- paragraph to a Minister of the Crown by a relevant Minister giving the opinion of the relevant Minister as to why the Assembly has not made that decision.(3) A statement of a Minister of the Crown under subsection (2) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.(4) For the purposes of this section, where a draft is laid before each House of Parliament on different days, the earlier day is to be taken as the day on which it is laid before both Houses.(5) In this section “relevant Minister” means the First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly or a Northern Ireland Minister. (6) This section does not apply to a draft of an instrument which only contains regulations under section 6A or 24(3) which only relate to a revocation of a specification.””
“50A_ In Schedule 3 (reserved matters), in paragraph 38, for the words from “Technical” to “not” substitute “The subject matter of all technical standards and requirements in relation to products that had effect immediately before exit day in pursuance of an obligation under EU law, other than”.”
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Tuesday 8th May 2018
(7 years ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 79-R-VI Sixth marshalled list for Report (PDF, 210KB) - (3 May 2018)
16:05 - Division on Amendment 93 - Ayes: 298 / Noes: 227 - Amendment 93 agreed.
17:01 - Division on Amendment 95 - Ayes: 311 / Noes: 233 - Amendment 95 agreed.
19:37 - Division on Amendment 110A - Ayes: 245 / Noes: 218 - Amendment 110A agreed.
20:56 - Division on Amendment 70 - Ayes: 225 / Noes: 194 - Amendment 70 agreed.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
“Future interaction with the law and agencies of the EU
Nothing in this Act shall prevent the United Kingdom from—(a) replicating in domestic law any EU law made on or after exit day, or(b) continuing to participate in, or have a formal relationship with, the agencies of the European Union after exit day.”
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I move this amendment for two principal reasons: first, in order to assist the Government in their shaping of their case for the UK’s future relationship with the European Union post Brexit; secondly, because it is consistent with Amendment 49, which was passed earlier on Report.
Speakers in these debates have repeatedly suggested that anyone who moves an amendment is a hypocritical remoaner intent on sabotaging the Bill and trying to prevent Brexit from ever happening. I regret the referendum result, but I accept that the UK is to leave—even on this 73rd anniversary of VE Day. My concern, along with that of many in your Lordships’ House, is to ask the Government seriously to consider improvements to the Bill in order that the people should be clear about the how as well as the what of Brexit, and that the transition to a final arrangement is as good as we can get it. It is my understanding that this is both the role and the responsibility of this House.
I remain concerned that a deeply divided country is being offered two stark alternatives which, if you will bear with me, I will put in biblical terms—someone has to. Like the people of Israel in the desert, we too easily romanticise the past and yearn to return to Egypt; or, on the other hand, we promise on the other side of the mountain a land flowing with milk and honey, ignoring the challenges that go with it not actually being our land to do with as we will.
I mean it seriously when I suggest that we should be honest in our discourse on Brexit and acknowledge that we shall be spending some years in the wilderness as we begin to work out the consequences of the decisions we have taken and the implications of the relationships we must now begin to establish. Wilderness time is not necessarily negative time—simply a time of waiting, wishing and hoping or recriminating—but a time for stripping away the clutter, identifying and owning our values and priorities as a nation and actively bringing together a people divided by their varying apprehensions of events that have befallen them. That serious need for a concrete unifying strategy has yet to be addressed seriously in either House of this Parliament: slogans and wishful thinking are not enough.
With this in mind, then, I come to the substance of the amendment standing in my name, and to which, I am sure, the Prime Minister would give her consent as it rests on commitments already articulated by her. In her Mansion House speech of 2 March 2018, the Prime Minister confirmed for the first time that the UK will seek to maintain a formal relationship with certain EU agencies after Brexit. She further acknowledged that the terms of the future UK-EU relationship may see the UK Parliament take the step of replicating certain provisions of EU law. I hope noble Lords will forgive me for quoting in order to obtain clarity. She said:
“Our default is that UK law may not necessarily be identical to EU law, but it should achieve the same outcomes. In some cases Parliament might choose to pass an identical law—businesses who export to the EU tell us that it is strongly in their interest to have a single set of regulatory standards that mean they can sell into the UK and EU markets. If the Parliament of the day decided not to achieve the same outcomes as EU law, it would be in the knowledge that there may be consequences for our market access”.
She went on:
“And there will need to be an independent mechanism to oversee these arrangements”.
She also said:
“We will also want to explore with the EU, the terms on which the UK could remain part of EU agencies such as those that are critical for the chemicals, medicines and aerospace industries”.
She added:
“We would, of course, accept that this would mean abiding by the rules of those agencies and making an appropriate financial contribution”.
The Prime Minister then went on to set out what the mutual benefits of such an approach might be. These include: first, that such membership, however described, is the only way to ensure that products need to undergo only one series of approvals in one country; secondly, that such membership would enable the UK to contribute its technical expertise in setting and enforcing appropriate rules; and thirdly, that this might then allow UK firms to resolve certain challenges related to the agencies through UK courts rather than the ECJ.
That is enough for now to demonstrate the Prime Minister’s case. She concluded with a further statement about the sovereignty of Parliament and the acknowledged costs of rejecting agency rules for membership of the relevant agency and linked market access rights. It is important to remember that these decentralised agencies were originally established following a proposal from the European Commission and agreement by both the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, which, if I am correct, means that the establishment of over 40 bodies was achieved with the support of the UK. Surely it makes sense, then, to be consistent and retain access to them.
As the Prime Minister made clear in her speech, there will be consequences of not doing so. For example, and to take just one, there is the European Maritime Safety Agency. Our international reporting and monitoring obligations on maritime safety are currently handled via EMSA and there are shared EU rules on seafarer working conditions. That enables the UK to maintain its status as a “quality flag state” under international law. The complexities involved in replicating this would appear to be immense. Furthermore, establishing a domestic equivalent to the EMSA will inevitably put a huge strain on the Civil Service, taking many years to negotiate, and will be enormously expensive. Could that be yet another uncosted consequence of Brexit? I could equally cite the European Aviation Safety Agency, the European Chemicals Agency, Europol, the European Medicines Agency, and many others.
Is it not probable that any future UK-EU trading relationship might demand replication of certain EU measures—product safety regulations, for example? As other regulations continue to evolve in Brussels in the years to come, is it not probable, if not inevitable, that the UK might have to keep pace if reciprocal arrangements with the EU 27 are to continue—for example, those covering matrimonial and parental judgments?
This amendment does not in any way place an additional burden on the Government, nor does it ask the Government to change their stated policy stance. It formalises and reinforces those commitments made by the Prime Minister in her Mansion House speech. Furthermore, with phase 2 of the negotiations now well under way, the addition of this clause would demonstrate Parliament’s wish for the UK to maintain a close relationship with the EU and, in this sense, it is consistent with the role envisaged for Parliament in Amendment 49.
“(c) negotiating continued membership of the European Economic Area, and its corresponding agreements.”
Lord Alli (Lab)
My Lords, following consultation with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I have decided that it would be better not to debate this amendment and to decouple Amendments 110A and 112BC for a fuller debate later in the proceedings. To pick up a theme of the right reverend Prelate, I hope not to be in the wilderness for too long. I shall certainly value my waiting time, and it would be nice if that waiting time ended some time before dinner, but I shall understand if it does not. On that basis, I thank the right reverend Prelate for his courtesy and do not intend to press the amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
It is a great pleasure to support and echo the eloquent words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds. In doing so, I commend the generosity of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, in so graciously agreeing not to press an amendment that would find a place later in this Bill, while also recognising that we have had the opportunity to debate the matter that he wishes to discuss in that amendment at three different stages, and I do not believe that he was present at any of those stages. So we are very grateful to him.
I declare my interest in that I advise on environmental matters, as declared on the register, and am also delighted to sit on the Rural Affairs Group of the Church of England General Synod. I particularly believe that the European Environment Agency would benefit from Amendment 93. Many noble Lords will be aware of my particular interest in Denmark, since I am half-Danish. I have had the opportunity to visit some British members of the European Environment Agency while in Copenhagen last year. To follow through on the thoughts and arguments developed by the right reverend Prelate, I argue that the European Environment Agency provides essential research on which the European Commission and other institutions depend and on which environmental protections for British citizens currently flow.
I want to put some questions to the Minister who is responding to this debate. First, I presume that the British Government wish to continue to benefit from the research undertaken by the European Environment Agency, as was indicated by the Prime Minister in the words quoted by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Leeds. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case and what financial arrangements will be made to cover the work of the agency? Many environmental protections have been debated in this House during the passage of the Bill.
Secondly, and more importantly, there is a matter which was impressed on me in the meeting I had in Copenhagen in August with British officials working for the European Environment Agency. This is not the first time I have raised this; I had a number of conversations about it with the Minister’s predecessor, my noble friend Lord Bridges. However, over a year has passed and I have had no reassurance whatever in this regard. Many of these officials are British; many are married to Danes, Swedes or people of other nationalities. Many of them are experts and not on permanent contracts. I met one who was a very clever scientist who has a big question mark hanging over her future. Her young family wish to attend school and, subsequently, university. The House will recall an amendment that deprived EU citizens living in this country of the right to vote in our original referendum.
There is an urgent need for clarity because President Juncker has committed that British officials working for European institutions—I presume this is both permanent officials and those on expert contracts—will be able to apply for Belgian nationality from 30 March next year. If that is the case, British officials working for European Union institutions in Brussels will have preferential status, compared to those working for other agencies such as the ones mentioned by the right reverend Prelate and to the ones I met who were working in the European Environment Agency. It is now a matter of urgency that we reassure those excellent British officials working for such agencies that they will have at least the same status as those working for EU institutions in Brussels.
To sum up, what will be the Government’s future relationship with agencies such as the European Environment Agency? What will be the extent of our financial commitment, and when will we know what that is? What will be the status of those working for the European Environment Agency, the European Medicines Agency, and all such agencies? When will they know what their future will be?
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Alli, said that he did not wish to press his amendment I should have asked the House—and I ask it now—whether it is your Lordships’ pleasure that Amendment 93ZA be withdrawn.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in favour of Amendment 93, because it strengthens the argument of some of the amendments which I moved in Committee about maintaining our standards through membership of many of these EU institutions. These institutions set the standards which give us a quality of life that we have come to accept as normal as members of the European Union—indeed, as Europeans. They not only set the standards but have mechanisms to enforce them and are independent of government. In Committee, the Minister assured us that the Bill will seek to retain in UK law all these rights and protections,
“so far as is practical”.—[Official Report, 19/3/18; col. 19.]
The law may well be transposed, but it is toothless unless we have these institutions which monitor, measure and enforce compliance, and which have the right to exact penalties for non-compliance.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds said that to set up our own institutions would require a lot of time, expense and expertise, which we are short of. To accept these institutions would demonstrate that, by opening up our market, we are not entering a race to the bottom and we are not going to abandon the precautionary principle. There is a lot of uncertainty over withdrawal, but this amendment goes some way to ensuring that our quality of life as citizens will not suffer because of this uncertainty. That is why I support it.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I will be equally brief and will make just one point. When I had the honour to serve on the EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee of the European Union Committee of your Lordships’ House—something that was brought to an abrupt conclusion when I voted for those two amendments on the Article 50 Bill last year—I remember vividly one particular evidence session. Those giving evidence were led by a notable citizen of the United Kingdom, Mr Rob Wainwright, who was the head of Europol. Everything he said throughout his evidence to our committee made it abundantly plain that, if our security and our relations on the police front were to be maintained, we had to have a solution that as closely as possible replicated what we already enjoy. That is why I strongly support the amendment, which was admirably moved by the right reverend Prelate and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh. They have made equally valid points, but at the end of the day what is fundamental to our country’s survival is adequate and proper security and the proper interchange of information throughout the 28 nations of the European Union as it is now. We are leaving, but in doing so we must not jeopardise in any way the security of our people. That is why I strongly support this amendment.
Lord Dykes (CB)
My Lords, I will briefly support what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, and also thank the right reverend Prelate for his able speech, which was strongly reinforcing as regards our gradually becoming ever closer to the European Union itself. That is the reality of these matters, because although the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, wishes to say on behalf of others on his Benches as well that we are leaving, there is now in this country a firm feeling of second thoughts on that matter, and therefore we may not be leaving.
In the meantime, the Prime Minister herself has got closer and closer to the EU in terms of various different parts of our linkages, in particular in respect to the agencies, and in terms of some of the procedures and laws. The strongest one, apart from Europol, which is a good example, is the European arrest warrant part of that security procedure, which is increasingly regarded as an incredibly indispensable instrument of suitable control between the justice systems of the member states, and so on—we had the recent example in Spain of something that was widely welcomed in this country.
With a number of agencies, if we were to relinquish membership of them—or even “almost membership”, however close that might be to them—that would be damaging not only to individuals who are involved in them but to the recipients of those services and the security of the high standards maintained. As we go on with this torturous process—we will see it again with the revival of the discussions about the EEA, the customs union, and so on in later amendments—we realise now that our closeness to the EU is a reality and not just an aspiration.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I was very pleased to add my name to this amendment, and I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his introduction to it. As he says, what is not to like about it? It reflects the Prime Minister’s policy and intent, and it provides an opportunity for the Government to negotiate with Brussels with the good will and strength of Parliament behind them. So why not accept it? It seems to me an excellent amendment.
Whether we are talking about the Brexit debate or about the people dealing with Europe, I am struck that the European institutions that citizens generally know about most are the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. However, it is an absolute fact that these agencies, which are relatively new in the evolution of the European Union, are among the key instruments under which Europe works. They are among the most efficient, benefiting from huge economies of scale in expertise and costs to industry and other organisations within the Union; they are very successful; and they are highly regarded not just within the European Union but internationally. That is why it is so important that we as a country, whether we leave or not—although we are on a trajectory to leave—should stay in strong contact with these agencies. Many of them are major determinants in British industry being able to access and work with the European single market in the future.
I am the chair of your Lordships’ European Union Energy and Environment Sub-Committee. When we looked at Brexit and the environment, 100% of the witnesses from UK industry who appeared before us or sent us written evidence were very clear that we should stay as close as possible to EU chemicals policy regulation and the REACH regime. They did not want to have to manufacture a third set of rules and regulations—not just for North America and the EU but our own as well. That was a fundamental aim of the industry.
One of our more recent reports concerned the internal energy market. The Prime Minister also mentioned this in her speech as something we need to stay near to, and it is an enterprise that Britain has led. I doubt that even Members of your Lordships’ House have heard of the Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators, but it will be an important element of, and part of the jigsaw of, our energy security and energy prices in the future.
We have already mentioned Europol and the European Medicines Agency. Just like REACH for the chemicals industry, it is very important for the pharmaceutical industry that we stay part of the EMA and avoid huge duplication in development and approval costs.
For all those reasons, we need, if we can, to stay part of and be a participant in those agencies. Many of them currently have observers from the EEA states. The European Space Agency is not a European agency as such but Canada and other members are associates of it. Maybe that is a model we could persuade the EU 27 to follow. We also need to take into account the “soft” area. This is not just about being an associate member; the knowledge and work inside the European Union institutions determine markets and how industry needs to work in the future. By retaining involvement in those institutions, we will have that information, contact and networking, which otherwise we will forsake. For that reason, I believe it is very important to support the amendment.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, as someone who voted leave, I have always envisaged that what is being debate here will actually happen. I have always assumed that, when Britain is outside the European Union, it will want to co-operate extensively with Europe on a whole range of matters, such as environmental matters, which have been mentioned. I cannot conceive of any future Government of our country, whether they be Labour, Conservative or coalition, wanting to reduce the environmental quality of life. The trend is all the other way: to make it even better as it goes on. That is what will happen when we are out of the European Union, just as ever it did when we were in the European Union.
Similarly, as an ex-Home Secretary, I see the value of Interpol. I am quite sure that we will continue to work very closely with Interpol and continue the exchange of information that is so vital to arrests and to the reduction of crime, not only in our own country but in Europe.
One item not mentioned today is the Erasmus programme. I was the Education Secretary who started Erasmus and I think it has brought inevitable great benefits, both for students of our own country and students of other countries. Indeed, I discovered that one American university has decided that, during one year, all its students have to go and study in another city for three months. Erasmus allows that to happen and I am quite sure that it will continue in the future.
Having said all that, I do not think it requires a parliamentary fiat, if I may say so to the right reverend Prelate. It is clearly the Government’s policy to do that because it is a policy based upon common sense. It is essentially part of our negotiations, as has been made clear by the Prime Minister, and I hope that the negotiations are successful.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, briefly, I want to support this amendment. I think I was probably responsible for the previous three occasions that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, referred to, in that very early in this debate I asked the Government to set out for each of the European agencies their intention for future co-operation. I did that because, like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, as chair of one of the sub-committees I know that every industrial and professional sector wants to know what its future relationship would be, as that is the normal way of doing business: they operate with their European counterparts through those European agencies. I then asked further questions about the environment, food safety and, vitally, transport, which would otherwise close down.
I am very grateful that the Prime Minister has picked out aviation as an area on which we must continue to co-operate, and chemicals—the European Chemicals Agency regulates 20,000-plus day-to-day chemicals. Unless we have very close relationships with all those industrial sectors, and on issues such as security and Europol, Brexit will be a serious blow to the way large parts of our industry, public sector and professions operate day to day. We need to give them certainty. I still think it would have been helpful had the Minister produced a detailed list, because we are gradually working our way round to saying that, on all these issues, co-operation will need to continue.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My noble friend has given a great deal of thought and study to this issue. Is he aware of any legal impediments that prevent us continuing to participate in agencies in any event? Is this change in the law in any way required?
Lord Whitty
In terms of the Government’s intention in the negotiations, it is required. But to counter, to a degree, the otherwise helpful contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Baker, the EU have to agree it. If we do not have this as a positive point in our negotiations, and if we do not co-ordinate the role of British industry, sectors and professions with those of their European counterparts, there will be an end to that co-operation. I have had cause to remind the Minister that the EU’s current guidelines in negotiations say that we will no longer participate in these agencies from March next year. If so, that is seriously disruptive. It is therefore important that this House gives an indication to the other place and to the Government that we must continue to participate. I hope the Minister does not repeat his and his colleagues’ previous disdain in dismissing the need to make this clear. I hope the Prime Minister’s intention is wider than the few specific agencies to which she referred in her Mansion House speech.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendment, partly to give our support to the Prime Minister against those within her divided Government who do not believe that it is important to stay closely associated with these agencies.
Perhaps I may give a little of their history. I was on the staff of Chatham House in the early 1980s when the British Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, first proposed the single market and made it clear that what was in Britain’s interests—as well as, she argued, in enlightened European interest—was to replace a tangle of different national regulations with single regulations in a single market. She did not assume that we would get rid of all these regulations but that we would agree on common regulations. Many of the agencies then grew up to make sure that these regulations were observed and enforced, and altered and developed as technology, pharmaceutical research and other things changed. That was why they were clearly in Britain’s interests. There were always some in the Conservative Party who did not believe in that—they believed in deregulation—and thus were dubious about the single market because it was replacing national regulations with common European regulations.
One of the most interesting pieces of research carried out for Chatham House in that period was by an American trade lawyer who wrote about the extraterritorial jurisdiction of US regulations over the United Kingdom until the single market was formed. Very often business, engineering, the chemical industry and the pharmaceutical industry in Britain simply followed American regulation. The idea that we had sovereign regulation on our own did not exist. As the single market developed, so European regulations, over which we had considerable influence, replaced the British adoption of regulations designed for American purposes, which we felt we had no choice but to accept.
That is these agencies’ historical origins and they clearly still serve British national interests. It is therefore important that if and when we leave the European Union we remain associated with them. Technology and research have continued to develop and these agencies therefore serve an increasingly important role. I therefore hope that the Minister in replying will reinforce what the Prime Minister said in her Mansion House speech and make it clear that a major objective of the Government is to remain as closely associated with these agencies as possible, even if Boris Johnson may then denounce it in the Daily Mail.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I share in full measure the hopes and concerns articulated today by so many of your Lordships. That said, if the amendment is put to the vote, I shall not feel able to support it. My approach to this amendment, as to earlier amendments to the Bill, has been essentially that it is fine to tell the Government what they must do once they have achieved what they regard as the best available deal, but it is not fine to seek to impose on the Government requirements as to precisely what that deal must be or how to achieve it. In other words, we can tell the Government what rights Parliament or, as I promoted, the public should have on a further referendum as to what we can do and should do, by way of approving or rejecting the proposed final deal—or, indeed, a decision to exit with no deal—but we should not seek to bind or inhibit the Government in reaching a deal and so risk weakening their negotiating position.
The Bill is not for that purpose but to keep our statute book intact. I urge your Lordships, rather than indulge all our hopes and wishes in this area, to think about whether we ought to put these explicit requirements into this legislation.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord is reading the same amendment as me. The one I am reading, which was so well introduced by the right reverend Prelate, states:
“Nothing in this Act shall prevent the United Kingdom from … replicating”,
or “continuing to participate”. It does not say that we have to do it. It just says that nothing shall prevent our doing it. Perhaps I am reading a different amendment from the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
Funnily enough, when I first read the amendment, I took the same point from it that my noble friend has taken. However, it seemed that it could not be so because it simply would not make sense to move an amendment that is not intended to have any effect on the Government as they pursue this legislation.
Lord Adonis
The House may be aware by now that I am in favour of our staying in the European Union. I have great respect for the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds; it is great for bishops to spend a long time in the wilderness, but not for people doing trade and leading the economic life of the country. While the right reverend Prelate is in the wilderness, perhaps he can conduct our negotiations with whoever we are conducting them with in the wilderness on our behalf.
My reading of the amendment is that it has zero impact. I cannot see anything in the Bill that prevents our having any relationship with European agencies. Our issue with the Government is that they do not want relationships with many of them. I do not intervene, however, just to make the point that the amendment is useless. I am concerned by what is becoming a pattern in our debates on the Bill: thinking that changes with no substance whatever amount to great advances in our campaign to reverse Brexit. We should concentrate on things of real substance: the customs union, the single market and the referendum. Those are real changes.
As far as I can see, the Minister will not accept gestures of this kind because he does not accept anything from this House on principle, even from Bishops. Perhaps the Almighty can sway his mind in a way that we mere mortals cannot. He could accept the amendment but he will not. Even if we go to a vote, it is not worth wasting the time of the House on trivial matters of this kind; they may give us the impression of having some impact, but we are in fact having zero impact.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. One of the most important matters is security. In Barcelona the other day, one of Britain’s most wanted fugitives—Jamie Acourt—was arrested in a joint operation between the Metropolitan Police and the Spanish police, possibly assisted by Europol. The NCA head of international operations said:
“Our ability to share information and work at speed with our international partners ensures there is no safe haven for fugitives. We will never stop pursuing these individuals”.
That is no doubt true, but Acourt will be returned under the European arrest warrant. If we do not stay part of the warrant and have to fall back on the long-winded extradition arrangements that predate it—without any participation in Europol to facilitate cross-border police operations—our security will be endangered. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, accepts that security is one of our most important interests. I hear what noble Lords said about the effect of the amendment but, politically, it is important that this House presses on the Government the importance of staying in agencies and institutions.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak in support of the key Amendment 93, to which my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith added his name and which was moved so biblically and effectively by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds. Of course, at that time, I had not only a brilliant legal adviser on my right, but a theological one—my noble friend Lord Griffiths—who has now left the Chamber. I said, “I have to have a biblical quote”, but I am afraid he has a sense of humour and said, “The people who were wandering aimlessly in the pre-Brexit wilderness were soon squabbling among themselves, ignoring the advice of their leader”, and so on. But I will leave my noble friend’s helpful comments for another time.
I say this particularly in answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and my noble friend Lord Adonis. This is an important and meaningful amendment because it would restrict the pretty wide powers given to Ministers in the Bill. That is why we need to pass it. We have on a number of occasions, on this Bill and the Nuclear Safeguards Bill, expressed our surprise that nowhere in the referendum process—in the immediate aftermath, nor in this legislation or any other—did the Government ever spell out that the Article 50 process automatically triggered our exit from Euratom. I will not repeat the costs and dangers of that eventuality given earlier debates on it, particularly the input at that point of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.
However, equally unremarked on and unmentioned by the Government, or by the Brexiteers during the campaign, was the similar removal of the UK from a swathe of agencies, many of which, as we have heard, we helped to construct and all of which have served this country well. Colleagues will already know, from medical researchers who have been in touch, patient groups, health professionals and the pharmaceutical industry, of the risks of being outside the European Medicines Agency, quite apart from the loss of jobs and specialisms that are now moving to Holland. But the same could be said about the European Food Safety Agency, often referred to, but not today, by my noble friend Lord Rooker; the environment agency, emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and my noble friend Lord Whitty; the railways and aviation agencies, often referred to by my noble friend Lord Berkeley; the European Chemicals Agency, which has been mentioned; and, of course, Eurojust, suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and Europol, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.
The commonality is that any mention of those agencies in this House and beyond has included a plea for us to remain members, associates or partners with whichever such agency is in the frame. Sometimes this means following the same rules—as the Government have now accepted for clinical trials—to assist in monitoring; for safety; for easy and rapid transport, as for medical isotopes; to facilitate trade and exchange; to enable skilled persons to undertake checks or repairs; or, as my noble friend Lord Haskel said, to guarantee safe products for users and consumers.
For some of the agencies it might mean paying money in, as the Prime Minister acknowledged. For some it might mean harmonising assurance, governance or penalties for rule-breaking. But for all it will mean a willingness to adapt and respond to requirements, usually simply to maintain our existing rules and practice. What is clear is that, given the wide powers in the Bill for Ministers, we must ensure that none of those powers is used to frustrate our continued involvement with such agencies, whether because, for example, we set different sanctions for breaches, raise fees or charges in a different way that makes it difficult to move along in their way of working, or apply variant rules or any other similar change. That is why it is critical to circumscribe the powers in the Bill so that they cannot be used to prevent us having necessary EU rules or ways of working that would frustrate our participation in any of these agencies. We do not want the powers to be used for that reason, hence the very simple amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, had it right: the Bill should not be used to frustrate the intention, should that be the Government’s wish, to stay in these agencies for the good of the whole country. It is, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds said in his introduction, entirely in line with what the Prime Minister said in Mansion House and it would allow this country to continue such relationships where that continuation is in the national interest.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I understand the sentiment behind Amendment 93 tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds— I assure him that I am not one of those who regard him as a hypocritical remoaner. However, I must make it clear that the Government consider its inclusion in the Bill to be both completely unnecessary and totally inappropriate.
Once we leave the EU, this Parliament—and the devolved Administrations, where appropriate—will be free to change the law where they decide it is right to do so. As such, nothing done by this Bill, or any other Act of Parliament, can bind the actions of future Parliaments. A provision which essentially provides that future Parliaments can mirror EU law, which this Bill neither requires nor prevents, is therefore completely unnecessary. Nor does the Bill prevent Parliament approving any future relationship between the UK and the EU, including its agencies and institutions.
If the intended effect of the amendment is to preserve the sovereignty of Parliament, it is also completely unnecessary. The amendment may have been tabled with one eye on the withdrawal agreement, but my ministerial colleagues and I have been clear throughout the Bill’s passage, both within this House and in the other place, that its aim is just to create a functioning statute book as we depart from the EU—a point well made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. For the avoidance of any doubt, the Bill does not seek pre-emptively to legislate for or against any final withdrawal agreement or future relationship with the EU. On this point, I am surprised to find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, probably for the first time in the Bill’s passage. On this narrow point, he is right. Incidentally, we have accepted many amendments put forward in this House and by its committees. We have tabled more than 100 amendments responding to concerns raised by various Members of your Lordships’ House, so it is not quite true that we always reject everything that is said.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, there will be further opportunities for the noble Lord to accept amendments in due course, particularly on membership of the single market.
Lord Callanan
We will come to that debate later.
Let me make it clear: if there is a role for any EU agency as part of the withdrawal agreement, it will be legislated for under the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill which we are planning to introduce later in the year. The same principle applies to the future relationship which will, as necessary, be legislated for in due course.
The inclusion of this amendment would make this position less clear than it is at the moment. It may also create an odd presumption that, since the Bill does not prevent the amendment’s intended effect being achieved, the specific inclusion of the new clause would mean that the UK will seek to mirror the laws of the EU after our departure or to continue its current participation in EU agencies. That may not be the right reverend Prelate’s intention, but the amendment could be read as going even further and attempting to save, or partially save, the European Communities Act for the purposes of mirroring changes in EU law after exit. If that is the case, it could be seen as allowing a wide discretionary power to keep pace with EU law. This would also be a wholly inappropriate approach when we do not yet know the outcome of the negotiations.
As I have highlighted during our previous debates on the Bill, the UK has a long-standing tradition of ensuring that our rights and traditional liberties are protected domestically. The UK leads the world in many areas in setting and upholding high standards across our statute book; for example, in areas such as consumer protection, environmental standards and workers’ rights—a point well made by my noble friend Lord Baker. I believe that all Members of Parliament, in this House and in the other place, are invested in the continuation of this legacy. It is in Parliament that we are better able to address and legislate for the specific needs and ideas of the UK.
In our negotiations, we are seeking a deep and special partnership with the EU, and our relationship with its agencies and bodies is being evaluated on this basis. I assure the House that where there is a demonstrable national interest in pursuing a continued relationship with an agency or other EU body, the Government will carefully examine whether we should pursue this. In response to the questions raised by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, participation in the European Environment Agency is of course a matter for the negotiations, but if we do negotiate participation we will, of course, make the appropriate financial contribution.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Will my noble friend help the House in one respect? I am trying to understand whether the amendment in any way obliges the Government to do anything or in any way prevents them doing anything. It seems to me entirely neutral in its effect. Can he help us?
Lord Callanan
I think I covered that in what I said earlier: we believe it to be unnecessary and pointless.
Going back to my noble friend Lady McIntosh’s questions, the second question she asked me was about contracts of employment of staff employed in those agencies. Of course, these are a matter for those agencies, but the rights of those UK citizens, as UK citizens in other EU countries, are guaranteed in the agreement we reached with the EU in December. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked me about the membership of agencies ending in March 2019. As set out in the agreement reached in March, during the implementation period common rules will remain in place and the UK may continue to participate in EU agencies where the presence of the UK is necessary and in the interests of the Union or where the discussion concerns acts addressed to the UK and its citizens.
In conclusion therefore, while I fully understand the intentions behind the amendment, I do not believe that anything would be gained from its acceptance in the Bill, apart from confusion.
Lord Woolf (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, can he help me on one matter? I am sure there is an easy answer to it. The Bill is exceptional in its regulatory power. Whereas I see the strong force of what is being submitted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, I wonder if it has the effect of curtailing these very wide Henry VIII clauses.
Lord Callanan
I do not believe that it does curtail our powers under the SI provisions of the Bill, on which we have had separate, long discussions.
In conclusion, I do not believe that anything would be gained from its acceptance in the Bill apart from confusion and uncertainty. I therefore hope that the right reverend Prelate will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and all those who have spoken in the debate. I often find myself changing my mind when I hear good argument but I cannot assure the House that I have done that in this case. The Minister referred to the sentiment behind the amendment, but it is not sentiment: what I offered was a rationale, not a sentiment. The intention behind it is as I stated in my speech. I take the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, about “common sense”, but every time I hear the phrase I begin to worry. Usually, common sense is so common and so thinly spread that it does not always apply in the specific, and as they say, the devil lies in the detail. So I am not sure that it is enough just to be sure that things will continue, or that we can continue to hope.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said that it is not good for businesses and so on to be in the wilderness. I totally agree, but my point in using that metaphor is that we are, whether we like it or not, going to find ourselves in some sort of wilderness, because it will take a long time to work this through. It will not be that suddenly on day one, whether we stay or leave, everything in the garden is rosy. I am just being realistic about that. Finally, I find the repeated charge that this House is trying to impose on the Government, or tell the Government what to do, tiresome. It seems to me—I may be simple—that the remit and responsibility of this House is to send back to the Government and to the other House arguments that may make them think again. Otherwise, we have no purpose. So, while I take the comments seriously, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Callanan
“( ) an enactment contained in any Order in Council made in exercise of Her Majesty’s Prerogative,”
Lord Callanan
My Lords, we have just debated an important issue, and later I shall turn to some other very substantive matters. Nevertheless, I ask for a moment of the House’s time while I make the case for the five government amendments in this group, especially for the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who apparently does not believe that we are tabling any amendments to the Bill.
These are all consequential amendments on the status provisions that we debated on day two of Report, and which I am pleased to say that the House accepted without a Division. I know the House will look again at these complex provisions at Third Reading but, as I said on day two, I hope there will be no further amendments beyond anything that relates to additional matters where the distinction between primary and subordinate legislation is important, and therefore we should insert that distinction between retained principal direct EU legislation and retained minor direct EU legislation.
Amendments 93A, 93B and 93C clarify types of legislation that are included in the definition of “enactments” in the Bill. This definition includes a non-exhaustive list of enactments. The new status clause provides that enactments are to retain the same status as they had before exit day. The intention behind the provision was to address the concerns of some noble Lords about the effect that the Bill has on domestic legislation via Clause 2 and whether it changed the status of that legislation. As part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring clarity and certainty, we have tabled the amendments to make it clear that these additional types of legislation all continue to have exactly the same status that they had before our exit from the EU. The amendments clarify that Church Measures, Orders in Council made in exercise of Her Majesty’s prerogative and devolved enactments made in exercise of the prerogative are within the definition of “enactments” and therefore will retain the same status that they held prior to exit day. The Government have of course consulted with the Church of England, the Palace and devolved authorities before tabling the amendments. The amendments also make it clear that in the highly unlikely case that any of these instruments are related to the EU and contain deficiencies, the Government could correct those deficiencies if appropriate, although in these cases it is likely that others would use their own existing mechanisms to so do.
Amendments 112BA and 112BB simply insert the new definitions of “retained principal direct EU legislation” and “retained minor direct EU legislation” into the Interpretation Act so that the terms do not need to be defined in future legislation. I hope noble Lords will find nothing to object to in this group, and I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, I understand and am grateful for what the Minister has said about the purpose behind the amendments. He is quite right that, for example, the first three amendments identify as enactments things, including Church Measures, that would normally be regarded as such but were not included. My question for him is simply this: he said in moving the amendment that one of the advantages of the amendments would be to enable deficiencies, if there were connections with EU law, to be corrected through secondary legislation. Could he explain how these amendments will enable that to be done? I did not quite follow that.
Lord Callanan
As I said, we think it is highly unlikely that any of these instruments that are related to the EU will contain deficiencies. If appropriate, we could use secondary legislation powers to correct those deficiencies but, as I said, in virtually every case it is likely that others—the devolved Administrations, the Church and so on—would want to use their own existing measures to do so.
Lord Callanan
“( ) an enactment contained in, or in an instrument made under, a Measure of the Church Assembly or of the General Synod of the Church of England,”
“( ) an enactment contained in any instrument made by a member of the Scottish Government, the Welsh Ministers, the First Minister for Wales, the Counsel General to the Welsh Government, a Northern Ireland Minister, the First Minister in Northern Ireland, the deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland or a Northern Ireland department in exercise of prerogative or other executive functions of Her Majesty which are exercisable by such a person on behalf of Her Majesty,”
Lord Callanan
The Duke of Wellington
The Duke of Wellington (Con)
My Lords, this amendment, which I have proposed with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, is not the most significant of the various cross-party amendments which this House has passed in recent weeks, but it is nevertheless important. We propose that the wording of the Bill simply reverts to the original drafting. During the debate in Committee on this point, there was near unanimity that the date should be taken out of the Bill.
We have so often been told by Ministers in this House that a certain amendment was unnecessary. Well, it was certainly unnecessary for the Government to amend their Bill during its passage in the other place to fix the date. Article 50 clearly states:
“The Treaties shall cease to apply … two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period”.
So we know beyond any doubt that for the purposes of this Bill, we leave the EU on 29 March 2019, but this date should not be defined and specified in the Bill, in case it becomes necessary and in the national interest to agree an extension, as provided in Article 50. Any extension sought by the Government could be limited to only a few weeks, as the European Parliament elections are now fixed for 23 May 2019 and the Parliament will be dissolved towards the end of April 2019.
I have reread the speech given in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. She said that the original drafting of the Bill, which did not include the date, was unacceptable to the House of Commons but, as I am sure she is aware, Members on both sides of the House of Commons were highly critical of the Government’s amendment to write the date into the Bill. Indeed, the Committee for Exiting the European Union in the other place stated that the government amendments will remove flexibility and create significant difficulties if, as the Secretary of State suggested in evidence, the negotiations,
“went down to the 59th minute of the 11th hour”.
Catherine Barnard, professor of European Union law at Cambridge, described the amendments as creating “an artificial straitjacket”. She said:
“In other words … it creates a rod for the UK negotiators’ backs, weakens any UK negotiating position and adds unnecessary pressure to those in the executive trying to deliver Brexit in a coherent, measured fashion”.
In the face of this strong opposition to the government amendment, in the end a compromise was proposed in the other place by Sir Oliver Letwin to give Ministers the power to change the date. This was passed in a whipped vote.
The purpose of this amendment is simply to give another opportunity to the other place to think about whether including the date is really expedient. What is the point of putting the date in the Bill when it may have to be changed in circumstances which we cannot foresee? If there is a case for putting the date in primary legislation—which I do not accept—it might be more appropriate to put it in the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, which will come to Parliament later in the year.
As I said on Second Reading, this Bill is absolutely necessary for the good government of the country. Although Ministers have said that they have no intention of seeking an extension to the two-year period, nevertheless, in legislating the process of withdrawal, we should give them a bit more flexibility to secure and obtain ratification of the best possible deal which will do the least damage to the economy and to the national interest. Ministers should recognise that, from all sides of this House, we are trying to help the Government in their negotiations and in no way to thwart the process. I beg to move.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 95 and also Amendment 99, both of which stand in my name as well as those of other noble Lords. The case for these amendments has been stated clearly and cogently by the noble Duke who has spoken before me, and I shall put it quite succinctly.
First, as the noble Duke said, there was no reference to the date of our exit from the EU in the Bill as it was originally drafted and tabled by the Government about a year ago. It is a fair assumption therefore that, in the Government’s view at that time, putting the date in this Bill was neither necessary nor desirable. If it had been either of those things, it would have been in the original Bill. Its inclusion at a later date was a purely political decision—alas, another of those sops to one of the all-too-frequent outbursts from the Government’s Brexit-at-any cost supporters.
Secondly, the date seeks to pre-empt, or at least to make far more difficult, the use of one of the key provisions of Article 50—that which enables a two-year cut-off date to be extended by common accord of the 27 and the exiting state, the United Kingdom. Today is not the moment to discuss the eventuality under which that provision for an extension might arise, but it is surely premature today to seek to rule out at this stage that possibility, particularly since the post-negotiation withdrawal and implementation Bill, to which the noble Duke referred, could provide an opportunity to do that if by that stage it was clear beyond peradventure that the provision of an Article 50 extension was not going to be required or needed.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
Can my noble friend clarify one point? I think the noble Duke said that such an extension could be for only a few weeks because it could not extend beyond the date of the European elections. Is that correct?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
That is a political judgment about the views of the 27. It is not a political judgment on the views of the British Government, who have always said that they would never under any circumstances propose such an extension—one of those statements which I fear they may have to eat cold at some stage. The answer to my noble friend’s question is that it is a political judgment about the attitude of the 27. I do not think that today we can rule it in or rule it out, and I do not think we should.
Thirdly, we have heard from the Government Benches on a lot of occasions during the passage of this Bill that this is a purely technical Bill; I think the most recent occasion was earlier this afternoon. It is a technical Bill designed simply to prepare our statute book for exit day and that it is not a proper vehicle for policy formulations, in which case, and on that analysis, I suppose the Minister will shortly rise to his feet and accept the amendment, which I would certainly encourage him to do.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I have nothing of substance to add to the speeches by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who have made a compelling argument to delete the date from the Bill. Having the date in the Bill was really a very silly move by the Government. It was not in the Bill to start with for very good reasons. It gave flexibility to Ministers to determine what it should be. They put it in only under pressure from part of the Tory party; they only then amended it and made it more complicated under pressure from other bits of the Tory party. The original position of having flexibility in the Bill made eminent sense, was preferable to what we have now, and we should revert to the original position.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I wish to speak to my Amendment 96, which is associated with this debate, but also to speak to Amendment 95, moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. The comments that have been made across the House add up to a sentiment, shared by the overwhelming majority, that it is singularly inappropriate to define 29 March at a certain time as the point of exit.
My amendment suggests that, after the word “means”, we insert:
“the day concluding any implementation period or transition period agreed between the United Kingdom and the EU”.
I am proposing that because the meaning of “exit” should surely be at the end of the implementation that leads to exit; otherwise, there is a contradiction in what we are putting into law. If the feeling in the House is to pass Amendment 95, I should be very content.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I have to acknowledge that this is not an amendment that thrills me, not least because it seems to me to offend one of the great principles of social and economic thought, enunciated in a wondrous book, of which this year is the 60th anniversary—namely, Parkinson’s Law or the Pursuit of Progress. Noble Lords who are old enough to remember it will know that that law as enunciated was that work expands to fill the time available. I have no doubt, as far as negotiations in relation to the EU are concerned, that, whenever the end date was pronounced to be appropriate, there would be no difficulty in filling the time available, and everything that has happened so far confirms me in that impression.
The other related observation about human behaviour, which sadly has governed a lot of my life—I am not proud of it—but seems to be almost an abiding characteristic of the European Union is that you never do today what you can put off till tomorrow. I think that we have seen enough of negotiations EU-style, with late-night ministerial meetings and early-morning press conferences, to know that lastminute.com is one of the abiding principles by which the European Union reaches its decisions.
What troubles me about the amendment—although I shall lose no sleep about what happens to it—is that, whatever the mover’s intentions, the undoubted interpretation from the world outside will be that this amendment is designed to put further down the track the date on which we shall leave the European Union. That is an observation that I hear time and again in talking to people. After all, in March next year it will be almost three years since the British people made that historic and momentous decision.
I cannot help being vain enough to mention just two points that I made at Second Reading about this House and its treatment of this Bill. I simply said that, in all our discussions, there will be an elephant in the room—the chasm between the spread of opinion on Brexit in this House and the spread of opinion in the country at large. I think that I can be allowed to make special reference to my own region of the West Midlands, which was the strongest voting region in favour of leaving the European Union. Coincidentally, the House’s own research tells us that one of the least represented regions in the United Kingdom in this House is the West Midlands. The other two, by the way, are the north-east and east Midlands. Those three regions amount to the three most strongly Brexit parts of the country. It would be nice to have a lot more people here from the West Midlands—and, should the Government want any advice on people whom they might think of putting in the House in order to address that regional imbalance, I would certainly give it to them. But this mismatch is the elephant in the room.
I repeat what I said then: for all that we may try and decipher the motives of people who voted leave, the most generally accepted one is that people felt there was a chasm. So many people in this country sensed that Westminster, and Members in both Houses, were not listening to what they were saying. At the start of the Bill, I was fearful that this House would make that anxiety even more justified, and I have neither seen nor heard anything at Second Reading, in Committee or on Report that has given me any reason whatever to doubt that judgment. We have passed 11 substantial amendments already. There is no doubt that they were all well presented and for good, rational reasons, although I did not agree with them all. However, they have the compound effect of it appearing to be the case that this House is trying to delay, to block or, in the case of my noble friend Lord Adonis, who has been honest enough to say so throughout, to reverse the decision which the people made two and a half years ago. That has undoubtedly been the impression that we have been presenting.
Of course, people say that that is our duty; it is what the House of Lords is for. I agree that it is a perfectly legitimate objective for this House to make the House of Commons think again on any Bill. However, this is not any old Bill. This Bill has the authority of a referendum, with an unprecedented vote, to back and sustain its objectives. It has been moved inexorably on its way by the votes in both Houses to implement Article 50. This House did it; so did the House of Commons. The Bill is an inevitable and necessary consequence of the referendum and of the votes in these two Houses.
Lord Cormack
It is also a Bill which is capable of improvement, as is proved by the fact that the Government have put down many amendments themselves.
Lord Grocott
I agree that that is our job. The Government, and the House of Commons, can be asked to think again. However, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and other noble Lords who have made this point on a number of occasions, will agree with the proposition I am about to make. If the Commons does think again on some of these amendments, and sends them back here, our job is then completed. I think that is the consequence of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and is, surely, the way we should proceed.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
At heart, the noble Lord seems to be saying that it is our duty to implement, regardless, the will of the people nearly two years ago. Does he forget that the Government tried to bypass Parliament and implement Article 50, the date of which we are discussing now? They wanted to do it without consulting Parliament, bypassing it and the people. I do not call that democracy or respect for Parliament at all.
Lord Grocott
We have had this argument on many occasions. Parliament can do what it wants to do. I repeat that to the noble Lord, but I am sure he understands it. If Parliament thinks that the proposal which is coming before it is so obnoxious, it can throw it out—it can throw the Government out. It has done that during my parliamentary career and that of many other noble Lords. The idea that Parliament is a pathetic institution that needs protecting from the Government of the day is a fundamental misunder- standing of what is meant by parliamentary democracy.
The House can, of course, pass this amendment if that is the wish of the majority, which I suspect it will be. That will make 12 things for the House of Commons to think again about. However, we have to remember that the Bill has to get on the statute book, and in good time. I do not think there is a lawyer here who denies that for a moment. We keep hearing about cliff edges, so far as the economy is concerned. I do not agree with that, but the words “cliff edge” have gained currency. There is no doubt whatever that, if this Bill does not hit the statute book in good time, there will be an undoubted cliff edge for the legal structure and operation of this country, for the meaning of legislation and where European legislation fits into it.
I therefore hope that we will acknowledge that we have certainly done our duty of making the Commons think again—I ask your Lordships not to represent me as saying that we must not make amendments to the Bill; at no stage have I said that and of course I have not, as I have been here for far too long to make that kind of suggestion. However, this is an important Bill which needs to be passed—
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I have listened to my noble friend with the respect with which I always listen to him. Would he not agree that on the day of the referendum a substantial proportion of the British population was unconvinced? If we are to make a success of change in the constitution, consensus and maximum good will are essential. That is why it is so important for the House of Lords to take as long as necessary to make sure that the anxieties of the large section of the population that did not go along with this decision is reassured.
Lord Grocott
As far as that is possible; the choice was and is still a binary one. I do not think that there can be a compromise between my noble friend Lord Adonis’s position and mine, because he wants to remain in the European Union and I want to leave it. There may be a halfway position there, but I have not quite discerned it yet. Larger brains than mine need to find a consensus on that, if there is one. However, I am utterly clear that once this House of Lords, as well as the House of Commons, has said to the British people, “We want you to make a decision. We’ll tell you what the wording on the referendum ballot paper will be. We’ve decided that, we will decide the date, and we will abide by that decision”, those statements are unchallengeable. It is our duty to deal with the legislation which is the inevitable consequence of that decision, of which the Bill is one part.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I will restrain myself from entering into a longer debate on this issue. I agree with my noble friend Lord Grocott that this is an important Bill, but it will also affect the negotiations, and part of that will be affected by the timetable.
It is interesting that at various times when we have discussed the promised vote on the final deal—it is not just a matter of leaving but of our future relationship with the EU after we have left—the Minister has said that he hoped that the vote, in both Houses, would take place before the European Parliament has had its say, but that he could not definitely promise that it would, because our parliamentary timetable might not be flexible enough to fit in with that of the European Parliament. I cannot say that I accept that argument, because after all, we control our business and when we have votes—not necessarily how late at night they happen, but effectively we control our timetable. However, if the Minister was correct in the assumption that the European Parliament’s vote might not be at a predictable time—it may be delayed because talks are still going on—it may suddenly be brought forward.
Here, I will answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Butler. It seems essential that the deal has to be agreed before April, when the European Parliament will go into recess, because under Article 50 the deal has to be agreed and have the consent of the European Parliament. If the European Parliament is to recess, adjourn or prorogue before its elections, the deal has to get consent before then. Therefore, there is a timetable, and it has to go before the European Parliament. I have had various legal advice about what happens if the European Parliament does not give its consent—it seems quite complicated—but certainly Article 50 says that it has to give consent. Therefore, the negotiations could go on a bit later than everyone wants, and the European Parliament will have to prorogue for its own elections and will have no authority thereafter. The date on which we leave could be fixed by the words in an Act of Parliament which will be passed in August or whenever, some months after those events, and that seems a very unhelpful position for our negotiators to be in.
I am sure that there will be late-night sessions and lots of consultations, with people ringing back for instructions as the negotiations go on—there are people who have been through all this. I hope that we have trained the Minister well in coping with late nights here, because he may well have more of those, but there could be very long nights as the negotiations go on. If one side—our negotiators—were curtailed by a strict date in the Act, that would put us at a disadvantage. The other side is not so constrained. The European Parliament can meet at very short notice when a decision has been taken.
However, I interpret Article 50 slightly differently. It says:
“The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after … notification”.
So, without having to go to the Council for a unanimous decision, the withdrawal agreement could contain a leaving date of a week or two weeks after the two-year period, which would allow the last-minute arrangements to be made. If that is what the withdrawal agreement specifies, if that suits all the parties and if our Government would like to sign up to it, it would seem silly not to be able to do that.
It is important that we enable the negotiators to get the best possible deal, setting out exactly how we leave and exactly what our future terms of trade will be. If the amendment is passed, it will remove the straitjacket that the Government inserted at the behest not of the negotiators but of certain ardent Brexiteers. Let us remove that straitjacket, make the task easier for the negotiators and reflect what our own EU Committee said:
“The rigidity of the Article 50 deadline of 29 March 2019 … makes a no deal outcome more likely … enshrining the same deadline in domestic law would not be … in the national interest”.
I am sure that the Government want to put the national interest first and I certainly believe that this House will want to do so. Therefore, we strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and we urge everyone to go into the Lobby behind him.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. Exit day has been discussed at length throughout the passage of this Bill. Set dates such as this are often crucial to the functioning of any legislation, but I would like to take this opportunity to remind noble Lords of the particular importance of exit day in this Bill.
Exit day is the moment in time when the European Communities Act is repealed. It is the point at which EU laws are converted into UK law, when the deficiencies in retained EU law emerge and when a range of other effects are triggered under the Bill. However, I reiterate that exit day within the Bill does not affect our departure from the EU, which is a matter of international law under the Article 50 process, as my noble friend the Duke of Wellington and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, made clear. What it does affect, however, is whether we leave the EU in a smooth and orderly fashion.
The definition of exit day, and how it is to be set out, has been amended significantly since the Bill was introduced to the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union on 13 July last year. My noble friend Lady Goldie has previously described the sequence of events which led us to the current drafting and I will not test the patience of your Lordships by repeating the arguments she made in Committee. What I will say, however, is that, crucially, the Bill left the other place reflecting the reality of international law under the Treaty on European Union. I see no reason, therefore, to change the Bill any further. The final drafting also reflected the concerns of Members of the other place who had been on both sides of the referendum campaign. That fact sits at the core of my opposition to Amendments 74, 95 and 99 in the name of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington.
As has been stated on many occasions during Report, this House reviews the legislation sent to it by the other place and highlights—often very well—areas where it does not think due consideration has been given. This point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, as a leaver from the West Midlands. As a leaver from the north-east, also an area underrepresented in this House, I have considerable sympathy with his arguments. I therefore cannot why these amendments are seeking to restore something like the original drafting of the Bill when that drafting was considered at great length, on many occasions, and was rejected by the other place.
I also do not agree with Amendment 96 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. The Bill is designed to provide continuity and certainty in domestic law as we leave the EU. This must be true in a scenario where we have a deal with the EU, but it must also be true in the unlikely event that there is no agreement between the EU and ourselves. While this is not what anybody on either side is hoping for, it would be irresponsible and out of keeping with the remainder of the Bill not to prepare for that unlikely event. In that circumstance, it would be vital that the Bill did not make reference to concepts which are contingent upon a successful negotiated outcome, such as an implementation period. That would prevent the Bill achieving its objective as agreed at Second Reading, because in that scenario further primary legislation would be required to alter exit day and provide for an operable statute book. Even in the Government’s preferred scenario of a successfully negotiated withdrawal agreement, including of course an implementation period, the noble Lord’s amendment presumes that no substantive provisions of this Bill will be required until the end of that implementation period.
While I do not want to be drawn into a discussion about the legal construction of the implementation period, which will be a matter for the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill—I have no doubt we will have great fun in our opportunity to consider that—I do not think that the noble Lord can be certain in his assumption. This is the real issue with the noble Lord’s amendment: it attempts to use this Bill to legislate for the implementation period. But the Government have been quite clear that the implementation period will be a matter for the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill once we have agreement. This Bill is deliberately and carefully agnostic about whatever deal we strike with the EU, prejudging neither success nor failure in negotiations.
Of course, we hope and expect to be successful in these negotiations, and our continuing progress demonstrates good movement towards that goal. I hope that noble Lords will reflect the compromise reached by the elected House, and therefore I respectfully ask the noble Duke to withdraw his amendment.
The Duke of Wellington
My Lords, I will respond first to the pertinent question from the noble Lord, Lord Butler. I did not mean to imply that, under the Article 50 process, there could not be a longer extension. I just feel that, as a practical matter, it is unlikely to be practical to extend for more than a few weeks, because the European Parliament will indeed be dissolved in late April prior to the European elections in May 2019.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
Are we not talking about two types of extension? As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, the European Parliament will have to approve or disapprove the agreement before it adjourns. But it could agree a deferment of the date on which the UK leaves the EU by a much longer period, could it not? It would be within its power to do that.
The Duke of Wellington
With the unanimous agreement of all members of the European Council a delay can be agreed without a term. That is unlikely. I referred to the European Parliament elections because that is a practical deadline in this process. That is the point there.
I agree strongly with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that this Bill must be passed. There is no doubt that we need this Bill for the good governance of the country, as I said earlier and at Second Reading. However, I do not agree that this should be construed as a device to delay Brexit by more than a short period for technical reasons.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. He said that we have a duty to improve this Bill and we have done so in many ways in the 10 or 11 amendments that we have so far passed.
This amendment and the related amendments give the other place an opportunity to think again about the expediency of including a date in this Bill, and it is right that we should test the opinion of the House.
Lord Callanan
The Duke of Wellington
“(2) In this Act—(a) where a Minister of the Crown appoints a time as well as a day as exit day (see paragraph 19 of Schedule 7), references to before, after or on that day, or to beginning with that day, are to be read as references to before, after or at that time on that day or (as the case may be) to beginning with that time on that day, and(b) where a Minister of the Crown does not appoint a time as well as a day as exit day, the reference to exit day in section 1 is to be read as a reference to the beginning of that day.”
Lord Callanan
“(6A) In this Act references to anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4 include references to any modifications, made by or under this Act or by other domestic law from time to time, of the rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies or procedures concerned.”
Lord Callanan
“Anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4 | Section 14(6A)” |
“Retained direct minor EU legislation | Section (Status of retained EU law)(6) |
Retained direct principal EU legislation | Section (Status of retained EU law)(6)” |
Lord Callanan
Lord Callanan
“Time limit for making certain provision
4A(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), no regulations may be made under paragraph 1 after the end of the period of two years beginning with exit day.(2) After the end of that period, regulations may be made under paragraph 1 for the purposes of—(a) revoking any provision made under that paragraph,(b) altering the amount of any of the fees or charges that are to be charged under any provision made under that paragraph,(c) altering how any of the fees or charges that are to be charged under any provision made under that paragraph are to be determined, or(d) otherwise altering the fees or charges that may be charged in relation to anything in respect of which fees or charges may be charged under any provision made under that paragraph.(3) This paragraph does not affect the continuation in force of any regulations made at or before the end of the period mentioned in sub- paragraph (1) (including the exercise after the end of that period of any power conferred by regulations made under that paragraph at or before the end of that period).”
Lord Callanan
“( ) paragraphs 3A, 3B, 19(2)(b), 40(b), 43(2)(c) and (d) and (4) of Schedule 3 (and section 11 (4A) and (5) so far as relating to those paragraphs),”
Lord Callanan
“( ) paragraph 29(9), 30A and 31 of Schedule 8 (and section 17 (6) so far as relating to those paragraphs),”
“(1A) In section 11 —(a) subsection (2) comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed for the purposes of making regulations under section 30A of the Scotland Act 1998, (b) subsection (3A) comes into force on that day for the purposes of making regulations under section 109A of the Government of Wales Act 2006, and(c) subsection (3C) comes into force on that day for the purposes of making regulations under section 6A of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.(1B) In Schedule 3 —(a) paragraph 1(b) comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed for the purposes of making regulations under section 57(4) of the Scotland Act 1998,(b) paragraph 2 comes into force on that day for the purposes of making regulations under section 80(8) of the Government of Wales Act 2006,(c) paragraph 3(b) comes into force on that day for the purposes of making regulations under section 24(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998,(d) paragraph 21(2) comes into force on that day for the purposes of making regulations under section 30A of the Scotland Act 1998,(e) paragraph 21(3) comes into force on that day for the purposes of making regulations under section 57(4) of the Scotland Act 1998,(f) paragraph 21A comes into force on that day for the purposes of making regulations under section 30A or 57(4) of the Scotland Act 1998,(g) paragraph 36A comes into force on that day for the purposes of making regulations under section 80(8) or 109A of the Government of Wales Act 2006, and(h) paragraphs 48A and 48B come into force on that day for the purposes of making regulations under section 6A or 24(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998;and section 11(4) and (5), so far as relating to each of those paragraphs, comes into force on that day for the purposes of making the regulations mentioned above in relation to that paragraph.”
Lord Callanan
Lord Goldsmith
“( ) A Minister of the Crown may not appoint a day on which section 6 is to come in force unless this day follows the expiration of transitional arrangements agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union.”
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, this amendment deals with a point that we raised and discussed in Committee. It may be that this group will not take too long, although that will depend upon what the Minister has to say. The important point about this is that the Bill as drafted would mean that at the moment Royal Assent was given, certain things would happen, including that the jurisdiction of the CJEU would come to an end. We raised the point that, given that it appeared likely that during an implementation period the Court of Justice of the European Union would continue, by agreement, to have certain jurisdiction, it would be important not to see the CJEU’s jurisdiction fall off a cliff edge, as it were. It may be that the noble and learned Lord the Minister will be able to reassure us that they will deal with this so as to ensure that if the CJEU continues to have jurisdiction in certain circumstances—which, as I say, I believe is a likely outcome of the continuation of the discussions—the Bill will not have taken away the ability to do that.
Amendment 109 would not allow Clause 6—which, among other things, brings the CJEU’s jurisdiction to an end—to come into effect until,
“the expiration of transitional arrangements agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union”.
The amendment focuses on transitional arrangements that are in fact agreed, not hypothetical arrangements. It would achieve no mischief because transitional arrangements would in fact be agreed and we would be saying simply that the jurisdiction of the CJEU should not come to an end until the end of that period.
The Minister may put forward some alternative way of achieving the same effect. I will listen very carefully, as will other noble Lords, to what he has to say about that. For the time being, I beg to move.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, in light of the observations made by the noble and learned Lord in moving this amendment, I will make one observation at this stage in response to his invitation to me.
Part Four of the withdrawal agreement so far agreed between the United Kingdom and the EU sets out:
“During the transition period, the Union law applicable pursuant to paragraph 1 shall produce in respect of and in the United Kingdom the same legal effects as those which it produces within the Union and its Member States and shall be interpreted and applied in accordance with the same methods and general principles as those applicable within the Union”.
That would mean that during the implementation period—assuming that that is actually agreed—the CJEU will continue to fulfil the role it currently does with regard to the UK’s legal structure. This effect will be provided for under the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill. I do not know whether that assists the noble and learned Lord but that is the position as set out.
I add only that given the terms of the noble and learned Lord’s amendment—and I appreciate that it has been deliberately framed in this way:
“A Minister of the Crown may not appoint a day on which section 6 is to come in force unless this day follows the expiration of transitional arrangements agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union”,
if that amendment was passed, it would throw into doubt what would happen if there were no transitional arrangements. That is not an outcome that we seek but it is a distinct possibility and would mean either that Section 6 did not come into force at all or that potentially we would be thrown back into the billowing mists of uncertain inference. So I have that objection but I thought it might assist noble Lords if I made clear our position with regard to the implementation period. I hope that that responds to the noble and learned Lord’s observation.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, I cannot agree with the point raised by the Minister about the wording of the amendment. The amendment says that a day may not be appointed,
“unless this day follows the expiration of transitional arrangements agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union”.
If in fact no arrangements have been agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union, it would seem that effect could be given to the amendment.
Be that as it may, the important point is that, as I understand it, the Minister has said two things. He has said, first, that if an implementation agreement is agreed, it will include continuing jurisdiction of some sort for the Court of Justice of the European Union and, secondly, that the Government will make sure that that jurisdiction is provided under the terms of legislation to be brought forward; I think the implementation Bill is what the Minister has in mind. If that is right and the Government are telling us that they intend that legislation will incorporate a continuing jurisdiction if that is agreed, that would deal with the mischief that this amendment was designed to deal with.
If that is the position—it would be very helpful if the noble and learned Lord could confirm whether it is—I would then be able to beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I am watching his body language but I have been fooled by that before, so I would be grateful if he clarified whether what I have said is right.
Lord Keen of Elie
It is of course the position that there is no certainty that there will be an implementation agreement. In that event, I would seek to differ with the noble and learned Lord about the interpretation of his amendment but that is a matter of little moment, I agree. However, in the event of there being an implementation agreement that follows the terms of the withdrawal agreement in outline, which noble Lords have seen, then during the transition period the Union law applicable pursuant to paragraph 1 will produce the same effect in the United Kingdom as in the remainder of the EU. That would extend to the jurisdiction of the CJEU in respect of the matter of the interpretation and effect of such law. The noble and learned Lord is quite right that it would be the intention of Her Majesty’s Government, in those circumstances, to ensure that such a provision was expressed in the withdrawal agreement Bill.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wigley
“(2A) None of the sections of this Act to be commenced under subsection (2) may come into force unless it is an objective of Her Majesty’s Government, in negotiating a withdrawal agreement, to secure continued EU citizenship for UK citizens.”
Lord Wigley
My Lords, Amendment 110 stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. It would quite simply prevent any sections of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, from commencing until the UK Government have adopted the negotiating objective of securing continued EU citizenship for UK citizens. I do not wish to rerun the arguments for continued EU citizenship which I presented during Committee. I would, however, point out that there was a massive response on the electronic media to that debate, overwhelmingly favourable to the viewpoint which I presented. This told me that the subject is very close to the hearts of thousands of people in these islands and is one which the Government should ignore at their peril.
Since Committee, the Minister has kindly allowed me to meet him to discuss these and associated matters. I was grateful to him for that and I better understand from where he comes on the issue. I hope that he likewise understands from where I come, even if he does not agree with my viewpoint. Of course, some of the legal challenges are still being pursued and we await their outcome. I would, however, like to respond to two concerns raised during Committee.
The first is the issue of reciprocity and whether EU nationals should be offered British citizenship. Regardless of my personal opinion, this is not what is proposed in this amendment. My argument is that it would be illegal under international law and European law for the UK or the EU to take away our European citizenship from those of us who already hold it. For those who are not currently European citizens—for example, those who will not be born until after Brexit—I believe that we will need to negotiate a form of associate European citizenship. This is, in fact, what I understand the negotiator on behalf of the European Parliament, Mr Guy Verhofstadt, has been calling for. That would require a provision to be negotiated into the withdrawal agreement. Whether or not we offer some form of associated British citizenship to EU nationals would therefore be a matter of negotiation at that time. I very much hope that the Minister can assure the House that such an option has not been explicitly ruled out.
Secondly, may I address the issue of whether there is a solid precedent? I want to reiterate the Irish example, which I explored informally with the Minister earlier but which is still material. Following the creation of the Irish Free State—now the Republic of Ireland—and Northern Ireland, a comparable situation occurred. Irish citizens who reside in the UK, while remaining Irish citizens, are permitted to enjoy all the benefits of UK citizenship, including freedom to take up residence and employment in the UK, and to play a full part in political life, including voting in parliamentary elections and seeking membership of the national legislature—that is, becoming a Member of Parliament. Am I not right in asserting that this state of affairs will not be affected by the UK leaving the EU? Can the Minister confirm whether this is a correct interpretation?
The Irish state also offers citizenship to all residents on the island of Ireland; people resident in Northern Ireland can therefore choose British, Irish or dual citizenship. This is an example of citizenship being on offer to those residing outside the granting authority’s jurisdiction and, I suggest, is therefore pertinent to the case I am making.
When Plaid Cymru sent a letter to the Prime Minister setting out its position on this matter, it was supported by the leaders of other parties including the SNP, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens, by a range of legal experts and by a host of organisations which are concerned about this matter. My party secured an Opposition day debate on this issue in the House of Commons, which passed without division a Motion on this matter—in fact, the first Motion that Plaid Cymru has ever succeeded in getting the House of Commons to pass in that way. The debate was well attended and support came from the Labour and Conservative Benches and from SNP, Liberal Democrat and DUP MPs. In other words, there was a broad consensus in favour of the objectives being discussed, which are crystallised in this amendment.
The Minister may not be in a position to accept this amendment, as no doubt he will shortly tell us. But if he takes such a line I hope that he will also take the opportunity to assure UK citizens that in the negotiating process, the Government will seek to achieve the fullest possible agreement on a wide range of citizen-related issues and that this worry, felt by so many, should be overcome if a successful negotiation does transpire, leading to an agreement. I beg to move.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, I have often been in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, in the course of these debates but I hope that he will forgive me on this occasion if I do not go with him. I wholly agree with the underlying sentiments that he has expressed; my concern is with the word “objective” because it is very difficult to define at any one time what an objective truly is. Some are stated and some are unstated—and even if stated, they may not represent the true state of mind of the person making the statement. The problem with an amendment of this kind is that it is capable of giving rise to litigation. I just do not see how a court could ever seriously determine whether the objective of a Government at any one time was sufficiently truly stated to give rise to the remedy which I know will be sought by the litigants. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, although I agree strongly with his underlying sentiments, I do not think this is the way to achieve that objective.
Lord Dykes
My Lords, notwithstanding the very reasonable sentiments just expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, I think that I would be among others in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for the way in which he has taken the initiative on this subject. It is becoming increasingly complicated with the approach of the so-called exit day—whatever date that may be in legislation and so on—and, therefore, we need to think very carefully about this. Although this was a long time ago, I recall that the Maastricht treaty bestowed on citizens of each member state individual citizenship as EU citizens, too. It was a solemn and profound moment when that was announced many years ago in 1992, and it was made much of, mostly in the other member states but also in Britain as well. A lot of British citizens who were working abroad were delighted at the idea of being citizens of the European Union as well, which added to their obvious practical freedom of movement, although that was not essential to it.
We have now got to be very careful to make sure that the Government respond to the civilised and reasonable request for them to expand their minds a little bit into thinking about this matter, because it will be quite complicated. There is the question of the Irish Republic’s offer, which has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the special status that may emerge in Northern Ireland, not deliberately, according to the DUP, but accidentally. It is not much to their liking that a special status would be accorded to people there and they would remain individuals citizens of the EU. Is this a matter of collective bestowal of citizenship because of the Maastricht treaty in 1992, or is it now a matter of it being an individual proclivity if the right was there, given that there are exceptions to the idea that you have to be within only one member state to be a citizen and you can apply for citizenship from outside? It therefore may be that the very act of applying for citizenship and continuing to have the protection of the ECJ as individuals because of the bestowal of European citizenship would need to be included in this wide examination. It is a very complicated matter and should not be excluded from people’s mind and, mostly, the Government’s mind. They may be very unwilling to consider these matters, but they need to do so and we are grateful for this amendment and this debate.
Baroness Ludford
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for continuing to champion this important cause, which is dear to the hearts of these Benches. There are several invidious features of this matter. First, it creates a division among United Kingdom citizens. Not only do people in Northern Ireland have the right to acquire Irish citizenship and thus EU citizenship, but many other British citizens have the right to, or are already pursuing, dual citizenship in order to get the passport of another country. I believe that I have the right to an Irish passport because my mother and my grandmother were born in Dublin. That creates two sets of British citizens: those with the additional political expression and practical advantages of EU citizenship and those who are unable to continue to enjoy them.
Another feature of this matter is hypocrisy. Do the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the Minister agree that the following is deeply hypocritical of the leading voices in Legatum? It is reported that the co-founder, who is of New Zealand extraction, and the chief executive have managed to acquire Maltese passports. How they have done so, I have no idea. That will give them EU citizenship, including the right of free movement. As advocates of the hardest of hard Brexits, they have had the ear, we believe, of many leading members of the Government. They have been pushing hard for Brexit so as to deprive the rest of us of EU citizenship, but they have made sure that they are feathering their own nest by obtaining citizenship of another EU member state and thus EU citizenship and free movement.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, she is absolutely right, but is she aware that one of the DUP Peers who spoke at length in the debate last week has an Irish passport?
Baroness Ludford
I take the noble Lord’s word for it. I have no reason to doubt that. I have a feeling that there may be many people in similar positions who are saying one thing and doing another. I find that pretty reprehensible.
We strongly advocate that all UK citizens should continue to have the opportunity of EU citizenship. Many of us feel particularly for young people. Those of us who are getting long in the tooth have for 45 years had the advantage of the freedom to move to and work in another EU country. It is extremely sad that the young people of this country are going to be deprived of that opportunity.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, as I think it is extremely sad. I think the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, speaks for a huge proportion of the younger people of our country who resent seeing their rights as EU citizens, particularly the right of movement, being taken away from them.
My objection to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is even more objective than the objection of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. We are asking the Government to do something impossible. It is not possible to be a citizen of the European Union if you are not a citizen of a member state of the European Union. That is how citizenship is defined in the treaty. It is left entirely to member states to decide who their citizens are, but if you are a citizen of a member state, you are a citizen of the European Union. When—I hope if—the UK leaves the European Union, every British citizen ceases to be a citizen of the European Union, and there is nothing that we can do about it. Although my heart is with the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, my head says that this amendment does not make sense. The only way that the young people of this country can retain the rights they now enjoy as EU citizens is for us to decide not to leave the European Union.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
Before the noble Lord sits down, this is being tested in the courts in Europe, so not everyone is of the opinion that you cannot have European citizenship. I believe that in June we will hear the result of the appeal by the Netherlands.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I am the only member of my family unfortunately unable to get an Irish passport, and I very much resent it. I admire the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for raising this issue, but I fear that my noble friend Lord Kerr has got it absolutely right. I wonder whether, when we have left, there will be any possibility of negotiating any sort of individual relationship for UK citizens with the European Union. That is my hope, but perhaps it is a faint hope. Much though I admire what the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, my noble friend Lord Kerr is absolutely right and there is no point in supporting this amendment.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, one aspect of this will be dealt with, or should have been dealt with, by looking at the immigration system we will have with Europe. We have made proposals for the free movement of young people, and we could have proposals for movement without visas and so on and so forth. Personally, I think the Government made a serious mistake in not setting this out and getting into a negotiation with the European Union that would tackle some of the aspects that have been raised.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, the House has heard the pleas of the heart if not of the head. I think I have said before that, although I was born in Germany, I sadly do not qualify for a German passport or else I would be doing the same as many others. So many people are doing it because they fear and regret losing their EU citizenship. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, quite rightly said, in the treaties EU citizenship is an add-on. Only people who are citizens of a member state have EU citizenship, with all the rights, protections and consular protections that brings. They have to be a citizen of a member state. Sadly, that change will come and we will not be EU citizens.
I would like to leave a thought with the Minister. We have not treated the whole of this aspect sufficiently seriously. We have not reached out to EU nationals living here and to people who are losing their rights as EU citizens. We have still not told EU citizens living here—unless I missed it—whether they will be able to continue to vote in our local government elections. We know they will not be allowed to vote in the European Parliament elections—that is fairly obvious—but there are other changes that the Government have been very lax and slow in spelling out.
The plea behind some of the feelings that we are having is to listen to the current EU citizens. If there is one plea that I would leave with our negotiators, it is that we need a withdrawal deal that puts citizens at its heart, not as an add-on, and that we should do everything that can be done to keep the links that we already have with agencies, education and so on. That would help to make a withdrawal deal that would enable British citizens, even if they will not have that lovely treasured purple passport, still feel as if they are continentals—full associates, if you like—with the rest of the EU.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, this is of course an important issue that has already been covered in depth, both in this Chamber and in the other place. I welcome the opportunity to discuss it further with the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, when we exchange views on the interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Interpretation of Treaties, particularly Article 70 thereof. I acknowledge fully his interest in this area, the depth with which he has examined it and the importance that he underlines with regard to this matter.
Nevertheless the position remains, as summarised eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, that there is no provision in EU law for the concept of associate EU citizenship. It is clear that EU citizenship is tied to citizenship of a member state. The European Commission itself has referred to the additional rights and responsibilities attributed to the nationals of EU member states by virtue of EU citizenship, which they automatically attain under the provisions of the EU treaties. I emphasise the EU treaties because to take such a matter forward it would be necessary to contemplate the amendment of the EU treaties in a quite radical way, in order to attempt to confer on citizens of non-EU members the status of EU citizenship or something connected to it. However, we are willing to listen. Noble Lords may recollect that the European Parliament mentioned the idea of some associate citizenship; it has never elaborated upon that but if it wishes to, we are listening, and we would listen to that. I wish to make that clear.
The position of the Republic of Ireland emerges as the consequence of bilateral treaties that predate our entry into what was then the EEC and Ireland’s entry into the same, and that is not directly affected by our exit from what is now the EU. My understanding is that those arrangements continue in force.
With regard to the wider issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter—the matter of voting rights, for example—during the course of the earlier negotiations we attempted to negotiate with regard to the exchange of voting rights, but at that stage the Commission declined to do so. That is something that we would wish to carry forward but the Commission was not prepared to engage in that discussion at that stage of the negotiation. Again, we remain open on these matters.
The citizens’ rights agreement reached in December, which is now set out in the draft withdrawal agreement, provides certainty for UK nationals in the EU regarding their rights following our exit. The agreement with the EU protects the rights of EU citizens and their family members living in the UK on exit day and indeed vice versa. To that extent, it will give citizens certainty about a wide range of rights including residence rights, healthcare rights and pension and other benefit rights. That will mean that UK nationals who are legally resident in the EU by the end of the implementation period will continue to benefit from most of the rights that stem from their EU citizenship today. As I say, associate EU citizenship does not make up part of the citizens’ rights agreement, and indeed by attempting to make it a negotiating objective we would be setting ourselves what is, frankly, an impossible target. The consequence would be that, should the amendment pass and the Government fail to adopt such an impossible negotiating position, our entire post-exit statute book would be put at severe risk. There would appear to be no sensible point in attempting to do that.
I stress that with regard to this matter we are in listening mode. Reference was made to the suggestion of further litigation in this area. A case is going on in Holland at present. It was referred by the Dutch Government to the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, which has heard the appeal and is due to deliver its judgment later in June. We do not believe that is going to affect the matter at all but we await the judgment of that court. At present, though, we must proceed with the ultimate goal: to deal with Brexit in the easiest manner possible so far as citizenship is concerned.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, could the Minister tell us what the case at the Amsterdam Court of Appeal is?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, it was an application about the rights of certain UK citizens resident in Holland having rights post Brexit in Holland. The objective of the case was clearly to secure a reference to the CJEU for the interpretation of certain treaty matters. When that proceeded, it is my understanding that the Dutch Government then intervened in the proceedings and they were the subject of a hearing before the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam. That matter is not yet advised, so that is where it stands. I am afraid I cannot give further details of the case but I understand that it was partly funded by lawyers in the UK. I hope that assists the noble Lord.
As I say, at present we, the EU and the Commission are quite clear on what the concept of EU citizenship means, that the source is the EU treaties, and that there is no provision at present for associate citizenship. If during the course of negotiation the Commission or other bodies in the EU come forward with such proposals, we will of course listen to them. At this stage, though, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has taken part in this debate: the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, the noble Lords, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, Lord Dykes and Lord Green, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Ludford, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. It has been a short but worthwhile debate. Some of those participating in it have seen weaknesses in the amendment, and I accept that there is room for criticism in that direction and that it is a challenge with regard to the status quo within which we are operating.
None the less, I feel that some benefit has come out of the debate, in that the Minister has indicated that the Government would be in listening mode, both in terms of the negotiations that are going on and in terms of what may or may not come forward from the European Parliament itself on this matter, bearing in mind that Mr Verhofstadt has indicated fairly strong feelings in that direction. If it were possible for some form of associate citizenship to develop out of this—if indeed we leave the EU, which I would regret but is likely to happen—that could retain our links for the period while we are outside the EU directly, I am sure that would be of interest to a large number of people, particularly to young people, as has been mentioned in this debate, because they identify with the European dream. The European dimension is part of their identity and they would like to have some access to it in a more formal way. On the basis of the comments made by the Minister, which I welcome as far as he was able to go, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(2B) But none of the remaining provisions may come into force until it is a negotiating objective of the Government to ensure that an international agreement has been made which enables the United Kingdom to continue to participate in the European Economic Area after exit day.(2C) Regulations under this Act may not repeal or amend subsection (2B).”
Lord Alli
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 112. The amendments are an attempt to ensure that we end up with a framework to deal with not just the goods we import and export but the services we trade in. The customs union amendment that we passed overwhelmingly a few weeks ago is only one half of the equation. The customs union deals only with goods. That is very important: it deals only with goods—tangible items such as cars, washing machines and televisions—where we have a £96 billion trade deficit. That is something we need to fix, but perhaps that is for another debate.
The EEA deals with services—such as retail, tourism, transport, communications, financial services and aerospace, where we have a £14 billion trade surplus. The customs union only will benefit our European neighbours in their imports, but without an EEA equivalent, it will damage our profitable export business and therefore the jobs and livelihoods of many thousands of people. It is for that reason we need to ensure that any continuation in the customs union must include continuation in the EEA or its equivalent.
Lord Kinnock (Lab)
While sharing my noble friend’s admiration for the extraordinary work that has been put in by our Front Bench both here and in the Commons, I remind him of an amendment proposed to the Bill in the House of Commons on 13 December last year, which said explicitly:
“No Minister may, under this Act, notify the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EEA Agreement, whether under Article 127 of that Agreement or otherwise”.
When that amendment went to the vote, there were 292 votes in favour. It was therefore clearly supported by the great majority of Labour Members of Parliament. Was that amendment not a model of cogency and clarity and completely consistent with my noble friend’s amendment this evening? Is it not the most practical way, as he suggests, to avoid the cliff edge of huge and costly disruption to supply chains and loss of access to vital service markets; and, with the customs union, for which this House has voted, to provide us with a real opportunity of a border-free Ireland?
Lord Alli
I could not agree more with my noble friend. He is absolutely right. On 13 December, a similar amendment was moved in the other place, and the Labour Party put a three-line whip on it. I think we are in the right place here. Party policy is very clear on Europe, and a three-line whip on a similar vote justifies this. I agree with my noble friend. It is very clear that we on the Labour Benches are in line with our party policy and that the membership of our party is with us.
But this is bigger than party politics. It is about people’s jobs. It is about the future of our economy. That cannot be left to doing what is politically convenient at the time. These amendments have been drafted to give the other place the opportunity to think again. That is what I believe we should do this evening. We should pass these amendments and give the democratically elected House the opportunity to think again. I beg to move.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 112. I have followed this debate closely in your Lordships’ House and the other place. This is the first time that I have spoken in this debate, and to find myself opposing the Government is a decision that I have not taken lightly. But, as other noble Lords have said, this is an argument based not on ideology but on the pragmatic reality of what faces our business community, our employers, our wealth generators, if we do not get the right outcomes. They all need certainty, they all need to plan, they all need to look at their current business models and they all need to look at what disruption they will face. I have spoken to many businesspeople, particularly those in the supply chains—the small and medium-sized businesses that are the backbone of our country. Whether it has been privately or in the many discussion forums that I have attended, the main concern of the business community is the Government’s rigid position on exiting the EU.
We all know that 52% of the voting public voted to leave the European Union. That debate has been had. What nobody voted for was for us to be poorer because we were unable to get our basic building blocks right. Indeed, my honourable friend Mr Stephen Hammond, in a Westminster Hall debate in the other place, recently articulated very eloquently that,
“we need an exit and a deal that allow us to trade freely with our former partners and to sign new free trade agreements, and that provide a level of economic certainty to businesses and economic and security certainty to our citizens”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/2/18; col. 545WH.]
For the sake of clarity, as a member of the EU we are members of the EEA, along with the other 27 EU partners. A strong message was sent out last week to the other place to look very carefully at the need to remain in the customs union. Our concern is that 80% of our economy is service-led, which is not covered by the customs union, so while hugely important for our goods sector, what about the 4.3 million businesses in the services sector? As 79% of our employment is in services, that is 24 million people contributing to 33% of turnover last year. Issues such as non-tariff barriers will have an enormous impact on business, particularly SMEs and supply chains. As the noble Lord, Lord Alli, said, in 2016 trade in services with the EU had a surplus of £14 billion. Why would we want to put barriers in the way of our vital and successful services sector?
The EEA is not the same as the single market. It excludes, as the noble Lord, Lord Alli, said, the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. It is not under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. What we are asking, through this amendment, is to continue as a member of the EEA. The referendum had one question: whether to leave the EU. Remaining a member of the EEA offers business certainty and will enable us to influence through the many committee networks that exist for non-EU members in the EEA.
Leicestershire, the region of the east Midlands that I call my home, spans industries and sectors in both goods and services, from manufacturing to transport, with our rail, air and freight links transporting goods around the world, to top universities, pharma companies and creative services, to professional and business services and retail, to name a few. The Government’s own impact assessment set out the following Brexit scenarios for the east Midlands: remaining a member of the EEA would mean a 1.5% fall in GDP; a free trade agreement would mean a 5% fall in GDP; a no deal and reverting to WTO rules would result in an 8% fall in GDP.
We have to be pragmatic. In this region, the fallout from the 2008 economic crisis has been incredibly hard on people in the east Midlands. We are a fantastic region, where our confidence is emerging. Austerity has taken its toll, and while we all knew we had to really tighten our belts for the last few years, we must not now embark on a path of uncertainty on which businesses cannot make decisions. I have been in the SME sector and supply chains for 40 years, and my family since the 1950s, and I have taken UK businesses overseas to explore emerging markets on many occasions. I, like others, want the UK to remain at the top of investors’ minds as a place to do business, but the recent rhetoric is not helping. The PM, for whom I have great respect, has said her sense of duty is towards her country and its people. My commitment and my duty to my country is, I believe, just as strong.
For those who believe this House does not have the right to ask the other place to revisit legislation they want Parliament to put through, that is not how I see our role in your Lordships’ House. I have received lots of communications, spoken to lots of people and listened carefully to all sides of the debate. There is support for these amendments in your Lordships’ House and in the other place. There is an opportunity for the democratically elected other place to discuss and debate this properly in the interests of our country.
I genuinely believe that we must send a strong message to our EU partners, and to others with whom we want to pursue FTAs, that we take all our relationships seriously and are not in the habit of turning our backs on our friends old and new, and that we are trusted partners—a nation looking outward, and stronger for our relationship within the EEA. For business, good news is great and bad news is manageable, but it is the uncertainty that persists from the Government that is forcing UK businesses to look as if they are facing a cliff edge.
Lord Mandelson (Lab)
My Lords, this House has already voted in favour of the customs union to stop the imposition of trade barriers that would decimate our manufacturing base. We did so, I suggest, with the tacit support of half the Cabinet, and a majority of Conservative MPs, including in her dreams, I suspect, the Prime Minister. We have to do the same for Britain’s services industries as well. Unlike manufactured goods, cross-border services trade does not have effective WTO rules to fall back on in the absence of any preferential trade agreement between Britain and the European Union. It is absolutely fundamental for us to be clear in our minds that services are not the same as goods. WTO rules effectively provide for goods; they do not provide for services.
Such a free trade agreement between Britain and the EU would be extremely hard to negotiate services into; there is almost no precedent for it—goods tariffs quite possibly, but services very unlikely. Therefore we are not talking of a trade agreement between ourselves and the EU, which is Canada-plus, plus, plus. This is far from it. I have been both a British Trade Secretary and a European Trade Commissioner, so I have seen these issues from both ends of the telescope. It is not possible, given EU rules, and the red line of the British Government, for us to achieve anything like the sort of trade agreement that the Government speak of.
This, therefore, is the crux of the matter in the debate. Without effective WTO rules for trade in services, and without the likelihood of a full bilateral agreement covering all services, we have to maintain our services access by other means, and the only dependable means available to us outside the European Union is membership of the EEA. This would give us coverage by right of all the regulatory standards and rules, harmonised within Europe’s single market, and would give us what amounts to free trade in services. Such single market rules apply to Britain’s pre-eminent EU exports. Our exports to Europe in financial services, including other business services and broadcast services, are colossal. These sectors represent over half of our services economy, which in turn amounts to 80% of Britain’s economy as a whole. This is how important they are to our future economic well-being in this country. Financial and professional services alone account for 25% of all UK services exports, using the automatic passporting arrangements that presently come with our membership of the European Union and the single market.
If we quit the single market as a result of leaving the EU, without the access that the EEA gives us, these rights and their powers of enforcement would be forfeited—no ifs and no buts: that would be consequence that we would face. The impact on cross-border delivery of services to Europe would be savage. A significant proportion of our broadcast content production, as well as cross-border banking and insurance, would be hit for six. This will have a major knock-on effect on the whole of our creative industries in this country and on employment in Britain. In financial services, Frankfurt, Paris, Dublin and Amsterdam will be the principal beneficiaries, as we are already beginning to see.
Our economy simply cannot afford this loss. We are not talking about the next few months; we are not talking about the next couple of years. We are talking about the medium-term consequences, as investment strategies shift to reflect our exclusion from the single market. I understand why the hard Brexiters will probably not lose any sleep over this at all because, for them, it is not economic—it is political. But for the rest of the country, it is their jobs, their livelihoods and the future of their businesses, as well as our country’s income and, moreover, our public services and what we will be able to afford to spend on them, that will be at stake.
I know fully well the arguments about the obligations as well as the advantages of being out of the EU but in the single market via the EEA. We would indeed be presented with a dilemma over rule-making because we would no longer be full voting members of the EU. But no economy of our size and status as a former EU member has ever attempted to join the EEA before. We would be in a reasonable position to frame the negotiations over our EEA membership. It would be a first—but it would also be a welcome first for the EU 27 seeking to keep trade barriers to a minimum, and I think we would be entitled to expect and receive some flexibility.
As for free movement of labour, it is already open to Britain to operate less liberal labour market policies, and we can do so as EEA members. Let us be honest: we all know, do we not, what the Government’s intention is? They know fully well that businesses and public services in our country, including the National Health Service, will continue to need EU nationals as employees, which is why they intend to allow them to keep coming, whatever they say or do not say now. To pretend otherwise is simply to perpetrate another Brexit fraud on the British public.
As I say, as a former Trade Commissioner, I know only too well what is at stake and how we would need to navigate our EEA membership application to gain the maximum national advantage—and I believe it can be done. On Brexit, the time has come for economic reality and common sense to prevail over political dogma and wishful thinking. In this House, in making up our minds on these crucial issues, we are not so easily bullied, and we know why. That is the privilege we have of being Members of this House. This amendment gives us the opportunity to do the right thing for the country and, in my view, that is what we have a duty to do and why we should support this amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, before the noble Lords, Lord Howarth and Lord Forsyth, tell us that we are frustrating the will of the people, it may be appropriate to remind them of the arguments that the leave campaign made before the referendum for leaving the customs union and the single market. We had to leave the customs union because, if we stayed in, we could not negotiate those different free trade agreements that we would make independently with India, China, the United States and many others, which would give us better conditions than we had had, constrained as we were by being a member of the European Union. They said that we had to leave the single market because we had to get rid of so many of these constricting regulations that bound the British economy and which we could be free of when we left. I wish to suggest that neither of those arguments now holds.
The Government have so far spent well over half a billion pounds on the Department for International Trade, and the Treasury, as the newspapers reported this morning, has decided that that is getting to be too expensive for the value that is being produced, which, after all, is very low. Liam Fox has travelled the world several times—someone told me the other day that he has travelled half the distance between here and the moon so far—and has achieved remarkably little. A number of countries have made it quite clear that they are not prepared to offer us anything better than we would get as a member of the European Union. Our hopes that we have a wonderful free trade partner in the United States do not appear to be assisted by President Trump’s present approach to foreign economic relations. Those who still support a hard leave, such as Jacob Rees-Mogg, are reduced to attacking business as being part of Project Fear when business says that its interests are about to be damaged so badly.
On deregulation, we have heard increasingly from members and supporters of the Government, including those on the Front Bench at present, that we do not want to deregulate—that we want to maintain the high standards of regulation. I have not even heard anyone suggest recently that we should get rid of the working time directive. If that is the case, the reason why we want to leave the single market has also evaporated. The Minister earlier this afternoon suggested that, as an independent country, we could mirror EU regulations by passing, on our own, the same regulations the European Union has just passed. That is wonderful parliamentary sovereignty, isn’t it—jumping in behind, taking the rules and saying, “Gosh, look, we’re doing it on our own”? Geoffrey Howe, a far greater Foreign Secretary than the present incumbent, used to talk about the gains to Britain of the single market: that we would be sharing sovereignty and taking part in decisions about common regulations. Outside the single market we will be taking the rules others have given us and pretending that we are a sovereign country.
The Minister suggested earlier this afternoon that the amendments in question would introduce confusion and uncertainty. I suggest to the Minister that most of us think that that describes the Government’s current position. Indeed, I took part in a radio discussion on Sunday morning with someone whom I imagine is quite a good friend of his—Nigel Farage—who agreed with me that the Government’s current negotiations with the European Union are a total mess. That is the relatively widespread set of opinions from a range of different views around the world. Then, we are faced with the Daily Mail this morning, in which the Foreign Secretary is rubbishing the Prime Minister’s views. If that had ever happened during the coalition Government —if a Liberal Democrat Cabinet member had rubbished the Prime Minister—there would have been a government crisis. But we apparently have such a weak and unstable Government that they totter along from one thing to another, unable to decide what they are doing.
My question to the Minister and to noble Lords who are about to speak is: given that the arguments the leave campaign made in that hard-fought and narrowly won referendum have now evaporated, what are the arguments for staying out of the customs union and single market?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I feel sometimes in this House that one has wandered into the film “Groundhog Day”; one hears the same arguments over and over again. I thought I might actually address the Bill.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Alli, that I thought we were debating the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill which, on my reading, simply seeks to ensure that we have in place the necessary legal framework when we leave the European Union, which the other place voted for overwhelmingly when it agreed that we would give notice under Article 50. I have no idea why an amendment about membership of the EEA has any relevance whatever to the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Alli, said, it is the job of this House to ask the House of Commons to think again: but to think again about the legislation we are actually debating, not policy matters which Members of this House do not agree with. That is what the noble Lord is doing.
For brass neck, the noble Lord really takes the prize when he stands up to criticise the Government for not being clear about what they want to achieve. They are pretty clear about it: they want a negotiation which will ensure the best deal for our country. That is not helped by the noble Lords, Lord Alli and Lord Mandelson, and others who are seeking to undermine their negotiating position by passing amendments of this kind.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
In a second. It is not helping at all to be giving the impression that this House has a different view from the elected House of Commons.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
In a second. My noble friend has quite a lot to say, and I am sure I will give way to him in a moment.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
If the noble Lord, Lord Alli, is concerned about the Government’s position, I remind him that the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, helpfully reminded the House that over 200 people voted to join the EEA. The noble Lord pointed out that that was on a three-line whip in the House of Commons. What he did not say was that it was defeated in that House, as was membership of the customs union. What on earth are we, in this unelected House, doing asking the House of Commons to think again?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble Lord says that we are doing our job. Our job is to address this Bill, not to pursue—
Lord Kinnock
I am grateful to the noble Lord. The figure which I used, accurately, was 292, which is slightly over 200. The margin of defeat of that amendment was very small—about nine votes. I was demonstrating the very strong body of opinion, in the elected House, in favour of the principle set down in my noble friend’s amendment. The noble Lord’s familiarity with the Bill should have shown him that, when we are discussing the matter of the EEA, we are completely consistent with the proposals of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which covers our membership of the European Economic Area. Consequently, to try to ensure that we leave the European Union in good order—similar to the phrase that he used—it is surely utterly relevant and entirely proper for this revising House to say to the House of Commons: “Since the Bill provides for reference to the EEA, we are completely consistent with our purpose and the purpose of democracy in asking for further consideration of the arguments in favour of sustaining our goods economy, our service economy and the unity of our nation”.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his guidance on the procedures and nature of this House. He will be well aware of the importance of brief interventions at this stage in the consideration of a Bill. There were indeed 290 votes on a three-line whip, but what is the whip on the Labour Benches today? You are all being told to abstain. For the noble Lord, Lord Alli, to say that the Government’s position is confused, when not many months ago, as the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, pointed out, the Labour Party had a three-line whip on the EEA but is now urging people not to vote for this amendment—
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
As this has been raised, it is only fair—for my colleagues more than for the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—to make it absolutely clear that the three-line whip was on an issue about whether that decision should be taken by Parliament or not. Heidi Alexander, who proposed the new clause 22, said that:
“New clause 22 would not decide on the substantive question of EEA membership, but it would guarantee that at a future moment the House could have its say”.—[Official Report, 15/11/17; col. 426.]
That is, of course, what we have done with the meaningful vote. It is appropriate that accuracy is put before this House.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I note that the noble Baroness has not said that her colleagues have been asked to abstain on this matter.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
So, from having a three-line whip, and arguing for the importance of the European Economic Area, we now have a “Don’t know” position on the Front Bench. And the noble Lord, Lord Alli, has the cheek to say that the Government are confused about their position; just as the Opposition have been confused about a customs union or the customs union. The truth of the matter is that a number of noble Lords wish to reverse the decision of the British people.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked me to comment on the position in the referendum campaign. I campaigned in the referendum campaign and went to a number of public meetings. I heard the argument being made that, if we were to join the EEA and be out of the European Union, we would have “fax diplomacy”. We would have no say in the regulations and that was the worst of all worlds. I now find that the people who were advancing that argument are now pretending that it is in the interests of the country: it certainly is not.
The noble Lord, Lord Alli, asked: “What are we getting for our money?”. As my noble friend has pointed out repeatedly, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. There will be no money paid if we do not have a negotiation which is in the interests of the United Kingdom. By suggesting that that money will be paid, and that the Government cannot get a good negotiation, he is undermining the position of his country, and of the Government, in vital negotiations which, as speeches on all sides have pointed out, are of great importance to the economy as a whole.
Lord Alli
I have been in this House for a little while—about 20 years—and I understand that this is an important issue. There has been a civility in this House which has made it a special place to have a debate. I hope that, whatever the feelings of noble Lords, the rest of this debate can be conducted, as is our tradition, with kindness, care and consideration of other people’s views. I know that the noble Lord has strong views, but if we could take it down a notch it would allow us all to have the debate we want in the spirit to which this House has become accustomed.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I am sure that the noble Lord was not among those jeering when I was trying to make my points earlier and that his advice to his colleagues will be well received. He said, “Take it down a notch”: he is proposing that we fly in the face of the biggest democratic vote in our history and that, as unelected Peers, we ask the House of Commons to consider a matter which has been considered before and not concentrate on what we are here for, which is improving the legislation in front of us.
The noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, said that this is sort of connected to the Bill. There will be an opportunity for us to consider this matter at the end of the negotiations. The Government have promised to bring forward legislation on the agreement and have promised a vote in both Houses on this matter.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My noble friend says “A meaningful vote” from a sedentary position. By that he means a vote to reverse what the British people voted for in a referendum. There will be a vote on the negotiation and on the agreements which have been reached. I urge this House not to undermine the position of the Government in their negotiations or that of the Prime Minister by seeking to argue that her objectives cannot be achieved.
Lord Cormack
I am grateful, and at this point an intervention is appropriate. If anybody is undermining the Government at the moment, it is the Foreign Secretary rubbishing the Prime Minister. My noble friend, who is a brilliant debater—I am delighted to be able to debate with him—is arguing for a cause but completely missing the point. I ask him just to reflect: what sort of example are we being given by a Cabinet that is rent asunder by the Foreign Secretary, the second most important member of the Government, rubbishing the Prime Minister in the Daily Mail?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I know that my noble friend is not very keen on the Foreign Secretary, and that he has made a number of attacks on Boris Johnson in this House, including calling on the Government to sack him. I point out that Boris Johnson played an important part in the referendum campaign and that the people voted—
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
In a second. Can I just deal with this intervention? I did not think that we had interventions on this scale on Report.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
On Report—I am just referring to Standing Orders.
The Foreign Secretary set out his case, which was not to be in the customs union or in the single market, and the British people voted overwhelmingly. This House is seeking to undermine that vote, and in so doing it is damaging its own standing and reputation in the country.
Lord Patten of Barnes
My noble friend has just made, unusually, an unforced error, as they say in tennis. Did he not—perhaps he did not—agree strongly with the Foreign Secretary during the referendum campaign, when Boris Johnson made it absolutely clear that he was in favour of us staying in the single market?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
No, I did not, and I was not aware that he had done that. I do not think that my noble friend and I would be at loggerheads or in disagreement if I said that the Foreign Secretary does not always get everything right. However, he argues passionately for the democratic mandate which was given to this Parliament and to this Government, and which this Government are determined to carry out.
These amendments are doing no good whatever to this place or to our ability to get the best deal for the British people. If my noble friend Lady Verma said that, like the Prime Minister, she has in all conscience to get the best deal for the country, I suggest that the difference between her and the Prime Minister is that the Prime Minister is elected and the responsibility is hers, and my noble friend should give her her loyalty and support.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, I have put my name to these amendments, and I will start by putting this in context. When you make a change in business, you do so if there is a burning platform—if you have to make the change—or to make a change for the better, to improve things. Now we keep hearing about equivalence, and about whether we will be able to get terms as good as those we have now when we leave. To follow on from what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, we have heard comments from other members of the Conservative Party, and not just Boris Johnson. Jacob Rees-Mogg has accused the Business Secretary, Greg Clark, of,
“promoting ‘Project Fear’ by saying that thousands of jobs were at risk if Britain did not minimise friction in trade”.
That is the Business Secretary saying that, and it is called Project Fear. Boris Johnson has said that the proposals for a customs partnership after Brexit are “crazy” and that it will not work.
Lord Green of Deddington
Is the noble Lord aware that this was looked at in some detail during the referendum campaign, and the Norwegian experience was that they had to show severe difficulties in their labour market, it had to be reviewed every three months, and they never used it because they feared retaliation? It is not as simple as that; there is a major issue with the EEA, which is freedom of movement, and outside this House it matters.
Lord Bilimoria
We all know the noble Lord’s views on migration and immigration, so I will not even bother to go into that.
I go back to some senior Labour figures and supporters, including former shadow Business Secretary Chuka Umunna, who lashed out at his leadership, the TUC, Chris Leslie, the former shadow Chancellor, and Wes Streeting. Even John McDonnell says:
“Respect the referendum result but get the best deal you can to protect our economy and protect our jobs”.
Again, he explained that that meant being in a customs union and remaining,
“close to the single market”.
Why can the Labour Party not get behind this totally? I find it astonishing.
As the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, said, 80% of our economy is services—the EEA would address the services issue. Financial services account for 12% of Britain’s economy—we would have unfettered access, so all this passporting would be allowed—and 50% of our trade is with the European Union. There is all this talk of going global and agreeing free trade deals with other countries. I have said this before: try agreeing a free trade deal with the USA, or with India without talking about the movement of people. It is all about the movement of people and about tariffs and goods. The CETA with Canada took over seven years to bring about and does not include services. The European Union has said that it is not as easy to get the best free trade deal in the world as Liam Fox has claimed it is. What would Canada say about it? Moving on to equivalence, WTO rules are the worst possible option. I do not think the country would accept crashing out under WTO rules. The no deal option would not be acceptable to Parliament or to the people.
Perhaps the Minister can answer the nub of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Green. We have no control over our borders, yet a 2004 EU regulation allows all EU countries to repatriate EU nationals after three months if they show that they do not have the means to support themselves. Other countries, such as Belgium, repatriate thousands of people a year. We have never used this regulation, yet we say that we have no control over our borders. Why have we not used it? Why has no one spoken about this in the past?
In conclusion, the best option by far would be to remain. To quote the Financial Times:
“The EEA is not an ideal port for a ship seeking shelter from the worst of the upcoming Brexit storm, but … it may be the only port available … docking in this port is perhaps better for the UK than sailing straight into the storm just because it is exciting, insisting on a perfect port and nothing less, or maintaining that there is no impending storm at all”.
Today is VE Day and we are celebrating peace. There has been peace in the European Union for 70 years. I thank the European Union for that. It is not just down to NATO; the European Union has been responsible for that peace. A Spanish MEP, Esteban González Pons, recently made a very powerful speech in the European Parliament. He said that Europe’s past is war; its future is Brexit. He went on: “Brexit teaches us also that Europe is reversible, that one can go backwards in history … Brexit is the most selfish decision taken since Winston Churchill saved Europe with the blood, sweat and tears of the English. Brexit is the utter lack of solidarity when saying goodbye … Europe is peace after the disasters of war. Europe is forgiveness between the French and Germans … Europe is the fall of the Berlin Wall. Europe is the end of communism … Democracy is Europe. Our fundamental rights. Can we live without all of this? Can we give up all of this?” He went on: “I hope at the next Rome summit we talk less about what Europe owes us and we talk more about what we owe Europe after everything Europe has given us. The European Union is the only spring our continent has lived in its entire history”.
Europe is full of faults but I think it is the best option we have, and the role of this House is to challenge and to bring this up as the least bad option. I recommend the amendment to the House.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, in the dim and very distant past, responsibility was given to me by Neil Kinnock—now my noble friend Lord Kinnock—for dealing with the Maastricht treaty Bill in the House of Commons. John Major had come back from the Amsterdam summit with a flawed agreement and an opt-out on the Social Chapter of the Maastricht treaty. We somehow had to protect the treaty, which we supported, while making the case against the exclusion of the Social Chapter. For over a year and a half, I, along with my party and 26 Conservative MPs, one of whom was to go on to lead his party, ran the Government ragged and made life for my now friend, John Major, a complete misery.
Therefore, I know a little bit about the parliamentary tactics involved in dealing with European legislation. I know a bit about the European issue as well, and maybe that is why I have played such a small part in these debates up until now—I have had my fill of it in the past. But I knew about the way in which tactics play out. A lot of my friends in the House of Commons —the European supporters, some of whom are speaking in this debate tonight—kept questioning the tactics of the Front Bench. They kept asking, “Why are we doing this? We’re endangering the project as a whole”. I said, “Wait a bit. We’ve worked out the strategy and the tactics”. I also had to pacify the Eurosceptics on our Back Benches, who thought that I was not opposing enough. At the end of the day, because our strategy and tactics were right, we inflicted the first defeat on the Conservative Government in 14 years, and it required a Motion of confidence by the Prime Minister to get the opt-out from the Social Chapter through.
During this debate I have listened to my noble friends—they are long-standing friends as well—and they make a powerful case. Crashing out of the European Union, as we might do, would be almost fatal to the economy of this country and to the future generations for whom we have responsibility. However, I have to say to these noble friends that our Front Bench has been incredibly successful up until now by taking a careful and calculated view of the issues involved here. We have given the House of Commons a series of issues on which it can make the final decision. We have not overegged the pudding or overstretched ourselves; we have been careful, because my noble friends Lady Hayter and Lady Smith have carefully judged the mood of this House and have anticipated the mood in the other House. If it is their calculated view tonight that we should not vote for this amendment, I shall accept that judgment.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, it really is intolerable that my noble friend Lord Forsyth should give lectures about loyalty at a time when the Foreign Secretary is writing in the Daily Mail and the European Research Group is laying down ultimata. It is intolerable that he should cast doubts over the loyalty of my noble friend Lady Verma. Of course he is right to point out that we are considering the withdrawal Bill and to say that we are considering a number of matters that the House of Commons has already considered, but the role of the House of Lords is to give the House of Commons the opportunity to consider things a second time. In the end, its will will of course prevail, but we have a duty and a right to ask it to consider matters a second time.
Since the House of Commons last considered these matters, time has moved on and we have seen members of the Cabinet at each other’s throats. We have seen Ministers openly defy the Prime Minister in a way that I have never seen in the nearly 50 years since I was first elected to Parliament in 1970. We have seen Back-Benchers laying down ultimata in a way that has not been seen before. We have seen the most senior Ministers in the Government, as well as Back-Benchers, divided over the direction in which the country should go. If they are divided over the direction in which the country should go and if they are trying to hem in the Prime Minister, reduce her range of options and drive her down the road towards the hardest possible Brexit, we have a right to widen those options and to give her and other members of the Cabinet and the House of Commons a wider choice than they might otherwise have. It is not a question of thwarting the will of the people or of delaying the Bill; it is a question of trying to improve it in a way that will help the House of Commons reach sensible conclusions about the kind of relationship that this country should have with the European Union after our departure.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Alli addressed the House on the basis of principle and with passion—and so did the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I greatly respect the commitment to the national interest of all who have spoken, including of course those who have spoken in support of the amendment. I suggest that it would be good for our proceedings if, whatever side we are on in these passionate debates, we could all work on the assumption that each other’s motives are to be respected.
Of course the future of UK services industries is of immense importance—that is not in doubt at all, and it has to be a major concern of the Government as they develop their negotiations with the European Union on the terms of Brexit. My noble friend Lord Mandelson is pessimistic about their prospects, but it seems to me that it must be in the interests of the European Union as well as of the United Kingdom that the EU does not put impossible barriers in the way of our services exports.
I feel bound to point out that membership of the European Economic Area does entail certain conditions. Non-EU members of the EEA have agreed to enact a large volume of legislation similar to that of the European Union. Non-EU members are consulted on prospective legislation, but they are not represented in the governing institutions of the European Union. The Norwegians refer to the legislation that is presented to them as “fax democracy”: they wait by their fax machines in Oslo to find out what the legislation is that it has been determined in Brussels should govern them.
It is also worth noting, as my noble friend Lord Alli did, that agriculture and fisheries are not part of the terms of reference of the European Economic Area and, therefore, that membership of the EEA would do nothing to assist us in resolving the problems of the Irish border.
A second condition of membership of the EEA is to accept the principle of the free movement of people. My noble friend Lord Alli suggested that somehow this could be got around. My noble friend Lord Mandelson and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, drew attention to the possibility that, under existing EU provisions, it would have been possible for us to have operated a tighter regime on immigration. Those things may be so, but the fact remains that, if you are a member of the European Economic Area, you accept the principle of free movement of people. The noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, explained calmly and clearly what the possibilities and the difficulties are.
A third condition of membership of the European Economic Area is that those who are in membership have agreed that they will pay in considerable sums of money to finance grant schemes intended to reduce the economic and social disparities within the EEA. We should note that the size of those payments greatly increased following enlargement in 2004.
As we all know very well, those who voted leave in the referendum—a majority of our people in, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, rightly reminded us, the biggest exercise in democratic participation that we have ever seen in this country—voted advisedly to take back control of our laws, our borders and our money. In respect of the three principles of membership of the European Economic Area that I have just mentioned, it is clear that, if we remained in the EEA or applied to join it—whatever the precise status would be—we would not have taken back control of our laws, our borders and our money.
We were told again this evening that it will be a cataclysm for the economy if we do not find ourselves members of the EEA. I am afraid that the citizens of this country, who were unimpressed by the forecasts of doom that were presented to them when they were so strenuously advised that it would be a terrible mistake to vote leave, will not be impressed by renewed forecasts of doom. They expect the wish that they so clearly expressed in the referendum—a referendum which they were told by the Government would be determinative and not advisory—to be met. If they perceive, as I think they would if this amendment were passed, that your Lordships’ House is seeking after all to keep them effectively in the EU by another name and to thwart the very clear decision that they expressed at the referendum, they will, to use the term of my noble friend Lord Mandelson, feel that a fraud has been perpetrated on them.
We of course have the right in this House to send our advice to the other place by way of amendments. The question that we have to judge is not whether we have that right but whether it is wise in these circumstances to exercise it. It seems to me that now is a time for a politics not of confrontation but of healing.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I am sceptical about the EEA option. I am not sure that the EFTA EEA partners particularly want us—some of them tend to say that they do not—and I am not sure that the consultative arrangements that they find sufficient, or reasonably satisfactory, would be found satisfactory by this country.
I have always thought that the sort of consultative arrangements that we could secure would be best devised here and put forward in the proposal for the framework of the future relationship. I have always thought it very strange that the Government always insist on playing away—that it is for the other side to put forward the drafts. I do not know why we have not put forward our own prescription. I think we still should—but I begin to despair that we ever will.
I am very impressed by the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson. We have not yet done anything on services, and we really must do something. I am not sure that the EEA is right—but, as the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, said, if we applied to join the EEA, it would be a different EEA that would emerge. It is not, therefore, a knock-down argument that the template that suits Liechtenstein would be imposed on the United Kingdom. I think we could do better. So, although it is not for me the ideal way to go, I would much rather that Britain put forward a British proposal optimised for the British relationship with the European Union that we will have left. If we are not going to do that, this is the next best thing. So, despite my doubts about the EEA option, I will vote for the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, if he chooses to test the opinion of the House—and I hope that others will, too.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend, who supported my amendment both in Committee and on Report. I am very taken by what the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, said. This is not just a Labour tactic. I believe that there has been genuine cross-party consensus on choosing a few very precise issues. I will not rehearse the arguments again—they are there for your Lordships to see—but the noble Lord, Lord Alli, paid me the compliment of saying that he has used those arguments in crafting the amendment before us this evening.
We have had this discussion at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. I believe that the time to bring this back is during the scrutiny of the trade Bill. The reason I say this is not that my arguments in favour of remaining within the EEA are any weaker, but if we send too many amendments back to the other place, where I served for 18 years, we will dilute its focus. I am putting all my confidence in the fact that there will be a majority in the elected House for our remaining in a customs arrangement or a customs union.
As I have argued previously—I have not had a definitive answer—lawyers are split on whether or not we need to formally leave the EEA and trigger an application to leave. I argue that without such a formal application to leave, the UK will remain a member of the EEA. I have worked closely over years with the food manufacturing industry and I continue to work closely with the farmers in North Yorkshire. I accept that the point on services has to be addressed. I understand that negotiations are going on to which we are not privy, and that is the difficulty in all the discussions on this amendment.
On the basis that I believe there will be a further opportunity to discuss this, and because I gave a commitment that I would wait until that time to discuss the EEA in a different context, and on my genuine understanding that we will remain members of the EEA, I urge the noble Lord not to put this amendment to the vote this evening but to keep it up our sleeve for a different occasion.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I have three brief points. The first is a take on the theme of the noble Baroness a moment ago. The reason I believe, from my background in industrial finance, that we need to give the House of Commons the option of addressing this amendment, alongside the customs union amendment which we passed, is in order to have coherence in the debate in the House of Commons. We help it by doing this.
My second point—I follow the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, in this—concerns the importance of the services sector. It is a growing sector in terms of soft power, our cultural industries, broadcasting and data-related industries. It has massive potential and its market is overwhelmingly in Europe.
Thirdly, I draw to the attention of colleagues, particularly on this side, the fact that, whereas the leader of the Opposition may be opposed to this down the Corridor in another place, a Labour Government in Cardiff produced a White Paper in the past year based on these very principles. They did so to safeguard vital manufacturing and services jobs that are so important to our economy. I plead with colleagues to put the interests of a Government trying to do a job first rather than just an oppositional approach.
Baroness McGregor-Smith (Con)
As noble Lords may know, I come to this debate from a business services background having worked in the services industry in the UK and globally for more than 30 years. I am passionate about growing services businesses and that is why I am speaking today. I understand the sensitivities and the challenges of this amendment but I want to talk about the impact on businesses, not party politics. I completely accept leaving the EU next March and I absolutely respect the referendum result.
As my noble friend Lady Verma has outlined, services are a vital part of our economy and we must ensure that our services sector as well as our goods producers have access to our closest and biggest market. The latest CBI report, Smooth Operations, from 11 April 2018, points out that there are much greater costs than opportunities if the UK chooses to move away from the EU rules and regulations. This is based on conversations with thousands of businesses and many trade associations over recent months.
In saying that, I know that there are concerns when we talk about the single market. This amendment seeks to offer an alternative that could square the circle between the referendum result and safeguarding our economy, access to trade and jobs. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, touched upon the differences between membership of the EU and the EEA. These differences could address a number of concerns, including the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The EEA extends the benefits of access to the European market and is based around the four freedoms, of goods, people, services and capital. It is governed differently from being a full member of the EU and can offer more flexibility. This may satisfy some of the concerns that have led us to where we are today. The EEA has its own regulatory, governance and institutional frameworks. The administration and management of the EEA structure is shared between the EU and EEA EFTA states. As such it is not the same as being an EU member.
We are coming to this debate back to front: we are considering a withdrawal Bill before there is a withdrawal agreement. The details of our future trade structures are either up in the air or they are not known. We have no idea what the withdrawal agreement will look like and there remains a possibility that there may not be one at all, which for me and everyone would be a devastating option for our businesses and the economy.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I support this important amendment. The EEA offers a way out of the impasse our negotiations are in. I am therefore disappointed that many in this House seem opposed to the amendment. I urge my noble friends to recognise that there are many Conservative and Labour MPs who wish us to pass this amendment tonight and send it back to the other place for reconsideration. My noble friend Lord Forsyth mentioned this, and I urge him to recognise that there is a strong and growing feeling in the other place that it would like to reconsider the EEA. Seeing the problems facing the country, and seeing businesses large and small increasingly explaining how vital it is not only to have a customs union—or partnership, or whatever we wish to call it; perhaps fish and chips, as my noble friend Lord Patten suggested —MPs increasingly realise that it is not enough to protect British manufacturing and the vital services sector.
It is crucial to keep EEA membership as an option and I ask for your Lordships’ indulgence to explain why the EEA is consistent with the referendum vote and how the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, omits important elements. Being in the EEA would ensure that we are protected in a no-deal scenario, which could otherwise be catastrophic for the UK economy and would necessitate a hard border in Ireland. EEA membership has an emergency brake on free movement of workers so that we could limit the numbers coming into the UK if needed. Articles 112 and 113 state that if there is serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties immigration can be curtailed.
Being a member of the EEA means that regulations can stay aligned with the EU, so our exports of goods and services will not face new barriers. There is no more risk of ever-closer union as the EEA is strictly an economic union. EEA disputes are settled by the EFTA court using the English language, not the ECJ. EEA membership does not include the common agricultural and fisheries policies, as we have heard, but it also does not cover many other areas which the British people may be concerned about as EU members, such as VAT, justice and home affairs or commercial policy. Decisions require unanimity, not qualified majority voting, so there is not the same risk to our sovereignty. There are already negotiations and free trade agreements with 27 countries and negotiations are under way with India, Indonesia and Vietnam. The EU agencies that we already voted for earlier this evening are open to EEA members in most cases. Surely the value of protecting the Northern Ireland border and continuing close trading relationships with the EU in both goods and services far outweighs the possible benefits of imaginary trade deals with third countries. The Government’s analysis shows that, even if we get a free trade agreement with the US, India, Australia and others, it would boost GDP by only 0.7%.
Unlike EU law, EEA law does not have direct effect, but has to be incorporated into national legislation in accordance with each state’s constitutional requirements. EU legislation is not imposed on non-EU EEA states. The final decision on whether rules will be implemented is made by the EEA Joint Committee, which compromises of EU and non-EU EEA states, so decisions are taken on the basis of unanimity. That means that, in extremis, a non-EU EEA state could veto proposed rules, as Norway has done in the past. I urge noble Lords to vote for the amendment as a protection for the UK, its people and its democracy. Being in the EEA respects the referendum result. We would not be in the EU but we would minimise damage to our wonderful country and its citizens.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, this has been an informative, interesting and passionate debate on a key element of our future relationship with the EU. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I think that it is entirely appropriate for us to discuss this here and in the context of the Bill.
It has long been the judgment of the Official Opposition that the Prime Minister made a grave mistake at the very opening of negotiations in sweeping certain options completely off the table. Her red lines, which closed down the possible positive and constructive development of a new partnership with the EU, were irresponsible, short-sighted and aimed more at her hard Brexiteers than at the interests of every part of the UK. Whether one is thinking about Ireland, Scotland, the regions, Welsh farming, manufacturing, the City, aerospace, automobiles or any other sector of the economy, those options were off the table before we had even had the impact statements.
It is not the way that we would have opened discussions on our post-Brexit status. Nor would we have written our own red lines. Instead, Labour set out the objectives for, rather than the particular architecture of, any new relationship. One of the problems with the specifics of these amendments is that they define the structure, not what we want to achieve. Indeed, on the objective, I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend Lord Alli. We urgently need a deal on services if the UK economy is ever to thrive—but the particular model defined may have some shortcomings, some of which the House heard about in the debate on the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, touched on. Not only might EFTA, with its 14 million people to our 66 million, not want us and not suit us, but, because EFTA is not in the customs union, it cuts across the major amendment passed with a majority of 123 in this House on 18 April that was in favour of us being in a customs union. It also does not mention agriculture, which is so important in Ireland. At the moment, we cannot have both a customs union and EFTA.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Because that is what EFTA rules say. It is true that, if the negotiations were in our hands and we were in government, I would have a great deal of faith that, if my right honourable friend Sir Keir Starmer, my noble friend Lord Mandelson or the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, were navigating through the negotiations, they could find a new course for the UK, retaining the benefits of our EEA membership —perhaps even continuing our membership—while forming a customs union with that massive market just off our shores.
We have been clear throughout that any Brexit deal must deliver a strong new relationship with the single market that ensures full tariff-free access, no new impediments to trade and no drop in rights and protections. No doubt this will require a new UK-EU treaty, which must also include a new customs union and a close relationship with the EEA. Any such new arrangement must be based on a negotiating mandate. Thanks to Amendment 51, moved by my noble friend Lord Monks and passed by this House, that mandate would have to be approved by Parliament. It is at that point, when the mandate could be amended, approved or even rejected, that Parliament should help steer the course for our future long-term trading relationship, and other relationships, with the EU. Then, Parliament could decide on whether we are in or out of a customs union, the internal market, the agencies we have just discussed or any such issues. That is what Heidi Alexander’s amendment was about: not sweeping things off the table until Parliament had its vote.
As we heard and witnessed, last week, over the weekend and even this morning the Cabinet has struggled to find a coherent approach to the customs union. Unbelievably, as has been referred to, we even heard the Foreign Secretary call his Prime Minister’s customs plan “crazy”. Our priority now should be to nudge, encourage and persuade the sensible Members of the Government to heed pleas from Ireland, business, the professions, unions and others to close off the possibility of frontier posts, import duties, and checks and hold-ups at borders. At the moment, the Government are risking the end of our hassle-free trading, as well as risking employment and growth. Because of this House’s requirement of Parliamentary approval for the negotiating mandate, this House’s support for a customs union and possible practical problems associated with EFTA membership, we ask our colleagues to abstain on the amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
It is not a shame. What were the words? “Kindness, care and consideration”. It is because we share the objectives of that best possible deal that we should make sure that our mandate and agreement serve the whole country, the economy and the regions. At this stage, we should not support one particular approach to that. I urge the House to abstain on the amendment.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, before I address the amendment I will say a brief word, if the House will permit me, about the previous group, which we did not get a chance to speak on. I did not have the opportunity earlier to announce that the Government intend to consult further on ambulatory references—about which I am sure noble Lords are concerned—particularly in relation to contracts. Subject to the outcome of that consultation, further legislation might be brought forward under the consequential powers in the Bill.
Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)
We intended to cover this under the previous group of amendments, as my noble friend said. This is a very important although highly technical area, transposing European law into English law for the sake of contract agreements. Under the way this is currently phrased in the Bill, there is a danger that the UK version of the EU law would be transposed into EU versions of EU law. The amendments are concerned with consulting on how this can be avoided, so that international contracts made under UK law can continue to be made under UK law for the benefit of the City of London, financial services and the accountancy and legal professions in London. With that, I congratulate my noble friend on this consultation and greatly welcome it.
Lord Callanan
I thank my noble friend for his support. [Laughter.] Noble Lords laugh, but this is an important issue that actually is something to do with the contents of the Bill, unlike some of the other amendments we are considering. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for her somewhat grudging support of our position. Since the Foreign Secretary was mentioned so much, I think it only fair we should mention the sterling performance of the shadow foreign secretary, Emily Thornberry, this morning on the radio, who, in rejecting the so-called EEA/Norway model, set out for us with great clarity what the Labour Party’s position is. She said that they “kind of want to stay in the same kind of place”, effectively.
Amendments 110A and 112BC seek to make continued participation in the EEA a negotiating objective for the Government. The UK is a party to the EEA agreement by virtue of its membership of the EU. At the March European Council we agreed with the EU that the UK is to be treated as an EU member state for the purposes of international agreements for the duration of the time-limited implementation period. This means that international agreements to which the UK is a party by virtue of our EU membership will continue to apply to the UK as they do now. This includes the EEA agreement. The agreement reached at the March European Council on the application of international agreements throughout the implementation period is a positive and significant step and will enable us to secure continuity in our relationships with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein for that period.
Once the implementation period ends, we will no longer be participants in the EU’s international agreements, including the EEA agreement. We will instead seek to put in place new arrangements to secure our future relationship with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein outside the EU. Seeking to negotiate to remain in the EEA agreement would not pass the first test that the Prime Minister set out for our future economic partnership with the EU. It would not deliver control of our borders or our laws. On borders, it would mean we would have to continue to accept all four freedoms of the single market, including freedom of movement. On laws, it would mean the UK having to implement new EU legislation on which, in future, we will have little influence and, of course, no vote. This would not deliver on the British people’s desire as expressed in the referendum to have more direct control over decisions that affect their daily lives.
Some noble Lords think that the EEA would be the right relationship for the UK to have with the EU. I and the Government simply do not agree. As I set out, it is not right for the UK, nor, necessarily, would it be right for Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, whose institutions were not designed to accommodate a member like the UK. Other noble Lords view the EEA as the right course because they believe the Government should seek any port in a storm. The Government are entering negotiations convinced of success and we will secure the right deal for the UK. I cannot support an amendment that rejects before even starting our objective of seeking the broadest and deepest possible partnership with the EU, covering more sectors and co-operating more fully than any free trade agreement anywhere in the world today. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Alli
My Lords, I thank everyone who participated in the debate. We have had a full debate and it was encouraging to hear the voice of business come through, particularly as it is often stifled by rhetoric and dogma. I thank the Minister for what he said. Clearly, I disagree with him. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and my noble friend Lord Mandelson, best set out the kind of negotiation one would expect to have with the EEA, which would be different. In the absence of anything else, this is where we are left. I also thank my own Front Benchers for their courtesy and the way they handled this difficult situation, with many of us on this side of the House wanting to vote for this amendment. It has been a privilege to work with them. I want to say that on the record.
I will highlight a couple of other people from the debate. It will be my only opportunity, and that of many in this House, to say thank you to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, who has done an extraordinary job managing to herd the cats that are non-aligned on this Bill with regular updates and emails. I am sure that noble Lords who have had those will join me in thanking her for the work she has done. I highlight two speeches above anything else. It is very brave to speak against your own party when you do not normally do so. The contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Verma and Lady McGregor-Smith, were exemplary. To take something you believe in and to say and make those arguments against the wishes of your own party shows real bravery and independence. It has been a real privilege to be on the same amendment as them.
I am sure it will be of no surprise to the Minister that I reject his thesis entirely. I also reject the notion that if those of us in business and services wait long enough, the Government will come up with something to tell us about their trade negotiations. It simply does not wash. I ask my side to take the examples of the noble Baronesses, Lady Verma and Lady McGregor-Smith. Be brave and vote—as they say in Ireland, vote often if you can. I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Callanan
Baroness Goldie
“(9A) See paragraph 3A for restrictions on the choice of procedure under sub-paragraph (9).”
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to move this group of amendments as the final piece—to use the analogy of the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths—of the devolution jigsaw puzzle in this Bill. The amendments in this group all relate, in different ways, to the scrutiny that the devolved legislatures will apply to the delegated powers for devolved Ministers in Schedules 2 and 4 to the Bill.
It is right that in conferring powers on devolved Ministers, the Bill should also provide for how they will be scrutinised. It would be irresponsible not to do that. We cannot confer powers and then make no provision for legislative scrutiny whatever. However, the Government recognise that the scrutiny of powers is ultimately a question for the legislature undertaking that scrutiny and the Administration being scrutinised. That is why the Bill consciously preserves the competence of the devolved legislatures, under the respective devolution statutes, to amend those parts of the Bill that make provision for scrutiny of devolved delegated powers. It is why we have sought the views of the legislatures and the devolved Administrations on the appropriate scrutiny arrangements, and these amendments reflect that engagement.
Amendments 69D, 72ZC, 78C and 115A allow for the “made affirmative” urgent scrutiny procedure to be used by devolved Ministers making regulations under their Schedule 2 powers. This was not included in the Bill as originally drafted because it is not a standard procedure in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. However, we have confirmed with the devolved institutions that this procedure is acceptable and that it should be available to devolved Ministers for the same reasons of urgency as it will be available to UK Ministers. These amendments will achieve that.
Amendments 69C, 70C and 77E provide for the “sifting committee” procedure to apply for negative procedure instruments laid by Welsh Ministers under their Schedule 2 powers. The National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Government have both confirmed that this procedure should apply to the Welsh Ministers. These amendments would therefore apply the same procedure as currently applies in the Bill to UK Ministers.
Noble Lords will appreciate that there are very specific arrangements for committees in the Northern Ireland Assembly and this relates to the structures of power-sharing within the Northern Ireland devolution settlement. In that context it would not be appropriate for this procedure to apply, so we have not included it in the Bill. The Scottish Government have informed us that they and the Scottish Parliament wish to apply some form of sifting arrangement to the Schedule 2 power. However, their intention is to undertake this by means of their own legislation. As I have said, the Bill preserves the competence of the Scottish Parliament to legislate on this matter.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, I want to clarify what the Minister has just said. When she said that the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament wish to do it by their own legislation, is that their Continuity Bill, which is currently before the Supreme Court? If it is, what happens if the Supreme Court strikes it down, or maybe some other piece of legislation they bring forward?
Baroness Goldie
That is a reference to this Bill preserving the competence of the Scottish Parliament to legislate on that matter. I understand that it would have to make legislation within the competence of the Parliament. As the noble and learned Lord will be aware, the UK Government question the competence of the continuity legislation. That, therefore, as far as I am aware, is a completely separate issue and not what I was referring to.
Amendments 83KA, 83P, 83LA, 83MA and 112B require the Scottish Ministers to make the same explanatory statements when exercising the powers, under this Bill or when amending regulations made under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act, that UK Ministers must make when exercising their powers. I will not stray into greater detail on each of these statements, as we have debated them at length already. I will, for the sake of clarity, remind noble Lords that this obligation to explain comprises seven elements. The first is a “good reasons” statement; the second is an equalities statement; the third is a statement explaining the purpose and effect on retained EU law of the instrument; the fourth is a statement of urgency when using the made affirmative procedure; the fifth is a “good reasons” statement when using any delegated powers to amend ECA Section 2(2) regulations; the sixth is, where appropriate, a statement of the “good reasons” for creating a criminal offence, and of the sentence attached; and the final one is, where appropriate, a statement to explain why sub-delegation of the power is appropriate. As is the case where a UK Minister sub-delegates the powers, there will also be a duty on the authority to which the power is delegated to then lay before the Scottish Parliament an annual report on the exercise of the sub-delegated power, if exercised that year.
Finally, Amendment 83AC makes a straightforward provision to clarify that the duties on UK Ministers to make explanatory statements when exercising powers under the Bill will apply when exercising the Schedule 2 powers jointly with a devolved Minister. A purpose of joint exercise will allow greater scrutiny by requiring instruments to be considered by this Parliament and the relevant devolved legislature. It would not, therefore, be correct for Parliament to receive less information in relation to the instrument than it would have received if the UK Minister had been acting alone, and this amendment clarifies that this will not be the case. The duty will not extend to devolved Ministers, but the statements, as with the instrument, will be the joint product of both Administrations. The statements, in being made available to Parliament, will also therefore be available to the devolved legislatures, and the relevant devolved Administration can choose whether to lay this alongside the joint instrument.
I hope that noble Lords will recognise these amendments for what they are: they are positively the product of our continued and sincere engagement with the devolved institutions. I also hope that your Lordships will welcome the steps this takes to respond to calls in this House and in other places for greater scrutiny of delegated powers. I beg to move.
Baroness Goldie
Lord Lisvane
“Parliamentary committees to sift regulations made under section 7, 8, 9 or 17
3_(1) This paragraph applies if a Minister of the Crown—(a) proposes to make a statutory instrument, whether under this Act or any other Act of Parliament, to which paragraph 1(3), 6(3), 7(3), or 11 applies or which has the same purpose as an instrument to which those paragraphs apply, and(b) is of the opinion that the instrument should be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament (“the negative procedure”).(2) Before making the instrument, the Minister must lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of the instrument together with a memorandum setting out the reasons for the Minister’s opinion that the instrument should be subject to the negative procedure.(3) The negative procedure applies unless within the relevant period either House of Parliament requires the affirmative procedure to apply, in which case the affirmative procedure applies.(4) A House of Parliament is taken to have required the affirmative procedure to apply within the relevant period if—(a) a committee of the House charged with reporting on the instrument has recommended, within the period of 10 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the draft instrument was laid before the House, that the affirmative procedure should apply, and(b) that House has not by resolution rejected the recommendation within a period of 5 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the recommendation is made, or(c) irrespective of the committee reporting on the instrument, that House has resolved, within the period of 15 sitting days beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the draft instrument was laid before the House, that the affirmative procedure should apply to the instrument. (5) For the purposes of this paragraph—(a) where an instrument is subject to the affirmative procedure, it may not be made unless the draft of the instrument laid under sub-paragraph (2) has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament,(b) “sitting day” means, in respect of either House, a day on which that House sits.(6) Nothing in this paragraph prevents a Minister of the Crown from deciding, at any time before a statutory instrument mentioned in subparagraph (1)(a) is made, that another procedure should apply in relation to the instrument.”
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, I can be brief because the arguments on a Westminster sifting mechanism were deployed in Committee.
Amendment 70 continues the theme of constraints which should be imposed by Parliament on powers delegated to Ministers. For many of the sweeping regulation-making powers, the Government would have a choice under the Bill as to whether the affirmative or negative procedure is to be used. So, as the Bill stands, the scrutinised are to choose the level of scrutiny to which they are subject. This cannot be right. The sifting provisions now in the Bill are better than nothing, but not much, because it is the very making of a recommendation by a sifting committee that brings into play the Minister’s power to ignore the committee and to choose the negative procedure over the affirmative.
Two very red herrings—if I might call them that—entered into the debate in Committee. One was that because there are sifting mechanisms with teeth in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, the Public Bodies Act 2011 and the Localism Act 2011, and those Acts provide for the super-affirmative procedure, this would somehow introduce the super-affirmative procedure into this Bill. It would not and I agree with the Government that, given the time constraints, super-affirmative would not be appropriate. That is why this amendment does not provide for it.
The second red herring was that allowing one or other House to override the decision of a committee could undermine confidence not only in the sifting committee itself but in the whole committee structure. I have had a bit to do with Select Committees of both Houses over the past 45 years and I find this argument truly bizarre. A Select Committee is subordinate to the House that creates it. Select Committee recommendations are often ignored or rejected, usually at the instigation of the Government of the day. No plaster falls from the ceiling; committees do not go into an irreversible sulk; it is a perfectly normal feature of parliamentary life.
The Leader of the House said she hoped that occasions when the Government did not agree with a sifting committee’s recommendation would be “very rare”—even rarer if both committees made the same recommendation. If that is to be the case, what damage is done by putting the onus on the Government to reverse the decision in one House or the other, rather than giving Ministers carte blanche?
I make no apology for repeating my final point—that we will see a flock of exit Bills over the next few months. There will be a strong temptation for the Government to use this Bill as a precedent for ministerial powers in the others. This is one such power that I suggest should not be replicated. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I advise the House that if Amendment 70 were agreed to, I would not be able to call Amendments 70A to 70BB because of pre-emption.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Hansard Society, whose work on delegated legislation will be familiar to many of your Lordships. I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 70—the sifting amendment—to which I have added my name. I will also speak briefly to introduce Amendment 71. The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, has set out very powerfully the case for Amendment 70—for the sifting committees’ decisions to be binding on Ministers—as has the Delegated Powers Committee in its reports.
When we debated an equivalent amendment in Committee, the Government’s argument against the proposal relied chiefly on their assertion that they were in any case likely to accept the sifting committees’ decisions and that, as the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, said, ignoring them would be, “hopefully, very rare”. This is a very weak argument. It is not based on principle. It is based on a suggestion of compliance, except in undefined, unexampled and no doubt exceptional circumstances. What it really means, of course, is that the Government, at their absolute discretion, will be able to impose the negative procedure on SIs, denying Parliament the more robust and intensive scrutiny provided by the affirmative procedure.
There is simply no case for allowing the Executive this unfettered and unqualified discretion. If Parliament is properly to exercise its scrutiny function in the face of the tsunami of SIs coming our way, it must be able to decide conclusively which SIs deserve higher levels of scrutiny and which do not. That is the whole raison d’être of the sifting committees: they allow Parliament itself to decide which SIs merit what level of scrutiny.
Not only have the Government demonstrated no real need for this override power, they have not even hinted at any harm that might be done by making the sifting committees’ decisions binding. In any case, throughout this Bill we must guard against the unnecessary transfer of power to the Executive. What the Government propose is such an unnecessary transfer of power. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, will press his amendment to a vote. If he does, we will support him.
I turn very briefly to Amendment 71, which is in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, and the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane and Lord Norton of Louth. The Government expect this Bill to generate between 800 and 1,000 SIs. There will be many others generated by other Brexit Bills. As things stand, we have only two options for dealing with these SIs: we can accept them or we can reject them. A regret Motion has no practical effect.
In the past, this House has shown an understandable and very deep reluctance to reject affirmative SIs. We have rejected just six in the past 68 years. We have used our “nuclear option” very infrequently. This entirely understandable reluctance to reject will certainly continue for withdrawal SIs. But given the enormous volume of such SIs and the delicate and sensitive areas they will deal with, this proper reluctance to press the red button will almost certainly lead us to approve marginal cases or cases about which we retain serious misgivings. This would be an unsatisfactory outcome for the quality of created law and potentially damaging to the balance of power between the Executive and Parliament.
Amendment 71 proposes an additional method of dealing with affirmative SIs—and it is an additional method; it does not in any way affect our current powers. We would retain unaltered our powers to approve or reject, exactly as at present. Amendment 71 would simply allow us to do what we so frequently do: to ask the Commons to think again. Where we believe that asking the Commons to think again would be desirable, we simply co-ordinate scrutiny so that the Commons can pronounce first. If it rejects the SI, that is the end of the matter. If it approves, Amendment 71 would allow us to ask the Commons, with reasons, to think again. This mechanism would not frustrate the will of the Commons. If it chose not to reconsider within 10 days, the Lords would be deemed to have approved the instrument.
Amendment 71 would give Parliament more flexibility and room for more discussion in dealing with those SIs where real concern exists but where we are properly reluctant to reject. It simply allows a conversation with the Commons, after which the Commons will decide the matter. I commend it to the House.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 84 and I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza. During the passage of the Bill I have raised several issues, all of them designed to ensure that the SIs that will eventually be made under it when it becomes an Act will contain as few errors as possible. This may seem a modest aim, but we are in uncharted waters, and the amount of secondary legislation that will be needed, as has been mentioned, and the little time available to make many hundreds of instruments, taken together with the imperfect nature of human faculties, make error all too likely. One way to minimise this is to consult those with knowledge of and interests in the question at issue. This in turn necessitates publishing draft instruments that can be scrutinised by all. As is so often the case, openness is the best antidote for error.
We have made progress. The Minister has kindly arranged for me to meet officials concerned with agriculture, customs, intellectual property and financial services. It is clear to me that proper plans have been made. A few draft instruments have been published, but things are moving forward at a slow pace. We have made less progress on agriculture than I had hoped; I should declare an interest as chairman of Assured Food Standards Ltd, which operates the Red Tractor scheme. However, this is not the fault of Defra, which seems to be well resourced in this area. One of the serious problems for that department stems from recent rows over devolution, which affects draft SIs in the vital areas of agriculture and fisheries. Defra seems unable to publish drafts without the agreement of the devolved Administrations. This has proved to be an unfortunate state of affairs, which would have been better avoided—but in any case it would be better for everyone in the UK, including the devolved Administrations, if many more specimen drafts were published immediately.
There have been several debates on subordinate legislation and I am glad that the Government have made some very important concessions on scrutiny. Indeed, this very evening they have done so on ambulatory references and arrangements in Scotland. However, the Government have also lost on an amendment in this area, which means that they will be looking at the arrangements again in the House of Commons. That is where I believe Amendment 84 might be useful. It is modest—much more modest than my earlier amendments and those of others—and asks the Government to make public their statutory instruments on GOV.UK 10 days before they are laid. That is all I ask. It would be any 10 days, including parliamentary recesses and festivals.
I would like the Minister to write this into law, perhaps as part of the review of Amendment 31, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and its consequentials. But if that cannot be, I would like her to undertake to add this provision to government guidance on the making of statutory instruments. As an ex-Minister who has had the embarrassment of having to make new orders correcting past mistakes, I can assure her that future legislators and civil servants would thank her. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
It may be for the convenience of the House if I remind your Lordships that we are debating Amendment 70 and the other amendments in the group. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke to Amendment 84, which is grouped with Amendment 70 —but agreeing to Amendment 70 is the question before the House.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, I support Amendment 70, moved by my noble friend Lord Lisvane. May I express the hope that it serves as a precedent for use in other legislation? The parliamentary control of statutory instruments is notoriously inadequate. I speak with a considerable degree of experience, having lived through some 31 years of statutory instruments. We know that far too much legislation is passed through this House without any sensible scrutiny, discussion or amendment. I personally have always argued for the amendment of statutory instruments. I ventured to put forward proposals in Committee on this Bill. They did not make any progress, and I know full well that they will not do so in this Bill now.
However, the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, is a useful first step in that it would require Ministers to explain why the negative procedure has been adopted. Furthermore, it would give Parliament the opportunity to transform a negative procedure into an affirmative procedure. While the affirmative procedure is far from perfect, it is a great deal better than the negative procedure and, on that basis, it is very much a useful first step. I support the noble Lord’s amendment and I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that I have a strong support for her proposal, too. It seems to me that transparency is a very good idea—but I will make one caution, if I may. There will be times when statutory instruments take an emergency character, and the 10-day limit could cause a serious problem. That will need to be addressed if her amendment makes further progress.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, briefly, I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Lisvane who, with his vast experience, has come up with a suggestion that is essential, primarily because I feel that the balance between the Executive and the legislature has been truly tested during these Brexit times. This started with the Government trying to bypass Parliament in implementing Article 50, and then trying to not give Parliament a meaningful vote. At every stage, we have to make sure that the power comes back to Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said that the Government estimate that there will be 800 statutory instruments just as a result of the EU withdrawal Bill. How many statutory instruments does the Minister think that there will be in total, as a result of Brexit? I have heard somebody say 2,000, but there may be even more than that. It is therefore all the more important that we have proper scrutiny. We cannot entrust it to the Executive; Parliament has got to have the power, and I support my noble friend Lord Lisvane’s amendment.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, on Amendment 70. It is a very useful first step and if he presses his amendment I will be pleased to join him in the Lobbies. I shall speak to Amendments 70BA and 70BB, both of which are in this group. I am in a pretty precarious position because I am speaking to amendments to a government amendment which has not yet been moved and is subject to the right of pre-emption. If the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, wins then I am wasting my time. I do not want to waste the House’s time although I do not mind wasting my own.
I am a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I do not speak for that committee but I have been a member of it for some time. These amendments take the last opportunity available to the House to persuade the Leader, who has been attentive to the issue of the extent of the relevant period for consideration, to increase the amount of time available to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to 15 days. Amendments would do that in both Houses. It is not often that the House of Lords tells the House of Commons what to do, but it would be inelegant if the two Houses had different sifting periods.
I do not need to explain the role of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Most Members understand that it takes its duties very seriously and is largely trusted to point out matters of concern under the headings available to it to refer statutory instruments to the House. In my experience, it is a much better system than in the House of Commons. The worry of some members of the committee, which I share, is that in dealing with the flow of statutory instruments occasioned by Clauses 7 to 9 of the Bill, we will end up creating precedents which will in the long term dilute the quality of the scrutiny delivered by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and I know the chairman is very concerned about that.
Practical experience of the rhythm of how we deal with the flow of existing regulations shows that 10 days is not enough. It is enough for normal business. If we get the compliance we need from government departments in terms of answers to our queries and dealing with outstanding questions as SIs pass through the process and get expeditious returns, the committee is quite confident that in usual circumstances 10 days would be enough, but it is not enough for exceptional circumstances and there is no provision for exceptional circumstances in the legislation as it stands.
Noble Lords might think that this is a very small point, but if the important amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, does not find favour with your Lordships’ House, there will be circumstances where Members on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee will on day 9 in the consideration of some order which is causing them continuing concern be faced with the question of what to do. Do they say they need to take further and better particulars from government departments and take further evidence from witnesses and risk going over the 10-day period, at which point the House’s responsibility for the issue ends as the Government will take the issue back and the SI will become by default a negative instrument, or do they say they are in some doubt about it and so will err on the side of caution? They do not really have the evidence to be sure that the instrument should be upgraded from a sift of a negative to an affirmative, but if I am unsure I will always by default argue within the committee for recommending an upgrade. If that kind of thing happens, it is going to create even more difficulty for business managers. It will not happen every week, or anything like it, but the Government’s wish to get the statute book in good order by exit day is absolutely understood and members of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee are responsible and diligent and understand the difficulties in doing that, but they are going to be put in a very difficult position.
I do not know where the 10-day limit came from. I think it originally came from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, but there was no back-up about why it chose 10 days as opposed to 15 days, 13 days or anything else. With the help of the excellent staff of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, we have done a grid and have come to the conclusion that it is not possible for the committee to meet twice within 10 days under this new regime, and that will be essential to be sure that exceptional circumstances are dealt with. On the grid we have done, it is clear that 15 days clears us from exceptional circumstances problems. In particular, I am very concerned about consulting devolved legislatures in other parts of the United Kingdom, particularly in relation to Clauses 7 to 9, as this Bill proceeds.
We are taking a big risk. We are going to put at risk the scrutiny process that we rely on day in, day out to keep the quality of the scrutiny process that the House is so rightly concerned about if we do not either make an exception or give some powers for someone to make a case on cause shown for getting an extra couple of days, or an extra five days, on instruments that can be shown to be exceptional. Although the scrutiny committee is doubling its numbers, making provisions and getting support from the Government for doing that, if we do not increase the relevant period for the consideration of sifting, we risk prejudicing the quality of the work that the scrutiny committee can do on behalf of the House in future.
Lord Haskel
My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, to extend the scrutiny period of the statutory instruments committee from 10 days to 15 days. Like the noble Lord, I speak from experience as a long-standing member of the committee. Yes, where an instrument is fairly routine and uncontentious, 10 days with one meeting is manageable but tight. That is not possible where the committee has doubts or queries and needs to make inquiries; to get answers from Ministers, from other parliamentary committees and, most importantly, from stakeholders and experienced people outside Whitehall in response to its concerns; and to have their views and responses considered at a second meeting. After all, they are the people who are most affected. I could give examples but the time is late. Still, there are many occasions when these inquiries have materially changed the view of the statutory instruments committee.
In my time many statutory instruments have been reported to the House as having had insufficient consultation, so I am reporting this clause to the House for not allowing sufficient consultation time. I hope the Minister will take note and change it.
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 70. If I am in order, I shall speak also to Amendment 71 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. I declare an interest as serving as a trustee of the Hansard Society under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord.
Way back in what now seems like pre-Neolithic times at the time of the Queen’s Speech, when we raised some general issues about the potential passage of the Bill, I spent some time, I think rather to the House’s amazement and considerable boredom, trying to emphasise some of the points about the role that secondary legislation was likely to play in the passage of the Brexit legislation as we now see it coming before us. The estimates since we spoke about that have varied widely, but I have to say that the director of the Hansard Society, who I regard as one of the country’s leading experts on this whole area, has mentioned a figure of 2,000 statutory instruments coming before this House.
The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, has competently and eloquently described, both today and in Committee, the importance of his Amendment 70. Amendment 71 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, myself and two other colleagues is what I see as a belt-and-braces addition to Amendment 70; as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, has already said, it would be only a so-called nuclear option in particularly difficult circumstances. Given what has been described as the vastly uncharted waters in which we now embark on this, and remembering my time as the chairman of the Constitution Committee —on which the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, whose name is also to this amendment, was one of my most helpful colleagues—we need at this stage to put some detailed amendments in the Bill that enable the principles that we have discussed so often during the passage of the Bill about the pre-eminence of parliamentary authority over secondary legislation to be put very firmly on the statute book. I think the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, is sufficient. With the addition of the one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, to which I have put my name, we will have, as I say, belt-and-braces protection.
Lord Goodlad (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. In my view, it strikes the right balance between the role of the Government and that of this House and its committees in the scrutiny of statutory instruments. Amendment 71, so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, follows the recommendations made by the royal commission that was chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham, those of the Leaders’ Group on working practices, which I chaired in 2011, and those of the committee chaired by my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, which we debated in January 2016. That amendment hits the nail pretty well on the head and, if it is reached, should be supported.
I find myself in agreement with the conclusions of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, chaired by my noble friend Lord Blencathra, in its 23rd report of this Session, published in April, on the defects of the Government’s amendments as then tabled. In my view, the responsibilities must rest with this House and its committees and the discretion thereto, not with the Government. So I support this group of amendments.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have an interest in Amendments 70 and 71. I am interested because they address the issue that I believe is central to the Bill: the process by which the two Houses of Parliament scrutinise legislation returning from Brussels to this country as part of the Brexit process; and simultaneously to ensure that that scrutiny is effective and that opportunities for a power grab by the Executive are prevented. In my remarks, I am informed by my past membership of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, I think I agree with every statement that has been made in the course of this debate. A real consensus seems to be emerging from both Benches’ contributions. I just want to add briefly to that, because it is an important issue.
In my view, the treatment of secondary legislation in our country is one of the hidden scandals of our constitution. It is done better in this House than it is in the other place. I was in the other place for 23 years. When I was on the Front Bench, like everyone else, I was from time to time press-ganged by the Whips to sit on a secondary legislation committee. What I witnessed there was a travesty. I often commented on it by intervening in those debates to say how disgusted I was with the whole process. Nobody was given an opportunity to brief themselves on the subject—we would have actually been discouraged from doing so. Certainly, anyone who had an interest in the subject would have been disqualified from serving on the committee in the first place. Everyone brought in their constituency correspondence or read a book. Nothing was said and there was no investigation of the issues raised, which were sometimes important issues. This went on for weeks and months and years, and I am sure continues.
The great virtue of this debate is that Brexit has given us an opportunity—simply because of the vast volume of secondary legislation that will be generated—to look again at our procedures in both Houses of Parliament to deal with it. Some very interesting suggestions have been made this evening. I particularly support the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. Ultimately, of course, we need to solve this problem in a different context from the one we have tonight, but I was delighted to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, say that the solution must be to rely on Parliament to amend statutory instruments—secondary legislation. Only that will ensure that we have the opportunity for proper debate on the substance of these laws coming through Parliament, which is so severely lacking at present.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 70. There is not really much left to say as noble Lords have addressed so many of the points. I do not wish to delay the House, and I would like to hear what the Leader of the House has to say.
Having served in both Houses, the difference in how statutory instruments are treated is very familiar to us, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Davies. I always said in the House of Commons that when a statutory instrument committee came along and you were asked to take part, you would ask, “Why me, and how long will it take?” In this House, we have had more speakers on this debate than we had on the previous one on the EEA. That shows the level of interest and excitement generated by statutory instruments in your Lordships’ House. Someone may have said, “So many SIs and so little time”.
As we progress on the road to Brexit, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said, this House and the other place will clearly have to address a huge number of SIs. The concern is that we have to get this right. The consequences of making mistakes against the Government’s intention of ensuring that EU law can be transposed into UK law are very serious. Those SIs have to be accurate and they have to be properly considered.
In Committee, the noble Baroness confirmed that the Government intend to publish draft SIs “where possible and appropriate”. If you look at the website, there are a few drafts—not many, but a few. There are illustrative examples, and I am grateful for those. They are helpful, but there is no way of knowing whether those examples are representative of the statutory instruments that are to come, particularly given the drive to reduce the overall number by packaging up multiple issues in one statutory instrument. I have raised this issue with the Government over some time. I gave evidence on it to the Select Committee in the other place and I gave evidence to our Constitution Committee, and it is really important that we have those draft SIs for, if nothing else, the appearance of accuracy, so that we know we are getting it right.
As I said, the noble Baroness made helpful comments on this about publishing draft SIs. However, I have to say that I am not convinced that “where possible and appropriate” is good enough. Can she go one step further and guarantee that SIs will always be published in draft form prior to being introduced into either House, unless of course they are made under urgent procedure? That is another discussion and there would obviously have to be very good reasons why they were urgent. Having those draft SIs is absolutely essential—not for delaying but for giving them proper consideration. It is much harder to rectify mistakes at later opportunities than if we deal with them straightaway.
The noble Baroness argued previously that the Committee stage amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, were unnecessary, and she said then that if both committees were to reach the same recommendation,
“the Government’s expectation is that such recommendations are likely to be accepted”.—[Official Report, 19/3/18; col. 154.]
I understand that that is the intention, but “expectation” and “likely to be accepted” are a bit woolly for legislation. I do not think that is adequate. We hope that would be the case but, as the noble Baroness told us at the time, there would be a problem if the two committees disagreed or if the Government decided not to accept the proposed upgrade to the affirmative procedure. It is a limited upgrade; I would not get too excited about the affirmative procedure being too intrusive. We recognise that it is a step in the right direction. The noble Baroness told the House that she hoped the latter scenario—that the Government would not accept a proposed upgrade from one House—would be very rare. Again, it is very speculative. How rare does she think that occurrence will be? Could she outline the steps she would expect Ministers to take in the event of it becoming a reality?
All of us want to see EU law on the UK statute book as accurately and as quickly as possible, but to do that we must have confidence in the process and procedures that we have in place. We cannot do it on a wing and a prayer. If we do not get this right, there will be serious consequences, which will be far harder to rectify or amend later. I hope the Minister can give some reassurances on that issue in the course of her comments.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. The Government take parliamentary scrutiny of the powers afforded them very seriously, which is why, from the outset, I have made clear our view that both Houses should be treated equally when it comes to the sifting process proposed by the Commons Procedure Committee. The Government have already accepted amendments, although they only included a committee in the other place, and the government amendments that we have just discussed would extend that process to your Lordships’ House. We have listened carefully to the views of the House and numerous committees on ways in which to improve this Bill. Among other amendments, we have removed the Clause 8 power altogether and sunset the consequential power and the power to make new fees or charges. The correcting power has been prohibited from creating public authorities or amending the devolution statutes, and we have provided that regulations should be amendable only in the same way as primary legislation.
Having heard the views of the House in Committee, I am pleased to confirm that the Government have tabled amendments that we will debate shortly to extend the sifting committee’s remit to instruments made under the power contained in Clause 17(1). I hope that noble Lords will see this as further evidence of the Government’s willingness to listen to the case put by this House and, in particular, by the DPRRC. I believe that we have made clear our commitment to ensuring that this House can rigorously scrutinise the secondary legislation that will flow from this Bill.
The government amendments allow the changes to the SLSC’s order of reference, agreed by the Procedure Committee, to be put into practice following Royal Assent. I am sure that noble Lords on all sides will want to consider the committee’s report in good time. As I have said before, the agreement reached regarding the SLSC taking on the new and vital role as the sifting committee demonstrates the constructive collaboration of the House. I remain grateful to other members of the Procedure Committee and the SLSC for their support in this decision.
A number of noble Lords have made it clear that they would like further reassurance that the recommendations of the sifting committees will be taken seriously by the Government. I am happy to repeat what I said in Committee—that if both sifting committees were to make the same well considered and no doubt persuasive recommendation that an SI should move from the negative to the affirmative procedure, I assure the House that the Government’s expectation is that such recommendations are likely to be accepted. Where the two committees disagree, the situation would, of course, need to be carefully considered on its merits. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, tempted me to speculate on how often the Government would disagree with a recommendation coming from both committees. Clearly, I cannot usefully do that, but I can say that the Government are not placing shackles on their ability to make a recommendation to upgrade the procedure if they so wish. It is right that this is the case, but I repeat my view—I expect that to be a rare occurrence. I can confirm that on the very rare occurrence, one hopes, when that happened, and the Government did not agree with a recommendation to use the affirmative procedure, we would fully expect to publicly set out our reasons to the committee concerned.
Amendments 70 and 77 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane, Lord Norton and Lord Sharkey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, propose an alternative sifting process. There are two significant differences between the process proposed in Amendment 70 and that proposed by the Commons Procedure Committee, the consequences of which would put at risk our ability to achieve this Bill’s fundamental aim: a functional statute book on exit day and, indeed, for this House to exercise timely and effective scrutiny. The first would make the sifting committee’s determinations binding on the Government unless the House decided to disagree with its committee. The second is that the amendment would build into the sifting committee process a mechanism for the House as a whole to make a binding determination, irrespective of the decision of the committee to which it has delegated the responsibility for making recommendations. Such determinations raise several serious problems. The first is the potential for disagreement between the Houses, and I note that Amendment 71 involves the same problem, to which I shall come in a moment.
The second risk, which is potentially more serious in practical terms, is the delays which this process could create. Given that this House and the other place do not often sit on Fridays, 10 sitting days is already likely to stretch across three weeks. The addition of an extra five-day period, during which each House could overrule its own sifting committee, potentially extends this process into a fourth week. Of course, if any of this were to occur around either House’s normal recesses, the period would be longer still. Then, after that, any negative instrument would still have a praying period of 40 days during which, as now, a debate could be sought. In addition, any affirmative instrument would be subject to the usual scrutiny procedures and laid before Parliament until it could be accommodated in the parliamentary schedule.
Lord Lisvane
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister and to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. From the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, it is clearly an opportunity for your Lordships to gain insight into that world of fascination and excitement which is statutory instrument procedure.
My noble friend Lord Bilimoria was much too kind to me when he credited me with the crafting of Amendment 70. There have been a few changes to it since we debated it in Committee, but it was actually crafted by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which regarded it as an extremely important matter of principle.
It would be churlish of me not to acknowledge some of the things that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House set out, including the improvements that have been and are to be made to the Bill by subsequent government amendment. I can well understand the nervousness that there must be in the minds of government business managers in this House and in the other House, with fleets of these SIs coming forward—different but alarming numbers have been quoted this evening—very little time and, in the back of some minds, the possibility of some rogue committees automatically upgrading everything to affirmatives. Here I was extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope. He emphasised the responsible attitude taken by the SLSC, and I am quite sure that that will be replicated in sifting committees in both Houses. However, these are, to use the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, uncharted waters.
I thought that the Leader of the House was rather apocalyptic about timing when she piled period of time upon period of time, all made much more difficult by praying time of 40 days added at the end. If it is a matter of sifting, it is not a matter of judging and analysing merits but of asking: does this get over the bar? That rapidly becomes quite a straightforward process—so I think that that might be slightly overstated.
I also rather shied away from what I took to be the implied threat that, if your Lordships were so sagacious as to approve Amendment 70 this evening and the Commons were to reverse it, we might end up with no sifting process. If that were the reaction, I can only say that it would be highly unedifying, and I do not believe that that is likely to happen. It is important to remind ourselves that the regulation-making powers, including sweeping Henry VIII powers, are extremely extensive, and much debate on this Bill has centred on making the scrutiny of those effective.
It was kind of the Leader of the House to give us, once again, her strong expectation of what would happen, particularly if two committees were to agree. With all respect I have to say that, however strong an assertion and however deep a belief that is, it is not legislatively bankable. There is still at the heart of this matter an issue of principle, which is that the scrutinised should not be able to decide the level of scrutiny to which they are subject. So, with those thoughts in mind, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker
My Lords, in the third Division earlier this evening on Amendment 110A, the number of noble Lords voting Content was 247, not 245 as announced in the Chamber.
As a result of the House accepting Amendment 70, I am unable to call Amendments 70A and 70B and the amendments to those amendments for reasons of pre-emption.
Amendment 70C
Lord Callanan
“Committee of the National Assembly for Wales to sift certain regulations involving Welsh Ministers
3A_(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if the Welsh Ministers are to make a statutory instrument to which paragraph 1(9) applies and are of the opinion that the appropriate procedure for the instrument is for it to be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.(2) The Welsh Ministers may not make the instrument so that it is subject to that procedure unless—(a) condition 1 is met, and(b) either condition 2 or 3 is met.(3) Condition 1 is that the Welsh Ministers—(a) have made a statement in writing to the effect that in their opinion the instrument should be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales, and(b) have laid before the Assembly—(i) a draft of the instrument, and (ii) a memorandum setting out the statement and the reasons for the Welsh Ministers’ opinion.(4) Condition 2 is that a committee of the National Assembly for Wales charged with doing so has made a recommendation as to the appropriate procedure for the instrument.(5) Condition 3 is that the period of 14 days beginning with the first day after the day on which the draft instrument was laid before the National Assembly for Wales as mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) has ended without any recommendation being made as mentioned in sub- paragraph (4).(6) In calculating the period of 14 days, no account is to be taken of any time during which the National Assembly for Wales is—(a) dissolved, or(b) in recess for more than four days.(7) Nothing in this paragraph prevents the Welsh Ministers from deciding at any time before a statutory instrument to which paragraph 1(9) applies is made that another procedure should apply to the instrument (whether under paragraph 1(9) or 4B).(8) Section 6(1) of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 as applied by section 11A of that Act (alternative procedure for certain instruments laid in draft before the Assembly) does not apply in relation to any statutory instrument to which this paragraph applies.(9) The references in this paragraph to paragraph 1(9) do not include references to paragraph 1(9) as applied by paragraph 7(5)(for which see paragraph 13A).”
Lord Sharkey
“(a) a declaration that the Minister of the Crown concerned is of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make the regulations without a draft being so laid and approved, and(b) a statement of the grounds for urgency.”
Lord Sharkey
My Lords, Amendment 72 would impose measures on the Minister, where he or she was dealing with the urgency procedure in the Bill, for the delaying of “made affirmative” SIs. When we debated this in Committee, I made the point that there was no need, as the Bill is currently constructed, for the Minister to give any explanation for why he or she thought that the instrument should be urgent. I suggested, as Amendment 72 does, that the Minister should explain in writing why the SI should be considered urgent. However, I notice that in Amendment 83N—I am sure that the Leader of the House will explain it in a moment —the Government appear to have recognised the force of the arguments we advanced in Committee, which I have just summarised. In my view, Amendment 83N satisfies the requests we made in Committee and the requirements of Amendment 72. However, I want to ask the Leader of the House a question about where Amendment 83N specifies a failure to give reasons for urgency.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
I wonder whether the noble Lord could clarify something. He has been referring to Amendment 83A in terms which suggest that he is under the impression that it is a government amendment. In fact, I will move it in a few minutes. Is he perhaps thinking of Amendment 83C?
Lord Sharkey
In fact I was thinking of government Amendment 83N—I am sorry that I did not make that clear—which deals with Amendment 72. I was about to ask a question. Amendment 83N says that in the case of a failure of a Minister to give the reasons that he or she should give for urgency, the Minister must write explaining why he has failed to do that. The only thing missing at this point is some indication of when he might write to do that. I ask the Leader of the House to try to help the House by indicating when a Minister should write to indicate his sorrow and apology for not doing what the amendment asked him to do. With that, I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, the amendment is self-explanatory. If urgent regulations have to be laid, having an explanation and clarity from the Minister as to why it is urgent is always helpful. It is fairly simple and straightforward. I hope the noble Baroness will say that she is prepared to accept the amendment.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank noble Lords for this very brief debate. As I indicated in Committee, the Government have reflected on this point further and decided to table their own amendments to achieve the same aims as the noble Lord’s amendments. The Government have always said that we expect Ministers to use the Bill’s urgent procedure rarely. This might be where, for example, corrections to the statute book are required very close to exit day and where the impact of not making these corrections would be significant.
The Government have always been committed to ensuring an appropriate level of scrutiny is afforded to the Bill’s provisions. I remind noble Lords that the made affirmative procedure still requires debates and potentially votes in both Houses. We have always wanted to be transparent about how this unusual process will work and it is for that reason that we have clarified the time period in which a made affirmative SI must be debated. In response to the persuasive case made by noble Lords in Committee, where the Government choose to use the urgent procedure we are happy to commit in statute to supplementing any declaration of urgency with a commitment to making a statement explaining why this was considered to be appropriate. In response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, Ministers will write as soon as is practicable. This is in addition to the obligation to make a statement.
While the Government cannot accept the noble Lord’s amendment for technical reasons, I hope noble Lords will be content to accept those tabled by the Government in its place and that the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, will feel able to withdraw his amendment accordingly.
Lord Sharkey
I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for Amendment 83N and for agreeing with us that it is in fact necessary. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Callanan
“Scrutiny procedure in certain urgent cases: devolved authorities
4A_(1) This paragraph applies to—(a) regulations to which paragraph 1(6) applies, or(b) regulations to which paragraph 1(7) applies which would not otherwise be made without being subject to the affirmative procedure.(2) The regulations may be made without being subject to the affirmative procedure if the regulations contain a declaration that the Scottish Ministers are of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make the regulations without them being subject to that procedure.(3) After regulations are made in accordance with sub-paragraph (2), they must be laid before the Scottish Parliament.(4) Regulations made in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) cease to have effect at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which they are made unless, during that period, the regulations are approved by resolution of the Scottish Parliament.(5) In calculating the period of 28 days, no account is to be taken of any time during which the Scottish Parliament is—(a) dissolved, or(b) in recess for more than four days.(6) If regulations cease to have effect as a result of sub-paragraph (4), that does not—(a) affect the validity of anything previously done under the regulations, or(b) prevent the making of new regulations.(7) The references in this paragraph to paragraph 1(6) or (7) do not include references to paragraph 1(6) or (7) as applied by paragraph 7(5) (for which see paragraph 14(6A)).4B_(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies to—(a) a statutory instrument to which paragraph 1(8) applies, or(b) a statutory instrument to which paragraph 1(9) applies which would not otherwise be made without a draft of the instrument being laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the National Assembly for Wales.(2) The instrument may be made without a draft of the instrument being laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the National Assembly for Wales if it contains a declaration that the Welsh Ministers are of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make the regulations without a draft being so laid and approved.(3) After an instrument is made in accordance with sub-paragraph (2), it must be laid before the National Assembly for Wales.(4) Regulations contained in an instrument made in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) cease to have effect at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the instrument is made unless, during that period, the instrument is approved by a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales. (5) In calculating the period of 28 days, no account is to be taken of any time during which the National Assembly for Wales is—(a) dissolved, or(b) in recess for more than four days.(6) If regulations cease to have effect as a result of sub-paragraph (4), that does not—(a) affect the validity of anything previously done under the regulations, or(b) prevent the making of new regulations.(7) Sub-paragraph (8) applies to a statutory instrument to which paragraph 1(9) applies where the Welsh Ministers are of the opinion that the appropriate procedure for the instrument is for it to be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the National Assembly for Wales.(8) Paragraph 3A does not apply in relation to the instrument if the instrument contains a declaration that the Welsh Ministers are of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make the regulations without meeting the requirements of that paragraph.(9) The references in this paragraph to paragraph 1(8) or (9) do not include references to paragraph 1(8) or (9) as applied by paragraph 7(5)(for which see paragraph 14(6A)).4C_(1) This paragraph applies to—(a) regulations to which paragraph 1(10) applies, or(b) regulations to which paragraph 1(11) applies which would not otherwise be made without a draft of the regulations being laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Northern Ireland Assembly.(2) The regulations may be made without a draft of the regulations being laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Northern Ireland Assembly if they contain a declaration that the Northern Ireland department concerned is of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make the regulations without a draft being so laid and approved.(3) After regulations are made in accordance with sub-paragraph (2), they must be laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly.(4) Regulations made in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) cease to have effect at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which they are made unless, during that period, the regulations are approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.(5) In calculating the period of 28 days, no account is to be taken of any time during which the Northern Ireland Assembly is—(a) dissolved,(b) in recess for more than four days, or(c) adjourned for more than six days.(6) If regulations cease to have effect as a result of sub-paragraph (4), that does not—(a) affect the validity of anything previously done under the regulations, or(b) prevent the making of new regulations.(7) The references in this paragraph to paragraph 1(10) or (11) do not include references to paragraph 1(10) or (11) as applied by paragraph 7(5) (for which see paragraph 14(6A)).”
Lord Callanan
“Power to repeal provisions relating to retained EU law restrictions
7A_ A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 11(4B) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
If Amendment 72H is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 73 by reason of pre-emption.
Amendment 72H
Lord Callanan
Lord Callanan
The Duke of Wellington
“Power to appoint “exit day”
10_ A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 14 which appoint a day as exit day may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
Lord Callanan
“(2) See paragraph 13 for restrictions on the choice of procedure under sub- paragraph (1).”
Lord Lisvane
Lord Lisvane
My Lords, this amendment is consequential on Amendment 70, agreed by your Lordships a short time ago. I beg to move.
Lord Callanan
“Committee of the National Assembly for Wales to sift certain regulations involving Welsh Ministers
13A_ Paragraph 3A applies to regulations under Part 3 of Schedule 2 as it applies to regulations under Part 1 of that Schedule but as if—(a) the references to paragraph 1(9) were references to paragraph 1(9) as applied by paragraph 7(5),(b) the reference to paragraph 4B were a reference to that paragraph as applied by paragraph 14(6A), and(c) paragraph 3A(9) were omitted.”
Lord Callanan
“(6A) Paragraphs 4A to 4C apply to regulations under Part 3 of Schedule 2 as they apply to regulations under Part 1 of that Schedule but as if—(a) the references to paragraphs 1(6), (7), (8), (9), (10) or (11) were references to those provisions as applied by paragraph 7(5),(b) the reference in paragraph 4B(8) to paragraph 3A were a reference to that paragraph as applied by paragraph 13A, and(c) paragraphs 4A(7), 4B(9) and 4C(7) were omitted.”
Lord Callanan
“Anticipatory exercise of powers in relation to retained EU law
18A_ Any power to make regulations under this Act which modify retained direct EU legislation, anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4 or any other retained EU law is capable of being exercised before exit day so that the regulations come into force on or after exit day.”
Lord Low of Dalston
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I thought we would never get there. I shall speak also to Amendment 83E. These amendments have been drafted by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and I should declare my interest as having just been appointed to the disability advisory committee of the EHRC. I have retabled these amendments to give full effect to the Government’s commitment that current protections in the Equality Acts of 2006 and 2010 will be maintained once we leave the EU. As the Minister knows, I have concerns that powers in the Bill could be used to change fundamental rights currently protected by EU law.
Noble Lords who have followed this debate will know that the Government tabled an amendment in the Commons in response to calls for the Bill to include a commitment to ensure current protections in the Equality Acts of 2006 and 2010 will be maintained after Brexit. This is now enshrined in paragraph 22 of Schedule 7. However, as I have said before, this does not properly fulfil the Government’s commitment to maintain current equality protections. Amendments 83A and 83E put this right by requiring a ministerial statement that secondary legislation made under the Bill does not reduce protections under equality legislation.
I take this opportunity to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, for taking the time to meet the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and me to discuss our concerns about equality rights after we leave the European Union. Paragraph 22 of Schedule 7 does not fulfil the Government’s commitment because it does not require a statement that current levels of protection will be maintained. It merely requires the Minister to explain whether and how equality legislation has been changed, and that due regard has been paid to the need to eliminate conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010. There is nothing to stop the Minister, having had due regard to this need, deciding to reduce protections anyway. The duty to have due regard is already a requirement under the public sector equality duty, and the Minister’s statement will do no more than simply confirm that they have partially complied with an existing statutory duty.
The requirement focuses on the first duty in the public sector equality duty: to have regard to the need to eliminate discrimination. However, the public sector equality duty also includes other duties: to have regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity and to foster good relations. The focus on just one aspect of the PSED, rather than the whole, risks confusion about whether Ministers are obliged to fully comply with the whole public sector equality duty, as opposed to just this single limb of it. This must be rectified to ensure clarity and compliance with existing statutory duties.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I should point out that if this amendment were to be agreed, I could not call Amendments 83AA to 83AC by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I support the amendments moved and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Low. He set out the case extensively as to why these amendments should be made. I also echo his thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, for discussing them with us in what I found to be a useful and constructive meeting.
The first point I wish to raise is in relation to Amendment 83A, which seeks to take out the reference to,
“section 7(1), 8 or 9”,
and insert “this Act”. Can the Minister clarify in responding whether the Government’s Amendments 83AA, 83AB and 83AC will meet the purpose of that amendment? Our main concern had been that the original Bill, as it stood, put requirements on the Government with regard to what would have been Sections 7(1), 8 or 9—although Clause 8 has now been dropped from the Bill—but we were also concerned that Clause 17 had wide powers, to which the requirements under this part of Schedule 7 did not apply. It would appear that Amendment 83AB extends to Clause 17(1), which I think would go a long way, and Amendment 83AC to other parts in Schedule 2. I seek confirmation that that would now include all parts of the Bill when it becomes an Act, as in our amendment, which might be relevant to the requirements made under paragraph 22 of Schedule 7.
I make a further point in relation to Amendment 83E, which would require the Government—or the Minister in tabling regulations—to be,
“satisfied that it does not remove or diminish any protection provided by or under equalities legislation”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Low, indicated, the origin of much of this is a report from the Women and Equalities Select Committee in the other place which recommended that the Bill should explicitly commit to maintaining current levels of equality protection. In response, the Government tabled amendments in the Commons, the effect of which is that the Minister has to make a statement that,
“so far as required to do so by equalities legislation”,
the Minister had,
“had due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Equality Act 2010”.
That merely repeated what was already a matter of law, so it did not take us much further. This amendment would require the Minister to make a much wider statement that the proposed regulation,
“does not remove or diminish any protection provided by or under equalities legislation”.
I understand that that is the Government’s intention. It is their politically declared intention, and this amendment makes that a requirement.
When we discussed this with the Minister we agreed that the fact that Ministers are required to make statements under Section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act focuses ministerial minds on whether a provision is compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. We are saying here that, in terms of equalities legislation, ministerial minds should be focused when regulations are being brought forward so there is no diminution in any protection that it provides. That does not mean that there is a deliberate intent by the Government to diminish equalities legislation but means that people have to think about equality protection in bringing forward regulations, check right through and make sure that what is being done lives up to commitments that have been made. I cannot see any reason why Governments should be afraid of or concerned about this amendment. It merely seeks to give effect to the commitment that has already been made.
As the noble Lord, Lord Low, indicated, when we debated my Amendment 30, one of the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, was that the word “protection” did not have any statutory basis and therefore was not appropriate. He was possibly not aware that the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 provides as one of the preconditions for the exercise of delegated powers under that Act that a provision,
“does not remove any necessary protection”,
so there is already a statutory basis for what we are proposing in this amendment, and therefore I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Low.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to be able to speak in support of these amendments, to which I have added my name, especially as I was unable to speak in support of similar amendments in Committee because of another commitment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, for his perseverance on this important issue. When I read the report of the Committee’s proceedings, I was pleased to note the warm words from the Minister, including his acknowledgment that the amendment looks very much like stated government policy, although he qualified that by arguing that the language of political commitment does not necessarily lend itself to the equalities statute book.
I am sure that no one would quarrel with that as a general proposition, but the body charged by Parliament with advising the Government on the equality and human rights implications of proposed legislation has drafted this amendment carefully to guard against such a weakness. I repeat the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness—that in particular the Minister objected to the use of the term “protection”, yet the EHRC points out that the term can be found in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 with regard to the use of delegated powers under that Act. It requires that a Minister must be satisfied that a provision,
“does not remove any necessary protection”.
Does that sound familiar? I imagine that is why the EHRC drafted this amendment in those terms.
The Minister also promised to take away for further consideration the point about the scope of the public sector equality duty, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Low, and also mentioned earlier today. The Minister described it as a constructive suggestion in order to bring further clarity to these parts of the Bill. It was thus very disappointing not to find the government amendment that would have brought this clarity, and I trust the Minister will explain why. I hope he will respond in particular to the EHRC’s injunction that:
“This must be rectified to ensure clarity and compliance with existing statutory duties”,
as the noble Lord, Lord Low, quoted earlier.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak very briefly, and I hope that in that respect I will be a safe harbour for your Lordships this evening. I have added my name to the amendments and I share the concerns expressed by noble Lords today in relation to equalities and human rights. Amendments 83A and 83E would protect against the use of delegated powers in the Bill —I have often expressed concern in that regard—to diminish protections in the Equality Acts 2006 and 2010. Equally, they would address shortcomings in an amendment introduced by the Government in another place.
The amendments relate only to the exercise of delegated powers. They would not set existing rights in stone or prevent Parliament legislating in future to amend laws by primary legislation—indeed, the preferred route when looking at issues such as equalities and rights. Rather, they would guard against the effective transfer of power from Parliament to the Executive by requiring substantive changes to fundamental rights such as equality rights to be made by primary legislation.
In the previous discussion on similar amendments, I urged my friend the Minister to clutch them to his chest but he disregarded my plea. Tonight, I commend these amendments to the House. As my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett, said, I had hoped that the Government would accept them but they have not. There are reassurances that NGOs and organisations such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission are still looking for. It is not too late to give those assurances and perhaps, if this is not the Government’s preferred way, find another way to address these deep and real concerns.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I strongly support the amendments, but I wish to ask about what I thought was a remarkable statement made by the Deputy Speaker after the previous Division. She announced that the result for the Contents in the Division on the single market amendment was out by two. The vote in the Contents in that Division was 247 rather than 245. I ask the Minister, in the interval before he replies to the debate, to explain to the House what happened. This is now the fourth Division on the EU withdrawal Bill where figures have been misreported to the House.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
Perhaps I may explain. There was an error in transmission between the votes presented by the tellers and the clerk’s note handed to the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, consequently. That was the reason. I am sure that the clerk would wish me to explain what had happened. I accept that there is always a slight problem because the votes we declare when we come forward are the votes that we have telled, but some votes are taken at the Table, and they appear separately on the total in front of the clerk and, in this case, unfortunately, they were missed. It made no difference to the result and the matter has now been corrected.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, perhaps I may comment a bit further, because I think there is a serious problem in the conduct of Divisions in the House when large numbers of Peers are voting. We have had only 14 or 15 Divisions on the EU withdrawal Bill, but this is the fourth amendment where the result of a Division has been misreported in the House. On three previous occasions, there was a difference in the tallies between the tellers and the clerks, which I think is a serious business. The majorities have been quite large, but if they had been small, we would not know what was the view of the House by the way that the Divisions have been conducted.
We have now had a serious misreporting of a vote. It takes an inordinate time for Divisions to be conducted because the procedures of the House were not conceived for the number of Members that we have but—more importantly, I think—because the new electronic system of recording votes is very inefficient. I simply note this for the attention of the Clerk of the Parliaments, with whom I have now raised this twice. I should note that he has not replied to my last letter to him on the subject. I think this issue needs to be looked at by whichever is the appropriate body in the House responsible for the conduct of business.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, I may be under a misapprehension, but I thought that the Question before the House was whether or not to agree Amendment 83A.
Lord Dykes (CB)
I follow the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and intervene briefly to thank the noble Lord, Lord Low, for Amendment 83A and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, for Amendment 83E, and both of them together for what they have said. I agree entirely with their remarks and thank the noble Lord, Lord Low, for his characteristically forensic analytical ability to go through all the points, with which I strongly agree, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, for his remarks. This is an important matter, and, as the only speaker who is not a signatory to the amendments, I think it would be right if the Government gave a comprehensive answer. People are worried about the future of equalities legislation in this country. On the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, to the possibilities, there may be a case for primary legislation in future—a new, comprehensive Act—but that subject is separate from this amendment and debate.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, the amendments have been moved so powerfully and comprehensively by the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and my noble friends Lady Lister of Burtersett and Lord Cashman that I do not want to spend much of the House’s time commenting on them. I just want to make a few points. First, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, on the new advisory role that he mentioned—or, perhaps even more, the Equality and Human Rights Commission for taking him in that advisory role. That will be very valuable for the commission.
Secondly, I very much support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, said about the benefit of statements that Ministers have to make; that focuses their minds on what they are doing. I know from my own experience that that is a valuable example from the Human Rights Act, and I have no doubt that it will be very useful here.
Thirdly, on the point made by my noble friend Lord Cashman, we are talking not about preventing amendments being made to the level of protection, but preventing them being made through delegated legislation without considerably more care and scrutiny. That takes me to my final point. Amendment 11, which has already been referred to, moved by my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, will be doing exactly that. It is a very important amendment that was accepted in your Lordships’ House. It will be one of the ways in which the very important continuing protection for equality may be maintained.
I support the amendment and look forward to hearing what the Minister says in opposition.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Low, for his time and consideration on the important issue of how we maintain our equality protections as and after we leave the EU. I appreciate the discussions on this topic that he has had with the Bill officials and my ministerial colleagues. Before addressing the noble Lord’s Amendments 83A and 83E, the Government have reflected on our conversations with him, and today tabled amendments that will extend the statements regarding the Equality Act under Schedule 7 to SIs made under the consequential power in Clause 17(1).
This and other amendments we debated in Committee have sought to reflect in statute the political commitment that the Government have already made in this area—we will maintain the existing protections in and under the Equality Acts 2006 and 2010 after our exit from the EU. Following requests for assurances on this point in the debate in the other place, we tabled an amendment that will secure transparency in this area by requiring ministerial Statements about the amendment made to the Equality Acts by every piece of secondary legislation made under key delegated powers in this Bill.
The statements will, in effect, flag up any amendments made to the Equality Acts, and secondary legislation made under those Acts, while ensuring that Ministers confirm in developing their draft legislation that they have had due regard for the need to eliminate discrimination and other conduct prohibited under the 2010 Act.
As previously stated, the language of a political commitment does not translate to the statute book. So while our commitment to existing equality protections works perfectly well politically, and indeed in the wider world outside this place, these terms do not and could not have a sufficiently clear and precise meaning for the purposes of statute. These statements as tabled in the other place—
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
The Minister is repeating what he said in response to my Amendment 30. It was pointed out by me and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that the word “protection” has a statutory basis in the 2006 legislation.
Lord Callanan
I heard the point that the noble and learned Lord makes, but we are talking about the statements generally.
These statements, as tabled in the other place, applied only to Clauses 7(1), 8 and 9. The Government did not include other powers in this Bill because they are much more tightly constrained than those powers, and their exercise should not give rise to any amendments to the Equality Acts or any harassment, discrimination or other conduct prohibited under the Equality Act 2010. However, we have, as I said, reflected on this, and held discussions with the noble Lord, and we are happy to extend these statements to the consequential power in Clause 17(1). I hope that this will satisfy the noble Lord and that it will enable him to withdraw his amendment. However, this is not a matter on which we will be reflecting further before Third Reading. If he wishes to test the opinion of the House, he should do so now.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and to all those who have spoken—my co-signatories to the amendment and also the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, to whom I am very grateful for his remarks. I should say that the advisory committee was making six appointments, so perhaps it was not as difficult as it sometimes is to be appointed. I should also say that it is a very strong line-up of other people who have been appointed, so it will be a privilege to serve among them. I particularly want to draw attention to the outstanding qualities of the others who have been appointed; it is not just me.
Lord Callanan
Baroness Goldie
“(2A) Before the instrument or draft is laid, the relevant Minister must make a statement as to why, in the Minister’s opinion—(a) there are good reasons for the instrument or draft, and(b) the provision made by the instrument or draft is a reasonable course of action.”
Baroness Goldie
My Lords, the statutory instruments to come under this Bill are the means to a unique end—correcting our statute book and properly incorporating an entire new body of law into our domestic legal order. I hope that the group of amendments I now have the pleasure of introducing is a demonstration of the Government’s commitment to transparency before Parliament. This transparency will enable Parliament to subject the Executive to the scrutiny that is only right and proper when we bring before your Lordships proposals for delegated legislation. A key part of this transparency offer is the array of statements which we are committing in statute will accompany each of the SIs and be published alongside them in their explanatory memoranda.
Before addressing each of the amendments in this group in turn, I wish to put on record the answer to some questions which noble Lords have raised regarding the provision at sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 22 of Schedule 7. This provision does not circumvent the obligation to make any of the statements in paragraph 22. Rather it is an additional requirement, meant to create a further obligation to Parliament that if, for example, there has been some administrative error in publishing a statement, Ministers must provide an explanation to Parliament for their failure, in addition to providing the original statement.
Amendment 83D in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, in common with Amendment 11, accepted two weeks ago by the House, introduces a distinction into the Bill which the Government cannot accept. This is a Bill to make, in common parlance, largely technical changes; substantial policy will be brought forward elsewhere. However, the distinction between technical changes and policy decisions is not one that could ever be defined in statute. Even the most technical of changes could constitute a policy decision, including as to whether to make the change at all. Nor, even if the noble Lords were to accept that point, can any clear line be drawn between technical policy, minor policy or substantial policy changes.
This amendment would require each Minister making an SI to make a declaration which depends entirely on where one is sitting—the prism through which one would see the amendment. For example, to the fishing community in Lerwick, the rules on the make and size of nets are certainly a matter of policy in which it takes an interest, while packaged retail investment product customer information requirements are most certainly a technical matter. I hazard that the asset manager in Kensington might feel a little differently. This amendment risks saying that either everything is technical, or nothing is technical. I hope all sides of the House will agree that neither of these positions is true. This is a Bill to make largely technical changes: that is our policy choice. As I am afraid that the two cannot be cleft asunder, I must ask the noble Baroness and noble and learned Lord not to press their amendment.
Government Amendment 83C and its consequentials 83H and 83J ensure that, where a Minister makes regulations under Clauses 7(1), 9 or 17(1), a statement must be made as to why there are good reasons for the instrument, and the provision made is a reasonable course of action. This is in line with the Constitution Committee’s recommendation in its ninth report and is, I trust, further evidence of the Government’s willingness to give due consideration to all amendments which do not undermine the fundamental operation of the Bill. I hope noble Lords will indulge me as I once again quote the Constitution Committee in support of the proposal. Such an amendment, it said, would:
“require explanations to be given for the use of the power which can be scrutinised by Parliament. It will also provide a meaningful benchmark against which use of the power may be tested judicially”.
The committee continued:
“In this way, the Government can secure the flexible delegated powers it requires, while Parliament will have a proper explanation and justification of their use that it can scrutinise”.
Of course, I cannot put forward these amendments without making reference to the “appropriate versus necessary” debate, which these government amendments were clearly a response to. This House came to a decision on that question which the Government are disappointed with. Nevertheless, I would still commend these amendments to the House in an effort to increase transparency by some considerable measure.
Government Amendment 83F is in a similar vein, and would require Ministers to make a statement as to the purpose of an SI before it is laid. The Government have reflected carefully on the concerns raised within this House that the intention behind a modification to retained EU law might not always be clear. Such concerns were particularly focused on how modified retained EU law may be interpreted in light of Clause 5(3), and whether a modification to retained EU law is to be subject to the principle of supremacy of EU law. These concerns have also been raised in relation to Clause 6(6) and whether an item of retained EU law which is modified after exit day is still to be interpreted in accordance with retained case law.
As was discussed in Committee, we expect in many, if not most, cases that it will be evident from the modification and the context whether the modification is intended, for example, to continue to benefit from the principle of supremacy, and whether modified retained EU law is intended to be interpreted by reference to retained case law. There is no getting away from the point that, ultimately, where such issues arise, they would need to be resolved by the courts on a case-by-case basis.
However, to ensure that there is the maximum clarity and transparency as the SIs are scrutinised and made, we have tabled Amendment 83F, which requires a Minister to make an explanatory statement about the purpose of the instrument, alongside the other explanations required in the same paragraph, including about the relevant pre-exit law and the effect of the instrument, if any, on retained EU law. The Government believe that this approach strikes the right balance by requiring Ministers to provide transparency on this point to Parliament and the courts without risking adversely fettering the discretion of our courts in terms of how SIs and modifications to retained EU law are interpreted. I hope, therefore, that this amendment can be supported across this House.
Noble Lords will all no doubt be aware of Amendment 83G, tabled by the Government, which would require a Minister to make a statement when exercising the powers to create a criminal offence. The statement will need to explain why, in the relevant Minister’s opinion, there are good reasons for creating the offence and for the penalty provided in respect of it. The statement will be made in writing by a Minister before the instrument is laid and will then be published, usually in the Explanatory Memorandum, to inform the deliberations of the committees and the House.
We previously touched on this amendment during debate on Clause 7, when we said that we would discuss what form this statement would take. This is still ongoing, although we will update the House as and when any decision is made on the matter. This amendment comes following the recognition of growing concerns in the House regarding the use of the powers to create a criminal offence. The Government’s plans for creating an offence will now be even more transparent to Parliament, and our reasoning will have to be clear and justified. This will ensure that the committees will have all the relevant information necessary at their disposal to make sound decisions when considering these important instruments. I hope, and am sure, that the House will welcome this.
I thank your Lordships for bearing with me. These are important issues and we thought it important that the House should understand the reasoning behind the Government’s approach to these matters. The Government’s amendments here provide for a material increase in the transparency of the exercise of the powers in the Bill. No one should underestimate how seriously these obligations are being taken by Ministers and officials. They have been designed specifically to address the concerns expressed in Parliament, and the Government intend to meet our end of the bargain in enabling effective scrutiny of the legislation we propose. I beg to move.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I welcome Amendment 83C but will refer to Amendment 83D, to which the Minister devoted considerable attention. Amendment 83C goes some way to meet the concerns of the Constitution Committee, indicated by the tabling of Amendment 83D, even though the committee’s amendment is expressed in different terms. I will refer to that difference initially. The noble Baroness spoke at length about it, and it is a sore point with the Government. They do not want there to be any possibility of being accused of making big policy choices by delegated legislation, and indeed they ought not to do so. The Constitution Committee’s purpose in drafting its amendment was to ensure that delegated legislation is used to make technical changes which are necessary to ensure that retained EU law functions after exit day, and not to make policy choices.
I recognise that there are some cases where a technical change does in fact represent a policy choice—for example, the question of which body should handle this matter in the UK might be seen as a policy choice —but it would be no bad thing for Ministers’ attention to be focused on the need to police that boundary, so far as there is a boundary, between what provisions of EU law it is necessary to put on to our statute book in functioning form and what represents a policy change. That is what the House is anxious about.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Beith. The Government have moved on this, and that is to be recognised and appreciated, but they could have moved further, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, has made very clear. It is slightly paradoxical that, as he says, the Government’s concern not to appear to be making policy changes prevents them adopting an amendment which makes it clear that what the instrument is to do is not to make a policy change. Be that as it may, although I find it hard to believe that the Government and their advisers could not have come up with a form of words that indicated the technical nature of the change being made while not falling into the trap of appearing to make policy changes, we would not prevent that amendment being agreed.
I want to underline three points which I invite the Minister to comment on. First, the way that these Ministers’ statements are described makes it clear that it is the statement of the Minister that is required. She spoke on at least one occasion about the Government’s view that something should be done, and no doubt the Minister would not do something if it were not the Government’s view. However, it is an important and critical part of the statement obligations that the Minister in question should apply his or her mind to the issue. That is the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, rightly made in the earlier debate. Therefore, I would be grateful for her confirmation that it will be understood that, where Ministers are to make such a statement, they have a personal responsibility to be satisfied. That is the whole point of including those words—so that the House or another place has the confidence and assurance that the Minister has focused on the issue and determined that the conditions are satisfied.
The second point I want to underline is that acceptance of these amendments does not in any way undermine the importance of the amendments that the House has already agreed in relation to the “appropriate” and “necessary” distinction. That requirement will remain, and the fact that the Minister’s statement may be expressed in different terms does not undermine it in any way. It will still be necessary—to use that word—for the necessity condition to be satisfied. I would be grateful for the noble Baroness’s confirmation of that.
My third point is that I, like the noble Lord, Lord Beith, am intrigued by the reference to the Government still considering the wording to be used for the creation of criminal offences. We look forward to seeing what they say. It sounds like it will be coming back at Third Reading, and on that I would welcome the Minister’s confirmation. In any event, in doing that, and as the Government consider their words, the House might expect the Minister’s statement to explain not just that there are good reasons for creating the offence but why there are good reasons for creating it in this way. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, has said, there is no reason not to create criminal offences by primary legislation; our concern has been creating them by delegated legislation. The House will need to be satisfied that that is an appropriate thing to do in a given case. I look forward to hearing the response to those points.
Baroness Goldie
I now look forward to giving that response. I thank the noble and learned Lord for his comments. On his first point, which is fairly legitimate, he will be acutely aware that Ministers have not just a personal but a political responsibility. They are, in the office of being a Minister, responsible for having made the statement. That, I think, imputes to the Minister both a political and a personal responsibility. Governments of all colours act in good faith and the Ministers involved act in good faith. I think this House will be satisfied that Ministers of whatever political hue acting under these powers will genuinely have a personal focus on what is being discussed—I think “focus” was the word used by the noble and learned Lord.
The statement must both make the original statement and give an explanation of the delay in having brought the statement forward. I have tried to make that clear in my remarks: this is not an alternative responsibility but a complementary responsibility; the two things will apply. A Minister cannot shoal off one of them and offer the other. Both responsibilities will apply.
The final point was that, when creating an offence, the noble and learned Lord thought it was appropriate to justify not just why the offence was being created but why it was being created in this way. Again, that is ex facie. Part of the impact of the responsibilities of the Minister under the Bill, if so amended, is that they can expect to be questioned closely. Indeed, given the now very robust scrutiny procedures that are in place, Ministers will expect to be questioned closely not only as to why they are creating the offence, but why they are doing so in this way. That is implicit in the structure within which Ministers are now being asked to operate. I hope that to some extent answers the noble and learned Lord’s points.
Lord Beith
Before the noble Baroness sits down, I assume that she is going to answer the questions I put to her, not least about Third Reading but also about the importance of Ministers recognising that the inclusion of policy choices is something we would prefer not to see in delegated legislation.
Baroness Goldie
I am sorry. I did not have a detailed note about the point raised by the noble Lord, so may I undertake to write to him?
Lord Beith
I am sorry to press the noble Baroness, who is normally so helpful, but she has not clarified what she said about the Government reconsidering the wording in relation to criminal offences. It seems to me that, if the Government are reconsidering the wording, then we have to come back to that at Third Reading.
Baroness Goldie
We are not reconsidering. We are simply considering the appropriate text. The general point has been made clear by the Government: that they will not want to retract what is already their policy position. They will simply undertake to inform the House when a form of words has been adjusted.
Lord Newby
Is the Minister saying that the Government have no intention to come back on this issue at Third Reading?
Lord Callanan
“( ) Where an instrument or draft creates a criminal offence, the statement required by sub-paragraph (2A) must (among other things) include an explanation of why, in the relevant Minister’s opinion, there are good reasons for creating the offence and for the penalty provided in respect of it.”
“22ZA(1) This paragraph applies where—(a) a Scottish statutory instrument containing regulations under Part 1 or 3 of Schedule 2 , or(b) a draft of such an instrument,is to be laid before the Scottish Parliament.(2) Before the instrument or draft is laid, the Scottish Ministers must make a statement to the effect that in the Scottish Ministers’ opinion the instrument or draft does no more than is appropriate.(3) Before the instrument or draft is laid, the Scottish Ministers must make a statement as to why, in the Scottish Ministers’ opinion—(a) there are good reasons for the instrument or draft, and(b) the provision made by the instrument or draft is a reasonable course of action.(4) Before the instrument or draft is laid, the Scottish Ministers must make a statement—(a) as to whether the instrument or draft amends, repeals or revokes any provision of equalities legislation, and(b) if it does, explaining the effect of each such amendment, repeal or revocation.(5) Before the instrument or draft is laid, the Scottish Ministers must make a statement to the effect that, in relation to the instrument or draft, the Scottish Ministers have, so far as required to do so by equalities legislation, had due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Equality Act 2010.(6) Before the instrument or draft is laid, the Scottish Ministers must make a statement otherwise explaining—(a) the instrument or draft,(b) its purpose,(c) the law before exit day which is relevant to it, and(d) its effect (if any) on retained EU law.(7) Where an instrument or draft creates a criminal offence, the statement required by sub-paragraph (3) must (among other things) include an explanation of why, in the Scottish Ministers’ opinion, there are good reasons for creating the offence and for the penalty provided in respect of it. (8) If the Scottish Ministers fail to make a statement required by sub-paragraph (2), (3), (4), (5) or (6) before the instrument or draft is laid, the Scottish Ministers must make a statement explaining why they have failed to do so.(9) A statement under sub-paragraph (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) or (8) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate.(10) In this paragraph “equalities legislation” means the Equality Act 2006, the Equality Act 2010 or any subordinate legislation made under either of those Acts.”
Lord Callanan
“Further explanatory statements in certain sub-delegation cases
22A(1) This paragraph applies where—(a) a statutory instrument containing regulations under section 7(1) or 9 or paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 which create a relevant sub-delegated power, or(b) a draft of such an instrument,is to be laid before each House of Parliament.(2) Before the instrument or draft is laid, the relevant Minister must make a statement explaining why it is appropriate to create a relevant sub-delegated power.(3) If the relevant Minister fails to make a statement required by sub-paragraph (2) before the instrument or draft is laid, a Minister of the Crown must make a statement explaining why the relevant Minister has failed to do so.(4) A statement under sub-paragraph (2) or (3) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.(5) Sub-paragraphs (8) and (9) of paragraph 22 apply for the purposes of this paragraph as they apply for the purposes of that paragraph.(6) For the purposes of this paragraph references to creating a relevant sub-delegated power include (among other things) references to—(a) amending a power to legislate which is exercisable by statutory instrument by a relevant UK authority so that it becomes a relevant sub-delegated power, or(b) providing for any function of an EU entity or public authority in a member State of making an instrument of a legislative character to be exercisable instead as a relevant sub-delegated power by a public authority in the United Kingdom.(7) In this paragraph—“the relevant Minister” means the Minister of the Crown who makes, or is to make, the instrument;“relevant sub-delegated power” means a power to legislate which—(a) is not exercisable by any of the following—(i) statutory instrument,(ii) Scottish statutory instrument, or(iii) statutory rule, or(b) is so exercisable by a public authority other than a relevant UK authority;“relevant UK authority” means a Minister of the Crown, a member of the Scottish Government, the Welsh Ministers, the First Minister for Wales, the Counsel General to the Welsh Government or a Northern Ireland devolved authority.”
Lord Callanan
My Lords, throughout debates on this Bill we have been discussing the role of this Parliament in approving legislation. This arose in relation to the scrutiny of the powers in this Bill, and the Government have moved significantly to ensure greater transparency and scrutiny of the powers in the Bill—even if our efforts are not always appreciated by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.
It also arose in relation to any sub-delegated legislative or quasi-legislative powers that might be exercised by Ministers, or devolved Ministers not directly accountable to this Parliament or the devolved legislatures. The Government are therefore tabling these amendments, which provide that Ministers must make written statements explaining the appropriateness of any relevant sub-delegation. These statements will be published alongside any SI creating a legislative power that is not to be exercised by Ministers by statutory instrument or devolved equivalent. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this will ensure that the House is provided with all the information required to forensically scrutinise any SIs providing for such sub-delegation.
To ensure that, once delegated, the exercise of such powers remains transparent, we have also required that a report on the exercise of each power should be laid before Parliament each year. I expect that relevant departmental Select Committees and committees of this House will take a close interest in these reports and use them as a basis to scrutinise and challenge both the bodies exercising these powers and sponsoring Ministers if Members of the other place or noble Lords are displeased by the way these powers are being used in practice.
I have stressed before why the Government think such sub-delegation can be appropriate. I shall try not to repeat myself too much, but Parliament has already granted legislative or quasi-legislative powers to a number of public authorities where this has previously been thought to be appropriate. In line with the Bill’s aim to provide continuity, Parliament should have the option of approving authorities such as the financial regulators or the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets to make binding rules and codes in their respective areas. I mention these examples because I hope they demonstrate the very technical areas where this has been done previously.
I also draw noble Lords’ attention to the draft SI published by DExEU and Her Majesty’s Treasury, which demonstrates how the Treasury might sub-delegate legislative functions to the financial regulators. My ministerial colleagues have discussed this with a number of noble Lords and, I hope, demonstrated that the Government’s approach here is an appropriate allocation of responsibilities that respects the existing framework set by Parliament, ensures democratic accountability for framework legislation that sets the direction of policy, and fits with the existing responsibilities of the regulators. In this case we will also be placing on top of this the provisions of these amendments.
The Government feel that this proposal balances the informed scrutiny by Parliament and Parliament’s ongoing monitoring of the exercise of legislative powers against the appropriate sub-delegation of some responsibilities. I beg to move.
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, the Government have come forward with, in effect, some concessions in this area so as to give added safeguards to Members of this House that these powers will be used responsibly.
I know that the Minister recognises how concerned Members of the House are about the way that legislative power may be exercised other than through the full parliamentary process, or sub-delegated to others. That is why it is very important that the statements that it is proposed will have to be made are carefully considered. I will not repeat what I said in previous debates about the importance of ministerial responsibility for them, but the Minister has said that the House and another place will want to scrutinise very carefully both the statements that are made and the reports that are proposed to see how this is going. I therefore appreciate the changes being made by the Government and will be happy to see them go through.
Lord Callanan
“22AA(1) This paragraph applies where—(a) a Scottish statutory instrument containing regulations under Part 1 or 3 of Schedule 2 or paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 which create a relevant sub-delegated power, or(b) a draft of such an instrument,is to be laid before the Scottish Parliament.(2) Before the instrument or draft is laid, the Scottish Ministers must make a statement explaining why it is appropriate to create a relevant sub-delegated power.(3) If the Scottish Ministers fail to make a statement required by sub-paragraph (2) before the instrument or draft is laid, the Scottish Ministers must make a statement explaining why they have failed to do so.(4) A statement under sub-paragraph (2) or (3) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate.(5) For the purposes of this paragraph references to creating a relevant sub- delegated power include (among other things) references to—(a) amending a power to legislate which is exercisable by Scottish statutory instrument by a member of the Scottish Government so that it becomes a relevant sub-delegated power, or(b) providing for any function of an EU entity or public authority in a member State of making an instrument of a legislative character to be exercisable instead as a relevant sub-delegated power by a public authority in the United Kingdom.(6) In this paragraph “relevant sub-delegated power” means a power to legislate which—(a) is not exercisable by Scottish statutory instrument, or(b) is so exercisable by a public authority other than a member of the Scottish Government.”
“Annual reports in certain sub-delegation cases
22B(1) Each person by whom a relevant sub-delegated power is exercisable by virtue of regulations made by a Minister of the Crown under section 7(1) or 9 or paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 must— (a) if the power has been exercised during a relevant year, and(b) as soon as practicable after the end of the year,prepare a report on how the power has been exercised during the year.(2) The person must—(a) lay the report before each House of Parliament, and(b) once laid—(i) provide a copy of it to a Minister of the Crown, and(ii) publish it in such manner as the person considers appropriate.(3) In this paragraph—“relevant sub-delegated power” has the same meaning as in paragraph 22A;“relevant year” means—(a) in the case of a person who prepares an annual report, the year by reference to which the report is prepared, and(b) in any other case, the calendar year.”
“22BA(1) Each person by whom a relevant sub-delegated power is exercisable by virtue of regulations made by the Scottish Ministers by Scottish statutory instrument under Part 1 or 3 of Schedule 2 or paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 must—(a) if the power has been exercised during a relevant year, and(b) as soon as practicable after the end of the year,prepare a report on how the power has been exercised during the year.(2) The person must—(a) lay the report before the Scottish Parliament, and(b) once laid—(i) send a copy of it to the Scottish Ministers, and(ii) publish it in such manner as the person considers appropriate.(3) In this paragraph—“relevant sub-delegated power” has the same meaning as in paragraph 22AA;“relevant year” means—(a) in the case of a person who prepares an annual report, the year by reference to which the report is prepared, and(b) in any other case, the calendar year.”
“Further explanatory statements in urgency cases
22C(1) This paragraph applies where a statutory instrument containing regulations under this Act is to be made by virtue of paragraph 4(2) or 14(2).(2) The Minister of the Crown who is to make the instrument must make a statement in writing explaining the reasons for the Minister’s opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make the regulations without a draft of the instrument containing them being laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(3) A statement under sub-paragraph (2) must be published before, or at the same time as, the instrument as made is laid before each House of Parliament.(4) If the Minister—(a) fails to make the statement required by sub-paragraph (2) before the instrument is made, or (b) fails to publish it as required by sub-paragraph (3),a Minister of the Crown must make a statement explaining the failure.(5) A statement under sub-paragraph (4) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.(6) For the purposes of this paragraph, where an instrument is laid before each House of Parliament on different days, the earlier day is to be taken as the day on which it is laid before both Houses.”
“22D(1) This paragraph applies where regulations are to be made by the Scottish Ministers under this Act by virtue of paragraph 4A(2) (whether or not as applied by paragraph 14(6A)).(2) The Scottish Ministers must make a statement in writing explaining the reasons for the Scottish Ministers’ opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make the regulations without them being subject to the affirmative procedure.(3) A statement under sub-paragraph (2) must be published before, or at the same time as, the regulations as made are laid before the Scottish Parliament.(4) If the Scottish Ministers—(a) fail to make the statement required by sub-paragraph (2) before the regulations are made, or(b) fail to publish it as required by sub-paragraph (3),they must make a statement explaining the failure.(5) A statement under sub-paragraph (4) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Scottish Ministers consider appropriate.”
“24(1) A power to make regulations which, under this Schedule, is capable of being exercised subject to different procedures may (in spite of section 14 of the Interpretation Act 1978) be exercised, when revoking, amending or re-enacting an instrument made under the power, subject to a different procedure from the procedure to which the instrument was subject.(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) in its application to regulations under section 17(5) no procedure is also a procedure.”
Lord Callanan
“3A(1) Any power to make, confirm or approve subordinate legislation which—(a) was conferred before the day on which this Act is passed, and(b) is capable of being exercised to amend or repeal (or, as the case may be, result in the amendment or repeal of) an enactment contained in primary legislation,is to be read, so far as the context permits or requires, as being capable of being exercised to modify (or, as the case may be, result in the modification of) any retained direct EU legislation or anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4. (2) But sub-paragraph (1) does not apply if the power to make, confirm or approve subordinate legislation is only capable of being exercised to amend or repeal (or, as the case may be, result in the amendment or repeal of) an enactment contained in Northern Ireland legislation which is an Order in Council.3B_(1) Any subordinate legislation which—(a) is, or is to be, made, confirmed or approved by virtue of paragraph 3A, and(b) amends or revokes any retained direct principal EU legislation,is to be subject to the same procedure (if any) before Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly as would apply to that legislation if it were amending or repealing an enactment contained in primary legislation.(2) Any subordinate legislation which—(a) is, or is to be, made, confirmed or approved by virtue of paragraph 3A, and(b) either—(i) modifies (otherwise than as a connected modification and otherwise than by way of amending or revoking it) any retained direct principal EU legislation, or(ii) modifies (otherwise than as a connected modification) anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4 ,is to be subject to the same procedure (if any) before Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly as would apply to that legislation if it were amending or repealing an enactment contained in primary legislation.(3) Any subordinate legislation which—(a) is, or is to be, made, confirmed or approved by virtue of paragraph 3A, and(b) amends or revokes any retained direct minor EU legislation,is to be subject to the same procedure (if any) before Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly as would apply to that legislation if it were amending or revoking an enactment contained in subordinate legislation made under a different power.(4) Any subordinate legislation which—(a) is, or is to be, made, confirmed or approved by virtue of paragraph 3A, and(b) modifies (otherwise than as a connected modification and otherwise than by way of amending or revoking it) any retained direct minor EU legislation,is to be subject to the same procedure (if any) before Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly as would apply to that legislation if it were amending or revoking an enactment contained in subordinate legislation made under a different power.(5) Any subordinate legislation which—(a) is, or is to be, made, confirmed or approved by virtue of paragraph 3A, and(b) modifies as a connected modification any retained direct EU legislation or anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4,is to be subject to the same procedure (if any) before Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly as would apply to the modification to which it is connected. (6) Any provision which may be made, confirmed or approved by virtue of paragraph 3A may be included in the same instrument as any other provision which may be so made, confirmed or approved.(7) Where more than one procedure of a kind falling within sub-paragraph (8) would otherwise apply in the same legislature for an instrument falling within sub-paragraph (6), the higher procedure is to apply in the legislature concerned.(8) The order of procedures is as follows (the highest first)—(a) a procedure which requires a statement of urgency before the instrument is made and the approval of the instrument after it is made to enable it to remain in force,(b) a procedure which requires the approval of the instrument in draft before it is made,(c) a procedure not falling within paragraph (a) which requires the approval of the instrument after it is made to enable it to come into, or remain in, force,(d) a procedure which provides for the annulment of the instrument after it is made,(e) a procedure not falling within any of the above paragraphs which provides for the laying of the instrument after it is made,(f) no procedure.(9) The references in this paragraph to amending or repealing an enactment contained in primary legislation or amending or revoking an enactment contained in subordinate legislation do not include references to amending or repealing or (as the case may be) amending or revoking an enactment contained in any Northern Ireland legislation which is an Order in Council.(10) In this paragraph “connected modification” means a modification which is supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional or transitory, or a saving, in connection with—(a) another modification under the power of retained direct EU legislation or anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4, or(b) anything else done under the power.3C_(1) This paragraph applies to any power to make, confirm or approve subordinate legislation—(a) which was conferred before the day on which this Act is passed, and(b) is not capable of being exercised as mentioned in paragraph 3A(1)(b) or is only capable of being so exercised in relation to Northern Ireland legislation which is an Order in Council.(2) Any power to which this paragraph applies (other than a power to which sub-paragraph (4) applies) is to be read—(a) so far as is consistent with any retained direct principal EU legislation or anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4, and(b) so far as the context permits or requires,as being capable of being exercised to modify (or, as the case may be, result in the modification of) any retained direct minor EU legislation.(3) Any power to which this paragraph applies (other than a power to which sub-paragraph (4) applies) is to be read, so far as the context permits or requires, as being capable of being exercised to modify (or, as the case may be, result in the modification of)—(a) any retained direct principal EU legislation, or(b) anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4, so far as the modification is supplementary, incidental or consequential in connection with any modification of any retained direct minor EU legislation by virtue of sub-paragraph (2).(4) Any power to which this paragraph applies so far as it is a power to make, confirm or approve transitional, transitory or saving provision is to be read, so far as the context permits or requires, as being capable of being exercised to modify (or, as the case may be, result in the modification of)—(a) any retained direct EU legislation, or(b) anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4.3D_ Any subordinate legislation which is, or is to be, made, confirmed or approved by virtue of paragraph 3C(2), (3) or (4) is to be subject to the same procedure (if any) before Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly as would apply to that legislation if it were doing anything else under the power.3E_ Any power to make, confirm or approve subordinate legislation which, immediately before exit day, is subject to an implied restriction that it is exercisable only compatibly with EU law is to be read on or after exit day without that restriction or any corresponding restriction in relation to compatibility with retained EU law.3F_(1) Paragraphs 3A to 3E and this paragraph—(a) do not prevent the conferral of wider powers,(b) do not apply so far as section 57(4) of the Scotland Act 1998, section 80(8) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 or section 24(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 applies (or would apply when in force on and after exit day), and(c) are subject to any other provision made by or under this Act or any other enactment.(2) For the purposes of paragraphs 3A and 3C—(a) a power is conferred whether or not it is in force, and(b) a power in retained direct EU legislation is not conferred before the day on which this Act is passed.(3) A power which, by virtue of paragraph 3A or 3C or any Act of Parliament passed before, and in the same Session as, this Act, is capable of being exercised to modify any retained EU law is capable of being so exercised before exit day so as to come into force on or after exit day.”
“5A(1) This paragraph applies to any power to make, confirm or approve subordinate legislation which is conferred on or after the day on which this Act is passed.(2) Any power to which this paragraph applies (other than a power to which sub-paragraph (4) applies) may—(a) so far as is consistent with any retained direct principal EU legislation or anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4, and(b) so far as applicable and unless the contrary intention appears,be exercised to modify (or, as the case may be, result in the modification of) any retained direct minor EU legislation.(3) Any power to which this paragraph applies (other than a power to which sub-paragraph (4) applies) may, so far as applicable and unless the contrary intention appears, be exercised to modify (or, as the case may be, result in the modification of)— (a) any retained direct principal EU legislation, or(b) anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4,so far as the modification is supplementary, incidental or consequential in connection with any modification of any retained direct minor EU legislation by virtue of sub-paragraph (2).(4) Any power to which this paragraph applies so far as it is a power to make, confirm or approve transitional, transitory or saving provision may, so far as applicable and unless the contrary intention appears, be exercised to modify (or, as the case may be, result in the modification of)—(a) any retained direct EU legislation, or(b) anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4.5B(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies to any power to make, confirm or approve subordinate legislation which—(a) is conferred on or after the day on which this Act is passed, and(b) is capable of being exercised to amend or revoke (or, as the case may be, result in the amendment or revocation of) any retained direct principal EU legislation.(2) The power may, so far as applicable and unless the contrary intention appears, be exercised—(a) to modify otherwise than by way of amendment or revocation (or, as the case may be, result in such modification of) any retained direct principal EU legislation, or(b) to modify (or, as the case may be, result in the modification of) anything which is retained EU law by virtue of section 4.5C(1) Paragraphs 5A and 5B and this paragraph—(a) do not prevent the conferral of wider powers,(b) do not apply so far as section 57(4) of the Scotland Act 1998, section 80(8) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 or section 24(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 applies (or would apply when in force on and after exit day), and(c) are subject to any other provision made by or under this Act or any other enactment.(2) For the purposes of paragraphs 5A and 5B—(a) a power is conferred whether or not it is in force,(b) a power in retained direct EU legislation is conferred on or after the day on which this Act is passed, and(c) the references to powers conferred include powers conferred by regulations under this Act (but not powers conferred by this Act).(3) A power which, by virtue of paragraph 5A or 5B or any Act of Parliament passed after, and in the same Session as, this Act, is capable of being exercised to modify any retained EU law is capable of being so exercised before exit day so as to come into force on or after exit day.”
“Explanatory statements for instruments amending or revoking regulations etc. under section 2(2) of the ECA
5D(1) This paragraph applies where, on or after exit day—(a) a statutory instrument which amends or revokes any subordinate legislation made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, or(b) a draft of such an instrument,is to be laid before each House of Parliament or before the House of Commons only. (2) Before the instrument or draft is laid, the relevant authority must make a statement as to why, in the opinion of the relevant authority, there are good reasons for the amendment or revocation.(3) Before the instrument or draft is laid, the relevant authority must make a statement otherwise explaining—(a) the law which is relevant to the amendment or revocation, and(b) the effect of the amendment or revocation on retained EU law.(4) If the relevant authority fails to make a statement required by sub-paragraph (2) or (3) before the instrument or draft is laid—(a) a Minister of the Crown, or(b) where the relevant authority is not a Minister of the Crown, the relevant authority,must make a statement explaining why the relevant authority has failed to make the statement as so required.(5) A statement under sub-paragraph (2), (3) or (4) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the person making it considers appropriate.(6) For the purposes of this paragraph, where an instrument or draft is laid before each House of Parliament on different days, the earlier day is to be taken as the day on which it is laid before both Houses.(7) This paragraph applies in relation to instruments whether the power to make them is conferred before, on or after exit day including where the power is conferred by regulations under this Act (but not where it is conferred by this Act).(8) This paragraph does not apply in relation to any laying before each House of Parliament, or before the House of Commons only, of an instrument or draft instrument where an equivalent draft instrument (ignoring any differences relating to procedure) has previously been laid before both Houses or before the House of Commons only.(9) In this paragraph “the relevant authority” means—(a) in the case of an Order in Council or Order of Council, the Minister of the Crown who has responsibility in relation to the instrument,(b) in the case of any other statutory instrument which is not made by a Minister of the Crown, the person who makes, or is to make, the instrument, and(c) in any other case, the Minister of the Crown who makes, or is to make, the instrument.”
“5E(1) This paragraph applies where, on or after exit day—(a) a Scottish statutory instrument which amends or revokes any subordinate legislation made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, or(b) a draft of such an instrument,is to be laid before the Scottish Parliament.(2) Before the instrument or draft is laid, the relevant authority must make a statement as to why, in the opinion of the relevant authority, there are good reasons for the amendment or revocation.(3) Before the instrument or draft is laid, the relevant authority must make a statement otherwise explaining—(a) the law which is relevant to the amendment or revocation, and(b) the effect of the amendment or revocation on retained EU law. (4) If the relevant authority fails to make a statement required by sub-paragraph (2) or (3) before the instrument or draft is laid, the relevant authority must make a statement explaining why the relevant authority has failed to make the statement as so required.(5) A statement under sub-paragraph (2), (3) or (4) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the relevant authority considers appropriate.(6) This paragraph applies in relation to instruments whether the power to make them is conferred before, on or after exit day including where the power is conferred by regulations under this Act (but not where it is conferred by this Act).(7) In this paragraph “the relevant authority” means—(a) in the case of a Scottish statutory instrument which is not made by the Scottish Ministers, other than an Order in Council, the person who makes, or is to make, the instrument, and(b) in any other case, the Scottish Ministers.”
Lord Callanan
“( ) Any retained direct principal EU legislation is to be treated as primary legislation.( ) Any retained direct minor EU legislation is to be treated as primary legislation so far as it amends any primary legislation but otherwise is to be treated as subordinate legislation.”
“21A_ In section 30 (other instruments laid before the Scottish Parliament), after subsection (6) insert—“(7) This section does not apply in relation to any regulations made in accordance with paragraph 4A of Schedule 7 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (including that paragraph as applied by paragraph 14(6A) of that Schedule).””
Lord Keen of Elie
“(7) Paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 does not apply in relation to any proceedings begun within the period of two years beginning with exit day so far as the proceedings relate to anything which occurred before exit day.”
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I rise to move the Government’s Amendment 117. The Bill’s approach to certain EU rights of challenge and associated remedies has already been scrutinised closely. We have debated at length the substantive provisions in the Bill covering this area and this House has made clear its views. I do not intend to go over old ground again in this speech. The amendment deals with the approach to transitional cases in one important area, where Francovich damages are being sought. I will say a little about the particular substantive provisions that this relates to.
Francovich damages are a specific form of remedy that exists in EU law. They are available in certain strictly limited circumstances where member states have breached EU law, for example where a member state has failed to properly transpose a directive. The Government remain firmly of the view that, after we leave the EU, Francovich damages will no longer be relevant when we cease to be bound to follow obligations that apply to member states. This is for the simple reason that the majority of Francovich cases in the UK have been brought on the grounds of non-implementation or insufficient implementation of a directive. The UK will no longer be under an obligation to implement directives after exit and the directives will not form part of our domestic law as retained EU law, so the ability to claim Francovich damages would not be possible for a post-exit cause of action. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 therefore removes the right to Francovich damages after exit day. The Government consider this outcome to be a natural consequence of the decision to leave the EU, while ensuring Parliament is sovereign.
The impact of these provisions on transitional cases is one area that the House urged us to think again on when we debated the matter in Committee. I concede that the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Stamford and Lord Carlile, made powerful arguments, in particular on the need to look again at cases where an individual’s course of action accrued before we left the EU. The amendment responds directly to that concern.
We remain of the view that it would not be reasonable for there to be a long tail of cases based on outdated elements of EU law continuing to process through our courts, potentially for many years after we leave the EU. That would not be conducive to the legal certainty this Bill aims for. The Bill will therefore set what the Government believe to be a clear and sensible cut-off point. The amendment we have brought forward will therefore delay the prohibition in the Bill on seeking Francovich damages in domestic law for two years after exit day. This will provide individuals with a fair and sensible opportunity to seek damages for pre-exit breaches of EU law. It also ensures that we continue to have a clear and certain cut-off point after which such challenges would end. I hope that the House supports the proposals that we have put forward, which I think provide important reassurance to individuals and businesses. I therefore beg to move.
Lord Beith
My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could help the House, or those of us who were not following quickly enough, as to how Amendment 117 relates to Amendment 116, which, as I understand it, the Government did not move, and what the effect would be of having Amendment 117 without Amendment 116. Would that affect the Francovich damages time limitation?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, the intention with respect to Amendment 117 is that there should be a two-year period after exit, during which it will be possible for a claim to be made in respect of a right of action that accrued up to the point of Brexit. I hope that that clarifies the point.
Lord Beith
What was not clear to me was why the Government did not move the preceding amendment.
Lord Keen of Elie
That is probably attributable to a note that I have here saying, “Don’t move Amendment 116”.
Lord Goldsmith
I will try to help the noble and learned Lord. It might be because it is pre-empted by Amendment 19 on general principles of EU law, which the House passed at an earlier stage.
Lord Keen of Elie
It was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. Because it was passed, Amendment 116 does not arise.
Lord Callanan
“(b) any subordinate legislation which is subject to confirmation or approval and is made and confirmed or approved before exit day, or(c) any other subordinate legislation made before exit day.”
“( ) For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (3) to (8) assume that the restrictions relating to retained EU law in—(a) sections 30A(1) and 57(4) of the Scotland Act 1998,(b) sections 80(8) and 109A(1) of the Government of Wales Act 2006, and(c) sections 6A(1) and 24(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998,come into force on exit day.”
“30A_ A consent decision of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly made before the day on which this Act is passed, or the commencement of the 40-day period before the day on which this Act is passed, is as effective for the purposes of—(a) section 30A(3) or 57(6) of the Scotland Act 1998,(b) section 80(8C) or 109A(4) of the Government of Wales Act 2006, or(c) section 6A(3) or 24(5) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998,as a consent decision made, or (as the case may be) the commencement of that period, on or after that day.”
Lord Adonis
Lord Adonis
My Lords, it seems to fall to me to move the last amendment of Report, as in Committee. However, I am not going to detain the House for long because, having re-read the Committee proceedings earlier, I found myself fully persuaded by the compelling and eloquent arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. As his arguments rolled off the page about the intent of the European Union Act 2011 and how it was not intended to address a situation other than a significant accretion of powers to the European Union, I thought it would not be sensible to press this. I am entirely persuaded by the fact that if we are to have a referendum on the treaty that the Prime Minister is negotiating with the European Union, as I believe we will ultimately have, it needs to be on an explicit vote by Parliament and cannot take place as a consequence of the 2011 Act. So, at 10.38 pm, I can bring Report proceedings to a conclusion.
Lord Goldsmith
My noble friend was very anxious to bring proceedings to a close at 10.38 pm. Would he be clear as to whether litigation taking place relating to the argument about the 2011 Act has completed? He seems very knowledgeable about that.
Lord Adonis
I believe it is still ongoing. Presumably it is perfectly reasonable for it to be ongoing until the 2011 Act is repealed, which it has not been yet. That is a matter for the litigants, not for me.
Lord Goldsmith
I am grateful for that. Does it not therefore change my noble friend’s view as to how he wants to deal with this amendment?
Lord Goldsmith
My Lords, there is nothing more I want to say about that, but it would be inappropriate to finish immediately without from these Benches thanking everybody for the part that they have played in this Report stage as we move towards the conclusion of this Bill at Third Reading—and towards 10.40, which I notice it now is.
Lord Callanan
The House will be pleased to know that I shall not repeat all the arguments against the amendment, but, following on from the questions that the noble Lord asked me in Committee, it would perhaps be helpful for him to know that the Government intend to commence this provision of the Bill shortly after Royal Assent. That was a question that the noble Lord asked me in Committee and I wanted to be up front with the House about it.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
I had prepared an enormous speech on this amendment which your Lordships will be glad to hear I will not give, but after all that we have gone through so far on this Bill it is appropriate that some of us put on record our admiration for the endurance, patience, diligence and good manners of my noble friend Lord Callanan.
Lord Callanan
It is very kind of my noble friend to say so; I am very grateful for his comments. I look at the vast expanses of empty Benches on the other side; perhaps they do not share that sentiment, but it is nevertheless nice that we have finally reached the end of Report. I am sure that we will return to some of the issues in the future.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 16th May 2018
(7 years ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 102-I Marshalled list for Third Reading (PDF, 72KB) - (15 May 2018)
16:52 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 294 / Noes: 244 - Amendment 1 agreed.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, in so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Amendment 1
Lord Krebs
“Maintenance of EU environmental principles and standards
(1) The Secretary of State must take steps designed to ensure that the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU does not result in the removal or diminution of any rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures that contribute to the protection and improvement of the environment.(2) In particular, the Secretary of State must carry out the activities required by subsections (3) to (5) within the period of six months beginning with the date on which this Act is passed.(3) The Secretary of State must publish proposals for primary legislation to establish a duty on public authorities to apply principles of environmental law established in EU law or on which EU environmental law is based in the exercise of relevant functions after exit day.(4) The Secretary of State must publish proposals for primary legislation to establish an independent body with the purpose of ensuring compliance with environmental law by public authorities. (5) The Secretary of State must publish—(a) a list of statutory functions that can be exercised so as to achieve the objective in subsection (1); and(b) a list of functions currently exercised by EU bodies that require to be retained or replicated in UK law in order to achieve the objective in subsection (1).(6) The Secretary of State must before 1 January 2020 lay before Parliament a Statement of Environmental Policy which sets out how the principles in subsection (7) will be given effect.(7) The principles referred to in subsection (3) include—(a) the precautionary principle as it relates to the environment,(b) the principle of preventive action to avert environmental damage,(c) the principle that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source,(d) the polluter pays principle,(e) sustainable development,(f) prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources,(g) public access to environmental information,(h) public participation in environmental decision making, and(i) access to justice in relation to environmental matters.(8) Before complying with subsections (3) to (6) the Secretary of State must consult—(a) each of the devolved administrations;(b) persons appearing to represent the interests of local government;(c) persons appearing to represent environmental interests;(d) farmers and land managers; and(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.”
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I wish to move this amendment which has been tabled in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and the noble Lord, Lord Deben. We have discussed extensively amendments with similar wording and the same intent in Committee and on Report, so I will try to be brief.
Why have we brought this amendment back at Third Reading? On Report, my noble friend Lady Brown of Cambridge withdrew the amendment because the Minister promised the imminent publication of a consultation document which would deal with the issues that the amendment seeks to address. This is what he said:
“Yes, we are saying that we will be able to address this issue again after noble Lords have had a chance to look at the consultation on the statement of principles and the consultation on the new environmental body. I hope my reassurances are enough to enable noble Lords not to press the amendment and that they will take the opportunity to consider the contents of the consultation before we get to Third Reading”.—[Official Report, 23/4/18; col. 1436.]
We have considered the contents of the consultation, which was published last Wednesday, and we are not satisfied. Although the consultation document is encouraging, it does not go far enough.
Let me recap briefly on the central issue. We have heard many times that the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that everything is the same the day after Brexit as it was the day before, yet for environmental protection things will not be the same. We are talking here about protection of our air quality, water quality, rivers, oceans, habitats and biodiversity. That is because, although the rules for protecting our environment will be translated into UK legislation, crucially, the environmental principles underpinning those rules will not and, furthermore, the current mechanisms for enforcing the rules will disappear and not be replaced. If approved, the amendment would fill those gaps and so ensure that, as intended, the protection of our environment after Brexit will indeed remain the same as it is now.
At first sight, the Government’s consultation appears to address our concerns, as the Minister assured us that it would. It includes discussion both of the environmental principles, such as the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle, and of a new green watchdog to ensure that environmental standards are upheld, thus filling the governance gap that otherwise would be created by Brexit. Those would be part of a new Bill, the environmental principles and governance Bill, to be published in the autumn and introduced into Parliament early in the second Session—in other words, next summer.
However, on closer inspection, the Government’s proposals are simply too weak. There is no commitment to enshrine in legislation the environmental principles to which I have referred. Instead, the preferred option is to create a policy statement, which, as the consultation document says, would allow the Government,
“to balance environmental priorities alongside other national priorities”,
and,
“offer greater flexibility for Ministers”.
The favoured option for the green watchdog’s enforcement role is that it would be able to serve advisory notices to the Government or other public bodies. To quote again from the consultation document:
“government believes that advisory notices should be the main form of enforcement”.
That is far weaker than the current arrangements, under which the Commission has the power to initiate court action. In contrast, an advisory notice can be ignored and there is no sanction if it is. The consultation document even acknowledges the need for strong enforcement when it says:
“there is a special case to act on the environment. Most EU infringement proceedings against all Member States have related to environmental law, indicating a greater need for oversight in this area. In addition, while there are individuals or bodies with direct interests to protect in other areas of EU law, the environment is in a different position”.
Finally, the Government’s timetable for their proposals, weak as they are, show that their new mechanisms would not be in place by Brexit day.
I can imagine that the Minister in his reply may well say that the amendment would pre-empt the result of the consultation and that everything would be taken care of in this promised environmental principles and governance Bill, but I do not accept that. If the Government were really committed to maintaining our environmental protection after Brexit, why not seize the opportunity to show that commitment today? Why should we expect the promise of jam tomorrow when it may turn out that the jam is no more than what is sometimes called thin gruel? Greener UK, a consortium of NGOs, said this in response to the consultation:
“the government has failed to meet the minimum requirement for maintaining the current level of environmental protection. And this disappointment is magnified because ministers – including the prime minister – promised a ‘world-class’ watchdog, and not just to protect but to enhance standards. In proposing a bill that clearly weakens existing protections, it has fallen very short of expectations”.
Noble Lords who care about the preservation of our environment for future generations should support this amendment. After the big reveal of the consultation document, we now know that the Government’s proposals open the door to weaker environmental protection after Brexit day. I beg to move.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, the days that we have spent debating amendments to the Bill have been very dark days for your Lordships’ House. Sometimes when we have successfully scrutinised a piece of legislation in the past, it has been described as the House at its best. Without any doubt, these days will go down in history as the House of Lords at its worst.
Noble Lords, some of whom have been elected to or worked in Parliament for many years, have used and abused the gentle, forgiving system in your Lordships’ House to further their own ends of stopping us leaving the EU. I have watched and listened with growing concern and incredulity as people who should know better have tabled and spoken to amendments, most of which have been technically out of order and nothing to do with the Bill. I speak as an ex-Deputy Speaker in the other place: it is interesting to note that if we had a Speaker—and that day may now be much nearer than we think—none of the amendments put down by wreckers of the Bill would have been called and the Bill would have been back in the Commons long ago.
I do not know how the House of Commons will deal with the irrelevant amendments we will send to it, but I know that irreparable damage to our reputation has already been done by the antics of these dark days. We have set ourselves up in such a disreputable way, as guardians of wisdom and the common good, in so many of the amendments that we have passed.
Lord Cormack (Con)
If anybody is doing damage to the reputation of the House, it is my noble friend.
Lord Framlingham
That is a chance I will have to take. I do not agree with the noble Lord. I think that I am speaking up for this House, for this country and for what we are trying to do.
I repeat: to set ourselves up in such a disreputable way, as guardians of wisdom and the common good, in so many of the amendments that we have passed, simply in an attempt to wreck the Bill and thwart the will of the people, is both false and dangerous.
The Countess of Mar (CB)
I wonder whether the noble Lord would kindly pay attention to the amendment on the Order Paper that was just moved by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs.
Lord Framlingham
I am addressing the amendment and other amendments too.
The House has repeatedly been warned of the recklessness of the course it has taken. The noble Lords, Lord Grocott and Lord Howarth, from the Labour Benches, and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, from this side of the House, have made excellent contributions, showing not only their understanding of the workings of Parliament but the damage that we have been doing to our reputation and the dangers we have created for the future of your Lordships’ House. They have been derided and scoffed at—not because they were wrong, but because every word they said was true. The scoffers knew this in their hearts and simply could not bear to listen to the truth.
It is not often in life that one is given a second chance to correct a big mistake—a folly of historic proportions—but we will be given one and I sincerely hope that we will take it. When the Bill returns to this House from the Commons, if we all accept, in as healing a way as possible, that whatever side we have been on and however we have behaved, our job is done and we should no longer seek to impose our will on the parliamentary process, perhaps not too much lasting damage will have been done to your Lordships’ House. Should the principal remain protagonists continue to pursue controversy, they will serve only to deepen the divisions in this House.
Lord Winston (Lab)
Does the noble Lord not feel that, important though the future of this House may be, the future of future generations is very important indeed—our children, our grandchildren and civilisation after us?
Lord Framlingham
Indeed I do, and I think that in many ways this House has recently been demonstrating its detachment from that.
Lord Framlingham
I am sorry, but if this House thinks it understands what is happening in the world outside, that is a grave mistake.
I am trying to be brief, but interventions have made my speech longer—and I am tempted to go on longer, because I feel so strongly about the position this House is putting itself in. This is the most important political issue in which any of us will ever play a part. Our speeches and votes will be on record, and I do not believe history will be very kind to those who continue to hinder the progress of this vital chapter in our country’s affairs.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. The environmental principles were debated at length in Committee and again on Report. Then, as the noble Lord said, the Minister assured us that a consultation document would be forthcoming before Third Reading. Indeed, it was published last Thursday. In paragraph 9, on page 2, it states:
“This consultation explores the functions of a new, independent, statutory environmental body to hold government to account on the environment and support our longer term objective on this, to be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than that in which we inherited it”.
This has been the stated aim of the Secretary of State on many occasions, and the aspiration is covered in the 25-year environment plan. He further aspires to have a world-leading environmental watchdog to safeguard the environment. I fear that this accountable body proposed in the Environmental Principles and Governance consultation falls a very long way short of being a world leader. Neither will it deliver the fine words in paragraph 9 of the document.
As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has already demonstrated, advisory notices are not likely to bring polluters to book, nor safeguard the habitats and environments of the countryside and towns that we hold so dear. This is far weaker than the current arrangements through which the European Commission has the power to initiate court action to remedy breaches of environmental law. A world-leading watchdog needs strong legal powers, not merely the ability to make suggestions and issue advisory notices.
The weakness of the powers, functions and scope of the consultation is disappointing. The amendment seeks to remedy that by insisting that environmental law be complied with. While it may often be possible to ensure compliance without recourse to the courts, an effective watchdog will need a range of meaningful legal powers, including the power to initiate court action.
It is essential for the new institution to engage closely with those affected by environmental problems, but the consultation document does not even commit to receiving complaints from the public. This represents a backward step from the complaints process currently in place. Additionally, the consultation is limited in its jurisdiction and suggests that the remit will apply only to central government, and not to other public authorities.
Restricting the enforcement role to central government will take away important safeguards, and risks alienating communities from those responsible for looking after their local environs. It will not be possible to challenge those who make the decisions that affect people and nature directly and personally. The few teeth the watchdog has will fail once people realise that it cannot help them solve the environmental problems they face. The amendment makes it clear that the watchdog and the principles should apply to public authorities in general, rather than only to central government.
Although the publication of the consultation is welcome, it does not provide the reassurances and certainty that many stakeholders had been expecting. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said, it contains no commitment to enshrine environmental principles such as the precautionary principle and the “polluter pays” principle in the forthcoming Bill. Instead, we can look forward to a “policy statement”. Previous experience of policy statements in relation to biodiversity is that they have proved ineffective.
The Government have promised a world-leading environmental watchdog and enhanced environmental standards after Brexit, yet, in practice, the consultation proposes to give the environment less protection after Brexit than exists now. The status of the environmental principles is at risk of being downgraded and the proposals for a new watchdog are far from world-leading.
There is no timescale for the Government to publish their response to the consultation, nor can we be assured that the environment Bill will appear in the autumn. There are many examples of government proposals stalling, including there still being no clarity on when the Government intend to announce the next steps following their call for evidence on the important issue of corporate liability. The consultation closed in March 2017 and the response has yet to be published.
The Government wish us to be the first generation to really make a difference to the environment. The clue to how the environment will be protected and saved is in the word “generation”. That means all of us—not just Cabinet Ministers and the Government, not just Members of the other place, nor even just Members sitting in your Lordships’ Chamber today. Nor is it to be left to the public, who have had the decline in the state of the environment brought to their attention so vividly by Sir David Attenborough.
We cannot afford to leave a gap in environmental legislation that might allow irreparable harm to be done. Every single one of us must play our part, but we will not be able to safeguard our environmental assets—living and breathing, growing and archaeological —if the watchdog on which we rely has no teeth to operate. We have an opportunity today to act; I urge your Lordships to take it.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the climate change committee. That is why I strongly support the amendment. We see here exactly what played out during the debates on the climate change committee.
I want first to thank the Government for a serious attempt to move in the direction we wanted. My noble friend and I have not always agreed, but what he promised in the sense of a real contribution has been made. What we have to say now is only in sadness rather than out of any antagonism. My noble friend Lord Framlingham, who followed me in part of my former constituency, really cannot say that this is an irrelevant amendment, because we are talking about what the Government have placed before us. This is part of the withdrawal Bill; it has nothing to do with our pro or anti-Brexit position.
Lord Deben
If my noble friend is going to say that, I shall find it rather difficult to move towards him, because it is not; I speak as chairman of the climate committee because it is not. The reason I speak is simply this: we were promised that we would pass into UK law all the protections that we have as members of the European Union, so that, on the day after our leaving, we would be in the same position in respect of those protections. Under the present arrangements, we will not be.
As I say, this repeats what happened with the climate change legislation. The then Government were in favour of it in general, but when it came to the detailed powers, the Treasury opposed it. The Minister in Defra, or at least its equivalent in those times—it was then the Minister at the Department of Energy and Climate Change—was in favour of those powers. That battle was fought in the then Government, and they decided that they would not give the powers until we were able to show that there were enough Labour Members to give a majority in the House of Commons so that they would have to give way. Happily, it therefore became an all-party Bill that we can all claim credit for, passed by the Labour Government and ultimately supported by every party in Parliament.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to confirm exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, just said about the Climate Change Act. I moved the Second Reading of that Bill in this House: it started in this House, not in the Commons. At the end of the day, it required that effort down in the Commons, referred to by the noble Lord, to make it an all-party operation. So it is an Act genuinely owned by Parliament.
I want to be brief. It is only since the Maastricht treaty that the ECJ has had the ability to levy fines on non-compliant states, a power that the UK thought to give to the court. It had the advantage of lifting the laggard member states, which benefits us all. And the UK fares well on the scorecard of cases won. We have the third highest success rate of any country now in the EU. Of 750 cases opened against the UK since 2003, 668 were resolved before reaching the court, but the number on the environment suggest that a new system of environmental enforcement might be needed after we leave to maintain standards.
Overall, 34 environmental cases brought before the court by the Commission against the UK actually went to judgment. Four were dismissed as inadmissible or unfounded. The 30 remaining cases resulted in a judgment against the UK, in whole or in part. I am talking only about environmental cases; these do not include cases on agriculture or fishing. In our 44 years of membership of the EU, there has been a roughly 60/40 split between Tories and Labour: both have been bad on the environment and have needed a kick up the backside. In the four years from 2007 to 2010, the UK was the fourth worst in infringements among the 28 member states. In the six years from 2011 to 2016, we were the ninth worst in infringements among the 28. So it requires an external push to get change.
I know from my experience at MAFF and Defra, and from being responsible for agriculture at the Northern Ireland Office, that actions taken to avoid fines are cheaper than paying the fines. Infraction by the EU, or the threat of infraction, has driven environmental policy in this country for 30 years on all the issues referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, whether it is clean beaches or better water quality. Without the threat of a fine, an ultimate sanction that cannot be levied by the Supreme Court in this country, no action would be taken. This, therefore, is a very modest proposal to try to protect against some of the pressures that necessarily come from the economy, the Treasury and business on the environment. Who speaks for the environment? We had better all speak for the environment —without it, we are all sunk.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. He laid it out extremely well, but I cannot resist adding to his comments. I say, first and foremost, that this has nothing to do with Brexit, nothing to do with exiting the EU; it is all about British institutions. Quite honestly, I take deep offence at the disgraceful contribution just now. I voted to leave; I very much want us to have a successful Brexit, but for me a successful Brexit is a green Brexit. It is also about the Government honouring their promises to move all European law over. In my view, this is the most important amendment that we have considered in the whole passage of the Bill. This House has the opportunity today to secure our world-class environmental protections that have come about through our membership of the EU.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
No, no, no. These protections are for our air, our food, our animals, our countryside and ourselves: it is for us that we are doing this.
I have had a lot of flak from people for voting for Brexit, and one of the biggest things that they are unhappy with—obviously I get a lot of green people emailing me—is the risk of losing our environmental protections when we leave the EU. It is something that I worry about as well. Currently, our Government are policed by the Commission and the European Court of Justice. But our Government cannot be trusted on environmental issues, on which they have routinely lost legal cases. Examples include ClientEarth forcing the UK to make good on reducing our lethal levels of air pollution, and the Commission forcing us to reduce the disgusting levels of human waste in the River Thames. So I agree with the criticisms levelled against me and levelled against Brexit. If we do not replace the legal powers of the Commission and the ECJ and maintain the environmental principles that underpin them, Brexit will be a disaster from an environmental point of view. This amendment is our chance to put that right.
The naysayers to this amendment—if there are many in the House—might suggest that the whole point of Brexit is to remove ourselves from EU institutions and so it is wrong to try to recreate their functions. This is plainly wrong. Parliament can, and should, determine what our environmental principles are and who should enforce them. It is perfectly right for Parliament to insist that a statutory body, with real enforcement powers, should hold the Government legally accountable to its national and international environmental obligations.
To me, the crucial part of this amendment is proposed new subsection (1). The Government have repeatedly promised us that leaving the EU would not mean any diminishment of rights, obligations and protections. But, clearly, if we do not pass this amendment, we will be diminished.
Other Members of your Lordships’ House have said how feeble the option is that the Government are offering us. The reason for this feeble environmental watchdog is probably because of the divisions in the Government. On the one hand we have a wonderfully ambitious Environment Secretary, whom one can almost imagine frolicking in a field of wheat. On the other hand we have an International Trade Secretary who dreams of GMO-fed beef and chlorinated chickens from factory farms in America.
Viscount Ridley
I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. Surely her speech and many other speeches would do very well as submissions to the consultation. The supporters of this amendment asked the Government for a consultation and they got a consultation. If they have criticisms to make of what has been proposed in the consultation, let them submit them to the consultation. Is that not how it is supposed to work?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
I thank the noble Viscount for his intervention. I will most certainly do as he suggests. That is a very good idea.
A compromise appears to have been reached between the Trade Secretary and the Environment Secretary. They seem to have said, “Okay, let’s have a watchdog but let’s make it toothless, so that it won’t actually have the powers and duties it needs to be effective”. So the Government propose that the new body will not be able to initiate legal action, will have no legal obligation to operate the current environmental principles—such as polluter pays—and will be kept out of anything to do with dangerous anthropogenic climate change. The consultation fails to propose anything close to what we have already.
The amendment is therefore inconvenient for the Government, so they will oppose it. Of course, a real environmental watchdog could not be anything but inconvenient to a Government. We want it to be inconvenient to a Government. We want it to actually hold them to account. We want it to stop them doing bad things. We want it to uphold all the principles of clean food, clean air and clean seas that we currently have.
The Minister has made good on his promise to put the issues out to consultation ahead of Third Reading, but it is simply too weak. It is weaker than the EU law that we have already and it could, of course, be weakened after the consultation. We have no guarantee that the issues will not be kicked into the long grass under the weight of other legislation coming through from Defra.
It is less than a year to Brexit day, and it is obvious that the Government’s promised Bill on the environment simply cannot be passed until long after we leave the EU. That means that there will be a governance gap, which we cannot afford. So I urge every Member of this House to vote for this amendment.
Lord Smith of Finsbury (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, that the irreparable damage that may be done is damage to our environment and our health if we lose the safeguards and protections that we have for our environment.
Lord Smith of Finsbury
No, I will not. I am sorry. The crucial part of the amendment is subsection (4), which talks about,
“an independent body with the purpose of ensuring compliance with environmental law by public authorities”.
When I was chairman of the Environment Agency, action was taken on some of the major issues affecting our environment—such as the fact that we discharge raw sewage into the River Thames 20 times or more a year, and the lethal levels of air pollution in our cities—only because of the prospect of infraction proceedings from the EU. If we lose that lever, we lose the ability to tackle these major environmental issues. It is essential that we insist—not just as part of the consultation but now—that the powers of the new environmental watchdog include the ability to take that sort of legal action.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I was pondering in bed this morning, as one does, about when the change of tone came from the Government on the watchdog and the principles and the commitment to the environment.
We have heard really quite encouraging statements from the Government over the past year. These have included a pledge to be,
“the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we inherited”;
saying:
“We need to fill the governance gap”.—[Official Report, 8/1/18; col. 8.];
and promising to create,
“a new, world-leading body to give the environment a voice … independent of government, able to speak its mind freely”,
with “clear authority” and “real bite”. These are not my words, these are the Government’s words. They were not enunciated just by the Secretary of State for the Environment, whom you would expect to say things like that, but they were quite frequently enunciated by the Prime Minister as well. That was jolly welcome to us environmentalists, who believe that the environment is not about birds and bees and tweety things but is actually about the ecosystems on which all of human life and economic prosperity depend.
However, somewhere along the line the cracks in the Government’s commitment to their intentions and their fine words have appeared. The consultation document which came out last week was total confirmation of that. There has been a huge watering-down of the status of the environmental principles to a policy statement, which the Government would only have to have regard to, on the basis that it would,
“offer greater flexibility for Ministers”.
I am not sure that that ought to be the objective of all this. Even though the Government promised that Brexit would not weaken our environmental protections, the way in which the principles are being dealt with in the consultation will not deliver that. As many noble Lords have said, the watchdog is more like a watchpoodle and simply will not do the task that has been carried out by the Commission and the European Court of Justice very successfully, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, has just pointed out.
The consultation was very late. We should have smelled a rat when it did not appear as promised in November 2017. As a former chief executive of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, I know about little birds and a little bird has told us that this is a sign of cold feet in a range of departments—BEIS, the Treasury, the Department for Transport and, indeed, No. 10. There is a total lack of cross-government agreement and that means that the consultation is late, the governance gap is opening up under our feet and there is no chance of getting even these weak proposals in place before Brexit day.
The Government have made a commitment to ensure legal continuity on day one of Brexit so it is vital that the principles and the watchdog are part of domestic law.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I am just contemplating the case that has been put for a really powerful watchdog to protect the environment. If we think, for example, of the decision to turn off the pumps in order to protect the birds on the Somerset Levels, it had a devastating effect on the people who live there.
Baroness Young of Old Scone
I shall no doubt see the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, on this matter at a later point because, in fact, the folklore around that decision is wide of the mark. This is not the time or the place, but I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Smith, and I will be able to see him afterwards.
We really need the principles and the watchdog in place so that, on Brexit day, we have public bodies that are following the principles, courts that are applying the principles, and the public are able to rely on the watchdog to have a voice on the environment. This Bill is the only opportunity that will deliver that on time, so the way the Government deal with this now is the ultimate test of whether they really are truly committed to maintaining equivalence in environmental protection post Brexit. I hope the Government will stand up and meet this test.
Lord Dykes (CB)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the others who have their name to this amendment for their speeches and suggestions. I entirely agree with them and also with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, who was in that prominent position himself at the Environment Agency. I personally felt very surprised at the rather over-robust outburst from the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, about the whole purpose of this amendment and indeed the nature of the Bill itself. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, emphasised earlier the ecumenical nature of the formulations that have come out of this very serious and deep study made by many people, including the Government.
The Countess of Mar
My Lords, may I remind the noble Lord that procedure at Third Reading is the same as for Report, and the noble Lord has already spoken? If he wishes to ask a question, he can ask for the leave of the House beforehand.
Lord Dykes
I was going on to emphasise, once again, the ecumenical nature of this whole process, and the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and others to what the Government have done in response. I am grateful to the briefing note that was given by the Repeal Bill Alliance, which represents so many widespread different bodies, that it is necessary to get the guarantee and the certainty in the text of the Bill. I agree with the alliance when it says:
“The original drafting of the bill leaves gaps in environmental protections by excluding vital environmental principles such as the ‘polluter pays’ and ‘precautionary principles’ as well as EU directives that include environmental safeguards and obligations”.
Is it a preposterous idea that the Lords should propose serious amendments to a Bill and send them to the Commons, asking it to consider them, even on Third Reading? I think that is quite a normal part of the process of the parliamentary interchange between the Houses. It is up to the Commons to decide how to react. The reality, as we know, is that the Commons does not react in the open and free way that it would if it were on the basis of free votes in all parts of the House. Because of the magic mechanism of the only constitutional safeguard we have—the three-line Whip—the Conservative MPs would end up either having to do that or to become rebels themselves, which is always a difficult thing.
So when the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, said that he was representing wider interests, I disagree. He was representing the salient interest of the Brexit lobby of the divided and broken Conservative Party in the Commons. Therefore, it is very important for us to remember—I quote from the press on 10 May:
“The cliché that the war is over because the eurosceptics have won is wrong. Brexit has created another divide between those evangelical about the UK going it alone and those that know such visions are fantastical. Every now and again May indicates she is in the latter group. There are some like John Major who is urgently aware from his experience that either way the UK is heading for the cliff’s edge”.
That means that the logic of what the Lords does is justified; it is nothing to do with party politics.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, this is an important amendment. At various stages, I have spoken very strongly in favour of environmental protection. Whether or not noble Lords agree with my conclusion is up to them, but it is very important that the House be aware that I am absolutely 100% in favour of protecting the environment.
I have a difficulty with the amendment before us. Had the Government not brought forward their consultation document, I would be repeating many of the things that have been said. In fairness, however, they have, and I think there are things we can do in the future better than we have done them in the past. I have listed a number of bodies that are either directly or indirectly affected by things to do with the environment. My question to the House at the end of the day is, could we do it in a simpler way and better way, and is not this consultation document exactly what Brexit is about?
With the leave of the House, therefore, I will talk about existing bodies that have some say on the environment. We have the Commons EFRA Committee and the Commons Environmental Audit Committee; the Lords EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee; the Lords Select Committee on the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which we have just debated; the National Audit Office; the Natural Capital Committee; the Joint Nature Conservation Committee; a committee on climate change, for which my noble friend Lord Deben has done so much; the Environment Agency; Natural England; the Rural Payments Agency—I am not so sure there—and the many groups and charities dealing with wildlife and conservation. We now have the opportunity of a consultation document—and I wonder how many people who have spoken have actually read right through it; I plead guilty to having read right through it—and we are promised that, in the autumn of this year, a Bill will come forward.
Therefore, I ask myself and other noble Lords: are our present arrangements doing what we want them to do? I would be shaking my head and saying, “I think that we can do it better”. We have had an overlapping of many of the organisations, and a waste of money and time. I encourage Members of your Lordships’ House to at least consider what is in here, and for those who think that there is not enough in here, this is our opportunity to do something about it.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for setting out so clearly the arguments for this amendment, and to all noble Lords who have spoken in support of it. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, that he clearly has not listened to our arguments or to the respectful and considered way in which we have conducted ourselves throughout the debate on the environmental and other issues.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I think the noble Lord has already heard that he cannot intervene, because he has already spoken, so I am not going to give way. I hope that the Minister will echo the fact that we have responded to and dealt with the issues in a very respectful way on both sides.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
No, I am not going to give way. The noble Lord has already had several opportunities to intervene, and he does not have the support of the House behind him.
Lord Deben
Would the noble Baroness please give way? It is sensible in debate to give way, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, will be allowed to intervene.
Lord Framlingham
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. The point that I am making—
The Countess of Mar
The noble Lord has not asked for the leave of the House.
Lord Framlingham
Does the noble Baroness accept that nobody is keener on the environment than me, as many people in this House know? I am simply saying that this is not the vehicle for it.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I do not know the noble Lord’s record on the environment; I am sure he will have other opportunities to tell noble Lords about it. But certainly, if he cares about the environment, this is exactly the place we should deal with it, and that is exactly why noble Lords from around the House are so passionate about the need to pursue this amendment. I hope that the noble Lord will read our amendment and see the sense of it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I will not support the amendment at this stage; I will probably support it or something similar at the stage when the Bill—the primary legislation—reaches us. However, to help the noble Baroness’s argument and to address the excellent points made by my noble friend Lady Byford, should she not address the fact that we are seeking that the European regulations have the force of law after we have left, and how that goes to the heart of the amendment to which she is speaking? She is not addressing those points as forcefully as she might.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I thought that I had addressed that. If after Brexit day we are to have the same powers and enforcement as we had prior to it, we need to have a green watchdog with those enhanced powers that Europe has given us in the past—as we heard from the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Smith, and other noble Lords. That is the need. If we do not replace that in some way with an independent body that can achieve that, we will have no way of enforcing the regulations to which the noble Baroness referred.
The key thing in our amendment is that we have an independent body with the powers to ensure compliance by public bodies with environmental law. There will be a governance gap, a power gap, if that does not occur. I say to all those people—including, again, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford—who say that the consultation is the right way to deal with this, that the idea that a consultation will deliver a new watchdog with some teeth when it is not included in the consultation is magical thinking. We all know that the reality is that the opposite is the case with government consultations and, inevitably, further compromises tend to occur before legislation is finalised. I do not think that to hold that out as a hope and an offer is going to give us much reassurance.
Finally—and this is also a really important point—Michael Gove has already acknowledged that there will be a governance time gap. This consultation proposes a Bill in the next Queen’s Speech. That would not be enacted until, say, the end of next year at the earliest. A lot can go wrong before then. As we have discussed before, a rather large number of Defra Bills have been promised and are already in the queue for enactment. Timescales are already slipping. Even with the most optimistic projections, the current plans mean a time lag where environmental protections will not be—as promised in the Bill—the same as we had before exit day.
Our amendment addresses that gap. It addresses those omissions and requires that the legislation would be produced within six months of the date on which this Act is passed and therefore fill that gap. This is the only way to maintain both the spirit and the substance of continuity with EU rights which the Bill promised and the only way to protect the environment for future generations. I hope that noble Lords will see fit to support it.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, it is, frankly, disappointing that this amendment has been tabled today. We have debated the important topic of environmental protections on numerous occasions in your Lordships’ House, and the Government have taken clear action in response to many of the points raised. There was support across the House for the Government’s amendments removing the powers in this Bill to create new public authorities and our commitment to do so only in primary legislation.
Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said on Report:
“the very way that we set up quangos—how they are appointed, funded and run, and particularly their reporting structures and independence from both government and any other organisation they happen to be regulating—is key to how they work, hence the need for primary legislation so that we can interrogate all these things”.—[Official Report, 25/4/18; cols. 1585-86].
I agree with her. The Government have committed to do precisely that—to bring forward primary legislation so that Parliament can fully scrutinise, indeed interrogate, the powers of a new environmental watchdog. Yet here we have an amendment designed to use this Bill to set the parameters of such a body without the benefit of the consultation that we are now undertaking and without the scrutiny that would come from considering a Bill that is specifically introduced for that purpose.
We have endeavoured to provide as much transparency as possible to our plan for ensuring environmental protections are enhanced and strengthened, not weakened, as we leave the European Union. In November, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs gave a commitment on the Floor of the other place to create a new comprehensive policy statement setting out environmental principles, recognising that the principles currently recognised in UK law are not held in one place. At that time, the Secretary of State also announced our intention to consult on a new, independent and statutory body to advise and challenge the Government and potentially other public bodies on environmental legislation, stepping in when needed to hold these bodies to account and being a champion for the environment.
In direct response to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, we welcome all consultees’ views on how this is best achieved, and that includes on the range of enforcement measures that might be required. On Report, I gave a firm undertaking that this consultation would be published ahead of Third Reading, and we did just that on 10 May. The consultation includes proposals on a new, independent statutory body to hold government to account on environmental standards once we have left the European Union and a new policy statement on environmental principles to apply post EU exit. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that this is a consultation: we want to hear all views and we have, as yet, made no decisions on how these bodies might operate.
On the subject of timing, I am afraid that the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Bakewell, are simply wrong. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs announced that we will bring forward a new, ambitious environmental principles and governance Bill in draft in the autumn of this year, with introduction early in the second Session of this Parliament, to deliver these proposals in advance of the end of the agreed implementation period.
Put simply, Amendment 1 risks compromising the timely and full consideration of many important issues. It requires consultation with stakeholders—a point well made by my noble friend Lord Ridley—and yet mandates a set way forward in primary legislation. This is neither helpful nor necessary, as the issues it seeks to bind the Government to commit to are those we will explore in the consultation. In short, the amendment is premature and it prejudges the views of important stakeholders.
There are good reasons for gathering and properly reflecting on views ahead of taking action. Indeed, if we did not do so, I suspect that we would be criticised by the very people moving this amendment. For example, a significant proportion of environmental policy and legislation is devolved. We need to take account of the different government and legal systems in the home nations, as well as the different circumstances in the different parts of the United Kingdom. Amendment 1 risks compromising consideration of these important issues, as well as the wider devolution settlement, by requiring the UK Government to take UK-wide action, including to publish proposals for UK-wide primary legislation on governance and principles.
The government consultation is concerned with England and reserved matters throughout the United Kingdom, for which responsibility sits in Westminster. However, we are exploring with the devolved Administrations whether they wish to take a similar approach, and would welcome the opportunity to co-design proposals to ensure that they work well across the whole of the United Kingdom. We would also welcome views from a wide range of stakeholders, including environmental groups, farmers, businesses, local authorities and the legal profession. I welcome the comments of my noble friend Lady Byford, who made some excellent points worthy of our consideration.
Turning to the issue of environmental principles, the published consultation outlines our proposal to require Ministers to enshrine these principles in a comprehensive statutory public policy statement setting out their interpretation and application. As we have said many times before, the core purpose of this Bill is to provide for continuity in our framework of laws and rules before and after exit: no more and no less. The Bill takes a comprehensive—
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, will the noble Lord clarify one thing? He suggested, I think, that we are going to continue with the European regime until the end of the implementation period, which would give time for consultation. Or will we move away from the European Union arrangements in March 2019? That is important. If we are to continue to maintain all European environmental regulations, as now, up to the end of 2020, then we are in a slightly different position.
Lord Callanan
Yes, I am absolutely confirming that: the principles will continue until the end of the implementation period.
Changes to the law should be taken forward by proper processes allowing for them to receive full consideration by those affected. The Government have acted—
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
This is a very important point. Will the means of enforcement continue until the end of the implementation period?
Lord Callanan
Yes. All current processes will continue until the end of the implementation period.
The Government have acted as a responsible Government should. They have done what this House invariably asks them to do by setting out a range of options and inviting views to inform policy through the consultation process.
Lord Deben
Does my noble friend mean that, until the end of 2020, we would be able to take an enforcement action to the European Court? If he does not mean that, the system does not continue and the Government do have to put into the Bill an alternative. But if he does mean that, it is a revelation.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, as we have announced on numerous occasions, there will be further legislation to consider this matter when we have completed—
Lord Callanan
I ask noble Lords to wait a moment. There will be a further withdrawal agreement and implementation period Bill to consider the details of the implementation period, which have already been agreed with the European Union. This has already been announced and we have already set it out. But there will be further opportunities to consider this, as there will be further opportunities to consider the primary legislation that we are announcing in response to this amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I do not know which way to vote, so what the Minister is saying to the House is enormously important to me. Are we actually going to be able to have enforcement by the European Court of Justice until the moment of the completion of the implementation?
Lord Callanan
That is what has been agreed in the implementation period that we have agreed with the EU so far—but it will be the subject of legislation that we will be able to consider.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
Will the Minister therefore explain why our amendment to allow the ECJ to continue until the end of the transition—the implementation period—was not accepted by the Government?
Lord Callanan
Because there will be separate legislation to consider the implications of the implementation period as part of the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill that we have already announced. We are trying to confine the purposes of this Bill to the originally announced process. I realise that lots of noble Lords want to use this legislation as a way to both influence the legislation and in some cases to prevent the process of Brexit. But we are trying to put forward revisions to the statute that will ensure that European regulations will continue to have effect in British law after the end of the period.
Lord Teverson (LD)
Can I point out to the Minister that we have no agreement that there will be an implementation period? Indeed, many government departments are preparing, rightly, for there not to be one—because nothing is agreed until all is agreed. That is why this amendment is even more important in terms of that potential gap.
Lord Callanan
I am afraid that the noble Lord is simply wrong: we do have agreement on an implementation period. It was announced at the March European Council, agreed by the Government and the European Union.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, surely, in the event that there is no deal, we leave on 29 March 2019 and there is no implementation period.
Lord Callanan
Obviously if there is no deal, we do not have an implementation period—but we are working towards getting a deal. Each of the stages so far has been announced and agreed. We agreed the issues over the financial settlement and citizens’ rights before Christmas. We agreed the implementation period in March. I realise that that the noble Baroness and many of her colleagues do not want the process of Brexit to proceed, but we are acting as a responsible Government and endeavouring to agree these things in a timely and proportionate manner. We have agreed the details of an implementation period. Each time they declare their scepticism, but we are confident that we will reach a deal at the end of the day.
As I have set out, this is neither helpful nor necessary as the text of the amendment mirrors all of the issues that we are consulting on before introducing legislation that this House and other places will be able to scrutinise. I hope that noble Lords will acknowledge that voting for this amendment would prejudge a significant period of consultation that would go against the principles of good policy-making and be ultimately detrimental to the future protection of environmental law. I hope, therefore—without much optimism—that the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Elton (Con)
I hate to interrupt the Minister again, but I am genuinely confused by his answers to the Cross Benches. Do I understand that there will be an untrammelled means of enforcement until the end of the implementation period, and during that time there will be negotiation about future legislation; or is it suspended while the negotiation goes on?
Lord Callanan
As the implementation period has already been agreed, it will be the subject of further legislation in this House. Irrespective of that, we are giving a commitment to bring forward the environmental legislation already announced by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, on which I have already updated this House.
Lord Krebs
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate this afternoon. We have heard some very passionate and powerful arguments, many in favour of this amendment. I also thank the Minister for his response, although I found it as disappointing as he found my amendment. In fact, I was reminded of the words of Francis Cornford, written over 100 years ago. In his chapter on argument, he said that there are many reasons for not doing something but only one reason for doing it, which is that it is the right thing to do. I strongly believe that in this case, the right thing to do is to support the amendment.
In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, reminded me of something I heard him say over 20 years ago when he was Secretary of State. He defined sustainability as “not cheating on our grandchildren”. One of the advantages that many noble Lords will share with me is that, as you get older, you have grandchildren. I am fortunate to have three wonderful grandchildren. But with that pleasure comes the responsibility to care about their future. This amendment is about caring for the future of our grandchildren. It is not just about birds, bees, butterflies and wild flowers, because the health of our grandchildren is intimately related to the health of the environment that we leave for them to live in. This is about a healthy environment for the future and about the health of future generations. So, in spite of the arguments for not doing so, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“Public health
The duties imposed on the EU under Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union apply with equivalent effect to public bodies in the United Kingdom after exit day.”
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, their officials and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, for the frank and open meetings we have had to discuss the issue of public health. I declare my interest as an honorary fellow of the Faculty of Public Health and I thank Mark Weiss and Angus Baldwin from the faculty, who have been most helpful.
We discussed this vital issue at some length on Report. At that stage, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, requested that we return to it at Third Reading. We are grateful to the Minister for agreeing to that so that we can return to the protection of the public’s health being part of retained EU law, as it affects Brexit negotiations and us after we leave the EU. My noble friend Lord Warner led on this principle and, in the light of the Minister’s reassurance, withdrew his amendment at the time. The assurances given on Report were important. I want to quote what the Minister said then, if I may, because I think that it clarifies where we are going now:
“All EU legislation in the area of public health which becomes part of retained EU law and domestic legislation implementing EU public health requirements will, by virtue of Clause 6, continue to be interpreted … by reference to relevant pre-exit case law and treaty provisions”.—[Official Report, 23/4/18; col. 1387.]
This means that Article 168, which was described by the High Court, in a case that went to that court, as at the epicentre of EU policy-making, would be available to our domestic courts in future.
The Minister went on to make it clear that the effect of Article 168 in the domestic law of this country before exit will continue after exit. However, although he had said that in effect Article 168 would be available in the future for UK courts to draw on, conflicting legal advice subsequently obtained by the coalition that had been promoting this is causing concern within the public health and wider health sectors. Since Report further organisations, including the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, have joined the coalition. There are now 62 major organisations calling for watertight reassurance.
This Brexit-neutral amendment would ensure that both the present Government and future Governments continue to have regard to the Article 168 duty of a,
“high level of human health protection”
as we leave the EU, and ensure that we do not row back on the progress we have made in public health during our time in the EU. The amendment would place in the Bill, and therefore beyond doubt, the fact that Article 168 will be retained law after we leave the EU.
If the Minister cannot accept the proposed new clause—which would be the simplest solution—I hope he will be able to make a clear commitment to this House that Article 168 will be retained EU law after we exit the EU. I also ask him to confirm that the case law itself can be used to hold any Government, now or in future, to account, and that such a statement on the official record of this House can be used in court. Such reassurances would provide additional certainty and clarity about the tone and guiding principles for the UK’s Brexit negotiations across the board, including our future trade negotiations. I am, of course, aware that further legislation will come forward. I beg to move.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, as the author and architect of the earlier amendment on public health, I think that I should say a few words. I thank the Minister: we had a number of spirited discussions, and he also had helpful meetings with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. When I read them carefully after Report, I was satisfied with the assurances that he had given. I think the Government shifted their position from saying that such an amendment was not necessary to recognising that there was case law suggesting that they should make the position absolutely clear on the Floor of the House—and when I had time to read the assurances the Minister gave on Report, I thought that he had done that extremely well.
As my noble friend Lady Finlay has said, there is a good deal of anxiety out there about whether there will be a drop in standards after Brexit. The debate on the previous amendment showed that there was still a mountain to be climbed—not by the Minister himself, but by the Government—to reassure people that many of the pre-Brexit safeguards will be in place, and standards will be met, post Brexit. I think there will be an issue when we deal with any trade Bill in this area: people will want to look very carefully to see that there is no backsliding on public health standards and protections. But for the meantime I thank the Minister for what he has done; I have no wish to make his life any more difficult than it already is.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, your Lordships will know that I took part in the debate on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. A clear decision on this matter was made by the Court of Appeal long before Brexit; it exists in our law and is based on European law. I know of no better assurance than that. The principle is clearly set out in the Court of Appeal and the High Court judgment in the packaging case. I do not know the nature of the legal advice to which the noble Baroness referred, but there are legal advices and there are legal advices. My advice is certainly very clear: if you have a judgment of the Court of Appeal on European law, which was part of our law before Brexit, under the retained law arrangements it will be part of our law after Brexit. If I had any reason to suppose that this amendment had been proposed according to that legal advice, I would feel that the amendment that we had before was, if anything, rather better.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hunt, who is unable to be here today, I fully support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. It was helpful to be reminded of the strong concerns expressed on Report; I also endorse the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. It is important to have clarification that the need to preserve Article 168 of the Lisbon treaty as part of retained EU law is recognised, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
I commend the Minister’s willingness to work with noble Lords across the House on this important matter and his helpful role in facilitating this and working through the issues referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. Article 168 places public health protection and health improvement at the epicentre of policy-making, and the Government’s assurances that our domestic law implementing EU public health requirements will continue to be interpreted by reference to relevant EU law, including Article 168, will be welcome.
The Minister’s assurance of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that the UK remains a world leader in public health following Brexit would also be welcome. I hope he will provide the House with this, to be noted for the record.
Finally, it is important once again to pay tribute to and place on record the work of the wide coalition of major public health bodies, medical colleges, charities and the wider health community in helping us, one hopes, reach a consensus on the way forward.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for bringing back this important amendment before your Lordships’ House. I do not think I have ever drunk as much tea as I have in the past week or so as I have met various noble Lords and noble Baronesses, but it has been worth it.
I shall be a little more specific in the words I read out because we need on this occasion to give noble Lords the exact words that I hope they require. Before doing that, I should pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Warner—to say that he has been spirited would perhaps be an understatement—and to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, who is right about there being legal advices and legal advices, but I would much rather have his advice than that of others.
Let me tell your Lordships a little more about the effect Article 168 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU will have after we leave. It is right that we pay tribute to the Faculty of Public Health and the 62 organisations that have contributed to keeping this issue at the forefront of your Lordships’ House’s discussion. An important coalition has been assembled. I would like to think that there is now genuine recognition on all sides of the Brexit argument that public health must be at the epicentre of our engagement. There should be no back-rolling in any of the health standards. The Faculty of Public Health has been at the forefront of public health, and will continue to be so. That is important to put on the record today.
Many noble Lords have spoken eloquently of the importance of Article 168, notably its role in a successful defence to the legal challenge brought by tobacco manufacturers against the introduction of plain packaging. We therefore recognise why noble Lords are keen to confirm the Bill’s effect in that area. The Government should have been clearer on this matter in previous debates and I welcome the opportunity provided by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, to provide that further clarity.
The Government fully expect that, after exit, Article 168 will continue to be influential to the interpretation and application of retained EU law. This may include the determination of legal challenges to which Article 168 is relevant, including the consideration of public health legislation before exit day. As was noted on Report in this House, although Article 168 is not a directly enforceable provision of the TFEU, it has nevertheless been influential on EU and domestic law in the area of public health. I reassure the noble Baroness that when retained EU law is interpreted and applied, any such influence will be preserved by this Bill.
The Bill is intended to capture EU law as it stands at exit day and, as we have previously discussed, incorporate it into domestic law. Clause 2 preserves domestic legislation that implements or relates to EU law, including that in the area of public health. It is preserved,
“as it has effect in domestic law immediately before exit day”.
This will include, for example, the effect given to the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015 by the tobacco packaging case, which, in a sense, echoes the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Similarly, Clause 3 incorporates direct EU legislation, such as EU regulations relating to nutrition and food safety into domestic law,
“as it has effect in EU law immediately before exit day”,
and Clause 5 provides that any rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures that were recognised and available in domestic law immediately before exit by virtue of Section 2(1) of the European Communities Act,
“continue on and after exit day to be recognised and available in domestic law (and to be enforced, allowed and followed accordingly)”.
I had to get that exactly right; I hope it is. Therefore, any rights or obligations that have been drawn from Article 168 will be preserved as part of retained EU law.
Clause 7 is also important because it ensures that retained EU law is interpreted in accordance with relevant pre-exit case law. This means, for example, that domestic law implementing EU public health requirements will be interpreted by reference to relevant EU law, including Article 168. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health wrote on PoliticsHome on 18 April:
“Our guarantee of equivalent or higher standards of health protection and health improvement when we have left the EU is unequivocal”.
The influence of Article 168 of the TFEU on retained EU law, and existing duties such as those in the NHS Act 2006 and Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights will enable us to do this.
I am sorry that on this occasion I cannot therefore accept the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Circumstances have not enabled me to participate in previous debates on this subject but I want to put one point to my noble friend. He has instanced the debate on standardised packaging; I was responsible for the initial consultation. That policy did not stem from a European Union initiative but from one in this country or, one might say, from my conversations with Nicola Roxon, the Australian Health Minister. We do not therefore depend on the treaty for the function of the European Union to lead on public health. We have done so inside Europe, as we have across the world, on issues such as the tobacco control regime, and I hope we will continue to do so. The practical, rather than legal, issue is how effective our continuing co-operation with other European Administrations, national and EU, will be in combating public health threats—for example, the spread of infections. That kind of activity is much more practical than it is legal.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for that helpful intervention. He is, of course, absolutely right that the judgment did draw upon an aspect of Article 168, but of course the principal driver was not the EU component; that was rather a contributing component and as such it will be available as a contributing component going forward. The second point my noble friend raises is an important one and I hope it will permeate much of the discussion we have had and will continue to have. There needs to be ongoing collaboration with our colleagues and friends in the EU; that must continue. We must learn lessons where we can, not just from the EU but more broadly. I would like to think, again, that where good ideas emerge in the wider world of public health we grab hold of them, take them to heart and move forward on that basis.
Lord Dykes
Bearing in mind that Clause 4 as amended has clear definitions of the protections that were required in the amendment, would it not therefore be possible for the Government kindly to consider reinforcing the certainty and security of the assertions by including the text, or perhaps a revised, shortened version of the text, in the new Clause 5? It would go in the Bill as subsection (1), paragraph (c) to the amended Clause 4. Would that not be a very convenient way of combining two certainties to reassure the public?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I always welcome interventions of this nature. On this occasion I think that the Government position is clear—I hope so as I look to the noble Baroness—and provides the necessary and useful support and words of comfort. I think that on that basis it should be understood by all who read today’s remarks and engage directly with the Government on this matter that what they are seeking is provided for and will be available: as it is today, so shall it be after Brexit day. I hope that those words are of comfort to the noble Baroness on this occasion.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
My Lords, I am most grateful to everyone who has intervened. As someone who has felt passionately about tobacco control I am glad to be able to tell noble Lords that I am now involved in working with Hong Kong on its tobacco control measures. UK public health has indeed led the world in many ways and nobody wanted to see that jeopardised. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Warner for generously sharing some of the background to all this with me, and of course the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who gave me a tutorial on some of the issues around EU law shortly before we came into the Chamber.
I am confident that the Government’s reassurances today will offer the legal certainty that the sector is seeking; I am sure they will be warmly welcomed by the whole health community and all those organisations which signed up to the coalition. They are 62 major health and welfare organisations and it sends a very strong signal that this Government are committed to the health and well-being and individuals, of communities and of the country during the Brexit negotiations and after we leave the EU. It signals that future Governments must retain this as a highest priority. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Goldie
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I shall not detain the House but shall be as swift as possible, because these amendments are straightforward and essentially technical. Amendments 3 and 6 ensure that there is consistency in the wording between the subsections of the Government’s status clauses. They do not change the operation of the relevant sections which the new clause signposts but ensure that the House and future readers of the Bill do not infer any difference of intention from a minor difference of language.
Amendments 4 and 5 add in missing cross-references. The amendments do not affect the substance of the clause, that retained direct principal EU legislation and retained EU law by virtue of Section 5 is to be amendable like primary legislation, and retained direct minor EU legislation is to be amendable like subordinate legislation.
Amendments 10 and 11 to Schedule 3 would insert new provisions to update the numbering of cross-references contained within the Government of Wales Act 2006 in consequence of provisions of the Bill that the House considered and approved on Report. This would mean adding a reference to a new provision and removing a redundant reference to a provision that is repealed.
Amendments 12 and 13 would, as we indicated on Report, adjust the wording of paragraph 37 of Schedule 7 to the Bill, which provides for the combination of instruments containing regulations subject to different scrutiny procedures in Parliament and also in the devolved legislatures. They would not change the policy that those provisions deliver but would ensure greater clarity as to the legal effect of the provisions.
I hope that noble Lords will recognise the importance of ensuring that we have a robust piece of legislation and support these amendments.
Lord Wigley (PC)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, were the changes in relation to the Welsh devolution settlement discussed with the Government of Wales?
Baroness Goldie
I have no specific information about that. The amendments are intended to help the Welsh Assembly and, indeed, assist any Government in the Welsh Assembly by ensuring that we avoid confusion and greatly improve clarity. I hope that the noble Lord will accept the good faith of the Government in trying to do everything possible to assist the devolved settlement in Wales. With that clarification, I beg to move Amendments 3, 4, 5 and 6.
The Countess of Mar
The noble Baroness can move only Amendment 3 at this stage.
Baroness Goldie
Lord Pannick
“( ) Without prejudice to subsections (1) to (5) above, if and to the extent that the status of retained EU law is relevant for any other purpose—(a) retained direct principal EU legislation shall be treated as if it were primary legislation, and(b) retained direct minor EU legislation shall be treated as if it were subordinate legislation.”
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 7 is in my name and in the names of three other members of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee: our chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, and the noble Lords, Lord Norton of Louth and Lord Beith.
The amendment addresses a difficult issue. In its report HL69, dated 29 January of this year, the Constitution Committee drew attention in paragraph 51 to what we saw as a defect in the Bill: it does not specify the legal status that would be enjoyed in our law by retained EU law—that is, the body of EU material that the Bill incorporates into domestic law as at exit day. The question is: is it going to be primary legislation, secondary legislation or something else? And if something else, what?
The Bill deals with this question in part, for the purposes of the Human Rights Act, in what is now paragraph 28 of Schedule 8. But that exception simply begs the question as to what status retained EU law enjoys for other legal purposes. The recommendation made by the Constitution Committee that the issue needs to be addressed in the Bill was widely approved by expert legal opinion, in particular the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law and Professor Paul Craig of Oxford University, although they disagreed with the suggestion by the committee that the status of all retained EU law should be that of primary legislation.
Ministers agreed to consider this issue and tabled an amendment on Report to introduce what is now Clause 8 of the Bill. Clause 8 is an improvement because it makes two points clear. It states that the part of retained EU law which derives from earlier statutes and earlier statutory instruments, enacted to implement EU law obligations, will retain the legal status it previously had—either primary legislation or secondary legislation. Clause 8 also addresses the circumstances in which different types of retained EU law can be amended.
However, what Clause 8 does not do is address the legal status of other retained EU law for purposes other than amendment. This may matter, as the Bingham Centre has suggested, for example, in deciding which rule takes priority if there is a conflict between different elements of retained EU law, or if the question arises of when courts may allow a challenge to retained EU law and what remedies they may give. Some distinguished legal scholars have expressed such concerns about Clause 8, particularly Professor Alison Young of Cambridge University.
The Minister made it clear on Report that because of the complexity of the issue, the Government were willing to consider the matter further at Third Reading. This amendment suggests addressing the issue of legal status by using the distinction that is in Clause 8 itself —between retained direct principal EU legislation and retained direct minor EU legislation.
I am grateful to the Minister for arranging a meeting for me yesterday with members of the Bill team and parliamentary draftsmen. They explained their concerns about the amendment. They have persuaded me that the contents of the Bill will minimise the occasions on which the legal status of retained EU law will matter. They have also pointed out that the amendment would need to specify more clearly what is meant by “primary legislation”, which covers not just Acts of Parliament but Acts of the three devolved legislatures. They also tell me that they are concerned about the generality of a deeming provision of this sort, which might cause difficulties in other contexts.
I have found these arguments compelling and I would be grateful, and I hope the House would be grateful, if the Minister would say a little more about these points when he replies to the debate. I am, however, concerned that it still appears to be the Government’s position that if any of these problems about legal status do arise in the future, they can be addressed by Ministers exercising delegated powers under the Bill. I remind the House that the Constitution Committee said in our report at paragraph 69:
“It is constitutionally unacceptable for ministers to have the power to determine something as fundamental as whether a part of our law should be treated as primary or secondary legislation”.
I ask the Minister to tell the House whether or not the Government agree with that proposition.
I will add one further point—as a promise, not as a threat—which is that the Constitution Committee intends to keep a very close eye on this issue once the Bill becomes law. If it does become necessary to give particular retained EU laws a legal status, and if this is then done by Ministers exercising delegated powers, your Lordships’ Constitution Committee will certainly wish to return to the issue. I beg to move.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I will not add to the exposition of the amendment and the reasons for tabling it, which have been so clearly set out by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The committee felt that we ought to see whether we could get a more secure place for retained European law in the hierarchy of law as it would be viewed by the courts in this country. There will probably be difficulties in this area and we are probably persuaded that they cannot be resolved by the kind of declaratory amendment that we have tabled on this occasion.
There are further difficulties which the Minister might refer to, which have been pointed out by Professor Alison Young, who was referred to earlier. For example, constitutional statutes are not subject to the doctrine of implied repeal in the same way as other legislation. What will be the position if an item of retained European law is considered to be constitutional in character and appears to be in conflict with subsequent legislation passed post exit day, when the supremacy principle has fallen away and this has to be resolved?
In passing an earlier amendment which removed a discretionary power from Ministers to, in effect, decide whether matters could be put before the courts, we wanted to assert that, wherever possible, we should protect the courts and the legal system from having to be the subject of individual ad hoc ministerial decisions in particular cases. That was part of the motivation for what the committee sought to do in this case. But clearly it cannot be solved in the way that we first suggested.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, this is an important question. It is just possible that Clause 8 could be used by the courts in a situation arising under this particular amendment to extend the provisions of Clause 8 by analogy, where that seemed suitable. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, mentioned, fitting this to everything is quite difficult. On the other hand, for a court faced with a single problem, this way of solving it might be possible. Anyway, I am entirely in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said about Ministers determining this sort of matter; I do not believe that that can be right. However, I do not think the court would fail, if faced with this problem, in deciding something about it.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord’s amendment endeavours to provide a global answer to the question of whether retained direct EU legislation should have the status of primary or subordinate legislation—if and to the extent that is relevant. I am grateful to him for the engagement he has had with the Government throughout the passage of this Bill, especially in recent days. Let me say to the House that the Government understand that there is a desire that these new forms of law should be assigned a particular status. We are sympathetic to that view, which stems from a desire for clarity in the law. Of course, clarity is indeed highly desirable. The Government have gone to great lengths to try to make provision in the Bill for how retained direct EU law should be treated. The Bill addresses treatment of retained EU law by the Human Rights Act, the Interpretation Act and rules of evidence, among other things. That is an important part of this Bill. Our provisions on the principle of supremacy deal with the situation where pre-exit domestic law conflicts with retained direct EU law; our amendments on Report deal with amendability; and other provisions with validity challenges where the aim of the Bill is continuity.
On this specific issue of challenges to retained direct EU law, paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 1 states that:
“There is no right in domestic law on or after exit day to challenge … on the basis that, immediately before exit day, an EU instrument was invalid”.
As retained direct EU law under the Bill will owe its incorporation into domestic law to primary legislation, it will not be possible to challenge its validity using domestic public law principles. However, as is currently the case, any post-exit Act by a public authority under direct EU law will be susceptible to judicial review, and the Bill does not restrict the use of other routes of challenges, such as breach of statutory duty or challenges under the Human Rights Act. But the crux of our approach and our concerns with the noble Lord’s amendment is that there is no such thing in domestic law as the “status of primary legislation” or the “status of subordinate legislation”. There are many different types of both primary and subordinate legislation. For each of those types of law, there are many different rules about how they are to be treated for different purposes. Whatever we took as our model for how we wished to deal with retained EU law and how it should be treated, we would need to consider each of those different purposes and ask whether that model truly worked in each context.
My submission today is that while the pursuit of a simple rule is laudable, in practice the clarity it would purport to give would be illusory. It would raise more questions than it answered and, ultimately, it would be bad for legal certainty. I will, if I may, seek to illustrate what I mean—the noble Lord himself touched upon this. If we take the status of, for example, primary legislation, we are aware of at least five different types of primary legislation: Acts of this Parliament, Acts of the Scottish Parliament, Acts of the Welsh Assembly, Acts of the Northern Ireland Assembly and, indeed, Northern Ireland Orders in Council. Each is treated differently for different purposes; that is to say, it has a different “status”. Furthermore, to the extent that provision is made that provides that retained direct EU legislation is to be treated in the same way as an Act of, for example, the Scottish Parliament, as a matter of course the Government would want to engage with the devolved Administrations before making such a provision.
The so-called status of a particular type of legislation is not encapsulated in a single line or by reference to any simple rule. To take just one example, when this Parliament created the concept of an Act of the Scottish Parliament, it set out in the Scotland Act a number of rules, including how such Acts are made and in what circumstances and with what consequences they can be challenged. Nowhere did it try to define those rules by simply saying that Acts of the Scottish Parliament should have the status of any other existing form of legislation. What was right then is, I submit, right now. Once again, we are creating a new category of law. It needs its own rules, rather than being forced into an existing and ill-fitting set of rules made for another type of legislation.
Lord Pannick
I thank the noble and learned Lord for explaining so simply just how complex this issue is. I am certainly not confident to answer his question about how what he kindly referred to as my elegant simplicity would improve the Bill on this occasion. I also thank him and other Ministers for the care and attention with which they have addressed the many points raised by your Lordships’ Constitution Committee on the Bill. I hope it is appropriate for me to say that the committee believes that its report has led to a number of amendments that have improved the Bill—happily, in most of those cases, without the need to divide the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
“( ) A Minister of the Crown will not normally lay a draft as mentioned in subsection (3) without a consent decision having been made under subsection (5)(a).”
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, on 2 May on Report, at col. 2148, I pointed out that by reason of subsection (4) of the new Section 109A, which the Bill inserts into the Government of Wales Act 2006, the Minister of the Crown must not lay a draft of regulations to restrict the powers of the Welsh Assembly to modify retained EU law unless the Assembly has first made a “consent decision”. Calling it a consent decision is confusing, because the decision of the Assembly may, under proposed new subsection (5)(b), be not to consent or, under (5)(c), to refuse to consent. Therefore, in the proposed new clause as it is currently drafted, the making of the so-called consent decision is just a box to be ticked: a prerequisite step only, which, whatever way it goes, permits the Minister to go ahead to lay the regulation before the UK Parliament for its approval.
Under further amendments to paragraph 43 of Schedule 3, if the Assembly does not consent, the Minister must make an explanatory statement to the UK Parliament when laying the regulations before both Houses to explain his decision to go ahead without consent. At the same time, he must lay before each House any statement of explanation of Welsh Ministers as to why the Assembly has refused to consent. Of course, at the hearing of a statutory instrument, there will not be counsel on both sides putting forward these points of view, but at least both sides will be put to Parliament.
This is the precise point of objection of the Scottish Government. In the event of conflict, this mechanism gives the United Kingdom Parliament the final say, which is why the Scottish Government refused last night to give legislative consent to the Bill. I asked the Minister on Report, if the Scottish Parliament did what they have now done and refused consent,
“should Clause 11 be removed from the Bill altogether, as I have argued at Second Reading and since, and its provisions brought back in new primary legislation after further discussion and … agreement?”.—[Official Report, 2/5/18; col. 2149.]
The Minister did not answer me then, no doubt because it was a hypothetical question on 2 May. But it is no longer hypothetical, so what is his answer now? What are the Government going to do?
More pertinent to this amendment, I raised the issue of the Sewel convention. Paragraph 6 of the intergovernmental agreement made with the Welsh Government said:
“The implementation of this agreement will result in the UK Parliament not normally being asked to approve clause 11 regulations without the consent of the devolved legislatures”.
A similar reference appears in paragraph 8 of the accompanying memorandum of understanding. Therefore, there can be no objection to my amendment in principle if it were to appear in the Bill.
That is not the only way in which people in Wales can get comfort. The other possible course I suggested was that the Government affirm that they regard themselves bound in making any regulations by the express commitment to the Sewel principle which we inserted last year, and which came into force only on 1 April last, as Section 107(6) of the Government of Wales Act 2006:
“But it is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Assembly”.
I said in terms to the Minister:
“I would like an express commitment from the Dispatch Box on this point, either to amend the proposed new Section 109A at Third Reading to put the Sewel convention in this clause, or to confirm that Section 107(6)—last year’s insertion into the 2006 Act—will apply”.—[Official Report, 2/5/18; col. 2148.]
There was no answer to this point from the Dispatch Box. I appreciate that the Minister was busy, and he made an offer to correspond with any noble Lord on any point he had not dealt with and to put a copy of his reply in the Library. However, that is an unsatisfactory way of dealing with matters. The Minister in his response to the last amendment referred to the case of Pepper v Hart in 1992. It was with the greatest difficulty that the judicial committee in that case agreed by majority that what was said on the Floor of the House in Parliament was available to construe confusions and anomalies in legislation. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, dissented and thought it wrong to have to look at Hansard to construe a statute. So it is not something that can be extended. I do not think that, particularly on such a sensitive issue, the Supreme Court would be impressed by correspondence between a Member of Parliament and the Minister, even if it was in the House of Lords Library.
The Supreme Court is about to hear exactly what is meant by the words “not normally” if the Government decide to push the Bill through—particularly the devolution clause—without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. It has been described overnight as a constitutional crisis, but what a setting to try to agree UK framework agreements across 24 areas of policy if the mechanism cannot be agreed with the Scottish Government first. The Welsh Government have come to terms with that, recognising that we live in a united kingdom and that Wales has representatives in both Houses. It is very important that there should be no room for misunderstanding. It is only in the most exceptional cases that any UK Government should push through measures that fall within the competence of the Welsh Assembly, particularly through the use of statutory instruments. That is why this amendment is before the House, and I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 9 in my name. The Bill was substantially amended on Report with regard to the devolution dimension. Among other things, what one might describe as confidence-building measures were put in to ensure that Ministers, having given certain undertakings with regard to how they would exercise their powers to make regulations, would do that and would regularly report to Parliament to ensure that it was being done in good faith.
The reports have to be done on a three-monthly basis: the first report certainly has to be done three months after the date when the Act is passed and:
“Each successive period of three months after the first reporting period is a reporting period”.
That report must explain how,
“principles …agreed between Her Majesty’s Government and any of the appropriate authorities, and … relating to implementing any arrangements which are to replace any relevant powers or retained EU law restrictions, have been taken into account during the reporting period”.
That is fair enough as far as it goes, but it does not give much colour or substance as to what these principles are.
My concern, which I raised on Report, was that there was insufficient detail as to the principles. However, I asked whether the principles referred to were those agreed at the Joint Ministerial Committee,
“back in October or November, which have certainly been discussed before. However, it is slightly odd to have reference to ‘principles’ which, as far as I can see, will not actually appear in the Bill. Because we have debated this often enough, we perhaps know what the principles are, or at least know where they can be found, but to anyone coming to this fresh it would not necessarily indicate where these principles are”.—[Official Report, 2/5/18; col. 2141.]
I asked the Minister if he would confirm that the principles were indeed those agreed in the communique of the Joint Ministerial Committee.
The noble and learned Lord the Advocate-General for Scotland said in his response:
“Noble Lords will recollect that, at the Joint Ministerial Committee in October last year, the principles to be applied were agreed by all those attending: the Welsh Government, the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government. I just add in response to a point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, that where he finds reference in the amendments to ‘principles’, that refers to the principles that were agreed at that stage and are carried over in the agreements”.—[Official Report, 2/5/18; col. 2164.]
I hope we have established common ground that the principles referred to are indeed those agreed and set out in the communique of 16 October 2017 from the Joint Ministerial Committee on European Negotiations. I am very grateful that the Printed Paper Office has made available copies of that communique for noble Lords to read.
I will not read it all out ad longum but it is worth noting that they are principles that relate to where common frameworks need to be established. They have to do so to,
“enable the functioning of the UK internal market, while acknowledging policy divergence … ensure compliance with international obligations … ensure the UK can negotiate, enter into and implement new trade agreements and international treaties … enable the management of common resources … administer and provide access to justice in cases with a cross-border element”,
and
“safeguard the security of the UK”.
It also says that when frameworks are to be established they,
“will respect the devolution settlements and the democratic accountability of the devolved legislatures, and will therefore … be based on established conventions and practices … maintain as a minimum, equivalent flexibility for tailoring policies to the specific needs of each territory as is afforded by current EU rules … lead to a significant increase in decision-making powers for the devolved administrations”.
In addition, and this has occupied many hours of debate in your Lordships’ House as this Bill has gone through:
“Frameworks will ensure recognition of the economic and social linkages between Northern Ireland and Ireland and that Northern Ireland will be the only part of the UK that shares a land frontier with the EU. They will also adhere to the Belfast Agreement”.
These are not insignificant principles. In fact, I think they are very important. If the Bill is going to be complete —people coming to the Bill should not necessarily have to try to work out where these principles are to be found—in the interests of having a tidy statute book these principles should at least be there by reference. I cannot readily see an objection to that, given that there is an understanding what these principles are. They are not to the exclusion of other things that might be agreed by the UK Government and the devolved Governments but at least they are a starting point. I hope the amendment will commend itself to the Government because it is entirely consistent with their policy.
In passing, I refer to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and wonder if that were accepted for Wales, it would help find an agreement in Scotland, if it was also applied to Scotland. I suspect it might not go as far as the Scottish Government want because it does not give them the requirement for consent. It says:
“A Minister of the Crown will not normally lay a draft,”
unless such consent had been given. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will respond to this. Unlike Section 28(8) of the Scotland Act 1998 and the equivalent provision in the Government of Wales Act which says that Parliament will not normally legislate in primary legislation, here we are dealing with Ministers. I assume that if Ministers are laying regulations, they could be subject to judicial review in a way in which a decision of Parliament would not be. That might give further encouragement to the Scottish Parliament that its concerns have been listened to. In responding, the Minister might also just take the opportunity to indicate the Government’s position in relation to the vote of the Scottish Parliament yesterday.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, to follow what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, has just said, the Minister may remember that I raised how to deal with the Sewel convention in relation to delegated legislation on several occasions in Committee, in dealing with what is now to be found in Clauses 9 and 11 of the Bill as it is printed for this stage of the proceedings. My recollection is that my points were dealt with by assurances from Ministers that the Sewel convention principles would apply to the making of delegated legislation in the context of both Clauses 9 and 11.
I do not have down an amendment in the same terms as that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in relation to Wales because I can assume, I think, that the same principle would apply to the corresponding provision for Scotland earlier in the same clause, and no doubt to Northern Ireland as well. For my part, I would be content if an assurance could be given specifically in relation to the mechanism in this clause that means the Sewel convention would be respected in the way the amendment describes. That would be consistent with the assurances I have had in relation to the earlier provisions and would avoid writing the Sewel convention into the Bill, which I understand Ministers are anxious not to do because, in the case of Miller, it was described as merely a convention—important though it may be. I would be grateful if the Minister, when he comes to reply, would give an assurance in relation to both Wales—which has been sought—and Scotland, and no doubt to Northern Ireland as well, although it is not represented here today.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I am delighted to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and to speak to the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, both of which I support. I do so having listened to every moment of the debate in the National Assembly yesterday and to large parts of the debate in the Scottish Parliament yesterday evening. What came through loud and clear was the incredulity—across party lines, even though the National Assembly for Wales accepted the agreement reached by the Minister, Mark Drakeford—on the very point touched on in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, namely that consent can mean consent or that consent is refused or consent has not been approved. For consent to be interpreted in that way was just unbelievable to Members there, and there was some doubt as to whether the Minister was carrying his troops with him. Indeed, Mark Drakeford himself was clearly not at ease in defending the agreement that he and the Welsh Government had approved. In his closing speech he said:
“Of course we should be ambitious for even more ground to be gained, and we are too. And I said in my opening remarks: there is more that we want to achieve. We have ambitions beyond the agreement”.
The fact is that a form of words has been reached, which are in the Bill, but they do not succeed in getting hearts and minds behind them. When one is going to something as fundamental as this agreement, which will need to be tested when real issues arise, there needs to be buy-in from all parties. Will the Minister therefore confirm that further discussions may take place with Mike Russell and his Scottish ministerial colleagues? If progress is made there to move the settlement to a form of words that is more acceptable, will the Minister confirm that that form of words would be equally available for Wales and Northern Ireland and not just be a reward for Scotland for standing out against the decisions that have been taken?
What hit Members in both the Scottish Parliament and in the National Assembly was the implication of these agreements when it comes down to the nitty-gritty. The element that stood out most clearly, in both debates interestingly enough, was public procurement. As Dr Dai Lloyd, an Assembly Member in Cardiff, spelled out, it could mean privatisation by the back door for the National Health Service. That came as quite a shock to many Labour Members, and that very point was made in the Scottish Parliament. In his closing remarks, the Minister, Mike Russell, mentioned that public procurement that leads to probably hundreds of thousands of jobs in Scotland would be affected. As the reality of the settlement hits home, there is a growing unease. We should be heading that off, and if we cannot do so tonight, the opportunity should be taken by the Government in another place, where the new clause can be amended by Members of Parliament. I believe that such amendments are needed.
One consideration that they could perhaps apply themselves to is one not covered by this amendment but which could be covered by further amendments in another place. In bringing regulations that will potentially overrule what the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales would decide, or the attitude they might take towards certain proposals, if it is done by instrument through both Houses of Parliament, that lays the whole process open to the fact that the solution is being imposed. Perhaps the Minister and the Government could consider the possibility of dealing with those instruments in the Scottish Grand Committee and the Welsh Grand Committee by Members of Parliament from the two countries, so that at least there would be a feeling that people from Wales and from Scotland are dealing with solutions that are so important.
I personally believe that there need to be changes in the Bill along the lines proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace. I look forward to the Government’s response.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I will speak in support of these amendments. I do so with great trepidation as a non-lawyer, knowing that the noble and learned Lord will be marking my homework—and doing so in front of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is completely correct to draw our attention to the fact that a constitutionally significant moment has arrived. He is quite right to repeat the questions that he asked before. Whether one considers it a good thing or a bad thing, what happened in Edinburgh yesterday was certainly a big thing—and it could have very serious repercussions.
I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, in wanting to bring out the principles agreed in October, and I am grateful to him for reading them out. But it seems to me that much is going to depend over time on how they are interpreted. Will they be interpreted narrowly or widely? The two key common frameworks are to enable the function of the UK internal market and to ensure that the UK can negotiate and implement international trade agreements. How are these principles going to operate?
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
The noble Lord is very well-meaning in what he suggests. However, is he aware that Mike Russell actually agreed to the same proposal from the United Kingdom Government that the Welsh Government agreed to? He went along with that and then went back up to Scotland and was told by Nicola Sturgeon that it would not be approved because she did not like it. She runs it: not Mike Russell. How on earth can the United Kingdom Government—as noble Lords know, I am no fan of the United Kingdom Government on most things—legitimately deal with someone who says he goes along with it and then goes back up to Edinburgh and gets overruled by his First Minister?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
The noble Lord probably knows more about it than me. I only know what I read in the UK press, which is almost nothing, and in the Scottish press. But my point is a slightly different one. I thought I would be attacked by the noble Lord on slightly different grounds. I want SNP representation in this Chamber. On previous occasions the noble Lord has reminded me that it is entirely the theology of the SNP that prevents it being represented in this Chamber—and he is completely correct about that. I do not understand why the SNP, represented in the other place, adopts towards this House the policy that Sinn Féin adopts towards the other House. I do not understand it at all. The onus is of course on members of the SNP to change their minds if they wish to take part in our debates, but I would ask the Minister to say what some of his colleagues in the past have said: if SNP MPs were to change their minds, the Government would be delighted to see them represented in this place.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, it is certainly not my purpose to say or do anything that makes it more difficult to reach an agreement with the Scottish Government—that is the last thing I want to do. But I want to say, in answer to one of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made, that the provisions that we are talking about in relation to the frameworks are provisions in which the Scottish Parliament does not have jurisdiction because the framework is for the United Kingdom as a whole. Therefore, it is not within the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament. That is why I have said so far that the consent of the Scottish Government is not necessary at that stage. But I would like to see a consent to the arrangements: then they can go through pretty well formally in the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
I had understood from Mr Russell from the early days—I will say a little more about this when we come to considering the Bill passing, which I hope we will do in due course—that the Scottish Government have said that they require to consent to the Parliament of the United Kingdom passing these. But, so long as their views are fully heard by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, that is the correct way to approach this. The legal competence in this matter lies with the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Therefore, technically, consent is not necessary from any of the devolved legislatures: otherwise, one of them could make these regulations impossible for the others. So consent at that stage is not necessary. It is highly desirable, which is why I was trying to concentrate on an arrangement under which it should happen.
I think that I am right in saying that the memorandum provides that, in effect, the Sewel convention will apply before these things are put to the United Kingdom Parliament. As I said before, the amendment and memorandum that the Government proposed went slightly further than I had suggested, by giving the opportunity for the dissenter, whichever Government it was, to put their point of view in their terms before the Parliament of the United Kingdom before it was considered.
So far as the question of consent is concerned, the technical question is: what is required? The intention of the legislation so far is that a decision has to be taken by each of the devolved Governments before anything is put in this connection before the UK Parliament. In other words, every opportunity is given for them to reach consent in their committees. I would like to see this settled, but the decision as to what is required is a legal decision, which, so far as I am concerned, does not require as a matter of law the consent of the Scottish Government—although that is very desirable. I am entirely in favour of doing everything that we can to deal with these matters.
Talking of papers going out and so forth, I saw an article about papers dealing with fisheries. It said that the document contained the idea that the UK Parliament can deal with fisheries in the world. Of course, we do not need to have discovered that in this paper, because it is in the reserved matters in the original constitution of 1998. The fact that the UK Government and the UK Parliament are responsible for international relations is well known; it is not a discovery one makes from a recently leaked document. That sort of thing does not help the atmosphere.
I certainly support strongly all that has been said about doing our level best to get the best atmosphere with the Government of Scotland as well as with the Government of Wales—and I would love to see a Government in Northern Ireland as well.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I would also like to say a word about giving this Bill a Third Reading, in the absence of a legislative consent Motion from one of the two functioning devolved legislatures, as we heard, obviously. We know that this House regrets that absence.
There is no doubt that we are partly in this position because of the failure of the Government to start their Brexit process by engaging with the devolved authorities. Indeed, there was some six months when the JMC did not even meet, even after the outcry over the initial Clause 11, which had been tabled without consultation, much less agreement with the interested parties.
It was, like much of the Government’s Brexit handling, the result of no pre-referendum consideration of the impact of any withdrawal and indeed, even after June 2016, inadequate attention to this vital area of returning EU regulation. Of course, it was the result—maybe all of us are slightly to blame for this—of not fully appreciating how devolution has fundamentally affected decision-making across the UK. As in the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, some of this is continuing. Papers are still being produced without the consultation that I would by now have hoped was becoming regular. As I have said, I think, to the Minister, I hope that when this Bill is over, the Government will review the status and the functioning of the currently very ineffective Joint Ministerial Committee.
For now there is, as the Scottish as well as the Welsh Government recognise, a need to look at how to protect an internal UK market even as we pull out of the EU equivalents. Indeed—in a way it is quite funny—the Scottish Government have been the most vociferous about staying in the EU single market, so it is slightly odd that they seem to want to turn their back on an all-UK version of that.
The deal now in Clauses 13 to 15 seeks a way forward, allowing most of the non-reserved powers to be, rightly, with the devolved authorities, while on a temporary basis holding back some of those which may be needed either for trade agreements or for our own internal single market. Consumers and businesses will want to know that they can buy or sell across internal UK borders without safety, product or other regulations being different, such that they lead to border checks or inadequate standards or controls. The example of alcohol pricing across the border is not the same. If you are buying alcohol in Scotland, you know you are in Scotland and it may be cheaper or more expensive. But if you are buying a chicken when you are in Durham, you want to know whether it was chlorine washed when it was produced in Scotland. As a consumer, those products will cross the borders. So there are undoubtedly areas that we will want to sort out, for the consumers, as well as for businesses trading across the UK.
The Bill for now allows for decisions on these temporarily frozen areas to be taken by consensus, but where one devolved Administration disagrees, as we have just heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, their rationale—and indeed the UK Government’s response to their reasoning for withholding that consent—would come to this Parliament. It would not come back to the UK Government, but to this Parliament for consideration and final decision.
As my noble friend said, until very late in the process, the Scottish Minister had been part of these negotiations and appeared content with their direction of travel and outcome. It was at the very last moment that the Scottish First Minister took another view and demanded a veto—effectively a veto over what both Wales and England might do in some of these areas. This is understandable from an independence party that retains doubts about the role of the UK Parliament over any of its affairs.
We on this side of the House support the union. While absolutely defending and championing devolution —who could not, as an old friend of the late and much-lamented Donald Dewar, and indeed the then Labour Government who implemented devolution?— we do not see it as either separatism or proto-independence.
While acknowledging that the SNP does not share our commitment to devolution—and indeed still campaigns for something different—we nevertheless hope, as others have said, that the UK, Welsh and Scottish Governments will convene cross-party talks to broker an agreed way forward, since we regret that the Scottish Government failed to negotiate something to which their Parliament could consent. We live in hope that it might still be possible. There is still time.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Could the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, therefore explain why the Labour members of the Scottish Parliament voted in the way they did, to support not giving legislative consent and to support having a Bill, which the Presiding Officer had said was ultra vires?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, the wonderful thing about devolution is that it happens within our political parties, just as it happens across the UK.
There is still time for some finessing. Perhaps we can, in the coming months, find an alternative way forward to the approach now proposed, particularly before any draft regulations are laid before this House— maybe from some of the ideas going around today. If we can find a way forward that commands the support of all the devolved Administrations and thus preserve the spirit of the Sewel convention—which those of us who care about devolution rightly believe is of huge importance—we on these Benches would welcome it. For now, we judge that the package in front of us is a positive way forward, and is thus no barrier to our agreement to a Third Reading.
I should add a word about the clauses on devolution and Northern Ireland, given that, very regrettably, it was not possible to have the same level of political engagement from there as was available to the Scottish and Welsh Governments and their legislatures. Cross-UK frameworks have particular relevance to Northern Ireland, given the Government’s welcome commitment,
“to uphold the Belfast Agreement in its entirety, to maintain a frictionless border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, with no physical infrastructure”,
while ensuring that any regulatory continuity in Northern Ireland to maintain a frictionless border would not threaten Northern Ireland’s place in the internal market of the UK. The future developments of the frameworks envisaged in this package have to respect the wider demands of upholding the Good Friday agreement. We trust that will remain uppermost in the Government’s mind.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions in this debate. We may be repeating some of the ground that we covered at Report, but these are important matters and they deserve full attention. I appreciate that noble Lords want to consider the points made during the debates on the Motions in the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales yesterday.
I understand the intention behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, but I do not accept that the amendment adds anything that is not already achieved by the Bill and by the intergovernmental agreement. This amendment pertains only to Wales, although I appreciate the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, as to the position in Scotland. It seeks to remedy what is essentially already a firm political commitment that we have made, in line with the intergovernmental agreement, that we will not normally put Clause 15 regulations before this Parliament without the consent of the National Assembly for Wales.
I would put it to the noble and learned Lord that the sincerity of this commitment—and the process and agreement that underpin it—is, it would appear, sufficient for the Welsh Government to agree to these provisions, and it is sufficient for the National Assembly for Wales to agree to these provisions, as it did yesterday. There must be a genuine cause for action in the interests of the whole of the United Kingdom if the UK Government ask the UK Parliament to approve regulations without consent from the devolved legislatures. I note what my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern said as to the legal position, but of course it goes beyond that. We are concerned to ensure that moves that have a UK-wide impact have the consent of the devolved Administrations.
The intergovernmental agreement that we have made with the Welsh Government makes this clear. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to paragraph 6 of that agreement which states that we, the UK Government, will not normally ask Parliament to approve draft regulations in the absence of a devolved legislature’s consent. It is also why we will be under a duty to fully explain any such decision to Parliament and to provide the reasons given by the devolved Administrations for why consent has not been given, so that in considering this matter Parliament will be able to take an informed decision on what is right for the United Kingdom as a whole, based on full information. Ultimately, as we have debated fully in this House, it is for the UK Parliament to decide whether to proceed in putting a temporary freeze on the common approaches we have now under EU law. This amendment, while well intentioned, would undermine that. It risks making it a decision for the courts as to whether that question can be put to Parliament. Moreover, the noble Lord himself observed that where you have the issue of what is normal or not normal in the actions of a Minister, it may be amenable to judicial review if he proceeds without the appropriate consent. It would introduce uncertainty because in that context there are no clear grounds on which the courts can consider whether the requirement set out in the intergovernmental agreement has been met.
I am happy to repeat the commitment set out in the noble Lord’s amendment and in paragraph 6 of the intergovernmental agreement. The implementation of that agreement will result in the UK Parliament not normally being asked to approve Clause 15 regulations without the consent of the devolved legislatures. The UK Government have committed to making regulations through a collaborative process. That puts a similar commitment on the Welsh Government that they will not unreasonably withhold recommendations of consent. These are political commitments which apply to both of our Governments so that the intergovernmental agreement carries greater weight. For the reasons that I have given, I would suggest that there is nothing to be gained, and indeed something to be lost, by putting those words on the face of the Bill. In these circumstances, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. Perhaps I may come on to the legislative consent Motion process of yesterday in a moment because he raised questions directly pertinent to that point.
In relation to the amendment spoken to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, I recognise that he raised this point during Report and that he is doing so again through his amendment today. I am grateful for this opportunity to clarify these provisions on the record. The noble and learned Lord has made an important case for why we should seek to provide the utmost legal clarity. Given the extent of the Clause 15 changes, this sort of fine detail can easily be lost, but it is no less important that these provisions should deliver the right outcomes. As I confirmed in response to the noble Lord at Report, the reference to principles in sub-paragraph (b) of the reporting requirement is indeed intended to cover those principles that are the subject of his amendment; that is, those principles which were agreed between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations at the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations meeting on 16 October 2017 and published in the communiqué of that committee, to which the noble Lord referred. But I ought to be clear that while this reference covers the same ground as the amendment, the current wording also includes any revisions agreed to those principles and to new principles on the same subject that are put in place to supplement them over time.
I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it is right that as the work on the frameworks progresses—and it continues to progress—and as circumstances may change, we, the UK Government, and the devolved Administrations should continue to review the principles to ensure that they remain fit for purpose. I do not believe that it is the noble and learned Lord’s intention that the duty to report on any agreed revisions to the principles should be lifted from the Government or that we should be under a duty to report on the principles as drafted only in October 2017, even where these may have subsequently been revised or updated; but that, on one view, would be the effect of his amendment. In these circumstances, I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify what is covered by the reference to the principles, but again for the reasons given, I invite the noble and learned Lord not to press his amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his very full reply, and in particular I note his formal commitment from the Dispatch Box to the application of the Sewel convention to this legislation. Moreover, the principles that are referred to in the amendment tabled by my noble and learned friend are indeed the principles set out by the Joint Ministerial Committee in October last year. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, the process of consultation with the devolved Administrations started far too late and there were no meetings of that Joint Ministerial Committee for some seven or eight months; that is, during the very important period when the negotiations with Europe were beginning. It is almost ironic that it is the principles that were set out by agreement between all the parties at the first meeting of that Joint Ministerial Committee which now find themselves as the foundation of the way forward in this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, said that there should be less discourtesy and more diplomacy, and I agree with him entirely on that. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, gave us some insight into the proceedings yesterday in both Edinburgh and Cardiff. He described the incredulity that was expressed at the drafting of the very point which I have taken in my amendment—incredulity that a consent decision could mean no consent or the refusal to consent. It is a mark of the state of the relationships that exist between the devolved Administrations that there has been no proper discussion on these issues until now.
I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, that what we are looking for is a mechanism whereby there is agreement about how these UK framework agreements are to be entered into. It is not so much the agreements themselves as the mechanism by which those agreements are made that is important. The point I was seeking to make was that if the Government choose to push on with this Bill without the consent of the Scottish Government, the chances of coming to a UK framework agreement are that much more diminished. It would be much preferable for the Government to continue their efforts to come to an agreed mechanism whereby those arrangements can be completed.
Having regard to the commitments that have been made from the Dispatch Box, I do not need to press the amendment. I will finish on this note—namely that, as with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I think it is a great shame that the SNP are not represented in this Chamber. They merely wish to take control; they merely wish to make their own laws; they are prepared to risk economic security for sovereignty, whatever that may mean; and there are quite a number of people in this House who take a similar view, but not for Scotland. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Callanan
“( ) In subsection (9), leave out “and (8)” and insert “, (8) and (8L)”.”
(b) in subsection (7)(a), omit “, (b)”.”
Lord Callanan
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I move the Motion with a tremendous sigh of relief. This is a good time to reflect—briefly, noble Lords will be pleased to know—on the passage of the Bill through the House. As I have said on numerous occasions, the Bill has a simple purpose: to prepare our statute book for leaving the European Union. This Bill is vital to ensuring that, as we leave, we do so in an orderly way.
When the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union opened the Second Reading debate in the House of Commons, he said:
“I stand ready to listen to those who offer improvements to the Bill”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/11/17; col. 343.]
No one can be in any doubt that we have listened. We have brought forward significant amendments to all the key aspects of the Bill, in partnership with many noble Lords in this House, with almost 200 amendments having been made to the Bill in total. The Bill now ensures that our courts are clearer on the interpretation of the CJEU’s case law. It ensures that Parliament is better informed about, and better able to scrutinise, the powers in the Bill. And it ensures that, as we leave the EU, more new powers are passed by default to Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast than ever before.
We have had 11 extended days—over 100 hours—of Committee debate on the Floor of this House. We have had six days on Report, and we have discussed almost 800 amendments. More noble Lords spoke at the Second Reading of this Bill than any other Bill in the history of your Lordships’ House.
The Government have of course suffered defeat on 15 issues. Although I regret the number of defeats, I am grateful to the many noble Lords who have worked constructively to improve the Bill. This House has done its duty as a revising Chamber. The Bill has been scrutinised. It is now right that the Bill be sent back to the elected House of Commons so that Parliament can, as a responsible legislature, complete the job of ensuring a functioning statute book for the whole of the UK. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Adonis
At end insert “and, in the light of the vital importance of the issues raised to the future of the United Kingdom, this House urges the Leader of the House to make representations to government colleagues to ensure amendments made by the House of Lords to the Bill are considered as soon as possible”.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I do not think that the House of Lords has spent longer considering any piece of legislation in its 800-year history. I join the Minister in paying tribute to the hundreds of noble Lords who have contributed over four months of debate. In Iolanthe, the House of Lords does nothing in particular but does it very well. This time, I think we have done rather better. Nevertheless, Parliament and the country are in a critical situation on Brexit, and a few comments might be in order as the Bill leaves us.
Wisely, the House of Lords has not been bullied by the Daily Mail and the right wing of the Conservative Party into becoming a rubber stamp for extreme Brexit. On no reading of party manifestos in the last election—let alone the present composition of the House of Commons, where no party has a majority—can extreme Brexit be called the “will of the people”. We are doing our constitutional duty in asking the House of Commons and the Government to think again on certain elements of the Bill as it came to us, in particular the extensive Henry VIII powers, the failure to provide for a customs union, the failure to entrench the Good Friday agreement, the failure to respect the devolution settlements and the failure to seek continued membership of the EEA.
Negotiations are ongoing on all these issues between Her Majesty’s Government and the European Commission. We are a parliamentary democracy, and it is essential that the will of Parliament becomes the voice of the Government. That can only happen if Parliament is allowed to express its will, which is why I am moving this Motion to request the Government to allow early and full consideration by the House of Commons of our amendments.
When this Bill first started, four months ago, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, whom the House has grown to admire for his persistence and his emerging good humour, told us that it was needed urgently so that the statute book would be in good shape on 29 March next year, when European law no longer applies. Suddenly, that imperative appears to be less urgent. As noble Lords may know, there are all kinds of rumours going round about the Government delaying—perhaps for months, perhaps even for ever—consideration by the Commons of your Lordships’ amendments, because the Prime Minister fears a rebellion among Conservative MPs against extreme Brexit. To deny the House of Commons the right to express itself on our amendments in a timely manner is obviously undemocratic, and I therefore look forward to the Minister telling us when the Government intend that our amendments will be considered by the House of Commons.
If and when our amendments are considered by the Commons, what should happen then? The Commons may of course be persuaded of the wisdom of your Lordships in all 15 of our amendments carried against the Government, so we have no further role to play. Looking at the statements of Mr Dominic Grieve, the de facto leader of the sensible Conservatives, and those of my party leader, who of course is always open to good arguments, it is possible that that might happen. If it does not, then we as a House will have to exercise our judgment as to our response.
Noble Lords on all sides of the House have shown a commendable unwillingness to be dragooned into voting for the short-term expediency of party leaders against the national interest, and I am sure that will continue. Speaking for myself, my view of the situation is this. First, the so-called Salisbury convention, which affords a protected status to the manifesto commitments of a party that has won a general election, clearly does not apply in the case of our amendments to the Bill. Most of our amendments concern issues that did not feature in the Conservative manifesto in the last election at all. Even on the contested issues raised in some of our amendments, the Conservative Party did not win the last election and therefore has no mandate for anything.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Does the noble Lord not think that he should be rather more honest about his motives? For example, in January he tweeted this to Donald Tusk:
“We will probably hold a referendum on Mrs May’s Brexit terms before next March, so please work on the assumption that we will continue to play a central role in the future of the European Union”.
Is that not his real agenda? Is this all not just flim-flam?
Lord Adonis
I very much hope that happens, and I hope that the noble Lord, being a democrat, will support the holding of a referendum on the Prime Minister’s final treaty. However, that motivation does not guide us in our consideration of these amendments. Our role is to perform our duty as a revising assembly.
Finally, I want to say a word about the right wing of the Conservative Party, which is calling for our abolition because we are not acting as the unquestioning registry office of the views of Mr Paul Dacre, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, Mr Nigel Farage and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I am strongly in favour of House of Lords reform. I have consistently voted in favour of an elected second Chamber; if the present crisis leads to that, it would be a great gain for the country. An elected Chamber would be much more powerful than the present House and therefore much more able to stand up to Governments such as this one, with weak and non-existent mandates but big and damaging policies.
Lord Adonis
I think that the noble Lord will have an opportunity to make his own speech in a moment, if he wishes to do so. I am drawing to a close.
Lord Adonis
I will not give way. Whatever happens hereafter, I am totally unafraid of being abolished for acting according to our conscience and the constitution. Indeed, if we do not act according to them, we deserve to be abolished. Our Writ of Summons requires us to be here at Westminster,
“waiving all excuses … to treat and give your counsel upon the affairs … the safety and defence of the … Kingdom”.
I cannot think of any legislation since the Second World War that more seriously concerns the affairs, safety and defence of the United Kingdom. We should do our duty.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
The original Motion was that this Bill do now pass, since when an amendment has been moved to insert at the end the words set out on the Order Paper. The question I therefore now have to put is that this amendment be agreed to.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, I trust that noble Lords are relieved that I have removed my Motion to Regret from the Order Paper. I did so because I did not want to prolong today’s proceedings and also because I have an unexpected family commitment this evening that may prevent me staying until the end of the debate.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
I have saved noble Lords an awful lot of time. I hope that students of Brexit will read what I said at Second Reading on 30 January in column 1392. The core of my argument was that the Government were underestimating the strength of our hand in Brussels, because politicians and bureaucrats do not understand how to do deals; that they should have resiled from Clauses 2 to 4 of Article 50, which give the Eurocrats control over our leaving process; and that they should have dictated our terms for leaving to the Eurocrats. Those terms have not changed, and remain in the interests of the real people of Europe—as opposed to those of the Eurocrats, with their determination to keep afloat their failing project of anti-democratic integration. We should be generous with those real people, by offering them wide mutual residence, our ongoing security support and the continuation of our free trade together, which their exporters need so much more than ours. If the Eurocrats accept all that, we should be generous with the cash that we give them. If they do not, we should leave anyway, and give them no more cash after 29 March next year.
As the Bill leaves this House for the Commons, the Government still do not seem to believe that we can legally resile from those Article 50 clauses and leave anyway —yet I am advised that there have been some 225 unilateral withdrawals from international treaties and organisations since 1945. I recommend Professor de Frankopan’s opinion in Money Week on 21 November 2016, which covers supportive decisions from the German constitutional court and confirms that leaving without the Eurocrats’ consent is just a matter of political will.
The area in which the Government seem most confused—and most unnecessarily under the thumb of Brussels—is trade. We have free trade with the EU, so why do we not simply offer to continue it with a new arrangement under the jurisdiction of the World Trade Organization and threaten to go under the WTO’s normal remit if the Eurocrats do not agree? As I have said, continuing free trade would be much to the advantage of the EU exporters to us because, if it stops, they would pay us some £13 billion a year in tariffs—under present WTO terms—against the £5 billion that we would pay them. Nothing would change. We would all just go on as we are and the inflated problem of the Irish border would simply disappear. Moreover, there is even an article in the treaties that I do not think has been mentioned in these proceedings. It obliges the EU to continue free trade with us after we leave it and become part of the wider world. Article 3(5) of the Treaty on European Union contains the following:
“In its relations with the wider world, the Union … shall contribute to … free and fair trade”.
Have the Government pursued this clause with Brussels?
I conclude with two further observations on the passage of the Bill. First, I regret that not one of our five former EU Commissioners who spoke, and only one of our 17 former MEPs who spoke, saw fit to declare their EU pension entitlements. I refer especially to the entitlements of the former Commissioners, which can be lost if they fail to uphold the interests of the communities—now the EU. Secondly, our 156 hours of debate so far have shown me something that I had not spotted before: Europhilia is a hallucinatory illness. It affects otherwise quite sensible people and leads them to see the European Union as a good thing, when any normal person can see that it may have been an honourable idea in 1950, but now it does nothing useful that could not be done much better by the democracies of Europe collaborating together. It has become a bad, pointless, corrupt and very expensive thing, which the British people, I am glad to say, have seen through. I trust that they will also see through the blandishments of so many of your Europhile Lordships in our debates so far, and take pride in the decision they so wisely took in the referendum on our membership.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I would like to say a word about my attempts for Scotland. I am going to read this from my note, because I have shown it to Michael Russell. As I said to your Lordships, on the Monday before Clause 11 was due to be discussed in Committee, I met a member of the SNP, Ian Blackford, to whom I said that I had not received any briefing from the Scottish Government on that clause. Next day I received briefing from the Lord Advocate and Michael Russell, the Scottish Minister in the consultation on Clause 11. Having carefully thought over what they said, I tabled an amendment to provide a mechanism for the consultation that I thought would meet their concerns, and in Committee I stated my view of the relevant law that would return on Brexit.
On Report the British Government tabled amendments that fully met my suggestions, and indeed went further. I had suggested that, if the consultation failed to reach agreement, the participants should provide an agreed statement of their disagreement to the UK Parliament before it was asked to approve the instrument approving the framework agreement in question. The government amendment also proposed that any dissenter should have an opportunity to state the reasons for their dissent in their own terms. Your Lordships will understand my dismay when I learned from Michael Russell that the Scottish Government could not accept that amendment.
The First Minister of Scotland then wrote to the Lord Speaker with a number of amendments that she asked him to circulate, which he did. My noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead and I decided that we should table the principal amendments in the letter: he would introduce them and I would explain the reasons why we could not support them. This we did. No member of your Lordships’ House questioned my explanations. The First Minister of Scotland has not corresponded with either of us; we have not corresponded with anyone other than Michael Russell and the Lord Advocate on this matter, and I have had talks with the UK Ministers and officials. Michael Russell has publicly and graciously acknowledged the help that my noble and learned friend and I have given, and I thank him for the courtesy he has shown in all his correspondence with us.
I am satisfied that Clause 11 as now amended is entirely in accordance with the devolution settlement, and is an appropriate way of dealing with the unique problem of adjusting the EU provisions for the internal market in the United Kingdom to the post-Brexit situation.
I have had my home in Scotland all my life, having been trained as a Scottish lawyer, and I am profoundly sad that I have been unable to achieve the agreement of the Scottish Government to these proposals. Although my concern was principally with my native land, I am glad that the Government of Wales have accepted the arrangements, and I send my best wishes to those in the other place, in the hope that they will succeed where I have failed.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, as one who—unlike certain other colleagues—has barely missed an hour of the 156 hours of discussions on this Bill, may I say a few words before we send it back to the other place? I join others in thanking the team of Ministers for their patience and good humour, even on occasions when those could have been sorely tested. The noble Lord, Lord Duncan, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, have had a heavy workload, and I am sure that they and their officials will be glad to see us pass Third Reading. I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for the way in which he responded, and made himself and his team available to discuss issues of concern. In particular, with his background in the National Assembly, he could readily identify with the concerns emanating from Cardiff Bay, even if his brief did not allow him to respond as fully as many of us—and perhaps even occasionally he himself—might have wished.
I have no doubt that the Bill we now return to the other place is significantly better than the one we received. Ministers should concur with this sentiment. After all, of the almost 200 amendments that have found their way into the Bill, all but 15, and a handful of consequential amendments, have come from the ranks of government itself. Let no one—the Daily Mail or anybody else—claim that this Chamber has delayed proceedings. We have not. The Government have their Bill bang on time, even if, at times, we had to spend 11 hours or more a day on our deliberations to make that possible. The Government clearly needed all this time: as we heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, a moment ago, it was only at the very last moment of Report that they were able to move the final form of amendments that they saw necessary to make Clause 11, as was, workable in the way that they desired.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes (Con)
My Lords, my eyes have misted over with gratitude that I have lived long enough to see this happening. My congratulations go to the Government and everybody who has participated in making this possible and making it acceptable to all sides. Thinking of the day when I voted not to stay in the first place, I can only say that, now at last, the air is fresher. We can breathe again and do all the things that we, and we alone, believe are in the interests of this country and of many friends across all countries in Europe.
Lord Elton
My Lords, in moving the Motion that we are now discussing, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, made one assertion which cannot go without comment. I had intended to ask him—I now ask your Lordships—to recognise that, whereas an elected House would be stronger against a weak Government, an elected and paid House would be weaker against a strong Government. I do not think that the noble Lord was here, because I think that it was in 1953, when the terrorism Bill was passed by this House. The ping-pong stage lasted from 2.30 pm on a Thursday till 7.31 pm on a Friday without interruption. I doubt whether the Whips of any Government with any majority in the House of Commons and a paid House here would fail to drive through such legislation. There would be no such resistance.
I raise that now merely because it will be a big issue later on. Let us not swallow the fiction that an elected and paid House is a stronger protection against an overmighty Government.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for this opportunity to say what I want to say now: those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad. Through the progress of this Bill in Committee and on Report, noble Lords collectively have taken leave of their senses and, in doing so, have put the whole future of your Lordships’ House as an appointed Chamber at stake.
When the coalition Government decided that they wanted to reform your Lordships’ House, I became a humble foot soldier supporting my noble friend Lord Cormack in his campaign to preserve an appointed House. We emphasised at that point that our job was to revise and improve legislation, but never to challenge the supremacy of the elected Chamber. I am not sure that we have kept to that. We seem to have had a very large number of amendments—much reference has been made to the 15 amendments made by your Lordships’ House. Many of them strike me as having been quite outside the scope of the Bill.
I went to see the Clerk of the Parliaments when I was withdrawing my amendment, which talked about preparing for no deal if we wanted a good deal, because I thought it completely irrelevant to the Bill. The Clerk of the Parliaments assured me that everything was completely in order and the amendments were quite acceptable; indeed, he said that they would have been totally acceptable in the other place as well. I then talked to a right honourable friend of mine in the other place who has watched the progress of the Bill in the House of Commons. He said that Conservative rebels had tried to table an amendment basically mandating us to remain in a customs union. This was judged in the House of Commons to be outside the scope of the Long Title and ruled out of order. Now my noble friend Lord Framlingham, who has experience of being a Deputy Speaker in the other place, tells me that many of the amendments that we have passed here would never be allowed in the other place.
This raises a serious question: are we as an appointed House going to have greater powers to put down amendments than the democratically elected House down the way? How comfortable are we in that position, when we have no democratic legitimacy whatever?
My right honourable friend Dominic Grieve at least has constituents whom he must go to and he may even stand at the next general election, but I do not have to remind the House that we have no constituents and probably will not stand at any general election ever again. The rebels in your Lordships’ House are therefore in a completely different position from those in the other place.
I have to say that support for our appointed House is drifting away. We are losing friends and gaining no new ones. One might reckon that my honourable friend Jacob Rees-Mogg would support an appointed House. Even he gave the warning the other day that we were playing with fire, so I do not think that we can rely on his support either.
When we beat off attempts during the coalition Government to reform your Lordships’ House, the person who really came to our aid was one Jesse Norman. We owe him a great debt of gratitude that we exist in an appointed House today. Jesse Norman was very courageous and sacrificed several years of his ministerial career as a result of taking such a courageous stand. He is now a Minister and I am glad that he is there, so we cannot count on him to rally right-wing Tory MPs and to save us next time round.
I am afraid that we have done enormous damage to our reputation in the country generally. Everybody says, “Oh, there’s nothing to worry about”. I have been in this House for 12 years now. I have never known a petition going down asking for the abolition of your Lordships’ House, but my noble friend Lord Robathan yesterday told me that the number of names on it was 163,000 and rising. We are being rather complacent if we think that we can carry on in this extraordinarily arrogant way telling people of this country who voted to leave the EU that they got it all wrong and that somehow we must come out with a solution that keeps us half in the EU and deny the people the vote they have made.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, I feel provoked to respond, because my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Epsom was kind enough to refer to the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber, of which he was indeed a valued member and which my noble friend Lord Norton and I founded some 16 years ago. However, after that, I part company with my noble friend. He has read it completely wrong. By implication, he criticises the Clerk of the Parliaments and the advice given to your Lordships on tabling amendments. But what do Members do? They take advice and according to the procedures of this House, advice is given. I speak as one who was a Chairman of Committees for 15 years in the other place. It is not precisely the same advice as would be given in another House but we have behaved entirely according to the rules. One of the fundamental precepts of, and our whole purpose in, the Campaign for an Effective Second Chamber—the members of this group are drawn from all parts of your Lordships’ House, including a number of prominent Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches—is to fight for an effective second Chamber while always acknowledging the primacy of the other place.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
Perhaps I may make three brief points or what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, described as hallucinations—although I see that he has gone.
First, I have sat through most of the 156 hours—80 to 90%, I should think—of debate on the Bill. I pay tribute to the Front Benches, my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, the Liberal Democrats and the Ministers who have tried to deal with all the complicated issues that have been put to them. I mean that most sincerely, even though I do not agree with them on many of the fundamentals.
Secondly, I was one of those passionate pro-Europeans like the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I could not bring myself to vote for the Article 50 Bill and voted against the Motion then that the Bill do now pass. I am not going to do that today because we have greatly improved this Bill in the amendments that the Government have brought. In the amendments that we have passed, we have done our duty and it is for the Commons to decide. We are not doing anything undemocratic. I shall put on the back of my bathroom door a photograph of me as an “enemy of democracy” in the Daily Mail. I am proud of that. In fact, we have just been doing our job, and it is up to the Commons to decide. On that, I should say how much I have admired the Conservatives in this House who have spoken so well on many of the issues and their courage in defying the party line.
When the Bill goes to the Commons, a lot of people will debate in their hearts whether they put the national interest before the party interest. However, I have a point for my own party. It is time that the Labour Party stood for the national interest on this issue and opposed a hard Brexit. If all we are going to get is a hard Brexit, then we should have no Brexit at all.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, it may surprise them, but I begin by congratulating and thanking the Government Front Bench. I congratulate the ministerial team on passing the first test of successful politicians: they have survived, and that is a signal achievement. I also thank them for at no point suggesting that your Lordships’ House should not pass amendments. During previous Administrations, it has been common, even at this stage, for Ministers on the Front Bench to stand up, on amendment after amendment, saying, “This should not be passed because the Bill has been through the Commons and the House of Lords should simply do what the Commons has instructed”. It must have been extremely tempting for the Government Front Bench to say that repeatedly as the Bill has gone through. It reflects well on the House that Ministers have not done so, and I thank them for that.
I should like also to thank my team, both in the Chamber and our staff supporting us, on what has been a tiring process—in particular, Elizabeth Plummer and Sophie Lyddon, who worked exceptionally hard.
As the Bill leaves your Lordships’ House, it faces an unclear future. We do not, for example, even know when it is going to be taken in the Commons. Certainly, it is not going to be taken until June. This begins to set the seal on what will be a huge challenge for the rest of the year, because the Bill presages 1,000 statutory instruments, many of which need, I assume, to be in place before the Government’s preferred exit day in March next year. The Government are also committed to bringing forward a whole range of other Brexit-related Bills before that deadline. They even have to bring forward a Bill to disapply the vast bulk of this Bill during the transition period. We are in for a very difficult period. I am not going to embarrass the Minister by asking how he hopes to get through this legislative logjam, because I know he does not know and in any event that is for another day. Today, all we can do is send the Bill to the other place and wait for the explosions.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I think the view of the House is that we should conclude.
On Second Reading, I referred to a mixture of “Hope, Judge and Pannick” as the tasks that faced us. I think my words were prescient, and it is delightful to see all three here who have been through the long nights with us. At the end of Second Reading, I asked the Minister,
“to defend the right—no, the duty—of this House to advise him and the Commons on the detail of the Bill”.—[Official Report, 31/1/18; col. 1692.]
Never was that defence more needed than when two of our national papers, as we have heard, can have thought to threaten to chop off our heads for carrying out our statutory, lawful duty to send back to the Commons those parts of the Bill we find deficient to meet the purpose of the proposed Act. We have even heard prominent Brexiteers in the Commons accuse the Lords of being “drunk with their own prejudices” or “traitors in ermine”. Even today the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, talked of “dark days” and of us doing “irreparable damage”. I do not think we have been ordering the massacre of the firstborn. Indeed, as we heard from the Minister, we have had 800 amendments, 200 of which went back to the Commons, only 15 of which were because the Government were defeated in the voting Lobbies. This is hardly a constitutional crisis or anything like it.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Newby, I add very warm thanks to the Bill team, though I have to tell them that their work is not yet quite done. I also thank the team of Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Duncan, is not in his place, but his poor back led to some interesting dancing at the Dispatch Box. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, whose legal exchanges with my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith left me not understanding the language they were speaking at times, let alone the content. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, put up a sterling defence of what we thought of as the indefensible, with charm, humour and great tolerance.
And what can I say about the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, other than that I share with him the pain at losing a vote, even if it happened to me only once? The noble Lord, Lord Newby, and I did wonder whether we should thank him for making our task easier, but that would be unfair. He has taught us a lesson in sheer commitment to the Brexit cause, whatever is thrown at him, though I do wonder whether he shares the views of his friend, Daniel Hannan, that “leaving the EU is not quite going to plan”. I think not. His confidence that it is great for the north-east remains, and for that consistency and persistence—some would say in the face of all evidence—we can only admire him and wish him some well-deserved rest after the rigours of the Bill.
My own personal thanks are to my colleagues. My noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith of course took on all the tricky amendments—except one. My noble friend Lord Griffiths handled devolution; my noble friends Lord Murphy, Lord Collins and Lord Hunt and my noble friends Lady Jones, Lady Wheeler, Lady Thornton and Lady Sherlock all merit high mentions in dispatches. My noble friend Lord McAvoy marshalled the troops and my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe marshalled our preparations. My noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon opened the Second Reading, in the presence of Mrs May, setting out the shortcomings of the Bill and our objectives for change. Of course, I thank our staff back-up team, who do all the hard work—in case noble Lords thought it was down to me—especially Dan Stevens, whose amendment-writing, briefing and negotiating skills have caused the Government such grief.
We send this much-amended Bill back to the Commons, though with little expectation that they will deal speedily with it, as the Government have first to resolve deep divisions within their own Cabinet, particularly over the very first amendment passed by your Lordships’ House, on the customs union. So while we take a breather, we hope they will see some sense and accept our changes as improvements to the previously flawed Bill. It is only the first Bill. We still have Bills on trade, customs, agriculture, fishing, immigration and withdrawal and implementation, so we will see noble Lords back here on many occasions. For the moment, I shall say just one thing: this is not about whether we leave the European Union but about how we leave. That we must do properly, in the national interest, and that is what I believe this House has set out to do.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, all of us have travelled a long way—in my case, it seems like an awful long way—over a long time on this Bill since its introduction what seems like years ago but apparently is only a few months.
First, I thank the Opposition Front Benches for their work and for their kind words. I pay particular tribute to my colleagues, particularly the Leader, the Chief Whip, my noble friend Lady Goldie and my noble and learned friend Lord Keen—of wet trousers fame—for all their help and support throughout. If noble Lords do not understand that remark, I think it is on YouTube.
I also offer my considerable thanks to the team in my private office and to all the dedicated civil servants—Marianne and her team—in the Bill team, who have worked tremendously hard. Do not forget that they also took the Bill through the House of Commons: they have worked all hours of the day and night and are a credit to the Civil Service. I am very grateful for all the support and help they have given me and the rest of the Front Bench.
Let me briefly reply to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. The House will be pleased to know that I am not going to engage in any disagreements or arguments with him at this stage—well, I am slightly—but, to reply to his question, I am sure that the other place will consider this House’s amendments in due course but it is not for me to determine its timetable. For my part, I am pleased that in his amendment to the Motion he seems finally to have recognised the need to get the Bill on the statute book in good time to ensure that we successfully deliver on the instruction given by the electorate on 23 June 2016 to leave the European Union.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill (Programme) (No. 3)
Tuesday 12th June 2018
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 12 June 2018 - (12 Jun 2018)
12:56 - The House divided: - Ayes: 321 / Noes: 304 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords Amendments | Time for conclusion of proceedings |
|---|---|
Amendments 110, 128, 37, 39, 125, 19, 52, 10, 43, 45, 20, 11 to 14, 18, 21 to 23, 44, 47, 102 to 107, 112, 113, 115 to 119, 121 to 124, 126, 127, 130 to 134, 136 to 140, 142 to 148, 150, 152, 154, 156 to 158, 171, and 172. | Three hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments on the first day. |
Amendments 25, 15 to 17, 26 to 31, 46, 48 to 50, 54 to 101, 108, 109, 111, 114, 120, 129, 135, 141, 149, 151, 153, 155, 162, 165, 169, and 173 to 196. | Six hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments on the first day. |
Amendments 51, 1, 2, 5, 53, 4, 3, 24, 32, 6 to 9, 33 to 36, 38, 40 to 42, 159 to 161, 163, 164, 166 to 168, and 170. | Six hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments on the second day. |
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware that on today’s Order Paper there is a Liberal Democrat amendment to extend from two to three days the debate on the Lords amendments. I understand the reasons why it has not been possible to vote on that amendment today. However, can you advise me on how in future it will be possible for this House to secure adequate time to debate critical amendments, take back control and avoid situations such as the one we are likely to face today where, by Government design, there will be no time at all to discuss critical Northern Ireland amendments and critical devolution amendments? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
First, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that a lot of these matters will still be able to be debated—whether they will be divided upon is another matter. Secondly, in response to those who were muttering from a sedentary position that he was eating into the time, let me say that simply as a matter of fact that is not correct. He is not eating into the time, for the simple reason that the Clerk has not yet read the Orders of the Day—we have not yet got to the start of the six hours. It is therefore quite wrong for people to say that the right hon. Gentleman is eating into the time—it is factually wrong and that is all there is to it.
Thirdly, I realise that the right hon. Gentleman regrets the course of events, but the passage of the programme motion has set in train a course of events and that is the reality of the matter. The only remedy would be for the House to divide upon fewer questions in the first group, but in relation to that I say simply two things to him and for the benefit of the House. First, on the merits of such a course of action—having fewer votes earlier—there would be different opinions in the House. Secondly, as he knows, such a remedy lies outside my hands.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 20th June 2018
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message Manuscript Amendments (PDF, 9KB) - (20 Jun 2018)
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That the Commons amendments be now considered forthwith.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of the serried ranks behind me I enter a note of dissent and say how surprised I am that the Bill is returned to us this evening before your Lordships have even had a chance to read the Hansard account of what was said in the House of Commons just three hours ago, still less to consider it. Our Printed Paper Office in mid-afternoon did not even have a copy of David Davis’s critical Written Ministerial Statement published at 1pm. I had to tell the Printed Paper Office that I thought it existed and the Printed Paper Office had to tell me to go to the Vote Office in the House of Commons to get a copy because none was available in your Lordships’ House.
Throughout the passage of the Bill I have made an issue of these important procedural points, at the cost of making myself less than wildly popular with the Whips, because, as is becoming increasingly clear, what is happening on the Bill is a dry run for the decisions that Parliament will take on the EU withdrawal treaty—or the lack of a withdrawal treaty—in the months to come. Those decisions are probably the most important that we will take in our time as Members of this House and this Parliament and I therefore wish to put on record what I think many Back-Bench Members of your Lordships’ House believe, which is, first, that it should ultimately be for the House and not for the Whips, still less for the Government, to decide when and for how long we debate these vital matters of state, and secondly, that we should not bow to the instructions of the Government Chief Whip when the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, is behaving unreasonably.
Lord Adonis
It is not reasonable for us to consider the Commons Reasons before we have even had a chance properly to read and consider what the House of Commons said.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That this House do agree with the Commons in their amendments 19R to 19T.
The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment 19 but propose Amendments 19A and 19B in lieu
“Parliamentary approval of the outcome of negotiations with the EU
(1) The withdrawal agreement may be ratified only if—
(a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament—
(i) a statement that political agreement has been reached,
(ii) a copy of the negotiated withdrawal agreement, and
(iii) a copy of the framework for the future relationship,
(b) the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown,
(c) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship has been tabled in the House of Lords by a Minister of the Crown and—
(i) the House of Lords has debated the motion, or
(ii) the House of Lords has not concluded a debate on the 17 motion before the end of the period of five sitting days 18 beginning with the first sitting day after the day on which the House of Commons passes the resolution mentioned in paragraph (b), and
(d) an Act of Parliament has been passed which contains provision for the implementation of the withdrawal agreement.
(2) So far as practicable, a Minister of the Crown must make arrangements for the motion mentioned in subsection (1)(b) to be debated and voted on by the House of Commons before the European Parliament decides whether it consents to the withdrawal agreement being concluded on behalf of the EU in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union.
(3) Subsection (4) applies if the House of Commons decides not to pass the resolution mentioned in subsection (1)(b).
30 (4) A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the House of Commons decides not to pass the resolution, make a statement setting out how Her Majesty’s Government proposes to proceed in relation to negotiations for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union.(5) A statement under subsection (4) must be made in writing and be
37 published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.(6) This section does not affect the operation of Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (ratification of treaties) in relation to the
40 withdrawal agreement.41 (7) In this section—42 “framework for the future relationship” means the document or documents identified, by the statement that political agreement has been reached, as reflecting the agreement in principle on the substance of the framework for the future relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom after withdrawal;46 “negotiated withdrawal agreement” means the draft of the withdrawal agreement identified by the statement that political agreement has been reached; “ratified”, in relation to the withdrawal agreement, has the same meaning as it does for the purposes of Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 in relation to a treaty (see section 25 of that Act);54 “sitting day” means a day on which the House of Lords is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Lords is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day);56 “statement that political agreement has been reached” means a statement made in writing by a Minister of the Crown which—(a) states that, in the Minister’s opinion, an agreement in principle has been reached in negotiations under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the substance of—
(i) the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU, and
(ii) the framework for the future relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom after withdrawal,
(b) identifies a draft of the withdrawal agreement which, in the Minister’s opinion, reflects the agreement in principle so far as relating to the arrangements for withdrawal, and
(c) identifies one or more documents which, in the Minister’s opinion, reflect the agreement in principle so far as relating to the framework.”
“( ) section (Parliamentary approval of the outcome of negotiations with the EU),”
LORDS NON-INSISTENCE, AGREEMENT AND AMENDMENTS
The Lords do not insist on their Amendment 19 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 19A and 19B in lieu and do propose Amendments 19C to 19E, 19G to 19L and 19P as amendments to Commons Amendment 19A—
“(6A) In subsection (1) “framework for the future relationship” means the document or documents identified, by the statement that political agreement has been reached, as reflecting the agreement in principle on the substance of the framework for the future relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom after withdrawal.”
““Commons sitting day” means a day on which the House of Commons is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Commons is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day);”
““Lords sitting day” means a day on which the House of Lords is sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House of Lords is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day);”
“(5A) A Minister of the Crown must make arrangements for—
3 (a) a motion for the House of Commons to approve the statement mentioned in subsection (4), to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement is made, and
(b) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the statement to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Lords sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement is made.
(5B) Subsection (5C) applies if the Prime Minister makes a statement before the end of 21 January 2019 that no agreement in principle can be reached in negotiations under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the substance of—
(a) the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU, and
(b) the framework for the future relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom after withdrawal.
(5C) A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the statement mentioned in subsection (5B) is made—
(a) make a statement setting out how Her Majesty’s Government proposes to proceed, and
(b) make arrangements for—
24 (i) a motion for the House of Commons to approve the statement mentioned in paragraph (a), to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Commons sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement mentioned in paragraph (a) is made, and(ii) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the statement mentioned in paragraph (a) to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of seven Lords sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement mentioned in paragraph (a) is made.
(5D) A statement under subsection (5B) or (5C)(a) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.
(5E) Subsection (5F) applies if, at the end of 21 January 2019, there is no agreement in principle in negotiations under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the substance of—
(a) the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU, and
(b) the framework for the future relationship between the EU and the United Kingdom after withdrawal.
(5F) A Minister of the Crown must, within the period of five days beginning with the end of 21 January 2019—
(a) make a statement setting out how Her Majesty’s Government proposes to proceed, and
(b) make arrangements for—
50 (i) a motion for the House of Commons to approve the statement mentioned in paragraph (a), to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of five Commons sitting days beginning with the end of 21 January 2019, and(ii) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of the statement mentioned in paragraph (a) to be moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown within the period of five Lords sitting days beginning with the end of 21 January 2019.
(5G) A statement under subsection (5F)(a) must be made in writing and be published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.
(5H) For the purposes of this section—
(a) a statement made under subsection (4), (5C)(a) or (5F)(a) may be combined with a statement made under another of those provisions,
(b) a motion falling within subsection (5A)(a), (5C)(b)(i) or (5F)(b)(i) may be combined into a single motion with another motion falling within another of those provisions, and
(c) a motion falling within subsection (5A)(b), (5C)(b)(ii) or (5F)(b)(ii) may be combined into a single motion with another motion falling within another of those provisions.”
COMMONS AGREEMENT AND AMENDMENTS TO AMENDMENT
The Commons agree with the Lords in their Amendments 19C to 19E, 19G to 19L and 19P and propose the following amendments to Lords Amendment 19P—
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My Lords, on Monday evening this House voted to send Amendment 19P back to the other place because, as noble Lords supporting it made clear during the debate, they wanted to guarantee that the other place had the chance to consider that amendment. The other place has now had that chance and has voted to reject Amendment 19P, by a majority of 16, and to offer in its place the Government’s amendment. As noble Lords will be aware, this issue is the only outstanding point of difference on the Bill after many months of intensive scrutiny by both Houses. We and the House of Commons have debated this issue on multiple occasions. Where we stand today demonstrates the movement that has happened as a result.
As I outlined to the House on Monday, the amendment before us again today provides that, if Parliament rejects the final deal we make with the EU, the Government must bring forward not just a Statement but also a Motion. This will guarantee an opportunity for both Houses to express their views on the Government’s proposed next steps. The amendment also covers three sets of circumstances in which that opportunity would arise: should Parliament reject the Government’s deal with the EU, should no agreement be reached, or should no deal be agreed by 21 January 2019. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said earlier today, the amendment sets out in law a formal structure for Parliament to express its views in each of three possible scenarios set out. Importantly, the amendment also passes the Government’s three tests: it does not undermine the negotiations; it does not change the constitutional role of Parliament and Government in negotiating international treaties; and it respects the result of the referendum.
Respectfully, I submit that your Lordships’ House has done its job. We asked the House of Commons to consider this issue again. They have done that. They have rejected our suggestion and supported the Government’s amendment. I believe that our role is now to accept their view as expressed in the vote only a few hours ago. I hope that noble Lords, whatever their personal views on the issue at hand, will agree. In conclusion, I think we should reflect for a moment, as a House, on the milestone that the passage of the Bill will represent. This House and the other place have spent 11 months considering the Bill line by line. It is better for that work. The Bill’s passage will mean that the UK has the tools it needs to preserve the statute book after exit day, but it is not the end of the process of legislating for Brexit: this House will continue to play a critical role in the months and years ahead and I, for my part, know that it will be more than up to performing this task and complementing the work of the other place. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, the House of Commons has done what we had hoped: they have considered and debated our meaningful vote amendment. They have not done what some of us hoped and agreed with it, but I think we should celebrate how far we have come on this issue since the Bill arrived in this House. At that stage, there was absolutely nothing in the Bill about a vote, meaningful or otherwise, on the withdrawal deal and there was no mention of no deal. All the Prime Minister had said was that there would be a vote in both Houses on a deal. There was no commitment to that in law and the result of such a vote would have had no legislative consequence. The vote would have simply been on a Motion, which could be ignored—I will not go into whether it would have been amendable. Any such vote in this Chamber would have been particularly meaningless, as either we would have felt obliged to vote the same way as the Commons, whatever our view, or we would have voted differently and then been ignored, both of those, of course, being meaningless for this House, because as my noble friend Lord Grocott rightly feared, if there were two votes, one in each House, it would raise the question of the primacy of the House of Commons.
So that was all we had: the promise of a Motion but untied to any legislation. What we now have in the Bill is that the withdrawal agreement, including the framework for the future relationship, can be ratified only if it has been approved by the Commons and debated here. That is a legislative requirement akin to the Article 50 requirement for a vote in the European Parliament. That is a major concession. It would not have been there without the hard work of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, without your Lordships’ commitment to ensuring that this matter was in the Bill, and without us sending the amendment back on Monday.
However, I have a query about what would happen if there was no deal, as to my mind the rather extraordinary last-minute Written Ministerial Statement, as a result of which Dominic Grieve seems to have felt that he could support the Government this afternoon, does not really clarify things. I am not sure what it means. Will the Motion be amendable? Liam Fox is already out and about, briefing that actually there is no change as a result of that. To me, it reads that it still leaves it to the Speaker to decide whether or not it is sufficiently neutral to be amendable. So it is not actually an undertaking that such a Motion will be amendable. Perhaps the Leader could shed a bit of light on the significance of what made such a difference to the right honourable Dominic Grieve.
In the meantime, with the catalogue of changes to the Bill outlined by my noble friend Lady Smith on Monday and the insertion of parliamentary approval of the withdrawal deal agreed today, I hope even the Government will recognise the vital role played by your Lordships’ House, and that our detractors, particularly in parts of the press, will realise that it is our role to ask the Government, and the Commons, to think again. We have done that, and to quite a large extent we have been heard.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, it seems rather hard to believe but this really will be the last time we debate the withdrawal Bill in your Lordships’ House.
As we did on Monday, we are focusing on only one issue—indeed, the significance of just two words in relation to a Motion that the Government would bring forward in the event of reaching no agreement with the EU on Brexit terms. The two words are “neutral terms”—a phrase, incidentally, which most of us have never heard before. The argument which won the day in the Lords was that “neutral terms” would preclude the Commons having the opportunity to express a view on the merits of the Government reaching no deal in the Brexit negotiations and on what should be done next. The Government argued that their formulation was necessary to preserve the constitutional role of Parliament and that the Grieve amendment would mandate the Government in completely unacceptable ways and they would not countenance it. Your Lordships’ House took a different view and that is why we are still here today.
Between the Bill leaving your Lordships’ House on Monday evening and this afternoon, the Government have clearly thought deeply about this matter and realised that their understanding of parliamentary procedure on Monday was flawed. They produced the Written Ministerial Statement—which, unless I missed it, the Leader did not refer to at all, yet that has been the crucial thing in the debates today—which, in lay man’s terms, says that it will be up to the Speaker to decide whether or not any government Motion in the event of no deal would be amendable, and that, in any event, there is nothing to stop the Commons debating any Motion that they want to on this issue, and that time would be found for them to do it.
There is now a battle of spin as to whether this represents a significant climbdown by the Government or whether winning the vote represents a victory. I wish that the right honourable Member for Beaconsfield had supported his own amendment this afternoon. But if I am disappointed, neither the Government nor Parliament can take any satisfaction from what has happened today. This week’s events demonstrate the contempt in which the Government hold Parliament. First, they try to muzzle it by putting “neutral terms” into the Bill. Then, fearing defeat, they publish a Written Ministerial Statement just minutes before the debate in the Commons which rips up their earlier justification for using the “neutral terms” ploy. At every turn they have demonstrated their only consistent characteristic: the determination to survive to another day. If there were a World Cup in kicking the can down the road, the Government would win it hands-down. But the can cannot be kicked down the road for ever.
Lord Cormack
I thought it was the hallmark of your Lordships’ House that we listen to each other’s arguments. All I want to say is that I much prefer the analysis of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, to that of the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I believe that your Lordships’ House has in fact improved the Bill very significantly and I think we should take quiet pride in that. I believe we were entirely right to pass that amendment on Monday and to send it back to the other place. I said then and I repeat now: the ultimate power lies with the elected House. We are right to accept what it has decided today, without Division, but I think it would be to the advantage of us all if there was a little more mutual tolerance of differing views in your Lordships’ Chamber.
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I second what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has said. I do not think the mood of the House has been at its best this evening.
After the courageous speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, on Monday, many of us were extremely disappointed that the other House did not assert the democratic power of Parliament and support the amendment of the noble Viscount and Mr Dominic Grieve. I watched the proceedings of the House of Commons from the Gallery, sitting next to the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the only comment I will make on that is if I go into battle in future, I would rather do that behind the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, than the Duke of York.
The position as it now stands is both highly confused and highly unsatisfactory. The text of the Bill says that in the extreme crisis of a proposed no-deal Brexit, all that the House of Commons will be allowed to do is to debate a take-note Motion. I was watching the House of Commons debate from the Gallery—we still do not have the Hansard account of it—and the most telling contribution was from Mr Hilary Benn, who put it like this: if future generations ask us what we did, all we can say is, “I took note”. As he also said, in this extremity, the job of Parliament,
“is not to take note; it is to take charge”.
When people say that Parliament should not give instructions and cannot negotiate, which has been the mantra of the Prime Minister in recent days, that misses the point that Parliament rightly gives instructions to the Executive all the time. That is why they are called the Executive: their job is to execute the will of Parliament.
The Commons even issues instructions on matters of peace and war—and rightly so, because we are a parliamentary democracy. When in 2013 the House of Commons declined to support David Cameron’s recommendation for the bombing of Syria, after the vote the then Prime Minister said:
“I believe in respecting the will of the House of Commons. It is very clear that the House does not want to see British military action. I get that and the Government will act accordingly”.
In the case of a no-deal Brexit, it is absolutely within the power and duty of the House of Commons, as the sovereign power in this democracy, similarly to tell the Government that this is not acceptable and that an alternative course should be followed. The Government then have a democratic responsibility to act accordingly.
This brings us to the curious Written Ministerial Statement from the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, which was tabled at 1 pm today. It says:
“It will be for the Speaker to determine whether a Motion when it is introduced by the Government under the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is or is not in fact cast in neutral terms”.
As that is precisely what the Standing Orders of the House of Commons say in any event, that is saying nothing at all—and, crucially, those Standing Orders specifically say that Motions in neutral terms are unamendable, which is the precise point at issue.
There is then this sentence:
“The Government recognises that it is open for Ministers and members of the House of Commons to table motions on and debate matters of concern and that, as is the convention, parliamentary time will be provided for this”.
Lord Adonis
I am not giving way. The noble Lord spoke at huge length on Monday and I am taking my opportunity to speak.
To my great surprise, this satisfied Mr Grieve. All I can say, having, like other noble Lords, spent more than 100 hours in this House on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, is that I simply do not trust the Government to uphold these constitutional conventions. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, David Davis and Jacob Rees-Mogg are not interested in parliamentary conventions; they are ruthlessly determined on a hard Brexit. It is not only them; the Prime Minister now routinely ignores resolutions of the House of Commons —because she so often loses them—and has propounded a remarkable new constitutional doctrine that the Government regard themselves as bound only by statutes, not by other resolutions of the House of Commons.
It was precisely because of this dangerous new doctrine of government sovereignty trumping parliamentary sovereignty—
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I have made it very clear that I am not giving way to the noble Lord.
It is precisely because of this dangerous new doctrine of government sovereignty trumping parliamentary sovereignty that those of us standing up for parliamentary democracy sought to enshrine these key procedural issues in the Bill. It is a sad day for Parliament that we did not succeed and that we may now be dependent on the Government to observe conventions that they have so far been unwilling to preserve.
I will make one final point on the position of this House. We have been remarkably assiduous on this Bill. I think it is true to say that we have spent longer debating it than any other Bill in our entire 800-year history—and, tellingly, we spent about 50% longer debating it than did the House of Commons. As a long-serving Member of your Lordships’ House, perhaps I may be allowed to say that our besetting weakness in this House is self-congratulation. It is not helped by the fact—I learned this trick as a Minister—that making a great show of congratulating the House on the brilliance of its revision is a seduction technique to minimise the extent of that revision.
In defence of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, he has not gone in for much seduction, but there has been far too much self-congratulation on the other Benches of this House in the face of the reality of the situation that we face. The reality, as I see it, is this. We are presently on course for a hard Brexit and there is still no provision in statute to prevent such an outcome. On the contrary, the Government, with wafer-thin majorities—but none the less sufficient majorities—in the House of Commons have fought off all attempts at setting new national policy on a sensible and credible course. The truth is that for those of us in both Houses of Parliament who favour a sensible Brexit, and a people’s vote to allow the people to stop Brexit—
Lord Adonis
My Lords, I am drawing my remarks to a close. My noble friend can speak in a minute.
The truth is that those of us who favour a sensible Brexit or a people’s vote to allow the people to stop Brexit have suffered an unmitigated defeat on this Bill. Victories are not made up of accumulated defeats. We need to start winning soon or the country will lose very badly when the British people are forced into a hard Brexit that will make everyone poorer in only nine months’ time.
Lord True
My Lords, when the noble Lord declined to give way either to me or to his noble friend Lord Grocott, one of his explanations was that on Monday I spoke for too long when I troubled your Lordships with a brief intervention. I invite the historians of our debate to examine how long and how often the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has spoken in comparison with some of the rest of us.
I have listened to the comminations of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, my noble friend Lord Cormack and at length of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. I note the empty Benches of the Labour Party opposite. The party which fills those Benches tried to stop this Bill and then sends its people home when it thinks it has no chance of bringing the Government down—
Lord True
I am old enough to know that you should judge people by their actions, and I have been watching them over the past few weeks.
I do not often say this, but I have a great deal of respect for the Liberal Democrats who are absolutely consistent in their view, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, has honourably declared it. Others waver. I respect the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for his view, but the minority in this House who actually reflect the majority opinion in this country do not need moral lectures and I believe that we should now proceed to vote. If the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, or the noble Lord, Lord Newby, feel as strongly as they have told this House and the country about this matter, let them now divide the House and thus show where their opinions stand.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My Lords, as I hope I draw this debate to a close, I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to all noble Lords who have engaged constructively with the Government throughout our consideration of this Bill. I am sure that noble Lords on all Benches will join me in paying tribute to the staff of the House who have worked tirelessly and professionally to support that consideration.
I would also like to pay tribute to the work of my Front Bench colleagues and those of the Opposition and Liberal Democrat parties who have worked on this Bill. Their stamina alone, as has been seen on the Back Benches across the House, has been incredibly impressive, as has the quality of debate and scrutiny that they have engaged in.
Finally, I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in thanking the members of the Bill team for their hard work. I hope that at some point they will be able to look back over the past 11 months with some kind of pleasure, but I expect that that may take quite a while. On behalf of the House, we are extremely grateful to them.
Despite the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, I think that the scrutiny of your Lordships’ House has seen improvements made to this Bill. More than 230 amendments have been made by both Houses, and while there are a number of issues on which the Government did not agree, I am pleased that we have been able to find solutions and compromises to most of the concerns raised.
The subject before us today—the way in which Parliament can have a meaningful say about our exit from the EU—is a vitally important matter. We have debated it at length, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, the proposition in the Bill is very different as a result of that debate. But the elected Chamber has now made its decision, a decision that your Lordships said on Monday that they wanted to give it the opportunity to take. The elected Chamber has decided how it wishes to proceed: with considering the Motions offered by the Government’s amendment. I now ask this House to respect that decision. I beg to move.
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 20th June 2018
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberEuropean Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message Manuscript Amendments (PDF, 9KB) - (20 Jun 2018)
15:45 - The House divided: - Ayes: 303 / Noes: 319 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Davis)
I beg to move,
That this House agrees with Lords amendments 19C to 19E, 19G to 19L and 19P, and proposes Government amendments to Lords amendment 19P.
Mr Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to consider the following:
Manuscript amendment (b) and amendment (a) to the motion.
Lords amendments 4B to 4E.
Lords amendment 24C
Lords amendments 110B to 110J.
I inform the House that I have selected manuscript amendment (b), in the name of Mr Dominic Grieve, and amendment (a), in the name of Mr Tom Brake. I add, for the convenience of the House, that copies of manuscript amendment (b) are available in the Vote Office.
Mr Davis
I will turn in a moment to the issue at the forefront of many hon. Members’ minds—Parliament’s role at the conclusion of the negotiations with the European Union—but first I want to set out the other issues before the House for approval today. These are all issues where the Lords agreed with the Government on Monday: enhanced protection for certain areas of EU law, family reunification for refugee children and extending sifting arrangements for statutory instruments to the Lords. The Government set out common-sense approaches to those three issues in the Lords, who backed the Government, and the issues now return to this House for final approval.
The fourth issue is, as I have said, Parliament’s role at the conclusion of our negotiations with the EU. Before we turn to the detail, let us take a step back for a moment and consider the long democratic process we have been on to get here. It began with the EU Referendum Act 2015, passed by a majority of 263 in this House, at which point the Government were clear they would respect the outcome of the referendum. This was followed by the referendum itself, which saw a turnout of over 33 million people and 17.4 million people vote in favour of leaving the EU.
We then had the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, which empowered the Government to trigger article 50. Despite the attempts of some in the other place to impugn the validity of this notification, the Act passed through both Houses, with a majority of 372 in this place on Third Reading. This was followed by a general election where both major parties, attracting over 80% of the vote, stood on manifestos that committed to respecting the result of the referendum: 27.5 million votes for parties that said they would respect the referendum—no ifs, no buts. We are now in the process of passing this essential Bill to get our statute book ready for the day we leave. It will ensure that we respect the referendum result but exit the European Union in as smooth and orderly a manner as possible.
We have already set out in law that this process will be followed by a motion to approve the final deal we agree with the EU in negotiations. If this is supported by Parliament, as I hope and expect it will be, the Government will introduce the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, which Parliament will have time to debate, vote on and amend if they so wish. Finally, as with any international treaty, the withdrawal agreement will be subject to the approval and ratification procedures under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. And this is all before we even consider the other pieces of legislation we have passed and will pass as part of this process.
Anyone who questions the democratic credentials of this Government or this process should consider the steps we have taken to get to this stage and those which we have already laid out in front of us. I believe they are greater than any steps taken for any international negotiations ever in the history of this country. Furthermore, contrary to what was said in the other place on Monday, the Bill gives Parliament significantly more rights than we see on the EU side. The European Parliament simply has to consent to the withdrawal agreement—a yes or no vote—and the EU member states will simply have a vote in the Council on the withdrawal agreement. We have considerably more powers than them, too.
I turn now to the detail of the amendment at hand. We start with a simple purpose: how do we guarantee Parliament’s role in scrutinising the Government in the unlikely event that the preferred scenario does not come to pass? Our intention is straightforward: to conclude negotiations in October and put before both Houses a deal that is worthy of support. In approaching our discussions on this matter, the Government set out three reasonable tests: that we do not undermine the negotiations, that we do not alter the constitutional role of Parliament in relation to international negotiations, and that we respect the result of the referendum.
It is on that basis that we have tabled our amendments. This is a fair and serious proposal that demonstrates the significant flexibility that the Government have already shown in addressing the concerns of the House. Our original amendment provided that, if Parliament rejected the final deal, the Government must make a statement setting out their next steps in relation to negotiations within 28 days of that rejection. Our new amendments provide for a statement and a motion, ensuring that there is a guaranteed opportunity for both Houses to express their views on the Government’s proposed next steps. Not only that, but we have expanded the set of circumstances in which that opportunity would arise, to cover the three situations conceived of in the amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) last week. First, if Parliament rejects the deal, a statement must now be made within 21 days and a motion must be tabled in both Houses within seven sitting days of that statement. Alternatively, if the Prime Minister announces before 21 January 2019 that no deal can be agreed with the European Union, a statement must be made within 14 days, and a motion must be tabled in both Houses within seven days of that statement. Finally, if no agreement has been reached by the end of 21 January 2019, a statement must be made within five days, and a motion must be tabled in both Houses within five sitting days. That would happen whatever the state of the negotiations at that stage.
Hilary Benn
When the right hon. Gentleman appeared before the Committee recently, he confirmed that the motion asking the House to approve the withdrawal agreement would be amendable. Can he therefore explain to the House why the Government are now proposing amendments to Lords amendment 19P to include the reference to “neutral terms”? He will be well aware that Standing Order 24B says that, if a motion is considered by Mr Speaker to be in neutral terms, it cannot be amended. Why are the Government prepared to allow an amendable motion in one case, but not in the dire circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman is now describing?
Mr Davis
The right hon. Gentleman has prefaced perfectly the rest of my speech, because that is precisely what I shall spend the next 10 minutes explaining to him.
I think that the additional provisions speak for themselves. Our proposed amendment creates a formal structure, set out in law, for Parliament to express its views in all the various scenarios that might come to pass in our exit from the European Union, but it also passes the three tests that were set out by me and by the Prime Minister.
I am glad to see that the amendment sent back to us by the other place accepts the vast majority of these provisions. The core of the disagreement now focuses on the exact nature of the motion offered to the House if any of the unfortunate circumstances that I have previously mentioned come to pass. Our amendment offers those motions in neutral terms. Questions have focused, understandably, on whether that means that they would not be amendable. Members will, of course, be aware that it is not within the competence of Governments to judge whether amendments can be tabled to motions, but for the sake of clarity, let me quote from Standing Order No. 24B:
“Where, in the opinion of the Speaker or the Chair, a motion, That this House… has considered the matter, is expressed in neutral terms, no amendments to it may be tabled.”
I have written to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee setting out how the Government understand that this process will operate in practice and have laid a copy of that letter in the Libraries of both Houses.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I am enormously grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing me to intervene so early in his important speech.
I am most unhappy about the repetition by the Prime Minister, and by others in the Government, of the mantra “no deal is better than a bad deal”. I should like the Secretary of State to give a guarantee to the people of Northern Ireland that the Government whom he represents here today will not be gambling with the constitutional status of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom. No deal would lead to a hard border, which would inevitably be exploited by Sinn Féin and by new IRA dissenters. I need that guarantee.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Is not the importance of the position that the Government are taking that, if a “no deal” option is ruled out, that will guarantee a worse deal in any negotiation? Anyone who has been party to a negotiation will understand that.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
The satisfactory amendment that left the House of Lords would oblige the Government to table a substantive motion if their agreement were being rejected. No doubt they would draft that with a view to commanding the majority of the House, but other people could table a substantive amendment with alternative proposals for how to proceed. My right hon. Friend rejects that, and is trying to replace it with a situation in which the Government do not have to put anything in their second amendment, except that they take note. Then, if anyone tries to table a substantive motion as an amendment, I will give you a pound to a penny, Mr Speaker, that the argument will be “If you pass this, it will mean no deal, because the Government are not going to negotiate this, and it will bring the thing to an end.”
I cannot for the life of me see why the Government are hesitating about the Lords amendment, except, of course, that they have come under tremendous pressure from hard-line Brexiteers in the Government, who caused them to reject the perfectly satisfactory understanding that had been reached with Conservative Members who had doubts last week.
Mr Davis
I am afraid that I do not agree with my right hon. and learned Friend, as he will be unsurprised to hear. I will not try to follow him down the path of what might happen and in what circumstances. I shall explain in a moment the reasoning behind the restriction of amendment, which is precisely accurate in this area.
Let me say this to my right hon. and learned Friend. He has been in the House even longer than I have, and he knows full well that very often, when matters are particularly important, the procedural mechanism of a motion does not actually determine its power or its effect. That goes all the way back to the Norway debate, which arose from an Adjournment motion tabled by the Chief Whip of the day, and which changed the course of the war. So I do not take my right hon. and learned Friend’s point at all.
The amendment sent to us by the other place does not offer those motions in neutral terms. It is therefore possible—indeed, I would predict, likely—that wide-ranging amendments will be tabled which would seek to instruct the Government how to proceed in relation to our European Union withdrawal. This may seem to be a minor point of procedure, but it is integral to the nature of the motions, and to whether they pass the three tests that I set out last week.
The debates and amendments of the last week have revolved around what would happen in the event of no deal. Let me explain to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) the distinction between the amendments and the motion that we promised the House—indeed, I think that I first promised it to him as long ago as the article 50 debate. The provisions of the motion will come about if the House rejects the circumstances of a deal, but the amendments apply principally to the issue of no deal, which is really rather different. Let me also make it clear to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) that I have never argued in favour of no deal. I do not favour no deal, and I will do what I can to avoid no deal. It is not an outcome that we are seeking, and, as things stand, I am confident that we will achieve a deal that Parliament can support. However, you cannot enter a negotiation without the right to walk away; if you do, it rapidly ceases to be a negotiation.
The Lords amendment undermines the strength of the United Kingdom in negotiations. There are plenty of voices on the European side of the negotiations who seek to punish us and do us harm—who wish to present us with an unambiguously bad deal. Some would do so to dissuade others from following us, and others would do so with the intention of reversing the referendum, and making us lose our nerve and rejoin the European Union. If it undermines the UK’s ability to walk away, the amendment makes that outcome more likely. That is the paradox. Trying to head off no deal—and this, too, is important to the hon. Lady—is actually making no deal more likely, and that is what we are trying to avoid.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must ensure that Opposition Members whose constituents, like mine, voted strongly to leave vote with us, and vote to stop these amendments?
Mr Davis
I take my hon. Friend’s point, but, at the Dispatch Box and elsewhere, I have always insisted that people vote with their consciences, and their consciences should encompass how they represent the wishes of their constituents.
If the European Union expects Parliament to direct the Government to reconsider its policies, to extend article 50 or even to revoke it, it will have an incentive to delay and give us the worst possible deal just to try to bring about such an outcome.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
Order. Before we come to the intervention, there is a point of order; I hope it is not a point of frustration.
Paul Farrelly
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am reading here in the media for the first time a ministerial statement from the Secretary of State purporting to explain how “neutral terms” would operate in practice, and I assume that you have seen the statement, Mr Speaker. It says:
“Under the Standing Orders of the House of Commons it will be for the Speaker to determine whether a motion when it is introduced by the Government under the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is or is not in fact cast in neutral terms and hence whether the motion is or is not amendable.”
Therefore, Mr Speaker, my question to you is this: what discretion does that leave you in practice if such a motion is cast in time-honoured neutral terms in the first place?
Mr Speaker
The discretion that I have always had in such circumstances is the short answer to the hon. Gentleman. This matter may or may not be treated of further at a later point in our proceedings, but I do not want to detract from the time available for the debate.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I think the Secretary of State had given way to his hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies).
Philip Davies
I am very grateful.
Will my right hon. Friend commend our hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), who on the radio today, with his characteristic openness, said that he hoped that, if the amendment of our right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) were passed today, the House would use that in order to suspend the triggering of article 50, which let the cat out of the bag as to what the motive is, which is to delay, frustrate or even stop entirely the UK leaving the European Union?
Mr Davis
As I have said throughout, it is for people to go with their consciences on this matter and I do not attack anybody for doing that.
May I pick up on the point of order raised with you, Mr Speaker? I would not want the House to think that in any way it had not been told about this. In my earlier speech, I outlined the issue of “Erskine May” on this matter and Standing Order 24B and your rights in this, and made it plain that that is what we are relying upon. So I would not want the House to be misled in any way, or to believe it has been misled.
The debates on this issue have been in the finest traditions of this House. Hon. Members have stood on issues of principle and argued their cases with the utmost integrity. That has shifted the Government’s approach to a position where our Parliament will rightly and unquestionably have its say and express its view. For in this, the greatest democracy of all, we debate, we argue, we make our cases with passion, but we do it to a purpose and that is to deliver for our people, not just to please ourselves. They decided that we will leave the European Union and, whatever the EU thinks about that, we will do it, and we will do it in the best way we can. And in that spirit I commend this motion to the House.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I rise to speak in favour of the amendment tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) to preserve Lords amendment 19P, which would ensure that Parliament has a meaningful vote in the Brexit process.
We need to be clear about what this amendment is and what it is not. It is not about frustrating or blocking Brexit, it is not about tying the hands of the UK negotiators, and it would not empower Parliament to direct the Government in the ongoing negotiations. It is simply about this House playing a meaningful role in the terms of the final Brexit deal. It is about making sure that on the most important peacetime issue this House has faced for a generation, this House is not silenced.
This amendment addresses two issues: what happens if Parliament rejects the Prime Minister’s proposed article 50 deal in the autumn; and what happens if by 21 January next year there is no article 50 deal or no prospect of an article 50 deal. The Prime Minister has consistently said, “Tough luck; if you don’t like my proposed deal you can have something much worse.” That is not meaningful. The Brexit Secretary, once a great guardian of the role of this House, now wants to sideline Parliament when its voice is most needed. He says that in the event that the Prime Minister’s proposed article 50 deal is rejected by Parliament or there is no article 50 deal, a Minister will make a statement. Well, I should think so—after two years of negotiation, the Government bring back a deal which is rejected and a Minister will make a statement. And he says that will happen not in 28 days, but in 21 days—that is democracy; that is giving Parliament a real voice. And then a further safeguard: there will be a neutral motion. There is an example of a neutral motion on today’s Order Paper. There is to be a debate about NATO and what will be decided is this:
“That this House has considered NATO.”
That is the additional safeguard—“That this House has considered the article 50 deal.” And that is it; that will be the role of this House on the most important decision that we will make in this Parliament.
No one who values parliamentary sovereignty should accept either approach, and that is why the amendment is crucial. It would require the Government to back up any statement made by a Minister with a motion that can be voted on. It would permit Parliament to have a meaningful say, but only after negotiations are complete.
Of course the very idea of Parliament actually having a say prompts the usual cries, and I have no doubt that many of the interventions will be along these lines, so let me deal with them. The usual cries are these: “It’s an attempt to frustrate Brexit,” “It will weaken the Prime Minister’s negotiating hand,” “Parliament cannot micromanage negotiations.” So let me meet those objections.
First, we have heard it all before. In August 2016 we challenged the Government to produce a plan. What did they say? It would frustrate Brexit, it would tie our hands and it would play into the hands of the EU. Then they had to accept a motion to produce a plan, and the sky did not fall in. In the autumn of 2016 we challenged the Government to give Members of this House a vote on the proposed article 50 deal, and got the same response from the same people in this House—it would frustrate the process, it would tie the Prime Minister’s hands and it would play into the hands of the EU. Then we had the Lancaster House speech in January 2017; the Prime Minister agreed to give MPs a vote, and the sky did not fall in.
In December 2017, we challenged the Government to put the article 50 vote into legislation. That was contested through amendment 7, for the usual reasons. We received the usual response: it would frustrate Brexit, it would play into the hands of the EU and it would tie the Prime Minister’s hands. Amendment 7 was voted on, and the vote went against the Government. The sky did not fall in. In February this year, we challenged the Government to publish the impact assessments. We got the usual response: it would frustrate Brexit, it would tie the Prime Minister’s hands and it would play into the hands of the EU. Then the impact assessments were published, and the sky did not fall in. This amendment is not about frustrating the process; it is about making sure that there is a process.
Secondly, we have to confront the fact that the biggest threat to an orderly Brexit, and the biggest threat of having no deal, is and always has been division at the heart of the Government. They cannot agree the fundamentals. The customs arrangements were hardly an unexpected issue. No one should be under any illusion that the EU cannot see the fundamental weakness of the Government’s position.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Will the shadow Secretary of State confirm that the Labour party is not trying to frustrate Brexit, and that the policy of our party and our Front Bench is that we will be leaving the European Union in March 2019?
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I know how important this is for her constituency, and I can confirm that that has always been our position.
Ms Angela Eagle
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way. At least he has allowed someone from this side to make an intervention, which the Secretary of State did not have the decency to do. Will he explain what on earth a meaningful vote would mean if there was a Hobson’s choice Brexit—a choice between the deal we have done or no deal at all? Is not avoiding a Hobson’s choice Brexit what this entire debate is now about?
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because it goes to the heart of the issue: If Parliament is given a vote on article 50, and if we do not like what the Prime Minister has brought back, we can have something much worse. Even a child could see that that is not an acceptable choice.
Mr Baron
Perhaps those on the Opposition Benches are missing the central point. In any negotiation, ruling out the possibility of no deal will guarantee the worst outcome. Anyone who has conducted a negotiation in business understands that. If those on the Opposition Benches do not understand it, they are missing the central point.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that intervention. I have always been curious about this tactic. What will happen at the end of the negotiations if there is no deal is that we will be pushed over a cliff. Volunteering to jump first has never appeared to me to be a great tactic.
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Starmer
I will not give way, because I want to complete this answer.
No deal was never a credible threat, and as each day goes past, it becomes less credible. There is no immigration law that can come into force in March 2019, and there are no staff to administer it. There are no customs arrangements. There is no infrastructure. If we do not have a deal, we will not have any arrangements for law and security. It is not a credible threat, and this notion that we have to pretend we are going to do something that is incredible has no bargaining impact.
The third argument against our position is that it somehow passes an advantage to the EU, and it is based on the proposition that, but for this amendment, the Prime Minister would proceed undisturbed on her course to take us out of the EU without a deal—that she would calmly, and with the full support of this House, head for the cliff of no deal. That seems extremely unlikely. This amendment is about what will happen at the end of the negotiations, not at the beginning. It would allow Parliament to have a meaningful role once the negotiations are over, and it would not tie the Government’s hands during the negotiations. What it would mean, however, is that the course that the Government would take, in the event that article 50 was voted down or that there was no deal, would have to be supported by a majority in this House. Standing back, that looks like common sense.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I beg to move manuscript amendment (b), to leave out from first “19P” to end.
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for having enabled this amendment to be considered this afternoon by accepting my manuscript. It is a very odd and, I have to say, unsatisfactory aspect of the way in which our Parliament does its business that we frequently end up on ping-pong debating amendments that are irrelevant to what the House is really troubled about. I have to tell the House that, in order to get to this point, it has been necessary also to twist the rules of procedure in the other place, and I am immensely grateful to those peers who facilitated the manuscript amendment that was tabled there and that has enabled us to consider for the first time this afternoon the issue of the meaningful vote in relation to the Government’s view of what it should be and to the suggestion that has come from their lordships’ House. I should like to say here and now how deeply I object to the way in which their lordships are vilified for doing the job that we have asked them to do, which is to act as a revising Chamber and to send back to this House proposals for our consideration.
The issue, which has been highlighted by earlier speakers, is about the form that a meaningful vote should take. There are two options in front of the House. The House will recall that, when this matter first arose last week, the amendment that had come from the Lords included a mandatory element. That is constitutionally rather unusual. Indeed, I do not think that it has happened since the civil war in the 17th century, and I do not think that that ended very well. I seem to recall that it ended with Oliver Cromwell saying:
“Take away that fool’s bauble, the mace.”
Because of this, I considered it to be excessive. I apologise to the House that, in trying to produce something else very late at night last week, I probably did not draft it quite as well as I might have done. However, it led to a sensible discussion, prompted by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who had a number of us in her room and said she would do her best to meet the concerns we were expressing on there not being a meaningful vote on no deal.
Last Thursday, it looked as though we were going to reach an agreement based on exactly the terms of the Lords amendment that has come back to us, but at a very late stage, it was indicated to me that the Government did not feel able to proceed with that. I should like to emphasise that I make absolutely no criticism of those with whom I negotiated, who have behaved impeccably in this matter. Indeed, at the end of the day I have to accept that negotiations may sometimes founder at the last minute. However, this was unfortunate, from my point of view, and I will come back to that point in a moment.
Be that as it may, the Government’s tabled amendment was the one that we are being asked to accept today—the one that simply asks us to note and does not give us the opportunity of amending. Two arguments were put to me to justify that change when it occurred and in the negotiations that followed. The first was that there was concern about the justiciability of the amendment. The Standing Orders of the House cannot be impugned in any court outside of this high court of Parliament, but it is right to say that if one puts a reference to the Standing Orders into a statute, that can raise some interesting, if somewhat arcane, legal issues about the extent to which a challenge can be brought. My view is that I do not believe that the amendment, which is currently the Lords amendment that has come to us, is credibly open to challenge. For that matter, I happen to think that the Government amendment is also not credibly open to challenge either, although it is worth pointing out that it is as likely to be challenged or capable of being challenged as the other. I do not accept a differentiation between them.
The second argument was of a very different kind. It was said to me—this was picked up by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman—that the Government had real concerns that this issue, which is one of detail, had acquired such a status with those with whom we were negotiating that it could undermine the Government’s negotiating position in trying to get the United Kingdom the best possible deal for leaving the EU. Now, I must say that I found that difficult to accept based on my own range of contacts and on how I thought that the EU is likely to work. However, it is not an issue that I, as a supporter of the Government, can entirely ignore.
I am very troubled about Brexit. It is well known in this House that I believe that we have made an historic mistake in voting to leave, but I am open minded as to what the best course of action should be and respectful of the decision of the electorate in the referendum result. I dislike very much the extent to which we can be fettered or pushed into frameworks of what we have or have not to accept in that negotiation but that is, if I may so, a reason why I should also give as much latitude to the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as she indicates to me that she might have.
Mr Grieve
No, I wish to conclude.
In those circumstances, there is an issue that I cannot ignore. As the House will have noticed this afternoon, a statement was sent by the Secretary of State that will become a written ministerial statement tomorrow. The first part of it deals with the position of the Speaker and, if I may put it like this, the piquancy of this is that having on the one hand said that an unamendable motion to note is an unamendable motion to note in a statute, the fact is that it really has absolutely no force at all. The reality is that it is part of the Standing Orders of this House, and it is not open to any interpretation in any court and, ultimately, it will be entirely your responsibility, Mr Speaker, to decide what can or should not be treated as a neutral terms motion. Actually, the statement highlights the fact that, although this debate has been about trying to provide assurance—not just in this House, but to many members of the public outside who are worried about the end of this process and what might happen—the truth is that the assurance does not lie in the words of the statute, except in so far as the statute is the word of the Government. The assurance lies in the hands of this House and, in the first part of the statement, in the power of the Speaker.
I then insisted that a second piece be put into the statement, which I will read out. If I may say so, this ought to be blindingly obvious, but it says:
“The Government recognises that it is open for Ministers and members of the House of Commons to table motions on and debate matters of concern and that, as is the convention, parliamentary time will be provided for this.”
If this House chooses to debate matters, including matters on which it may wish to have multiple motions, the reality is that if we wish to exert our power to do that, we can. In the circumstances that might follow a “no deal”, which would undoubtedly be one of the biggest political crises in modern British history, if the House wishes to speak with one voice, or indeed with multiple voices, the House has the power to do so.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The bit I do not understand is that many motions have been carried by this House in the past few years—motions tabled by the Backbench Business Committee, by the Opposition and by ordinary Members—but the Government have just let them go through and then completely ignored them. The only thing that has legislative effect is legislation. That is why we must have a meaningful vote, not a pretend one.
Mr Grieve
Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right, but if the Government were to concede to the amendment, as drafted in the Lords, for an amendable motion, the House must understand that the Government could ignore it. I can assure the House that it would not be enforceable in any court of law—[Interruption.] No, that really must be understood. It could not be enforceable in any court of law, because that would entirely undermine the rights and privileges of this place. It would be for us to enforce it. Of course, the ultimate sanction that this House has is a motion of no confidence but, short of that, there are other means by which the House can in fact bring its clear view to bear on the Government.
Mr Grieve
No, I will not.
In view of that acknowledgement, I must say that I weigh that and the clear words of this statement against what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has told me about her anxieties. My judgment—it is purely personal—is that if that is the issue, having finally obtained, with a little more difficulty than I would have wished, the obvious acknowledgement of the sovereignty of this place over the Executive in black and white language, I am prepared to accept the Government’s difficulty, support them and, in the circumstances, to accept the form of amendment that they want. I shall formally move my amendment at the end, because I do not want to deprive the House of the right to vote if it wishes. Members have the absolute right to disagree, but it seems to me that, with the acknowledgement having been properly made, I am content to go down that route.
Mr Grieve
No, I want to end.
We are facing some real difficulties at the moment. It is rightly said that those whom the gods want to destroy, they first render mad. There is enough madness around at the moment to make one start to question whether collective sanity in this country has disappeared. Every time someone tries to present a sensible reasoned argument in this House vilification and abuse follow, including death threats to right hon. and hon. Friends. There is a hysteria that completely loses sight of the issues that we really have to consider. There is an atmosphere of bullying that has the directly opposite consequence in that people are put into a position where they feel unable to compromise, because by doing so they will be immediately described as having “lost”—as if these were arguments to be lost or won. The issue must be that we get things right.
Right at the other end of the spectrum, we get some other ridiculous things. I have had Daily Mail journalists crawling over the garden of my house in France. I do not quite know, but I think they were looking for silos from which missiles might be aimed at the mansion of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). The area where I have a holiday home has a history of monsters and witches chucking megaliths backwards and forwards across the channel. Such is the state of our discourse, and that is the very thing we must avoid. We are going to have differences and, if there is no deal, those differences may extend to my taking a different view, as a Member of Parliament, from what the Government might wish. This House has a right to act if there is no deal in order to protect the interests of the British people, and the responsibility in those circumstances lies as much with us as it does with the Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I very gently point out that we have less than 45 minutes, and I do want to accommodate other Back-Bench Members.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am grateful for the chance to take part in this debate.
Once again, we will be hearing the siren voices of the hard-line no deal Brexiteers, of whom there are some in this place, claiming that they, and they alone, have a monopoly on respect for democracy, on respect for Parliament and on a patriotic love for their chosen country.
They will demonstrate their regard for democracy by unilaterally and retrospectively changing the question that was asked in the 2016 referendum while assuming that the answer will stay the same. They demonstrate their respect for Parliament by doing their damnedest to keep Parliament out of playing any meaningful role in the most important events any of us is likely to live through. And they demonstrate their patriotic love for their country by pushing an agenda that threatens to fundamentally damage the social and economic foundations on which their country, and indeed all of our respective countries, was built.
There should be no doubt about what the hard-liners are seeking to achieve here. They tell us that the Lords amendments are about attempting to stop Brexit but, in their private briefings to each other, they tell themselves they are worried that these amendments might stop a cliff-edge no deal Brexit—that is precisely what I want these amendments to stop.
The hard-liners are seeking to create a situation where if, as seems increasingly likely by the day, a severely weakened Prime Minister—possibly in the last days of her prime ministership—comes back from Brussels with a miserable deal that nobody could welcome, the only option is to crash out of the European Union with no agreement on anything.
Although I hear the Secretary of State’s words of warning that a person should not go into a negotiation if they cannot afford to walk away, I remind him that the Government started to walk away on the day they sent their article 50 letter. From that date they had no deal, and the negotiation is about trying to salvage something from the wreckage of that disastrous mistake.
The far-right European Research Group would have us believe that its opposition to amendment 19P is just about preventing Parliament from being allowed to tell the Government what to do. I am no expert in English history, but I thought the civil war was about whether Parliament has the right to tell the monarch and the Government what to do.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this Parliament finds itself in a very strange position? This Parliament actually does not want to have a vote. In fact, I think it voted not to have a vote. Even if it does not want to have a vote, it is still legitimate to have a vote. Not to have a vote is a bizarre dereliction of responsibility by this Parliament, which is why we need Scottish independence and not the mess and the carnage we see before us.
Peter Grant
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The reason why some in this House are determined not to give Parliament a meaningful vote is that they are worried an overwhelming majority of parliamentarians on both sides of the House might vote against the cliff-edge scenario they have already plotted for us.
But the real reason why some Government Members, and even one or two Opposition Members, are acting now to block the chance of this so-called sovereign Parliament to have any powers on this whatsoever is that they know that if they put their true agenda before the House, in all probability it would be greeted by a majority that is numbered in the hundreds, rather than in the tens or the dozens.
They say the Government have to be protected at all costs from Parliament, because Parliament might do something the Government do not like. Is that not what Parliaments are for, especially a Parliament in which the Government have lost their democratic mandate to form a majority Government by their cynical calling of an unnecessary and disruptive election?
The Prime Minister has asked us not to accept the Lords amendments because she does not want to have her hands tied. It is none of my business whether the Prime Minister likes having her hands, her feet or anything else tied, but surely the whole point of having a Parliament is so there is somebody with democratic credibility and democratic accountability to keep the Government in check when it is clear to everyone that they are going in the wrong direction. If plunging over a cliff edge is not the wrong direction, I do not know what is.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Although the hon. Gentleman says it is none of his business whether the Prime Minister has her hands, her feet or anything else tied, does he accept it is in the interest of the country for the Prime Minister to have the freedom to go and negotiate the best deal for the country? Parliament cannot negotiate the detail of that deal. Only the Prime Minister can do that.
Peter Grant
These amendments contain no desire for Parliament to be involved in the negotiations, but we are being asked to believe there is no possibility that the negotiations will fail. That is what we are being asked to believe, except some of those who give us that promise are hoping the negotiations will fail, because some of them have already decided that they want to push for a no deal Brexit, despite the calamitous consequences outlined by the Secretary of State.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree this appears to have more to do with trying to hold the Tory party together—Tory Members are negotiating among themselves as we speak—rather than for the benefit of the whole United Kingdom?
Peter Grant
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour makes a valid point. In fact, it is worth remembering that the only reason we had a referendum was to bring the Tory party together. That worked out well, didn’t it?
The reason why some Government Members get so hot under the collar about the danger of giving Parliament a meaningful vote is that, if the House approves something, rather than simply considering it, they claim it could subsequently be used as the basis for a legal challenge. I will not gainsay the words of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) but, interestingly, both of the cases the Government quote in their document to prove that a meaningful vote could lead to a legal challenge resulted in rulings that actions of the House, whether they are a resolution, a Committee decision or an order of Parliament, do not have the status of an Act of Parliament. Interestingly, one of the cases was about a pornography publisher who sued Hansard for damaging his reputation as a publisher.
The ERG briefing contains a dark, dark warning about what could happen if the Government lose a vote at the end of the negotiating process. The briefing says it could undermine the Government’s authority and position. In fact, in the briefing’s exact words;
“This could produce an unstable zombie Government.”
The briefing gives no indication as to how any of us would be able to tell the difference. The real giveaway is the third of the three “practical problems” the briefing sees with amendment 19P:
“It effectively seeks to take no deal off the table.”
That is the real agenda here. I want no deal off the table, and the Secretary of State does not want no deal, so why is it still on the table? The intention is that under no circumstances will Parliament have the right to pull us back from the cliff edge. It is not just about keeping no deal on the table; it is about making sure that, by the time we come to make the decision, there is nothing on the table other than no deal.
In my younger days, which I can vaguely remember, I used to be a keen amateur mountaineer, and I loved reading books about mountaineering and hill walking. One book I read was an account of the first ascent of the Matterhorn in 1865. Unlike some cliff edges, the Matterhorn didnae have safety barriers. Edward Whymper and his six companions got to the summit, but during the descent four of the party fell over a cliff to their deaths after the rope holding the group together broke. There were suggestions of foul play and murder most foul, but the rope just had not been strong enough. If it had not broken, it is likely that all seven would have been killed. There are hard-line Brexiteers in this House who are determined to drag us over the cliff edge. I want Parliament to be allowed to erect a safety barrier, not to stop those who want to get to the bottom of the cliff reaching their destination, but to make sure that anybody who gets there is in one piece. As I have made clear before, I have no intention of usurping the democratic right of the people of England to take good or bad decisions for themselves, but no one has the right to usurp the democratic decisions of the people of Scotland. Let me remind the Government, once again, that if they seek to drag their people over the cliff edge, our people are not going to follow. The Government will find that there is not a rope in existence strong enough to hold Scotland to their country if their country seeks to take us over that cliff edge.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
With immediate effect, a four-minute limit on Back-Benches speeches will apply.
Philip Davies
First, let me say that I very much agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) about the nature of political debate in this country. He is absolutely right to point that out and I agree with him wholeheartedly.
The second point I wish to make is that many people in this House seem to forget that there have been two meaningful votes. The first was when this House decided to give a referendum to the British people. The second was the referendum itself, in which the people voted to leave the EU. They were meaningful votes.
Philip Davies
I am not going to give way, because time is limited. Since then, some people who did not like the result of that referendum and perhaps did not even expect it have had a new-found enthusiasm for the rights of this Parliament to decide all sorts of things. They were quite happy for all of these powers to be given over to the EU willy-nilly, but they now have this new-found enthusiasm that this House should decide everything.
Philip Davies
I am not going to give way. As I was saying, if only that had been the case before. I excuse from this my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), because he did not vote to have a referendum and so there is absolutely no reason why he should feel in any way bound by its result. I perfectly respect that; his position has been entirely consistent. What I have no time for—
Mr Kenneth Clarke
To make it clear, this totally irrelevant argument that we are trying to reverse the referendum is as irrelevant to me as it is to any other of my right hon. and hon. Friends. This House voted, by an enormous majority, to invoke article 50. We are now trying to debate, and have parliamentary influence over, what we are going to do when we have left and what the form of our new arrangements with Europe and the rest of the world will be. So will my hon. Friend stop, yet again, introducing—this is not just him, but he is the ultimate Member to do it—this totally irrelevant argument and try to say what is wrong with the process set out in the Lords amendment? What is the excessive power that it apparently gives this House to have a say when the negotiations are finished?
Philip Davies
I am afraid that the public are not fooled by the motives of people who clearly want to delay, frustrate or overturn the result of the referendum. It is a shame some of them cannot admit it. The shadow Secretary of State said that people had said over a long period of time that if we did this or that, Brexit will be frustrated. May I just suggest to him that he gets out of London, because people around the country feel that Brexit is being frustrated? It is already being frustrated a great deal by this House. So he has this idea that Brexit has not been frustrated, but he needs to get—
Philip Davies
My right hon. Friend, who has taken a vow of independence since he lost his job as a Minister—he had never shown this before—asks how. I would invite him to get out—[Interruption.] He is welcome to come up to Yorkshire—
Philip Davies
He should speak to people then. I am perfectly content for this House to vote on whether it wants to accept the deal negotiated by the Government that they come back with. It is absolutely right that this House votes on whether or not to accept that deal, and the Government should accept the vote of this House. What it cannot do, having decided to give the people a vote in a referendum, is find some strange parliamentary mechanism in order to frustrate and overturn the result—
Philip Davies
My right hon. and learned Friend did not give way, and I am not going to give way either because time is limited. Parliament cannot vote to reverse the decision of the referendum. People outside this House need to know very clearly today that—
Philip Davies
I am not going to give way, as there is no time. I want people outside this House to know that those who are voting for this “meaningful vote” today mean that if the Government decide that no deal is better than a bad deal—[Interruption.] Does it not show how out of touch this place is that “no deal is better than a bad deal” is even a contentious statement? It is a statement of the blindingly obvious, but amazingly some people find contentious.
Several hon. Members rose—
Philip Davies
I am not giving way, because I want to let other people have time to speak. Members should bear that in mind. I have given way to the Father of the House. [Interruption.] I appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) does not like hearing arguments with which she disagrees, but I am going to plough on regardless, despite her chuntering from a sedentary position. The fact that no deal is better than a bad deal is blindingly obvious to anyone with even a modicum of common sense. People in this House are being invited to accept that if the Government decide that no deal is better than a bad deal, this House should somehow be able to say to them, “You’ve got to continue being a member of the European Union while you go back and renegotiate this and renegotiate that.” I cannot stand aside and allow that to happen, and I do not think the British people will thank anybody in this House who votes that way. Let nobody be in any doubt: the constituents of anybody who votes for this meaningful vote today should know that they are voting to try to keep us in the European Union, against their will.
Hilary Benn
May I say to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that the argument he has just advanced is not true? I believe a very small number of Members of the House would cheerfully jump over the edge of a no-deal cliff, which is why we are having this argument this afternoon.
The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), for whom I have enormous respect, is right when he says that this is a very fraught, difficult and tense debate, where passions are running high. Given that the referendum split the country right down the middle, that is not entirely surprising. I gently say to him that, given the experience he went through last week, when he thought he had an assurance and then discovered that he did not, if I were him, I would be very, very cautious about accepting further assurances. However, I respect the decision that he makes.
I would be cautious for the reason I put my question to the Secretary of State, who is no longer in his place. I listened carefully to what he said and I heard no explanation, no justification and no argument for why the Government are prepared for the House to debate an amendable motion to approve the withdrawal agreement—that is what he indicated when he came before the Select Committee—yet, when it comes to deciding what takes place in the event that the nation is facing the prospect of no deal, they are insisting on having a motion in “neutral terms”. That may or may not allow the Speaker to come to the rescue of the House by allowing the motion to be declared amendable. However, as I read Standing Order 24B, as long as the Government do their job in drafting the motion, the Speaker will have no choice but to declare it a motion in “neutral terms” and it will therefore not be amendable.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Does not this compromise give enormous power to you, Mr Speaker? That is all very well, because you are a Speaker who has stood up for the rights of this House and of Back Benchers, and for the majority in this House to be able to have meaningful votes, but were you to fall under a bus in the next few months, what guarantee would there be that a future Speaker would stand up for the rights of this House in the same way that you have done?
Hilary Benn
It is not for me to advise you, Mr Speaker, but please do not cross any roads between now and the end of this process.
It seems to me that the Government’s intention throughout has been to seek to neuter this House when we come to the end of the process. We are talking about the possibility of facing no deal at all. In his speech from our Front Bench, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) set the position out very clearly: first, not only would we be facing economic difficulty of the most serious kind—with impacts on trade, on our services industry and on broadcasting—but there would be impacts on the security of our nation, because with no deal in place, how would the exchange of information continue? These are not minor matters; they go to the heart of the Government’s responsibility to make sure that we are safe, that industry works, that taxes are raised and that public services are paid for. That is why people are getting exercised about this. It is not just some amendment to one Bill; it is the most important decision that the country has faced for generations.
As my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out, we are not ready to cope with the consequences. Members should contemplate this, for a moment: if, because the House cannot do anything about it, we fall off the edge of the cliff, and future generations look at us and say, “What did you do at that moment? What did you do? Didn’t you say anything?”, are we, as the House of Commons, really going to allow our hands to be bound and say, “Well, at least I took note of what was happening”? Our responsibility is not to take note; it is to take charge, to take responsibility and to do our job.
Hilary Benn
I absolutely bow to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s expertise, but I am afraid that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras pointed out earlier, under this Government, we have sat on these Benches on too many occasions, time and time and time again, on which the House has used the Standing Orders to debate a matter and pass a motion but the Government have sat there and said, “We’re not taking any notice of you whatsoever.” That is why the opportunity to ensure that we have the right to amend a motion is, in the next few minutes, in the hands of this House. There will be no further opportunity to take back control, so I hope the House will do so by voting in favour of the amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield.
Several hon. Members rose—
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
I am grateful, again, to the other place for sending us the amendment. I have been concerned about this issue since the referendum, and have been open in my views about the need for a meaningful vote and parliamentary sovereignty. This is about our country’s future and ensuring that we enhance, not reduce, our democracy. When I was re-elected last year, my constituents were under no illusions about how important I thought a meaningful vote was, as I had already made my concerns public and, indeed, voted for such a vote during the article 50 process.
Views may differ regarding the desirability of no deal. In my view, it would be utterly catastrophic for my constituents and the industries in which they work, but surely all sides should welcome the certainty that the amendment would bring to the process. We are often accused of wanting to tie the Government’s hands, but nothing could be further from the truth. How can the amendment tie the Government’s hands during negotiations when it concerns the steps that should be taken when negotiations have broken down? In other words, it concentrates on events after the negotiations.
Antoinette Sandbach
I will not give way.
I support the Government’s negotiation and strongly believe that the Prime Minister will succeed in her negotiation. However, it would be irresponsible not to have a process in place for what will happen should negotiations collapse. What is more, the amendment would ensure that, when the Prime Minister sits down to negotiate, our European partners know that she does so with the full backing of Parliament. Far from binding the Prime Minister, it would strengthen her hand. I encourage all my colleagues to recognise that the amendment would empower both Parliament and our negotiators. It lays out a contingency should disaster strike, and it delivers on the commitment to take back control to Parliament.
Several hon. Members rose—
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for selecting amendment (a); my pleasure at being able to speak to it is enhanced by the fact that this opportunity came completely out of the blue, and I welcome that.
The principal purpose of my amendment is to provide clarity such that in all eventualities there will be the opportunity for people to have a final say on any deal that the Government strike, and such that Parliament will not be left stranded with no deal, with which would come the closure of our ports, food shortages, medicine shortages and general chaos. [Interruption.] If Government Members do not believe that, I advise them to talk to the people at the port authority at Dover to hear what they think no deal would mean. I make no apology for the fact that I do want to stop Brexit, which I do not think will come as a surprise to many people in the Chamber. I do not, though, believe that the amendment tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), or, indeed, my own amendment, would achieve that aim.
Brexit is a calamity. We are going to be poorer, more insecure and less influential, with fewer friends in the world and more enemies as a result of it, and that is happening already. Some Government Members know that and say it; some know it and keep quiet; and some know it and claim the opposite, although I am not going to embarrass those who shared platforms with me during the EU referendum campaign and said then that it would cause calamity, but now claim the opposite. Some Government Members deny it. Their life’s ambition has been to achieve Brexit and they could not possibly accept that it is now doing us harm.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
The right hon. Gentleman is making a fine speech. To put some numbers on this calamity, a no-deal Brexit would cause an 8% damage-event to GDP. For context, the 2008 crash was a 2% damage-event to GDP. The over-the-cliff Brexiteers are looking to damage the UK economy four times as much as the 2008 crash did. Well done, guys!
Tom Brake
I will just make a bit more progress in the minute and a half that is left.
There would be, if time allowed, a chorus of the “will of the people” from the Government Benches, but let me make two points about that. Two years on from 23 June 2016, who is clear about what the will of the people now is? The whole purpose of providing a final say on the deal is to test whether the will of the people is the same now as it was two years ago.
As Members of Parliament, are we delegates or representatives? We are elected to use our judgment, from the Prime Minister downwards, who campaigned to remain because she used her judgment and thought that Brexit would cause us damage and would damage our communities up and down the country. Many Conservative Members used their judgment then. I am afraid that their judgment now seems to have left them. The Government’s own assessment confirms that the impact of Brexit will be wholly negative.
Therefore, the delegates in this House will push on with a policy that is detrimental to British families. The representatives in this House will recognise that a way out of this ideological nightmare into which we have got ourselves has to be found. Today, we will be able to decide and to demonstrate which of those two things we are—delegates or representatives.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) got it absolutely right in his response to the Chairman of the Brexit Committee that the constitutional power of this House to determine who is in Government is entirely unaffected by these amendments or the written ministerial statement that will be laid tomorrow. The powers, the authority and the rights of this House remain intact, and that is not dependent on whether a meaningful vote is amendable or unamendable.
Mr Speaker, as an historian of this House and its powers, you know perfectly well that the Norway debate was held on the Adjournment of the House—whether or not it should adjourn for the Whitsun recess. That great issue of the time—whether we should have a few days off at Whitsun—led to a fundamental change in the Government and the whole history of our nation that flowed from it.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I do apologise to the hon. Lady, but I will not give way, because other people want to speak, and time is very short.
Therefore, the rights of this House are intact. The legislation will ensure that the Government can pursue their objectives, which is very important. The Chief Whip is in his place. I commend him for the tactful way that he has discussed these issues with so many people over the past week to ensure that we could come to something that every Conservative Member is able to agree to and put their name to that maintains the privileges of this House, ensures that the Government can negotiate properly, and sends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State to the negotiating table with a united House of Commons behind them.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today. I will make just a couple of remarks.
I want to reiterate the comments that have been made that this is not about reversing Brexit or about tying the hands of the Government. This is about what happens and the role of Parliament if things go wrong. It is about clarity, about what will happen in this Parliament and to the interests of our country in the event of no deal, or no deal being agreed by this House.
It is incredibly disappointing to have reached this position. It could have been so different. A week after the referendum, I wrote to the then Prime Minister. I then wrote to the current Prime Minister. I made the argument that it was in the interests of our country that this House came together, that we had ways of working across parties, across this House and the House of Lords, and that we came to a solution together and worked through the issues together. But, step by step, we have seen a Government who have run and a Government who have hidden—a Government who have not even wanted to bring forward their own impact assessments so that we can take part in an evidence-based debate on the impact of Brexit on our country and get the answer right. A process by which this country comes together is essential if, in the autumn, we reach a situation in which what was unthinkable becomes thinkable. To have a way in which we handle that is our responsibility.
Every large Government project has a risk register and a response to those risks. This is a critical risk for our country and it is vital that, in advance of such a situation, we all know what is going to happen and that we have a say, on behalf of our constituents, about what could be an incredibly catastrophic situation for our economy, our country and our society.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Kenneth Clarke
I shall make the shortest speech here that I have made for very many years—[Hon. Members: “Ever!”]—and I shall take no interventions. [Interruption.] Well, the Government are restricting debate on this European issue as ferociously as they are trying to restrict votes and powers. I voted against both the previous timetable motions. With no explanation, we have been told that we have an hour and a half for this extremely important issue today. Presumably, it is to allow time for the interesting debate that follows, taking note on the subject of NATO, which could be tabled at any time over the next fortnight and has no urgency whatever. None of us are allowed to say very much about this matter.
The Government have been trying to minimise the parliamentary role throughout the process. That is only too obvious. I will try to avoid repeating anything that others have said, but the fact is that it started with an attempt to deny the House any vote on the invocation of article 50, and litigation was required to change that. A meaningful vote has been resisted since it was first proposed. The Government suffered a defeat in this House during the earlier stages of our proceedings before they would contemplate it, and then they assured us that they would not try to reverse that; there would be a meaningful vote. But actually, because that amendment needs amplification and the Bill needs to be made clearer, we now have this vital last stage of Lords amendments and the final attempt to spell out what meaningful votes and parliamentary influence are supposed to mean, and it is being resisted to the very last moment.
Last week, I thought that the Government would be defeated because of their resistance. I was not invited to the negotiations. I do not blame the Chief Whip for that in the slightest. I have not fallen out with him personally, but I think that he knew that I would take a rather firm line as I saw nothing wrong with Lord Hailsham’s amendment if nothing else were available. My right hon. and hon. Friends, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), actually believed that they had undertakings from the Prime Minister, and I believe that the Prime Minister gave those undertakings in good faith.
My right hon. and learned Friend for Beaconsfield negotiated with a very distinguished member of the Government acting on the Prime Minister’s behalf, and they reached a firm agreement. That agreement is substantially reflected in Lords amendment 19P and my right hon. and hon. Friends expected that it would be tabled by the Government. It was not. And now the Government are resisting the very issue upon which last week a very distinguished member of the Government reached a settlement—to use the legal terms—because the Government are not able to live up to their agreement. We are being asked to substitute, for a perfectly reasonable Lords amendment, a convoluted thing that would mean arguments about the Speaker’s powers if it ever had to be invoked.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
There are only two issues that come out of this debate. The first is about honour. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) tried to ensure that he got a deal from the Prime Minister. He went with other Members to negotiate with her and she made a promise to him about an amendment, but that promise was not necessarily fulfilled in the interpretation of the Members who heard her say it, so the House of Lords had to send this issue back to us today. This issue is definitely about honour. Other hon. Members have said that they believe that the House can pass resolutions and motions, and that they will be honoured, even if they are not necessarily binding. I believe that the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield is an honourable man, and he is again taking the Government at their word.
That brings me to the second issue, which is that this is also about Parliament. If the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield has achieved anything, it is that he has moved the Government from where the Prime Minister was on “The Andrew Marr Show” on Sunday, when she said that Parliament cannot tie the hands of Government. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield has managed to extract a statement from the Government, who are now saying that it is open for Members to table motions, that parliamentary time will be provided, and that it is open for this House, through Mr Speaker, to ensure that motions and decisions can be made. The right hon. and learned Gentleman believes that that is worth having and it is indeed true that it is a step forward. The difference that I have with him is that he believes that the Prime Minister and the Government should be given the benefit of the doubt yet again; I would suggest that he should not and could not necessarily trust their word. That is where we differ.
Sir William Cash
There is just one fundamental point that I would like to make about this debate, which is that the decision that was taken in the European Union Referendum Act 2015—by six to one in the primacy of this House of Commons and in the House of Lords, which endorsed it—was to accept that the people of this country, not 650 Members of Parliament, would make the decision in the referendum. I need say only one word about this: our constitutional arrangements in this country operate under a system of parliamentary government, not government by Parliament.
Chris Bryant
When I was training to be a priest in the Church of England, my professor of systematic theology was called John Macquarrie. He would say that he was often asked by parishioners, “What is the meaning of God?”, but that actually the far more important question is, “What is the meaning of meaning?” To be honest, it feels as though that is what this afternoon’s debate and last week’s debate have been about: what is a meaningful vote?
The first point is that a meaningful vote is surely not one that is meaningless. We had a meaningless vote on Monday afternoon after the SO24 debate. It was meaningless because we were voting on whether this House had considered the matter of the Sewel convention, and even if every single Member of the House had voted against that, we would none the less have considered the matter. This is exactly what we do with statutory instruments as well: we vote on whether we have considered the matter. The Government’s motion will require the Government—not allow them but require them—to table a neutral motion.
I disagree with the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who said that the vote in 1940 was on the Adjournment. It was not—it was on whether this House should adjourn for a successive number of days, and it was an amendable motion that would have had effect—
Chris Bryant
I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman if he does not mind. [Interruption.] Oh, all right.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I said that the vote was on the Whitsun recess, so I think that I covered that point.
Chris Bryant
But the hon. Gentleman managed to elide the fact that it was an amendable motion that had effect.
The point is that if the Government do what their motion says they should do—namely, table a neutral motion—the written ministerial statement gives the Speaker no power whatever to decide that it is not neutral. Indeed, if a Speaker were to decide that a neutral motion was suddenly, somehow or other, not neutral and could be amended, we should remove him from the Chair because he would not be abiding by the Standing Orders of this House. So let us make it absolutely clear: if it is a neutral motion, it will be a motion that has no meaning whatever.
Anna Soubry
I am concerned that the editor of the Daily Mail has made a small doll that looks like me and is sticking pins in its throat, as every time I want to speak, I get this wretched infection. However, I want to make some very important points.
I completely agree with all the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach). History will recall what a remarkably brave woman she has been throughout all of this. I, too, will vote for the amendment, because I agree with much of what has been said: this needs to be in statute. I pay real tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), who has yet again shown outstanding leadership and courage, as indeed have many Members of the House of Lords. It is in tribute to them, if nothing else, that I shall vote for this amendment. But primarily I shall vote for it because it is in the interests of all my constituents. I was elected to come here to represent all of them, including the 53% who did not vote for me, and the 48% who voted to remain, who have been sidelined and abused. The big mistake that we have made, from the outset of all that has followed from the referendum result, is that we have not included them.
Finally, I say gently to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that he has to remember that some hon. Members will vote with the Government today as an act of faith and trust in the Prime Minister that the sort of comment he made will no longer exist in this party, and that we will be more united. It is her role, if I may say so, to make sure that we have more temperate speeches.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), I hold the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) in very high regard for his integrity and fluency. I do, however, say gently that he is in danger of turning into a modern-day grand old Duke of York. There are only so many times you can march the troops up the hill and down again without losing integrity completely. In the little time remaining, I want to talk about neutral motions, which are at the centre of this dispute—
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. What means do I have to correct the record given that at Prime Minister’s questions today, my neighbour, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), may have inadvertently cited my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport as being responsible for a timetabling issue that affects my constituency? The emails that she referenced were three years old, from a time when neither of my right hon. Friends were in their current roles. The timetabling issue and the current disruption are separate issues. I will continue to work with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to ensure that the best service for my constituents is met. I felt that it was important to bring this point to the House.
Mr Speaker
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of his intention to raise this attempted point of order, upon which the sagacious advice of the senior procedural adviser of the House is, forgive me, that it was not much of a point of order. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman is not in a small minority in that regard. If it is any comfort to him, I can assure him that in my 21 years’ experience in the House, the vast majority of points of order are bogus.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman suggests that I used to do it. I do not remember that, but if I did, all I would say to him is that that was then, and this is now.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that the hon. Member for Southport (Damien Moore) was as shocked as I was to read the content of many of the emails that were released both to him and to me under the Freedom of Information Act. Their content has had such serious implications for my constituents and his. Given that the Department has not released emails during the current Secretary of State for Transport’s tenure and has stopped at the point at which the current Secretary of State was appointed, I wonder whether I could seek your guidance as to whether it might be in order to direct the Secretary of State to release those emails and come clean about what he knew, and when.
Mr Speaker
I do not think it is open to me to issue any direction of the kind that the hon. Lady suggests, but the hon. Member for Southport (Damien Moore) made his point in all sincerity and it is on the record. Now the hon. Lady, who is at least equally dextrous, has made her own point in her own way and it is on the record—I rather imagine that each of them will rely on those words, as doubtless they co-operate in future on this important matter.
Mr Speaker
Well, the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) now basks in the glory of approval from a Member who is in his 40th year of consecutive service in the House, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman).
Royal Assent
Tuesday 26th June 2018
(6 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message Manuscript Amendments (PDF, 9KB) - (20 Jun 2018)